# Attachment 11_Alternative Design Value

Calculations .pdfDesign Value - BY 2002DesignValueCenteredon BaseYearInventoryEPA Preferred MethodAverage of 3 Design ValuePeriods Straight AverageAIRS ID Latitude LongitudeTZoneSite Name City Name County Name MSA Ozone 2000 2001 2002 2003 20042000-2002 2001-2003 2002-2004AIRS ID 2000-2004 2000-2004MONITORS WITHIN DC MSA11-001-0025 38.9753 -77.0228 5TakomaWashington DC Washington,DC-MD-VA-WV 1 0.094 0.088 0.097 0.079 0.080 938885 11-001-002588.7 87.611-001-0041 38.8972 -76.9528 5 River Terrace Washington DC Washington,DC-MD-VA-WV 1 0.080 0.092 0.102 0.082 0.070 919284 11-001-004189.0 85.211-001-0043 38.9189 -77.0125 5 McMillan Washington DC Washington,DC-MD-VA-WV 1 0.083 0.097 0.106 0.081 0.081 959489 11-001-004392.7 89.624-009-0010 38.5400 -76.5839 5 Calvert Calvert Washington,DC-MD-VA-WV 1 0.088 0.087 24-009-001024-017-0010 38.5042 -76.8119 5 Southern MDHughesvilleCharles Washington,DC-MD-VA-WV 1 0.093 0.091 0.098 0.093 0.083 949491 24-017-001093.0 91.624-021-0037 39.4081 -77.3758 5 Frederick Municipal Airport Frederick Frederick Washington,DC-MD-VA-WV 1 0.086 0.094 0.095 0.077 0.077 918883 24-021-003787.3 85.824-031-3001 39.1144 -77.1071 5 Rockville Rockville Montgomery Washington,DC-MD-VA-WV 1 0.082 0.095 0.092 0.077 0.080 898883 24-031-300186.7 85.224-033-0002 39.0200 -76.8278 5 Greenbelt Greenbelt Prince George's Washington,DC-MD-VA-WV 1 0.090 0.099 0.098 0.083 959324-033-000294.0 92.524-033-0030 39.0553 -76.8783 5 HU-Beltsville Beltsville Prince George's Washington,DC-MD-VA-WV 124-033-003024-033-8003 38.8121 -76.7444 5 PG Equestrian Center Prince George's Washington,DC-MD-VA-WV 1 0.101 0.097 0.086 94 24-033-800394.0 94.751-013-0020 38.8575 -77.0592 5 Aurora Hills Arlington County Washington,DC-MD-VA-WV 1 0.080 0.098 0.112 0.087 0.087 969995 51-013-002096.7 92.851-059-0005 38.8939 -77.4653 5 Chantilly Fairfax County Washington,DC-MD-VA-WV 1 0.079 0.093 0.092 0.083 0.079 888984 51-059-000587.0 85.251-059-0018 38.7425 -77.0775 5 Mount Vernon Fairfax County Washington,DC-MD-VA-WV 1 0.092 0.095 0.106 0.091 0.093 979796 51-059-001896.7 95.451-059-0030 38.7728 -77.1056 5FranconiaFairfax County Washington,DC-MD-VA-WV 1 0.074 0.096 0.108 0.089 0.092 929796 51-059-003095.0 91.851-059-1005 38.8375 -77.1632 5AnnandaleFairfax County Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV 1 0.108 0.083 0.091 94 51-059-100594.0 94.051-059-5001 38.9319 -77.1989 5 McLean Fairfax County Washington,DC-MD-VA-WV 1 0.082 0.090 0.099 0.075 0.084 908886 51-059-500188.0 86.051-107-1005 39.0244 -77.4900 5Ashburn Loudoun CountyWashington,DC-MD-VA-WV 1 0.077 0.093 0.102 0.083 0.080 909288 51-107-100590.0 87.051-153-0009 38.8553 -77.6356 5 Long Park Prince William County Washington,DC-MD-VA-WV 1 0.079 0.089 0.087 0.086 0.077 858783 51-153-000985.0 83.651-510-0009 38.8108 -77.0447 5 Alexandria Alexandria City Washington,DC-MD-VA-WV 1 0.077 0.091 0.103 0.083 0.080 909288 51-510-000990.0 86.8Annual 4th Highest 8-Hour Ozone (ppm)RRF - EPA MethodOTC OTB/OTWAIRS ID Latitude Longitude Site Name I J 2002 2009 RRF NDAY CUTOFFMONITORS WITHIN DC MSA11-001-0025 38.9753 -77.0228Takoma120 81 97.8 87.6 0.896 24 8511-001-0041 38.8972 -76.9528 River Terrace121 80 98.9 88.0 0.890 22 8511-001-0043 38.9189 -77.0125 McMillan121 80 98.9 88.0 0.890 22 8524-009-0010 38.5400 -76.5839 Calvert124 78 103.7 87.4 0.843 35 8524-017-0010 38.5042 -76.8119 Southern MD123 77 97.7 80.0 0.819 17 8524-021-0037 39.4081 -77.3758 Frederick Municipal Airport117 84 92.0 79.0 0.859 11 8524-031-3001 39.1144 -77.1071 Rockville120 82 96.8 85.7 0.885 26 8524-033-0002 39.0200 -76.8278 Greenbelt122 81 97.4 85.1 0.874 28 8524-033-0030 39.0553 -76.8783 HU-BeltsvilleNA NA NA NA NA NA NA24-033-8003 38.8121 -76.7444 PG Equestrian Center123 80 95.4 83.0 0.870 28 8551-013-0020 38.8575 -77.0592 Aurora Hills120 80 98.6 88.4 0.897 24 8551-059-0005 38.8939 -77.4653 Chantilly118 79 97.9 85.2 0.870 18 8551-059-0018 38.7425 -77.0775 Mount Vernon121 79 98.0 87.4 0.892 20 8551-059-0030 38.7728 -77.1056Franconia120 79 98.6 87.5 0.887 21 8551-059-1005 38.8375 -77.1632Annandale120 79 98.6 87.5 0.887 21 8551-059-5001 38.9319 -77.1989 McLean119 80 98.4 87.2 0.886 21 8551-107-1005 39.0244 -77.4900Ashburn117 80 93.0 81.1 0.872 15 8551-153-0009 38.8553 -77.6356 Long Park116 79 88.7 77.7 0.876 12 8351-510-0009 38.8108 -77.0447 Alexandria121 79 98.0 87.4 0.892 20 85OTC BOTWAIRS ID Latitude Longitude Site Name I J 2002 2009 RRF NDAY CUTOFFMONITORS WITHIN DC MSA11-001-0025 38.9753 -77.0228Takoma120 81 97.8 87.4 0.894 24 8511-001-0041 38.8972 -76.9528 River Terrace121 80 98.9 87.8 0.888 22 8511-001-0043 38.9189 -77.0125 McMillan121 80 98.9 87.8 0.888 22 8524-009-0010 38.5400 -76.5839 Calvert124 78 103.7 87.0 0.839 35 8524-017-0010 38.5042 -76.8119 Southern MD123 77 97.7 79.7 0.816 17 8524-021-0037 39.4081 -77.3758 Frederick Municipal Airport117 84 92.0 77.9 0.847 11 8524-031-3001 39.1144 -77.1071 Rockville120 82 96.8 85.5 0.883 26 8524-033-0002 39.0200 -76.8278 Greenbelt122 81 97.4 84.9 0.872 28 8524-033-0030 39.0553 -76.8783 HU-BeltsvilleNA NA NA NA NA NA NA24-033-8003 38.8121 -76.7444 PG Equestrian Center123 80 95.4 82.8 0.868 28 8551-013-0020 38.8575 -77.0592 Aurora Hills120 80 98.6 88.3 0.896 24 8551-059-0005 38.8939 -77.4653 Chantilly118 79 97.9 85.0 0.868 18 8551-059-0018 38.7425 -77.0775 Mount Vernon121 79 98.0 87.3 0.891 20 8551-059-0030 38.7728 -77.1056Franconia120 79 98.6 87.3 0.885 21 8551-059-1005 38.8375 -77.1632Annandale120 79 98.6 87.3 0.885 21 8551-059-5001 38.9319 -77.1989 McLean119 80 98.4 87.1 0.885 21 8551-107-1005 39.0244 -77.4900Ashburn117 80 93.0 80.9 0.870 15 8551-153-0009 38.8553 -77.6356 Long Park116 79 88.7 77.4 0.873 12 8351-510-0009 38.8108 -77.0447 Alexandria121 79 98.0 87.3 0.891 20 85RRF - EPA MethodOTC BOTW + VA CAIRAIRS ID Latitude Longitude Site Name I J 2002 2009 RRF NDAY CUTOFFMONITORS WITHIN DC MSA11-001-0025 38.9753 -77.0228Takoma120 81 97.8 87.2 0.892 24 8511-001-0041 38.8972 -76.9528 River Terrace121 80 98.9 87.3 0.883 22 8511-001-0043 38.9189 -77.0125 McMillan121 80 98.9 87.3 0.883 22 8524-009-0010 38.5400 -76.5839 Calvert124 78 103.7 86.7 0.836 35 8524-017-0010 38.5042 -76.8119 Southern MD123 77 97.7 78.9 0.808 17 8524-021-0037 39.4081 -77.3758 Frederick Municipal Airport117 84 92.0 77.8 0.846 11 8524-031-3001 39.1144 -77.1071 Rockville120 82 96.8 85.3 0.881 26 8524-033-0002 39.0200 -76.8278 Greenbelt122 81 97.4 84.6 0.869 28 8524-033-0030 39.0553 -76.8783 HU-BeltsvilleNA NA NA NA NA NA NA24-033-8003 38.8121 -76.7444 PG Equestrian Center123 80 95.4 82.5 0.865 28 8551-013-0020 38.8575 -77.0592 Aurora Hills120 80 98.6 87.9 0.891 24 8551-059-0005 38.8939 -77.4653 Chantilly118 79 97.9 84.9 0.867 18 8551-059-0018 38.7425 -77.0775 Mount Vernon121 79 98.0 86.5 0.883 20 8551-059-0030 38.7728 -77.1056Franconia120 79 98.6 86.8 0.880 21 8551-059-1005 38.8375 -77.1632Annandale120 79 98.6 86.8 0.880 21 8551-059-5001 38.9319 -77.1989 McLean119 80 98.4 86.9 0.883 21 8551-107-1005 39.0244 -77.4900Ashburn117 80 93.0 80.8 0.869 15 8551-153-0009 38.8553 -77.6356 Long Park116 79 88.7 77.3 0.871 12 8351-510-0009 38.8108 -77.0447 Alexandria121 79 98.0 86.5 0.883 20 85ASIP OTB/OTWAIRS ID Latitude Longitude Site Name I J 2002 2009 RRF NDAY CUTOFFMONITORS WITHIN DC MSA11-001-0025 38.9753 -77.0228Takoma134 142 97.4 87.3 0.896 18 8511-001-0041 38.8972 -76.9528 River Terrace134 141 97.2 88.1 0.906 18 8511-001-0043 38.9189 -77.0125 McMillan134 141 97.2 88.1 0.906 18 8524-009-0010 38.5400 -76.5839 Calvert138 139 100.8 89.5 0.888 31 8524-017-0010 38.5042 -76.8119 Southern MD136 138 96.1 81.4 0.847 10 8524-021-0037 39.4081 -77.3758 Frederick Municipal Airport130 145 86.7 74.9 0.864 10 8324-031-3001 39.1144 -77.1071 Rockville133 143 96.6 85.2 0.882 16 8524-033-0002 39.0200 -76.8278 Greenbelt135 142 98.0 87.0 0.888 16 8524-033-0030 39.0553 -76.8783 HU-BeltsvilleNA NA NA NA NA NA NA24-033-8003 38.8121 -76.7444 PG Equestrian Center136 141 98.1 86.2 0.879 14 8551-013-0020 38.8575 -77.0592 Aurora Hills134 141 97.2 88.1 0.906 18 8551-059-0005 38.8939 -77.4653 Chantilly131 140 97.8 85.4 0.873 11 8451-059-0018 38.7425 -77.0775 Mount Vernon134 140 99.2 89.1 0.898 15 8551-059-0030 38.7728 -77.1056Franconia134 140 99.2 89.1 0.898 15 8551-059-1005 38.8375 -77.1632Annandale133 140 98.5 87.9 0.892 15 8551-059-5001 38.9319 -77.1989 McLean133 141 97.3 87.6 0.900 17 8551-107-1005 39.0244 -77.4900Ashburn130 141 92.1 80.2 0.871 11 8351-153-0009 38.8553 -77.6356 Long Park130 140 92.9 80.8 0.870 10 8251-510-0009 38.8108 -77.0447 Alexandria134 140 99.2 89.1 0.898 15 85RRF - 9 Cell Average MethodOTC OTB/OTWAIRS ID Latitude Longitude Site Name I J 2002 2009 RRF NDAY CUTOFFMONITORS WITHIN DC MSA11-001-0025 38.9753 -77.0228Takoma120 81 95.5 84.0 0.880 13 8511-001-0041 38.8972 -76.9528 River Terrace121 80 99.3 87.4 0.880 10 8511-001-0043 38.9189 -77.0125 McMillan121 80 99.3 87.4 0.880 10 8524-009-0010 38.5400 -76.5839 Calvert124 78 94.1 77.4 0.823 15 8524-017-0010 38.5042 -76.8119 Southern MD123 77 92.6 75.4 0.814 13 8524-021-0037 39.4081 -77.3758 Frederick Municipal Airport117 84 86.4 72.8 0.843 10 8124-031-3001 39.1144 -77.1071 Rockville120 82 93.5 80.9 0.865 13 8524-033-0002 39.0200 -76.8278 Greenbelt122 81 95.9 82.7 0.862 13 8524-033-0030 39.0553 -76.8783 HU-BeltsvilleNA NA NA NA NA NA NA24-033-8003 38.8121 -76.7444 PG Equestrian Center123 80 95.8 80.9 0.844 12 8551-013-0020 38.8575 -77.0592 Aurora Hills120 80 99.8 88.0 0.882 10 8551-059-0005 38.8939 -77.4653 Chantilly118 79 90.3 77.9 0.863 10 8151-059-0018 38.7425 -77.0775 Mount Vernon121 79 97.1 85.5 0.881 11 8551-059-0030 38.7728 -77.1056Franconia120 79 99.0 87.2 0.881 10 8551-059-1005 38.8375 -77.1632Annandale120 79 99.0 87.2 0.881 10 8551-059-5001 38.9319 -77.1989 McLean119 80 96.7 84.4 0.873 10 8551-107-1005 39.0244 -77.4900Ashburn117 80 84.4 73.9 0.876 12 7951-153-0009 38.8553 -77.6356 Long Park116 79 79.9 69.4 0.869 11 7751-510-0009 38.8108 -77.0447 Alexandria121 79 97.1 85.5 0.881 11 85OTC BOTWAIRS ID Latitude Longitude Site Name I J 2002 2009 RRF NDAY CUTOFFMONITORS WITHIN DC MSA11-001-0025 38.9753 -77.0228Takoma120 81 95.5 83.7 0.876 13 8511-001-0041 38.8972 -76.9528 River Terrace121 80 99.3 87.2 0.878 10 8511-001-0043 38.9189 -77.0125 McMillan121 80 99.3 87.2 0.878 10 8524-009-0010 38.5400 -76.5839 Calvert124 78 94.1 77.1 0.819 15 8524-017-0010 38.5042 -76.8119 Southern MD123 77 92.6 75.2 0.812 13 8524-021-0037 39.4081 -77.3758 Frederick Municipal Airport117 84 86.4 72.1 0.834 10 8124-031-3001 39.1144 -77.1071 Rockville120 82 93.5 80.6 0.862 13 8524-033-0002 39.0200 -76.8278 Greenbelt122 81 95.9 82.4 0.859 13 8524-033-0030 39.0553 -76.8783 HU-BeltsvilleNA NA NA NA NA NA NA24-033-8003 38.8121 -76.7444 PG Equestrian Center123 80 95.8 80.7 0.842 12 8551-013-0020 38.8575 -77.0592 Aurora Hills120 80 99.8 87.8 0.880 10 8551-059-0005 38.8939 -77.4653 Chantilly118 79 90.3 77.6 0.859 10 8151-059-0018 38.7425 -77.0775 Mount Vernon121 79 97.1 85.2 0.877 11 8551-059-0030 38.7728 -77.1056Franconia120 79 99.0 87.0 0.879 10 8551-059-1005 38.8375 -77.1632Annandale120 79 99.0 87.0 0.879 10 8551-059-5001 38.9319 -77.1989 McLean119 80 96.7 84.1 0.870 10 8551-107-1005 39.0244 -77.4900Ashburn117 80 84.4 73.7 0.873 12 7951-153-0009 38.8553 -77.6356 Long Park116 79 79.9 69.2 0.866 11 7751-510-0009 38.8108 -77.0447 Alexandria121 79 97.1 85.2 0.877 11 85RRF - 9 Cell Average MethodOTC BOTW + VA CAIRAIRS ID Latitude Longitude Site Name I J 2002 2009 RRF NDAY CUTOFFMONITORS WITHIN DC MSA11-001-0025 38.9753 -77.0228Takoma120 81 95.5 83.5 0.874 13 8511-001-0041 38.8972 -76.9528 River Terrace121 80 99.3 86.6 0.872 10 8511-001-0043 38.9189 -77.0125 McMillan121 80 99.3 86.6 0.872 10 8524-009-0010 38.5400 -76.5839 Calvert124 78 94.1 76.7 0.815 15 8524-017-0010 38.5042 -76.8119 Southern MD123 77 92.6 74.6 0.806 13 8524-021-0037 39.4081 -77.3758 Frederick Municipal Airport117 84 86.4 72 0.833 10 8124-031-3001 39.1144 -77.1071 Rockville120 82 93.5 80.5 0.861 13 8524-033-0002 39.0200 -76.8278 Greenbelt122 81 95.9 82.2 0.857 13 8524-033-0030 39.0553 -76.8783 HU-BeltsvilleNA NA NA NA NA NA NA24-033-8003 38.8121 -76.7444 PG Equestrian Center123 80 95.8 80.3 0.838 12 8551-013-0020 38.8575 -77.0592 Aurora Hills120 80 99.8 87.3 0.875 10 8551-059-0005 38.8939 -77.4653 Chantilly118 79 90.3 77.5 0.858 10 8151-059-0018 38.7425 -77.0775 Mount Vernon121 79 97.1 84.7 0.872 11 8551-059-0030 38.7728 -77.1056Franconia120 79 99.0 86.4 0.873 10 8551-059-1005 38.8375 -77.1632Annandale120 79 99.0 86.4 0.873 10 8551-059-5001 38.9319 -77.1989 McLean119 80 96.7 84 0.869 10 8551-107-1005 39.0244 -77.4900Ashburn117 80 84.4 73.6 0.872 12 7951-153-0009 38.8553 -77.6356 Long Park116 79 79.9 69.1 0.865 11 7751-510-0009 38.8108 -77.0447 Alexandria121 79 97.1 84.7 0.872 11 85ASIP OTB/OTWAIRS ID Latitude Longitude Site Name I J 2002 2009 RRF NDAY CUTOFFMONITORS WITHIN DC MSA11-001-0025 38.9753 -77.0228Takoma134 142 95.8 84.6 0.883 10 8511-001-0041 38.8972 -76.9528 River Terrace134 141 95.7 85.3 0.891 10 8411-001-0043 38.9189 -77.0125 McMillan134 141 95.7 85.3 0.891 10 8424-009-0010 38.5400 -76.5839 Calvert138 139 94.7 82.3 0.869 17 8524-017-0010 38.5042 -76.8119 Southern MD136 138 87.7 74.1 0.845 12 7824-021-0037 39.4081 -77.3758 Frederick Municipal Airport130 145 81.2 70.5 0.868 12 7824-031-3001 39.1144 -77.1071 Rockville133 143 92.1 80.0 0.869 10 8524-033-0002 39.0200 -76.8278 Greenbelt135 142 95.8 84.1 0.878 10 8424-033-0030 39.0553 -76.8783 HU-BeltsvilleNA NA NA NA NA NA NA24-033-8003 38.8121 -76.7444 PG Equestrian Center136 141 94.1 81.3 0.864 11 8551-013-0020 38.8575 -77.0592 Aurora Hills134 141 95.7 85.3 0.891 10 8451-059-0005 38.8939 -77.4653 Chantilly131 140 88.2 76.7 0.870 10 7751-059-0018 38.7425 -77.0775 Mount Vernon134 140 95.1 84.6 0.890 10 8551-059-0030 38.7728 -77.1056Franconia134 140 95.1 84.6 0.890 10 8551-059-1005 38.8375 -77.1632Annandale133 140 92.8 82.8 0.892 12 8251-059-5001 38.9319 -77.1989 McLean133 141 94.9 84.7 0.893 10 8451-107-1005 39.0244 -77.4900Ashburn130 141 82.4 71.6 0.869 11 7651-153-0009 38.8553 -77.6356 Long Park130 140 81.8 71.2 0.870 10 7451-510-0009 38.8108 -77.0447 Alexandria134 140 95.1 84.6 0.890 10 85RRF - Grid Cell OnlyOTC OTB/OTWAIRS ID Latitude Longitude Site Name I J 2002 2009 RRF NDAY CUTOFFMONITORS WITHIN DC MSA11-001-0025 38.9753 -77.0228Takoma120 81 97.4 86.5 0.888 15 8511-001-0041 38.8972 -76.9528 River Terrace121 80 97.7 89.7 0.918 10 8311-001-0043 38.9189 -77.0125 McMillan121 80 97.7 89.7 0.918 10 8324-009-0010 38.5400 -76.5839 Calvert124 78 92.6 75.7 0.817 13 8524-017-0010 38.5042 -76.8119 Southern MD123 77 93.9 75.5 0.804 12 8524-021-0037 39.4081 -77.3758 Frederick Municipal Airport117 84 88.1 75.8 0.860 10 8224-031-3001 39.1144 -77.1071 Rockville120 82 94.2 81.4 0.864 17 8524-033-0002 39.0200 -76.8278 Greenbelt122 81 96.2 83.0 0.863 16 8524-033-0030 39.0553 -76.8783 HU-BeltsvilleNA NA NA NA NA NA NA24-033-8003 38.8121 -76.7444 PG Equestrian Center123 80 95.1 80.2 0.843 13 8551-013-0020 38.8575 -77.0592 Aurora Hills120 80 99.3 89.1 0.897 11 8551-059-0005 38.8939 -77.4653 Chantilly118 79 86.4 76.8 0.889 10 7751-059-0018 38.7425 -77.0775 Mount Vernon121 79 99.8 88.1 0.883 12 8551-059-0030 38.7728 -77.1056Franconia120 79 100.4 88.6 0.882 10 8551-059-1005 38.8375 -77.1632Annandale120 79 100.4 88.6 0.882 10 8551-059-5001 38.9319 -77.1989 McLean119 80 98.4 85.3 0.867 13 8551-107-1005 39.0244 -77.4900Ashburn117 80 88.4 77.7 0.879 12 8351-153-0009 38.8553 -77.6356 Long Park116 79 79.4 69.1 0.870 10 7551-510-0009 38.8108 -77.0447 Alexandria121 79 99.8 88.1 0.883 12 85OTC BOTWAIRS ID Latitude Longitude Site Name I J 2002 2009 RRF NDAY CUTOFFMONITORS WITHIN DC MSA11-001-0025 38.9753 -77.0228Takoma120 81 97.4 86.3 0.886 15 8511-001-0041 38.8972 -76.9528 River Terrace121 80 97.7 89.5 0.916 10 8311-001-0043 38.9189 -77.0125 McMillan121 80 97.7 89.5 0.916 10 8324-009-0010 38.5400 -76.5839 Calvert124 78 92.6 75.5 0.815 13 8524-017-0010 38.5042 -76.8119 Southern MD123 77 93.9 75.3 0.802 12 8524-021-0037 39.4081 -77.3758 Frederick Municipal Airport117 84 88.1 74.4 0.844 10 8224-031-3001 39.1144 -77.1071 Rockville120 82 94.2 81.1 0.861 17 8524-033-0002 39.0200 -76.8278 Greenbelt122 81 96.2 82.7 0.860 16 8524-033-0030 39.0553 -76.8783 HU-BeltsvilleNA NA NA NA NA NA NA24-033-8003 38.8121 -76.7444 PG Equestrian Center123 80 95.1 79.9 0.840 13 8551-013-0020 38.8575 -77.0592 Aurora Hills120 80 99.3 88.9 0.895 11 8551-059-0005 38.8939 -77.4653 Chantilly118 79 86.4 76.7 0.888 10 7751-059-0018 38.7425 -77.0775 Mount Vernon121 79 99.8 87.9 0.881 12 8551-059-0030 38.7728 -77.1056Franconia120 79 100.4 88.5 0.881 10 8551-059-1005 38.8375 -77.1632Annandale120 79 100.4 88.5 0.881 10 8551-059-5001 38.9319 -77.1989 McLean119 80 98.4 85.1 0.865 13 8551-107-1005 39.0244 -77.4900Ashburn117 80 88.4 77.4 0.876 12 8351-153-0009 38.8553 -77.6356 Long Park116 79 79.4 68.9 0.868 10 7551-510-0009 38.8108 -77.0447 Alexandria121 79 99.8 87.9 0.881 12 85RRF - Grid Cell OnlyOTC BOTW + VA CAIRAIRS ID Latitude Longitude Site Name I J 2002 2009 RRF NDAY CUTOFFMONITORS WITHIN DC MSA11-001-0025 38.9753 -77.0228Takoma120 81 97.4 86.3 0.886 15 8511-001-0041 38.8972 -76.9528 River Terrace121 80 97.7 88.8 0.909 10 8311-001-0043 38.9189 -77.0125 McMillan121 80 97.7 88.8 0.909 10 8324-009-0010 38.5400 -76.5839 Calvert124 78 92.6 75.0 0.810 13 8524-017-0010 38.5042 -76.8119 Southern MD123 77 93.9 74.6 0.794 12 8524-021-0037 39.4081 -77.3758 Frederick Municipal Airport117 84 88.1 74.4 0.844 10 8224-031-3001 39.1144 -77.1071 Rockville120 82 94.2 81.0 0.860 17 8524-033-0002 39.0200 -76.8278 Greenbelt122 81 96.2 82.4 0.857 16 8524-033-0030 39.0553 -76.8783 HU-BeltsvilleNA NA NA NA NA NA NA24-033-8003 38.8121 -76.7444 PG Equestrian Center123 80 95.1 79.6 0.837 13 8551-013-0020 38.8575 -77.0592 Aurora Hills120 80 99.3 88.7 0.893 11 8551-059-0005 38.8939 -77.4653 Chantilly118 79 86.4 76.7 0.888 10 7751-059-0018 38.7425 -77.0775 Mount Vernon121 79 99.8 86.6 0.868 12 8551-059-0030 38.7728 -77.1056Franconia120 79 100.4 88.1 0.877 10 8551-059-1005 38.8375 -77.1632Annandale120 79 100.4 88.1 0.877 10 8551-059-5001 38.9319 -77.1989 McLean119 80 98.4 85.0 0.864 13 8551-107-1005 39.0244 -77.4900Ashburn117 80 88.4 77.3 0.874 12 8351-153-0009 38.8553 -77.6356 Long Park116 79 79.4 68.8 0.866 10 7551-510-0009 38.8108 -77.0447 Alexandria121 79 99.8 86.6 0.868 12 85ASIP OTB/OTWAIRS ID Latitude Longitude Site Name I J 2002 2009 RRF NDAY CUTOFFMONITORS WITHIN DC MSA11-001-0025 38.9753 -77.0228Takoma134 142 96.7 86.9 0.899 11 8511-001-0041 38.8972 -76.9528 River Terrace134 141 92.7 85.7 0.924 11 8211-001-0043 38.9189 -77.0125 McMillan134 141 92.7 85.7 0.924 11 8224-009-0010 38.5400 -76.5839 Calvert138 139 99.2 87.1 0.878 24 8524-017-0010 38.5042 -76.8119 Southern MD136 138 90.0 74.7 0.830 10 7924-021-0037 39.4081 -77.3758 Frederick Municipal Airport130 145 83.7 73.0 0.872 12 7924-031-3001 39.1144 -77.1071 Rockville133 143 92.2 80.4 0.872 11 8524-033-0002 39.0200 -76.8278 Greenbelt135 142 95.8 83.9 0.876 13 8524-033-0030 39.0553 -76.8783 HU-BeltsvilleNA NA NA NA NA NA NA24-033-8003 38.8121 -76.7444 PG Equestrian Center136 141 94.0 80.3 0.854 11 8551-013-0020 38.8575 -77.0592 Aurora Hills134 141 92.7 85.7 0.924 11 8251-059-0005 38.8939 -77.4653 Chantilly131 140 89.2 78.5 0.880 10 7751-059-0018 38.7425 -77.0775 Mount Vernon134 140 96.5 86.7 0.898 11 8551-059-0030 38.7728 -77.1056Franconia134 140 96.5 86.7 0.898 11 8551-059-1005 38.8375 -77.1632Annandale133 140 96.1 86.4 0.899 12 8551-059-5001 38.9319 -77.1989 McLean133 141 96.9 87.2 0.900 10 8551-107-1005 39.0244 -77.4900Ashburn130 141 84.4 72.8 0.863 10 7851-153-0009 38.8553 -77.6356 Long Park130 140 81.4 70.4 0.865 10 7451-510-0009 38.8108 -77.0447 Alexandria134 140 96.5 86.7 0.898 11 85RRF - SummaryEPAMethod9 CellAverageMethodGrid CellOnlyMethodEPAMethod9 CellAverageMethodGrid CellOnlyMethodEPAMethod9 CellAverageMethodGrid CellOnlyMethodEPAMethod9 CellAverageMethodGrid CellOnlyMethodAIRS ID Latitude Longitude Site Name RRF RRF RRF RRF RRF RRF RRF RRF RRF RRF RRF RRF11-001-0025 38.9753 -77.0228Takoma0.896 0.88 0.888 0.894 0.876 0.886 0.892 0.874 0.886 0.896 0.883 0.89911-001-0041 38.8972 -76.9528 River Terrace0.89 0.88 0.918 0.888 0.878 0.916 0.883 0.872 0.909 0.906 0.891 0.92411-001-0043 38.9189 -77.0125 McMillan0.89 0.88 0.918 0.888 0.878 0.916 0.883 0.872 0.909 0.906 0.891 0.92424-009-0010 38.5400 -76.5839 Calvert0.843 0.823 0.817 0.839 0.819 0.815 0.836 0.815 0.81 0.888 0.869 0.87824-017-0010 38.5042 -76.8119 Southern MD0.819 0.814 0.804 0.816 0.812 0.802 0.808 0.806 0.794 0.847 0.845 0.8324-021-0037 39.4081 -77.3758 Frederick Municipal Airport0.859 0.843 0.86 0.847 0.834 0.844 0.846 0.833 0.844 0.864 0.868 0.87224-031-3001 39.1144 -77.1071 Rockville0.885 0.865 0.864 0.883 0.862 0.861 0.881 0.861 0.86 0.882 0.869 0.87224-033-0002 39.0200 -76.8278 Greenbelt0.874 0.862 0.863 0.872 0.859 0.86 0.869 0.857 0.857 0.888 0.878 0.87624-033-0030 39.0553 -76.8783 HU-BeltsvilleNA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA24-033-8003 38.8121 -76.7444 PG Equestrian Center0.87 0.844 0.843 0.868 0.842 0.84 0.865 0.838 0.837 0.879 0.864 0.85451-013-0020 38.8575 -77.0592 Aurora Hills0.897 0.882 0.897 0.896 0.88 0.895 0.891 0.875 0.893 0.906 0.891 0.92451-059-0005 38.8939 -77.4653 Chantilly0.87 0.863 0.889 0.868 0.859 0.888 0.867 0.858 0.888 0.873 0.87 0.8851-059-0018 38.7425 -77.0775 Mount Vernon0.892 0.881 0.883 0.891 0.877 0.881 0.883 0.872 0.868 0.898 0.89 0.89851-059-0030 38.7728 -77.1056Franconia0.887 0.881 0.882 0.885 0.879 0.881 0.88 0.873 0.877 0.898 0.89 0.89851-059-1005 38.8375 -77.1632Annandale0.887 0.881 0.882 0.885 0.879 0.881 0.88 0.873 0.877 0.892 0.892 0.89951-059-5001 38.9319 -77.1989 McLean0.886 0.873 0.867 0.885 0.87 0.865 0.883 0.869 0.864 0.9 0.893 0.951-107-1005 39.0244 -77.4900Ashburn0.872 0.876 0.879 0.87 0.873 0.876 0.869 0.872 0.874 0.871 0.869 0.86351-153-0009 38.8553 -77.6356 Long Park0.876 0.869 0.87 0.873 0.866 0.868 0.871 0.865 0.866 0.87 0.87 0.86551-510-0009 38.8108 -77.0447 Alexandria0.892 0.881 0.883 0.891 0.877 0.881 0.883 0.872 0.868 0.898 0.89 0.898Relative Reduction Factor SummaryMONITORS OTC OTB/OTW OTC BOTW OTC BOTW+VA CAIR ASIP OTB/OTWFuture Design Value CalculationsEPAMethod9 CellAverageMethodGrid CellOnlyMethodEPAMethod9 CellAverageMethodGrid CellOnlyMethodEPAMethod9 CellAverageMethodGrid CellOnly MethodEPAMethod9 CellAverageMethodGrid CellOnlyMethodAIRS ID Latitude Longitude Site Name DVF DVF DVF DVF DVF DVF DVF DVF DVF DVF DVF DVF11-001-0025 38.9753 -77.0228Takoma79 78 78 79 77 78 79 77 78 79 78 7911-001-0041 38.8972 -76.9528 River Terrace79 78 81 79 78 81 78 77 80 80 79 8211-001-0043 38.9189 -77.0125 McMillan82 81 85 82 81 84 81 80 84 83 82 8524-009-0010 38.5400 -76.5839 CalvertNA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA24-017-0010 38.5042 -76.8119 Southern MD76 75 74 75 75 74 75 74 73 78 78 7724-021-0037 39.4081 -77.3758 Frederick Municipal Airport74 73 75 73 72 73 73 72 73 75 75 7624-031-3001 39.1144 -77.1071 Rockville76 74 74 76 74 74 76 74 74 76 75 7524-033-0002 39.0200 -76.8278 Greenbelt82 81 81 81 80 80 81 80 80 83 82 8224-033-0030 39.0553 -76.8783 HU-BeltsvilleNA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA24-033-8003 38.8121 -76.7444 PG Equestrian Center81 79 79 81 79 78 81 78 78 82 81 8051-013-0020 38.8575 -77.0592 Aurora Hills86 85 86 86 85 86 86 84 86 87 86 8951-059-0005 38.8939 -77.4653 Chantilly75 75 77 75 74 77 75 74 77 75 75 7651-059-0018 38.7425 -77.0775 Mount Vernon86 85 85 86 84 85 85 84 83 86 86 8651-059-0030 38.7728 -77.1056Franconia84 83 83 84 83 83 83 82 83 85 84 8551-059-1005 38.8375 -77.1632Annandale83 82 82 83 82 82 82 82 82 83 83 8451-059-5001 38.9319 -77.1989 McLean77 76 76 77 76 76 77 76 76 79 78 7951-107-1005 39.0244 -77.4900Ashburn78 78 79 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 7751-153-0009 38.8553 -77.6356 Long Park74 73 73 74 73 73 74 73 73 73 73 7351-510-0009 38.8108 -77.0447 Alexandria80 79 79 80 78 79 79 78 78 80 80 80EPAMethod9 CellAverageMethodGrid CellOnlyMethodEPAMethod9 CellAverageMethodGrid CellOnlyMethodEPAMethod9 CellAverageMethodGrid CellOnly MethodEPAMethod9 CellAverageMethodGrid CellOnlyMethodAIRS ID Latitude Longitude Site Name DVF DVF DVF DVF DVF DVF DVF DVF DVF DVF DVF DVF11-001-0025 38.9753 -77.0228Takoma78 77 78 78 77 77 78 76 77 78 77 7911-001-0041 38.8972 -76.9528 River Terrace81 80 84 81 80 84 81 80 83 83 81 8511-001-0043 38.9189 -77.0125 McMillan83 82 86 83 82 86 83 81 85 85 83 8624-009-0010 38.5400 -76.5839 CalvertNA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA24-017-0010 38.5042 -76.8119 Southern MD76 76 75 76 76 75 75 75 74 79 79 7824-021-0037 39.4081 -77.3758 Frederick Municipal Airport75 74 75 74 73 74 74 73 74 76 76 7624-031-3001 39.1144 -77.1071 Rockville77 76 76 77 75 75 77 75 75 77 76 7624-033-0002 39.0200 -76.8278 Greenbelt81 80 80 81 79 79 80 79 79 82 81 8124-033-0030 39.0553 -76.8783 HU-BeltsvilleNA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA24-033-8003 38.8121 -76.7444 PG Equestrian CenterNA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA51-013-0020 38.8575 -77.0592 Aurora Hills88 87 88 88 87 88 88 86 88 89 88 9151-059-0005 38.8939 -77.4653 Chantilly77 76 79 77 76 79 77 76 79 77 77 7851-059-0018 38.7425 -77.0775 Mount Vernon86 85 85 86 85 85 85 84 84 87 86 8751-059-0030 38.7728 -77.1056Franconia86 85 85 85 85 85 85 84 85 87 86 87Future Design Values Using Average of 3 Design Value Periods (2000-2004)MONITORS OTC OTB/OTW OTC BOTW OTC BOTW+VA CAIR ASIP OTB/OTWFuture Design Values Using Base Year Design Value (2001-2003)MONITORS OTC OTB/OTW OTC BOTW OTC BOTW+VA CAIR ASIP OTB/OTWFuture Design Value Calculations51-059-1005 38.8375 -77.1632AnnandaleNA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA51-059-5001 38.9319 -77.1989 McLean77 76 76 77 76 76 77 76 76 79 78 7951-107-1005 39.0244 -77.4900Ashburn80 80 80 80 80 80 79 80 80 80 79 7951-153-0009 38.8553 -77.6356 Long Park76 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 7551-510-0009 38.8108 -77.0447 Alexandria82 81 81 81 80 81 81 80 79 82 81 82EPAMethod9 CellAverageMethodGrid CellOnlyMethodEPAMethod9 CellAverageMethodGrid CellOnlyMethodEPAMethod9 CellAverageMethodGrid CellOnly MethodEPAMethod9 CellAverageMethodGrid CellOnlyMethodAIRS ID Latitude Longitude Site Name DVF DVF DVF DVF DVF DVF DVF DVF DVF DVF DVF DVF11-001-0025 38.9753 -77.0228Takoma78 77 77 78 76 77 78 76 77 78 77 7811-001-0041 38.8972 -76.9528 River Terrace75 74 78 75 74 78 75 74 77 77 75 7811-001-0043 38.9189 -77.0125 McMillan79 78 82 79 78 82 79 78 81 81 79 8224-009-0010 38.5400 -76.5839 CalvertNA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA24-017-0010 38.5042 -76.8119 Southern MD75 74 73 74 74 73 74 73 72 77 77 7624-021-0037 39.4081 -77.3758 Frederick Municipal Airport73 72 73 72 71 72 72 71 72 74 74 7424-031-3001 39.1144 -77.1071 Rockville75 73 73 75 73 73 75 73 73 75 74 7424-033-0002 39.0200 -76.8278 Greenbelt80 79 79 80 79 79 80 79 79 82 81 8124-033-0030 39.0553 -76.8783 HU-BeltsvilleNA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA24-033-8003 38.8121 -76.7444 PG Equestrian Center82 79 79 82 79 79 81 79 79 83 81 8051-013-0020 38.8575 -77.0592 Aurora Hills83 81 83 83 81 83 82 81 82 84 82 8551-059-0005 38.8939 -77.4653 Chantilly74 73 75 73 73 75 73 73 75 74 74 7451-059-0018 38.7425 -77.0775 Mount Vernon85 84 84 85 83 84 84 83 82 85 84 8551-059-0030 38.7728 -77.1056Franconia81 80 80 81 80 80 80 80 80 82 81 8251-059-1005 38.8375 -77.1632Annandale83 82 82 83 82 82 82 82 82 83 83 8451-059-5001 38.9319 -77.1989 McLean76 75 74 76 74 74 75 74 74 77 76 7751-107-1005 39.0244 -77.4900Ashburn75 76 76 75 75 76 75 75 76 75 75 7551-153-0009 38.8553 -77.6356 Long Park73 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 7251-510-0009 38.8108 -77.0447 Alexandria77 76 76 77 76 76 76 75 75 77 77 77Future Design Values Using Straight Average of 5 Design Values (2000-2004)MONITORS OTC OTB/OTW OTC BOTW OTC BOTW+VA CAIR ASIP OTB/OTW

# Attachment 13a_MANE

- VU_Base Case 2002 Emissions_TSD 20Nov200 .pdf

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

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

November 20, 2006

for the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Vi sibility Union (MANE-VU)

### [This page intentionally left blank.]

### iii CONTENTS

TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ............... vi FIGURES........................................................................................................................ .............viii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................... ix CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1 A. What is the purpose of this TSD? ....................................................................................... 1 B. What are Versions 1, 2, and 3 of the 2002 MANE-VU Inventory?.................................... 2 C. How is this TSD organized? ............................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER II – POINT SOURCES................................................................................................ 4 A. General Methods for all State and Local Agencies ............................................................ 4 1. What Data Sources Were Used?................................................................................... 4 2. What Quality Assurance Steps Were Performed? ........................................................ 5 3. Version 3 Emissions Summary................................................................................... 18 B. State-Specific Methods ..................................................................................................... 2 0 1. Connecticut ................................................................................................................. 20 2. Delaware .................................................................................................................... . 21 3. District of Columbia ................................................................................................... 21 4. Maine ....................................................................................................................... ... 22 5. Maryland.................................................................................................................... . 22 6. Massachusetts ............................................................................................................. 23 7. New Hampshire .......................................................................................................... 23 8. New Jersey.................................................................................................................. 24 9. New York.................................................................................................................... 24 10. Pennsylvania (State, Excluding Alle gheny and Philadelphia Counties) .................... 25 11. Pennsylvania (Allegheny County, FIPS code 42003)................................................. 27 12. Pennsylvania (Philadelphi a County, FIPS code 42101) ............................................. 28 13. Rhode Island ............................................................................................................... 28 14. Vermont .................................................................................................................... .. 30 C. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions? .................................................. 30 CHAPTER III – AREA SOURCES ............................................................................................. 32 A. General Methods for all States.......................................................................................... 32 1. What Data Sources Were Used?................................................................................. 32 2. What Quality Assurance Steps Were Performed? ...................................................... 34 3. Version 3 Revisions .................................................................................................... 53 4. Version 3 Emissions Summary................................................................................... 57 B. State-Specific Methods ..................................................................................................... .. 58 1. Connecticut ................................................................................................................. 58 2. Delaware .................................................................................................................... . 59 3. District of Columbia ................................................................................................... 60 4. Maine ....................................................................................................................... ... 60 5. Maryland.................................................................................................................... . 61 6. Massachusetts ............................................................................................................. 62 7. New Hampshire .......................................................................................................... 63 8. New Jersey.................................................................................................................. 65 9. New York.................................................................................................................... 65 10. Pennsylvania ............................................................................................................... 70 11. Rhode Island ............................................................................................................... 71

### iv 12. Vermont .................................................................................................................... .. 72 C. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions? .................................................. 73 CHAPTER IV – NONROAD SOURCES .................................................................................... 75 A. General Methods for all States.......................................................................................... 75 1. What Data Sources Were Used?................................................................................. 75 2. What Quality Assurance Steps Were Performed? ...................................................... 79 3. Version 3 Emission Summaries.................................................................................. 82 B. State-Specific Methods ..................................................................................................... 8 4 1. Connecticut ................................................................................................................. 84 2. Delaware .................................................................................................................... . 84 3. District of Columbia ................................................................................................... 85 4. Maine ....................................................................................................................... ... 86 5. Maryland.................................................................................................................... . 87 6. Massachusetts ............................................................................................................. 88 7. New Hampshire .......................................................................................................... 89 8. New Jersey.................................................................................................................. 89 9. New York.................................................................................................................... 90 10. Pennsylvania ............................................................................................................... 91 11. Rhode Island ............................................................................................................... 92 12. Vermont .................................................................................................................... .. 93 CHAPTER V – ONROAD SOURCES ........................................................................................ 94 A. General Methods for All States......................................................................................... 94 1. Data Sources ............................................................................................................... 9 4 2. What Quality Assurance Steps were Performed? ....................................................... 95 3. Version 3 Emission Summaries.................................................................................. 96 B. State-Specific Methods ..................................................................................................... .. 97 1. Connecticut ................................................................................................................. 97 2. Delaware .................................................................................................................... . 99 3. District of Columbia ................................................................................................. 100 4. Maine ....................................................................................................................... . 102 5. Maryland................................................................................................................... 1 03 6. Massachusetts ........................................................................................................... 105 7. New Hampshire ........................................................................................................ 106 8. New Jersey................................................................................................................ 10 8 9. New York.................................................................................................................. 11 0 10. Pennsylvania ............................................................................................................. 11 1 11. Rhode Island ............................................................................................................. 11 3 12. Vermont .................................................................................................................... 114 CHAPTER VI – BIOGE NIC SOURCES................................................................................... 117 A. General Methods for all States........................................................................................ 117 1. What Data Sources Were Used?............................................................................... 117 2. Version 3 Emissions Summary................................................................................. 118 B. State-Specific Methods ................................................................................................... 118 CHAPTER VII. TEMPORAL, SPECIATION, AND SPATIAL ALLOCATION PROFILES AND PREPARATION OF SMOKE (IDA) AND RPO DATA EXCHANGE PROTOCOL (NIF 3.0) FORMATS ............................................................................... 119 A. Temporal Profiles........................................................................................................... . 119 1. Point and Area Sources............................................................................................. 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 OUT SIDE OF THE M ANE-VU REGION ..... 155 CHAPTER IX. REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 157

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

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

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

### vi TABLES

Table II-1. Description of the Field Names and Descripti ons for the SCC Control Device Ratios Table ................................................................................................................... ... 14 Table II-2. Version 3 2002 MANE-VU Point Source Emissions by State.................................. 19 Table II-3. Connecticut 2002 Poin t, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 20 Table II-4. Delaware 2002 Point, Version 3: Uni que List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types.......................................................................................................................... ....... 21 Table II-5. District of Columbia 2002 Point, Vers ion 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Type .................................................................................................................. 21 Table II-6. Maine 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types.......................................................................................................................... ....... 22 Table II-7. Maryland 2002 Point, Version 3: Uni que List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types.......................................................................................................................... ....... 22 Table II-8. Massachusetts 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 23 Table II-9. New Hampshire 2002 Po int, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 23 Table II-10. New Jersey 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Star t Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 24 Table II-11. New York 2002 Poin t, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Type .................................................................................................................. 25 Table II-12. Pennsylvania 2002 Poin t, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 26 Table II-13. Pennsylvania - Allegheny County 2002 Poin t, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types ......................................................................................... 27 Table II-14. Pennsylvania - Phil adelphia County 2002 Point, Versi on 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................ 28 Table II-15. Rhode Island 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Star t Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 30 Table II-16. Vermont 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Star t Date, End Date, and Emission Types.......................................................................................................................... ....... 30 Table III-1. Summary of MANE-V U-Sponsored Inventories Include d in Version 1 of the Area Source Consolidated Emissions Inventory ....................................................................... 41 Table III-2. Area Source Industr ial, Commercial/Institutional, and Residential Fossil Fuel Combustion Uncontrolled Emission Factors for PM10-PRI/FIL, PM25-PRI/FIL, and PM-CON......................................................................................................................... .. 44 Table III-3. SCCs for which PM25-PRI Emissions were Estimated by Applying a Ratio to the PM10-PRI Emissions in the State inventory .................................................................... 49 Table III-4. Revisions to PM 25-PRI and PM25-FIL Emissions for Paved and Unpaved Roads and Construction ............................................................................................................... 56 Table III-5. Version 3 2002 MANE- VU Area Source Emissions by State ................................. 57 Table III-6. Connecticut 2002 Ar ea, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 58 Table III-7. Delaware 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Star t Date, End Date, and Emission Types.......................................................................................................................... ....... 59

### vii Table III-8. District of Columbia 2002 Area, Vers ion 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types .......................................................................................................... 60 Table III-9. Maine 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types.......................................................................................................................... ....... 60 Table III-10. Maryland 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 61 Table III-11. Massachusetts 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 62 Table III-12. New Hampshire 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Star t Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 64 Table III-13. New Jersey 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Star t Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 65 Table III-14. New York 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 66 Table III-15. Summary of Ne w York's Revisions to Version 3 of MANE-VU's Area Source Inventory...................................................................................................................... ..... 68 Table III-16. Pennsylvania 2002 Ar ea, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 70 Table III-17. Rhode Island 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 71 Table III-18. Vermont 2002 Area, Version 3: Uni que List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types.......................................................................................................................... ....... 72 Table IV-1. List of Unique Ai rcraft, Commercial Marine, an d Locomotive SCCs Reported by States in MANE- VU Inventory ........................................................................................ 76 Table IV-2. Summary of Basis for 2002 M ANE-VU Aircraft, Comm ercial Marine, and Locomotive Inventory....................................................................................................... 77 Table IV-3. Data Source Code Descriptions................................................................................ 82 Table IV-4. Annual 2002 Nonroad Sect or Emissions by MANE-VU State................................ 82 Table IV-5. Annual 2002 NONROAD2005 Mode l Emissions by MANE-VU State ................. 83 Table IV-6. Annual 2002 Aircraft, Commerci al Marine, and Locomotive Emissions by MANE-VU State............................................................................................................... 83 Table IV-7. Delaware NONROAD External Data Files............................................................... 85 Table IV-8. Maryland NONROA D External Data Files ............................................................. 87 Table V-1. Annual 2002 Onroad Sector Emissions by MANE-VU State................................... 97 Table V-2. Connecticut Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files..................................................... 98 Table V-3. Delaware Onroad Da ta in SMOKE Input Files....................................................... 100 Table V-4. District of Columbia On road Data in SMOKE Input Files ..................................... 101 Table V-5. Maine Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files ............................................................ 102 Table V-6. Maryland Onroad Da ta in SMOKE Input Files....................................................... 104 Table V-7. Massachusetts Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files ............................................... 105 Table V-8. New Hampshire Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files ............................................ 107 Table V-9. New Jersey Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files.................................................... 108 Table V-10. New York Onroad Da ta in SMOKE Input Files.................................................... 110 Table V-11. Pennsylvania Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files............................................... 112 Table V-12. Rhode Island Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files ............................................... 113 Table V-13. Vermont Onroad Da ta in SMOKE Input Files ...................................................... 115 Table VI-1. Version 3 2002 MANE-VU Biogenic Source Emissions by State ........................ 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 Tempor al Cross-reference Additions .............................................. 126 Table VII-3. Unknown SCCs in the M ANE-VU Point Source Inventory.................................. 130 Table VII-4. Area Source Tempor al Cross-Reference Updates ................................................ 131 Table VII-5. Area Source Tempor al Cross-Reference Additions.............................................. 136 Table VII-6. Area Source Tem poral Cross-Reference and Prof ile Additions for the MANE-VU Inventory...................................................................................................................... ... 141 Table VII-7. Point Source Speci ation Profiles Added to Speciati on Cross-reference File for CBIV with PM Mechanism.................................................................................................. 151 Table VII-8. Point Source SCCs Lacking Speci ation Profile Assignments for CB-IV with PM Mechanism...................................................................................................................... 152 Table VII-9. Summary of Version 3 Mass Emissions and SMOKE Input Files ....................... 153 Table VII-10. Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emissi on Type Combinations for Daily Emissions in the MANE-VU 2002 Point and Area Source Inventories, Version 3 ....... 154 Table VIII-1. Description of Non-MANE-VU Region Invent ory Data Used for MANE-VU BaseB Modeling.............................................................................................................. 156 Table C-1. MANE-VU County, Mont hly NMIM/NONROAD Inputs...................................... C-2

FIGURES

Figure 1. MANE-VU 12-Kilome ter CMAQ Modeling Domain ................................................... 2 Figure VIII-1. MANE-VU 12-Kilometer CMAQ Modeling Domain........................................ 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 CO 2 

### carbon dioxide EF emission factor EFIG Emission Factor s and Inventory Group EGU electricity generating unit EI inventory EM Emission (NIF 3.0) table EP Emission Process (NIF 3.0) table EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERP Emission Release Point (NIF 3.0) table ETBE ethyl tertiary butyl ether ETOH ethanol ETS Emission Tracking System EU Emission Unit (NIF 3.0) table FIPS Federal Information Processing Standard FIRE Factor Information and REtrieval Factor GIS geographic information system GSE ground support equipment HAP hazardous air pollutant HC hydrocarbon HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System ID identification IDA Inventory Data Analyzer format I/M inspection and maintenance km kilometer LAI leaf area indices LEV low emission vehicle LPG liquified petroleum gas MACT maximum achievab le control technology MANE-VU Mid-Atlantic/Nor theast Visibility Union MARAMA Mid-Atlantic Regiona l Air Management Association MTBE methyl tertiary butyl ether NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard NAICS North American Indus trial Classification System

### x NEI National Emissions Inventory NH 3 

### ammonia NIF NEI Input Format NMIM National Mobile Inventory Model NO nitrous oxide NO x 

### oxides of nitrogen NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ORIS Office of Regulatory Information Systems OTC Ozone Transport Commission PAR photosynthetic active radiation PE Emission Period (NIF 3.0) table Pechan E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. PFC portable fuel container PM particulate matter PM-CON condensible PM PM 10 

### particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers PM10-FIL filterable PM 10 

### PM10-PRI primary PM 10 

### PM 2.5 

### particulate matter with an aerodynami c diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers PM25-FIL filterable PM 2.5 

### PM25-PRI primary PM 2.5 

### POTWs public owned treatment works ppm parts per million psi pounds per square inch QA quality assurance QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan RPO Regional Planning Organization RVP Reid vapor pressure SCC Source Classification Code SPDPRO speed profile SPDREF speed cross reference SI Site (NIF 3.0) table SIC Standard Industrial Classification SIP State Implementation Plan S/L State and Local SMOKE Sparse Matrix Op erator Kernel Emissions SO 2 

### sulfur dioxide TAME tertiary amyl methyl ether TR Transmittal (NIF 3.0) table TSD technical support document U.S. United States VISTAS Visibility Improve ment State and Tribal Association of the Southeast VMT vehicle miles traveled VOC volatile organic compound WRAP Western Regional Air 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 cr iteria air pollutant (CAP) and ammonia (NH 3 

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

The inventories and supporting data prepared include the following:

(1) Comprehensive, county-level, mass emissi ons and modeling inventories for of 2002 emissions for CAPs and NH 3 

### for the State and Local (S/L) agencies included in the MANE-VU region; (2) The temporal, speciation, and spatial a llocation profiles for the MANE-VU region inventories; (3) Inventories for wildfires, prescribed bur ning, and agricultural field burning for the southeastern provinces of Canada; and (4) Inventories for other RPOs, Canada, and Mexico.

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

The inventories include annual em issions for sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ), oxides of nitrogen (NO x 

### ), volatile organic compounds ( VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), NH 3 

### , and particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 and 2.5 micrometers (i.e., primary PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### ). The inventories included summer day, winter day, and average day emissions. However, not all agencies included daily emissions in their inventories, a nd, for the agencies that did, the temporal basis for the daily emissions va ried between agencies. The temporal profiles prepared for this project will be used to calcu late daily emissions when not available in the inventory files.

### 2 Figure 1. MANE-VU 12-Kilome ter CMAQ Modeling Domain

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

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

### 3 MANE-VU is the member S/L agencies plus MA RAMA employees. MARAMA is one of three RPOs (in addition to Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and North East States for Coordinated Air Use Management) supporti ng the MANE-VU effort.

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

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

C. How is this TSD organized?

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

### 4 CHAPTER II

– POINT SOURCES

A. General Methods for all State and Local Agencies

1. What Data Sources Were Used?

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

• Version 2 – Connecticut, Delaware, and Maryland

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

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

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

• Data Source Codes:

Code Description

S State agency-supplied data. L Local agency-supplied data to inco rporate S/L comments for individual records. P NH 3 

### emissions from MANE-VU inventory for cement kilns. AUG-A PM Augmentation: ad-hoc change. AUG-C PM Augmentation: standard augmentation method. AUG-O PM Augmentation: set PMxx-FIL = PMxx-PRI for SCCs starting with 10 (external fuel combustion) and 20 (i nternal fuel combustion). Note: emission factors and particle-size data for estimating condensible emissions for fuel combustion SCCs st arting with 30 were not available; therefore, condensible emissions were not estimated for these processes

### 5 if an agency provided filterable and not primary emissions for these processes. In other words, the prim ary emissions were assumed to equal the filterable emissions. AUG-Z PM Augmentation: automated fill-in of zero values where all PM for a particular process is zero.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. What Quality Assurance Steps Were Performed?

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

• Conduct QA checks on each S/L inventory;

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

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

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

• Perform augmentation to co rrect for missing data; and

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

a. QA checks for S/L agency inventories

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

i. Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM) Analysis

The goal of this analysis was to compare annual NO x 

### and SO 2 

### emissions that were measured with CEM systems and reported to EPA to the annual NO x 

### and SO 2 

### emissions reported in the S/L inventories. Facilities repor t hourly CEM data to EPA for uni ts that are subject to CEM reporting requirements of the NO x 

### SIP Call rule and Title IV of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Thus, hourly CEM emissions were summed to the annual level and compared to the annual emissions in the S/L inventories. If the S/L agencies ag reed, the CEM hourly emissions would be used to support air quality modeling to accurately reflec t the temporal distribution of emissions from CEM units during 2002. Since some of the states re quire facilities to cert ify the emissions they report for inclusion in the invent ory, the agencies needed proof that the emissions in the CEM inventory compared well with the emissions in the S/L inventory.

The 2002 CEM inventory containing hourly NO x 

### and SO 2 

### emissions and heat input data were downloaded from the EPA/Clean Air Ma rkets Division’s (CAMD) web site (www.epa.gov/airmarkets) on July 8, 2004 (CAMD, 2004). The data were provided by quarter and state resulting in 48 separate files for the 12 states in the MANE-VU region. For each state, the hourly emissions were summed to the annual level by facility and EU.

The first stage in the CEM analysis involved prep aring a crosswalk file to match facilities and units in the CEM inventory to f acilities and units in the S/L inve ntories. In the CEM inventory, the Office of Regulatory Information Systems (ORI S) identification (ID) code identifies unique facilities and the unit ID identifies unique boilers and internal combustion engines (i.e., turbines and reciprocating engines). In the S/L inventorie s, the state and county FIPS and state facility ID together identify unique facilities and the EU ID id entifies unique boilers or internal combustion engines. However, in some of the S/L inventories, the emissions for multiple EUs were summed and reported under the same EU ID. Thus, an Ex cel Workbook was sent to the S/L agencies that contained an initial crosswalk with the ORIS ID and unit ID in the CEM inventory matched to the state and county FIPS, state facility ID, and EU ID in the S/L inventory. Agencies were asked to confirm/correct/supplement the information in the crosswalk. The initial crosswalk also contained annual emissions summed from the hourly CEM emissions and flags that indicated if

### 7 CEM units were subject to re porting requirements under the NO x 

### SIP Call and/or Title IV of the CAA. It should be noted that the initial matc hing of the IDs in both inventories was based on previous crosswalks that had been devel oped for the 1999 NEI and in-house information compiled by Pechan. The matching at the facili ty level was nearly complete; however, S/L agency assistance was needed to match most of CEM units to EUs in the S/L inventories.

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

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

The facility-level comparison of CEM to emission inventory NO x 

### and SO 2 

### emissions found that for some facilities, the annual emissions fr om the S/L inventory exceeded the CEM annual emissions because the facility in the S/L invent ory contained more than just CEM units. This condition was determined to be acceptable. Howe ver, S/L agencies were asked to review data for facilities where the CEM emissions were hi gher than the emissions summed from the S/L inventory. For these cases, CEM emissions may be higher than those repor ted in a S/L inventory due to methods EPA uses for using artificially high default values to fill in hourly CEM data when not reported or when a CEM unit was not working properly.

After reviewing the comparison of the CEM to S/L inventory emissions, New York and Vermont elected to use the 2002 CEM inventory containing hourly NO x 

### and SO 2 

### emissions for all facilities. Maryland; New Hampshire; and Al legheny County, Pennsylvania elected to use the 2002 CEM data for some but not all of the fac ilities within their ju risdiction. The Excel Workbook files containing the comparison of CEM to S/L inventories pr ovides a spreadsheet identifying the facilities for which these S/L agencies elected to us e the CEM inventory.

Subsequent to the completion of this analysis, it was determined that the structure of the EPA/CAMD file would not be compatible with the format of the SMOKE input file. The database structure did not affect the annual emissions summed from the hourly CEM emissions used in the comparison to S/L inventory data. Fo r each of the S/L agencies that elected to use the 2002 CEM data, CAMD agreed to provide sepa rate database files for each state with a structure compatible with the SMOKE input file fo rmat. Pechan then used the crosswalk to add to the CEM inventory files the state and county FIPS, state facility ID , and EU ID (if the crosswalk contains a CEM unit to EU match) to the hourly CEM database files provided by CAMD. The modified database was then used to create the SMOKE input files for these states.

### 8 Note that Delaware requested that the 2002 CEM inventory for its facilities not be used for regional haze modeling. However, if the consolid ated point source invent ory prepared under this project is used to support oz one episode modeling, Delaware may consider using the CEM hourly data for the episodes modeled. Theref ore, the 2002 CEM inventory was also processed for Delaware’s facilities.

ii. PM Emissions Consiste ncy and Completeness Review

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

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

### (PM10-FIL), primary PM 10 

### (PM10-PRI), filterable PM 2.5 

### (PM25-FIL), primary PM 2.5 

### (PM25-PRI), or PM-CON, the record was flagged for review.

• The following equations were used to determine consistency:

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

• The following comparisons were app lied to determine consistency:

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

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

### 9 iii. ERP Coordinate Review

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

iv. ERP Parameter Review

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

v. Control Device Type and Control Efficiency Data Review

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

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

The second check identified reco rds where 100% control was reporte d in the CE table, but the emissions in the EM table were greater than zero and the rule effectiveness value in the EM table was null, zero, or 100% (implying 100% control of emissions). Because many agencies did not populate the rule effectiveness field or a default value of zero was assigned, records with null or zero rule effectiveness values were included wh ere the CE was 100% and emissions were 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 th e TR table, and to confirm that the end date reported was greater than the star t date reported. This check di d not identify any QA issues in the three versions of the inventory.

vii. Annual and Daily Emissions Comparison

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

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

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

• Difference Tolerance (daily - annual)> 0

• Difference Tolerance (daily - annual)> .000001

• Difference Tolerance (daily - annual)> .00001

• Difference Tolerance (daily - annual)> .0001

• Difference Tolerance (daily - annual)> .001

• Difference Tolerance (daily - annual)> .01

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

• Connecticut (09) 11 records

• Maine (23) 4 records

• Maryland (24) 72 records

• New Jersey (34) 2935 records

• Pennsylvania Allegheny County (42003) 17 records

• Pennsylvania Philadelphia County (42101) 146 records

• Rhode Island (44) 1 record

Rhode Island, Philadelphia, and Ne w Jersey responded that the dailie s that were greater than the annuals could be deleted. Maryland determined that they should be ke pt since the difference values were small. The records for the remain ing S/L agencies were kept. This QA issue only occurred during processing of Version 1.

### 11 b. Responses from S/L agencies

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

• PM Augmentation QA Summary;

• Stack Parameter QA Summary;

• Stack Coordinates QA Summary;

• Stack Parameter and Coordina te Augmentation Summary;

• CEM Comparisons and Revisions; and

• Control Device/Efficiency Summary.

c. Gap Filling and Augmentation

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

i. MANE-VU-Sponsored Inventories

MANE-VU prepared a 2002 NH 3 

### emissions inventory for cement kilns for SCCs 30500606 and 30500706 located in four MANE-VU states. Maryland chose to add one new facility 24013/0012 (state and county FIPS code /facility ID). New York chose to add the following three sites 36001/4010300016, 36001/4012400001, and 36111/3514800084. Maine and Pennsylvania chose not to add emissions from th is inventory. The 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 remediati on of S/L provided PM pollutants;

### 12 • Step 2: Development of PM factor ra tios based on factors from the Factor Information and REtrieval (FIRE) Data Sy stem, version 6.2, and the PM Calculator (EPA, 2003a; EPA, 2004c);

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

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

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

1. Initial QA and Remediation of PM Pollutants

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

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

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

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

• PM10-FIL less than PM25-FIL;

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

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

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

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

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

### 13 2. Development of PM Factor Ratio

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

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

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

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

• Ratios for SCCs not like 10* and 20* were obtai ned from the PM Calculator. It was assumed that the condensible component was zero.

### 14 Table II-1. Description of the Field Nam es and Descriptions for the SCC Control Device Ratios Table

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

### 15 3. Implementation of the QA Ratios

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

• State FIPS

• County FIPS

• Tribal Code

• EU ID

• Process ID

• Start Date

• End Date

• Emission Type

• SCC

• Primary Device Type

• Secondary Device Type

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

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

• PM_PRI

• PM_FIL

• PM10_PRI

• PM10_FIL

• PM25_PRI

• PM25_FIL

• PM_CON

• PM_PRI_EXISTS

• PM_FIL_EXISTS

• PM10_PRI_EXISTS

• PM10_FIL_EXISTS

• PM25_PRI_EXISTS

• PM25_FIL_EXISTS

• PM_CON_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 i ndicated whether the po llutant was provided by the S/L agency. A zero indicated that the po llutant was not provided; a number greater than zero (usually one) indicates that it was provided by the S/L agency.

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

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

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

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

### where available, PM 2.5 

### where available, and then PM.

Augmenting the PM pollutants for the 10* and 20* SCCs is more complicated, but the basic approach was to augment based on PM 10 

### (FIL or PRI) where available, PM 2.5 

### (FIL or PRI) where available, and then PM (FIL or PRI) if PM 10 

### or PM 2.5 

### variations were not av ailable. Where both PM 10 

### (FIL or PRI) and PM 2.5 

### (FIL or PRI) variations were bot h available, the calculation for PM-CON was generally driven from the PM 10 

### number and the complements as necessary were back calculated. Where a PRI emission factor ra tio was required and was not available, the FIL emission factor ratio was used.

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

Note: The augmentation procedures resulted in some high condensible ratios that were calculated for some SCC control device type combinations. In most cases, these high condensible ratios were the resu lt of the back calculation of PM-CON from PMxx-PRI records.

### 17 Since the state had already pr ovided the PMxx-PRI records, these PM-CON values were not added.

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

iii. ERP Coordinates

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

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

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

• County centroid coordinates.

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

iv. ERP Parameters

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

### 18 for the purposes of comparison) to prevent re placement of S/L parameter values based on negligible decimal differences.

v. Control Device Type and Control Efficiency Data

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

c. QA Review of Final Inventory

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

3. Version 3 Emissions Summary

Table II-2 presents a State-level summary of th e annual point source emissions in Version 3 of the 2002 MANE-VU inventory. Note that PM10-P RI and PM25-PRI emissions are included in the inventory for all SCCs for which S/ L agencies reported any form of PM, PM 10 

### , and/or PM 2.5 

### emissions. If an agency did not report PM 10-PRI and/or PM25-PRI but reported PM-PRI, PMFIL, PM-CON, PM10-FIL, and/or PM25-FIL, the PM augmentation procedures discussed in the TSD were applied to the form of PM emissions supplied by the agency to calculate emissions for the other forms of PM emissions. If an agen cy reported PM10-PRI and/or PM25-PRI emissions but not PM10-FIL, PM25-FIL, or PM-CON em issions, the agency's inventory was not augmented to calculate filterable or condensible emissions. Note that PM-CON is associated with only fuel combustion sources.

### 19 Table II-2. Version 3 2002 MANE-VU Point Source Emissions by State (Tons/Year)

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

### 20 B. State-Specific Methods

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

1. Connecticut

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

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

• Changed values for Hartford Steam (FIPS code 09003, facility identifier 3471), EU P0250, process 02 for summer daily values as follows: Changed actual throughput from 1934 E6FT3 to 1.934 E6FT3, CO summer daily em issions from 53.185 tons to 0.0532 tons, NO x 

### summer daily emissions from 255.288 t ons to 0.1021 tons, and VOC summer daily emissions from 1.2569 tons to 0.0027 tons.

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

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

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



### Table A-1 in Appendix A identifies the data sour ces by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC and emission type period comb inations are listed more than once because the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. Connecticut provided the data for CO, NO x 

### , PM10-PRI, SO 2 

### , and VOC. Connecticut did not provide any data for NH 3 

### . Emissions for PM10-FIL, PM25- PRI, PM25-FIL, and PM-CON were calculated from the PM10-PRI emissions provide d by Connecticut using the PM augmentation procedures.

### 21 2. Delaware

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

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

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



### Table A-2 in Appendix A identifies the data sour ces by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC and emission type period comb inations are listed more than once because the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. Delaware provided the data for CO, NH 3 

### , NO x 

### , SO 2 

### , and VOC. Delaware also provided much of the PM emissions data but in some cases the PM augmentation procedures were applied to the PM data provided by Delaware to calculate emissions for other forms of PM (e.g., to estimate PM10-PRI from PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI from PM 25-FIL, PM10-PRI and PM10-FIL from PM25- PRI and PM25-FIL).

3. District of Columbia

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

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

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



### Table A-3 in Appendix A identifies the data sour ces by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. The District of Columbia provided the data for CO, NH 3 

### , NO x 

### , SO 2 

### , and VOC. The District of Columbia provided at least one form of PM emissions and the PM a ugmentation procedures were applied to the emissions provided by the Dist rict of Columbia to calculate emissions for the other forms of PM.

### 22 4. Maine

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

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

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



### Table A-4 in Appendix A identifies the data sour ces by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC and emission type period comb inations are listed more than once because the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. Maine provided the emissions data for CO, NH 3 

### , NO x 

### , SO 2 

### , and VOC. Maine provided PM10- FIL and/or PM25-FIL emissions data and the PM augmentation procedures were applied to the emissions that Maine provided to calculat e emissions for the other forms of PM.

5. Maryland

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

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

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



### Table A-5 in Appendix A identifies the data sour ces by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC and emission type period comb inations are listed more than once because the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. Maryland provided the emissions data for CO, NH 3 

### , NO x 

### , SO 2 

### , VOC, PM10-PRI, and PM-PRI. The PM augmentation procedures were applie d to the PM10-PRI emissions that Maryland provided to calculate emissions for the other forms of PM. Maryland provided NH 3 

### emissions for its point sources except for one new facility (state and county FIPS code 24013, facility ID 0012, SCC 30500622, data source code P) for which it used NH 3 

### emissions for four EUs (preheater kiln/dry process) prepared by MANE-VU.

### 23 6. Massachusetts

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

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

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



### Table A-6 in Appendix A identifies the data sour ces by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC and emission type period comb inations are listed more than once because the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. Massachusetts provided the emissions data for CO, NH 3 

### , NO x 

### , SO 2 

### , and VOC. Massachusetts provided PM-FIL, PM10-FIL, and/or PM25-FIL emissions data and the PM augmentation procedures were applied to the emissions that Massachusetts provi ded to calculate emissions for the other forms of PM.

