Attachment G 

Attainment Demonstration 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-1 

4.0 PM2.5 PROJECTIONS 

This section presents the 2009 future-year PM2.5 projections for PM2.5 Federal Reference Method 

(FRM) monitoring sites within and near the ASIP region and their comparison with the annual 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The ASIP 2002 Typical and 2009 

Base G2 CMAQ 36 km and 12 km modeling results are used in the PM 2.5 Design Value 

projections. 

4.1 Guidance for PM2.5 Projections 

EPA has published final modeling guidance that includes recommendations on how modeling 

results should be used to project future-year PM2.5 levels: 

“Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of 

Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze” (EPA, 2007a). 

EPA recommends that the modeling results be used in a relative fashion to scale the observed 

current-year PM2.5 Design Value (DVC) to project a future-year PM2.5 Design Value (DVF). 

The model derived scaling factors are called Relative Response Factors (RRFs) and are defined 

as the ratio of the future-year to current-year modeling results. The future-year PM2.5 Design 

Values (DVF) are obtained from the current-year PM2.5 Design Values (DVC) by applying the 

RRF: 

DVF = DVC x RRF 

Separate RRFs are applied for each major component of PM2.5. The RRFs are site-specific and 

are derived from modeling results “near” each monitor. They are applied to five components of 

the PM2.5 DVC to obtain future-year PM2.5 estimates from which the DVF is derived that is 

compared with the PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2008 PM2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIPs) are 

addressing the 15.0 μg/m3

 annual and 65 μg/m3 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQSs. Currently all ASIP 

states attain the 65 μg/m3

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS so projections are only made for the annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Note that EPA has revised the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 μg/m3. The new 35 

μg/m3

 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS will be addressed in future PM2.5 SIPs. 

PM2.5 attainment is based on PM2.5 mass measurements collected at FRM monitoring sites. In 

order to apply the PM species-specific RRFs, the FRM PM2.5 mass measurements must be 

speciated into the components of PM2.5. There are two routine PM2.5 speciation networks being 

operated in the U.S.: (1) the Speciated Trends Network (STN); and (2) the Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) networks. Thus, the PM2.5

speciation from these two networks need to be mapped to the FRM PM2.5 mass measurements in 

order to apply the RRFs to project future-year PM2.5 Design Values. This results in two main 

components for using modeling results to project future-year PM 2.5 Design Values: 

Speciation of Measured FRM PM2.5 Mass using the SANDWICH Method: The FRM PM2.5

mass and STN/IMPROVE PM2.5 speciation measurements both have positive and negative 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-2 

artifacts that need to be accounted for when mapping observed PM2.5 speciation data to the 

FRM mass measurements. As PM2.5 attainment is based solely on the FRM PM2.5 mass 

measurements, then the STN/IMPROVE PM2.5 speciation measurements must be adjusted to 

mimic the FRM PM2.5 mass measurements. EPA has developed the Sulfate Adjusted 

Nitrate, Derived Water Inferred Carbon Hybrid material balance approach (SANDWICH) 

for estimating PM2.5 mass composition produced by the FRM PM2.5 mass measurements to 

account for measurements artifacts (Frank, 2006a,b). 

Speciated Modeled Attainment Test (SMAT): The procedures for using the relative changes 

in modeled concentrations to project current observed PM2.5 Design Values to the future is 

termed the Speciated Modeled Attainment Test (SMAT) (EPA, 2007a; Timin, 2007). 

EPA is codifying the recommended procedures (EPA, 2007a) for projecting future-year 8-hour 

ozone and PM2.5 Design Values and regional haze in a software tool known as the Modeled 

Attainment Test Software (MATS; http://www.epa.gov/scram001/modelingapps_mats.htm). 

The latest versions of MATS at this writing (Version 1.1.2; May 2007) includes procedures for 

projecting 8-hour ozone and regional haze, but not PM2.5. Thus, MATS was not used for the 

ASIP PM2.5 Design Value projections presented in this chapter, but when available it will be 

used to corroborate the ASIP PM2.5 projections. Instead, ASIP used SANDWICH STN speciated 

PM2.5 data prepared by the state of North Carolina and spreadsheets to perform the SMAT 

future-year projections of FRM derived PM2.5 Design Values at FRM sites within and nearby the 

ASIP states. There are many more FRM PM2.5 mass monitoring sites than STN/IMPROVE 

PM2.5 speciation monitoring sites, so procedures need to be developed to map PM2.5 speciation to 

the FRM PM2.5 mass monitoring sites. The biggest difference between the ASIP spreadsheet 

based and MATS PM2.5 Design Value projection procedures is expected to be how the observed 

PM2.5 speciation data are mapped to the FRM monitoring sites. The MATS tool spatially 

interpolates the SANDWICH PM2.5 speciation from the STN/IMPROVE monitoring networks to 

the FRM monitoring sites, whereas the ASIP spreadsheet approach assigns SANDWICH STN 

PM2.5 speciation to each FRM monitoring site within and near the ASIP states. At FRM sites 

with co-located STN sites, the two approaches should produce nearly identical results. 

4.2 Procedures for SANDWICH Speciation of STN PM2.5 Components 

The SANDWICH procedure is designed to map the STN/IMPROVE PM2.5 speciation 

measurements to the FRM PM2.5 mass measurements accounting for the artifacts and sampling 

protocols of both of the sampling devices. PM2.5 attainment is based solely on the FRM PM2.5

mass measurements, which were developed by design to emulate the PM2.5 mass measurements 

from the epidemiological studies that formed the basis for the PM NAAQS (CFR, 1997). The 

FRM mass sampling procedures include a specific sampling protocol that involves sampling PM 

at a 2.5 μm cut point and filter temperature control, rapid sample retrieval and cold filter 

shipping. The PM2.5 mass is determined by gravimetrically weighing the pre- and post-sampling 

Teflon filters that have been equilibrated for a minimum of 24 hours at standardized conditions 

of 25-30 degrees C temperature and 30-40% relative humidity (RH). This results in the FRM 

PM2.5 mass measurements not capturing all particles and reflects loss of volatile species 

including ammonium nitrate [NH4NO3] and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOC), which 

are negative artifacts in the FRM sampling. The FRM measurements also include particle bound 

water (PBW) associated with hygroscopic species, which is a positive artifact. 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-3 

The SANDWICH uses a mass balance approach to adjust the STN and IMPROVE speciated 

PM2.5 measurements to characterize the FRM PM2.5 mass. In addition to addressing the artifacts 

of the FRM sampling procedures, it also addresses the artifacts and sampling protocol of the 

STN filter measurements accounting for blank correction and inaccuracies in the STN organic 

carbon measurements. In particular the SANDWICH approach uses the STN measured sulfate, 

adjusted nitrate, derived PBW and inferred organic carbon. The SANDWICH assumes that the 

FRM PM2.5 mass consists of the following components: 

FRM PM2.5 Mass = [SO4] + [EC] + [NO3FRM] + [NH4FRM] + [OCMmb] + [water] + 

[crustal material] + [blank correction] 

where, 

[SO4] is the measured sulfate ion, which for ASIP is taken as the SO4 fraction of the 

STN PM2.5 from the STN site associated with the FRM monitor; 

[EC] is the measured elemental carbon from the associated STN monitor; 

[NO3FRM] is the NO3 ion retained on the FRM filter after a portion as been volatilized in 

the FRM measurement process; 

[NH4FRM] is the NH4 cation retained on the FRM filter after partial volatilization; 

[OCMmb] is the organic carbon material that is obtained as the difference between the 

FRM PM2.5 mass measurements and the remainder of the PM2.5 components; 

[water] is particle bound water to the hygroscopic PM components; 

[crustal material] is soil and other inorganic fine particulate matter; and 

[blank correction] is the passively collected PM material in the STN measurement 

process that is assumed to be 0.5 μg/m3

. 

4.2.1 Retained Particulate Nitrate [NO3FRM] 

The first step in the SANDWICH procedure for identifying mass components was to estimate the 

retained nitrate mass on the FRM filters. The FRM does not capture all of the semi-volatile 

components of the ambient air, such as ammonium nitrate. The retained amount of nitrate ion, 

however, can be reasonably estimated by a simple thermodynamic model that uses 24-hour 

ambient nitrate speciation concentrations (as measured by a standard speciation sampler using a 

nylon filter preceded by a HNO3 denuder) together with hourly ambient temperature and 

humidity. Atmospheric nitrates are higher during the cooler months. Retention on the FRM is 

also higher during the cooler months and essentially all the nitrates are lost during the summer. 

The retention does not appear to depend on ambient NH3 or HNO3. More NO3 is retained at low 

temperatures and high humidity which varies by sampling location and time of year. 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-4 

Because nitrate retention varies by site and season, the Aerosol Inorganic Model (AIM) 

ammonium nitrate equilibrium model is used to predict the amount of nitrates retained on the 

FRM Teflon filter under the FRM sampling conditions (35% RH and 21 C). As used by Hering 

and Cass (Hering and Cass, 1999; Zhang and McMurry, 1992) the amount of volatilized nitrate 

(delta NO3) is defined by: 

 24 

 delta NO3 (μg/m3)= 745.7/TR* 1/24* Σ (Ki

 1⁄2 ) 

 i=1 

where, TR is the reference temperature for the sampled air volume in degrees Kelvin and Ki is 

the dissociation constant for ammonium nitrate evaluated at the ambient temperature for hour i. 

This volatilization prediction characterizes depletion of some or all of the nitric acid and 

ammonia vapors ahead of the filter and specifies a 3-5 degree Kelvin increase in the filtration 

temperature above ambient. 

This model is used to adjust 24-hour STN nitrate ion (NO3-) concentrations [NO3STN] to 

estimate FRM NO3 [NO3FRM] as follows: 

 NO3FRM = NO3STN - delta NO3 (μg/m3) 

For each hour of the day, the equilibrium dissociation constant for ammonium nitrate, Ki, was 

calculated from hourly ambient temperature and hourly ambient relative humidity based on 

formulas developed by Mozurkewich (1993) and as applied by Chang and co-workers (2000). 

