### 57



## Fires: For Base K, a contractor (EC/R , 2004 ) developed a 2001, 2002, and 2003 fire emissions inventory for eight Midwest States (five LADCO states plus Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri), including emissions from wild fires, prescribed fires, and agricultu ral burns. Projected emissions were also developed for 2010 and 2018 assuming “no smoke management” and “optimal smoke management” scenarios. A n early mode l sensitivity run showed very little difference in modeled
PM 2. 5 

## concentrations. Consequently, the fire emissions were not included in subsequent modeling runs (i.e., they were not in the Base K or Base M modeling inventories)

.

Future Year Emissions : Complete e mission inventories were developed for several future years:
Base K

– 2009 , 2012, and 2018

, and Base M

– 2009 and 2018

. In addition, 2008 (Base K and Base M) and 2012 (Base M) proxy inventories were estimated based on the 2009 and 2018 data. (Note, the EGU emissions for the Base M 2012 inventory were based on EPA’s IPM3.0 modeling.)

S ource se ctor emission summaries for the base years and future years are shown in Figure 4 8

. Additional detail is provided in Table s 6 a and 6b

.

VOC NOx SO2

0 3000 6000 9000 12000

2002 2005 2009 2012 2015 2018 2002 2005 2009 2012 2015 2018 2002 2005 2009 2012 2015 2018 Area

On-road

Nonroad

Non-EGU

EGU



### Figure 4 8 . Base year and future year emissions for 5

- State LADCO Region (TPD, July wee kday)



## For on

- road, and nonroad, the future year emissions were estimated by models (i.e., EMS/ CONCEPT and NMIM , respectively). One adjustment was made to the 2009 and 2018 motor vehicle emission files prepared by Environ with CONCEPT. To reflect newer transportation modeling conducted by CATS for the Chicago area, emissions were increased by 9% in 2009 and 2018. The 2005 base year and adjusted 2009 and 2018 motor vehicle emissions are provided in Table 8

.

### 58 

## Table 8 . Motor Vehicle Emissions Produced by C ONCEPT Modeling (July weekday

– ton s per day )

Year State Sum of CO Sum of TOG Sum of NO x Sum of PM2.5 Sum of SO2 Sum of NH3 Sum of VMT

2005 IL 3,684.3 341.5 748.2 12.9 9.6 35.9 344,087,819.6

IN 3,384.9 282.0 541.1 8.9 11.1 25.7 245,537,231.9

MI 4,210 .3 351.9 722.0 12.4 13.9 35.3 340,834,025.9

MN 2,569.1 218.7 380.5 6.3 7.6 17.7 170,024,599.7

OH 6,113.4 679.8 933.6 16.2 18.8 36.5 360,521,068.6

WI 2,206.0 175.1 457.5 7.8 9.2 19.7 189,123,964.3

Total 22,168.0 2,049.0 3,782.9 64.5 70.2 170.8 1,65 0,128,709.9

2009 IL 2,824.4 268.0 527.8 10.1 4.2 38.9 372,132,591.1

IN 2,839.5 234.9 401.9 6.7 2.8 26.1 249,817,026.3

MI 3,172.0 269.2 500.9 9.2 4.0 37.1 356,347,010.5

MN 2,256.8 206.3 307.5 5.1 2.3 21.5 204,443,017.8

OH 4,619.2 423.7 69 3.5 11.8 4.7 39.5 387,428,127.2

WI 1,673.4 119.4 322.1 5.7 2.3 20.6 197,729,964.9

Total 17,385.3 1,521.5 2,753.6 48.7 20.3 183.6 1,767,897,737.8

2018 IL 2,084.7 151.5 200.7 6.3 3.7 43.1 413,887,887.3

IN 2,217.3 138.4 173.0 4.4 2.6 30.2 28 8,042,232.1

MI 2,434.3 163.5 204.1 5.9 3.6 40.5 388,128,431.8

MN 1,799.6 123.1 137.1 3.6 2.2 24.9 237,022,213.7

OH 3,361.5 242.5 274.1 6.8 4.0 43.1 421,694,093.4

WI 1,255.5 68.4 138.5 3.9 2.0 22.2 218,277,167.5

Total 13,152.9 887.5 1,127.5 30.8 18.1 203.9 1,967,052,025.8

### 59



## For EGUs

, future year emissions were based on IPM2.1.9 modeling completed by the RPOs in July 2005 Base K and IPM3.0 co mpleted by EPA in February 2007 for Base M. Several CAIR
scenarios were assumed:

Base K 1a: IPM2.1.9, wi th full trading and banking 1b: IPM2.1.9, with restricted trading (compliance with state

- specific emission budgets) and full trading 1d: IPM2.1.9, with restricted trading (compliance with state

- specific emission budgets)

Base M 5a: EPA’s IPM3.0 was assum ed as the future year base for EGUs. 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). 5c: EPA’s IPM 3.0, with several “may do” adjustments identified by the States. These adjustments reflect less rigorous criteria, but should still be some type of public reality (e.g., BART determination or press announcement).



## For other sectors (area, MAR, and non

- EGU point sources)

, the future year emissions for the LADCO States were derived by applying growth and control factors to the base year inventory. These factors were developed by a contractor (E.H. Pechan , 2005 and E.H. Pechan, 2007 ).
For the non

- LADCO Sta tes, future year emission files were based on dat a from other RPOs

.
Growth factors were based initially on EGAS (version 5.0), and were subsequently modified (for select, priority categories) by examining emissions activity data. Due to a lack of informa tion on future year conditions, the biogenic VOC and NOx emissions, and all Canadian emissions were assumed to remain the constant between the base year and future years.

A “base” control scenario was prepared for each future year based on the following “ on the books” controls :

On

- Highway Mobile Sources

• Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program, low

- sulfur gasoline and ultra

- low sulfur diesel fuel

• I nspection

- m aintenance programs, including IL’s vehicle emissions tests (NE IL), IN’s vehicle emissi ons testing program (NW IN), OH’s E

- check program (NE OH), and WI’ s vehicle inspection program (SE WI)

– note: a speci al emissions modeling run was done for the Cincinnati/Dayton area to reflect the removal of the state’s E

- check p rogram and inclusion of l ow RVP gasoline

• Refo rmulated gasoline , including in Chicago

- Gary,

- Lake County, IL,IN; and Milwaukee, Racine, WI

Off

- Highway Mobile Sources

• Federal control programs incorporated into NONROAD model (e.g., nonroad diesel rule), plus the evaporative Large Spa rk Ignition and Recreational Vehicle standards

• Heavy

- duty diesel (2007) engine standard/Low sulfur fuel

• Federal railroad/locomotive standards

• Federal commercial marine vessel engine standards

Area Sources (Base M only)

• Consumer solvents

• AIM coatings

• Aeros ol coatings

• Portable fuel containers

Power Plants

• Title IV (Phases I and II)

• NOx SIP Call

• Clean Air Interstate Rule

### 60 Other Point Sources

• VOC 2

- , 4

- , 7

- , and 10

- year MACT standards

• C ombustion turbine MACT



## Other controls included in the modeling include: c onsent decrees (refineries, ethanol plants, and ALCOA) 9



## , NOx RACT in Illinois and Ohio 10 

## , and BART for a few non

- EGU sources in Indiana and Wisconsin

.

For Base K, several additional control scenarios were considered:

Scenario 2

– “base” controls plus ad ditional controls recommended in LADCO White Papers for stationary and mobile sources

Scenario 3

– Scenario 2 plus additional White Papers for stationary and mobile sources

Scenario 4

– “base” controls plus additional candidate control measures under discussion by State Commissioners

Scenario 5

– “base” controls plus additional candidate control measures identified by the LADCO Project Team

3. 7 Basecase Mo d el ing Results The purpose of the basecase modeling is to evaluate model performance (i.e., assess the model's ability to reproduce the observed concentrations )

. The m odel performance evaluation focus ed on the magnitude, spatial pattern, and temporal of modeled and measured concentrations. This exercise wa s intended to assess whether, and to w hat degree, confidence in the model is warranted (and to assess whether model improvements are necessary)

.
Model performance w

as assess ed by comparing modeled and monitored concentrations. Graphical (e.g., side

- by

- side spatial plots, time series plots, a nd scatter plots) and statistical analyses were conducted

. No rigid acceptance/rejection criteria w ere used for this study. Instead, the statisti cal guidelines recommended by EPA and other modeling studies (e.g., modeling by the other RPOs) w ere used to assess the re asonableness of the results

. The model performance results presented here describe how well the model replicates observed ozone and PM 2. 5 

## concentrations after a series of iterative improvements to model inputs.

Ozone : Spatial plots are provi ded for high ozone period s in June 2002 and June 2005 (see Figure s 4 9a and 49b ). The plot s show that the model is doing a reasonable job of reproducing the magnitude, day

- to

- day variation, and spatial pattern of ozone concentrations. There is a tendency, however, to underestimate the magnitude of regional ozone levels. This is more apparent with the 2002 modeling; the regional concentrations in the 2005 modeling agree better with observations due to model and inventory improvements.

9 

### E.H. Pechan’s original control file included control factors for three sources in Wayne County, MI. These control factors were not applied in the regional

- scale modeling to avoid double

- co unting with the State’s local

- scale analysis for PM2.5

10 

### NOx RACT in Wisconsin is included in the 2005 basecase ( and EGU “will do” scenario ). NOx RACT in Indiana was not included in the modeling inventory.

### 61

Figure 4 9a . Modeled (top) v. m onitored (bottom) 8

- h our o zone c oncentrations: June 20

– 25, 2002

### 62

Figure 4 9 b Modeled (top) v. m onitored (bottom) 8

- h our o zone c oncentrations: June 23

– 28 2005

## 63

Standard model performance statistics were g enerated for the entire 12 km domain, and by day and by monitoring site. The domain

- wide mean normalized bias for the 2005 base year is similar to that for the 2002 base year and is ge nerally within 30% (see Figure 50 ).

Fig ure 50 . Mean bias for summer 2005 (Base M) and summer 2002 (Base K)



## Station

- average metrics (over the entire summer) are shown in Figure 51 . The bias results further demonstrate the model’s tendency to underestimate absolute ozone concentrations.

Figure 51 . Mean bias (left) and gross error (right) for summer 2005

## 64

A limited 4 km ozone analysis was performed by LADCO to address the effect of grid spacing. For this modeling, 4 km grids were placed over Lake Michigan and the Detroit

- Cleveland area (see Figure 5 2 ). Model inputs included 4 km emissions developed by LADCO (consistent with Base K/Round 4) and the 4 km meteorology developed by Alpine Geophysics.

Figure 5 2

. 4 km grids for Lake Michigan region and Detroit

- Cleveland region



## Hourly time series plots were prepared for several monitors (see Figure 5 3 ). The results are similar at 12 km and 4 km, with some site

- by

- site and day

- by

- day differences.

Figure 5 3 . Ozone time series plots for 12 km and 4 km modeling (June 17

- 29, 2002)

## 65

An additional diag nostic analysis was performed to assess the response of the modeling system
t o changes in emissions (Baker and Kenski, 2007) . Specifically, the 2002

- to

- 2005 change in observed ozone concentrations was compared to the change in modeled ozone concentrations based on the 95 th 

## percentile (and above) concentration values for each monitor

. This analysis was also done with the inclusion of model performance criteria which eliminated poorly performing days (i.e., error > 35%). The results show good agreement in t he modeled and monitored ozone concentration change s (e.g., ozone improves by about 9

- 10 ppb between 2002 and 2005 according to the model and the measurements)

– see Figure 54

. This provides further support for using the model to develop ozone control str ategies.

Figure 5 4 . Comparison of change in predicted and observed ozone concentrations (2002 v. 2005)

## 66

PM 2. 5 

## : Time series plots of the monthly average mean bias and annual fractional bias for Base M and Base K are shown in Figure 5 5 . As can be seen , Base M model performance for most species is fair (i.e., close to “no bias” throughout most of the year), with two main exceptions. First, the Base M and Base K results for organic carbon are poor, suggesting the need for more work on primary organic ca rbon emissions. Second, the Base M results for sulfate, while acceptable (i.e., bias values are within 35%) , are not as good as the Base K results (e.g., noticeable underprediction during the summer months)

.