7. New Hampshire

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

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

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



### Table A-7 in Appendix A identifies the data sour ces by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC and emission type period comb inations are listed more than once because the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. New Hampshire provided the emissions data for CO, NH 3 

### , NO x 

### , SO 2 

### , and VOC. New Hampshire provided PM-FIL, PM10-FIL, and/ or PM25-FIL emissions data and the PM augmentation procedures were applied to the emissions that New Hampshire provided to calculate emissions for th e other forms of PM.

### 24 8. New Jersey

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

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

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

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



### Table A-8 in Appendix A identifies the data sour ces by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC and emission type period comb inations are listed more than once because the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. New Jersey provided the em issions data for CO, NO x 

### , SO 2 

### , and VOC. New Jersey provided PMPRI, PM10-PRI, and/or PM25-PRI emissions data and the PM augmentation procedures were applied to the emissions that New Jersey provide d to calculate emissions for the other forms of PM. New Jersey did not provide any data for NH 3


### .

9. New York

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

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

The records in Version 2 that were revised and the records that were added to Version 3 are listed in the Excel file named “NY Revi sions to MANE-VU V3 Point EI_040706.xls”. Table II-11 shows the emission type period for which New York provided emissions.

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

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



### Table A-9 in Appendix A identifies the data sour ces by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC and emission type period comb inations are listed more than once because the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. New York provided the emissions data for CO, NH 3 

### , NO x 

### , SO 2 

### , and VOC. New York provided PM-PRI, PM10-PRI, and/or PM25-PRI emissions data and the PM augmentation procedures were applied to the emissions that New York pr ovided to calculate emissions for the other forms of PM. New York provided NH 3 

### emissions for its point sources except for four cement kilns for which it used NH 3 

### emissions from a MANE-VU-sponsored inventory. The following identifies the facilities for which the MAEN-VU-sponsored NH 3 

### emissions inventory for cement kilns was used.

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



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

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

Table II-12 shows the emission type periods for which Pennsylvania provided emissions. Table A-10 in Appendix A identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventor y. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC and emission type period comb inations are listed more than once because the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. Pennsylvania provided the emissions data for CO, NH 3 

### , NO x 

### , SO 2 

### , and VOC. Pennsylvania provided PM10-PRI and/or PM25-PRI emissions data and the PM augmentation procedures were applied to the emissions that Pennsylvani a provided to calculate emissions for the other forms of PM.

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

Emission

Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type Emission Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020101 20020104 30 ANNUAL 20020131 20020812 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020111 30 ANNUAL 20020131 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020120 30 ANNUAL 20020201 20020228 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020123 30 ANNUAL 20020201 20020424 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020130 30 ANNUAL 20020201 20020831 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020131 30 ANNUAL 20020201 20020930 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020212 30 ANNUAL 20020201 20021030 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020215 30 ANNUAL 20020201 20021130 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020221 30 ANNUAL 20020201 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020228 30 ANNUAL 20020205 20021223 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020313 30 ANNUAL 20020213 20020913 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020329 30 ANNUAL 20020214 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020331 30 ANNUAL 20020216 20020331 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020412 30 ANNUAL 20020301 20020331 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020414 30 ANNUAL 20020301 20020430 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020422 30 ANNUAL 20020301 20020531 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020427 30 ANNUAL 20020301 20021031 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020430 30 ANNUAL 20020301 20021130 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020503 30 ANNUAL 20020301 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020514 30 ANNUAL 20020311 20021213 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020517 30 ANNUAL 20020311 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020521 30 ANNUAL 20020314 20021209 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020531 30 ANNUAL 20020318 20021223 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020603 30 ANNUAL 20020320 20020915 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020614 30 ANNUAL 20020320 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020626 30 ANNUAL 20020328 20021120 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020628 30 ANNUAL 20020330 20021122 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020630 30 ANNUAL 20020401 20020430 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020701 30 ANNUAL 20020401 20020531 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020731 30 ANNUAL 20020401 20020731 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020813 30 ANNUAL 20020401 20020930 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020831 30 ANNUAL 20020401 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020909 30 ANNUAL 20020409 20021205 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020930 30 ANNUAL 20020415 20021117 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20021031 30 ANNUAL 20020415 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20021101 30 ANNUAL 20020421 20021024 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20021112 30 ANNUAL 20020424 20021016 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20021130 30 ANNUAL 20020428 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20021213 30 ANNUAL 20020429 20020922 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20021216 30 ANNUAL 20020429 20021031 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20021217 30 ANNUAL 20020501 20020630 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20021220 30 ANNUAL 20020501 20020930 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20021223 30 ANNUAL 20020501 20021013 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20021230 30 ANNUAL 20020501 20021031 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020501 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020102 20020703 30 ANNUAL 20020506 20021202 30 ANNUAL 20020102 20021203 30 ANNUAL 20020511 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020102 20021215 30 ANNUAL 20020515 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020102 20021223 30 ANNUAL 20020519 20020727 30 ANNUAL 20020102 20021227 30 ANNUAL 20020525 20021231 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 A llegheny County, Pennsylvania originates from Version 1. Table II-13 shows the emission type periods for which Allegheny County provided emissions.

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

Emission Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 NONANNUAL 20011201 20020228 29 NONANNUAL 20020601 20020831 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 al so shows the num ber of counties by SCC. Allegheny County provided the emissions data for CO, NH 3 

### , NO x 

### , SO 2 

### , and VOC. Allegheny County provided PM-FIL, PM10-FIL, PM25-FIL, and/or PM-CON emissions data and the PM augmentation procedures were a pplied to the emissions that Allegheny County provided to calculate emissions for the other forms of PM.

12. Pennsylvania (Philadelphia County, FIPS code 42101)

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

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

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



### Table A-12 in Appendix A identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table al so shows the num ber of counties by SCC. Philadelphia County provide d the emissions data for CO, NH 3 

### , NO x 

### , SO 2 

### , and VOC. Philadelphia County provided PM-FIL, PM10-FIL, and/or PM25-FIL emissions data and the PM augmentation procedures were applied to the emissions that Philadel phia County provided to calculate emissions for th e other forms of PM.

13. Rhode Island

Rhode Island requested that their Version 2 inventory be replaced with the CAP and NH 3 

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

The Site table in the NEI did not include the ORIS IDs for all of the EGUs identified in the EGU crosswalk table. Therefore, the crosswalk table was used to add th e ORIS IDs to the Site table. Matching of boiler IDs to the EU table for one facil ity was maintained in the NEI, and, therefore, included in Version 3 of MANE-V U’s inventory. However, ma tching of boiler IDs for other facilities was not available in the crosswalk table.

### 29 The data source codes that EPA used in the R hode Island’s point sour ce inventory for the NEI were maintained in the MANE-VU invent ory. The following defines the codes:

Code Description

A Augmented PM data. CAMD Record only in 2002 Emission Tracking System (ETS)/CEM for SO 2 

### , NO x 

### , and heat input values; other emissions estimated. SCAMD1 Data were received fr om the state. The state’s NO x 

### and SO 2 

### emission values were replaced with the ETS values. 99_PMPRI Not defined – presumed to mean PM-PRI data originating from the 1999 NEI. SUM Primary PM emissions calculated as the sum of the filterable PM and PM-CON emissions DIFF PM-CON emissions calculated as the difference between the primary PM and filterable PM emissions

QA of PM emissions was also performed in accordance with the QAPP for the 2002 base year inventory for EM table records th at were revised or added for R hode Island and New York. As a result, it was identified that the emission t on value was not correctly calculated from the emission unit numerator and emission numeric valu e fields in the NEI file, therefore, the emission ton value was corrected for the MANE- VU inventory. In addition, the final NEI for Rhode Island contained NH 3 

### emissions for several facilities but no SCCs were provided for the NH 3 

### emissions; therefore, the NH 3 

### emissions were removed for the MANE-VU inventory as requested by Rhode Island.

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

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

Table II-15 shows the emission type periods fo r which Rhode Island provided emissions.

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

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



### Table A-13 in Appendix A identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table al so shows the num ber of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC a nd emission type period combinati ons are listed more than once because the data source codes are different fo r more than one SCC and emission type period combination. Rhode Island provided the emissions data for CO, NO x 

### , SO 2 

### , VOC, and PM-PRI. The EPA applied PM augmentation procedures to the PM-PRI emissions that Rhode Island provided to calculate emissions for the other forms of PM. The EPA added NH 3 

### emissions for an EGU from EPA’s CAMD data; otherwise, NH 3 

### emissions are not available for other point sources in Rhode Island.

14. Vermont

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

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

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



### Table A-14 in Appendix A identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table al so shows the num ber of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC a nd emission type period combinati ons are listed more than once because the data source codes are different fo r more than one SCC and emission type period combination. Vermont provided the emissions data for CO, NO x 

### , SO 2 

### , and VOC. Vermont provided PM-FIL, PM10-FIL, and/or PM25-FIL emissions data and the PM augmentation procedures were applied to the emissions that Vermont provided to calculate emissions for the other forms of PM. Vermont’s inventory does not include NH 3 

### emissions.

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

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

### 31 All States – A coordinated effort between th e S/L agencies should be developed to apply consistent methods to avoid havi ng to apply procedures to augmen t inventory data to correct for the QA issues and fill in missing data as discussed previously in this chapter. For example, this will ensure that consistent methods are applied across S/L agencies to ensure accurate reporting of stack parameters, PM emissions, and minimize other QA issues that we re identified during the development of Versions 1, 2, and 3 of the inventory.

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

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

State-specific suggestions are as follows:

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

### emissions.

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

### 32 CHAPTER III

– AREA SOURCES

A. General Methods for all States

1. What Data Sources Were Used?

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

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

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

The Version 2 and 3 revisions for these States are discussed in secti on III.B (State-Specific Methods) of this chapter. In addition, as requested by MANE-VU, revisions were made to Version 3 to (1) add emissions for portable fuel containers (PFCs), industrial adhesives, and outdoor residential wood combustion fo r some States; (2) decrease the PM 2.5 

### emissions for paved and unpaved roads and construction for all States ; and (3) remove invalid CE records that originated from the preliminary 2002 NEI for some States. These revisions are explained in section III.A.3 of this chapter.

### 33 To track the origin of data, the temporal peri od of emissions, and to facilitate generation of emission summaries, the following NI F plus fields were added to the EP, PE, EM, and CE tables:

• Data Source Codes:

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

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

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

Data Origin Codes

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

Year Codes

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

Grown/Carried Forward/Not Grown Codes

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

### 34 PM Augmentation Codes

-PA PM Augmented Emissions: Record for PM 10 

### /PM 2.5 

### emissions that were updated or added using ad-hoc updates. -PC PM Augmented Emissions: Record added for PM 10 

### /PM 2.5 

### emissions estimated using the PM Calculator. -PR PM Augmented Emissions: Record added for PM 10 

### /PM 2.5 

### emissions estimated using ratios of PM 10 

### -to-PM or PM 2.5 

### -to-PM 10 

### . If PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### emissions are equal and one of the pollu tants is assigned this code , the ratio is assumed to be 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. What Quality Assurance Steps Were Performed?

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

• Conduct QA checks on each State inventory;

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

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

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

### 35 • Perform augmentation to co rrect for missing data; and

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

a. QA checks for State emission inventories

The following QA checks were run on each State inventory:

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

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

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

Pollutant Coverage

The pollutant coverage in the State inventorie s was complete for all pollutants except for PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### . Diagnosis and resolution of PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### pollutant emissions is discussed later in section III.A.2.c. The exception was Connecticut who included only VOC, NO x 

### , and CO emissions in its inventory submittal to EPA.

EPA QA Summaries Sent to State Agencies

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

### 36 High-level Summary of State I nventories Submitted to EPA:

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

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

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

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

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

Detailed Summary of QA Issues:

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

### 37 Additional QA for the MANE- VU Area Source Inventory

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

• Range Errors;

• PM Emissions Consistency and Completeness;

• Control Device Codes and Control Efficiency Values;

• Start and End Dates;

• Annual and Daily Emissions Comparison; and

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

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

Range Errors

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

PM Emissions Consistency and Completeness Review

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

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

• The following equations were used to determine consistency:

PM10-FIL + PM-CON = PM10-PRI PM25-FIL + PM-CON = PM25-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 erro r. If a State agency did not provide corrections to these errors, the errors were corrected/filled in according to an augmentation procedure explaine d in section III.A.2.c.

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

Control Device Type and Control Efficiency Data Review

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

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

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

Start and End Date Checks

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

### 39 Annual and Daily Emissions Comparison

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

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

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

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

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

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

b. Responses from State Agencies

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

c. Gap Filling and Augmentation

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

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

v. Merging of NEI data into S/L inventories vi. Revisions to the preliminary 2002 NEI incorporated into Version 1 of the MANE-VU inventory vii. Additional work on Area source methods - Fugitive Dust Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads - Wildfires and Prescribed Burning

### 40 The following discusses the augmentation procedures that were applied to the State inventories to improve the inventories or to fill in missi ng data not supplied by the State agencies.

MANE-VU -Sponsored Inventories

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

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

PM Augmentation

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

Fossil Fuel Combustion Sources

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

### 43 To support the QA review effort, the uncontrolle d PM emission factors shown in Table III-2 were compiled from AP-42. The emission fact ors reported in the St ate inventories were compared to the emission factors in this table. Emission factors that appeared too high or too low were flagged for review by the State agency. In addition, inventory data were flagged for review by the State agency if the emissions were reported under the primary PM pollutant codes but the emission factors matched with the emissi on factors for filterable PM in Table III-2. Finally, if emission factors were not reported in the State agency inventory, the emission factors were back-calculated using the throughput data (if available), emissions, rule effectiveness values, and control efficiency data (if availabl e). The back-calculated emission factors were compared to the factors in Table III-2 to identify data with major difference between the factors. It is emphasized that the uncontro lled emission factors in Table III-2 were used as a reference for reviewing State inventory data. The emission factor s in this table should not be construed to be the best available for all State agencies since the emission fact ors will vary depending on the composition of the boiler population in an agency’s area source inventory.

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

Connecticut supplied VOC, NO x 

### , and CO emissions from its 1999 inventory for industrial and commercial/institutional fossil fuel combustion. PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, SO 2 

### , and NH 3 

### emissions were taken from preliminar y NEI estimates (carried forward from Version 3 of the 1999 NEI). For the residentia l sector, Connecticut’s inventory was taken from the preliminary 2002 NEI. Connectic ut provided guidance on the counties with natural gas and LPG activity for which to use the NEI estimates.

For the District of Columbia, the preliminary NEI was used to gap fill missing PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI emissions for commercial/inst itutional bituminous/ subbituminous coal combustion and PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, SO 2 

### , and NH 3 

### for commercial/institutional natural gas combustion. The NEI estimates for these commercial/institutional categories were carried forward from Version 3 of the 1999 NEI. The District of Columbia used the NEI estimates for residential bituminous/subbituminous coal combustion.

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

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

### 48 Revisions to the NEI for residential LPG and ke rosene were completed after the preliminary 2002 NEI was released in February 2004. Connec ticut, the District of Columbia, Maine, and Rhode Island approved replacement of the preliminary 2002 NEI estimates with the revised estimates for LPG. Connecticut was the only State that elected to use the NEI for the residential kerosene category, and Connecticut approved replacing the preliminary 2002 NEI for this category with the revised inve ntory prepared by EPA.

Other Sources of PM Emissions

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

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

### 49 Table III-3. SCCs for which PM25-PRI Em issions were Estimated by Applying a Ratio to the PM10-PRI Emissions in the State inventory

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

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

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

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

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

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



### d. 2002 NEI

Merging of NEI Data in to State Inventories

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

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

Revisions to the Preliminary 2002 NEI

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Residential Wood Combustion (SCCs starting with 2104008xxx; 4 SCCs for fireplaces and 3 SCCs for woodstoves): The preliminary 2002 NEI emissions were revised to:

### 51 • Correct the CO, PM10-PRI, and PM25- PRI emission factors for fireplaces without inserts (this cha nge doubled the emission factors associated with correcting an error in converting the values fr om g/kg to lb/ton);

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

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

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

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

e. QA Review of Final Inventory

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

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

Additional Work on Area Source Methods

• Fugitive Dust Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads

Review of Methods

This work involved compiling and summarizi ng information on emission estimation methods and data sources from the MANE-VU State agencies, RPOs, and EPA for the following fugitive dust area source categories: windblown dust, paved and unpaved roads, agricultural tiling and harvesting, and construction activities. A short survey form was prepared and sent to the MANE-VU State agencies to collect informati on on whether an agency had activity for each category during 2002. For each agency for which activity occurred in its jurisdiction during 2002, information was requested on the methods a nd data sources it used to prepare its 2002 inventory for each category. This information wa s used to prioritize the categories (e.g., work on agricultural field burning was eliminated from fu rther consideration if MANE-VU State agencies

### 52 did not have activity for this category). The methods and data applied by RPOs other than MANE-VU were obtaine d from RPO websites and discussions with the RPOs.

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

Methods for Improving Paved and Unpa ved Road Fugitive Dust Inventory

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

Paved Roads

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

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

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

Unpaved Roads

The county-specific precipitation data used in the paved road fugitive dust calculations were also used to improve the unpaved road fugitive dust calculations. As with the paved roads, this represents an improvement over the State-spec ific precipitation data used in the 2002 NEI

### 53 unpaved road emission inventory. The other impr ovement made to the unpaved roads was the use of State-supplied unpaved road m ileage data by county for Maine.

• Wildfires and Prescribed Burning

Review of Methods

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

Results of Methods Review

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

3. Version 3 Revisions

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

Gap Filling

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

• PFCs: MANE-VU estimated default 2002 emissi ons for these States using a per capita emission factor and county population data for each State. The derivation of the emission factor, population data, and cal culation of annual and daily VOC emissions for PFCs is provided in an Excel file named “PFC _Adhesive Calcs for 2002_022106.xls” along with this TSD.

### 54 Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hamp shire, Rhode Island, and Vermont elected to use MANE-VU’s default inventory which was added to Version 3. Massachusetts elected to use the per capita em ission factor but provided revi sions to the population data, used 2002 owner occupied units to allocate th e emissions to counties, and then allocated emissions between the commercial (16%) and residential (84%) sect ors. Massachusetts’ calculations are provided in the spreadsheet named "Version 3 Revisions" in the Excel file named MA_AR_QA_Report_030806.xl s" provided with this TSD.

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

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

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

• Residential Wood Burning: Residential outdoor wood burning emissions were missing in Version 2 of the MANE-VU inventory for the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. In Versions 1 and 2, Ne w Jersey’s and New York’s emissions for outdoor wood burning were included with thei r inventory for indoor wood burning. The District of Columbia, Rhode Island, and Vermont elected to use MANE-VU’s outdoor wood burning inventory which was added to Version 3. In addition, per direction provided by New Jersey, its wood burning in ventory was replaced with the MANE-VUsponsored indoor wood burning inventory in Version 3, and the MANE-VU outdoor wood burning inventory was a dded to Version 3.

### 55 New York’s inventory in Version 2 included emissions for both residential indoor and outdoor wood burning. For Vers ion 3, New York provided re visions that lowered its overall emissions relative to Version 2 and br oke out its inventory to show emissions for fireplaces, woodstoves, and outdoor equipmen t separately. New York also added NH 3 

### emissions to its inventory for Version 3.

Adjustments to PM 2.5 

### Emissions for Fugitive Dust Categories

Information developed by the Western Gove rnors’ Association, Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Dust Emissi ons Joint Forum and EPA indicates that, for paved and unpaved roads and the construction nonpoi nt source categories, the PM 2.5 

### -to-PM 10 

### ratio is lower than the ratio used in the EPA method to estimate PM25-PRI/-FIL emissions from PM10-PRI/-FIL emissions (WRAP, 2005). Therefore, for the fi nal 2002 NEI, EPA applied an adjustment factor to the PM25-PRI/-FIL emissions to correct for overestimates of PM25-PRI/-FIL emissions for these categories. Because the PM 2.5 

### -to-PM 10 

### ratio used for the MANE-VU States is based on the EPA method, this information was communicated to the MANE-VU States a nd all of the States agreed that these adjustments should be made to the MANE-VU inventory. Table III-4 identifies the categories to which this adjust ment was applied, the old and new PM 2.5 

### -to-PM 10 

### ratios, and the adjustment factors applied to the PM25-PRI/-FIL emissions in Version 3 of MANE-VU’s inventory. Note that these adjustments to PM 2.5 

### emissions were applie d prior to applying the transport adjustment factors for PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### emissions. The modelers applied the transport adjustment factors to the mass emissions in Vers ion 3. Documentation of the file containing the transport adjustment factors is provided under “S peciation Profiles” sect ion of Table VII-1 in Chapter VII.

For the construction categories, the EPA assumed an original PM 2.5 

### -to-PM 10 

### ratio of 0.15 and an adjustment factor of 0.67. However, the original PM 2.5 

### -to-PM 10 

### ratio used for both the NEI method and MANE-VU's inventory for construction is 0.2. Based on discussions with EPA, the goal is to revise the original PM 2.5 

### emissions such that the PM 2.5 

### -to-PM 10 

### ratio is 0.1. Therefore, for Version 3 of MANE-VU's 2002 area source invent ory, an adjustment factor of 0.5 (ratio of 0.1-to-0.2) was applied to adjust the PM 2.5 

### emissions.

Note that based on Pechan’s discussions with EPA during the week of March 6, 2006 concerning the application of the paved road PM 2.5 

### adjustment factor, it was determined that adjusting the emissions by applying the factor (s hown in Table III-4) to the PM 2.5 

### emissions is a simplistic approach. The EPA noted that it is evaluating this issue and will be issui ng guidance in the near future for revising the equation for estimating PM 2.5 

### emissions which, when applied, will likely yield different results. Because EPA was unable to provide guidance on how to address this issue before Version 3 needed to be complete d during the week of Ma rch 6, the adjustment factor shown in Table II I-4 was applied to the PM 2.5 

### emissions for paved roads because this adjustment will provide a better estimate of PM 2.5 

### emissions than the unadjusted emissions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



### Removal of Invalid CE Records

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

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



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

### 57 4. Version 3 Emissions Summary

Table III-5 presents a State-level summary of the annual area source emissions in Version 3 of the 2002 MANE-VU inventory. Note that PM10-P RI and PM25-PRI emissions are included in the inventory for all SCCs for which Stat e agencies reported any form of PM, PM 10 

### , and/or PM 2.5 

### emissions. If an agency did not report PM 10-PRI and/or PM25-PRI but reported PM-PRI, PMFIL, PM-CON, PM10-FIL, and/or PM25-FIL, the PM augmentation procedures discussed in the TSD were applied to the form of PM emissions supplied by the agency to calculate emissions for the other forms of PM emissions. If an agen cy reported PM10-PRI and/or PM25-PRI emissions but not PM10-FIL, PM25-FIL, or PM-CON em issions, the agency's inventory was not augmented to calculate filterable or condensible emissions. Note that PM-CON is associated with only fuel combustion sources.

For NH 3 

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

### biogenic emissions (SCC 2701420000) for Massachusetts.

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

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

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

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

New Jersey 97,657 17,572 26,692 37,282 61,601 2,811 19,350 476 10,744 167,882 New York 356,254 67,422 98,803 288,991 369,595 30,894 87,154 102 130,409 507,292 Pennsylvania 266,935 79,911 47,591 363,173 391,897 51,792 74,925 266 63,679 240,785 Rhode Island 8,007 883 3,886 7,090 8,295 887 2,064 336 4,557 31,402 Vermont 43,849 9,848 3,208 51,392 56,131 6,729 11,065 180 4,087 23,265 MANE-VU 1,325,853 249,795 262,477 1,172,909 1,455,311 153,243 332,729 5,383 316,357 1,528,141

### 58 B. State-Specific Methods

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

1. Connecticut

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

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

Emission

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

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



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

• Annual and daily VOC, NO x 

### , CO, NH 3 

### , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 

### emissions for indoor and outdoor residential wood combustion;

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

• Annual and daily NH 3 

### emissions for industrial refrigeration processes;

• Annual and daily VOC emissions for PFCs; and

• Annual and daily VOC and NH 3 

### emissions for composting. Emissions for the remaining area source categor ies were taken from the draft 2002 NEI. For Connecticut, these emissions are either based on 2002 data prepared by EPA or carried forward

### 59 from final Version 3 of the 1999 NEI. Data car ried forward from the 1999 NEI originate from either State data included in the 1999 NEI or EPA data developed for the 1999 NEI.

2. Delaware

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

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

Emission

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



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

• Annual and daily VOC, NO x 

### , CO, NH 3 

### , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 

### emissions for indoor and outdoor wood burning;

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

• Annual and daily NH 3 

### emissions for POTWs; and

• Annual VOC, NO x 

### , CO, NH 3 

### , PM10-PRI, PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI, PM25-FIL, and SO 2 

### emissions for open burning categories.

### 60 3. District of Columbia

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

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

Emission

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

DAILY 20011201 20020228 27 DAILY 20020601 20020831 27



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

• Annual and daily VOC, NO x 

### , CO, NH 3 

### , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 

### emissions for outdoor wood burning;

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

• Annual and daily VOC and NH 3 

### emissions for composting; and

• Annual VOC, NO x 

### , CO, NH 3 

### , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 

### emissions for open burning categories.

4. Maine

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

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

Emission

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

DAILY 20011201 20020228 27 DAILY 20020601 20020831 27 DAILY 20020601 20020831 29 DAILY 20020601 20020929 29

### 61 Table B-4 in Appendix B identifies the data so urces by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 area source inventory. This ta ble also shows the number of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC and emission type period comb inations are listed more than once because the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. Maine provided 2002 emissions for many of the area source categories in Version 3. Maine’s inventory for industrial adhesive s originates from the 1999 NEI. Maine provided annual and daily VOC and annual NH 3 

### emissions for industrial wastewater treatment that were added to Version 3. Maine elected to use data from MA NE-VU-sponsored inventories for the following source categories:

• Annual and daily VOC, NO x 

### , CO, NH 3 

### , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 

### emissions for indoor and outdoor wood burning;

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

• Annual and daily VOC emissions for PFCs; and

• Annual and daily VOC and NH 3 

### emissions for composting.

5. Maryland

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

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

Emission

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



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

Maryland elected to use data from MANE-VU-sp onsored inventories for the following source categories:

### 62 • Annual and daily VOC, NO x 

### , CO, NH 3 

### , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 

### emissions for indoor and outdoor wood burning;

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

• Annual VOC, NO x 

### , CO, NH 3 

### , PM10-PRI, PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI, PM25-FIL, and SO 2 

### emissions for open burning categories; and

• Annual and monthly NH 3 

### emissions for agricultural crop fertilizers.

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

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

6. Massachusetts

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

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

Emission

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

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



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

### ).

### 63 Massachusetts elected to use data from M ANE-VU-sponsored invent ories for the following source categories:

• Annual and daily VOC, NO x 

### , CO, NH 3 

### , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 

### emissions for indoor and outdoor wood burning;

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

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

• Annual and daily NH 3 

### emissions for industrial refrigeration processes;

• Annual and daily VOC and NH 3 

### emissions for composting; and

• Annual VOC, NO x 

### , CO, NH 3 

### , PM10-PRI, PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI, PM25-FIL, and SO 2 

### emissions for open burning categories.

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

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

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

7. New Hampshire

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

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

Emission

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

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



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

• Annual and daily VOC, NO x 

### , CO, NH 3 

### , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 

### emissions for indoor and outdoor wood burning;

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

• Annual and daily VOC emissions for PFCs;

• Annual and daily NH 3 

### emissions for industrial refrig eration processes and POTWs;

• Annual and daily VOC and NH 3 

### emissions for composting;

• Annual VOC, NO x 

### , CO, NH 3 

### , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 

### emissions for open burning categories; and

• Annual and monthly NH 3 

### emissions for agricultural crop fertilizers and livestock.

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

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

### 65 8. New Jersey

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

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

Emission

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

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



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

• Annual and daily VOC, NO x 

### , CO, NH 3 

### , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 

### emissions for indoor and outdoor residential wood co mbustion (replacing New Jersey’s indoor residential wood combusti on inventory provided in Versions 1 and 2);

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

• Annual and daily NH 3 

### emissions for industrial refriger ation processes and POTWs; and

• Annual and daily VOC and NH 3 

### emissions for composting.

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

9. New York

Table III-14 shows the emission type periods fo r which New York provided emissions. Table B9 in Appendix B identifies the data sources by S CC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 area source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC and emission type period combina tions are listed more than once because the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination or

### 66 because emissions are not reported for all polluta nts for the same SCC and emission type period combination.

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

Emission

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



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

New York’s inventory in Version 2 included em issions for both reside ntial indoor and outdoor wood burning. For Version 3, New York provided re visions that lowered its overall emissions relative to Version 2 and broke out its inventory to show emissi ons for fireplaces, woodstoves, and outdoor equipment separatel y. New York also added NH 3 

### emissions to its inventory for Version 3. New York’s inventor y for industrial adhesives origin ates from the 1999 NEI. New York provided its own 2002 inventory for PFCs. Emissions for the remaining area source categories were taken from the draft 2002 NEI (t hat are either based on 2002 data prepared by EPA or EPA data carried forward from fi nal Version 3 of the 1999 NEI) or MANE-VUsponsored inventories.

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

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

• Annual and daily NH 3 

### emissions for agricultural livestock; and

• Annual VOC, NO x 

### , CO, NH 3 

### , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 

### emissions for open burning categories.

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

### 70 10. Pennsylvania

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

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

Emission

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

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



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

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

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

• Annual and daily NH 3 

### emissions for industrial refrigera tion processes and agricultural crop fertilizers and livestock;

• Annual and daily VOC and NH 3 

### emissions for POTWs and composting; and

• Annual VOC, NO x 

### , CO, NH 3 

### , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 

### emissions for open burning categories.

### 71 11. Rhode Island

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

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

Emission

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

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



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

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

• Annual and daily VOC, NO x 

### , CO, NH 3 

### , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 

### emissions for outdoor wood burning;

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

• Annual and daily VOC emissions for PFCs.

### 72 12. Vermont

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

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

Emission

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

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



### Table B-12 in Appendix B identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 area so urce inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. Vermont provided 2002 annual VOC, NO x 

### , CO, PM10-PRI or PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI or PM25-FIL, and SO 2 

### emissions for residential fuel combusti on (distillate oil, natural gas, LPG, and indoor wood burning); annual VOC emissions for gasoline serv ice stations and breathing losses at bulk terminals; annual VOC, NO x 

### , CO, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 

### emissions for residential open burning; annual VOC, NO x 

### , CO, NH 3 

### , PM10-PRI, and PM25-PRI emissions for forest fires, and annual VOC, NO x 

### , CO, PM10-PRI, and PM25-PRI emi ssions for structure fires. Vermont’s inventory for industrial adhesi ves originates from the 1999 NEI.

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

• Annual and daily VOC, NO x 

### , CO, NH 3 

### , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 

### emissions for outdoor wood burning;

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

• Annual and daily NH 3 

### emissions for industrial refrig eration processes and POTWs;

• Annual and daily VOC emissions for PFCs;

• Annual and daily VOC and NH 3 

### emissions for composting; and

• Annual VOC, NO x 

### , CO, NH 3 

### , PM10-PRI, PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI, PM25-FIL, and SO 2 

### emissions for open burning categories.

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

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

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

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

State-specific suggestions are as follows:

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

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

New Jersey:

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

• The summer seasonal adjustment factors fo r indoor wood burning used in the model appear high. This combined with the ve ry high VOC emission factor results in high ozone season wood burning emissions.

### 74 • In general, the accuracy of the very large residential wood burning numbers, all pollutants.

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

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

### 75 CHAPTER IV

– NONROAD SOURCES

A. General Methods for all States

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

1. What Data Sources Were Used?

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

a. Aircraft, Commercial Marine, and Locomotive Categories

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

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

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

### 78 b. NONROAD Model Categories

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pechan updated the NMIM county database for 2002 to add in new gasoline profiles to reflect the monthly and county fuel input values provi ded by States. Pechan also updated the NMIM county database to cross refere nce the State-supplied NONROAD data files that replaced default

### 79 NONROAD2005 inputs. Pechan then ran NM IM/NONROAD2005 at the county and monthly level for 2002 and generated the results in NIF 3.0.

c. NONROAD2005 Model Runs

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

Pechan developed monthly NONROAD option f iles and ran these files through NONROAD2005 to generate monthly emissions that were then summed to develop an annual 2002 inventory. Pechan performed additional calculations using NMIM emission factors and fuel consumption to calculate NH 3 

### , since NONROAD does not calculate NH 3 

### emissions.

2. What Quality Assurance Steps Were Performed?

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

a. Summary of QA checks for State emission submittals

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

### 80 instructions for correcting the error. These spreadsheets serv ed to document each state's direction on how to correct erro rs and the state's representati ve authorizing the correction.

The list of general QA checks include the following:

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

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

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

Pechan performed pollutant augmentation in cases where the complete set of CAPs and NH 3 

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

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

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

NONROAD model category estimates originally provided by States for the June 2004 submittal were replaced by emission estimates develope d using NMIM/NONROAD 2005. As such, 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 spre adsheets for State review

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

c. QA of final mass emissions

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

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

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

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

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

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



### 3. Version 3 Emission Summaries

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

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

State CO NH 3 NO x PM10-PRI PM25-PRI SO 2 VOC Connecticut 276,773.0 16.6 25,460. 2 1,952.1 1,793.9 2,087.4 33,880.2 Delaware 68,782.0 5.2 16,22 6.5 1,021.4 925.6 3,983.3 8,010.1 District of Columbia 18,844.7 2.4 3,571.3 310.2 298.7 375.4 2,072.5 Maine 153,423.6 11.4 9,820.4 1,436.8 1,329.4 916.8 31,144.1 Maryland 437,400.3 28.2 37,472. 2 4,936.0 4,357.1 7,941.6 56,330.4 Massachusetts 461,514.3 28.2 42,76 8.5 3,531.2 3,226.4 3,791.2 56,748.5 New Hampshire 130,782.2 9.1 9, 912.1 1,057.8 965.4 891.0 22,376.5 New Jersey 704,396.4 43.0 63,479. 0 5,495.1 4,997.2 15, 686.0 83,918.9 New York 1,233,968.3 79.3 109,878.3 9,605.3 8, 820.9 12,919.7 157,611.7 Pennsylvania 931,978.0 55.0 103,824. 2 9,737.9 8,440.1 7,915.0 102,331.0 Rhode Island 73,012.7 4.1 5,001.5 500.2 443. 1 377.2 7,779.7 Vermont 62,248.1 4.5 4,217.1 529.9 485. 8 372.1 10,547.6 Total MANE-VU 4,553,123. 5 286.9 431,631.3 40, 113.9 36,083.6 57, 256.6 572,751.3

### 83 Table IV-5. Annual 2002 NONROAD2005 M odel Emissions by MANE-VU State (Tons/Year)

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



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

State CO NH 3 NO x PM10-PRI PM25-PRI SO 2 VOC Connecticut 2,385.4 0.0 7 ,563.2 239.2 216. 4 710.8 361.2 Delaware 2,827.9 0.3 10,42 8.2 451.1 400.5 3,470.3 479.6 District of Columbia 69.7 0.0 505.0 11.8 10.9 34.1 19.7 Maine 4,868.3 0.0 1,591. 5 232.6 194.3 145.0 403.1 Maryland 12,623.5 0.0 9,683. 2 1,817.3 1,486.7 5,372.3 3,295.4 Massachusetts 13,115.6 0.0 12, 721.7 644.0 567.6 1,363.1 1,912.7 New Hampshire 2,210.7 0.0 1 ,762.5 111.0 93. 7 218.3 138.6 New Jersey 11,848.5 0.0 19,963. 9 1,209.7 1,046.7 12,161.1 2,018.6 New York 14,659.6 0.0 31,230. 0 1,266.4 1,143.8 5,953.4 2,136.6 Pennsylvania 28,810.2 0.0 41,55 9.0 3,456.4 2,655. 8 2,622.7 3,090.2 Rhode Island 1,439.6 0.0 437.6 97.4 72.1 41.7 81.0
Vermont 516.0 0.0 47. 3 12.2 9.2 4.5 27.2 Total MANE-VU 95,374.9 0.3 137,4 93.1 9,549.1 7,897.4 32,097.3 13,963.9

### 84 B. State-Specific Methods

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

1. Connecticut

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

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

Aircraft and commercial marine vessel emissi ons are based on the preliminary 2002 nonroad NEI. In March 2006, Connecticut provided county-level emission estimates for VOC, NO x 

### , and CO for all line-haul and sw itchyard locomotive SCCs.

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

For commercial aircraft (S CC 2275020000), PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI were not reported in the EPA’s NEI. For completeness, Pechan estimat ed PM10-PRI emissions by applying an average PM10-PRI/NO x 

### emission ratio of 0.058 to available NO x 

### emissions. Commer cial aircraft PM25- PRI emissions were estimated by multiplying PM10-PRI emissions by a particle size multiplier of 0.976 (ERG, 2004).

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

Because EPA’s NEI does not include locomotive category emission estimates for Connecticut, and since Connecticut only provi ded emission estimates for VOC, NO x 

### , and CO, estimates are still missing for PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2


### .

2. Delaware

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

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

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

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



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

i. What Revisions Were Requested by State?

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

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

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

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

None identified by the State.

3. District of Columbia

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

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

The 2002 minimum, maximum, and average hourly temperatures included in NMIM were used to calculate average monthly temperature i nputs to NONROAD. Pech an developed monthly NONROAD2005 option files for the Di strict of Columbia. Pechan ran the option files through NONROAD2005 to generate monthly emissions that were then summed to develop an annual 2002 inventory. Pechan performed additional ca lculations using NMIM emission factors and NONROAD2005 fuel consump tion to calculate NH 3 

### , since NONROAD does not calculate NH 3 

### emissions. NMIM reports NH 3 

### emission factors of 116 grams NH 3 

### per gallon gasoline for gasoline engines, and 83 grams NH 3 

### per gallon fuel for diesel engines.

### 86 The District of Columbia pr ovided locomotive emissions for their nonroad sector June 2004 CERR submittal.

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

Pechan performed QA of the file , and revised the file to addr ess QA issues as approved by the District of Columbia. PM emissions in th e inventory were not id entified as either PM 10 

### or PM 2.5 

### , nor were the emissions identified as primary or f ilterable. The District of Columbia authorized Pechan to change PM to PM10-PRI. Locomotiv e PM25-PRI emissions were estimated using the assumption that 90 percent of PM 10 

### is PM 2.5 

### (EPA, 2003b). Hydrocarbon (HC) pollutant emissions were also removed from the inventory, as this is not a valid pollutant code in NIF3.0.

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

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

None identified by the State.

4. Maine

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

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

### , since NONROAD does not calculate NH 3 

### emissions. NMIM reports NH 3 

### emission factors of 116 grams NH 3 

### per gallon gasoline for gasoline engines, and 83 grams NH 3 

### per gallon fuel for diesel engines.

### 87 i. What Revisions Were Requested by State?

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

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

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

### emission ratio of 0.042 to available NO x 

### emissions. PM25-PRI emissions were estimated by multiplying PM10-PRI emissions by a particle size multiplier of 0.92 (EPA, 2003b).

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

None identified by the State.

5. Maryland

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

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

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

Table IV-8. Maryland NONROAD External Data Files

County NR File Name File Type 24000pop.alo County allocation for several nonroad categories (population) 24000con.alo County allocation for construction 24000hou.alo County allocation for lawn & 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 ai rcraft and commercial marine vessel emission estimates. Pechan replaced the aircraft and commercial marine vessel emissions from their CERR submittal with the revised emissions.

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

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

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

None identified by the State.

6. Massachusetts

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

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

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

i. What Revisions Were Requested by State?

Massachusetts requested that P echan incorporate revisions supp lied for annual emissions for inport diesel commercial marine (SCC 2280002010) for Dukes County (25007).

### 89 b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

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

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

None identified by the State.

7. New Hampshire

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

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

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

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

Pechan performed QA of the file , and revised the file to addr ess QA issues as approved by New Hampshire. New Hampshire did not provide PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### aircraft emissions in their inventory. New Hampshire authorized Pechan to develop aircraft PM 10 

### emissions for all aircraft types by applying an average PM10/NO x 

### emission ratio to the aircraft NO x 

### emissions in their inventory. The PM 10 

### /NO x 

### ratios used were 3.819 for military and air taxi, 3.642 for general aviation, and 0.058 for commercial aircraft. Pechan estimated general aviation, military aircraft, and air taxi PM25-PRI emissions by multiplyi ng PM10-PRI emissions by a particle size multiplier of 0.69 (EPA, 2003b). For commercia l aircraft, Pechan estimated PM25-PRI emissions using the assumption that 97.6% of PM 10 

### is PM 2.5 

### (ERG, 2004).

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

None identified by the State.

8. New Jersey

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Pechan used NMIM2005 to generate NONROAD model SCC emission estimates. New Jersey approved of the default fuel inputs used in NMIM2005. See Table B-1 for a summary of the final fuel input data by county and month. New Jersey provided an updated data input file

### 90 containing revised equipment popul ations (34000.pop) for specific SCCs for the NMIM model

runs.

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

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

Pechan performed QA of the file , and revised the file to addr ess QA issues as approved by New Jersey. The only QA issue identified was the inclusion of carbon dioxide (CO 2 

### ) in the inventory, which is not a valid pollutant code in NIF3.0, so these records were removed.

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

None identified by the State.

9. New York

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

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

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

i. What Revisions Were Requested by State?

In October 2004, New York provided commercial ma rine vessel emissions to be added to their inventory. New York did not provide PM-2.5 commercial mari ne vessel emissions for some counties in their inventory. Pechan estimat ed the commercial marine vessel PM25-PRI emissions from PM10-PRI using the assumption that 92% of PM 10 

### is PM 2.5 

### (EPA, 2003b).

### 91 b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

Commercial aircraft (SCC 2275020000) emissi ons for PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI were not reported in the EPA’s preliminary 2002 NEI. Pechan estimated PM10-PRI emissions by applying a PM10-PRI/NO x 

### emission ratio of 0.058 to available NO x 

### emissions for this SCC. Commercial aircraft PM25-PRI emissions were estimated by multiplying PM10-PRI emissions by a particle size multiplier of 0.976 (ERG, 2004).

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

None identified by the State.

10. Pennsylvania

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

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

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

i. What Revisions Were Requested by State?

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

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

Pennsylvania authorized Pechan to remove the CO 2 

### emission records from their inventory. In addition, the following data augmentation was perf ormed to add missing SCCs and pollutants. Pennsylvania did not provide commercial aircraft emissions in their inventory. Pechan added commercial aircraft emissions from the 2002 pr eliminary NEI to Pennsylvania’s inventory. Pennsylvania did not provide PM10-PRI and PM25- PRI aircraft emissions in their inventory. Pechan developed aircraft PM 10 

### emissions for all aircraft t ypes by applying an average PM 10 

### / NO x 

### emission ratio to Pennsylva nia’s available aircraft NO x 

### emissions. The PM 10 

### /NO x 

### ratios used were 3.819 for military and air taxi, 3.642 for general aviation, and 0.058 for commercial aircraft. Pechan estimated general aviation, m ilitary aircraft, and air taxi PM25-PRI emissions by multiplying PM10-PRI emissions by a partic le size multiplier of 0.69 (EPA, 2003b). For commercial aircraft, Pechan estimated PM25-PRI emissions using the assumption that 97.6% of PM 10 

### is PM 2.5 

### (ERG, 2004).

### 92 Pennsylvania also did not provide SO 2 

### general aviation and air taxi emissions in the inventory. Pechan estimated the SO 2 

### emissions by applying a SO 2 

### /NO x 

### emission ratio to the general aviation and air taxi NO x 

### emissions, using ratios of 0.154 and 0.095, respectively.

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

None identified by the State.

11. Rhode Island

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

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

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

i. What Revisions Were Requested by State?

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

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

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

PM 10 

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

Rhode Island did not provide PM10-PRI and PM 25-PRI aircraft emissions in their inventory. Pechan developed aircraft PM 10 

### emissions for all aircraft t ypes by applying an average PM 10 

### / NO x 

### emission ratio to the aircraft NO x 

### emissions in their inventory. The PM 10 

### /NO x 

### ratios used were 3.819 for military and air taxi, 3.642 for general aviation, and 0.058 for commercial aircraft. Pechan estimated general aviation, m ilitary aircraft, and air taxi PM25-PRI emissions by multiplying PM10-PRI emissions by a partic le size multiplier of 0.69 (EPA, 2003b). For

### 93 commercial aircraft, Pechan estimated PM25-PRI emissions using the assumption that 97.6% of PM 10 

### is PM 2.5 

### (ERG, 2004).

Rhode Island did not provide yard locomotiv e, and commercial marine vessel PM25-PRI emissions in their inventory. Pechan estimated the yard locomotive PM25-PRI emissions from PM10-PRI using the assumption that 90% of PM 10 

### is PM25 (EPA, 2003b). Pechan estimated the commercial marine vessel PM25-PRI emissions fr om PM10-PRI using the assumption that 92% of PM 10 

### is PM 2.5 

### (EPA, 2003b).

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

None identified by the State.

12. Vermont

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

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

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

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

Commercial aircraft (SCC 2275020000) emissi ons for PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI were not reported in the EPA’s preliminary 2002 NEI. Pechan estimated PM10-PRI emissions by applying an average PM10-PRI/NO x 

### emission ratio of 0.058 to available NO x 

### emissions. Commercial aircraft PM25-PRI emissions were estimated by multiplying PM10-PRI emissions by a particle size multiplier of 0.976 (ERG, 2004).

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

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

### 94 CHAPTER V

– ONROAD SOURCES

A. General Methods for All States

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

1. Data Sources

a. Source of default model data

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

As discussed above, the primary data needed in preparing the inputs for the onroad modeling files were the VMT data and MO BILE6 input files. All of the MANE-VU States provided VMT data, which were incorporated in the SMOKE modeling. The leve l of detail of the supplied VMT data and any additional processing of the VM T data are discussed i ndividually by State, below, in Section B: State-Sp ecific Methods. Therefore, no de fault data were needed for the VMT inputs. Default model inputs for the SMOK E MOBILE6 input files were needed in some cases. The source of default information to be included in these input files was the NMIM national county database, as this was also the default source of data for EPA in preparing the 2002 NEI. This database includes information on monthly fuel data by county, control program information by county, such as inspection and main tenance (I/M) program inputs, and other fleet information, such as vehicle regist ration distributions, that may have been supplied by the States. Additionally, vehicle speed information is needed in the SMOKE modeling files. Some States supplied this information. In cases where no speed data were supplied, the default speeds used by EPA in calculating the NEI were used. These speeds differ by road class group and by vehicle class group.

### 95 For the SMOKE modeling, Pechan did not provide any ambient data such as temperature or humidity. Instead, the SMOKE model needs meteor ological input data sp ecific to the episode(s) being modeled. Thus, although the SMOKE MOBILE6 input files do include temperature data and in some cases humidity data, these inputs will be replaced by the SMOKE model with the appropriate episode-specific data.

b. Model inputs and revisions provided by States

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

c. Model inputs provided vs. model inputs used

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

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

• MANEVU_2002_mtpro_02022006.txt—contains VMT temporal profiles;

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

• MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt—contains VMT vehicle mix fractions;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. What Quality Assurance Steps were Performed?

This section provides a brief summary of the QA st eps and processes that were performed in the development of the onroad sector modeling input s for MANE-VU. The initial QA procedures were performed on the emissions and input data used to calculate the MANE-VU 2002 onroad

### 96 emission inventory. Some of these QA procedur es are also relevant here to the modeling inventory as many of the inputs are either the same or start with common information.

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

a. Data input summary spre adsheets for State review

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

b. Responses from State Agencies

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

3. Version 3 Emission Summaries

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

### 97 Table V-1. Annual 2002 Onroad Sect or Emissions by MANE-VU State (Tons/Year)

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



### B. State-Specific Methods

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

1. Connecticut

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

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

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

### 98 then aggregated to the 12 ve hicle types needed for the SMOK E MBINV input file. The VMT mix fractions by vehicle type for each county and road type were also calcul ated for inclusion in the SMOKE VMTMIX file.

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

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

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

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County



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

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

• 

### Statewide registration distribution;

• 

### Hourly VMT distributions;

• 

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

• 

### RVP and fuel program data.

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

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

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

No QA issues were identified for Connecticut.

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

None identified by the State.

2. Delaware

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

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

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

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

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

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County



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

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

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

No QA issues were identified for Delaware.

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

None identified by the State.

3. District of Columbia

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

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

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

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

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County



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

• 

### District-wide regist ration distribution;

• 

### I/M program and ATP inputs; and

• 

### Weekday trip length distribution file.

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

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

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

No QA issues were identified for the District of Columbia.

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

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

4. Maine

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

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

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

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

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County



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

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

• 

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

• 

### Monthly average RVP data.

Statewide diesel sulfur values were obtained from the NMIM defaults for Maine. A diesel sulfur value of 390 ppm sulfur was modeled in the summer months (June, July, and August), 338 ppm sulfur in the winter months (December, January, and February), and 364 ppm sulfur in the spring and fall months.

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

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

No QA issues were identified for Maine.

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

None identified by the State.

5. Maryland

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

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

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

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

• 

### County-specific regist ration distribution;

• 

### County-specific dies el sales fractions;

• 

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

• 

### Statewide monthly diesel sulfur content data.

Maryland indicated that the NMIM default fuel parameters for Maryland should be used in the MANE-VU modeling. This fuel da ta includes reformulated ga soline in 14 of the Maryland counties. The reformulated gasoline program was modeled using the FUEL RVP, and FUEL PROGRAM (for gasoline sulfur contents) co mmands for each month. Maryland provided monthly Statewide diesel sulfur values. Thes e values ranged from 455 ppm sulfur to 500 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 OT C-LEV program LEV implementation schedule was included in the MOBILE6 SMOKE input files, starting implementation in the 1999 model year followed by a full implementation of the National LEV program in the 2001 model year.

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

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

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

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

### 105 6. Massachusetts

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

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

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

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

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County



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

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

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

• 

### Statewide registration distribution;

• 

### Statewide I/M program inputs and ATP inputs;

• 

### RVP and fuel program data;

• 

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

• 

### Massachusetts-specific LEV and Tier 2 implementation files.

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

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

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

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

None identified by the State.

7. New Hampshire

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

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

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

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

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County



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

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

• 

### Statewide registrati on distribution; and

• 

### Statewide ATP inputs.

New Hampshire specified that the NMIM fuel program default data for New Hampshire should be used for the MANE-VU modeling. This incl uded reformulated gasoline in four counties, modeled using the FUEL RVP, and FUEL PROGRA M (for gasoline sulfur contents) commands for each month. Statewide diesel sulfur values modeled from NMIM were 400 ppm sulfur in 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 th at the State follows the OTC-LEV program vehicle implementation schedule. Therefor e, the OTC-LEV program LEV implementation schedule was included in the MOBILE6 SMOKE input files, starting implementation in the 1999 model year followed by a full implementation of the National LEV program in the 2001 model
year.
b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

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

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

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

8. New Jersey

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

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

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

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

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County



### Updates were made to the Version 2 MOBILE6 SMOKE inputs for New Jersey in December 2005 to create Version 3, based on revised data pr ovided by the State. New Jersey provided the following files:

### 109 • 

### a set of SMOKE MOBILE6 input files by county and month;

• 

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

• 

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

• 

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

• 

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

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

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

• 

### Statewide registration distribution;

• 

### Statewide diesel sales fractions;

• 

### Statewide I/M program and ATP inputs; and

• 

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

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

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

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

As discussed above for New Jersey, the Vers ion 2 New Jersey SMOKE MOBILE6 input files modeled reformulated gasoline using the command lin e “FUEL PROGRAM : 2 N”, which is the default method for modeling reformulated gaso line with MOBILE6. To eliminate the effects

### 110 of the MOBILE6 reformulated gasoline bug from the SMOKE MOBILE6 inputs, Pechan explicitly modeled the reformul ated gasoline program in the Ne w Jersey MOBILE6 input files by explicitly modeling th e appropriate settings of the RV P, oxygenated fuel content commands, and gasoline sulfur commands. The values fo r oxygenated fuel settings and gasoline sulfur contents by month were extracted from the NMIM county-level database used in developing the annual emissions inventory for the MANE- VU Version 2 onroad emissions inventory.

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

None identified by the State.

9. New York

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

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

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

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

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

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County



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

New York provided a spreadsheet with average speeds in each of four daily time periods by county and road type. Pechan converted th ese speed data to th e SMOKE SPDPRO format, assigning the speed for a given time period to all hours included in that time period. Pechan also prepared the SMOKE SPDREF file to appropriately cross reference each county and road type to the corresponding hourly speed profile. Because these more detailed speed files were provided for New York, the average speed by road type an d county in the MBINV file was populated with default NEI speeds.

### 111 New York also provided spreadsheets showi ng monthly VMT by county and roadtype. After processing these VMT values to develop monthly temporal factors, Pechan observed that there were only three unique mont hly profiles in this data set. These three profiles were then added to the SMOKE MTPRO file. Pechan then matched each county and road type in the State to the corresponding monthly VMT profile in the SMOKE MTREF file.

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

• 

### Registration distributions—one for the Ne w York metropolitan area and one for the rest of the State;

• 

### Diesel sales fractions—one for the New Yo rk metropolitan area and one for the rest of the State;

• 

### Statewide mileage accumulation rate input;

• 

### Monthly RVP data—one set for the New York metropolitan area and one for the rest of the State;

• 

### Reformulated gasoline program inputs for affected counties modeled with MOBILE6 defaults (i.e., “FUEL PROGRAM : 2 N”);

• 

### I/M program inputs for affected counties;

• 

### Statewide ATP inputs;

• 

### Hourly VMT distributions by county group;

• 

### Start distributions by county;

• 

### Diesel sulfur content da ta (400 ppm statewide).

New York also provided the necessary input files to model the State’s LEV program implementation schedule, which differs from th e OTC LEV program. New York also provided MOBILE6 Tier 2 modeling files to be used al ong with the New York LEV program inputs. These inputs were included in the SMOKE MOBILE6 modeling.

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

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

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

None identified by the State.

10. Pennsylvania

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Table V-11 summarizes the onroad SMOKE input files that were prepared containing information for the State of Pennsylvania. This ta ble notes the level of deta il of the data included as well as the source of the original info rmation used to create these data files.

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

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

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County



### Pennsylvania provided a database file (NEIANN02.dbf) that contai ned the VMT and speed data by county, roadway type, and vehicle type. This included the same VMT used in the calculation of the annual onroad inventory submitted by Penn sylvania for MANE-VU. Pechan converted the data from this database file into VMT a nd speed data in the format of the SMOKE MBINV file. From the VMT data, Pechan calculated VM T fractions by vehicle type by county and road type for inclusion in the SMOKE VMTMIX file. Pennsylvania also provided estimates of VMT by month for each county. Pechan converted thes e data to monthly allocation factors in the format needed by the SMOKE MTPRO and MTREF files. A separate monthly profile was developed for each county, but applied to all road types within that county.

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

• 

### Registration distributions for each individual county;

• 

### I/M program and ATP inputs for affected Philadelphia and Pittsburgh area counties (inputs differ for the two areas);

• 

### Monthly RVP data for all counties in cluding 7.8 psi RVP program from May through September for Pittsburgh counties;

• 

### Reformulated gasoline for the 5-county Philadelphia area modeled with MOBILE6 defaults (i.e., “FUEL PROGRAM : 2 N”); and

• 

### Diesel sulfur content da ta (500 ppm statewide).

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

### 113 b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

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

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

None identified by the State.

11. Rhode Island

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Table V-12 summarizes the onroad SMOKE input files that were prepared containing information for the State of Rhode Island. This tabl e notes the level of deta il of the data included as well as the source of the original info rmation used to create these data files.

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

Final MANE-VU Version 3 SMOKE Input File Level of Detail Data Source VMT MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/SCC RI Speeds MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County group/road type RI

VMT mix MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt Statewide RI SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County



### Rhode Island provided a spreadsheet with the 2002 VMT as well as Statewide 2002 VMT fractions by 16 vehicle types. Pechan prepared a simple MOBILE6 input file including this Rhode Island 2002 VMT mix by vehicle type and the 2002 Rhode Is land registration distribution. The VMT mix in the MOBILE6 output file at the 28 vehicl e type level was then used to distribute the VMT by vehicle category. The 2002 daily VMT was at the State level, broken down by the 12 roadway types. To allocate these VMT data to the county/road type level of detail, Pechan summed the VMT from the preliminary version of EPA’s 2002 NEI for Rhode Island first by State and roadway type and then by county and roadway type. Pechan calculated county/roadway type VMT fractions by dividing the VMT at the county/roadway type level by the State/roadway type VMT for the same roadway type. These fractions were then multiplied by the VMT supplied by Rhode Island at the Stat e/roadway type level of detail to obtain county/roadway type VMT data. These county/roadway type VMT data were then multiplied by the 28 vehicle type VMT fractions to obtain VMT at the level of detail needed to populate the NMIM BaseYearVMT table for calculating the a nnual inventory and were then summed to the 16-vehicle type level of detail for use in the SM OKE MBINV file. The data were also converted from daily VMT to annual by multiplying the average daily VMT by 365. VMT mix 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 registrati on distribution; and

• 

### Statewide I/M program inputs.

Data for fuel parameters were obtained from the NMIM national county database for Rhode Island. This included reformul ated gasoline Statewide, mode led using the FUEL RVP, and FUEL PROGRAM (for gasoline su lfur contents) commands for each month. These values differed by season, but were consistent Statewide. Statewide diesel sulfur values modeled from NMIM were 400 ppm sulfur in the summer months (June, July, and August), 340 ppm sulfur in the winter months (December, January, and Februa ry), and 370 ppm sulfur in the spring and fall months.

The NMIM default LEV program for Rhode Isla nd was modeled, which includes the OTC-LEV program LEV implementation schedule.

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

No QA issues were identified for Rhode Island.

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

The Rhode Island SMOKE MOBILE6 input f iles did not include the OXYGENATED FUELS command. This should have been used to fully characterize the parameters of reformulated gasoline that is used Stat ewide in Rhode Island.

12. Vermont

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Table V-13 summarizes the onroad SMOKE input files that were prepared containing information for the State of Vermont. This table not es the level of detail of the data included as well as the source of the original informa tion used to create these data files.

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

Final MANE-VU Version 3 SMOKE Input File Level of Detail Data Source VMT MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/SCC VT Speeds MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt Road type/vehicle group (light-duty vs. heavy-duty) VT

VMT mix MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt County/road type VT Temporal profiles MANEVU_2002_mtpro_02022006.txt and MANEVU_2002_mtref_02022006.txt Monthly statewide

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County



### Vermont submitted VMT data in the format of the NIF PE table. Vermont then provided updated VMT data for three road classifications (rural minor colle ctors, rural local roads, and urban local roads) in December 2004, after the time that these changes could be included in the MANE-VU annual onroad emission i nventory. However, the update d VMT were included in the MANE-VU Version 3 onroad SMOKE modeling f iles. This VMT change resulted in a Statewide decrease in VMT from about 9.5 billion miles to about 7.8 billion miles. As a result, the SMOKE modeling performed by MANE-VU will not match the MANE-VU emission inventory for Vermont. The VMT data were co nverted to the SMOKE MBINV file format. VMT mix fractions were calculated from the VMT data and included in the SMOKE VMTMIX file. Vermont also provided information on the te mporal allocation of VMT. From these data, Pechan prepared a monthly VMT profile for Vermont and included the data in the SMOKE MTPRO and MTREF files.

Vermont provided information on Statewide speeds by roadway type. These speeds differed for light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles. Pechan incorporated this speed information into the SMOKE MBINV file.

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

• 

### Statewide registration distribution;

• 

### Statewide I/M program inputs; and

• 

### RVP data.

The RVP data provided by Vermont were based on data from a local gasoline tank farm and resulted in an RVP value of 8.5 psi during th e ozone season months (May through September) and 9.47 psi for the remaining months. Data for fu el parameters other than RVP (e.g., diesel and gasoline fuel sulfur content) were obtained from the NMIM national county database for Vermont. These values differed by season, but were consistent Statewide. Statewide diesel

### 116 sulfur values modeled from NMIM were 300 ppm su lfur in the summer months (June, July, and August), 290 ppm sulfur in the winter months (December, January, and February), and 295 ppm sulfur in the spring and fall months.

The NMIM default LEV program for Vermont wa s modeled, which includes Vermont’s Statespecific LEV implementation schedule.

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

Through the State QA report process, Vermont pr ovided a missing registration data file, RVP data and revised VMT.

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

None identified by the State.

### 117 CHAPTER VI

– BIOGENIC SOURCES

A. General Methods for all States

1. What Data Sources Were Used?

Biogenic emissions for the time period from January 1, 2002 – December 31, 2002 were calculated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) for all of the MANE-VU states using the Biogenic Em issions Inventory System (BEIS) version 3.12 integrated within SMOKE2.1. The inventory was pr epared at the state-level for CO, nitrous oxide (NO), and VOC.

General information about BEIS is availabl e at http://www.epa.gov/AMD/biogen.html while documentation about biogenic emissions pr ocessing within SMOKE2.1 is available at http://cf.unc.edu/cep/empd/products/s moke/version2.1/html/ch06s10.html and http://cf.unc.edu/cep/empd/pr oducts/smoke/version2.1/html/c h06s17.html. Note that the SMOKE documentation refers to BEIS3.09 and has not yet been updated for BEIS3.12. This affects the number of species modeled as well as the use of different speciation profiles. However, the general processing approach ha s not changed from BEIS3.09 to BEIS3.12. In short, this processing approach is as follows and was utilized by NYSDEC for its biogenic emission processing for MANE -VU and the OTC modeling:

• Normbeis3 reads gridded land use data and em issions factors and produces gridded normalized biogenic emissions for 34 speci es/compounds. The gridded land use file utilized by NYSDEC includes the fractional co verage of 230 different land use types for each of the 172 * 172 12-km grid cells in the MANE-VU/OTC modeling domain. In a separate BEIS3.12 input file, both summ er and winter emissions factors for each species/compound are provided for each of the 230 land use types. On output, Normbeis3 generates a file B3GRD 

### which contains gridded summer and winter emission fluxes for the modeling domain that are normalized to 30 °C and a photosynthetic active radiat ion (PAR) of 1000 μmol/m 2 

### s. In addition, gridded summer and winter leaf area indi ces (LAI) are al so written to B3GRD



### .

• Tmpbeis3 reads the gridded, normalized emissi ons file B3GRD and meteorological data from the MCIP-processed MM5 mete orological fields generated by the University of Maryland for MANE-VU/OT C modeling. Specifically, the following MM5/MCIP meteorological variables are used by Tmpbeis3 to compute hourspecific, gridded biogenic emissions from the normalized emission fluxed contained in B3GRD: layer-1 air temperature (“TA ”), layer-1 pressure (“PRES”), total incoming solar radiation at the surface (“RGRND”), and convective (“RC”) and nonconvective (“RN”) rainfall. Addi tionally, the emissions for the 34 species/compounds modeled by BEIS3.12 are co nverted to CO, NO, and the CB-IV VOC species utilized in CMAQ via th e use of the BEIS3.12-CB-IV speciation profile. Furthermore, an external file, BIOSEASON, was utilized to decide whether to use summer or winter emissions factor s for any given grid cell on any given day. This file was generated by the SMOKE2.1 utility Metscan based on MM5 layer-1 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 give n grid cell, emissions were distributed among the counties intersecting th is grid cell in proportion to the area of each of these counties within the grid cell. The ar ea gridding surrogates needed for this aggregation are based on a file obtai ned from EPA via http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ chief/emch/spatial/new/bgpro.2km_041604.us.gz, followed by windowing for the MANE-VU/OTC modeling domain.

2. Version 3 Emissions Summary

Table VI-1 presents a State-leve l summary of the annual biogenic source emissions in Version 3 of the 2002 MANE-VU inventory. The annual emissions are based on the sum of the daily emissions prepared using the modeling approach previously discussed.

Table VI-1. Version 3 2002 MANE-VU Biogenic Source Emissions by State (Tons/Year)

State CO NO VOC* Connecticut 6,889 560 64,017 Delaware 4,274 990 46,343 District of Columbia 150 30 1,726 Maine 64,936 2,018 600,205 Maryland 18,351 2,934 210,104 Massachusetts 11,594 1,257 113,958 New Hampshire 14,306 482 141,894 New Jersey 14,058 1,813 181,617 New York 63,436 8,313 492,487 Pennsylvania 59,946 8,646 585,272 Rhode Island 1,764 211 19,233 Vermont 14,745 1,142 118,377 MANE-VU 274,451 28,396 2,575,232 * VOC emissions were calculated by adding the emissions for the following pollutants: ALD2, ETH, FORM, ISOP, NR, OLE, PAR, TERB, TOL, XYL.



### B. State-Specific Methods

No state-specific methods were used in Vers ion 3 of the MANE-VU inventory for biogenic emissions.

### 119 CHAPTER VII. TEMPORAL, SPECIA TION, AND SPATIAL ALLOCATION PROFILES AND PREPARATION OF SMOKE (IDA) AND RPO DATA EXCHANGE PROTOCOL (NIF 3.0) FORMATS

Table VII-1 provides a su mmary of the file names and documentation used for modeling inputs for Version 3 of MANE-VU’s 2002 inventory for point, area, nonroad, and onroad sources. The final input files used for tempor al allocation, speciation, and spatia l allocation of emissions were developed for Version 1 of the 2002 inventory and delivered to MARAMA during January 2005 (MANE-VU, 2005). These files were developed starting with the late st model input files available from EPA and then re vised to include updates needed for the MANE-VU region or to add SCCs and profile assignments not included in the initial EPA data sets. The files were revised between September 2004 and January 20 05 to incorporate comments provided by MANE-VU. Files in Table VII-1 with a date that is later than January 2005 were prepared to support modeling for Version 3. The notes column in the table identifies the modifications made to the files if the files were changed after this date. Otherwise, files with a date later than January 2005 were either provided by a state ag ency or were obtained from EPA and used for modeling Version 3.

The remainder of this chapter provides a brief su mmary of the revisions made to the EPA data sets prepared for Version 1 of the 2002 MANE- VU inventory and subsequently carried for the modeling for Version 3. Sections A, B, and C of this chapter disc uss how the temporal allocation, speciation, and spatial a llocation profiles, respectively, were developed. Section D of this chapter describes how the emissions inventor y data were prepared in the SMOKE (IDA) and RPO Data Exchange Protocol (NIF 3.0) Formats.

A. Temporal Profiles

1. Point and Area Sources

The most recent SMOKE temporal cross-referen ce files available from EPA during the summer of 2004 were used as the starting point for develo ping the cross-reference f iles for point and area sources. The following 3 classes of modifications were completed to improve the temporal allocation input files:

• Update temporal cross-reference to assign an existing profile in the default SMOKE

profiles for SCCs in the MANE-VU inventory

• Create a new temporal cross-reference to an existing profile in the default SMOKE

profiles for SCCs in the MANE-VU inventory; the cross-reference did not previously exist in the default SMOKE files but the profile did exist.

• Create new temporal profiles and cross -references for SCCs in the MANE-VU

inventory; neither the cross-referenc e nor profiles for the MANE-VU SCCs previously existed in the default SMOKE files.

### 120 a. Point Sources

A total of 30 point SCCs existed in the MANE-V U point source inventory that were not in the point source cross-reference file; therefore, the SCCs were added to the cross-reference file and assigned to existing profiles based on the assignment of similar SCCs already assigned to the profiles. Table II-2 lists the SCCs along with the state and count y FIPS where they occurred in the MANE-VU inventory. Temporal profiles could not be identified for the SCCs listed in Table VII-3 due to either the SCC being shorter than 8-digits or the lack of information about the source categories for identifying an appropriate profile assignment. These SCCs were assigned the default profile by SMOKE.

b. Area Sources

For area sources, the improvements to the EPA cro ss-reference file includ ed updates to existing profiles in the file based on MANE-VU-specific da ta (see Table VII-4), addition of SCCs that were assigned to existing profiles based on the assignment of similar SCCs already assigned to the profiles (see Table VII-5), and addition of new SCCs and profiles based on MANE-VU- or RPO-specific data (see Table VII-6).

Additional cross-referencing information used to revise the temporal cross-reference file included MANE-VU county-leve l information for resident ial wood combustion, monthly temporal profiles developed for NH 3 

### source categories using the Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) model, and a Delaware-specific cross-re ference file associated with the Delaware inventory. The additions of ne w SCCs and new profiles shown in Table VII-6 mostly apply to the state of Delaware (State FIPS=10). For the FIPS column, the “-9” designation means the cross-reference is applied for a ll counties that do not have a c ounty or state-specific SCC crossreference record. These changes to the temporal cross-reference file allowed for the assignment of a non-flat temporal profile (262= uniform monthly, 7=uniform weekly and 24=uniform diurnal) to 95% of the SCCs in the area inventory.

2. Nonroad Sources

Nonroad sources used the same temporal profil e and cross-reference files as area sources.

3. Onroad Sources

For onroad sources, the following States provided their own data to update the default temporal profile files and the temporal cross referen ce files: Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. Each of these States provided VMT information that could be used to develop monthly temporal profiles. The data were provided in a variety of formats, ra nging from monthly or s easonal VMT to SMOKEformatted monthly VMT temporal profiles. Where necessary, the monthly or seasonal VMT data were converted into the SMOKE monthly tem poral profile format. In addition, New Jersey provided information for diurnal te mporal profiles. However, the level of detail or variability provided in these monthly profiles varied by State. Connecticut’s and Delaware’s profiles each varied by county and road type. Maryland’s profile s applied Statewide, with variability in the

### 121 profiles by road type. Massachusetts’ profiles va ried by county, road t ype, and vehicle type. Both New Jersey and New York provided informa tion for three monthly temporal profiles, each used throughout one of the three county groups in each State. The Pennsylvania profiles varied by county, but not by road type. Vermont provide d information for a single monthly temporal profile to be used throughout the State.

B. Speciation Profiles

1. Point and Area Sources

The most recent SMOKE speciation cross-referen ce files available from EPA during the summer of 2004 were used as the starting point for develo ping the cross-reference f iles for point and area sources. These files were revised to comple te SCC assignments for the Carbon Bond IV (CBIV) with PM mechanism for point and area sour ces. In addition, sulf ur tagging species were added to the REMSAD7 CB-IV with PM mechanism (see Table VII-1).

a. Point Sources

Thirty-one SCCs in the MANE-VU point source inventory did not have chemical speciationprofile assignments for the CB-IV with PM mechanism in the default SMOKE chemical crossreference file. For 10 of the SCCs, assignments for VOC and PM 2.5 

### were added to the speciation cross-reference file based on the speciation profil e codes assigned to similar SCCs. Table VII-7 shows the SCCs where an SCC speciation cross-reference record was added, the VOC and PM 2.5 

### speciation profile code assigned, and the method used to assign the profiles. Assignments were not completed for the remaining 21 point source SCCs because of a lack of information on the emission sources needed to complete the assignment s (see Table VII-8 for the list of the SCCs).

b. Area Sources

Speciation profile assignments were completed for many area source SCCs for the CB-IV with PM mechanism and were documented in separa te spreadsheet files provided to MARAMA during September 2004. Assignments for VOC and PM 2.5 

### were added to the speciation crossreference file based on the speciation profile code s assigned to similar SCCs. Note that the transport fractions for fugitive dust were applied as a part of the modeling effort to adjust the mass emissions in Version 3 of the inventory.

