# Attachment G

Attainment Demonstration

### January 2008

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-1 4.0 PM 2.5 

### PROJECTIONS

This section presents the 2009 future-year PM 2.5 

### projections for PM 2.5 

### Federal Reference Method (FRM) monitoring sites within a nd near the ASIP region and thei r comparison with the annual PM 2.5 

### 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 PM 2.5 

### Projections

EPA has published final modeling guidance th at includes recommendations on how modeling results should be used to project future-year PM 2.5 

### levels:

“Guidance on the Use of Models and Other An alyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5 

### and Regional Haze” (EPA, 2007a).

EPA recommends that the modeling results be used in a relative fashion to scale the observed current-year PM 2.5 

### Design Value (DVC) to project a future-year PM 2.5 

### Design Value (DVF). The model derived scaling factors are called Rela tive Response Factors (RRFs) and are defined as the ratio of the future-year to current-year modeling results. The future-year PM 2.5 

### Design Values (DVF) are obtained from the current-year PM 2.5 

### Design Values (DVC ) by applying the RRF:

DVF = DVC x RRF

Separate RRFs are applied for each major component of PM 2.5 

### . The RRFs are site-specific and are derived from modeling results “near” each monitor. They are applied to five components of the PM 2.5 

### DVC to obtain future-year PM 2.5 

### estimates from which the DVF is derived that is compared with the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. The 2008 PM 2.5 

### State Implementation Plans (SIPs) are addressing the 15.0 μ g/m 3 

### annual and 65 μ g/m 3 

### 24-hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQSs. Currently all ASIP states attain the 65 μ g/m 3 

### 24-hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS so projections are only made for the annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. Note that EPA has revised the 24-hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS to 35 μ g/m 3 

### . The new 35 μ g/m 3 

### 24-hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS will be addressed in future PM 2.5 

### SIPs.

PM 2.5 

### attainment is based on PM 2.5 

### mass measurements collected at FRM monitoring sites. In order to apply the PM speci es-specific RRFs, the FRM PM 2.5 

### mass measurements must be speciated into the components of PM 2.5 

### . There are two routine PM 2.5 

### speciation networks being operated in the U.S.: (1) the Speciated Tren ds Network (STN); and (2) the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environm ents (IMPROVE) networks. Thus, the PM 2.5 

### speciation from these two networks need to be mapped to the FRM PM 2.5 

### mass measurements in order to apply the RRFs to project future-year PM 2.5 

### 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 PM 2.5 

### Mass using the SANDWICH Method : The FRM PM 2.5 

### mass and STN/IMPROVE PM 2.5 

### speciation measurements both have positive and negative

### January 2008

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-2 artifacts that need to be accounted for when mapping observed PM 2.5 

### speciation data to the FRM mass measurements. As PM 2.5 

### attainment is based solely on the FRM PM 2.5 

### mass measurements, then the STN/IMPROVE PM 2.5 

### speciation measurements must be adjusted to mimic the FRM PM 2.5 

### mass measurements. EPA has developed the S ulfate A djusted N itrate, D erived W ater I nferred C arbon H ybrid material balance approach (SANDWICH) for estimating PM 2.5 

### mass composition produced by the FRM PM 2.5 

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

Speciated Modeled Attainment Test (SMAT) : The procedures for us ing the relative changes in modeled concentrations to project current observed PM 2.5 

### Design Values to the future is termed the Speciated Modeled Attainme nt Test (SMAT) (EPA, 2007a; Timin, 2007).

EPA is codifying the recommended procedures (EPA, 2007a) for projecting future-year 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 

### 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 writi ng (Version 1.1.2; May 2007) includes procedures for projecting 8-hour ozone and regional haze, but not PM 2.5 

### . Thus, MATS was not used for the ASIP PM 2.5 

### Design Value projections presented in this chapter, but when available it will be used to corroborate the ASIP PM 2.5 

### projections. Instead, ASIP used SANDWICH STN speciated PM 2.5 

### data prepared by the state of North Carolina and spreadsheets to perform the SMAT future-year projections of FRM derived PM 2.5 

### Design Values at FRM sites within and nearby the ASIP states. There are many more FRM PM 2.5 

### mass monitoring sites than STN/IMPROVE PM 2.5 

### speciation monitoring sites, so proce dures need to be developed to map PM 2.5 

### speciation to the FRM PM 2.5 

### mass monitoring sites. The biggest di fference between the ASIP spreadsheet based and MATS PM 2.5 

### Design Value projection procedures is expected to be how the observed PM 2.5 

### speciation data are mapped to the FRM mon itoring sites. The MATS tool spatially interpolates the SANDWICH PM 2.5 

### speciation from the STN/IMPR OVE monitoring networks to the FRM monitoring sites, whereas the ASIP spreadsheet approach assigns SANDWICH STN PM 2.5 

### speciation to each FRM monitoring site within and near the ASIP st ates. At FRM sites with co-located STN sites, the two approach es should produce nearly identical results.