Figure 5 5 . PM 2. 5 

### Model p erformance

- m onthly a verage m ean b ias and a nnual f ractional b ias for Base M (left column) and Base K (right column) 

# Base K

Base M

## 67

Two analyses were undertaken to understand sulfate model performance for 2005 :

• Assess Meteorological Influences: The MM5 model p erformance evaluation showed that rainfall is over

- predicted by MM5 over most of the domain during the summer months (LADCO, 2007 c ). Because CAMx does not explicitly use the rainfall output by MM5, this may or may not result in over

- predict ion sulfate wet deposition (and under

- predict ion of sulfate concentrations) . A sensitivity run was performed with no wet deposition for July, August, and September . The resulting model performance (see green line in Figure 5 6) showed a noticeable difference from the ba secase (i.e., higher sulfate concentrations), and suggest

s that further evaluation of MM5 precipitation fields may be warranted.

• Assess Emissions Influences: The major contributor to sulfate concentrations in the region is SO2 emitted from EGUs. The base case modeling inventory for EGUs is based on annual emissions, which were allocated to a typical weekday, Saturday, and Sunday by month using CEM

- based temporal profiles. A sensitivity run was performed using day

- specific emissions . The resulting model p erformance (see purple line in Figure 56 )
showed lit tle difference from the basecase.

Figure 5 6 . Monthly sulfate bias for Base M (MRPO EGU) v. two sensitivity analyses (Note: positive values indicate over

- prediction, negative v alues indicate under

- prediction)



## To assess the effect of the wet deposition issue on future year modeled values, another sensitivity run was conducted with no wet deposition in Quarters 2

- 3 for the base year (2005) and 2018. The resulting future year val ues were only slightly different from the current base strategy run . In general, t he future year values (without wet deposition)

were a little higher (+ 0.1 5 ug/m 3 

## or less ) in the Ohio Valley and a little lower (

- .1 0 ug/m 3 

## of less) in the Great Lakes regio n. This sensitivity run provides a bound for sulfate wet deposition issue in terms of the attainment test , given that having no wet deposition is unrealistic. The results suggest that even with an improved wet deposition treatment, the Base M strategy re sults are not expected to change very much

.
Time series plots of daily sulfate, nitrate, elemental carbon, and organic carbon concentrations for three Mi dwest

ern locations are presented in Figure s 5 7 (2002) and 5 8 (2005) . These results
are consistent wit h the model performance statistics (i.e., good agreement for sulfates and nitrates and poor agreement [large underprediction] for organic carbon). Monthly Sulfate Bias (ug/m3)

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

MRPO EGU MOG daily EGU No Wet Deposition

## 68 

## SULFATE NITRATE ORGANIC CARBON Seney

Detroit

Chicago

Figure 5 7 . Time series of sulfate, nitrate, and organic carbon at three Midwest sites for 2005

## 69 

## SULFATE NITRATE ORGANIC CARBON

Seney

Detroit

Chicago

Figure 5 8 . Time series of sulfate, nit rate, and organic carbon at three Midwest sit es for 2005

## 70

In summary, model performance for ozone and PM 2. 5 

## is generally acceptable and can be characterized as follows:

Ozone

• Good agreement between modeled and monitored concentration for higher concentration levels (> 60 ppb)

– i.e., bias within 30 %

• Regional modeled concentrations appear to be underestimated in the 2002 base year, but show better agreement (with monitored data) in the 2005 base year due to model and inventory improvements.

• Day

- to

- day and hour

- to

- hour variation in and spatial patte rns of modeled
concentrations are consistent with monitored data

• Model accurately simulates the change in monitored ozone concentrations due to reductions in precursor emissions.

PM 2. 5



## • Good agreement in the magnitude of fine particle mass, but some spec ies are
overestimated and some are underestimated (during periods of the year when it is important)

• Sulfates: good agreement in the 2002 base year, but underestimated in the summer in the 2005 base year due probably to meteorological factors

• Nitrates: slig htly overestimated in the winter in the 2002 base year, but good a greement in the 2005 base year as a result of model and inventory improvements

• Organic Carbon: grossly underestimated in the 2002 and 2005 base

years due likely to missing primary organic ca rbon emissions and, possibly, other factors (e.g., grid resolution and model chemistry).

• Temporal variation and spatial patterns of modeled concentrations are consistent
with monitored data

Several observations should be noted on the implications of thes e model performance findings on the attainment modeling presented in the following section. First, it has been demonstrated that model performance overall is acceptable and, thus, the model can be used for air quality planning purposes. Second, consisten t with EPA guidance, the model is used in a relative

sense to project future year values. EPA suggests that this approach “should reduce some of the uncertainty attendant with using absolute model predictions alone” ( EPA, 2007a)

. Furthermore, the attainm ent modeling is supplemented by additional information to provide a weight of evidence determination.

## 71 Section 4.0 Attainment Demonstration for Ozone and PM 2./ 5



## Air quality modeling and other information were used to determine whether existing (“on the books”) controls would be sufficient to provide for attainment of the NAAQS for ozone and PM 2.5 

## and if not, then what additional emission reductions would be necessary for attainment

. Traditionally, attainment demonstrations involved a “bright line” t est in which a single modeled value was compared to the ambient standard. To provide a more robust assessment of expecte d future year air quality, EPA’ s modeling guidelines call for consideration of supplemental information. This section summarizes the r esults of the primary (guideline) modeling analysis and a weight of evidence de termination based on the modeling results and other supplemental analyses

.

4.1 Future Year Modeling Results The purpose of the future year modeling is to assess the effectiven ess of existing and possible additional control programs. T he model was used in a relative sens e to project future year values, which are then compared to the standard to determine attainment / nonattainment. Specifically, t he modeling test consists of the following steps:

( 1 ) Calculate base year design values : F or ozone and PM 2.5 

## , the base year design values were derived by averaging the three 3

- year periods centered on the emissions base year:

2002 base year: 2000

- 2002, 2001

- 2003, and 2002

- 2004 2005 base year: 2003

- 2005, 2004

- 2006, and 2005

- 2007 11



## ( 2 ) Estimate the expected change in air quality: For each grid cell, a relative reduction factor (RRF) is calculated by taking the ratio of the future year and baseline modeling results.

( 3 ) Calculate future year valu es: For each grid cell (with a monitor), t he RRFs are multiplied by the base year design values to project the future year values

( 4 ) Assess attainment: Future year values are compared to the NAAQS to assess
attainment or nonattainment.

A comparison of the 2 002 and 2005 base year design values for ozone and PM 2. 5 

## is provided in Figure 5 9 . In general, the figure shows that the 2005 base year design values are much lower than the 2002 base year design values, especially for ozone.

11 

### A handful of source

- oriented PM2.5 monitors in Illinois and Indiana were excluded from the annual attainment test, because these monitors are not to be used to judging attainment of the annual standard.

## 72 Figure 5 9 . 2002 v. 2005 base year design values for ozone (top) and PM 2. 5 

### (bottom) 

# 2002 2005

Statis tical Summary # Sites > NAAQS 93 9 Peak Value 99.0 ppb 90.0 ppb Ave Exceedance Amount 7 ppb 2 ppb



# 2002 2005

Statistical Summary # Sites > NAAQS 58 4 1 Peak Value 19.3 ug/m 3 

## 17.7 ug /m 3



## Ave Exceedance Amount 1.2 ug/m 3 

## 0.9 ug/m 3

## 73

O zone results are pr ovided for those grid cells with ozone monitors. The RRF calculation consider s all nearby grid cells (i.e., 3x3 for 12 km modeling ) and a threshold of 85 ppb. (If there were less than 10 days above this value , then the threshold was lowered until either there were 10 days or the threshold reached 70 ppb.) PM 2.5 

## results are provid ed for those grid cells with FRM ( PM 2.5 

## - m ass) monitors. Spatial mapping w as performed to extrapolate PM 2.5 

## - speciation data from STN and IMPROVE sites to FRM sites. RRF values for PM 2.5 

## were derived as a function of quarter and chemical species.

Additional, hot

- spot modeling will be performed b y the states for certain PM 2.5 

## nonattainment areas (e.g., Detroit, Cleveland, and Granite City) to address primary emissions from local point
sources which may not be adequately accounted for by the regional grid modeling. This modeling will consist of Ga ussian dispersion modeling (e.g., AERMOD) performed in accordance with EPA’s modeling guidance (see Section 5.3 of the April 2007 guidance document). Further analyses will need to be undertaken to determine how to best combine the regional modeling and th e hot

- spot modeling. This could mean some adjustment to the model results presented in this document to reflect better the regional component.

The ozone and PM 2. 5 

## modeling results are provided in Appendix I for select monitors (high concentration sites) in the 5

- state region for the following future years of interest: 2008 (ozone only), 2009, 2012, and 2018. (Note, RRF values for ozone, and for PM 2. 5 

## by season and chemical species are also included in Appendix I for key monitoring sites.) A summary of the modeling results is provided in Table 9 (ozone) and Table 1 0 (PM 2. 5 

## ) , and s patial maps of the
Base M future year concent r ations are provided in Figures 60

- 6 2

.

### Key Sites 2018

Round 5 Round 4 Round 5 Round 4 Round 5 Round 4 Round 5 Lake Michigan Area

Chiwaukee 550590019 82.0 93.0 82.3 92.0 80.9 90.3 76.2

Racine 551010017 77.6 85.9 77.5 84.9 76.1 82.9 71.2 Milwaukee-Bayside 550190085 79.6 85.4 79.8 84.9 78.0 82.3 72.7 Harrington Beach 550890009 80.0 86.7 80.1 85.4 78.3 82.9 72.5

Manitowoc 550710007 81.3 80.3 80.8 78.9 78.6 76.3 72.5 Sheboygan 551170006 84.4 90.0 84.0 88.9 81.8 86.4 75.4

Kewaunee 550610002 78.9 82.5 78.1 81.0 75.9 79.1 69.9 Door County 550290004 84.8 83.6 83.9 81.8 81.5 79.3 74.7

Hammond 180892008 75.4 86.9 75.4 86.6 74.6 86.3 71.6 Whiting 180890030 77.0 77.0 76.2 73.1 Michigan City 180910005 74.2 87.4 73.9 86.5 72.5 85.4 68.1 Ogden Dunes 181270020 75.7 82.3 75.6 82.8 74.5 82.0 70.8

Holland 260050003 85.6 84.9 85.3 83.4 82.8 81.0 76.1

Jenison 261390005 77.9 78.7 77.1 77.6 74.5 75.5 68.7 Muskegon 261210039 80.8 82.7 80.5 81.5 78.0 79.4 71.9

Indianapolis Area

Noblesville 189571001 78.0 85.2 78.1 83.7 75.6 82.0 68.7

Fortville 180590003 73.9 85.1 73.9 83.8 71.4 82.1 65.1

Fort B. Harrison 180970050 74.8 84.8 75.1 83.7 73.2 82.4 69.1

Detroit Area

New Haven 260990009 82.7 86.3 81.4 85.3 80.2 83.5 76.1

Warren 260991003 82.5 84.3 81.3 83.3 80.7 81.9 77.6

Port Huron 261470005 79.0 80.5 77.5 79.1 75.5 77.0 70.9

Cleveland Area

Ashtabula 390071001 84.9 84.7 83.4 82.7 81.0 80.2 75.1 Geauga 390550004 75.7 90.3 74.7 88.8 72.7 86.2 67.3

Eastlake 390850003 82.8 84.2 81.9 82.8 80.5 80.6 76.2

Akron 391530020 79.3 83.0 78.1 81.4 75.6 78.5 68.7

Cincinnati Area Wilmington 390271002 77.8 84.8 77.5 83.5 74.9 81.1 68.3 Sycamore 390610006 81.7 85.4 81.9 84.7 80.3 82.9 74.6

Lebanon 391650007 83.6 80.1 83.0 79.0 80.7 77.0 74.2

Columbus Area

London 390970007 75.4 79.9 75.0 78.4 72.6 76.5 66.3 New Albany 390490029 82.4 84.1 81.8 82.6 79.6 80.2 73.0

