Not logged in - Login
< back

Non-EGU Point Workgroup

Contents [hide]

Collaborative Wiki Main Page

Inventory Collaborative Google Drive Link

Non-EGU Point Workgroup Charge

Members

Co-leads: Tammy Manning (North Carolina), Caroline Farkas (EPA)

Anna Wood (Alabama), Brian Sullins (Alabama), Ben Cordes (Kentucky), Chad Wilbanks (South Carolina), Craig Henrikson (Montana), Deb Basnight (Georgia), Richard McDonald (Georgia), Hannah Ashenafi (Maryland), Jay Koch (Indiana), Jon Loftus (Wisconsin), Ken Newkirk (New York), Laura Stevens (New York), John Barnes (New York), Ken Santlal (Massachusetts), Kotur Narasimhan (Virginia), Thomas Foster (Virginia), Adam Lewis (New Jersey), Lynn Deahl (Kansas), Mike Maleski (Ohio), James Smith (Tennessee), Barry Exum (Texas), Doug Boyer (Texas), Roslyn Higgin (New Mexico), Scott Hanks (Utah), Peter Verschoor (Utah), Vanessa Crandell-Beck (Alaska), Molly Birnbaum (Alaska), Wendy Jacobs (Connecticut), Steve Potter (Connecticut), Bryan Oshinski (Pennsylvania), Sylvia Vanderspek (California), Stephanie Huber (California), Ron Ryan (EPA), Brian Keaveny (EPA), Eric Svingen (EPA), Jenny Liljegren (EPA), Joseph Jakuta (OTC), Michael Leslie (EPA)

Non-EGU Point Committee Meetings

Held the 3rd Tuesday of the month at 2:00 p.m. Eastern.

March 19, 2019

Attendees

TBA

Agenda

  • Roll Call
  • Beta Release (2016)
  • What to review
    • Data pulled forward from 2014
  • Date of v1
  • Questions

Minutes

Beta Release

  • The 2016 beta (base year) is out on the Intermountain West Data Warehouse and contains model-ready files
  • Documentation is finished and available as well
  • Find links to the data and documentation here: http://views.cira.colostate.edu/wiki/wiki/10197
  • Alison Eyth gave an update about the release of the 2023/2028 projections
    • MJOs/EPA management spoke and decided that we would not release the 2023 beta platform projections publicly, but they will be available to the workgroup
    • The main reasoning for this is the concern that this beta platform is still a work-in-progress and the general public is not generally aware of the collaborative process. We do not want someone modeling this platform, thinking that it is the full finished product. Currently, our plan is to release the v1 platform as originally planned.
  • Update on non-EGU projections
    • Control packets/growth packet is being QA’d and will be finalized for SMOKE processing this week

What to Review?

  • As a workgroup, our goal is to concentrate on the base year review right now
  • Available data to review:
  • What are examples of what you, as a workgroup member, should be looking for?
    • Closures, or more specifically, units that may have emitted in 2014, but should not have emitted in 2016 (e.g., Some states submitted full 2016 inventories. If a unit does not exist in the 2016 inventory you submitted, but was not marked as closed, it will have been pulled forward from 2014 as a unit that is still emitting).
    • Double counted units (units that were once stationary/point but because of a rule change, are now in 2016 considered nonpoint, or vice versa)
    • Units that have changed IDs and were not removed or changed in the 2016 emissions
  • The deadline to review and notify Caroline of changes for v1 of the 2016 base emissions is April 16th

Date of v1

  • We are aiming to have v1 completed this summer
  • We will need to have all comments (including comments on the projection years) by May 31.
    • So, April 16th is our deadline for 2016 base year comments. We will discuss comments on projection years on the next call.

Questions

  • For 2016, if a source was not submitted in 2016, but did have emissions submitted for 2015 [and 2014], when the 2016 inventory is compiled, would it pull the data forward from 2016 or from 2015?
    • We would have used the 2014 NEI v2 as the gap fill if no SLT report for 2016, but source still indicated as operating

  • Do we pull emissions forward between triennial inventories? For example, if a source is running in 2014 and no emissions are reported for 2017, there would be no emissions for that source in 2017?
    • We do not gap fill the triennial inventories, such as 2017, because the SLTs are required to report a complete point source inventory for those triennial years.

