# Appendix 5A

Original and Revised LADCO Technical

Support Document for Regional Haze Modeling

# Regional Air Quality Analyses for

Ozone, PM 2. 5 

# , and Regional Haze:

F inal Technical Support Document

April 25 , 2008

States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin

### ii 

# Table of Contents

Section

- Title Pa ge

Executive Summary iii

1

. 0 Introduction 1

1

. 1 SIP Requirements 1

1

. 2 Organization 2

1

. 3 Technical Work: Overview 3

2

. 0 Ambient Data Analyses 4

2

. 1 Ozone 4

2

. 2 PM 2. 5 

### 2 1

2

. 3 Regional Haze 35

3

. 0 Air Quality Model ing 4 6

3

. 1 Selection of Base Year 46

3

. 2 Future Years of Interest 46

3

. 3 Modeling System 4 7

3

. 4 Domain/Grid Resolution 47

3

. 5 Model Inputs: Meteorology 48

3

. 6 Model Inputs: Emissions 51

3

. 7 Base Year Modeling Results 60

4

. 0 Attainment De monstration for Ozone and PM 2.5 

### 71

4

. 1 Future Year Modeling Results 71

4

. 2 Supplemental Analyses 82

4

. 3 Weight of Evidence Determination for Ozone 82

4

. 4 Weight of Evidence Determination for PM 2. 5 

### 90

5

. 0 Reasonable Progress Assessment for Regional Haze 93

5

. 1 Class I Areas Impacted 93

5

. 2 Future Year Modeling Results 96

5

. 3 Weight of Evidence Determination for Regional Haze 104

6

. 0 Summary 111

7

. 0 References 114

Appendix I Ozone and PM 2.5 

### Modeling Results

Appendix II Ozone Source Apportio nment Modeling Results

Appendix III PM 2.5 

### Source Apportionment Modeling Results

Appendix IV Haze Source Apportionment Modeling Results

### 1



## Regional Air Quality Analyses for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze:

Final Technical Support Document ( Supplement ), September 12, 2008

The purpose of this paper is to summarize a new modeling analysis performed by the Lake

Michigan Air Dir ectors Consorti um (LADCO) to address the effect of the recent court decision

vacat ing EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). This new modeling is intended to supplem ent

the LADCO Technical Support Document (“ Regional Air Quality Analyses for Ozone, PM2.5,

and Regional Haze: Final Technical Support Document”, April 25, 2008) , which summarizes the

air quality analyses conducted by LADCO and its contractors to support the development of

State Implementation Plans for ozone, PM2.5, and regional haze in the States of Illinoi s, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin

.

Compared to the previous LADCO modeling (Round 5.1), the new modeling shows similar

results for ozone, but much more nonattainment for PM2.5 and higher visibility levels for

regional haze. Specifically, the new modeling shows:

Ozone : Attainment of the 0.08 ppm standard by 2009 everywhere in the region, except

Holland, MI , and n onattainment of the 0.075 ppm standard through at least 2018.

PM2.5 : Widespread nonattainment of annual (15 ug/m 3 

### ) and daily (35 ug/m 3 

### ) standards.

Haze : Higher visibility levels on the 20% worst visibility days in 2018 in Class I areas in

the eastern U.S., resulting in most areas being above the glide path.

Background : On July 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit v acated EPA’s CAIR

rule (cite). The reductions in NOx and SO2 emissions associated with this rule were a key part

of the LADCO States’ attainment demonstrations for ozone and PM2.5 and the reasonable

progress determinations for regional haze . LADCO’s prev ious modeling (Round 5.1) relied on

EGU emission projections from EPA’s IPM3.0 analysis, which assumed implementation of

Phases I and II of CAIR. For this new modeling, alternative EGU emission projections were

developed , which did not rely on CAIR (or IP M).

Model Set

- Up : The new modeling was performed consistent with LADCO’s previous modeling

(Round 5.1):

Model Version: CAMx v4.50beta_deposition

Future Years: 2009, 2012, 2018

Runs: (a) Ozone : Summer 2005 meteorology with 12 km grids

(b) PM2.5 an d haze : F ull year 2005 meteorology with 36 km grids



### Emission Scenarios: The new modeling assumed the same set of “on the books” controls as

in LADCO’s previous modeling (Round 5.1) for all sectors, except EGUs. In light of the CAIR

decision, three new E GU scenarios were prepared:

### 2

Scenario A: 2007 CEM

- based emissions w ere projected for all states in the modeling domain

based on EIA growth rates by state (NERC region) and fuel type. The assumed growth rates for

the Midwest States were: MAIN (IL, IA, MO, WI): 8.8% (2007

- 2018); ECAR (IN, KY, MI, OH):

13.5% (2007

- 2018); and MAPP (MN): 15.1% (2007

- 2018). No control w as applied. The annual

emissions w ere temporalized based on profiles derived from 2004

- 2006 CEM data. (Note, these

are the same temporal prof iles used in R ound 5.1 .)

Scenario B. Scenario A emissions for the LADCO States and select neighboring states (e.g.,

MN, IA, MO, KY, TN, and WV) w ere adjusted by applying legally enforceable controls (i.e.,

emission reductions required by a Consent Decree , state rule, or permit). Only those legally

enforceable controls identified (and justified) by the States w ere applied. The States also

supplied the appropriate control factors. A table summarizing the Scenario B controls is provided

in Appendix I.

Sc enario C. For the years 2009 and 2012, Scenario A emissions for all states w ere adjusted by

applying all planned SO2 and NOx controls based on the July 10 CAMD list (i.e., 9 0 % reduction

for scrubbers, 9 5 % reduction for SCRs). Because the July 10 CAMD list only includes controls

generally out to 2011, additional SO2 and NOx controls for the year 2018 w ere assumed for all

BART

- eligible EGUs in the five LADCO State plus MN, IA, MO, KY, TN, and MO list (i.e., 9 0 %

reduction for scrubbers, 9 5 % reduction for SCRs )

. A ll Scenario B controls we re included in

Scenario C. A table summarizing the Scenario C controls (CAMD list plus BART) is provided in

Appendix II.



### Table 1 and Figure 1 provide a summary of the 5

- state regional NOx and SO2 emissions for

each scenario and future year. (Note, the CAIR emissions included here are based on EPA’s

IPM3.0 modeling.) Several comments on the emissions should be noted:

Summer NOx

• There is ll ittle difference between the three alternative scenarios and CAIR . T his

suggests tha t summer ozone concentrations for the alternative scenarios are

likely to be similar to those predicted with CAIR (i.e., Round 5.1).

Annual NOx:

• There is a s ignificant change in emissions between scenarios , mostly during the

non

- summer months.

• Scenario B reflects application of NOx controls in several states; especially, IL,

OH, and WI.

• Because there are relatively few SCRs (in the LADCO States) on the CAMD list,

Scenario C results in only a small emissions decrease compared to Scenario C.

• Assumed BART c ontrols result in a significant emissions decrease.

Annual SO2

• There is a s ignificant change in emissions between scenarios

.

• Scenario B reflects application of SO2 controls in several states; especially, IL,

OH, and WI.

• Because there are several FGD s (i n the LADCO States) on the CAMD list,

Scenario C results in a large emissions decrease compared to Scenario C.

• Assumed BART controls result in a significant emissions decrease (i.e., even

lower emissions than t he IPM

- estimated CAIR emissions).

### 3 

### Figure 1. R egional NOx and SO2 Emissions

Summe r NO x Emi ss ions

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

2005 2007 200

9A 200 9B 200 9C

200 9 C AIR 201 2A 201 2B 201 2C

201 2 C AIR 201 8A 201 8B 201 8C

201 8BART

201 8 C AIR



### Annu al NO x Emi ss ions

0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000

2005 2007 200

9A 200 9B 200 9C

200 9 C AIR 201 2A 201 2B 201 2C

201 2 C AIR 201 8A 201 8B 201 8C

201 8BART

201 8 C AIR



### Annu al SO2 Emi ss ions

0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000

2005 2007 200

9A 200 9B 200 9C

200 9 C AIR 201 2A 201 2B 201 2C

201 2 C AIR 201 8A 201 8B 201 8C

201 8BART

201 8 C AIR

### 4 

### Table 1. Regional NOx and SO2 Emissions



# Summer NOx Emissions (TPD)

2005 2007 2009 A 2009 B 2009 C 2010

CAIR 2012 A 2012 B 2012 C 2012

CAIR 2018 A 2018 B 2018 C 2018 C

BART 2018

CAIR

IL 305 305 311 311 311 275 340 236 236 266 333 227 227 219 224

IN 393 393 376 376 374 384 393 393 390 368 410 386 383 292 264

MI 393 393 350 350 350 242 366 366 366 229 377 377 377 260 243

OH 408 408 395 355 335 285 423 351 351 290 431 366 366 230 290

WI 413 413 167 160 160 238 184 170 170 177 183 168 168 168 177

1,912 1,912 1,599 1,552 1,530 1,424 1,706 1,516 1,513 1,330 1,734 1,524 1,521 1,169 1,198



# Annual NOx Emissions (TPY)

2005 2007 2009 A 2009 B 2009 C 2010

CAIR 2012 A 2012 B 2012 C 2012

CAIR 2018 A 2018 B 2018 C 2018 C

BART 2018

CAIR

IL 126,786 121,006 124,917 124,917 124,917 83,224 137,438 81,989 81,989 82,248 135,983 79,771 79,771 63,590 69,958

IN 214,727 203,493 203,776 203,776 201,947 133,188 212,790 212,790 210,877 125,541 221,950 212,805 210,810 177,027 90,415

MI 120,332 112,484 112,478 112,478 112,478 83,117 117,621 117,621 117,621 77,897 122,447 122,447 122,447 89,444 79,543

OH 255,554 240,351 240,016 173,071 164,911 94,346 251,065 172,514 172 ,514 97,679 261,644 179,737 179,737 125,762 95,678

WI 71,414 54,582 56,540 54,065 54,065 53,032 62,266 57,759 57,759 56,480 61,812 56,952 56,952 56,952 56,158

788,812 731,917 737,727 668,307 658,317 446,908 781,179 642,673 640,760 439,845 803,837 651, 712 649,717 512,774 391,752



# Annual SO2 Emissions (TPY)

2005 2007 2009 A 2009 B 2009 C 2010

CAIR 2012 A 2012 B 2012 C 2012

CAIR 2018 A 2018 B 2018 C 2018 C

BART 2018

CAIR

IL 326,598 273,467 281,028 281,02 8 281,028 295,516 309,209 196,238 194,746 267,110 305,364 106,638 105,152 82,351 275,716

IN 866,964 722,301 721,252 721,252 619,486 374,335 754,323 754,323 558,567 379,144 786,551 764,065 559,945 426,695 359,915

MI 350,694 343,487 343,140 343,140 315,3 26 227,296 358,879 358,879 301,062 233,204 373,964 373,964 313,677 178,680 242,853

OH 1,100,510 960,820 959,466 959,466 693,438 427,145 1,003,633 897,099 572,807 370,532 1,045,945 819,770 481,623 333,740 315,560

WI 181,426 137,562 142,007 142,007 133,7 38 139,181 156,659 144,818 133,592 139,203 155,818 144,027 132,849 77,214 127,073

2,826,192 2,437,638 2,446,892 2,446,892 2,043,017 1,463,473 2,582,703 2,351,356 1,760,775 1,389,192 2,667,641 2,208,463 1,593,245 1,098,679 1,321,116

### 5



### Modeling Results: Several tables summarizing the modeling results are provided:

Table 2

- future year ozone and PM2.5 concentrations for key monitors in the

LADCO region

Table 3

- number of monitoring sites greater than the National Ambient Air Quality

Sta ndards (NNAQS)

Table 4

–

visibility levels for Class I areas in the eastern U.S.

Note, given that Scenario B and BART controls were only applied in an 11

- state Midwest

region, the validity of the results for other Class I areas in the eastern U.S. m ay be

questionable. The Scenario C controls, on the other hand, cover all states and are, thus,

likely valid in other Class I areas.

Spatial plots of the future year ozone and PM2.5 concentrations are provided in Figures 2

– 4.

Based on these resul ts, the following key findings should be noted:

Ozone

• There is little change from the previous LADCO modeling (Round 5.1 with CAIR)

• The modeling shows a ttainment of the 0.08 ppm (85 ppb) standard by 2009,

except Holland. (Note, Holland does meet this s tandard by 2012.)

• The modeling shows nonattainment of the 0.075 ppm (75 ppb) standard through

2018.

PM2.5

- Annual

• There is a significant change from the previous LADCO modeling (Round 5.1

with CAIR)

• The modeling shows extensive non atta inment of the annu al standard.

PM2.5

- Daily

• There is a significant change from the previous LADCO modeling (Round 5.1

with CAIR)

• Th e modeling shows extensive nonattainment of the daily standard.

Haze

• There is a significant change from the previous LADCO modeling (Rou nd 5.1

with CAIR)

• T he modeling shows higher visibility levels in 2018 for the 20% worst visibility

days (average about 0.5 deciviews for the northern Class I areas ). The resulting

visibility levels in the northern Class I areas (except Voyageurs) a re abov e t he

glide path.2005

Site Site ID Base Year Scen. A Scen. B Scen.C Round 5 Scen. A Scen. B Scen.C Round 5 Scen. A Scen. B Scen.C Scen.CBART Round 5

Lake Michigan Area

Chiwaukee 550590019 84.7 82.2 82.2 82.0 82.3 81.1 80.8 80.6 80.9 77.2 77.2 77.0 76.0 76.2

Racine 551010017 80.3 77.8 77.8 77.5 77.5 76.6 76.2 76.1 76.1 72.9 72.3 72.1 71.1 71.2

Milwaukee-Bayside 550890085 82.7 79.9 79.9 79.7 79.8 78.5 78.0 78.0 78.0 74.3 73.6 73.4 72.4 72.7

Harrington Beach 550890009 83.3 80.1 80.1 79.9 80.1 78.6 78.1 78.0 78.3 73.9 73.2 73.1 72.2 72.5

Manitowoc 550710007 85.0 80.8 80.8 80.7 80.8 79.0 78.5 78.4 78.6 73.9 73.2 73.1 72.0 72.5

Sheboygan 551170006 88.0 84.1 84.0 83.9 84.0 82.2 81.7 81.5 81.8 76.9 76.0 75.9 74.8 75.4

Kewaunee 550610002 82.7 78.2 78.2 78.0 78.1 76.4 75.9 75.7 75.9 71.3 70.7 70.5 69.4 69.9

Door County 550290004 88.7 84.1 84.1 83.9 83.9 82.0 81.4 81.3 81.5 76.5 75.6 75.5 74.2 74.7

Hammond 180892008 77.7 76.2 76.2 76.0 75.4 75.6 75.3 75.2 74.6 73.2 72.7 72.6 71.7 71.6

Whiting 180890030 79.3 77.8 77.8 77.7 77.0 77.2 76.9 76.8 76.2 74.8 74.3 74.2 73.2 73.1

Michigan City 180910005 77.0 74.5 74.5 74.3 73.9 73.3 72.9 72.8 72.5 69.7 69.2 69.1 68.1 68.1

Ogden Dunes 181270020 78.3 76.3 76.3 76.2 75.6 75.5 75.1 75.0 74.5 72.9 72.3 72.1 71.2 70.8

Holland 260050003 90.0 85.7 85.7 85.5 85.3 83.5 83.1 82.9 82.8 78.2 77.5 77.3 76.0 76.1

Jenison 261390005 82.0 76.8 76.8 76.7 76.0 75.1 74.6 74.5 74.5 70.2 69.6 69.5 67.9 68.7

Muskegon 261210039 85.0 80.6 80.6 80.5 80.5 78.6 78.2 78.1 78.0 73.5 72.8 72.8 71.5 71.9

Indianapolis Area

Noblesville 189571001 82.7 78.3 78.3 78.1 78.1 76.1 75.9 75.7 75.6 70.2 69.9 69.8 68.9 68.7

Fortville 180590003 78.0 74.1 74.1 73.9 73.9 71.9 71.8 71.7 71.4 66.7 66.5 66.3 65.4 65.1

Fort B. Harrison 180970050 78.7 75.4 75.3 75.2 75.1 73.8 73.6 73.6 73.2 70.6 70.3 70.2 69.3 69.1

Detroit Area

New Haven 260990009 86.0 82.4 82.3 82.1 81.4 81.4 81.2 81.1 80.2 78.1 77.8 77.7 76.5 76.1

Warren 260991003 84.0 82.4 82.3 82.2 81.3 82.1 81.8 81.7 80.7 79.7 79.4 79.3 78.0 77.6

Port Huron 261470005 82.7 78.2 78.2 78.1 77.5 76.5 76.3 76.2 75.5 72.6 72.5 72.3 70.9 70.9

Cleveland Area

Ashtabula 390071001 89.0 84.2 84.1 83.9 83.4 82.0 81.8 81.6 81.0 76.8 76.5 76.4 74.8 75.1

Geauga 390550004 79.3 75.8 75.8 75.6 74.7 74.0 73.8 73.7 72.7 69.5 69.2 69.1 67.6 67.3

Eastlake 390850003 86.3 83.1 83.1 82.9 81.9 81.8 81.6 81.5 80.5 78.2 78.0 77.8 76.5 76.2

Akron 391530020 83.7 79.1 79.1 79.0 78.1 76.9 76.7 76.6 75.6 70.9 70.6 70.4 68.7 68.7

Cincinnati Area

Wilmington 390271002 82.3 77.3 77.4 77.1 77.5 75.3 75.2 74.8 74.9 70.1 69.9 69.5 67.1 68.3

Sycamore 390610006 84.7 81.5 81.4 81.1 81.9 80.4 80.2 79.8 80.3 76.4 76.0 75.7 73.5 74.6

Lebanon 391650007 87.7 82.8 82.8 82.4 83.0 80.8 80.7 80.3 80.7 75.4 75.1 74.8 72.6 74.2

Columbus Area

London 390970007 79.7 75.0 75.0 74.8 75.0 73.0 72.8 72.7 72.6 68.1 67.8 67.6 65.9 66.3

New Albany 390490029 86.3 82.1 82.1 81.9 81.8 80.2 80.0 79.9 79.6 74.7 74.3 74.2 73.3 73.0

Franklin 290490028 80.3 76.7 76.6 76.5 75.9 75.1 74.9 74.8 74.1 70.5 70.2 70.1 70.2 69.0

St. Louis Area

W. Alton (MO) 291831002 86.3 81.1 81.2 81.1 81.0 80.0 79.9 79.9 78.6 76.9 76.8 76.7 74.2 74.9

Orchard (MO) 291831004 87.0 82.1 82.1 82.0 82.0 80.9 80.8 80.7 80.0 77.7 77.6 77.4 75.2 76.2

Sunset Hills (MO) 291890004 82.3 79.2 79.2 79.1 78.7 78.3 78.1 78.1 77.1 75.3 75.2 75.1 73.0 73.9

Arnold (MO) 290990012 82.3 77.8 77.8 77.7 77.2 76.7 76.6 76.5 75.6 73.6 73.4 73.4 71.3 72.0

Margaretta (MO) 295100086 83.0 79.8 79.8 79.7 79.3 78.8 78.7 78.6 77.9 75.7 75.6 75.5 73.7 74.4

Maryland Heights (MO) 291890014 87.3 85.4 85.4 85.3 84.0 84.3 84.1 84.0 81.7 81.1 80.9 80.8 78.4 78.1 

## Table 2a. Ozone Modeling Results

2009 2012 20182005

Site Site ID Base Year Scen. A Scen. B Scen.C Round 5 Scen. A Scen. B Scen.C Round 5 Scen. A Scen. B Scen.C Scen.CBART Round 5

Illinois

Chicago - Washington HS 170310022 15.2 14.9 14.8 14.5 14.1 14.8 14.7 14.2 14.0 15.0 14.6 14.2 13.7 13.9

Chicago - Mayfair 170310052 15.8 15.1 15.1 14.8 14.4 15.1 14.9 14.5 14.2 15.1 14.7 14.3 13.7 13.9

Chicago - Springfield 170310057 15.0 14.6 14.6 14.3 13.9 14.6 14.4 14.0 13.8 14.8 14.4 14.0 13.4 13.7

Chicago - Lawndale 170310076 14.9 14.5 14.5 14.2 13.8 14.5 14.3 13.9 13.7 14.7 14.3 13.9 13.3 13.6

Blue Island 170312001 14.8 14.4 14.4 14.0 13.7 14.4 14.2 13.8 13.6 14.5 14.1 13.7 13.2 13.4

Summit 170313301 15.2 14.9 14.9 14.6 14.2 14.9 14.7 14.3 14.0 15.0 14.6 14.3 13.7 13.9

Cicero 170316005 15.5 15.1 15.1 14.8 14.4 15.1 14.9 14.5 14.3 15.2 14.9 14.4 13.9 14.2

Granite City 171191007 16.7 16.3 16.2 15.9 15.1 16.1 16.0 15.3 14.9 15.9 15.6 14.9 14.2 14.3

E. St. Louis 171630010 15.6 15.2 15.2 14.8 14.1 15.0 14.9 14.3 13.9 14.9 14.6 14.0 13.3 13.4

Indiana

Jeffersonville 180190005 16.4 15.8 15.7 14.8 13.8 15.8 15.6 14.5 13.7 16.0 15.5 14.3 13.7 13.4

Jasper 180372001 15.2 14.3 14.2 13.4 12.4 14.2 14.0 13.0 12.2 14.3 13.9 12.8 12.1 11.8

Gary 180890031 15.6 13.9 13.9 13.5 13.0 13.8 13.6 13.1 12.8 13.7 13.4 12.9 12.3 12.4

Indy-Washington Park 180970078 15.3 14.4 14.4 13.6 12.8 14.3 14.2 13.2 12.6 14.3 13.9 12.9 12.2 12.0

Indy-W 18th Street 180970081 16.0 15.1 15.1 14.3 15.0 14.9 13.9 15.0 14.6 13.5 12.8

Indy- Michigan Street 180970083 15.9 15.0 15.0 14.2 13.4 14.9 14.8 13.8 13.1 14.9 14.5 13.5 12.8 12.6

Michigan

Allen Park 261630001 14.5 11.0 14.0 13.5 13.0 14.0 13.8 13.2 12.8 13.9 13.6 13.0 12.4 12.4

Southwest HS 261630015 15.9 15.3 15.3 14.8 14.2 15.2 15.0 14.4 13.9 15.1 14.8 14.1 13.5 13.5

Linwood 261630016 14.6 14.1 14.1 13.6 13.1 14.0 13.9 13.3 12.8 13.9 13.6 13.0 12.5 12.5

Dearborn 261630033 17.5 17.0 17.0 16.4 15.8 16.9 16.7 16.0 15.5 16.8 16.4 15.7 15.1 15.1

Wyandotte 261630036 14.7 14.2 14.1 13.6 13.1 14.1 13.9 13.3 12.8 14.0 13.7 13.0 12.4 12.5

Ohio

Middletown - Bonita 390170003 16.2 15.3 15.2 14.3 13.5 15.2 15.0 13.9 13.2 15.2 14.8 13.7 13.0 12.8

Fairfield 390170016 15.8 15.1 15.0 14.1 13.1 15.1 14.9 13.7 12.9 15.2 14.7 13.5 12.8 12.5

Cleveland-28th Street 390350027 15.4 14.9 14.9 14.3 13.5 14.7 14.5 13.9 13.2 14.6 14.2 13.5 12.8 12.7

Cleveland-St. Tikhon 390350038 17.4 16.7 16.7 16.0 15.2 16.5 16.3 15.6 14.8 16.3 16.0 15.2 14.4 14.3

Cleveland-Broadway 390350045 16.5 15.9 15.8 15.2 14.4 15.6 15.5 14.8 14.0 15.5 15.1 14.4 13.6 13.5

Cleveland-GT Craig 390350060 17.1 16.5 16.4 15.8 15.0 16.3 16.1 15.4 14.6 16.1 15.7 15.0 14.2 14.1

Newburg Hts - Harvard Ave 390350065 16.0 15.4 15.3 14.7 14.0 15.2 15.0 14.3 13.6 15.1 14.7 14.0 13.2 13.1

Columbus - Fairgrounds 390490024 15.3 14.6 14.5 13.7 12.9 14.4 14.1 13.2 12.6 14.2 13.8 12.8 12.2 12.0

Columbus - Ann Street 390490025 15.1 14.4 14.3 13.5 12.7 14.2 13.9 13.1 12.4 14.1 13.6 12.6 12.0 11.9

Cincinnati - Seymour 390610014 17.3 16.6 16.5 15.5 14.5 16.5 16.3 15.1 14.3 16.6 16.2 14.9 14.2 13.8

Cincinnati - Taft Ave 390610040 15.5 14.8 14.7 13.8 12.8 14.8 14.6 13.4 12.6 14.9 14.5 13.2 12.5 12.2

Cincinnati - 8th Ave 390610042 16.9 12.0 16.1 15.0 14.0 16.1 15.9 14.7 13.8 16.2 15.7 14.4 13.7 13.4

Sharonville 390610043 15.6 14.9 14.8 13.9 12.9 14.9 14.7 13.5 12.7 14.9 14.5 13.3 12.6 12.3

Norwood 390617001 16.2 15.5 15.4 14.4 13.4 15.4 15.2 14.0 13.2 15.5 15.1 13.8 13.1 12.8

St. Bernard 390618001 17.6 16.8 16.7 15.7 14.7 16.7 16.5 15.3 14.4 16.8 16.4 15.1 14.3 14.0

Steubenville 390810016 15.8 14.5 14.4 13.5 12.8 14.3 14.2 13.1 12.5 14.8 14.5 13.3 12.9 12.7

Mingo Junction 390811001 16.5 15.2 15.2 14.3 13.5 15.0 14.9 13.8 13.2 15.6 15.2 14.0 13.6 13.4

Ironton 390870010 15.2 14.8 14.6 13.6 12.8 14.6 14.4 13.2 12.5 14.8 14.1 12.8 12.4 12.3

Dayton 391130032 15.5 14.9 14.8 14.0 13.2 14.8 14.6 13.6 12.9 14.8 14.3 13.3 12.6 12.4

New Boston 391450013 14.7 12.0 14.0 13.0 12.1 14.1 13.8 12.5 11.9 14.2 13.6 12.2 11.7 11.6

Canton - Dueber 391510017 16.3 15.7 15.6 14.8 14.0 15.5 15.3 14.4 13.6 15.4 14.9 14.0 13.3 13.3

Canton - Market 391510020 14.6 11.0 14.1 13.3 12.6 13.9 13.7 12.9 12.3 13.9 13.5 12.6 12.0 11.9

Akron - Brittain 391530017 15.1 14.6 14.5 13.8 13.0 14.4 14.2 13.4 12.7 14.3 13.8 13.0 12.3 12.3

Akron - W. Exchange 391530023 14.3 13.7 13.7 13.0 12.3 13.6 13.3 12.6 12.0 13.4 13.0 12.2 11.6 11.5 2009 2018 2012 

## Table 2b. PM 2.5 

## Modeling Results (Annual)2005

Key Site County Site ID Base

Year Scen. A Scen. B Scen.C Round 5 Scen. A Scen. B Scen.C Round 5 Scen. A Scen. B Scen.C Scen. C -

BART Round 5

Illinois

Chicago - Washington HS Cook 170310022 36.6 36 36 36 36 36 36 37 36 37 36 37 37 35

Chicago - Mayfair Cook 170310052 40.3 37 37 37 36 37 36 37 36 38 37 37 37 36

Chicago - Springfield Cook 170310057 37.4 34 34 33 32 35 34 33 32 36 34 33 33 31

Chicago - Lawndale Cook 170310076 38.1 35 35 35 35 36 35 36 35 36 35 36 36 34

McCook Cook 170311016 43.0 39 39 39 39 40 39 40 39 40 40 41 40 38

Blue Island Cook 170312001 37.7 35 35 35 34 36 35 36 34 36 35 36 36 33

Schiller Park Cook 170313103 41.6 40 40 40 39 40 40 40 39 41 40 40 39 39

Summit Cook 170313301 40.2 38 38 39 38 39 38 39 38 39 38 39 39 37

Maywood Cook 170316005 39.2 38 38 38 38 38 38 39 38 39 38 39 39 37

Granite City Madison 171191007 39.2 36 36 35 33 36 35 34 33 36 35 35 33 32

E. St. Louis St. Clair 171630010 33.7 31 31 30 28 31 30 29 28 31 30 30 29 28

Indiana

Jeffersonville Clark 180190005 38.4 35 33 31 29 35 34 32 31 37 35 34 33 31

Jasper Dubois 180372001 36.2 32 32 30 28 32 32 30 29 33 31 31 30 28

Gary - IITRI Lake 180890022 39.0 35 35 35 34 35 34 35 34 36 36 36 35 35

Gary - Burr School Lake 180890026 39.0 34 34 34 33 34 34 35 34 34 34 34 34 32

Gary Lake 180890031 35.2 29 28 26 24 28 28 24 24 29 28 27 27 27

Indy-West Street Marion 180970043 38.0 34 34 33 33 35 35 34 33 36 35 34 34 33

Indy-English Avenue Marion 180970066 38.0 34 34 32 32 35 34 33 32 35 34 33 33 32

Indy-Washington Park Marion 180970078 36.6 33 33 32 31 33 33 32 31 34 33 32 32 32