4.2 Procedures for SANDWICH Speciation of STN PM 2.5 

### Components

The SANDWICH procedure is desi gned to map the STN/IMPROVE PM 2.5 

### speciation measurements to the FRM PM 2.5 

### mass measurements accounting for the artifacts and sampling protocols of both of the sampling devices. PM 2.5 

### attainment is based solely on the FRM PM 2.5 

### mass measurements, which were deve loped by design to emulate the PM 2.5 

### mass measurements from the epidemiological studies that formed the basis for the PM NAAQS (CFR, 1997). The FRM mass sampling procedures in clude a specific sampling protoc ol that involves sampling PM at a 2.5 μ m cut point and filter temperature control, rapid sample retrieval and cold filter shipping. The PM 2.5 

### 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 PM 2.5 

### mass measurements not capturing all part icles and reflects loss of volatile species including ammonium nitrate [NH4NO3] and se mi-volatile organic co mpounds (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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-3 The SANDWICH uses a mass balance approach to adjust the STN and IMPROVE speciated PM 2.5 

### measurements to characterize the FRM PM 2.5 

### mass. In addition to addressing the artifacts of the FRM sampling procedures, it also addres ses the artifacts and sampling protocol of the STN filter measurements accounting for blank co rrection 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 PM 2.5 

### mass consists of the following components:

FRM PM 2.5 

### Mass = [SO4] + [EC] + [NO3 FRM 

### ] + [NH4 FRM 

### ] + [OCM mb 

### ] + [water] + [crustal material] + [blank correction]

where,

[SO4] is the measured sulfate ion, which for ASIP is taken as the SO4 fraction of the STN PM 2.5 

### from the STN site associat ed with the FRM monitor;

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

[NO3 FRM 

### ] is the NO3 ion retained on the FRM filt er after a portion as been volatilized in the FRM measurement process;

[NH4 FRM 

### ] is the NH4 cation retained on the FR M filter after partial volatilization;

[OCM mb 

### ] is the organic carbon material that is obtained as the di fference between the FRM PM 2.5 

### mass measurements and the remainder of the PM 2.5 

### components;

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

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

[blank correction] is the passively collect ed PM material in the STN measurement process that is assumed to be 0.5 μ g/m 3



### .

4.2.1 Retained Particulate Nitrate [NO3 FRM 

### ]

The first step in the SANDWICH procedure for identifying mass components was to estimate the retained nitrate mass on the FRM filters. Th e 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 si mple thermodynamic model that uses 24-hour ambient nitrate speciation concentrations (as m easured by a standard speciation sampler using a nylon filter preceded by a HNO3 denuder) togeth er with hourly ambient temperature and humidity. Atmospheric nitrates are higher duri ng the cooler months. Retention on the FRM is also higher during the cooler months and essentia lly all the nitrates are lost during the summer. The retention does not appear to depend on ambien t NH3 or HNO3. More NO3 is retained at low temperatures and high humidity which vari es by sampling location and time of year.

### January 2008

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.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 ni trates retained on the FRM Teflon filter under the FRM sampling conditions (35% RH a nd 21 C). As used by Hering and Cass (Hering and Cass, 1999; Zhang and McMurr y, 1992) the amount of volatilized nitrate (delta NO3) is defined by: 24 delta NO3 ( μ g/m 3 

### )= 745.7/T R 

### * 1/24* Σ ( K i 1⁄2 

### ) i=1 where, T R 

### is the reference temperature for the sampled air volume in degrees Kelvin and Ki is the dissociation constant for ammonium nitrate ev aluated at the ambient temperature for hour i. This volatilization prediction characterizes depl etion 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 ST N nitrate ion (NO3-) concentrations [NO3 STN 

### ] to estimate FRM NO3 [NO3 FRM 

### ] as follows:

NO3 FRM 

### = NO3 STN 

### - delta NO3 ( μ g/m 3 

### )

For each hour of the day, the equilibrium dissoci ation 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 de liquescence point of ammoni um 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’=[P 1 

### -P 2 

### (1-a)+P 3 

### (1-a) 2 

### ] (1-a) 1.75 

### *K

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

ln(P 1 

### ) = -135.94 + 8763/T + 19.12ln(T) ln(P 2 

### ) = -122.65 + 9969/T + 16.22ln(T) ln(P 3 

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

The above equation for K’ assumes crystallization of ammonium nitrate wh en RH is less than 61%. Thus, predicted NO3 loss may be underestim ated for situations where solids do not form on the filter. For supersaturated solutions and wi th lower RH, the estimated dissociation for the solution will be larger than K for the solid. Howeve r, 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 illustra tes the potential nitrate loss as a function of temperature and relative humidit y. Temperature is presented as degrees F for more convenient

### January 2008

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-5 interpretation. It shows that at 50 de g F and RH of 80%, approximately 1.6 μ g/m 3 

### 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 measur ed FRM nitrates at si x eastern US monitoring locations, the annual averag e prediction errors are less than -0.3 to +0.1 μ g/m 3 

### (Frank, 2006a).

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



### 4.2.2. Estimated Ammonium Associated with Sulfa te and Retained Nitrates and Sulfates

To determine the mass associated with nitr ates, 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. A lthough in coastal areas, nitrate may also be neutralized by sodium. However, sodium nitrate concentrations w ould mainly be in the coarse PM mode so would not be collected on the FRM or STN PM 2.5 