2. Nonroad Sources

No updates to the speciation profiles or speci ation assignments for nonroad sources were provided by the MANE-VU States.

3. Onroad Sources

No updates to the speciation prof iles or speciation assignments fo r onroad sources were provided by the MANE-VU States.

### 122 C. Spatial Allocation Profiles

The most recent spatial profile data files available from EPA during the summer of 2004 were used as the starting point for developing the spatia l profile file for point and area sources. A detailed description of this surrogate data set was provided in a file named “surrogate_ documentation_workbook052804.xls” from EPA’s we bsite at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ chief/emch/spatial/newsurrogate.html. Many SCCs in the MANE-VU inve ntory did not have surrogate assignments in the default SMOKE gridding cross-reference file. About 200 SCC assignments were added to the gridding cross-re ference file. The assignments were based on matching surrogate descriptions from the EPA99 surrogate data with th e SCC descriptions.

No updates to the spatial allocation files for nonroad and onroad sources were provided by the MANE-VU States.

D. Preparation of SMOKE (IDA) and RP O Data Exchange Protocol (NIF 3.0) Formats

Table VII-9 identifies the mass emissions a nd SMOKE input files for Version 3 of the MANE-VU point, area, nonroad, an d onroad inventories.

The SMOKE input file format contains one field for storing daily emissions for each pollutant. The area source inventory contains summer day, winter day, and average day emissions depending on the state and source category. Thus, two sets of SMOKE input files were prepared for the area source inventory. One file contains annual, summer day, and average day emissions and the other file contains annual, winter day, and average day emissions. If summer day and average day emissions were provided for the sa me process and pollutant in the inventory, the summer day value was included in the SMOKE i nput file. If winter day and average day emissions were provided for the same process and pollutant in the inventory, the winter day value was included in the SMOKE input file.

The point source inventory cont ains summer day and winter day emissions. Two sets of SMOKE input files were prepared for point so urces as well (one file containing annual and summer day emissions and the other containi ng annual and winter day emissions).

Table VII-10 provides the unique li st of the start date, end date, and emission type combinations for daily emissions in the point and area source inventories that were used to define summer, winter, and average day emissions. This table also shows the names of the SMOKE input files in which the emissions are included.

For onroad sources, daily emissions were cal culated by SMOKE using the monthly MOBILE6 input files included in th e SMOKE input files.

The nonroad IDA file only has annual total emissi ons. The values in the “typical day” column are zero. Annual total emissions were allocate d for each hour using the monthly, weekly, and diurnal profiles described in S ection A.2 of this chapter.C-123Table VII-1. Profiles, Cross-references,and Documentation for Model Inputsfor Version 3 of 2002 MANE-VU InventoryDescription File Name FormatDate ofFile usedforVersion 3Size(Bytes)NotesSCC descriptions filescc_desc_manevu.083104.txtSMOKE 8/31/2004 1,335,524Temporal Allocation ProfilesTechnical memo onprofile/cross-referencereview for area sourcesMANE-VU_AreaEI_review_draft_090304.doc MSWord9/3/2004 760,320Technical memo onprofile/cross-referencereview for point sourcesMANE-VU_PointEI_review_draft_090304.doc MSWord9/3/2004 262,144Temporal profile crossreference file for pointsourcesamptref.m3.manevu.vistascem.032805.txt SMOKE 3/28/2005 704,998 Based on "amptref.m3.manevu.012405.txt" prepared forVersion 1, but added VISTAS BaseD cross-references tothe state-specific 2002 continuous emissions monitoring(CEM)-derived point sourcetemporal profiles generatedby VISTAS for their BaseD modeling.Temporal profiles file forpoint sourcesamptpro.m3.us+can.manevu.vistascem.032805.txt SMOKE 3/28/2005 178,427 Based on "amptpro.m3.us+can.manevu.030205.txt"prepared for Version 1, butadded state-specific 2002CEM-derived point source temporal profiles generated byVISTAS for their BaseD modeling.Temporal profile crossreference file for areasourcesamptref.m3.manevu.012405.txt SMOKE 1/24/2005 687,196Temporal profiles file forarea sourcesamptpro.m3.us+can.manevu.030205.txt SMOKE 3/2/2005 136,131Temporal crossreference file containingstate-specific onroadmobile source data forConnecticut, Delaware,Maryland,Massachusetts, NewJersey, New York,Pennsylvania, andVermontMANEVU_2002_mtref_02022006_addCT.txt SMOKE2/22/2006 2,522,013 Data for Connecticut were added to the file after the filewas prepared for the other states. Hence the reason“_addCT” is included at the end of the file name.Table VII-1 (continued)124Description File Name FormatDate ofFile usedforVersion 3Size(Bytes)NotesTemporal profiles filecontaining state-specificonroad mobile sourcedata for Connecticut,Delaware, Maryland,Massachusetts, NewJersey, New York,Pennsylvania, andVermontMANEVU_2002_mtpro_02022006_addCT.txt SMOKE2/22/2006 23,122 Data for Connecticut wereadded to the file after the filewas prepared for the other states. Hence the reason“_addCT” is included at the end of the file name.Spatial/GriddingSpreadsheet summarygenerated for areasource gridding reviewMANE-VU_agref_review.xls 8/31/2004 1,607,680Spatial profile crossreference fileamgref.m3.us+can+mex.manevu.082404.txt SMOKE 8/31/2004 89,860Gridding surrogatecross-reference fileamgref_us_051704_manevu_added SMOKE 5/17/2004 35,825 Based on the surrogate cross-reference file downloadedfrom the EPA/CHIEF site thatcorresponds to the griddingsurrogates file. However, several MANE-VU-specificadditions included in"amgref.m3.us+can+mex.manevu.082404.txt" for Version1 were added to the gridding-cross reference filedownloaded from EPA. Theseare cross-references forSCCs 2806010000, 2806015000, 2870000011,2870000015, 2870000021, and 2870000022.Modeling grid (12-km) amgpro.12km_041604.otc12.us.txt SMOKE 4/16/2004 150,689,358 Based on downloaded 12-km EPA gridding surrogateswindowed for the OTC domainSpeciation ProfilesSpreadsheet summarygenerated for areasource speciation reviewMANE-VU_asref_review.xlsExcel 8/31/2004 5,626,880Speciation profiles filefor CB-IVgspro.cmaq.cb4p25.txt SMOKE 142,255Speciation crossreference file for CB-IVgsref.cmaq.cb4p25.manevu.083104.txt SMOKE 8/31/2004 786,998Table VII-1 (continued)125Description File Name FormatDate ofFile usedforVersion 3Size(Bytes)NotesSpeciation profile crossreference assignmentfilegsref.cmaq.cb4p25.txt SMOKE 2/1/2005 754,302 This file is based on the file"gsref.cmaq.cb4p25.manevu.083104.txt" prepared forversion 1 of the MANE-VU inventory. The only revisionwas to change the PM2_5 speciation profile # from itsdefault 99999 to 35501 for some mobile sourcecategories. This update had been done by eitherCENRAP or VISTAS in the speciation profiles theyprovided and the update had amore recent creation datethan the MANE-VU files created for Version 1, so thisappeared to be a refinement.Speciation profiles forREMSAD7gspro.remsad7.cb4mpm.txt_tag SMOKE 5/1/2005 532,990 Based on "gspro.remsad7.cb4mpm.txt" in the SMOKE,but added tagged species for REMSAD state-level sulfurtagging.Speciation crossreference for REMSAD7gsref.remsad7.cb4mpm.txt_tag SMOKE 5/1/2005 2,614,360 Based on "gsref.remsad7.cb4mpm.txt" in the SMOKE,but added tagged species for REMSAD state-levelsulfur tagging.Transport fractions forfugitive dustgcntl.xportfrac.txt SMOKE 2/1/2004124,495 File obtained from input file EPA used to adjust for PMtransport for modeling of Clean Air Interstate Rule(CAIR).C-126Table VII-2. Point Source Temporal Cross-reference AdditionsRecommended profilesState FIPS SCCMonthlyWeeklyDiurnalMethod of assignmentSCC Description (Complete description not alwaysavailable)VT 50005 10200908 262 7 24 Use SCC=102009XX profilesExternal Combustion Boilers;Industrial;Wood/BarkWaste;Wood-fired Boiler - Dry Wood (<20% moisture)VT 50019 10200908 262 7 24 Use SCC=102009XX profilesExternal Combustion Boilers;Industrial;Wood/BarkWaste;Wood-fired Boiler - Dry Wood (<20% moisture)VT 50021 10200908 262 7 24 Use SCC=102009XX profilesExternal Combustion Boilers;Industrial;Wood/BarkWaste;Wood-fired Boiler - Dry Wood (<20% moisture)VT 50017 10300908 262 7 24 Use SCC=103009XX profiles External CombustionBoilers;Commercial/Institutional;Wood/Bark Waste;Woodfired Boiler - Dry Wood (<20% moisture)PA 42009 20200299 262 7 24 Use SCC=202002XX profilesInternal Combustion Engines;Industrial;NaturalGas;UnknownPA 42029 20200299 262 7 24 Use SCC=202002XX profilesInternal Combustion Engines;Industrial;NaturalGas;UnknownPA 42045 20200299 262 7 24 Use SCC=202002XX profilesInternal Combustion Engines;Industrial;NaturalGas;UnknownPA 42061 20200299 262 7 24 Use SCC=202002XX profilesInternal Combustion Engines;Industrial;NaturalGas;UnknownPA 42067 20200299 262 7 24 Use SCC=202002XX profilesInternal Combustion Engines;Industrial;NaturalGas;UnknownPA 42015 20300299 262 7 24 Use SCC=203002XX profiles Internal CombustionEngines;Commercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;UnknownPA 42029 20300299 262 7 24 Use SCC=203002XX profiles Internal CombustionEngines;Commercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;UnknownPA 42037 20300299 262 7 24 Use SCC=203002XX profiles Internal CombustionEngines;Commercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;UnknownPA 42071 20300299 262 7 24 Use SCC=203002XX profiles Internal CombustionEngines;Commercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;UnknownPA 42011 28888899 262 7 24 Use SCC=288888XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;Fugitive Emissions;Other NotClassified;Specify in CommentsPA 42123 28888899 262 7 24 Use SCC=288888XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;Fugitive Emissions;Other NotClassified;Specify in CommentsPA 42123 28888899 262 7 24 Use SCC=288888XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;Fugitive Emissions;Other NotClassified;Specify in CommentsPA 42129 28888899 262 7 24 Use SCC=288888XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;Fugitive Emissions;Other NotClassified;Specify in CommentsMD 24031 30500261 262 7 24 Use SCC=30500260 profileIndustrial Processes;Mineral Products;AsphaltConcrete;Drum MixPlant: Rotary Drum Dryer/Mixer,Waste/Drain/#6 Oil-FiredTable VII-2 (continued)127Recommended profilesState FIPS SCCMonthlyWeeklyDiurnalMethod of assignmentSCC Description (Complete description not alwaysavailable)NY 36055 31603001 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Product Manufacturing - SubstratePreparation;Extrusion OperationsNY 36055 31603002 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Product Manufacturing - SubstratePreparation;Film Support OperationsNY 36055 31604001 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Product Manufacturing - ChemicalPreparation;Chemical ManufacturingNY 36055 31604002 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Product Manufacturing - ChemicalPreparation;Emulsion Making OperationsNY 36055 31604003 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Product Manufacturing - ChemicalPreparation;Chemical Mixing OperationsNY 36055 31605001 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Product Manufacturing - SurfaceTreatments;Surface Coating OperationsNY 36055 31605002 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Product Manufacturing - SurfaceTreatments;Grid IonizersNY 36055 31605003 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Product Manufacturing - SurfaceTreatments;Corona Discharge TreatmentNY 36055 31606001 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Product Manufacturing - FinishingOperations;General Film ManufacturingNY 36055 31606002 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Product Manufacturing - FinishingOperations;Cutting/Slitting OperationsPA 42101 31606002 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Product Manufacturing - FinishingOperations;Cutting/Slitting OperationsNY 36055 31612001 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Support Activities - Cleaning Operations;TankCleaning OperationsNY 36055 31612002 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Support Activities - CleaningOperations;GeneralCleaning OperationsNY 36055 31613002 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Support Activities - StorageOperations;General Storage OperationsTable VII-2 (continued)128Recommended profilesState FIPS SCCMonthlyWeeklyDiurnalMethod of assignmentSCC Description (Complete description not alwaysavailable)NY 36055 31614001 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Support Activities - Material TransferOperations;Filling Operations (non petroleum)NY 36055 31614002 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Support Activities - Material TransferOperations;Transfer of ChemicalsNY 36055 31615001 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Support Activities - SeparationProcesses;Recovery OperationsNY 36055 31615003 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Support Activities - SeparationProcesses;Distillation OperationsNY 36055 31616002 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Support Activities - Other Operations;GeneralProcess Tank OperationsNY 36055 31616003 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Support Activities - OtherOperations;MiscellaneousManufacturing OperationsNY 36055 31616004 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Support Activities- Other Operations;PaintSpraying OperationsNY 36055 31616006 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Support Activities - OtherOperations;Chemical Weighing OperationsPA Numerouscounties39000698 262 7 24 Use SCC=39000699 profile Industrial Processes;In-process Fuel Use;NaturalGas;UnknownNJ Numerouscounties39999901 262 7 24 Use SCC=399999XX profiles Industrial Processes;Miscellaneous ManufacturingIndustries;Miscellaneous Industrial Processes;UnknownPA 42015 40202598 266 7 16 Use SCC=40202599 profile Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Surface CoatingOperations;Miscellaneous Metal Parts;UnknownPA 42017 40202598 266 7 16 Use SCC=40202599 profile Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Surface CoatingOperations;Miscellaneous Metal Parts;UnknownPA 42091 40202598 266 7 16 Use SCC=40202599 profile Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Surface CoatingOperations;Miscellaneous Metal Parts;UnknownPA 42095 40202598 266 7 16 Use SCC=40202599 profile Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Surface CoatingOperations;Miscellaneous Metal Parts;UnknownPA 42097 40202598 266 7 16 Use SCC=40202599 profile Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Surface CoatingOperations;Miscellaneous Metal Parts;UnknownPA 42013 40400299 262 7 24 Use SCC=404002XX profiles Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Petroleum LiquidsStorage (non-Refinery);Bulk Plants;UnknownPA 42041 40400299 262 7 24 Use SCC=404002XX profiles Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Petroleum LiquidsStorage (non-Refinery);Bulk Plants;UnknownTable VII-2 (continued)129Recommended profilesState FIPS SCCMonthlyWeeklyDiurnalMethod of assignmentSCC Description (Complete description not alwaysavailable)PA 42045 40400299 262 7 24 Use SCC=404002XX profiles Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Petroleum LiquidsStorage (non-Refinery);Bulk Plants;UnknownPA 42071 40400299 262 7 24 Use SCC=404002XX profiles Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Petroleum LiquidsStorage (non-Refinery);Bulk Plants;Unknown

### C-130 Table VII-3. Unknown SCCs in th e MANE-VU Point Source Inventory

State FIPS SCC Description

PA 42101 24950002 Need more info: Unknown SCC PA 42061 40500299 Need more info:Printing/Publishing; General PA 42091 40500299 Need more info:Printing/Publishing; General PA 42133 40500299 Need more info:Printing/Publishing; GeneralC-131Table VII-4. Area Source Temporal Cross-Reference UpdatesSMOKE Default profile New MANE-VU profileSCC SCC descriptionMonthly Weekly Diurnal Monthly Weekly Diurnal30502713 Industrial Processes;Mineral Products;Industrial Sandand Gravel;Screening: Size Classification262 7 24 262 5 1230502760 Industrial Processes;Mineral Products;Industrial Sandand Gravel;Sand Handling, Transfer, and Storage262 7 24 262 5 122302000000 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC20;All Processes;Total262 7 26 262 7 2502302050000 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC20;Bakery Products;Total262 7 26 262 5 262305000000 Industrial Processes;Mineral Processes: SIC 32;AllProcesses;Total262 7 26 262 5 102309100010 Industrial Processes;Fabricated Metals: SIC 34;Coating,Engraving, and Allied Services;Electroplating262 7 26 262 5 102311010000 Industrial Processes;Construction: SIC 15 - 17;GeneralBuilding Construction;Total262 7 26 262 5 122311020000 Industrial Processes;Construction: SIC 15 - 17;HeavyConstruction;Total262 7 26 262 5 122311030000 Industrial Processes;Construction: SIC 15 - 17;RoadConstruction;Total262 7 26 262 5 122325000000 Industrial Processes;Mining and Quarrying: SIC 14;AllProcesses;Total262 7 26 262 5 102399000000 Industrial Processes;Industrial Processes: NEC;IndustrialProcesses: NEC;Total262 7 26 262 5 102399010000 Industrial Processes; IndustrialRefrigeration; Refrigerant Losses; AllProcesses262 7 26 262 5 102401015000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Factory FinishedWood: SIC 2426 thru 242;Total: All Solvent Types173 7 26 173 5 262401020000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Wood Furniture: SIC25;Total: All Solvent Types287 7 26 287 5 262401025000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Metal Furniture: SIC25;Total: All Solvent Types287 7 26 287 5 262401030000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Paper: SIC 26;Total:All Solvent Types257 7 26 257 5 262401040000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Metal Cans: SIC341;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 262401045000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Metal Coils: SIC3498;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 262401050000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;MiscellaneousFinished Metals: SIC 34 - (341 + 3498);Total: All SolventTypes253 7 26 253 5 26Table VII-4 (continued)132SMOKE Default profile New MANE-VU profileSCC SCC descriptionMonthly Weekly Diurnal Monthly Weekly Diurnal2401055000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Machinery andEquipment: SIC 35;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 262401060000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Large Appliances:SIC 363;Total: All Solvent Types262 7 26 262 5 262401065000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Electronic and OtherElectrical: SIC 36 - 363;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 262401070000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Motor Vehicles: SIC371;Total: All Solvent Types140 7 26 140 5 262401075000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Aircraft: SIC372;Total: All Solvent Types169 7 26 169 5 262401080000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Marine: SIC373;Total: All Solvent Types266 7 26 266 5 262401085000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Railroad: SIC374;Total: All Solvent Types169 7 26 169 5 262401090000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;MiscellaneousManufacturing;Total: All Solvent Types260 7 26 260 5 262401090999 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;MiscellaneousManufacturing;Solvents: NEC260 7 26 260 5 262401200000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Other SpecialPurpose Coatings;Total: All Solvent Types260 7 26 260 5 262401990000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;All Surface CoatingCategories;Total: All Solvent Types260 7 26 260 5 262401990999 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;All Surface CoatingCategories;Solvents: NEC260 7 26 260 5 262415000000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;All Processes/AllIndustries;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 262415020000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Fabricated Metal Products(SIC 34): All Processes;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415025000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Industrial Machinery andEquipment (SIC 35): All Processes;Total: All SolventTypes253 7 26 253 5 122415030000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Electronic and Other Elec.(SIC 36): All Processes;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415035000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Transportation Equipment(SIC 37): All Processes;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415045000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;MiscellaneousManufacturing (SIC 39): All Processes;Total: All SolventTypes253 7 26 253 5 122415055000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Automotive Dealers (SIC55): All Processes;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415060000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Miscellaneous RepairServices (SIC 76): All Processes;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 12Table VII-4 (continued)133SMOKE Default profile New MANE-VU profileSCC SCC descriptionMonthly Weekly Diurnal Monthly Weekly Diurnal2415065000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Auto Repair Services (SIC75): All Processes;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 6 122415100000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;All Industries: Open TopDegreasing;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415105000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Furniture and Fixtures(SIC 25): Open Top Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415110000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Primary Metal Industries(SIC 33): Open Top Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415120000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Fabricated Metal Products(SIC 34): Open Top Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415125000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Industrial Machinery andEquipment (SIC 35): Open Top Degreasing;Total: AllSolvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415130000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Electronic and Other Elec.(SIC 36): Open Top Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415135000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Transportation Equipment(SIC 37): Open Top Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415140000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Instruments and RelatedProducts (SIC 38): Open Top Degreasing;Total: AllSolvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415145000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;MiscellaneousManufacturing (SIC 39): OpenTop Degreasing;Total: AllSolvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415200000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;All Industries:Conveyerized Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415230000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Electronic and Other Elec.(SIC 36): Conveyerized Degreasing;Total: All SolventTypes253 7 26 253 5 122415300000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;All Industries: ColdCleaning;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415305000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Furniture and Fixtures(SIC 25): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415310000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Primary Metal Industries(SIC 33): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415320000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Fabricated Metal Products(SIC 34): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415325000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Industrial Machinery andEquipment (SIC 35): Cold Cleaning;Total: All SolventTypes253 7 26 253 5 122415330000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Electronic and Other Elec.(SIC 36): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 12Table VII-4 (continued)134SMOKE Default profile New MANE-VU profileSCC SCC descriptionMonthly Weekly Diurnal Monthly Weekly Diurnal2415335000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Transportation Equipment(SIC 37): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415340000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Instruments and RelatedProducts (SIC 38): Cold Cleaning;Total: All SolventTypes253 7 26 253 5 122415345000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;MiscellaneousManufacturing (SIC 39): Cold Cleaning;Total: All SolventTypes253 7 26 253 5 122415355000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Automotive Dealers (SIC55): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415360000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Auto Repair Services (SIC75): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 6 122415365000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Miscellaneous RepairServices (SIC 76): Cold Cleaning;Total: All SolventTypes253 7 26 253 5 122425000000 Solvent Utilization;Graphic Arts;All Processes;Total: AllSolvent Types257 7 26 257 5 262425010000 Solvent Utilization;Graphic Arts;Lithography;Total: AllSolvent Types257 7 26 257 5 262425020000 Solvent Utilization;Graphic Arts;Letterpress;Total: AllSolvent Types257 7 26 257 5 262425030000 Solvent Utilization;Graphic Arts;Rotogravure;Total: AllSolvent Types262 7 26 262 5 262425040000 Solvent Utilization;Graphic Arts;Flexography;Total: AllSolvent Types257 7 26 257 5 262430000000 Solvent Utilization;Rubber/Plastics;All Processes;Total:All Solvent Types200 7 26 200 5 262601010000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;On-siteIncineration;Industrial;Total262 7 26 262 5 122601020000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;On-siteIncineration;Commercial/Institutional;Total262 7 26 262 5 122610010000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;OpenBurning;Industrial;Total262 7 26 262 5 122610020000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;OpenBurning;Commercial/Institutional;Total262 7 26 262 5 122805020000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production -Livestock;Cattle and Calves Waste Emissions;Total489 7 26 1500 7 262805025000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production -Livestock;Hogs and Pigs Waste Emissions;Total489 7 26 1500 7 262805030000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production -Livestock;Poultry Waste Emissions;Total489 7 26 1500 7 26Table VII-4 (continued)135SMOKE Default profile New MANE-VU profileSCC SCC descriptionMonthly Weekly Diurnal Monthly Weekly Diurnal2805035000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production -Livestock;Horses and Ponies Waste Emissions;Total262 7 26 1500 7 262805040000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production -Livestock;Sheep and Lambs Waste Emissions;Total489 7 26 1500 7 262805045001 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production -Livestock;Goats Waste Emissions;Total489 7 26 262 7 242810015000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;OtherCombustion;Prescribed Burning for ForestManagement;Total14 7 24 3 11 13

### C-136 Table VII-5. Area Source Tempor al Cross-Reference Additions

SCC Description Month Week Diurnal

2104008002 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Residential;Wood;Fireplaces: Insert; non-EPA certified 485 7 26

2104008003 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Residential;Wood;Fireplaces: Insert; EPA certified; non-catalytic 485 7 26

2104008004 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Residential;Wood;Fireplaces: Insert; EPA certified; catalytic 485 7 26

2302002100 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20;Commercial Charbroiling;Conveyorized Charbroiling 262 7 26

2302002200 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20;Commercial Charbroiling;Under-fired Charbroiling 262 7 26

2302003000 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20;Commercial Deep Fat Frying;Total 262 7 26

2302003100 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20;Commercial Deep Fat Frying;Flat Griddle Frying 262 7 26

2302003200 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20;Commercial Deep Fat Frying;Clamshell Griddle Frying 262 7 26

2302080002 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20;Miscellaneous Food and Kindred Products;Refrigeration 262 7 26

2401002000 Solvent Utilization;Surfac e Coating;Architectural Coatings - Solvent-based;Total: All Solvent Types 467 7 26

2401003000 Solvent Utilization;Surfac e Coating;Architectural Coatings - Water-based;Total: All Solvent Types 467 7 26

2401102000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Industrial Maintenance Coatings-Solvent-based;Total: All Solvent Types 500 5 26

2401103000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Industrial Maintenance Coatings-Water-based;Total: All Solvent Types 500 5 26

2415270000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;All Manufacturing (except SIC 36): Vapor and In-Line Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types 253 5 12

2415280000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Electronic and Other Elec. (SIC 36): Vapor and In-Line Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types 253 5 12

2415370000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Transportation Equipment Repair Services: Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types 253 5 12

2415380000 Solvent Utilization;Degrea sing;All Manufacturing: Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types 253 5 12

2610000400 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Open Burning;All Categories;Yard Waste - Brush Species Unspecified 262 7 26

2610000500 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Open Burning;All Categories;Land Clearing Debris (use 28- 10-005-000 for Logging Debris Burning) 262 7 26

2610040400 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Open Burning;Municipal (collected from residences, parks,other for central burn);Yard Waste - Total 262 7 26

2630020010 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Wastewater Treatment;Public Owned;Wastewater Treatment Processes Total 262 7 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% Bi osolids (e.g., sewage sludge, manure, mixtures of these matls);All Processes 262 7 26

2680002000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Composting;Mixed Waste (e.g., a 50:50 mixture of biosolids and gr een wastes);All Processes 262 7 26

2801700011 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Fertilizer Applicat ion;Calcium Ammonium Nitrate 998 7 26

2801700012 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Fertilizer Applicat ion;Potassium Nitrate 998 7 26

2801700013 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Fertilizer Applicat ion;Diammonium Phosphate 998 7 26

2801700014 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Fertilizer Applic ation;Monoammonium Phosphate 998 7 26

2801700015 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Fertilizer Application;Liquid Ammonium Polyphosphate 998 7 26

2801700099 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Fertilizer Applicati on;Miscellaneous Fertilizers 998 7 26

2805001100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Beef cattle - finishing operations on feedlots (drylots);Confinement 1500 7 26

2805001200 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Beef cattle - finishing operations on feedlots (drylots);Manur e handling and storage 1500 7 26

2805001300 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Beef cattle - finishing operations on feedlots (drylots);Land application of manure 1500 7 26

2805002000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Beef Cattle Composite; Not Elsewhere Classified 1500 7 26

2805003100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Beef cattle - finishing operations on pasture/range;Confinement 1500 7 26

2805007100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry production - layers with dry manure management systems;Confinement 1500 7 26

2805007200 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Poultry Production - layers with dry manure management systems;Management 1500 7 26

2805007300 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry production - layers with dry manure management systems;Land application of manure 262 7 24

2805007330 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Poultry Production - layers with dry manure management systems; Land application 1500 7 26

2805007340 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Poultry Production - layers with dry manure management systems; Land application 1500 7 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 Cr oss-Reference and Profile Additions for the MANE-VU Inventory

SCC Description Month Week Diurnal FIPS

2102002000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Industrial;Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal;Total: All Boiler Types 1726 8 26 10000

2102006000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Industrial;Natural Gas;Total: Boilers and IC Engines 1727 8 26 10000

2102007000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Industrial;Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG);Total: All Boiler Types 1727 8 26 10000

2103001000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Commercial/Institutional;Anthracite Coal;Total: All Boiler Types 1720 8 26 10000

2103004000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Commercial/Institut ional;Distillate Oil;Total: Boilers and IC Engines 1721 8 26 10000

2103006000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Commercial/Institut ional;Natural Gas;Total: Boilers and IC Engines 1722 8 26 10000

2103007000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Commercial/Institutional;Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG);Total: All Combustor Types 1723 8 26 10000

2104002000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Residential;Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal;Total: All Combustor Types 1732 7 26 10000

2104004000 Stationary Source Fuel Comb ustion;Residential;Distillate Oil;Total: All Combustor Types 1733 7 26 10000

2104006000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Residential;Natural Gas;Total: All Combustor Types 1734 7 26 10000

2104007000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Residential;Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG);Tota l: All Combustor Types 1735 7 26 10000

2104008000 Stationary Source Fuel Combus tion;Residential;Wood;Total: Woodstoves and Fireplaces 1740 2007 2014 10001

2104008000 Stationary Source Fuel Combus tion;Residential;Wood;Total: Woodstoves and Fireplaces 1741 2008 2015 10003

2104008000 Stationary Source Fuel Combus tion;Residential;Wood;Total: Woodstoves and Fireplaces 1742 2009 2016 10005

2104008000 Stationary Source Fuel Combus tion;Residential;Wood;Total: Woodstoves and Fireplaces 1742 2009 2016 10005

2104008070 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Residential;Wood;Outdoor Wood Burning Equipment; 1743 2010 2017 10001

2104008070 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Residential;Wood;Outdoor Wood Burning Equipment; 1744 2011 2017 10003

2104008070 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Residential;Wood;Outdoor Wood Burning Equipment; 1745 2012 2017 10005

2104011000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Residential;Keros ene;Total: All Heater Types 1736 7 26 10000

2294000000 Mobile Sources;Paved Roads;All Paved Roads;Total: Fugitives 1729 7 26 10000

2302002100 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20;Commercial Charbroiling;Conveyorized Charbroiling 262 7 26 10000

2302002100 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20;Commercial Charbroiling;Conveyorized Charbroiling 262 7 26 10000

2302002200 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20;Commercial Charbroiling;Under-fired Charbroiling 262 7 26 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;Cons truction: SIC 15 - 17;Road Construction;Total 262 7 9 10000

2401002000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coat ing;Architectural Coatings - Solvent-based;Total: All Solvent Types 467 7 26 -9

2401002000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coat ing;Architectural Coatings - Solvent-based;Total: All Solvent Types 500 20 27 10000

2401003000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coat ing;Architectural Coatings - Water-based;Total: All Solvent Types 467 7 26 -9

2401003000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coat ing;Architectural Coatings - Water-based;Total: All Solvent Types 500 20 27 10000

2401005000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coat ing;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Total: All Solvent Types 1702 5 27 10000

2401005500 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coat ing;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Preparation Solvents 1702 5 27 10000

2401005600 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coat ing;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Primers 1702 5 27 10000

2401005700 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coat ing;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Top Coats 1702 5 27 10000

2401005800 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coat ing;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Clean-up Solvents 1702 5 27 10000

2401005800 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coat ing;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Clean-up Solvents 1702 5 27 10001

2401008000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coati ng;Traffic Markings;Total: All Solvent Types 1700 7 26 -9

2401008000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coati ng;Traffic Markings;Total: All Solvent Types 1700 5 26 10000

2401008999 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coati ng;Traffic Markings;Solvents: NEC 1700 7 26 -9

2401102000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Industrial Maintenance Coatings-Solvent-based;Total: All Solvent Types 500 5 26 10000

2401103000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Industrial Maintenance Coatings-Water-based;Total: All Solvent Types 500 5 26 10000

2415100000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasi ng;All Industries: Open Top Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types 262 6 5 10000

2415130000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Electronic and Other Elec. (SIC 36): Open Top Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types 262 6 5 10000

2415300000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasi ng;All Industries: Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types 262 6 5 10000

2415360000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Auto Repair Services (SIC 75): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types 262 5 5 10000

2461021000 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial;Cutback Asphalt;Total: All Solvent Types 1712 7 26 10001

2461021000 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial;Cutback Asphalt;Total: All Solvent Types 1714 7 26 10001

2461021000 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial;Cutback Asphalt;Total: All Solvent Types 1713 7 26 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 Applicati on: Agricultural;Herbicides, Corn 536 7 26 10000

2461850005 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial;Pesticide Applicati on: Agricultural;Herbicides, Soy Beans 536 7 26 10000

2461850006 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial;Pesticide Applicati on: Agricultural;Herbicides, Hay & Grains 536 7 26 10000

2461850051 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial;Pesticide Applic ation: Agricultural;Other Pesticides, Corn 536 7 26 10000

2461850055 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial;Pesticide Applic ation: Agricultural;Other Pesticides, Soy Beans 536 7 26 10000

2461850056 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial;Pesticide Applic ation: Agricultural;Other Pesticides, Hay & Grains 536 7 26 10000

2501011010 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Residential;Vapor Losses 1701 7 26 10000

2501011010 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Residential;Vapor Losses 1701 7 26 10000

2501011011 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers : Residential;Permeation 1701 7 26 10000

2501011011 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers : Residential;Permeation 1701 7 26 10000

2501011012 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Residential;Diurnal 1701 7 26 10000

2501011012 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Residential;Diurnal 1701 7 26 10000

2501011015 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Residential;Spillage 1701 7 26 10000

2501011015 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Residential;Spillage 1701 7 26 10000

2501011016 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Residential;Transport 1701 7 26 10000

2501011016 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Residential;Transport 1701 7 26 10000

2501012010 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Commercial;Vapor Losses 1701 7 26 10000

2501012010 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Commercial;Vapor Losses 1701 7 26 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 Stati ons;Total: All Gasoline/All Processes 1701 7 26 -9

2501060050 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Gasoline Service Stations;Stage 1: Total 1701 7 26 -9

2501060051 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Gasoline Service Stat ions;Stage 1: Submerged Filling 1701 7 26 -9

2501060052 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Gasoline Service Stati ons;Stage 1: Splash Filling 1701 7 26 -9

2501060053 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Gasoline Service Stations;Stage 1: Balanced Submerged Filling 1701 7 26 -9

2501060100 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Gasoline Service Stations;Stage 2: Total 1701 7 26 -9

2501060100 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Gasoline Service Stations;Stage 2: Total 1724 7 26 10000

2501060101 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Gasoline Service Stati ons;Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled 1701 7 26 -9

2501060102 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Gasoline Service Stati ons;Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled 1701 7 26 -9

2501060103 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Gasoline Service Stations;Stage 2: Spillage 1701 7 26 -9

2501060201 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Gasoline Service Stations;Underground Tank: Breathing and Emptying 1701 7 26 -9

2501060204 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Gasoline Service Stat ions;Stage 2: Off-Highway Equipment Displacement Loss/Controlled 1701 7 26 10000

2501060205 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Gasoline Serv ice Stations;Stage 2: Off-Highway Equipment Spillage 1701 7 26 10000

2501080050 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Airports : Aviation Gasoline;Stage 1: Total 1701 7 26 10000

2501080102 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Airports: Aviation Gaso line;Stage 2: Displacement Loss 1701 7 26 10000

2501080103 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Airports: Aviation Ga soline;Stage 2: Spillage 1701 7 26 10000

2501080201 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Airports: Aviation Gasoline;Underground Tank: Breathing and Emptying 1701 7 26 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: Gasolin e;Stage 2: Spillage 1701 7 26 10000

2501090201 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Marinas: Gasoline;U nderground Tank: Emptying and Breathing 1701 7 26 10000

2505000000 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Transport;All Transport Types;Total: All Products 1701 7 26 -9

2610010000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Open Burning;Industrial;Total 262 9 2013 10000

2630020000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Wastewater Treatment;Public Owned;Total Processed 262 7 24 10000

2630020010 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Wastewater Treatment;Public Owned;Wastewater Treatment Processes Total 262 7 24 10000

2630020020 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Wastewater Treatment;Public Owned;Biosolids Processes Total 262 7 24 10000

2630020030 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Wastewater Treatment;Public Owned;Land Application - Digested Sludge 262 7 24 10000

2630050000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Wastewater Treatment;Public Owned;Land Application - Digested Sludge 262 7 24 10000

2680001000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Composting;100% Biosolids (e.g., sewage sludge, manure, mixtures of t hese matls);All Processes 262 7 26 10000

2730100000 Natural Sources;Geogenic;Wind Erosion;Total 1704 7 26 10000

2801001001 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Corn;Land prepar ation and cultivation 1703 20 132 10000

2801001005 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Wheat;Land prepar ation and cultivation 1703 20 132 10000

2801001009 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Barley;Land prepar ation and cultivation 1703 20 132 10000

2801001013 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Soybeans;Land prepar ation and cultivation 1703 20 132 10000

2801001017 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Hay/Alfalfa;Land pre paration and cultivation 1703 20 132 10000

2801001021 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Vegetables;Land preparation and cultivation 1703 20 132 10000

2801002001 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Corn;Harvesting 1703 20 132 10000

2801002002 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Wheat;Harvesting 1703 20 132 10000

2801002003 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Barley;Harvesting 1703 20 132 10000

2801002004 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Soybeans;Harvesting 1703 20 132 10000

2801002005 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Hay/Alfalfa;Harvesting 1703 20 132 10000

2801002006 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Vegetables;Harvesting 1703 20 132 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 A pplication;Sorghum 1705 7 26 10000

2801700022 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Crops;Fertilizer A pplication;Wheat 1705 7 26 10000

2801700023 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Crops;Fertilizer Application;Barley 1705 7 26 10000

2801700024 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Crops;Fertilizer App lication;Soybeans 1705 7 26 10000

2801700025 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Crops;Fertilizer App lication;Hay/Alfalfa 1705 7 26 10000

2801700026 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Crops;Fertilizer App lication;Vegetables 1705 7 26 10000

2805001100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Beef cattle - finishing operations on feedlots (drylots);Confinement 1706 7 24 10000

2805001200 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Beef cattle - finishing operations on feedlots (drylots);Manure handling 1706 7 24 10000

2805001300 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Beef cattle - finishing operations on feedlots (drylots);Land application of 1706 7 24 10000

2805001310 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Beef Cattle - finishing operations on feedlots (drylots);Land Appl 1706 7 24 10000

2805001320 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Beef Cattle - finishing operations on feedlots (drylots);Land Appl 1706 7 24 10000

2805001330 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Beef Cattle - finishing operations on feedlots (drylots);Land Appl 1706 7 24 10000

2805001340 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Beef Cattle - finishing operations on feedlots (drylots);Land Appl 1706 7 24 10000

2805002000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Beef Cattle Composite; Total 1706 7 24 10000

2805007100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry production - layers with dry manure management systems;Confinement 262 7 24 10000

2805007200 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Poultry Production - layers with dry manure management systems;Man 262 7 24 10000

2805007300 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry production - layers with dry manure management systems;Land applicati 262 7 24 10000

2805007340 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Poultry Production - layers with dry manure management systems;Lan 262 7 24 10000

2805008100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry production - layers with wet manure management systems;Confinement 262 7 24 10000

2805008200 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry production - layers with wet manure management systems;Manure handlin 262 7 24 10000

2805008310 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Poultry Production - layers with wet manure management systems;Lan 1708 7 24 10000

2805008320 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Poultry Production - layers with wet manure management systems;Lan 1708 7 24 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 - drylo t/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 - out door operations (unspecified animal age);Confinement 1707 7 24 10000

2805053100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Swine production - outdoor operations; Confinement 1707 7 24 10000

2805053200 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Swine Production - outdo or operations (unspecified animal age);Man 1707 7 24 10000

2805053310 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Swine Production - outdo or operations (unspecified animal age);Lan 1707 7 24 10000

2805053320 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Swine Production - outdo or operations (unspecified animal age);Lan 1707 7 24 10000

2805053330 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Swine Production - outdo or operations (unspecified animal age);Lan 1707 7 24 10000

2805053340 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Swine Production - outdo or operations (unspecified animal age);Lan 1707 7 24 10000

2805054000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;"Mules; Donkeys; and Burros Waste Emissions";Not Elsewhere Classif 262 7 24 10000

2806010000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Domestic Animals Waste Emissions;Cats;Total 262 7 24 10000

2806015000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Domestic Animals Waste Emissions;Dogs;Total 262 7 24 10000

2807030000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Wild Animals Waste Emissions;Deer;Total 262 7 24 10000

2807040000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Wild Animals Waste Emissions;Birds;Total 262 7 24 10000

2810010000 Miscellaneous Area Sources ;Other Combustion;Human Perspiration and Respiration;Total 1739 2006 24 10000

2810015000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Ot her Combustion;Prescribed Burning for Forest Management;Total 1731 7 24 10000

2810030000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Ot her Combustion;Structure Fires;Total 1715 7 24 10000

2810035000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Ot her Combustion;Firefighting Training;Total 1716 2004 24 10000

2870000001 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Humans;Respiration and Perspiration;Total 262 7 24 10000

2870000002 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Humans;Infant Diapered Waste;Total 262 7 24 10000

2870000011 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Domestic Activity;Household Products;Total 262 7 24 10000

2870000015 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Domestic Activity;Nonagricultural Fertilizers;Total 3 7 24 10000

### Table VII-6 (continued)

150 SCC Description Month Week Diurnal FIPS 2870000021 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Dome stic Animals;Dogs;Total 262 7 24 10000 2870000022 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Dome stic Animals;Cats;Total 262 7 24 10000 2870000031 Miscellaneous Area Sources;W ild Animals;Deer;Total 262 7 24 10000 2870000032 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Wild Animals;Birds;Total 1728 7 24 10000

### C-151 Table VII-7. Point Source Speciati on Profiles Added to Speciation Crossreference File for CB-IV with PM Mechanism

Recommended Profiles State FIPS SCC VOC PM 2.5 Method of Assignment SCC Description (Complete description not always available) VT 50005 10200908 1084 NWWAS Use SCC=102009XX profiles External Combustion Boilers;Industrial;Wood/Bark Waste;Wood-fired Boiler - Dry Wood (<20% moisture) VT 50019 10200908 1084 NWWAS Use SCC=102009XX profiles External Combustion Boilers;Industrial;Wood/Bark Waste;Wood-fired Boiler - Dry Wood (<20% moisture) VT 50021 10200908 1084 NWWAS Use SCC=102009XX profiles External Combustion Boilers;Industrial;Wood/Bark Waste;Wood-fired Boiler - Dry Wood (<20% moisture) VT 50017 10300908 1084 NWWAS Use SCC=103009XX profiles External Combustion Boilers;Commercial/Instituti onal;Wood/Bark Waste;Wood-fired Boiler - Dry Wood (<20% moisture) PA 42009 20200299 0007 22004 Use SCC=202002XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;I ndustrial;Natural Gas;Unknown

PA 42029 20200299 0007 22004 Use SCC=202002XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;I ndustrial;Natural Gas;Unknown

PA 42045 20200299 0007 22004 Use SCC=202002XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;I ndustrial;Natural Gas;Unknown

PA 42061 20200299 0007 22004 Use SCC=202002XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;I ndustrial;Natural Gas;Unknown

PA 42067 20200299 0007 22004 Use SCC=202002XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;I ndustrial;Natural Gas;Unknown

PA 42015 20300299 0007 22004 Use SCC=203002XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;Co mmercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;Unknown PA 42029 20300299 0007 22004 Use SCC=203002XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;Co mmercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;Unknown PA 42037 20300299 0007 22004 Use SCC=203002XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;Co mmercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;Unknown PA 42071 20300299 0007 22004 Use SCC=203002XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;Co mmercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;Unknown PA 42011 28888899 9002 35602 Use SCC=288888XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;F ugitive Emissions;Other Not Classified;Specify in Comments PA 42123 28888899 9002 35602 Use SCC=288888XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;F ugitive Emissions;Other Not Classified;Specify in Comments PA 42123 28888899 9002 35602 Use SCC=288888XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;F ugitive Emissions;Other Not Classified;Specify in Comments PA 42129 28888899 9002 35602 Use SCC=288888XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;F ugitive Emissions;Other Not Classified;Specify in Comments MD 24031 30500261 0025 22035 Use SCC=30500260 profile Industrial Processes;Mineral Products;Asphalt Concrete;Drum Mix Plant: Rotary Drum Dryer/Mixer, Waste/Drain/#6 Oil-Fired PA Numerous counties 39000698 0000 22004 Use SCC=39000699 profile Industrial Processes;In-process Fuel Use;Natural Gas;Unknown NJ Numerous counties 39999901 9003 22054 Use SCC=399999XX profiles Industrial Processes;Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries;Miscellaneous Indus trial Processes;Unknown PA 42015 40202598 1003 99999 Use SCC=40202599 profile Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Surface Coating Operations;Miscellaneous Metal Parts;Unknown PA 42017 40202598 1003 99999 Use SCC=40202599 profile Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Surface Coating Operations;Miscellaneous Metal Parts;Unknown PA 42091 40202598 1003 99999 Use SCC=40202599 profile Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Surface Coating Operations;Miscellaneous Metal Parts;Unknown PA 42095 40202598 1003 99999 Use SCC=40202599 profile Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Surface Coating Operations;Miscellaneous Metal Parts;Unknown PA 42097 40202598 1003 99999 Use SCC=40202599 profile Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Surface Coating Operations;Miscellaneous Metal Parts;Unknown PA 42013 40400299 1014 22042 Use SCC=404002XX profiles Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Petroleum Liquids Storage (non-Refinery);Bulk Plants;Unknown PA 42041 40400299 1014 22042 Use SCC=404002XX profiles Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Petroleum Liquids Storage (non-Refinery);Bulk Plants;Unknown PA 42045 40400299 1014 22042 Use SCC=404002XX profiles Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Petroleum Liquids Storage (non-Refinery);Bulk Plants;Unknown PA 42071 40400299 1014 22042 Use SCC=404002XX profiles Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Petroleum Liquids Storage (non-Refinery);Bulk Plants;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;Extrus ion Operations NY 36055 31603002 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturing; Product Manufacturing - Substrate Preparation;Film Support Operations NY 36055 31604001 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturing; Product Manufacturing - Chemical Preparation;Chemical Manufacturing NY 36055 31604002 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturing; Product Manufacturing - Chemical Preparation;Emulsion Making Operations NY 36055 31604003 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturing; Product Manufacturing - Chemical Preparation;Chemical Mixing Operations NY 36055 31605001 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturin g;Product Manufacturing - Surface Treatments;Surface C oating Operations NY 36055 31605002 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturin g;Product Manufacturing - Surface Treatments;Grid Ionizers NY 36055 31605003 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturin g;Product Manufacturing - Surface Treatments;Corona Di scharge Treatment NY 36055 31606001 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturing; Product Manufacturing - Finishing Operations;General Film Manufacturing NY 36055 31606002 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturing; Product Manufacturing - Finishing Operations;Cutting/S litting Operations PA 42101 31606002 Industrial Processes;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Product Manufacturing - Finishing Operations;Cutting/S litting Operations NY 36055 31612001 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturing;Support Activities - Cleaning Operations;Tank Cleaning Operations NY 36055 31612002 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturing;Support Activities - Cleaning Operations;General Cleaning Operations NY 36055 31613002 Industrial Processe s;Photographic Film Manufactur ing;Support Activities - Storage Operations;General St orage Operations NY 36055 31614001 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturing;Support Activities - Material Transfer Operations;Filling Operations (non petroleum) NY 36055 31614002 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturing;Support Activities - Material Transfer Operations;Transfer of Chemicals NY 36055 31615001 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturing; Support Activities - Separation Processes;Recovery Operations NY 36055 31615003 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturing; Support Activities - Separation Processes;Distillation Operations NY 36055 31616002 Industrial Processe s;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Support Activities - Other Operations;General Proc ess Tank Operations NY 36055 31616003 Industrial Processe s;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Support Activities - Other Operations;Miscellaneous Manufacturing Operations NY 36055 31616004 Industrial Processe s;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Support Activities - Other Operations;Paint Spraying Operations NY 36055 31616006 Industrial Processe s;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Support Activities - Other Operations;Chemical Weighing 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 St art Date, End Date, and Emission Type Combinations for Daily Emissions in the MANE-VU 2002 Point and Area Source Inventories, Version 3

Start Date End Date Emission Type Emission Type Period Season Designation SMOKE File Point Source Inventory 20011201 20020228 27 NONANNUAL Winter MANEVU_Point _SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_042706.txt 20011201 20020228 29 NONANNUAL Winter MANEVU_Point _SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_042706.txt 20020101 20020331 27 NONANNUAL Winter MANEVU_Point _SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_042706.txt 20020101 20021231 29 NONANNUAL MD-Winter MANEVU_Point _SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_042706.txt VT-Summer MANEVU_Point_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_042706.txt 20020501 20020930 29 NONANNUAL Summer MANEVU_Point_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_042706.txt 20020601 20020831 27 NONANNUAL Summer MANEVU_Point_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_042706.txt 20020601 20020831 29 NONANNUAL Summer MANEVU_Point_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_042706.txt 20020601 20020831 30 NONANNUAL Summer MANEVU_Point_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_042706.txt Area Source Inventory

20020101 20020831 27 Daily Average Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_040606.txt and MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_040606.txt

20020101 20021231 29 Daily Average Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_040606.txt and MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_040606.txt

20020401 20020930 29 Daily Summer Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_040606.txt 20020401 20021031 29 Daily Summer Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_040606.txt 20020512 20020512 27 Daily Summer Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_040606.txt 20020601 20020831 27 Daily Summer Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_040606.txt 20020601 20020831 29 Daily Summer Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_040606.txt 20020601 20020929 29 Daily Summer Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_040606.txt 20020629 20020629 27 Daily Summer Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_040606.txt

20011201 20020228 27 Daily Winter Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_040606.txt 20011201 20020228 29 Daily Winter Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_040606.txt 20021029 20021029 27 Daily Winter Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_040606.txt 20021104 20021104 27 Daily Winter Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_040606.txt 20021205 20021205 27 Daily Winter Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_040606.txt

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

Figure VIII-1 shows the geographic area for which the 12-kilomete r (km) CMAQ modeling domain was used to support air quality modeli ng for the MANE-VU region. The 36-km domain definition was used for geographical areas outs ide of the area show n in Figure VIII-1. Table VIII-1 identifies the ge ographic region as well as the t ypes of emissions inventory and ancillary data used to in modeling for the MANE-VU region. The geographic areas for which data were obtained include the Visibility Impr ovement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS), Central Regional Air Planning Organization (CENRAP), and WRAP RPOs, the Midwest RPO, Canada, and Mexico.

Figure VIII-1. MANE-VU 12-Kilometer CMAQ Modeling Domain156Table VIII-1. Description of Non-MANE-VU RegionInventory Data Used for MANE-VU BaseB Modeling* Only utilized for 2002 BaseA 36-km modeling to generate boundary conditions for BaseA/BaseA1/BaseB current and future year 12-km modeling.GeographicalRegion/RPO Raw DataTime Periodand VersionNumberRaw DataFormat Source of Data Source of Ancillary DataDate Data and SummariesObtained by MANE-VU ModelersVISTAS Point, area,nonroad, andmobile2002 BaseG SMOKE IDA Gregory Stella, AlpineGeophysicsGregory Stella, AlpineGeophysicsJune/July 2006MRPO Point, area,nonroad, andmobile2002 BaseK SMOKE IDA NIF files provided by MarkJanssen, MRPO, andconverted to IDA format byGregory Stella, AlpineGeophysicsPart of VISTAS 2002 BaseDprovided by Gregory Stella,Alpine GeophysicsMay 2006CENRAP Point, area,nonroad, andmobile2002 BaseB SMOKE IDA CENRAP ftp siteLee Warden, Oklahoma DEQCENRAP ftp siteLee Warden, OklahomaDEQMarch 2006WRAP * Point, area,nonroad, andmobilePart ofVISTAS2002 BaseDSMOKE IDA Part of VISTAS 2002 BaseDprovided by Gregory Stella,Alpine GeophysicsPart of VISTAS 2002 BaseDprovided by Gregory Stella,Alpine GeophysicsJanuary 2005Area, nonroadand mobile2000 SMOKE IDA ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/canada_2000inventorySMOKE 2.1 defaults February 2005CanadaPoint 2002 SMOKE IDAcreated byNYSDEC fromCanadian NPRIdatabasehttp://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/npri/npri_home_e.cfmSMOKE 2.1 defaults May 2005Mexico * Point, area,nonroad andmobile1999 SMOKE IDA EPA CAIR NODA SMOKE 2.1 defaults February 2005

### 157 CHAPTER IX. REFERENCES

CAMD, 2004: 2002 Continuous Emissions Mon itoring Data Files downloaded on July 8, 2004 from the EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division’s website (www.epa.gov/ airm arkets). [Note: The files can be found by clicking on Data and Ma ps on the left panel of the screen, then on Data Sets and Published Reports, and then on the first item on the list, Emissions Data Prepackaged Datasets (http://cfpub.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm?fuseaction= prepackaged.select). Year 2002 data for the quarterly time pe riod was selected and then “Display List” that provides 48 data sets (comma delimited text format) that were downloaded one by one and combined into a single dataset.]

EPA, 2002: Final Summary of the Development and Results of a Methodology for Calculating Area Source Emissions from Re sidential Fuel Combustion, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Factor and Inventory Group, Emissions Monitoring and Analysis Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and St andards. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. September 2002. (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/t echreport/volume03/index.html).

EPA, 2003a: Enhanced Particulate Matter Controll ed Emissions Calculator , User’s Manual, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emissi on Factor and Inventory Group, Emissions Monitoring and Analysis Divi sion, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. September 2003.

EPA, 2003b: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Documentation for Aircraft, Commerc ial Marine, Locomotive, and Other Nonroad Components of the Na tional Emissions Inventory, prepared by Eastern Research Group, Morrisville, NC, for the U.S. Envi ronmental Protection Agency, September 2003.

EPA, 2004a: Basic Format & Content Checker 3.0 (Formerly known as the Quality Assurance / Quality Control Software 3.0) - March 2004; Extended Quality Control Tool - Updated May 18, 2004. Available at the following EPA website: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nif/index.html#nei.

EPA, 2004b: NEI Quality Assurance and Da ta Augmentation for Point Sources, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emissions Monitoring and Analysis Division, Emission Factor and Inventory Group, May 26, 2004.

EPA, 2004c: Factor Information and REtrieval (FIRE) Data System, Version 6.24, located on the Technology Transfer Network Clearinghouse for Inventories & Emission Factors Web Site at http://www.epa.gov /ttn/chief/softwar e/fire/index.html. March 2004.

EPA, 2005a. U.S. Environmental Protect ion Agency, Final NONROAD2005 [computer software], Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Ann Arbor, MI. Available December 2005 at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nonroadmdl.htm.

### 158 EPA, 2005b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Mobile Inventory Model, NMIM2005 [computer software], Office of Tr ansportation and Air Quality, Ann Arbor, MI. Available December 2005 at: h ttp://www.epa.gov/otaq/nmim.htm.

ERG, 2004: Environmental Research Group, Documentation for Aircraft, Commercial Marine, Locomotive, and Other Nonroad Components of the National Emissions Inventory, technical memorandum prepared by Eastern Re search Group, Morrisville, NC, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 2004.

MANE-VU, 2003: Quality Assurance Plan for Development of a 2002 Mobile Source Emissions Inventory for the MANE-VU States , Final. Prepared by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. for the Mid-Atlantic/North east Visibility Uni on (MANE-VU). January 31, 2003.

MANE-VU, 2004a: Quality Assurance Projec t Plan (QAPP) for Area and Point Source Emissions Modeling Inventory Project, Fi nal. Prepared by E.H. Pechan &Associates, Inc. and Carolina Environmental Program for the MidAtlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU). August 3, 2004.

MANE-VU, 2004b: Summary of Approaches Available for Fugitive Dust Sources, Final. Prepared by E.H. Pechan & Associ ates, Inc. for the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU). July 15, 2004.

MANE-VU, 2004c: Summary of Approaches Available for Wildfires, Prescribed Burning, Slash Burning, and Agricultural Fi eld Burning, Draft. Prepared by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. for the Mi d-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU). July 24, 2004.

MANE-VU, 2005: Area and Point Source Emissi ons Modeling Inventory Project, Prepared by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. for the Mid- Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANEVU). January 31, 2005.

Thompson, 2002: Thompson, Rhonda L., “A Dem onstration of the Quality Assurance (QA) software specifically developed for the Nati onal Emission Inventory (NEI),” presented at the International Emission Inventory Confer ence “Emission Inventories - Partnering for the Future,” Atlanta, GA, April 15-18, 2002, (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ ei11/qa/thompson.pdf).

WRAP, 2005: Western Governors’ Association, Western Regional Air Partnership, “Analysis of the Fine Fraction of Particulate Matter in Fugitive Dust,” Final Report, October 12, 2005 (http://www.wrapair.org/f orums/dejf/index.html).

### A-1 APPENDIX A

POINT SOURCE INVENTOR Y, VERSION 3: DATA SOURCES BY SCC, EMISSION TYPE PERIOD, AND POLLUTANT

[ NOTE: The Appendix A table for ea ch State is provided in a separ ate MS Word file because of the large size of each table. The Word files ar e provided in the zip file named “Appendix A.zip”;

this zip file also includes an Excel Workbook file that contains the spreadsheet from which the Word file was created for each State.]

### B-1 APPENDIX B

AREA SOURCE INVENTOR Y, VERSION 3: DATA SOURCES BY SCC, EMISSION TYPE PERIOD, AND POLLUTANT

[ NOTE: The Appendix B table for ea ch State is provided in a separ ate MS Word file because of the large size of each table. The Word files ar e provided in the zip file named “Appendix B.zip”;

this zip file also includes an Excel Workbook file that contains the spreadsheet from which the Word file was created for each State.]