Indy-W 18th Street Marion 180970081 38.3 33 33 31 31 33 33 32 31 34 33 32 32 31

Indy- Michigan Street Marion 180970083 36.0 32 32 29 28 32 31 29 28 32 31 29 29 29

Michigan

Luna Pier Monroe 261150005 38.9 34 34 32 32 34 34 32 32 34 33 32 31 31

Oak Park Oakland 261250001 39.9 38 38 37 36 38 37 37 36 38 37 37 36 35

Port Huron St. Clair 261470005 39.6 36 35 35 34 35 35 35 34 35 35 34 33 33

Ypsilanti Washtenaw 261610008 39.5 37 37 36 35 37 36 36 35 37 36 36 35 34

Allen Park Wayne 261630001 38.6 36 36 36 35 36 35 35 34 36 35 35 34 33

Southwest HS Wayne 261630015 40.1 36 36 36 35 36 35 35 35 36 35 35 34 33

Linwood Wayne 261630016 43.0 40 40 40 39 40 40 40 39 40 39 39 39 38

E 7 Mile Wayne 261630019 41.0 39 39 39 38 39 39 39 38 39 38 38 38 37

Dearborn Wayne 261630033 43.9 41 41 41 40 41 41 41 40 41 40 40 40 39

Wyandotte Wayne 261630036 37.2 36 36 36 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 34

Newberry Wayne 261630038 42.7 39 39 39 38 39 38 38 37 39 38 38 37 36

FIA Wayne 261630039 39.7 35 34 34 33 35 34 34 33 35 34 33 33 31

Ohio

Middleton Butler 390170003 39.3 33 32 29 28 33 33 29 28 34 32 29 28 27

Fairfield Butler 390170016 37.1 32 31 29 27 31 30 28 28 32 30 29 28 27

Butler 390170017 40.8 33 32 30 29 33 33 30 29 33 32 30 29 28

Cleveland-28th Street Cuyahoga 390350027 36.9 34 34 33 32 34 33 33 32 34 33 33 31 31

Cleveland-St. Tikhon Cuyahoga 390350038 44.2 40 40 37 36 40 39 36 35 40 38 36 35 34

Cleveland-Broadway Cuyahoga 390350045 38.8 35 35 33 31 35 34 32 30 35 34 31 29 29

Cleveland-GT Craig Cuyahoga 390350060 42.1 39 39 38 37 39 38 38 37 39 38 37 36 35

Newburg Hts - Harvard Ave Cuyahoga 390350065 38.9 35 35 33 31 35 34 32 30 36 35 32 31 30 2009 2012 2018 

# Table 2c. PM 2.5 

# Modeling Results (Daily)2005

Key Site County Site ID Base

Year Scen. A Scen. B Scen.C Round 5 Scen. A Scen. B Scen.C Round 5 Scen. A Scen. B Scen.C Scen. C -

BART Round 5 2009 2012 2018 

# Table 2c. PM 2.5 

# Modeling Results (Daily)

Columbus - Fairgrounds Franklin 390490024 38.5 34 34 33 33 34 33 32 32 34 34 33 32 31

Columbus - Ann Street Franklin 390490025 38.5 34 33 31 31 33 33 31 31 34 33 31 31 30

Cincinnait Hamilton 390610006 40.6 33 33 30 27 33 32 29 28 34 32 29 28 27

Cincinnati - Seymour Hamilton 390610014 38.4 33 33 28 26 33 32 27 25 33 31 29 25 24

Cincinnati - Taft Ave Hamilton 390610040 36.7 31 30 26 24 31 30 26 24 32 29 26 24 23

Cincinnati - 8th Ave Hamilton 390610042 37.3 32 32 30 28 32 31 29 28 33 31 29 28 27

Sharonville Hamilton 390610043 36.0 32 31 30 28 32 31 29 28 32 31 29 28 27

Norwood Hamilton 390617001 38.8 34 33 32 30 33 33 31 30 34 33 31 30 29

St. Bernard Hamilton 390618001 40.6 35 35 32 30 35 34 31 30 35 33 32 31 29

Steubenville Jefferson 390810016 40.7 36 35 32 29 35 34 30 28 37 35 31 29 28

Mingo Junction Jefferson 390811001 42.0 37 37 33 30 37 36 32 30 38 36 32 30 30

Dayton Montgomery 391130032 37.8 34 33 31 30 33 33 31 30 34 33 31 31 30

Canton - Dueber Stark 391510017 38.6 33 32 30 28 33 31 30 28 33 30 29 28 27

Akron - Brittain Summit 391530017 38.1 33 33 31 30 33 32 31 30 33 32 30 29 29

Wisconsin

Green Bay - Est High Brown 550090005 37.1 35 34 35 35 34 35 35 34 33 33 33 32 32

Madison Dane 550250047 36.4 33 33 32 32 33 32 32 31 32 31 30 29 29

Milwaukee-Health Center Milwaukee 550790010 38.7 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 34 35 34 34 34 33

Milwaukee-SER Hdqs Milwaukee 550790026 37.4 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 33

Milwaukee-Virginia FS Milwaukee 550790043 39.9 37 37 37 36 37 36 37 36 36 36 37 36 36

Milwaukee- Fire Dept Hdqs Milwaukee 550790099 37.8 34 34 33 33 34 33 33 32 34 33 33 33 32

Waukesha Waukesha 551330027 35.5 32 32 32 31 32 32 32 31 32 31 31 30 29

### 10 

### Table 3. Mo deling Results: Number of Sites > NAAQS

Ozone (85 ppb)

2009 Baseyear Scen. A Scen. B Scen. C Scen. C

BART CAIR

IL 0 0 0 0

---- 0

IN 0 0 0 0

---- 0

MI 3 1 1 1

---- 1

OH 4 0 0 0

---- 0

WI 2 0 0 0

---- 0

Total 9 1 1 1 1

2012

IL 0 0 0 0

---- 0

IN 0 0 0 0

---- 0

MI 3 0 0 0

---- 0

OH 4 0 0 0

---- 0

WI 2 0 0 0

---- 0

Total 9 0 0 0 0

2018

IL 0 0 0 0 0 0

IN 0 0 0 0 0 0

MI 3 0 0 0 0 0

OH 4 0 0 0 0 0

WI 2 0 0 0 0 0

Total 9 0 0 0 0 0

Ozone (75 ppb)

2009 Baseyear Scen. A Scen. B Scen. C Scen. C

BART CAIR

IL 12 6 6 6

---- 4

IN 26 10 9 8

---- 5

MI 21 12 12 12

---- 12

OH 45 27 25 24

---- 21

WI 12 10 10 10

---- 10

Total 116 65 62 60

---- 52

2012

IL 12 3 3 3

---- 1

IN 26 5 4 4

---- 3

MI 21 9 8 8

---- 6

OH 45 18 14 12

---- 11

WI 12 10 9 9

---- 9

Total 116 45 38 36 30

2018

IL 12 0 0 0 0 0

IN 26 0 0 0 0 0

MI 21 3 3 3 3 3

OH 45 3 3 2 1 1

WI 12 3 2 1 1 1

Total 116 9 8 6 5 5

### 11

PM2.5

- Annual

2009 Baseyear Scen. A Scen. B Scen. C Scen. C

BART CAIR

IL 7 4 4 1

---- 1

IN 6 2 2 0

---- 0

MI 2 2 2 1

---- 1

OH 26 13 12 5

---- 1

WI 0 0 0 0

---- 0

Tota l 41 21 20 7 3

2012

IL 7 3 1 1

---- 0

IN 6 1 1 0

---- 0

MI 2 2 1 1

---- 1

OH 26 12 9 4

---- 0

WI 0 0 0 0

---- 0

Total 41 18 12 6 1

2018

IL 7 3 1 0 0 0

IN 6 1 1 0 0 0

MI 2 2 1 1 1 1

OH 26 13 8 2 0 0

WI 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 41 19 11 3 1 1

PM2.5

- Daily

2009 Baseyear Scen. A Scen. B Scen. C Scen. C

BART CAIR

IL 16 7 7 6

---- 6

IN 13 0 0 0

---- 0

MI 14 10 9 9

---- 5

OH 31 4 3 2

---- 2

WI 8 1 1 1

---- 1

Total 82 22 20 18

---- 14

2012

IL 16 9 6 8

---- 6

IN 13 0 0 0

---- 0

MI 14 8 6 6

---- 5

OH 31 3 3 2

---- 1

WI 8 1 1 1

---- 1

Total 82 21 16 17 13

2018

IL 16 10 6 8 8 5

IN 13 4 1 1 0 0

MI 14 8 6 6 5 4

OH 31 5 3 2 1 0

WI 8 1 1 1 1 1

Total 82 28 17 18 15 10

### 12 

### T able 4 . Mo deling Results: Future Year Visibility Levels

Worst 20% 2018

Site Baseline

(2000

- 2004) 2018 URP Scen. A Scen. B Scen. C Scen. C

BART CAIR

BOWA1 19.86 17.94 19.09 18.87 18.54 18.02 17.94

VOYA2 19.48 17.75 18.60 18.44 18.17 17.77 17.63

SENE1 24.38 21.64 24.02 23.58 23.03 22.38 22.59

ISLE1 21.59 19.43 21.05 20.86 20.62 20.22 20.09

ISLE9 21.59 19.43 20.83 20.58 20.38 19.84 19.84

HEGL1 26.75 23.13 26.24 25.83 24.87 24.23 24.22

MING1 28.15 24.27 27.51 26.98 25.81 2 4.93 24.74

CACR1 26.36 22.91 25.32 24.80 23.57 22.97 22.44

UPBU1 26.27 22.82 25.31 24.79 23.50 22.79 22.59

MACA1 31.37 26.64 30.11 29.08 27.06 26.24 26.10

DOSO1 29.05 24.69 27.88 26.96 24.36 23.74 23.00

SHEN1 29.31 25.12 28.38 27.65 25.24 24.69 2 3.92

JARI1 29.12 24.91 28.06 27.21 25.00 24.48 24.06

BRIG1 29.01 25.05 28.10 28.07 26.57 26.25 25.21

LYBR1 24.45 21.48 24.06 23.86 22.58 22.30 21.14

ACAD1 22.89 20.45 22.88 22.76 22.31 22.16 21.49

Best 20% 2018

Site Baselin e

(2000

- 2004) 2018 Max Scen. A Scen. B Scen. C Scen. C

BART CAIR

BOWA1 6.42 6.42 6.20 6.17 6.16 6.12 6.14

VOYA2 7.09 7.09 6.87 6.83 6.81 6.78 6.75

SENE1 7.14 7.14 7.80 7.78 7.81 7.77 7.71

ISLE1 6.75 6.75 6.77 6.76 6.72 6.67 6.60

ISLE9 6.75 6.75 6.63 6.61 6.58 6.53 6.52

HEGL1 12.84 12.84 12.17 12.20 12.07 11.63 11.66

MING1 14.46 14.46 13.78 13.77 13.70 13.37 13.28

CACR1 11.24 11.24 10.94 10.99 10.97 10.78 10.52

UPBU1 11.71 11.71 11.18 11.23 11.18 10.96 10.73

MACA1 16.51 16.51 1 6.32 16.21 15.76 15.34 15.25

DOSO1 12.28 12.28 12.02 11.84 11.27 11.03 11.00

SHEN1 10.93 10.93 10.98 10.91 10.25 10.16 9.91

JARI1 14.21 14.21 14.19 13.98 13.42 13.21 13.14

BRIG1 14.33 14.33 14.32 14.46 14.22 14.17 13.92

LYBR1 6.37 6.37 6.39 6.38 6.31 6.28 6.14

ACAD1 8.78 8.78 8.97 8.96 8.90 8.89 8.82

### 13 

### Figure 2. Ozone Modeling Results

2009 Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C CAIR

2012 Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C CAIR

2018 Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C CAIR

### 14 

### Figure 3. PM2.5 Annual Modeling Results

2009 Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C CAIR

2012 Scenari o A Scenario B Scenario C CAIR

2018 Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C CAIR

### 15 

### Figure 4 . PM2.5 Daily Modeling Results

2009 Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C CAIR

2012 Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C CAIR

2018 Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C CAIR

### 16 

# Appendix I

Scenario B (Legally Enforceable) Controls

### 17



### NOx

– 2009

Point Source Grown and Controlled Emissions by facility for NOX r6s1b_2009

Base Year = 2002

Future Year = 2009

STID=17 CYID=57 fcid=057801AAA name=AES DUCK CREEK

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/ Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 57 057801AAA 0001 0001 01 10100202 NOX 0.8147 0.8416 0.8416 0.00 0.00 SCR SCR added by LADCO

STID=17 CYID=143 fcid=143805AAG name=AES ED EDWARDS STATION

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 143 143805AAG 0001 0001 01 10100202 NOX 3.0515 3.1522 3.1522 0.00 0.00 lnb LNB added by LADCO

17 143 143805AAG 0001 0003 01 10100202 NOX 6.9419 7.1708 7.1708 0.00 0.00 lnb LNB added by LADCO

17 143 143805AAG 0002 0004 01 10100202 NOX 2.1310 2.2013 2.2013 0.00 0.00 lnb LNB added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 12.1244 12.5243 12.5243

cyid 12.1244 12.5243 12.5243

stid 12.9392 13.3659 13.3659

STID=39 CYID=1 fcid=0701000007 name="DP&L, J.M. STUART GENERATING STATION"

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

39 1 0701000007 R1 B001 B001P1 10100202 NOX 6.9860 6.9756 2.3252 0.85 0.95 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 1 0701000007 R2 B002 B002P1 10100202 NOX 3.6327 3.6273 1.2091 0.85 0.95 SCR SCR add ed by LADCO

39 1 0701000007 R3 B003 B003P1 10100202 NOX 5.0133 5.0058 1.6686 0.85 0.95 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 1 0701000007 R4 B004 B004P1 1 0100202 NOX 7.8493 7.8376 2.6125 0.85 0.95 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 23.4814 23.4464 7.8155

cyid 23.4814 23.4 464 7.8155

STID=39 CYID=167 fcid=0684000000 name=MUSKINGUM RIVER POWER PLANT

Base Yr Grown C ontrolled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

39 167 0684000000 R1 B001 B001P1 10200501 NOX 0.0017 0.0017 0.0001 0.00 0.95 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R2 B002 B002P1 10100201 NOX 5.8167 5.8080 0.2904 0.00 0.95 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R2 B002 B002P2 10100501 NOX 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.95 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R3 B003 B003P1 10100201 NOX 7.9017 7.8899 0.3945 0.00 0.95 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R3 B003 B003P2 10100501 NOX 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.95 SCR SCR added by LADCO

### 18

39 167 0684000000 R4 B004 B004P1 10100203 NOX 7.8775 7.8657 0.3933 0.00 0.95 SCR SCR a dded by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R4 B004 B004P2 10100501 NOX 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.95 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R6 B006 B006P1 10100202 NOX 3.8586 3.8528 0.1926 0.00 0.95 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R6 B006 B006P2 10100501 NOX 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.95 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 25.4561 25 .4182 1.2709

cyid 25.4561 25.4182 1.2709

stid 48.9375 48.8646 9.0864

STID=55 CYID=79 fcid=241007800 name=WIS ELECTRIC POWER VALLEY STATION

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day To ns/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

55 79 241007800 S11 B21 01 10100202 NOX 2.7972 2.8895 1.6470 0.00 0.43 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 79 241007800 S11 B22 01 10100202 NOX 2.9073 3.0032 1.7118 0.00 0.43 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 79 241007800 S12 B23 01 10100202 NOX 2 .3270 2.4038 1.2740 0.00 0.47 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 79 241007800 S12 B24 01 10100202 NOX 2.3427 2.4199 1.2826 0.00 0.47 SCR Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 10.3742 10.7164 5.9154

cyid 10.3742 10.7164 5.9154

STID=55 CYI D=117 fcid=460033090 name=WP & L Alliant Energy

- Edgewater Gen Station

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvi d prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

55 117 460033090 S11 B23 01 10100203 NOX 1.6197 1.6731 1.0038 0.00 0.40 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 117 460033090 S11 B24 01 10100203 NOX 4.1072 4.2426 3.4789 0.00 0.18 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 117 46

0033090 S12 B25 01 10100221 NOX 5.6804 5.8677 4.9876 0.00 0.15 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- --- ----- ---------- fcid 11.4072 11.7834 9.4703

cyid 11.4072 11.7834 9.4703

stid 21.7814 22.4997 15.3857

======== ======== ==========

83.6581 8 4.7302 37.8380

### 19

NOx

- 2012

Point Source Grown and Controlled Emissions by facility for NOX r6s1b_2012

Base Year = 2002

Future Year = 2012

STID=17 CYID=33 fcid=033801AAA name=AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING CO

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 33 033801AAA 0005 0005 01 10100202 NOX 1.642 1.871 0.9357 0.00 0.500 SCR SCR added by LADCO

17 33 033801AAA 0006 0006 01 1010020 2 NOX 2.116 2.413 1.2063 0.00 0.500 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 3.758 4.284 2.1420

cyid 3.758 4.284 2.1420

STID=17 CYID=57 fcid=057801AAA name=AES DUCK CREEK

Base Yr Grown Controlled Bas e Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 57 057801AAA 0001 0001 01 1 0100202 NOX 0.815 0.929 0.9288 0.00 0.000 SCR SCR added by LADCO

STID=17 CYID=79 fcid=079808AAA name=AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING CO

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 79 079808AAA 0003 0003 01 10100202 NOX 6.735 7.678 7.6780 0.00 0.000 SCR SCR added by LADCO

17 79 079808AAA 0012 0013 01 10100501 NOX 5.936 5.378 5.3781 0.00 0.000 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 12.671 13.056 13.0561

cyid 12.671 13.056 13.0561

STID=17 CYID=97 fcid=097190AAC name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 97 097190AAC 0016 0031 02 10100401 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SCR added by LADCO

STID=17 CYID=137 fcid=137805AAA name=AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING CO

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 137 137805AAA 0003 0003 01 10100202 NOX 5.356 6.106 6.1058 0.00 0.000 LNB LNB added by LADCO

### 20

STID=17 CYID=143 fcid=143805AAG name=AES ED EDWARDS STATION

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Contr ol EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 143 143805AAG 0001 0001 01 10100202 NOX 3.052 3.479 3.4789 0.00 0.000 lnb LNB added by LADCO

17 143 143805AAG 0001 0003 01 10100202 NOX 6.942 7.914 7.9141 0.00 0.000 lnb LNB added by LADCO

17 143 143805AAG 0002 0004 01 10100202 NOX 2.131 2.429 2.42 94 0.00 0.000 lnb LNB added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 12.124 13.822 13.8224

cyid 12.124 13.822 13.8224

STID=17 CYID=167 fcid=167120AAO name=CITY WATER LIGHT & POWER

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID

fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 167 167120AAO 0010 0012 01 10100203 NOX 6.527 7.441 0.0074 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SHUTDOWN added by LADCO

17 167 167120AAO 0010 0013 01 10100203 NOX 2.646 3.017 0.0030 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SHUTDOWN added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 9.173 10.458 0.0105

cyid 9.173 10.458 0.0105

STID=17 CYID=179 f

cid=179801AAA name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc p olid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 179 179801AAA 0018 0029 01 10100203 NOX 22.429 25.570 1.2785 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

17 179 179801AAA 0018 0031 01 10100203 NOX 38.993 44.454 2.2227 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 61.422 70.024 3.5012

cyid 61.422 70.024 3.5012

STID=17 CYID=197 fcid=197809AAO name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 197 197809AAO 0032 0033 02 10100604 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.800 SCR SCR added by LADCO

STID=17 CYID=197 fcid=197810 AAK name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid To ns/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 197 197810AAK 0011 0016 02 10100222 NOX 5.731 6.534 3.9203 0.00 0.400 SCR SCR added by LADCO

17 197 197810AAK 0011 0016 03 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.400 SCR SCR added by LADCO

17 197 197810AAK 0013 0010 02 10100223 NOX 8.598 9.802 0.0098 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SCR added by LADCO

### 21

17 197 197810AAK 0013 0010 03 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SCR added by LADCO

17 197 197810AAK 0007 0012 02 10100223 NOX 10.974 12.511 0.0125 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SCR added by LADCO

17 197 1978

10AAK 0007 0012 03 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- --- ----- ---------- fcid 25.303 28.847 3.9426

cyid 25.303 28.847 3.9426

stid 130.622 147.527 43.5096

STID=27 CYID=61 fcid=2706100004 name=Minnesota Power Inc

- Boswell Energy Ctr

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

27 61 2706100004 SV003 EU003 001 101 00226 NOX 13.661 14.142 2.8284 0.00 0.800 SCR SCR added by LADCO

27 61 2706100004 SV003 EU003 002 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0 .800 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 13.661 14 .142 2.8284

cyid 13.661 14.142 2.8284

STID=27 CYID=109 fcid=2710900011 name=Rochester Public Utilities

- Silver Lake

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID f

cid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

27 109 2710900011 SV003 EU004 001 10100202 NOX 2.079 2.152 1.2911 0.00 0.400 SNCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- stid 15.739 16.294 4.1195

STID=39 CYID=1 fcid=0701000007 name="DP&L, J.M. STUART GENERATING STATION"

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrlde s

39 1 0701000007 R1 B001 B001P1 10100202 NOX 6.986 7.296 2.4319 0.85 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 1 0701000007 R2 B002 B002P1 10100202 NOX 3.633 3.794 1.2646 0.85 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 1 0701000007 R3 B003 B003P1 10100202 NOX 5.013 5.235 1.7452 0.85 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 1 0701000007 R4 B004 B004P1 10100202 NOX 7.849 8.197 2.7324 0.85 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 23.481 24.522 8.1740

cyid 23.481 24.522 8.1740

STID=39 CYID=31 fcid=0616000000 name=CONESVILLE POWER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Contro l EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

39 31 0616000000 R4 B004 B004P1 10100212 NOX 20.852 21.776 1.0888 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

### 22

STID=39 CYID=167 fci d=0684000000 name=MUSKINGUM RIVER POWER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

39 167 0684000000 R1 B001 B001P1 10200501 NOX 0.002 0.002 0.0001 0.00 0.950 SC R SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R2 B002 B002P1 10100201 NOX 5.817 6.074 0.3037 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R2 B 002 B002P2 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R3 B003 B003P1 10100201 NOX 7.902 8.252 0.4126 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R3 B003 B003P2 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R4 B004 B004P1 10100203 NOX 7.877 8.227 0.4113 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R4 B004 B004P2 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R6 B006 B006P1 10100202 NOX 3.859 4.030 0.2015 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R6 B006 B006P2 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 25.456 26.584 1.3292

cyid 25.456 26.584 1.3292

stid 69.789 72.882 10.5920

STID=55 CYID=79 fcid=241007690 name=WIS ELECTRIC POWER OAK CREEK STATION

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

55 79 24

1007690 S13 B25 01 10100202 NOX 4.755 5.421 3.0898 0.00 0.430 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 79 241007690 S13 B26 01 10100202 NOX 3.277 3.736 2.2045 0.00 0.410 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 79 241007690 S14 B27 01 10100212 NOX 3.333 3.800 2.8499 0.00 0.250 SCR SCR adde d by LADCO

55 79 241007690 S14 B28 01 10100212 NOX 3.384 3.857 2.9316 0.00 0.240 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 14.749 16.814 11.0757

STID=55 CYID=79 f

cid=241007800 name=WIS ELECTRIC POWER VALLEY STATION

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

55 79 241007800 S11 B21 01 10100202 NOX 2.797 3.189 1.8177 0.00 0.430 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 79 241007800 S11 B22 01 10100202 NOX 2.907 3.314 1.8893 0.00 0.430 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 79 241007800 S12 B23 01 10100202 NOX 2.327 2.653 1.4061 0.00 0.470 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 79 241007800 S12 B24 01 10100202 NOX 2.343 2.671 1 .4155 0.00 0.470 SCR Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 10.374 11.827 6.5285

cyid 25.123 28.641 17.6042

### 23

STID=55 CYID=117 fcid=460033090 name=WP & L Alliant Energy

- Edgewater Gen Station

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

55 117 460033090 S11 B23 01 10100203 NOX 1.620 1.846 1.1079 0.00 0.400 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 117 460033090 S11 B24 01 10100203 NOX 4.107 4.682 3.8395 0.00 0.180 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 117 460033090 S12 B25 01 10100221 NOX 5.680 6.476 5.5045 0.00 0.150 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 11.407 13.005 10.4519

cyid 11.407 13.005 10.4519

stid 36.530 41.646 28.0562

======== ======== ==========

252.681 278.349 86.2773

### 24

NOx 2018

Point Source Grown and Controlled Emissions by facility for NOX r6s1b_2018

Base Year = 2002

Future Year = 2018

STID=17 CYID=31 fcid=031600AIN name=MIDWEST GENERATIO N LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Ton s/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 31 031600AIN 0010 0013 01 10100226 NOX 2.283 2.592 1.5550 0.00 0.400 SCR SCR added by LADCO

17 31 031600AIN 0010 0013 02 10100601 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.400 SCR SCR added by LADCO

17 31 031600AIN 0012 0016 01 10100226 NOX 3.991 4.531 2.7184 0.00 0.400 SCR SCR added by LADCO

17 31 031600AIN 0012 0016 02 10100601 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.400 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 6.274 7.122 4.2734

cyid 6.274 7.122 4.2734

STID= 17 CYID=33 fcid=033801AAA name=AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING CO

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 33 033801AAA 0005 0005 01 10100202 NOX 1.642 1.863 0.9317 0.00 0 .500 SCR SCR added by LADCO

17 33 033801AAA 0006 0006 01 10100202 NOX 2.116 2.402 1.2012 0.00 0.500 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 3.758 4.266 2.1329

cyid 3.758 4.266 2.1329

STID=17 CYID=57 fcid=057801AAA name=AES DUCK CREEK

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Contr ol EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 57 057801AAA 0001 0001 01 10100202 NOX 0.815 0.925 0.9249 0.00 0.000 SCR SCR added by LADCO

STID=17 CYID=79 fcid =079808AAA name=AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING CO

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 79 079808AAA 0003 0003 01 10100202 NOX 6.735 7.645 7.6453 0.00 0.000 SCR SCR added by LADCO

17 79 079808AAA 0012 0013 01 10100501 NOX 5.936 3.984 3.9838 0.00 0.000 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 12.671 11.629 11.6291

cy id 12.671 11.629 11.6291

### 25

STID=17 CYID=97 fcid=097190AAC name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 97 097190AAC 0016 0031 02 10100401 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SCR added by LADCO

STID=17 CYID=137 fcid=1378 05AAA name=AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING CO

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc poli d Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 137 137805AAA 0003 0003 01 10100202 NOX 5.356 6.080 6.0798 0.00 0.000 LNB LNB added by LADCO

STID=17 CYID=143 fcid=143805AAG name=AES ED EDWARDS STATION

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 143 143805AAG 0001 0001 01 10100202 NOX 3.052 3.464 3.4641 0.00 0.000 lnb LNB added by LADCO

17 143 143805AAG 0001 0003 01 10100202 NOX 6.942 7.880 7.8804 0.00 0.000 lnb LNB added by LADCO

17 143 143805AAG 0002 0004 01 10100202 NOX 2.131 2.419 2.4191 0.00 0.000 lnb LNB added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 12.124 13.764 13.7636

cyid 12.124 13.764 13.7636

STID=17 CYID=167 fcid=167120AAO name=CITY WATER LIGHT & POWER

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 167 167120AAO 0010 0012 01 10100203 NOX 6.527 7.410 0.0074 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SHUTDOWN added by LADCO

17 167 167120AAO 0010 0013 01 10100203 NOX 2.646 3.004 0.0030 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SHUTDOWN added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 9.173 10.414 0.0104

cyid 9.173 10.414 0.0104

STID=17 CYID=179 fcid=179801AAA name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 179 179801AAA 0018 0 029 01 10100203 NOX 22.429 25.462 1.2731 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

17 179 179801AAA 0018 0031 01 10100203 NOX 38.993 44.265 2.2132 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 61.422 69.726 3.4863

cyid 61.422 69.726 3.4863

### 26

STID=17 CYID=197 fcid=197809AAO name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID f

cid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 197 197809AAO 0032 0033 02 10100604 NOX 0.000 0.00 0 0.0000 0.00 0.800 SCR SCR added by LADCO

STID=17 CYID=197 fcid=197810AAK name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controll ed Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 197 197810AAK 0011 0016 0 2 10100222 NOX 5.731 6.506 3.9036 0.00 0.400 SCR SCR added by LADCO

17 197 197810AAK 0011 0016 03 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.0 0 0.400 SCR SCR added by LADCO

17 197 197810AAK 0013 0010 02 10100223 NOX 8.598 9.760 0.0098 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SCR added by LADCO