### samplers. Assuming that all of the particulate nitrate is in the form of ammonium nitrate, the ammonium a ssociated with nitrates can be derived directly from the FRM retained NO3 FRM 

### as:

NH4 NO3 

### = 0.29 * NO3 FRM


### Similarly, the dry PM 2.5 

### 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-6 [Retained dry FRM Ammonium Nitrates] = 1.29 * NO3 FRM



### 4.2.3 Ammoniated Sulfate Mass

The mass associated with sulfates is first estimat ed 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 sulf ate compound(s) and the amount of associated ammonium, ho wever, is somewhat uncertain.

Sulfates may not be fully neutralized in all ge ographic areas or seasons of the year. During winter-time conditions, when nitrat es are prevalent in the ambien t aerosol, sulfates tend to be fully neutralized and exist as ammonium sulfate [(NH 4 

### ) 2 

### SO 4 

### ]. During the summer, when sulfates are higher and nitrates are lower and ammonia is less available for reaction with H 2 

### SO 4 

### , the resulting aerosol can be acid ic and the form of sulfates can include ammonium bisulfate [NH 4 

### SO 4 

### ] or even H 2 

### SO 4


### .

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

NH4 (SO4) 

### = NH4 adj 

### - 0.29 * NO3 FRM 

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

### and NO3 FRM 

### reflect the amounts reta ined 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 a nd 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:

NH4 FRM 

### = DON * SO4 + 0.29*NO3 FRM


### where, DON, SO4 and NO3FRM are the quarter ly average values at each FRM site.

Thus, in the standard SANDWICH SMAT application NH4 FRM 

### is not a direct measured value, but is derived from the DON, SO4, and NO3 adj 

### values. In the default EPA PM 2.5 

### Design Value projection approach, interpolated DON values are used to estimate ammonium, this is due to uncertainties in the ammonium measurements a nd the lack of NH4 measurements at IMPROVE

### January 2008

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-7 sites. However, for the ASIP SANDWICH/SMA T application presented in this Chapter the DON, SO4 and NO3 adj 

### data from a specific STN monitoring site are assigned to FRM monitors so spatial interpolati on is not used.

4.2.4 Particle Bound Water

Because ammoniated sulfate and ammonium nitrate are hygroscopi c, the retained sulfate and nitrate mass will include water 1 

### . Particle bound water (PBW) is estimated using the Aerosol Inorganic Model (AIM) (Clegg, 1998). PBW was derived from quarterly average FRM concentrations of sulfate, am monium, 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. Typi cal filter equilibration conditions of 35% RH and 22 deg C (295 deg K) temperature are used.

Application of AIM at the spec ified FRM filter equilibration condi tions 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 regre ssion 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 pol ynomial 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 (s ite-days) where DON > 0.225 and all measurements where DON ≤ 0.225. A separate equation was devel oped to represent each regime.

The equations are as follows:

S= SO4 / (SO4 + NO3 FRM 

### + NH4 FRM 

### ) N= NO3 FRM 

### / (SO4 + NO3 FRM 

### + NH4 FRM 

### ) A= NH4 FRM 

### / (SO4 + NO3 FRM 

### + NH4 FRM 

### )

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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.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 + NO3 FRM 

### + NH4 FRM 

### )

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 + NO3 FRM 

### + NH4 FRM 

### )

4.2.5 Passively Collected PM 2.5 

### Components (Blank Correction)

The other quantifiable components of PM 2.5 

### mass include passively collected mass, represented by the field blank concentra tion that is typically 0.3-0.5 μ g/m 3 

### (EPA, 2002). This appears to constitute a contamination of the filter resulti ng from handling or contact with the FRM cassette. This value is deemed to be an important constituent of PM 2.5 

### mass (it is assumed to not be dependent on pollutant emissions). A nominal blank mass value of 0.5 μ g/m 3 

### 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-9 4.2.6 Calculation of Carbonaceous Mass

Carbonaceous mass is estimated from blank corrected PM 2.5 

### 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 ambien t carbon particles. Note that the 1.4 OCM/OC ratio was based on limited organic compound speciat ion data in Los Angeles (W atson, 2002). More recent analysis by Turpin and Lim (2001) have found OC M/OC ratios that vary from 1.6±0.2 for urban areas to 2.4±0.2 for rural areas. However, si nce the SANDWICH derivati on of the initial OCM is just used as a “floor’ for the OCM calculation, th e lower OCM/OC ratio of 1.4 is used. To that amount is added the elemental carbon (EC) concentr ation. An alternative approach to estimate carbon contribution to PM 2.5 

### mass is used for SMAT because of: (1) many uncertainties in estimating carbonaceous mass from carbon measurem ents (Turpin and Lim, 2001; Chow et al., 2004); (2) differences in carbon measurement prot ocol between urban and rural monitoring locations; (3) a relatively “bumpy” surface of urban carbon concentr ations as derived from these urban and rural organic carbon measurements; and (4) lack of carbon meas urements at all FRM locations. The SANDWICH/SMAT approach estimates carbon by mass balance comparing precisely measured FRM PM 2.5 

### mass (EPA, 2003) with the sum of its non-carbon components. The latter are sulfates, ammonium, nitrates, es timated particle bound water, estimated crustal material plus 0.5 μ g/m 3 

### passively collected mass blank co rrection 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) re gional and urban-rural differences in the mix of carbonaceous aerosols (i.e. the amount of oxygen, hydrogen, etc that is associated with the organic carb on); (2) retained water asso ciated 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 or ganic and elemental carbon.