When RH is less than deliquescence point of ammonium nitrate (61%), then: 

 ln(K) = 118.87 - (24084/T)-6.025 ln(T), where K is in nanobars and T is in 

Kelvins 

When RH is higher than 61%, K is replaced by 

 K’=[P1-P2(1-a)+P3(1-a)2

] (1-a)1.75*K 

 where ln(P1), ln(P2) and ln(P3) are specified as: 

 ln(P1) = -135.94 + 8763/T + 19.12ln(T) 

 ln(P2) = -122.65 + 9969/T + 16.22ln(T) 

 ln(P3) = -182.61 + 13875/T + 24.46ln(T) 

The above equation for K’ assumes crystallization of ammonium nitrate when RH is less than 

61%. Thus, predicted NO3 loss may be underestimated for situations where solids do not form 

on the filter. For supersaturated solutions and with lower RH, the estimated dissociation for the 

solution will be larger than K for the solid. However, there is little (or no) data that can be used 

to give a reliable result for how much larger. 

Based on the equations above, Figure 4-1 illustrates the potential nitrate loss as a function of 

temperature and relative humidity. Temperature is presented as degrees F for more convenient 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-5 

interpretation. It shows that at 50 deg F and RH of 80%, approximately 1.6 μg/m3 nitrate would 

be lost. At RH less < 61% an additional 0.4 ug/m3 could be lost. In both cases, the loss cannot 

exceed the amount of ambient NO3, as depicted by the STN NO3. 

 

When these predictions are compared with measured FRM nitrates at six eastern US monitoring 

locations, the annual average prediction errors are less than -0.3 to +0.1 μg/m3 (Frank, 2006a). 

Figure 4-1. Potential NO3 loss (delta NO3) as a function of temperature and relative humidity. 

4.2.2. Estimated Ammonium Associated with Sulfate and Retained Nitrates and Sulfates 

To determine the mass associated with nitrates, the SANDWICH approach assumes that all 

retained nitrate is in the form of ammonium nitrate, which is likely an accurate assumption over 

most of the ASIP southeastern U.S. region. Although in coastal areas, nitrate may also be 

neutralized by sodium. However, sodium nitrate concentrations would mainly be in the coarse 

PM mode so would not be collected on the FRM or STN PM2.5 samplers. Assuming that all of 

the particulate nitrate is in the form of ammonium nitrate, the ammonium associated with nitrates 

can be derived directly from the FRM retained NO3FRM as: 

 NH4NO3 = 0.29 * NO3FRM 

Similarly, the dry PM2.5 mass associated with ammonium nitrate is: 

PLOT prediction_RH_high prediction_RH_low

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

temperature, deg F

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

More loss at low humidity (blue curve)

 RH = 80% is illustrated with red curve
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-6 

 [Retained dry FRM Ammonium Nitrates] = 1.29 * NO3FRM 

 4.2.3 Ammoniated Sulfate Mass 

The mass associated with sulfates is first estimated as its dry mass. All estimated sulfates are 

assumed to be associated with ammonium, but the form of the sulfate compound and the amount 

of ammonium must be estimated. The form of the ammoniated sulfate compound(s) and the 

amount of associated ammonium, however, is somewhat uncertain. 

Sulfates may not be fully neutralized in all geographic areas or seasons of the year. During 

winter-time conditions, when nitrates are prevalent in the ambient aerosol, sulfates tend to be 

fully neutralized and exist as ammonium sulfate [(NH4)2SO4]. During the summer, when 

sulfates are higher and nitrates are lower and ammonia is less available for reaction with H2SO4, 

the resulting aerosol can be acidic and the form of sulfates can include ammonium bisulfate 

[NH4SO4] or even H2SO4. 

The amount of ammonium associated with the sulfate ion can be estimated as: 

 NH4(SO4) = NH4adj - 0.29 * NO3FRM, 

 

 where, 0.29 is the molar ratio of NH4 to NO3 and 

 NH4FRM and NO3FRM reflect the amounts retained on the FRM filter. 

The amount of NH4(SO4) is not allowed to exceed the fully neutralized amount of 0.375 

multiplied by the estimated sulfate ion concentration. 

Because of uncertainties in NH4 speciation measurements and the fact that the IMPROVE 

monitoring network does not measure NH4, NH4 is calculated by deriving the degree of sulfate 

neutralization (DON) from the estimated NH4(SO4) as: 

 DON = NH4(SO4) / SO4 ] 

The DON is assumed to remain constant from the current-year to future-year. Values of DON, 

sulfate and estimated FRM nitrate (adjusted nitrate) are used to estimate the adjusted ammonium 

at each FRM site as follows: 

 NH4FRM = DON * SO4 + 0.29*NO3FRM

where, DON, SO4 and NO3FRM are the quarterly average values at each FRM site. 

Thus, in the standard SANDWICH SMAT application NH4FRM is not a direct measured value, 

but is derived from the DON, SO4, and NO3adj values. In the default EPA PM2.5 Design Value 

projection approach, interpolated DON values are used to estimate ammonium, this is due to 

uncertainties in the ammonium measurements and the lack of NH4 measurements at IMPROVE 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-7 

sites. However, for the ASIP SANDWICH/SMAT application presented in this Chapter the 

DON, SO4 and NO3adj data from a specific STN monitoring site are assigned to FRM monitors 

so spatial interpolation is not used. 

4.2.4 Particle Bound Water 

Because ammoniated sulfate and ammonium nitrate are hygroscopic, the retained sulfate and 

nitrate mass will include water1. Particle bound water (PBW) is estimated using the Aerosol 

Inorganic Model (AIM) (Clegg, 1998). PBW was derived from quarterly average FRM 

concentrations of sulfate, ammonium, nitrate as describe above. Estimated hydronium ion, H+, 

needed to achieve ionic balance was derived from the latter values. The model enables the 

distribution of water and ions to be calculated between liquid, solid and vapor phases for specific 

temperature and relative humidity conditions. Typical filter equilibration conditions of 35% RH 

and 22 deg C (295 deg K) temperature are used. 

Application of AIM at the specified FRM filter equilibration conditions show that PBW is much 

more dependent on sulfate concentration compared to nitrate and that the relationship varies 

somewhat by season to differentiate the relative amounts of sulfate and nitrate aerosol. There is 

proportionally less estimated PBW water for wintertime aerosol which has higher NH4 and NO3 

and lower SO4. 

For computational convenience, a polynomial regression equation was fit to the calculated water 

mass from AIM under the FRM equilibration conditions and the three input values that fed into 

AIM (sulfate, nitrate and ammonium). The polynomial equation was used in all SMAT analyses 

to estimate water. Due to the non-linear nature of the water calculation, the measurements were 

divided into 2 regimes; all measurements (site-days) where DON > 0.225 and all measurements 

where DON ≤ 0.225. A separate equation was developed to represent each regime. 

 

The equations are as follows: 

S= SO4 / (SO4 + NO3FRM + NH4FRM) 

N= NO3FRM / (SO4 + NO3FRM + NH4FRM) 

A= NH4FRM / (SO4 + NO3FRM + NH4FRM) 

If DON ≤ 0.225 then: 

PBW = 595.56 

 - 1440.58*S 

 - 1126.49*N 

 + 283.91*(S**1.5) 

 - 13.38*(N**1.5) 

 - 1486.71*(A**1.5) 

 + 764.23*(S**2) 

 + 1502.00*(N*S) 

 

1

 Note that some organic carbon (OC) species are also likely hygroscopic but due to 

uncertainties the PBW associated with hygroscopic OC species is not accounted for. 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-8 

 + 451.87*(N**2) 

 - 185.18*(S**2.5) 

 - 375.98*(S**1.5)*N 

 - 16.90*(S**3) 

 - 65.81*(N**1.5)*S 

 + 96.83*(N**2.5) 

 + 83.04*(N**1.5)*(S**1.5) 

 - 4.42*(N**3) 

 + 1720.82*(A**1.5)*S 

 + 1220.38*(A**1.5)*N 

 - 311.50*(A**1.5)*(S**1.5) 

 + 148.77*(A**1.5)*(N**1.5) 

 + 1151.65*(A**3)) * (SO4 + NO3FRM + NH4FRM ) 

If DON > 0.225 then: 

PBW = 202049.0 

 - 391494.6*S 

 - 390912.1*N 

 + 442.4*(S**1.5) 

 - 155.3*(N**1.5) 

 - 293406.8*(A**1.5) 

 + 189277.5*(S**2) 

 + 377992.6*N*S 

 + 188636.8*(N**2) 

 - 447.1*(S**2.5) 

 - 507.2*(S**1.5)*N 

 - 12.8*(S**3) 

 + 146.2*(N**1.5)*S 

 + 217.2*(N**2.5) 

 + 30.0*(N**1.5)*(S**1.5) 

 - 18.6*(N**3) 

 + 216267.0*(A**1.5)*S 

 + 215419.9*(A**1.5)*N 

 - 621.8*(A**1.5)*(S**1.5) 

 + 239.1*(A**1.5)*(N**1.5) 

 + 95413.1*(A**3)) * (SO4 + NO3FRM + NH4FRM ) 

4.2.5 Passively Collected PM2.5 Components (Blank Correction) 

The other quantifiable components of PM2.5 mass include passively collected mass, represented 

by the field blank concentration that is typically 0.3-0.5 μg/m3

 (EPA, 2002). This appears to 

constitute a contamination of the filter resulting from handling or contact with the FRM cassette. 