Franklin 290490028 77.0 77.7 75.9 76.5 74.1 74.7 69.0

St. Louis Area W. Alton (MO) 291831002 82.4 86.1 81.0 85.2 78.6 84.0 74.9 Orchard (MO) 291831004 83.3 83.3 82.0 82.2 80.0 80.4 76.2 Sunset Hills (MO) 291890004 79.5 82.8 78.7 81.9 77.1 80.6 73.9 Arnold (MO) 290990012 78.7 78.4 77.2 77.4 75.6 75.8 72.0 Margaretta (MO) 295100086 79.8 84.0 79.3 83.4 77.9 82.5 74.4 Maryland Heights (MO) 291890014 84.5 83.4 81.7 78.1 2009 2012 2008 Table 9. Summary of Ozone Modeling Results

### County Site ID Site Round 5 Round4 Round 5 Round4 Round 5 Round4

Cook 170310022 Chicago - Washington HS 14.1 14.8 14.0 14.6 13.9 14.4

Cook 170310052 Chicago - Mayfair 14.4 15.8 14.2 15.5 13.9 15.0

Cook 170310057 Chicago - Springfield 13.9 14.5 13.8 14.3 13.7 14.1

Cook 170310076 Chicago - Lawndale 13.8 14.5 13.7 14.3 13.6 14.1

Cook 170312001 Blue Island 13.7 14.5 13.6 14.3 13.4 14.1

Cook 170313301 Summit 14.2 14.8 14.0 14.6 13.9 14.4

Cook 170316005 Cicero 14.4 15.3 14.3 15.1 14.2 14.9

Madison 171191007 Granite City 15.1 16.0 14.9 15.8 14.3 15.5

St. Clair 171630010 E. St. Louis 14.1 14.9 13.9 14.7 13.4 14.5

Clark 180190005 Jeffersonville 13.8 15.5 13.7 15.0 13.4 14.4

Dubois 180372001 Jasper 12.4 13.8 12.2 13.5 11.8 13.0

Lake 180890031 Gary 13.0 12.8 12.4

Marion 180970078 Indy-Washington Park 12.8 14.5 12.6 14.2 12.0 13.7

Marion 180970083 Indy- Michigan Street 13.4 14.8 13.1 14.9 12.6 14.0

Wayne 261630001 Allen Park 13.0 14.5 12.8 14.1 12.4 13.3 Wayne 261630015 Southwest HS 14.2 15.8 13.9 15.3 13.5 14.4 Wayne 261630016 Linwood 13.1 14.1 12.8 13.7 12.5 13.0 Wayne 261630033 Dearborn 15.8 17.7 15.5 17.1 15.1 16.1 Wayne 261630036 Wyandotte 13.1 15.1 12.8 14.7 12.5 13.9

Butler 390170003 Middleton 13.5 14.2 13.2 13.7 12.8 13.1

Butler 390170016 Fairfield 13.1 13.5 12.9 12.9 12.5 12.2 Cuyahoga 390350027 Cleveland-28th Street 13.5 14.4 13.2 13.8 12.7 12.9 Cuyahoga 390350038 Cleveland-St. Tikhon 15.2 16.1 14.8 15.4 14.3 14.4 Cuyahoga 390350045 Cleveland-Broadway 14.4 14.6 14.0 14.0 13.5 13.1 Cuyahoga 390350060 Cleveland-GT Craig 15.0 15.3 14.6 14.7 14.1 13.7 Cuyahoga 390350065 Newburg Hts - Harvard Ave 14.0 14.1 13.6 13.5 13.1 12.6

Franklin 390490024 Columbus - Fairgrounds 12.9 14.6 12.6 14.0 12.0 13.0

Franklin 390490025 Columbus - Ann Street 12.7 14.1 12.4 13.5 11.9 12.5

Franklin 390490081 Columbus - Maple Canyon 11.7 14.0 11.4 13.4 10.9 12.5

Hamilton 390610014 Cincinnati - Seymour 14.5 15.5 14.3 14.8 13.8 14.0

Hamilton 390610040 Cincinnati - Taft Ave 12.8 13.6 12.6 13.0 12.2 12.3

Hamilton 390610042 Cincinnati - 8th Ave 14.0 14.6 13.8 14.0 13.4 13.2

Hamilton 390610043 Sharonville 12.9 13.6 12.7 13.0 12.3 12.2

Hamilton 390617001 Norwood 13.4 14.2 13.2 13.6 12.8 12.8

Hamilton 390618001 St. Bernard 14.7 15.2 14.4 14.6 14.0 13.8

Jefferson 390810016 Steubenville 12.8 16.3 12.5 15.9 12.7 16.2

Jefferson 390811001 Mingo Junction 13.5 15.5 13.2 15.0 13.4 15.3

Lawrence 390870010 Ironton 12.8 14.2 12.5 13.7 12.3 13.2 Montgomery 391130032 Dayton 13.2 13.7 12.9 13.2 12.4 12.3

Scioto 391450013 New Boston 12.1 15.4 11.9 14.8 11.6 14.2

Stark 391510017 Canton - Dueber 14.0 15.0 13.6 14.3 13.3 13.6

Stark 391510020 Canton - Market 12.6 13.6 12.3 13.0 11.9 12.2

Summit 391530017 Akron - Brittain 13.0 14.4 12.7 13.6 12.3 12.9

Summit 391530023 Akron - W. Exchange 12.3 13.6 12.0 13.0 11.5 12.2 2009 2012 2018 Table 10. Summary of PM2.5 Modeling Results

## 76 2005 (observed) 2009

2012 2018

Figure 60 . Observed base year and projected future year design values for ozone

– Base M

## 77 2005 (observed) 2009

2012 2018

Figure 61 . Observed base year and projected future year design values for PM 2. 5 

### (annual average)

– Base M

## 78 2005 (observed) 2009

2012 2018

Figure 6 2 . Observed base year and projected future year design values for PM 2. 5 

### (24

- hr average)

- Base M

## 79

The number of monitors with design va lues above the standard are as follows:

Table 11 . Number of sites above standard

Ozone (8 hour: 85 ppb)

State 2002 2005 2009 2012 2018

BaseK Base M BaseK Base M BaseK Base M BaseK Base M

IL 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

IN 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MI 15 3 1 1 0 0 0 0
OH 40 4 1 0 1 0 0 0

WI 13 2 4 0 3 0 1 0

Total 93 9 6 1 4 0 1 0

PM2.5 (Annual: 15 ug/m 3 

### )

State 2002 2005 2009 2012 2018
BaseK Base M BaseK Base M BaseK Base M BaseK Base M

IL 11 7 3 1 3 0 2 0
IN 10 6 1 0 1 0 0 0

MI 6 2 3 1 2 1 0 0
OH 31 2 6 7 1 4 0 1 1
WI 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

Total 58 41 14 3 10 1 5 1



## The modeling results above reflect the “base” controls identified in Sect ion 3.6 , with EGU emissions based on IPM modeling (i.e., Round 4

– IPM2.1.9, and Round 5

– IPM3.0). In addition, two sets of alternative future year EGU emissions were examined in Round 5. First, alternative control assumptions were provided for several facilities by the states (i.e., “will do” and “may do” scenarios). In general, these scenarios produced a small change in future year ozone and PM 2. 5 

## concentrations (i.e., about 0.1 ug/ m 3 

## for PM 2. 5 

## and 0. 1

- 0.2 ppb for ozone). Second, EPA suggested adjust ments to the 2010 IPM emissions to reflect 2009 conditions. The revised (2009) SO2 emissions represent a 5

- 6% increase in domainwide SO2 emissions. The increased SO2 emissions result in slightly greater annual average PM 2. 5 

## concentrations (on the order o f 0.1

– 0.2 ug/m 3 

## ) , but do not produce any new residual nonattainment areas.

## 80

The limited 4 km ozone modeling (based on Base K) performed by LADCO included a future year analysis for 2009. The figure below show s the 2009 values with 12 km and 4 km grid

sp acing for the LADCO modeling and similar modeling conducted by a stakeholder group (M idwest Ozone Group ).

70 75 80 85 90 95

Cook Lake

LaPorte Porter Allegan Muskegon Kenosha

Milwaukee Ozaukee Racine

Sheboygan

MOG-12km MOG-4km LADCO-12km LADCO-4km

70 75 80 85 90 95

New Haven Warren Geauga Eastlake Portage Akron

MOG-12km MOG-4km LADCO-12km LADCO-4km 

### Figure 63 . Future y ear (2009) v alues for Lake Michigan area (top) and D etroit

- Cleveland r egion (bottom)



## T hese results show that the 12 km and 4 km values are similar, with the most notable changes in northwestern Indiana and northeastern Illinois (e.g., 4 km values are as much as 4 ppb lower than 12 km values). The differences in the southern part of the Lake Michigan area are plausible, given the tight emissions gradient there (i.e., finer grid resolution appears to provide more appropriate representation).

In light of these findings, 12 km grid spacing can continue to be used for ozone modeling, but the Base K/Round 4 resu lts for northwester n Indiana /northeastern Illinois should be viewed with caution (i.e., p robably 1

– 4 ppb too high).

## 81

In summary, the ozone modeling provide s the following information for the nonattainment areas in the region (see Table 1 2 ):

Table 1 2 . Ozone Nonattain ment Ar eas in the LADCO Region (as of December 31 , 2007)

Area Name Category Number of C ounties Attainment

D eadline

Detroit

- Ann Arbor, MI Marginal 8 2007

Chicago

- Gary

- Lake County, IL

- IN Moderate 10 2010

Cleveland

- Akron

- Lorain, OH Moderate 8 2010

Milwaukee

- Racine, WI Moderate 6 2010

Sheboygan, WI Moderate 1 2010

St Louis, MO

- IL Moderate 4 2010

Allegan Co, MI Subpart 1 1 2009

Cincinnati

- Hamilton, OH

- KY

- IN Subpart 1 6 2009

Columbus, OH Subpart 1 6 2009

Door Co, WI Subpart 1 1 2009

Kewaunee Co, WI Subpart 1 1 2009

Manitowoc Co, WI Subpart 1 1 2009

53



## Marginal Areas (2007 attainment date): No modeling was conducted for the 2006 SIP p lanning year. Rather, 2005

– 2007 air quality data are available to determine attainment.

Basi c (Subpart 1) Areas (2009 attainment date): The modeling results for the 2008 SIP planning year show :

• Base K: all areas in attainment, except Cincinnati and Ind ianapolis

• Base M: all areas in attainment, except Holland (Allegan County)

Moderate Areas (2010 attainment date): The modeling results for the 2009 SIP planning year show:

• Base K: all areas still in nonattainment

• Base M: all areas in attainment

The PM 2. 5 

## modeling results show:

• Base K: all areas in attainment, except for Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Granite City (IL), Louisville, Portsmouth (OH), and Steubenville

• Base M: all areas in attainment, except for Cleveland, Detroit, and Granite City (IL)

With respect to the new lower 8

- hour ozone standard, the modeling about 30 sites in 2012 and
5 sites in 2018 with design values greater than 7 5 ppb. With respect to the new lower 24

- hour PM 2. 5 

## standard, the modeling shows 13 sites in 2012 and 10 in 2018 with design values greater
t han 35 ug/m 3



## .

## 82

4.2 Supplemental Analyses EPA’s modeling guidelines recommend that attainment demonstrations consist of a primary (guideline) modeling analysis and supplemental analyses. Three basic types of sup plemental

an alyses are recommend ed:

• additional modeling

• analyses of trends in ambient air quality and emissions, and

• observational models and diagnostic analyses

Furthermore, according to EPA’s guid elines , if the future year model ed values are “close” to the standar d (i.e., 82

– 87 ppb for ozone and 14.5

– 15.5 ug/m 3 

## for PM 2. 5 

## ) , then the results of the primary modeling should be reviewed along with the supplemental information in a “weight of evidence” assessment of whether each area is likely to achieve timely attai nment.

A WOE determination for ozone and PM 2. 5 

## is provided in the follow ing sections . Special attention is given to the following areas with future year modeled values that exceed or are “close” to the ambient standard (see Appendix I) :

Ozo ne PM2.5 Lake Michigan area Chicago, IL Cleveland, OH Cleveland, OH Cincinnati, OH Cincinnati, OH Granite City, IL Detroit, MI



## 4.3 Weight

- of

- Evidence De termination for Ozone The WOE determination for ozone consists of the prim ary modeling and other supplemental analyses (some of which were discussed in Section 2)

. A summary of this information is provided below.

Primary ( Guideline

) Modeling : The guideline modeling is presented i n Section 4.1. Key findings from th is modeling include:

• B ase M regional modeling shows attainment by 2008 and 2009 at all sites, except Holland (MI), and attainment at all sites by 2012.