February 19, 2019

Attendees

CT, MA, NJ, NY, PA, VA, NC, AL, WI, OH, OK, NM, AK, Caroline Farkas (EPA)

Agenda

  • Roll Call
  • Note/Poll about 2019 Emissions Inventory Conference
  • Update on Documentation
  • Plots/Maps of 2016 beta
  • Update on 2023/2028
  • Looking forward to v1
  • Action Items

Minutes

Note about 2019 Emissions Inventory Conference

  • EPA OAQPS's 2019 International Emissions Inventory Conference is being held July 29 - Aug 2 in Dallas, Texas.
    • Monday, July 29 will be a day of training. EPA is gathering information from possible conference attendees about which training courses would be most helpful.
    • Tuesday, July 30 - Friday, August 2 will be filled with Plenary and Technical Sessions
      • Presentation types available: Poster, Podium Presentation (20-25min), Lightning talk (5 min)
    • The abstract deadline was extended to March 1. Please email your abstract (250 words or less) to 2019EIC@epa.gov
  • For more information, please visit: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2019-international-emissions-inventory-conference-abstract-submission

2016 Beta Documentation

  • The Coordination Committee would like to have documentation completed before releasing the 2016 Beta platform
  • EPA and other co-chairs have completed a first draft of the documentation and the drafts are posted on the Google Drive

Plots/Maps of 2016 Beta

Update on 2023/2028

  • Working to finalize 2023 and 2028 projections and control packets. This includes finalizing:
    • Consent Decrees
      • Allowance packet (with caps) did not work, so we are still calculating these manually
    • Industrial Sector growth
    • RICE NESHAP/RICE NSPS
    • Several packets overlap with Oil & Gas sector, so Jeff Vukovich and I are working together to make sure those are finalized
  • Current plan is to have these finalized by the end of February so they can be processed
  • Other sectors finalizing future year projections: EGU, nonpt, Oil & Gas, Canadian emissions

Looking Forward to v1

  • What else is important for our workgroup to address and finalize for v1?
    • Airport emissions will be updated when the 2017 case has been run with the new FAA model
    • Additional closures from states
    • Comments from workgroup after reviewing Beta - use plots and tools mentioned above to assist in reviewing/QAing 2016 Beta and bring up issues/possible changes to Caroline and Tammy
    • Additions/Changes for control packets (e.g., new rules, rules that are no longer valid)

Action Items

  • Review plots/maps for 2016 Beta
  • Caroline will send an email or discuss at March meeting when future projections (2023, 2028) are finalized for Beta
  • Contact Caroline and Tammy about issues you find with Beta after reviewing or any suggestions of improvements or research for v1

October 26, 2018

Attendees

CT, MA, NY, VA, NC, GA, AL, TN, OH, OK, AK, Caroline Farkas (EPA)

Agenda

  • Review airport emission method for beta vs v1
  • Submit your closures!
  • Packets in the works

Minutes

Review airport emission method for beta vs v1

Aircraft review - for those who were not on the last call or perhaps missed the update:

  • LTO data for the new aircraft run were due from States last week, but a couple states have asked for an extension due to the hurricane.
  • For beta, Contractors are using 2014 data from the Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS), projecting to 2016, 2023 and 2028
  • Two main methods
    • TAF unit data that matches NEI: projection factor based on ITN
    • Airport in NEI that doesn't match TAF unit (mostly smaller airports): state default projection factor
      • Calculated by summing ITN across single State, projection factor based on ITN difference between years of interest
  • We will update this for v1 with 2017 data from new FAA model - Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT)

Submit your closures!

  • A few states have submitted unit/facility closure data for 2023 and 2028. If you have information of facilities or units that are closing prior to 2028, please send the information (preferably with as many identifying codes as possible) with the effective closure date to Caroline as soon as possible. Thank you!