This value is deemed to be an important constituent of PM2.5 mass (it is assumed to not be 

dependent on pollutant emissions). A nominal blank mass value of 0.5 μg/m3

 is assumed in mass 

construction computations. This value is assumed to remain constant from the current-year to 

future-year. 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-9 

4.2.6 Calculation of Carbonaceous Mass 

Carbonaceous mass is estimated from blank corrected PM2.5 speciation data, where organic 

carbonaceous mass (OCM) is first estimated by multiplying the organic carbon (OC) 

concentrations by 1.4 (OCM = 1.4 x OC) to account for the oxygen, hydrogen and other 

elements associated with ambient carbon particles. Note that the 1.4 OCM/OC ratio was based 

on limited organic compound speciation data in Los Angeles (Watson, 2002). More recent 

analysis by Turpin and Lim (2001) have found OCM/OC ratios that vary from 1.6±0.2 for urban 

areas to 2.4±0.2 for rural areas. However, since the SANDWICH derivation of the initial OCM 

is just used as a “floor’ for the OCM calculation, the lower OCM/OC ratio of 1.4 is used. To that 

amount is added the elemental carbon (EC) concentration. An alternative approach to estimate 

carbon contribution to PM2.5 mass is used for SMAT because of: (1) many uncertainties in 

estimating carbonaceous mass from carbon measurements (Turpin and Lim, 2001; Chow et al., 

2004); (2) differences in carbon measurement protocol between urban and rural monitoring 

locations; (3) a relatively “bumpy” surface of urban carbon concentrations as derived from these 

urban and rural organic carbon measurements; and (4) lack of carbon measurements at all FRM 

locations. The SANDWICH/SMAT approach estimates carbon by mass balance comparing 

precisely measured FRM PM2.5 mass (EPA, 2003) with the sum of its non-carbon components. 

The latter are sulfates, ammonium, nitrates, estimated particle bound water, estimated crustal 

material plus 0.5 μg/m3 passively collected mass blank correction as discussed earlier. 

This approach estimates retained carbonaceous FRM mass and explicitly accounts for the 

following important and difficult to estimate carbon mass properties: (1) regional and urban-rural 

differences in the mix of carbonaceous aerosols (i.e. the amount of oxygen, hydrogen, etc that is 

associated with the organic carbon); (2) retained water associated with hygroscopic carbon 

compounds (Saxena, 1996; Yua, 2004); (3) volatile carbonaceous material measured by 

speciation samplers, but not retained in FRM mass; and (4) uncertainties associated with blank 

corrections of measured organic and elemental carbon. 

Total Carbonaceous Mass by mass balance (TCMmb) is defined as: 

 TCMmb = FRM PM2.5 - {[SO4] + [NO3FRM] + [NH4FRM] + [water] + [crustal material] + 

[0.5]} 

In this expression, all of the above quarterly average components represent the mass retained on 

FRM Teflon filters. 

The mass associated with organic compounds is defined as: 

 OCMmb= TCMmb - [EC] 

where, EC is STN measured elemental carbon. 

This approach completely accounts for FRM mass and OCMmb is often greater than the amount 

that would be derived directly from speciation measurements. Because of uncertainties in 

speciation measurements and their estimates from interpolated surfaces, a lower limit (floor) for 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-10 

OCMmb was set so that the OCMmb was not unreasonably low. The floor was set so that OCMmb

could not be more than 30% lower than measured OCM. For the ASIP projections, the STN 

measured OCM was used to calculate the floor assuming a 1.4 OCM/OC ratio. The lower limit 

is equal to interpolated (measured) OC * 1.4 * 0.7. If the OCMmb concentration was less than the 

lower limit, it was set equal to the lower limit. 

4.2.6. Summary of PM2.5 Composition Calculations 

As presented in the beginning of this section, the application of the SANDWICH speciated 

STN/IMPROVE data to the FRM PM2.5 mass produces the following composition of PM species 

as they relate to the measured FRM values for each quarter of 2002. Quarterly average FRM 

mass is equal to the sum of the seven species plus blank mass. 

PM2.5FRM = { [OCMmb] + [EC] + [SO4] + [NO3FRM] + [NH4FRM] + [water] 

 + [crustal material] + [0.5] } 

The SANDWICH species data is generated in the following order: 

1. Adjusted nitrate is calculated using hourly meteorology and 24-hour average nitrate 

measurements. 

 

2. Quarterly averages are calculated for adjusted nitrate, sulfate, elemental carbon, 

degree of sulfate neutralization (DON), crustal mass , and measured OCM. 

3. Quarterly average ammonium is calculated from the adjusted nitrate, sulfate, and 

DON values (or in the case of ASIP the NH4adj is used directly). 

4. Calculated ammonium, sulfate, and nitrate values are input into the water equation to 

derive particle bound water concentrations. 

5. Carbon mass by difference (OMCmb) is calculated from the PM2.5 mass, adjusted 

nitrate, ammonium, sulfate, water, elemental carbon, crustal, and blank mass values. 

6. The sum of the 7 species plus blank mass is equal to the FRM mass. 

4.3 Defining Current-Year PM2.5 Design Values (DVC)

The PM2.5 component species fractions are applied to current-year PM2.5 Design Values (DVC) 

that are then projected to the future using the model derived RRFs. EPA’s PM2.5 modeling 

guidance recommends using the average of the 3 years of PM2.5 Design Value periods that 

straddle the emissions year. The average of the 3 design values is not a straight five year 

average. It is, in effect, a weighted average of the annual averages. The base year inventory and 

modeling year for the ASIP modeling is 2002. Therefore, the design value period is from 2000-

2004. In the average of 2000-2002, 2001-2003, and 2002-2004 PM2.5 Design Values for the 

DVC, the annual average PM2.5 concentrations for 2002 is “weighted” 3 times, 2001 and 2003 

are weighted twice, and 2000 and 2004 are weighted once. This has the desired effect of 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-11 

weighting the projected PM2.5 values towards the middle year of the five year period, which is 

the emissions and meteorology year for the ASIP modeling (i.e., 2002). 

 

There are several steps in the derivation of the average PM2.5 design values for projections to the 

future. Quarterly average values are needed for each FRM site. The following steps were used 

to derive the quarterly average FRM values. 

1. The analysis began with quarterly average FRM data for all quarters from 2000-2004. 

 

2. A quarterly average 3 year design value was calculated for each design value period in 

which a site had all 12 quarters with complete data (2000-2002, 2001-2003, and 2002-

2004). This results in four quarterly averages for up to three design value periods for 

each FRM site. 

3. The (up to) 3 quarterly design value periods were averaged together to get a single 

quarterly average design value for each site. 

4.4 Speciated Model Attainment Test (SMAT) 

The EPA default procedure for projecting future-year PM2.5 Design Values using the Speciated 

Model Attainment Test (SMAT) is as follows: 

1. Derive current quarterly mean concentrations for each of the major components of PM2.5. 

This is done by multiplying the monitored quarterly mean concentration of Federal 

Reference Method (FRM) (EPA, 1997) derived PM2.5 mass by the monitored fractional 

composition of PM2.5 species (at speciation monitor sites) for each quarter. In the case of 

the ASIP projections, the PM composition at each FRM site is defined from a 

SANDWICH speciation of an assigned nearby STN site. 

 

2. Use the ASIP 2002 Typical Base Case and 2009 Base Case CMAQ modeling results to 

estimate current and future concentrations for each of the components of PM2.5 near the 

FRM monitor. Take the ratio of future to current predictions for each component. The 

result is a component-specific relative response factor (RRF). 

3. For each quarter, multiply the current quarterly mean component concentration from Step 

1 times the component-specific RRF obtained in Step 2. This leads to an estimated future 

quarterly mean concentration for each PM2.5 component. 

4. Derive the future-year ammonium concentrations assuming the future-year nitrate is 

completely neutralized and that the DON stays constant from the current-year to futureyear. Derive PBM concentrations from the future-year PM2.5 components and 

atmospheric conditions for the FRM monitor. Assume the blank correction stays 

constant from the current-year to future-year. 

5. Average the four quarterly mean future concentrations to get an estimated future annual 

mean concentration for each PM2.5 component. Sum the annual mean concentrations of 

the PM2.5 components to obtain an estimated future annual concentration for PM2.5. 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-12 

The FRM data is used for nonattainment designations. Therefore it is important that the SMAT 

procedures described above use the FRM data as the base value for projecting future PM2.5

concentrations. As can be seen from the list of steps, the modeled attainment test is dependent 

on the availability of species component mass representative of the FRM sites. 

4.5 Estimating Future Year PM2.5 Design Values

Future-year concentrations of PM2.5 component species are estimated by assuming that the 

quarterly average component concentration will change in the same proportion as the model 

predicted change. Model predicted changes in species concentrations (from a current-year to a 

future-year) are used to calculate RRFs. RRFs are calculated for each grid cell and species as the 

ratio of the quarterly average future-year (2009) model predictions to the current-year (2002) 

base case model predictions “near” the FRM monitor. The RRF for each PM2.5 species is then 

multiplied by the estimated base year ambient PM2.5 species mass for the site to estimate future 

species concentrations. 

4.5.1 Projecting PM2.5 Component Species 

In the SMAT methodology, RRFs are calculated for five of the PM2.5 component species: sulfate 

(SO4), nitrate (NO3adj), organic carbon mass (OCMmb), elemental carbon (EC), and crustal mass. 

Note that future-year values for the other three PM2.5 component species are either derived from 

the projections of these five PM2.5 component species (i.e., NH4 and PBW) or held constant (i.e., 

blank correction). The future year concentrations of the five PM2.5 components are calculated for 

each site and each quarter. The future-year ammonium concentrations are calculated from the 

future-year sulfate, nitrate, and (current-year) DON values. Assuming that the DON is 

unchanged from the current year, the ammonium is calculated using the following formula: 

 

 NH4future = DON * SO4future + 0.29*NO3future, 

 

The NH4future, SO4future, and NO3future concentrations are then run through the water equation to 

predict a future-year particle bound water (PRB) concentration. The future-year PM2.5 species 

concentrations at each FRM site are then summed over the seven species plus blank mass to 

estimate the future quarterly average PM2.5 concentration. The four quarterly values are then 

averaged to obtain the estimated future annual average PM2.5 for each FRM site. 