### C-1 APPENDIX C

NONROAD SOURCE INVENT ORY, VERSION 3: FINAL COUNTY, MONTHLY NATIONAL MOBILE INVENTORY MOD EL (NMIM) INPUTS

CONTENTS

CONNECTICUT .................................................................................................................... .... C-2 DELAWARE ....................................................................................................................... ....... C-2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ...................................................................................................... C-3 MAINE .......................................................................................................................... ............. C-3 MARYLAND ....................................................................................................................... ...... C-4 MASSACHUSETTS.................................................................................................................. . C-6 NEW HAMPSHIRE .................................................................................................................. . C-7 NEW JERSEY ..................................................................................................................... ....... C-7 NEW YORK ....................................................................................................................... ........ C-9 PENNSYLVANIA................................................................................................................... . C-13 RHODE ISLAND ................................................................................................................... .. C-17 VERMONT........................................................................................................................ ....... C-18C-2Table C-1. MANE-VU County,Monthly NMIM/NONROAD InputsFIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC09CONNECTICUTRVP, psi001 Fairfield County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.1 10.1 12.5003 Hartford County 12.3 12.3 10.0 10.0 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 10.0 10.0 12.3005 Litchfield County 12.3 12.3 10.0 10.0 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 10.0 10.0 12.3007 Middlesex County 12.3 12.3 10.0 10.0 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 10.0 10.0 12.3009 New Haven County 12.3 12.3 10.0 10.0 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 10.0 10.0 12.3011 New London County 12.3 12.3 10.0 10.0 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 10.0 10.0 12.3013 Tolland County 12.3 12.3 10.0 10.0 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 10.0 10.0 12.3015 Windham County 12.3 12.3 10.0 10.0 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 10.0 10.0 12.3Oxygen Weight Percent001 Fairfield County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.7660 1.7660 1.7172003 Hartford County 1.5667 1.5667 1.6068 1.6068 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6068 1.6068 1.5667005 Litchfield County 1.5667 1.5667 1.6068 1.6068 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6068 1.6068 1.5667007 Middlesex County 1.5667 1.5667 1.6068 1.6068 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6068 1.6068 1.5667009 New Haven County 1.5667 1.5667 1.6068 1.6068 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6068 1.6068 1.5667011 New London County 1.5667 1.5667 1.6068 1.6068 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6068 1.6068 1.5667013 Tolland County 1.5667 1.5667 1.6068 1.6068 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6068 1.6068 1.5667015 Windham County 1.5667 1.5667 1.6068 1.6068 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6068 1.6068 1.5667Gasoline Sulfur, ppm001 Fairfield County 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 135.0 135.0 135.0003 Hartford County 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 135.0 135.0 135.0005 Litchfield County 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 135.0 135.0 135.0007 Middlesex County 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 135.0 135.0 135.0009 New Haven County 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 135.0 135.0 135.0011 New London County 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 135.0 135.0 135.0013 Tolland County 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 135.0 135.0 135.0015 Windham County 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 135.0 135.0 135.010DELAWARERVP, psi001 Kent County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.6 10.6 13.4003 New Castle County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.6 10.6 13.4005 Sussex County 13.4 13.4 10.4 10.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 10.4 10.4 13.4Oxygen Weight Percent001 Kent County 1.8442 1.8442 1.9457 1.9457 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 1.9457 1.9457 1.8442003 New Castle County 1.8442 1.8442 1.9457 1.9457 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 1.9457 1.9457 1.8442005 Sussex County 1.4645 1.4645 1.5538 1.5538 1.6431 1.6431 1.6431 1.6431 1.6431 1.5538 1.5538 1.4645Gasoline Sulfur, ppm001 Kent County 174.0 174.0 155.1 155.1 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 155.1 155.1 174.0003 New Castle County 174.0 174.0 155.1 155.1 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 155.1 155.1 174.0005 Sussex County 225.0 225.0 186.0 186.0 134.0 134.0 134.0 134.0 134.0 186.0 186.0 225.0Table C-1 (continued)C-3FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC11DISTRICT OF COLUMBIARVP, psi001 District of Columbia 13.1 13.1 10.4 10.4 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.4 13.1Oxygen Weight Percent001 District of Columbia 1.7681 1.7681 1.8217 1.8217 1.8932 1.8932 1.8932 1.8932 1.8932 1.8932 1.8217 1.7681Gasoline Sulfur, ppm001 District of Columbia 230.0 230.0 199.6 199.6 159.0 159.0 159.0 159.0 159.0 159.0 199.6 230.023MAINERVP, psi001 Androscoggin County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 7.5 7.5 7.7 7.3 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6003 Aroostook County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.4 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6005 Cumberland County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 7.5 7.5 7.7 7.3 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6007 Franklin County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.4 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6009 Hancock County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.4 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6011 Kennebec County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 7.5 7.5 7.7 7.3 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6013 Knox County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 7.5 7.5 7.7 7.3 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6015 Lincoln County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 7.5 7.5 7.7 7.3 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6017 Oxford County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.4 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6019 Penobscot County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.4 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6021 Piscataquis County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.4 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6023 Sagadahoc County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 7.5 7.5 7.7 7.3 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6025 Somerset County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.4 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6027 Waldo County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.4 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6029 Washington County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.4 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6031 York County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 7.5 7.5 7.7 7.3 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6Oxygen Weight Percent001 Androscoggin County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.2420 0.1753 0.7061 0.6868 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080003 Aroostook County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.3786 0.5845 0.8545 0.5448 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080005 Cumberland County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.2420 0.1753 0.7061 0.6868 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080007 Franklin County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.3786 0.5845 0.8545 0.5448 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080009 Hancock County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.3786 0.5845 0.8545 0.5448 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080011 Kennebec County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.2420 0.1753 0.7061 0.6868 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080013 Knox County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.2420 0.1753 0.7061 0.6868 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080015 Lincoln County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.2420 0.1753 0.7061 0.6868 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080017 Oxford County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.3786 0.5845 0.8545 0.5448 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080019 Penobscot County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.3786 0.5845 0.8545 0.5448 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080021 Piscataquis County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.3786 0.5845 0.8545 0.5448 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080023 Sagadahoc County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.2420 0.1753 0.7061 0.6868 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080025 Somerset County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.3786 0.5845 0.8545 0.5448 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080027 Waldo County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.3786 0.5845 0.8545 0.5448 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080029 Washington County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.3786 0.5845 0.8545 0.5448 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080031 York County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.2420 0.1753 0.7061 0.6868 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080Gasoline Sulfur, ppm001 Androscoggin County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 319.7 268.1 101.1 83.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0003 Aroostook County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 170.1 290.9 128.6 299.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0005 Cumberland County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 319.7 268.1 101.1 83.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0007 Franklin County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 170.1 290.9 128.6 299.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0Table C-1 (continued)C-4FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC009 Hancock County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 170.1 290.9 128.6 299.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.023 MAINE (cont’d)011 Kennebec County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 319.7 268.1 101.1 83.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0013 Knox County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 319.7 268.1 101.1 83.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0015 Lincoln County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 319.7 268.1 101.1 83.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0017 Oxford County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 170.1 290.9 128.6 299.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0019 Penobscot County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 170.1 290.9 128.6 299.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0021 Piscataquis County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 170.1 290.9 128.6 299.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0023 Sagadahoc County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 319.7 268.1 101.1 83.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0025 Somerset County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 170.1 290.9 128.6 299.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0027 Waldo County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 170.1 290.9 128.6 299.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0029 Washington County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 170.1 290.9 128.6 299.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0031 York County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 319.7 268.1 101.1 83.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.024MARYLANDRVP, psi003 Anne Arundel County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6005 Baltimore County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6009 Calvert County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6011 Caroline County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.2 8.2 8.2 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6013 Carroll County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6015 Cecil County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6017 Charles County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6019 Dorchester County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.2 8.2 8.2 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6021 Frederick County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6023 Garrett County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.2 8.2 8.2 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6025 Harford County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6027 Howard County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6029 Kent County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6031 Montgomery County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6033 Prince George's County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6035 Queen Anne's County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6037 St. Mary's County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.2 8.2 8.2 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6039 Somerset County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.2 8.2 8.2 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6041 Talbot County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.2 8.2 8.2 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6043 Washington County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.2 8.2 8.2 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6045 Wicomico County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.2 8.2 8.2 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6047 Worcester County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.2 8.2 8.2 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6510 Baltimore city 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6Oxygen Weight Percent001 Allegany County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075003 Anne Arundel County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075005 Baltimore County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075009 Calvert County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075011 Caroline County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075013 Carroll County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075015 Cecil County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075017 Charles County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075019 Dorchester County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075021 Frederick County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075Table C-1 (continued)C-5FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC023 Garrett County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.107524 MARYLAND (cont’d)025 Harford County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075027 Howard County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075029 Kent County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075031 Montgomery County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075033 Prince George's County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075035 Queen Anne's County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075037 St. Mary's County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075039 Somerset County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075041 Talbot County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075043 Washington County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075045 Wicomico County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075047 Worcester County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075510 Baltimore city 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075Gasoline Sulfur, ppm001 Allegany County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 191.9 207.9003 Anne Arundel County 211.0 211.0 184.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 148.0 184.0 211.0005 Baltimore County 211.0 211.0 184.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 148.0 184.0 211.0009 Calvert County 230.0 230.0 199.6 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 159.0 199.6 230.0011 Caroline County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 191.9 207.9013 Carroll County 211.0 211.0 184.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 148.0 184.0 211.0015 Cecil County 174.0 174.0 155.1 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 130.0 155.1 174.0017 Charles County 230.0 230.0 199.6 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 159.0 199.6 230.0019 Dorchester County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 191.9 207.9021 Frederick County 230.0 230.0 199.6 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 159.0 199.6 230.0023 Garrett County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 191.9 207.9025 Harford County 211.0 211.0 184.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 148.0 184.0 211.0027 Howard County 211.0 211.0 184.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 148.0 184.0 211.0029 Kent County 174.0 174.0 155.1 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 130.0 155.1 174.0031 Montgomery County 230.0 230.0 199.6 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 159.0 199.6 230.0033 Prince George's County 230.0 230.0 199.6 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 159.0 199.6 230.0035 Queen Anne's County 174.0 174.0 155.1 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 130.0 155.1 174.0037 St. Mary's County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 191.9 207.9039 Somerset County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 191.9 207.9041 Talbot County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 191.9 207.9043 Washington County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 191.9 207.9045 Wicomico County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 191.9 207.9047 Worcester County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 191.9 207.9510 Baltimore city 211.0 211.0 184.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 148.0 184.0 211.0Table C-1 (continued)C-6FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC25MASSACHUSETTSRVP, psi001 Barnstable County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5003 Berkshire County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5005 Bristol County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5007 Dukes County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5009 Essex County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5011 Franklin County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5013 Hampden County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5015 Hampshire County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5017 Middlesex County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5019 Nantucket County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5021 Norfolk County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5023 Plymouth County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5025 Suffolk County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5027 Worcester County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5Oxygen Weight Percent001 Barnstable County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002003 Berkshire County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002005 Bristol County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002007 Dukes County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002009 Essex County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002011 Franklin County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002013 Hampden County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002015 Hampshire County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002017 Middlesex County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002019 Nantucket County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002021 Norfolk County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002023 Plymouth County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002025 Suffolk County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002027 Worcester County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002Gasoline Sulfur, ppm001 Barnstable County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0003 Berkshire County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0005 Bristol County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0007 Dukes County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0009 Essex County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0011 Franklin County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0013 Hampden County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0015 Hampshire County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0017 Middlesex County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0019 Nantucket County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0021 Norfolk County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0023 Plymouth County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0025 Suffolk County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0027 Worcester County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0Table C-1 (continued)C-7FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC33NEW HAMPSHIRERVP, psi001 Belknap County 13.6 13.6 11.2 11.2 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 11.2 11.2 13.6003 Carroll County 13.6 13.6 11.2 11.2 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 11.2 11.2 13.6005 Cheshire County 13.6 13.6 11.2 11.2 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 11.2 11.2 13.6007 Coos County 13.6 13.6 11.2 11.2 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 11.2 11.2 13.6009 Grafton County 13.6 13.6 11.2 11.2 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 11.2 11.2 13.6011 Hillsborough County 12.9 12.9 10.2 10.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.76.7 10.2 10.2 12.9013 Merrimack County 12.9 12.9 10.2 10.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 10.2 10.2 12.9015 Rockingham County 12.9 12.9 10.2 10.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 10.2 10.2 12.9017 Strafford County 12.9 12.9 10.2 10.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 10.2 10.2 12.9019 Sullivan County 13.613.6 11.2 11.2 7.97.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 11.2 11.2 13.6Oxygen Weight Percent001 Belknap County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2322 0.2322 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2322 0.2322 0.1786003 Carroll County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2322 0.2322 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2322 0.2322 0.1786005 Cheshire County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2322 0.2322 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2322 0.2322 0.1786007 Coos County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2322 0.2322 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2322 0.2322 0.1786009 Grafton County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2322 0.2322 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2322 0.2322 0.1786011 Hillsborough County 1.8217 1.8217 1.9110 1.9110 2.0182 2.0182 2.0182 2.01822.0182 1.9110 1.9110 1.8217013 Merrimack County 1.8217 1.8217 1.9110 1.9110 2.0182 2.0182 2.0182 2.0182 2.0182 1.9110 1.9110 1.8217015 Rockingham County 1.9825 1.9825 2.0539 2.0539 2.1432 2.1432 2.1432 2.1432 2.1432 2.0539 2.0539 1.9825017 Strafford County 1.9825 1.9825 2.0539 2.0539 2.1432 2.1432 2.1432 2.1432 2.1432 2.0539 2.0539 1.9825019 Sullivan County 0.17860.1786 0.2322 0.2322 0.28580.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2322 0.2322 0.1786Gasoline Sulfur, ppm001 Belknap County 228.1 228.1 208.6 208.6 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 208.6 208.6 228.1003 Carroll County 228.1 228.1 208.6 208.6 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 208.6 208.6 228.1005 Cheshire County 228.1 228.1 208.6 208.6 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 208.6 208.6 228.1007 Coos County 228.1 228.1 208.6 208.6 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 208.6 208.6 228.1009 Grafton County 228.1 228.1 208.6 208.6 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 208.6 208.6 228.1011 Hillsborough County 121.0 121.0 101.3 101.3 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.075.0 101.3 101.3 121.0013 Merrimack County 121.0 121.0 101.3 101.3 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 101.3 101.3 121.0015 Rockingham County 148.0 148.0 121.0 121.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 121.0 121.0 148.0017 Strafford County 148.0 148.0 121.0 121.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 121.0 121.0 148.0019 Sullivan County 228.1228.1 208.6 208.6 182.5182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 208.6 208.6 228.134NEW JERSEYRVP, psi001 Atlantic County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.6 10.6 13.4003 Bergen County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.1 10.1 12.5005 Burlington County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.6 10.6 13.4007 Camden County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.6 10.6 13.4009 Cape May County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.6 10.6 13.4011 Cumberland County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.6 10.6 13.4013 Essex County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.1 10.1 12.5015 Gloucester County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.6 10.6 13.4017 Hudson County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.1 10.1 12.5019 Hunterdon County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.1 10.1 12.5021 Mercer County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.6 10.6 13.4023 Middlesex County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.1 10.1 12.5Table C-1 (continued)C-8FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC34 NEW JERSEY025 Monmouth County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.1 10.1 12.5(cont’d)027 Morris County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.1 10.1 12.5029 Ocean County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.1 10.1 12.5031 Passaic County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.1 10.1 12.5033 Salem County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.6 10.6 13.4035 Somerset County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.1 10.1 12.5037 Sussex County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.1 10.1 12.5039 Union County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.1 10.1 12.5041 Warren County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.6 10.6 13.4Oxygen Weight Percent001 Atlantic County 1.6922 1.6922 1.8499 1.8499 2.0718 2.0718 2.0718 2.0718 2.0718 1.8499 1.8499 1.6922003 Bergen County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.7660 1.7660 1.7172005 Burlington County 1.8442 1.8442 1.9457 1.9457 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 1.9457 1.9457 1.8442007 Camden County 1.8442 1.8442 1.9457 1.9457 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 1.9457 1.9457 1.8442009 Cape May County 1.6922 1.6922 1.8499 1.8499 2.0718 2.0718 2.0718 2.0718 2.0718 1.8499 1.8499 1.6922011 Cumberland County 1.8442 1.8442 1.9457 1.9457 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 1.9457 1.9457 1.8442013 Essex County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.7660 1.7660 1.7172015 Gloucester County 1.8442 1.8442 1.9457 1.9457 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 1.9457 1.9457 1.8442017 Hudson County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.7660 1.7660 1.7172019 Hunterdon County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.7660 1.7660 1.7172021 Mercer County 1.8442 1.8442 1.9457 1.9457 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 1.9457 1.9457 1.8442023 Middlesex County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.7660 1.7660 1.7172025 Monmouth County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.7660 1.7660 1.7172027 Morris County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.7660 1.7660 1.7172029 Ocean County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.7660 1.7660 1.7172031 Passaic County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.7660 1.7660 1.7172033 Salem County 1.8442 1.8442 1.9457 1.9457 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 1.9457 1.9457 1.8442035 Somerset County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.7660 1.7660 1.7172037 Sussex County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.7660 1.7660 1.7172039 Union County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.7660 1.7660 1.7172041 Warren County 1.8753 1.8753 1.9110 1.9110 1.9825 1.9825 1.9825 1.9825 1.9825 1.9110 1.9110 1.8753Gasoline Sulfur, ppm001 Atlantic County 207.0 207.0 174.0 174.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 174.0 174.0 207.0003 Bergen County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 129.4 129.4 141.0005 Burlington County 174.0 174.0 155.1 155.1 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 155.1 155.1 174.0007 Camden County 174.0 174.0 155.1 155.1 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 155.1 155.1 174.0009 Cape May County 207.0 207.0 174.0 174.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 174.0 174.0 207.0011 Cumberland County 174.0 174.0 155.1 155.1 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 155.1 155.1 174.0013 Essex County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 129.4 129.4 141.0015 Gloucester County 174.0 174.0 155.1 155.1 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 155.1 155.1 174.0017 Hudson County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 129.4 129.4 141.0019 Hunterdon County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 129.4 129.4 141.0021 Mercer County 174.0 174.0 155.1 155.1 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 155.1 155.1 174.0023 Middlesex County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 129.4 129.4 141.0025 Monmouth County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 129.4 129.4 141.0027 Morris County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 129.4 129.4 141.0029 Ocean County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 129.4 129.4 141.0031 Passaic County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 129.4 129.4 141.0Table C-1 (continued)C-9FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC34 NEW JERSEY033 Salem County 174.0 174.0 155.1 155.1 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 155.1 155.1 174.0(cont’d)035 Somerset County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 129.4 129.4 141.0037 Sussex County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 129.4 129.4 141.0039 Union County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 129.4 129.4 141.0041 Warren County 125.0 125.0 123.7 123.7 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 123.7 123.7 125.036NEW YORKRVP, psi001 Albany County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4003 Allegany County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4005 Bronx County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.9 10.3 11.7 12.5007 Broome County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4009 Cattaraugus County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4011 Cayuga County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4013 Chautauqua County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4015 Chemung County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4017 Chenango County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4019 Clinton County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4021 Columbia County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4023 Cortland County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4025 Delaware County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4027 Dutchess County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4029 Erie County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4031 Essex County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4033 Franklin County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4035 Fulton County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4037 Genesee County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4039 Greene County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4041 Hamilton County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4043 Herkimer County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4045 Jefferson County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4047 Kings County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.9 10.3 11.7 12.5049 Lewis County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4051 Livingston County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4053 Madison County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4055 Monroe County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4057 Montgomery County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4059 Nassau County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.9 10.3 11.7 12.5061 New York County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.9 10.3 11.7 12.5063 Niagara County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4065 Oneida County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4067 Onondaga County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4069 Ontario County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4071 Orange County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.9 10.3 11.7 12.5073 Orleans County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4075 Oswego County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4077 Otsego County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4079 Putnam County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.9 10.3 11.7 12.5081 Queens County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.9 10.3 11.7 12.5Table C-1 (continued)C-10FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC36 NEW YORK083 Rensselaer County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4(cont’d)085 Richmond County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.9 10.3 11.7 12.5087 Rockland County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.9 10.3 11.7 12.5089 St. Lawrence County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4091 Saratoga County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4093 Schenectady County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4095 Schoharie County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4097 Schuyler County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4099 Seneca County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4101 Steuben County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4103 Suffolk County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.9 10.3 11.7 12.5105 Sullivan County 12.712.7 12.6 10.9 8.68.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4107 Tioga County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4109 Tompkins County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4111 Ulster County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4113 Warren County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4115 Washington County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4117 Wayne County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4119 Westchester County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.9 10.3 11.7 12.5121 Wyoming County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4123 Yates County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4Oxygen Weight Percent001 Albany County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930003 Allegany County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930005 Bronx County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8217 1.9646 1.8217 1.8574 1.6431007 Broome County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930009 Cattaraugus County 0.8965 1.0344 0.8275 0.6551 0.8965 0.5862 0.8275 0.9654 0.6551 0.6896 0.9310 0.8965011 Cayuga County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930013 Chautauqua County 0.8965 1.0344 0.8275 0.6551 0.8965 0.5862 0.8275 0.9654 0.6551 0.6896 0.9310 0.8965015 Chemung County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930017 Chenango County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930019 Clinton County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930021 Columbia County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930023 Cortland County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930025 Delaware County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930027 Dutchess County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930029 Erie County 0.8965 1.0344 0.8275 0.6551 0.8965 0.5862 0.8275 0.9654 0.6551 0.6896 0.9310 0.8965031 Essex County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930033 Franklin County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930035 Fulton County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930037 Genesee County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930039 Greene County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930041 Hamilton County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930043 Herkimer County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930045 Jefferson County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930047 Kings County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8217 1.9646 1.8217 1.8574 1.6431049 Lewis County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930051 Livingston County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930053 Madison County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930Table C-1 (continued)C-11FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC36 NEW YORK055 Monroe County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930(cont’d)057 Montgomery County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930059 Nassau County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8217 1.9646 1.8217 1.8574 1.6431061 New York County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8217 1.9646 1.8217 1.8574 1.6431063 Niagara County 0.8965 1.0344 0.8275 0.6551 0.8965 0.5862 0.8275 0.9654 0.6551 0.6896 0.9310 0.8965065 Oneida County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930067 Onondaga County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930069 Ontario County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930071 Orange County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8217 1.9646 1.8217 1.8574 1.6431073 Orleans County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930075 Oswego County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930077 Otsego County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930079 Putnam County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8217 1.9646 1.8217 1.8574 1.6431081 Queens County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8217 1.9646 1.8217 1.8574 1.6431083 Rensselaer County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930085 Richmond County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8217 1.9646 1.8217 1.8574 1.6431087 Rockland County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8217 1.9646 1.8217 1.8574 1.6431089 St. Lawrence County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930091 Saratoga County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930093 Schenectady County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930095 Schoharie County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930097 Schuyler County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930099 Seneca County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930101 Steuben County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930103 Suffolk County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8217 1.9646 1.8217 1.8574 1.6431105 Sullivan County 0.87511.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.89300.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930107 Tioga County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930109 Tompkins County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930111 Ulster County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930113 Warren County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930115 Washington County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930117 Wayne County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930119 Westchester County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8217 1.9646 1.8217 1.8574 1.6431121 Wyoming County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930123 Yates County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930Gasoline Sulfur, ppm001 Albany County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0003 Allegany County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0005 Bronx County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 190.0 190.0 220.0 200.0 240.0007 Broome County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0009 Cattaraugus County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0011 Cayuga County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0013 Chautauqua County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0015 Chemung County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0017 Chenango County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0019 Clinton County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0021 Columbia County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0023 Cortland County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0025 Delaware County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0Table C-1 (continued)C-12FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC36 NEW YORK027 Dutchess County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0(cont’d)029 Erie County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0031 Essex County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0033 Franklin County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0035 Fulton County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0037 Genesee County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0039 Greene County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0041 Hamilton County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0043 Herkimer County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0045 Jefferson County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0047 Kings County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 190.0 190.0 220.0 200.0 240.0049 Lewis County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0051 Livingston County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0053 Madison County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0055 Monroe County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0057 Montgomery County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0059 Nassau County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 190.0 190.0 220.0 200.0 240.0061 New York County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 190.0 190.0 220.0 200.0 240.0063 Niagara County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0065 Oneida County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0067 Onondaga County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0069 Ontario County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0071 Orange County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 190.0 190.0 220.0 200.0 240.0073 Orleans County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0075 Oswego County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0077 Otsego County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0079 Putnam County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 190.0 190.0 220.0 200.0 240.0081 Queens County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 190.0 190.0 220.0 200.0 240.0083 Rensselaer County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0085 Richmond County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 190.0 190.0 220.0 200.0 240.0087 Rockland County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 190.0 190.0 220.0 200.0 240.0089 St. Lawrence County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0091 Saratoga County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0093 Schenectady County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0095 Schoharie County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0097 Schuyler County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0099 Seneca County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0101 Steuben County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0103 Suffolk County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 190.0 190.0 220.0 200.0 240.0105 Sullivan County 260.0250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0107 Tioga County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0109 Tompkins County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0111 Ulster County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0113 Warren County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0115 Washington County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0117 Wayne County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0119 Westchester County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 190.0 190.0 220.0 200.0 240.0121 Wyoming County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0123 Yates County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0Table C-1 (continued)C-13FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC42PENNSYLVANIARVP, psi001 Adams County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5003 Allegheny County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 11.0 11.0 13.5005 Armstrong County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 11.0 11.0 13.5007 Beaver County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 11.0 11.0 13.5009 Bedford County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5011 Berks County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5013 Blair County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5015 Bradford County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5017 Bucks County 13.5 13.5 10.6 10.6 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 10.6 10.6 13.5019 Butler County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 11.0 11.0 13.5021 Cambria County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5023 Cameron County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5025 Carbon County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5027 Centre County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5029 Chester County 13.5 13.5 10.6 10.6 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 10.6 10.6 13.5031 Clarion County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5033 Clearfield County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5035 Clinton County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5037 Columbia County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5039 Crawford County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5041 Cumberland County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5043 Dauphin County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5045 Delaware County 13.5 13.5 10.6 10.6 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 10.6 10.6 13.5047 Elk County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5049 Erie County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5051 Fayette County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 11.0 11.0 13.5053 Forest County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5055 Franklin County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5057 Fulton County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5059 Greene County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5061 Huntingdon County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5063 Indiana County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5065 Jefferson County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5067 Juniata County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5069 Lackawanna County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5071 Lancaster County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5073 Lawrence County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5075 Lebanon County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5077 Lehigh County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5079 Luzerne County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5081 Lycoming County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5083 McKean County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5085 Mercer County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5087 Mifflin County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5089 Monroe County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5091 Montgomery County 13.5 13.5 10.6 10.6 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 10.6 10.6 13.5093 Montour County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5Table C-1 (continued)C-14FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC42 PENNSYLVANIA095 Northampton County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5(cont’d)097 Northumberland County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5099 Perry County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5101 Philadelphia County 13.5 13.5 10.6 10.6 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 10.6 10.6 13.5103 Pike County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5105 Potter County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5107 Schuylkill County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.78.7 11.0 11.0 13.5109 Snyder County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5111 Somerset County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5113 Sullivan County 13.513.5 11.0 11.0 8.78.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5115 Susquehanna County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5117 Tioga County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5119 Union County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5121 Venango County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5123 Warren County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5125 Washington County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 11.0 11.0 13.5127 Wayne County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5129 Westmoreland County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 11.0 11.0 13.5131 Wyoming County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5133 York County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5Oxygen Weight Percent001 Adams County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965003 Allegheny County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965005 Armstrong County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965007 Beaver County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965009 Bedford County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965011 Berks County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965013 Blair County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965015 Bradford County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965017 Bucks County 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303019 Butler County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965021 Cambria County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965023 Cameron County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965025 Carbon County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965027 Centre County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965029 Chester County 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303031 Clarion County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965033 Clearfield County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965035 Clinton County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965037 Columbia County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965039 Crawford County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965041 Cumberland County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965043 Dauphin County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965045 Delaware County 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303047 Elk County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965049 Erie County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965051 Fayette County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965053 Forest County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965055 Franklin County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965Table C-1 (continued)C-15FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC42 PENNSYLVANIA057 Fulton County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965(cont’d)059 Greene County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965061 Huntingdon County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965063 Indiana County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965065 Jefferson County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965067 Juniata County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965069 Lackawanna County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965071 Lancaster County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965073 Lawrence County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965075 Lebanon County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965077 Lehigh County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965079 Luzerne County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965081 Lycoming County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965083 McKean County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965085 Mercer County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965087 Mifflin County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965089 Monroe County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965091 Montgomery County 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303093 Montour County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965095 Northampton County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965097 Northumberland County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965099 Perry County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965101 Philadelphia County 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303103 Pike County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965105 Potter County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965107 Schuylkill County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.26790.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965109 Snyder County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965111 Somerset County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965113 Sullivan County 0.19650.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.26790.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965115 Susquehanna County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965117 Tioga County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965119 Union County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965121 Venango County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965123 Warren County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965125 Washington County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965127 Wayne County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965129 Westmoreland County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965131 Wyoming County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965133 York County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965Gasoline Sulfur, ppm001 Adams County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0003 Allegheny County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0005 Armstrong County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0007 Beaver County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0009 Bedford County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0011 Berks County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0013 Blair County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0015 Bradford County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0017 Bucks County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0Table C-1 (continued)C-16FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC42 PENNSYLVANIA019 Butler County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0(cont’d)021 Cambria County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0023 Cameron County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0025 Carbon County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0027 Centre County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0029 Chester County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0031 Clarion County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0033 Clearfield County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0035 Clinton County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0037 Columbia County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0039 Crawford County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0041 Cumberland County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0043 Dauphin County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0045 Delaware County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0047 Elk County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0049 Erie County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0051 Fayette County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0053 Forest County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0055 Franklin County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0057 Fulton County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0059 Greene County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0061 Huntingdon County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0063 Indiana County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0065 Jefferson County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0067 Juniata County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0069 Lackawanna County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0071 Lancaster County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0073 Lawrence County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0075 Lebanon County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0077 Lehigh County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0079 Luzerne County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0081 Lycoming County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0083 McKean County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0085 Mercer County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0087 Mifflin County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0089 Monroe County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0091 Montgomery County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0093 Montour County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0095 Northampton County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0097 Northumberland County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0099 Perry County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0101 Philadelphia County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0103 Pike County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0105 Potter County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0107 Schuylkill County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0109 Snyder County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0111 Somerset County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0113 Sullivan County 279.0279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0115 Susquehanna County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0Table C-1 (continued)C-17FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC42 PENNSYLVANIA117 Tioga County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0(cont’d)119 Union County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0121 Venango County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0123 Warren County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0125 Washington County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0127 Wayne County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0129 Westmoreland County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0131 Wyoming County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0133 York County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.044RHODE ISLANDRVP, psi001 Bristol County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 10.1 10.1 12.5003 Kent County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 10.1 10.1 12.5005 Newport County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 10.1 10.1 12.5007 Providence County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 10.1 10.1 12.5009 Washington County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 10.1 10.1 12.5Oxygen Weight Percent001 Bristol County 1.7110 1.7110 1.6801 1.6801 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6801 1.6801 1.7110003 Kent County 1.7110 1.7110 1.6801 1.6801 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6801 1.6801 1.7110005 Newport County 1.7110 1.7110 1.6801 1.6801 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6801 1.6801 1.7110007 Providence County 1.7110 1.7110 1.6801 1.6801 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6801 1.6801 1.7110009 Washington County 1.7110 1.7110 1.6801 1.6801 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6801 1.6801 1.7110Gasoline Sulfur, ppm001 Bristol County 193.0 193.0 166.4 166.4 131.0 131.0 131.0 131.0 131.0 166.4 166.4 193.0003 Kent County 193.0 193.0 166.4 166.4 131.0 131.0 131.0 131.0 131.0 166.4 166.4 193.0005 Newport County 193.0 193.0 166.4 166.4 131.0 131.0 131.0 131.0 131.0 166.4 166.4 193.0007 Providence County 193.0 193.0 166.4 166.4 131.0 131.0 131.0 131.0 131.0 166.4 166.4 193.0009 Washington County 193.0 193.0 166.4 166.4 131.0 131.0 131.0 131.0 131.0 166.4 166.4 193.0Table C-1 (continued)C-18FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC50VERMONTRVP, psi001 Addison County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5003 Bennington County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5005 Caledonia County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5007 Chittenden County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5009 Essex County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5011 Franklin County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5013 Grand Isle County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5015 Lamoille County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.58.5 9.5 9.5 9.5017 Orange County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5019 Orleans County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5021 Rutland County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5023 Washington County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5025 Windham County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5027 Windsor County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5Oxygen Weight Percent001 Addison County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786003 Bennington County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786005 Caledonia County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786007 Chittenden County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786009 Essex County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786011 Franklin County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786013 Grand Isle County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786015 Lamoille County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.26790.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786017 Orange County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786019 Orleans County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786021 Rutland County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786023 Washington County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786025 Windham County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786027 Windsor County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786Gasoline Sulfur, ppm001 Addison County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3003 Bennington County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3005 Caledonia County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3007 Chittenden County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3009 Essex County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3011 Franklin County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3013 Grand Isle County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3015 Lamoille County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3017 Orange County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3019 Orleans County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3021 Rutland County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3023 Washington County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3025 Windham County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3027 Windsor County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3

# Attachment 13b_MANEVU Emission

Projections TSD 07Dec2006 .pdf

# Development of Emission Projections
for 2009, 2012, and 2018
for NonEGU Point, Area, and Nonroad Sources
in the MANE-VU Region

Draft Final Technical Support Document

Prepared for:
Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Mana gement Association (MARAMA)

Prepared by:
MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc.

December 7, 2006

______________________ ______________________ Edward Sabo Douglas A. Toothman Principal Scientist Principal EngineerDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 ............................................................................................................... . 3-1Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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...............................................................................3-11
3.4 AREA SOURCE QA/QC REVIEW ..........................................................................3-12
3.5 AREA SOURCE NIF, SMOKE AND SUMMARY FILES....................................... 3-12
3.6 AREA SOURCE EMISSION SUMMARIES............................................................ 3-12

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 ..................................................................................... 5-2Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 Area Source NIF, SMOKE, and Summary Files........................................5-10
5.1.8 BOTW Area Source Emission Summaries .............................................................5-10
5.2 AREA SOURCES...................................................................................................... 5-19
5.2.1 Adhesives and Sealants..........................................................................................5-19
5.2.2 Asphalt Paving.......................................................................................................5-23
5.2.3 Consumer Products................................................................................................5-23
5.2.4 Portable Fuel Containers ...................................................................................... 5-24
5.2.5 Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers.......................................................... 5-25
5.2.6 Residential and Commercial Heating Oil.............................................................. 5-26
5.2.7 BOTW Area Source NIF, SMOKE, and Summary Files........................................5-26
5.2.8 BOTW Area Source Emission Summaries .............................................................5-26
5.3 N ONROAD 

### M OBILE 

### S OURCES 

### ...................................................................................... 5-35
5.4 E LECTRIC 

### G ENERATING 

### U NITS 

### ................................................................................... 5-35
5.5 O NROAD 

### M OBILE 

### S OURCES 

### ........................................................................................ 5-35

List of Appendices

Appendix A - NonEGU Point Source Growth Factors Appendix B - NonEGU Point Source Control Factors Appendix C - Area Source Growth Factors Appendix D - Area Source Control FactorsDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Page iv

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### List of Tables Figure 1-1 Base Year, OTB/OTW AND BOTW Annual CO Emissions

Table 1-1 Summary of MANE-VU Area, N onEGU, and Nonroad Emission Inventory by Pollutant, Sector, and Year

Table 2-1 NonEGU Point Source NIF, IDA, and Summary File Names Table 2-2 NonEGU Point S ource OTB/OTW Annual CO Emission Projections Table 2-3 NonEGU Point S ource OTB/OTW Annual NH3 Emission Projections Table 2-4 NonEGU Point S ource OTB/OTW Annual NOx Emission Projections Table 2-5 NonEGU Point Sour ce OTB/OTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections Table 2-6 NonEGU Point Sour ce OTB/OTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections Table 2-7 NonEGU Point S ource OTB/OTW Annual SO2 Emission Projections Table 2-8 NonEGU Point S ource OTB/OTW Annual VOC Emission Projections

Table 3-1 Adoption Matrix for 2001 OTC Model Rules Table 3-2 Rule Penetration and Control Effi ciency Values for 2001 OTC Model Rule for PFCs Table 3-3 Area Source NIF, I DA, and Summary File Names Table 3-4 Area Source OTB/OTW Annual CO Em ission Projections Table 3-5 Area Source OTB/OTW Annual NH3 Em ission Projections Table 3-6 Area Source OTB/OTW Annual NOx Em ission Projections Table 3-7 Area Source OTB/OTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections Table 3-8 Area Source OTB/OTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections Table 3-9 Area Source OTB/OTW Annual SO2 Emission Projections Table 3-10 Area Source OTB/OTW Annual VOC Emission Projections

Table 4-1 Nonroad Source NIF, IDA, and Summary File Names Table 4-2a All Nonroad Sources OTB/ OTW Annual CO Emi ssion Projections Table 4-2b NONROAD Model Sources OT B/OTW Annual CO Emission Projections Table 4-2c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Co mmercial Marine Ve ssel Sources OTB/OTW Annual CO Emission Projections Table 4-3a All Nonroad Sources OTB/ OTW Annual NH3 Emi ssion Projections Table 4-3b NONROAD Model Sources OT B/OTW Annual NH3 Emission Projections Table 4-3c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Co mmercial Marine Ve ssel Sources OTB/OTW Annual NH3 Emission Projections Table 4-4a All Nonroad Sources OTB/ OTW Annual NOx Emi ssion Projections Table 4-4b NONROAD Model Sources OTB/ OTW Annual NOx Emission Projections Table 4-4c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Co mmercial Marine Ve ssel Sources OTB/OTW Annual NOx Emission ProjectionsDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Page v

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### List of Tables (cont.)

Table 4-5a All Nonroad Sources OTB/OT W Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections Table 4-5b NONROAD Model Sources OTB/ OTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections Table 4-5c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Co mmercial Marine Ve ssel Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections Table 4-6a All Nonroad Sources OTB/OT W Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections Table 4-6b NONROAD Model Sources OTB/ OTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections Table 4-6c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Co mmercial Marine Ve ssel Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections Table 4-7a All Nonroad Sources OTB/ OTW Annual SO2 Emi ssion Projections Table 4-7b NONROAD Model Sources OT B/OTW Annual SO2 Emission Projections Table 4-7c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Co mmercial Marine Ve ssel Sources OTB/OTW Annual SO2 Emission Projections Table 4-8a All Nonroad Sources OTB/ OTW Annual VOC Emission Projections Table 4-8b NONROAD Model Sources OT B/OTW Annual VOC Em ission Projections Table 4-8c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Co mmercial Marine Ve ssel Sources OTB/OTW Annual VOC Emission Projections

Table 5-1 State Staff Recommendations for Control Measures to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – NOx Emissions from NonEGU Point Sources Table 5-2 State Staff Recommendations for Control Measures to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – NOx Emissions from ICI Boilers Table 5-3 State Staff Recommendations for Control Measures to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – SO2 Emissions from NonEGU Point Sources Table 5-4 State Staff Recommendations for Control Measures to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – VOC Emissions from NonEGU Point Sources Table 5-5 BOTW NonEGU NIF, IDA, and Summary File Names Table 5-6 NonEGU Point Sour ces OTB/OTW and BOTW Annua l CO Emission Projections Table 5-7 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW and BO TW Annual NH3 Emission Projections Table 5-8 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW and BO TW Annual NOx Emission Projections Table 5-9 NonEGU Point S ources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual PM10 Emission Projections Table 5-10 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/ OTW and BOTW Annual PM2.5 Emission Projections Table 5-11 NonEGU Point Sources OT B/OTW and BOTW Annual SO2 Emission Projections Table 5-12 NonEGU Point Sources OT B/OTW and BOTW Annual VOC Emission ProjectionsDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Page vi

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### List of Tables (cont.)

Table 5-13 State Staff Recommendations fo r Control Measures to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – NOx Emissions from Area Sources Table 5-14 State Staff Recommendations fo r Control Measures to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – SO2 Emissions from Area Sources Table 5-15 State Staff Recommendations fo r Control Measures to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – VOC Emissions from Area Sources Table 5-16 BOTW Area Source NIF, IDA, and Summary File Names Table 5-17 Area Point Sources OTB/OTW a nd BOTW Annual CO Emission Projections Table 5-18 Area Point Sources OTB/OTW a nd BOTW Annual NH3 Emission Projections Table 5-19 Area Point Sources OTB/OTW a nd BOTW Annual NOx Emission Projections Table 5-20 Area Point Sources OTB/OTW a nd BOTW Annual PM10 Emission Projections Table 5-21 Area Point Sources OTB/OTW a nd BOTW Annual PM2.5 Emission Projections Table 5-22 Area Point Sources OTB/OTW a nd BOTW Annual SO2 Emission Projections Table 5-23 Area Point Sources OTB/OTW a nd BOTW Annual VOC Emission ProjectionsDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 EmissionsDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 Coodinated Air Use Management

NH3 Ammonia NIF3.0 National Emission Inventory Input Format Version 3.0 NMIM National Mobile Inventory Model

NONROAD U.S. EPA’s emission model for certain types of nonroad equipment NOx Oxides of nitrogen OTB/OTW On-the-Books/On-the-Way OTC Ozone Transport Commission

PM10-PRI Particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter that includes both the filterable and condensable components of particulate matter

PM25-PRI Particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter that includes both the filterable and condensable components of particulate matter

SIC Standard Industrial Classification code SIP State Implementation Plan

SCC Source Classification Code 

### SMOKE Sparse Matrix Operator Ke rnel Emissions Modeling System

SO2 Sulfur dioxide VOC Volatile organic compoundsDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 1 – Executive Summary Page 1-1

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

## 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report was prepared for the Mid-Atla ntic Regional Air Mana gement Association (MARAMA) as part of an effort to assist stat es in developing State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for ozone, fine particles, and regional haze. It describes the data sour ces, methods, and results for emission forecasts for three years, three em ission sectors, two emission control scenarios; seven pollutants, and 11 states pl us the District of Columbia. The following is a summary of the future year inventories that were developed:

• The three projection years are 2009, 2012, and 2018.

• The three source sectors are non-Electric Generating Units (non-EGUs), area sources, and nonroad mobile sources. (Note: under se parate efforts, MANE-VU prepared EGU projections using the Integrated Planni ng Model {IPM} and onroad mobile source projections using the SMOKE emission modeling system).

• The two emission control scenarios are: a) a combined “on-the-books/on-the-way” (OTB/W) control strategy accounting for emissi on control regulations already in place as well as emission control regulations that are not yet finalized but are likely to achieve additional reductions by 2009; and b) a “b eyond-on-the-way” (BOTW) scenarios to account for controls from potential new regul ations that may be necessary to meet attainment and other regional air quality goals.

• The seven pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), partic ulate matter less than or equal to 10
microns in diameter that includes both the filterable and condensable components of particulate matter (PM10-PRI), particulate ma tter less than or equa l to 2.5 microns in
diameter that includes both the filterable and condensable components of particulate matter (PM25-PRI), and ammonia (NH3).

• The states are those that comprise the Mid- Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANEVU) region. In addition to the District of Columbia, the 11 MANE-VU states are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Ma ssachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
The results of the emission projections are summa rized in Table 1-1 and Figures 1-1 to 1-7.
Section 2 of this report describes how the nonEGU OTB/W emission proj ections were made.
Section 3 describes the methods for the area source emission projec tions. Section 4 describes the methods for the nonroad section, including sour ces accounted for by the NONROAD model as well as aircraft, locomotives, and marine vessels . Section 5 describes the development of the BOTW emission projections.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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

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 scenarioDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 1 – Executive Summary Page 1-3

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Figure 1-1 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

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 9 OT

B

/ W

2 0 0 9

B OT

W 2012 O

TB

/ W

2012 B OT

W 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWTons/Year 

### Nonroad
NonEGU
Area



### Figure 1-2 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 BOTWTons/Year 

### Nonroad
NonEGU
AreaDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 1 – Executive Summary Page 1-4

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Figure 1-3 Base Year, OTB/OTW AND BOTW Annual NOx Emissions (tons per year)

0 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 9 OT

B

/ W

2 0 0 9

B OT

W 2012 O

TB

/ W

2012 B OT

W 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWTons/Year 

### Nonroad
NonEGU
Area



### Figure 1-4 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 BOTWTons/Year 

### Nonroad
NonEGU
AreaDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 1 – Executive Summary Page 1-5

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Figure 1-5 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

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 9 OT

B

/ W

2 0 0 9

B OT

W 2012 O

TB

/ W

2012 B OT

W 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWTons/Year 

### Nonroad
NonEGU
Area



### Figure 1-6 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 BOTWTons/Year 

### Nonroad
NonEGU
AreaDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 1 – Executive Summary Page 1-6

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Figure 1-7 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

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 9 OT

B

/ W

2 0 0 9

B OT

W 2012 O

TB

/ W

2012 B OT

W 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWTons/Year 

### Nonroad
NonEGU
AreaDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-1

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

## 2.0 NONEGU POINT SOURCES

Under ideal circumstances, all stationary s ources would be considered point sources for purposes of emission inventories. In practic al applications, howeve r, only sources that emit more than a specified cutoff level of po llutant are considered point sources. In general, the MANE-VU point s ource inventory includes only major sources (i.e., those required to obtain a Title V operating permit). Some states may include additional stationary sources that emit below the major source thresholds.

For emission projection purposes, the point so urce inventory is divided into two subsectors – the Electric Generating Unit (EGU) sector and the non-EGU sector – because different projections methods are used for th ese two sectors. Fo r EGUs, MANE-VU used the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to project future generation as well as to calculate the impact of future control program s on future emission levels.

The procedures for projecting emissions for non- EGUs are described in this section. We started with the MANE-VU 2002 point source em ission inventory, which contains data for both EGUs and nonEGUs. We implemented a procedure to split the 2002 point source inventory into two components – and EGU invent ory for those units accounted for in IPM, and a nonEGU inventory for those point sour ces not accounted for in IPM. For the nonEGU sources, we first applied growth f actors to account for changes in economic activity. Next, we applied control factors to account for future emission reductions from on-the-books (OTB) control regul ations and on-the-way (OTW) control regulations. The OTB control scenario accounts for post- 2002 emission reductions from promulgated federal, State, local, and site-specific c ontrol programs as of June 15, 2005. The OTW control scenario accounts for pr oposed (but not final) control programs that are reasonably anticipated to result in post-2002 emission reductions. We then conducted a series of quality assurance steps to ensure the devel opment of complete, accurate, and consistent emission inventories. We provided the i nventories in three formats – the National Emission Inventory Input Format (NIF), SMOKE Inventory Data Analyzer (IDA) format, and SMOKE growth/control packets. We also prepared emission summary tables by state and pollutant. Each of these activitie s is discussed in this section.

2.1 INITIAL 2002 POINT SOURCE EMISSION INVENTORY

The starting point for the nonEGU projections was Version 3 of the MANE-VU 2002 point source emission inventory (MANE-VU_2002_P t_Version 3_040706.MDB). Since this file contains both EGUs and nonEGU point sources, and EGU emissions are projected using the IPM, it was necessary to split the 2002 point source file into two components.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-2

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### The first component contains those emission un its accounted for in the IPM forecasts. The second component contains all other point sources not accounted for in IPM.

The MANE-VU 2002 point source inventory cont ains a cross-reference table (xwalk {MANE-VU}) that matches IPM emission unit id entifiers (ORISPL pl ant code and BLRID emission unit code) to MANE-VU NIF emissi on unit identifiers (FIPSST state code, FIPSCNTY county code, St ate Plant ID, State Point ID). Initially, we used this crossreference table to split the point source file into the E GU and nonEGU components. When
there was a match between the IPM ORISPL /BLRID and the MANE-VU emission unit ID, the unit was assigned to the EGU inventory; all other emission units were assigned to the nonEGU inventory. The exception to this rule was for the State of New York. The crossreference table only contained matches at the pl ant level, not the emission unit level. So for New York EGUs accounted for in IPM, all emission units at a plant were assigned to the MANE-VU EGU file (includi ng ancillary emission units not accounted for in IPM).

After performing this initial splitting of the MANE-VU point source inventory into EGU and nonEGU components, we prepared several ad -hoc QA/QC queries to verify that there was no double-counting of emissions in the EGU and nonEGU inventories:

• We reviewed the IPM parsed fi les {VISTASII_PC_1f_AllUnits_2009 (To Client).xls and VISTASII_PC_1f_AllUnits_2018 (To Client).xls} to identify EGUs accounted for in IPM. We compared this list of emission units to the nonEGU inventory derived from the MANE-VU cross -reference table to verify that units accounted for in IPM were not double-counted in the nonEGU inventory. As a result of this comparison, we made a few ad justments in the cross-reference table to add emission units for four plants to ensu re these units accounted for in IPM were moved to the EGU inventory.

• We reviewed the nonEGU inventory to iden tify remaining emission units with an Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code of “4911 Electrical Services” or
Source Classification Code of “1-01-xxx-xx External Combustion Boiler, Electric Generation”. We compared the list of s ources meeting these selection criteria to the IPM parsed file to ensure that these units were not double-counted.

• We compared the number of records for each NIF table in the original 2002 point
source file to the 2002 EGU and 2002 nonEGU files. We determined that the sum
of the number of records in the EGU file and the number of records in the nonEGU file equaled the number of records in the original 2002 point source file.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-3

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### • We compared the emissions by pollutant a nd state in the original 2002 point source
file to the 2002 EGU file and 2002 nonEGU files. We determined that the sum of
the emissions in the EGU file and the emissions in the nonEGU file equaled the emissions in the origin al 2002 point source file.

As a result of this procedure, we created se parate sets of NIF tables for 2002 for EGUs (i.e., units accounted for in IPM) and nonEGUs . The nonEGU set of 2002 NIF tables were used in all subsequent projections for 2009/2012/2018.

After release of Version 3 of the MANE-VU 2002 inventory, New Je rsey discovered that fugitive emissions from petroleum refineries were missing from Version 3. New Jersey supplied MACTEC with the emission unit identifiers for the fugitive releases, and the appropriate records were added to the 2002 NIF files.. MACTEC used these revised fugitive estimates for projecting emissions to 2009/2012/2018.

2.2 NONEGU POINT SOURC E GROWTH FACTORS

The nonEGU growth factors were deve loped using three sets of data:

• The U.S. EPA’s Economic Growth and An alysis System Version 5.0 (EGAS 5.0) using the default SCC configuration. EGAS 5.0 generates growth factors from REMI’s 53 Sector Policy Insight Mode l Version 5.5, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Annual Energy Outlook 2004 (A EO2004) fuel use projections, and national vehicle mile travel projections from EPA’s MOBILE 4.1 Fuel Combustion Model;

• The DOE’s Annual Energy Outlook 2005 (AEO2005) fuel consumption forecasts were used to replace the AEO2004 forecasts that are used as the default values in EGAS 5.0; and

• State-supplied population, employment, and other emission projection data.

The priority for applying these growth factor s was to first use the state-supplied projection data (if available). If no st ate-supplied data are availabl e, then we used the AEO2005 projection factors for fuel consumption sources. If data from these two sources were not available, we used the EGAS 5.0 default SCC configuration. Appendix A lists the nonEGU point source growth factors used for this study.

2.2.1 EGAS 5.0 Growth Factors
EGAS is an EPA-developed economic and activ ity forecast tool that provides credible growth factors for developing emission inve ntory projections. Growth factors areDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-4

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### generated using national- and regional-ec onomic forecasts. For nonEGUs, the primary economic activity data sets in EGAS 5.0 are:

• 

### State-specific growth rates from th e Regional Economic Model, Inc. (REMI) Policy Insight® model, version 5.5. Th e REMI socioeconomic data (output by industry sector, population, farm sector value added, and gasoline and oil expenditures) are available by 4-digit SIC code at the State level.

• 

### Energy consumption data from the DOE’s Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2004, w ith Projections through 2025 for use in generating growth factors for non-EGU fu el combustion sources. These data include regional or national fuel-use for ecast data that were mapped to specific
SCCs for the non-EGU fuel use sectors (e.g., commercial coal, industrial natural gas). Growth factors are reported at the Census divi sion level. These Census divisions represent a group of States (e.g., the South Atlantic division includes Delaware, the District of Columbia, a nd Maryland; the Middle Atlantic division includes New Jersey, New York, and Pe nnsylvania; the Ne w England division includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachuset ts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont). Although one might expect diffe rent growth rates in each of these States due to unique demogra phic and socioeconomic trends, all States within each division received the same growth rate.

EGAS uses these economic activity datasets and a set of cross-referen ce files to generate growth factors by Standard Industrial Cla ssification (SIC) code, Source Classification Code (SCC), or Maximum Achievable Cont rol Technology (MACT) codes. Growth factors for 2009, 2012, and 2018 were calculated us ing 2002 as the base year at the State and SCC level. County-specific growth factors are not available in EGAS 5.0.

There were several SCCs in the MANE-VU 200 2 inventory that are not included in the EGAS 5.0 files. As a result, EGAS did not generate growth factors for those SCCs. MACTEC assigned growth factors for the mi ssing SCCs by assigning a surrogate SCC that best represented the missing SCC.

2.2.2 AEO2005 Growth Factors

The default version of EGAS 5.0 uses the DOE ’s AEO2004 forecasts. We replaced these
data with the more recent AEO2005 forecasts to improve the emissions growth factors produced. Using ACCESS, we created a copy of the “DOE EGAS 5” dataset. The dataset
includes three tables. One table contains th e projection data values from 2001-2025. The
other two tables are th e MACT and SCC crosswalk tables. The crosswalk tables are linkedDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-5

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### to the projection table via a “model code”. Using the copy of AEO2004 data, we updated the corresponding projection tables with data from the AEO2005 located at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/supplement/supref.html 

### . Using the data and descriptions from the new tables, we matched the projection data to the appropriate model codes and then
built a table identical to the DOE EGAS 5 dataset with the new 2005 AEO data. The resulting ACCESS dataset contains a projection data table with the exact same structure as the original except with the new data. The SCC and MACT crosswalks did not require any updates since the model code assignments we re not changed in the new data table.

2.2.3 State Specific Growth Factors
In addition to the growth data described a bove, we received growth projections from
several MANE-VU states to be used instea d of the default EGAS or AEO2005 growth factors. The following paragraphs describe the growth factors used for each state.

2.2.3.1 

### Connecticut
Connecticut provided state-level employmen t-based growth factors for various SIC categories derived from CT Department of Labor (CTDOL) projections. For many manufacturing sectors, employ ment is projected to declin e, indicating the likelihood of reduced activity levels and emissions for those sectors. Associated growth factors are less than one. To ensure consistency within a facility, CTDEP indicated that the employmentbased growth factors be used wherever possi ble, as matched by SIC. MACTEC used the growth factors by SIC code for all sources in CT, including those fuel combustion sources that would otherwise have been projected using the AEO2005 forecasts.

2.2.3.2 

### Delaware
Delaware provided state-level employment da ta from the Department of Labor by NAICS
codes for 2002 and 2012. We used these data to calculate the growth factor from 2002 to 2012 and interpolated these data to derive growth factors for 2009 and 2018. We matched these industry NAICS groupings to SCC codes in order to create SCC specific growth factors for non-EGU point sources.

2.2.3.3 

### District of Columbia
DC indicated that it preferred to use the EGAS 5.0 growth fa ctors, with the enhancement of using the DOE’s 2005 Annual Energy Ou tlook data for combustion sources.

2.2.3.4 

### Maine
Maine indicated that it pref erred to use the EGAS 5.0 growth factors and the DOE’s 2005 Annual Energy Outlook data for combustion sources.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-6

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### 2.2.3.5 

### Maryland
Maryland provided growth factors by SCC for all counties in the State. These growth factors were derived from a variety source sources, including the MWCOG Cooperative Forecast 7.0, the BMC Round 6A Cooperative Forecast (prepared by the MD Dept. of Planning, May 2004), and EGAS 5.0.

2.2.3.6 

### Massachusetts
Massachusetts also provided a link to em ployment projections for 2000-2010 for very narrow occupational categor ies that are not directly correla ted with SIC or SCC codes. Since we could not match the occupational titles in the Massachusetts employment projections with SIC or SCC codes, MACTEC used the EGAS 5.0 growth factors (with the
AEO2005 enhancement for combustion sources ) for projecting emissions from nonEGU

sources.

2.2.3.7 

### New Hampshire
New Hampshire indicated that it preferred to use the EGAS 5.0 growth factors, with the enhancement of using the DOE’s 2005 Annual Energy Outlook data for combustion

sources.

2.2.3.8 

### New Jersey
New Jersey indicated that it preferred to use the EGAS 5.0 growth factors, with the enhancement of using the DOE’s 2005 Annual Energy Outlook data for combustion

sources.

2.2.3.9 

### New York
New York provided county-level employment da ta for 12 counties in the New York City metro area for 2002, 2009, 2012, and 2018. The empl oyment projections are for broad industry categories not directly correlated with SIC or SCC codes. Since we could not match the 12-county employment projections with SIC or SCC codes, MACTEC used the EGAS 5.0 growth factors (w ith the AEO2005 enhancement for combustion sources) for projecting emissions from nonEGU sources for both the 12-county area and all other
counties in the state.

2.2.3.10 

### Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania provided total employment project ions for a subset of counties. These employment projections do not have enough detail regarding sp ecific industrial groupings
to be correlated with SIC or SCC codes. MACTEC used the EGAS 5.0 growth factorsDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-7

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### (with the AEO2005 enhancement for combustion sources) for projecting emissions from
nonEGU sources

2.2.3.11 

### Rhode Island
Rhode Island provided state-le vel employment data from th e Department of Labor and Training by 3-digit NAICS codes for 2002 and 2012. We used these data to calculate the growth factor from 2002 to 2012 and interpolated these data to derive growth factors for 2009 and 2018. We matched these industry NAICS groupings to SCC codes in order to create SCC specific growth fact ors for non-EGU point sources.

2.2.3.12 

### Vermont
Vermont indicated that it preferred to us e the EGAS 5.0 growth factors, with the enhancement of using the DOE’s 2005 Annual Energy Outlook data for combustion

sources.

2.3 NONEGU POINT SOURC E CONTROL FACTORS

The following sections document how the OTB/ OTW control factors were developed for the MANE-VU future year inventories. We developed control factors to estimate emission
reductions that will result from on-the-books regulations that will result in post-2002 emission reductions and proposed regulations or actions that will result in post-2002
emission reductions. Control factors were de veloped for the following national, regional,
or state control measures:

• NOx SIP Call Phase I (NOx Budget Trading Program)

• NOx SIP Call Phase II

• NOx RACT in 1-hour Ozone SIPs

• NOx OTC 2001 Model Rule for ICI Boilers

• 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year MACT Standards

• Combustion Turbine and RICE MACT

• Industrial Boiler/Proc ess Heater MACT

• Refinery Enforcement Initiative

• Source Shutdowns
In addition, states prov ided specific control measure inform ation about specific sources or regulatory programs in their stat e. We used the state-specif ic data to the extent it was
available.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-8

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### 2.3.1 NOx SIP Call Phase I
Compliance with the NOx SIP Call in the Oz one Transport Commissi on (OTC) states was scheduled for May 1, 2003. The requirements applied to all MANE -VU states except Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. While the program applies primarily to electric generating units (EGUs), the NOx SIP Call app lies to non-EGUs such as large industrial
boilers and turbines. The NOx SIP Call di d not mandate which sources must reduce emissions; rather, it required states to meet an overall emission budget and gave them flexibility to develop control strategies to meet that budget. All states in the MANE-VU region affected by the NOx SIP Call chose to meet their NOx SIP Call requirements by participating in the NOx Budget Trading Program . We reviewed the available state rules and guidance documents to determine the a ffected nonEGU sources and ozone season NOx allowances for each source. Future year emissions for non-EGU boilers/turbines were capped at the allowance levels. Since the allowances are give n in terms of tons per ozone season (5 months May to September), we calculated annual emissions by multiplying the ozone season allowances by a factor of 12 (annual) / 5 (ozone season). Table B-1
identifies those units included in th e NOx SIP Call Phase I budget program.

Cement kilns were also included in Phase I of the NO x 

### SIP call. There is a cement kiln in Maine, but it is not subject to the NOx SI P call. For the cement kilns in Maryland and New York, a default control efficiency value of 25 percent was applie d. For the cement kilns in Pennsylvania, the state provided their best estimates of the actual control efficiency expected for each kiln after the NOx SIP Call. Table B-2 identifies the cement kilns affected by the NOx SIP Call.

2.3.2 NOx SIP Call Phase II
The final Phase II NOx SIP Call rule was promulgated on April 21, 2004. States had until April 21, 2005, to submit SIPs meeting the Phase II NOx budget requirements. The Phase II rule applies to large IC engines, which are primarily used in pipeline transmission service at compressor stations . We have identified aff ected units using the same methodology as was used by EPA in the proposed Phase II rule (i.e., a large IC engine is one that emitted, on average, more than 1 ton per day during 2002). The final rule reflects a control level of 82 percent for natural gas-fi red IC engines and 90 percent for diesel or dual fuel categories. Pennsylvania identified la rge IC engines affected by the rule. Table
B-3 identifies those units included in the NOx SIP Call Phase II.

2.3.3 NOx RACT in 1-hour Ozone SIPs
Emission reductions requirements from NOx reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements in 1-hour Ozone SIP areas were implemented in or prior to 2002.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-9

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### These reductions should alre ady be accounted for in th e MANE-VU 2002 inventory since the 2002 inventory was based on 2002 actual em issions which includes any reductions due
to NOx RACT.

2.3.4 NOx OTC 2001 Model Rule for ICI Boilers
The Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) deve loped control measures for industrial, commercial, and institutional (IC I) boilers in 2001. Information about the proposed OTC NOx emission limits by fuel type and size range was obtained from Table III-1 of Control Measure Development Support Analysis of Ozone Transport Commission Model Rules (E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., March 31, 2001 ). Information about the emission limits contained in the existing state rules (prior to adoption of the OT C 2001 model rule) were obtained from Tables III-2 through III-9 of th e Pechan document. Information about the
emission limits contained in the current stat e rules (as they existed in June 2006) were
obtained from the individual st ates regulations. The percen t reduction for ICI boilers was estimated by state, fuel type, and size range by comparing the current state emission limits (as they existed in June 2 006) with the state emission limits as they existed in 2001. Pennsylvania adopted the OTC 2001 model rule in five southeaste rn counties (Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philade lphia) for boilers in the 100 to 250 million Btu/hour range. New Jersey adopted the OTC 2001 model rule for natural gas-fired boilers
with a maximum heat rate of at least 100 million Btu/hour. For other states, it did not appear that the emission limits in 2006 ha d changed from the emission limits in 2001.

2.3.5 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-ye ar MACT Standards

Maximum achievable control technology (MACT) requirement s were also applied, as documented in the report entitled Control Packet Development and Data Sources, dated July 14, 2004 (available at http://www.epa.gov/air/interstateairquality/pdfs/NonEGU_nonpoint_Control_Development.pdf 

### ). The point source MACTs and associated emission reductions were designed from Federa l Register (FR) notices and discussions with EPA’s Emission Standards Division (ESD ) staff. These MACT requirements apply only to units located at a major source of h azardous air pollutants (HAP). We did not apply reductions for MACT standards with an initial compliance da te of 2002 or earlier, assuming that the effects of these controls are already accounted for in the inventories supplied by the States. Emission reductions we re applied only for MACT standards with an initial compliance date of 2003 or greater.

Because the MANE-VU inventory does not id entify HAP major sources, the reductions from post-2002 MACT standards we re applied on a more general scale to all sources with certain SCCs. Every source with an SCC de termined to be affected by a post-2002 MACTDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-10

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### standard was assigned an incremental percent reduction for the applicable MACT standard.
Table B-4 shows the SCCs affected and the in cremental control efficiencies applied for post-2002 MACT standards.

2.3.6 Combustion Turbine and RICE MACT
The MANE-VU projection invent ory does not include the NOx co-benefit effects of the MACT regulations for Gas Turbines or sta tionary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines, which EPA estimates to be sm all compared to the overall inventory.

2.3.7 Industrial Boiler/Process Heater MACT
EPA anticipates ancillary reductions in PM and SO2 as a result of the Industrial
Boiler/Process Heater MACT st andard. The MACT applies to industrial, commercial, and institutional units firing solid fuel (coal, wood, waste, biomass) which have a design capacity greater than 10 mmBtu/hr and are lo cated at a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The boiler design capacity field in many cases was missing from the MANE-VU emission inventory. In lieu of boiler design capacity, we identified boilers with the following SCCs that emitted greater than 10 tons/year of either SO2 or PM10

• 1-02-001-xx Industrial, Anthracite Coal

• 1-02-002-xx Industrial, Bituminous/subbituminous Coal

• 1-02-008-xx Industrial, Petroleum Coke

• 1-02-009-xx Industrial, Wood/Bark Waste

• 1-03-001-xx Commercial/Inst itutional, Anthracite Coal

• 1-03-002-xx Commercial/Instituti onal, Bituminous/subbituminous Coal

• 1-03-009-xx Commercial/Inst itutional, Wood/Bark Waste

• 3-90-002-89 In-Process Fuel Use, Bituminous Coal

• 3-90-002-99 In-Process Fuel Use, Bituminous Coal

• 3-90-008-89 In-Process Fuel Use, Coke

• 3-90-008-99 In-Process Fuel Use, Coke

• 3-90-009-99 In-Process Fuel Use, Wood For these sources, we applied the average MACT control efficiencies of 4% for SO2 and
40% for PM.

2.3.8 Refinery Enforcement Initiative
Both EPA and State/local agencies have negot iated (or are in the pr ocess of negotiating) Consent Decrees that will require significant investment in pollution control technology and will result in significant emission reductions in the future. There are eight refineries in the MANE-VU inventory impacted by the settlem ents. The five major refinery processes that are affected by the judicial settlements are:Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-11

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### • Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units (FCCU s) and Fluid Coking Units (FCUs)

• Process Heaters and Boilers

• Flare Gas Recovery

• Leak Detection and Repair

• Benzene/Wastewater As part of the development of the Assessment of Control Technology Options for Petroleum Refineries in the Mid-Atlantic Region (Draft Final, Oc tober 2006), MACTEC
coordinated with State and local agencies to develop estimates of future year emissions based upon the settlements and recent permits that implement the provisions of those
settlements.

For FCCUs/FCUs, the Consent Decree cont rol requirements generally require the installation of wet gas scrubbers for SO2 control. Some of the units have already been permitted to include the control requirements. In those cases, specific emission limits for SO2 have already been established and were us ed as the best estimate of emission in 2009. In cases where specific emission limitation ha ve not yet been speci fied in permits, a 90 percent SO2 control efficiency was assumed as a conservative estimate of the SO2
reductions from the installation of a wet gas scrubber.

For NOx control at FCCUs/FCUs, the Cons ent Decrees require selective catalytic reduction (SCR), selective non-catalytic reducti on (SCNR), or optimization studies to reduce NOx emissions. Some of the units have already been permitted to include the control requirements. In those cases, specifi c emission limits for NOx have already been
established and were used as the best estimate of emission in 2009. In cases where specific emission limitation have not yet been speci fied in permits, a 90 percent NOx control efficiency was assumed for SCR, and a 60 percent reduction was assumed from the
installation of SNCR.

For SO2 emissions from boilers/heaters, the control requirements generally require the elimination of burning solid/liquid fuels. We identified all boilers and heaters at the eight
affected refineries that burn solid or liquid fuels. For thes e units, we set the SO2 emissions to zero in the future year inventories.

For NOx emissions from boilers/heaters, cont rol requirements generally apply to units greater than 40 million British thermal units (MMBtu) per hour capacity or larger. In many cases, the consent decrees establish NO x 

### emission reduction objectives across a number of refineries that are owned by the same firm. Therefore, the companies have some discretion in deciding which individual boilers/heaters to control as well as the control techniques to apply. Also, the consent decrees have various phase-in dates which
make it difficult to determine the exact date when the reductions will be fully realized. AsDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-12

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### part of the development of the Assessment of Control Technology Options for Petroleum Refineries in the Mid-Atlantic Region (Draft Final, October 2006), MACTEC coordinated with State and local agencies to develop estimates of future year emissions based upon the settlements and recent permits that implement the provisions of those settlements.
Heater/boiler NOx controls for the units to which they are applied were determined to be equivalent to meeting a 0.04 lbs per million Btu NOx emission rate. Meeting this emission reduction requirement is expect ed to provide an average NOx emission reduction of 50 percent from 2002 levels in 2009.

The Consent Descrees also included enhan ced LDAR programs (e.g., reducing the defined leak concentration, increasing the monitoring frequency, other requirements. Our best estimate is a 50% reduction in VOC emissions as a result of implementing enhanced LDAR programs similar to those required in the recent Consent Decrees. This is based on a study ( http://www.rti.org/pubs/e rtc_enviro_2002_final1.pdf ) that estimated an enhanced LDAR program could result in a 50% reduction in fugitive VOCs.

The settlements are expected to pro duce additional SO2, NOx, and VOC emission reductions for flare gas recovery and wastew ater operations. Thes e emission reductionswere not quantified as they are expected to produce less significant changes in the MANEVU inventory because of the magnitude and un certainty associated with the emissions from these units in the 2002 MANE-VU inventory.

2.3.9 Source Shutdowns

A few states indicated that si gnificant source shut downs have occurred since 2002 and that
emissions from these sources should not be incl uded in the future year inventories. These
sources are identified in Table B-5.

2.3.10 State Specific Control Factors
Delaware provided reductions expected from the Maritr ans lightering operation. VOC emissions are projected to be redu ced by 34.8% by 2009, 69.3% by 2012, and 79.2% by
2018.

2.4 NONEGU POINT SOURCE QA/QC REVIEW

Throughout the inventory developm ent process, quality assuran ce steps were performed to ensure that no double counting of emissions occurred, and to ensu re that a full and complete inventory was developed for VIST AS. Quality assurance was an important component to the inventory development process and MACTEC performed the followingDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-13

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### QA steps on the nonEGU point source compone nt of the MANE-VU future year
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. Compared, at the emission unit-level, em issions from the IPM parsed files and the MANE-VU NIF files to verify that the splitting of the MANE-VU point source inventory into the EGU and nonE GU sectors did not result in any double county of emissions or cause units to be missing from both inventories.

3. SCC level emission summaries were prepared and evaluated to ensure that
emissions were consistent and that there were no missing sources. Tier comparisons (by pollutant) were devel oped between the revised 2002 base year inventory and the 2009/2012/2018 projection inventories.

4. State level emission summar ies were prepared and evaluated to ensure that
emissions were consistent and reasonab le. The summaries included base year 2002 emissions, 2009/2012/2018 projected emissions accounting only for growth, 2009/2012/2018 projected emissi ons accounting for both growth and
emission reductions from OTB and OTW controls.

5. Emission inventory files in NIF format we re provided for state agency review and comment. Changes based on these comments were implemented.

6. All final files were run through EPA’s Format and Content checking software.

7. Version numbering was used for all i nventory files developed. The version numbering process used a decimal system to track major and minor changes. For example, a major change would result in a version going from 1.0 to 2.0 for example. A minor change would cause a version number to go from 1.0 to 1.1. Minor changes resulting from largely edito rial changes would result in a change from 1.00 to 1.01 for example.

Final QA checks were run on the revised projecti on inventory data set to ensure that all corrections provided by the S/L ag encies and stakeholders were correctly incorporated into
the S/L inventories and that there were no re maining QA issues that could be addressed during the duration of the project. After expor ting the inventory to AS CII text files in NIF 3.0, the EPA QA program was run on the ASCII files and the QA output was reviewed to verify that all QA issues that co uld be addressed were resolvedDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-14

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### 2.5 NONEGU POINT SOURCE NIF AND SMOKE FILES

The Version 3 file names and descriptions de livered to MARAMA are shown in Table 2-1.

2.6 NONEGU POINT SOURCE EMISSION SUMMARIES

Emission summaries by state, year, and polluta nt are presented in Tables 2-2 through 2-8 for CO, NH3, NOx, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, SO2, and VOC, respectively.

Table 2-1 NonEGU Point Source NIF, IDA, and Summary File Names

File Name Date Description

MANEVU_OTB2009_NonEGU_NIFV3_1.mdb Dec. 4, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2009 OTB NonEGU source NIF inventory
MANEVU_OTB2012_NonEGU_NIFV3_1.mdb Dec. 4, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2012 OTB NonEGU source NIF inventory
MANEVU_OTB2018_NonEGU_NIFV3_1.mdb Dec. 4, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2018 OTB NonEGU source NIF inventory

MANEVU_OTB2009_NonEGU_IDAV3_1.txt Nov. 22, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2009 OTB NonEGU source inventory in SMOKE IDA format
MANEVU_OTB2012_NonEGU_IDAV3_1.txt Nov. 22, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2012 OTB NonEGU source inventory in SMOKE IDA format
MANEVU_OTB2018_NonEGU_IDA3V_2.txt Nov. 22, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2018 OTB NonEGU source inventory in SMOKE IDA format
MANEVU OTB BOTW NonEGU V3_1 State Summary.xls Nov. 22, 2006 Spreadsheet with state totals by pollutant for all NonEGU

sources MANEVU OTB BOTW NonEGU V3_1 State SCC Summary.xls Dec. 4, 2006 Spreadsheet with SCC totals by state and pollutant for all NonEGU sources.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-15

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 2-2 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW Annual CO Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 2,157 2,251 2,306 2,415 DE 8,812 9,037 8,748 8,651 DC 247 283 299 327 ME 9,043 10,147 10,467 11,433 MD 94,536 104,012 111,174 141,342 MA 10,793 12,027 12,552 13,426 NH 774 858 871 907 NJ 8,209 10,076 10,806 12,244 NY 53,259 61,411 65,541 78,876 PA 105,815 116,430 121,251 140,909 RI 1,712 1,764 1,821 1,927 VT 220 250 254 267 Total 295,577 328,546 346,090 412,724

0 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-16

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 2-3 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW Annual NH3 Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 0 0 0 0 DE 153 145 138 134 DC 4 5 5 5 ME 700 796 809 859 MD 305 347 366 410 MA 462 510 521 563 NH 37 46 50 60 NJ 0 0 0 0 NY 1,027 1,081 1,128 1,296 PA 1,170 1,307 1,363 1,591 RI 58 64 68 68 VT 0 0 0 0 Total 3,916 4,301 4,448 4,986

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-17

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 2-4 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW Annual NOx Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 6,773 7,236 7,465 7,921 DE 4,372 4,076 4,135 4,246 DC 480 548 577 627 ME 12,108 14,285 14,661 15,753 MD 21,940 19,401 20,399 22,797 MA 18,292 20,603 21,372 23,040 NH 1,188 1,384 1,394 1,435 NJ 15,812 16,498 17,091 18,805 NY 34,253 33,648 34,586 37,133 PA 89,136 89,932 93,526 103,137 RI 2,308 2,449 2,471 2,442 VT 386 462 460 466 Total 207,048 210,522 218,137 237,802

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-18

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 2-5 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 990 1,035 1,058 1,106 DE 1,820 1,486 1,475 1,487 DC 157 178 186 198 ME 6,120 7,088 7,133 7,496 MD 4,739 4,797 5,040 5,828 MA 4,212 5,006 5,088 5,314 NH 918 1,084 1,097 1,129 NJ 3,439 4,205 4,417 4,959 NY 5,072 5,221 5,444 6,098 PA 23,282 25,169 26,307 29,516 RI 296 333 331 330 VT 235 267 272 296 Total 51,280 55,869 57,848 63,757

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-19

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 2-6 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 822 871 894 939 DE 1,606 1,256 1,245 1,254 DC 128 145 152 164 ME 4,899 5,675 5,690 5,935 MD 2,772 2,861 3,011 3,503 MA 2,953 3,554 3,574 3,660 NH 857 1,008 1,021 1,052 NJ 2,947 3,588 3,764 4,234 NY 3,355 3,535 3,688 4,161 PA 12,360 13,578 14,159 15,878 RI 180 200 198 194 VT 198 226 229 246 Total 33,077 36,497 37,625 41,220

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-20

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 2-7 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW Annual SO2 Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 2,438 2,528 2,567 2,644 DE 35,706 7,117 7,401 7,610 DC 618 707 735 780 ME 14,412 18,656 18,492 18,794 MD 34,193 34,223 35,373 38,921 MA 14,766 18,185 18,442 18,955 NH 2,436 3,099 3,098 3,114 NJ 9,797 7,141 7,234 7,856 NY 58,227 62,922 64,484 67,545 PA 88,259 90,735 93,441 99,924 RI 2,651 3,163 3,182 3,164 VT 874 1,182 1,147 1,127 Total 264,377 249,658 255,596 270,434

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-21

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 2-8 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW Annual VOC Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 4,604 4,114 4,152 4,230 DE 4,645 2,987 2,311 1,993 DC 69 72 75 85 ME 4,477 4,740 4,985 5,709 MD 5,676 5,297 5,578 6,301 MA 7,794 8,381 9,061 10,564 NH 1,459 1,060 1,132 1,294 NJ 13,318 16,702 17,621 19,915 NY 9,933 10,157 10,750 12,354 PA 36,326 35,875 38,162 44,537 RI 1,898 1,640 1,695 1,812 VT 1,079 1,254 1,365 1,730 Total 91,278 92,279 96,887 110,524

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-1

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

## 3.0 AREA SOURCES

The area source sector is comprised of stationa ry sources that are sm all and numerous, and that have not been inventoried individually as specific point, mobile, or biogenic sources. Individual sources are typically grouped with other like source s into area source categories and the emissions are calculated on a county- by-county basis. Area source categories
include residential/commercial/i ndustrial fuel combustion; small industrial processes; solvent utilization (such as architectural coatings and consumer products); petroleum product storage and transport (such as gasolin e service stations); waste disposal; and agricultural activities.

The procedures for projecting emissions for area sources are described in this section. We
started with the MANE-VU 2002 area source emi ssion inventory. We first applied growth factors to account for change s in population and economic activity. Next, we applied
control factors to account for future emissi on reductions from on-the-books (OTB) control regulations and on-the-way (O TW) control regulations. The OTB control scenario accounts for post-2002 emission reductions from promulgated federal, State, local, and site-specific control programs as of June 15, 2005. The OTW control scenario accounts for proposed (but not final) control programs that are reasonably anticipated to result in post2002 emission reductions. We then conducted a se ries of quality assurance steps to ensure the development of complete, accurate, and cons istent emission inventories. We provided
the inventories in three formats – the Nati onal Emission Inventory Input Format (NIF), SMOKE Inventory Data Analyzer (IDA) format, and SMOKE grow th/control packets. We also prepared emission summary tables by state and pollutant. Each of these activities is
discussed in this section.

3.1 INITIAL 2002 AREA SOURCE EMISSION INVENTORY

The starting point for the area source projec tions was Version 3 of the MANE-VU 2002 area source emission inventory (MANE-VU _2002_Area_040606.MDB). There were two updates to this version of the 2002 inventory in response to re quests from the District of Columbia and Massachusetts. These changes, described in the followi ng paragraphs, were used in preparing the 2009/2012/2018 projections.

After release of Version 3 of the MANE-VU 2002 inventory, the Di strict of Columbia discovered a gross error in the 2002 residential, non-residential and roadway construction. They requested that the following values be used for the 2002 base year and as the basis for the 2009/2012/2018 projections:Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-2

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC Pollutant Code 2002 Annual Emissions (tpy)
2311010000 PM10-PRI 8.2933

PM25-PRI 1.6587
2311020000 PM10-PRI 486.1951
PM25-PRI 97.239
2311030000 PM10-PRI 289.8579
PM25-PRI 57.9716



### After release of Version 3 of the MANE-VU 2002 inventory, Massac husetts revised their inventory of area source heating oil emissi ons due to two changes: (1) SO2 emission factors were adjusted for the sulfur content from 1.0 to 0.03; and (2) use of the latest DOEEIA 2002 fuel use data instead of the previ ous version used 2001. These two changes significantly altered the 2002 SO2 emissions for area so urce heating oil combustion. Massachusetts provided revised 2002 PE a nd EM tables, which MACTEC used in preparing the 2009/2012/2018 pr ojection inventories.

3.2 AREA SOURCE GROWTH FACTORS

The area source growth factors were de veloped using three sets of data:

• The U.S. EPA’s Economic Growth and An alysis System Version 5.0 (EGAS 5.0) using the default SCC configuration. EGAS 5.0 generates growth factors from REMI’s 53 Sector Policy Insight Mode l Version 5.5, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Annual Energy Outlook 2004 (A EO2004) fuel use projections, and national vehicle mile travel projections from EPA’s MOBILE 4.1 Fuel Combustion Model;

• The DOE’s Annual Energy Outlook 2005 (AEO2005) fuel consumption forecasts were used to replace the AEO2004 forecasts that are used as the default values in EGAS 5.0; and

• State-supplied population, employment, and other emission projection data.

The priority for applying these growth factor s was to first use the state-supplied projection data (if available). If no st ate-supplied data are availabl e, then we used the AEO2005 projection factors for fuel consumption sources. If data from these two sources were not available, we used the EGAS 5.0 default S CC configuration. Appe ndix C lists the area source growth factors used for this study.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-3

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### 3.2.1 EGAS 5.0 Growth Factors
EGAS is an EPA-developed economic and activ ity forecast tool that provides credible growth factors for developing emission inve ntory projections. Growth factors are generated using national- and regional-ec onomic forecasts. For nonEGUs, the primary economic activity data sets in EGAS 5.0 are:

• 

### State-specific growth rates from th e Regional Economic Model, Inc. (REMI) Policy Insight® model, version 5.5. Th e REMI socioeconomic data (output by industry sector, population, farm sector value added, and gasoline and oil expenditures) are available by 4-digit SIC code at the State level.

• 

### Energy consumption data from the DOE’s Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2004, w ith Projections through 2025 for use in generating growth factors for non-EGU fu el combustion sources. These data include regional or national fuel-use for ecast data that were mapped to specific
SCCs for the non-EGU fuel use sectors (e.g., commercial coal, industrial natural gas). Growth factors are reported at the Census divi sion level. These Census divisions represent a group of States (e.g., the South Atlantic division includes Delaware, the District of Columbia, a nd Maryland; the Middle Atlantic division includes New Jersey, New York, and Pe nnsylvania; the Ne w England division includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachuset ts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont). Although one might expect diffe rent growth rates in each of these States due to unique demographic and soci oeconomic trends, all States within each division received the same growth rate.

EGAS uses these economic activity datasets and a set of cross-referen ce files to generate growth factors by Standard Industrial Cla ssification (SIC) code, Source Classification Code (SCC), or Maximum Achievable Cont rol Technology (MACT) codes. Growth factors for 2009, 2012, and 2018 were calculated us ing 2002 as the base year at the State and SCC level. County-specific growth factors are not available in EGAS 5.0.

There were several SCCs in the MANE-VU 200 2 inventory that are not included in the EGAS 5.0 files. As a result, EGAS did not generate growth factors for those SCCs. MACTEC assigned growth factors for the mi ssing SCCs by assigning a surrogate SCC that best represented the missing SCC.

3.2.2 AEO2005 Growth Factors

The default version of EGAS 5.0 uses the DOE ’s AEO2004 forecasts. We replaced these
data with the more recent AEO2005 forecasts to improve the emissions growth factorsDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-4

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### produced. Using ACCESS, we created a copy of the “DOE EGAS 5” dataset. The dataset
includes three tables. One table contains th e projection data values from 2001-2025. The
other two tables are th e MACT and SCC crosswalk tables. The crosswalk tables are linked to the projection table via a “model code”. Using the copy of AEO2004 data, we updated the corresponding projection tables with data from the AEO2005 located at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/supplement/supref.html 

### . Using the data and descriptions from the new tables, we matched the projection data to the appropriate model codes and then
built a table identical to the DOE EGAS 5 dataset with the new 2005 AEO data. The resulting ACCESS dataset contains a projection data table with the exact same structure as the original except with the new data. The SCC and MACT crosswalks did not require any updates since the model code assignments we re not changed in the new data table.

3.2.3 State Specific Growth Factors
In addition to the growth data described a bove, we received growth projections from
several MANE-VU states to be used instea d of the default EGAS or AEO2005 growth factors. The following paragraphs describe th e area source growth factors used for each

state.

3.2.3.1 

### Connecticut
Connecticut provided state-level populat ion projections for 2009, 2012, and 2018. We created growth factors for those SCCs that are population based usi ng the state-supplied data. Connecticut also provided state-level employment projections for industry categories analogous to 2-digit SIC codes. Projec tions were provided for 2009, 2012, and 2018. We matched these industry groupings to SCC codes in order to create SCC specific growth
factors for area sources. Emissions from area source fuel combustion were projected using
the AEO2005 forecasts.

3.2.3.2 

### Delaware

Delaware provided county-level population projections ( Delaware Population Consortium Annual Population Projections , Oct 18, 2001 Version 2001.0) for 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020. We interpolated these data to get growth factors fo r projection from 2002 to 2009, 2012, and 2018 for those SCCs that are population based. Delaware al so provided state-level employment data by NAICS codes for 2002 and 2012. We interpolat ed values for 2009 and 2018. We matched these industry groupings to SCC codes in order to cr eate SCC specific growth factors for selected area

sources. 