Packets in the works

  • Control packets:
    • CISWI units - units have been identified and sent to our contractor. They are applying control factors and will send a control packet back for review in the next couple of days. As soon as I receive this, I will send along to the workgroup.
    • Petroleum Refinery NESHAP RTR - compliance date has been pushed back from 2016 to Aug 2017 and is not proposed for Jan 2019. Regardless, the impacted units need to have a control packet in place for when we project the emissions. The impacted units without controls in place were identified using 2014v1 NEI. We will check to make sure no additional controls have been placed and reported in 2014v2 NEI or 2016 submittals. Assuming no additional controls, an across-the-board control factor will be in place for VOC for coking units (84% control) and storage vessels/tanks (49% control).
    • Arizonal Regional Haze - Arizona has updates for impacted units. Meeting with them Monday and will implement their updates in beta.
    • Biodiesel plants - For 2011 platform, ethanol emissions for base case were assumed to be near zero. Biofuels were not projected to change much into the future, therefore a 2018 inventory was used for 2028 projections. For this platform, the AEO 2018 was consulted. Again, biofuels were estimated at a 0.0% change out to 2050. Therefore, we propose not to change this methodology.
    • ICI Boilers - Boiler MACT - compliance for the majority of states was 1/1/2016. Therefore, for non-EGU the previous controls would only apply if a unit's emission had been pulled forward from 2014 (i.e., 2016 emission not submitted). The main exception to this is NC which took the extension and will be providing us with their impacted units as soon as possible.
    • Projection packet - prior to 2011, EPA had used a no-growth method for industrial sectors. In 2014, a NODA revealed that commenters felt that this method was insufficient. EPA developed a method to utilize fuel consumption from the AEO 2014 and map then to NAICS/SCCs to estimate emission projections of industrial sectors. Caroline is working with the person who previously conducted this analysis to update the projections using the AEO 2018.
    • If your state has separate methods you would like considered for a specific sector or rule, please submit detailed information to Caroline to be included in beta or v1.

July 17, 2018

Attendees

CT, NY, NJ, VA, AL, NC, WI, OH, TX, OK, KS, AK, Ron Ryan (EPA), Caroline Farkas (EPA)

Agenda

  • Roll Call
  • Wiki notes and files posted
  • Projections
    • Closures post-2016
    • State’s own growth and control factors
    • Corn Ethanol plants
    • Industrial Sources - update to AEO 2018
    • Review of growth and control factor method changes

Minutes

Wiki notes and files posted

Projections

  • Closures post-2016
    • If your state has units that will be closing and need to be accounted for in the 2023 and 2028 projected platforms, you can submit that data to Caroline or Tammy.
    • Caroline is sending around an email today (July 17) providing an example of the recently-updated closure packet. It has also been uploaded to this workgroup's google drive (CLOSURES_EIS_2011NEIv1_sep2013_converted_06may2018_v0.csv)
    • Deadline for submitting these closing units to Caroline or Tammy is 8/31/2018
  • State's own growth and control factors
    • Tammy (NC) explained that due to the way NC handles Boiler MACT controls, they would like to submit their own growth and controls for these units.
    • EPA is happy to accept state growth and control factors from a state in CoST control or projection packet form
    • WI mentioned they would need to also submit some of their own growth and control factors for certain units
    • The workgroup said it would be helpful to have examples of growth and control packets to work from
    • If you follow the link to: ftp://newftp.epa.gov/Air/emismod/2011/v3platform/2023en_update/, the zip file called “2023en_CoST_packets_19sep2017.zip” contains many examples of Projection and Control packets.
      • For example, unzipping the folder and going into the ptnonipm folder, and further into the Step 1 folder will provide several examples of these packets.
      • A reminder that the exception to this is the Closure packet format which has been updated and is referenced above.
    • A deadline for these submission is TBD, but the sooner the better
  • Corn Ethanol Plants
    • This topic was tabled for another call
  • Industrial Sources - update to AEO 2018
    • From the Technical Support Document of the previous projection platform: "In response to comments about EPA's no-growth and previous approaches, the EPA developed industrial sector activity-based growth factors.
    • The most recent version used AEO 2017 projected growth for the growth factors.
    • LADCO and MARAMA submitted their own detailed activity-based projection factors for industrial sources in their states
    • We will be updating the growth factors for non-LADCO/MARAMA states using the AEO 2018.
    • If a state has their own growth/controls they would like to submit for industrial sources, they are welcome to and those will be included in the platform projections.
    • A deadline for these submissions is TBD
  • Review of growth and control factor method changes
    • NC asked if the states would have an opportunity to review any updated/changed growth and control methods/packets
    • We definitely will encourage review of any updated or changed methods.
    • Caroline asked if workgroup members would prefer this occur as the changes happen (i.e., as soon as they are finished, send them along to the workgroup to review) or for there to be a formal review period post-beta but before version 1.
      • NC stated that it depended on the amount of material. If there is a lot to review, more time would be helpful but if it is only a small amount of material, perhaps it would be more efficient to do it all at once.
      • If there are any other opinions on this, please let Caroline or Tammy know.
    • NC asked if EPA's review of projection methods would include possibly out-of-date control packets
      • We plan to step through each control packet and decide if the units are already in compliance (and therefore the control packet is no longer needed). If you know of a particular control that is now out-of-date and should not be considered for the new platform, please let Caroline or Tammy know so we can flag it in our review.
    • NC asked if this will also include consent decrees
      • Caroline is working with a coworker who did a deep dive into consent decrees. We will be discussing what she found out and what needs to be included in control packets for this platform. We may be reaching out to states as needed for help with clarification of the information. When finished, Caroline will present this information for review to the workgroup.