4.6 Defining RRFs Based on Modeling Results “Near” the Monitor 

When defining the model derived RRFs, EPA recommends using current-year and future-year 

modeling results “near” the monitor. By “near” EPA recommends using spatially averaged 

modeling results for a grid resolution NX by NY array of grid cells centered on the FRM 

monitor. In the ASIP modeling grid resolutions of 36 km and 12 km are being used for which 

EPA recommends that NX=NY=1 and NX=NY=3, respectively. Thus, for the ASIP 2009 PM2.5

Design Value projections, RRFs were based on the modeling results within the grid cell 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-13 

containing the FRM monitoring when using the CMAQ 36 km modeling results, and in the 9 

grid cells centered on the FRM monitor for the CMAQ 12 km modeling results. 

 2009 PM2.5 Design Value Projections using Base G2 Modeling Results 

The 2000-2004 current-year PM2.5 Design Values at FRM sites within and near the ASIP region 

were projected to 2009 using the SMAT/SANDWICH procedures described above and the 2002 

Typical Base Case and 2009 Base Case Base G2 CMAQ 36 km and 12 km modeling results. 

The ASIP 2009 Base G2 PM2.5 Design Value projections are discussed next by state. 

4.7.1 Alabama 

Figure 4-2 and Table 4-1 display the current-year (DVC) and projected future-year 2009 PM2.5

Design Values (DVFs) using the Base G2 CMAQ modeling results for FRM sites in Alabama. 

The stacked bar charts of current-year (based on average of three year Design Values from 2002-

2002, 2001-2003 and 2002-2004) and 2009 future-year (based on both 12 km and 36 km 

modeling results) PM2.5 Design Values includes the contributions of each of the PM2.5

component of the Design Values. The largest two PM components by far are sulfate (SO4) and 

organic carbon mass (OCM). Next most important PM components to annual PM2.5

concentrations in Alabama are crustal material, ammonium (NH4), particle bound water (PBW) 

followed closely by elemental carbon (EC). Nitrate (NO3) is an extremely small to insignificant 

component of the annual average PM2.5 in Alabama. 

In addition to the current-year and projected future-year PM2.5 Design Values using the 

2002/2009 CMAQ 12 km modeling results, Table 4-1 also lists all FRM monitors in Alabama 

and the reasons (if any) 2009 projections were not available at some of the sites. There are two 

main reasons why 2009 PM2.5 Design Value projections could not be made at a particular FRM 

site: (1) there was insufficient FRM data to construct a valid current-year PM2.5 Design Value; or 

(2) there was no speciated PM2.5 data to use in the SMAT calculation. Regarding the latter case, 

this was usually due to not having a nearby STN monitor site to pair with the FRM monitor. 

Projections for these sites will be made when the MATS tool is available that spatially 

interpolates the SANDWICH speciated PM2.5 data to the FRM monitors. 

There are two PM2.5 monitors in Alabama that are projected to exceed the annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

in 2009: 

• North Birmingham in Birmingham, Alabama with 2009 Base G2 projected PM2.5 Design 

Values of 17.04 μg/m3

 using the 36 km CMAQ results and 16.97 μg/m3 using the CMAQ 

12 km results; and 

 

• Wylam in Birmingham, Alabama with 2009 projected PM2.5 Design Values of 15.58 

μg/m3

 (CMAQ 36 km) and 15.76 μg/m3 (CMAQ 12 km). 

In the past these two sites were Community Monitoring Zone (CMZ) monitoring sites whose 

values were averaged for comparisons with the NAAQS. However, their CMZ status is not 

longer recognized by EPA. In any event, both the North Birmingham and Wylam FRM 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-14 

monitoring sites in Birmingham, Alabama are projected to exceed the annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 

2009 using the ASIP CMAQ Base G2 36 and 12 km modeling results. The Jefferson County 

Department of Health (JCDH) and Alabama Department of Environmental Management 

(ADEM) are pursuing urban-scale modeling using a 4 km CMAQ database and local-scale 

modeling using AERMOD to identify local controls to bring these two monitors into attainment 

of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The ASIP CMAQ Base G2 2009 modeling results project that all other FRM monitors in 

Alabama will attain the annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2009. 

Alabama 2002 Design Value (Left) and

2009 base G2 12km projected DVF (Middle) and

2009 base G2 36km projected DVF (Right)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Baldwin-0010

Clay-0001

Colbert-1002

DeKalb-1003

Escambia-0002

Houston-0002

Jefferson-0023Jefferson-1005Jefferson-1009Jefferson-2003Jefferson-2006Jefferson-5002Jefferson-5003

Madison-0014

Mobile-0002Mobile-2005

Montgomery-0007

Morgan-0011

Russell-0001

Sumter-0002

Talladega-0002

Alabama

ug/m3

Sum of PBW

Sum of NH4

Sum of Crustal

Sum of EC

Sum of OC

Sum of NO3

Sum of SO4

Figure 4-2. Current (2000-2004) PM2.5 Design Values centered on 2002 and Projected 2009 

PM2.5 Design Values (DVF) in Alabama using the CMAQ 36/12 km Base G2 modeling results. 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-15 

Table 4-1. Current-year (DVC) and projected future-year (DVF) PM2.5 Design Values (μg/m3) in 

Alabama using the 2002 Typical and 2009 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. 

 

2002 

Annual 

2009g2a 

Annual 

Difference 

(2009g2a-2002gt2a) Notes 

AIRS ID State County DVC DVF 

01-003-0010 AL Baldwin 11.3 10.6 -0.7 

01-027-0001 AL Clay 13.5 12.3 -1.2 

01-033-1002 AL Colbert 13.0 11.7 -1.3 

01-049-1003 AL DeKalb 14.9 13.4 -1.5 

01-053-0002 AL Escambia 12.8 12.1 -0.7 

01-055-0010 AL Etowah 15.3 missing SMAT data 

01-069-0002 AL Houston 13.8 12.7 -1.1 

01-069-0003 AL Houston missing DVC data 

01-073-0023 AL Jefferson 18.4 17.0 -1.4 

01-073-1005 AL Jefferson 15.0 13.8 -1.2 

01-073-1009 AL Jefferson 13.0 11.8 -1.2 

01-073-2003 AL Jefferson 17.1 15.8 -1.3 

01-073-2006 AL Jefferson 15.1 13.8 -1.3 

01-073-5002 AL Jefferson 14.0 12.7 -1.3 

01-073-5003 AL Jefferson 14.1 12.8 -1.3 

01-089-0014 AL Madison 14.2 12.8 -1.4 

01-097-0002 AL Mobile 12.9 12.2 -0.7 

01-097-0003 AL Mobile 12.6 missing SMAT data 

01-097-2005 AL Mobile 11.9 11.1 -0.8 

01-101-0007 AL Montgomery 14.6 13.5 -1.1 

01-101-1002 AL Montgomery 15.8 missing SMAT data 

01-103-0010 AL Morgan 18.2 missing SMAT data 

01-103-0011 AL Morgan 13.1 11.8 -1.3 

01-113-0001 AL Russell 16.1 14.8 -1.3 

01-117-0004 AL Shelby 14.5 missing SMAT data 

01-119-0002 AL Sumter 12.3 11.3 -1.0 

01-121-0002 AL Talladega 15.0 13.8 -1.2 

01-125-0003 AL Tuscaloosa 16.2 missing SMAT data 

01-125-0004 AL Tuscaloosa 12.8 missing SMAT data 

01-125-0010 AL Tuscaloosa missing DVC data 

01-127-0002 AL Walker 13.7 missing SMAT data 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-16 

District of Columbia 

Figure 4-3 and Table 4-2 display the current-year and future-year PM2.5 Design Values at FRM 

monitoring sites in the District of Columbia that is adjacent to the ASIP region using the CMAQ 

Base G2 modeling results. Two of the three sites current-year Design Values exceed the 

NAAQS. However, by 2009 all three monitoring sites are estimated to be well below the annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

District of Columbia 2002 Design Value (Left) and

2009 base G2 12km projected DVF (Middle) and

2009 base G2 36km projected DVF (Right)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

DC-0041DC-0042DC-0043

District of Columbia

ug/m3

Sum of PBW

Sum of NH4

Sum of Crustal

Sum of EC

Sum of OC

Sum of NO3

Sum of SO4

Figure 4-3. Current (2000-2004) PM2.5 Design Values centered on 2002 and Projected 2009 

PM2.5 Design Values (DVF) in the District of Columbia using the CMAQ 36/12 km Base G2 

modeling results.

Table 4-2. Current-year (DVC) and projected future-year (DVF) PM2.5 Design Values (μg/m3) in 

the District of Columbia using the 2002 Typical and 2009 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling 

results. 

 

2002 

Annual 

2009g2a 

Annual 

Difference 

(2009g2a-2002gt2a) Notes 

AIRS ID State County DVC DVF 

11-001-0041 DC 

District of 

Columbia 15.7 13.1 -2.6 

11-001-0042 DC 

District of 

Columbia 14.8 12.4 -2.4 

11-001-0043 DC 

District of 

Columbia 15.1 12.6 -2.5 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-17 

Florida 

There are 23 FRM monitoring sites in the state of Florida (Figure 4-4 and Table 4-3). The 

maximum current-year PM2.5 Design Value is 12.7 μg/m3, which is projected to be reduced to 

11.6 μg/m3 by 2009. Thus, none of the FRM sites are currently or projected in the future to 

exceed the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Florida 2002 Design Value (Left) and

2009 base G2 12km projected DVF (Middle) and

2009 base G2 36km projected DVF (Right)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Alachua-0023Alachua-0024

Bay-1004

Brevard-0007

Broward-1002Broward-2004Broward-3002

Citrus-0005

Duval-0098Duval-0099

Escambia-0004

Hillsborough-0030Hillsborough-3002

Lee-0005

Leon-0012

Manatee-4012

Marion-0003

Miami-Dade-1016Miami-Dade-6001

Orange-1004Orange-2002

Palm Beach-0008Palm Beach-0009Palm Beach-2005

Pinellas-0018Pinellas-1009

Polk-6006

Sarasota-0013

Seminole-1002

St. Lucie-1002

Volusia-5002

Florida

ug/m3

Sum of PBW

Sum of NH4

Sum of Crustal

Sum of EC

Sum of OC

Sum of NO3

Sum of SO4

Figure 4-4. Current (2000-2004) PM2.5 Design Values centered on 2002 and Projected 2009 

PM2.5 Design Values (DVF) in Florida using the CMAQ 36/12 km Base G2 modeling results.
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-18 

Table 4-3. Current-year (DVC) and projected future-year (DVF) PM2.5 Design Values (μg/m3) in 

Florida using the 2002 Typical and 2009 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. 