17 197 197810AAK 0013 0010 03 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SCR added by LADCO

17 197 197810AAK 0007 0012 02 10100223 NOX 10.974 12.458 0.0125 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SCR added by LADCO

17 197 197810AAK 0007 0012 03 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SCR a dded by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 25.303 28.724 3.9258

cyid 25.303 28.724 3.9258

stid 136.896 152.649 46.2263

STID=18 CYID=147 fcid=00020 name=INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER

- ROCKPORT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Con trol EF ctrltype ctrldes

18 147 00020 1 001 01 10100222 NOX 23.226 25.291 1.2646 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

18 147 00020 1 001 02 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ----- ----- fcid 23.226 25.291 1.2646

cyid 23.226 25.291 1.2646

stid 23.226 25.291 1.2646

STID=27 CYID=61 fcid=2706100004 name=Minnesota Power Inc

- Boswell Energy Ctr

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

27 61 2706100004 SV003 EU003 001 10100226 NOX 13.661 15.733 3.1466 0.00 0.800 SCR SCR added by LADCO

27 61 2706100004 SV003 EU003 002 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.800 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 13.661 15.733 3.1 466

cyid 13.661 15.733 3.1466

### 27

STID=27 CYID=109 fcid=2710900011 name=Rochester Public Utilities

- Silver Lake

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stk id dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

27 109 2710900011 SV003 EU004 001 10100202 NOX 2.079 2.394 1.4363 0.00 0.400 SNCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- stid 15.739 18.127 4.5830

STID=39 CYID=1 fcid=0701000007 name="DP&L, J.M. STUART GENERATING STATION"

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

39 1 0701000007 R1 B001 B001P1 10100202 NOX 6.986 7.607 2.5358 0.85 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 1 0701000007 R2 B002 B002P1 10100202 NOX 3. 633 3.956 1.3186 0.85 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 1 0701000007 R3 B003 B003P1 10100202 NOX 5.013 5.459 1.8197 0.85 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 1 0701000007 R4 B004 B004P1 10100202 NOX 7.849 8.547 2.8491 0.85 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 23.481 25.570 8.5232

cyid 23.481 25.570 8.5232

STID=39 CYID=31 fcid=0616000000 name=CONESVILLE POWER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Cont rol EF ctrltype ctrldes

39 31 0616000000 R4 B004 B004P1 10100212 NOX 20.852 22.706 1.1353 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

STID=39 CYID=167 fcid=0684000000 n ame=MUSKINGUM RIVER POWER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid To ns/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

39 167 0684000000 R1 B001 B001P1 10200501 NOX 0.002 0.002 0.0001 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R2 B002 B002P1 10100201 NOX 5.817 6.334 0.3167 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R2 B002 B002P2 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R3 B003 B003P1 10100201 NOX 7.902 8.604 0.4302 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R3 B003 B003P2 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684

000000 R4 B004 B004P1 10100203 NOX 7.877 8.578 0.4289 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R4 B004 B004P2 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R6 B006 B006P1 10100202 NOX 3.859 4.202 0.2101 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R6 B006 B006P2 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 25.456 27.720 1.3860

cyid 25.456 27.720 1.3860

stid 69.789 7 5.996 11.0445

### 28

STID=54 CYID=39 fcid=0006 name=APPALACHIAN POWER

- KANAWHA RIVER PLANT

Base Yr Gr own Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

54 39 0006 012 001 99 10100202 NOX 4.829 5.258 2.6291 0.00 0.500 SCR Scrubber added by LADCO

54 39 0006 012 002 99 10100202 NOX 4.921 5.359 2 .6794 0.00 0.500 SCR Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 9.750 10.617 5.3085

cyid 9.750 10.617 5.3085

stid 9.750 10.617 5.3085

STID=55 CYID=79 fcid=241007690 name=WIS ELECTRIC POWER OAK CREEK STATION

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc p olid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

55 79 241007690 S13 B25 01 10100202 NOX 4.755 5.398 3.0766 0.00 0.430 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 79 241007690 S13 B26 01 10100202 NOX 3.277 3.720 2.1951 0.00 0.410 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 79 241007690 S14 B27 01 10100212 NOX 3.333 3.784 2.8378 0.00 0.250 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 79 241007690 S14 B28 01 10100212 NOX 3.384 3.841 2.9191 0.00 0.240 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 14.749 16.743 11.0285

STID=55 CYID=79 fcid=241007800 name=WIS ELECTRIC POWER VALLEY STATION

B ase Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

55 79 241 007800 S11 B21 01 10100202 NOX 2.797 3.175 1.4289 0.00 0.550 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 79 241007800 S11 B22 01 10100202 NOX 2.907 3.300 1.4852 0.00 0.550 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 79 241007800 S12 B23 01 10100202 NOX 2.327 2.642 1.1887 0.00 0.550 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 79 241007800 S12 B24 01 10100202 NOX 2.343 2.659 1.1967 0.00 0.550 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 10.374 11.777 5.2995

cyid 25.123 28.519 16.3281

STID=55 CYID=117 fcid=460033090 name=WP & L Alliant Energy

- Edgewater Gen Station

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Contr ol EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

55 117 460033090 S11 B23 01 10100203 NOX 1.620 1.839 1.1032 0.00 0.400 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 117 46003

3090 S11 B24 01 10100203 NOX 4.107 4.662 3.8232 0.00 0.180 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 117 460033090 S12 B25 01 10100221 NOX 5.680 6 .448 5.4811 0.00 0.150 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ----------

### 29

fcid 11.407 12.949 10.4074

cyid 11.407 12.949 10.4074

stid 36.530 41.469 26.7355

======== ======== ==========

291.931 324.149 95.1624

### 30

SO2

– 2009

Point Source Grown and Controlled Emissions by facility for SO2 r6s1b_2009 1

Base Year = 2002

Future Year = 2009

STID=19 CYID=115 fcid=58

- 07

- 001 name=MIDAMERICAN ENERGY CO.

- LOUISA STATION

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

19 115 58

- 07

- 001 117487 147281 99 10100222 SO2 33.664 34.774 3.4774 0.0 0.90 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

STID=21 CYID=161 fcid=2116100009 name=EAST KY POWER COOP

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype c trldes

21 161 2116100009 1 001 99 10100202 SO2 42.166 42.103 4.2103 0.0 0.90 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

21 161 2116100009 2 002 99 10100212 SO2 55.385 55.303 5.5303 0.0 0.90 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 97.551 97.406 9.7406

cyid 97.551 97.406 9.7406

stid 97.551 97.406 9.7406

STID=27 CYID=141 fcid=2714100004 name=NSP

- Sherburne Generating Plant

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stk id dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

27 141 2714100004 SV001 EU001 001 10100222 SO2 16.765 16.987 3.6401 0.3 0.85 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

27 141 2714100004 SV001 EU002 001 10100222 SO2 22.549 22.848 4.8959 0.3 0.85 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 39.314 39.834 8.5360

cyid 39.314 39.834 8.5360

stid 39.314 39.834 8.5360

STID=54 CYID=51 fcid=0005 name=OHIO POWER

- MITCHELL PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype c trldes

54 51 0005 012 001 99 10100202 SO2 17.775 17.748 1.7748 0.0 0.90 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

54 51 0005 012 002 99 10100202 SO2 5.689 5.680 0.5680 0.0 0.90 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 23.463 23.428 2.3428

cyid 23.463 23.428 2.3428

### 31

STID=54 CYID=53 fcid=0009 name=APPALACHIAN POWER

- MOUNTAINEER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

54 53 0009 001 0 01 99 10100202 SO2 11.196 11.179 1.1179 0.0 0.90 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

STID=54 CYID=79 fcid=0006 name=APPALACHIAN POWER

- JOHN E AMOS PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

54 79 0006 012 001 99 10100202 SO2 79.635 79.516 7.9516 0.0 0.90 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

54 79 0006 003 003 99 10100202 SO2 139.377 139.169 13.9169 0.0 0.90 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 219.012 218.685 21.8685

cyid 219.012 218.685 21.8685

stid 253.671 253.293 25.3293

======== ======== ==========

424.200 425.307 47.0832

### 32

SO2

– 2012

Point Source Grown and Controlled Emissions by facility for SO2 r6s1b_2012 1

Base Year = 2002

Future Year = 2012

STID=17 CYID=31 fcid=031600AMI name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 31 031600A MI 0007 0010 01 10100226 SO2 16.13 18.39 1.839 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

STID=17 CYID=97 fcid=097190AAC name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 97 097190AAC 0018 0033 01 10100226 SO2 24.14 27.52 2.752 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 97 097190AAC 0021 0 036 01 10100226 SO2 19.23 21.92 2.192 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 97 097190AAC 0016 0031 01 10100203 SO2 4.59 5.24 0.00 5 0.0 0.999 SHUTDOWN Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 47.96 54.68 4.950

cyid 47.96 54.68 4.950

STID=17 CYID=125 fcid=125804AAB name=DYNEGY MIDWEST GENERATION INC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 125 125804AAB 0019 0023 01 10100202 SO2 22.34 25.47 3.821 0.0 0.850 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

STID=17 CYID=127 fcid=127855AAC name=ELECTRIC ENERGY INC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 127 127855AAC 0001 0001 01 10100222 SO2 11.83 13.48 13.482 0.0 0.000 LNB LNB added by LADCO

17 127 127855AAC 0001 0002 01 10100222 SO2 11.48 13. 09 13.085 0.0 0.000 LNB LNB added by LADCO

17 127 127855AAC 0002 0003 01 10100222 SO2 10.25 11.68 11.680 0.0 0.000 LNB LNB added b y LADCO

17 127 127855AAC 0002 0004 01 10100222 SO2 12.04 13.73 13.731 0.0 0.000 LNB LNB added by LADCO

17 127 127855AAC 0003 0006 01 10100222 SO2 12.68 14.46 14.456 0.0 0.000 LNB LNB added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 58.27 66.43 66.435

cyid 58. 27 66.43 66.435

### 33

STID=17 CYID=135 fcid=135803AAA name=AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING CO

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 135 135803AA

A 0001 0001 01 10100203 SO2 32.99 37.61 3.761 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 135 135803AAA 0001 0003 01 10100203 SO2 72.92 83.13 8.313 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 105.91 120.74 12.074

cyid 105.91 120.74 12.074

STID=17 CYID=157 fcid=157851AAA name=DYNEGY MIDWEST GENERATION INC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Yea r Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 157 157851AAA 0001 0001 01 10 100203 SO2 25.14 28.66 4.299 0.0 0.850 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 157 157851AAA 0002 0002 01 10100203 SO2 25.79 29.41 4.411 0.0 0.850 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 157 157851AAA 0013 0013 01 10100202 SO2 27.79 31.68 4.752 0.0 0.850 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 78.72 89.75 13.462

cyid 78.72 89.75 13.462

STID=17 CYID=167 fcid=167120AAO name=CITY WATER L IGHT & POWER

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/ Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 167 167120AAO 0010 0012 01 10100203 SO2 44.20 50.39 0.050 0.0 0.999 SHUTDOWN Scrubber added by LADCO

17 167 167120AAO 0010 0013 01 10100203 SO2 16.40 18.70 0.019 0.0 0.999 SHUTDOWN Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 60.61 69.10 0.069

cyid 60.61 69.10 0.069

STID=17 CYID=179 fcid=179801AAA name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control E F ctrltype ctrldes

17 179 179801AAA 0018 0029 01 10100203 SO2 25.35 28.90 2.890 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 179 179801AAA 0018 0031 01 10100203 SO2 41.57 47.39 4.739 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ----- ----- fcid 66.91 76.29 7.629

cyid 66.91 76.29 7.629

STID=17 CYID=197 fcid=197810AAK name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

### 34

17 197 197810AAK 0013 0010 03 10100501 SO2 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.999 SHUTDOWN Scrubber added by LADCO

17 197 197810AAK 0007 0012 02 10100223 SO2 15.33 17.48 0.017 0.0 0.999 SHUTDOWN Scrubber added by LADCO

17 197 197810AAK 0007 0012 03 10100501 SO2 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.999 SHUTDOW N Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 15.33 17.48 0. 017

cyid 15.33 17.48 0.017

stid 472.19 538.32 110.295

STID=19 CYID=115 fcid=58

- 07

- 001 name=MIDAMERICAN ENERGY CO.

- LOUISA STATION

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

19 115 58

- 07

- 001 117487 147281 99 10100222 SO2 33.66 38.38 3.838 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADC O

STID=21 CYID=161 fcid=2116100009 name=EAST KY POWER COOP

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

21 161 2116100009 1 001 99 10100202 SO2 42.17 44.03 4.403 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

21 161 2116100009 2 002 99 10100212 SO2 55.39 57.84 5.784 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 97.55 101.87 10.187

cyid 97.55 101.87 10.187

stid 97.55 101.87 10.187

STID=27 CYID=61 fcid=2706100004 name=Minnesota Power Inc

- Boswell Energy Ctr

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

27 61 2706100004 SV003 EU003 001 10100226 SO2 33.99 35.19 15.081 0.3 0.700 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

27 61 2706100004 SV003 EU0 03 002 10100501 SO2 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.3 0.700 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 33.99 35.19 15.081

cyid 33.99 35.19 15.081

STID=27 CYID=109 fcid=2710900011 name=Rochester Public Utilities

- Silver Lake

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrlde s

27 109 2710900011 SV003 EU004 001 10100202 SO2 7.86 8.13 1.220 0.0 0.850 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

### 35

STID=27 CYID=141 fcid=2714100004 name=NSP

- Sherburne Generating Plan t

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Ton s/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

27 141 2714100004 SV001 EU001 001 10100222 SO2 16.76 17.36 3.719 0.3 0.850 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

27 141 2714100004 SV001 EU002 001 10100222 SO2 22.55 23.34 5.002 0.3 0.850 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 39.31 40.70 8.721

cyid 39.31 40.70 8.721

stid 81.16 84.02 25.023

STID=39 CYID=13 fcid=0607130015 name=R. E. BURGER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

39 13 0607130015 R6 B011 B01 1P1 10100202 SO2 29.83 31.15 3.115 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

39 13 0607130015 R7 B012 B012P1 10100202 SO2 34.77 36.31 3.631 0. 0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 64.60 67.46 6.746

cyid 64.60 67.46 6.746

STID=39 CYID=31 fcid=0616000000 name=CONESVILLE POWER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fci d stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

39 31 0616000000 R4 B004 B004P1 10100212 SO2 316.00 330 .00 33.000 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- stid 380.60 397.46 39.746

STID=47 CYID=1 fcid=0009 name=TVA BULL RUN FOSSIL PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

4 7 1 0009 S

- 1 001 99 10100212 SO2 130.81 133.01 13.301 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

STID=47 CYID=73 fcid=0007 name=TVA JOHN SEVIER FOSSIL PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Contro l EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

47 73 0007 S

- 1A 001 99 10100212 SO2 20.15 20.49 2.049 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 73 0007

S

- 1B 002 99 10100212 SO2 20.25 20.59 2.059 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 73 0007 S

- 2A 003 99 10100212 SO2 19.62 19.95 1.995 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 73 0007 S

- 2B 004 99 10100212 SO2 18.93 19.25 1.925 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scru bber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ----------

### 36

fcid 78.95 80.28 8.028

cyid 78.95 80.28 8.028

STID=47 CYID=85 fcid=0011 name=TVA JOHNSONVILLE FOSSIL PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

47 85 0011 S1

- 01 001 99 10100212 SO2 17.06 17.35 1.735 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 85 0011 S1

- 04 004 99 10100212 SO2 19.85 20.18 2.018 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 85 0011 S1

- 05 005 99 10100212 SO2 24.11 24.52 2.452 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- --- ----- ---------- fcid 61.02 62.04 6.204

cyid 61.02 62.04 6.204

STID=47 CYID=145 fcid=0013 name=TVA KINGSTON FOSSIL PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

47 145 0013 S

- 1 001 99 10100202 SO2 12.68 12.89 1.289 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 1 002 99 10100202 SO2 14.00 14.24 1.424 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 1 003 99 10100202 SO2 13.80 14.04 1.404 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 1 004 99 10100202 SO2 12.24 12.44 1.244 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 1 005 99 10100202 SO2 19.57 19.90 1.990 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 2 006 99 10100202 SO2 18.92 19.24 1.924 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 2 007 99 10100202 SO2 21.30 21.66 2.166 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 2 008 99 10100202 SO2 18.54 18.85 1.885 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 2 009 99 101 00202 SO2 20.72 21.07 2.107 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 151.77 154.33 15.433

cyid 151.77 154.33 15.433

STID=47 CYID=165 fcid=0025 name=TVA GALLATIN FOSSIL PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

47 165 0025 S

-

01 001 99 10100212 SO2 13.91 14.14 1.414 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 165 0025 S

-

01 002 99 10100212 SO2 14.87 15.12 1 .512 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 165 0025 S

-

02 003 99 10100212 SO2 16.33 16.60 1.660 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADC O

47 165 0025 S

-

02 004 99 10100212 SO2 20.39 20.73 2.073 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 65.49 66.59 6.659

cyid 65.49 66.59 6.659

stid 488.04 496 .25 49.625

### 37

STID=54 CYID=51 fcid=0005 name=OHIO POWER

- MITCHELL PLANT

Base Yr Grown Contr olled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

54 51 0005 012 001 99 10100202 SO2 17.77 18.56 1.856 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

54 51 0005 012 002 99 10100202 SO2 5.69 5.94 0.594 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 23.46 24.50 2.450

cyid 23.46 24.50 2.450

STID=54 CYID=53 fcid=0009 name=APPALACHIAN POWER

- MOUNTAINEER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

S TID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

54 53 0009 001 001 99 10100202 SO2 11.20 11.69 1.169 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

STID=54 CYID=79 fcid=0006 name=APPALACHIAN POWER

- JOHN E AMOS PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

54 79 0006 012 001 99 10100202 SO2 79.63 83.16 8.316 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

54 79 0006 012 002 99 10100202 SO2 100.3 3 104.78 10.478 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

54 79 0006 003 003 99 10100202 SO2 139.38 145.55 14.555 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 319.35 333.50 33.350

cyid 319.35 333.50 33.350

stid 354.00 369.69 36.969

STID=55 CYID=79 fcid=241007690 name=WIS ELECTRIC POWER OAK CREEK STATION

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Da y Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

55 79 241007690 S13 B25 01 10100202 SO2 12.75 14.54 3.490 0.0 0.760 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

55 79 241007690 S13 B26 01 10100202 SO2 8.68 9.89 2.473 0.0 0.750 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

55 79 241007690 S14 B27 01 10100212 SO2 10.97 12.51 2.876 0.0 0.770 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

55 79 241007690 S14 B28 01 10100212 SO2 11.28 12.86 2.958 0.0 0.770 SCRU BBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 43.68 49.80 11.797

cyid 43.68 49.80 11.797

stid 43.68 49.80 11.797

======== ======== ==========

1950.90 2075.80 287.480

### 38

SO2

– 2018

Point Sour ce Grown and Controlled Emissions by facility for SO2 r6s1b_2018 1

Base Year = 2002

Future Year = 2018

STID=17 CYID=31 fcid=031600AIN name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 31 031600AIN 0010 0013 01 10100226 SO2 10.92 12.39 1.239 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 31 031600AIN 0012 0016 01 10100226 SO2 17.69 20.08 2.008 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 28.61 32.48 3.248

STID=17 CYID=31 fcid=031600AMI name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Yea r STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 31 031600AMI 0007 0010 01 10100226 SO2 16.13 18.31 1.831 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- cyid 44.74 50.79 5.079

STID=17 CYID=79 fcid=079808AAA name=AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING CO

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctr ltype ctrldes

17 79 079808AAA 0003 0003 01 10100202 SO2 36.35 41.27 4.127 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 79 079808AAA 0012 0013 01 10100501 SO2 28.99 19.46 1.946 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fc id 65.34 60.72 6.072

cyid 65.34 60.72 6.072

STID=17 CYID=97 fcid=097190AAC name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 97 0971 90AAC 0018 0033 01 10100226 SO2 24.14 27.40 2.740 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 97 097190AAC 0021 0036 01 10100226 SO2 19.23 21.83 2.183 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 97 097190AAC 0016 0031 01 10100203 SO2 4.59 5.22 0.005 0.0 0.999 SHUTDOWN Scru bber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 47.96 54.45 4.928

cyid 47.96 54.45 4.928

### 39

STID=1 7 CYID=125 fcid=125804AAB name=DYNEGY MIDWEST GENERATION INC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 125 125804AAB 0019 0023 01 10100202 SO2 22.34 25.36 3.805 0.0 0.850 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

STID=17 CYID=127 fcid=127855AAC name=ELECTRIC ENERGY INC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Yea r STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 127 127855AAC 0002 0003 01 10100222 SO2 10.25 11.63 11.630 0.0 0.000 LNB LNB added by LADCO

17 127 127855AAC 0002 0004 01 10100222 SO2 12.04 13.67 13.673 0.0 0.000 L NB LNB added by LADCO

17 127 127855AAC 0001 0001 01 10100222 SO2 11.83 13.42 1.342 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 127 127855AAC 0001 0002 01 10100222 SO2 11.48 13.03 1.303 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 127 127855AAC 0003 0005 01 10100222 SO2 11.72 13.31 1.331 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 127 127855AAC 0003 0006 01 10100222 SO2 12.68 14.39 1.439 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LAD CO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 70.00 79.46 30.719

cyid 70.00 79.46 30.719

STID=17 CYID=135 fcid=13 5803AAA name=AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING CO

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 135 135803AAA 0001 0001 01 10100203 SO2 32.99 37.45 3.745 0.0 0.900 S CRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 135 135803AAA 0001 0003 01 10100203 SO2 72.92 82.77 8.277 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 105.91 120.22 12.022

cyid 105.91 120.22 12.022

STID=17 CYID=143 fcid=143805AAG name=AES ED EDWARDS STATION

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 143 143805AAG 0002 0004 01 10100202 SO2 15.28 17.34 1.734 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

STID=17 C

YID=157 fcid=157851AAA name=DYNEGY MIDWEST GENERATION INC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid pri d scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 157 157851AAA 0001 0001 01 10100203 SO2 25.14 28.54 4.281 0.0 0.850 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 157 157851AAA 0002 0002 01 10100203 SO2 25.79 29.28 4.392 0.0 0.850 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 157 1578

51AAA 0013 0013 01 10100202 SO2 27.79 31.54 4.732 0.0 0.850 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ----------

### 40

fcid 78.72 89.36 13.404

cyid 78.72 89.36 13.404

STID=17 CYID=167 fcid=167120AAO name=CITY WATER LIGHT & POWER

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 167 167120AAO 0010 0012 01 10100203 SO2 44.20 50.18 0.050 0.0 0.999 SHUTDOWN Scrubber added by LADCO

17 167 167120AAO 0010 0013 01 101 00203 SO2 16.40 18.62 0.019 0.0 0.999 SHUTDOWN Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 60.61 68.80 0.069

cyid 60.61 68.80 0.069

STID=17 CYID=179 fcid=179801AAA name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 179 179801AAA 0018 0029 01 10100203 SO2 25.35 28.77 2.877 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 179 179801AAA 0018 0031 01 10100203 SO2 41.57 47.19 4.719 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 66.91 75.96 7.596

cyid 66.91 75.96 7.596

STID=17 CYID=197 fcid=197809AAO name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

ST ID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 197 197809AAO 0006 0009 01 10100203 SO2 15.89 18.04 1.804 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 197 197809AAO 0016 0031 01 10100202 SO2 27.43 31.13 3.113 0.0 0.900 SCRUB BER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 197 197809AAO 0017 0033 01 10100202 SO2 23.13 26.26 2.626 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 66.45 75.44 7.544

STID=17 CYID=197 fcid=197810AAK name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 197 197810AAK 0009 0014 02 10100222 SO2 11.64 13.21 1.321 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 197 197810AAK 0011 0016 02 10100222 SO2 25.67 29.14 2.914 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 197 197810AAK 0013 0010 03 10100501 SO2 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.999 SHUTDOWN Scrubber added by LADCO

17 197 197810AAK 0007 0012 02 10100223 SO2 15 .33 17.40 0.017 0.0 0.999 SHUTDOWN Scrubber added by LADCO

17 197 197810AAK 0007 0012 03 10100501 SO2 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.999 SHUTDOWN Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 52.64 59.75 4.252

### 41

cyid 119.09 135.19 11.796

st id 696.90 777.66 97.225

STID=18 CYID=147 fcid=00020 name=INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER

- ROCKPORT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

18 147 00020 1 001 01 10100222 SO2 66.42 72.32 7.232 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

18 147 00020 1 001 02 10100501 SO2 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- ----- --- -------- ---------- fcid 66.42 72.32 7.232

cyid 66.42 72.32 7.232

stid 66.42 72.32 7.232

STID=19 CYID=115 fcid=58

- 07

- 001 name=MIDAMERICAN ENERGY CO.

- LOUISA STATION

Base Yr Grown Con trolled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

19 115 58

- 07

- 001 117487 14

7281 99 10100222 SO2 33.66 38.22 3.822 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

STID=21 CYID=127 fcid=2112700003 name=KENTUCKY POWER CO

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

21 127 2112700003 2 002 99 10100202 SO2 104.52 113.82 11.382 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

STID=21 CYID=161 fcid=2116100009 name=EAST KY POWER COOP

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

21 161 2116100009 1 001 99 10100202 SO2 42.17 45.92 4.592 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

21 161 2116100009 2 002 99 10100212 SO2 55.39 60.31 6.031 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -- ------ -------- ---------- fcid 97.55 106.23 10.623

cyid 97.55 106.23 10.623

stid 202.07 220.04 22. 004

STID=27 CYID=61 fcid=2706100004 name=Minnesota Power Inc

- Boswell Energy Ctr

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

27 61 2706100004 SV003 EU003 001 10100226 SO2 33.99 39.15 16.778 0.3 0.700 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

27 61 2706100004 SV003 EU003 002 10100501 SO2 0.00 0.00 0 .000 0.3 0.700 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ----------

### 42

fcid 33.99 39.15 16.778

cyid 33.99 39.15 16.778

STID=27 CYID=109 fcid=2710900011 name=Rochester Public Utilities

- Silver Lake

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

27 109 2710900011 SV003 EU004 001 1010 0202 SO2 7.86 9.05 1.357 0.0 0.850 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

STID=27 CYID=141 fcid=2714100004 name=NSP

- Sherburne Generating Plant

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

27 141 2714100004 SV001 EU001 001 10100222 SO2 16.76 19.31 4.138 0.3 0.850 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

27 141 2714100004 SV001 EU002 001 10100222 SO2 22.55 25.97 5.565 0.3 0.850 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 39.31 45.28 9.703

cyid 39.31 45 .28 9.703

stid 81.16 93.48 27.838

STID=39 CYID=13 fcid=0607130015 name=R. E. BURGER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

39 13 0607130015 R6 B011 B011P1 10100202 SO2 29.83 32.48 3.248 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

39 13 0607130015 R7 B012 B012P1 10100202 SO2 34.77 37.86 3.786 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 64.60 70.34 7.034

cyid 64.60 70.34 7.034

STID=39 CYID=31 fcid=0616000000 na me=CONESVILLE POWER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons /Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

39 31 0616000000 R4 B004 B004P1 10100212 SO2 316.00 344.11 34.411 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scru bber added by LADCO

STID=39 CYID=167 fcid=0684000000 name=MUSKINGUM RIVER POWER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

39 167 0684000000 R2 B002 B002P1 10100201 SO2 65.07 70.85 7.085 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R2 B002 B002P2 10100501 SO2 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R3 B003 B003P1 10100201 SO2 94.58 103.00 10.300 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R3 B003 B003P2 101 00501 SO2 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

### 43

39 167 0684000000 R4 B004 B004P1 10100203 SO2 81.64 88.90 8.890 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R4 B004 B004P2 10100501 SO2 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

39 167 0684000

000 R5 B005 B005P1 10100203 SO2 97.22 105.87 10.587 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R5 B005 B005P2 10100501 SO2 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R6 B006 B006P1 10100202 SO2 113.96 124.10 12.410 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubbe r added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R6 B006 B006P2 10100501 SO2 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 452.48 492.72 49.272

cyid 452.48 492.72 49.272

stid 833.08 907.16 90.716

STID=47 CYID=1 fcid=0009 name=TVA BULL RUN FOSSIL PLANT

Base Yr Gr own Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

47 1 0009 S

- 1 001 99 10100212 SO2 130.81 136.82 13.682 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

STID=47 CYID=73 fcid=0007 name=TVA JOHN SEVIER FOSSIL PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrlt ype ctrldes

47 73 0007 S

- 1A 001 99 10100212 SO2 20.15 21.07 2.107 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 73 0007 S

- 1B 002 99 10100212 SO2 20.25 21.18 2.118 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 73 0007 S

- 2A 003 99 10100212 SO2 19.62 20.52 2.052 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 73 0007 S

- 2B 004 99 10100212 SO2 18.93 19.80 1.980 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 78.95 82.57 8.257

cyid 78.95 82.57 8.257

STID=47 CYID=85 fcid=0011 name=TVA JOHNSONVILLE FOSSIL PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons /Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

47 85 0011 S1

- 01 001 99 10100212 SO2 17.06 17.84 1.784 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scru bber added by LADCO

47 85 0011 S1

- 04 004 99 10100212 SO2 19.85 20.76 2.076 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 85 0011 S1

- 05 005 99

10100212 SO2 24.11 25.22 2.522 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 61.02 63.82 6.382

cyid 61.02 63.82 6.382

### 44

STID=47 CYID=145 fcid=0013 name=TVA KINGSTON FOSSIL PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

47 145 0013 S

- 1 001 99 10100202 SO2 12.68 13.26 1.326 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 1 002 99 10100202 SO2 14.00 14.65 1.465 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 1 003 99 10100202 SO2 13.80 14.44 1.444 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 1 004 99 10100202 SO2 12.24 12.80 1.280 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 1 005 99 10100202 SO2 19.57 20.47 2.047 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 2 006 99 10100202 SO2 18.92 19.79 1.979 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 2 007 99 10100202 SO2 21.30 22.28 2.228 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 2 008 99 10100202 SO2 18.54 19.39 1.939 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 2 009 99 10100202 SO2 20.7 2 21.68 2.168 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 151.77 158.75 15.875

cyid 151.77 158.75 15.875

STID=47 CYID=165 fcid=0025 name=TVA GALLATIN FOSSIL PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

47 165 0025 S

-

01 001 99 101 00212 SO2 13.91 14.54 1.454 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 165 0025 S

-

01 002 99 10100212 SO2 14.87 15.56 1.556 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 165 0025 S

-

02 003 99 10100212 SO2 16.33 17.08 1.708 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 165 0025 S

-

02 004 99 10100212 SO2 20.39 21.32 2.132 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -- ------ ---------- fcid 65.49 68.50 6.850

cyid 65.49 68.50 6.850

stid 488.04 510.46 51.046

STID=54 CYID=39 fcid=0006 name=APPALACHIAN POWER

- KANAWHA RIVER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Ba se Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

54 39 0006 012 001 99 10100202 SO2 19.45 21.18 10.591 0.0 0.500 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

54 39 0006 012 002 99 10100202 SO2 20.94 22.80 11.399 0.0 0.500 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 40.39 43.98 21.990

cyid 40.39 43.98 21.990

### 45

STID=54 CYID=51 fcid=0005 name=OHIO POWER

- MITCHELL PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid

stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

54 51 0005 012 001 99 10100202 SO2 17.77 19. 36 1.936 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

54 51 0005 012 002 99 10100202 SO2 5.69 6.19 0.619 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber ad ded by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 23.46 25.55 2.555

STID=54 CYID=51 fcid=0006 name=OHIO POWER

- KAMMER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Y ear STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

54 51 0006 013 001 99 10100203 SO 2 47.06 51.25 5.125 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

54 51 0006 013 002 99 10100203 SO2 47.66 51.90 5.190 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

54 51 0006 013 003 99 10100203 SO2 41.94 45.67 4.567 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 136.67 148.82 14.882

cyid 160.13 174.37 17.437

STID=54 CYID=53 fcid=0001 name=APPALACHIAN POWER CO.