### Emissions from area source fuel combus tion were projected using the AEO2005
forecasts.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-5

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### 3.2.3.3 

### District of Columbia
DC provided local growth factors for pr ojecting emissions from 2002 to 2009, 2012, and 2018 for all area source SCCs except fuel co mbustion sources. Emissions from area source fuel combustion were proj ected using the AEO2005 forecasts.

3.2.3.4 

### Maine
Maine indicated that it pref erred to use the EGAS 5.0 growth factors and the DOE’s 2005 Annual Energy Outlook data for combustion sources.

3.2.3.5 

### Maryland
Maryland provided growth factors by SCC for all counties in the State. These growth factors were derived from a variety source sources, including the MWCOG Cooperative Forecast 7.0, the BMC Round 6A Cooperative Forecast (prepared by the MD Dept. of Planning, May 2004), and EGAS 5.0.

3.2.3.6 

### Massachusetts
Massachusetts provided county-level populat ion data for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020. We interpolated these data to get growth factors for projection from 2002 to 2009, 2012, and 2018 for those SCCs that are population ba sed. Massachusetts also provided growth factors for several SCCs based on employ ment data for the years 2000 and 2010. We interpolated these data to get growth factors for projection from 2002 to 2009, 2012, and 2018. Massachusetts agreed on the use of th e AEO2005 forecasts for projecting emissions
from area source fuel combustion.

3.2.3.7 

### New Hampshire
New Hampshire agreeed to use the EGAS 5.0 gr owth factors, with the enhancement of using the DOE’s 2005 Annual Energy Outlook data for combustion sources.

3.2.3.8 

### New Jersey
New Jersey provided growth fact ors for most SCCs for all counties in the State. When state-specific growth factors were not av ailable, we used th e AEO2005 forecasts for projecting emissions from area source fuel combustion and EGAS default factors for any remaining categories.

3.2.3.9 

### New York
New York provided county-level population data for 2002 and projections/growth factors for 2009, 2012, and 2018. We used these growth factors for those SCCs that are population based. W 

### e usedDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-6

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### the AEO2005 forecasts for projecting emissions from area source fuel combustion and EGAS default factors for any remaining categories.

3.2.3.10 

### Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania provided county-level population data for 2000 and projections for 2010 and 2020. We interpolated these data to get gr owth factors for projecting from 2002 to 2009, 2012, and 2018 for those SCCs that are populati on based. Pennsylvania also provided general employment data for 21 counties or area for 2000 and projections for 2010 and 2020. We interpolated these data to get gr owth factors for projecting from 2002 to 2009, 2012, and 2018 for nine area source categories id entified by Pennsylvania. For all other area source categoried, we used the AEO2005 for ecasts for projecting emissions from area
source fuel combustion and EGAS default f actors for any remaining categories.

3.2.3.11 

### Rhode Island
Rhode Island provided county-level population projections for 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020. We interpolated these data to get growth factors for projection from 2002 to 2009, 2012, and 2018 for those SCCs that are pop ulation based. Rhode Island provided state-level employment data from the Depart ment of Labor and Trai ning by 3-digit NAICS
codes for 2002 and 2012. We used these data to calculate the growth factor from 2002 to 2012 and interpolated these data to derive growth factors for 2009 and 2018. We matched these industry NAICS groupings to SCC codes in order to create SCC specific growth factors for area sources. Rhode Island agr eed on the use of the AEO2005 forecasts for projecting emissions from ar ea source fuel combustion.

3.2.3.12 

### Vermont
Vermont agreed to use the EGAS 5.0 growth f actors, with the enha ncement of using the DOE’s 2005 Annual Energy Outlook data for combustion sources.

3.3 AREA SOURCE CONTROL FACTORS

We developed control factors to estimate emission reductions that will result from on-thebooks regulations that will result in po st-2002 emission reductions and proposed regulations or actions that will result in post-2002 reduc tions. Control factors were developed for the following national or regional control measures:

• OTC VOC Model Rules

• Federal On-board Vapor Recovery

• New Jersey Post-2002 Ar ea Source Controls

• Residential Woodstove NSPSDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-7

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### 3.3.1 OTC 2001 VOC Model Rules

Most of the MANE-VU States have adopted (or will soon adopt) the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) model rules for five area source VOC categories: consumer products, architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings, portable fuel containers, mobile equipment repair and refinishing (MERR), and solvent cleaning. Information on the percent reduction anticipated by each model rule was obtained from Table II-6 of Control Measure Development Support Analysis of Ozone Transport Commission Model Rules (E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., March 31, 2001). This set of model rules will be referred
to as the “OTC 2001 model rules” in this document. Information as to whether a particular state has adopted (or will soon adopt) a partic ular measure was obtained form the Status Report on OTC States’ Efforts to Promulgate Regulations Based on OTC Model Rules (As of June 1, 2005, as posted on the OTC web site). For all categories, except portable fuel containers (see discussion belo w), we assumed that the rules would be fully implemented by all states by 2009 . Some states had already adopted some the OTC 2001 Model Rules in 2002 or already had similar rules in pl ace in 2002. The 2002 emission inventory for those states already reflected the emission reductions expected from the OTC 2001 Model
Rule level of control. For those states a nd categories, no incremental reductions were applied for to the future year proj ections, as indicated Table 3-1.

For consumer products, the 2001 OTC model rule was estimated to provide a 14.2 percent
VOC emissions reductions from the Federal Part 59 rule. Most, but not all, states in the OTR have adopted the OTC 2001 model rule for consumer products. For this inventory, it
was assumed that all OTC states would a dopt the 2001 OTC model ru le prior to 2009. Thus, the 14.2 percent control factor was a pplied uniformly to all states in the 2009, 2012, and 2018 projection inventories.

For AIM coatings, the 2001 OT C model rule was estimated to provide a 31 percent VOC
emissions reduction from the Federal Part 59 ru le. Most, but not all, states in the OTR have adopted the OTC 2001 model rule for AI M coatings. For this inventory, it was assumed that all OTC states would adopt th e 2001 OTC model rule prior to 2009. Thus, this control factor was applie d uniformly to all states, with one exception. Maine adopted
the OTC model rule with an alternative VOC content limit for varnis hes and interior wood clear and semitransparent wood stains. As a result, Maine estimated that reductions from AIM coatings should be modeled using a 29.5 percent control factor instead of the 31 percent estimated for the OTC 2001 model rule.

For portable fuel containers, the 2001 OTC model rule was estimated to provide a 75 percent reduction in VOC emissi ons at the end of an assumed 10-year phase-in period asDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-8

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 3-1 Adoption Matrix for 2001 OTC Model Rules

State Consumer Products AIM Coatings Portable Fuel Containers Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing Solvent Cleaning

CT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
DE Yes Yes Yes Yes No
DC Yes Yes Yes Yes No
ME Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
MD Yes Yes Yes No No MA Yes Yes Yes No * (7%)
NH Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NJ Yes Yes Yes Yes ** (17%)
NY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
PA Yes Yes Yes No No
RI Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
VT Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes – apply incremental reductions in future years No – OTC Model Rule reductions already accounted for in 2002 inventory; no incremental reductions applied to future years. 

### * MA is amending its existing Solven t/Degreasing rule and anticipates a 7% reduction from 2002 levels. 

### ** NJ amended its existing Solvent/Degreasing rule and anticipates a 17% reduc tion from 2002 levels



### older non-compliant containers are replaced wi th new compliant containers. The rule penetration (RP) depends on the assumed PFC estimated useful life and how quickly old non-compliant containers are replaced with new compliant containers. For the 2001 OTC model rule, the turnover from old to new containe rs is expected to be 10 percent per year. The MANEVU states have adopted the OTC 2001 model rule at different times, so the rule penetration will vary by State depending upon wh en the rule became effective in a given state. For example, compliant containers were required in Pe nnsylvania beginning on January 1, 2003. By the 2009 ozone season, there will be a 6.5 year turnover period for compliant PFCs in Pennsylvania. By contrast , compliant containers in New Jersey were not required until January 1, 2005. Thus, by the 2009 ozone season, there will be a 4.5 year turnover period for compliant PFCs. Tabl e 3.2 shows the effective date for compliant containers by state, along with the rule penetratio n factors and overall control efficiency. There are different rule penetration factors for the three inventory years because of the increased penetration of comp liant containers into the marketplace. By 2018, 100 percent compliance is assumed.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 2009 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


### * 2001 OTC model rule not yet effective; a ssumed to become effective January 1, 2007.

For mobile equipment repair and refinishi ng, the 2001 OTC model rule was estimated to provide a 38 percent VOC emi ssions reductions from the Federa l Part 59 rule. Most, but not all, states in the OTR have adopted th e OTC 2001 model rule for MERR or already had
similar rules in effect in 2002. For this i nventory, it was assumed that all OTC states would adopt the 2001 OTC model rule prior to 2 009 or have similar rules in effect. For those states (MD, MA, PA) that had sim ilar rules in effect in 2002 or earlier, no incremental reductions were appl ied since it was assumed that th e effects of the state rule were already accounted for in the 2002 inventor y. New Jersey indicated that a 19 percent
control factor should be used for VOC emissi ons from MERR in New Jersey. For all other states, the OTC 2001 Model Rule contro l factor of 38 percent was applied.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-10

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### For solvent cleaning, the 2001 OTC model rule was estimated to provide a 66 percent VOC emissions reductions. Most, but not all, states in the OTR have adopted the OTC 2001 model rule for solvent cleaning or alrea dy had similar rules in effect in 2002. For this inventory, it was assumed that all OTC states would adopt the 2001 OTC model rule prior to 2009 or have similar ru les in effect. For those states (DE, DC, MD, PA, VT) that
had similar rules in effect in 2002 or earlier , no incremental reductions were applied since
it was assumed that the effects of the stat e rule were already accounted for in the 2002 inventory. Massachusetts indicated that some portion of the reductions resulting from the OTC 2001 model rule were already accounted for in their 2002 emisisons, but that the state anticipated an additional 7 pe rcent reduction from anticipated amendments. New Jersey indicated that a 17 percent cont rol factor should be used for VOC emissions from solvent cleaning in New Jersey. For all other stat es (CT, ME, NH, NY, RI), the OTC 2001 Model Rule control factor of 66 percent was applied.

Table D-1 shows the anticipated percent re ductions by state, SCC, and year from implementation of the OTC 2001 VOC Model Rules.

3.3.2 On-Board Vapor Recovery
The U.S. EPA issued regulations requiring onboard vapor recovery (ORVR) standards for the control of vehicle refueling emissions in 1994. ORVR works by routing refueling vapors to a carbon canister on the vehicle and are expected to achi eve from 95-98 percent
reduction in VOC emissions for those vehicles equipped with ORVR. ORVR is required to be installed on some new vehicles in 1998, an d all new vehicles will be required to have ORVR installed by 2006.

For the Lake Michigan Air Dire ctors Consortium, E.H. Pechan made estimates of emission reductions as they grow over time due to increased rule penetration. The following
discussion describes how the on-board vapor recovery cont rol factors were developed (email from Maureen Mullen, E.H. Pechan):

“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 a nd 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 temp erature data, as used in EPA’s secondDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-11

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Section 812 Prospective anal ysis. 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. Informati on on Stage II control programs and control efficiencies were provided by EPA, as included in the dr aft 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 th e 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 correspondi ng projection year emission factors. These control efficiencies were then assi gned to individual counties, based on the mapping of fuel and Stage II control parame ters 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 that 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 effectiven ess of 80 percent.

New Jersey also made amendments to ICI boi ler provisions at N.J.A.C. The amendments require any ICI boiler has a maximum gross h eat input rate of at least 5 mmBTU/hour, whether or not it is located at a major NO x 

### facility, to conduct annua l tune-ups. In the support documentation for this rule amendment, New Jersey estimated that the tune-ups would result in a 25 percent reduction in NOx emissions.

3.3.4 Residential Wood Combustion

Control factors were evaluated to account for the replacement of re tired woodstoves that emit at pre-new source performance standard (NSPS) levels. We used EPA’s latest methodology provided by Marc Houyoux of EPA/OAQPS. This methodology uses a combination growth and control factor and is based on activity not po llutant. The growth and control are accounted for in a single f actor the SCCs split out the controlled and uncontrolled equipment. The control is indire ctly incorporated based on which stove is used. The combined growth and control rates are as follows:Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-12

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### • Fireplaces increase 1%/yr

• Old woodstoves decrease 2%/yr

• New woodstoves increase 2%/yr

The data to support these rates were collected as part of th e woodstove change-out program development in OAQPS. Table D-3 shows th e anticipated percent changes by SCC and

year.

3.4 AREA SOURCE QA/QC REVIEW

Throughout the inventory developm ent process, quality assuran ce steps were performed to ensure that no double counting of emissions o ccurred, to ensure that a full and complete inventory was developed for MANE-VU, and to make sure that projection calculations were working correctly. Quality assurance was an important component to the inventory development process and MACTEC performed the following QA steps on the area source components of the 2009/2012/2018 projection inventories:

1. State agencies reviewed the draft growth and control factors in the summer of 2005. Changes based on these comments were implemented in the files.

2. SCC level emission summaries were prepared and evaluated to ensure that
emissions were consistent and that there were no missing sources. Tier comparisons (by pollutant) were devel oped between the revised 2002 base year inventory and the 2009/2012/2018 projection inventories.

3. Emission inventory files in NIF format we re provided for state agency review and comment. Changes based on these comments were implemented.

4. All final files were run through EPA’s Format and Content checking software.

3.5 AREA SOURCE NIF, SMOKE AND SUMMARY FILES

The Version 3 file names and descriptions de livered to MARAMA are shown in Table 3-3.

3.6 AREA SOURCE EMISSION SUMMARIES

Emission summaries by state, year, and polluta nt are presented in Tables 3-4 through 3-10 for CO, NH3, NOx, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, SO2, and VOC, respectively.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-13

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### 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.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-14

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 3-4 Area Sources OTB/OTW Annual CO Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 70,198 65,865 63,874 59,797 DE 14,052 15,395 15,233 14,864 DC 2,300 2,417 2,460 2,512 ME 109,223 102,743 99,877 94,181 MD 141,178 143,653 144,233 144,649 MA 137,496 132,797 130,255 125,205 NH 79,647 76,504 75,319 73,038 NJ 97,657 90,432 88,048 83,119 NY 356,254 336,576 327,118 307,659 PA 266,935 266,887 264,012 257,396 RI 8,007 8,007 8,026 8,024 VT 43,849 42,683 42,172 41,283 Total 1,326,796 1,283,959 1,260,627 1,211,727

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-15

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 3-5 Area Sources OTB/OTW Annual NH3 Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 5,318 5,208 5,156 5,061
DE 13,279 13,316 13,328 13,342
DC 14 16 16 17
ME 8,747 10,453 11,116 12,312
MD 25,834 31,879 34,222 38,155
MA 18,809 19,131 19,275 19,552
NH 2,158 2,466 2,584 2,789
NJ 17,572 19,457 20,154 21,435
NY 67,422 81,626 87,116 96,078
PA 79,911 98,281 105,418 117,400
RI 883 945 972 1,025
VT 9,848 12,156 13,062 14,580
Total 249,795 294,934 312,419 341,746

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-16

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 3-6 Area Sources OTB/OTW Annual NOx Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 12,689 13,173 13,342 13,388 DE 2,608 2,821 2,913 3,014 DC 1,644 1,961 2,081 2,259 ME 7,360 7,477 7,486 7,424 MD 15,678 16,858 17,315 18,073 MA 34,281 35,732 36,331 37,187 NH 10,960 11,879 12,055 12,430 NJ 26,692 24,032 23,981 23,660 NY 98,803 106,375 107,673 108,444 PA 47,591 50,162 50,793 50,829 RI 3,886 4,149 4,260 4,397 VT 3,208 3,419 3,429 3,430 Total 265,400 278,038 281,659 284,535

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-17

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 3-7 Area Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 48,281 48,970 49,004 49,479 DE 13,039 13,928 14,236 14,844 DC 3,269 3,511 3,605 3,825 ME 168,953 175,979 179,689 189,619 MD 95,060 105,944 110,141 117,396 MA 192,860 198,668 200,692 204,922 NH 43,328 46,060 47,187 49,801 NJ 61,601 61,684 61,284 60,880 NY 369,595 382,124 385,925 392,027 PA 391,897 421,235 432,844 454,970 RI 8,295 8,962 9,244 9,797 VT 56,131 60,521 62,465 66,916 Total 1,452,309 1,527,586 1,556,316 1,614,476

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-18

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 3-8 Area Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 14,247 13,766 13,517 13,033 DE 3,204 3,387 3,403 3,426 DC 805 860 879 917 ME 32,774 33,026 33,189 33,820 MD 27,318 28,923 29,508 30,449 MA 42,083 43,121 43,186 43,438 NH 17,532 17,965 18,050 18,316 NJ 19,350 18,590 18,271 17,653 NY 87,154 87,576 87,260 86,422 PA 74,925 79,169 80,728 83,570 RI 2,064 2,184 2,232 2,316 VT 11,065 11,482 11,652 12,059 Total 332,521 340,049 341,875 345,419

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-19

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 3-9 Area Sources OTB/OTW Annual SO2 Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 12,418 12,581 12,604 12,184 DE 1,588 1,599 1,602 1,545 DC 1,337 1,487 1,541 1,632 ME 13,149 13,776 13,846 13,901 MD 12,393 13,685 14,074 14,741 MA 25,488 25,961 26,029 25,570 NH 7,072 7,463 7,470 7,421 NJ 10,744 10,672 10,697 10,510 NY 130,409 139,589 140,154 141,408 PA 63,679 67,535 67,446 66,363 RI 4,557 5,024 5,189 5,398 VT 4,087 4,646 4,687 4,764 Total 286,921 304,018 305,339 305,437

0 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-20

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 3-10 Area Sources OTB/OTW Annual VOC Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 87,302 75,693 73,560 71,274 DE 15,519 14,245 13,943 13,744 DC 6,432 5,420 5,352 5,255 ME 100,621 91,910 91,667 92,410 MD 120,254 110,385 108,067 110,046 MA 162,145 148,625 145,674 140,558 NH 65,370 63,069 63,356 64,368 NJ 167,882 147,617 143,752 139,626 NY 507,292 462,811 456,856 457,421 PA 240,785 228,444 230,393 243,421 RI 31,402 26,695 25,548 23,561 VT 23,265 24,068 24,635 26,198 Total 1,528,269 1,398,982 1,382,803 1,387,882

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 550,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-1

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

## 4.0 NONROAD SOURCES

The nonroad source sector is comprised of nonroad engines included in EPA’s NONROAD model, as well as other nonroa d engines not accounted for in the NONROAD model, including aircraft, commercial marine vessels, and locomotive engines. The sections that follow describe the proj ection process used to develop 2009/2012/2018 nonroad projection estimates for sources found in the NONROAD model and those sources estimated outside of the model (loc omotives, airplanes and commercial marine vessels).

4.1 NONROAD MODEL SOURCES

NONROAD model source categories include eq uipment such as recreational boats and watercraft; recreational vehicles; farm, industrial, mining, and construction machinery; and lawn and garden equipment. Also included are aircraft ground support equipment and rail maintenance equipment. These equipment types are powered by e ngines using diesel, gasoline, compressed natural gas (CNG), a nd liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).

EPA released a revised version of NONROAD during December 2005 called NONROAD 2005. EPA’s National Mobile Inventory Mode l (NMIM) is a consolidated modeling system that incorporates the NONROAD and MOBILE models, along with a county database of inputs. EPA also released an updated version of NMIM called NMIM2005, which incorporates th e NONROAD2005 model.

MACTEC utilized the NMIM 2005 model to develop projec tions for nonroad engines included in the NONROAD2005 model. Project ed emission estimates were calculated using NMIM default data. Prior to st arting the NMIM2005 runs, MACTEC confirmed with U.S. EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) that the database used for fuel sulfur content, gas Reid Vapor Pr essure (RVP) values and reformulated fuel programs was current and up to date for the MANE-VU region. The information received from OTAQ indicated that these values were the most current.

NMIM2005 runs were then developed for each projection year. These included 2009,
2012 and 2018. Emission calculations were made at the monthly level and consolidated to provide annual values. This enabled monthl y temperatures and changes in reformulated gas to be captured by the program.

The NMIM/NONROAD2005 results in NIF 3.0, and ran EPA’s QA checker program to verify that the NIF 3.0 files were properly constructed.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-2

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### 4.2 AIRCRAFT, COMMERCIAL M ARINE, AND LOCOMOTIVES

Since aircraft, commercial marine vessels, and locomotives are not included in the NONROAD model, emission projections for th ese sources were developed separately. The starting point for the emission project ions was Version 3 of the MANE-VU 2002 Nonroad emission inventory ( Documentation of the MANE-VU 2002 Nonroad Sector Emission Inventory, Version 3, Draft Technical Memorandum , March 2006).

MACTEC’s approach to developing emission projections for these sources was to use combined growth and control factors devel oped from emission projec tions for U.S. EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) devel opment effort. MACTEC obtained emission projections developed for the CAIR rule. We then calculated the combined growth and control factors by determini ng the ratio of emissions be tween 2002 and each of the MANE-VU projection years ( 2009, 2012, and 2018). The CAIR emissions were available for 2001, 2010, 2015 and 2020. Thus, we developed intermediate year estimates using linear interpolation between the actual CAIR years and the MANE-VU years.

Using this approach we developed State/count y/SCC/pollutant growth /control factors for use in projecting the MANE-VU base year data to the year of interest. These values were then used to multiply times the base year va lue to obtain the projected values. Since the development of the CAIR factors included bot h growth and controls, no separate control factors were developed for thes e sources except where exceptions to this method were used for States that requeste d alternative growth/contr ol methods (see below).

Once the CAIR factors were developed, MACT EC compared the SCCs contained in the CAIR inventory with those used in MANE-VU. In some cases there were differences. In
cases where a similar SCC in the CAIR inve ntory could be assigned to the SCC in the MANE-VU inventory the State/County/SCC/pollutant growth and control factor for the substitute was assigned to the MANE- VU SCC. If no corresponding county SCC substitution could be found, a State or MANE- VU regional average value for the substitute SCC was developed and assigned for use in projecting emissions. The substitution scheme was to use State values first, then MANE-VU regional values if the State value couldn’t be
used.

This projection method was used with three exceptions. These exceptions were: 1) Maryland sources, 2) DC locomotive growth and controls and 3) Logan (Boston) airport. Each of these sources used alternative growth and/or controls provi ded by the States or developed from current Federal ru les for these sources (applies to controls only). Each of
these is discussed below.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-3

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### 4.2.1 Maryland Non-NONROAD Source Emissions
Maryland indicated that they would prefer to use EGAS gr owth factors coupled with Federal controls to determine projected emi ssions for these source categories. Maryland provided EGAS growth factors for use with these categories. Control values were developed based on Federal ru les that were on the books.

For CMV, controls were developed based on data contained in Table 1.1-2 of the document “Final Regulatory Support Documen t: Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters pe r Cylinder,” EPA420-R-03-004, January 2003. Values in that table were interpolated to develop emission estimates with and without controls for the MANE-VU years (and base year) and then control factors were calculated for those values. Only Cate gory 3 marine engines were identified in the Maryland inventory and thus only NOx contro ls for those engines were developed.

For locomotives, control factors for different types of locomotives were developed using Tables 6-2 through 6-5 of the document “L ocomotive Emission Standards: Regulatory Support Document,” United States Environmen tal Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources, April 1998. Since these tables only sh owed PM controls, we assumed the same
level of control for both PM-10 and PM-2.5. Controls for VOC, NOx and PM were developed using these tables.

In addition to engine specification contro ls for both CMV and locomotives, we also developed control factors resulting from changes to diesel fuel sulfur contents. The diesel fuel sulfur regulations were utilized to de velop controls for SO2 and PM due solely to changing fuel sulfur requirements. Data fr om Tables 3.1-6a and 3.4-8a of the document “Final Regulatory Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines,” EPA420-R-04-007, May 2004 were used to develop control levels created due to changes
in fuel sulfur content. In cases where ther e were controls due to both engine technology and fuel sulfur reduction, we a dded the control efficiencies to gether to create a combined control efficiency. All control values are cons idered to be “additive”. In other words, the controls applied are above those found in the ba se year. Thus the controls were used on the base year emission values without back- calculation to determine uncontrolled levels
since the controls are in addition to those controls.

The control values were then applied along w ith the growth factors to the base year emissions for Maryland to produce the required emission projections.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-4

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### 4.2.2 DC Locomotive Emissions

The District of Columbia em ission contact provided MACTEC with alternative growth factors for locomotive emissions. The growth factors provided were:

2002-2009 6.9% 2002-2012 9.9% 2002-2018 13.7% Since the CAIR factors were combined growth and controls, the cont rol factors developed for locomotives for Maryland (based on Federa l control programs) were used to apply
controls to the DC locomotive emissions. As was the case for Maryland, the control
factors were “additive” and were used on the base year emission without back-calculating
uncontrolled emissions since the control levels 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 in cluded in that interval (2009), MACTEC developed
estimates for 2012 and 2018 from those data by linear interpol ation. Two linear interpolations were developed. The first used the entire data set (2000-2010) to develop a linear projection for 2012 and 2018 and a second using just the 2002-2010 data. For the final growth factors, MACTEC used the aver age of the two. These growth factors were then applied to commercial aircraft oper ations for Suffolk County (FIPS = 25025). The growth factors developed were:

2002-2009 1.184 2002-2012 1.22 2002-2018 1.33

No controls that would come on board for airc raft for the projection years were identified from a review of Federal programs.

4.3 NONROAD QA/QC REVIEW

Throughout the inventory developm ent process, quality assuran ce steps were performed to ensure that no double counting of emissions o ccurred, to ensure that a full and complete inventory was developed for MANE-VU, and to make sure that projection calculations were working correctly. MACTEC performed the follo wing QA steps on nonroad source projection inventories: (1) All final files (NONROAD onl y) were run through EPA’s Format and Content checking software; SCC le vel emission summaries were prepared and
evaluated to ensure that emissions were consis tent with the 2002 projections and that there were no missing source categ ories or geographical areas.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-5

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### 4.4 NONROAD NIF, SMOKE, AND SUMMARY FILES

The Version 3.1 files delivered to MARAMA are shown in Table 4-1.

4.5 NONROAD EMISSION SUMMARIES

Table 4-2a shows the CO emissi ons by state and year for the seven pollutants of interest for the entire nonroad sector. Table 4-2b pr esents the CO emission results for NONROAD model equipment only. Table 4-2c presents th e CO emission results for only the aircraft, commercial marine vessel, and locomotive cate gories. Tables 4-4 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, an d commercial marine vessels
MANEVU OTB Nonroad V3_1 State SCC Summary.xls Oct. 23, 2006 Spreadsheet with SCC totals by state and pollutant for all nonroad sources, NONROAD model sourcesDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-6

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 4-2a All Nonroad Sources OTB/OTW Annual CO Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 276,773 282,788 288,061 303,764
DE 68,782 74,856 76,491 80,646
DC 18,845 20,746 21,306 22,429
ME 153,424 163,782 165,273 166,679
MD 437,400 497,276 513,737 550,795
MA 461,514 504,400 516,019 546,373
NH 130,782 142,318 143,804 147,544
NJ 704,396 753,916 777,069 831,880
NY 1,233,968 1,349,439 1,388,406 1,474,727
PA 931,978 1,031,816 1,058,256 1,119,247
RI 73,013 80,228 82,113 87,195
VT 62,248 68,360 69,003 70,074
Total 4,553,124 4,969,925 5,099,538 5,401,353

0 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-7

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 4-2b NONROAD Model Sources OTB/OTW Annual CO Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 274,388 280,253 285,415 300,931
DE 65,954 71,877 73,397 77,356
DC 18,775 20,671 21,229 22,350
ME 148,555 158,715 160,043 161,215
MD 424,777 482,312 497,806 532,970
MA 448,399 490,895 501,684 530,686
NH 128,572 139,288 140,655 144,191
NJ 692,548 741,792 764,424 818,519
NY 1,219,309 1,333,923 1,372,164 1,457,277
PA 903,168 1,003,480 1,029,045 1,088,614
RI 71,573 78,764 80,607 85,618
VT 61,732 67,802 68,421 69,456
Total 4,457,748 4,869,771 4,994,890 5,289,186

0 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-8

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 4-2c Aircraft, Locomotive , and Commercial Marine Sources OTB/OTW Annual CO Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 2,385 2,535 2,646 2,833
DE 2,828 2,979 3,094 3,290
DC 70 75 77 79
ME 4,868 5,067 5,230 5,464
MD 12,624 14,964 15,931 17,825
MA 13,116 13,505 14,335 15,687
NH 2,211 3,030 3,149 3,353
NJ 11,849 12,124 12,645 13,361
NY 14,660 15,516 16,242 17,450
PA 28,810 28,336 29,211 30,633
RI 1,440 1,464 1,506 1,577
VT 516 558 582 618
Total 95,375 100,154 104,648 112,167

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-9

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 4-3a All Nonroad Sources OTB/OTW Annual NH3 Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 17 18 19 21 DE 5 6 6 7 DC 2 3 3 3 ME 11 13 14 15 MD 28 31 33 36 MA 28 31 33 36 NH 9 10 11 12 NJ 43 45 47 52 NY 79 89 94 103 PA 55 62 66 73 RI 4 4 5 5
VT 5 5 6 6 Total 287 317 337 369

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-10

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 4-3b NONROAD Model Sources OTB/OTW Annual NH3 Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 17 18 19 21 DE 5 6 6 6 DC 2 3 3 3 ME 11 13 14 15 MD 28 31 33 36 MA 28 31 33 36 NH 9 10 11 12 NJ 43 45 47 52 NY 79 89 94 103 PA 55 62 66 73 RI 4 4 5 5
VT 5 5 6 6 Total 287 318 335 369

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-11

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 4-3c Aircraft, Locomotive , and Commercial Marine Sources OTB/OTW Annual NH3 Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 0 0 0 0 DE 0 0 0 0 DC 0 0 0 0 ME 0 0 0 0 MD 0 0 0 0 MA 0 0 0 0 NH 0 0 0 0 NJ 0 0 0 0 NY 0 0 0 0 PA 0 0 0 0 RI 0 0 0 0
VT 0 0 0 0 Total <1 <1 <1 <1

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-12

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 4-4a All Nonroad Sources OTB/OTW Annual NOx Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 25,460 21,512 19,316 16,233
DE 16,227 15,439 15,081 14,631
DC 3,571 2,981 2,620 1,815
ME 9,820 8,500 7,752 6,543
MD 37,472 31,762 29,058 24,257
MA 42,769 35,703 32,118 27,040
NH 9,912 8,485 7,624 6,344
NJ 63,479 52,703 48,234 41,166
NY 109,878 94,186 85,852 72,400
PA 103,824 76,105 67,818 55,771
RI 5,002 4,022 3,470 2,723
VT 4,217 3,452 2,992 2,262
Total 431,631 354,850 321,935 271,185

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-13

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 4-4b NONROAD Model Sources OTB/OTW Annual NOx Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 17,897 14,849 12,811 9,784 DE 5,798 4,755 4,108 2,966 DC 3,066 2,561 2,221 1,444 ME 8,229 6,957 6,211 4,970 MD 27,789 23,431 20,839 15,745 MA 30,047 24,606 21,274 16,096 NH 8,150 6,749 5,893 4,583 NJ 43,515 34,447 30,416 23,594 NY 78,648 66,645 58,900 45,400 PA 62,265 49,982 42,571 30,797 RI 4,564 3,624 3,066 2,294 VT 4,170 3,403 2,941 2,205 Total 294,138 242,009 211,252 159,877

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-14

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 4-4c Aircraft, Locomotive , and Commercial Marine Sources OTB/OTW Annual NOx Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 7,563 6,663 6,505 6,449
DE 10,428 10,684 10,973 11,665
DC 505 420 399 371
ME 1,592 1,543 1,541 1,573
MD 9,683 8,331 8,219 8,512
MA 12,722 11,097 10,844 10,944
NH 1,763 1,736 1,731 1,761
NJ 19,964 18,256 17,818 17,572
NY 31,230 27,541 26,952 27,000
PA 41,559 26,123 25,247 24,974
RI 438 398 404 429
VT 47 49 51 57
Total 137,493 112,841 110,683 111,308

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-15

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 4-5a All Nonroad Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 1,952 1,642 1,532 1,236
DE 1,021 947 940 897
DC 310 235 209 135
ME 1,437 1,367 1,301 1,086
MD 4,936 4,353 4,191 3,814
MA 3,531 2,964 2,768 2,246
NH 1,058 944 881 698
NJ 5,495 4,539 4,233 3,489
NY 9,605 8,050 7,425 5,830
PA 9,738 8,501 8,112 6,949
RI 500 435 414 348

VT 530 476 439 331

Total 40,114 34,453 32,445 27,059

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-16

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 4-5b NONROAD Model Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 1,713 1,407 1,295 987 DE 570 456 414 301 DC 298 226 200 127 ME 1,204 1,119 1,039 797 MD 3,119 2,534 2,321 1,782 MA 2,887 2,370 2,176 1,640 NH 947 834 769 581 NJ 4,285 3,424 3,143 2,411 NY 8,339 6,871 6,248 4,624 PA 6,282 5,282 4,839 3,574 RI 403 337 314 244
VT 518 462 425 316 Total 30,565 25,321 23,182 17,385

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-17

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 4-5c Aircraft, Locomotive , and Commercial Marine Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 239 235 237 249
DE 451 491 526 596
DC 12 9 9 8
ME 233 248 262 289
MD 1,817 1,819 1,870 2,032
MA 644 594 592 606
NH 111 110 112 117
NJ 1,210 1,115 1,090 1,078
NY 1,266 1,179 1,177 1,206
PA 3,456 3,219 3,273 3,375
RI 97 98 100 104
VT 12 14 14 15
Total 9,549 9,132 9,263 9,674

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-18

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 4-6a All Nonroad Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 1,794 1,508 1,408 1,135
DE 926 856 849 808
DC 299 216 192 124
ME 1,329 1,238 1,177 978
MD 4,357 3,806 3,653 3,301
MA 3,226 2,710 2,531 2,052
NH 965 861 802 634
NJ 4,997 4,113 3,829 3,143
NY 8,821 7,390 6,815 5,349
PA 8,440 7,274 6,900 5,808
RI 443 383 364 303
VT 486 436 402 303
Total 36,084 30,791 28,922 23,938

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-19

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 4-6b NONROAD Model Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 1,578 1,296 1,193 911
DE 525 420 381 277
DC 288 208 184 117
ME 1,135 1,030 956 734
MD 2,870 2,333 2,137 1,641
MA 2,659 2,184 2,005 1,512
NH 872 768 708 536
NJ 3,951 3,154 2,896 2,223
NY 7,677 6,327 5,755 4,262
PA 5,784 4,866 4,459 3,296
RI 371 311 290 226
VT 477 426 391 292
Total 28,186 23,321 21,356 16,027

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-20

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 4-6c Aircraft, Locomotive , and Commercial Marine Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 216 212 215 224
DE 401 436 468 531
DC 11 8 8 7
ME 194 208 221 244
MD 1,487 1,473 1,516 1,660
MA 568 526 526 540
NH 94 93 94 98
NJ 1,047 959 933 920
NY 1,144 1,063 1,060 1,087
PA 2,656 2,408 2,441 2,512
RI 72 72 74 77
VT 9 10 11 11
Total 7,898 7,470 7,566 7,911

0 1,000 2,000 3,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-21

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 4-7a All Nonroad Sources OTB/OTW Annual SO2 Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 2,087 887 711 815
DE 3,983 2,851 2,834 3,296
DC 375 66 9 5
ME 917 201 82 82
MD 7,942 1,638 706 577
MA 3,791 983 470 442
NH 891 310 218 246
NJ 15,686 3,508 1,253 832
NY 12,920 3,387 1,724 1,686
PA 7,915 1,659 667 607
RI 377 93 42 42
VT 372 68 15 13
Total 57,257 15,651 8,731 8,643

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-22

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 4-7b NONROAD Model Sources OTB/OTW Annual SO2 Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 1,377 249 39 28 DE 513 90 12 8 DC 341 59 6 3 ME 772 132 24 19 MD 2,569 452 63 42 MA 2,428 429 66 47 NH 673 119 20 16 NJ 3,525 607 93 67 NY 6,966 1,208 182 130 PA 5,292 917 135 92 RI 336 60 10 7
VT 368 64 10 8 Total 25,159 4,387 661 467

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-23

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 4-7c Aircraft, Locomotive , and Commercial Marine Sources OTB/OTW Annual SO2 Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 711 638 672 787
DE 3,470 2,761 2,822 3,288
DC 34 7 3 2
ME 145 69 58 63
MD 5,372 1,186 643 535
MA 1,363 554 404 395
NH 218 191 198 230
NJ 12,161 2,901 1,160 765
NY 5,953 2,179 1,542 1,556
PA 2,623 742 532 515
RI 42 33 32 35
VT 5 4 5 5
Total 32,097 11,264 8,070 8,176

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-24

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 4-8a All Nonroad Sources OTB/OTW Annual VOC Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 33,880 24,910 22,657 20,694
DE 8,010 6,440 6,044 5,653
DC 2,073 1,559 1,438 1,369
ME 31,144 29,445 27,093 21,988
MD 56,330 43,260 40,266 37,969
MA 56,749 43,429 39,713 36,306
NH 22,377 19,651 17,933 15,003
NJ 83,919 62,920 57,769 53,625
NY 157,612 128,421 117,770 104,562
PA 102,331 84,744 78,630 69,956
RI 7,780 6,038 5,640 5,389
VT 10,548 10,105 9,304 7,566
Total 572,751 460,922 424,257 380,080

0 30,000 60,000 90,000 120,000 150,000 180,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-25

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 4-8b NONROAD Model Sources OTB/OTW Annual VOC Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 33,519 24,546 22,286 20,308 DE 7,531 5,943 5,533 5,115 DC 2,053 1,540 1,419 1,351 ME 30,741 29,030 26,669 21,547 MD 53,035 39,731 36,638 34,106 MA 54,836 41,473 37,706 34,185 NH 22,238 19,476 17,752 14,810 NJ 81,900 60,878 55,682 51,451 NY 155,475 126,265 115,553 102,224 PA 99,241 82,094 75,941 67,186 RI 7,699 5,956 5,556 5,302 VT 10,520 10,076 9,273 7,533 Total 558,788 447,006 410,009 365,117

0 30,000 60,000 90,000 120,000 150,000 180,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-26

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 4-8c Aircraft, Locomotive , and Commercial Marine Sources OTB/OTW Annual VOC Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 361 364 371 386
DE 480 497 511 538
DC 20 19 19 18
ME 403 415 424 441
MD 3,295 3,529 3,628 3,863
MA 1,913 1,956 2,007 2,121
NH 139 175 181 193
NJ 2,019 2,042 2,087 2,174
NY 2,137 2,156 2,217 2,338
PA 3,090 2,650 2,689 2,770
RI 81 82 84 87
VT 27 29 31 33
Total 13,964 13,916 14,248 14,963

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-1

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

## 5.0 BEYOND-ON-THE-WAY EMISSION INVENTORY

The States are considering addi tional control measures as part of their planning to achieve regional haze goals and to attain the oz one and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). To accomplish this, ma ny of the states will need to implement
additional measures to reduce emissions. As such, the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) undertook an exercise to identify a suite of additional control measures that could be used by the states in the Ozone Transpor t Region (OTR) in attaining their ai quality goals.

Based on the analyses conducted by various OTC Workgroups, the OTC Commissioners
made several recommendations at the Commissioner’s meeting in Boston on June 7, 2006:

• Memorandum of Understanding Among the States of the Ozone Transport Commission on a Regional Strategy Concer ning the Integrated Control of Ozone Precursors from Various Sources

• Resolution 06-02 of the Ozone Trans port Commission Concerning Coordination and Implementation of Regional Ozone Cont rol Strategies for Certain Source Categories

• Statement of the Ozone Transport Co mmission Concerning Multi-Pollutant Emission Control of Electric Generating Units

• Resolution 06-03 of the Ozone Tr ansport Commission Concerning Federal Guidance and Rulemaking for Nationally-R elevant Ozone Control Measures

The Commissioners recommende d that States consider emission reductions from the following source categories:

• Consumer Products

• Portable Fuel Containers

• Adhesives and Sealants Application

• Diesel Engine Chip Reflash

• Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt Paving

• Asphalt Production Plants

• Cement Kilns

• Glass Furnaces

• Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) Boilers

• Regional Fuels

• Electric Generating Units (EGUs)

This suite of controls for the above source categories constitutes a “beyond-on-the-way” (BOTW) scenario to be used in modeling ozone, fine particles, and regional haze in the OTR and MANE-VU regions.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-2

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### For the MANE-VU modeling inve ntory, each state was asked to complete a matrix to identify which of the above source category cont rol measures to include and in which years the control measure should be applied. This section documents the emission reductions anticipated to result from the implementation of the above control measures based on the
state recommendations for measures to in clude for each state, source category, and projection year. There are five subsections discussing the control measure and emission reductions for the five source category sect ors: nonEGU point sources, area sources, EGUs, onroad mobile sources, and nonroad mobile sources.

5.1 NONEGU POINT SOURCES

This Section describes the analysis of the c ontrol measures to reduce emissions from nonEGU point sources. The control measures incl uded in this analysis reduce emissions for the following pollutants and nonE GU point source categories:

• NOx measures: asphalt production plants; cement kilns; glass and fiberglass furnaces; low sulfur heating oil for commerci al and institional un its; and ICI boilers (natural gas, #2 fuel oil, #4/#6 fuel oil, and coal);

• Primary PM10 and PM2.5 measure: commercial heating oil;

• SO2 measures: commercial heating oil and IC I boilers (#2 fuel oil, #4/#6 fuel oil, and coal); and

• VOC measure: adhesives and sealants application;

For the MANE-VU modeling inve ntory, each state was asked to complete a matrix to identify which nonEGU control measures to include and in which years the control measure should be applied. Table 5.1 summa rizes the staff recommendations for NOx
control measures to include in the BO TW regional modeling inventory for non-EGU source categories (except ICI boilers). Ta ble 5.2 summarizes the st aff recommendations
for NOx emission reductions for ICI boilers. Tables 5.3 and 5.4 summarize the staff
recommendations for control measures to include in the BO TW regional modeling inventory for SO2 and VOC emissions, respectiv ely. The following subsections describe the emission reductions anticipated for each of the control measures.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-3

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 5.1 State Staff Recommendations fo r Control Measures to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – NOx Emissions from NonEGU Point Sources

Asphalt Production Plants Cement Kilns Glass and Fiberglass Furnaces Commercial & Institutional Heating Oil

State 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018

CT Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No No Yes

DE No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No No No

DC Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No Yes Yes

ME No No No Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A No Yes Yes

MD No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

MA No No No N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

NH No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No No Yes

NJ No Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A No Yes 2 Yes 2 No Yes Yes

NY Yes Yes Yes Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 3 Yes 3 No Yes Yes

PA No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

RI No No No N/A N/A N/A No No No No Yes Yes

VT No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No No No

Yes - Include emission reductions from control measure in modeling inventory No - Do not include emission reduction from control measure in modeling inventory N/A – No facilities of this type located in the state 1) New York specified that a 40 percent NOx reduction from cement kilns should be used. 2) New Jersey specified a 20 percen t NOx reduction from glass furn aces in 2012 and a 35 percent reduction in 2018. 3) New York specified a 70 per cent NOx reduction from glass furnaces beginning in 2009.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-4

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 5.2 State Staff Recommendations fo r Control Measures to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – NOx Emissions from ICI Boilers

ICI Boilers < 25 mmBTU/hour ICI Boilers 25-50 mmBtu/hour ICI Boilers
50-100 mmBtu/hour ICI Boilers
100-250 mmBtu/hour ICI Boilers >250 mmBtu/hour (see note 7)

State 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018

CT Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 No No No

DE No No No No No No No No No Yes 4 Yes 4 Yes 4 No No No

DC No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No

ME No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No

MD No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No

MA No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No

NH No No No Yes 5 Yes 5 Yes 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 Yes 5 Yes 5 No No No

NJ Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No

NY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No

PA No 3 No 3 No 3 No 3 No 3 No 3 No 3 No 3 No 3 No 6 No 6 No 6 No No No

RI No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No

VT No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No

Yes - Include emission reductions from control measure in modeling inventory No - Do not include emission reduction from control measure in modeling inventory N/A – No facilities of this type located in the state 1) Connecticut is now pursuing adoption of model rule for boilers of all sizes at major and non-major sources 2) New Jersey specified a 5 percen t reduction in 2009, 10 percent in 2012, and 10 percent in 2018 3) Pennsylvania specified no reductions since sources already covered by statewide NOx RACT regulation 4) Delaware is developing regulation for ICI boilers greater than 200 mmBtu/hour – no plans for regulating smaller units 5) New Hampshire specified a 40 percent reduction for 25-50 mmBtu/hour boilers, and a 10 percent reduction for natural gas-fired 100-250 mmBtu/hour boilers 6) Pennsylvania specified no reductions since sources in the 5-county Philadelphia area are already covered by the Small Sources of NOx regulation and do not plan on e xpanding the regulation outside of the corridor at this time 7) Resolution 06-02 specified the reduction for > 250mmBtu/hour boilers to be the “same as EGUs of similar size.” The OTC Commissioners have not yet recommended an emission rate or percent reduction for EGUs. As a result, no reductions for ICI boilers > 250 mmBtu/hour were included in the BOTW inventory.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-5

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 5.3 State Staff Recommendations fo r Control Measures to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – SO2 Emissions from NonEGU Point Sources

Commercial & Institutional Heating Oil ICI Boilers (low sulfur fuel)

State 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018

CT No No Yes No No No

DE No No No No No No

DC No Yes Yes No No No

ME No Yes Yes No No No

MD No Yes Yes No No No

MA No Yes Yes No No No

NH No No Yes No No No

NJ No Yes Yes No No No

NY No Yes Yes No No No

PA No Yes Yes No No No

RI No Yes Yes No No No

VT No No No No No No

Yes - Include emission reductions from control measure in modeling inventory No - Do not include emission reduction from control measure in modeling inventoryDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-6

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 5.4 State Staff Recommendations fo r Control Measures to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – VOC Emission s from NonEGU Point Sources

Adhesives and Sealants Application

State 2009 2012 2018

CT Yes Yes Yes

DE Yes Yes Yes

DC Yes Yes Yes

ME Yes Yes Yes

MD Yes Yes Yes

MA Yes Yes Yes

NH No Yes Yes

NJ No 1 No 1 No 1

NY Yes Yes Yes

PA Yes Yes Yes

RI Yes Yes Yes

VT No No No

Yes - Include emission reductions from control measure in modeling inventory No - Do not include emission reduction from control measure in modeling inventory

1) New Jersey indicated that the reductions fr om the adhesives and sealants application control measure should only apply to area so urce - no reductions for point sources (SCC 4- 02-007-xx) were included.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-7

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### 5.1.1 Adhesives and Sealants Application

The OTC 2006 model rule for adhesives and seal ants is based on the reasonably available control technology (RACT) and best availa ble retrofit control technology (BARCT) determination by the California Air Res ources Board (CARB) developed in 1998.
Adhesive and sealant emission sources are cl assified as both point sources and area sources. About 96 percent of adhesive and se alant VOC emissions in the OTC states fall into the area source category. The remaini ng four percent of the VOC emissions are included in the point source inventory.

The emission reduction benefit estimation me thodology is based on information developed and used by CARB for their RACT/BARCT dete rmination in 1998. For point sources, we first identified those sources that were appl ying adhesives and seal ants (using the source classification code of 4-02-007-xx, adhesives application). Next, we reviewed the MANEVU inventory to determine whether thes e sources had existing capture and control systems. Most of the sources did not have control information in the NIF database. However, several sources reported capture a nd destruction efficiencies in the 70 to 99 percent range, with a few s ources reporting capture and dest ruction efficiencies of 99+ percent. Sources with existi ng control systems that exceeded an 85 percent overall capture and destruction efficiency would comply w ith the OTC 2006 model rule provision for addon air pollution control equipment; therefore, no additional reductions were calculated for these sources. For point sources without add-on control equipment, we used the 64.4 percent reduction based on the CARB determination.

5.1.2 Asphalt Production Plants

In Resolution 06-02, the OTC Commissioners recommended that OTC member states pursue as necessary and appropr iate state-specific rulemaki ngs or other implementation methods to establish emission reduction percen tages, emission rates or technologies that would result in about a 35 percent reduction in NOx emissions. The reductions estimated for this category only include emissions incl uded in the MANE-VU point source emission inventory. Only emissions from major point sources are typically included in the MANEVU point source database. Emissions from non- major sources are not explicitly contained in the area source inventory; rather, the emi ssions from non-major asphalt plants are likely lumped together in the general area source i ndustrial and commercial fuel use category. Therefore, there is some uncertainty regarding the actual reductions that will occur as since minor sources are not specifically id entified in the MANE-VU inventory.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-8

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### 5.1.3 Cement Kilns

In Resolution 06-02, the OTC Commissioners recommended that OTC member states pursue as necessary and appropr iate state-specific rulemaki ngs or other implementation methods to establish emission reduction percen tages, emission rates or technologies that would result in about a 60 percent reduction in NOx emissions from uncontrolled levels. Cement kilns were already included in Phase I of the NO x 

### SIP call. Emission reductions resulting from the NOx SIP call were accounted for in the 2009 OTB inventory. For the cement kilns in Maryland and New York, a defa ult control efficiency value of 25 percent was applied to account for the reductions expect ed from the NOx SIP call. For the cement kilns in Pennsylvania, the state provided their best estimates of the actual control efficiency expected for each kiln after the NOx SIP Call. There is a cement kiln in Maine, but it is not subject to the NOx SIP call. To calculate the additional reductions from the OTC 2006 Control Measure, MACTEC back cal culated uncontrolled emissions from the 2009 base year inventory based on the controls applied to account for the NOx SIP Call.
Once the uncontrolled emissions were calc ulated, MACTEC app lied the 60 percent emission reduction guideline recommended by the OTC Commissioners, except for the
kilns in New York. Staff from New York indicated that a 40 pe rcent emission reduction should be used for modeling purposes.

5.1.4 Glass and Fiberglass Furnaces

In Resolution 06-02, the OTC Commissioners recommended that OTC member states pursue as necessary and appropr iate state-specific rulemaki ngs or other implementation methods to establish emission reduction percen tages, emission rates or technologies that would result in about an 85 percent reduction in NOx emissions from uncontrolled levels.
The NOx emission reduction benefit was calcul ated by applying an 85 percent reduction to the projected 2009 base inventory, except in New Jersey and New York. New Jersey specified a 20 percent NOx reduction from glass furnaces in 2012 and a 35 percent reduction in 2018. New York specified a 70 pe rcent NOx reduction from glass furnaces beginning in 2009. These estimates do 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 emissi on reduction benefits.

5.1.5 Industrial, Commercial, a nd Institutional Boilers

In Resolution 06-02, the OTC Commissioners recommended that OTC member states pursue as necessary and appropr iate state-specific rulemaki ngs or other implementation methods to establish emission reduction percen tages, emission rates or technologies for ICIDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-9

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### boilers based on guidelines that varied by bo iler size and fuel type. Specifically, the following guidelines were provided:

NOx Reduction from 2009 Base Emissions by Fuel Type Boiler Size (mmBtu/hour) Natural Gas #2 Fuel Oil #4/#6 Fuel Oil Coal

< 25 10 10 10 10 25 to 50 50 50 50 50* 50 to 100 10 10 10 10* 100 to 250 75 40 40 40* >250 **   ** 
* Resolution 06-02 did not specify a percent reduction for coal; for modeling purposes, the same percent

reduction specified for #4/#6 fuel oil was used for coal

** Resolution 06-02 specified the reduction for > 250mmBtu/hour boilers to be the “same as EGUs of similar

size.” The OTC Commissioners have not yet recommended an emission rate or percent reduction for EGUs. As a result, no reductions for ICI boilers > 250 mmBtu/hour were included in the BOTW inventory.



### Since the above guidelines vary by boiler size and fuel type, the specific percent reduction applied to an individual sour ce depends on the SCC and design capacity of the source. The SCC identifies the fuel type, while the design capacity identifies the boiler size. In many cases, the design capacities in the MANE-VU NIF database were missing. MACTEC used the following hierarchy in filling in gaps where design capacities were missing.

• Use the design capacity field from th e NIF EU table, if available;

• Use the design capacities provided by State/lo cal agencies to fill in the data gaps (Allegheny County, District of Columbia , Maryland, New Jersey, Philadephia County);

• Use design capacity as reported either th e Unit Description field in the NIF EU table or the Process Description field fr om the NIF EP table, if available;

• Use design capacity from the source’s Title V permit, if the Title V permit was online;

• Use the SCC description to determine the design capacity (for example, SCC 1-02-
006-01 describes a >100 mmBtu/hr natu ral gas-fired boiler, SCC 1-02-006-02
describes a 10-100 mmBtu/hr natural gas-fired boiler)
After performing this gap-filling exercise, MA CTEC was able to a ssign over 97 percent of the NOx emissions to a specific boiler size range. For the remaining sources where
MACTEC could not determine the boiler size (which accounted for only 3 percent of the NOx emissions), MACTEC assumed that these boilers were < 25 mmBtu/hr.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-10

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### 5.1.6 Commercial and Institutional Heating Oil

The BOTW control measure for heating oil is based on NESC AUM’s report entitled “Low Sulfur Heating Oil in the Northeast Stat es: An Overview of Benefits, Costs and Implementation Issues.” NESCAUM estimates th at reducing the sulfur content of heating oil from 2,500 ppm to 500 ppm lowers SO2 em issions by 75 percent, PM emissions by 80 percent, NOx emissions by 10 percent. The 500 ppm sulfur heating oil is not expected to available on a widespread basis until 2012 at th e earliest. These percent reductions were applied to commercial distil late oil category (SCC 1-03-005-xx) . These percent reductions were applied based on the state’s recommendati ons 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 Area Source NIF, SMOKE, and Summary Files
The Version 3.1 file names and descriptions delivered to MARAMA are shown in Table 5-
5.

5.1.8 BOTW Area Source Emission Summaries
Emission summaries by state, year, and polluta nt are presented in Tables 5-6 through 5-12 for CO, NH3, NOx, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, SO2, and VOC, respectively.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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

0 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-14

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 5-8 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual NOx Emission Projections (tons per year)

2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTW
CT 6,773 7,236 6,820 7,465 7,047 7,921 7,501 DE 4,372 4,076 4,076 4,135 4,135 4,246 4,246
DC 480 548 548 577 577 627 627 ME 12,108 14,285 12,914 14,661 13,183 15,753 14,137 MD 21,940 19,401 16,015 20,399 16,819 22,797 18,888 MA 18,292 20,603 20,047 21,372 20,768 23,040 22,301 NH 1,188 1,384 1,120 1,394 1,131 1,435 1,169 NJ 15,812 16,498 16,463 17,091 15,901 18,805 17,464 NY 34,253 33,648 28,529 34,586 29,256 37,133 31,305

PA 89,136 89,932 76,215 93,526 72,779 103,137 79,186 RI 2,308 2,449 2,449 2,471 2,471 2,442 2,442

VT 386 462 462 460 460 466 466 Total 207,048 210,522 185,658 218,137 184,527 237,802 199,732

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-15

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 5-9 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTW
CT 990 1,035 1,035 1,058 1,058 1,106 1,104 DE 1,820 1,486 1,486 1,475 1,475 1,487 1,487
DC 157 178 178 186 182 198 194 ME 6,120 7,088 7,088 7,133 7,114 7,496 7,477 MD 4,739 4,797 4,797 5,040 5,039 5,828 5,827 MA 4,212 5,006 5,006 5,088 5,004 5,314 5,227 NH 918 1,084 1,084 1,097 1,097 1,129 1,129 NJ 3,439 4,205 4,205 4,417 4,412 4,959 4,953 NY 5,072 5,221 5,221 5,444 5,395 6,098 6,048

PA 23,282 25,169 25,169 26,307 26,258 29,516 29,466
RI 296 333 333 331 318 330 316
VT 235 267 267 272 272 296 296 Total 51,280 55,869 55,869 57,848 57,624 63,757 63,524

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-16

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 5-10 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTW

CT 822 871 871 894 894 939 937 DE 1,606 1,256 1,256 1,245 1,245 1,254 1,254
DC 128 145 145 152 149 164 161 ME 4,899 5,675 5,675 5,690 5,678 5,935 5,922 MD 2,772 2,861 2,861 3,011 3,010 3,503 3,501 MA 2,953 3,554 3,554 3,574 3,510 3,660 3,594 NH 857 1,008 1,008 1,021 1,021 1,052 1,052 NJ 2,947 3,588 3,588 3,764 3,760 4,234 4,230 NY 3,355 3,535 3,535 3,688 3,646 4,161 4,117

PA 12,360 13,578 13,578 14,159 14,114 15,878 15,831
RI 180 200 200 198 188 194 184
VT 198 226 226 229 229 246 246 Total 33,077 36,497 36,497 37,625 37,444 41,220 41,029

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-17

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 5-11 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual SO 2 Emission Projections (tons per year)

2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTW
CT 2,438 2,528 2,528 2,567 2,567 2,644 2,596 DE 35,706 7,117 7,117 7,401 7,401 7,610 7,610
DC 618 707 707 735 533 780 554 ME 14,412 18,656 18,656 18,492 18,393 18,794 18,692 MD 34,193 34,223 34,223 35,373 35,342 38,921 38,886 MA 14,766 18,185 18,185 18,442 17,305 18,955 17,778 NH 2,436 3,099 3,099 3,098 3,098 3,114 3,099 NJ 9,797 7,141 7,141 7,234 7,196 7,855 7,816 NY 58,227 62,922 62,922 64,484 64,432 67,545 67,491

PA 88,259 90,735 90,735 93,441 93,206 99,924 99,681 RI 2,651 3,163 3,163 3,182 3,018 3,164 3,000 VT 874 1,182 1,182 1,147 1,147 1,127 1,127 Total 264,377 249,658 249,658 255,596 253,638 270,433 268,330

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-18

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 5-12 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual VOC Emission Projections (tons per year)

2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTW
CT 4,604 4,114 4,111 4,152 4,149 4,230 4,227 DE 4,645 2,987 2,981 2,311 2,305 1,993 1,987
DC 69 72 72 75 75 85 85 ME 4,477 4,740 4,740 4,985 4,985 5,709 5,708 MD 5,676 5,297 5,279 5,578 5,559 6,301 6,279 MA 7,794 8,381 8,273 9,061 8,940 10,564 10,418 NH 1,459 1,060 1,005 1,132 1,069 1,294 1,219 NJ 13,318 16,702 16,702 17,621 17,621 19,915 19,915 NY 9,933 10,157 10,141 10,750 10,732 12,354 12,333 PA 36,326 35,875 35,548 38,162 37,795 44,537 44,085 RI 1,898 1,640 1,628 1,695 1,683 1,812 1,799 VT 1,079 1,254 1,238 1,365 1,347 1,730 1,707 Total 91,278 92,279 91,718 96,887 96,260 110,524 109,762

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 emissions from area sources. The control measures include d 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: resident ial and commercial home heating oil;

• SO2 measures: residential and commercia l home heating oil, and ICI boilers (distillate oil).

• VOC measures: adhesives and sealants, emulsified and cutback asphalt paving, consumer products, and porta ble fuel containers;

For the MANE-VU modeling invent ory, each state was asked to complete a matrix identify
which control measures to include and in which years the contro l measure should be applied. Tables 5.13, 5.14, and 5.15 summarize the staff recommendations for control measures to include in the BOTW regiona l modeling inventory for NOx, SO2, and VOC respectively. The following subsections descri be the emission reductions anticipated for
each of the area source control measures.

5.2.1 Adhesives and Sealants

The OTC 2006 model rule for adhesives and seal ants is based on the reasonably available control technology (RACT) and best availa ble retrofit control technology (BARCT) determination by the California Air Res ources Board (CARB) developed in 1998.
Adhesive and sealant emission sources are cl assified as both point sources and area sources. About 96 percent of adhesive and se alant VOC emissions in the OTC states fall into the area source category. The remaini ng four percent of the VOC emissions are included in the point source inventory.

The emission reduction benefit estimation methodology for area sources is based on information developed and used by CARB for their RACT/BARCT determination in 1998.
CARB estimates that the total industrial adhesive and sealant emissions in California to be about 45 tons per day (tpd). Solvent-based a dhesive and sealant emissions are estimated to be about 35 tpd of VOC and wa ter-based adhesive and sealan t emissions are about 10 tpd
of VOC.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-20

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 5.13 State Staff Recommendations fo r Control Measuresto 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 Home Heating Oil

State 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018

CT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes

DE No No No No No No No No No No No No

DC No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

ME No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

MD No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

MA No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

NH No No No No No No No No No No No Yes

NJ No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

NY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

PA No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

RI No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

VT 1 No No No No No No No No No No No No

Yes - Include emission reductions from OTC 2006 control measure in modeling inventory No - Do not include emission reduction from OTC 2006 control measure in modeling inventoryDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-21

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 5.14 State Staff Recommendat ions for Control Measures

to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – SO2 Area Sources

ICI Boilers < 25 mmBTU/hour ICI Boilers 25-50 mmBtu/hour ICI Boilers 50-100 mmBtu/hour Residential Home Heating Oil

State 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018

CT No No No No No No No No No No No Yes

DE No No No No No No No No No No No No

DC No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

ME No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

MD No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

MA No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

NH No No No No No No No No No No No Yes

NJ No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

NY No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

PA No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

RI No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

VT 1 No No No No No No No No No No No No

Yes - Include emission reductions from OTC 2006 control measure in modeling inventory No - Do not include emission reduction from OTC 2006 control measure in modeling inventoryDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-22

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 5.15 State Staff Recommendat ions for Control Measures

to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – VOC Area Sources

Adhesives and Sealants Emulsified and Cutback Asphalt Paving Consumer Products Portable Fuel Containers

State 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018

CT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

DE Yes Yes Yes No 2 No 2 No 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

DC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

ME Yes Yes Yes No 3 No 3 No 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

MD Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

MA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

NH No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

NJ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

NY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

PA Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

RI Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

VT 1 No No No No No No No No No No No No

Yes - Include emission reductions from OTC 2006 control measure in modeling inventory No - Do not include emission reduction from OTC 2006 control measure in modeling inventory 1) Vermont indicated that the modeling inventory should not reflect anything beyond the 2002 OTC control level for these source categories in Vermont. 2) Delaware’s existing asphalt paving regulations are more stringent than the OTC 2006 control measure. 3) Maine has not yet determined whether to include emission reductions from the OTC 2006 control measure for asphalt paving. Maine’s inventory includes emissions only from cutback asphalt; no emissions are reported for emulsified asphalt.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-23

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### CARB estimated that emission reductions ach ieved by statewide compliance with the VOC
limits in the RACT/BARCT determination wi ll range from approximately 29 to 35 tpd (CARB 1998, pg. 18). These emission reductio ns correspond to a 64.4 to 77.8 percent
reduction from uncontrolled levels . For OTC modeling purposes , we used the lower end of this range (i.e., 64.4 percent reduction) to estimate the em ission benefit for area sources
due to the OTC 2006 model rule.

5.2.2 Asphalt Paving
The OTC 2006 model rule for asphalt paving calls for a complete ban on the use of cutback asphalt during the ozone season and lim its the VOC content of emulsified asphalt to two percent (or a 20 percent reduction in emissions from emulsified asphalt depending on the grade of emulsified asphalt used).

The current regulations in all MANE-VU states generally ban the use of cutback asphalt during the ozone season. In some states, ther e are a few few exemptions from the ban that allow for the use of cutback during the ozone season. It has not yet been determined whether states will modify their cutback aspha lt rules to eliminate the exemptions. Since
the VOC emissions from the use of cutback asphalt during the ozone season are generally very small, MACTEC assumed that there wi ll be no additional emission reductions from the use of cutback asphal t during the ozone season.

The emission reductions resulting from the tw o percent VOC content limit on emulsified asphalt depend on the baseline VOC content of emulsified asphalt. The baseline VOC content may range from 0 to 12 percent. New Jersey used a VOC content of 8 percent in their baseline emission calculations (based on th e 8 percent limit in their current rule). Reducing the VOC content to 2 percent in New Je rsey will result in a 75 percent reduction. Delaware already bans the use of emulsified asphalt that co ntains any VOC, so there is no
reduction in Delaware. Severa l other states used an aver age VOC content of 2.5 percent when developing their emission inventory. T hus, reducing the averag e VOC content from 2.5 percent to 2.0 percent results in a 20 percent reduction in VOC emissions. For States that did not supply a baseline VOC content fo r asphalt paving, we used the 20 percent 20 percent reduction in VOC emissions from emulsified asphalt paving during the ozone

season.

5.2.3 Consumer Products
The OTC 2006 model rule will modify the OTC 2001 model rule based on amendments adopted by CARB in July 2005. The emi ssion reduction benefit estimation methodology is based on information developed by CARB . CARB estimates 6.05 tons per day of VOCDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-24

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### reduced from their July 2005 amendments (CARB 2004, pg. 8), excluding the benefits from the two products (anti-static products and shaving gels) with compliance dates in 2008 or 2009. This equates to about 2,208 tons per year. The population of California as of July 1, 2005 is 36,132,147 (Census 2006). On a per capita basis, the emission reduction from the CARB July 2005 amendments equals 0.122 lbs/capita.

Since the OTC’s 2006 control measure is very similar to the CARB July 2005 amendments (with the exclusion of the anti-static produc ts and shaving gel 2008/2009 limits), the per capita emission reductions are expected to be the same in the OTR. The per capita factor after the implementation of the OTC 2001 model rule is 6.06 lbs/capita (Pechan 2001, pg. 8). The percentage reduction from the OT C’s 2006 control measure was computed as
shown below:

Current OTC Emission Factor = 6.06 lbs/capita Benefit from CARB 2005 amendments = 0.122 lbs/capita
Percent Reduction =

= 100%*(1 - (6.06 – 0.122)/6.06) 2.0%
The 2.0% reduction will be applied to all states except Vermont, which indicated that they do not want the modeling inve ntory to reflect anything be yond the 2002 OTC control level for consumer products in Vermont.

5.2.4 Portable Fuel Containers
The OTC 2006 model rule will modify the OTC 2001 model rule based on amendments adopted by CARB in 2006. Estimated emissi on reductions were based on information compiled by CARB to support their recent amendments. CARB estimated that PFC emissions in 2015 will be 31.9 tpd in California with no additional controls or amendments
to the 2000 PFC rules. CARB further esti mates that the 2006 amendment will reduce emission from PFCs by 18.4 tpd in 2015 in California compared to the 2000 PFC regulations. Thus, at full implementati on, the expected incremental reduction is approximately 58 percent, afte r an estimated 65 percent reduc tion from the original 2000
rule.

The OTC calculations assume that States will adopt the rule by July 2007 and will provide manufacturers one year from the date of th e rule to comply. Thus, new compliant PFCs will not be on the market until July 2008. Assuming a 10-year turnover to compliant cans, only 10 percent of the existing inventory of PFCs will comply with the new requirements in the summer of 2009. Therefore, only 10 percent of the full emission benefit estimated by CARB will occur by 2009 – the incremental reduction will be about 5.8 percent inDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-25

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### 2009. In 2012, there will be a 40 percent tur nover to compliant cans, resulting in an incremental reductions of about 23.2 percent. By 2018, the will be 100 percent penetration to compliant PFCs, resulting in an in cremental reduction of 58 percent in 2018.

5.2.5 Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers

In Resolution 06-02, the OTC Commissioners recommended that OTC member states pursue as necessary and appropr iate state-specific rulemaki ngs or other implementation methods to establish emission reduction percen tages, emission rates or technologies for ICI boilers based on guidelines that varied by bo iler size and fuel type. Specifically, the following guidelines were provided:

NOx Reduction from 2009 Base Emissions by Fuel Type Boiler Size (mmBtu/hour) Natural Gas #2 Fuel Oil #4/#6 Fuel Oil Coal

< 25 10 10 10 10 25 to 50 50 50 50 50* 50 to 100 10 10 10 10* 100 to 250 75 40 40 40* >250 **   ** 
* Resolution 06-02 did not specify a percent reduction for coal; for modeling purposes, the same percent

reduction specified for #4/#6 fuel oil was used for coal

** Resolution 06-02 specified the reduction for > 250mmBtu/hour boilers to be the “same as EGUs of similar

size.” The OTC Commissioners have not yet recommended an emission rate or percent reduction for EGUs. As a result, no reductions for ICI boilers > 250 mmBtu/hour were included in the BOTW inventory.



### Since the above guidelines vary by boiler size and fuel type, the specific percent reduction applied to an area source category depends on the SCC and design capacity of the source. The SCC identifies the fuel type (for exam ple, SCC 21-02-004-xxx describes distillate oilfired industrial boilers, SCC 21- 02-006-xxx describes natural gas- fired industrial boilers). The area source inventory does not contain a ny information on the sizes of the units
included in the inventories. To apportion area source 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 Na tional Laboratory).
We used the national estimates of boiler ca pacity by size from Table ES-1 of the Oak Ridge report to calculate the pe rcentage of total bo iler capacity in each size range. Since the Oak Ridge report distinguished between indu strial boilers and co mmercial/institutional boilers, we developed separate prof iles for industrial boilers and for
commercial/institutional boilers. We used thes e boiler size profiles to calculate weightedDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-26

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### average percent reductions i ndustrial boilers by fuel type and commercial/institutional boilers by fuel type.

5.2.6 Residential and Commercial Heating Oil

The BOTW control measure for heating oil is based on NESC AUM’s report entitled “Low Sulfur Heating Oil in the Northeast Stat es: An Overview of Benefits, Costs and Implementation Issues.” NESCAUM estimates th at reducing the sulfur content of heating oil from 2,500 ppm to 500 ppm lowers SO2 em issions by 75 percent, PM emissions by 80 percent, NOx emissions by 10 percent. The 500 ppm sulfur heating oil is not expected to available on a widespread basis until 2012 at th e earliest. These percent reductions were applied to residential distill ate oil category (SCC 21-04-004-xxx) and commercial distillate oil category (SCC 21-03-004-xxx). These percent reductions were applied based on the
state’s recommendations in the matrix which identifies control measures to include and in which years the control measure should be accounted for in the modeling inventory.

5.2.7 BOTW Area Source NIF, SMOKE, and Summary Files
The Version 3 file names and descriptions delivered to MARAMA are shown in Table 5-
16.