 

2002 

Annual 

2009g2a 

Annual 

Difference 

(2009g2a-2002gt2a) Notes 

AIRS ID State County DVC DVF 

12-001-0023 FL Alachua 9.9 8.7 -1.2 

12-001-0024 FL Alachua 9.8 8.6 -1.2 

12-005-1004 FL Bay 10.8 9.7 -1.1 

12-009-0007 FL Brevard 8.1 6.7 -1.4 

12-011-1002 FL Broward 8.2 6.9 -1.3 

12-011-2004 FL Broward 8.4 7.1 -1.3 

12-011-3002 FL Broward 8.4 7.2 -1.2 

12-017-0005 FL Citrus 9.2 7.8 -1.4 

12-031-0098 FL Duval 10.1 8.8 -1.3 

12-031-0099 FL Duval 10.2 9.2 -1.0 

12-033-0004 FL Escambia 11.6 12.4 0.8 

12-057-0030 FL Hillsborough 11.3 9.2 -2.1 

12-057-1075 FL Hillsborough missing DVC data 

12-057-3002 FL Hillsborough 11.5 9.4 -2.1 

12-071-0005 FL Lee 8.5 6.9 -1.6 

12-073-0012 FL Leon 12.7 11.6 -1.1 

12-081-4012 FL Manatee 10.3 8.1 -2.2 

12-083-0003 FL Marion 10.1 8.6 -1.5 

12-086-1016 FL Miami-Dade 10.0 8.9 -1.1 

12-086-6001 FL Miami-Dade 7.9 6.9 -1.0 

12-095-1004 FL Orange 10.3 8.6 -1.7 

12-095-2002 FL Orange 10.1 8.5 -1.6 

12-099-0008 FL Palm Beach 7.4 5.9 -1.5 

12-099-0009 FL Palm Beach 7.6 6.3 -1.3 

12-099-2005 FL Palm Beach 7.4 6.3 -1.1 

12-103-0018 FL Pinellas 10.6 8.4 -2.2 

12-103-1008 FL Pinellas missing DVC data 

12-103-1009 FL Pinellas 10.1 8.0 -2.1 

12-105-6006 FL Polk 10.5 8.7 -1.8 

12-111-1002 FL St. Lucie 8.6 7.1 -1.5 

12-113-0014 FL Santa Rosa missing DVC data 

12-115-0013 FL Sarasota 9.3 7.4 -1.9 

12-117-1002 FL Seminole 9.3 7.8 -1.5 

12-127-5002 FL Volusia 9.3 7.8 -1.5 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-19 

4.7.4 Georgia 

Of the 26 FRM monitoring sites in the state of Georgia, 16 of them have current-year PM2.5

Design Values (DVCs) that exceed the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The highest of these is in Fulton 

County that has a DVC of 18.3 μg/m3. The ASIP 2009 modeling projects that two of the 

Georgia FRM sites would still be violating the annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2009, with the 

maximum values being 16.6 μg/m3

 (12 km) and 16.4 μg/m3 (36 km) at the previously mentioned 

Fulton County site. The 2009 projected PM2.5 Design Value at the Clayton County site is just at 

the annual PM2.5 NAAQS (15.0 μg/m3). 

Georgia 2002 Design Value (Left) and

2009 base G2 12km projected DVF (Middle) and

2009 base G2 36km projected DVF (Right)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Bibb-0007Bibb-0012

Chatham-0017Chatham-0091

Clarke-0001

Clayton-0091

Cobb-0003Cobb-0004

DeKalb-0002DeKalb-2001

Dougherty-0007

Floyd-0005

Fulton-0032Fulton-0039

Glynn-0006

Gwinnett-0002

Hall-0003

Houston-0001

Lowndes-0003

Muscogee-0001Muscogee-0008Muscogee-0011

Paulding-0003

Richmond-0005Richmond-0091

Walker-0002

Washington-0001

Wilkinson-0001

Georgia

ug/m3

Sum of PBW

Sum of NH4

Sum of Crustal

Sum of EC

Sum of OC

Sum of NO3

Sum of SO4

Figure 4-5. Current (2000-2004) PM2.5 Design Values centered on 2002 and Projected 2009 

PM2.5 Design Values (DVF) in Georgia using the CMAQ 36/12 km Base G2 modeling results.
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-20 

Table 4-4. Current-year (DVC) and projected future-year (DVF) PM2.5 Design Values (μg/m3) in 

Georgia using the 2002 Typical and 2009 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. 

 

2002 

Annual 

2009g2a 

Annual 

Difference 

(2009g2a-2002gt2a) Notes 

AIRS ID State County DVC DVF 

13-021-0007 GA Bibb 15.7 14.2 -1.5 

13-021-0012 GA Bibb 13.8 12.4 -1.4 

13-051-0017 GA Chatham 13.9 12.6 -1.3 

13-051-0091 GA Chatham 13.8 12.6 -1.2 

13-059-0001 GA Clarke 15.8 13.8 -2.0 

13-059-0002 GA Clarke missing DVC data 

13-063-0091 GA Clayton 16.5 15.0 -1.5 

13-067-0003 GA Cobb 16.3 14.6 -1.7 

13-067-0004 GA Cobb 15.2 13.6 -1.6 

13-089-0002 GA DeKalb 15.9 14.4 -1.5 

13-089-2001 GA DeKalb 16.2 14.4 -1.8 

13-095-0007 GA Dougherty 14.2 13.1 -1.1 

13-115-0005 GA Floyd 15.7 14.1 -1.6 

13-121-0032 GA Fulton 16.5 14.8 -1.7 

13-121-0039 GA Fulton 18.3 16.6 -1.7 

13-127-0006 GA Glynn 11.9 10.6 -1.3 

13-135-0002 GA Gwinnett 16.1 14.3 -1.8 

13-139-0003 GA Hall 15.1 13.3 -1.8 

13-153-0001 GA Houston 13.3 11.9 -1.4 

13-185-0003 GA Lowndes 12.4 11.2 -1.2 

13-215-0001 GA Muscogee 14.9 13.6 -1.3 

13-215-0008 GA Muscogee 15.3 13.8 -1.5 

13-215-0011 GA Muscogee 14.9 13.6 -1.3 

13-223-0003 GA Paulding 14.3 12.8 -1.5 

13-245-0005 GA Richmond 15.6 13.8 -1.8 

13-245-0091 GA Richmond 15.1 13.4 -1.7 

13-295-0002 GA Walker 15.7 14.0 -1.7 

13-303-0001 GA Washington 14.5 12.9 -1.6 

13-319-0001 GA Wilkinson 15.2 13.7 -1.5 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-21 

4.7.6 Kentucky 

Of the 28 FRM monitoring sites in the state of Kentucky, 4 of them have current-year PM2.5

Design Values (DVCs) that exceed the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The highest of these is in 

Jefferson County that has a DVC of 16.8 μg/m3, however this FRM monitor had no associated 

STN speciation monitoring site so 2009 projections were not made at this site. Also in Jefferson 

County was the second highest DVC of 16.6 μg/m3

 which has a projected 2009 DVF of 14.9 

μg/m3

 using 12 km CMAQ results, which is below the NAAQS. However, these results raise 

concerns about the other Jefferson County FRM site’s projected 2009 DVF that would likely be 

above the PM2.5 NAAQS. All other FRM monitoring sites in Kentucky are projected to be 

below the annual average PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Kentucky 2002 Design Value (Left) and

2009 base G2 12km projected DVF (Middle) and

2009 base G2 36km projected DVF (Right)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Bell-0002

Boyd-0017

Bullitt-0006

Campbell-0003

Carter-0500

Christian-0006

Daviess-0014

Fayette-0012Fayette-0014

Franklin-0006

Hardin-0006

Henderson-0006Henderson-0014

Jefferson-0044Jefferson-0048Jefferson-0051

Kenton-0007

Madison-0003

McCracken-1004

Perry-0003

Pike-0002

Warren-0007

Kentucky

ug/m3

Sum of PBW

Sum of NH4

Sum of Crustal

Sum of EC

Sum of OC

Sum of NO3

Sum of SO4

Figure 4-6. Current (2000-2004) PM2.5 Design Values centered on 2002 and Projected 2009 

PM2.5 Design Values (DVF) in Kentucky using the CMAQ 36/12 km Base G2 modeling results.
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-22 

Table 4-5. Current-year (DVC) and projected future-year (DVF) PM2.5 Design Values (μg/m3) in 

Kentucky using the 2002 Typical and 2009 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. 