- PHILIP SP ORN PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

54 53 0001 014 001 99 10100202 SO2 18.65 20.31 2.031 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LA DCO

54 53 0001 014 002 99 10100202 SO2 15.87 17.28 1.728 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

54 53 0001 014 003 99 10100202 SO2 21.46 23.36 2.336 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

54 53 0001 014 004 99 10100202 SO2 20.53 22.36 2.236 0.0 0.90 0 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

54 53 0001 005 005 99 10100202 SO2 46.82 50.98 5.098 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 123.33 134.30 13.430

STID=54 CYID=53 fcid=0009 name=APPALACHIAN POWER

- MOUNTAINEER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

54 53 0009 001 001 99 10100202 SO2 11.20 12.19 1.219 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- cyid 134.53 146.49 14.649

STID=54 CYID=79 fcid=0006 name=APPALACHIAN POWER

- JOHN E AMOS PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrld es

### 46

54 79 0006 012 001 99 10100202 SO2 79.63 86.72 8.672 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

54 79 0006 012 002 99 10100202 SO2 100.33 109.26 10.926 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

54 79 0006 003 003 99 10100202 SO2 139.38 151.77 15.177 0.0 0.90 0 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 319.35 3 47.75 34.775

cyid 319.35 347.75 34.775

stid 654.39 712.59 88.851

STID=55 CYID=79 fcid=241007690 name=WIS ELECTRIC POWER OAK CREEK STATION

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

55 79 241007690 S13 B25 01 10100202 SO2 12.75 14.48 3.475 0.0 0.760 SCRUBBER Scrubber ad ded by LADCO

55 79 241007690 S13 B26 01 10100202 SO2 8.68 9.85 2.462 0.0 0.750 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

55 79 241007690 S14 B27 01 10100212 SO2 10.97 12.45 2.864 0.0 0.770 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

55 79 241007690 S14 B28 01 10100212 SO2 11.28 12.81 2.945 0.0 0.770 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 43. 68 49.59 11.746

cyid 43.68 49.59 11.746

stid 43.68 49.59 11.746

======== ======== ==========

3099.41 3381.52 400.481

### 47 

# Appendix II

Scenario C Controls (CAMD List)

### 48 

## NOx Controls (SCRs , 2007

– 2013) )

Plant Name UniqueID_Final State Name County Capacity

MW On Line

Year SCR

Online

Year

Chesterfield 3797_B_4 Virginia Chesterfield 166 1960 2013

Chesterfield 3797_B_5 Virgi nia Chesterfield 310 1964 2012

Scherer 6257_B_3 Georgia Monroe 875 1987 2011

Chesterfield 3797_B_6 Virginia Chesterfield 658 1969 2011

Sandow No 4 6648_B_4 Texas Milam 545 1981 2011

Beech Hollow Power Project 82704_B_1 Pennsylvania Washington 272 2011 2011

Longview Power 82702_B_1 West Virginia Monongalia 695 2011 2011

Cliffside 2721_B_6 North Carolina Cleveland 800 2011 2011

AES Westover 2526_B_11 New York Broome 22 1943 2010

AES Westover 2526_B_12 New York Broome 22 1943 2010

AES Westover 2526_B_ 13 New York Broome 84 1951 2010

Iatan 2 6065_B_2 Missouri Platte 850 2010 2010

Southwest 6195_B_2 Missouri Greene 300 2010 2010

Trimble Station (LGE) 6071_B_2 Kentucky Trimble 732 2010 2010

Elm Road Generating Station 56068_B_2 Wisconsin Milwaukee 615 2010 2010

Clay Boswell 1893_B_3 Minnesota Itasca 350 1973 2009

Asheville 2706_B_2 North Carolina Buncombe 184 1971 2009

Conesville 2840_B_4 Ohio Coshocton 780 1973 2009

Marshall 2727_B_3 North Carolina Catawba 657 1969 2009

St Johns River Power Park 2 07_B_1 Florida Duval 626 1987 2009

Ghent 1356_B_2 Kentucky Carroll 469 1977 2009

Chalk Point LLC 1571_B_1 Maryland Prince George's 341 1964 2009

Chalk Point LLC 1571_B_2 Maryland Prince George's 342 1965 2009

San Juan 2451_B_2 New Mexico San Juan 320 1973 2009

Big Bend 645_B_BB01 Florida Hillsborough 411 1970 2009

Big Bend 645_B_BB02 Florida Hillsborough 391 1973 2009

Big Bend 645_B_BB03 Florida Hillsborough 414 1976 2009

Nebraska City Unit 2 6096_B_2 Nebraska Otoe 663 2009 2009

Cross 130_B_4 South Carolina Berkeley 652 2009 2009

Springerville 8223_B_4 Arizona Apache 400 2009 2009

Sandow 5 82010_B_5 Texas Milam 600 2009 2009

Oak Grove 82011_B_1 Texas Robertson 800 2009 2009

Oak Grove 82011_B_2 Texas Robertson 800 2009 2009

TS Power Plant 82013_ B_1 Nevada Eureka 200 2009 2009

Plum Point Energy 82014_B_1 Arkansas Mississippi 665 2009 2009

Comanche 470_B_3 Colorado Pueblo 750 2009 2009

Elm Road Generating Station 56068_B_1 Wisconsin Milwaukee 615 2009 2009

Two Elk Generating Station 55360_B_1 W yoming Campbell 300 2009 2009

J K Spruce 7097_B_BLR2 Texas Bexar 750 2009 2009

Dallman 963_B_34 Illinois Sangamon 200 2009 2009

AES Greenidge LLC 2527_B_4 New York Yates 27 1950 2008

AES Greenidge LLC 2527_B_5 New York Yates 27 1950 2008

AES Greenidge LLC 2527_B_6 New York Yates 106 1953 2008

Charles R Lowman 56_B_2 Alabama Washington 238 1979 2008

Charles R Lowman 56_B_3 Alabama Washington 238 1980 2008

Barry 3_B_5 Alabama Mobile 750 1971 2008

St Johns River Power Park 207_B_2 Florida Duval 626 1988 2008

Morgantown Generating Plant 1573_B_2 Maryland Charles 620 1971 2008

### 49

Bailly 995_B_7 Indiana Porter 160 1962 2008

San Juan 2451_B_1 New Mexico San Juan 322 1976 2008

San Juan 2451_B_3 New Mexico San Juan 495 1979 2008

Weston 4078_B_4 Wisconsin M arathon 519 2008 2008

AES Deepwater 10670_B_AAB001 Texas Harris 140 1986 2007

La Cygne 1241_B_1 Kansas Linn 724 1973 2007

Morgantown Generating Plant 1573_B_1 Maryland Charles 624 1970 2007

PSEG Hudson Generating Station 2403_B_2 New Jersey Hudson 583 1967 2007

San Juan 2451_B_4 New Mexico San Juan 506 1982 2007

Big Bend 645_B_BB04 Florida Hillsborough 457 1985 2007

Cross 130_B_3 South Carolina Berkeley 620 2007 2007

Wygen II 55479_B_4 Wyoming Campbell 90 2007 2007

Council Bluffs 1082_B_4 Iowa Pott awattamie 790 2007 2007



## SO2 Controls (FGDs, 2007

– 2012)

Plant Name UniqueID_Final State Name County Capacity

MW On Line

Year Scrubber

Online

Year

James H Miller Jr 6002_B_1 Alabama Jefferson 684 1978 2011

James H Miller Jr 6002_B_2 Alabama Jefferson 687 1985 2011

James H Miller Jr 6002_B_3 Alabama Jefferson 687 1989 2011

James H Miller Jr 6002_B_4 Alabama Jefferson 688 1991 2011

Cape Fear 2708_B_5 North Carolina Chatham 143 1956 2011

Baldwin Energy Complex 889_B_1 Illinois Randolph 624 1970 2011

B aldwin Energy Complex 889_B_2 Illinois Randolph 629 1973 2011

Baldwin Energy Complex 889_B_3 Illinois Randolph 629 1975 2011

Scherer 6257_B_3 Georgia Monroe 875 1987 2011

Milton R Young 2823_B_B1 North Dakota Oliver 250 1970 2011

W H Sammis 2866_B_6 Oh io Jefferson 630 1969 2011

W H Sammis 2866_B_7 Ohio Jefferson 630 1971 2011

PSEG Hudson Generating Station 2403_B_2 New Jersey Hudson 583 1967 2011

John Sevier 3405_B_1 Tennessee Hawkins 176 1955 2011

John Sevier 3405_B_2 Tennessee Hawkins 176 1955 2011

John Sevier 3405_B_3 Tennessee Hawkins 176 1956 2011

John Sevier 3405_B_4 Tennessee Hawkins 176 1957 2011

Beech Hollow Power Project 82704_B_1 Pennsylvania Washington 272 2011 2011

Longview Power 82702_B_1 West Virginia Monongalia 695 2011 2011

Clif fside 2721_B_6 North Carolina Cleveland 800 2011 2011

AES Greenidge LLC 2527_B_4 New York Yates 27 1950 2010

AES Greenidge LLC 2527_B_5 New York Yates 27 1950 2010

Barry 3_B_5 Alabama Mobile 750 1971 2010

E C Gaston 26_B_5 Alabama Shelby 861 1974 2010

Warrick 6705_B_4 Indiana Warrick 300 1970 2010

Coffeen 861_B_01 Illinois Montgomery 340 1965 2010

Coffeen 861_B_02 Illinois Montgomery 560 1972 2010

Cardinal 2828_B_3 Ohio Jefferson 630 1977 2010

Brandon Shores 602_B_1 Maryland Anne Arundel 643 1984 2010

Brandon Shores 602_B_2 Maryland Anne Arundel 643 1991 2010

Monroe 1733_B_4 Michigan Monroe 775 1974 2010

Cliffside 2721_B_5 North Carolina Cleveland 550 1972 2010

Crystal River 628_B_4 Florida Citrus 720 1982 2010

Bowen 703_B_1BLR Georgia Bartow 713 1971 2010

### 50

Crist 641_B_6 Florida Escambia 302 1970 2010

Crist 641_B_7 Florida Escambia 477 1973 2010

Clifty Creek 983_B_1 Indiana Jefferson 217 1955 2010

Clifty Creek 983_B_2 Indiana Jefferson 217 1955 2010

Clifty Creek 983_B_3 Indiana Jefferson 217 1955 2010

Clifty Creek 983_B_4 Indiana Jefferson 217 1955 2010

Clifty Creek 983_B_5 Indiana Jefferson 217 1955 2010

Clifty Creek 983_B_6 Indiana Jefferson 217 1956 2010

Chalk Point LLC 1571_B_1 Maryland Prince George's 341 1964 2010

Chalk Point LLC 1 571_B_2 Maryland Prince George's 342 1965 2010

Dickerson 1572_B_1 Maryland Montgomery 182 1959 2010

Dickerson 1572_B_2 Maryland Montgomery 182 1960 2010

Dickerson 1572_B_3 Maryland Montgomery 182 1962 2010

R E Burger 2864_B_7 Ohio Belmont 156 1955 2010

R E Burger 2864_B_8 Ohio Belmont 156 1955 2010

Kyger Creek 2876_B_1 Ohio Gallia 217 1955 2010

Kyger Creek 2876_B_2 Ohio Gallia 217 1955 2010

Kyger Creek 2876_B_3 Ohio Gallia 217 1955 2010

Kyger Creek 2876_B_4 Ohio Gallia 217 1955 2010

Kyger Creek 28 76_B_5 Ohio Gallia 217 1955 2010

Cheswick 8226_B_1 Pennsylvania Allegheny 580 1970 2010

PSEG Mercer Generating Station 2408_B_1 New Jersey Mercer 315 1960 2010

PSEG Mercer Generating Station 2408_B_2 New Jersey Mercer 310 1961 2010

Silver Lake 2008_B_4 Minnesota Olmsted 61 1969 2010

Kingston 3407_B_1 Tennessee Roane 135 1954 2010

Kingston 3407_B_2 Tennessee Roane 135 1954 2010

Kingston 3407_B_3 Tennessee Roane 135 1954 2010

Kingston 3407_B_4 Tennessee Roane 135 1954 2010

Kingston 3407_B_5 Tennessee Roane 177 1955 2010

Kingston 3407_B_6 Tennessee Roane 177 1955 2010

Kingston 3407_B_7 Tennessee Roane 177 1955 2010

Kingston 3407_B_8 Tennessee Roane 177 1955 2010

Kingston 3407_B_9 Tennessee Roane 178 1955 2010

Sioux 2107_B_1 Missouri St. Charles 497 1967 2010

Sioux 2107_B_2 Missouri St. Charles 497 1968 2010

Chesterfield 3797_B_5 Virginia Chesterfield 310 1964 2010

Yorktown 3809_B_1 Virginia York 159 1957 2010

AES Westover 2526_B_11 New York Broome 22 1943 2010

AES Westover 2526_B_12 New York B roome 22 1943 2010

AES Westover 2526_B_13 New York Broome 84 1951 2010

Iatan 2 6065_B_2 Missouri Platte 850 2010 2010

Southwest 6195_B_2 Missouri Greene 300 2010 2010

Trimble Station (LGE) 6071_B_2 Kentucky Trimble 732 2010 2010

Elm Road Generating St ation 56068_B_2 Wisconsin Milwaukee 615 2010 2010

Cholla 113_B_3 Arizona Navajo 271 1980 2009

Mayo 6250_B_1A North Carolina Person 362 1983 2009

Mayo 6250_B_1B North Carolina Person 362 1983 2009

Conesville 2840_B_4 Ohio Coshocton 780 1973 2009

G G Al len 2718_B_1 North Carolina Gaston 162 1957 2009

G G Allen 2718_B_2 North Carolina Gaston 162 1957 2009

G G Allen 2718_B_3 North Carolina Gaston 260 1959 2009

### 51

G G Allen 2718_B_4 North Carolina Gaston 275 1960 2009

G G Allen 2718_B_5 North Carolina Gast on 265 1961 2009

H L Spurlock 6041_B_1 Kentucky Mason 315 1977 2009

Crystal River 628_B_5 Florida Citrus 717 1984 2009

Deerhaven Generating Station 663_B_B2 Florida Alachua 228 1981 2009

Bowen 703_B_2BLR Georgia Bartow 718 1972 2009

Wansley 6052_B_2 G eorgia Heard 892 1978 2009

E W Brown 1355_B_1 Kentucky Mercer 94 1957 2009

E W Brown 1355_B_2 Kentucky Mercer 160 1963 2009

E W Brown 1355_B_3 Kentucky Mercer 422 1971 2009

Ghent 1356_B_2 Kentucky Carroll 469 1977 2009

Fayette Power Project 6179_B_1 T exas Fayette 598 1979 2009

Fayette Power Project 6179_B_2 Texas Fayette 598 1980 2009

Morgantown Generating Plant 1573_B_1 Maryland Charles 624 1970 2009

Morgantown Generating Plant 1573_B_2 Maryland Charles 620 1971 2009

PPL Brunner Island 3140_B_1 Pe nnsylvania York 321 1961 2009

PPL Brunner Island 3140_B_2 Pennsylvania York 378 1965 2009

Keystone 3136_B_1 Pennsylvania Armstrong 850 1967 2009

Keystone 3136_B_2 Pennsylvania Armstrong 850 1968 2009

Bull Run 3396_B_1 Tennessee Anderson 881 1967 2009

Bay Shore 2878_B_4 Ohio Lucas 215 1968 2009

Hatfields Ferry Power Station 3179_B_1 Pennsylvania Greene 530 1969 2009

Hatfields Ferry Power Station 3179_B_2 Pennsylvania Greene 530 1970 2009

Hatfields Ferry Power Station 3179_B_3 Pennsylvania Greene 530 1971 2009

Nebraska City Unit 2 6096_B_2 Nebraska Otoe 663 2009 2009

Cross 130_B_4 South Carolina Berkeley 652 2009 2009

Springerville 8223_B_4 Arizona Apache 400 2009 2009

Sandow 5 82010_B_5 Texas Milam 600 2009 2009

Oak Grove 82011_B_1 Texas Robertso n 800 2009 2009

Oak Grove 82011_B_2 Texas Robertson 800 2009 2009

TS Power Plant 82013_B_1 Nevada Eureka 200 2009 2009

Plum Point Energy 82014_B_1 Arkansas Mississippi 665 2009 2009

Comanche 470_B_3 Colorado Pueblo 750 2009 2009

Elm Road Generating St ation 56068_B_1 Wisconsin Milwaukee 615 2009 2009

Two Elk Generating Station 55360_B_1 Wyoming Campbell 300 2009 2009

J K Spruce 7097_B_BLR2 Texas Bexar 750 2009 2009

Dallman 963_B_34 Illinois Sangamon 200 2009 2009

Charles R Lowman 56_B_1 Alabama Wash ington 86 1969 2008

John E Amos 3935_B_1 West Virginia Putnam 800 1971 2008

John E Amos 3935_B_2 West Virginia Putnam 800 1972 2008

Cholla 113_B_4 Arizona Navajo 380 1981 2008

Roxboro 2712_B_1 North Carolina Person 369 1966 2008

Roxboro 2712_B_3A Nort h Carolina Person 341 1973 2008

Roxboro 2712_B_3B North Carolina Person 341 1973 2008

Miami Fort 2832_B_7 Ohio Hamilton 500 1975 2008

Miami Fort 2832_B_8 Ohio Hamilton 500 1978 2008

Cogentrix Virginia Leasing Corp 10071_B_2A Virginia Portsmouth 19 1988 2008

Cogentrix Virginia Leasing Corp 10071_B_2B Virginia Portsmouth 19 1988 2008

Cogentrix Virginia Leasing Corp 10071_B_2C Virginia Portsmouth 19 1988 2008

J M Stuart 2850_B_1 Ohio Adams 585 1971 2008

J M Stuart 2850_B_2 Ohio Adams 597 1970 2008

### 52

J M Stuart 2850_B_3 Ohio Adams 597 1972 2008

J M Stuart 2850_B_4 Ohio Adams 597 1974 2008

Monroe 1733_B_3 Michigan Monroe 795 1973 2008

Belews Creek 8042_B_1 North Carolina Stokes 1,115 1974 2008

Belews Creek 8042_B_2 North Carolina Stokes 1,115 1975 2008

Bowen 703_B_3BLR Georgia Bartow 902 1974 2008

Bowen 703_B_4BLR Georgia Bartow 929 1975 2008

Hammond 708_B_1 Georgia Floyd 112 1954 2008

Hammond 708_B_2 Georgia Floyd 112 1954 2008

Hammond 708_B_3 Georgia Floyd 112 1955 2008

Hammond 708_B_4 Georgia F loyd 510 1970 2008

Wansley 6052_B_1 Georgia Heard 891 1976 2008

Harding Street 990_B_70 Indiana Marion 435 1973 2008

Cogentrix Hopewell 10377_B_1A Virginia Hopewell (city) 18 1987 2008

Cogentrix Hopewell 10377_B_1B Virginia Hopewell (city) 18 1987 2008

Cogentrix Hopewell 10377_B_1C Virginia Hopewell (city) 18 1987 2008

Ghent 1356_B_4 Kentucky Carroll 478 1984 2008

Council Bluffs 1082_B_3 Iowa Pottawattamie 690 1978 2008

PPL Brunner Island 3140_B_3 Pennsylvania York 749 1969 2008

PPL Montour 3149_B_ 1 Pennsylvania Montour 774 1972 2008

PPL Montour 3149_B_2 Pennsylvania Montour 766 1973 2008

Comanche 470_B_1 Colorado Pueblo 366 1973 2008

Comanche 470_B_2 Colorado Pueblo 370 1975 2008

Cayuga 1001_B_2 Indiana VermilIon 473 1972 2008

Winyah 6249_B_1 South Carolina Georgetown 295 1975 2008

Winyah 6249_B_2 South Carolina Georgetown 295 1977 2008

Winyah 6249_B_3 South Carolina Georgetown 295 1980 2008

Chesterfield 3797_B_6 Virginia Chesterfield 658 1969 2008

Brayton Point 1619_B_1 Massachusetts Brist o 243 1963 2008

Brayton Point 1619_B_2 Massachusetts Bristo 244 1964 2008

Weston 4078_B_4 Wisconsin Marathon 519 2008 2008

Gorgas 8_B_10 Alabama Walker 690 1972 2007

Gorgas 8_B_8 Alabama Walker 165 1956 2007

Gorgas 8_B_9 Alabama Walker 175 1958 2007

John E Amos 3935_B_3 West Virginia Putnam 1,300 1973 2007

Mountaineer 6264_B_1 West Virginia Mason 1,300 1980 2007

Cardinal 2828_B_1 Ohio Jefferson 600 1967 2007

Cardinal 2828_B_2 Ohio Jefferson 600 1967 2007

Roxboro 2712_B_2 North Carolina Person 639 1968 2007

Roxboro 2712_B_4A North Carolina Person 343 1980 2007

Roxboro 2712_B_4B North Carolina Person 343 1980 2007

Cogentrix Virginia Leasing Corp 10071_B_1A Virginia Portsmouth 19 1988 2007

Cogentrix Virginia Leasing Corp 10071_B_1B Virginia Portsm outh 19 1988 2007

Cogentrix Virginia Leasing Corp 10071_B_1C Virginia Portsmouth 19 1988 2007

Killen Station 6031_B_2 Ohio Adams 615 1982 2007

Marshall 2727_B_2 North Carolina Catawba 378 1966 2007

Marshall 2727_B_3 North Carolina Catawba 657 1969 2007

Cogentrix Hopewell 10377_B_2A Virginia Hopewell (city) 18 1987 2007

Cogentrix Hopewell 10377_B_2B Virginia Hopewell (city) 18 1987 2007

Cogentrix Hopewell 10377_B_2C Virginia Hopewell (city) 18 1987 2007

Ghent 1356_B_3 Kentucky Carroll 478 1981 2007

### 53

Louisa 6664_B_101 Iowa Louisa 700 1983 2007

Allen S King 1915_B_1 Minnesota Washington 571 1968 2007

Mitchell 3948_B_1 West Virginia Marshall 800 1971 2007

Gibson 6113_B_1 Indiana Gibson 630 1975 2007

Gibson 6113_B_2 Indiana Gibson 628 1975 2007

Winya h 6249_B_4 South Carolina Georgetown 270 1981 2007

Pleasant Prairie 6170_B_2 Wisconsin Kenosha 617 1985 2007

Cross 130_B_3 South Carolina Berkeley 620 2007 2007

Wygen II 55479_B_4 Wyoming Campbell 90 2007 2007

Council Bluffs 1082_B_4 Iowa Pottawattamie 790 2007 2007



## Assumed BART Facilities and Units

State County Fac ID Facilit y Name Unit ID

MI Bay B2840 CE

- KARN/WEADOCK EU00036

MI Bay B2840 CE

- KARN/WEADOCK EU00037

MI Eaton B4001 LAN. BW&L ERICKSON EU00007

MI Houghton B6553 UP POWER CO / PORTAGE EU00008

MI Huron B2815 DTE

- HARBOR BEACH EU00009

MI Ingham B2647 LAN. BW&L Eckert RG00023

MI Ingham B2647 LAN. BW&L Eckert RG00023

MI Ingham B2647 LAN. BW&L Eckert RG00023

MI Ingham B2647 LAN. BW&L Moores Park RG00021

MI Marquette B4261 WE

- ENERG IES EU00029

MI Marquette B4261 WE

- ENERGIES EU00030

MI Marquette B4261 WE

- ENERGIES EU00031

MI Marquette B4261 WE

- ENERGIES EU00032

MI Marquette B4261 WE

- ENERGIES EU00033

MI Monroe B2816 DTE

- MONROE EU00062

MI Monroe B2816 DTE

- MONROE EU000 68

MI Monroe B2816 DTE

- MONROE EU00063

MI Monroe B2816 DTE

- MONROE EU00064

MI Ottawa B2835 CE

– CAMPBELL EU00062

MI Ottawa B2835 CE

– CAMPBELL EU00061

MI Saint Clair B2796 DTE

- ST. CLAIR / BELLE RIVER EU00111

MI Saint Clair B6145 DTE

– GREENWOO D EU00009

MI Wayne B2132 WYANDOTTE EU00036

MI Wayne B2185 DETROIT PLD, MISTERSKY EU00014

MI Wayne B2811 DTE

– TRENTON EU00035

OH Lake 0243160009 CEI., EASTLAKE PLANT B005

OH 0247030013 Orion Power Midwest B012

OH 0285010188 Dept of Public U tilities, City of Orrville B001

OH 0285010188 Dept of Public Utilities, City of Orrville B004

OH 0448020006 Toledo Edison Co., Bay Shore B003

OH 0448020006 Toledo Edison Co., Bay Shor e B004

OH 0616000000 Conesville Power Plant B003

OH 0616000000 Conesville Power Plant B004

OH 0616000000 Conesville Power Plant B007

OH 0641050002 Cardinal Power Pl ant B001

OH 0641050002 Cardinal Power Pl ant B002

### 54

OH 0641050002 Cardinal Power Plant B003

OH 0641050002 Cardinal Power Pl ant B004

OH 0641050 002 Cardinal Power Pl ant B008

OH 0641050002 Cardinal Power Pl ant B009

OH 0641050002 Cardinal Power Plant B009

OH Jefferson 0641160017 W. H. SAMMIS PLANT B011

OH Jefferson 0641160017 W. H. SAMMIS PLANT B012

OH Jefferson 0641160017 W. H. SAMMIS PLAN T B013

OH 0684000000 Muskingum River Power Plant B006

OH Adams 0701000007 DP&L, J.M. Stuart Generating Station B001

OH Adams 0701000007 DP&L, J.M. Stuart Generating Station B002

OH Adams 0701000007 DP&L, J.M. Stuart Generating Station B003

OH Adams 0 701000007 DP&L, J.M. Stuart Generating Station B004

OH 0701000060 DP&L, Killen Station B001

OH 1409040243 City of Hamilton Dept of Public Utilities B002

OH 1409040243 City of Hamilton Dept of Public Utilities B008

OH 1409040243 City of Hamilton Dep t of Public Utilities B009

OH 1413100008 CG&E W. C. BECKJORD B005

OH 1413100008 CG&E W. C. BECKJORD B006

OH 1431350093 CG&E MIAMI FORT STATION B015

IL Peoria 856 Ameren

– Edwards 2

IL Sangamon 963 CWLP

– Dallman 31

IL Sangamon 963 CWLP

– Dal lman 32

IL Christian 876 Dominion

– Kincaid 1

IL Christian 876 Dominion

– Kincaid 2

WI COLUMBIA 111003090 Alliant En ergy

- Columbia Generating B20

WI COLUMBIA 111003090 Alliant En ergy

- Columbia Generating B21

WI COLUMBIA 111003090 Alliant En ergy

- Co lumbia Generating B22

WI GRANT 122014530 Alliant Energy, Nelson Dewey B22 (unit 2)

WI MILWAUKEE 241007690 We Energies

- Oak Creek Station B26 (Unit 6)

WI MILWAUKEE 241007690 We Energies

- Oak Creek Station B27 (Unit 7)

WI MILWAUKEE 241007690 We Energies

- Oa k Creek Station B28

WI MILWAUKEE 241007800 We Energies

- Valley Station B21

WI MILWAUKEE 241007800 We Energies

- Valley Station B23

WI MILWAUKEE 241007800 We Energies

- Valley Station B24

WI BRO WN 405031990 WI Public Service Corp

- JP Pulliam B27 (unit 8)

W I SHEBOYGAN 460033090 WP & L Allian t Energy

– Edgewater B24

WI BUFFALO 606034110 Dairyland Power Coop Alma Station

(J.P. Madgett boilers) B25 (+B26)

WI BUFFALO 606034110 Dairyland Power Coop Alma Station B27

WI VERNON 663020930 Dairyland Power Coop Gen oa Station B20

WI VERNON 663020930 Dairyland Power Coop Genoa Station B25

IN Porter 995 Bailly 7

IN Porter 995 Bailly 8

IN Vermillion 1001 Cayuga 1

IN Vermillion 1001 Cayuga 2

IN Montgomery 1024 Crawfordsville 6

IN Warrick 1012 Culley 2

### 55

IN Wa rrick 1012 Culley 3

IN Gibson 6113 Gibson 1

IN Gibson 6113 Gibson 2

IN Cass 1032 Logansport 6

IN Sullivan 6213 Merom 1

IN Sullivan 6213 Merom 2

IN LaPorte 997 Michigan City 12

IN Lake 996 Mitchell 11

IN Pike 994 Petersburg 1

IN Pike 994 Petersburg 2

IN Pike 994 Petersburg 3

IN Pike 1043 Ratts 1

IN Pike 1043 Ratts 2

IN Wayne 7335 RPL 2

IN Jasper 6085 Schahfer 14

IN Jasper 6085 Schahfer 15

IN Lake 981 Stateline 4

IN Marion 990 Stout 70

IN Dearborn 988 Tanners Creek 4

IN Vigo 1010 Wabash Riv er 6

IN Warrick 6705 Warrick 4

IA 07

- 02

- 005 Cedar Falls Utilities Unit #7 (EU10.1A)

IA 88

- 01

- 004 Central Iowa Power Cooperative

(CIPCO)

– Summit Lake Station Comb Turbines (EU

1 /1G , EU2 /2 G)

IA 70

- 08

- 003 Central Iowa Power Cooperative

(CIPCO)

– Fair Station Unit # 2 (EU 2 &

EU 2G)

IA 85

- 01

- 006 City of Ames

- Steam Electric Plant Boiler #7 (EU 2)

IA 29

- 01

- 013 Interstate Power & Light

- Burlington Main Plant Boiler.