5.2.8 BOTW Area Source Emission Summaries
Emission summaries by state, year, and polluta nt are presented in Tables 5-17 through 5- 23 for CO, NH3, NOx, PM10-PRI, PM25-PR I, SO2, and VOC, respectively.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-30

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 5-19 Area Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual NOx Emission Projections (tons per year)

2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTW
CT 12,689 13,173 12,245 13,342 12,389 13,388 11,795 DE 2,608 2,821 2,821 2,913 2,913 3,014 3,014 DC 1,644 1,961 1,961 2,081 2,052 2,259 2,229 ME 7,360 7,477 7,477 7,486 7,095 7,424 7,036 MD 15,678 16,858 16,858 17,315 17,007 18,073 17,746 MA 34,281 35,732 35,732 36,331 35,321 37,187 36,199 NH 10,960 11,879 11,879 12,055 12,055 12,430 12,180 NJ 26,692 24,032 24,032 23,981 21,976 23,660 21,684 NY 98,803 106,375 95,190 107,673 92,935 108,444 93,639

PA 47,591 50,162 50,162 50,793 49,773 50,829 49,829 RI 3,886 4,149 4,149 4,260 4,112 4,397 4,249 VT 3,208 3,419 3,419 3,429 3,429 3,430 3,430 Total 265,400 278,038 265,925 281,659 261,057 284,535 263,030

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-31

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 5-20 Area Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTW
CT 48,281 48,970 48,970 49,004 49,004 49,479 48,734 DE 13,039 13,928 13,928 14,236 14,236 14,844 14,844 DC 3,269 3,511 3,511 3,605 3,547 3,825 3,762 ME 168,953 175,979 175,979 179,689 179,004 189,619 188,928 MD 95,060 105,944 105,944 110,141 109,829 117,396 117,066 MA 192,860 198,668 198,668 200,692 200,215 204,922 204,456 NH 43,328 46,060 46,060 47,187 47,187 49,801 49,544 NJ 61,601 61,684 61,684 61,284 60,916 60,880 60,519 NY 369,595 382,124 382,124 385,925 383,234 392,027 389,385

PA 391,897 421,235 421,235 432,844 431,787 454,970 453,934 RI 8,295 8,962 8,962 9,244 8,976 9,797 9,514 VT 56,131 60,521 60,521 62,465 62,465 66,916 66,916 Total 1,452,309 1,527,586 1,527,586 1,556,316 1,550,400 1,614,476 1,607,602

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-32

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 5-21 Area Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTW
CT 14,247 13,766 13,766 13,517 13,517 13,033 12,366 DE 3,204 3,387 3,387 3,403 3,403 3,426 3,426
DC 805 860 860 879 827 917 860 ME 32,774 33,026 33,026 33,189 32,576 33,820 33,201 MD 27,318 28,923 28,923 29,508 29,228 30,449 30,153 MA 42,083 43,121 43,121 43,186 42,820 43,438 43,080 NH 17,532 17,965 17,965 18,050 18,050 18,316 18,087 NJ 19,350 18,590 18,590 18,271 17,924 17,653 17,313 NY 87,154 87,576 87,576 87,260 85,011 86,422 84,211

PA 74,925 79,169 79,169 80,728 79,775 83,570 82,637 RI 2,064 2,184 2,184 2,232 1,996 2,316 2,068 VT 11,065 11,482 11,482 11,652 11,652 12,059 12,059 Total 332,521 340,049 340,049 341,875 336,779 345,419 339,461

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-33

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 5-22 Area Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual SO 2 Emission Projections (tons per year)

2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTW
CT 12,418 12,581 12,581 12,604 12,604 12,184 3,398 DE 1,588 1,599 1,599 1,602 1,602 1,545 1,545 DC 1,337 1,487 1,487 1,541 499 1,632 522 ME 13,149 13,776 13,776 13,846 4,897 13,901 4,940 MD 12,393 13,685 13,685 14,074 8,762 14,741 9,118 MA 25,488 25,961 25,961 26,029 8,414 25,570 8,357 NH 7,072 7,463 7,463 7,470 7,470 7,421 3,118 NJ 10,744 10,672 10,672 10,697 4,435 10,510 4,374 NY 130,409 139,589 139,589 140,154 98,160 141,408 100,452

PA 63,679 67,535 67,535 67,446 49,212 66,363 48,475 RI 4,557 5,024 5,024 5,189 1,316 5,398 1,368 VT 4,087 4,646 4,646 4,687 4,687 4,764 4,764 Total 286,921 304,018 304,018 305,339 202,058 305,437 190,431

0 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-34

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table 5-23 Area Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual VOC Emission Projections (tons per year)

2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTW
CT 87,302 75,693 73,738 73,560 71,249 71,274 68,395 DE 15,519 14,245 13,794 13,943 13,408 13,744 13,066 DC 6,432 5,420 5,300 5,352 5,144 5,255 4,991 ME 100,621 91,910 90,869 91,667 90,457 92,410 90,866 MD 120,254 110,385 107,527 108,067 104,400 110,046 104,615 MA 162,145 148,625 145,059 145,674 140,848 140,558 134,963 NH 65,370 63,069 61,860 63,356 61,913 64,368 62,649 NJ 167,882 147,617 143,089 143,752 138,646 139,626 134,089 NY 507,292 462,811 451,669 456,856 443,940 457,421 440,892 PA 240,785 228,444 219,733 230,393 219,897 243,421 230,011 RI 31,402 26,695 26,572 25,548 25,315 23,561 23,305 VT 23,265 24,068 24,068 24,635 24,634 26,198 26,197 Total 1,528,269 1,398,982 1,363,278 1,382,803 1,339,851 1,387,882 1,334,039

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 550,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-35

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### 5.3 Nonroad Mobile Sources

In the June 2007 MOU, the OTC Commissioners recommended that states pursue statespecific rulemakings for one nonroad source cate gories – portable fuel containers. The OTC 2006 control measure for portable fuel containers will result in addition VOC emission reduction from the refueling of nonroa d equipment. However, these reductions
could not be estimated due to resource and time constraints.

5.4 Electric Generating Units

In the June 2008 Statement on EGUs, the OT C Commissioners dire cted OTC staff to complete an evaluation and recommendations for a program beyond CAIR that includes strategies to address the base, intermedia te and peak locad emissions. No specific emission reduction targets were identified. St ates 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 w ith the Energy Act of 2005. No specific emission reduction targets were identified. St ates specified that no additional reductions from onroad mobile sources be included in the BOTW inventory.

In the June 2007 MOU, the OTC Commissioners recommended that states pursue statespecific rulemakings to implement a mandatory di esel engine chip refl ash program. It is our understanding that the emission reductions from the diesel engine chip reflash program are already accounted for in M ANE-VU’s OTB emission inventory.Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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, MachineryDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 TraDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 descriptionDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-1

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

## Appendix B – NonEGU Point Source Control Factors

Table B-1 NonEGU Emission Units A ffected by the NOx SIP Call Phase I

FIPS SITE ID Facility Name EU ID Ozone Season Allowance (tpy) Prorated Annual Emissions (tpy) Unit Description
09003 1509 PRATT & WHITNEY DIV UTC P0049 11 26 FT-8 COGENERATION GAS TURBINE

09011 0604 PFIZER INC P0001 33 79 BLR B&W FM140-97 #8

09011 0604 PFIZER INC R0012 31 74 BLR CE #5 (101-4)

09011 3102 SPRAGUE PAPERBOARD INC R0003 75 180 BLR B&W PFI-22-0 #1

24001 001-0011 WESTVACO FINE PAPERS 1 500 1200 001-0011-3-0018

24001 001-0011 WESTVACO FINE PAPERS 2 440 1056 001-0011-3-0019

25009 1190138 GENERAL ELECTRIC AIRCRAFT 03 29 68 BOILER #3- BABCOCK+WILCOX PPL-2897 DUAL FUEL EV99-3

25009 1190138 GENERAL ELECTRIC AIRCRAFT 05 24 58 TURBINE #1-GE G5301 DUAL FUEL BLDG 99-8

25017 1191844 MIT 02 132 317 TURBINE #1-ABB GT10 DUEL FUEL(EXHAUST TO HRSG)

25025 1190507 TRIGEN BOSTON ENERGY 01 47 113 BOILER #1- BABCOCK+WILCOX HSB8477A DUAL FUEL

25025 1190507 TRIGEN BOSTON ENERGY 02 47 113 BOILER #2- BABCOCK+WILCOX JSB8477B DUAL FUEL

25025 1190507 TRIGEN BOSTON ENERGY 03 47 113 BOILER #3- FOSTER+WHEELER SC DUAL FUEL

25025 1190507 TRIGEN BOSTON ENERGY 04 47 113 BOILER #4- BABCOCK+WILCOX HSB8608A DUAL FUEL

36031 5154800008 INTERNATIONAL PAPER TICONDEROG POWERH 227 545 EMISSION UNIT

36055 8261400205 KODAK PARK DIVISION U00015 1721 4130 EMISSION UNIT

36091 5412600007 INTERNATIONAL PAPER HUDSON RIV UBOILR 124 298 EMISSION UNIT

42003 4200300022 SHENANGO INC. 005 13 31 BOILER #9, NATURAL GAS

42017 420170306 EXELON GENERATION CO/FAIRLESS 043 2 5 POWER HOUSE BOILER NO. 3Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 BOILERDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-3

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table B-2 Cement Kilns Affect ed by the NOx SIP Call Phase I

FIPS SITE ID Facility Name EU ID Control Factor Unit Description
24013 013-0012 LEHIGH PORTLAND CEMENT 39 25.00 013-0012-6-0256 013-0012-6-0256

24021 021-0013 ESSROC CEMENT 21 25.00 021-0013-6-0465 021-0013-6-0465

24021 021-0013 ESSROC CEMENT 22 25.00 021-0013-6-0466 021-0013-6-0466

24043 043-0008 INDEPENDENT CEMENT/ST. LAWEREN 24 25.00 043-0008-6-0495 043-0008-6-0495

36001 4012400001 LAFARGE BUILDING MATERIALS INC 041000 25.00 EMISSION UNIT

36039 4192600021 ST LAWRENCE CEMENT CORPCATSKI U00K18 25.00 EMISSION UNIT

36113 5520500013 GLENS FALLS LEHIGH CEMENT 0UKILN 25.00 EMISSION UNIT

42011 420110039 LEHIGH CEMENT CO /EVANSVILLE 121 70.00 PORTLAND CEMENT KILN #1

42011 420110039 LEHIGH CEMENT CO /EVANSVILLE 122 70.00 PORTLAND CEMENT KILN #2

42019 420190024 ARMSTRONG CEMENT & SUPPLY 101 16.00 NO.1 KILN

42019 420190024 ARMSTRONG CEMENT & SUPPLY 121 16.00 NO.2 KILN

42073 420730024 CEMEX INC/WAMPUM CEMENT PLT 226 12.50

42073 420730024 CEMEX INC/WAMPUM CEMENT PLT 227 0.00

42073 420730024 CEMEX INC/WAMPUM CEMENT PLT 228 12.70

42073 420730026 ESSROC/BESSEMER 501 8.00

42073 420730026 ESSROC/BESSEMER 502 8.00

42077 420770019 LAFARGE CORP/WHITEHA LL PLT 101 12.28 K-2 KILN

42077 420770019 LAFARGE CORP/WHITEHA LL PLT 114 100.00 K-3 KILN

42095 420950006 HERCULES CEMENT CO LP/STOCKERT 102 6.88 NO. 1 CEMENT KILN

42095 420950006 HERCULES CEMENT CO LP/STOCKERT 122 6.88 NO. 3 CEMENT KILN

42095 420950012 KEYSTONE PORTLAND CEMENT/EAST 101 27.00 CEMENT KILN NO. 1

42095 420950012 KEYSTONE PORTLAND CEMENT/EAST 102 27.00 CEMENT KILN NO. 2

42095 420950045 ESSROC/NAZARETH LOWER CEMENT 142 41.00

42095 420950045 ESSROC/NAZARETH LOWER CEMENT 143 41.00

42095 420950127 ESSROC/NAZARETH CEMENT PLT 3 101 41.00

42095 420950127 ESSROC/NAZARETH CEMENT PLT 3 102 41.00

42095 420950127 ESSROC/NAZARETH CEMENT PLT 3 103 41.00

42095 420950127 ESSROC/NAZARETH CEMENT PLT 3 104 41.00

42133 421330060 LEHIGH CEMENT CO/YORK OPERATION 200 27.00Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-4

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table B-3 Large IC Engines Affect ed by the NOx SIP Call Phase II

FIPS SITE ID Facility Name EU ID Control Factor Unit Description
24027 027-0223 TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE 1 80.00 027-0223-5-0054 boiler
42005 420050015 DOMINION TRANS INC/SOUTH BEND 101 80.00 ENGINE #1 (2000 BHP) 42005 420050015 DOMINION TRANS INC/SOUTH BEND 102 80.00 ENGINE #2 (2000 BHP) 42005 420050015 DOMINION TRANS INC/SOUTH BEND 103 80.00 ENGINE #3 (2000 BHP) 42005 420050015 DOMINION TRANS INC/SOUTH BEND 104 80.00 ENGINE #4 (2000 BHP) 42005 420050015 DOMINION TRANS INC/SOUTH BEND 105 80.00 ENGINE #5 (2000 BHP) 42005 420050015 DOMINION TRANS INC/SOUTH BEND 106 80.00 ENGINE #6 (2000 BHP)

42029 420290047 TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS/FRAZER ST 741 80.00 #11 I-C GAS COMPRESSOR ENGINE

42029 420290047 TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS/FRAZER ST 742 80.00 #12 I-C GAS COMPRESSOR ENGINE

42029 420290047 TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS/FRAZER ST 743 80.00 #13 I-C GAS COMPRESSOR ENGINE

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 101 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #1

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 101 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #1

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 101 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #1

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 101 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #1

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 102 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #2

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 102 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #2

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 102 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #2

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 102 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #2

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 103 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #3

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 103 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #3

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 103 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #3

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 103 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #3

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 104 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #4

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 104 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #4

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 104 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #4

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 104 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #4

42105 421050005 TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE CO/313 P111 80.00 3,000HP KVT-512 ENGINE

42105 421050005 TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE CO/313 P 112 80.00 2,000HP GMVH-10C ENGINE

42133 421330053 TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS/STATION 1 036 80.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #4

42133 421330053 TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS/STATION 1 037 80.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #5Draft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-5

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### B-4 NonEGU Control Factors for Post-2002 MACT Categories

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 20100102 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20100202 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20100702 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20100802 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20100902 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20200102 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20200104 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20200202 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20200204 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20200301 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20200501 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20200702 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20200706 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20200902 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20201001 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20201002 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20201012 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20201014 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20201602 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20201702 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20300101 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20300301 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 30400101 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400102 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400103 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400104 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400105 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400106 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400107 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400108 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400109 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400110 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400111 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400112 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400113 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400114 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400115 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400116 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400117 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400118 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400120 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400121 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400130 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400131 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400132 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400133 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400150 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400160 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400199 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30500301 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural ClayDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 ManufacturingDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 ClayDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 ManufacturingDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 TurbinesDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 ProcDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-11

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 30101080 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101085 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101086 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101087 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101099 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101827 VOC 55.700 OOO Polymers and Resins III 30101837 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101880 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyur ethane Foam Fabrication Ope 30101881 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyur ethane Foam Fabrication Ope 30101882 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyur ethane Foam Fabrication Ope 30101883 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyur ethane Foam Fabrication Ope 30101884 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyur ethane Foam Fabrication Ope 30101885 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyur ethane Foam Fabrication Ope 30101890 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyur ethane Foam Fabrication Ope 30101891 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyur ethane Foam Fabrication Ope 30101892 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyur ethane Foam Fabrication Ope 30101893 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyur ethane Foam Fabrication Ope 30101894 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyur ethane Foam Fabrication Ope 30101899 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyur ethane Foam Fabrication Ope 30103201 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30103202 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30103203 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30103204 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30103205 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30103299 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30103301 VOC 64.820 MMM Pesticide Active Ingredient 30103311 VOC 64.820 MMM Pesticide Active Ingredient 30103312 VOC 64.820 MMM Pesticide Active Ingredient 30103399 VOC 64.820 MMM Pesticide Active Ingredient 30103901 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 30103902 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 30103903 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 30105001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30105101 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30105105 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30105108 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30105110 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30105112 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30105114 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30105116 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30105118 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30105120 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30105122 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30105124 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30105130 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30110002 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30110003 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30110004 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30110005 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30110080 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30110099 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30111103 VOC 43.900 QQQQQ Friction Products ManufacturingDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 YeastDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 FoundriesDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 ProductionDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 ProductsDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 ProductsDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-17

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 30700769 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700770 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700771 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700780 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700781 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700783 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700785 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700788 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700789 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700790 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700791 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700792 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700793 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700798 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700799 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700921 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700923 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700925 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700927 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700931 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700932 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700933 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700934 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700935 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700936 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700937 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700939 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700940 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700950 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700960 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700971 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700980 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700981 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700982 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700983 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700984 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30701001 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30701008 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30701009 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30701010 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30701015 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30701020 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30701030 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30701040 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30701053 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30701054 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30701055 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30701057 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30701199 VOC 82.050 JJJJ Paper an d Other Web Coating 30800101 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800102 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800103 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire ManufacturingDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 ManufacturingDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-19

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 31401514 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401515 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401516 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401517 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401518 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401525 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401530 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401531 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401540 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401541 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401550 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401551 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401552 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401553 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401560 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401561 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401562 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401563 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401570 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401571 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31604001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 31604002 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 31604003 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 32099997 VOC 38.900 TTTT Leather Finishing Operations 32099998 VOC 38.900 TTTT Leather Finishing Operations 32099999 VOC 38.900 TTTT Leather Finishing Operations 40201101 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201103 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201104 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201105 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201111 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201112 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201113 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201114 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201115 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201116 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201121 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201122 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201197 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201198 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201199 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201201 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201210 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201301 VOC 82.050 JJJJ Paper an d Other Web Coating 40201303 VOC 82.050 JJJJ Paper an d Other Web Coating 40201304 VOC 82.050 JJJJ Paper an d Other Web Coating 40201305 VOC 82.050 JJJJ Paper an d Other Web Coating 40201310 VOC 82.050 JJJJ Paper an d Other Web Coating 40201320 VOC 82.050 JJJJ Paper an d Other Web Coating 40201330 VOC 82.050 JJJJ Paper an d Other Web Coating 40201399 VOC 82.050 JJJJ Paper an d Other Web Coating 40201601 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface CoatingDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 CoilDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 CoatingDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-22

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 40202206 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202207 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202208 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202209 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202210 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202211 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202212 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202213 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202214 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202215 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202220 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202229 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202230 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202239 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202240 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202249 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202250 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202259 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202270 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202280 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202299 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202501 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202502 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202503 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202504 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202505 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202510 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202511 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202512 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202515 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202520 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202521 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202522 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202523 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202524 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202525 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202531 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202532 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202533 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202534 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202535 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202536 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202537 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202542 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202543 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202544 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202545 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202546 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202599 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202601 VOC 66.200 HHHHH Misc. Coating Manufacturing 40202602 VOC 66.200 HHHHH Misc. Coating Manufacturing 40202603 VOC 66.200 HHHHH Misc. Coating ManufacturingDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 RemediationDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 RemediationDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 ProcDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 ProductsDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 ProcDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 ProcDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 ProcDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 ProcDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 ProductsDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 ProcDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-33

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table B-5 NonEGU Source Shutdowns

FIPS SITE ID FACILTY NAME EU ID UNIT DESCRIPTION

10003 1000300021 SUNCO INC R M 001 BOILER #1

10003 1000300021 SUNCO INC R M 002 BOILER #2

10003 1000300021 SUNCO INC R M 003 BOILER #3

10003 1000300016 MOTIVA ENTERPRISES LLC 072 METHANOL PLT HTR 41-H-1

10003 1000300004 WILMINGTON PIECE DYE CO ALL ALL

10003 1000300032 GENERAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION ALL ALL

10003 1000300074 METACHEM PRODUCTS LLC ALL ALL

10003 1000300127 VPI FILM LLC ALL ALL

10003 1000300129 LAFARGE NORTH AMERICA INC ALL ALL

10003 1000300350 KANEKA DELAWARE CORPORATION ALL ALL

25001 1200202 PARTYLITE WORLDWIDE ALL ALL

25001 1200614 BOURNE LANDFILL ALL ALL

25003 1170002 ADVANCED INFORMATION ALL ALL

25003 1170005 CATAMOUNT P ELLET FUE ALL ALL

25003 1170048 SPRAGUE NORTH ADAMS ALL ALL

25003 1170056 BERKSHIRE GAS STOCKB ALL ALL

25003 1170078 MACDERMID GRAPHIC AR ALL ALL

25003 1170091 LANE CONSTRUCTION CO ALL ALL

25005 1200009 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS ALL ALL

25005 1200031 CONDEA VISTA CO ALL ALL

25005 1200036 ELKAY REVERE CORP ALL ALL

25005 1200037 AEROVOX INCORPORATED ALL ALL

25005 1200065 ROSEMAR SILVER COMPA ALL ALL

25005 1200080 ATTLEBORO REFINING C ALL ALL

25005 1200116 STEDRO TEXTILES ALL ALL

25005 1200138 CLIFTEX CORPORATION ALL ALL

25005 1200169 PAUL DEVER STATE SCH ALL ALL

25005 1200209 PHARMACY SERVICE COR ALL ALL

25005 1200216 BRISTOL COUNTY JAIL ALL ALL

25005 1200235 SEA WATCH INTERNATIO ALL ALL

25005 1200393 OLSONS GREENHOUSES ALL ALL

25005 1200468 AA WILL MATERIALS-FR ALL ALL

25005 1200498 CRAPO HILL LANDFILL ALL ALL

25005 1200510 KREW INCORPORATED ALL ALL

25005 1200513 AEROVOX INCORPORATED ALL ALL

25005 1200542 LALLY COLUMN CORP ALL ALL

25005 1200673 HOMELAND BUILDERS ALL ALL

25005 1200824 JUSTIN CLOTHING CO ALL ALL

25005 1200880 VELVET DRIVE TRANSMI ALL ALLDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-34

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPS SITE ID FACILTY NAME EU ID UNIT DESCRIPTION

25005 1192308 INTERSTATE MAT & RUB ALL ALL

25009 1210057 COASTAL METAL FINISH ALL ALL

25009 1210058 AMESBURY CHAIR ALL ALL

25009 1210075 HAMPSHIRE FABRICS ALL ALL

25009 1210099 WASTE MANAGEMENT HUN ALL ALL

25009 1210110 CUSTOM INDUST RIES IN ALL ALL

25009 1210114 SAGAMORE INDUSTRIAL ALL ALL

25009 1210143 LABELS INC ALL ALL

25009 1210154 NEWARK ATLANTIC PAPE ALL ALL

25009 1210208 TEK COATING COMPANY ALL ALL

25009 1210209 NATIONAL NORTHEAST ALL ALL

25009 1210223 STARENSIER INC ALL ALL

25009 1210400 SANMINA CORPORATION ALL ALL

25009 1210401 COVANTA HAVERHILL IN ALL ALL

25009 1210404 TEKE FURNITURE RESTO ALL ALL

25009 1190756 PERMAIR LEATHERS INC ALL ALL

25009 1190842 SLB SNACKS INC ALL ALL

25009 1190983 SALEM OIL & GREASE C ALL ALL

25009 1191036 JCR ELECTRONICS ALL ALL

25009 1195900 LEPAGES INC ALL ALL

25013 0420008 DELUXE FINANCIAL ALL ALL

25013 0420010 FRYE COPYSYSTEMS INC ALL ALL

25013 0420013 JAHN FOUNDRY CORPORA ALL ALL

25013 0420052 APW/WRIGHT LINE ALL ALL

25013 0420130 KODAK POLYCHROME GRA ALL ALL

25013 0420175 FIBERMARK DSI ALL ALL

25013 0420218 SPRINGFIELD PRINTING ALL ALL

25013 0420252 KODAK POLYCHROME GRA ALL ALL

25013 0420528 NATIONAL METAL INDUS ALL ALL

25015 0420060 BERKSHIRE GAS HATFIE ALL ALL

25015 0420105 INDUSTRIAL POWER SER ALL ALL

25015 0420170 TECHALLOY COMPANY IN ALL ALL

25015 0420424 MAGNAT MACHINETECH I ALL ALL

25015 0420463 INDUSTRIAL PROP OF E ALL ALL

25015 0420540 GENERAL CABLE CORP ALL ALL

25015 0420614 REXAM IMAGE PRODUCTS ALL ALL

25017 1210013 MERRIMACK MAGNETICS ALL ALL

25017 1210050 MAJILITE MFG INC ALL ALL

25017 1210064 FINISH UNLIMITED INC ALL ALL

25017 1190080 MASS BROKEN STONE CO ALL ALL

25017 1210127 USM CORPORATION ALL ALLDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 ALLDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 ALLDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 xx,xxx 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 descriptionDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 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 CoatingDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-2

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description
25 2401200000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Other Special Purpose Coatings;Surface Coating
33 2401001000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural Coatings;Surface Coating 33 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic Markings;Surface Coating 33 2401100000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Industrial Maintenance Coatings;Surface Coating
33 2401200000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Other Special Purpose Coatings;Surface Coating
34 2401001000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural Coatings;Surface Coating 34 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic Markings;Surface Coating 34 2401100000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Industrial Maintenance Coatings;Surface Coating
34 2401200000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Other Special Purpose Coatings;Surface Coating
36 2401001000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural Coatings;Surface Coating 36 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic Markings;Surface Coating 42 2401001000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural Coatings;Surface Coating 42 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic Markings;Surface Coating 42 2401100000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Industrial Maintenance Coatings;Surface Coating
42 2401200000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Other Special Purpose Coatings;Surface Coating
44 2401001000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural Coatings;Surface Coating 44 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic Markings;Surface Coating 50 2401001000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural Coatings;Surface Coating 50 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic Markings;Surface Coating 50 2401100000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Industrial Maintenance Coatings;Surface Coating
50 2401200000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Other Special Purpose Coatings;Surface Coating

Consumer Products 09 2465000000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Products/Processes;Mi scellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer 10 2460100000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Personal Care Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

10 2460200000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Household Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and CommercDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-3

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 10 2460400000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Automotive Aftermarket Products ;Miscellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer and Commerc

10 2460500000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Coatings and Related Products;Miscella neous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

10 2460600000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Adhesives and Sealants;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

10 2460800000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All FIFRA Related Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

10 2460900000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;Miscellaneous Products (Not Otherwise Covered);Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc 11 2460100000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Personal Care Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

11 2460200000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Household Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc 11 2460400000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Automotive Aftermarket Products ;Miscellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer and Commerc

11 2460500000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Coatings and Related Products;Miscella neous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

11 2460600000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Adhesives and Sealants;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

11 2460800000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All FIFRA Related Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

11 2460900000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;Miscellaneous Products (Not Otherwise Covered);Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc 23 2460100000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Personal Care Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

23 2460200000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Household Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc 23 2460400000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Automotive Aftermarket Products ;Miscellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer and Commerc

23 2460500000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Coatings and Related Products;Miscella neous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

23 2460600000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Adhesives and Sealants;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and CommercDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-4

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description
23 2460800000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All FIFRA Related Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

23 2460900000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;Miscellaneous Products (Not Otherwise Covered);Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc 24 2465000000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Products/Processes;Mi scellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer 25 2460000000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Processes;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc 33 2460000000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Processes;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc 34 2460100000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Personal Care Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

34 2460200000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Household Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc 34 2460400000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Automotive Aftermarket Products ;Miscellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer and Commerc

34 2460500000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Coatings and Related Products;Miscella neous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

34 2460600000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Adhesives and Sealants;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

34 2460800000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All FIFRA Related Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

34 2460900000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;Miscellaneous Products (Not Otherwise Covered);Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc 34 2465000000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Products/Processes;Mi scellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer 36 2460000000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Processes;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc 42 2465000000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Products/Processes;Mi scellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer 44 2460100000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Personal Care Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

44 2460200000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Household Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc 44 2460400000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Automotive Aftermarket Products ;Miscellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer and CommercDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-5

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description
44 2460500000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Coatings and Related Products;Miscella neous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

44 2460600000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Adhesives and Sealants;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

44 2460800000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All FIFRA Related Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

44 2460900000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;Miscellaneous Products (Not Otherwise Covered);Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc 50 2460100000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Personal Care Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

50 2460200000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Household Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc 50 2460400000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Automotive Aftermarket Products ;Miscellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer and Commerc

50 2460500000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Coatings and Related Products;Miscella neous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

50 2460600000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Adhesives and Sealants;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

50 2460800000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All FIFRA Related Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

50 2460900000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;Miscellaneous Products (Not Otherwise Covered);Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing
09 2401005000 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating 10 2401005500 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Surface Prep aration Solvents;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating 10 2401005600 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Primers;Au to Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating 10 2401005700 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Top Coats; Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating 10 2401005800 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Clean-up Solvents;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating
11 2401005000 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating
23 2401005000 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating
24 2401005000 VOC 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface CoatingDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-6

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description
25 2401005000 VOC 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating
33 2401005000 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating
34 2401005000 VOC 19.00 19.00 19.00 Total: All Solv ent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating
36 2401005000 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating
42 2401005000 VOC 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating
44 2401005000 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating
50 2401005000 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating
Solvent Cleaning Operations
09 2415000000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Processes/All Industries;Degreasing
23 2415000000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Processes/All Industries;Degreasing
23 2415030000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: Al l Solvent Types;Electronic and Other Elec. (SIC 36): All Processes;Degreasing
23 2415045000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Miscellaneous Manufacturing (SIC 39): All Processe;Degreasing 23 2415065000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Repair Services (SIC 75): All Processes;Degreasing 23 2415300000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;All Industries: Cold Cleaning;Degreasing 25 2415000000 VOC 7.00 7.00 7.00 Total: All Solvent Types;All Industries: Cold Cleaning;Degreasing 33 2415000000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;All Industries: Cold Cleaning;Degreasing
34 2415000000 VOC 17.00 17.00 17.00 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Processes/All Industries;Degreasing
36 2415020000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: Al l Solvent Types;Fabricated Metal Products (SIC 34): All Processes;Degreasing 36 2415025000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Industrial Machinery and Equipment (SIC 35): All P;Degreasing 36 2415035000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Transportation Equipment (SIC 37): All Processes;Degreasing
36 2415045000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Miscellaneous Manufacturing (SIC 39): All Processe;Degreasing 36 2415055000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Automotive Dealers (SIC 55): All Processes;Degreasing
36 2415060000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Miscellaneous Repair Services (SIC 76): All Proces;Degreasing
44 2415000000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Processes/All Industries;DegreasingDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-7

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description

Portable Fuel Containers

09 2501060300 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Total;Portab le Containers: Residential & Com;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 10 2501011010 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Vapor Lo sses;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
10 2501011011 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Permeati on;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
10 2501011012 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Diurna l;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 10 2501011015 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Spillage;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 10 2501011016 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Transport;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 10 2501012010 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Vapor Lo sses;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
10 2501012011 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Permeati on;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
10 2501012012 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Diurna l;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 10 2501012015 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Spillage;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 10 2501012016 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Transport;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
11 2501011011 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Permeati on;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
11 2501011012 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Diurna l;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 11 2501011016 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Transport;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
11 2501012011 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Permeati on;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
11 2501012012 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Diurna l;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum ProductDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-8

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description Storage

11 2501012016 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Transport;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 23 2501060300 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Total;Portab le Containers: Residential & Com;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
24 2501011011 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Permeati on;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
24 2501011012 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Diurna l;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 24 2501011016 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Transport;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
24 2501012011 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Permeati on;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
24 2501012012 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Diurna l;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 24 2501012016 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Transport;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 25 2501011000 VOC 18.8 41.3 75.0 ;;

25 2501012000 VOC 18.8 41.3 75.0 ;;

33 2501060300 VOC 26.3 48.8 75.0 Total;Portab le Containers: Residential & Com;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 34 2501000120 VOC 33.8 56.3 75.0 Gasoline;Al l Storage Types: Breathing Loss;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
36 2501011011 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Permeati on;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
36 2501011012 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Diurna l;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 36 2501011016 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Transport;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
36 2501012011 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Permeati on;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
36 2501012012 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Diurna l;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product StorageDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-9

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 36 2501012016 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Transport;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 42 2501060300 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Total;Portab le Containers: Residential & Com;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 44 2501060300 VOC 18.8 41.3 75.0 Total;Portab le Containers: Residential & Com;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 50 2501060300 VOC 18.8 41.3 75.0 Total;Portab le Containers: Residential & Com;Petroleum and Petroleum Product StorageDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-10

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table D-2 Area Source Control Factors for On-Board Vapor Recovery

FIPS SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 09001 2501060101 VOC 23.81 28.57 38.10 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 09001 2501060102 VOC 23.81 28.57 38.10 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 09003 2501060101 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 09003 2501060102 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 09005 2501060101 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 09005 2501060102 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 09007 2501060101 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 09007 2501060102 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 09009 2501060101 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 09009 2501060102 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 09011 2501060101 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 09011 2501060102 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 09013 2501060101 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 09013 2501060102 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 09015 2501060101 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 09015 2501060102 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 10001 2501060100 VOC 40.54 48.65 56.76 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 10003 2501060100 VOC 40.54 48.65 56.76 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 10005 2501060100 VOC 40.54 48.65 56.76 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 11001 2501060100 VOC 40.54 48.65 56.76 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23001 2501060100 VOC 53.68 67.65 79.41 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23003 2501060100 VOC 53.80 68.35 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23005 2501060100 VOC 28.57 33.33 42.86 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23007 2501060100 VOC 53.80 68.35 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23009 2501060100 VOC 53.80 68.35 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23011 2501060100 VOC 53.68 67.65 79.41 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23013 2501060100 VOC 53.68 67.65 79.41 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23015 2501060100 VOC 53.68 67.65 79.41 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23017 2501060100 VOC 53.80 68.35 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23019 2501060100 VOC 53.80 68.35 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23021 2501060100 VOC 53.80 68.35 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23023 2501060100 VOC 28.57 33.33 42.86 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23025 2501060100 VOC 53.80 68.35 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23027 2501060100 VOC 53.80 68.35 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23029 2501060100 VOC 53.80 68.35 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23031 2501060100 VOC 28.57 33.33 42.86 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24001 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service StationsDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-11

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPS SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 24003 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24005 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24009 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24011 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24013 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24015 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24017 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24019 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24021 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24023 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24025 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24027 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24029 2501060100 VOC 53.53 68.24 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24031 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24033 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24035 2501060100 VOC 53.53 68.24 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24037 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24039 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24041 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24043 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24045 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24047 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24510 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 25001 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 25003 2501060102 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 25005 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 25007 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 25009 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 25011 2501060102 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 25013 2501060102 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 25015 2501060102 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 25017 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 25019 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 25021 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 25023 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 25025 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 25027 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 33001 2501060100 VOC 53.75 68.13 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 33003 2501060100 VOC 53.75 68.13 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 33005 2501060100 VOC 53.75 68.13 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 33007 2501060100 VOC 53.75 68.13 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service StationsDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 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 StationsDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-13

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPS SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 36047 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36049 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36051 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36053 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36055 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36057 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36059 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36061 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36063 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36065 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36067 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36069 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36071 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36073 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36075 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36077 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36079 2501060100 VOC 53.80 67.72 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36081 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36083 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36085 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36087 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36089 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36091 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36093 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36095 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36097 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36099 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36101 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36103 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36105 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36107 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36109 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36111 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36113 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36115 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36117 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36119 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36121 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36123 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 42001 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42003 2501060102 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 42005 2501060102 VOC 26.09 34.78 39.13 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 42007 2501060102 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 42009 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42011 2501060101 VOC 26.09 34.78 39.13 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42013 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline ServiceDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-14

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPS SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description
Stations 42015 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42017 2501060102 VOC 30.43 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 42019 2501060102 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 42021 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42023 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42025 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42027 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42029 2501060102 VOC 30.43 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 42031 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42033 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42035 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42037 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42039 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42041 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42043 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42045 2501060102 VOC 30.43 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 42047 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42049 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42051 2501060102 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 42053 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42055 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42057 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42059 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42061 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42063 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42065 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42067 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42069 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42071 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42073 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline ServiceDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-15

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPS SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description
Stations 42075 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42077 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42079 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42081 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42083 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42085 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42087 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42089 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42091 2501060102 VOC 30.43 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 42093 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42095 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42097 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42099 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42101 2501060102 VOC 30.43 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 42103 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42105 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42107 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42109 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42111 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42113 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42115 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42117 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42119 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42121 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42123 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42125 2501060102 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 42127 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42129 2501060102 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 42131 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42133 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline ServiceDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-16

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPS SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description
Stations
44001 2501060000 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Total: All Gasolin e/All Processes;Gasolin e Service Stations
44003 2501060000 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Total: All Gasolin e/All Processes;Gasolin e Service Stations
44005 2501060000 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Total: All Gasolin e/All Processes;Gasolin e Service Stations
44007 2501060000 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Total: All Gasolin e/All Processes;Gasolin e Service Stations
44009 2501060000 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Total: All Gasolin e/All Processes;Gasolin e Service Stations 50001 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 50001 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50001 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 50003 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 50003 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50003 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 50005 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 50005 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50005 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 50007 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 50007 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50007 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 50009 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 50009 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50009 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 50011 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 50011 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50011 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 50013 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 50013 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50013 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 50015 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 50015 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50015 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 50017 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 50017 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50017 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 50019 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 50019 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50019 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 50021 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline ServiceDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-17

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPS SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description
Stations 50021 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50021 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 50023 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 50023 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50023 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 50025 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 50025 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50025 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 50027 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 50027 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50027 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service StationsDraft Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections December 7, 2006 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-18

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table D-3 Area Source Growth/Control Fa ctors for Residential Wood Combustion

Growth and Control Factor

SCC SCC Description Assumptions 2002- 2009 2002- 2012 2002- 2018 2104008000 Total: Woodstoves and Fireplaces 1 - 0.01056*(Year-2002) (Assumes 19.4% fireplaces 71.6%old woodstoves 9.1%new woodstoves) 0.926 0.894 0.831

2104008001 Fireplaces: General Increase 1%/yr: 1 + 0.01*(Year-2002) 1.070 1.100 1.160 2104008002 Fireplaces: Insert; non-EPA certified Decrease 2%/yr: 1 - 0.02*(Year-2002) 0.860 0.800 0.680

2104008003 Fireplaces: Insert; EPA certified; non-catalytic Increase 2%/yr: 1 + 0.02*(Year-2002) 1.140 1.200 1.320

2104008004 Fireplaces: Insert; EPA certified; catalytic Increase 2%/yr (same as 2104008003) 1.140 1.200 1.320

2104008010 Woodstoves: General Decrease 2% /yr (same as 2104008002) 0.860 0.800 0.680 2104008030 Catalytic Woodstoves: General Increas e 2%/yr (same as 2104008003) 1.140 1.200 1.320 2104008050 Non-catalytic Woodstoves: EPA certified Increase 2%/yr (same as 2104008003) 1.140 1.200 1.320

2104008051 Non-catalytic Woodstoves: NonEPA certified Decrease 2%/yr (same as 2104008002) 0.860 0.800 0.680

2104008052 Non-catalytic Woodstoves: Low Emitting Increase 2%/yr (same as 2104008003) 1.140 1.200 1.320

2104008053 Non-catalytic Woodstoves: Pellet Fired Increase 2%/yr (same as 2104008003) 1.140 1.200 1.320

# Attachment 14_OTC_TSD_Documents_NYDEC .pdf

### 1 TSD-1a



# Meteorological Modeling us ing Penn State/NCAR 5 th 

# Generation Mesoscale Model (MM5)

Bureau of Air Quality Analysis and Research

Division of Air Resources New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Albany, NY 12233

February 1, 2006

### 2 Meteorological Modeling using Penn State/NCAR 5 th 

### Generation Mesoscale Model (MM5)

Version 3.6 of MM5 was used to generate annual 2002 meteorology for the OTC modeling work. Prof. Dalin Zhang of the Un iversity of Maryland performed the MM5 simulations in consultation with NYSDEC st aff. The model was applied in Lambert conformal map projection and utilized MPP Ve rsion developed for clusters. The two-way nested domain consisted of coarse (36k m) and fine (12km) mesh corresponding to 149x129 and 175x175 grids, respectively, in this application (see Figure 1).

The Lambert projection used in this work followed the Regional Planning Organization (RPO) national domain setup with the center at (40 o N, 97 o W) and parallels at 33 o N and 45 o N. Map projection parameters in referen ce to the projection center point are as follows: Southwest corner for the 36 km grid is at (-2664km, -2304km) and the northeast corner at (2664km, 2304km). In the case of the 12km grid, the southwest corner is at (252km, -900km) and the northeast corner at (2 340km, 1188km). In th e vertical direction, the terrain following σ -coordinate system was used with the pressure at each σ -level determined from a reference state that is estimated using the hydrostatic equation from a given sea-level pressure and temperature with a standard lapse rate. There are 30 unevenly spaced σ levels, giving 29 vertical layers, with higher resolution within the planetary boundary layer (PBL). The σ levels are:

1.0000, 0.9974, 0.9940, 0.8980, 0.9820, 0.9720, 0.9590, 0.9430, 0.9230, 0.8990,

0.8710, 0.8390, 0.8030, 0.7630, 0.7180, 0.6680, 0.6180, 0.5680, 0.5180, 0.4680,

0.3680, 0.3180, 0.2680, 0.2180, 0.1680, 0.1230, 0.0800, 0.0400, 0.0000

The surface layer was set at about 10m, the level at which surface winds were typically observed, and the model top was set at 50hP a with a radiative top boundary condition. The time steps for the 36km and 12km domains were 75 and 25 seconds, respectively.

The important model physics options used for this MM5 simulation include:

• Kain-Fritsch (1993) conv ective scheme for both 36- and 12-km domains

• Explicit moisture scheme (without the mixed phase) containing prognostic equations for cloud water (ice) and ra inwater (snow) (Dudhia 1989; Zhang 1989)

• Modified version of the Blackadar pl anetary boundary layer (PBL) scheme (Zhang and Anthes 1982; Zhang and Zheng 2004)

• Simple radiative cooling scheme (Grell et al. 1994)

• Multi-layer soil model to predict land surface temperatures using the surface energy budget equation (Dudhia 1996)

Note that the Blackadar PBL scheme has been modified in order to correct the phase shift of surface wind speed and temperature diurnal cycle, following a study that compared five different PBL schemes: the Gayno-Seaman TKE scheme (Shafran et al. 2000), Burk### 3 Thompson (1989), Blackadar (Zhang and Anthes 1982), MRF (Hong and Pan 1996), and Mellor-Yamada-Jajic (M ellor and Yamada 1974; Jajic 1990, 1994). The details of the study can be found at Zhang and Zheng (2004).

Nudging Processes

The MM5 provides options for nudging observations for each domain during the model integration process (Stauffer and Seaman, 1990; Stauffer et al. 1991). The Eta analyses of upper-air winds, temperature and water-vapor mixing ratio as well as their associated surface fields were used for nudging every 6 hours, and the Eta surface wind fields blended with surface wind observations were used to nudge every 3 hours. While only the surface winds were nudged, their influences could extend into the PBL as well (see Stauffer et al. 1991). Based on UMD’s prior experience in numerical experiments, the following nudging coefficients have been used:

• Upper-air wind fields: 5. 0E-4s -1 

### for Domain 1 (36km), and 2. 5E-4s -1 

### for Domain 2 (12km);

• Upper-air temperature fields: 1.0E-5s -1 

### for both Domains;

• Surface winds: 5. 0s -1 

### E-4s -1 

### for Domain 1, and 2.5E-4s -1 

### for Domain 2; and

• Surface temperature and moisture: not nudged due to instability consideration.



### ASSESSMENT

This assessment covers the period of May through September 2002.

National Weather Service (NWS) and CAST Net data – Surface temperature, Wind Speed, and Humidity

NWS (TDL) and CASTNet ( www.epa.gov/castnet/ )surface measurements of temperature, wind speed, and humidity (note there were no humidity measurements for CASTNet) were used to compare with th e MM5 outputs. The evaluation was performed with METSTAT program devel oped by Environ Corporation ( www.camx.com/files/metstat.15feb05.tar.gz. .When comparing to NWS data, the METSTAT interpolates the first layer MM5 (at 10m height) temperature and humidity data to a height of 2m, the level that corresponds to the NWS measurement of these parameters. However, no such interpolation was made for wind speed and direction. In the case of CASTNet surface measurements, no such changes were needed as CASTNet data were reported at a height of 10m. In this analysis, no exclusion was made for calm conditions. The reported calm wind s (zero wind speed measured) were treated as is in this evaluation effort. The METSTAT cal culated standard stat istical measures – average, bias, error and index of agreem ent between the measured and predicted parameters.

Figure 2 displays the temperature and wi nd speed comparison of MM5 and measured data from NWS and CASTNet networks for August 2002. MM5 performance for both in magnitude and diurnal timing, temperature can be considered to be quite good for both NWS and CASTNet data, while MM5 underpre dicted NWS and overpredicted CASTNet

### 4 daytime wind speed, respectively. It should be pointed out that there are differences in how the meteorological information is collect ed and reported by the two networks as well as in MM5. The CASTNet measurements are based on hourly averaged wind speed while NWS reports 2min average at 10min before the hour, whereas MM5 predictions are reflective of the last time-step of the hour of computation. Interest ingly, MM5 appears to track quite well the nighttime minimum wind sp eed for both networks. In the case of humidity (not shown), MM5 tracks the NW S observed humidity trend well, but MM5 missed the observed semi-diurnal cycles. Comp arisons for the five months including bias and root mean square error from both NWS and CASTNet are available on request from NYSDEC.

The above assessment is based on domain-wide averages to provide an overall response of the model over the five months. Another wa y of assessing the model is to examine the degree of correlation between the measured a nd predicted parameters. Figure 3 displays such a comparison for temperature and wind sp eed for the NWS hourly data covering the period of May through September 2002. For the NWS data, the correlations are in the range from 0.7 to 0.8 for wind speed, above 0.96 for temperature, and in the range of 0.8 to 0.9 for humidity. CASTNet data (not show n) also exhibit similar correlation. These correlations indicate that MM5 simulation has captured bo th the diurnal and synoptic scale variations. Detailed plots of this comparison are available on request from NYSDEC.

Vertical Profiler – Winds

The Wind-Profiler network measurements along the U. S. East Coast ( www.madisfsl.org/cap) were used to evaluate the vertical profiles from MM5. There are twelve wind-profiler measurement stations from whic h data were available for comparison. For convenience of comparison, the wind-profiler measurements were interpolated to the MM5 vertical levels. The approach used was simple interpolation between two adjacent wind-profiler layers to the MM5 vertical level, and was limited to that reported by the profiler measurement. The focus of the comparison was to assess if MM5 was able to capture the measured vertical structure, and for this we used the observed Low Level Jet (LLJ) as an indicator. The comparison was performed for June, July and August 2002. In general it is found that MM5 cap tures the profiler measured vertical wind field structure reasonably well. Figure 4 disp lays an example of the MM5 and wind profiler comparison for the August 2002 episode at Richmond, VA and Concord, NH. MM5 predicted weaker LLJ winds compared to those based on the wind-profiler measurements. The detailed plots of this comparison are availa ble on request from NYSDEC.

Cloud Cover – Satellite cloud image

Cloud information derived from satellite image data ( www.atmos.umd.edu/~srb/gcip/webgcip.htm )were used to assess the MM5 prediction of cloud cover. The 0.5 o 

### by 0.5 o 

### resolution of the satellite data were interpolated into the 12km MM5 grid for comparison. The MM5 to tal cloud fraction was estimated by MCIP based on the MM5’s low cloud, middle cloud an d high cloud predictions. In general,

### 5 MM5 captured the satellite cloud pattern we ll but underestimates the satellite cloud fraction (see Figure 5 as an exam ple). Part of problem may due to the coarse resolution of the satellite cloud data. The de tailed plots of this compar ison are available on request from NYSDEC or at the following URL

Precipitation comparison

The monthly total observed prec ipitation data were constructed from 1/8-degree daily precipitation analysis data ( http://data.eol.ucar.edu/codiac/dss/id=21.093 produced by Climate Prediction Center, based on 7,000- 8,000 hourly/6-hourly gauge reports and radar). The MM5 monthly total precipitati on was estimated from the MM5 predicted convective and non-convective ra infall and summed up for each month. In general, MM5 captured the observed spatial patterns in Ma y and September, but no so well for June, July and August (See Figure 6), perhaps refl ective of the summer time convective rain activities not captured by MM5. Detailed plots of this comparison are available on request from NYSDEC.

Calm Conditions

Calm conditions are defined as observed wi nd speed of zero knots and wind direction as 0 o 

### . It would be useful to assess how MM5 performs under observed calm conditions, because of potential pollutant buildup that could occur under such conditions. Table 1 lists the summary of the percentage of calm condition at each hour for the August 2002 from the NWS data within the 12km domain. It is apparent from the Table that the calm conditions occur primarily during the night and early morning hours, from 23Z (7 p.m. EDT) to 15Z (11 a.m. EDT) with a peak at 10Z (6 a.m. EDT). To assess MM5 performance, the observed and MM5 predicte d wind speeds were divided into calm and non-calm according to observed wind speed. Figure 7 displays such a comparison of the MM5 predicted wind speed to the observ ed wind speed under the calm and non-calm conditions for the month of August 2002. For the “calm” group, the average wind speed for MM5 varies from 1 m/s during the ni ght and early morning hours and over 1.5 m/s during the day. MM5 is over-predicting dur ing observed calm wind conditions. There are local minima every 3 hours, due to the surface observed wind speed nudging in MM5. In contrast under the non-calm conditions, MM5 underpredicts by about 0.5 m/s for all hours with noticeable local maximum ha ppening at the nudging hours. The MM5 nudging process would pull pr edictions toward the measured data, while the underprediction of MM5 for the non-calm conditions may due to the adopted PBL scheme in this simulation.

Summary

In this study, we performed an assessment of the MM5 simulation to real-world data, both at the surface level as well as in the vertical. Wh ile there are no specific recommended procedures identified for this assessment, similar approaches have been used elsewhere (Dolwick 2005, Baker 2004, and Johnson 2004). Traditionally, the NWS surface measurements are used for such a comparison. Since NWS data had been used

### 6 through nudging processes in developing the MM5 simulation, the comparisons should not be far removed from each other. In th is study, we extended the evaluation by using CASTNet measurements that were not used in the MM5 simulations. Thus comparison with CASTNet data provides for an indepe ndent assessment and should complement the comparison with NWS data. We also compared the MM5 results with the wind profiler data and cloud data derived from satellite images to diagnose if the MM5 simulation is yielding the right type of dynamics in the vertic al. The analyses shows that in general, the performance of the MM5 is reasonable both at the surface and in the vertical, thereby providing confidence in the use of th ese data in the CMAQ simulations.

References

Baker, K. 2004: www.ladco.org/tech/phot o/photochemical.html

Burk, S. D. and W. T. Thompson, 1989: A vert ically nested region al numerical weather prediction model with second -order closure physics. Mon. Wea. Rev., 117, 2305–2324.

Dudhia, J., 1989: Numerical study of convection observed during the winter monsoon experiments using a mesoscale two-dimensio nal model. J. Atmos. Sci., 46, 3077–3107.

Dudhia, J., 1996: A multi-layer soil te mperature model for MM5. Preprints, 6 th 

### Annual MM5 Users Workshop, Boulder, CO.

Dolwick, P. 2005: http://cleanairinfo.com /modelingworkshop/presentations/MPE_Dolwick.pdf

Grell, G. A., J. Dudhia , and D. R. Stauffer 1994: A description of the fifth-generation Penn State/NCAR Mesoscale Model (MM5). NCAR Tech.Note NCAR/TN-398 1 STR, 122 pp.

Hong, S.-H., and H.-L. Pan, 199 6: Nonlocal boundary layer vertical diffusion in a medium-range forecast model. Mon. Wea. Rev., 124, 2322–2339.

Jajic, Z. I., 1990: The step -mountain coordinate: Physical package. Mon. Wea. Rev., 118, 1429-1443.

Jajic, Z. I., 1994: The step-mountain Eta c oordinate model: Further development of the convection, viscous sublayer a nd turbulent closure schemes. Mon. Wea. Rev ., 122, 927- 945.

Johnson, M. 2004: www.ladco.org/tech/phot o/photochemical.html

Kain, J.S., and J.M. Fritsch, 1993: Convec tive parameterization for mesoscale models: The Kain-Fritsch scheme. Cumulus Para meterization. Meteor. Monogr., 46, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 165-170.

### 7 Mellor, G. L., and T. Yama da, 1974: A hierarchy of tu rbulence closure models for planetary boundary layers. J. Atmos. Sci., 31, 1791–1806.

Shafran, P.C., N.L. Se aman, and G. A. Gayno, 2000: Evaluation of numerical predictions of boundary layer structure during the Lake Mi chigan ozone study. J. Appl. Meteor., 39, 412-426.

Stauffer, D. R., N. L. Seaman and F. S. Binkowski 1991: Use of four-dimensional data assimilation in a limited-area mesoscale m odel. Part II: Effects of data assimilation within the planetary boundary layer. Mon. W ea. Rev., 119, 734-754.

Stauffer, D. R. and N. L. Seaman, 1990: Us e of four-dimensional data assimilation in a limited-area mesoscale model. Part I: Experiments with synoptic-scale data. Mon. Wea. Rev., 118, 1250-1277.

Zhang, D.-L., 1989: The effe ct of parameterized i ce microphysics on the simulation of vortex circul ation with a mesoscale hydrost atic model. Tellus, 41A, 132- 147.

Zhang, D.-L, and R. A. Anthes, 1982: A hi gh-resolution model of the planetary boundary layer-sensit ivity tests and comparisons w ith SESAME-79 data. J. Appl. Meteor., 21, 1594–1609.

Zhang, D.-L, and W.-Z. Zheng, 2004: Diurnal cycles of surface wi nds and temperatures as simulated by five boundary -layer parameteriza tions. J. Appl. Me teor., 43, 157-169.

### 8 Table 1 Measured calm and non-calm occurrences over the modeling domain during August 2002 based on NWS data

Hour #NonCalm #Calm #Total % Calm 00Z 18209 3924 22133 17.7 01Z 16531 6026 22557 26.7 02Z 15604 6929 22533 30.8 03Z 14983 7245 22228 32.6 04Z 14309 7540 21849 34.5 05z 14073 7735 21808 35.5 06Z 13934 7949 21883 36.3 07Z 13792 8040 21832 36.8 08Z 13542 8273 21815 37.9 09Z 13542 8385 21927 38.2 10Z 13708 8591 22299 38.5 11Z 14139 8693 22832 38.1 12Z 15297 7690 22987 33.5 13Z 17336 5192 22528 23 14Z 18522 3439 21961 15.7 15Z 18755 2617 21372 12.2 16Z 19169 2015 21184 9.5 17Z 19555 1617 21172 7.6 18Z 19982 1430 21412 6.7 19Z 20149 1389 21538 6.4 20Z 20565 1288 21853 5.9 21Z 20518 1383 21901 6.3 22Z 20672 1556 22228 7 23Z 20231 2292 22523 10.2

### 9 Figure 1: OTC MM5 modeling domain with areal extent of 12km and 36km grids

### 10 Figure 2: Temperature and Wind speed comparisons for August 2002. In each case the upper panel corresponds to comparison betw een MM5 and NWS data and the lower panel between MM5 and CASTNet data. O b se rve d /P re d icte d T e m p e ra tu re

275 280 285 290 295 300 3058/ 18/ 28/ 38/ 48/ 58/ 68/ 78/ 88/ 98/108/118/128/138/148/158/168/178/188/198/208/218/228/238/248/258/268/278/288/298/308/31K O b sTe m p P rdTem p

O b se rve d /P re d icte d T e m p e ra tu re

275 280 285 290 295 300 3058/ 18/ 28/ 38/ 48/ 58/ 68/ 78/ 88/ 98/108/118/128/138/148/158/168/178/188/198/208/218/228/238/248/258/268/278/288/298/308/31K O b sTe m p P rdTem p

Observed/Predicted Windspeed

1 2 3 4 5 6 78/ 18/ 28/ 38/ 48/ 58/ 68/ 78/ 88/ 98/108/118/128/138/148/158/168/178/188/198/208/218/228/238/248/258/268/278/288/298/308/31m/s ObsWndSpd PrdWndSpd

Observed/Predicted Windspeed

1 2 3 4 5 6 78/ 18/ 28/ 38/ 48/ 58/ 68/ 78/ 88/ 98/108/118/128/138/148/158/168/178/188/198/208/218/228/238/248/258/268/278/288/298/308/31m/s ObsWndSpd PrdWndSpd

### 11 Figure 3a: Spatial correlation estimates between MM5 and NWS data for wind speed from May to September 2002

### 12 Figure 3b: Spatial distribution of co rrelation coefficients for Temperature be tween MM5 and NWS data from May to September 2002.

### 13 Richmond, VA

Concord, NH

Figure 4: MM5 and Wind profiler comparison for August 6 to 17, 2002 at Richmond, VA and Concord, NH. The upper and lower panes at each station are for MM5 and profiler, respectively. The abcissa represents da y and the ordinate the height (m).

### 14 Figure 5: MM5 and Satellite cloud im ages for August 14, 2002 at 0700 EST

### 15 Figure 6: MM5 predicted and measured precip itation over the domain for the month of August 2002

### 16 0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3 3.5

4 4.5

00Z 03Z 06Z 09Z 12Z 15Z 18Z 21Z

TIMEWIND SPEED (m/s)

TDLAvgNC MM5AvgNC MM5AvgC



### Figure 7: Comparison of averaged wind speed between MM5 and observed under calm (C) and non-calm (NC) conditions.

# TSD-1b Processing of Biogenic Em issions for OTC / MANE-VU Modeling

Bureau of Air Quality Analysis and Research

Division of Air Resources New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Albany, NY 12233

September 19, 2006

### Biogenic emissions for the time period from January 1, 2002 – December 31, 2002 were calculated by NYSDEC using the Biogenic Emi ssions Inventory System (BEIS) version 3.12 integrated within SMOKE2.1. General info rmation about BEIS is available at http://www.epa.gov/AMD/biogen.html while documentation a bout 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 changes 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 8-hr ozone and PM 2.5 

### modeling:

1. Normbeis3 reads gridded land use data and em issions factors and produces gridded normalized biogenic emissions for 34 species/compounds. The gridded land use includes 230 different land use types. 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 radiat ion (PAR) of 1000 μmol/m 2 

### s. In addition, gridded

summer and winter leaf area indi ces (LAI) are al so written to B3GRD



### .

2. Tmpbeis3 reads the gridded, normalized emissions file B3GRD 

### and meteorological data from the MCIP-processed MM5 mete orological fields generated by the University of Maryland for MANE-VU/OT C modeling. Specifically, the following MM5/MCIP meteorological variables are used by Tmpbeis3 to compute hourspecific, gridded biogenic emissions from the normalized emission fluxed contained

in B3GRD: 

### layer-1 air temperatur e (“TA”), layer-1 pressure (“PRES”), total incoming solar radiation at the surfac e (“RGRND”), and convective (“RC”) and
non-convective (“RN”) rainfall. Addi tionally, the emissions for the 34 species/compounds modeled by BEIS3.12 are co nverted to CO, NO, and the CB-IV

### VOC species utilized in CMAQ via th e use of the BEIS3.12-CB-IV speciation profile. In adition, an optiona l seasonal switch file, BIOSEASON 

### , was utilized to

decide whether to use summer or winter em issions 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 temperatures to determine the date of the last spring frost and first fall frost at each grid cell. Su mmer emission factors are used by Tmpbeis3 for the time period between the last spring frost and 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

3. For reporting purposes, the hourly, speciated, gridded emissions were aggregated to the county level for each day. For any give n grid cell, emissions are distributed among the counties intersecting this grid ce ll in proportion to the area of each of these counties within the grid cell. Th e area gridding surrogates needed for this aggregration are based on a file obtained from EPA via http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/spatial/new/bgpro.12km_041604.us.gz followed by windowing for the MANE- VU/OTC modeling domain.

### 1 TSD-1d



# 8hr Ozone Modeling using the SMOKE/CMAQ system

Bureau of Air Quality Analysis and Research

Division of Air Resources New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Albany, NY 12233

February 1, 2006

### 2 Air Quality Modeling Domain

The modeling domain utilized in this applicati on represented a sub-set of the inter-RPO’s continental modeling domain th at covered the entire 48-stat e region with emphasis on the Ozone Transport Region. The OTC modeli ng domain at 12km horizontal mesh is displayed in Figure 1 is part of the 36km c ontinental domain that is designed to provide boundary conditions (BCs). The particulars of the two modeling domains are:

The 36km domain covered the continental US by a 149 by 129 mesh in the east-west and north-south directions, respectively. Th e domain is based on Lambert Conformal Projection with the center at (97oW 40oN) a nd parallels at 33oN and 45oN. As evident from Figure 1, the 12km domain utilized in this analysis covers most areas of the eastern US and has 172 by 172 mesh in the horizontal. Both domains utilize 22 layers in the vertical extending to about 16km with 16 layers placed within the lower 3km.

Photochemical Modeling -- CMAQ

The CMAQ (version 4.5.1) with CB4 chemistry, aerosol module for PM 2.5 

### and RADM cloud scheme was utilized in this study. P hotochemical modeling was performed with the CCTM software that is part of the CMAQ modeling package. Version 4.5.1 of this modeling software was obtained fr om the CMAS modeling center at http://www.cmascenter.org . The following module options were used in compiling the CCTM executable:

• Horizontal advection: yamo

• Vertical advection: yamo

• Horizontal diffusion: multiscale

• Vertical diffusion: eddy

• Plume-in-Grid: non operational

• Gas phase chemical mechanism: CB-4

• Chemical solver: EBI

• Aerosol module: aero3

• Process analysis: non operational

The following computational choices were made during compilation:

• Compiler version: PGI 6.0

• Fortran compiler flags:-Mfixed -Mexte nd -Bstatic -O2 -module ${MODLOC} -I.

• C compiler flags : 

### -v -O2 -I${MPICH}/include

• IOAPI library: version 3.0

• NETCDF library: version 3.6.0

• Parallel processing library version: mpich 1.2.6

• Static compilation on 32-bit system The following choices were made for running the executable:

### 3 • Number of processors: 8

• Domain decomposition for parallel processing: 4 columns, 2 rows

• Number of species written to the laye r-1 hourly-average co ncentration output (ACONC) file: 39 (O3, NO, CO, NO2, HNO3, N2O5, HONO, PNA, PAN, NTR, NH3, SO2, FORM, ALD2, PAR, OLE, ETH, TOL, XYL, ISOP, ASO4I, ASO4J, ANO3I, ANO3J, ANH4I, ANH4J, AORG AI, AORGAJ, AORGPAI, AORGPAJ, AORGBI, AORGBJ, AECI, AECJ, A25I , A25J, ACORS, ASEAS, ASOIL)

• Each daily simulation was performed for 24 hours starting at 05:00 GMT (00:00 EST)

The following postprocessing steps were perfor med using utility t ools from the “ioapi” software package obtained from http://www.baronams.com/products/ioapi/AA.html#tools :

• Extract and combine the following species for each hour for the first 16 model layers from the full 3-D instantaneous concentration output file: O3, CO, NO, NO2, NOY_1 ( =NO + NO2 + PAN + HNO3 ), NOY_2 ( =NO + NO2 + PAN + HNO3 + HONO + N2O5 + NO3 + PNA + NTR ), HOX ( =OH + HO2 ), VOC ( =2*ALD2 + 2*ETH + FORM + 5*ISOP + 2*OLE + PAR + 7*TOL + 8*XYL ), ISOP, PM2.5 ( =ASO4I + ASO4J + ANO3I + ANO3J + ANH4I + ANH4J + AORGAI + AORGAJ + 1.167*AORGPAI + 1.167*AORGPAJ + AORGBI + AORGBJ + AECI + AECJ + A25I + A25J ), PM_SULF ( =ASO4I + ASO4J ), PM_NITR ( =ANO3I + ANO3J ), PM_AMM ( =ANH4I + ANH4J ), PM_ORG_SA ( =AORGAI + AORGAJ ), PM_ORG_PA ( =1.167*AORGPAI + 1.167*AORGPAJ ), PM_ORG_SB( =AORGBI + AORGBJ ), PM_ORG_TOT ( =AORGAI + AORGAJ + 1.167*AORGPAI + 1.167*AORGPAJ + AORGBI + AORGBJ ), PM_EC ( =AECI + AECJ ), PM_OTH ( =A25I + A25J ), PM_COARS ( =ACORS + ASEAS + ASOIL ), SO2, HNO3, NH3, H2O2

• Extract all species for all model laye rs for the last hour of each daily instantaneous concentration output file to enable “hot” restarts of modeling simulations

• Create daily files of hourly running-average 8-hr ozone concentrations with time stamps assigned to the first hour of the averaging interval

The following files are archived on LTO2 comput er tapes (each tape holds approximately 200 Gb of data) for each day:

• Aerosol/visibility file

• Layer-1 hourly-average concentration output file (contains 39 species)

• Dry deposition file

• Wet deposition file

• Extracted 16-layer species file

• Restart file (last hour of full 3-D instantaneous concentration file)

• Hourly 8-hr concentration file

### 4 Photolysis Rates

One of the inputs to CMAQ is the photolysis ra tes. In this study, photolysis rate lookup tables were generated for each day of 2002 with the JPROC software that is part of the CMAQ modeling package. This software was obtained from the CMAS modeling center
at http://www.cmascenter.org . Rather than using climatolog ical ozone column data, daily ozone column measurements from the NASA Earthprobe TOMS instrument were downloaded from ftp://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/eptoms/data/ozone/Y2002/ and used as input to the JPROC processor. It should be noted that TOMS data were missing for the time period from August 3 – 11, 2002. The missing period was filled as follows-- TOMS data file for August 2 was used as JPROC input for August 3 rd 

### through August 7 th 

### , and the TOMS data file for August 12 th 

### was used as JPROC input for August 8 th 

### through August 11 th



### . Boundary Conditions (BCs)

The boundary conditions for the 12km grid were extracted from the 36km CMAQ simulation. The 36km simulation utilized bound ary conditions that were based on a oneway nest approach to GEOS-CHEM global model outputs (Moon and Byun 2004, Baker 2005). As stated above, the intent of th e 36km CMAQ simulation was to provide the BCs for the 12km model that would be more reflective of the emissions and meteorology rather than to use either cl ean or arbitrary pollutant fiel ds. Also, in this study the CMAQ simulations utilized a 15-day ramp-up peri od, thereby minimizing the propagation of the boundary fields into the areas of concern. A report on the setup and application of the 36km CMAQ and the extraction of th e BCs is available from NYSDEC.

Meteorological data

The meteorological data for this study wa s based on MM5 modeling (see Meteorological Modeling, 2007). The MM5 fields are then processed by MCIP version 3.0, a utility available as part of the CCTM softwa re from CMAS Modeling Center (see http://www.cmascenter.org ) to provide CMAQ model-ready inputs.

Emissions

The emissions data for 2002 were generate d by individual states within the OTR and were assembled and processed through the Mid Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU), a Regional Planning Organizati on (RPO). These emissions were then processed by NYSDEC using SMOKE processo r to provide CMAQ compatible inputs (Anthro-Emissions 2006). The 2002 emissi ons for the non-OTR areas within the modeling domain were obtained from the co rresponding RPOs and were processed using SMOKE, in a manner similar to that of the OT R.emissions. Details of this processing are outlined in the report (Pechan 2007), and the hourly biogenic emissions (Bio-Emissions, 2006)

### 5 CMAQ simulations

CMAQ simulations were performed using the one-way nesting approach in which we perform the continental CMAQ simulation at 36 km grid spacing. For this simulation we utilized clean initial conditi ons with boundary conditions extr acted from the simulation of GEOS-CHEM global chemical model. The interface program used in this application was developed by University of Huston (Moon and Byun 2004), which was applied to obtain hourly 36km boundary concentrations fr om GEOS-CHEM outputs. The CMAQ 36km simulation was initiated from December 15, 2001 with the first 15 days as spin up period and terminated on December 31, 2002. The simu lation utilized the 2002 emissions data available from the RPOs and 2002 MM5 me teorological fields developed by the University of Maryland (TSD-1a). The hour ly boundary fields for the 12km CMAQ domain were obtained by application of BC ON program to the 3-D concentration fields generated by the 36km CMAQ simulation.

The 12km simulations for both base and fu ture year were assigned the boundary conditions based on the 36km CMAQ simula tion and clean initial conditions. The simulation period covered was from April 15 through September 30, with the first 15 days of April set as ramp-up or spin-up pe riod and that only data from May 1 through September 30 were used in the analysis. Details on CMAQ setup and run scripts are available from NYSDEC.

References

Baker, K.: (2005) http://www.ladco.org/tech /photo/present/ozone.pdf

Moon, N. and D. Byun: (2004) A simple user’s guide for “geos2cmaq”code: Linking CMAQ with GEOS-CHEM. Version 1.0. Instit ute for Multidimensional Air quality Studies (IMAQS), University of Houston, Houston TX.

Meteorological Modeling: ( 2007) Meteorological Modeling using Penn State/NCAR 5 th


### Generation Mesoscale M odel (MM5). TSD-1a

Pechan: (2006) Technical Support do cument for 2002 MANE-VU SIP Modeling inventories, version 3. Prepared by E. H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. 3622 Lyckan Parkway, Suite 2005, Durham, NC 27707.

Bio-Emissions: (2006) Processing of Biogenic Emissions for OTC/MANE-VU Modeling. TSD-1b

Anthro-Emissions: (2006) Emission Proce ssing for the Revised 2002 OTC Regional and Urban 12 km Base Case Simulations. TSD-1c

### 1 TSD-1e



# CMAQ Model Performance and Assessment
8-Hr OTC Ozone Modeling

Bureau of Air Quality Analysis and Research

Division of Air Resources New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Albany, NY 12233

February 23, 2006

### 2 Air quality model evaluation and assessment

One of the tasks that is required as part of demonstrating attainment for the 8-hr ozone NAAQS is the evaluation and assessment of the air quality modeling system that has been utilized to predict future air quality over the region of interest. As part of the attainment demonstration, the SMOKE/CMAQ m odeling system was applied to simulate the pollutant concentration fields for the ba se year 2002 emissions with the correspondingmeteorological information. The modeling databases for meteorology using MM5 (TSD1a), the emissions using SMOKE (TSD-1b and TSD-1c), and application of CMAQ (TSD-1d) provides simulated pollutant fields that are compared to measurements, in order to establish the credibility of the simu lation. In the following sections a comparison between the measured and predicted concen trations is performed and results are presented, demonstrating on an overall basis th e utility of the modeling system in this application.

The results presented here should serve as an illustration of some of the evaluation and assessment performed on the base 2002 CMAQ simulation. Additional information can be made available by request from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

Summary of measured data

The ambient air quality data, both gaseous and aerosol species, for the simulation period of May through September 2002 were obtained from the following sources:

• EPA A ir Q uality S ystem (AQS)

• EPA fine particulate S peciation T rends N etwork (STN)

• EPA C lean A ir S tatus & T rends N etwork (CASTNet)

• I nteragency M onitoring of PR Otected V isual E nvironments (IMPROVE)

• Pinnacle State Park, NY operated by Atmo spheric Science Research Center, University at Albany, Albany, NY

• Harvard Forest, Petersham, MA operate d by Harvard University, Boston, MA

• A tmospheric I nvestigation, R egional M odeling, A nalysis and P rediction (AIRMAP) operated by University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH

• N orthE ast O zone & F ine P article S tudy (NE-OPS), led by Penn State University and other research groups in Philadelphia, PA

• Aircraft data obtained by the Univer sity of Maryland, College Park MD

• Wet deposition data from the N ational A tmospheric D eposition P rogram/N ational T rends N etwork (NADP/NTN), A tmospheric I ntegrated R esearch Mo nitoring N etwork (AIRMoN), and the N ew Y ork S tate D epartment of E nvironmental C onservation (NYSDEC)

Measured data from sites within the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) plus the rest of Virginia were included here. The model-ba sed data were obtained at the grid-cell corresponding to the mon itor location; no interpol ation was performed.