• B ase K modeling results reflect generally higher future year values, and show more
sites in nonattainm ent compared to the Base M modeling. The difference in the two modeling analyses is due mostly to lower base year design values in Base M.



## • Base K and Base M modeling analyses are considered “SIP quality”, so the
attainment demonstration for ozone should reflect a weight

- of

- evidence approach, with consideration of monitoring based information.

• Base M mode ling also shows that the proposed lower 8

- hour standard wi ll not be
met at many sites , even by 2018, with existing controls.

A dditional

Modeling : Four a dditional modeling analyses were considered: (1) re

- examination of the primary modeling to estimate attainment probabilities, (2) remodeling with different assumptions, ( 3 ) an unmonitored area analysis, and ( 4 ) EPA’s latest regional ozone modeling.
Each o f these analyses is described below.

## 83

First, the primary modeling results (which were initially processed using EPA’s attainment test)

were re

- examined to estimate the probability of attaining the ozone standard (Lopez, 2007, and LADCO, 2008b) . Seven estim ates of future year ozone concentrations were calculated based on model

- based RRFs and appropriate monitor

- based concentrations for each year between 2001 and 2007. R RF values for 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, and 2007 were derived based on the 2002 and 2005 mo deling results . M onitor

- based concentrations reflect 4 th 

## high values, design values, or average of three design values centered on the year in question . The probability of attainment was de termined as the percentage of these seven estimates below the sta ndard. The results indicate that sites in the Lake Michigan area (Chiwaukee, Sheboygan, Holland, Muskegon), Cleveland (Ashtabula), and St. Louis (W Alton) have a fairly low probability of attainment by 2009 (i.e., about 50% or less).

Second , the primary modeling analysis was re done with different types of assump tions for calculating base year design values (i.e., using the 3

- year period centered on base year , and using the h ighest 3

- year period that includes the base year ), and for calculating RRFs (i.e., using all days with base year modeled value > 70 ppb , and using all days with base year modeled value > 85 ppb, with at least 10 days an d “acceptable” model performance )

. The results for several high concentration sites are presented in Table s 1 3 a and 13 b for 2009. The different modeling assumptions produce eight estimates of future year ozone concentrations. The highest estimates are associated with base year design values representing the 3

- year average for 2001

- 2003, and the lowest estimates are asso ciated with base year design values representing the 3

- year average 2004

- 2006. The different RRF approaches produce little change in future year ozone concentrations. This suggests that future year concentration estimates are most sensitive to the choice of the base year and the methodology used to derive the base year design values.

Third

, EPA’s modeling guidelines recommend that an “unmonitored area analysis” be included as a supplemental analysis , particularly in nonattainment areas where the monitori ng network just meets o r minimally exceeds the size of the network required to report data to EPA’s Air Quality System . The purpose of this analysis is to identify areas where future year values are predicte d to be greater than the NAAQS.

Based on exam ination of the spatial plots in Figures 4 9a and 49b , the most notable areas of high modeled ozone concentrations are over the Great Lakes. Over

- water monitoring, however, is not required by EPA 12



## . A cursory analysis of unmonitored areas for ozone was perf ormed by LADCO using an earlier version of the 2002 base year modeling (i.e, Base I) (Baker, 2005). Base year and future year “observed” values were derived for unmonitored grid cells using the absolute modeled concentrations (in all grid cells) and the o bserved values (in monitored grid cells). A spatial map of the estimated 2009 values is provided in Figure 6 4 . As can be seen, there are very few (over land) grid cells where additional monitors may be desirable

. This indicates that the current modeling analysis , which focuses on monitored locations, is addressing areas o f high ozone throughout the region.

12 

### Air quality measurements over Lake Michigan were collected by LADCO previously to understand

oz one transport in the area (see, for example, Figure 5). Due to cut

- backs in USEPA funding, however, these measurements were discontinued in 2003.

## 84 Table 1 3 a. Primary and Additional Ozone Modeling Results

– Lake Michigan and Cleveland Areas (2009)

2009 Modeling Results Lake Michigan Area C leveland Area

Chiwaukee Harr.Beach Sheboygan DoorCounty Holland Hammond MichiganCity Ashtabula Geauga Eastlake

550590019 550890009 551170006 550290004 260050003 180892008 180910005 390071001 390550004 390850003 Attainment Test (based on EPA guidan ce - 2002 baseyear) Base Year Design Value (average of three 3

- year periods) 98.3 93.0 97.0 91.0 94.0 88.3 90.3 95.7 99.0 92.7

RRF (all days > 85 ppb, or at least 10 days) 0.935 0.918 0.916 0.899 0.888 0.980 0.958 0.865 0.897 0.894

Future Year Design Value 91.9 85.4 88.9 81.8 83.5 86.5 86.5 82.8 88.8 82.9

Attainment Test (based on EPA guidance

- 2005 baseyear) Base Year Design Value (average of three 3

- year periods) 84.7 83.3 88.0 88.7 90.0 77.7 77.0 89.0 79.3 86.3

RRF (all days > 85 ppb, or at least 10 days) 0.972 0.961 0.955 0.946 0.948 0.971 0.960 0.937 0.942 0.949
Future Year Design Value 82.3 80.1 84.0 83.9 85.3 75.4 73.9 83.4 74.7 81.9

Weight of Evidence (alternative approaches

- 2002bas eyear)

Alt 1

- Base Year Des. Value (3

- year period centered on 2002) 101.0 98.0 100.0 94.0 97.0 90.0 93.0 99.0 103.0 95.0

Alt 2

- Base Year Des. Value (Highest 3

- year period including 2002 ) 101.0 98.0 100.0 94.0 97.0 92.0 93.0 99.0 103 9 5.0

RRF (all days > 85 ppb, or at least 10 days) 0.935 0.918 0.916 0.899 0.888 0.980 0.958 0.865 0.897 0.894

Alt 1

- Future Year Projected Value 94.4 90.0 91.6 84.5 86.1 88.2 89.1 85.6 92.4 84.9

Alt 2

- Future Year Projected Value 94. 4 90.0 91.6 84.5 86.1 90.2 89.1 85.6 92.4 84.9

Alt 1

- RRF (all days > 70 ppb) 0.933 0.918 0.912 0.907 0.893 0.969 0.947 0.876 0.907 0.900

Alt 1

- Future Year Projected Value 94.2 90.0 91.2 85.3 86.6 87.2 88.1 86.7 93.4 85.5

Alt 2

- Future Year Pro

jected Value 94.2 90.0 91.2 85.3 86.6 89.1 88.1 86.7 93.4 85.5

Alt 2

- RRF (all days > 85 ppb, or at least 10 days; with acceptable model performance) 0.945 0.904 0.910 0.904 0.887 0.976 0.964 0.866 0.896 0.894

Alt 1

- Future Year Projected Value 95 .4 88.6 91.0 85.0 86.0 87.8 89.7 85.7 92.3 84.9

Alt 2

- Future Year Projected Value 95.4 88.6 91.0 85.0 86.0 89.8 89.7 85.7 92.3 84.9

Weight of Evidence (alternative approaches

- 2005baseyear)
Alt 1

- Base Year Des. Value (3

- y ear period centered on 2005) 83.0 79.0 86.0 86.0 88.0 76.0 76.0 86.0 77.0 86.0

Alt 2

- Base Year Des. Value (Highest 3

- year period including 2005) 86.0 88.0 89.0 90.0 93.0 79.0 78.0 91.0 86.0 89.0

Alt 1

- Future Year Projected Value 80.7 75.9 82.1 8 1.4 83.4 73.8 73.0 80.6 72.5 81.6

Alt 2

- Future Year Projected Value 83.6 84.6 85.0 85.1 88.2 76.7 74.9 85.3 81.0 84.5

## 85

Table 1 3 b. Primary and Additional Ozone Modeling Results

– Cincinnati, Columbus, St. Louis, Indianapolis, and Detroit (2009)

2009 M odeling Results Cincinnati Area Columbus St. Louis Area Indianapolis Area Detroit Area Wilmington Lebanon Sycamore New Albany W. Alton OrchardFarm Noblesville Fortville New Haven

390271002 39165007 390610006 390490029 291831002 291831004 1 80571001 18059003 260990009

Attainment Test (based on EPA guidance

- 2002 baseyear) Base Year Design Value (average of three 3

- year periods) 94.3 90.7 90.7 94.0 90.0 90.0 93.7 91.3 92.3

RRF (all days > 85 ppb, or at least 10 days) 0.8 85 0.908 0.938 0.888 0.947 0.914 0.894 0.918 0.924
Future Year Design Value 83.5 82.4 85.1 83.5 85.2 82.3 83.8 83.8 85.3

Attainment Test (based on EPA guidance

- 2005 baseyear) Base Year Design Value (average of thre e 3

- year periods) 82.3 87.7 84.3 86.3 86.3 87.0 83.3 78.7 86.0

RRF (all days > 85 ppb, or at least 10 days) 0.941 0.947 0.967 0.947 0.938 0.942 0.945 0.947 0.947
Future Year Design Value 77.4 83.1 81.5 81.7 80.9 82.0 78.7 74.5 81.4

Weight of Evidence (alternative approaches

- 2002baseyear)
Alt 1

- Base Year Des. Value (3

- year period centered on 2002) 96.0 92.0 93.0 95.0 91.0 92.0 96.0 94.0 97.0

Alt 2

- Base Year Des. Value (Highest 3

- year period including 2002 ) 96.0 92.0 93.0 96.0 91.0 92.0 96.0 94.0 97.0

RRF (all days > 85 ppb, or at least 10 days) 0.885 0.908 0.938 0.888 0.947 0.914 0.894 0.918 0.924

Alt 1

- Future Year Projected Value 85.0 83.5 87.2 84.4 86.2 84.1 85.8 8 6.3 89.6

Alt 2

- Future Year Projected Value 85.0 83.5 87.2 85.2 86.2 84.1 85.8 86.3 89.6

Alt 1

- RRF (all days > 70 ppb) 0.885 0.914 0.940 0.901 0.945 0.911 0.912 0.907 0.918

Alt 1

- Future Year Projected Value 85.0 84.1 87.4 85.6 86.0 83 .8 87.6 85.3 89.0

Alt 2

- Future Year Projected Value 85.0 84.1 87.4 86.5 86.0 83.8 87.6 85.3 89.0

Alt 2

- RRF (all days > 85 ppb, or at least 10 days; with acceptable model performance) 0.880 0.911 0.940 0.886 0.951 0.913 0.894 0.916 0.935

Alt 1

- Future Year Projected Value 84.5 83.8 87.4 84.2 86.5 84.0 85.8 86.1 90.7

Alt 2

- Future Year Projected Value 84.5 83.8 87.4 85.1 86.5 84.0 85.8 86.1 90.7

Weight of Evidence (alternative approaches

- 2005baseyear)

Alt 1

- Base Year Des. Value (3

- year period centered on 2005) 80.0 86.0 81.0 84.0 85.0 86.0 80.0 76.0 82.0

Alt 2

- Base Year Des. Value (Highest 3

- year period including 2005) 85.0 89.0 86.0 88.0 89.0 89.0 87.0 81.0 90.0

Alt 1

- Future Yea r Projected Value 75.3 81.4 78.3 79.5 79.7 81.0 75.6 72.0 77.7

Alt 2

- Future Year Projected Value 80.0 84.3 83.2 83.3 83.5 83.8 82.2 76.7 85.2

## 86 Fig ure 64. Estimated Future Year Values (unmonitored grid cells)



## Finally, EPA’s latest regional ozone modeling was considered as corroborative information

. This modeling was performed as part of the June 2007 proposal to revise the ozone standard (EPA, 2007 b ). EPA applied the CMAQ model with 2001 meteorology to first estimate ozone
levels in 2020 based on the current standard and national rules in effect or proposed (i.e., the baseline), and then to evaluate strategies for attaining a more stringent (70 ppb) primary standard. Baseline (2020) ozone levels were predicted to be below the current stan dard in 481 of the 491 counties with ozone monitors . Of the 10 counties predicted to be above the standard, there is one county in the LADCO region (i.e., Kenosha County, WI at 86 ppb ) . This result is consistent with LADCO’s Base K modeling for 2018 (i.e ., Kenosha County, WI at 86.7 ppb), which is not surprising given that EPA’s modeling and LADCO’s Base K modeling have a similar base year (2001 v. 2002).