IA 03

- 03

- 001 Interstate Power & Light

- Lansing Boiler #4. Sixteen

units in total.

IA 23

- 01

- 014 Interstate Power & Light

- ML Kapp Boiler #2. Six units

in total.

IA 57

- 01

- 042 Interstate Power & Light

- Prairie Creek Boiler #4. Fourteen

units in total.

IA 78

- 01

- 026 MidAmerican Energy Co

- Council Bluffs Boiler #3 (EU003)

IA 97

- 04

- 010 MidAmerican Energy Co

- Neal North Boilers #1

- 3

(EU001

- EU003)

IA 97

- 04

- 011 MidAmerican Energy Co

- Neal South Boiler #4 (EU003)

IA 70

- 01

- 011 Muscatine Power and Water Boiler #8

IA 63

- 02

- 005 Pella Municipal Power Plant Boilers #6

- 8

MN 2709900001 Austin Utilities NE Power Station EU001

MN 2713700027 Hibbing Public Utilities EU003

MN 2703100001 MN Power, Taconite Harbor EU003

MN 2706100004 MN Power, Boswell Energy Center EU003

MN 2701500010 New Ulm Public Utilities EU003

- Bo iler 4

MN 2711100002 Otter Tail Power Hoot Lake EU003

MN 2710900011 Rochester Public Utilities, Silver Lake EU003

MN 2710900011 Rochester Public Utilities, Silver Lake EU004

MN 2713700028 Virginia Public Utilities EU003

- Boiler 9

MN 2714100004 Xcel Energy, Sherco EU001, EU002

MN 2716300005 Xcel Energy, Allen S King EU001

- Boiler 1

### 56

MN 2705300015 Xcel Energy, Riverside EU003

- Boiler 8

MO 290710003 Ameren

- Labadie B1, B2, B3, B4

MO 291830001 Ameren

- Sioux B1, B2

MO 290990016 Am eren

- Rush Island B1, B2

MO 290950031 Auila

- Sibley B3

- 5C

MO 291430004 Assoc. Electric

- New Madrid B1(EP

- 01), B2

(EP

- 02)

MO 290770039 City Utilities Springfield

- Southwest B1 (E09)

MO 290770005 City Utilities Springfield

- James River EO7, EO 8

MO 290970001 Empire Distric Electric

- Asbury B7

MO 290830001 KC Power and Light

- Montrose EP08

MO 290210004 Aqula

- Lake Road EP06

MO 291750001 Assoc. Electric

- Thomas Hill EP01, EP02

MO 290950021 Trigen

- Kansas City B1A

MO 290190002 City of Columbia Municipal Power Plant EP02

MO 291950010 Marshall Munipal Utilities EP05

MO 290950050 Independence Power & Light

- Blue Valley B3 (EP05)

WV 3943 Fort Martin

WV 6004 Pleasants

WV 3948 Mitchell

WV 3935 Amos

WV 6264 Mountaine er

WV 3944 Harrison

TN 3396 TVA Bull Run

TN 3399 TVA Cumberland

KY 1363 Cane Run

KY 1364 Mill Creek

KY 6041 Spurlock

KY 1384 John Sherman Cooper

KY 1353 Big Sandy

KY 1356 Ghent

KY 1355 Brown

KY 1374 Owensboro Mu nicipal

KY 1372 Henderson Municipal

KY 1378 Paradise

KY 1361 Coleman

KY 1382 Reid/Henderson 2

KY 6639 Green

# Appendix 5B

Updated Glide Path Analysis for Regional HazeFebruary 24, 2010



# Updated Glide Path Analysis for Regional Haze (DRAFT)

This mem o provides updated information on the measured and model

‐ projected visibility levels for the

Class I areas in northern Michigan and Minnesota. Specifically, four additional years of measured data

(2005

‐ 2008) and one recent air quality modeling analysis were considered in preparing new plots of the

glide paths for these Class I areas. This memo supplements the LADCO Technical Support Document

(“Regional Air Quality Analyses for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze: Final Technical Support

Document”, April 25, 2008) 1



### , which summarized the air quality analyses conducted by LADCO and its

contractors to support the development of State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for ozone, PM2.5, and

regional haze in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

Monitoring Da ta: A summary data set of the m ean values for the best 20%, middle 20%, and

worst 20% visibility days for the peri od 1988-2008 was obtained from the IMPROVE

website: 

### http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/IMPR OVE/Data/IMPROVE/summary_data.htm

The values were calculated using the revised (new) IMPROVE algorithm. It should be noted that the

baseline values were determined using 2000

‐ 2004 data, in accordance with the Regional Haze Rule.

Modeling Da ta: Two sets of future year model predictions were considered:

(1) Round 5.1 re sults for 2009, 2012, and 2018 (using EPA’s IPM

‐ based projections of EGU growth and

the original CAIR rule)

– see “Regional Air Regional Air Quality Analyses for Ozone, PM2.5, and

Regional Haze: Final Technical Support Document”, April 25, 2008

(2) State Collaborative results for 2009, 2012, and 2018 (using an alternate EGU growth methodology

and plan ned/expected EGU controls)

– see “Regional Modeling for the Easter U.S.: Technical

Support Document”, July 9, 2009

A major difference between these modeling analyses is the assumed level of EGU control. LADCO’s

Round 5.1 modeling reflects full implementation of EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), and the State

Collaborative modeling recognizes the CAIR remand and reflects only planned/expected EGU controls.

Not surprisingly, with lesser control, the State Collaborative modeling shows less visibility improvement.

In light of the uncertainty due to the CAIR remand, however, the projections, particularly for the farthest

out year

– 2018, are suspect.

Results : F igure 1 provides updated glide path plots for Voyageurs and Boundary Waters in Minnesota,

and Isle Royale and Seney in Michigan. There are insufficient data to establish any clear trends, but it is

encouraging that measured visibility levels for the most recent 2

– 3 years have improved in three of the

four Class I areas (and, furthermore, are on the glide path). In preparation for the first 5

‐ year progress

report (due in December 2012), this analysis will be updated on a periodic basis as more measured data

become available (e.g., 2009

– 2011 data), and as more modeling is conducted (e.g., new SIP analyses).

1 

### The memo also supplements the summary of technical information of regional haze and visibility impairment in

the northern Michigan and Minnesota Class I areas: “Regional Haze in the Upper Midwest: Summary of Technical

Information”, Version 2.2, February 22, 2008.February24,2010Thetoplineineachfigurerepresentsvisibilityvaluesforthe20%worstdaysandthebottomlineforthe20%bestdays.Theblackdiamondsinthetoplinearethebaselinevalue(2000‐2004average)andthenaturalconditionsvalue(2064).

# Appendix 6A

Description of Isle Royale National Park

and Seney Wilderness Area IMPROVE Sites

## Description of Isle Royale National Park and Seney Wilderness Area

Isle Royale National Park

A description of the Isle Royale IMPROVE s ite is given in the Table 1 below. The

monitor for Isle Royale is located off-site of the island on the Kew eenaw Peninsula. The

monitoring s ite was formerly located on the island itself, however, due to accessibility

problems during the winter, the monitoring site was moved to the main land.

Table 1. Information from VIEWS website for Isle Royale

SiteCode: 

### ISLE1

SiteName: 

### Isle Royale NP

State: 

### MI

StateFIPS: 

### 26

CountyFIPS: 

### 083

Latitude: 

### 47.4596

Longitude: 

### -88.1491

ElevationMSL: 

### 182

StartDate: 

### 11/16/1999

EPARegion: 

### 5

ImproveRegionID: 

### 3

AQCRID: 

### 0

CMSAID: 

### 0

AirBasinID: 

### 0

UrbanAreaID: 

### 0

AgencyID: 

### 1648

LocDesc: 

### Near the boat ramp on point

opposite town of Eagle Harbor

ProgramCode: 

### IMPROVE

NativeSiteCode: 

### ISLE1

Sponsor: 

### NPS



## Since the monitor is located at a site differe nt th an the class I area, the two sites could

have different visibi lity impairment. However, base d on the siting criteria in the

Visibility Monitoring Guidance 1 

## (see section 3.2), the monitor location fits the criteria.

LADCO performed some modeling which estima ted the deciviews on Isle Royale rather

than the m onitor location. These results can be seen in Table 2. Visibility impairment is

slightly less at the class I ar ea versus the monitor location, thus reaching the RPGs at the

1 

### USEPA, 1999, Visibility Monitoring Guidance, June 1999,

http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/visible/r-99-003.pdf

## monitor location should ensure that the Class I site itself will have similar or even greater

visibility improvements.

Table 2. 2018 on-the-books modeling results (i n dv) for Isle Royale for 20% best and

worst days com paring the results for grid cell where the IMPROVE monitor is located

(ISLE1) versus where the class I area is located (ISLE9).

Worst 20% Best 20%

Monitor (ISLE1) 20.09 6.6

Class I area

(ISLE9) 19.84 6.52

Difference 0.25 0.08



## Seney Wilderness Area

A description of the Seney IMPROVE site is given in the Table 3 below. The m onitor

for Seney is located on-site of the Seney Wilderness area.

Table 3. Information from VIEWS website

SiteCode: 

### SENE1

SiteName: 

### Seney

State: 

### MI

StateFIPS: 

### 26

CountyFIPS: 

### 153

Latitude: 

### 46.2889

Longitude: 

### -85.9503

ElevationMSL: 

### 214.5

StartDate: 

### 11/16/1999

EPARegion: 

### 5

ImproveRegionID: 

### 3

AQCRID: 

### 0

CMSAID: 

### 0

AirBasinID: 

### 0

UrbanAreaID: 

### 0

AgencyID: 

### 1646

LocDesc: 

### Near Refuge Headquarters

ProgramCode: 

### IMPROVE

NativeSiteCode: 

### SENE1

Sponsor: 

### FWS

# Appendix 8A

EMISSIONS INVENTORY METHODOLOGY

SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION

FOR THE REGIONAL HAZE SIP

# Table of Contents

Page

List of acronyms........................................................................................................... 2

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 4

2. EGU Point Sources ............................................................................................... 4

3. Non-EGU Point Sources ........................................................................................ 8

4. Stationary Non-Point Sources............................................................................... 12

5. Non-road Mobile Sources ..................................................................................... 51

6. On-road Mobile Sources ....................................................................................... 54

7. Area Source Ammonia and Biogenic Emissions................................................... 55



## 1

# List of Acronyms

AEO Annual Energy Output

AMS Area Mobile Source Codes

AQD Michigan’s Air Quality Division

ATADS Air Traffic Acti vity Data System

CAMD Clean Air Markets Division

CAS Chemical Abstract Service

CEM Continuous Emissions Monitoring

CERR Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule

CFC Chlorofluorocarbons

CO carbon monoxide

CONCEPT CONsolidated Community Emissions Processing Tool

DLEG Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth

EDMS Emissions and Dispe rsion Modeling System

EIA Energy Information Agency

EIIP Emission Inventor y Improvement Program

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act

FIRE Factor Information Retrieval System

GLC Great Lakes Commission

HAP Hazardous air pollutants

HDGV Heavy duty gasoline vehicle

Hg Mercury

IPM Integrated Planning Model

kW Kilowatt

LDGT Light duty gasoline truck

LPG liquefied petroleum gas

LTO Landing-Take Offs

MAERS Michigan Air Emissi ons Reporting System

MAR Marine, air and rail

MEGAN Model of Emissions of Ga ses and Aerosols from Nature

mg/Mg milligrams/megagram

MSW municipal solid waste

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NCD NMIM County Database

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NIF National Inventory Format

NMIM National Mobile Inventory Model

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmo spheric Administration

ODBC Open Database Connectivity

Pb Lead

Pechan E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc.

PERC perchloroethylene

psia pounds per square inch absolute

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

2

## RFP reasonable further progress

ROP rate of progress

RPS Renewable Portfolio Standards

RVP Reid Vapor Pressure

SCC Source Classification Codes

SEMCOG Southeast Michigan Counsel of Governments

SIC Standard Industrial Classification Code

SF 3 Summary File 3

SSD Source Summary Database

T3 Travel Demand Modeling [TDM] Transformation Tool

TAF Terminal Area Forecast

TCA trichloroethane

TDM Travel Demand Modeling

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

VMT vehicle miles traveled

WI DNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

3

# 1. Introduction

Emissions inventory documentation support for the Regional Haze SIP is provided in

this appendix. An inventory was prepared for all counties in Michigan. Mobile

emissions for other counties were prepared by the Midwest Regional Planning

Organization’s (MRPO) contractor using tra ffic and vehicle information provided by the

Michigan Department of Transpor tation. The Lake Michigan Air Director’s Consortium

(LADCO) is the MRPO. The focus of the inventory effort was to produce modeling

inventories for the base year (2005) and the future years (2018). The future year

projections take into account existing contro l measures and measures that are known to

be on the way (e.g., CAIR measures). This inventory is referred to as the LADCO

Base-M inventory. Procedures used to pr epare these inventory products can be found

in the “Regional Air Quality Analyses for Ozone, PM 2.5 

## , and Regional Haze: Technical

Support Document,” prepared by LADCO. LADCO has produced numerous summary

reports with State and county total emissions and has posted them on their Internet site

at:

http://www.ladco.org/tech/emis/current/index.php

In a related effort, the 2005 Michigan statewide inventory was submitted to the EPA by

the Michigan Department of Environment al Quality (MDEQ) pursuant to 40 CFR

Part 51, Subpart A – Emissions In ventory Reporting Requirements.



# 2. EGU Point Sources

2005 EGU Point Source Methodology

The 2005 EGU point source data originated with annual emissions data provided to

Michigan DEQ via the Michigan Air Emissions Reporting S ystem (MAERS). Temporal

allocation was performed by emission unit, month, day of week and hour using the

procedures described in “Temporally Allocati ng Emissions with CEM Data for Chemical

Transport and SIP Modeling,” available at:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ei15/session4/edick.pdf

In addition to the heat input-based tempor al profiles described in the paper, separate

temporal profiles were developed based on Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM)

reported emissions of NOX and SO 2 

## and these profiles were used instead of heat input

to temporalize annual emissions of the resp ective pollutants. The CEM data used as

the basis of the profiles was that for 2004 through 2006 obtained from the EPA Clean

Air Markets Division (CAMD) website:

http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/index .cfm?fuseaction=emissions.wizard

Growing EGU Point Source to 2009

4

## The 2009 data is obtained from Integrated Planning Model (IP M) results obtained by the

EPA and converted to a modeling inventory by LADCO. The following is a LADCO

Integrated Planning Model discussion, which details the methodologies used to project

the EGU emissions to 2009 using results from the IPM model:

Specifically, future year emissions ar e based on EPA’s IPM3.0 modeling. Three

CAIR scenarios were addressed:

• Round 5a: EPA’s IPM3.0 was assumed as the future year base for EGUs.

• Round 5b: EPA’s IPM3.0, with several “will do” adjustments identified by the

States. These adjustments should reflect a legally binding commitment (e.g.,

signed contract, consent decree, or operating permit).

• Round 5c: EPA’s IPM3.0, with several “ma y do” adjustments identified by the

States. These adjustments reflect less ri gorous criteria, but should still be some

type of public reality (e.g., BART determination or press announcement).

Inter-RPO IPM Global Paramete r Decisions (May 11, 2005):

The following summarizes the decisions made by VISTAS, MRPO, CENRAP,

and MANE-VU for global assumptions to be used in EGU forecasting with IPM.

These decisions and changes are made to IPM version 2.1.9 assumptions, which

can be referenced via EPA’s IPM website at:

http://cfpub.epa.gov/crem/kno wledge_base/crem_report.cfm?deid=74919

A. Market Assumptions

1. National Electr icity and Peak Demand

Decision: Use unadjusted Energy Information Agency (EIA) Annual

Energy Output (AEO) 2005 natio nal electricity and peak demand

values.

2. Regional Electr icity and Demand Breakout

Decision: Use the existing IPM region breakdown as conducted in

earlier modeling.

3. Natural Gas Supply Curve and Price Forecast

Decision: Take existing supply curves and scale application to EIA

AEO 2005 price point. In this approach, the EPA 2.1.9 gas supply

curves will be scaled in such a manner that IPM will solve for AEO

2005 gas prices when the power sector gas demand in IPM is

consistent with AEO 2005 power se ctor gas demand projections.

In instances where the power sector gas demand in IPM is lower

than that of AEO 2005 projections, IPM will project gas prices that

are lower than that in AEO 2005 and vice versa.

4. Oil Price Forecast

Decision: Use EIA AEO 2005 values.

5. Coal Supply and Price Forecast

5

## Decision: Take existing supply curves and scale application to EIA

AEO 2005 price points, coal supply regions, and coal grades. In

this approach, the coal supply curves used in EPA 2.1.9 are scaled

in such a manner that the average mine mouth coal prices that the

IPM is solving in aggregated coal supply regions are comparable to

AEO 2005. Due to the fa ct that the coal gr ades and supply regions

between AEO 2005 and the EPA 2.1.9 ar e not directly comparable,

this is an approximate approach and has to be performed in an

iterative fashion. This approach does not involve updating the coal

transportation matrix with EIA assumptions due to significant

differences between the EPA 2.1.9 and EIA AEO 2005 coal supply

and coal demand regions.

B. Technical Assumptions

1. Firmly Planned Capacity Assumptions

Decision: Use revisions and new data as provided by RPOs and

stakeholders.

Decision: Allow North Carolina Clean Smokestacks 2009 data as

provided to define “must run” units.

2. Pollution Control Retrofit Cost and Performance [SO 2 

## , NOx, and

Hg] Decision: Retain pollution contro l retrofit cost and performance

values.

3. New Conventiona l Capacity cost and performance assumptions

Decision: Use EIA AEO 2005 cost and performance assumptions

for new conventional capacity.

Decision: Retain existing 2.1.9 fr amework cost and performance for

new renewable capacity.

Decision: Exclude constraint on new capacity type builds (i.e., no

new coal).

4. SO 2 

## Title IV Allowance Bank

Decision: Use existing SO 2 

## allowance bank value (4.99 million tons)

for 2007.

5. Nuclear Re-licensing and Uprate

Decision: Use existing IPM c onfiguration with updated EIA AEO

2005 (~$27/kW) incurrence cost for continued operation.

C. Strategy Assumptions

1. Clear Air Mercury Rule (CAMR)

Decision: Include CAMR in future rounds of IPM modeling.

2. Renewable Portfolio Standards

Decision: Model Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) based on

the most recent Regi onal Greenhouse Gas Init iative documentation

using a single RPS region for MA , RI, NY, NJ, MD and CT. The

RPS requirements within these st ates can be met by renewable

generation from New England, Ne w York and PJM. EPA 2.1.9

6

## methodology and hardwired EIA AEO 2004 projected renewable

builds for the remainder of the country.

D. Other Assumptions

1. Run Years

Decision: Revise runs years to 2008 [2007-08], 2009 [2009], 2012

[2010-13], 2015 [2014-17], 2018 [2018], 2020 [2019-22], and 2026

[2023-2030].

2. Canadian Sources

Decision: Utilize existing v.2.1.9 configuration (no Canadian site

specific sources).



# 3. Non-EGU Point Sources

2005 Non-EGU Point Source Methodologies

The 2005 point source data have as their or iginal sources the 2005 Michigan point

source emission inventory. This section of the document describes the compilation and

processing of point source emission data s ubmitted to comply wit h the Consolidated

Emission Reporting Rule (CERR) for the EPA NEI 2005 inventory.

The data originates with the ent ry of data by the reporting fa cilities into the MAERS.

The electronic data received fr om the reporting facilities is reviewed and compiled by

the MDEQ, and exported to the fixed-width text version of the National Inventory Format

(NIF). After the exported data is loaded in to a PostgreSQL database patterned after the

MS Access version of the NIF, the fo llowing processing steps and checks are

performed.

Both emissions estimated by default calcul ations in MAERS and any emissions reported

by facility operators are maintained in MAER S. For evaluation and quality assurance

purposes, both types of record s are included in the exports . To avoid double-counting,

where a specific process/pollutant has emi ssion records both reported directly by the

facility operator, and estimat ed via MAERS calculations, the latter are excluded.

Portable facilities, such as asphalt plants, report total throughput and emissions, plus

operating percentages for each county in which the portable facility was located during

the year. From this information, record s are generated for each county of operation,

and throughput and emissions are apportioned based on the operating percentages

reported by county and process. As geographic coordinates for all operating sites are

not reported, coordinates corre sponding to the centers of the counties of operation are

assigned.

As attention has shifted from total particulate to PM 10 

## and PM 2.5 

## , total particulate records

are excluded from the reporting requirements.

7

## Over 99.8 percent of total crit eria emissions are accounted for by emissions reported by

operator; therefore, exported cr iteria emissions estimated via MAERS calculations are

excluded.

In the site table, where strF acilityCategory is not set in the export, it is set to “01.”

Mandatory geo-coordinate fields were added to the NIF specifications released in

December 2003, well after it would have been possible to collect this information from

the reporting facilities for 2002 operations. T he following values were deemed most

often representative and the exported dat a are updated accordingly for 2002 data:

“strHorizontalCollectionMe thodCode” is set to '027'

“strHorizontalAccuracyMeas ure” is set to '2000'

“strHorizontalReferenceDatumCode” is set to '001'

“strReferencePointCode” is set to '106'

For 2005, these geographic data elements were r equested of the facilities. The defaults

above were applied only where data was not provided by the facility.

MAERS tracks emissions of some pollutants t hat are of interest to the Great Lakes

Commission, but which do not have corresponding pollutant codes in the most recent

NIF pollutant code table. Emission reco rds for the following pollutant codes are

excluded:

7440508; 8052413; DICDD,TOT; DICDF,TOT; HYDFLUORO; PERFLUORO;

TRICDD,TO; TRICDF,TO; CH4 ; CO2; N20; 117840; 7783064.

Emission records for ammonia are exported wit h the Chemical Abstract Service (CAS)

number 7664417, rather than t he pollutant code NH3. Th ese pollutant codes are

updated to NH3. Likewise, records exporte d with pollutant c odes PAH and POM are

updated to pollutant codes 234 and 246, respectively.

All criteria and HAP emissions are reported at the process level, and the export routines

reflect that in the strEmissionD ataLevel field of the emission t able. This field is set to

null for criteria pollutant emission records per EPA guidance.

All emissions are exported as pounds of annual emissions. The EPA guidance

suggests that criteria pollutant emi ssion be reported in tons. The field

strEmissionUnitNumerator is changed to TON and the filed dblEmissionNumericValue is

divided by two000 for criteria pollutant emission records.

Null values in the quarterly throughput fiel ds of process record s are set to zero.

Where quarterly throughput fields of pr ocess records sum to zero, throughput

percentages are set to 25% for each quarter.

8

## MAERS recognizes a control device code of '909' for a “Roll Media Fiberglass Tack

Filter (Tacky 1 side),” which is not recognized in the NIF code tables. Where this control

device code is exported, the “strPrimaryDev iceTypeCode” field of the control equipment

table is updated to a value of 058.

Because of the exclusion of emission records as described above, referential integrity of

the exported data can be compromi sed. At this point, it is re-established by deleting

records stepwise, in the following order.

CE records without corresponding EM records

PE records without corresponding EM records

EP records without corresponding EM records

ER records without corresponding EP records

EU records without corresponding EP records

SI records without corresponding EU records

The data are then checked again for referentia l integrity and mandatory fields and then

loaded into the MS Access shell version of the NIF via append queries that connect to

the PostgreSQL data tables via ODBC. T he Basic Content and Format Checker is run

and its output is reviewed. Where correct ions are needed, to assure consistency

among data sources, the correct ions are made in the MAERS and a full iteration of the

export and post-processing steps are performed.

The 2005 point source inventory was incorporated into the LADCO Base M inventory

and serve as the basis for Mi chigan’s 2005 CERR submittal.

Growing Stationary Non-EGU Point, Stat ionary Area, Locomotive, Shipping, and

Aircraft Categories to 2009

The 2009 emissions are based on work and a follow-up report (E.H. Pechan &

Associates, Inc., Development of Growth and Control Factors for Lake Michigan Air

Directors Consortium, Final Report, De cember 14, 2004) done by E.H. Pechan &

Associates, Inc. (Pechan). This work supports LADCO’s efforts to forecast

anthropogenic emissions for t he purpose of assessing progre ss for air quality goals,

including goals related to regional haze an d attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The

Pechan growth factors were used to estimate the LADCO base M future year emissions

posted by LADCO in 2007. The future year emissions represent both emission controls

that already exist and those that are known to be on the way (e.g., CAIR control

measures).

To assess progress for attaining air quality goals, LADCO require s emission activity

growth and control data to forecast emi ssions from a 2005 base-year inventory to

several future years of interest. Thes e future years include 2009, 2012, and 2018 (e.g.,

2018 is the first milestone for regional haz e reasonable progress demonstrations).

Pechan prepared emission control factors to support forecasting for each of these

years. Because the incremental level of effort required to dev elop emission activity

9

## growth factors for each year over t he 2003-2018 period was nomin al, Pechan prepared

non-EGU point and area and non-road source growth factors for each year over this

entire period.

The report describes Pechan efforts to dev elop emission growth and control data to

support future year air quality modeling by LADCO. The report is organized into a

background chapter and:

Chapter II, which describes the development of the emission activity growth data;

Chapter III, which discusses how the emission control data were compiled;

Chapter IV, which describes the preparation of the growth and cont rol factor files;

Chapter V, which identifie s projection issues for future consideration; and

Chapter VI, which presents the referenc es consulted in preparing this report.