### 3 Ozone (O 3 

### )

Hourly O 3 

### is measured at a large number of State, Local, and National Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS/NAMS) across the US on a routine basis, and the data from 208 sites were extracted from the AQS database ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/air saqs/aqsweb/aqswebhome.html ). Hourly O 3 

### concentrations from the Harvard Forest Envi ronmental Management Site in Petersham, MA ( http://www.as.harvard.edu/data/nigec-data.html ); Pinnacle State Park in Addison, NY ( http://www.asrc.cestm.albany.edu ); and the four University of New Hampshire AIRMAP sites (http://airmap.unh.edu) were also included in this database. The EPA CASTNet program collects hourly O 3 

### at generally rural lo cations across the US ( http://www.epa.gov/castnet ); data from 22 sites, including two from West Virginia, were used in the model evaluation.

Fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 

### )

The 24-hour average Federal Reference Method (FRM) PM 2.5 

### mass data collected routinely at SLAMS/NAMS sites across the US were extracted from AQS (257 sites). Hourly PM 2.5 

### mass was also included in this databa se, primarily extracted from AQS (54 sites). Hourly PM 2.5 

### mass were also taken from the Thompson Farm, NH AIRMAP site, Pinnacle State Park, and the NE-O PS site in Philadelphia, PA ( http://lidar1.ee.psu.edu ).

Fine particulate speciation

The 24-hour average PM 2.5 

### and fine particulate speciation (sulfate (SO 4 

### ), nitrate (NO 3 

### ), elemental carbon (EC), organic carbon/ organic mass (OC/OM), and soil/crustal matter) from Class I areas acro ss the US, collected every 3 rd 

### day, were obtained from the IMPROVE web site ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/IMPROVE/Default.htm ). In addition to these parameters, the EPA STN ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/speciepg.html ) also reports ammonium (NH 4 

### ) to AQS; data from this ne twork are collected every 3 rd 

### or 6 th 

### day. Data from 49 STN sites, generally in urban areas and often collocated with FRM monitors, and 21 IMPROVE sites (including Dolly Sods, WV) were used in this analysis. Organic mass is assumed to equal 1.8×OC, a nd soil/crustal matter is assumed to consist of oxides of Al, Ca, Fe, Si, and Ti. The ST N OC data are blank-corrected by removing a monitor-specific, constant blank, an d these values ar e available from http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqt rnd03/pdfs/2_chemspec0fpm25.pdf ; the IMPROVE OC blanks are assumed to equal zero.

Criteria gaseous pollutants

Hourly carbon monoxide (CO; 97 sites), ni tric oxide (NO; 75 sites), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 

### ; 97 sites) and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ; 134 sites) are also included in this model evaluation database. A large majority of these sites are SLAMS/NAMS monitors located primarily in urban in suburban areas, but da ta from the Harvard Forest, Pinnacle State Park, and AIRMAP sites are also included here.

### 4 Non-methane hydrocarbons

While there are several dozen hydrocarbon species measured routinely, for this model evaluation database the focus was on Ca rbon Bond IV species groups that consist of a single primary species. For this reason only ethene (C 2 

### H 4 

### ), isoprene (C 5 

### H 8 

### ), and formaldehyde (HCHO) concentrations were extracted from AQS. Hourly C 2 

### H 4 

### and C 5 

### H 8 

### data from 19 Photochemical Assessment M onitoring Stations (PAMS) sites and 24-hour average HCHO from 18 air toxics site s are included in this database.

University of Maryland aircraft data

The University of Maryland performed 144 aircraft spirals at 41 regional airport locations over 26 days from May-August 2002 ( http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~RAMMPP ). Spirals are approximately 20-45 minutes in duration, over which time the atmosphere from about 0-3 km is sampled. The concentrations of O 3 

### , CO, and SO 2 

### from these spirals were included in this databa se, and help provide a semi- quantitative evaluation of CMAQ performance above the ground surface. Minute average aircraft data were compared to the nearest instantaneous 3-dimensional CMAQ output.

Wet deposition

The NADP (http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu) colle cts wet deposition samples across the US, through the NTN and the AIRMoN. Weekly wet deposition samples are collected by the NTN, while daily or event-based sa mples were collected by the AIRMoN. The NYSDEC ( http://www.dec.state.ny.us ) also collects weekly wet deposition samples independently from the NADP. The wet deposition of SO 4 2- 

### , NO 3 - 

### , and NH 4 + 

### from 43 NADP/NTN sites, 7 NADP/AIRMoN sites, a nd 19 NYSDEC sites are included in this model evaluation database.

Evaluation of CMAQ predictions

The following sections provide model ev aluation information for the above referenced pollutants over the OTR por tion of the 12-km modeling domain. The statistical formulations that have been computed for each species are as follows: P i 

### and O i 

### are the individual (daily maximum 8-hour O 3 

### or daily average for the other species) predicted and observed con centrations, respectively; 

### P and 

### O are the average concentrations, respectively, and N is the sample size.

Observed average, in ppb:

O N O i 

### = 

# ∑ 1



### Predicted average, in ppb (only use P i 

### when O i 

### is valid):

P N P i 

### = 

# ∑ 1

### 5 Correlation coefficient, R 2 

### : 

# [ ]
R P PO O

PP OO i i

i i 2 2

2 2 

### = − −

− − 

# ∑ ∑ ∑ ( )( )
( )( )



### Normalized mean error (NME), in %:



### NME P O

O i i

i 

### = − × 

# ∑ ∑ | | 100%

Root mean square error (RMSE), in ppb:

RMSE N P O i i 

### = − ⎡ ⎣ ⎢ ⎤ ⎦ ⎥ 

# ∑ 1 2 1 2 

### ( ) /



### Fractional error (FE), in %:

FE N P O
P O

i i

i i 

### = −

+ × 

# ∑ 2 100%



### Mean absolute gross error (MAGE), in ppb:



### MAGE N P O i i 

### = − 

# ∑ 1

Mean normalized gross error (MNGE), in %:

MNGE N P O
O i i

i 

### = − × 

# ∑ 1 100%

Mean bias (MB), in ppb:



### MB N P O i i 

### = − 

# ∑ 1 ( )

Mean normalized bias (MNB), in %:



### MNB N P O
O i i

i 

### = − × 

# ∑ 1 100% ( )

Mean fractionalized bias (MFB), in %:

MFB N P O
P O

i i

i i 

### = −

+ ⎡ ⎣ ⎢ ⎤ ⎦ ⎥ × 

# ∑ 2 100%



### Normalized mean bias (NMB), in %:



### NMB P O

O i i

i 

### = − × 

# ∑ ∑ ( ) 100%

### 6 Daily maximum 8-hour O 3 

### concentrations

Model evaluation statistics, based on daily maximum 8-hour average O 3 

### levels on those days having (1) at least 18 valid obs ervations, or (2) fewer than 18 valid observations but the obs erved daily maximum O 3 

### concentration was at least 85 ppb, are presented here for all sites acr oss the OTR and all of VA. The data cover the period May 15 through September 29, excluding July 6-9, when many sites across the eastern US were affected by large forest fires in Qu ebec. There are 208 SLAMS/NAMS sites and 28 special sites.

These model evaluation statistics were computed using two different threshold values for observed daily maximum 8-hour O 3 

### . First, the statistics were computed using only those days when the observed daily maximum 8-hour O 3 

### concentration exceeded 40 ppb. Second, the statistics were computed us ing only those days when the observed daily maximum 8-hour O 3 

### exceeded 60 ppb. This latter method focuses on the highest O 3 

### days.

Figures 1-4 display time series of obser ved and predicted daily maximum 8-hour O 3 

### concentrations averaged over all sites acr oss the OTR, at SLAMS/NAMS and special sites and for the daily maximum two thresholds . These averages were computed for each day considering all sites that met the corres ponding threshold criteria. In general the observed and predicted composite average O 3 

### concentrations track each other rather well, although there was fairly subs tantial underprediction duri ng the mid-August period. Also, the model performance tends to be better when the lower cutoff (40 ppb) was considered.

Figures 5-8 display spatial maps of frac tional error and mean fractionalized bias for the two threshold levels. At each site the statistics were computed over the entire modeling season. Both the SLAMS/NAMS and sp ecial monitors are displayed here. In general, the model performan ce was better in the vicinity of urban areas and along the northeastern corridor, compared to the perfor mance in rural areas where the model tended to underpredict daily maximum concentrations . The other statistical metrics yielded similar results to FE and MFB.

Table 1 lists the median and range in frac tional error, and the mean fractionalized bias of daily maximum 8-hour O 3 

### calculated at each site over the season, for both observed thresholds (40 and 60 ppb), as well as all sites versus just the SLAMS/NAMS sites. Considering just SLAMS/NAMS sites, FE was always less than 32% for the 40 ppb threshold, and less than 40% for the 60 ppb threshold. Similarly, the MFB at SLAMS/NAMS sites ranged from -29 to +23% for the 40 ppb threshold, and ranged from -40 to +22% for the 60 ppb threshold. Adding th e special sites did not affect the statistics substantially.

### 7 Diurnal variations of gases

Figures 9-17 display the composite diur nal variations of the species reported hourly – O 3 

### (SLAMS/NAMS and other/special sites, displayed separately), continuous PM 2.5 

### , CO, NO, NO 2 

### , SO 2 

### , ethene, and isoprene. The aver age diurnal variations are for the period of May 15-September 30 – again excl uding July 6-9 – considering all sites in the OTR. Note that the O 3 

### diurnal variations were computed from running 8-hour averages, with hours denoting the start of the 8-hour block. The number of monitors used to compute each composite diurnal va riation is shown in each figure.

For O 3 

### , the composite diurnal pattern predicted by CMAQ is fairly similar to that observed, especially at the more urban SL AMS/NAMS monitors. However, on average CMAQ predicts the daily maximum about an hour earlier than observed. For most of the other species presented here, CMAQ tends to predict two daily peaks, one morning and one late afternoon. For some species, such as PM 2.5 

### mass the observed concentration on a composite basis has very little diurnal vari ation. On the other hand, primary pollutants like CO, NO, and ethane, CMAQ exhibits qual itative agreement with the observations.

Daily average concentrations of co-pollutant trace gases

Composite daily average pr edicted and observed concen trations of CO, NO, NO 2 

### , SO 2 

### , C 2 

### H 4 

### , HCHO, and C 5 

### H 8 

### across the OTR are displayed in Figures 18-24. Daily average concentrations of the criteria gases, C 2 

### H 4 

### and C 5 

### H 8 

### were computed from hourly averages, and only those days having at le ast 12 hours of valid observed data were considered here. The HCHO data shown here are based on 24-hour average values every 6 th 

### day. The criteria gas data cover th e period May 15 – September 30, whereas the NMHC data only cover the June 1 – August 31 period, since these data are predominantly PAMS data; however, excluded from this analysis is the July 6-9 period when many sites across the eastern US were affected by large forest fires in Quebec.

Table 2 lists the median and range in mean fractionalized bias calculated at each site over the season used in th is analysis. The values listed in Table 2 were computed at each site over the entire seas on. While the range in MFB is rather large for each species across all sites, the median MFB was below 50% for all species except C 2 

### H 4 

### , which is substantially overpredicted by CMAQ. It s hould be noted that these species can vary substantially from day to day, and days with very low modeled or observed values can contribute to high MFB.

PM 2.5 

### mass and speciation

Composite daily average predicted and observed concentrations of PM 2.5 

### mass (both daily average FRM data and continuous data), as well as major speciation –SO 4 

### , NO 3 

### , NH 4 

### , EC, OM (defined here operationally as 1.8×blank-corrected organic carbon), and crustal mass (sum of oxides of Al, Ca , Fe, Si, and Ti) – across the OTR were compared in this analysis. The data cove r the period May 15 – September 30, and again the July 6-9 period was excluded, when numerou s sites in the eastern US were affected

### 8 by large forest fires in Queb ec. The continuous and FRM PM 2.5 

### data are shown every day, since there are ample daily FRM sites acros s the OTR. The speciation data included here are daily averages every third day, a nd consist of the largely urban EPA STN and the largely rural IMPROVE network. Th e two speciation networks collect PM 2.5 

### , SO 4 

### , NO 3 

### , EC, OM, and crustal mass, while only the STN reports NH 4 

### at a sufficient number of locations.

Table 3 lists the median and range in mean fractionalized bias calculated at each site over the season used in th is analysis. The values listed in Table 3 were computed at each site over the entire season. Figures 25- 39 display time series of composite average observed and predicted daily concentrations; in these figures, for each day the statistics were computed using all monitors with va lid data. The best qualitative agreement between observed and modeled conc entrations is exhibited for PM 2.5 

### and SO 4 

### . Note that in the case of crustal mass, the data from Ju ly 4 are also not included since this day is greatly affected by fireworks. On July 4, the composite average observed and predicted crustal concentrations were 4.59 μg m -3 

### and 1.74 μg m -3 

### , respectively at the STN monitors, and 4.46 μg m -3 

### and 0.99 μg m -3 

### , respectively at the IMPROVE monitors.

As with the gaseous co-pollutant data, th ere is a substantial spread in MFB across the sites. However, the median MFB for PM 2.5 

### mass and SO 4 

### was generally small (<12%) for both urban and rural site s. CMAQ tends to overpredict NO 3 

### , more so at the IMPROVE sites. CMAQ also tends to underpre dict OM at both urban and rural sites, although some of this discrepancy may be attrib uted to the fact that OM is operationally defined and is highly depende nt on the blank correction a nd multiplier to account for other components of OM not directly measur ed. CMAQ tends to overpredict both EC and crustal mass, especially at urban sites; similar to OM, the crustal mass overprediction is related to the fact that this parameter is operationally defined.

Wet deposition of sulfate, nitrate, and ammonium

Observed and predicted wet deposition of SO 4 

### , NO 3 

### , and NH 4 

### were compared over the period May 14 – September 30. For th is analysis, weekly or event-based wet deposition amounts from the NADP/NTN (43 sites), NADP/AIRMoN (7 sites), and New York State DEC (19 sites) covering the entire OTR plus all of VA and WV were integrated over the four-and-a-half months. Because the observed weekly wet deposition samples did include July 6-9, the corres ponding CMAQ predictions also include this period. Table 4 lists the model evaluation st atistics for integrated wet deposition of SO 4 

### , NO 3 

### , and NH 4 

### at each site over the season, while Figures 40-42 compare the observed and predicted weekly values relative to the 1:1 line.

Overall CMAQ tended to overpredict we t deposition of these ions. On a percentage basis, the overp rediction was least for SO 4 

### and highest for NO 3 

### . The NME, MNGE, MNB, and NMB were less than 50% for the three ions. Give n that precipitation is very difficult to predict, especially duri ng the summer months when rainfall can vary tremendously over a 12 km by 12 km area represented by this model grid, CMAQ did a rather good job reproducing seasona l wet deposition over the OTR.

### 9 Upper-air O 3 

### , CO, and SO 2 

### data

The University of Maryland operated an instrumented light aircraft during the summer of 2002. On 26 days from May-Augus t meteorological, trace gas, and particle scattering/absorption data were collected dur ing ascent or descent spirals over 41 regional airports. In all, 144 spirals were performed from near the surface to about 3 km above ground level. For this analysis, composite average profiles of O 3 

### , CO, and SO 2 

### were created over three time periods: “morning” (08-11 EST), “afternoon” (12-16 EST), and “evening” (17-19 EST). The minute average ob served concentrations were aggregated into layer averages, which correspond to the lowest 15 model layers. Model layers are increasingly thick away from the surface; th e surface layer is about 20 m thick while the 15 th 

### layer is about 500 m thick (and cent ered about 2.8 km above the ground). Figures 43-51 display the observed and pred icted composite verti cal profiles of O 3 

### , CO, and SO 2 

### for the three time periods. In te rms of profile shape, CMAQ was in good qualitative agreement for all three species above the surface during the afternoon hours. For CO, the model tends to greatly underpre dict observed levels near the surface, whereas the predicted O 3 

### and SO 2 

### concentrations are closer to the respective observed values.

Summary

Various model evaluation statistics are pr esented here for a variety of gaseous and aerosol species in addition to O 3 

### . In general, the CMAQ results were best for daily maximum O 3 

### and daily average PM 2.5 

### and SO 4 

### mass. Many other species vary tremendously over the course of a day, or fr om day to day, and small model over- or underprediction at low concentrations can lead to large biases on a composite basis. It is important to demonstrate that the model perf orms reasonably over th e diurnal cycle, not just in terms of daily maximum or average va lues. Also, it is important to demonstrate that the model can reproduce concentrations above the ground level.

### 10 Table 1. Median and range in fractional er ror (FE, %) and mean fractionalized bias (MFB, %) for daily maximum 8-hour O 3 

### using the 40 ppb and 60 ppb observed thresholds. The values using only SLAMS/ NAMS sites are boldfaced, the values using all sites are in regular font.

Metric, threshold Range (%) Median (%) FE, 40 ppb +10 to +34% +10 to +32% +15% +15% MFB, 40 ppb -34 to +23% -29 to +23% -6% -6% FE, 60 ppb +9 to +40% +9 to +40% +15% +15% MFB, 60 ppb -40 to +22% -40 to +22% -12% -11%

Table 2. Median and range in mean fracti onalized bias (%) for daily average CO, NO, NO 2 

### , SO 2 

### , C 2 

### H 4 

### , HCHO, and C 5 

### H8.

Pollutant Range in MFB (%) Median MFB (%) CO (97 sites) -128 to +144% -10% NO (75 sites) -182 to +116% -46% NO 2 

### (97 sites) -125 to +107% +13% SO 2 

### (134 sites) -139 to 140% +3% C 2 

### H 4 

### (19 sites) +28 to +168% +86% HCHO (18 sites) -66 to +96% -13%

C 5 

### H 8 

### (19 sites) -54 to +165% +43%

### 11 Table 3. Median and range in mean fractionalized bias (%) for daily average PM 2.5 

### , SO 4 

### , NO 3 

### , NH 4 

### , EC, and OM.

Pollutant Range in MFB (%) Median MFB (%) PM 2.5 

### (FRM; 257 sites) -59 to +119% -4% PM 2.5 

### (continuous; 57 sites) -39 to +85% +5% STN PM 2.5 

### (49 sites) -45 to +102% -9% IMPROVE PM 2.5 

### (21 sites) -36 to +19% -10% STN SO 4 

### (49 sites) -21 to +60% +12% IMPROVE SO 4 

### (21 sites) -26 to +16% -7% STN NO 3 

### (49 sites) -73 to +406% +25% IMPROVE NO 3 

### (21 sites) -57 to +358% +64% STN NH 4 

### (49 sites) -36 to +112% +16% STN EC (49 sites) -42 to +269% +34% IMPROVE EC (21 sites) -60 to +146% -27% STN OM (49 sites) -82 to -25% -58% IMPROVE OM (21 sites) -60 to +7% -40%

STN crustal (49 sites) +2 to +546% +182% IMPROVE crustal (21 site s) -18 to +163% +38%

Table 4. Model evaluation statistics for integrated wet deposition of SO 4 

### , NO 3 

### , and NH 4



### . Parameter SO 4 

### NO 3 

### NH 4 

### Observed average, mg m -2 

### 1063 704 185 Predicted average, mg m -2 

### 946 367 117 Correlation coefficient, R 2 

### 0.17 0.22 0.12 NME, % 34 49 48 RMSE, mg m -2 

### 490 417 109 FE, % 36 62 57 MAGE, mg m -2 

### 365 344 89 MNGE, % 36 45 46 MB, mg m -2 

### -118 -337 -68

MNB, % -3 -44 -28 MFB, % -13 -61 -44 NMB, % -11 -48 -37

### 12 Figure 1.

Observed and Predicted averages 208 SLAMS/NAMS sites; 40 ppb threshold

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

20020515 20

0 2 0 5 23 200205 3 1

2 0 020608

20

0 2 0 6 1 6

2 0 020624

20

0 2 0 7 02 200207 1 0

2 0 020718

20

0 2 0 7 2 6

2 0 020803

20

0 2 0 8 11 20020819

2 0 020827

20

0 209

0 4

2 0 020912

20

0 2 0 9 20 20020928ppb obs avg, ppb CMAQ avg, ppb



### Figure 2.

Observed and Predicted averages 208 SLAMS/NAMS sites; 60 ppb threshold

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2 0 020515

20

0 2 0 5 23 200205 3 1

2 0 020608

20

0 2 0 6 1 6

2 0 020624

20

0 2 0 7 0 2 200207 1 0

2 0 020718

20

0 2 0 7 2 6

2 0 020803

20

0 2 0 8 1 1 20020819

2 0 020

8 27 20

0 209

0 4

2 0 020912

20

0 2 0 9 2 0 20020928ppb obs avg, ppb CMAQ avg, ppb

### 13 Figure 3.

Observed and Predicted averages 28 special monitors; 40 ppb threshold

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

20020515 20

0 2 0 5 23 200205 3 1

2 0 020608

20

0 2 0 6 1 6

2 0 020624

20

0 2 0 7 02 200207 1 0

2 0 020718

20

0 2 0 7 2 6

2 0 020803

20

0 2 0 8 11 20020819

2 0 020827

20

0 209

0 4

2 0 020912

20

0 2 0 9 20 20020928ppb obs avg, ppb CMAQ avg, ppb



### Figure 4.

Observed and Predicted averages 28 special sites; 60 ppb threshold

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2 0 020515

20

0 2 0 5 23 200205 3 1

2 0 020608

20

0 2 0 6 1 6

2 0 020624

20

0 2 0 7 0 2 200207 1 0

2 0 020718

20

0 2 0 7 2 6

2 0 020803

20

0 2 0 8 1 1 20020819

2 0 020

8 27 20

0 209

0 4

2 0 020912

20

0 2 0 9 2 0 20020928ppb obs avg, ppb CMAQ avg, ppb

### 14 Figure 5.

# # # # # # # # # #

#

# # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # #

# # # # # #

# # # # # # #

# # # # #

# # # #

# # # # # # # # # # #

# # # #

#

#

# # # # # #

# #

# #

# # # #

# #

# # # # #

# # #

# # # # # # # # #

# # #

# # # # #

# #

# # #

# # #

# # # # #

#

# # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # #

# # #

# #

# #

# # # #

# #
# # # # # #

# # # #

# # # # #

# # # # # # # #
# # #

#

#

# # # #

# # #

# #

# # #

# # #

# # #

# #

# # # # #

# #

#

# # # # #

#

#

# #

#

#

# #

#

# # # #

# #

#

#

#

300 0 300 600 Miles N

E W

S 

### FE, 40 ppb cutoff

# 

### 10-15%

# 

### 15-20%

# 

### 20-25%

# 

### 25-30%

# 

### 30-35%



### Figure 6.

# # # # # # # # # #

#

# # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # #

# # # # # #

# # # # # # #

# # # # #

# # # #

# # # # # # # # # # #

# # # #

#

#

# # # # # #

# #

# #

# # # #

# #

# # # # #

# # #

# # # # # # # # #

# # #

# # # # #

# #

# # #

# # #

# # # # #

#

# # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # #

# # #

# #

# #

# # # #

# #
# # # # # #

# # # #

# # # # #

# # # # # # # #
# # #

#

#

# # # #

# # #

# #

# # #

# # #

# # #

# #

# # # # #

# #

#

# # # # #

#

#

# #

#

#

# #

#

# # # #

# #

#

#

# 

### FE, 60 ppb cutoff

# 

### 7-14%

# 

### 14-21%

# 

### 21-28%

# 

### 28-35%

# 

### 35-42%

300 0 300 600 Miles N

E W

S

### 15 Figure 7.

# # # # # # # # # #

#

# # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # #

# # # # # #

# # # # # # #

# # # # #

# # # #

# # # # # # # # # # #

# # # #

#

#

# # # # # #

# #

# #

# # # #

# #

# # # # #

# # #

# # # # # # # # #

# # #

# # # # #

# #

# # #

# # #

# # # # #

#

# # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # #

# # #

# #

# #

# # # #

# #
# # # # # #

# # # #

# # # # #

# # # # #
# # # # # #

#

#

# # # #

# #

# #

# # #

# # #

# # #

# #

# # # # #

# #

#

# # # # #

#

#

# #

#

#

# #

#

# # # #

# #

#

#

# 

### MFB, 40 ppb cutoff

# 

### -35 - -25%

# 

### -25 - -15%

# 

### -15 - -5%

# 

### -5 - 5%

# 

### 5-15%

# 

### 15-25%

300 0 300 600 Miles N

E W

S



### Figure 8.

# # # # # # # # # #

#

# # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # #

# # # # # #

# # # # # # #

# # # # #

# # # #

# # # # # # # # # # #

# # # #

#

#

# # # # # #

# #

# #

# # # #

# #

# # # # #

# # #

# # # # # # # # #

# # #

# # # # #

# #

# # #

# # #

# # # # #

#

# # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # #

# # #

# #

# #

# # # #

# #
# # # # # #

# # # #

# # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # #

#

#

# # # #

# #

# #

# # #

# # #

# # #

# #

# # # # #

# #

#

# # # # #

#

#

# #

#

#

# #

#

# # # #

# #

#

#

#

300 0 300 600 Miles N

E W

S 

### MFB, 60 ppb cutoff

# 

### -42 - -30%

# 

### -30 - -18%

# 

### -18 - -6%

# 

### -6 - 6%

# 

### 6-18%

# 

### 18-30%

### 16 Figure 9.

Ozone (SLAMS/NAMS) - 208 sites

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

0 4 8 12 16 20 24O3(ppb) Observed
Predicted



### Figure 10.

Ozone (CASTNet & others) - 28 sites

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

0 4 8 12 16 20 24O3(ppb) Observed
Predicted

### 17 Figure 11.

Continuous PM 2.5 

### mass - 57 sites

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

0 4 8 12 16 20 24PM2.5(ug/m3)

Observed
Predicted



### Figure 12.

Carbon monoxide - 97 sites

0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0

0 4 8 12 16 20 24CO (ppb) Observed
Predicted

### 18 Figure 13.

Nitric oxide - 75 sites

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00

0 4 8 12 16 20 24NO (ppb) Observed
Predicted



### Figure 14.

Nitrogen dioxide - 97 sites

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

0 4 8 12 16 20 24NO2(ppb) Observed
Predicted

### 19 Figure 15.

Sulfur dioxide - 134 sites

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

0 5 10 15 20 25SO2(ppb) Observed
Predicted



### Figure 16.

Ethene - 19 sites

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

0 4 8 12 16 20 24ethene (ppb) Observed
Predicted

### 20 Figure 17.

Isoprene - 19 sites

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

0 4 8 12 16 20 24isoprene (ppb)

Observed
Predicted



### Figure 18.
Observed and Predicted average CO (97 sites)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

2 0 0 20

5 1 5

2 0 0 20

5 2 3

2 0 0 20

5 3 1 20020608 20020616 20020624

2 0 0 20

7 0 2

2 0 0 20

7 1 0

2 0 0 20

7 1 8 20020726 20020803 20020811

2 0 0 20

8 1 9

2 0 0 20

8 2 7

2 0 02

0 9 0 4 20020912 20020920 20020928ppb obs avg, ppb CMAQ avg, ppb

### 21 Figure 19.

Observed and Predicted average NO (75 sites)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

2 0 0 20

5 1 5

2 0 0 20

5 2 3

2 0 0 20

5 3 1 20020608 20020616 20020624

2 0 0 20

7 0 2

2 0 0 20

7 1 0

2 0 0 20

7 1 8 20020726 20020803 20020811

2 0 0 20

8 1 9

2 0 0 20

8 2 7

2 0 02

0 9 0 4 20020912 20020920 20020928ppb obs avg, ppb CMAQ avg, ppb



### Figure 20.

Observed and Predicted average NO 2 

### (97 sites)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2 0 0 20

5 1 5

2 0 0 20

5 2 3

2 0 0 20

5 3 1 20020608 20020616 20020624

2 0 0 20

7 0 2

2 0 0 20

7 1 0

2 0 0 20

7 1 8 20020726 20020803 20020811

2 0 0 20

8 1 9

2 0 0 20

8 2 7

2 0 02

0 9 0 4 20020912 20020920 20020928ppb obs avg, ppb CMAQ avg, ppb

### 22 Figure 21.

Observed and Predicted average SO 2 

### (134 sites)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2 0 0 20

5 1 5

2 0 0 20

5 2 3

2 0 0 20

5 3 1 20020608 20020616 20020624

2 0 0 20

7 0 2

2 0 0 20

7 1 0

2 0 0 20

7 1 8 20020726 20020803 20020811

2 0 0 20

8 1 9

2 0 0 20

8 2 7

2 0 02

0 9 0 4 20020912 20020920 20020928ppb obs avg, ppb CMAQ avg, ppb



### Figure 22.

Observed and Predicted C 2 

### H 4 

### (19 sites)

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

20

0 20

6 01 20

02

0 6 06 20

02

0 6 11

2 0 02

0 61

6

2 0 02

0 62

1

2 0 02

0 62

6 2002 0 701 20020706 20

0 20711

20

0 20716

20

0 20721

20

02

0 7 26 20

02

0 7 31

2 0 02

0 80

5

2 0 02

0 81

0 2002 0 815 2002 0 820 2002 0 825 20

0 20830ppb obs avg, ppb CMAQ avg, ppb

### 23 Figure 23.

Observed and Predicted HCHO (18 sites)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

20

0 20

6 01 2002 0 607

2 0 02

0 61

3 20

0 20619

20020625

2 0 02

0 70

1 20

0 20

7 07 2002 0 713

2 0 02

0 71

9 20

0 20725

2002 0 731 20

02

0 8 06 20

0 20812

2002 0 818

2 0 02

0 82

4 20

0 20830ppb obs avg, ppb CMAQ avg, ppb



### Figure 24.

Observed and Predicted C 5 

### H 8 

### (19 sites)

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3

20

0 20

6 01 20

02

0 6 06 20

02

0 6 11

2 0 02

0 61

6

2 0 02

0 62

1

2 0 02

0 62

6 2002 0 701 20020706 20

0 20711

20

0 20716

20

0 20721

20

02

0 7 26 20

02

0 7 31

2 0 02

0 80

5

2 0 02

0 81

0 2002 0 815 2002 0 820 2002 0 825 20

0 20830ppb obs avg, ppb CMAQ avg, ppb

### 24 Figure 25.

Observed and Predicted PM 2.5 

### (FRM; 257 sites)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

2 0 0 20

5 1 5

2 0 0 20

5 2 3

2 0 0 20

5 3 1

2 0020608 20020616 200206 2 4

2 0 0 20

7 0 2

2 0 0 20

7 1 0

2 0 0 20

7 1 8 20020726 20020803 200208 1 1

2 0 0 20

8 1 9

2 0 0 20

8 2 7

2 0 0 20

9 04 20020912 20020920 200209 2 8μg m-3 obs avg, ug/m3 CMAQ avg, ug/m3



### Figure 26.

Observed and Predicted PM 2.5 

### (continuous; 57 sites)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

2 0 0 20

5 1 5

2 0 0 20

5 2 3

2 0 0 20

5 3 1

2 0020608 20020616 200206 2 4

2 0 0 20

7 0 2

2 0 0 20

7 1 0

2 0 0 20

7 1 8 20020726 20020803 200208 1 1

2 0 0 20

8 1 9

2 0 0 20

8 2 7

2 0 0 20

9 04 20020912 20020920 200209 2 8μg m-3 obs avg, ug/m3 CMAQ avg, ug/m3

### 25 Figure 27.

Observed and Predicted PM 2.5 

### (STN; 49 sites)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

2 0 0 20

5 1 7 200

20

5 2 6 20020604 20020613 20020622 20020701

2 0020710

2 0020719

2 0 0 20

7 2 8

2 0 0 20

8 0 6

2 0 0 20

8 1 5

2 0 0 20

8 2 4 200

20

9 0 2 200209 1 1 20020920 20020929μg m-3 obs avg, ug/m3 CMAQ avg, ug/m3



### Figure 28.

Observed and Predicted PM 2.5 

### (IMPROVE; 21 sites)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

20020517

2 0020526 20020604

2 0020613 20020622

2 002070 1

2 0020710

2 002071 9

2 0020728

2 002080 6

2 002081 5

2 002082 4

2 002090 2

2 002091 1

2 002092 0

2 002

0 92

9μg m-3 obs avg, ug/m3 CMAQ avg, ug/m3

### 26 Figure 29.

Observed and Predicted SO 4 

### (STN; 49 sites)

0 5 10 15 20 25

2 0 0 20

5 1 7 200

20

5 2 6 20020604 20020613 20020622 20020701

2 0020710

2 0020719

2 0 0 20

7 2 8

2 0 0 20

8 0 6

2 0 0 20

8 1 5

2 0 0 20

8 2 4 200

20

9 0 2 200209 1 1 20020920 20020929μg m-3 obs avg, ug/m3 CMAQ avg, ug/m3



### Figure 30.

Observed and Predicted SO 4 

### (IMPROVE; 21 sites)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

20020517

2 0020526 20020604

2 0020613 20020622

2 002070 1

2 0020710

2 002071 9

2 0020728

2 002080 6

2 002081 5

2 002082 4

2 002090 2

2 002091 1

2 002092 0

2 002

0 92

9mg m-3 obs avg, ug/m3 CMAQ avg, ug/m3

### 27 Figure 31.

Observed and Predicted NO 3 

### (STN; 49 sites)

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3 3.5

2 0 0 20

5 1 7 200

20

5 2 6 20020604 20020613 20020622 20020701

2 0020710

2 0020719

2 0 0 20

7 2 8

2 0 0 20

8 0 6

2 0 0 20

8 1 5

2 0 0 20

8 2 4 200

20

9 0 2 200209 1 1 20020920 20020929μg m-3 obs avg, ug/m3 CMAQ avg, ug/m3



### Figure 32.

Observed and Predicted NO 3 

### (IMPROVE; 21 sites)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

2

20020517

2 0020526 20020604

2 0020613 20020622

2 002070 1

2 0020710

2 002071 9

2 0020728

2 002080 6

2 002081 5

2 002082 4

2 002090 2

2 002091 1

2 002092 0

2 002

0 92

9μg m-3 obs avg, ug/m3 CMAQ avg, ug/m3

### 28 Figure 33.

Observed and Predicted NH 4 

### (STN; 49 sites)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2 0 0 20

5 1 7 200

20

5 2 6 20020604 20020613 20020622 20020701

2 0020710

2 0020719

2 0 0 20

7 2 8

2 0 0 20

8 0 6

2 0 0 20

8 1 5

2 0 0 20

8 2 4 200

20

9 0 2 200209 1 1 20020920 20020929μg m-3 obs avg, ug/m3 CMAQ avg, ug/m3



### Figure 34.

Observed and Predicted EC (STN; 49 sites)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

2 0 0 20

5 1 7 200

20

5 2 6 20020604 20020613 20020622 20020701

2 0020710

2 0020719

2 0 0 20

7 2 8

2 0 0 20

8 0 6

2 0 0 20

8 1 5

2 0 0 20

8 2 4 200

20

9 0 2 200209 1 1 20020920 20020929μg m-3 obs avg, ug/m3 CMAQ avg, ug/m3

### 29 Figure 35.

Observed and Predicted EC (IMPROVE; 21 sites)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

2 002051 7 20020526

2 002060 4 20020613

2 002062 2 20020701 20020710 20020719 20020728 20020806 20020815 2002 0 824 20020902 2002 0 911 2002 0 920 2002 0 929μg m-3 obs avg, ug/m3 CMAQ avg, ug/m3



### Figure 36.

Observed and Predicted OM (STN; 49 sites)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

2 0 0 20

5 1 7 200

20

5 2 6 20020604 20020613 20020622 20020701

2 0 0 20710

2 0 0 20719

2 0 0 20

7 2 8

2 0 0 20

8 0 6

2 0 0 20

8 1 5

2 0 0 20

8 2 4 200

20

9 0 2 20020911 20020920 20020929μg m-3 obs avg, ug/m3 CMAQ avg, ug/m3

### 30 Figure 37.

Observed and Predicted OM (IMPROVE; 21 sites)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2 002051 7 20020526

2 002060 4 20020613

2 002062 2 20020701 20020710 20020719 20020728 20020806 20020815 2002 0 824 20020902 2002 0 911 2002 0 920 2002 0 929μg m-3 obs avg, ug/m3 CMAQ avg, ug/m3



### Figure 38.

Observed and Predicted crustal (STN; 49 sites)

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3

2 0 0 20

5 1 7 200

20

5 2 6 20020604 20020613 20020622 20020701

2 0 0 20710

2 0 0 20719

2 0 0 20

7 2 8

2 0 0 20

8 0 6

2 0 0 20

8 1 5

2 0 0 20

8 2 4 200

20

9 0 2 20020911 20020920 20020929μg m-3 obs avg, ug/m3 CMAQ avg, ug/m3

### 31 Figure 39.

Observed and Predicted crustal (IMPROVE; 21 sites)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

2 002051 7 20020526

2 002060 4 20020613

2 002062 2 20020701 20020710 20020719 20020728 20020806 20020815 2002 0 824 20020902 2002 0 911 2002 0 920 2002 0 929μg m-3 obs avg, ug/m3 CMAQ avg, ug/m3



### Figure 40.

Wet SO 4 

### Deposition

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Observed (mg/m 2 )Predicted (mg/m2)

### 32 Figure 41.

Wet NO 3 

### Deposition

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Observed (mg/m 2 )Predicted (mg/m2)



### Figure 42.

Wet NH 4 

### Deposition

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Observed (mg/m 2 )Predicted (mg/m2)

### 33 Figure 43.

Figure 44. Morning (08-11 EST)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

40 45 50 55 60 65 70
O3 (ppb)Z (m)

observed CMAQ

Afternoon (12-16 EST)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

50 60 70 80 90
O3 (ppb)Z (m)

observed CMAQ

### 34 Figure 45.

Figure 46. Evening (17-19 EST)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

40 50 60 70 80 90
O3 (ppb)Z (m)

observed CMAQ

Morning (08-11 EST)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

0 100 200 300 400 500
CO (ppb)Z (m)

observed CMAQ

### 35 Figure 47.

Figure 48. Afternoon (12-16 EST)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

0 100 200 300 400 500
CO (ppb)Z (m)

observed CMAQ

Evening (17-19 EST)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600
CO (ppb)Z (m)

observed CMAQ

### 36 Figure 49.

Figure 50. Morning (08-11 EST)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

0123456
SO2 (ppb)Z (m)

observed CMAQ

Afternooon (12-16 EST)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

0123456
SO2 (ppb)Z (m)

observed CMAQ

### 37 Figure 51.

Evening (17-19 EST)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

012345
SO2 (ppb)Z (m)

observed CMAQ

### TSD-1f



# Future Year Emissions Inventory for
8-Hr OTC Ozone Modeling

Bureau of Air Quality Analysis and Research

Division of Air Resources New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Albany, NY 12233

February 22, 2007

### Following the designation of an area as non-atta inment for the criteria pollutant Ozone, the Clean Air Act requires submission of an implementation plan, commonly referred to as State Implementation Plan (SIP), demonstrat ing as to how that area will be meeting the NAAQS in the time period established by the Act. Several areas of the OTR were designated as being in nonattainment for 8-hr ozone (see http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/ ) with a maximum attainment date of June 2009 and June 2010. However, given that oz one precursors also contribute to PM 2.5 

### and other logistics, it was recommended a nd agreed by the member states that the future year for demonstrating attainment would be 2009. Th erefore the OTR states initiated the development of emissions inventories reflec ting growth and control from 2002 to 2009 as well as for 2012 and 2018. The 2018 inventory was in response to the need for submission of regional haze SIP, and the 2012 as a next step in the event that attainment for ozone was not feasible in 2009.

Future year emissions in ventories within the OTR

The OTR states through MANE-VU contra cted MACTEC Federa l Programs (called Contractor) develop the 2009, 2012 and 2018 inventories based upon 2002 inventories that the states had previously developed for use in the base year model work. The Contractor in consultation with the states developed the necessary growth and control factors and applied to the 2002 inventory. It s hould be noted that emissions for mobile sources and the electric energy generating units (EGUs) was not part of the Contractor’s effort. The states provide d VADEQ and NESCAUM appropria te MOBILE 6 input files along with the projected VMTs, which coupl ed with the hourly gridded temperature information was used to generate mobile so urce emissions. As for the emissions from the EGU sector, the inter-RPO work group utilized the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to develop the state and unit-level emissions. Details on these topics can be found in MACTEC (2007a) for non-EGU sectors and in ICF (2006) for the EGU sector. These inventories are identified as 2009 on the way (2 009OTW), since they reflect all emission control measures that were promulgated or would become effective on or before 2009.

In addition to these OTW inventories, states have also requested th e development of what is termed as beyond on the way (BOTW) inventories for 2009, 2012, and 2018. These inventories are to be based on additional OTC model rules, which would result in reduction in emissions from specific source categories. Details on the development of these controls and the co rresponding inventories can be found in MACTEC (2007b).

Future year emission inventories outside the OTR

MANE-VU obtained inventories for 2009OTW and 2018OTW as part of the inter-RPO workgroup. However, only MRPO provided em issions for 2012OTW. For the VISTAS region, 2012 emissions were obtained by interpolating area, nonroad, and non-EGU emissions between 2009 and 2018. For mobile sources, VMT were interpolated between 2009 and 2018 and the 2012 emissions were ca lculated with MOBILE6 using these interpolated VMT and 2012 emission f actors. For the CENRAP region, no 2012

### emissions were generated, and therefore the 2009 emissions were used in the 2012 CMAQ simulation.

Canadian Emissions

In the case of Canadian emissions, 2010 and 2020 area, non-road, and mobile source emissions were obtained from USEPA ( ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInvent ory/canada_2000inventory/ ). Primary PM 2.5 

### and PM 10 

### emissions for the SCCs listed in http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch /invent/tf_scc_list2002nei_v2.xls were divided by a factor of 4 to account for the fugitive dust transport fraction correc tion. EGU point source emissions for 2010 and 2020 were obtained fr om Environment Canada (Bloomer, 2006), while non-EGU point source emissions were assu med to be the same as those developed for 2002 and described elsewhere (see TSD- 1c). The 2010 inventories were used in preparing CMAQ input files for the 2009O TW, 2009BOTW, and 2012BOTW scenarios.

Emissions processing – Application of SMOKE

The 2009OTW, 2009BOTW, and 2012 BOTW i nventories were processed by VADEQ and NYSDEC using a template similar to that was used for processing 2002 base year emissions (see TSD-1d) for the 12 km domain. In particular, all gridding and speciation profiles and cross-reference files as well as all temporal allocation profiles and crossreference files used in the 2002 processing were also used for future year processing. For each day, the following files were prepared:

2009OTW:

• MANE-VU

o 2009 OTW V3 area source (VADEQ)

o 2009 V3 nonroad source (VADEQ)

o 2009 mobile source (NYSDEC)

o 2009 OTW V3 non-EGU point source (VADEQ)

o 2009 IPM2.1.9. EGU point source (VADEQ)

o 2009 EGU point source, IPM2.1.9. non-fossil fuel units (VADEQ)

• VISTAS

o 2009 BaseG area source (VADEQ)

o 2009 BaseG nonroad source (VADEQ)

o 2009 BaseG non-EGU point source (VADEQ)

o 2009 IPM2.1.9. EGU point source (incl. post-IPM adjustments) (VADEQ)

o 2009 BaseG low-level fires (VADEQ)

o 2009 BaseG elevated source fires (VADEQ)

• MRPO

o 2009 BaseK area source (NYSDEC)

o 2009 BaseK area source NH3/dust (NYSDEC)

o 2009 BaseK nonroad source (NYSDEC)

o 2009 non-EGU point source (VADEQ)

### o 2009 IPM2.1.9. EGU point source (incl. post-IPM adjustments) (VADEQ)

• CENRAP

o 2009 BaseB area source (VADEQ)

o 2009 BaseB nonroad source (VADEQ)

o 2009 non-EGU point source (VADEQ)

o 2009 IPM2.1.9. EGU point source (VADEQ)

• VISTAS/MRPO/CENRAP (“non-MANE-VU RPOs”)

o 2009 mobile sources for all non-MANE-VU RPOs as implemented in VISTAS 2009 BaseG processing (VADEQ)

• Canada

o 2010 area sources (NYSDEC)

o 2010 nonroad sources (NYSDEC)

o 2010 mobile sources (NYSDEC)

o point sources (2002 non-EGU point sources; 2010 EGU point sources from IPM) (NYSDEC)

• Biogenics

o Same as for 2002 base case, calculated with hourly MM5 meteorological fields for 2002 (NYSDEC)

2009 BOTW:

As above for 2009 OTW, with the following two exceptions:

• MANE-VU

o 2009 BOTW V3 area source (NYSDEC)

o 2009 BOTW V3 non-EGU point source (NYSDEC)

2012 BOTW:

• MANE-VU

o 2012 OTW V3 area source (NYSDEC)

o 2012 V3 nonroad source (NYSDEC)

o 2012 mobile source (NYSDEC)

o 2012 OTW V3 non-EGU point source (NYSDEC)

o 2012 IPM2.1.9. EGU point source (NYSDEC)

o 2009 EGU point source, IPM2.1.9. non-fossil fuel units (VADEQ)

• VISTAS

o 2012 BaseG area source (interpolat ed between 2009 BaseG and 2018 BaseG) (NYSDEC)

o 2012 BaseG nonroad source (interpo lated between 2009 BaseG and 2018 BaseG) (NYSDEC)

o 2012 BaseG mobile source (interpo lated VMT between 2009 BaseG and 2018 BaseG) (NYSDEC)

o 2012 BaseG non-EGU point source (int erpolated between 2009 BaseG and 2018 BaseG) (NYSDEC)

### o 2012 IPM2.1.9. EGU point source (incl. post-IPM adjustments) (NYSDEC)

o 2009 BaseG low-level fires (VADEQ)

o 2009 BaseG elevated source fires (VADEQ)

• MRPO

o 2012 BaseK area source (NYSDEC)

o 2012 BaseK area source NH3/dust (NYSDEC)

o 2012 BaseK nonroad source (NYSDEC)

o 2012 BaseK nonroad source (NYSDEC)

o 2012 non-EGU point source (NYSDEC)

o 2012 IPM2.1.9. EGU point source (incl. post-IPM adjustments) (NYSDEC)

• CENRAP

o 2009 BaseB area source (VADEQ)

o 2009 BaseB nonroad source (VADEQ)

o 2009 mobile source (based on VI STAS 2009 BaseG processing) (NYSDEC)

o 2009 non-EGU point source (VADEQ)

o 2009 IPM2.1.9. EGU point source (VADEQ)

• Canada

o 2010 area sources (NYSDEC)

o 2010 nonroad sources (NYSDEC)

o 2010 mobile sources (NYSDEC)

o point sources (2002 non-EGU point sources; 2010 EGU point sources from IPM) (NYSDEC)

• Biogenics

o Same as for 2002 base case, calculated with hourly MM5 meteorological fields for 2002

References

ICF (2006)

MACTEC (2007a)

MACTEC (2007b)

Bloomer, Bryan (2006) Bloomer.Bryan@epamail.epa.gov Personal communication to Gopal Sistla ( gsistla@dec.state.ny.us )

TSD-1c (2007) Emission Processing for the Revised 2002 OTC Regional and Urban 12 km Base Case Simulations

### TSD-1d (2007) 8hr Ozone Modeling using the SMOKE/CMAQ system

### 1 TSD-1g

Relative reduction factor (RRF) and “Modeled Attainment Test”

Bureau of Air Quality Analysis and Research

Division of Air Resources New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Albany, NY 12233

### 2 EPA guidance (EPA 2005) and the subsequent document (EPA 2006) require the use of a modeled attainment test which is described as a procedur e in which an air quality model is used to simulate current and future air quality. If future estimates of ozone concentrations are <= 84 ppb, th en this element of the atta inment test is satisfied. A modeled attainment demonstration that consists of (a) analyses which estimate whether selected emissions reductions will result in ambient concentrations that meet the NAAQS or progress goals and (b) an identified set of control measures which will result in the required emissions reductions is provided elsewhere.

For this modeled attainment test, model estim ates are used in a “relative” rather than “absolute” sense. That is, one calculates th e ratio of the model’s future to current (baseline) predictions at ozone monitors. These ratios are called relative reduction factors (RRF) . Future ozone concentrations are es timated at existing monitoring sites by multiplying modeled RRF at locations “near” each monitor by the observation-based monitor-specific “baseline” ozone design va lue. Therefore, the following equation describes approach as app lied to a monitoring site i:

(DVF) i 

### = (RRF) i 

### x (DVC) i 

### (Equation 1)

Where (DVC) i 

### is the baseline concentration monitored at site i; (RRF) i 

### is the relative reduction factor, calculated for site i, and (DVF) i 

### is the estimated future design value for site i. The RRF is the ratio of the future 8-hour daily maximum concentration predicted at a monitor to the baseline 8-hour daily maximu m concentration predicted at the monitor location averaged over multiple days determined from the base case.

The following sections describe the calculation of each of the elements in Equation 1 as implemented by NYSDEC through an in-house co mputer program (fortran). Note, the subscript “i” from equation is dropped in the following description. However, all calculations are still performed on a monitor-by-monitor basis.

1. Calculation of DVC

Design values (DV) at each monitoring site are calculated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 50.10, Appendix I. The DV is calculated as the 3 year average of the fourth highest monitored daily 8-hour maximum value at each monitoring site. For example, the design value for the 2000-2002 is the average of the fourth highest monitored daily 8-hour maximum values in 2000, 2001 and 2002. De sign values are labeled with the last year of the design value period, i.e. the design value for the 2000 – 2002 is labeled as “2002 design value”.

For the “modeled attainment test”, the guida nce defines the DVC in Equation 1 as the average of the design values, which straddle th e baseline inventory ye ar. In our case, the baseline inventory year is 2002. Therefore, DVC is the average of the “2002 design value” (determined from 2000-2002 observations ), the “2003 design value” (determined from 2001-2003 observations), and the “2004 design value” (determined from 2002-2004 observations). Consequently, DVC is derived from observations covering a five year

### 3 period and is a weighted average with 2002 observations “weighted” three times, 2001 and 2003 observations weighted twice, a nd 2000 and 2004 observations weighted once.

The following criteria concerning missing DV were implemented in the fortran code calculating DVC:

• For monitors with only four years of c onsecutive data, the guidance allows DVC to be computed as the average of two DV within that period.

• For monitors with only three years of c onsecutive data, the DVC is equal to the DV calculated for that three year period

• For monitors with less than three ye ars of consecutive data, no DVC can be estimated

2. Calculation of RRF

The guidance requires the calcu lation of RRF with CMAQ ou tput from grids that are “near” a monitor. Because of the 12km grid spacing used in the CMAQ simulations, model predictions in a 3*3 gr id array centered on the mon itoring location are considered “near” that monitor. For each day, the maximu m base case and control case concentration within that array is selected for RRF calculation as set fo rth in the guidance document.

Because photochemical models were found to be less responsive to emission reductions on days of lower simulated ozone concentr ations, the guidance recommends applying screening criteria to the daily model predic tions at individual monitors to determine whether that day’s predictions are to be used to calculat e the RRF or not. Only “high ozone days” are to be selected:

RRF = (average control case over high oz one days selected based on base case concentrations) / (average base ca se over selected high ozone days)

In addition, the guidance recommends that pref erably ten or more “high ozone days”, as identified below, be selected for RRF calculation. In no case can the RRF be calculated with fewer than five “high ozone days”.

The following describes the logic with which NYSDEC implemented these screening criteria into its Fortran code for RRF calculation:

a. Selecting concentrations from gr id cells surrounding the monitor

i. Determine the grid cell in which the monitor is located and include the surrounding 8 grid cells to fo rm a 3*3 grid cell array

ii. Determine daily maximum 8-hr ozone concentrations for each day for each of the 9 grid cells for both the base case and control case

### 4 iii. For each day, pick the highest daily maximum 8-hr ozone value out of all 9 grid cells. This is the daily maximum 8-hr oz one concentration for that monitor for that day to be used in RRF calculations (following the screening criteria below).

iv. This is done for both the base case and th e control case. Note that the grid cell selected on any given day for the base case need not be the same as the grid cell selected for the same day in the control case.

b. Selecting modeling days to be used in the RRF computation (a gain, this is done on a monitor-by-monitor basis)

i. Starting with a ozone threshold (TO 3 

### ) of 85 ppb and a minimum required number of days (Dmin) of 10, determine all days for which the simulated base case concentration (as determined in step (a) is at or above the threshold TO 3


### .

ii. If the number of such days is greater to or equal Dmin, identify these days and proceed to step (c). Otherwise, continue to b(iii), below.

iii. Lower the threshold (TO 3 

### ) by 1ppb interval and go back to b(i) to identify the days. If the minimum number of days is not reached then reduce that requirement by 1 but no lower than 5 days and with TO 3 

### > =70 ppb and go back to b(i). Otherwise proc eed to b(iv) below.

iv. Stop. No RRF can be calculated for this monitor because there were less than 5 days with base case daily maximum concentration > =70 ppb.

c. RRF computation: Compute the RRF by averaging the daily maximum 8-hr ozone concentrations for base case and control cas e determined in step (a) over all of the days determined in step (b). The RRF is the ratio of average control case concentrations over average base case concentrations.

3. Computation of DVF

Compute DVF as the product of DVC from step (1) and RRF from step (2). Note, the following conventions on nu merical precision (truncati on, rounding) were applied:

a. DV are truncated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 50.10, Appendix I. This applies to the “2002 DV”, the “2003 DV”, and the “2004 DV”

b. DVC (averages of DV over multiple years) are calculated in ppb and carried to 1 significant digit

c. RRF are calculated and carried to three significant digits

d. DVF is calculated by multiplying DVC with RRF, followed by truncation

### 5 References

EPA (2005) Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. EPA-454/R-05-002.

EPA (2006) Guidance on the use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5 

### and Regional Haze. Draft 3.2- September 2006.

### 1 TSD-1h



# Projected 8-h ozone air quality over the Ozone Transport Region

Bureau of Air Quality Analysis and Research

Division of Air Resources New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Albany, NY 12233

### 2 The USEPA guidance (EPA 2005 and EPA 2006 ) recommends the use of relative reduction factor (RRF) approach for demonstr ating the attainment of the 8-hr ozone NAAQS. The OTC Modeling committee implem ented this recommended approach in performing attainment assessment of the areas.

Attainment year 2009

As described in TSD-1g (2007), the RRFs were determined for all OTR monitors for the two future year simulations with 2009O TW and 2009BOTW emissions data. The base design value (DVc) for 2002 representing the nu mber of DVs estimated on the basis of 3- yr averages available from 2000 to 2004 are list ed in Tables 1 and 2 along with the RRF, the number of days, the level of threshold, a nd future year projected concentrations for each monitor identified by its AIRS ID, co mmon name and the county. The values in bold represent projected design values that exceed the 8-hr ozone NAAQS.

In general both simulations do not fifer much from each other in that they yield similar design values with the 2009BOTW providing co ncentrations that are about one or two ppb lower than the 2009OTW. However it should be noted that the Guidance provides for a window (82 to 87 ppb) that can be consider ed as demonstrating attainment provided there is sufficient information to support in the form of weight of evidence (WOE) that suggests that the projected design value would be at or less than the 8-hr ozone NAAQS, taking into consideration the current m easured design value and other projected emissions reductions within and outside the modeling domain.

If such a consideration is gi ven then there are only 6 mon itors above 87 ppb in the OTR, and without such an option of WOE there w ould be 21 monitors that have projected design value above 84 ppb. It should be noted that in either case, a majority of them are located in the Baltimore–Philadelphia-New Yo rk City-Connecticut portion of inner OTR corridor associated with high emissions region.

These Tables also list monitors for which no future DV (DVF) was calculated, listed as -9 in all columns except for DVC, which is a limitation inherent in the method for calculating the RRF. Often these monitors ha ve DVC less than 84 ppb, with the exception of the monitor at the summit of Whitef ace, NY (360310002), that has a DVC of 88.3 ppb while at the base of Whiteface (360311003) the measured DVC is 84.3 ppb. In both instances, there were fewer than 5 days that the model simulation predicted base concentrations in the 9-grid cells surrounding these monitors was below the threshold of 70 ppb, resulting in assigning no RRF and no es timate of DVF for these monitors.

Attainment year 2012

One other option that was considered by th e OTC Modeling committee is the simulation of 2012BOTW emissions within the OTR. Th e details of the development of the 2012BOTW inventory are provided in TS D-1f (2007). The CMAQ simulation was performed with the 2012BOTW emissions in the OTR with the remainder of the

### 3 modeling domain also at 2012 emissions. The re sults of the simulation were processed in a manner similar to those of 2009 and the resul ting future year design values are listed in Table 3 in a format similar to those in Tables 1 and 2.

The listed future DVs indicate that there ar e 5 monitors that would have a projected design value above 84 ppb, again located in th e inner OTR corridor. However it should be noted that if considerati on is given to these monitors along with WOE then these would be within the prescribed ra nge of WOE, thereby demonstrating modeled attainment for all monitors in the OTR under this scenario.

Non-monitored locations

One of the requirements of the EPA guidance is the need to inve stigate if there are locations within the modeling domain where th e predicted future design values (DVF) are above the level of NAAQS but are not associ ated with a monitor to provide DVC. While the EPA has recommended the use of modele d attainment test software (MATS) to investigate such occurrences, it was decide d by the Modeling committee that such an assessment should be undertaken by the individu al areas themselves as part of their SIP analysis.

References

EPA (2005) Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. EPA-454/R-05-002.

EPA (2006) Guidance on the use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5 

### and Regional Haze. Draft 3.2- September 2006.

TSD-1f (2007) Future Year Emissions Inventory for 8-Hr OTC Ozone Modeling

TSD-1g (2007) Relative reduction factor (RRF) and “Modeled Attainment Test”

### 4 Table 1 Projected 8-hr Ozone Design Values over OTR based on 2009OTW Emissions Inventory

AIRS-ID County Monitor #ofDV DVC DVF RRF #Days Threshold 340290006 Ocean Colliers Mills 3 106 92 0.87 20 85 90013007 Fairfield Stratford 3 98.3 90 0.922 38 85 361030009 Suffolk Holtsville 3 97 90 0.928 34 85 90093002 New Haven Madison 3 98.3 89 0.908 39 85 340070003 Camden Camden 3 98.3 88 0.9 26 85 340155001 Gloucester Clarksboro 3 98.3 88 0.9 25 85 420170012 Bucks Bristol 3 99 88 0.898 25 85 90010017 Fairfield Greenwich 3 95.7 87 0.915 30 85 340071001 Camden Ancora St. Hos 3 100.7 87 0.873 27 85 421010024 Philadelphia Northeast (Air 3 96.7 87 0.903 23 85 90011123 Fairfield Danbury 3 95.7 86 0.9 18 85 340210005 Mercer Rider Univ. 3 97 86 0.891 23 85 510130020 Arlington Arlington Co. 3 96.7 86 0.897 24 85 510590018 Fairfax Fairfax Co. - 3 96.7 86 0.892 20 85 90019003 Fairfield Westport 3 94 85 0.911 37 85 90070007 Middlesex Middletown 3 95.7 85 0.892 21 85 90099005 New Haven Hamden 3 93.3 85 0.915 25 85 240251001 Harford Edgewood 3 100.3 85 0.854 41 85 340030005 Bergen Teaneck 3 91.7 85 0.93 18 85 361030002 Suffolk Babylon 3 93.7 85 0.917 22 85 361192004 Westchester White Plains 3 91.3 85 0.936 22 85 240030014 Anne Arundel Davidsonville 3 98 84 0.86 30 85 240030019 Anne Arundel Ft. Meade 3 97 84 0.871 30 85 340230011 Middlesex Rutgers Univ. 3 96 84 0.876 22 85 340250005 Monmouth Monmouth Univ. 3 95.7 84 0.881 45 85 340273001 Morris Chester 3 95.3 84 0.884 13 85 360290002 Erie Amherst 3 95.7 84 0.884 11 78 360850067 Richmond Susan Wagner 3 93 84 0.905 42 85 510590030 Fairfax Fairfax Co. - 3 95 84 0.887 21 85 250213003 Norfolk MILTON 1 91 83 0.914 13 85 340190001 Hunterdon Flemington 3 95.3 83 0.88 15 85 510591005 Fairfax Fairfax Co. - 1 94 83 0.887 21 85 516500004 Hampton City Hampton 3 88.3 83 0.94 36 85 110010043 DC McMillan Reser 3 92.7 82 0.89 22 85 240259001 Harford Aldino 3 97 82 0.849 35 85 240330002 Prince Georges Greenbelt 2 94 82 0.874 28 85 250092006 Essex LYNN 3 90 82 0.918 16 85 360631006 Niagara Middleport 3 91.7 82 0.895 15 85 360790005 Putnam Mt. Ninham 3 91.3 82 0.899 14 85 420290050 Chester West Chester 1 95 82 0.871 12 85 421010014 Philadelphia Northwest (Rox 3 90.7 82 0.913 20 85 440090007 Washington EPA Lab 3 93.3 82 0.879 33 85

### 5 518000004 Suffolk City Suffolk - TCC 3 87 82 0.953 26 85 100031010 New Castle Brandywine 3 92.7 81 0.878 19 85 240150003 Cecil Fair Hill 3 97.7 81 0.834 18 85 240338003 Prince Georges PG Coun.Eques. 1 94 81 0.87 28 85 340110007 Cumberland Millville 3 95.7 81 0.849 16 85 360130006 Chautauqua Dunkirk 3 93 81 0.878 20 85 360270007 Dutchess Millbrook 3 92 81 0.882 12 80 420030010 Allegheny Pittsburgh (Ca 3 90.7 81 0.9 16 85 420070002 Beaver Hookstown 3 91.3 81 0.89 10 82 420450002 Delaware Chester 3 91.7 81 0.887 23 85 420910013 Montgomery Norristown 3 92.3 81 0.886 21 85 510850003 Hanover Hanover Co. 2 92 81 0.886 11 85 90131001 Tolland Stafford 3 92.3 80 0.872 11 85 240053001 Baltimore Essex 3 91.3 80 0.881 48 85 240290002 Kent Millington 3 95.3 80 0.842 17 85 250010002 Barnstable TRURO 3 92 80 0.879 23 85 250051002 Bristol FAIRHAVEN 3 91 80 0.882 23 85 250130008 Hampden CHICOPEE 3 92 80 0.877 10 83 250250041 Suffolk BOSTON (Long I 3 88.7 80 0.911 21 85 360450002 Jefferson Perch River 3 91.3 80 0.879 10 81 420030008 Allegheny Lawrenceville 3 89.3 80 0.9 16 85 420030067 Allegheny South Fayette 3 89.3 80 0.899 13 85 440030002 Kent Alton Jones 3 93.3 80 0.866 17 85 510360002 Charles City Charles City C 3 89.3 80 0.9 14 85 515100009 Alexandria Cit Alexandria 3 90 80 0.892 20 85 90110008 New London Groton 3 90 79 0.883 38 85 100031007 New Castle Lums Pond 2 94.5 79 0.846 18 85 100031013 New Castle Bellefonte 3 90.3 79 0.876 21 85 110010025 DC Takoma Park 3 88.7 79 0.895 24 85 110010041 DC River Terrace 3 89 79 0.89 22 85 230090102 Hancock ANP Cadillac M 3 91.7 79 0.871 10 82 420290100 Chester New Garden (Ai 3 94.7 79 0.839 19 85 100010002 Kent Killens Pond 3 88.3 78 0.893 25 85 340315001 Passaic Ramapo 3 86.7 78 0.9 19 85 360050083 Bronx Botanical Gard 3 83.7 78 0.939 20 85 420031005 Allegheny Harrison Twp 3 91.3 78 0.864 14 85 420070005 Beaver Brighton Twp 3 89.7 78 0.876 12 82 420490003 Erie Erie 3 89 78 0.88 23 85 420770004 Lehigh Allentown 3 90.7 78 0.87 11 84 420950025 Northampton Freemansburg 3 90 78 0.874 11 85 440071010 Providence Francis School 3 89.7 78 0.872 17 85 510870014 Henrico Henrico Co. 3 88.3 78 0.893 15 85 511071005 Loudon Loudoun Co. 3 90 78 0.872 15 85 90031003 Hartford E. Hartford 3 88 77 0.88 16 85 90050005 Litchfield Cornwall 1 89 77 0.874 11 84 100051003 Sussex Lewes 3 87 77 0.896 26 85 230312002 York Kennebunkport 3 88.3 77 0.877 19 85 240051007 Baltimore Padonia 3 88.7 77 0.874 26 85

### 6 340010005 Atlantic Nacote Creek 3 89 77 0.876 27 85 340170006 Hudson Bayonne 3 84.7 77 0.911 22 85 420050001 Armstrong Kittanning 3 90.7 77 0.856 11 84 420550001 Franklin Methodist Hill 3 90.7 77 0.849 11 77 420710007 Lancaster Lancaster 3 90.7 77 0.853 17 85 420850100 Mercer Farrell 3 91.3 77 0.85 10 82 421290008 Westmoreland Greensburg 3 88 77 0.881 18 85 421330008 York York 3 89 77 0.866 17 85 510595001 Fairfax Fairfax Co. - 3 88 77 0.886 21 85 100051002 Sussex Seaford 3 90 76 0.846 10 80 240170010 Charles S Maryland 3 93 76 0.819 17 85 240313001 Montgomery Rockville 3 86.7 76 0.885 26 85 250094004 Essex NEWBURY 3 86 76 0.884 27 85 360130011 Chautauqua Westfield 3 87 76 0.88 12 85 420110009 Berks Reading 3 88.7 76 0.861 10 85 420958000 Northampton Easton 3 88 76 0.873 12 85 421250005 Washington Charleroi 3 86.3 76 0.883 15 85 240130001 Carroll South Carroll 3 88.7 75 0.853 12 85 250154002 Hampshire WARE 3 86.3 75 0.877 10 81 360551004 Monroe Rochester 3 83.7 75 0.898 18 85 361030004 Suffolk Riverhead 3 83 75 0.904 36 85 420590002 Greene Holbrook 3 87.7 75 0.858 10 85 421010136 Philadelphia Southwest (Elm 3 83 75 0.907 23 85 510410004 Chesterfield Chesterfield C 3 84.7 75 0.893 10 85 510590005 Fairfax Fairfax Co. - 3 87 75 0.871 18 85 511790001 Stafford Stafford Co. 3 86 75 0.878 36 85 230313002 York Kittery 3 85.3 74 0.871 16 85 240210037 Frederick Frederick Airp 3 87.3 74 0.858 11 85 250171102 Middlesex STOW 3 85.7 74 0.875 10 80 330111010 Hillsborough Nashua 2 86 74 0.871 10 75 360010012 Albany Loudonville 3 83 74 0.899 8 70 360810124 Queens Queens College 2 83 74 0.895 26 85 360910004 Saratoga Stillwater 3 84.7 74 0.878 6 70 361173001 Wayne Williamson 3 84 74 0.889 18 85 420431100 Dauphin Hershey 3 86.7 74 0.857 16 85 421255001 Washington Florence 3 85.7 74 0.868 10 83 511530009 Prince William Prince William 3 85 74 0.876 12 83 230052003 Cumberland Cape Elizabeth 3 84.3 73 0.874 18 85 230130004 Knox Port Clyde 3 83.7 73 0.873 13 85 240430009 Washington Hagerstown 3 85.3 73 0.857 10 84 250034002 Berkshire A DAMS 3 83.3 73 0.881 9 70 330115001 Hillsborough Peterborough 1 84 73 0.877 10 73 360671015 Onondoga East Syracuse 3 82.3 73 0.896 8 70 360715001 Orange Valley Central 3 84.7 73 0.87 10 76 420010002 Adams Biglerville (P 3 85 73 0.868 10 80 420070014 Beaver Beaver Falls 3 85 73 0.868 10 83 420430401 Dauphin Harrisburg 3 85 73 0.862 15 85 421174000 Tioga Tioga County ( 3 85 73 0.859 5 70

### 7 421250200 Washington Washington 3 85.3 73 0.86 11 85 511611004 Roanoke Roanoke Co. 3 83.7 73 0.873 11 76 230090103 Hancock ANP McFarland 3 83.7 72 0.872 10 82 250130003 Hampden A GAWAM 1 83 72 0.878 10 83 250270015 Worcester WORCESTER 3 84 72 0.867 10 79 330150012 Rockingham Rye 2 83.5 72 0.871 16 85 420110001 Berks Kutztown 2 84.5 72 0.858 10 85 420334000 Clearfield Moshannon (PSU 3 87.3 72 0.827 11 76 421290006 Wetsmoreland Murrysville 3 82 72 0.89 20 85 510690010 Frederick Frederick Co. 3 82.7 72 0.873 11 81 518000005 Suffolk City Suffolk - Holl 3 82.3 72 0.878 10 76 420210011 Cambria Johnstown 3 85 71 0.844 10 85 420274000 Centre Penn Nursery ( 3 84.7 71 0.85 11 74 420690101 Lacakawana Peckville 3 83.3 71 0.858 10 75 420990301 Perry Perry County 3 83.3 71 0.853 10 77 511130003 Madison Madison Co. - 3 84.7 71 0.845 11 71 420270100 Centre State College 3 84.3 70 0.839 10 76 420692006 Lacakawana Scranton 3 82 70 0.858 10 75 420791101 Luzerene Wilkes-Barre 3 83.7 70 0.844 10 76 500030004 Bennington Bennington 3 79.7 70 0.888 8 70 510330001 Caroline Caroline Co. 3 82.3 70 0.852 10 84 360650004 Oneida Camden 3 79.7 69 0.869 10 70 420130801 Blair Altoona 3 83.3 69 0.837 10 80 420810100 Lycoming Montoursville 1 82 69 0.851 11 75 230112005 Kennebec Gardiner Pray 3 78 68 0.872 10 71 330150013 Rockingham 999 1 80 68 0.86 10 73 420791100 Luzerene Nanticoke 3 81.7 68 0.844 10 76 330173002 Strafford Rochester 2 78.5 67 0.863 11 71 510610002 Fauqier Fauquier Co. 3 79.3 67 0.852 11 73 511390004 Page Page Co. 3 79.7 67 0.844 12 72 250250042 Suffolk BOSTON (Harris 3 73 66 0.91 16 85 420730015 Lawrence New Castle 3 78.3 66 0.849 10 83 230090301 Hancock Castine 1 75 65 0.878 10 79 250150103 Hampshire A MHERST 3 74.7 65 0.878 10 76 420814000 Lycoming Tiadaghton (PS 3 78.7 65 0.837 10 72 511630003 Rockbridge Rockbridge Co. 3 76.7 65 0.856 8 70 230310038 York West Buxton 1 75 64 0.862 9 70 330050007 Cheshire Keene 3 74.3 64 0.869 10 72 360430005 Herkimer Nick's Lake 3 74 64 0.874 6 70 421010004 Philadelphia Frankford (Lab 3 71.3 64 0.908 25 85 250090005 Essex LAWRENCE 1 70 61 0.883 10 82 330150015 Rockingham Portsmouth 1 68 59 0.871 16 85 CC0040002 999 Roosevelt-Camp 3 58.3 51 0.889 10 75 230038001 Aroostook Ashland135 3 64 -9 -9 -9 -999 230173001 Oxford North Lovell 3 60.7 -9 -9 -9 -999 230194007 Penobscot Howland 3 66.7 -9 -9 -9 -999 230194008 Penobscot Holden Rider B 2 79 -9 -9 -9 -999 330012004 Belknap Laconia 2 76.5 -9 -9 -9 -999