Analysis of T

rends : EPA’s modeling guid elines note that while air quality models are generally
the m ost appropriate tools for assessing the expected impacts of a change in emissions, it may also be possible to extrapolate future trends based on measured historical trends of air quality and emissions. To do so, USEPA’s guidance suggests that ambient tren ds should first be normalized to account for year

- to

- year variations in meteorological conditions ( EPA, 2002)

. Meterologically

- adjusted 4 th 

## high 8

- hour ozone con centrations were derived using th e air quality

– meteorological regression model developed by EPA (i.e., Cox method

– see Section 2.1 ).

The historical trend in these met

- adjusted ozone concentrations were extrapolated to estimate future year ozone concentrations based on historical and projected trend s in precursor emissions. Both VOC and NOx em issions affect ozone concentrations. Given that observation

based methods show that urban areas in the region are generally VOC

- limited and rural areas in the region are NOx

- limited (see Section 2.1) , urban VOC emissions and regional NOx emissions are con sidered important. The trends in urban VOC and regional NOx emissions were calculated to produce appropriate weighting factors.

The resulting 2009 and 2012 ozone values are provided in Figure 65, along with the primary and alternative modeling ozone va lues for key sites in the Lake Michigan, Cleveland, and Cincinnati areas. The results reflect a fairly wide scatter, but, on balance, the supplemental information is supportive of the primary modeling results (i.e., sites in the Lake Michigan area and Cle veland are expected to be close to the standard).

## 87 Sheboygan

75 80 85 90 95 100

2002 2005 2009 2012 

### Holland

75 80 85 90 95 100

2002 2005 2009 2012



### Sycamore

75 80 85 90 95 100

2002 2005 2009 2012 

### Ashtabula

75 80 85 90 95 100

2002 2005 2009 2012



### Figure 6 5 . Estimates of Future Year Ozone Concentrations

– Lake Michigan Area (Sheboygan and Holland), Cincinnati (Sycamore ), and Cleveland (Ashtabula)

Note: Primary (guideline) modeling valu e s (Base K and Base M results) are represented by large red diamond s , additional modeling values by small black circles, and trends

- based value s by small pink squares

### 88



## Observation al Models and Diagnostic Analyses: The observation

- based modeling (i.e.,
MAPPE R) is presented in Section 3. The key findings from this modeling are that most urban

areas are VOC

- limited and rural areas are NOx

- li mited.

The primary diagnostic analysis is source apportionment modeling with CAMx t o provide more quantitative informati on on source region (and source sector) impacts (Baker, 2007a)

. Specifically, the model estimated the impact of 18 geographic source regions (which are identified in Figure 6 6 ) and 6 source sectors (EGU point, non

- EGU point, on

- road, off

- road, area, and b iogenic sources) at o zone monitoring site s in the region.

Figure 6 6 . Source regions (left) and key monitoring sites (right) for ozone modeling analysis



## Modeling results for 2009 (Base M ) and 20 12 ( Base K ) are provided in Appendix II for several key monitoring sites. For each monitoring site, there are two graphs: one showing sector

- level contributions, and one showing source region and sector

- level contributions in terms of percentages. (Note, in the sector

- level graph, the contribution s from NOx emissions are shown in blue, and from VOC emissions in green. )

The sector

- level results (see, for example, Figure 6 7 ) show that on

- road and nonroad NOx emissions generally have the largest contributio ns at the key monitor locations (> 15% each). EGU and non

- EGU NOx emissions are also important contributors (> 10% each). The source group contributions vary by receptor location due to emissions inventory differences.

Figure 6 7 . Source

- sector res ults for Holland (left) and Ashtabula (right) monitors

– 20 09 (Base M) Kenosha County

Cook County

Indianapolis

Holland

St. Louis Detroit

Cincinn ati Door County

Cleveland

### 89



## The source region results (see, for example, Figure 68) show that while nearby areas generally have the highest impacts (e.g., the northeastern IL/northwestern IN/southeastern WI
nonatt ainment area contributes 25

- 35 % to high sites in the Lake Michigan area, and Cleveland nonattainment counties contribute 20

- 25 % to high sites in northeastern Ohio)

, there is an even larger regional impact (i.e., contribution from other states).

Figure 6 8 . Source

- region results for Holland (left) and Ashtabula (right) monitors

– 20 09 (Base M)



## Summary : Air quality modeling and other supplemental analyses were performed to estimate future year ozone concentrations. Based on this information, the followi ng general conclusions can be made:

• E xisting (“on the books”) controls are expected to produce significant improvement in ozone air quality

.

• The choice of the base year affects the future year model projections. A key difference between the base years o f 2002 and 2005 is meteorology. As noted above, 2002 was more ozone conducive than 2005. The choice of which base year to use as the basis for the SIP is a policy decision (i.e., how much safeguard to incorporate).

• Most sites are expected to meet the cu rrent 8

- hour standard by the applicable attainment date, except, for sites in western Michigan and, possibly, in eastern Wisconsin and northeastern Ohio.

• Current monitoring data show significant nonattainment in these areas (e.g., peak design values on th e order of 90

– 93 ppb). It is not clear whether sufficient emission reductions will occur in the next couple of years to provide for
attainment.

• Attainment by the applicable attainment date is dependent on actual future year meteorology (e.g., if the we ather conditions are consistent with [or less severe than] 2005, then attainment is likely) and actual future year emissions (e.g., if the emission reductions associated with the existing controls are achieved, then attainment is likely). On the other han d, if either of these conditions is not met, then attainment may be less likely.

### 90



## 4.3 Weight

- of

- Evidence Determination for PM 2.5 

## The WOE determination for PM 2. 5 

## consists of the primary modeling and other supplemental analyses. A summary of this informati on is provided below.

Primary ( Guideline

) Modeling : The results of the guideline modeling are presented in Section 4.1. Key findings from this modeling include:

• Base M regional modeling shows attainment by 2009 at all sites, except Detroit, Cleveland, a nd Granite City, and attainment at all sites by 2012, except for Detroit and Granite City.

T he regiona l modeling for PM 2. 5 

## does not reflect any air quality benefit expected from local controls. States are conducting local

- scale analyses and will us e thes e results, in conjunction with the regional

- scale modeling, to support their attainment demonstrations for PM 2. 5



## • Base K modeling results reflect generally higher future year values, and show more sites in nonattainment in 2009 and 2012 compared to the Bas e M modeling. The difference in the two modeling analyses is due mostly t o lower base year design
values in Base M.



## • Base K and Base M modeling analyses are considered “SIP quality”, so the
attainment demonstration for PM 2. 5 

## should reflect a weight

- of

- evi dence approach, with consideration of monitoring based information.

• Base M mode ling also shows that the new PM 2. 5 

## 24

- hour standard wi ll not be met at many sites , even by 2018, with existing controls.

A dditional Modeling : EPA’s latest regional PM 2. 5 

## model ing was considered as corroborative information . This modeling was performed as part of the September 2006 revision to the PM 2. 5 

## standard ( USEPA, 2006)

. EPA applied the CMAQ model with 2001 meteorology to estimate PM 2. 5 

## levels in 20 15 and 2020 first with national rules in effect or proposed , and then with additional controls to attain the current standard (15 ug/m 3 

## annual/65 ug/m 3 

## daily). Additional analyses were performed to evaluate strategies for attaining more stringent standards in 2020 (15/35, and 14/35) . Baseline (20 15 ) PM 2. 5 

## levels were predicted to be above the current standard in four counties in the LADCO region : Madison County, IL at 15.2 ug/m 3 

## , Wayne County, MI at 17.4, Cuyahoga County, OH at 15.4 , and Scioto County, OH at 15.6. These resul ts are consistent with LADCO’s Base K modeling for 2012/ 2018, whic h is not surprising given that EPA’s modeling and LADCO’s Base K modeling have a similar base year (2001 v. 2002).

Observation al Models and Diagnostic Analyses : The observation

- based modeli ng (i.e., application of thermodynamic equilibrium models) is presented in Section 3. The key findings from this modeling are that PM 2. 5 

## mass is sensitive to reductions in sulfate , nitric acid, and
ammonia concentrations . Even though sulfate reductions c ause more ammonia to be available to form ammonium nitrate ( PM

- nitrate increases slightly when sulfate is reduced ) , this increase is generally offset by the sulfate reductions, such that PM 2.5 

## mass decreases. Under conditions with lower sulfate levels (i. e., proxy of future year conditions), PM 2.5 

## is more sensitive to reductions in nitric acid compared to reductions in ammonia

.

### 91



## The primary diagnostic analysis is source apportionment modeling with CAMx t o provide more quantitative information on source reg ion (and source sector) impacts (Baker, 2007b)

. Specifically, the model estimated the impact of 18 geographic source regions (which are identified in Figure 6 9 ) and 6 source sectors (EGU point, non

- EGU point, on

- road, off

- road, area, and biogenic sources) at PM 2. 5 

## monitoring site s in the region.

Figure 6 9 . Source regions (left) and key monitoring sites (right) for PM 2. 5 

### modeling analysis



## Modeling results for 20 12 (Base K) and 201 8 (Base M) are provided in Appendix I I I for several key monitoring sites. For each monitoring site, there are two graphs: one showing sector

- level contributions, and one showing source region and sector

- level contributions in terms of absolute modeled values.

The sect or

- level res ults (see, for example, Figure 70 ) show that EGU sulf ate, non

- EGU

- sulfate, and area organic carbon emissions generally have the largest contributions at the key monitor locations (> 15% each). Ammonia emissions are also important contributors (> 10%). The source group contributions vary by receptor location due to emissions inventory differences.

Figure 70 . Source

- sector results for Detroit (left) and Cle v eland (right) monitors

– 2018 (Base M) Cook County
Steubenville

Granite City Detroit

Cincinnati Cleveland

### 92



## The source region results (see, for examp le, Figure 71) show that while nearby areas generally have the highest impacts (e.g., Detroit nonattainment counties contribute 40% to high sites in southeastern Michigan, and Cleveland nonattainment counties contribute 35% to high sites in northeastern Oh io), there is an even larger regional impact (i.e., contribution from other states).

Figure 71 . Source

- region results for Detroit (left) and Cleveland (right) monitors

– 2018 (Base M)



## Summary : Air quality modeling and other supplemental analyses wer e performed to estimate future year PM 2. 5 

## concentrations. Based on this information, the following general conclusions can be made:

• E xisting (“on the books”) controls are expected to produce significant improvement in PM 2. 5 

## air quality.

• The choice of th e base year affects the future year model projections. It is not clear how much of this is attributable to differences in meteorology, because, as noted in Section 3, PM 2 .5 

## concentrations are not as strongly influenced by meteorolog y as ozone

.

• Most sites are expected to meet the current PM 2. 5 

## standard by the applicable attainment date, except for sites in Detroit, Cleveland, and Granite City

.

• Current monitoring data show significant nonattainment in these areas (e.g., peak design values on the order of 1 6

– 17 ug/m 3 

## ). It is not clear whether sufficient emission reductions will occur in the next couple of years to provide for attainment. States are conducting local

- scale analyses for Detroit, Cleveland, and Granite City , in particular, to identify approp riate additional local controls.

• Attainment by the applicable attainment date is dependent ( possibly) on actual future year meteorology and (more likely ) on actual future year emissions (e.g., if the emission reductions associated with the “on the books” controls are achieved, then attainment is likely). On the other hand, if either of these conditions is not met

(especially, with respect to emissions) , then attainment may be less likely.

### 93 

## Section 5. Reasonable Progress Assessment for Regional Haze

Ai r quality modeling and other information were used to assess the improvement in visibility that would be provided by existing (“on the books”) controls and possible additional control programs. In determining reasonable progress for regional haze, Section 169A of the Clean Air
Act and EPA’s visibility rule requires states to consider five factors :

• costs of compliance

• time necessary for compliance

• energy and non

- air quality environmental impacts of compliance

• remaining useful life of any existing source su bject to such requirements

• uniform rate of visibility improvement needed to attain natural visibility condit ions by 2064

The uniform rate of visibility improvement requirement can be depicted graphically in the form of a “glide path” (see Figure 72 ).