The Pechan Growth and Control Factor report is too lengthy to be included in this

document, but it can be prov ided upon request or downloaded at:

http://www.ladco.org/reports/rpo/emissi ons/ladco_2005_base_yr_growth_and_controls_

report_final.pdf

For sectors non-EGU point sour ce, stationary area source and MAR source sectors, the

future year emissions for the LADCO St ates were derived by applying growth and

control factors to the base year inventor y. As stated above, these factors were

developed by a contractor (E.H. Pechan). Growth factors were based initially on EGAS

(version 5.0), and were subsequently modified (for select, priori ty categories) by

examining emissions activity data.

Additional information on the procedures used to project emissions can be found in the

“Regional Air Quality Analyses for Ozone, PM 2.5 

## , and Regional Haze: Technical Support

Document” prepared by LADCO.



# 4. Stationary Area Sources

2005 Stationary Area S ource Emission Inventory

The following is a description of the vari ous area source categories that were

inventoried as part of the year 2005 emissions inventory as required by the EPA under

the CERR. It also provides documentati on as part of the development of a broader

emissions inventory (which encompasses poi nt, area, non-road mobile, on-road mobile,

and biogenic sources) that is being developed for (SIP requirements for attainment with

the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 

## NAAQS and the regional haze regulations. For the purpose

of developing state SIPs to demonstrat e compliance with the ozone NAAQS, PM 2.5 

## NAAQS and regional haze rule, states are currently requi red to submit base-year

inventories, 3-year cycle update inventories, rate of progre ss inventories, and modeling

inventories. In a November 18, 2002 memorandum – 2002 Base-year Emission

10

## Inventory for SIP Planning Process , EPA identified year 2002 as the base-year for the

SIP planning process. Within 3 years a fter designations are determined, states will

need to submit SIP attainment demons trations for the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 

## NAAQS.

The 2002 base-year inventory serves several purposes in supporting air quality

modeling and control measure selection to determine the types and amount of emission

reductions needed to meet reasonable further progress (RFP) and rate of progress

(ROP) emission reduction targets and demonstrat e attainment. Many of the emission

inventory planning requirements can be found in the EPA document entitled: Emissions

Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations . Subsequent

to the submission of the 2002 inventory, th ere was considerable discussion by LADCO

staff with states and the EPA as to the appr opriateness of 2002 base-year inventory

with respect to using a 2005 base-year inventory. At the time of the preparation of the

year 2005 emissions inventory, these di scussions were still ongoing between LADCO

and EPA. EPA designated nonattainment areas for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with an

effective date of June 15, 2004, while nonattainment designations for the PM 2.5 

## NAAQS

were published in the Federal Register later on January 5, 2005, with an effective date

of April 5, 2005. For those st ates participating in regional planning or ganizations, there

are additional SIP inventory r equirements for regional haze. The cascading effect of

subsequent nonattainment designations as well as subsequent attainment

demonstrations, existing emission r eductions from NOx SIP calls, and the

appropriateness of the base-years 2002 and 2005 were discussed by LADCO, EPA,

and the states. The 2005 inventory was devel oped to fulfill both a base-year inventory

and three-year cycle update inve ntories that are required by the existing CERR.

The following chart shows the specific air pollu tants that must be provided by the CERR

and base-year inventories for the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 

## NAAQS and regional haze

regulations.

11

## 12 Required Air Pollutants Emissions

CO NH3 NOX Pb PM 10 

## -

PRI PM25-

PRI SOX VOC

Consolidated

Emissions

Reporting Rule

(CERR) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Ozone NAAQS √ √ √

PM 2.5 

## NAAQS √ √ √ √ √ √

Regional haze √ √ √ √ √

In producing the 2005 emission in ventory, multiple emission estimates must be provided

to reflect temporal re solution that is required by the CERR and base-year inventories for

the ozone and PM 2.5 

## NAAQS. These requirement s are summarized as follows:

Temporal Resolution Requirements for Inventories

Statew ide

Inventory Summer

Weekday

Consolidated Emissions

Reporting Rule (CERR) Required

Ozone NAAQS Required Required

PM 2.5 

## NAAQS Required Optional

Regional haze Required Optional

Consequently, the st atewide year 2005 emission estima tes that are being provided

reflect the annual and summer w eekday for the referenced air pollutants. A list of the

30 area source categories appears on the fo llowing page. EPA requires specific data

elements to be provided via electronic data transfer using the National Emission

Inventory NEI-NIFV3.0 format. A description of data struct ures can be found in the EPA

publication NEI Input Format (NIF) Version 3. 0 User’s Guide Instructions and

Conventions of Use, April 2003

.Summary of Area Sources and Respective Air Pollutants Inventoried for 2005 InventorySeq#Area SourceDescriptionSCCsSICCONH3NOXPM10-PRIPM25-PRISOXVOC1Crude oilproduction23100100001311√2Natural gasproduction23100200001311√3Breweries23020700012082√4Cutback asphalts24610210002951√5Distilleries23020700102085√6Emulsifiedasphalts24610220002951√7Aircraft refueling22759000004581√8Commercial coal21030020009999√√√√√√√9Commercialdistillate oil21030040009999√√√√√√√10Commercialkerosene21030110059999√√√√√√√11Commercialnatural gas21030060009999√√√√√√√12Commercialresidual oil21030050009999√√√√√√√13Gasolinemarketing2505030120, 2501060100, 2501060051,2501060052, 2501060053, 25010602005541√14Industrial coal21020020003999√√√√√√√15Industrial distillateoil21020040003999√√√√√√√16Industrialkerosene21020110003999√√√√√√√1317Industrial naturalgas21020060003999√√√√√√√18Industrial residualoil21020050003999√√√√√√√19Residential coal21040010008811√√√√√√√20Residentialdistillate oil21040040008811√√√√√√√21Residentialkerosene21040110008811√√√√√√√22Residentialnatural gas21040060008811√√√√√√√23Residentialpropane21990070008811√√√√√√24Municipal landfills26200300004953√√√√√25Vessel ballasting25050209004432√26Vessel loading2505020120, 2505020030,2505020150, 2505020180,2505020090, 25050200604432√27Remedial action26600000009511√√√√√28Traffic markingpaints24010080001611√29Wineries23020700052084√30Aviation stage I25010800505541√14

## Oil and Natural Gas Production

The oil and gas production area source category represents those VOC emissions that

result from the exploration, drilling, and the field processing of crude oil and natural gas.

Fugitive VOC emissions occur from control valves, relief valves, spills, pipe fittings,

pump seals and compressor seals in the production and field processing of crude oil

and natural gas. Individual county crude oil and natural gas production data was

obtained from the MDEQ, Geologi cal and Land Management Division

. VOC emission

factors were derived from t he EPA publication entitled: Revision of Evaporative

Hydrocarbon Emission Factors (EPA – 450/3-76-039) . The emission factors are 107

pounds of emitted VOC per thousand barrels of produced crude oil and 175 pounds of

emitted VOC per million cubic feet of produced natural gas. For crude oil production,

emission controls reflecting NESHAP applicat ion of a 45% reduction in VOC were

considered. This control level was based on EPA determination of an overall 45%

reduction in VOC from oil and natural gas produc tion facilities. This control reduction

was obtained from a 5/14/ 99 EPA fact sheet that was published with the Final Air Toxics

Rules for Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities and Natural Gas Transmission and

Storage Facilities. Rule effectiveness of 80% was then applied, and point source

deductions were performed to estimate the ar ea source contribution. For natural gas,

emission controls from Michigan air pollu tion control rule R336.1629 of 72% and the

federal emission control reduction in VOC of 19% associated with NESHAP application

to natural gas transmission and storage were applied. The 19% emission reduction was

obtained from the 5/14/99 EPA fact sheet that was published with the Final Air Toxics

Rules for Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities and Natural Gas Transmission and

Storage Facilities. The federal NESHAP rule became effective June 17, 1999. Area

source emissions were then reported usi ng Source Classification Codes (SCC) of

2310010000 for crude petroleum oil produc tion and 2310020000 for natural gas

production.

Vessel Loading/Ballasting

Evaporative VOC occur from Great Lakes ships when being loade d with gasoline and

petrochemicals. Vapors are also displac ed when cargo tanks are loaded with water for

ballasting. In order to esti mate VOC from vessel loading/ba llasting activities, a list of

marine terminals at Michigan based ports handl ing petroleum products was obtained

from the MDOT. Because of the need to acquire information on gasoline and

petrochemical handling at each Michigan po rt and the time frames during vessel

loading/ballasting occurred, a survey form was again sent to the marine terminals that

were previously surveyed in the 2002 invent ory. This State survey approach went

beyond the EPA’s prescribed inventory procedures in Volume III, Chapter 12 of the

Emission Inventory Improv ement Program January 2001 guidance for Marine Vessel

Loading, Ballasting and Transit . The survey form requested information on days of

operation, seasonal fuel transfer information on gasoline, distillate fuel oil, jet naphtha,

jet kerosene, kerosene, residual fuel oil, and crude petroleum loading into ship and

barge cargo tanks as well as ballast operations. The survey data was then summed to

derive individual county totals. The results of this survey revealed that there were only

15

## two fuel types (contaminated gasoline, and residual fuel oil) where loading had

occurred. VOC emission fact ors (0.00009 lbs/1000 gallons of residual fuel oil and 3.4

lbs/1000 gallons of gasoline) were then applied to their re spective fuel volumes to

obtain the estimated emission losses. Although the EPA, on Se ptember 19, 1995,

issued Federal Standards for Marine Tank Ve ssel Loading Operations and National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollu tants for Marine Vessel Loading Operations

, the respective facilities transferring fuel were exempt from control requirements.

Consequently, emissions estimates were based on the respective emission factors

without the application of control measures. Individual county VOC emission estimates

from loading and ballasting operations were reported using the following SCC codes:

Vessel Loading/Ballasting

Operations Reported

SCC Code

Vessel loading, distillate fuel

oil 2505020090

Vessel loading, gasoline 2505020120

Vessel loading, residual fuel

oil 2505020060

Vessel loading, crude oil 2505020030

Vessel loading, naphtha 2505020150

Vessel loading, jet kerosene 2505020180

Vessel loading, kerosene 2505020180

Vessel ballasting, gasoline 2505020900

Vessel ballasting, crude oil 2505020900

Service Station Loadi ng (Stage I)

Gasoline vapor loss occurs at service stati ons when gasoline is un loaded from delivery

tank trucks into underground stor age tanks. The extent of vapor loss is dependent upon

the method of filling (splash, submerge, or vapor balan ced). In computing VOC

emissions from service station loading, y ear 2005 gasoline throughput estimates were

obtained from Energy Information Ad ministration's Petroleum Marketing Monthly data.

The monthly data was then summed to derive an estimated statewi de gasoline total.

County gasoline total estimates were t hen determined by apportioning the statewide

gasoline by the percent of state gasoline sa les occurring within each county. County

gasoline sales data wa s obtained from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of

Census, Michigan 1997 Economic Census, Retail Trade, Geographic Area Series . State

gasoline throughput consumptio n was apportioned on a county basis using the following

mathematical equation:

Ct = St x Cs/Ss

16

## Where:

Ct = Estimated county gasolin e consumption for year 2005

St = Statewide gasoline consumption for year 2005

Cs = County gasoline service station retail sales data

Ss = State gasoline servic e station retail sales data

VOC emission estimates were developed ba sed upon the guidance provided in the EPA

prescribed inventory procedures in Volume III, Chapter 11 of the Emission Inventory

Improvement Program January 2001 guidanc e for Gasoline Marketing (Stage I and

Stage II) and subsequent September 2002 Draft Summary of the Analysis of the

Emissions Reported in the 1999 NEI for St age I and Stage II Operations at Gasoline

Service Stations . Year 2005 and summer weekday emission factors were developed

based upon actual temperature, and RVP fuel volatility informa tion for various regions of

the State to reflect the appl icable RVP control measures. Monthly tem perature data

was obtained for the year 2005 from the NOAA, National Clim atic Center Local

Climatological Data that was utilized in determining year and summer day temperatures

for the Michigan Upper Peninsula and Michig an Lower Peninsula regions. Reid Vapor

Pressure (RVP) data for marketed gasoli ne during year 2005 was obtained from the

Michigan Department of Agricu lture, Motor Fuels Quality, Laboratory Division. VOC

mission factors were then developed for spla sh fill, submerge f ill, and vapor balanced

gasoline dispensing facilities on a county basis which reflected the actual temperature

and RVP of marketed gasoline products.

Year 2005 Temperature Summary

Lower Upper

Peninsula Peninsula

Month Month

Avg of Day Avg of Day

Month Maximum Maximum

December 33.5 24.8

January 28.0 18.9

February 33.8 29.5

March 38.2 33.2

April 59.7 53.8

May 64.8 59.3

June 82.4 77.1

July 83.5 79.4

August 81.8 77.1

September 77.3 72.5

October 62.1 55.7

November 49.4 37.1

Year Avg 57.9 51.5

Ozone Season Avg 74.9 69.9

Summer Weekday Avg 82.6 77.9 

## Stage I loading emission factors were

determined using the methodology specified in

September 2002 Draft Summary of the

Analysis of the Emissions Reported in the 1999

NEI for Stage I and Stage II Operations at

Gasoline Service Stations . The following

equation is presented:

L = 12.46xSPM/T

Where:

L = Loading loss (uncontrolled), pounds per

1000 gal of liquid

loaded

S= A saturation factor where S= 0.6 for

submerged loading

with no vapor balance, S = 1.00 for

submerge loading

with vapor balanc e, and S = 1.45 = splash

17

## 18 loading no

vapor balance

P = True vapor pressure of li quid loaded, pounds per square

inch absolute (psia)

M = Molecular weight of vapors, pounds per pound-mole

T = Temperature of bulk liquid in degrees F + 460

The quantity of county gasoline throughput that is splash filled, submerge filled, and

vapor balanced was estimated on basis of pas t gasoline surveys, and the applicability of

state regulations which require the installation of submerge fill or vapor balanced

systems. These percentages were obtained fr om the year 1999 emissions inventory.

The same county fractional percentages of splash filled, submerge filled, and vapor

balanced were used in the year 2005 inventor y for consistency with respect to prior

emission inventory.

The respective emission estimates were reported using the fo llowing SCC codes:

Michigan Gasoline Marketing Stage I Emission SCC Codes

Stage I Type SCC

Submerge filled

loading 2501060051

Splash filled

loading 2501060052

Vapor balanced

loading 2501060053

The EPA on December 19, 2003 issued final rule requirements for Stage I gasoline

distribution in Standards of Performance for Bulk Gasoline Terminals and National

Emission Standards for Gasoline Distributio n Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and

Pipeline Breakout Stations . These NESHAP requirem ents will be applied in point

source inventories for bulk terminals.19Calculation of Stage I Emission Factors for Year 2005Notes: Gasoline stage I temperatures basedon available data as of 5/18/06. Reidvapor pressures were derived from Michigan Dept. of Agriculture analytical data which showedhigher than expected averages due tothe suspension of RVP restrictions during Hurricane Katrina.OzoneSummerYear 2005Year 2005Year 2005Year 2005OzoneSummerYear2005SeasonWeekdayOzoneSummerOzoneSummerYear2005SeasonWeekdayAnnual4/1/05-9/30/056/1/05-8/31/05Year 2005SeasonWeekdayYearOzoneSummerYear2005SeasonWeekdayAnnual4/1/05-9/30/056/1/02-8/31/02EmissionEmissionEmissionAnnual4/1/05-9/30/056/1/05-8/31/052005SeasonWeekdayAnnual4/1/05-9/30/056/1/05-8/31/05SaturationRVPRVPRVPFactorFactorFactorTemperatureTemperatureTemperatureAnnualRVPRVPTrueVaporTrue VaporTrue VaporFactorMolecularMolecularMolecularRegionlbs/1000gallbs/1000gallbs/1000galFFFRVP4/1/05-9/30/056/1/05-8/31/05PressurePPressure PPressure PSWeightWeightWeightVapor Balance GasolineUpperPeninsula0.760.910.9951.169.977.911.29.69.04.825.826.4164.466.266.67LowerPeninsula0.861.001.0757.974.982.611.29.69.05.586.57164.466.266.67SEMichigan0.860.960.9957.974.982.611.29.38.45.586.236.4164.466.4767.07Submerge Fill GasolineUpperPeninsula4.545.445.9351.169.977.911.29.69.04.825.826.40.664.466.266.67LowerPeninsula5.196.016.4357.974.982.611.29.69.05.586.570.664.466.266.67SEMichigan5.195.795.9157.974.982.611.29.38.45.586.236.40.664.466.4767.07Splash Fill GasolineUpperPeninsula10.9713.1414.3351.169.977.911.29.69.04.825.826.41.4564.466.266.67LowerPeninsula12.5414.5315.5457.974.982.611.29.69.05.586.571.4564.466.266.67SEMichigan12.5413.9914.2957.974.982.611.29.38.45.586.236.41.4564.466.4767.07

## 20 Service Station Unloading/Vehicle Fueling (Stage II)

Motor vehicle fueling at service stations results in evaporative loss of gasoline. VOC

emissions are produced during displacement of vaporized hydrocarbons and spillage of

gasoline during refueling. EPA guidance in Volume III, Chapter 11 of the Emission

Inventory Improvement Progr am January 2001 guidance for Gasoline Marketing (Stage

I and Stage II) recommends the MOBILE model be used to generate refueling (Stage II)

emission factors for highway emission inv entories. Additional procedures were

presented in September 2002 Draft Summary of the Analysis of the Emissions Reported

in the 1999 NEI for Stage I and Stage II Oper ations at Gasoline Service Stations. The

MOBILE6 model was used to derive the Stage II emission factor by obtaining monthly

emission factors in grams/VOC mile as we ll as fuel economy as miles per gallon and

vehicle miles traveled mix for the different gasoline vehicle types (e.g., LDTV, LDGT,

and HDGV). For each vehicle type, the monthl y emission factor was multiplied by the

fuel economy to obtain an emission fa ctor in unit gram s of VOC/gallon.

grams VOC/gallon = Gram s/mile x miles/gallon

Stage II grams/gallon refueling emission fa ctor rates were initially prepared by

SEMCOG using MOBILE6.2 and then later adjusted for year 2005 state specific RVP

and temperature data. The v ehicle miles traveled (VMT) mix for each vehicle types was

used to calculate a single weighted m onthly emission factor . Summer and average

annual emission factors were then developed fo r Southeast Michigan, the rest of the

Lower Peninsula, and the Upper Peninsula. SEMCOG’s Stage II grams/gallon adjusted

emission factors are presented below. It is noted that the Stage II emission rates for

year 2005 were greater than year 2002 rates due to the marketing of RVP exempt fuels

created by Hurricane Katrina disr uption of refinery operations.

Year 2005 Refueling Emission Ra tes for State of Michigan

Average Type and Geographical Area Grams/Gal

lon

Summer (Average of monthly refueling emission rates for June, July &

August, 2005)

Southeast Michigan (Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair,

Washtenaw and Wayne counties) 2.71

Rest of Lower Peninsula (All counties in Lower Peninsula except the

7 Southeast Michigan counties) 3.04

Upper Peninsula (All counties in the Upper Peninsula) 2.85

Average Annual (Average of monthly ref ueling emission rates)

Southeast Michigan (Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair,

Washtenaw and Wayne counties) 2.94

Rest of Lower Peninsula (All counties in Lower Peninsula except the

7 Southeast Michigan counties) 3.05

Upper Peninsula (All counties in the Upper Peninsula) 2.94

## 21 All rates were initially calculated using MOBILE6.2 model, and then later adjusted for

year 2005 RVP and temper ature conditions.

The respective SEMCOG grams VOC/gallon were then converted to lbs/1000 gallons.

Lbs VOC/1000 gallons = Gr ams VOC/gallon x 1 lb/453 grams x 1000 gallons

Year 2005 gasoline throughput estimates were obtained from Energy Information

Administration's Petroleum Marketing Monthly data. The monthly data was then

summed to derive an estimated statewide gasoline total. County gasoline total

estimates were then determined by apportioni ng the statewide gaso line by the percent

of state gasoline sales occu rring within each county. C ounty gasoline sales data was

obtained from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Michigan 1997

Economic Census, Retail Tr ade, Geographic Area Series . Total county emissions

estimates were based on the county gasoli ne volume by the corresponding refueling

emission factor. Emission rates were reported using the SCC code 2501060100.

Service Station Tank Breathing

Pressure changes occur within underground stor age tanks as a result of temperature

differences that exist between gasoline v apor and the liquid phases. The exchange of

vapor within the storage tank to the at mosphere is commonly described as tank

breathing.

Underground gasoline storage tank breathing losses were estimated by applying a 1.0

pound per thousand gallon throughput emission fa ctor using procedures presented in

EPA’s Volume III, Chapter 11 of the Emission Inventory Improvement Program January

2001 guidance for Gasoline Marketing (Stage I and Stage II) and September 2002 Draft

Summary of the Analysis of the Emissions Reported in the 1999 NEI for Stage I and

Stage II Operations at Ga soline Service Stations. Year 2005 county gasoline

consumption estimates were obtained by app ortionment of the st atewide gasoline

consumption based on the count y percentage of state gasoline retail sales. Statewide

gasoline consumption data was obtained from Energy Information Administration's

Petroleum Marketing Monthly and county retail gasoline sales information was identified

in the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Michigan 1997 Economic

Census, Retail Trade, Geographic Area Series . Emission estimates were reported

using the SCC of 2501060200.

Gasoline Tank Truck Transit

Breathing losses from gasoline tank trucks o ccurs as a result of pressure changes

within the containment vessel. The pre ssure change in the containment vessel is

caused by temperature differences between the vapor and liquid phases as well as

## 22 agitation during transport. Gasoline tank trucks leak VOC vapors and liquids from

gaskets, seals, and seams during transport.

Because some gasoline is delivered to bulk plants rather than delivered directly to

service stations from terminals, the amount of gasoline transferred in any area may

exceed the total gasoline consumption, due to additional trips involved. Therefore,

gasoline tank truck transit evaporation emissions were based on the total volume of

gasoline transferred rather than county consumption level.

The total gasoline transferred in a given co unty was obtained by taking the sum of both

the service station volume delivery and the bul k plant gasoline transfer. The bulk plant

gasoline transfer volume in a county was obtained from point source data. VOC

emissions estimates were developed using t he gasoline tank truck transit emission

factors identified by EPA procedures presented in Volume III, Chapter 11 of the

Emission Inventory Improvement Progr am January 2001 guidance for Gasoline

Marketing (Stage I and Stage II) . In this document, VOC lo ss from gas filled tank truck

emission factor was 0.005 lbs/1000 gallons while empty vapor-filled tank trucks were

0.055 lbs/1000 gallons. A single emission fact or of 0.06 lbs/1000 gallons was derived

by taking the sum of the two re spective factors, and then apply ing this emission factor to

the total transported gasoline volume. Further emission adjustments were then made to

the respective emission totals to reflect thos e delivery vessels in those counties that are

subject to Michigan Air Pollution Control Ru le R 336.1627. A control efficiency of 76%

was considered before subseque nt application of an 80% rule effectiveness and 100%

rule penetration factors for delivery vessels in those counties subject to R336.1627.

Emission estimates were reported using the SCC of 2505030120.

Aviation Fuel Stage I Loading

Gasoline vapor loss occurs at airports w hen gasoline is unloaded from delivery tank

trucks into underground storage t anks. Because of the need to temporally adjust aircraft

refueling emissions for all respective fuel types within all Michigan counties, it was

determined that local aviation fuel sa les information could only be acquired by

contacting each fuel distributor serving each airport. Because the fleet of the aircraft

varies at each airport, the amount of fuel type consumed will likewise be dependent on

the types of aircraft being serviced and not just based upon Landing-Take Offs (LTOs)

alone.

A list of those Michigan commercial and private airports where fuels are dispensed was

obtained from the MDOT publication 2003 Michigan Airport Directory . A survey form

was then mail to each airport operations manager . Total fuels sales information by fuel

type(s) and season were obtained from eit her airport staff or assigned fixed base

operators. This information was then summ ed for each Michigan county to provide an

estimate of the total volumes of jet ke rosene, jet naphtha, and aviation gasoline handled

at each airport facility. Stage I loading VO C emission factors for jet kerosene and jet

naphtha were determined using the following equation:

## 23 L = 12.46xSPM/T

Where:

L = Loading loss (uncontrolled), pounds per 1000 gal of liquid

loaded

S= A saturation factor where 1.45 = splash loading

P = True vapor pressure of li quid loaded, pounds per square

inch absolute (psia)

M = Molecular weight of vapors, pounds per pound-mole

T = Temperature of bulk liquid in degrees F + 460

For Stage I aviation gasoline VOC emissions , an emission factor was obtained the EPA

publication entitled: Documentation for t he 2002 Nonpoint Source National Emission

Inventory for Criteria and Hazardous Air Pollutants (January 2004 Version) . The

resultant emission factors were then applied to the total county fuel throughput after

considering point source fuel throughput deductions. Because EPA does not have

itemized SCC codes by fuel type, VOC emissions were added together and reported

using a SCC of 2501080050.

Aircraft Refueling (Stage II)

Aircraft refueling at airports results in the evaporative lo ss of aviation gasoline, jet

kerosene, and jet naphtha. VOC emissions occu r when vapor laden air in a partially

empty fuel tank is displaced to the atmo sphere during refueling. The quantity of the

vapor being displaced is dependent upon the f uel temperature, f uel vapor pressure,

aircraft fuel tank temperature, and the fuel dispensing rate.

Because of the need to temporally adjust aircraft refueling em issions for each

respective fuel type within each Michigan coun ty, it was determined that local aviation

fuel sales information could only be acquired by contacting each fuel distributor serving

each airport. Because the fleet of the aircraft varies at each airport, the amount of fuel

type consumed will likewise be dependent on the types of aircraft being serviced and

not just based upon LTOs alone.

A list of those Michigan commercial and private airports where fuels are dispensed was

obtained from the MDOT publication 2003 Michigan Airport Directory . A survey form

was then mailed to each airport operations manager. Total fuels sales information by

fuel type(s) and season were obtained from ei ther airport staff or assigned fixed base

operators. This information was then summ ed for each Michigan county to provide the

## 24 total dispensed volumes of jet kerosene, jet naphtha, and aviation gasoline. VOC

aviation refueling loss emission factor s were obtained from the EPA publication

Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area

Sources, 5th Edition and Supplements (AP-42) were then applied to the respective

county total fuel volumes.

Aviation Fuel

Type Emission Factor as lbs of

VOC/1000 gallons fuel

Jet kerosene 0.08

Jet naphtha 5.58

Aviation

gasoline 12.20

Because there is no provision currently to allow for the reporting of emissions by

individual fuel type, emissions were then summed for all fuel types and reported using

the SCC code 2275900000.

Traffic Marking Coatings

Traffic marking coatings are paints that ar e used to mark pavemen t, including dividing

lines for traffic lanes, parking space markings , crosswalks, and arrows to direct traffic

flow. VOC emissions result from the evaporation of organic solvents during the

application and curing of the marking paint.

VOC emissions were estimated for each county using the methodology identified in the

EPA’s Volume III, Chapter 14 of the Emissi on Inventory Improvement Program May

1997 Final Guidance for Traffic Markings . The preferred method was to conduct

surveys to determine the volume of wate r and solvent based coating consumption,

coating formulation (in terms of pounds of VOC content per applied gallon), and months

of year 2005 when the coatings were applied. Survey forms were mailed to all Michigan

county road commissions, major municipalit y road maintenance departments, and to

MDOT. In those situations where a c ounty road commission failed to submit such

information, emission estima tes were based upon results of those counties that had

responded to the survey. An average coating app lication rate (total gallons of coating

applied per road miles in county) was first determined from survey respondents. Road

length miles were obtained for the counties that failed to respond to the survey. Total

coating gallon consumption estimates were es timated for counties that failed to respond

by applying the road length miles to the average coating application rate. Similarly, an

average VOC content (as lbs/gallon) was obt ained by dividing the total mass of VOC

emissions by the total coating volume of survey respondents. The result thereof was

then applied to the estimated coating volumes fo r those counties that did not respond to

the survey. This average density was reflecti ve of the proportions of solvent and water

based coatings by survey respondents. S easonal coating application was also based

## 25 upon county survey results of the months duri ng which the coatings were applied. It

should be recognized that year 2002 was a recession year in which Michigan county

and local governments had limited budgets. Consequently, it is likely that projected

emissions would be greater during better ec onomic times. Tra ffic marking paint

emissions were reported using a SCC of 2401008000

Cutback Asphalts

Cutback asphalt is a bituminous road coating ma terial that is prepared by blending an

asphalt cement tar with a petroleum distillate (such as naphtha, keros ene, or other fuel

oils). Cutback asphalt is used as a pavem ent sealant, tack coat, pothole filler, and a

bonding agent between layers of paving material. Evaporative loss of the solvent from

bitumen cement occurs as the cutback asphalt cures on the road surf ace. The rate at

which VOC emissions occur is dependent both upon the temperatur e of the applied

road surface, and the type of solvent used in the formulation of the cutback asphalt

material. Gasoline or naphtha is used as a d iluent in the production of “rapid cure”

cutback asphalts. Kerosene and other low volatility fuel oils are also used as diluents in

the production of “medium cure” and “slow cure” cutback asphalts.