Total Carbonaceous Mass by mass balance (TCM mb 

### ) is defined as:

TCM mb 

### = FRM PM 2.5 

### - {[SO4] + [NO3 FRM 

### ] + [NH4 FRM 

### ] + [water] + [crustal material] + [0.5]}

In this expression, all of the above quarterly average componen ts represent th e mass retained on FRM Teflon filters.

The mass associated with orga nic compounds is defined as:

OCM mb 

### = TCM mb 

### - [EC]

where, EC is STN measured elemental carbon.

This approach completely accounts for FRM mass and OCM mb 

### is often greate r than the amount that would be derived directly from speciatio n measurements. Because of uncertainties in speciation measurements and their estimates from in terpolated surfaces, a lower limit (floor) for

### January 2008

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-10 OCM mb 

### was set so that the OCM mb 

### was not unreasonably low. Th e floor was set so that OCM mb 

### could not be more than 30% lower than measured OCM. For the ASIP projections, the STN measured OCM was used to calculate the floo r assuming a 1.4 OCM/OC ratio. The lower limit is equal to interpolated (measured) OC * 1.4 * 0.7. If the OCM mb 

### concentration was less than the lower limit, it was set equal to the lower limit.

4.2.6. Summary of PM 2.5 

### Composition Calculations

As presented in the beginning of this secti on, the application of the SANDWICH speciated STN/IMPROVE data to the FRM PM 2.5 

### 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.

PM2.5 FRM 

### = { [OCM mb 

### ] + [EC] + [SO4] + [NO3 FRM 

### ] + [NH4 FRM 

### ] + [water] + [crustal material] + [0.5] }

The SANDWICH species data is ge nerated in the following order:

1. Adjusted nitrate is calcula ted using hourly meteorology and 24-hour average nitrate measurements.

2. Quarterly averages are calculated for adjust ed nitrate, sulfate, elemental carbon, degree of sulfate neutra lization (DON), crustal mass , and measured OCM.

3. Quarterly average ammonium is calculated fr om the adjusted nitrate, sulfate, and DON values (or in the case of ASIP the NH4 adj 

### is used directly).

4. Calculated ammonium, sulfate, and nitrate va lues are input into the water equation to derive particle bound water concentrations.

5. Carbon mass by difference (OMC mb 

### ) is calculated from the PM 2.5 

### mass, adjusted nitrate, ammonium, sulfate, water, elemen tal carbon, crustal, and blank mass values.

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

4.3 Defining Current-Year PM 2.5 

### Design Values (DVC)

The PM 2.5 

### component species fractions are applied to current-year PM 2.5 

### Design Values (DVC) that are then projected to the future using the model derived RRFs. EPA’s PM 2.5 

### modeling guidance recommends using the average of the 3 years of PM 2.5 

### Design Value periods that straddle the emissions year. The average of th e 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. Th erefore, the design value period is from 2000- 2004. In the average of 2000-2002, 2001-2003, and 2002-2004 PM 2.5 

### Design Values for the DVC, the annual average PM 2.5 

### 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-11 weighting the projected PM 2.5 

### values towards the middle year of the five year period, which is the emissions and meteorology year fo r the ASIP modeling (i.e., 2002).

There are several steps in the derivation of the average PM 2.5 

### design values for projections to the future. Quarterly average values are needed fo r each FRM site. The following steps were used to derive the quarterly average FRM values.

1. The analysis began with quarterly aver age 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 PM 2.5 

### Design Values using the Speciated Model Attainment Test (SMAT) is as follows:

1. Derive current quarterly mean concentrati ons for each of the major components of PM 2.5


### . This is done by multiplying the monitored qua rterly mean concentration of Federal Reference Method (FRM) (EPA, 1997) derived PM 2.5 

### mass by the monitored fractional composition of PM 2.5 

### 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 concentrati ons for each of the components of PM 2.5 

### near the FRM monitor. Take the ratio of future to current predictions for each component. The result is a component-speci fic 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 l eads to an estimated future quarterly mean concentration for each PM 2.5 

### component.

4. Derive the future-year ammoni um 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 PM 2.5 

### components and atmospheric conditions for the FRM monito r. Assume the blank correction stays constant from the current-year to future-year.