Figure 72 . Visibility “glide paths” for northern Class I areas (units: deciviews)



## 5.1 Class I Areas Impacted EPA’s visibility

rule requires a s tate to “address regional haze in each mandatory Class I Federal area located within t he State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the State which may be affected by emissions from within the State.” (40 CFR Part 51.308(d)) To meet this requirement, technical analyses conducted by the RPOs were consulted to obtain i nformation on areas of influence and culpability for Class I areas in the eastern U.S. (MRPO, 2007). A summary of this information is provided in Table 1 (MRPO, 2007). Th e table shows that every LADCO State impacts multiple Class I areas in the eastern U .S

. 5

10 15 20 25

2004 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2064

Voyageurs Bounday Waters
Isle Royale Seney

Voyageurs Boundry Waters



## 20% best visibility days 20% worst visibility days Baseline Conditions

Baseline Conditions Natural Conditions

### 94 Table 1 4 . Draft List o f Class I Areas Impacted by LADCO States

AREA NAME IL IN MI OH WI

81.401 Alabama. Sipsey Wilderness Area (1) (1)

81.404 Arkansas. Caney Creek Wilderness Area (2), ( 4 ) (2), ( 4 ) (2), ( 4 )
Upper Buffalo Wi lderness Area (1), ( 2 ),( 4 ),( 5 ) ( 2) , ( 4 ) (2), ( 4 ) (2)

81.408 Georgia.

Cohotta Wilderness Area

Okefenokee Wilderness Area

Wolf Island Wilderness Area

81.411 Kentucky.

Mammoth Cave NP (1), (2), ( 5 ) (1), ( 2 ), ( 5 ) (1 ), (2) (1), ( 2 ), ( 5 )

81.412 Louisiana.

Breton Wilderness Area

81.413 Maine.

Acadia National Park (3) (3) (3) ( 3 )

Moosehorn Wilderness Area. (3) (3) (3) ( 3 )

81.414 Michigan. Isle Royale NP. ( 1 ), ( 2 ) (1), ( 2 ) (1), ( 2 ) ( 1 ), ( 2 )
Seney Wilderness Area (1), (2) (1), ( 2 ) (1), (2) (1), (2) (1), ( 2 )

81.415 Minnesota. Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (2) (2) (2) (1), (2)
Voyageurs NP (2) (2) ( 1 ), ( 2 )

81.416 Missouri.

Hercules

- Gl ades Wilderness Area ( 2 ), ( 4 ), ( 5 ) ( 2 ), ( 4 ), ( 5 ) (2), ( 4 ) (2)
Mingo Wilderness Area ( 2 ), ( 4 ), ( 5 ) ( 2 ), ( 4 ), ( 5 ) (2) ( 2 ), ( 4 ) (2)

81.419 New Hampshire.

Great Gulf Wilderness Area (3) ( 3 ) (3) (1), ( 3 )

Pres

. Range

- Dry River Wilderness Area.

81.42 New Jersey. Brigantine Wilderness Area (3) (3) (1), (3) (1), ( 3 )

### 95

81.422 North Carolina. Great Smoky Mountains NP{1} (1) (1) (1)
Joyce Kilmer

- Slickrock Wilderness Area{2} Linville Gorge Wilderness Area. Shining Rock Wilderness Area. Swanquarter Wilderness Area

81.426 South Carolina. Cape Romain Wilderness

81.428 Tennessee. Great Smoky Mountains NP{1}. (1) (1) (1)
Joyce Kilmer

- Slickrock Wilderness{2}

81.431 Vermont. Lye Brook Wilderness (2), ( 3 ) (2), ( 3 ) (2), ( 3 ) (1), (2), ( 3 )

81.433 Virginia.

James River Face Wilderness. (2) (2) (2) ( 2 ), ( 5 )

Shenandoah NP (2), (3) (1), ( 2 ), ( 3 ) (2), (3) (1),( 2 ),( 3 ),( 5 )

81.435 West Virginia. Dolly Sods/Otter Creek Wilderness. (2), (3) (1), ( 2 ), ( 3 ) (1), (2), (3) (1),( 2 ),( 3 ),( 5 )



## Key (1) MRPO Back Trajectory Analyses (2) MRPO PSAT Modeling (3) MANE

- VU Contribution Assessment (4) Missouri

- Arkansas Contribution Assessment (5) VI STAS Areas of Influence

### 96



## 5. 2 Future Year Modeling Results For regional haze, the calculation of future year conditions assumed:

• baseline concentrations based on 2000

- 2004 IMPROVE data, with updated (subsitituted) data for Mingo, Boundary Waters, Voyage urs, Isle Royale, and Seney (see Section 2.3 ) ;

• u se of the new IMPROVE light extinction equation ; and

• use of EPA default values for natural conditions, based on the new IM PROVE light extinction equation.

The uniform rate of visibility improvement values for the 2018 planning year were derived (for the 20% worst visibility days) based on a straight line between baseline concentration value (plotted in the year 2004

-- end year of the 5

- year baseline period) and natural condition value (plotted in the year 2064

-- date for achieving natural conditions). Plots of these “glide paths” with the Base M modeling results are presented in Figure 73 for Class I areas in the eastern U.S. A tabular summary of measured baseline and modeled future year deciview values for these Class I areas are provided in Table 1 5 (2002 base year) and Table 1 6 (2005 base year) 13



## .

The haze results show that several Class I areas in the eastern U.S. are expected to be greater than (less improved than) the uniform rate of visibility impr ovement values (in 2018), including those in northern Michigan and several in the northeastern U.S. Many other Class I areas in the eastern U.S. are expected to be less than (more improved than) the uniform rate of visibility improvement values (in 2018). As noted above, states should consider these results, along with information on th e other four factors , in setting reasonable progress goals.

A n assessment of the f ive factors was performed for LADCO and the State of Minnesota by a contractor (EC/R, 2 007). Sp ecifically, ECR examined reductions in S O 2 and NO x emissions from EGUs and i ndustrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) boilers; NO x emissions from mobile

sources and reciprocating engines and turbines; and a mmonia emissions from agricultural

op erations. The impacts of “on the books” controls were also examined to provide a frame of reference for assessing the impacts of the additional control measures.

The results of ECR’s analysis of the five factors are summarized below:

Factor 1 (Cost of C ompliance): The average cost effectiveness values (in terms of $M per ton ) are provided in Table 1 6 . For comparison, cost

- effectiveness estimates previously provided for “on the books” controls include:

CAIR SO2: $700

- $1,200, NOx: $1,400

– $2.600 ($/ T)

BART SO2: $300

- $963, NOx: $248

- $1,770

MACT SO2: $1,500, NOx: $7,600

Most of the cost

- effectiveness values for the additional controls are within the range of
cost

- effectiveness values for “on the books” controls.

13 

### Model results reflect the grid cell where the IMPROVE monitor is located.

### 97 Voyageurs Bou ndary Waters

Isle Royale Seney

Mammoth Cave Upper Buffalo

Figure 73 . Visibility modeling results for Class I areas in eastern U.S.

### 98 Mingo Shenandoah

Dolly Sods Bringantine

Lye Brook Acadia

Figure 73 (cont.) Visibility modeling results for Class I areas in eastern U.S

.

### Worst 20% 2018 2009 2012 2018 2018 2018

Site Baseline URP OTB OTB OTB EGU2 (5-state region) EGU2 (12-state region)

BOWA1 19.86 17.70 19.05 19.01 18.94 18.40 17.72

VOYA2 19.48 17.56 19.14 19.19 19.18 18.94 18.38

SENE1 24.38 21.35 22.98 22.71 22.38 21.26 20.63

ISLE1 21.59 19.21 20.46 20.28 20.04 19.09 18.64

HEGL1 26.75 22.76 24.73 24.34 23.85 23.01 22.04

MING1 28.15 24.08 25.18 24.67 24.01 22.53 21.45

CACR1 26.36 22.55 24.01 23.55 22.99 22.43 21.57

UPBU1 26.27 22.47 24.02 23.58 23.06 22.31 21.38

MACA1 31.37 26.14 28.06 27.03 25.52 24.27 22.57

DOSO1 29.04 24.23 24.86 23.59 22.42 21.60 20.15

SHEN1 29.31 24.67 24.06 22.79 21.57 20.43 19.42

JARI1 29.12 24.48 24.81 23.79 22.42 21.59 20.88

BRIG1 29.01 24.68 25.87 25.25 24.39 23.91 23.45

LYBR1 24.45 21.16 21.80 21.32 20.69 20.18 19.79

Best 20% 2018 2009 2012 2018 2018 2018

Site Baseline URP OTB OTB OTB EGU2 (5-state region) EGU2 (12-state region)

BOWA1 6.42 6.42 6.71 6.73 6.87 6.83 6.81

VOYA2 7.09 7.09 7.21 7.25 7.34 7.31 7.26

SENE1 7.14 7.14 7.19 7.19 7.23 7.06 6.91

ISLE1 6.75 6.75 6.57 6.51 6.47 6.20 6.06

HEGL1 12.84 12.84 12.61 12.62 12.61 12.43 12.02

MING1 14.46 14.46 13.96 13.93 13.94 13.74 13.33

CACR1 11.24 11.24 10.91 10.92 10.90 10.75 10.42

UPBU1 11.71 11.71 11.47 11.46 11.42 11.28 11.01

MACA1 16.51 16.51 16.06 15.91 15.54 15.18 14.75

DOSO1 12.28 12.28 11.72 11.45 11.19 10.93 10.67

SHEN1 10.93 10.93 9.73 9.53 9.17 9.05 8.90

JARI1 14.21 14.21 13.56 13.33 12.97 12.65 12.46

BRIG1 14.33 14.33 13.74 13.69 13.47 13.32 13.21

LYBR1 6.36 6.36 6.12 6.05 5.96 5.88 5.82 

## Table 15. Haze Results - Round 4 (Based on 2000-2004)

### Worst 20% 2018 2009 2012 2018 2018

Site Baseline URP OTB OTB OTB OTB+Will DO

BOWA1 19.86 17.94 18.45 18.33 17.94 17.92

VOYA2 19.48 17.75 18.20 18.07 17.63 17.66

SENE1 24.38 21.64 23.10 23.04 22.59 22.42

ISLE1 21.59 19.43 20.52 20.43 20.09 20.13

ISLE9 21.59 19.43 20.33 20.22 19.84 19.82

HEGL1 26.75 23.13 24.72 24.69 24.22 24.17

MING1 28.15 24.27 25.88 25.68 24.74 24.83

CACR1 26.36 22.91 23.39 23.29 22.44 22.40

UPBU1 26.27 22.82 23.34 23.27 22.59 22.55

MACA1 31.37 26.64 27.11 27.01 26.10 26.15

DOSO1 29.05 24.69 24.00 23.90 23.00 23.04

SHEN1 29.31 25.12 24.99 24.87 23.92 23.95

JARI1 29.12 24.91 25.17 25.01 24.06 24.12

BRIG1 29.01 25.05 25.79 25.72 25.21 25.22

LYBR1 24.45 21.48 22.04 21.86 21.14 21.14

ACAD1 22.89 20.45 21.72 21.72 21.49 21.49

Best 20% 2018 2009 2012 2018 2018

Site Baseline Max OTB OTB OTB OTB+Will DO

BOWA1 6.42 6.42 6.21 6.19 6.14 6.12

VOYA2 7.09 7.09 6.86 6.83 6.75 6.76

SENE1 7.14 7.14 7.57 7.58 7.71 7.78

ISLE1 6.75 6.75 6.62 6.59 6.60 6.62

ISLE9 6.75 6.75 6.56 6.55 6.52 6.50

HEGL1 12.84 12.84 12.51 12.32 11.66 11.64

MING1 14.46 14.46 14.07 13.89 13.28 13.29

CACR1 11.24 11.24 10.88 10.85 10.52 10.52

UPBU1 11.71 11.71 11.13 11.08 10.73 10.74

MACA1 16.51 16.51 15.76 15.69 15.25 15.25

DOSO1 12.28 12.28 11.25 11.23 11.00 11.01

SHEN1 10.93 10.93 10.13 10.11 9.91 9.91

JARI1 14.21 14.21 13.38 13.38 13.14 13.14

BRIG1 14.33 14.33 14.15 14.08 13.92 13.92

LYBR1 6.37 6.37 6.25 6.23 6.14 6.15

ACAD1 8.78 8.78 8.86 8.86 8.82 8.82



## Table 16. Haze Results - Round 5.1 (Based on 2000-2004)

### 101 Table 1 7 . Estimated Cost Effectiveness for Potential C ontrol Measures

Average Cost effectiveness ($/ton)
Emission category Control strategy Region SO2 NOX NH3