VOC emissions were estimated for each county using the methodology identified in the

EPA’s Volume III, Chapter 17 of the Emission Inventory Improvement Program January

2001 Final Guidance for Asphalt Paving . In this document, the preferred method was to

conduct surveys to determine locally-specific information on cutback asphalt use on

Michigan roads.

In order to estimate VOC emissions from the application of cutback asphalt materials

(rapid cure, medium cure, and slow cure), a survey was mailed to all Michigan county

road commissions, major municipality road maintenance departments, and to MDOT.

The survey requested information on:

1. The quantities of rapid cure, medium cure, and slow cure cutback asphalt

materials that were applied during year 2005;

2. The type of petroleum dist illate and volume that was used as a diluent in the

formulation of each cut back paving material; and

3. The months during which cutba ck asphalt materials were applied.

The EPA has determined that evaporation occu rs on about four months with 75 percent

by weight of diluent evaporates in the first day for rapid cure mate rials while it takes

about one week for 50 percent by weight of diluent to evaporate from medium cure

cutback asphalt materials. Conservative es timates were made by assuming that all the

diluent evaporates within the seas on during which it is applied.

## 26 VOC emission estimates were based on the amount of the petroleum based diluent that

comprises the cutback asphalt material and then applying their respective solvent

density. Emission estimates were reported using a SCC of 2461021000.

Emulsified Asphalts

Emulsified asphalts are a type of liquefied r oad surfacing material that is used in the

same application as cutback asphalts. Inst ead of blending the asphalt material with a

petroleum distillate like their cutback as phalt counterparts, emulsified asphalts use a

blend of water with an emulsifier (soap). Em ulsified asphalts either rely on water

evaporation to cure (anionic -high float emulsions) or i onic bonding of the emulsion and

the aggregate surface (cationic emulsions).

In the EPA’s Volume III, Chapter 17 of the Emi ssion Inventory Improvement Program

January 2001 Final Guidance for Asphalt Paving ., the preferred method is conduct a

survey of emulsified asphalt application on Mi chigan roads. Survey forms were mailed

to all Michigan county road commissions , major municipality road maintenance

departments, and to MDOT. This form reques ted information on the quantities of

asphalt materials (in pounds and barrels) applie d to Michigan roadways and the months

during which they were applied. Road length miles were also obtained for all Michigan

counties. In those situations where a c ounty road commission fail ed to submit such

information, emission estima tes were based upon results of those counties that had

responded to the survey. An average applicat ion rate (total barrels of emulsified

asphalts applied per road miles in count y) was first determined from survey

respondents. Total barrel consumption esti mates were estimated for counties that

failed to respond by applying the road length miles to the average emulsified asphalt

application rate. VOC emissions were obtai ned by applying an EPA factor of 9.2 lbs

VOC/barrel of applied asphalt. It was further assumed that all emissions occur during

the season that the asphalt materials we re applied and report ed using a SCC of

2461022000.

Breweries

Breweries, microbreweries, brewpubs, and contract brewers em it VOC including

ethanol, ethyl acetate, myrcene and other higher alcohols from various brewing

processes. For the smaller brewers, VOC are lost by the fermentation, in brew kettles,

hot wort, mash and lauter t uns, and through spent grain. Microbreweries and brewpubs

typically produce beer for patron on-site c onsumption, although some may have limited

keg distribution. These smaller microbrew eries and brewpubs typically combine some

processes, and canning/bottling operations typically do not exist since the beer is

consumed on-site or stored in kegs.

Various trade organization lists were obtained to identify brewers in the State of

Michigan along with their beer production. Alt hough there are some regional breweries,

the vast majority are brewpubs and microbreweries. These fac ilities have very small to

## 27 insignificant volatile organic compound emissions. Emission estimates were based on a

combined emission factor rate obtained from Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission

Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, 5th Ed ition and Supplements

(AP-42) of 3.0465 lbs VOC per 1000 barrels. C onsequently, this small emission factor

and Michigan beer production rates didn’t just ify the need for a survey of such

establishments. Emissions were estimat ed by establishment on the basis of trade

reported production and applying the respective emission factor. A SCC of 2302070001

was used in reporting brewery emissions.

Distilleries

Distilleries include ethanol production facilit ies that are used in the production of

gasohol motor fuels, grain alcohol for i ndustrial purposes, and distilled spirits for

personal consumption. These products are produced from the fermentation of aged

mashed grains with distillation for the capt ure of desired alcohol based products. The

fermentation products use yeast to convert grain sugars into ethanol, ethyl acetate,

isomyl alcohol, isobutyl alcohol and carbon dioxide. Grai ns used in the process may

include corn, rye, barley, and wheat. A more detailed description of distilleries and their

emissions can be found in t he EPA publication entitled: Compilation of Air Pollutant

Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, 5th Edition and

Supplements (AP-42).

During year 2005, there was only one ethanol production facility in operation. The

Michigan Ethanol LLC - Caro, Michigan facility was already being reported as a point

source. Consequently, the area source c ontribution from distilleries using SCC

2302070010 had zero emissions for all Michi gan counties. A number of new ethanol

plants were under construction, but did not operate in the 2005 inventory year.

Wineries

Wineries produce alcohol bevera ges from the fermentation of fruit juices. The major

processes in vinification include fruit har vesting, crushing, pr essing, fermentation,

clarification, aging, finishing, and bottling. During this fermentati on process of both red

and white wines, primarily ethan ol and smaller quantities of methyl alcohol, n-propyl

alcohol, butyl alcohol, isoamyl alc ohol, and acetaldehydes are produced along with

carbon dioxide. This process involves the reaction of a yeast with glucose and fructose

sugars to produce ethanol and carbon dioxide. The EPA emission factors are reflective

of VOC evolved during ferm entation in vinification.

County estimates of wine production were based upon wine volume information of

Michigan Department of Treas ury tax receipt information supplied to the Michigan

Grape and Wine Industry Council. A VOC emission factor was obtained from

Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area

Sources, 5th Edition and Supplements (AP-42) .of 4.6263 lbs VOC/ 1000 gallons This

emission factor is a sum of ethyl alcohol, methyl alcohol, n-prop yl alcohol, n-butyl

## 28 alcohol, sec-butyl alcohol, isobutyl alcoho l, isoamyl alcohol and acetaldehyde for red

wine from AP-42. Emission estimates were reported using a SCC of 230207005

Stationary Source Fossil Fuel Combustion

The combustion of natural gas, propane-LPG, di stillate fuel oil, kerosene, and residual

fuel oil in small boilers, fur naces, heaters, and stoves are al so a source of VOC, NOx,

particulates, sulfur dioxide, and ammonia emissions. Because these sources are so

numerous to be identified in point source inventories, this area source category

attempts to provide a collective estimate of emissions from t hese smaller energy

consumption sources by subtra cting all fuel used by point sources from total fuel

consumption. Procedures for the estimation of these sma ller sources are presented in

the EPA’s documents entitled:

1. Volume II, Chapter 2 of the Emission Inventory Improvement Program January

2001 Preferred and Alternate Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from Boilers

.

2. Emission Inventory Improvem ent Program –April 6, 1999, Area Source Category

Abstract- Fuel Oil and Kerosene Combustion

3. Emission Inventory Improvem ent Program –April 6, 1999, Area Source Category

Abstract-Natural Gas and LPG Combustion

4. Emission Inventory Improvem ent Program –April 6, 1999, Area Source Category

Abstract-Coal Combustion

5. Documentation for the Dra ft 1999 National Emissions Inv entory (Version 3.0) for

Criteria Air Pollutants and Ammonia

6. Hanke, B.H, manuscript prepared fo r U.S Environmental Protection Agency

entitled: A National Methodology and Emission Inventory for Residential Fuel

Combustion

This documentation involves determination of total fuel consumpti on over an area with

subsequent fuel deductions made for point sour ce fuel consumption, and then applying

emissions factors to estimate fuel emissions.

Total fuel consumption information was bas ed on data supplied from U.S. Department

of Energy, EIA documents. This unaccounted f uel consumption was then apportioned to

individual counties using U.S. Census Bure au information for the individual end use

sector fuel types based upon LA DCO states methodology. Ar ea source fuel emissions

were reported for the followin g residential, commercial/in stitutional, and industrial end

use sectors. Since utility boilers are account ed as point sources, ar ea source emissions

are not reported for this end use sector.

## 29 Residential Boilers & Furnaces

County emission estimates for the resi dential end use sector was based upon the

consumption of natural gas, propane-LPG, distillate fuel oil, kerosene, and coal. This

energy consumption informati on was obtained from U.S. Department of Energy, EIA

data. Since the EIA merely provides stat ewide fuel consumption totals, county fuel

consumption estimates were obtained by app ortioning the fuel consumption based upon

the number of year 2000 occupied household census counts using the given fuel.

Emission estimates were calculated usi ng the following mathematical equation:

Cf = Ch/Sh x Sf

Where

Cf = Estimated county residential sector consum ption of a given fuel type for year 2005

Ch = Number of year 2000 census occupied households in a given county that utilize a

given fuel type

Sh = Total number of year 2000 census o ccupied households statewide that utilize a

given fuel type

Sf = Total statewide resi dential sector consumpti on of a given fuel type

Michigan Residential Fuel Cons umption Information Sources

Residential Fuel

Type U.S. Dept of Energy, EIA Data Sources

Natural gas Natural Gas Annual 2005, Michigan Table 48

Propane LPG Petroleum Marketing Annual, 2005, Table 49: Prime

Supplier Sales Volumes of Aviation Fuels, Propane and

Residual Fuel Oil by PAD District and State

Distillate fuel oil Fuel Oil and Ke rosene Sales 2005 Report, Table 19:

Adjusted Sales for Residential Use: Distillate Fuel Oil and

Kerosene, 2005

Kerosene Fuel Oil and Kerosene Sales 2005 Report, Table 18:

Adjusted Sales of Kerosene by Energy Use

Coal EIA Annual Coal Report 2005, Table 26 U.S. Coal

Consumption by End Use Sect or, by Census Division and

State 2005, 2004 (Thousand Short Tons)

## 30 Upon obtaining county residential fuel consumption estimates for the various fuel types

in all Michigan counties Cf, emission estima tes were obtained by applying an emission

factor that is specific to that fuel type. These emi ssion factors were obtained from

various EPA publications.

Michigan Residential Fuel Emission Factors

Residential

Fuel Type Units CO NH 3 

## NOx PM 10 

## -

PRI PM25-

PRI SO 2 

## VOC

Natural gas Lbs/million

cubic feet 40 0.49 94 7.6 7.6 0.6 5.5

Propane

LPG Lbs/1000

gal 3.2 13 0.68 0.68 0.1 0.5

Distillate

fuel oil Lbs/1000

gal 5.0 0.8 18 2.38 2.13 42.60 0.7

Kerosene Lbs/1000

gal 4.8 0.8 17.4 2.38 2.13 41.1 0.7

Coal Lbs/ton 275 0.000565 3.0 18.63 4.86 37.83 10

Sources of Emission Factors:

1. U.S. Environment al Protection Agency Documentation for the Draft 1999

National Emissions Inventory (Version 3.0) for Criteria Air Pollutants and

Ammonia

2. Hanke, B.H, manuscript prepared fo r U.S Environmental Protection Agency

entitled: A National Methodology and Emission Inventory for Residential Fuel

Combustion

3. U.S. Environmental Prot ection Agency. Final Report on Development and

Selection of Ammoni a Emission Factors

The resulting emission estimates were r eported by individual fuel type using the

following SCC codes.

## 31 Michigan Residential Com bustion Emission SCC Codes

Residential Fuel

Type SCC

Natural gas 2104006000

Propane LPG 2199007000

Distillate fuel oil 2104004000

Kerosene 2104011000

Coal 2104001000

Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Furnaces

Estimation of fuel combustion by the comme rcial/institutional sector was performed

using an adaptation of a methodology present ed in the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency publications:

1. Emission Inventory Improvem ent Program –April 6, 1999, Area Source Category

Abstract- Fuel Oil and Kerosene Combustion

2. Emission Inventory Improvem ent Program –April 6, 1999, Area Source Category

Abstract-Natural Gas and LPG Combustion

3. Emission Inventory Improvem ent Program –April 6, 1999, Area Source Category

Abstract-Coal Combustion

County emission estimates for the commercial/ institutional end use sector were based

upon the consumption of natural gas, residual fuel oil, distillate fuel oil, kerosene, and

coal. This energy consumption informati on was obtained from U.S. Department of

Energy, EIA data. Fuels were subtracted for point sources, and the net area fuel

contribution was apportioned or allocated using procedures instructed by LADCO. This

procedure involved statewide commercial/ inst itutional fuel apportionment to a county

level using the commercial/institutional employment data as obtained from U.S.

Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census publication entitled: County Business

Patterns, Michigan: 2003 (CBP/03-24 issued September, 2005) . County fuel estimates

of individual fuel types were es timated using the following equation:

Cf = Ce/Se x Sf

Cf = Estimated county commercia l/institutional sector consum ption of a given fuel type

Ce= Total county employment in t he commercial/institutional sector

Se= Statewide employment in co mmercial/institutional sector

Sf= Statewide commercial/inst itutional sector consumpti on of a given fuel type

## 32 Because the Energy Information data includes diesel fuel totals within the distillate fuel

oil total, these motor vehicle fuels were dedu cted to provide only an estimate of #1, #2,

and #4 fuel oils.

Michigan Commercial/Institutional Fue l Consumption Information Sources

Fuel Type U.S. Dept of Energy, EIA Data Sources

Natural gas Natural Gas Annual 2005, Michigan Table 48

Residual fuel oil Fuel Oil and Ke rosene Sales 2005 Report, Table 17:

Adjusted Sales of Residual Oil by Energy Use, 2004 and

2005

Distillate fuel oil Fuel Oil and Kero sene Sales 2005 Report, Table 20:

Adjusted Sales for Commercial Use: Distillate Fuel Oil,

Residual Fuel Oil and Kerosene 2005

Kerosene Fuel Oil and Kerosene Sales 2005 Report, Table 18:

Adjusted Sales of Kerosene by Energy Use

Coal EIA Annual Coal Report 2005, Table 26 U.S. Coal

Consumption by End Use Sect or, by Census Division and

State 2005, 2004 (Thousand Short Tons)

Upon obtaining county commercia l/institutional fuel consumption estimates for the

various fuel types in all Michigan counties Cf, emission estimates were obtained by

applying an emission factor that is specific to that fuel type. These emission factors

were obtained from various EPA publications.

Michigan Commercial/Institutional Fuel Emission Factors

Commercial/Institutional

Fuel Type Units CO NH 3 

## NOx PM 10 

## -

PRI PM25-

PRI SO 2 

## VOC

Natural gas Lbs/million

cubic feet 84 0.49 100 7.6 7.6 0.6 5.5

Residual fuel oil Lbs/1000

gal 5 0.80 55 9.07 3.37 194.05 1.13

Distillate fuel oil Lbs/1000

gal 5 0.80 20 2.38 2.13 53.96 0.34

Kerosene Lbs/1000

gal 5 0.80 18 2.38 2.13 41.1 0.713

Coal Lbs/ton 6 0.000565 7.5 6.0 2.2 36.86 0.05

## 33 Sources of Emission Factors:

1. LADCO state uniform adopted emission fa ctors for commercial/institutional

natural gas combustion

2. U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency. FIRES database

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission

Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Po int and Area Sources, 5th Edition and

Supplements (AP-42)

4. U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency. Final Report on Development and

Selection of Ammoni a Emission Factors

The resulting emission estimates were r eported by individual fuel type using the

following SCC codes.

Michigan Commercial/Institutiona l Combustion Emission SCC Codes

Fuel Type SCC

Natural gas 2103006000

Residual fuel oil 2103005000

Distillate fuel oil 2103004000

Kerosene 2103011005

Coal 2103002000

Industrial Boilers and Furnaces

Estimation of fuel combustion emissions of industrial boilers and furnaces was

performed in similar manner as the commercial/in stitutional sector. Statewide industrial

fuel consumption information was obtained fr om the U.S. Departm ent of Energy, EIA

publications. Point source deductions were made for each fuel type to obtain the area

contribution which was then apportioned to t he county level using LADCO prescribed

procedures.

County fuel consumption estimates of natural gas, residual fuel oil, distillate fuel oil,

kerosene, and coal were based upon the following mathematical equation:

Cf = Ce/Se x Sf

## 34 Cf = Estimated county industrial sector consumption of a given fuel type

Ce= Total county employment in the industrial sector

Se= Statewide employment in industrial sector

Sf= Statewide industrial sector c onsumption of a given fuel type

Michigan Industrial Fuel C onsumption Information Sources

Industrial Fuel

Type U.S. Dept of Energy, EIA Data Sources

Natural gas Natural Gas Annual 2005, Michigan Table 48

Residual fuel oil Fuel Oil and Ke rosene Sales 2005 Report, Table 17:

Adjusted Sales of Residual Oil by Energy Use, 2004 and

2005

Distillate fuel oil Fuel Oil and Kerosene Sales 2005 Report, Table 21

Adjusted Sales for Industrial Use: Distillate Fuel Oil,

Residual Fuel Oil, and Kero sene (#1, #2, and #4 fuel

oils– excludes diesel oil)

Kerosene Fuel Oil and Kerosene Sales 2005 Report, , Table 18:

Adjusted Sales of Kerosene by Energy Use

Coal EIA Annual Coal Repor t 2005, Table 26 U.S. Coal

Consumption by End Use Sector, by Census Division and

State 2005, 2004 (Thousand Short Tons)

County employment data was obtained from the U.S. Departm ent of Commerce,

Bureau of Census publication entitled: County Business Patterns, Michigan: 2003

(CBP/03-24 issued September, 2005) . Upon obtaining county industrial fuel

consumption estimates for the various fuel types in all Michigan counties Cf, emission

estimates were obtained by applying an emission fact or that is specific to that fuel type.

These emission factors were generally based on the LADCO adopted emissions

factors.

## 35 Michigan Industrial Fuel Emission Factors

Industrial

Fuel Type Units CO NH 3 

## NOx PM 10 

## -

PRI PM25-

PRI SO 2 

## VOC

Natural

gas Lbs/million

cubic feet 84 3.2 100 7.6 7.6 0.6 5.5

Residual

fuel oil Lbs/1000

gal 5.0 0.8 55 7.17 4.67 157 0.28

Distillate

fuel oil Lbs/1000

gal 5.0 0.8 20 2.3 1.55 53.96 0.2

Kerosene Lbs/1000

gal 5.0 0.8 18 2.38 2.13 41.1 0.713

Coal Lbs/ton 6 0.00057 7.5 6.0 2.2 38 0.05

Sources of Emission Factors:

1. LADCO state uniform adopted emission fact ors for industrial natural gas, residual

fuel oil, distillate fuel oil, and coal combustion

2. U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency. FIRES database

3. U.S. Environment al Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission

Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Po int and Area Sources, 5th Edition and

Supplements (AP-42)

4. U.S. Environmental Prot ection Agency. Final Report on Development and

Selection of Ammoni a Emission Factors

Emission estimates were reported using the following SCC codes:

Michigan Industrial Combustion Emission SCC Codes

Industrial Fuel

Type SCC

Natural gas 2102006000

Residual fuel oil 2102005000

Distillate fuel oil 2102004000

Kerosene 2102011000

Coal 2102002000

## 36 Remedial Action, Site Clean Up & Leaking Storage Tanks

Evaporative VOC emissions occur during re mediation and clean up at those sites of

environmental contamination. Such remediation activities may include air stripping or

sparging of a VOC from contam inated groundwater or incinera tion of a spoil material

removed from a contaminated site. In some instances carbon adsorption may be

required to reduce VOC emitted during air stripping or spraying operations.

Estimation of VOC loss from remedial action activities was determined by summing the

allowable emissions from permi ts to those parties that we re engaged in such activities

as provided by the MDEQ, Air Quality Division, Permit Section. Although site

remediation activities are subject to NESH APs, these requirements did not apply at the

time of the year 2005 emissions inventory. Emissions we re reported using a SCC of

2660000000.

Municipal Waste Landfills

A municipal solid waste landfill is defined as any facility that is regulated under Subtitle

D of the Resource Conservation and Recove ry Act (RCRA) which receives primarily

household and/or comm ercial wastes.

VOC are produced from municipa l solid waste by: the vola tilization of the waste

material itself, the microbiological (anaerobi c) putrefaction of organic waste materials

that result in the formation of organic acid s and alcohols that are vaporized, and the

chemical reaction of one or more wast e materials or chemical decomposition

intermediate. The rate at which VOCs ar e emitted from a landfill is dependent upon the

structural design of cells, the waste com position (physical/chem ical properties), the

moisture content of the waste, the amount of waste dispos ed, temperature, age of the

landfill, the chemical reactivity of the waste, the microbiologic al toxicity of the waste, and

the effectiveness of landfill gas collection syst ems. Where landfill gas is collected for

use in boilers, internal com bustion engines (reciprocating and turbines) or flared at the

landfill site, there are additional air po llutants such as NOx, particulates (PM 2.5 

## and

PM 10 

## ), and carbon monoxide pr oduced from incomplete combustion.

Estimation of VOC emissions from municipal landfills were based on the revised

technical procedures presented in the EPA publication entitled: Volume III, Chapter 15

of the Emission Inventory Improvement Program January 2001 Revised Final Guidance

for Landfills . In this publication, the preferred method for the estimation of area source

emissions is to use the LandGem model or the equations from the Compilation of Air

Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, 5th Edition

and Supplements (AP-42) section on landfills. LandGem is a computer based model

that uses the same equations as that of AP-42. The emissions calculation for the

estimation of landfill gas requires site specific information including: landfill design

capacity, accumulated waste totals from oper ation of the landfill, and existing control

requirements from landfill gas collection system s. Landfills may be subject to either

## 37 new source performance standards ( 40 Code of Federal Regulations part 60 Subpart

WWW ) or emission guidelines ( 40 Code of Federal Regulations, part 60, Subpart Cc ).

Landfills are now also subject to NESHAPs which became effective on January 16,

2003. For those landfills that were not being reported in the point source inventory,

area emission estimates were reported on the basis on LandGem model simulations

using the SCC of 2620030000. These simulations reflected total waste receipts under

the prior year 1999 inventory with addition m ade for waste receipts for years 2000-2005

as obtained from annual reports by the MDEQ, Waste and Hazardous Division Report

of Solid Waste Landfilled in Michigan . For those landfills t hat operated landfill gas

collection/combustion systems, emission estimates considered tables 2.4-3 and 2.4-5

of AP-42 with adjustments considered for a l andfill gas methane collection efficiency of

75% of LandGem model predicted methane generation at a given landfill site.

Non-Methane Organic Compound Control Efficiencies for Landfill Gas

Combustion from AP-42

Combustion Control

Device Typical Control Efficiency (%)

Boilers 98

Flares 99.2

Gas Turbines 94.4

IC Engine 97.2

Emission Rates for Secondary Compoun ds from Landfill Gas Combustion

(Based upon lbs/ Million Cubic F eet of Landfill Gas Combusted)

Combustion Control

Device NOX PM 2.5 

## -

PRI PM 10 

## -

PRI CO

Flare 40 17 17 750

IC Engine 250 48 48 470

Boiler 33 8.2 8.2 5.7

Gas Turbines 87 22 22 230

Architectural Su rface Coating, 2005

Alternative method one was chos en from the guidance document Emission Inventory

Improvement Program (EIIP), Volume III, Area Sources Preferred and Alternative

Methods, Chapter 3: Arch itectural Surface Coating . Data was readily available for the

use of per capita emission factors.

MDEQ, Air Quality Division staff determined per capita usage factors by dividing the

2004 national total architectural surface quantit ies for solvent and water based coatings

(U.S. Census Bureau MA325F, Paint and Alli ed Products) by the U.S. population for

2004 (U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov).

## 38 http://www.census.gov/industry/1/ma325f04.pdf

http://www.census.gov/popest/nati onal/files/NST_EST2005_ALLDATA.csv

Solvent-Based Paint

Solvent-based paints produced and shipped in the U.S. in 2004, the most recent

available year, were totaled (includes architectural lacquers and architectural coatings,

n.s.k.). The resulting num ber was divided by the 2005 U.S. population to produce a per

capita solvent-based paint usage fa ctor of 0.5265 gall ons per person.

The resulting solvent paint use, in gallons per county, was multip lied by a VOC emission

factor of 3.87 lb/gal, from Table 5-2 of the EIIP guidance, Volume III, Area Sources

Preferred and Alternative Methods, Chapter 3: Architectural Surface Coating. This

produced total VOC emissions from solvent- based paint. The VOC was then speciated

for toxics, utilizing speciation factors fr om Table 5-4 from the EIIP guidance

. Acetone,

listed in the methodology prepared by the Great Lakes states, was removed because it

is not a toxic.

Water-Based Paint

Water-based paints produced and shipped in t he U.S. in 2004 were totaled. The

resulting number was divided by the 2005 U.S. population to produce a per capita

water-based paint usage factor of 2.2473 gallons per person.

The resulting water-based paint use in gal lons per county was multiplied by a VOC

emission factor of 0.74 lb/gal, from Table 5-2 from the EIIP guidance, Volume III, Area

Sources Preferred and Alternativ e Methods, Chapter 3: Archit ectural Surface Coating.

This produced total VOC emissions from water-based paint. The VOC was speciated

for toxics, utilizing speciation factors fr om Table 5-3 from the EIIP guidance.

No point source deductions were perform ed, as none were needed for this category.

Autobody Refinishing in Michigan, 2005

Alternate method 3 of the EIIP document, Volume III, Area Sources Preferred and

Alternative Methods, Chapter 13: Auto Body Refinishing was followed by Michigan.

National emissions for the category were al located to the county level based on census

data.

79,429.59 tons of VOC were estimated national ly for this category based on 1997, 1998

and 1999 data, as indicated within the GLC me thodology. The estimate of national

VOC emissions from autobody refinishi ng was divided by a 2005 national population

estimate of 296,410,404 to produce a VOC emission factor of 0.54 lbs/person.

## 39 Area source estimations were adjusted by deducting point source VOC emissions.

A seasonal adjustment factor of 1.0 was m ade for this category for the ozone season.

The category of auto refini shing was considered to be uni form throughout the year, per

Table 5.8.1 of the EPA document Procedures for the Pre paration of Emission

Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and Prec ursors of Ozone, Vo lume I: General

Guidance for Stationary Sources . Ozone season daily emissi ons were calculated per

the example on page 5-23 of this docum ent. Ozone season throughput was also

calculated. 5 activity days per week were selected, per Table 5.8.1. Annually, 260 days

of operation were assumed. NOx and CO em issions were not calculated, as this

category is not considered a source of NOx or CO.

References

1. Emission Inventory Improvement Pr ogram, Volume 3, Chapter 13, Auto Body

Refinishing, January 2000

. 2. Fire 6.23 database

3. U.S. Census Bureau, P opulation Division. 2006. P opulation Estimates Program.

Washington, DC 20233.

4. Annual County Business Patterns data ar e available through U.S. census at:

http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/view/cbpview.html

5. Section 3.8 of Procedures for the Prepar ation of Emission Inventories for Carbon

Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone, Volume I (1991)

Estimating Emissions from Consumer and Commercial Solvent Use

The GLC methodology, a portion of which is included below, was based on the EIIP

guidance document, Volume III, Area Sources Preferred and Alternative Methods,

Chapter 5: Consumer and Commercial Solvent Use. Michigan used the EIIP and GLC

guidance for the estimation of criteria and to xic pollutants for this category for 2005.

Michigan chose to use the preferred method with per capita emissi on factors, adjusted

for the federal VOC reduction rule as prov ided in Table 2 of t he EIIP guidance.

## 40 SCCs

The following SCCs were utilized by Mi chigan, per LADCO’s recommendations:

2460100000 personal care

products

2460200000 household

Products

2460400000 automotive

aftermarket

2460600000 adhesives and

sealants

2460800000 FIFRA-regulated

products

2460500000 coatings and

related products

2460900000 miscellaneous

products

From GLC methodology :

Overview

All quotes and information contained within are from the source, Emission Inventory

Improvement Program, Volume 3, Chapter 5, Consumer and Commercial Solvent Use,

August 1996 . The consumer and commercial solv ent source category includes a wide

array of products including personal care products, household cleaning products and

household pesticides. However, all VOC emitting products used by businesses,

institutions and numerous indus trial manufacturing operations are also included. A

detailed list of products included in this category can be found on page 5.2-3 of the

1996 EIIP document. The majority of VOCs introduced into the atmosphere from this

category is a result of evapor ation of the solvent contained in the product or from the

propellant released during product use.