### 8 330031002 Carroll Conway 1 67 -9 -9 -9 -999 330090008 Grafton Haverhill 3 70.3 -9 -9 -9 -999 330130007 Merrimack Concord 3 74.7 -9 -9 -9 -999 330190003 Sullivan Claremont 3 74.3 -9 -9 -9 -999 360150003 Chemung Elmira 3 80.3 -9 -9 -9 -999 360310002 Essex Whiteface Summ 3 88.3 -9 -9 -9 -999 360310003 Essex Whiteface Base 3 84.3 -9 -9 -9 -999 360410005 Hamilton Piseco Lake 3 78.7 -9 -9 -9 -999 360530006 Madison Camp Georgetow 3 79.7 -9 -9 -9 -999 361111005 Ulster Belleayre 3 81.3 -9 -9 -9 -999 500070007 Chittenden Underhill 3 77 -9 -9 -9 -999 511970002 Wythe Wythe Co. 3 79.7 -9 -9 -9 -999

### 9 Table 2 Projected 8-hr Ozone De sign Values over OTR based on 2009BOTW Emissions Inventory

AIRS-ID County Monitor #ofDV DVC DVF RRF #Days Threshold 340290006 Ocean Colliers Mills 3 106 92 0.868 20 85 90013007 Fairfield Stratford 3 98.3 90 0.919 38 85 361030009 Suffolk Holtsville 3 97 89 0.926 34 85 90093002 New Haven Madison 3 98.3 88 0.905 39 85 340070003 Camden Camden 3 98.3 88 0.898 26 85 340155001 Gloucester Clarksboro 3 98.3 88 0.898 25 85 420170012 Bucks Bristol 3 99 88 0.896 25 85 90010017 Fairfield Greenwich 3 95.7 87 0.913 30 85 340071001 Camden Ancora St. Hos 3 100.7 87 0.872 27 85 421010024 Philadelphia Northeast (Air 3 96.7 87 0.901 23 85 340210005 Mercer Rider Univ. 3 97 86 0.889 23 85 510130020 Arlington Arlington Co. 3 96.7 86 0.895 24 85 510590018 Fairfax Fairfax Co. - 3 96.7 86 0.891 20 85 90011123 Fairfield Danbury 3 95.7 85 0.897 18 85 90019003 Fairfield Westport 3 94 85 0.909 37 85 90099005 New Haven Hamden 3 93.3 85 0.912 25 85 240251001 Harford Edgewood 3 100.3 85 0.852 41 85 340030005 Bergen Teaneck 3 91.7 85 0.928 18 85 361030002 Suffolk Babylon 3 93.7 85 0.917 22 85 361192004 Westchester White Plains 3 91.3 85 0.935 22 85 90070007 Middlesex Middletown 3 95.7 84 0.888 21 85 240030014 Anne Arundel Davidsonville 3 98 84 0.858 30 85 240030019 Anne Arundel Ft. Meade 3 97 84 0.869 30 85 340250005 Monmouth Monmouth Univ. 3 95.7 84 0.88 45 85 340273001 Morris Chester 3 95.3 84 0.882 13 85 360290002 Erie Amherst 3 95.7 84 0.884 11 78 360850067 Richmond Susan Wagner 3 93 84 0.904 42 85 510590030 Fairfax Fairfax Co. - 3 95 84 0.886 21 85 340190001 Hunterdon Flemington 3 95.3 83 0.877 15 85 340230011 Middlesex Rutgers Univ. 3 96 83 0.874 22 85 510591005 Fairfax Fairfax Co. - 1 94 83 0.886 21 85 110010043 DC McMillan Reser 3 92.7 82 0.888 22 85 240259001 Harford Aldino 3 97 82 0.846 35 85 250092006 Essex LYNN 3 90 82 0.916 16 85 250213003 Norfolk MILTON 1 91 82 0.911 13 85 420290050 Chester West Chester 1 95 82 0.868 12 85 421010014 Philadelphia Northwest (Rox 3 90.7 82 0.911 20 85 516500004 Hampton City Hampton 3 88.3 82 0.939 36 85 518000004 Suffolk City Suffolk - TCC 3 87 82 0.952 26 85 100031010 New Castle Brandywine 3 92.7 81 0.875 19 85 240150003 Cecil Fair Hill 3 97.7 81 0.831 18 85 240330002 Prince Georges Greenbelt 2 94 81 0.872 28 85

### 10 240338003 Prince Georges PG Coun.Eques. 1 94 81 0.868 28 85 340110007 Cumberland Millville 3 95.7 81 0.847 16 85 360130006 Chautauqua Dunkirk 3 93 81 0.876 20 85 360631006 Niagara Middleport 3 91.7 81 0.893 15 85 360790005 Putnam Mt. Ninham 3 91.3 81 0.895 14 85 420030010 Allegheny Pittsburgh (Ca 3 90.7 81 0.898 16 85 420070002 Beaver Hookstown 3 91.3 81 0.889 10 82 420450002 Delaware Chester 3 91.7 81 0.885 23 85 420910013 Montgomery Norristown 3 92.3 81 0.883 21 85 440090007 Washington EPA Lab 3 93.3 81 0.876 33 85 510850003 Hanover Hanover Co. 2 92 81 0.885 11 85 90131001 Tolland Stafford 3 92.3 80 0.867 11 85 240053001 Baltimore Essex 3 91.3 80 0.879 48 85 250010002 Barnstable TRURO 3 92 80 0.877 23 85 250130008 Hampden CHICOPEE 3 92 80 0.872 10 83 250250041 Suffolk BOSTON (Long I 3 88.7 80 0.909 21 85 360270007 Dutchess Millbrook 3 92 80 0.879 12 80 420030008 Allegheny Lawrenceville 3 89.3 80 0.898 16 85 420030067 Allegheny South Fayette 3 89.3 80 0.897 13 85 440030002 Kent Alton Jones 3 93.3 80 0.862 17 85 510360002 Charles City Charles City C 3 89.3 80 0.899 14 85 515100009 Alexandria Cit Alexandria 3 90 80 0.891 20 85 90110008 New London Groton 3 90 79 0.879 38 85 100031007 New Castle Lums Pond 2 94.5 79 0.843 18 85 110010025 DC Takoma Park 3 88.7 79 0.894 24 85 110010041 DC River Terrace 3 89 79 0.888 22 85 230090102 Hancock ANP Cadillac M 3 91.7 79 0.869 10 82 240290002 Kent Millington 3 95.3 79 0.838 17 85 250051002 Bristol FAIRHAVEN 3 91 79 0.878 23 85 360450002 Jefferson Perch River 3 91.3 79 0.876 10 81 420290100 Chester New Garden (Ai 3 94.7 79 0.835 19 85 100010002 Kent Killens Pond 3 88.3 78 0.891 25 85 100031013 New Castle Bellefonte 3 90.3 78 0.873 21 85 360050083 Bronx Botanical Gard 3 83.7 78 0.939 20 85 420031005 Allegheny Harrison Twp 3 91.3 78 0.862 14 85 420070005 Beaver Brighton Twp 3 89.7 78 0.874 12 82 420490003 Erie Erie 3 89 78 0.879 23 85 420770004 Lehigh Allentown 3 90.7 78 0.867 11 84 420950025 Northampton Freemansburg 3 90 78 0.87 11 85 510870014 Henrico Henrico Co. 3 88.3 78 0.892 15 85 511071005 Loudon Loudoun Co. 3 90 78 0.87 15 85 90031003 Hartford E. Hartford 3 88 77 0.876 16 85 90050005 Litchfield Cornwall 1 89 77 0.87 11 84 100051003 Sussex Lewes 3 87 77 0.893 26 85 230312002 York Kennebunkport 3 88.3 77 0.875 19 85 240051007 Baltimore Padonia 3 88.7 77 0.872 26 85 340010005 Atlantic Nacote Creek 3 89 77 0.874 27 85 340170006 Hudson Bayonne 3 84.7 77 0.911 22 85

### 11 340315001 Passaic Ramapo 3 86.7 77 0.898 19 85 420050001 Armstrong Kittanning 3 90.7 77 0.854 11 84 420850100 Mercer Farrell 3 91.3 77 0.85 10 82 421290008 Westmoreland Greensburg 3 88 77 0.878 18 85 440071010 Providence Francis School 3 89.7 77 0.868 17 85 510595001 Fairfax Fairfax Co. - 3 88 77 0.885 21 85 240313001 Montgomery Rockville 3 86.7 76 0.883 26 85 360130011 Chautauqua Westfield 3 87 76 0.879 12 85 420550001 Franklin Methodist Hill 3 90.7 76 0.841 11 77 420710007 Lancaster Lancaster 3 90.7 76 0.843 17 85 420958000 Northampton Easton 3 88 76 0.869 12 85 100051002 Sussex Seaford 3 90 75 0.843 10 80 240130001 Carroll South Carroll 3 88.7 75 0.847 12 85 240170010 Charles S Maryland 3 93 75 0.816 17 85 250094004 Essex NEWBURY 3 86 75 0.882 27 85 250154002 Hampshire WARE 3 86.3 75 0.873 10 81 420110009 Berks Reading 3 88.7 75 0.855 10 85 421010136 Philadelphia Southwest (Elm 3 83 75 0.905 23 85 421250005 Washington Charleroi 3 86.3 75 0.879 15 85 421330008 York York 3 89 75 0.853 17 85 510410004 Chesterfield Chesterfield C 3 84.7 75 0.892 10 85 510590005 Fairfax Fairfax Co. - 3 87 75 0.869 18 85 511790001 Stafford Stafford Co. 3 86 75 0.876 36 85 230313002 York Kittery 3 85.3 74 0.869 16 85 250171102 Middlesex STOW 3 85.7 74 0.87 10 80 330111010 Hillsborough Nashua 2 86 74 0.867 10 75 360551004 Monroe Rochester 3 83.7 74 0.895 18 85 360810124 Queens Queens College 2 83 74 0.894 26 85 361030004 Suffolk Riverhead 3 83 74 0.901 36 85 361173001 Wayne Williamson 3 84 74 0.886 18 85 420590002 Greene Holbrook 3 87.7 74 0.855 10 85 421255001 Washington Florence 3 85.7 74 0.867 10 83 511530009 Prince William Prince William 3 85 74 0.873 12 83 230052003 Cumberland Cape Elizabeth 3 84.3 73 0.873 18 85 240210037 Frederick Frederick Airp 3 87.3 73 0.846 11 85 250034002 Berkshire A DAMS 3 83.3 73 0.877 9 70 330115001 Hillsborough Peterborough 1 84 73 0.873 10 73 360010012 Albany Loudonville 3 83 73 0.89 8 70 360671015 Onondoga East Syracuse 3 82.3 73 0.889 8 70 360715001 Orange Valley Central 3 84.7 73 0.868 10 76 360910004 Saratoga Stillwater 3 84.7 73 0.869 6 70 420070014 Beaver Beaver Falls 3 85 73 0.866 10 83 420431100 Dauphin Hershey 3 86.7 73 0.845 16 85 421250200 Washington Washington 3 85.3 73 0.858 11 85 230090103 Hancock ANP McFarland 3 83.7 72 0.871 10 82 230130004 Knox Port Clyde 3 83.7 72 0.871 13 85 240430009 Washington Hagerstown 3 85.3 72 0.845 10 84 250130003 Hampden A GAWAM 1 83 72 0.873 10 83

### 12 250270015 Worcester WORCESTER 3 84 72 0.863 10 79 330150012 Rockingham Rye 2 83.5 72 0.869 16 85 421174000 Tioga Tioga County ( 3 85 72 0.856 5 70 421290006 Wetsmoreland Murrysville 3 82 72 0.887 20 85 511611004 Roanoke Roanoke Co. 3 83.7 72 0.872 11 76 518000005 Suffolk City Suffolk - Holl 3 82.3 72 0.876 10 76 420010002 Adams Biglerville (P 3 85 71 0.837 10 80 420110001 Berks Kutztown 2 84.5 71 0.852 10 85 420210011 Cambria Johnstown 3 85 71 0.841 10 85 420274000 Centre Penn Nursery ( 3 84.7 71 0.843 11 74 420334000 Clearfield Moshannon (PSU 3 87.3 71 0.824 11 76 420430401 Dauphin Harrisburg 3 85 71 0.841 15 85 510690010 Frederick Frederick Co. 3 82.7 71 0.869 11 81 511130003 Madison Madison Co. - 3 84.7 71 0.844 11 71 420270100 Centre State College 3 84.3 70 0.833 10 76 420690101 Lacakawana Peckville 3 83.3 70 0.849 10 75 420791101 Luzerene Wilkes-Barre 3 83.7 70 0.838 10 76 420990301 Perry Perry County 3 83.3 70 0.841 10 77 500030004 Bennington Bennington 3 79.7 70 0.883 8 70 360650004 Oneida Camden 3 79.7 69 0.867 10 70 420130801 Blair Altoona 3 83.3 69 0.835 10 80 420692006 Lacakawana Scranton 3 82 69 0.849 10 75 420810100 Lycoming Montoursville 1 82 69 0.845 11 75 510330001 Caroline Caroline Co. 3 82.3 69 0.85 10 84 330150013 Rockingham 999 1 80 68 0.858 10 73 420791100 Luzerene Nanticoke 3 81.7 68 0.839 10 76 230112005 Kennebec Gardiner Pray 3 78 67 0.869 10 71 330173002 Strafford Rochester 2 78.5 67 0.86 11 71 510610002 Fauqier Fauquier Co. 3 79.3 67 0.85 11 73 511390004 Page Page Co. 3 79.7 67 0.842 12 72 250250042 Suffolk BOSTON (Harris 3 73 66 0.908 16 85 420730015 Lawrence New Castle 3 78.3 66 0.848 10 83 230090301 Hancock Castine 1 75 65 0.879 10 79 250150103 Hampshire A MHERST 3 74.7 65 0.874 10 76 420814000 Lycoming Tiadaghton (PS 3 78.7 65 0.832 10 72 511630003 Rockbridge Rockbridge Co. 3 76.7 65 0.855 8 70 230310038 York West Buxton 1 75 64 0.86 9 70 330050007 Cheshire Keene 3 74.3 64 0.865 10 72 360430005 Herkimer Nick's Lake 3 74 64 0.873 6 70 421010004 Philadelphia Frankford (Lab 3 71.3 64 0.906 25 85 250090005 Essex LAWRENCE 1 70 61 0.88 10 82 330150015 Rockingham Portsmouth 1 68 59 0.869 16 85 CC0040002 999 Roosevelt-Camp 3 58.3 51 0.888 10 75 230038001 Aroostook Ashland135 3 64 -9 -9 -9 -999 230173001 Oxford North Lovell 3 60.7 -9 -9 -9 -999 230194007 Penobscot Howland 3 66.7 -9 -9 -9 -999 230194008 Penobscot Holden Rider B 2 79 -9 -9 -9 -999 330012004 Belknap Laconia 2 76.5 -9 -9 -9 -999

### 13 330031002 Carroll Conway 1 67 -9 -9 -9 -999 330090008 Grafton Haverhill 3 70.3 -9 -9 -9 -999 330130007 Merrimack Concord 3 74.7 -9 -9 -9 -999 330190003 Sullivan Claremont 3 74.3 -9 -9 -9 -999 360150003 Chemung Elmira 3 80.3 -9 -9 -9 -999 360310002 Essex Whiteface Summ 3 88.3 -9 -9 -9 -999 360310003 Essex Whiteface Base 3 84.3 -9 -9 -9 -999 360410005 Hamilton Piseco Lake 3 78.7 -9 -9 -9 -999 360530006 Madison Camp Georgetow 3 79.7 -9 -9 -9 -999 361111005 Ulster Belleayre 3 81.3 -9 -9 -9 -999 500070007 Chittenden Underhill 3 77 -9 -9 -9 -999 511970002 Wythe Wythe Co. 3 79.7 -9 -9 -9 -999

### 14 Table 3 Projected 8-hr Ozone De sign Values over OTR based on 2012BOTW Emissions Inventory

AIRS-ID County Monitor #ofDV DVC DVF RRF #Days Threshold 340290006 Ocean Colliers Mills 3 106 87 0.828 20 85 90013007 Fairfield Stratford 3 98.3 86 0.885 38 85 361030009 Suffolk Holtsville 3 97 86 0.896 34 85 340155001 Gloucester Clarksboro 3 98.3 85 0.865 25 85 420170012 Bucks Bristol 3 99 85 0.859 25 85 90010017 Fairfield Greenwich 3 95.7 84 0.882 30 85 90093002 New Haven Madison 3 98.3 84 0.859 39 85 340070003 Camden Camden 3 98.3 84 0.862 26 85 421010024 Philadelphia Northeast (Air 3 96.7 84 0.87 23 85 510130020 Arlington Arlington Co. 3 96.7 84 0.875 24 85 510590018 Fairfax Fairfax Co. - 3 96.7 84 0.87 20 85 340071001 Camden Ancora St. Hos 3 100.7 83 0.827 27 85 361030002 Suffolk Babylon 3 93.7 83 0.892 22 85 361192004 Westchester White Plains 3 91.3 83 0.912 22 85 90011123 Fairfield Danbury 3 95.7 82 0.86 18 85 90019003 Fairfield Westport 3 94 82 0.875 37 85 90099005 New Haven Hamden 3 93.3 82 0.881 25 85 240251001 Harford Edgewood 3 100.3 82 0.821 41 85 340030005 Bergen Teaneck 3 91.7 82 0.901 18 85 340210005 Mercer Rider Univ. 3 97 82 0.855 23 85 360290002 Erie Amherst 3 95.7 82 0.866 11 78 510590030 Fairfax Fairfax Co. - 3 95 82 0.871 21 85 516500004 Hampton City Hampton 3 88.3 82 0.93 36 85 240030019 Anne Arundel Ft. Meade 3 97 81 0.838 30 85 360850067 Richmond Susan Wagner 3 93 81 0.875 42 85 510591005 Fairfax Fairfax Co. - 1 94 81 0.871 21 85 518000004 Suffolk City Suffolk - TCC 3 87 81 0.942 26 85 90070007 Middlesex Middletown 3 95.7 80 0.846 21 85 240030014 Anne Arundel Davidsonville 3 98 80 0.822 30 85 340230011 Middlesex Rutgers Univ. 3 96 80 0.837 22 85 340250005 Monmouth Monmouth Univ. 3 95.7 80 0.844 45 85 340273001 Morris Chester 3 95.3 80 0.84 13 85 360631006 Niagara Middleport 3 91.7 80 0.882 15 85 110010043 DC McMillan Reser 3 92.7 79 0.862 22 85 240330002 Prince Georges Greenbelt 2 94 79 0.842 28 85 250092006 Essex LYNN 3 90 79 0.883 16 85 250213003 Norfolk MILTON 1 91 79 0.878 13 85 340190001 Hunterdon Flemington 3 95.3 79 0.837 15 85 360130006 Chautauqua Dunkirk 3 93 79 0.854 20 85 420030010 Allegheny Pittsburgh (Ca 3 90.7 79 0.874 16 85 421010014 Philadelphia Northwest (Rox 3 90.7 79 0.882 20 85 510850003 Hanover Hanover Co. 2 92 79 0.864 11 85 100031010 New Castle Brandywine 3 92.7 78 0.842 19 85 240259001 Harford Aldino 3 97 78 0.81 35 85

### 15 240338003 Prince Georges PG Coun.Eques. 1 94 78 0.834 28 85 360450002 Jefferson Perch River 3 91.3 78 0.862 10 81 420030008 Allegheny Lawrenceville 3 89.3 78 0.874 16 85 420290050 Chester West Chester 1 95 78 0.829 12 85 420450002 Delaware Chester 3 91.7 78 0.855 23 85 420910013 Montgomery Norristown 3 92.3 78 0.853 21 85 515100009 Alexandria Cit Alexandria 3 90 78 0.87 20 85 110010025 DC Takoma Park 3 88.7 77 0.874 24 85 240053001 Baltimore Essex 3 91.3 77 0.854 48 85 240150003 Cecil Fair Hill 3 97.7 77 0.794 18 85 250250041 Suffolk BOSTON (Long I 3 88.7 77 0.876 21 85 340110007 Cumberland Millville 3 95.7 77 0.805 16 85 360270007 Dutchess Millbrook 3 92 77 0.838 12 80 360790005 Putnam Mt. Ninham 3 91.3 77 0.851 14 85 420030067 Allegheny South Fayette 3 89.3 77 0.867 13 85 440090007 Washington EPA Lab 3 93.3 77 0.833 33 85 510360002 Charles City Charles City C 3 89.3 77 0.869 14 85 511071005 Loudon Loudoun Co. 3 90 77 0.856 15 85 100031007 New Castle Lums Pond 2 94.5 76 0.805 18 85 110010041 DC River Terrace 3 89 76 0.862 22 85 240290002 Kent Millington 3 95.3 76 0.802 17 85 250010002 Barnstable TRURO 3 92 76 0.829 23 85 250051002 Bristol FAIRHAVEN 3 91 76 0.838 23 85 340170006 Hudson Bayonne 3 84.7 76 0.902 22 85 360050083 Bronx Botanical Gard 3 83.7 76 0.917 20 85 420490003 Erie Erie 3 89 76 0.861 23 85 420850100 Mercer Farrell 3 91.3 76 0.842 10 82 440030002 Kent Alton Jones 3 93.3 76 0.815 17 85 510595001 Fairfax Fairfax Co. - 3 88 76 0.871 21 85 510870014 Henrico Henrico Co. 3 88.3 76 0.872 15 85 90110008 New London Groton 3 90 75 0.837 38 85 90131001 Tolland Stafford 3 92.3 75 0.821 11 85 100010002 Kent Killens Pond 3 88.3 75 0.86 25 85 100031013 New Castle Bellefonte 3 90.3 75 0.84 21 85 230090102 Hancock ANP Cadillac M 3 91.7 75 0.823 10 82 250130008 Hampden CHICOPEE 3 92 75 0.826 10 83 420031005 Allegheny Harrison Twp 3 91.3 75 0.83 14 85 420070002 Beaver Hookstown 3 91.3 75 0.827 10 82 420290100 Chester New Garden (Ai 3 94.7 75 0.797 19 85 420770004 Lehigh Allentown 3 90.7 75 0.828 11 84 100051003 Sussex Lewes 3 87 74 0.862 26 85 240051007 Baltimore Padonia 3 88.7 74 0.838 26 85 240313001 Montgomery Rockville 3 86.7 74 0.862 26 85 340010005 Atlantic Nacote Creek 3 89 74 0.837 27 85 340315001 Passaic Ramapo 3 86.7 74 0.862 19 85 360130011 Chautauqua Westfield 3 87 74 0.859 12 85 420050001 Armstrong Kittanning 3 90.7 74 0.817 11 84 420070005 Beaver Brighton Twp 3 89.7 74 0.835 12 82

### 16 420950025 Northampton Freemansburg 3 90 74 0.829 11 85 421290008 Westmoreland Greensburg 3 88 74 0.845 18 85 440071010 Providence Francis School 3 89.7 74 0.825 17 85 510590005 Fairfax Fairfax Co. - 3 87 74 0.854 18 85 511790001 Stafford Stafford Co. 3 86 74 0.869 36 85 90031003 Hartford E. Hartford 3 88 73 0.833 16 85 90050005 Litchfield Cornwall 1 89 73 0.826 11 84 100051002 Sussex Seaford 3 90 73 0.814 10 80 230312002 York Kennebunkport 3 88.3 73 0.827 19 85 420550001 Franklin Methodist Hill 3 90.7 73 0.81 11 77 420710007 Lancaster Lancaster 3 90.7 73 0.809 17 85 421250005 Washington Charleroi 3 86.3 73 0.853 15 85 421330008 York York 3 89 73 0.821 17 85 510410004 Chesterfield Chesterfield C 3 84.7 73 0.862 10 85 240170010 Charles S Maryland 3 93 72 0.784 17 85 250094004 Essex NEWBURY 3 86 72 0.838 27 85 360551004 Monroe Rochester 3 83.7 72 0.872 18 85 360810124 Queens Queens College 2 83 72 0.87 26 85 361173001 Wayne Williamson 3 84 72 0.859 18 85 420110009 Berks Reading 3 88.7 72 0.821 10 85 420590002 Greene Holbrook 3 87.7 72 0.823 10 85 420958000 Northampton Easton 3 88 72 0.826 12 85 421010136 Philadelphia Southwest (Elm 3 83 72 0.872 23 85 511530009 Prince William Prince William 3 85 72 0.857 12 83 511611004 Roanoke Roanoke Co. 3 83.7 72 0.867 11 76 240130001 Carroll South Carroll 3 88.7 71 0.811 12 85 250154002 Hampshire WARE 3 86.3 71 0.828 10 81 360010012 Albany Loudonville 3 83 71 0.863 8 70 360671015 Onondoga East Syracuse 3 82.3 71 0.866 8 70 230313002 York Kittery 3 85.3 70 0.822 16 85 240210037 Frederick Frederick Airp 3 87.3 70 0.812 11 85 250034002 Berkshire A DAMS 3 83.3 70 0.842 9 70 250171102 Middlesex STOW 3 85.7 70 0.826 10 80 330111010 Hillsborough Nashua 2 86 70 0.821 10 75 360910004 Saratoga Stillwater 3 84.7 70 0.834 6 70 361030004 Suffolk Riverhead 3 83 70 0.852 36 85 420070014 Beaver Beaver Falls 3 85 70 0.832 10 83 421174000 Tioga Tioga County ( 3 85 70 0.831 5 70 421290006 Wetsmoreland Murrysville 3 82 70 0.861 20 85 510690010 Frederick Frederick Co. 3 82.7 70 0.852 11 81 511130003 Madison Madison Co. - 3 84.7 70 0.834 11 71 230052003 Cumberland Cape Elizabeth 3 84.3 69 0.825 18 85 240430009 Washington Hagerstown 3 85.3 69 0.812 10 84 330115001 Hillsborough Peterborough 1 84 69 0.83 10 73 360715001 Orange Valley Central 3 84.7 69 0.826 10 76 420010002 Adams Biglerville (P 3 85 69 0.814 10 80 420110001 Berks Kutztown 2 84.5 69 0.818 10 85 420210011 Cambria Johnstown 3 85 69 0.814 10 85

### 17 420334000 Clearfield Moshannon (PSU 3 87.3 69 0.795 11 76 420431100 Dauphin Hershey 3 86.7 69 0.806 16 85 421250200 Washington Washington 3 85.3 69 0.82 11 85 421255001 Washington Florence 3 85.7 69 0.808 10 83 510330001 Caroline Caroline Co. 3 82.3 69 0.843 10 84 518000005 Suffolk City Suffolk - Holl 3 82.3 69 0.85 10 76 230090103 Hancock ANP McFarland 3 83.7 68 0.824 10 82 230130004 Knox Port Clyde 3 83.7 68 0.824 13 85 250130003 Hampden A GAWAM 1 83 68 0.829 10 83 250270015 Worcester WORCESTER 3 84 68 0.816 10 79 330150012 Rockingham Rye 2 83.5 68 0.822 16 85 360650004 Oneida Camden 3 79.7 68 0.858 10 70 420274000 Centre Penn Nursery ( 3 84.7 68 0.814 11 74 420430401 Dauphin Harrisburg 3 85 68 0.801 15 85 420130801 Blair Altoona 3 83.3 67 0.813 10 80 420270100 Centre State College 3 84.3 67 0.804 10 76 420690101 Lacakawana Peckville 3 83.3 67 0.815 10 75 420791101 Luzerene Wilkes-Barre 3 83.7 67 0.805 10 76 420990301 Perry Perry County 3 83.3 67 0.808 10 77 500030004 Bennington Bennington 3 79.7 67 0.847 8 70 420692006 Lacakawana Scranton 3 82 66 0.815 10 75 420810100 Lycoming Montoursville 1 82 66 0.812 11 75 510610002 Fauqier Fauquier Co. 3 79.3 66 0.839 11 73 511390004 Page Page Co. 3 79.7 66 0.83 12 72 420791100 Luzerene Nanticoke 3 81.7 65 0.806 10 76 230112005 Kennebec Gardiner Pray 3 78 64 0.822 10 71 330150013 Rockingham 999 1 80 64 0.806 10 73 360430005 Herkimer Nick's Lake 3 74 64 0.871 6 70 420730015 Lawrence New Castle 3 78.3 64 0.82 10 83 511630003 Rockbridge Rockbridge Co. 3 76.7 64 0.842 8 70 250250042 Suffolk BOSTON (Harris 3 73 63 0.874 16 85 330173002 Strafford Rochester 2 78.5 63 0.812 11 71 420814000 Lycoming Tiadaghton (PS 3 78.7 63 0.804 10 72 230090301 Hancock Castine 1 75 62 0.832 10 79 250150103 Hampshire A MHERST 3 74.7 62 0.833 10 76 421010004 Philadelphia Frankford (Lab 3 71.3 62 0.872 25 85 330050007 Cheshire Keene 3 74.3 61 0.821 10 72 230310038 York West Buxton 1 75 60 0.809 9 70 250090005 Essex LAWRENCE 1 70 58 0.833 10 82 330150015 Rockingham Portsmouth 1 68 55 0.822 16 85 CC0040002 999 Roosevelt-Camp 3 58.3 49 0.852 10 75 230038001 Aroostook Ashland135 3 64 -9 -9 -9 -999 230173001 Oxford North Lovell 3 60.7 -9 -9 -9 -999 230194007 Penobscot Howland 3 66.7 -9 -9 -9 -999 230194008 Penobscot Holden Rider B 2 79 -9 -9 -9 -999 330012004 Belknap Laconia 2 76.5 -9 -9 -9 -999 330031002 Carroll Conway 1 67 -9 -9 -9 -999 330090008 Grafton Haverhill 3 70.3 -9 -9 -9 -999

### 18 330130007 Merrimack Concord 3 74.7 -9 -9 -9 -999 330190003 Sullivan Claremont 3 74.3 -9 -9 -9 -999 360150003 Chemung Elmira 3 80.3 -9 -9 -9 -999 360310002 Essex Whiteface Summ 3 88.3 -9 -9 -9 -999 360310003 Essex Whiteface Base 3 84.3 -9 -9 -9 -999 360410005 Hamilton Piseco Lake 3 78.7 -9 -9 -9 -999 360530006 Madison Camp Georgetow 3 79.7 -9 -9 -9 -999 361111005 Ulster Belleayre 3 81.3 -9 -9 -9 -999 500070007 Chittenden Underhill 3 77 -9 -9 -9 -999 511970002 Wythe Wythe Co. 3 79.7 -9 -9 -9 -999

### 1 

## TSD - aa

Trends in Measured 1-hr Ozon e Concentrations over the OTR modeling domain

Bureau of Air Quality Analysis and Research

Division of Air Resources New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Albany, NY 12233

### 2 

## Ozone Trend Analysis

Trends in raw and meteorologically adjusted 1-hour ozone were ca lculated at several AQS monitoring sites in the Northeast. A su mmary of the analysis is provided below, and a detailed description of the met-adjustment procedure is outlined in Milanchus et al. (1998) and references contained including those related to the Kolmogorov-Zurbenko (KZ) method used in this analysis to estimate trends.

Data

Ozone time series were obtaine d at many monitoring sites in the Northeastern United States. From these data, log of daily ma ximum one hour ozone were calculated. In addition, several meteorological variables were obtained from National Weather service stations in the Northeast. These included surface temperature, dew point and specific humidity with dew point de pression being calculated. Da ily maximum values were calculated for each of the meteorological variable times series. The time span of data considered for both ozone and meteorologi cal variables was from 1985 to 2005. In addition, this analysis focused on the ozone season (April 15 through October 15) of each
year.

Summary of Trend analysis

In calculating raw ozone trends, a KZ365,3 filter was applied to the log of daily maximum ozone time series to obtain the l ong-term trend component. A linear regression is then performed to get the trend estimate.

For the met-adjusted trends, the time series of ozone and meteorological variables must first be separated into the ba seline and short-term time scales. A KZ15,5 was used for this separation. The effects of meteorology ar e then removed from these components independently. Applying the KZ15,5 filter to the raw data (log of daily maximum ozone and daily maximum met. variables) produces the baseline component. The short term component is then obtained by subtracting th e baseline from the raw data. For this analysis, temperature and dew point depres sion were removed from the short-term component, while temperature and specific humidity were removed from the baseline component.

Once the baseline and short-term component s are isolated a multiple least squares regression is performed on each component with the respective meteorological components. Next, the residuals from the multiple regression on the short-term are added to the residuals from the baseline to get the met-adjusted ozone time series. A KZ365,3 filter is then applied to the met-adjusted ozone to get th e long-term component of metadjusted ozone. A linear regression is then a pplied to the long-term met-adjusted ozone to get a trend estimate and 95% confidence interval . Trend values that are negative represent a decreasing trend in ozone, while positive values indicate an upward trend. In this analysis, trends were calculated for 3 different time periods; 1985 to 2005, 1990 to 2005 and 1995 to 2005. Only trends that were signif icant at the 95% confidence level were

### 3 reported. Tables 1to 3 list the raw and met- adjusted trends for each of these time periods over the OTR. The total number of ozone monitors varied in these time periods, as there were often changes in the location of the monitor due to operational logistics. Figures 1a and 1b provide a graphical repres entation of the trends for the 1990 to 2005 time period.

Results

Trends in both raw and meteorologically adju sted ozone are found to vary substantially over different time periods and from location to location. Trends were calculated for all ozone monitors located within the modeling domain, although the following discussion is focused on the New York CMSA, and that sim ilar analysis could be performed for other areas of the OTR. In general, there is a d ecreasing trend in raw ozone over the New York, New Jersey and Connecticut area for all the ti me periods considered. Monitors in New York tend to show more decreasing trends wh en consideration is gi ven to the longer time period of 1985 to 2005, and less for the shorter period of 1995 to 2005. Only one monitor in New Jersey continues to show an increasing trend in raw ozone levels irrespective of the 3 time periods , while Connecticut has th e highest number of monitors that display an increasing trend pa rticularly for the 1990 to 2005 period.

When meteorologically adjusted ozone is cons idered, the general tr end over the tri-state area is one of decreasing ozone. The major ity of New York monitors show decreasing trends in met-adjusted ozone with the most being in the 1985 to 2005 and 1995 to 2005 time periods and the least during the 1990 to 2005 time period. As with raw ozone concentrations, New Jersey has only one m onitor showing an upward trend and only for the 1990 to 2005 time period. Monitors in Conn ecticut show a general downward trend in met-adjusted ozone with the majority of these occurring in the 1985 to 2005 time period and the least in the 1990 to 2005 period. Although we see a fairly consistent decrease in both raw and meteorologically adjusted ozone, it is not uncommon to see trends of different magnitude or even trend di rections in nearby monitors that is probably a reflection of differences in emissi ons and titration effects on ozone.

Reference :

Milanchus et al., (1998) “Evaluat ing the effectiveness of ozone management efforts in the presence of meteorological variability”, JA&WMA, 48, 201-215.4Table 1 Raw and Met-adjusted trendsin 1-hr ozone concentrations over the OTR for 1985-2005 ozone seasonsSTATE AIRS ID STATION LOCATION RAW TRENDSMET-ADJUSTEDTRENDSSlope95%CI Slope 95% CI(%/yr) (%/yr)CT 90010017 GREENWICH GREENWICH POINT PARK -0.118 0.015 -0.234 0.017CT 90011123 DANBURY TRAILER,W. CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY 0.041 0.019 -0.083 0.021CT 90013007 STRATFORD USCG LIGHTHOUSE , PROSPECT STREET -0.558 0.017 -0.823 0.019CT 90031003 E. HARTFORD MCAULIFFEE PARK 0.395 0.019 0.422 0.014CT 90070007 MIDDLETOWN CONN. VALLEY HOSP., SHEW HALL, EASTERN D -0.097 0.014 -0.197 0.011CT 90093002 MADISON HAMMONASSET STATE PARK 0.056 0.015CT 90110008 GROTON UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT, AVERY POINT -0.758 0.015 -0.807 0.019CT 90131001 STAFFORD ROUTE 190, SHENIPSITSTATE FOREST -0.176 0.015 -0.218 0.013DC 110010025 NOT IN A CITY TAKOMA SC. PINEY BRANCH RD & DAHLIA ST N -0.464 0.022 -0.191 0.015ME 230052003CAPEELIZABETH TWO LIGHTS STATE PARK -0.943 0.014 -0.847 0.013ME 230312002 NOT IN A CITY OCEAN AVE/PARSONSWAY, KENNEBUNKPORT -0.794 0.016 -0.712 0.013MD 240030014 NOT IN A CITY QUEEN ANNE AND WAYSON ROADS -0.904 0.024 -0.698 0.019MD 240051007 COCKEYSVILLE GREENSIDE DRIVECOCKEYSVILLE MD -0.596 0.015 -0.326 0.010MD 240053001 ESSEX WOODWARD & DORSEY RDS,ESSEX MD -0.493 0.014 -0.221 0.012MD 240130001 NOT IN A CITY 1300 W. OLD LIBERTYROAD, WINFIELD,MD -0.841 0.014 -0.566 0.010MD 240170010 NOT IN A CITY SOMD CORRECTIONAL CAMP, HUGHESVILLE -0.780 0.020 -0.557 0.015MD 240251001 EDGEWOOD EDGEWOOD ARMY CHEMCENTER EDGEWOOD -0.537 0.016 -0.296 0.016MD 240313001 ROCKVILLE LOTHROP E SMITH ENV.EDCENTER ROCKVILLE -0.604 0.022 -0.441 0.018MA 250010002 TRURO FOX BOTTOM AREA-CAPE COD NAT'L SEA SHR 0.029 0.018 -0.312 0.020MA 250051002 FAIRHAVEN LEROY WOOD SCHOOL -0.186 0.019 -0.301 0.020MA 250130008 CHICOPEE ANDERSON ROAD AIR FORCE BASE -0.201 0.019 -0.072 0.0165MA 250154002 WARE QUABBIN SUMMIT -0.520 0.015 -0.576 0.014NH 330050007 KEENE RAILROAD STREET -0.140 0.036 -0.360 0.005NH 330190003 CLAREMONT SOUTH STREET 0.390 0.068 0.210 0.037NJ 340010005 NOT IN A CITY BRIGANTINE WILDLIFEREFUGE,NACOTE CREEK -0.999 0.020 -0.914 0.020NJ 340070003 NOT IN A CITY COPEWOOD E. DAVIS STS; TRAILER -0.692 0.021 -0.729 0.020NJ 340071001 NOT IN A CITY ANCORA STATEHOSPITAL, ANCORA -0.838 0.014 -0.752 0.016NJ 340110007 NOT IN A CITY LINCOLN AVE.&HIGHWAY 55,NE OF MILLVILLE -0.767 0.014 -0.551 0.015NJ 340150002 NOT IN A CITY CLARKSBORO,SHADY LANE REST HOME -0.686 0.011 -0.580 0.012NJ 340170006 BAYONNE VETERANS PARK ONNEWARK BAY -0.988 0.014 -0.784 0.015NJ 340190001 FLEMINGTON RARITAN STP,RTE.613S, THREE BRIDGES -0.326 0.013 -0.118 0.016NJ 340210005 NOT IN A CITY RIDER COLLEGE;LAWRENCE TOWNSHIP -0.825 0.014 -0.753 0.012NJ 340273001 NOT IN A CITY BLDG.#1, BELL LABS, OFF ROUTE 513 -0.823 0.015 -0.645 0.017NY 360010012 ALBANY LOUDONVILLE RESERVOIR 0.169 0.010NY 360150003 ELMIRA SULLIVAN ST., WATER TR. PL. -0.056 0.017 0.036 0.016NY 360290002 AMHERST AUDUBON GOLF COURSE, MAPLE ROAD 0.066 0.027 0.334 0.027NY 360310002 NOT IN A CITY SUMMIT,WHITEFACEMTN,WEATHER STATION -0.319 0.012 -0.376 0.027NY 360310003 NOT IN A CITY BASE WHITEFACEMTN,ASRC,SUNY -0.528 0.026 -0.441 0.025NY 360450002 NOT IN A CITY VADAI ROAD, PERCHRIVER, BROWNVILLE -0.147 0.024 -0.255 0.024NY 360631006 NOT IN A CITY MIDDLEPORT STP,NORTH HARTLAND RD -0.317 0.017 -0.059 0.017NY 360850067 NEW YORK CITY SUSAN WAGNER HS, , -0.643 0.018 -0.399 0.022NY 360930003 SCHENECTADY MT.PLEASANT HS, -0.123 0.016 0.016 0.011NY 361030002 BABYLON EAST FARMINGDALE WATER DIST.,GAZZA BLVD. -0.315 0.018 -0.678 0.014NY 361030004 RIVERHEAD 39 SOUND AVENUE,RIVERHEAD -0.163 0.051 -0.089 0.038NY 361173001 NOT IN A CITY WAYNE EDUCATIONALCENTER, WILLIAMSON -0.929 0.020 -0.618 0.016NY 361192004 WHITE PLAINS WHITE PLAINS PUMP STATION,ORCHARD STREET-0.424 0.018 -0.330 0.018PA 420030008 PITTSBURGH BAPC301 39TH STREET BLDG #7 0.148 0.034 0.678 0.031PA 420030067 NOT IN A CITY OLD OAKDALE ROADSOUTH FAYETTE 0.879 0.037 1.204 0.035PA 420070014 BEAVER FALLS EIGHT STREET AND RIVER ALLEY -0.251 0.016 0.121 0.015PA 420110009 READING UGI CO MONGANTOWN RD AND PROSPECT ST-0.304 0.016 -0.269 0.0146PA 420130801 ALTOONA 2ND AVE & 7TH ST -0.207 0.016 0.141 0.014PA 420170012 BRISTOL (BORO) ROCKVIEWLANE -0.609 0.012 -0.522 0.015PA 420210011 NOT IN A CITY MILLER AUTO SHOP 1 MESSENGER ST -0.020 0.018 0.327 0.017PA 420430401 HARRISBURG 1833 UPS DRIVE HARRISBURG PA -0.188 0.017 -0.130 0.013PA 420431100 HERSHEY SIPE AVE & MAE STREET -0.297 0.017 -0.279 0.014PA 420450002 CHESTER FRONT ST & NORRIS ST -0.585 0.014 -0.379 0.015PA 420692006 SCRANTON GEORGE ST TROOP AND CITY OF SCRANTON -0.163 0.017 -0.218 0.017PA 420710007LANCASTERCITYABRAHAM LINCOLN JR HIGH GROFFTOWN RD 0.178 0.020 0.265 0.019PA 420730015 NEW CASTLE CROTON ST &JEFFERSON ST. -0.091 0.014 0.112 0.014PA 420770004 ALLENTOWN STATE HOSPITAL REAR1600 HANOVER AVE -0.054 0.017 -0.056 0.018PA 420791100 NANTICOKE 255 LOWER BROADWAY -0.073 0.020 -0.110 0.024PA 420791101 WILKES-BARRE CHILWICK & WASHINGTON STS 0.132 0.017 0.089 0.016PA 420850100 NOT IN A CITY PA518 (NEW CASTLE ROAD) & PA418 0.164 0.013PA 420910013 NORRISTOWN STATE ARMORY - 1046 BELVOIR RD -0.323 0.016 -0.142 0.017PA 420990301 NOT IN A CITY ROUTE 34 LITTLE BUFFALO STATE PARK -0.274 0.017 -0.052 0.016PA 421010014 PHILADELPHIA ROXY WATER PUMP STA EVA-DEARNLEY STS -0.991 0.012 -0.720 0.014PA 421010024 PHILADELPHIA GRANT-ASHTON ROADSPHILA NE AIRPORT -0.408 0.024 -0.374 0.029PA 421250005 CHARLEROI CHARLER01 WASTE TREATMENT PLANT 0.060 0.023 0.386 0.022PA 421250200 WASHINGTON MCCARRELL AND FAYETTE STS -0.273 0.017 0.094 0.017PA 421330008 YORK HILL ST. -0.071 0.016 0.060 0.018RI 440030002 NOT IN A CITY W. ALTON JONES CAMPUS URI PARKERFIELD -0.752 0.017 -0.888 0.018VA 510130020 NOT IN A CITY S 18TH AND HAYES ST -0.529 0.015 -0.195 0.011VA 510410004 NOT IN A CITY BEACH,INTERSECTION OFCO.ROADS 655 & 654 -0.555 0.020 -0.122 0.018VA 510590018 NOT IN A CITY MT.VERNON 2675 SHERWOOD HALL LANE -0.939 0.014 -0.530 0.013VA 510595001 MC LEAN LEWINSVILLE 1437 BALLS HILL RD -0.540 0.014 -0.209 0.015VA 510610002 NOT IN A CITY RT651 C PHELPS WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA-1.145 0.019 -0.741 0.016VA 510870014 NOT IN A CITY 2401 HARTMAN STREET MATH & SCIENCE CTR -0.427 0.015VA 511130003 NOT IN A CITY SHENANDOAH NP BIG MEADOWS -0.031 0.021 0.067 0.018VA 511611004 VINTON EAST VINTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -0.374 0.022 -0.180 0.019VA 515100009 ALEXANDRIA 517 N SAINT ASAPH ST,ALEXANDRIA HEALTH 0.104 0.024 0.400 0.020VA 518000004 SUFFOLK TIDEWATER COMM. COLLEGE, FREDERIC -0.287 0.024 0.072 0.0207CAMPUSTable 2 Raw and Met-adjusted trendsin 1-hr ozone concentrations over the OTR for 1990-2005 ozone seasonsSTATE AIRS ID STATION LOCATION RAW TRENDSMET-ADJUSTEDTRENDSSlope 95% CI Slope 95% CI(%/yr) (%/yr)CT 090010017 GREENWICH GREENWICH POINT PARK 0.165 0.022 0.202 0.024CT 090011123 DANBURY TRAILER, W. CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY 0.591 0.024 0.646 0.023CT 090013007 STRATFORD USCG LIGHTHOUSE ,PROSPECT STREET 0.078 0.018 -0.123 0.019CT 090031003 EAST HARTFORD MCAULIFFEE PARK 0.046 0.027 0.208 0.018CT 090070007 MIDDLETOWNCONN. VALLEY HOSP., SHEW HALL,EASTERN D 0.225 0.017 0.171 0.012CT 090093002 MADISON HAMMONASSET STATE PARK -0.203 0.022 -0.167 0.025CT 090110008 GROTON UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT, AVERY POINT -0.402 0.022 -0.295 0.026CT 090131001 STAFFORD ROUTE 190, SHENIPSIT STATE FOREST -0.114 0.019 -0.104 0.015DC 110010025 NOT IN A CITY TAKOMA SC. PINEY BRANCH RD & DAHLIA ST N -0.357 0.029 -0.088 0.021ME 230052003 CAPE ELIZABETH TWO LIGHTSSTATE PARK -0.858 0.021 -0.684 0.02ME 230312002 NOT IN A CITY OCEAN AVE/PARSONSWAY, KENNEBUNKPORT -0.874 0.015 -0.746 0.013MD 240030014 NOT IN A CITY QUEEN ANNE AND WAYSON ROADS -0.805 0.037 -0.518 0.032MD 240051007 COCKEYSVILLE GREENSIDE DRIVECOCKEYSVILLE MD -0.805 0.021 -0.416 0.013MD 240053001 ESSEX WOODWARD & DORSEYRDS ,ESSEX MD -0.396 0.020MD 240130001 NOT IN A CITY 1300 W. OLD LIBERTYROAD, WINFIELD,MD -0.940 0.019 -0.553 0.013MD 240170010 NOT IN A CITY SOMD CORRECTIONAL CAMP, HUGHESVILLE -0.644 0.029 -0.501 0.025MD 240251001 EDGEWOOD EDGEWOOD ARMY CHEM CENTER EDGEWOOD -0.555 0.020 -0.144 0.018MD 240313001 ROCKVILLE LOTHROP E SMITH ENV.EDCENTER ROCKVILLE -0.730 0.035 -0.542 0.031MA 250010002 TRURO FOX BOTTOM AREA-CAPE COD NAT'L Sea shr 0.134 0.019 0.202 0.019MA 250051002 FAIRHAVENLEROY WOOD SCHOOL0.337 0.025 0.314 0.0278MA 250130008 CHICOPEE ANDERSON ROADAIR FORCE BASE 0.252 0.023 0.473 0.018MA 250154002 WARE QUABBIN SUMMIT -0.793 0.016 -0.706 0.014NH 330050007 KEENE RAILROAD STREET -0.150 0.072 -0.180 0.065NH 330190003 CLAREMONT SOUTH STREET 0.570 0.045 0.550 0.012NJ 340010005 NOT IN A CITY BRIGANTINE WILDLIFEREFUGE,NACOTE CREEK -1.291 0.031 -1.308 0.031NJ 340070003 NOT IN A CITY COPEWOOD E. DAVIS STS; TRAILER -0.089 0.025 -0.043 0.022NJ 340071001 NOT IN A CITY ANCORA STATEHOSPITAL, ANCORA -0.720 0.017 -0.544 0.023NJ 340110007 NOT IN A CITY LINCOLN AVE.&HIGHWAY 55,NE OF MILLVILLE -0.592 0.021 -0.257 0.022NJ 340150002 NOT IN A CITY CLARKSBORO,SHADY LANE REST HOME -0.743 0.016 -0.473 0.018NJ 340170006 BAYONNE VETERANS PARK ONNEWARK BAY -1.137 0.019 -0.782 0.022NJ 340190001 FLEMINGTON RARITAN STP,RTE.613S, THREE BRIDGES -0.208 0.019 0.121 0.023NJ 340210005 NOT IN A CITY RIDER COLLEGE;LAWRENCE TOWNSHIP -1.027 0.021 -0.828 0.019NJ 340273001 NOT IN A CITY BLDG.#1, BELL LABS, OFF ROUTE 513 -0.863 0.024 -0.575 0.029NY 360010012 ALBANY LOUDONVILLE RESERVOIR -0.148 0.019 0.154 0.014NY 360150003 ELMIRA SULLIVAN ST., WATER TR. PL. 0.066 0.026NY 360290002 AMHERST AUDUBON GOLF COURSE, MAPLE ROAD 1.008 0.031 1.358 0.031NY 360310002 NOT IN A CITY SUMMIT,WHITEFACEMTN,WEATHER STATION -0.447 0.016 -0.376 0.027NY 360310003 NOT IN A CITY BASE WHITEFACEMTN,ASRC,SUNY -0.517 0.027 -0.441 0.025NY 360450002 NOT IN A CITY VADAI ROAD, PERCH RIVER, BROWNVILLE 0.626 0.027 0.533 0.029NY 360631006 NOT IN A CITY MIDDLEPORT STP, NORTH HARTLAND RD 0.213 0.020 0.529 0.019NY 360850067 NEW YORK CITY SUSANWAGNER HS -0.400 0.027NY 360930003 SCHENECTADY MT.PLEASANT HS. -0.043 0.021 0.255 0.015NY 361030002 BABYLON EAST FARMINGDALE WATER DIST.,GAZZA BLVD. -0.927 0.016 -1.101 0.016NY 361030004 RIVERHEAD 39 SOUND AVENUE,RIVERHEAD -0.170 0.051 -0.089 0.038NY 361173001 NOT IN A CITY WAYNE EDUCATIONALCENTER, WILLIAMSON -0.841 0.033 -0.408 0.025NY 361192004 WHITE PLAINS WHITE PLAINS PUMPSTATION,ORCHARD Str -0.250 0.026 0.084 0.024PA 420030008 PITTSBURGH BAPC301 39TH STREET BLDG #7 0.871 0.050 1.486 0.045PA 420030067 NOT IN A CITY OLD OAKDALE ROADSOUTH FAYETTE 1.406 0.052 1.767 0.046PA 420070014 BEAVER FALLS EIGHT STREET AND RIVER ALLEY -0.118 0.026 0.417 0.0239PA 420110009 READING UGI COMONGANTOWN RD AND PROSPECT ST -0.143 0.024PA 420130801 ALTOONA 2ND AVE & 7TH ST -0.274 0.024 0.190 0.021PA 420170012BRISTOL(BOROUG ROCKVIEW LANE-0.536 0.019 -0.322 0.024PA 420210011 NOT IN A CITY MILLER AUTO SHOP 1 MESSENGER ST 0.085 0.029 0.564 0.026PA 420430401 HARRISBURG 1833 UPS DRIVE HARRISBURG PA -0.142 0.027 0.048 0.018PA 420431100 HERSHEY SIPE AVE & MAE STREET -0.251 0.026 -0.120 0.022PA 420450002 CHESTER FRONT ST & NORRIS ST -0.464 0.021 -0.042 0.022PA 420692006 SCRANTON GEORGE ST TROOP AND CITY OF SCRANTON -0.253 0.025 -0.097 0.026PA 420710007 LANCASTER CITY ABRAHAM LINCOLN JRHIGH GROFFTOWN RD 0.124 0.029 0.329 0.029PA 420730015 NEW CASTLE CROTON ST &JEFFERSON ST. 0.075 0.022 0.394 0.022PA 420770004 ALLENTOWN STATEHOSPITAL REAR 1600 HANOVER AVE 0.272 0.026 0.346 0.026PA 420791100 NANTICOKE 255 LOWER BROADWAY 0.467 0.026 0.640 0.030PA 420791101 WILKES-BARRE CHILWICK & WASHINGTON STS -0.327 0.022 -0.134 0.024PA 420850100 NOT IN A CITY PA518 (NEW CASTLE ROAD) & PA418 0.104 0.022 0.360 0.020PA 420910013 NORRISTOWN STATE ARMORY - 1046 BELVOIR RD -0.404 0.026 0.125 0.027PA 420990301 NOT IN A CITY ROUTE 34 LITTLE BUFFALO STATE PARK -0.284 0.027 -0.441 0.019PA 421010014 PHILADELPHIA ROXY WATER PUMPSTA EVA-DEARNLEY STS -0.773 0.017 0.430 0.037PA 421250200 WASHINGTON MCCARRELL AND FAYETTE STS -0.091 0.027 0.444 0.027PA 421330008 YORK HILL ST. 0.296 0.021 0.535 0.023RI 440030002 NOT IN A CITY W. ALTON JONES CAMPUS URI PARKERFIELD -0.166 0.019 -0.204 0.021VA 510130020 NOT IN A CITY S 18TH AND HAYES ST -0.347 0.021 -0.109 0.016VA 510410004 NOT IN A CITY BEACH,INTERSECTION OFCO.ROADS 655 & 654 -0.454 0.031 -0.081 0.028VA 510590018 NOT IN A CITY MT.VERNON 2675 SHERWOOD HALL LANE -0.631 0.020 -0.377 0.020VA 510595001 MC LEAN LEWINSVILLE 1437 BALLS HILL RD -0.384 0.021 -0.091 0.021VA 510610002 NOT IN A CITY RT651 C PHELPS WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA-1.288 0.029 -1.044 0.023VA 510870014 NOT IN A CITY 2401 HARTMAN STREETMATH & SCIENCE CTR -0.645 0.021 -0.206 0.019VA 511130003 NOT IN A CITY SHENANDOAH NP BIG MEADOWS -0.387 0.029 -0.319 0.024VA 511611004 VINTON EAST VINTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -0.281 0.036 -0.199 0.027VA 515100009 ALEXANDRIA 517 N SAINT ASAPH ST,ALEXANDRIA HEALTH 0.041 0.031 0.180 0.028VA 518000004 SUFFOLKTIDEWATER COMM. COLLEGE, FREDERICCAMPUS -0.825 0.025 -0.074 0.02810Table 3 Raw and Met-adjusted trendsin 1-hr ozone concentrations over the OTR for 1995-2005 ozone seasonsSTATE AIRS ID STATION LOCATION RAW TRENDSMET-ADJUSTEDTRENDSSlope 95% CI Slope 95% CI(%/yr) (%/yr)CT 090010017 GREENWICH GREENWICH POINT PARK -0.288 0.033CT 090011123 DANBURY TRAILER, W. CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY 0.807 0.037 0.506 0.038CT 090013007 STRATFORD USCG LIGHTHOUSE , PROSPECT STREET -0.037 0.034 -0.398 0.035CT 090031003 EAST HARTFORD MCAULIFFEE PARK -0.843 0.036 -0.458 0.017CT 090070007 MIDDLETOWNCONN. VALLEY HOSP., SHEW HALL,EASTERN D 0.111 0.033 0.067 0.023CT 090093002 MADISON HAMMONASSET STATE PARK -0.610 0.035 -0.913 0.040CT 090110008 GROTON UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT, AVERY POINT -0.887 0.040 -1.023 0.046CT 090131001 STAFFORD ROUTE 190, SHENIPSIT STATE FOREST -0.259 0.038 -0.250 0.028DC 110010025 NOT IN A CITY TAKOMA SC. PINEY BRANCH RD & DAHLIA ST N -0.917 0.051 -0.459 0.037ME 230052003 CAPE ELIZABETH TWO LIGHTSSTATE PARK -1.251 0.037 -1.135 0.034ME 230312002 NOT IN A CITY OCEAN AVE/PARSONSWAY, KENNEBUNKPORT -0.828 0.029 -0.911 0.025MD 240030014 NOT IN A CITY QUEEN ANNE AND WAYSON ROADS -1.987 0.060 -1.460 0.056MD 240051007 COCKEYSVILLE GREENSIDE DRIVECOCKEYSVILLE MD -0.804 0.039 -0.350 0.026MD 240053001 ESSEX WOODWARD & DORSEY RDS,ESSEX MD -0.324 0.038 0.213 0.032MD 240130001 NOT IN A CITY 1300 W. OLD LIBERTYROAD, WINFIELD,MD -1.212 0.033 -0.698 0.026MD 240170010 NOT IN A CITY SO MD CORRECTIONAL CAMP, HUGHESVILLE-1.542 0.045 -1.171 0.042MD 240251001 EDGEWOOD EDGEWOOD ARMY CHEM CENTER EDGEWOOD -0.737 0.040 -0.154 0.038MD 240313001 ROCKVILLE LOTHROP E SMITH ENV.EDCENTER ROCKVILLE -1.873 0.056 -1.446 0.05011MA 250010002 TRUROFOX BOTTOM AREA-CAPE COD NAT'LSEASHORE -0.152 0.030 -0.267 0.030MA 250051002 FAIRHAVEN LEROY WOOD SCHOOL -0.145 0.025 -0.268 0.031MA 250130008 CHICOPEE ANDERSON ROADAIR FORCE BASE 0.276 0.044 0.515 0.032MA 250154002 WARE QUABBIN SUMMIT -0.215 0.026 -0.420 0.022NH 330050007 KEENE RAILROAD STREET -0.140 0.097 -0.170 0.089NH 330190003 CLAREMONT SOUTH STREET 0.560 0.090 0.550 0.033NJ 340010005 NOT IN A CITY BRIGANTINE WILDLIFEREFUGE,NACOTE CREEK -2.237 0.041 -2.354 0.044NJ 340070003 NOT IN A CITY COPEWOOD E. DAVIS STS; TRAILER 0.330 0.044 -0.278 0.040NJ 340071001 NOT IN A CITY ANCORA STATEHOSPITAL, ANCORA -1.046 0.021 -1.292 0.031NJ 340110007 NOT IN A CITY LINCOLN AVE.&HIGHWAY 55,NE OF MILLVILLE -0.653 0.034 -0.324 0.045NJ 340150002 NOT IN A CITY CLARKSBORO,SHADY LANE REST HOME -0.850 0.027 -0.902 0.030NJ 340170006 BAYONNE VETERANS PARK ONNEWARK BAY -0.987 0.035 -1.198 0.036NJ 340190001 FLEMINGTON RARITAN STP,RTE.613S, THREE BRIDGES -0.250 0.026 -0.358 0.026NJ 340210005 NOT IN A CITY RIDER COLLEGE;LAWRENCE TOWNSHIP -0.798 0.035 -1.098 0.034NJ 340273001 NOT IN A CITY BLDG.#1, BELL LABS, OFF ROUTE 513 -1.293 0.043 -1.491 0.040NY 360010012 ALBANY LOUDONVILLE RESERVOIR -0.050 0.039 -0.339 0.021NY 360150003 ELMIRA SULLIVAN ST., WATER TR. PL. -0.312 0.045 -0.373 0.042NY 360290002 AMHERST AUDUBON GOLF COURSE, MAPLE ROAD 1.091 0.050 1.203 0.047NY 360310002 NOT IN A CITY SUMMIT,WHITEFACEMTN,WEATHER STATION -0.290 0.022 -0.058 0.025NY 360310003 NOT IN A CITY BASE WHITEFACEMTN,ASRC,SUNY -0.479 0.049 -0.701 0.042NY 360450002 NOT IN A CITY VADAI ROAD, PERCH RIVER, BROWNVILLE 0.122 0.049 0.047 0.045NY 360631006 NOT IN A CITY MIDDLEPORT STP, NORTH HARTLAND RD 0.086 0.035 0.296 0.031NY 360850067 NEW YORK CITY SUSAN WAGNER HS -1.031 0.030 -1.261 0.048NY 360930003 SCHENECTADY MT.PLEASANT HS. 0.180 0.042 -0.095 0.028NY 361030002 BABYLON EAST FARMINGDALE WATER DIST.,GAZZA BLVD. -0.706 0.024 -0.958 0.031NY 361030004 RIVERHEAD 39 SOUND AVENUE,RIVERHEAD -1.590 0.057 -1.312 0.035NY 361173001 NOT IN A CITY WAYNE EDUCATIONALCENTER, WILLIAMSON -1.594 0.060 -1.184 0.042NY 361192004 WHITE PLAINS WHITE PLAINS PUMPSTATION,ORCHARD ST -0.352 0.048 -0.371 0.042PA 420030008 PITTSBURGH BAPC 30139TH STREET BLDG #7 -1.114 0.042 -0.341 0.04612PA 420030067 NOT IN A CITY OLD OAKDALE ROADSOUTH FAYETTE -0.675 0.053 -0.110 0.049PA 420070014 BEAVER FALLS EIGHT STREET ANDRIVER ALLEY -0.968 0.030 -0.262 0.035PA 420110009 READING UGI CO MONGANTOWN RD AND PROSPECT ST-0.398 0.041 -0.310 0.027PA 420130801 ALTOONA 2ND AVE & 7THST -1.096 0.033 -0.451 0.035PA 420170012BRISTOL(BOROUG ROCKVIEW LANE-0.886 0.035 -1.164 0.035PA 420210011 NOT IN A CITY MILLER AUTOSHOP 1 MESSENGER ST -0.681 0.050PA 420430401 HARRISBURG 1833 UPS DRIVE HARRISBURG PA -0.378 0.053 -0.190 0.035PA 420431100 HERSHEY SIPE AVE & MAE STREET -0.905 0.041 -0.839 0.036PA 420450002 CHESTER FRONT ST & NORRIS ST -0.868 0.037 -0.762 0.034PA 420692006 SCRANTON GEORGE ST TROOP AND CITY OF SCRANTON -0.902 0.042 -1.131 0.036PA 420710007LANCASTERCITYABRAHAM LINCOLN JR HIGH GROFFTOWN RD -0.836 0.038 -1.101 0.028PA 420730015 NEW CASTLE CROTON ST & JEFFERSON ST. -0.697 0.031 -0.529 0.029PA 420770004 ALLENTOWN STATE HOSPITAL REAR1600 HANOVER AVE -0.516 0.043 -0.557 0.042PA 420791100 NANTICOKE 255 LOWER BROADWAY -0.203 0.047 -0.375 0.050PA 420791101 WILKES-BARRE CHILWICK & WASHINGTON STS -0.837 0.038 -1.076 0.031PA 420850100 NOT IN A CITY PA518 (NEW CASTLE ROAD) & PA418 -0.641 0.035 -0.518 0.023PA 420910013 NORRISTOWN STATE ARMORY - 1046 BELVOIR RD -1.211 0.040 -1.094 0.037PA 420990301 NOT IN A CITY ROUTE 34 LITTLE BUFFALO STATE PARK -0.937 0.041 -0.888 0.033PA 421010014 PHILADELPHIA ROXY WATER PUMP STA EVA-DEARNLEY STS -1.056 0.027 -1.223 0.022PA 421010024 PHILADELPHIA GRANT-ASHTON ROADSPHILA NE AIRPORT -0.337 0.054 -1.442 0.055PA 421250005 CHARLEROI CHARLER01 WASTE TREATMENT PLANT -1.480 0.052 -0.892 0.058PA 421250200 WASHINGTON MCCARRELL AND FAYETTE STS -0.876 0.044 -0.227 0.048PA 421330008 YORK HILL ST. 0.326 0.036 0.159 0.036RI 440030002 NOT IN A CITY W. ALTON JONES CAMPUS URI PARKERFIELD 0.044 0.031 -0.128 0.032VA 510130020 NOT IN A CITY S 18TH AND HAYES ST -0.492 0.036VA 510410004 NOT IN A CITY BEACH,INTERSECTION OFCO.ROADS 655 & 654 -1.333 0.039 -0.972 0.040VA 510590018 NOT IN A CITY MT.VERNON 2675 SHERWOOD HALL LANE -0.659 0.036 -0.604 0.037VA 510595001 MC LEAN LEWINSVILLE 1437 BALLS HILL RD -0.164 0.039 0.138 0.038VA 510610002 NOT IN A CITY RT651 C PHELPS WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA-2.029 0.050 -1.963 0.030VA 510870014 NOT IN A CITY 2401 HARTMAN STREETMATH & SCIENCE CTR -0.871 0.042 -0.659 0.03613VA 511130003 NOT IN A CITY SHENANDOAH NP BIG MEADOWS -1.406 0.044 -1.230 0.029VA 511611004 VINTON EAST VINTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -1.186 0.063 -1.099 0.043VA 515100009 ALEXANDRIA 517 N SAINT ASAPH ST, ALEXANDRIA HEALTH -0.399 0.048 0.080 0.032VA 518000004 SUFFOLKTIDEWATER COMM. COLLEGE, FREDERICCAMPUS-0.822 0.047 -0.179 0.04914Figure 1a15Figure 1b

# Attachment 16_OTC_2007_SpecialMtg_

HEDDMOU_Final_070302 .pdf

### Memorandum of Understanding Among the States of the Ozone Transport Commission Concer ning the Incorporation of High Electrical Demand Day Emissi on Reduct i on Strate gi es into Ozone Attainment State Implementation Planning

Whereas the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) was established under Sections 176A and 184 of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) to ensure the development and implem entation of regional strat egies to reduce ground-level ozone to healthful lev e ls; and

Whereas the adverse health effects of ground-level ozone are well documented, and in spite of significant reductions of ozone precursor emissions achieved t o date as a resu lt of our NO x MOU of 1994, the US Environme n tal Protec tion Age n c y (EPA) NOx SIP ca ll effective in 2003, an d expected r eductions t o be further achiev ed by federal and st ate programs over the next decade, a signific ant portion of the ozone pr oblem cont inues to be caused by nitrogen oxides (NO X 

### ) transported into and generated within our region by electrical ge nerating units (EGUs); and

Whereas , high electrical demand day (HE DD) operat ion of EG Us generally have not been addres sed under existing ai r quality control requirements, and these units are called into services on the very hot days of summer when air pollution levels are highest, and

Whereas, HEDD unit operations are a s i gnificant contri butor to NOx emiss i ons on high oz one days; and

Whereas , the NOx cap and trade program, al though effective generally has, by its very nature, had limited suc c ess in reducing emis sions from HEDD unit s on HEDDs; and

Whereas , OTC staff, state environmental and utility regulator s, EPA staff, EGU owners and operator s and the independent regi onal systems operators have been meeting to assess emissions associated with HEDD during the

ozone seas on and to address exc e ss NOx emissions on HEDDs, and

Whereas , OTC is guided by its precepts to seek reductions in the most comprehensive, cost effective manner pos sible in order to maximiz e public health, environmental and economic benefits while ens uring an adequate electrical c apacity and reliability for the region; and ___________
Connecticut

Delaware

District of Colu mbia

Maine

Mar y land

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New York

Penns y l van i a

Rhode Island

Vermont

Virginia

___________ Christopher R e cchia Execu tive Dire ct or

___________

444 N. Capitol St. NW Suite 638 W a shington, DC 20001 ( 202) 508- 384 0 FAX ( 202) 508- 3841 Em ail: ozone@ o tcair

. or g

___________

### Whereas , our investigations have found that NOx emissions are much higher on a high electrical demand day than on a typical summer day and there is the potential to reduce HEDD emissions by a pproximately 25% in the short term through the application of known cont rol technologies to HEDD combustion turbine, coal and residual oil burning units; and

Whereas , installing typically used NOx cont rol technologies may not be available to, or be the most cost effective met hod of, controlling HEDD NOx emissions from specific units; and

Whereas , energy efficiency is the most cost effective method to reduce HEDD NOx emissions, but cannot alone, nor in the short term, achieve sufficient emission reductions to achieve attainment of the ozone standar d in many areas; and

Whereas , demand response programs can be a very cost effective mechanism to reduce emissions if they result in clean behind the meter generation and are supported by appropriate market devices, including but not limited to dynamic pricing; and

Whereas , any strategy to address HEDD emissions must recognize and address the issue of high emitting behind the meter units; and

Whereas , EPA and State workgroups estima te that using a cap and trade mechanism alone to provide sufficient finan cial incentives to cause the clean up of HEDD units would need an 18:1 retirem ent ratio and such a strategy would consume 74% of all available CAIR allowances for 12 HEDD days;

Therefore , be it RESOLVED that

The OTC States identified in the following table commi t to pursue the following reductions in NOx emissions associated with HEDD units on high electrical demand days during the ozone season; such reductions to be achieved beginning with the 2009 ozone season or as soon as feasible thereafter, but no later than 2012:

### State NOx (tons per day) Percent Reduction from HEDD Units CT 11.7 25% DE 7.3 20% MD 23.5 32% NJ 19.8 28% NY 50.8 27% PA 21.8 32% Total 134.9

Furthermore , that such reduction commitment wi ll be included in each of the several states’ 8-hour ozone attainment State Implementation Plan submissions to EPA due in June 2007; and

Furthermore , that each state shall select the strategy or combination of strategies that provides both maximum cert ainty and appropriate flexibility for that state and its electric gener ators. Such mechanisms for achieving the reductions may include but are not limited to:

• regulatory caps for emissions from HEDD units on HEDDs;

• performance standards;

• State/generator HEDD par tnership agreements;

• energy efficiency programs;

• demand response programs, provided that such programs reduce and/or preclude the installation or us e of distributed generation with unacceptably high emissions;

• regulatory standards or controls for behind-the-meter generators;

• effective adjustment of the NOx retirement ratio to provide reductions on HEDDs; and

Furthermore, the undersigned states for whom no st ate-specific target emission reduction is specified above sign this MOU in support and appreciation of the listed states making this commitment, will continue to evaluat e the HEDD issue in their state and, as necessary and appropr iate, may choose to pursue additional emission reductions from the HEDD sector in their state.

Be it FURTHER RESOLVED that the OTC states will continue their work to establish long-term standards and progr ams to address emissions on HEDDs, such programs and standards to include:

• continued work with state energy and utility regulators as well as the regional transmission operat ors regarding energy efficiency, dynamic pricing and other market oriented in centives toward significant demand reduction and clean new or repowered supply

### • develo p ment of long-term perfo rmance standards that will ens ure reliable, clean future generation.

• development of emissi ons portfolio standards applicable to load serving entities, distribution companies, “ aggregators” and generators, according to the structure of the energy supply market

Executed by the undersigned Stat es this 2 nd 

### day of March , 2007:

__________________ _____________ Connectic u t __________________ _____________ Dela ware

__________________ _____________ District of Columbia __________________ _____________ Maine

______//s//_________

________________ Maryland __________________ _____________ Massachusetts

__________________ ____________ New Hamp shire __________________ _____________ New Jerse y

__________________ _____________ New York __________________ _____________ Pennsylv a nia

__________________ _____________ Rhode Island __________________ _____________ Vermont

__________________ _____________ Virgin ia