 

2002 

Annual 

2009g2a 

Annual 

Difference 

(2009g2a-2002gt2a) Notes 

AIRS ID State County DVC DVF 

21-013-0002 KY Bell 14.8 12.8 -2.0 

21-019-0017 KY Boyd 14.9 13.1 -1.8 

21-029-0006 KY Bullitt 14.9 13.3 -1.6 

21-037-0003 KY Campbell 14.0 12.3 -1.7 

21-043-0500 KY Carter 12.2 10.4 -1.8 

21-047-0006 KY Christian 13.5 12.0 -1.5 

21-059-0005 KY Daviess Site Discarded 

21-059-0014 KY Daviess 14.7 13.1 -1.6 

21-061-0501 KY Edmonson Site Discarded 

21-067-0012 KY Fayette 14.9 12.9 -2.0 

21-067-0014 KY Fayette 15.6 13.6 -2.0 

21-073-0006 KY Franklin 13.7 11.9 -1.8 

21-093-0006 KY Hardin 14.0 12.3 -1.7 

21-101-0006 KY Henderson 14.3 12.7 -1.6 

21-101-0014 KY Henderson 14.0 12.3 -1.7 

21-111-0043 KY Jefferson 16.8 missing SMAT data 

21-111-0044 KY Jefferson 16.6 14.9 -1.7 

21-111-0048 KY Jefferson 16.1 14.4 -1.7 

21-111-0051 KY Jefferson 15.4 13.8 -1.6 

21-111-1041 KY Jefferson Site Discarded 

21-117-0007 KY Kenton 14.9 13.1 -1.8 

21-125-0004 KY Laurel 12.6 missing SMAT data 

21-145-1004 KY McCracken 13.4 12.2 -1.2 

21-151-0003 KY Madison 13.5 11.7 -1.8 

21-183-0032 KY Ohio Site Discarded 

21-193-0003 KY Perry 13.6 11.8 -1.8 

21-195-0002 KY Pike 13.7 11.7 -2.0 

21-227-0007 KY Warren 13.8 12.2 -1.6 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-23 

4.7.7 Indiana, Ohio and Maryland 

Indiana, Ohio and Maryland are non-ASIP states that have FRM monitors adjacent to one or 

more ASIP states (i.e., Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia) where the ASIP modeling results 

were used to make 2009 PM2.5 Design Value projections. Of the 28 monitoring sites in these 

three states adjacent to the ASIP region, 16 have DVCs that exceed the PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

2009 ASIP modeling estimates that 5 of these sites would still exceed the annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

in 2009: 

• The FRM site in Clark County, Indiana (Louisville NAA) is estimate to just barely 

exceed the NAAQS (15.0 μg/m3

); and 

• Three sites in Hamilton County Ohio (15.2, 15.4 and 15.8 μg/m3

) in the Cincinnati NAA 

and one site further east in Sciota County, Ohio (15.2 μg/m3). 

There was also missing SMAT data for the Prince George Maryland site No. 24-033-0001 that 

had a DVC of 17.3 μg/m3

 that also might still exceed the NAAQS in 2009. 

IN / MD / OH 2002 Design Value (Left) and

2009 base G2 12km projected DVF (Middle) and

2009 base G2 36km projected DVF (Right)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Clark-0006

Floyd-1004

Anne Arundel-0014Anne Arundel-0019Anne Arundel-1003Anne Arundel-2002

Montgomery-3001

Washington-0009

Butler-0003Butler-0016Butler-0017

Hamilton-0014Hamilton-0040Hamilton-0041Hamilton-0042Hamilton-0043Hamilton-7001Hamilton-8001

Lawrence-0010

Scioto-0013

IN / MD / OH

ug/m3

Sum of PBW

Sum of NH4

Sum of Crustal

Sum of EC

Sum of OC

Sum of NO3

Sum of SO4

Figure 4-7. Current (2000-2004) PM2.5 Design Values centered on 2002 and Projected 2009 

PM2.5 Design Values (DVF) at FRM sites in Indiana, Ohio and Maryland that are adjacent to the 

ASIP region using the CMAQ 36/12 km Base G2 modeling results.
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-24 

Table 4-6. Current-year (DVC) and projected future-year (DVF) PM2.5 Design Values (μg/m3) at 

FRM sites in Indiana, Ohio and Maryland that are adjacent to the ASIP region using the 2002 

Typical and 2009 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. 

 

2002 

Annual 

2009g2a 

Annual 

Difference 

(2009g2a-2002gt2a) Notes 

AIRS ID State County DVC DVF 

18-019-0006 IN Clark 16.8 15.0 -1.8 

18-043-1004 IN Floyd 14.9 13.2 -1.7 

39-017-0003 OH Butler 16.1 14.4 -1.7 

39-017-0016 OH Butler 15.7 13.8 -1.9 

39-017-0017 OH Butler 15.4 13.8 -1.6 

39-017-1004 OH Butler 14.2 missing SMAT data 

39-025-0022 OH Clermont missing DVC data 

39-053-0003 OH Gallia missing DVC data 

39-061-0014 OH Hamilton 17.7 15.8 -1.9 

39-061-0040 OH Hamilton 15.6 13.7 -1.9 

39-061-0041 OH Hamilton 15.4 13.5 -1.9 

39-061-0042 OH Hamilton 17.1 15.2 -1.9 

39-061-0043 OH Hamilton 15.8 13.8 -2.0 

39-061-7001 OH Hamilton 16.3 14.3 -2.0 

39-061-8001 OH Hamilton 17.3 15.4 -1.9 

39-081-0017 OH Jefferson 17.7 missing SMAT data 

39-087-0010 OH Lawrence 15.7 13.9 -1.8 

39-145-0013 OH Scioto 17.1 15.2 -1.9 

24-003-0014 MD 

Anne 

Arundel 12.3 10.0 -2.3 

24-003-0019 MD 

Anne 

Arundel 13.2 10.7 -2.5 

24-003-1003 MD 

Anne 

Arundel 15.4 12.7 -2.7 

24-003-2002 MD 

Anne 

Arundel 14.4 11.9 -2.5 

24-031-3001 MD Montgomery 12.8 10.5 -2.3 

24-033-0001 MD 

Prince 

George's 17.3 missing SMAT data 

24-033-0002 MD 

Prince 

George's 11.6 missing SMAT data 

24-033-0030 MD 

Prince 

George's missing DVC data 

24-033-8001 MD 

Prince 

George's 13.7 missing SMAT data 

24-033-8003 MD 

Prince 

George's 13.7 missing SMAT data 

24-043-0009 MD Washington 14.4 11.8 -2.6 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-25 

4.7.8 Mississippi 

The maximum current-year PM2.5 Design Value in Mississippi is 15.0 μg/m3

 in Lowndes County 

which is projected to be reduced to 13.8 μg/m3

 in 2009. All FRM monitoring sites in Mississippi 

are projected to attain the annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2009. 

Mississippi 2002 Design Value (Left) and

2009 base G2 12km projected DVF (Middle) and

2009 base G2 36km projected DVF (Right)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Adams-0004

Bolivar-0001

DeSoto-0002

Forrest-0004

Hancock-0001

Harrison-0008

Hinds-0010Hinds-0018

Jackson-0006

Jones-0002

Lauderdale-0003

Lee-0005

Lowndes-0001

Pearl River-0001

Rankin-0001

Scott-0001

Warren-0004

Mississippi

ug/m3

Sum of PBW

Sum of NH4

Sum of Crustal

Sum of EC

Sum of OC

Sum of NO3

Sum of SO4

Figure 4-8. Current (2000-2004) PM2.5 Design Values centered on 2002 and Projected 2009 

PM2.5 Design Values (DVF) in Mississippi using the CMAQ 36/12 km Base G2 modeling results.
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-26 

Table 4-7. Current-year (DVC) and projected future-year (DVF) PM2.5 Design Values (μg/m3) in 

Mississippi using the 2002 Typical and 2009 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. 

 

2002 

Annual 

2009g2a 

Annual 

Difference 

(2009g2a-2002gt2a) Notes 

AIRS ID State County DVC DVF 

28-001-0004 MS Adams 11.8 11.4 -0.4 

28-011-0001 MS Bolivar 13.2 12.4 -0.8 

28-033-0002 MS DeSoto 13.1 12.0 -1.1 

28-035-0004 MS Forrest 13.3 12.7 -0.6 

28-045-0001 MS Hancock 10.3 9.6 -0.7 

28-045-0003 MS Hancock missing DVC data 

28-047-0008 MS Harrison 11.6 11.1 -0.5 

28-049-0010 MS Hinds 12.9 12.1 -0.8 

28-049-0018 MS Hinds 13.3 12.5 -0.8 

28-059-0006 MS Jackson 12.3 11.7 -0.6 

28-067-0002 MS Jones 14.9 14.0 -0.9 

28-075-0003 MS Lauderdale 13.1 12.1 -1.0 

28-081-0005 MS Lee 12.5 11.3 -1.2 

28-087-0001 MS Lowndes 15.0 13.8 -1.2 

28-109-0001 MS Pearl River 11.8 11.2 -0.6 

28-121-0001 MS Rankin 14.0 13.1 -0.9 

28-123-0001 MS Scott 11.9 11.2 -0.7 

28-149-0004 MS Warren 13.3 12.7 -0.6 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-27 

4.7.9 North Carolina 

Of the 49 FRM monitoring sites in North Carolina, 5 have DVCs that currently exceed the 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS that are in Mecklenburg and Catawba Counties (Charlotte NAA) and 

Davidson and Guilford Counties (Winston-Salem-Greensboro NAA). The highest DVC is 16.0 

μg/m3 that occurs in Davidson County and is reduced to 13.4 μg/m3 in 2009. All North Carolina 

FRM monitoring sites are projected to attain the annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2009. 

North Carolina 2002 Design Value (Left) and

2009 base G2 12km projected DVF (Middle) and

2009 base G2 36km projected DVF (Right)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Alamance-0002

Buncombe-0034

Cabarrus-0004

Caswell-0001

Catawba-0004Catawba-0005

Chatham-0004

Cumberland-0009

Davidson-0002Davidson-0004

Duplin-0002

Durham-0001

Forsyth-0022Forsyth-0024

Gaston-0016

Guilford-0009Guilford-0013Guilford-1005

Haywood-0010

Jackson-0006

Lenoir-0004

McDowell-0004

Mecklenburg-0010Mecklenburg-0041Mecklenburg-0042

Mitchell-0001

Montgomery-0001

Onslow-0005

Orange-0007

Pitt-0005

Robeson-0005

Swain-0002

Wake-0014Wake-0015

Wayne-0005

North Carolina

ug/m3

Sum of PBW

Sum of NH4

Sum of Crustal

Sum of EC

Sum of OC

Sum of NO3

Sum of SO4

Figure 4-9. Current (2000-2004) PM2.5 Design Values centered on 2002 and Projected 2009 

PM2.5 Design Values (DVF) in North Carolina using the CMAQ 36/12 km Base G2 modeling 

results.
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-28 

Table 4-8. Current-year (DVC) and projected future-year (DVF) PM2.5 Design Values (μg/m3) in 

North Carolina using the 2002 Typical and 2009 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. 