June 19, 2018

Attendees

Steve Potter (CT), NY, MD, Anna Wood (AL), Tammy Manning (NC), WI, Mike Maleski (OH), TX, Craig Henrikson (MT), Molly Birnbaum (AK), Tom Moore (WESTAR), Ron Ryan (EPA), Alison Eyth (EPA), Caroline Farkas (EPA)

Agenda

  • Roll Call
  • Final Point Inventory Ready
  • Review and QA
  • Non-EGU Projections

Minutes

Final Point Inventory Ready

Review and Quality Assurance

  • QA is an important part of the modeling platform process. Caroline provided some examples of how EPA performs QA (with inventory comparisons and county-level maps)
  • For this application, we have already had rounds of QA. Note that HAPs are now included, many of which were not in the draft.
  • If you submitted important changes, you may wish to confirm that they came through as expected. If you need to see more detailed information that facility level, you can use the EIS interface or review the data in the SMOKE files.
  • Please let Caroline know by the end of July if something looks amiss in your state that you think needs to be corrected prior to the beta version. This may include EGU/non-EGU splits or units that may have moved from non-EGU point to nonpoint (or vice-versa).

Non-EGU Projections

  • NESHAP RTR for Petroleum refineries needs to be reviewed. It has an effective date of 2016. The main questions are: Has this already been accounted for in 2016 submissions? Does it still need to be accounted for in 2014 carry-over data?
  • CISWI units NSPS has an effective year of 2018. This will need to be accounted for in projections. Lee Tooly of EPA completed a deep dive of this rule and the impacted units. Caroline will put them into a projection packet according to SCC.
  • Lee Tooly began some work on consent decrees. Caroline will review the work and report back on the next call. This may be a consideration as we move forward on emission projections.
  • Caroline asked workgroup members to email with any ideas/topics they feel the workgroup should work on for emission projections as we transition from the 2016 base case to the 2023/2028 projection cases.

April 17, 2018

Attendees

Joe Jakuta (OTC), Steve Potter (CT), NY, NJ, KY, AL, Tammy Manning (NC), OH, WI, OK, TX, MT, Deb Basnight (GA), Ken Santlal (MA), Kotur Narasimhan (VA), Molly Birnbaum (AK), Caroline Farkas (EPA), Alison Eyth (EPA), Ron Ryan (EPA), Tom Moore (WESTAR)

Agenda

  • Welcome and Roll Call
  • Aircraft Call Recap
  • 2016 Point Flat File
    • Description of files available
    • State-specific – Alison Eyth
    • What we need from the Workgroup
  • How to submit corrections – Ron Ryan
  • 2016 vs. 2014 analysis – Caroline Farkas
  • Questions?

Minutes

Aircraft Call Recap

  • Held small subgroup call on April 4
    • Laurel Drive spoke about the process for compiling the 2014 aircraft emissions and the changes for 2017
    • The group has suggested using the 2017 aircraft emissions for the 2016v1 platform as they will be estimated using the new FAA model
    • See the slides on the Google Drive for more information