5. Average the four quarterly mean future concen trations to get an estimated future annual mean concentration for each PM 2.5 

### component. Sum the annual mean concentrations of the PM 2.5 

### components to obtain an estimated future annua l concentration for PM 2.5


### .

### January 2008

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-12 

## T he FRM data is used for nonattainment designati ons. Therefore it is important that the SMAT procedures described above use the FRM data as the base value for projecting future PM 2.5 

### concentrations. As can be seen from the list of steps, the modeled attain ment test is dependent on the availability of species component ma ss representative of the FRM sites.

4.5 Estimating Future Year PM 2.5 

### Design Values

Future-year concentrations of PM 2.5 

### 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 sp ecies concentrations (from a current-year to a future-year) are used to calculate RRFs. RRFs ar e calculated for each grid cell and species as the ratio of the quarterly average future-year (2009) model predicti ons to the current-year (2002) base case model predictions “near” th e FRM monitor. The RRF for each PM 2.5 

### species is then multiplied by the estimated base year ambient PM 2.5 

### species mass for the site to estimate future species concentrations.

4.5.1 Projecting PM 2.5 

### Component Species

In the SMAT methodology, RRFs are calculated for five of the PM 2.5 

### component species: sulfate (SO4), nitrate (NO3 adj 

### ), organic carbon mass (OCM mb 

### ), elemental carbon (EC), and crustal mass. Note that future-year values for the other three PM 2.5 

### component species are either derived from the projections of these five PM 2.5 

### component species (i.e., NH4 and PBW) or held constant (i.e., blank correction). The future year concentrations of the five PM 2.5 

### components are calculated for each site and each quarter. The future-year amm onium 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:

NH4 future 

### = DON * SO4 future 

### + 0.29*NO3 future 

### ,

The NH4 future 

### , SO4 future, 

### and NO3 future 

### concentrations are then run through the water equation to predict a future-year particle bound water (PRB) concentration. The future-year PM 2.5 

### species concentrations at each FRM site are then summ ed over the seven species plus blank mass to estimate the future quarterly average PM 2.5 

### concentration. The four quarterly values are then averaged to obtain the estimat ed future annual average PM 2.5 

### 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 “nea r” 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 ar e being used for which EPA recommends that NX=NY=1 and NX=NY=3, respectively. Thus, for the ASIP 2009 PM 2.5 

### 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-13 containing the FRM monitoring wh en using the CMAQ 36 km m odeling results, and in the 9 grid cells centered on th e FRM monitor for the CMAQ 12 km modeling results.

2009 PM 2.5 

### Design Value Projections using Base G2 Modeling Results

The 2000-2004 current-year PM 2.5 

### Design Values at FRM sites with in and near the ASIP region were projected to 2009 using th e 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 PM 2.5 

### Design Value projections ar e 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 PM 2.5 

### Design Values (DVFs) using the Base G2 CMAQ modeling results for FRM sites in Alabama. The stacked bar charts of curre nt-year (based on average of three year Design Values from 2002- 2002, 2001-2003 and 2002-2004) and 2009 future-yea r (based on both 12 km and 36 km modeling results) PM 2.5 

### Design Values includes the c ontributions of each of the PM 2.5 

### 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 PM 2.5 

### concentrations in Alabama are crustal materi al, 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 PM 2.5 

### in Alabama.

In addition to the current-year and projected future-year PM 2.5 

### 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 PM 2.5 

### Design Value projections could not be made at a particular FRM site: (1) there was insufficient FRM data to construct a valid current-year PM 2.5 

### Design Value; or (2) there was no speciated PM 2.5 

### data to use in the SMAT calcula tion. 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 PM 2.5 

### data to the FRM monitors.

There are two PM 2.5 

### monitors in Alabama that are projected to exceed the annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS in 2009:

• North Birmingham in Birmingham, Alab ama with 2009 Base G2 projected PM 2.5 

### Design Values of 17.04 μ g/m 3 

### using the 36 km CMAQ results and 16.97 μ g/m 3 

### using the CMAQ 12 km results; and

• Wylam in Birmingham, Alabama with 2009 projected PM 2.5 

### Design Values of 15.58 μ g/m 3 

### (CMAQ 36 km) and 15.76 μ g/m 3 

### (CMAQ 12 km).

In the past these two sites were Community Monitoring Zone (CMZ) monitoring sites whose values were averaged for comparisons with th e 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-14 monitoring sites in Birmingham, Alabam a are projected to exceed the annual PM 2.5 

### 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-sc ale modeling using a 4 km CM AQ database and local-scale modeling using AERMOD to identify local controls to bring these two monitors into attainment of the annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS.

The ASIP CMAQ Base G2 2009 modeling results project that all other FRM monitors in Alabama will attain the annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS in 2009.

Alabama 2002 Design Value (Left) and 2009 base G2 12km projected DVF (Middle) and 2009 base G2 36km proj ected DVF (Right)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Baldwin-0010Clay-0001Colbert-1002DeKalb-1003Escambia-0002Houston-0002Jefferson-0023Jefferson-1005Jefferson-1009Jefferson-2003Jefferson-2006Jefferson-5002Jefferson-5003Madison-0014Mobile-0002Mobile-2005Montgomery-0007Morgan-0011Russell-0001Sumter-0002Talladega-0002

Alabamaug/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) PM 2.5 

### Design Values centered on 2002 and Projected 2009 PM 2.5 

### 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-15 Table 4-1. Current-year (DVC) and projected future-year (DVF) PM 2.5 

### Design Values ( μ g/m 3 

### ) 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-16 District of Columbia

Figure 4-3 and Table 4-2 display th e current-year and future-year PM 2.5 

### Design Values at FRM monitoring sites in the District of Columbia that is adjacent to the AS IP 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 s ites are estimated to be well below the annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS.