 

2002 

Annual 

2009g2a 

Annual 

Difference 

(2009g2a-2002gt2a) Notes 

AIRS ID State County DVC DVF 

37-001-0002 NC Alamance 13.9 11.8 -2.1 

37-021-0034 NC Buncombe 13.3 11.2 -2.1 

37-025-0004 NC Cabarrus 14.7 12.3 -2.4 

37-033-0001 NC Caswell 13.4 11.4 -2.0 

37-035-0004 NC Catawba 15.6 13.1 -2.5 

37-035-0005 NC Catawba 13.9 11.6 -2.3 

37-035-0006 NC Catawba missing DVC data 

37-037-0004 NC Chatham 12.3 10.4 -1.9 

37-051-0009 NC Cumberland 14.1 12.1 -2.0 

37-057-0002 NC Davidson 16.0 13.4 -2.6 

37-057-0003 NC Davidson missing DVC data 

37-057-0004 NC Davidson 14.8 12.3 -2.5 

37-061-0002 NC Duplin 12.1 10.3 -1.8 

37-063-0001 NC Durham 14.1 12.0 -2.1 

37-065-0003 NC Edgecombe 13.1 

Calculation not 

needed 

37-065-0004 NC Edgecombe 11.6 

Calculation not 

needed 

37-067-0022 NC Forsyth 14.8 12.0 -2.8 

37-067-0024 NC Forsyth 14.3 11.6 -2.7 

37-067-0030 NC Forsyth missing DVC data 

37-071-0016 NC Gaston 14.2 12.1 -2.1 

37-081-0009 NC Guilford 15.4 12.4 -3.0 

37-081-0013 NC Guilford 13.5 11.4 -2.1 

37-081-1005 NC Guilford 15.5 12.7 -2.8 

37-087-0010 NC Haywood 13.6 11.5 -2.1 

37-099-0006 NC Jackson 12.5 10.5 -2.0 

37-107-0004 NC Lenoir 11.6 9.7 -1.9 

37-111-0004 NC McDowell 14.4 12.1 -2.3 

37-117-0001 NC Martin 11.1 

Calculation not 

needed 

37-119-0003 NC Mecklenburg missing DVC data 

37-119-0010 NC Mecklenburg 15.2 12.9 -2.3 

37-119-0040 NC Mecklenburg missing DVC data 

37-119-0041 NC Mecklenburg 14.4 12.2 -2.2 

37-119-0042 NC Mecklenburg 14.3 12.1 -2.2 

37-121-0001 NC Mitchell 13.6 11.5 -2.1 

37-123-0001 NC Montgomery 12.4 10.4 -2.0 

37-127-0002 NC Nash 0.0 

Calculation not 

needed 

37-129-0002 NC 

New 

Hanover 9.8 

Calculation not 

needed 

37-129-0009 NC 

New 

Hanover 11.0 

Calculation not 

needed 

37-133-0005 NC Onslow 11.3 9.6 -1.7 

37-135-0007 NC Orange 13.2 11.1 -2.1 

37-139-0002 NC Pasquotank 11.7 

Calculation not 

needed 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-29 

37-147-0005 NC Pitt 12.5 10.5 -2.0 

37-155-0004 NC Robeson 

Calculation not 

needed 

37-155-0005 NC Robeson 12.8 10.9 -1.9 

37-159-0021 NC Rowan 

Calculation not 

needed 

37-173-0002 NC Swain 12.9 10.9 -2.0 

37-183-0014 NC Wake 14.0 11.8 -2.2 

37-183-0015 NC Wake 13.6 11.5 -2.1 

37-189-0003 NC Watauga 11.7 

Calculation not 

needed 

37-191-0005 NC Wayne 13.8 11.8 -2.0 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-30 

4.7.10 South Carolina 

There is one monitoring site in Greenville County, South Carolina whose DVC currently exceeds 

the annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.8 μg/m3. It is estimated to be reduced to 13.6 μg/m3 in 2009. 

Thus, all South Carolina FRM monitoring sites are projected to attain the annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

in 2009. 

South Carolina 2002 Design Value (Left) and

2009 base G2 12km projected DVF (Middle) and

2009 base G2 36km projected DVF (Right)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Beaufort-0007

Charleston-0048Charleston-0049

Chesterfield-0001

Edgefield-0001

Florence-0002

Georgetown-0009

Greenville-0008Greenville-0009

Greenwood-0003

Horry-0002

Lexington-0008

Oconee-0001

Richland-0007Richland-0019

Spartanburg-0010

South Carolina

ug/m3

Sum of PBW

Sum of NH4

Sum of Crustal

Sum of EC

Sum of OC

Sum of NO3

Sum of SO4

Figure 4-10. Current (2000-2004) PM2.5 Design Values centered on 2002 and Projected 2009 

PM2.5 Design Values (DVF) in South Carolina using the CMAQ 36/12 km Base G2 modeling 

results.
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-31 

Table 4-9. Current-year (DVC) and projected future-year (DVF) PM2.5 Design Values (μg/m3) in 

South Carolina using the 2002 Typical and 2009 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. 

 

2002 

Annual 

2009g2a 

Annual 

Difference 

(2009g2a-2002gt2a) Notes 

AIRS ID State County DVC DVF 

45-003-0003 SC Aiken missing DVC data 

45-013-0007 SC Beaufort 10.9 9.7 -1.2 

45-019-0048 SC Charleston 12.0 10.7 -1.3 

45-019-0049 SC Charleston 11.4 10.1 -1.3 

45-025-0001 SC Chesterfield 12.4 10.5 -1.9 

45-037-0001 SC Edgefield 12.7 11.1 -1.6 

45-041-0002 SC Florence 12.7 10.9 -1.8 

45-043-0009 SC Georgetown 12.8 11.3 -1.5 

45-045-0008 SC Greenville 15.8 13.6 -2.2 

45-045-0009 SC Greenville 14.8 12.6 -2.2 

45-047-0003 SC Greenwood 13.4 11.5 -1.9 

45-051-0002 SC Horry 11.2 9.6 -1.6 

45-063-0008 SC Lexington 13.9 12.1 -1.8 

45-073-0001 SC Oconee 10.8 9.1 -1.7 

45-079-0007 SC Richland 13.2 11.4 -1.8 

45-079-0019 SC Richland 14.2 12.3 -1.9 

45-083-0010 SC Spartanburg 13.9 11.8 -2.1 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-32 

4.7.11 Tennessee 

Seven monitoring sites in Tennessee have DVCs that exceed the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, with 

three of them greater than 16.0 μg/m3 that occur in the Knoxville and Chattanooga NAAs. 

However, all of the 2009 PM2.5 Design Values are projected to be below the annual PM2.5

NAAQS with a maximum projected DVF of 14.7 μg/m3

 in Knoxville, Tennessee. 

Figure 4-11. Current (2000-2004) PM2.5 Design Values centered on 2002 and Projected 2009 

PM2.5 Design Values (DVF) in Tennessee using the CMAQ 36/12 km Base G2 modeling results.
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-33 

Table 4-10. Current-year (DVC) and projected future-year (DVF) PM2.5 Design Values (μg/m3) 

in Tennessee using the 2002 Typical and 2009 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. 

 

2002 

Annual 

2009g2a 

Annual 

Difference 

(2009g2a-2002gt2a) Notes 

AIRS ID State County DVC DVF 

47-009-0011 TN Blount 14.6 12.7 -1.9 

47-037-0023 TN Davidson 14.4 13.2 -1.2 

47-037-0025 TN Davidson 14.2 missing SMAT data 

47-037-0036 TN Davidson 13.3 12.2 -1.1 

47-045-0004 TN Dyer 12.1 11.1 -1.0 

47-065-0031-1 TN Hamilton 16.3 14.5 -1.8 

47-065-0031-2 TN Hamilton missing DVC data 

47-065-1011 TN Hamilton 14.0 12.4 -1.6 

47-065-4002 TN Hamilton 15.3 13.6 -1.7 

47-093-0028 TN Knox 15.4 13.5 -1.9 

47-093-1013 TN Knox 16.0 14.0 -2.0 

47-093-1017 TN Knox 16.7 14.7 -2.0 

47-093-1020 TN Knox 16.0 14.0 -2.0 

47-099-0002 TN Lawrence 11.9 10.7 -1.2 

47-105-0108 TN Loudon 14.7 missing SMAT data 

47-107-1002 TN McMinn 15.1 13.4 -1.7 

47-113-0004 TN Madison 13.0 

Calculation not 

needed 

47-113-0006 TN Madison missing DVC data 

47-119-2007 TN Maury 12.9 11.8 -1.1 

47-125-1009 TN 

Montgom

ery 13.2 11.8 -1.4 

47-141-0001 TN Putnam 13.5 12.0 -1.5 

47-145-0004 TN Roane 14.3 12.6 -1.7 

47-157-0014 TN Shelby 13.9 12.9 -1.0 

47-157-0038 TN Shelby 14.0 13.0 -1.0 

47-157-0047 TN Shelby 14.1 13.1 -1.0 

47-157-1004 TN Shelby 11.6 10.7 -0.9 

47-163-1007 TN Sullivan 14.6 12.7 -1.9 

47-165-0007 TN Sumner 13.6 12.3 -1.3 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-34 

4.7.12 Virginia 

For Virginia, all of the current-year and future-year PM2.5 Design Values are below the annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS (Figure 4-12 and Table 4-11). 