2016 Point Flat File

  • The 2016 alpha flat file is now available for review to the workgroup
  • The presentation has links to these files
  • EPA has separated the flat files into State-based files (one for each State) to make the files smaller and the review process easier for States
  • What does EPA need from the workgroup?
    • Please review your State’s 2016 point alpha inventory
      • Are there any sources that are in a different sector than they should be?
      • Are the EGUs/non-EGUs correctly divided? Oil & Gas?
      • Any other irregularities you might see
  • Steve Potter mentioned that some of CT’s sources that were nonpoint sources in 2014 are considered point sources in 2016 because of rule changes. This is mostly a nonpoint issue because they need to be removed from the nonpoint inventory to avoid double counting. We will be covering this during the nonpoint workgroup call next week. If you have a similar situation, please let us know.
  • A question was asked about how ptoilgas is divided out from non-EGU point. Alison said that this happens by NAICS code and includes both production and distribution sources
    • Tom Moore and Jeff Vukovich will be working with their workgroup to make sure the sources that have been put into that sector are correct

How to Submit Corrections

  • If you find an issue with emissions in the 2016 point alpha file, Ron Ryan is who to contact
    • Email Ryan.Ron@epa.gov and he will open a submittal window in EIS for you
      • Corrections can be submitted manually in EIS source by source or for several sources using an XML batch file with the corrections (not a complete resubmittal, just the edits)
      • Corrections are due by May 31
  • If you find an issue with the subsector a source is assigned to, closures, or location of a source, Caroline Farkas is who to contact
    • Email Farkas.Caroline@epa.gov with the information about the source and the correction needed
  • If you are unsure of who to contact, please email Caroline Farkas or Tammy Manning and we can help

2016 vs. 2014 Analysis

  • On a previous call, the following questions have been asked about the 2016 point submittals:
    • How many point sources were submitted with 2016 emission submittals?
    • What percentage of the total non-EGU emissions do these sources represent?
  • Ron Ryan had given some preliminary information that of 63,000 non-airport facilities in 2014v2 NEI, about 22,000 were reported for 2016 by 48 states (KY and MA missing), DC, PR, 20 locals and 2 tribes
  • Caroline analyzed the point alpha flat file to determine the percentage of emissions the 2016 submittals represented of the total non-EGU emissions.

March 20, 2018

Attendees

CT, NY, PA, Tammy Manning (NC), AL, GA, OH, WI, NM, TX, KS, Caroline Farkas (EPA)

Agenda

  • Welcome
    • Roll Call
  • QA Comparison File and 2016 Point Update
  • 2014v2 Emission Totals by Subsector
  • Growth and Controls data (2011)

Minutes/Notes

Aircraft Subgroup

  • An interest call about an aircraft subgroup will meet Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 2pm EDT. Email Caroline if you would like to be added to the meeting invitation.

QA Comparison File and 2016 Point Update

  • Tammy reviewed the file Ron Ryan sent out to states. A few people mentioned not receiving it, probably because another representative at the state has worked on it - send an email to Caroline and she will ask Ron if he can send it along.
  • Questions from General Collaborative Update meeting:
    • How many states submitted point sources for 2016?
      • 48 states (KY and MA missing), DC, PR, 20 locals, and 2 tribes submitted at least one facility. Out of approx. 63,000 non-airport facilities in 2014v2 NEI, about 22,000 of those were reported for 2016.
      • We plan to do an analysis of the percentage of emissions these 22,000 facilities represent when the 2016 point flat file is ready.
  • Update on 2016 Flat File Progress
    • How do members want to see the data? (e.g., non-EGU point separated? Pt_oilgas not separate out? Whole Point file?)
      • Members would like to see both the entire Point file and the non-EGU Point separated file.
    • As a note, the non-EGU and EGU facilities are separated using the IPM_YN column. If an entry appears in this column, it is separated out as an EGU.
  • If you want to see your states' submitted data before the 2016 flat file is ready, follow the instructions in the tutorial to create a flat file in EIS from the submitted data: Flatfile Generation Tutorial.

2014v2 Emission Totals by Subsector

  • Caroline reviewed the graph of subsector totals for CAPS with the group. This is available on the google drive, or can be requested via email if you do not have access.

2011 Growth and Control comparisons

  • Caroline reviewed the ftp links that members can use to see how growth and controls factors projected emissions from 2011 to 2023 and 2028. This will be most helpful for projections after we set the base case.

Reports: ftp://newftp.epa.gov/Air/emismod/2011/v3platform/reports/

Projection and Control packets: ftp://newftp.epa.gov/Air/emismod/2011/v3platform/2023en_update/ and ftp://newftp.epa.gov/Air/emismod/2011/v3platform/2028emissions/

  • If you have issues accessing any of the data covered today, contact Caroline or Tammy.