District of Columbia 2002 Design Value (Left) and 2009 base G2 12km projected DVF (Middle) and 2009 base G2 36km proj ected DVF (Right)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16DC-0041DC-0042DC-0043

District of Columbiaug/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) PM 2.5 

### Design Values centered on 2002 and Projected 2009 PM 2.5 

### 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) PM 2.5 

### Design Values ( μ g/m 3 

### ) 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.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 PM 2.5 

### Design Value is 12.7 μ g/m 3 

### , which is projected to be reduced to 11.6 μ g/m 3 

### by 2009. Thus, none of the FRM sites are cu rrently or projected in the future to exceed the annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS.

Florida 2002 Design Value (Left) and 2009 base G2 12km projected DVF (Middle) and 2009 base G2 36km proj ected DVF (Right)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Alachua-0023Alachua-0024Bay-1004Brevard-0007Broward-1002Broward-2004Broward-3002Citrus-0005Duval-0098Duval-0099Escambia-0004Hillsborough-0030Hillsborough-3002Lee-0005Leon-0012Manatee-4012Marion-0003Miami-Dade-1016Miami-Dade-6001Orange-1004Orange-2002Palm Beach-0008Palm Beach-0009Palm Beach-2005Pinellas-0018Pinellas-1009Polk-6006Sarasota-0013Seminole-1002St. Lucie-1002Volusia-5002

Floridaug/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) PM 2.5 

### Design Values centered on 2002 and Projected 2009 PM 2.5 

### 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-18 Table 4-3. Current-year (DVC) and projected future-year (DVF) PM 2.5 

### Design Values ( μ g/m 3 

### ) 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-19 4.7.4 Georgia

Of the 26 FRM monitoring sites in the state of Georgia, 16 of them have current-year PM 2.5 

### Design Values (DVCs) that exceed the annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. The highest of these is in Fulton County that has a DVC of 18.3 μ g/m 3 

### . The ASIP 2009 modeling pr ojects that two of the Georgia FRM sites would stil l be violating the annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS in 2009, with the maximum values being 16.6 μ g/m 3 

### (12 km) and 16.4 μ g/m 3 

### (36 km) at the previously mentioned Fulton County site. The 2009 projected PM 2.5 

### Design Value at the Clayto n County site is just at the annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS (15.0 μ g/m 3 

### ).

Georgia 2002 Design Value (Left) and 2009 base G2 12km projected DVF (Middle) and 2009 base G2 36km proj ected DVF (Right)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Bibb-0007Bibb-0012Chatham-0017Chatham-0091Clarke-0001Clayton-0091Cobb-0003Cobb-0004DeKalb-0002DeKalb-2001Dougherty-0007Floyd-0005Fulton-0032Fulton-0039Glynn-0006Gwinnett-0002Hall-0003Houston-0001Lowndes-0003Muscogee-0001Muscogee-0008Muscogee-0011Paulding-0003Richmond-0005Richmond-0091Walker-0002Washington-0001Wilkinson-0001

Georgiaug/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) PM 2.5 

### Design Values centered on 2002 and Projected 2009 PM 2.5 

### 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-20 Table 4-4. Current-year (DVC) and projected future-year (DVF) PM 2.5 

### Design Values ( μ g/m 3 

### ) 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-21 4.7.6 Kentucky

Of the 28 FRM monitoring sites in the state of Kentucky, 4 of them have current-year PM 2.5 

### Design Values (DVCs) that exceed the annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. The highest of these is in Jefferson County that has a DVC of 16.8 μ g/m 3 

### , however this FRM monitor had no associated STN speciation monitoring site so 2009 projections we re not made at this si te. Also in Jefferson County was the second highest DVC of 16.6 μ g/m 3 

### which has a projected 2009 DVF of 14.9 μ g/m 3 

### using 12 km CMAQ results, which is below the NAAQS. However, these results raise concerns about the other Jeffers on County FRM site’s projected 2009 DVF that would likely be above the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. All other FRM monitoring site s in Kentucky are projected to be below the annual average PM 2.5 

### NAAQS.

Kentucky 2002 Design Value (Left) and 2009 base G2 12km projected DVF (Middle) and 2009 base G2 36km proj ected DVF (Right)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Bell-0002Boyd-0017Bullitt-0006Campbell-0003Carter-0500Christian-0006Daviess-0014Fayette-0012Fayette-0014Franklin-0006Hardin-0006Henderson-0006Henderson-0014Jefferson-0044Jefferson-0048Jefferson-0051Kenton-0007Madison-0003McCracken-1004Perry-0003Pike-0002Warren-0007