Dry cleaning Area Source Em issions for Michigan, 2005

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 7215 (coin-operated dry cleaning

establishments) was not considered for this in ventory. The AQD’s dry cleaning staff in

the Technical Programs Unit indicated that virtually al l coin-operated dry cleaning

machines in Michigan have been discontinued due to the large cost of keeping them

supplied with perchloroethylene (per Elden Dickinson, AQD). SI C 7216 (dry cleaning

establishments, excluding coin-operated facilit ies) was considered instead. Under the

North American Industrial Classification Syst em (NAICS), SIC 7216 is known as NAICS

812320.

## 41 To calculate 2002 VOC emissions, Michi gan utilized alternativ e method two, per

employee emission factor. 2003 county employment data wa s obtained from the U.S.

Census Bureau’s document, 2003 Michigan County Business Patterns . 2005 data was

not available, and was not expected for some time.

Dry cleaning has a uniform seasonal adjustment factor (1.0), remaining constant during

the ozone season, per EPA’s Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories for

Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone, Volume I: General Guidance for Stationary

Sources.

2003 employment data, the late st from the U.S. Census Bureau’s County Business

Patterns, was obtained for NAICS 812320, fo r each county where it was available

. Where available, employment data for t he broader category of NAICS 812 was also

obtained.

The next step was to determine a ratio bet ween the number of employees under NAICS

812320, and the number of employees under NAICS 812. For counties that had

employment numbers for NAICS 812, this ratio was used to estimate how many of the

employees would fall under the code 812320.

The next task was to develop an employ ment number for those counties where

drycleaner employment numbers we re not available from the County Business Patterns.

Using population numbers for t hose counties where employm ent data was available, a

per capita number of dry cleaning employees was calculated. As certain counties have

no perchloroethylene drycleaners (per lists of perc dry cleaners fr om Randy Johnson,

AQD), values of zero were entered for those counties.

Reports from Michigan’s 2005 point source emission inventory (the latest complete

inventory) were reviewed to determine if any counties had point source employment for

SIC 7216 (NAICS 812320). Berrien, Ingham and Jackson (NAICS 8123) counties did

have point sources under SIC 7216, and the number of employees at each source was

obtained from the emission in ventory. Each source’s employment number was

subtracted from the appropriate county’s employment number.

Once estimates of employment for SIC 7216 were available for each county, an

emission factor for VOC of 1,800 lb/yr/employee was obtained from Table 4.5-1 of EIIP

Vol. III, Chapter 4.

## 42 From EIIP

Subcategory Reactive VOC

(lb/year/employee

) Total Organics

(lb/year/employee

)

All solvents (total) 1,800 2,300

Halogenated Solvents

PERC, TCA and CFC

113

Coin Operated

Commercial/Industrial 980

52

1,200

Mineral Spirits and Other

Unspecified Solvents 1,800 1,800

On a per-unit basis: 0.8 tons/facility-year (assumes that average coin-op facility has two

dry cleaning units and each emits 0.4 tons of PERC per year).

From AP-42

Commercial: 1.3 lb/year /person (all nonmethane VOC)

Coin Operated: 0.4 lb/year /person (all nonmethane VOC)

A rule for perchloroethylene dry cleaning air emissions became effective late 1996

(58FR49354. National Emission Standards fo r Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source

Categories: Perchloro-ethylene Dry Cleani ng Facilities. Final Rule. September 22,

1993.) . EPA estimates the rule reduces perchlo roethylene emissions from dry cleaning

operations by 44%. Depending on the meth odology used to estimate air emissions

from perchloroethylene dry cl eaning operations the effectivene ss of this rule may need

to be factored into the calculation.

References:

U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 Michigan County Business Patterns

Emission Inventory Improv ement Program Vol. III, Area Sources: Preferred and

Alternative Methods , Chapter 4, Dry cleaning. May 1996.

Elden Dickinson, Dry Cleaning Unit, Drinki ng Water and Radiological Protection

Division, Michigan DEQ. Pers onal communication, 5/07/01.

US EPA. Procedures for the Pr eparation of Emission Invent ories for Carbon Monoxide

and Precursors of Ozone, Volu me I: General Guidance for Stationary Sources. May

1991. EPA –450/4-91-016.

## 43 Graphic Arts Criteria and Toxics, 2005

The EIIP area source guidance document, da ted November 18, 1996, was followed.

The EIIP preferred method was not utilized, as it required a survey of facilities.

Alternative Method 1, ink sales emission fact or method, was found to be not feasible for

Michigan, as (during calculation of the 1999 in ventory) point sources used more ink than

the state proportion of national ink production was calculated to be.

Per Alternative Method 2, the population of the in ventory region was obtained from state

data for 2005, and multiplied by the per capi ta emission factor provided in the EIIP

guidance. This produced tota l uncontrolled emissions from all graphic arts facilities with

less than 100 tons per year of VOC emissions, for the entire state. This method used a

1991 EPA emission factor of 0.00065 tons VOC per capita.

Total uncontrolled VOC emissions from area source graphic arts facilities (those with

less than 100 tons per year of VOC emission s) was then estimated for each county.

This was done by obtaining uncon trolled VOC emissions from point sources with less

than 100 tons per year of VOC, from the 2005 EI. SICs 2711, 2721, 2752 and 2754

(NAICS 51111, 511112, 323114, and 323111) were the SIC codes queried. This

number was then subtracted from total unc ontrolled emissions from graphic arts

facilities, on a county by county basis. T he remaining number is the area source VOC

emissions per year.

Solvent Cleaning 2005 (criteria)

In this category, the use of solvents is broken into two broad classifications. The

classifications are solvent cleaning (which is composed of cold cleaning and vapor/inline cleaning), and solvent cleanu p (predominantly wipe cleaning of external surfaces).

EIIP Alternative Method

Solvent Cleaning Equipment (both Cold Cleaners and Vapor/In-line Cleaners):

Emission factors:

EIIP Table 6.5-2 provides per capita and pe r employee emission factors, as reproduced

below.

Recommended Method for Solvent Cleaning Equipment

Michigan chose to use the per employment factors available in Table 6.5-2 from

Procedures for the Preparat ion of Emission Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and

Precursors of Ozone: Vo lume I: General Guidance for Stationary Sources (EPA, 1991),

for the 2005 emissions inventory. Employ ee data was obtained fr om the U.S. Bureau

## 44 of the Census document, County Business Patterns, Michigan: 2003 , which was the

most recent version at the time the category was estimat ed. Area source emissions

were then determined by subtracting point s ource emissions from total emissions.

When the result was a negative number, area source emissions were set to zero.

The following SCCs, per email from Grant Hetherington, WI DNR on 9/19/05, were

utilized for reporting the emissions to be consistent with the other LADCO states:

2415360000 - Auto Repair Services (SIC 75): Cold Cleaning

2415345000 - Miscellaneous Manufactur ing (SIC 39): Cold Cleaning

2415245000 - Miscellaneous Manufacturing (SIC 39): Conveyerized Degreasing

241523000 - Electronic and Other Elec. (SIC 36): Conveyerized Degreasing

## 45 Table 6.5-2: Per Capita and Per Employee Solvent Cleaning Emission Factors

(EPA, 1991)

Per Capita

Factor Per Employee

Factor

(lb/yr/person) (lb/yr/person)

Subcategory SIC Codes VOCs Organic

s VOCs Organic

s

Solvent

cleaning 25, 33-39,

417 4.3 7.2 87 144

(total) 423, 551,

552,

554-556,

753

Cold Cleaning

Automobile

Repair 417, 423,

551, 2.5 2.5 270 270

552, 554-

556,

753

Manufacturing 25, 33-39 1.1 1.1 24 24

Vapor and In-Line Cleaning

Electronics and 36 0.21 1.1 29 150

Electrical

Other 25, 33-39,

417, 0.49 25 9.8 49

423, 551,

552,

554-556,

753

2005 point source employment data was obtai ned from MAERS. These values were

then deducted from the total emissions esti mated by using the per capita emission

factor and 2005 Michigan county population data.

References

EPA. Procedures for the Preparation of Emissi on Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and

Precursors of Ozone: Vo lume I: General Guidance for Stationary Sources (May 1991).

EPA . STAPPA-ALAPCO-EPA Emission Inv entory Improvement Program (EIIP).

Volume III - Area Sources Preferred and Alte rnative Methods. Chapter 6, Solvent

Cleaning. September 1997.

## 46 US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. County Business Patterns,

Michigan: 2003 . September 2005.

Industrial Surface Coatings, Toxics, 2005

The GLC methodology was followed by Michi gan for estimating toxics for 2005. The

GLC methodology is based on EIIP, Volume III, Area Sources Preferred and Alternative

Methods, Chapter 8: Indus trial Surface Coating . In most cases alternative method one,

default per employee factors, were used, ex cept for SCCs where the per employeebased emission factors yielded unr ealistically high values of pollutants. The MDEQ, Air

Quality Division staff believe that the poi nt source employee deductions performed for

each affected SCC (based on NAICS information from U.S. Census Bureau’s County

Business Patterns , and the Air Quality Division’s point source inventory) do not account

for all of the point source employees , resulting in the high values.

For the SCCs 2401050000 (miscellaneous fi nished metal) and 2401070000 (motor

vehicles), it was decided that per capita based emission estimates would be utilized

instead of the per employment based methods wh ich yielded large values of 486 million

lbs VOC (935 tons per summer weekday) and 57 million lbs VOC, respectively. The per

capita methods yielded more realistic number s of 4.6 million and 10.9 million lbs VOC.

For the SCC 2401020000 (furniture and fixt ures), the employ ment based method

resulted in an estimate of 31 million lbs (60 tons per summer weekday). The per capita

method resulted in an estimate of 20 milli on lbs. As the estimates for 2401020000

appeared unrealistically large wit h either method, this cat egory was omitted from the

inventory.

Total area source VOC emissions for i ndustrial surface coating for 2005 were

approximately 50 million lbs.

From the GLC methodology:

Source Identification

Searching through the Standard Industrial Classification Code List (SIC), the

North American Industry Classification S ystem (NAICS), through the Factor

Information Retrieval System (FIRE 6. 23) and table 8.5-1 of the Volume III

Chapter 8 Industrial Surface Coating September 1997 publicat ion of EPA, the

following codes were identified for each of the fifteen industrial surface coating

category.

Factory Finished Wood

- A2401015000

SIC 2426-2429, 243-245, 2492, 2499

NAICS 321113, 321912, 32192, 321911, 321918, 33711, 321212, 321214,

321213, 321991, 321992, 33999, 333414, 321999, 321211

## 47 Wood Furniture

- A2401020000

SIC 25

NAICS 337122, 337121, 337124, 337214, 33791, 337129, 337125, 337211,

33636, 339942,

337127, 337212, 337215, 33792,

Metal Cans - A2401040000

SIC 3411

NAICS 332431

Misc Finished Metals

- 240105000

SIC 34xx(exclude 341 and 3498)

NAICS 332211, 332212, 332213, 332999, 332722, 332117, 332912, 332611,

332998, 332913, 332439, 33251, 332919, 332312, 322225, 332618, 332321,

332313, 33242, 332612, 332322, 332311, 339911, 333924, 332114, 332721,

332994, 334518, 332111, 332112, 33637, 332115, 332116, 332214, 332813,

339914, 339912, 332812, 332992 , 332993, 332995, 332911

Machinery and Equipment - A2401055000

SIC 35

NAICS 333611, 333618, 333111, 332323, 33 3312, 333112, 33312, 333131,

336311, 333995

333132, 333921, 333922, 333923, 333924, 333513, 332997, 333514, 333511,

333515, 333516, 333992, 333518, 333292, 33321, 333291, 333293, 333294,

33322, 33241, 333295, 333911, 332991, 333 912, 333411, 333993, 333612,

333994, 333613, 314999, 334418, 333996, 333997, 33271, 333999, 334119,

334518, 333512, 333991, 333412 , 336391, 333415, 333913,

Large Appliances - A240106000

SIC 363

NAICS 335221, 335222, 335224, 335211, 339999, 333414, 335212, 333298,

335228,

Electronic and Ot her Electrical - 2401065000

SIC 36,123,357

NAICS 334111, 334112, 334113, 33422, 334418, 334613, 333992, 335129,

333311, 333313, 339942, 51222, 335311, 335313, 335312, 335991, 335314,

335999, 33511, 335931, 335932, 335121, 335122, 334613, 336321, 335129,

33431, 334612, 334419, 335911, 335912, 333319,

334411, 334412, 334414, 336322 , 334415, 334416, 334417, 333618, 33429,

33421,

Motor Vehicles - 240107000

SIC 3711

## 48 NAICS 33611, 336112, 33612, 336211

Other Transportation Coatings - 2401075000

SIC 37(not 3711,373)

NAICS 336213, 336312, 336322, 33633, 33634, 33635, 336399, 336212,

336415, 336411, 336412, 54171, 332912, 336999, 336413, 333911, 333924,

33651, 336991, 336414, 336419, 336214, 336992

Marine Coatings - 240108000

SIC 373

NAICS 48839, 336611, 336612, 81149

Misc. Product Coatings Manufacturing - 240109000

SIC

NAICS 339

Industrial High Performance Maintenance Coatings- 2401100000

SIC

NAICS 811

Other Special Purpose Coatings - 2401200000

SIC

NAICS

VOC factors from Table 8. 5-1 of the EIIP guidance were applied to employment

estimates based on the U.S. Bureau of t he Census document, County Business

Patterns: Michigan, 2003, which was the most recent data available at the time

the estimates were created.

References

EPA. STAPPA-ALAPCO-EPA Em ission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP).

Volume III: Chapter 8 Industrial Su rface Coating September 1997.

U. S. Census web site http://www.census.gov/

## 49 Open Burning: Municipal Solid Waste, 2005 Criteria Pollutants

For the category of open burning of municipa l solid waste (MSW), EPA’s methodology

from Appendix A of Documentation for the Final 2002 N onpoint Sector (Feb 06 Version)

National Emission Inventory for Crit eria and Hazardous Air Pollutants was followed.

The ratio of urban to rural population was obt ained from 2000 U.S. C ensus data, per the

EPA’s method, then multiplied by a 2005 U.S. Census Bureau estimate of the county

population in Michigan to obtain an estimate of rural population in 2005. Per capita

emission factors were used, after first excluding those counties where the population

was greater than 80% urban unde r EPA’s presumption that open burning of MSW would

not occur there.

Outdoor Wood Boilers, 2005 crit eria pollutant estimates

The Wisconsin methodology distributed by Ba rt Sponseller was followed. Per that

methodology, the MARAMA emission factor of 13.82 g/kg wood burned was used.

An estimate of 11.68 cords/yr/unit in Mi chigan was obtained from Brian Brady, MDEQ

Air Quality Division. Brian serves as t he MDEQ, Air Quality Division’s outdoor wood

boiler expert.

Michigan estimated an average weighted densit y of 1.65 tons/cord of wood, based on

information contained within Table 8 of the US DA survey report “Residential Fuelwood

Consumption and Production in Michigan, 1992.”

Per the Wisconsin methodology, it was assum ed that 90% of outdoor wood boilers are

used in rural areas and 10% are used in urban areas. To determine which counties

were urban and which were rural, staff review ed the list of counties, which are part of

Michigan’s Consolidated Statistical Areas (metropolitan areas) and determined that the

22 affected counties should be considered as urban. Ten percent of the 29,568

Michigan outdoor wood boilers were apporti oned to the urban counties by population.

The remaining 90% of the outdoor wood boi lers were apportioned to the 61 rural

counties by population.

Residential Wood Burning, 2005

Michigan utilized the EIIP methodology’s alte rnative method for estimating emissions

from residential woodburning, by apportioni ng data from the U.S. Census Bureau and

the EIA.

Two options were available to esti mate woodburning households per county.

## 50 Housing Units with Wood Heat by County wa s determined by using 1990 U.S. Census

Data, Database C90STF3C1, Summary Level State, for House Heating Fuel for

Occupied Housing Units ( http://factfinder.census.gov/ho me/saff/main.html?_lang=en ).

• Although this data is for the 1990 year, it did provide a value for each county.

• Housing Units with Wood Heat by C ounty was determined by using the U.S.

Census Bureau’s DP-4, Profile of Select ed Housing Characteristics: 2000, Data

Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) for Michigan. This file provided a total

value of households using wood heating. However, no breakdown was given by

county.

The MDEQ, Air Quality Division staff us ed the 2000 number of total wood burning

households in Michigan, and used the 1990 c ounty proportions of the 1990 total to

apportion the 2000 value to the county level.

Then, based on county value for number of wood burning households, the value for

state wood use in cords was apportioned to each county. The 2003 state wood use in

cords data came from the US

## 51 MAP States Page, Table 8, Residential Energy Consum ption Estimates, Selected Years

1960-2003, Michigan , from the U.S. Department of Energy, EIA:

http://www.eia.doe.go v/emeu/states/sep

_ use/res/use_res_mi.html

Data for 2005 was not yet available.

Once county wood use in cords was produced , the next step was to determine the wood

weight in tons for each count y. Wood weight was determi ned by estimating a weighted

average wood weight of 1.65 tons per cord , from species and c onsumption data from

Table 8 of the USDA report, “Residentia l Fuelwood Consumpti on and Production in

Michigan, 1992.”

Michigan did not have data available on t he number of catalytic and non-catalytic

woodstoves in Michigan, but did utilize 1993 survey data which showed the proportions

of fireplaces to woodstoves by county in Michigan. This was used to apportion wood

weight per county between wo od stoves and fireplaces. SCCs and emission factors

were selected for fireplaces – cordwood (2104008001), and woodstoves – general

(2104008010).

No ozone season activity was estimated, as staf f felt it was unlikely that residents would

utilize their fireplaces or wood stoves between June 1 and August 31 of each year.

FIRE 6.23 (Factor Information Retrieval System Version 6.23) and Source Summary

Database (SSD) list the following Ar ea Mobile Source Codes (AMS):

A2104008000: Total wood stoves and fireplaces

A2104008001: (lb/ton dry wood burned): Fireplaces - general

A2104008010: (mg/Mg dry wood burned): Wood stoves - general

A2104008030: (lb/ton dr y wood burned): Catalytic wood stoves - general

A2104008050: (lb/ton dry wood burned): Non-catalytic wood stoves - general

A2104008051: (lb/ton dr y wood burned): Non-catalytic wood stoves -

conventional

A2104008052: (lb/ton dry w ood burned): Non-catalytic wood stoves - low emitting

A2104008053: (lb/ton dry w ood burned): Non-catalytic wood stoves - pellet fired

Michigan selected AMS codes A2104008001 and A2104008010. These were the most

appropriate codes, as data exis ts for the proportion of woodstoves to fireplaces per

county in Michigan, but data was not availa ble on numbers of catalytic or non-catalytic

wood stoves. Emission factors for A2104008010 were converted from mg/Mg to lb/ton

by multiplying by the conver sion factor of 2.00E-06.

## 52 References

1. USEPA, “Factor Information Retrieval System Version 6.23”, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 2000.

2. EPA, STAPPA, ALAPCO, Emission Inventor y Improvement Program (EIIP), Volume

III, July 1997, Chapter 2.

Structure Fires, 2005 Criteria Emissions

The EIIP guidance from EIIP Volume III, Chapter 18: Structure Fires , was followed. The

preferred method for estimating emissions wa s used, due to the availability of county

level structure fire data for 2002. More recent data was not available; the fire statistics

data, which was originally kept by the Mich igan State Police Fire Marshall Division, is

now kept by the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth. DLEG staff

were unable to locate more recent county le vel data on structure fires. The 2002 data

was re-used from the 2002 area source submittal. However, it did not provide any detail

on the extent of each structur e fire, or indicate if the structure was residential or

commercial.

The default fuel loading factor provided in the EIIP guidance (1. 15 tons of fuel per

structure fire) was used. Emission factor s for VOC, CO, and NOx were obtained from

Table 18.4-1.

Year 2009 Stationary Area Source Emission Inventory Projections :

See Growing Stationary Non-EG U Point, Stationary Area, Locomotive, Shipping,

and Aircraft Categories for the Years 2009 in the Non-EGU Point Sources section

for reference and methodology for projecting the Stationary Area So urce inventory.



# 5. Non-Road Mobile

Non-Road Emissions Estima tion exclusive of Locomoti ve, Shipping, and Aircraft

Emissions

Non-road emission estimates for 2005 and 2009 were obtained from the EPA’s National

Mobile Inventory Model (NMI M). The model uses a database to store the information

about individual counties, referred to as t he NMIM County Database (NCD); the current

version is NCD20051207.

## 53 Recent updates to the model were made by the EPA and can be found at:

www.epa.gov/omswww/models/nonrdmdl /nonrdmdl2005/readme.htm , (NONROAD2005 Update Chronology).

One of the updates included in this modeli ng was a correction in the NON-ROAD.EXE

file that includes modifications for permeatio n. Changes were also made in the external

files (15 files) to incorporate recomm endations of SEMCOG and LADCO consultants

regarding fuel data. Program files for emissions and population data were modified.

These changes were made to improve the accuracy of the model estimates and to

produce emission values that will be consist ent with those that will be used for future

ozone and fine particulate SIP demonstrations.

The Non-road emissions estimates were pr epared by Wisconsin for all LADCO States,

including Michigan. Additional details on the procedures used to prepare these

inventory products can be found in the “Regi onal Air Quality Analyses for Ozone, PM 2.5 

## , and Regional Haze: Technical Suppor t Document” prepared by LADCO.

2005 Aircraft Emissions Estimation

In order to estimate aircra ft emissions, aircraft activity was obtained for Michigan

airports. Historically this information was obtained from MDOT. However MDOT was

unable to provide updated information for ye ar 2005. In the absence of updated MDOT

2005 aircraft activity data, commercial aircraft and comme rcial air freight departure

information by aircraft model type was obt ained from FAA airport records. For

determining airport LTO cycles, the Air Traffic Activity Data System (ATADS) air traffic

count database of larger towered airports, Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) air traffic

operations database of towered and non-towe red airports, and G.C.R. & Associates

airport activity data were used. Since ATAD S provides aircraft operations for a limited

number of the States’ airports, TAF aircra ft operations estimates were considered

where ATADS information was unavailable. G.C .R. & Associates, Inc. consultant data

was used for the smaller airports of whic h FAA aircraft operations information was

unavailable. The following info rmation from the respective sources was considered in

the development of emission estimates:

1. Commercial scheduled and non-scheduled ai rcraft air carrier activity and

commercial air freight activity by aircraft model types,

2. General aviation and air taxi annual local and itinerant operations for year

2005,

3. Military annual local and itinerant operations for year 2005. Due to need

to have aircraft operations informa tion expressed as LTO cycles, the

following assumptions were made:

## 54 a. For commercial aircraft and commercial air freight activity, the number of

annual aircraft annual LTO cycles was a ssumed to be equal to the number

of departures. The daily LTO cycle frequency was then obtained by

dividing the yearly LTO cycles by 365.

b. For general aircraft annual local a nd itinerant airport operations, each

respective operations total was divi ded by two to obtain the corresponding

year local and itinerant LTO cycles. The expected daily lo cal and itinerant

LTO cycles then were obtained by divi ding these annual totals by 365.

c. For military annual local and itin erant operations, each respective

operations total was divided by two to obtain the corresponding year local

and itinerant LTO cycles. The expect ed military daily lo cal and itinerant

LTO cycles then were obtained by divi ding these annual totals by 365.

Airport LTO cycles were further categoriz ed into commercial aircraft by plane and

engine type, general aviation itinerant aircraft of unknown aircraft type, general aviation

local aircraft of unknown aircraft type, and military aircraft. This was necessary in order

to utilize the U.S. Departm ent of Transportation, FAA EDMS 4.5 Emissions and

Dispersion Modeling Syst em. A description of this model can be found in the FAA

publication entitled: Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) User Manual

(September 2004) . Commercial and air freight aircraft emission factors per LTO cycle

were determined using EDMS 4.5 for each commercial aircraft type models where

possible were used at each towered airport. Default commercial aircraft engine type,

and EPA default time in mode values for takeoff, approach, and landing roll times were

used in the EDMS 4.5 model simulations.

For those aircraft types that could not be determined using the EDMS 4.5 emissions

model, aircraft emission factors based upon EPA alternative fleet average procedures

were then used to estimate their emissi ons. These included general aviation and air

taxi itinerant aircraft of unk nown aircraft type, general avia tion local aircraft of unknown

aircraft type, and military aircraft. Conver sion from total hydrocarbons to VOC was

performed and based upon the EPA guidance.

Aircraft emissions were then obtained by adding emissions contributions from

commercial, itinerant general, and local gene ral aircraft, and were reported using the

following SCC codes.

## 55 Michigan Aircraft Emission SCC Codes

Aircraft Type SCC

Military 2275001000

Commercial 2275020000

General Aviation 2275050000

2005 Locomotive and Shippi ng Emissions Estimation

The 2005 non-road shipping and Locomotive em issions were prepared using the same

techniques used for the 2002 emissions. These estimates are based on work and a

follow-up report (Environ Report for LA DCO, April 2004, 2002 Shipping Emissions

Sources) completed by Environ to support LADCO’s efforts to prepare a 2002 Air

Emissions Inventory. The report describes Environ efforts to develop a shipping 2002

air emissions estimates to support air quality m odeling. The Environ r eport is too long to

be included in this document, but it can be provided upon request or downloaded at:

http://www.ladco.org/reports /rpo/emissions/nonroad_locomotive_commercial_marine_re

creational_marine_fin al_report_environ.pdf

The estimate of 2005 locomotive and shippi ng emissions was made by LADCO in the

same manner as the 2002 inventory descri bed above. The 2005 estimates are part of

LADCO’s base M inventory.

Non-Road Mobile Source Emission Inventory Projections to 2009

The non-road source categories exclusive of locomotive, shipping, and aircraft were

grown in the EPA Mobile source model NMIM . The locomotive, shipping, and aircraft

non-NMIM source categories we re grown using growth factors provided in the report

(E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., Developmen t of Growth and Control Factors for Lake

Michigan Air Directors Consortium, Final Report, December 14, 2004) done by E.H.

Pechan & Associates, Inc. for LADCO and available upon request.

See Growing Stationary Non-EG U Point, Stationary Area, Locomotive, Shipping,

and Aircraft Categories for the Years 2009 in the Non-EGU Point Sources section

for references and methodology for projecti ng the Locomotive, Shipping and Aircraft

emissions inventory.

## 56 

# 6. On-Road Mobile

For the 2005 base year, the emissions model CONCEPT was run by a LADCO

contractor (Environ) using transportation data (e.g., VM T and vehicle speeds) supplied

by the state (MDOT) and local planning agencies (SEMCOG) in the LADCO States and

Minnesota for 24 networks. These data were first processed with T3 (Travel Demand

Modeling [TDM] Transformation Tool) to provi de input files for CONCEPT to calculate

link specific, hourly emission estimates. CO NCEPT was run with met eorological data for

a July and January weekday, Saturday, and Sunday (July 15 – 17 and January 16 –

18). The six days were used to derive the weekday, Sat, and Sun values for the other

months, and then (for each m onth) were multiplied by the number of weekdays, Sat,

and Sun to get the annual totals.

Similar to the base year modeling, CONCEPT was run using transportation data (e.g.,

VMT and vehicle speeds) supplied by the st ate and local planning agencies for 2009

and 2018. CONCEPT was only run with meteor ological data for a weekday. The

emissions for Saturday and Sunday were der ived by using scaling factors based on the

2005 emissions.

Additional details on the pr ocedures used to prepare these inventory products can be

found in the Environ report “LADCO On-Road Emissions Inventory Development Using

Concept MV” which can be found at

http://www.ladco.org/reports/rpo/emi ssions/NREL_LADCO_FinalReport09.pdf

and “Regional Air Qualit y Analyses for Ozone, PM 2.5 

## , and Regional Haze: Technical

Support Document” prepared by LADCO.



# 7. Area Source Ammoni a and Biogenic Emissions

Ammonia Emissions

LADCO estimated area source ammonia emi ssions for all member states, including

Michigan. The CMU-based 2002 (Base K) ammonia emissions were projected to 2005

using growth factors from the Round 4 emissi ons modeling. These emissions were then

adjusted by applying temporal factors by month based on the process-based ammonia

emissions model.

Biogenic Emissions

A LADCO contractor (Alpi ne) provided an updated versi on of the CONCEPT/MEGAN4

(Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature) biogenics model, which was

## 57 used to produce 2005 base year biogenic em ission estimates. Model improvements

included: (a) reduced model run times, (b) im proved ability to run successive days, and

(c) enhanced meteorological input processing5.

Compared to the previous (EMS/BIOME) em issions, there is more regional isoprene

using MEGAN compared to the BIOME esti mates used for Base K. Also, with the

secondary organic aerosol updates to the CAMx air quality model, Base M includes

emissions for monoterpenes and sesquiterpenes , which are pre-cursors of secondary

PM 2.5 

## organic carbon mass.

Additional details on the pr ocedures used to prepare these inventory products can be

found in the “Regional Air Q uality Analyses for Ozone, PM 2.5 

## , and Regional Haze:

Technical Support Document” prepared by LADCO.