Virginia 2002 Design Value (Left) and

2009 base G2 12km projected DVF (Middle) and

2009 base G2 36km projected DVF (Right)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Arlington-0020

Bristol-0006

Charles City-0002

Chesapeake-0012

Chesterfield-0003

Fairfax-0030Fairfax-5001

Hampton-0004

Henrico-0014Henrico-0015

Loudoun-1005

Newport News-0013

Norfolk-0024

Page-0004

Richmond-0020

Roanoke-0014

Salem-0010

Virginia Beach-0008

Virginia

ug/m3

Sum of PBW

Sum of NH4

Sum of Crustal

Sum of EC

Sum of OC

Sum of NO3

Sum of SO4

Figure 4-12. Current (2000-2004) PM2.5 Design Values centered on 2002 and Projected 2009 

PM2.5 Design Values (DVF) in Virginia using the CMAQ 36/12 km Base G2 modeling results.
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-35 

Table 4-11. Current-year (DVC) and projected future-year (DVF) PM2.5 Design Values (μg/m3) 

in Virginia using the 2002 Typical and 2009 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. 

 

2002 

Annual 

2009g2a 

Annual 

Difference 

(2009g2a-2002gt2a) Notes 

AIRS ID State County DVC DVF 

51-013-0020 VA Arlington 14.6 12.2 -2.4 

51-036-0002 VA Charles City 12.8 10.8 -2.0 

51-041-0003 VA Chesterfield 13.7 11.7 -2.0 

51-059-0030 VA Fairfax 13.6 11.1 -2.5 

51-059-1005 VA Fairfax 13.8 missing SMAT data 

51-059-5001 VA Fairfax 14.2 11.8 -2.4 

51-087-0014 VA Henrico 13.8 11.7 -2.1 

51-087-0015 VA Henrico 13.0 10.9 -2.1 

51-107-1005 VA Loudoun 13.6 11.2 -2.4 

51-139-0004 VA Page 13.0 10.8 -2.2 

51-520-0006 VA Bristol 14.5 12.5 -2.0 

51-550-0012 VA Chesapeake 12.5 10.8 -1.7 

51-650-0004 VA Hampton 12.2 10.4 -1.8 

51-680-0014 VA Lynchburg 14.0 missing SMAT data 

51-680-0015 VA Lynchburg 12.4 missing SMAT data 

51-700-0013 VA 

Newport 

News 12.0 10.2 -1.8 

51-710-0024 VA Norfolk 13.0 11.1 -1.9 

51-760-0020 VA Richmond 14.1 11.9 -2.2 

51-770-0014 VA Roanoke 14.4 12.0 -2.4 

51-775-0010 VA Salem 14.8 12.5 -2.3 

51-810-0008 VA 

Virginia 

Beach 12.6 10.8 -1.8 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-36 

4.7.13 West Virginia 

Eleven of the 17 FRM monitors in West Virginia have current-year PM2.5 Design Values that 

exceed the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The ASIP modeling estimates that by 2009 only three FRM 

monitors would still exceed the annual PM2.5 NAAQS: Brooke County (15.0 μg/m3) and 

Hancock County (15.6 μg/m3) in the West Virginia panhandle Wheeling-Steubenville-Weirton 

NAA and Kanawha County (15.0 μg/m3

) in the Charleston NAA. 

West Virginia 2002 Design Value (Left) and

2009 base G2 12km projected DVF (Middle) and

2009 base G2 36km projected DVF (Right)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Berkeley-0003

Brooke-0005

Cabell-0006

Hancock-0011Hancock-1004

Harrison-0003

Kanawha-0010Kanawha-1005

Marion-0006

Marshall-1002

Mercer-0002

Monongalia-0003

Ohio-0010

Raleigh-0002

Summers-0001

Wood-1002

West Virginia

ug/m3

Sum of PBW

Sum of NH4

Sum of Crustal

Sum of EC

Sum of OC

Sum of NO3

Sum of SO4

Figure 4-13. Current (2000-2004) PM2.5 Design Values centered on 2002 and Projected 2009 

PM2.5 Design Values (DVF) in West Virginia using the CMAQ 36/12 km Base G2 modeling 

results.
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-37 

Table 4-12. Current-year (DVC) and projected future-year (DVF) PM2.5 Design Values (μg/m3) 

in West Virginia using the 2002 Typical and 2009 Base G2 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. 

 

2002 

Annual 

2009g2a 

Annual 

Difference 

(2009g2a-2002gt2a) Notes 

AIRS ID State County DVC DVF 

54-003-0003 WV Berkeley 16.2 13.7 -2.5 

54-009-0005 WV Brooke 16.7 15.0 -1.7 

54-011-0006 WV Cabell 16.5 14.5 -2.0 

54-029-0011 WV Hancock 15.8 14.1 -1.7 

54-029-1004 WV Hancock 17.3 15.6 -1.7 

54-033-0003 WV Harrison 14.0 12.0 -2.0 

54-039-0010 WV Kanawha 15.4 13.4 -2.0 

54-039-0011 WV Kanawha 12.6 missing SMAT data 

54-039-1005 WV Kanawha 17.1 15.0 -2.1 

54-049-0006 WV Marion 15.3 13.3 -2.0 

54-051-1002 WV Marshall 15.6 13.9 -1.7 

54-055-0002 WV Mercer 12.7 10.6 -2.1 

54-061-0003 WV Monongalia 14.8 12.8 -2.0 

54-069-0010 WV Ohio 15.1 13.4 -1.7 

54-081-0002 WV Raleigh 13.1 11.1 -2.0 

54-089-0001 WV Summers 10.1 8.4 -1.7 

54-107-1002 WV Wood 16.1 14.4 -1.7 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-38 

4.8 Summary of High 2009 PM2.5 Design Values 

Table 4-13 summarizes the FRM monitoring sites within and adjacent to the ASIP region for 

which projected 2009 PM2.5 Design Values are 14.0 μg/m3 or higher using the ASIP CMAQ 12 

km modeling results. EPA guidance has a weight of evidence (WOE) zone where additional 

analysis is needed to support a modeled attainment demonstration when the projected PM2.5

Design Values are close to the PM2.5 NAAQS (EPA, 2007a). EPA recommends that a WOE 

analysis be conducted if the modeled future-year PM2.5 Design Value is in the 14.5 to 15.5 μg/m3

range. If the future-year projected PM2.5 Design Value is 15.5 μg/m3 or higher, EPA notes that 

no amount of additional analysis is likely to be convincing that attainment would be achieved. 

There are five FRM monitors within or adjacent to the ASIP region whose 2009 projected PM2.5

Design Values are 15.5 μg/m3

 or greater: 

• The North Birmingham (17.0 μg/m3

) and Wylam (15.8 μg/m3) monitors in the City of 

Birmingham in Jefferson County, Alabama where additional analysis to look at local 

controls is underway. 

• An Atlanta, Georgia monitor in Fulton County (16.6 μg/m3

). 

• A monitor in Hamilton County, Ohio (15.8 μg/m3

) in the Cincinnati NAA. 

• Hancock County in the West Virginia panhandle (15.6 μg/m3). 

An additional 14 FRM monitors have projected PM2.5 Design Values within the WOE zone with 

7 above and 7 below the NAAQS. Of the 7 additional monitors that are above the NAAQS 3 are 

in the Cincinnati NAA, 2 are in the West Virginia panhandle, one is in Atlanta and another is in 

southern Indiana in the Louisville NAA. 
 

January 2008 

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\Attachments\Attachment G - Attainment Demonstration.doc 4-39 

Table 4-13. 2009 projected PM2.5 Design Values within and adjacent to the ASIP region that 

are 14.0 μg/m3

 or higher using the CMAQ 12 km modeling results. 

 

2002 

Annual 

2009g2a 

Annual 

Difference 

(2009g2a-2002gt2a) 

AIRS ID State County DVC DVF 

Sites Above the WOE Zone 

01-073-0023 AL Jefferson 18.4 17.0 -1.4 

13-121-0039 GA Fulton 18.3 16.6 -1.7 

01-073-2003 AL Jefferson 17.1 15.8 -1.3 

39-061-0014 OH Hamilton 17.7 15.8 -1.9 

54-029-1004 WV Hancock 17.3 15.6 -1.7 

Sites Above the NAAQS but Within the WOE Zone 

39-061-8001 OH Hamilton 17.3 15.4 -1.9 

39-061-0042 OH Hamilton 17.1 15.2 -1.9 

39-145-0013 OH Scioto 17.1 15.2 -1.9 

13-063-0091 GA Clayton 16.5 15.0 -1.5 

18-019-0006 IN Clark 16.8 15.0 -1.8 

54-009-0005 WV Brooke 16.7 15.0 -1.7 

54-039-1005 WV Kanawha 17.1 15.0 -2.1 

Sites Below the NAAQS but Within the WOE Zone

21-111-0044 KY Jefferson 16.6 14.9 -1.7 

01-113-0001 AL Russell 16.1 14.8 -1.3 

13-121-0032 GA Fulton 16.5 14.8 -1.7 

47-093-1017 TN Knox 16.7 14.7 -2.0 

13-067-0003 GA Cobb 16.3 14.6 -1.7 

47-065-0031-1 TN Hamilton 16.3 14.5 -1.8 

54-011-0006 WV Cabell 16.5 14.5 -2.0 

Sites Below the NAAQS and Below the WOE Zone

13-089-0002 GA DeKalb 15.9 14.4 -1.5 

13-089-2001 GA DeKalb 16.2 14.4 -1.8 

21-111-0048 KY Jefferson 16.1 14.4 -1.7 

39-017-0003 OH Butler 16.1 14.4 -1.7 

54-107-1002 WV Wood 16.1 14.4 -1.7 

13-135-0002 GA Gwinnett 16.1 14.3 -1.8 

39-061-7001 OH Hamilton 16.3 14.3 -2.0 

13-021-0007 GA Bibb 15.7 14.2 -1.5 

13-115-0005 GA Floyd 15.7 14.1 -1.6 

54-029-0011 WV Hancock 15.8 14.1 -1.7 

13-295-0002 GA Walker 15.7 14.0 -1.7 

28-067-0002 MS Jones 14.9 14.0 -0.9 

47-093-1013 TN Knox 16.0 14.0 -2.0 

47-093-1020 TN Knox 16.0 14.0 -2.0