EGU EGU1 3

- State 1,540 2,037

9

- State 1,743 1,782

EGU2 3

- State 1,775 3,016

9

- State 1,952 2,984

ICI boilers ICI1 3

- State 2,992 2,537

9

- State 2,275 1,899
ICI Workgroup 3

- State 2,731 3,814

9

- State 2,743 2,311

3

- State 538 Reciprocating engines emitting 100 tons/year or

more 9

- State 506 Reciprocating engines and turbines

3

- State 754 Turbines emitting 100 tons/year or m ore 9

- State 754

3

- State 1,286 Reciprocating engines emitting 10 tons/year or more 9

- State 1,023

3

- State 800 Turbines emitting 10 tons/year or more 9

- State 819

10% reduction 3

- State 31

- 2,700 Agricultural sources

9

- State 31

- 2,700

15% reduction 3

- State 31

- 2,700

9

- State 31

- 2,700

Mobile sources Low

- NOX Reflash 3

- State 241

9

- State 241

MCDI 3

- State 10,697

9

- State 2,408

Anti

- Idling 3

- State (430)

- 1,700

9

- State (430)

- 1, 700
Cetane Additive Program 3

- State 4,119

9

- State 4,119

Cement Plants Process Modification Michigan

- Conversion to dry kiln Michigan 9,848

LoToxTM Michigan 1,399
Glass Manufacturing LNB Wisconsin 1,041
Oxy

- firing Wisconsin 2,833

Electric boost Wisconsin 3,426

SCR Wisconsin 1,054

SNCR Wisconsin 1,094
Lime Manufacturing Mid

- kiln firing Wisconsin 688

LNB Wisconsin 837

SNCR Wisconsin 1,210

SCR Wisconsin 5,037

FGD Wisconsin 128

- 4,828
Oil Refinery LNB Wisconsin 3,288

SNCR Wisconsin 4,260

SCR Wisconsin 17,997

LNB+FGR Wisconsin 4,768

ULNB Wisconsin 2,242

FGD Wisconsin 1,078

### 102



## Factor 2 (Time Necessary for Compliance): All of the control measures can be implemented by 2018. Thus, this factor can be easily addressed.

Factor 3 (Energy and Non

- Air Quality Environmental Impacts): The energy and other environmental impacts are belie ved to be manageable. For example, the increased energy demand from add

- on control equipment is less than 1% of the total electricity and steam production in the region, and solid waste disposal and wastewater treatment costs are less than 5% of the total operating costs of the pollution control equipment. It should also be noted that the SO2 and NOx controls would have beneficial environmental impacts (e.g., reduced acid deposition and nitrogen deposition).

Factor 4 (Remaining Useful Life): The addition al control measures are intended to be
market

- based strategies applied over a broad geographic region. It is not expected that the control requirements will be applied to units that will be retired prior to the amortization period for the control equipmen t. Thus, this factor can be easily addressed.

Factor 5 (Visibility Impacts ): The estimated incremental improvement in 2018 visibility levels for the additional measures is shown in Figure 7 4 , along with the cost

effectiveness expressed in $M per deciview improvement). These results show that

a lthough EGU and ICI boiler controls have higher cost

- per

- deciview values (compared to some of the other measures), their visibility impacts are larger

.

### 103 

# Visibility Improvement (dv)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

SO2 NOx NH3 SO2 NOx NH3 SO2 NOx NH3 SO2 NOx NH3 SO2 NOx NH3

Strategy 1 Strategy 2 

## EGUs ICI Boilers Rec.Eng. Mobile Ag



# Cost Effectiveness ($M/dv)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

SO2 NOx NH3 SO2 NOx NH3 SO2 NOx NH3 SO2 NOx NH3 SO2 NOx NH3

Strategy 1 Strategy 2 

## EGUs ICI Boilers Rec.Eng. Mobile Ag

Figure 74. Results of ECR analysis of reasonable p rogress factors

– visibility improvement (Factor 5) is on top, and cost effectiveness (Factor 1) is on bottom

### 104



## 5. 3 Weight

- of

- Evidence Determination for Haze The WOE determination for haze consists of the primary modeling and other supplemental analyses. A summary of this information is provided below.

Primary ( Guideline

) Modeling : The results of the guideline modeling are presented in Section 4.1. Key findings from this modeling include:

• Base M modeling results show that the northern Minnesota Class I ar eas are close to the glide path, whereas the northern Michigan Class I areas are above the glide path in 2018

. Other sites in the eastern U.S. are close to (or below) the glide path, except for Mingo (MO), Brigantine (NJ), and Acadia (ME).

• Base K modelin g results show that the northern Minnesota and northern Michigan Class I areas are above the glide path in 2018. Other sites in the eastern U.S. are close to (or below) the glide path.

• The difference in the two modeling analyses is due mostly t o differ ences in future year emission projections , especially for EGUs (e.g., use of IPM2.1.9 v. IPM3.0).



## • Base K and Base M modeling analyses are considered “SIP quality”, so the
attainment demonstration for haze should reflect a weight

- of

- evidence approach,
with consideration of monitoring based information.

A dditional Modeling : T wo additional modeling analyses were considered: (1) the primary modeling redone with different baseline values, and (2) modeling by the State of Minnesota which looked at different rec eptor locations in the northern Class I areas (MPCA, 2008) . Each of these analyses is described below.

First, the primary modeling analysis (Base M) was revised using an alternative baseline value. Specifically, the data for the period 2000

- 2005 were us ed to calculate the baseline, given that the Base M modeling reflects a 2005 base year. The results of this alternative analysis (see Table 1 8 ) are generally consistent with the primary modeling (see Table 1 6 ).

Second, Minnesota’s modeling reflects a 200 2 base year and much of the data developed by LADCO for its modeling. (Note, Minnesota conducted modeling for LADCO’s domain at 36 km, and for a statewide domain at 12 km.) The purpose of the 12 km modeling was to address local scale impacts on the north ern Class I areas at several locations, not just the location of the IMPROVE monitor. Results for the Boundary Waters on the 20% worst days range from 18.3

– 19.0 dv, with an average value of 18.7 dv, which is consistent with Minnesota’s 36 km modeling

re sults at the IMPROVE monitor. This variability in visibility levels should be kept in mind when reviewing the values presented in Tables 1 5 , 1 6

, and 1 8

, which reflect results a t the IMPROVE
monitor locations.

### Worst 20% 2009 2012 2018 2018

Site Baseline URP OTB OTB OTB OTB+Will DO

BOWA1 20.10 18.12 18.63 18.51 18.12 18.09

VOYA2 19.62 17.86 18.27 18.15 17.70 17.72

SENE1 24.77 21.94 23.44 23.39 22.94 22.77

ISLE1 21.95 19.71 20.84 20.76 20.41 20.44

ISLE9 21.95 19.71 20.65 20.55 20.15 20.13

HEGL1 27.45 23.67 25.30 25.27 24.79 24.73

MING1 28.92 24.86 25.88 25.68 24.74 24.83

CACR1 27.05 23.44 23.88 23.78 22.92 22.86

UPBU1 26.97 23.36 23.92 23.85 23.14 23.09

MACA1 31.76 26.93 27.42 27.32 26.39 26.44

DOSO1 29.36 24.92 24.20 24.11 23.19 23.23

SHEN1 29.45 25.23 25.06 24.94 23.98 24.01

JARI1 29.40 25.13 25.32 25.17 24.22 24.28

BRIG1 29.12 25.14 25.84 25.77 25.26 25.26

LYBR1 24.71 21.69 22.22 22.06 21.36 21.36

ACAD1 22.91 20.47 21.72 21.72 21.49 21.49

Best 20% 2009 2012 2018 2018

Site Baseline URP OTB OTB OTB OTB+Will DO

BOWA1 6.40 6.40 6.20 6.17 6.13 6.10

VOYA2 7.05 7.05 6.82 6.78 6.71 6.71

SENE1 7.20 7.20 7.60 7.61 7.73 7.80

ISLE1 6.80 6.80 6.67 6.64 6.65 6.66

ISLE9 6.80 6.80 6.62 6.61 6.57 6.55

HEGL1 13.04 13.04 12.71 12.51 11.85 11.82

MING1 14.68 14.68 14.07 13.89 13.28 13.29

CACR1 11.62 11.62 11.24 11.20 10.86 10.86

UPBU1 11.99 11.99 11.41 11.36 11.01 11.02

MACA1 16.64 16.64 15.88 15.82 15.37 15.38

DOSO1 12.24 12.24 11.21 11.19 10.96 10.97

SHEN1 10.85 10.85 10.04 10.02 9.82 9.83

JARI1 14.35 14.35 13.51 13.51 13.27 13.27

BRIG1 14.36 14.36 14.17 14.10 13.94 13.94

LYBR1 6.21 6.21 6.11 6.09 6.01 6.01

ACAD1 8.57 8.57 8.67 8.66 8.62 8.62



## Table 18. Haze Results - Round 5.1 (Based on 2000-2005)

### 106



## Observation al Models and Diagnostic Analyse s : The observation

- based modeling (i.e., application of thermodynamic equilibrium models) is presented in Section 3. The key findings from this modeling are that PM 2. 5 

## mass is sensitive to reductions in sulfate, nitric acid, and ammonia concentrations . E ven though sulfate reductions cause more ammonia to be available to form ammonium nitrate ( PM

- nitrate increases slightly when sulfate is reduced ) , this increase is generally offset by the sulfate reductions, such that PM 2. 5 

## mass decreases and visibility im proves

. Under conditions with lower sulfate levels (i.e., proxy of future year c onditions), PM 2.5 

## is more sensitive to reductions in nitric acid compared to reductions in ammonia.

As discussed in Section 2, t hermodynamic equilibrium modeling based on dat a collected at Seney indicates that PM 2. 5 

## there is most sensitive to reductions in sulfate, but also responsive to reductions in nitric acid (Blanchard

, 2004). An analysis using data from the Midwest ammonia monitoring network for a site in Minnesota (i.e ., Great River Bluffs, which is the closest ammonia monitoring site to the northern Class I areas) suggested that reductions in sulfate, nitric acid, and ammonia concentrations will lower PM 2. 5 

## concentrations and improve visibility levels in the northern C lass I areas

.
Trajectory analyses for the 20% worst visibility days for the four northern Class I areas are provided in Figure 7 5 . (Note, this figure is similar to Figure 3 4 , but the trajectory results for each Class I area are displayed separately here

. ) The o range areas are where the air is most likely to come from, and the green areas are where the air is least likely to come from . Darker shading represents higher frequency. As can be seen, bad air days are generally associated with transport from r egions located to the south, and good air days with transport from Canada.

### 107 

## Seney Isle Royale

Boundary Waters Voyageurs

Figure 7 5 . Trajectory analysis results for northern Class I areas on 20% worst visibility days



## The primary diagnostic analysis is source apportionment modeling with CAMx t o provide more quantitative information on source region (and source sector) im pacts (Baker, 2007b)

. Specifically , the CAMx model was applied to provide source contribution information. Specifically, the model estimated the impact of 18 geographic source regions (which are identified in Figure 7 6 ) and 6 source se ctors (EGU point, n on

- EGU point, on

- road, off

- road, area, and ammonia sources) at visibility/haze monitoring site s in the eastern U.S.

### 108

Figure 7 6 . Source regions (left) and key monitoring sites (right) for haze modeling analysis



## Modeling results for 2018 (Base K and Base M) are provided in Appendix I V for several key monitoring sites ( Class I areas). For each monitoring site, there are two graphs: one showing
sector

- level contributions, and one showing source r egion and sector

- level contributions in terms of absolute modeled values.

The sector

- level results (see, for example, Figure 7 7 ) show that EGU sulfate, non

- EGU

- sulfate, and ammonia emissions generally have the largest contributions at the key monitor loca tions. The source group contributions vary by receptor location due to emissions inventory differences.

Figure 7 7 . Source

- sector results for Seney (left) and Boundary Waters (right)

– 2018 (Base M)



## The source region results (see, for example, Fi gure 7 8 ) show that emissions from a number of nearby states contribute to regional haze levels.