February 20, 2018

Attendees

Wendy Jacobs (CT), Steve Potter (CT), NY, Kotur Narasimhan (VA), PA, AL, Tammy Manning (NC), WI, Mike Maleski (OH), TX, NM, MT, AK, Ron Ryan (EPA), Caroline Farkas (EPA)

Agenda

  • Welcome
    • Roll Call
  • Review/Answer Questions from last Call
  • Aircraft subgroup
  • Upcoming data being sent, what else would be helpful?
  • Action Items

Minutes/Notes

Review/Answer Questions from last call

  • Specification Spreadsheet wording could be improved and the example spreadsheet may not be the most appropriate format/example for point source work. It is an agriculture spreadsheet.
    • This has been raised by a few people in other groups too and is being considered

  • Why does the charge have the group projection to 2028 first, rather than 2023?
    • This appears to have been a typo in the example charge given. It will be updated to include 2023. We will be working on projections to both years.

  • How is the group going to get data/input on data from SLTs that are not participating on work group call? How to fill in data not submitted by SLTs for 2016? 2014v2 projected to 2016? Ask SLTs to submit all collected data to EIS even if not required by AERR? Other options?
    • We just had submissions from states in mid-January for Calendar year 2016 emissions from S/L/Ts which included CAP emissions from Type A sources. However, Ron Ryan stated that most states report Type B source annually even though these sources are only required to report triennially. If we have missing data, we would grab the reported data from the most recent triennial (in this case 2014) NEI and use it to gap fill.  NC reports Type B sources annually. 

  • How to treat small power generators, i.e., peaking units? Will these units be included in non-EGU Point?
    • There was much discussion on this topic including ERTAC and IPM model uses and definitions.  EIS identifies these sources based on the IPM model and these sources are found in the IPM NEEDS file. Whichever units are identified as EGU-generators will be in the EGU group. At EPA, if a unit is modeled by IPM, then it is an EGU. IPM NEEDS file contains Municipal Waste Combustors (MWC).

Additional Notes from Ron Ryan

  • A review and comparisons file of the S/L/Ts 2016 point submittals as sent out to all S/L/Ts on Tues 2/20, just after the call. S/L/ts are asked to review for possible edits needed and get any edits into their EIS datasets by May 15 at the latest.

  • There is already a “draft” 2016 point inventory of sorts available in EIS for any EIS user’s access. It contains only the S/L/T 2016 point submittals, with no EPA augmentation or gap-filling for smaller facilities from 2014 NEI. It can be viewed, summarized, or filtered from EIS by using dataset name = “2016RAS”, which means “Responsible Agency Selection” – only what the Responsible S/L/T Agency for each facility submitted is included. The completeness of this RAS draft will vary from State-to-State depending on whether each S/L/T submitted all or most of their facilities or whether they only submitted the very largest emitters that are required for the non-triennial NEI years.

  • We are targeting March 15 to have a more complete “draft” 2016 point inventory available in EIS. This draft will include EPA PM Augmentation (largely just summing S/L/T-reported filterable and condensible PM pieces) and using the 2014 NEI to gap-fill for any smaller, non-reported 2016 facilities that are still shown as “operating”. It will also include EPA augmentations where needed for HAPs : 2016 TRI data, HAP Augmentation, and Chromium speciation. Note that we do not expect any S/L/T edits of their submitted data to necessarily be available for that March 15 draft. We do not expect this to impact the utility of the March 15 draft, because the 2016 S/L/T submittals seem to be exceptionally clean, especially for criteria pollutants.

  • We are targeting July 1 to have the final 2016 point inventory available in EIS.

Aircraft Subgroup

  • No volunteer yet to lead subgroup. Some discussion about whether this subgroup is needed or if the whole group should work on these sources.  Suggested to group that aircraft subgroup is needed and some members have indicated interest in working on this subgroup.  Caroline will talk to some of the interested members and management about the subgroup.

  • CY2017 draft should be ready by mid-summer.  Most of work would be focused on projections.

Upcoming data being sent

  • Caroline will be gathering and sending out current data about existing growth and controls used for projections from EPA. She will also compile a summary/plot of emission totals by subsector.