Kentuckyug/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) PM 2.5 

### Design Values centered on 2002 and Projected 2009 PM 2.5 

### Design Values (DVF) in Kentucky using th e CMAQ 36/12 km Base G2 modeling results.

### January 2008

C:\Documents and Settings\BG31011\Desktop\Final PM2.5 SIP\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-22 Table 4-5. Current-year (DVC) and projected future-year (DVF) PM 2.5 

### Design Values ( μ g/m 3 

### ) in Kentucky using the 2002 Typical and 2009 Ba se 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.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., Kentuc ky, West Virginia and Virginia) where the ASIP modeling results were used to make 2009 PM 2.5 

### Design Value projections. Of th e 28 monitoring sites in these three states adjacent to the ASIP re gion, 16 have DVCs that exceed the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. The 2009 ASIP modeling estimates that 5 of th ese sites would still exceed the annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS in 2009:

• The FRM site in Clark Count y, Indiana (Louisville NAA) is estimate to just barely exceed the NAAQS (15.0 μ g/m 3 

### ); and

• Three sites in Hamilton County Ohio (15.2, 15.4 and 15.8 μ g/m 3 

### ) in the Cincinnati NAA and one site further east in Sciota County, Ohio (15.2 μ g/m 3 

### ).

There was also missing SMAT data for the Pr ince George Maryland site No. 24-033-0001 that had a DVC of 17.3 μ g/m 3 

### that also might still exceed the NAAQS in 2009.

IN / MD / OH 2002 Desi gn Value (Left) and 2009 base G2 12km projected DVF (Middle) and 2009 base G2 36km proj ected DVF (Right)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Clark-0006Floyd-1004Anne Arundel-0014Anne Arundel-0019Anne Arundel-1003Anne Arundel-2002Montgomery-3001Washington-0009Butler-0003Butler-0016Butler-0017Hamilton-0014Hamilton-0040Hamilton-0041Hamilton-0042Hamilton-0043Hamilton-7001Hamilton-8001Lawrence-0010Scioto-0013

IN / MD / OHug/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) PM 2.5 

### Design Values centered on 2002 and Projected 2009 PM 2.5 

### 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-24 Table 4-6. Current-year (DVC) and projected future-year (DVF) PM 2.5 

### Design Values ( μ g/m 3 

### ) 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-25 4.7.8 Mississippi

The maximum current-year PM 2.5 

### Design Value in Mississippi is 15.0 μ g/m 3 

### in Lowndes County which is projected to be reduced to 13.8 μ g/m 3 

### in 2009. All FRM monito ring sites in Mississippi are projected to at tain the annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS in 2009.

Mississippi 2002 Design Value (Left) and 2009 base G2 12km projected DVF (Middle) and 2009 base G2 36km proj ected DVF (Right)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Adams-0004Bolivar-0001DeSoto-0002Forrest-0004Hancock-0001Harrison-0008Hinds-0010Hinds-0018Jackson-0006Jones-0002Lauderdale-0003Lee-0005Lowndes-0001Pearl River-0001Rankin-0001Scott-0001Warren-0004

Mississippiug/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) PM 2.5 

### Design Values centered on 2002 and Projected 2009 PM 2.5 

### 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-26 Table 4-7. Current-year (DVC) and projected future-year (DVF) PM 2.5 

### Design Values ( μ g/m 3 

### ) 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.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 PM 2.5 

### 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 μ g/m 3 

### that occurs in Davidson County and is reduced to 13.4 μ g/m 3 

### in 2009. All North Carolina FRM monitoring sites are project ed to attain the annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS in 2009.

North Carolina 2002 Design Value (Left) and 2009 base G2 12km projected DVF (Middle) and 2009 base G2 36km proj ected DVF (Right)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Alamance-0002Buncombe-0034Cabarrus-0004Caswell-0001Catawba-0004Catawba-0005Chatham-0004Cumberland-0009Davidson-0002Davidson-0004Duplin-0002Durham-0001Forsyth-0022Forsyth-0024Gaston-0016Guilford-0009Guilford-0013Guilford-1005Haywood-0010Jackson-0006Lenoir-0004McDowell-0004Mecklenburg-0010Mecklenburg-0041Mecklenburg-0042Mitchell-0001Montgomery-0001Onslow-0005Orange-0007Pitt-0005Robeson-0005Swain-0002Wake-0014Wake-0015Wayne-0005

North Carolinaug/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) PM 2.5 

### Design Values centered on 2002 and Projected 2009 PM 2.5 

### 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-28 Table 4-8. Current-year (DVC) and projected future-year (DVF) PM 2.5 

### Design Values ( μ g/m 3 

### ) 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-30 4.7.10 South Carolina

There is one monitoring site inGreenville County, South Carolin a whose DVC currently exceeds the annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS at 15.8 μ g/m 3 

### . It is estimated to be reduced to 13.6 μ g/m 3 

### in 2009. Thus, all South Carolina FRM monitoring site s are projected to attain the annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS in 2009.

South Carolina 2002 D esign Value (Left) and 2009 base G2 12km projected DVF (Middle) and 2009 base G2 36km proj ected DVF (Right)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Beaufort-0007Charleston-0048Charleston-0049Chesterfield-0001Edgefield-0001Florence-0002Georgetown-0009Greenville-0008Greenville-0009Greenwood-0003Horry-0002Lexington-0008Oconee-0001Richland-0007Richland-0019Spartanburg-0010

South Carolinaug/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) PM 2.5 

### Design Values centered on 2002 and Projected 2009 PM 2.5 

### 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-31 Table 4-9. Current-year (DVC) and projected future-year (DVF) PM 2.5 

### Design Values ( μ g/m 3 

### ) 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-32 4.7.11 Tennessee

Seven monitoring sites in Tennessee have DVCs that exceed the annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS, with three of them greater than 16.0 μ g/m 3 

### that occur in the Knoxville and Chattanooga NAAs. However, all of the 2009 PM 2.5 

### Design Values are projecte d to be below the annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS with a maximum projected DVF of 14.7 μ g/m 3 

### in Knoxville, Tennessee.

Figure 4-11. Current (2000-2004) PM 2.5 

### Design Values centered on 2002 and Projected 2009 PM 2.5 

### 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-33 Table 4-10. Current-year (DVC) and projected future-year (DVF) PM 2.5 

### Design Values ( μ g/m 3 

### ) 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-34 4.7.12 Virginia

For Virginia, all of the current-year and future-year PM 2.5 

### Design Values are below the annual PM 2.5 

### 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 16Arlington-0020Bristol-0006Charles City-0002Chesapeake-0012Chesterfield-0003Fairfax-0030Fairfax-5001Hampton-0004Henrico-0014Henrico-0015Loudoun-1005Newport News-0013Norfolk-0024Page-0004Richmond-0020Roanoke-0014Salem-0010Virginia Beach-0008

Virginiaug/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) PM 2.5 

### Design Values centered on 2002 and Projected 2009 PM 2.5 

### 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-35 Table 4-11. Current-year (DVC) and projected future-year (DVF) PM 2.5 

### Design Values ( μ g/m 3 

### ) 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-36 4.7.13 West Virginia

Eleven of the 17 FRM monitors in West Virginia have current-year PM 2.5 

### Design Values that exceed the annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. The ASIP modeling estim ates that by 2009 only three FRM monitors would still exceed the annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS: Brooke County (15.0 μ g/m 3 

### ) and Hancock County (15.6 μ g/m 3 

### ) in the West Virginia panhandle Wheeling-Steubenville-Weirton NAA and Kanawha County (15.0 μ g/m 3 

### ) 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 18Berkeley-0003Brooke-0005Cabell-0006Hancock-0011Hancock-1004Harrison-0003Kanawha-0010Kanawha-1005Marion-0006Marshall-1002Mercer-0002Monongalia-0003Ohio-0010Raleigh-0002Summers-0001Wood-1002

West Virginiaug/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) PM 2.5 

### Design Values centered on 2002 and Projected 2009 PM 2.5 

### 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-37 Table 4-12. Current-year (DVC) and projected future-year (DVF) PM 2.5 

### Design Values ( μ g/m 3 

### ) 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-38 4.8 Summary of High 2009 PM 2.5 

### Design Values

Table 4-13 summarizes the FRM monitoring sites within and adjacent to the ASIP region for which projected 2009 PM 2.5 

### Design Values are 14.0 μ g/m 3 

### 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 at tainment demonstration when the projected PM 2.5 

### Design Values are close to the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS (EPA, 2007a). EPA recommends that a WOE analysis be conducted if the modeled future-year PM 2.5 

### Design Value is in the 14.5 to 15.5 μ g/m 3 

### range. If the future-year projected PM 2.5 

### Design Value is 15.5 μ g/m 3 

### or higher, EPA notes that no amount of additional analysis is likely to be convincing that at tainment would be achieved.

There are five FRM monitors within or adja cent to the ASIP region whose 2009 projected PM 2.5 

### Design Values are 15.5 μ g/m 3 

### or greater:

• The North Birmingham (17.0 μ g/m 3 

### ) and Wylam (15.8 μ g/m 3 

### ) monitors in the City of Birmingham in Jefferson County, Alabama wher e additional analysis to look at local controls is underway.

• An Atlanta, Georgia monitor in Fulton County (16.6 μ g/m 3 

### ).

• A monitor in Hamilton County, Ohio (15.8 μ g/m 3 

### ) in the Cincinnati NAA.

• Hancock County in the West Virginia panhandle (15.6 μ g/m 3 

### ).

An additional 14 FRM monitors have projected PM 2.5 

### Design Values within the WOE zone with 7 above and 7 below the NAAQS. Of the 7 addi tional monitors that are above the NAAQS 3 are in the Cincinnati NAA, 2 are in th e 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\A ttachments\Attachment G - A ttainment Dem onstration.doc 

### 4-39 Table 4-13. 2009 projected PM 2.5 

### Design Values within and adjacent to the ASIP region that are 14.0 μ g/m 3 

### 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