  • Ron is sending a draft out to states today of 2016 EIS emissions.

  • For closures, a list of facilities/sources marked for shutdown can be obtained as a report from EIS.

Action Items

  • If you want to be on the aircraft subgroup and have not told us, please email Caroline or Tammy.

  • Review data sent out in the coming weeks and be ready to discuss in March.

January 29, 2018

Attendees

CT, MA, NY, NJ, PA, VA, Joseph Jakuta (OTC), NC, AL, GA, OH, WI, Eric Svingen (EPA R5), TX, KS, MT, CA, AK, Ron Ryan (EPA), Jenny Lijegren (EPA), Brian Keaveny (EPA), Caroline Farkas (EPA)

Agenda

  • Welcome
    • Co-chair Introductions
    • Roll Call
  • Introduction to overall Collaborative Workgroup effort
  • Introduction to non-EGU Point Workgroup
    • Charge
    • Subgroups
  • Administrative Items
    • Recurring Meetings
    • Google Drive
    • Wiki
    • Action Item
  • Questions?

Minutes/Notes

Introduction to overall Collaborative Workgroup effort

  • Overall goals of this workgroup are to collaboratively generate the data files necessary to develop the 2016 Emission Modeling Platform. Create a projection methodology for future years 2023 and 2028 to augment the needs of SLTs. There are 10 groups working on this effort and the work will be accomplished in three phases;
    • Determine the appropriateness of the 2016alpha inventory developed by EPA and suggest improvements.
    • Develop 2016beta and projection methodology to 2028.
    • Finalize 2016v1 with projections to 2023 and 2028
  • For those SLTs that cannot access GoogleDrive at work, files have been copied to Wiki. Another strategy for file sharing may have to be implemented depending on file size.

Introduction to non-EGU Point Workgroup

  • Introduced group to Point Non-EGU WorkGroup Charge. The whole process should be approximately one year. As the group works through items in charge, the specification sheet needs to be completed.
  • Charge workgroup organization: there will be two sub-groups established to target specific data issues;
    • Projection-discuss and develop projection methodology for 2023 and 2028.
    • Aircraft-discuss and develop how to handle aircraft in point non-egu inventory
  • Initial data file, draft 2016alpha, should be available the first or second week of February. Ron Ryan says that 2014v2 point source data has been completed and is available in EIS.

Administrative Items

  • Recurring Meeting: 3rd Tuesday at 1400 EST. Next meeting will be February 20.
  • Google Drive
  • Wiki
    • For those who cannot access Google Drive, smaller files will be posted on Wiki when possible

Action Items

  • Members of work group read over charge and provide comments if you have any.
  • Caroline will work on Google Drive access issue.
  • Let co-chairs know if you have an interest in participating on sub-groups or if you would like to lead one of the subgroups.

Questions and Comments from Meeting

  • How is the group going to get data/input on data from SLTs that are not participating on work group call?
  • Specification Spreadsheet wording could be improved and the example spreadsheet may not be the most appropriate format/example for point source work. It is an agriculture spreadsheet.
    • There are field in EIS that are used when submitting data, could these be used for documentation?
  • How to fill in data not submitted by SLTs for 2016? 2014v2 projected to 2016? Ask SLTs to submit all collected data to EIS even if not required by AERR? Other options?
  • What about point subtraction? How will we avoid double counting?
  • Use trending methodology to generate projections?
  • Aircraft in 2016alpha? Or grown from 2014v2? It was noted that states may only submit partial inventories for 2016 aircraft.
  • Format for final deliverable data files=Smoke input files.
  • Will SPECIATE be used to augment 2016alpha? Sent email to Madeleine Strum
  • What do you see as the main use for the products of this workgroup?
    • Main use of 2016 Emission Modeling Platform would be PM and Ozone modeling. May be able to incorporate work by MARAMA on EMF.
  • How to treat small power generators, i.e. peaking units? Will these units be included in non-EGU point? There are identifiers for these units and could be used to flag units in SMOLE files. Northeast has been working on a similar issue and may have guidance.
    • Ron Ryan noted that many of these go into an IPM file but some do exist in non-EGU file. How will we identify these units?
    • May be determined by overall project coordinators Alison and Zac.
  • Why does the charge have the group projecting to 2028 first rather than 2023?

Next Call: February 20, 2018 at 2pm EST