### 109

Figure 7 8 . Source

- region results for Seney (left) and Boundary Waters (right)

– 2018 (Base M)



## Table 19 provides a summary of the estimated state

- level culp abilities based on the LADCO back trajectory analyses and the PSAT analyses for 2018.

Summary : Air quality modeling and other supplemental analyses were performed to estimate future year

visibility levels

. Based on this information, the following genera l conclusions can be made:

• E xisting (“on the books”) controls are expected to improve visibility levels in the

northern Class I areas

.

• Visibility levels in a few Class I areas in the eastern U.S. are expected to be greater than (less improved than) the u niform rate of visibility improvement value s in 2018, including those in northern Michigan and s ome in the northeastern U.S.

• Visibility levels in m any other Class I areas in the eastern U.S. are expected to
be less than

(more improved than) the uniform rate of visibility improvement value s in 2018.

### 110 Table 19 . State Culpabilities Based on PSAT Modeling and Trajectory Analyses

Boundary Waters Seney

LADCO

- Round 4 PSAT LADCO

-

Round 5 PSAT MPCA

PSAT CENRAP

-

PSAT LADCO

-

Traj. Analysis LADCO

- Round 4 PSAT LADCO

-

Round 5 PSAT CENRAP

-

PSAT LADCO

-

Traj. Analysis
Michigan 3.4% 4.8% 3.0% 1.9% 0.7% 13.8% 18.1% 14.7%

Minnesota 30.5% 23.5% 28.0% 30.6% 37.6% 4.8% 1.6% 3.8%

Wisconsin 10.4% 10.9% 10.0% 6.4% 10.6% 12.6% 10.9% 8.4%

Ill inois 5.2% 5.1% 6.0% 3.5% 2.7% 13.0% 14.3% 7.4%

Indiana 2.9% 3.9% 3.0% 1.8% 1.2% 9.6% 11.6% 2.2%

Iowa 7.6% 8.3% 8.0% 2.5% 7.4% 6.2% 3.8% 5.7%

Missouri 5.2% 3.4% 6.0% 2.1% 3.3% 6.5% 4.8% 3.2%

N. Dakota 5.7% 1.1% 6.0% 4.6% 5.9% 1.5% 0.1% 0.6%

Canada 1.9% 2.7% 3.0% 12.5% 15.1% 2.1% 1.2% 11.1%
CENRAP

WRAP 10.9% 13.5% 4.2% 10.1% 13.1% 10.0% 7.0%

83.6% 77.2% 73.0% 70.2% 94.6% 83.3% 76.4% 64.1%



### Voyageurs Isle Royale

LADCO

- Round 4 PSAT LADCO

-

Round 5 PSAT MPCA

PSAT CENRAP

-

PSAT LADCO

-

Traj. Analysis LADCO

- Round 4 PSAT LADCO

-

Round 5 PSAT CENRAP

-

PSAT LADCO

-

Traj. Analysis
Michigan 2.0% 4.9% 2.0% 1.0% 1.6% 12.7% 13.4%

Minnesota 35.0% 20.2% 31.0% 31.5% 36.9% 14.1% 9.5%

Wisconsin 6.3% 7.9% 6.0% 3.7% 9.7% 16.3% 14.7%

Illinois 3.0% 7.1% 3.0% 1.8% 1.2% 7.0% 8.7%

Indiana 1.6% 4.6% 2.0% 0.8% 5.6% 5.2%

Iowa 7.4% 7.1% 7.0% 2.4% 10.2% 6.9% 8.3%

Missouri 4.3% 4.0% 4.0% 1.6% 0.3% 3.9% 4.6%

N. Dakota 10.3% 1.7% 13.0% 6.1% 7.1% 3.6% 0.3 %

Canada 2.7% 3.3% 5.0% 17.2% 13.3% 2.2% 1.7%
CENRAP

WRAP 10.2% 13.7% 6.1% 16.5% 12.5% 12.6%

82.7% 74.5% 73.0% 72.2% 96.8% 84.9% 79.0%

### 111 

## Section 6. Summary

T o support the development of SIPs for ozone, PM 2.5 

## , and regional haze in the Sta tes of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin, technical analyses were conducted by LADCO, its member states, and various contractors

. The analyses include preparation of regional emissions inventories and meteorological modeling data for two ba se years, evaluation and application of regional chemical transport models, and review of ambient monitoring data.

Analyses of monitoring data were conducted to produce a conceptual model, which is a qualitative summar y

of the physical, chemical

, and m e teorological processes that control the formation and distribution of pollutants in a given region. Key findings of the analyses include:

Ozone

• Current monitoring data show about 20 sites in violation of the 8

- hour ozone
standard of 85 ppb . Historical ozone data show a steady downward trend over the past 15 years, especially since 2001

- 2003, due likely to federal and state emission control programs.

• Ozone concentrations are strongly influenced by meteorological conditions, with more high ozone days and higher ozone levels during summers with above normal temperatures.

• Inter

- and intra

- regional transport of ozone and ozone precursors affects many portions of the five states , and is the principal cause of nonattainment in some areas far from population o r industrial centers

PM 2.5



## • Current monitoring data show 3 0 sites in violation of the annual PM 2.5 

## standard of 15 ug/m 3 

## . Nonattainment sites are characterized by an elevated regional background ( about 12

– 14 ug/m 3 

## ) and a significant local (urban) incre ment ( about 2

– 3 ug/m 3 

## ). Historical PM 2.5 

## data show a slight downward trend since deployment of the PM 2.5 

## monitoring network in 1999.

• PM 2.5 

## concentrations are also influenced by meteorology, but the relationship is more complex and less well understood compared to ozone.

• On an annual average basis, PM 2.5 

## chemical composition consists of mostly sulfate, nitrate, and organic carbon in similar proportions.

Haze

• Current monitoring data show visibility levels in the Class I areas in northern Michigan are on the order of 2 2

– 2 4 deciviews. The goal of EPA’s visibility program is to achieve natural conditions, which is on the order of 12 deciviews for these Class I areas, by the year 2064.

• Visibility impairment is dominated by sulfate and nitrate.

Air qu ality models were applied to support the regional planning efforts. Two base years were used in the modeli ng analyses: 2002 and 2005. EPA’s modeling guidance recommends using

### 11 2



## 2002 as the baseline inventory year, but also allows for use of an alternative b aseline inventory year, especially a more recent year. Initially, LADCO conducted modeling with a 2002 base year (i.e., Base K modeling, which was completed in 2006). A decision was subsequently made to conduct modeling with a 2005 base year (i.e., Base M, which was completed in 2007). Statistical analyses showed that 2002 and 2005 both had above normal ozone

- conducive conditions, although 200 2 was more severe compared to 200 5 . Examination of multiple base years provides for a more complete technical as sessment. Both sets of model runs are discussed in this document.

B asecase modeling was conducted to evaluate model performance (i.e., assess the model's ability to reproduce the observed concentrations ) . This exercise wa s intended to assess whether, a nd to degree, confidence in the model is warranted (and to assess whether model improvements are necessary) . M odel performance for ozone and PM 2.5 

## was generally acceptable and can be characterized as follows:

Ozone

• Good agreement between modeled and mon itored concentration for higher concentration levels (> 60 ppb)

– i.e., bias within 30%

• Regional modeled concentrations appear to be underestimated in the 2002 base year, but show better agreement (with monitored data) in the 2005 base year due to model a nd inventory improvements

.

• Day

- to

- day and hour

- to

- hour variation in and spatial patterns of modeled
concentrations are consistent with monitored data

• Model accurately simulates the change in monitored ozone concentrations due to reductions in precursor e missions.

PM 2. 5



## • Good agreement in the magnitude of fine particle mass, but some species are
overestimated and some are underestimated

• Sulfates: good agreement in the 2002 base year, but underestimated in
the summer in the 2005 base year due probably to m eteorological factors

• Nitrates: slightly overestimated in the winter in the 2002 base year, but good agreement in the 2005 base year as a result of model and inventory improvements

• Organic Carbon: grossly underestimated in the 2002 and 2005 base years due likely to missing primary organic carbon emissions

• Temporal variation and spatial patterns of modeled concentrations are consistent
with monitored data

Future year strategy modeling was conducted to determine whether existing (“on the books”)
controls wo uld be sufficient to provide for attainment of the standards for ozone and PM 2.5 

## and if not, then what additional emission reductions would be necessary for attainment. Traditionally, attainment demonstrations involved a “bright line” test in which a sing le modeled value (based

on EPA guidance) was compared to the ambient standard. To provide a more robust assessment of expected future year air quality, other information was considered. Furthermore,

a ccording to EPA’s modeling guidance, if the future yea r model ed values are “close” to the

### 113



## standard (i.e., 82

– 87 ppb for ozone and 14.5

– 15.5 ug/m 3 

## for PM 2.5 

## ) , then the results of the primary modeling should be reviewed along with the supplemental information in a “weight of evidence” (WOE) assessment of w hether each area is likely to achieve timely attainment. Key findings of the WOE determination include:

• E xisting controls are expected to produce significant improvement in ozone and
PM 2.5 

## concentrations and visibility levels.

• The choice of the base yea r affects the future year model projections. A key difference between the base years of 2002 and 2005 is meteorology. 2002 was more ozone conducive than 2005. The choice of which base year to use as the basis for the SIP is a policy decision (i.e., how much safeguard to incorporate).

• Most sites are expected to meet the current 8

- hour standard by the applicable attainment date, except for sites in western Michigan and, possibly, in eastern Wisconsin and northeastern Ohio.

• Most sites a re expected to meet the current PM 2.5 

## standard by the applicable attainment date, except for sites in Detroit, Cleveland, and Granite City

.

T he regiona l modeling for PM 2.5 

## does not reflect air quality benefit s expected from local controls. States are conducting local

- scale analyses and will us e these results, in conjunction with the regional

- scale modeling, to support their attainment demonstrations for PM 2.5



## .

• These findings of residual nonattainment for ozone and PM 2.5 

## are supported by current (2005

– 2007) monitoring dat a which show significant nonattainment in the region (e.g., peak ozone design values on the order of 90

– 93 ppb, and peak
PM 2.5 

## d esign values on the order of 16

- 17 ug/m 3 

## ). It is unlikely that sufficient emission reductions will occur in the next few of years to provide for attainment at all sites.

• Attainment at most sites by the applicable attainment date is dependent on actual future year meteorology (e.g., if the weather conditions are consistent with [or less severe than] 2005, then attainment is li kely) and actual future year emissions (e.g., if the emission reductions associated with the existing controls are achieved, then attainment is likely). If either of these conditions is not met, then attainment may be less likely.

• T he new PM 2.5 

## 24

- hour s tandard and the new lower ozone standard will not be
met at several sites , even by 2018, with existing controls.

• Visibility levels in a few Class I areas in the eastern U.S. are expected to be greater than

(less improved than) the uniform rate of visibili ty improvement
value s in 2018 based on existing controls , including those in northern Michigan and s ome in the northeastern U.S. Visibility levels in m any other Class I areas in the eastern U.S. are expected to be less than (more improved than) the unifor m rate of visibility improvement value s in 2018.

### 114 

## Section 7. References

Alpine Geophysics, 2007, “Emissions Inventory Assistance: 2005 Base Year Biogenic and Other (non

- LADCO) State Emissions, Preparation and Delivery of Non

- MRPO Emission Files<
March 12 , 2007.

AER, 2004, “Analysis of Recent Regional Haze Data”, Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc., August 2004.

Baker, K., “Hot Spot Test (Draft), Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, March 23, 2005

Baker, K. 2007a, “Ozone Source Apportionment Results for Receptors in Non

- Attainment Counties in the Great Lakes Region”, Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, October 2007.

Baker, K., 2007b, “Source Apportionment Results for PM 2. 5 

## and Regional Haze at Receptors in the Great Lakes Region”, Lake M ichigan Air Directors Consortium, November 2007.

Baker, K. and D. Kenski, 2007, “Diagnostic and Operational Evaluation of 2002 and 2005 8

- Hour Ozone to Support Model Attainment Demonstrations”, Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, October 2007.

Blanch ard, C.L., and S. Tanenbaum, 2003, “ VOC and NO x 

## Limitation of Ozone Formation at Monitoring Sites in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin, 1998

- 2002 ”

, Report to LADCO

, February 2003.

.

Blanchard, C.L., and S. Tanenbaum, 2004, “ The Eff ects of Changes in Sulfate, Ammonia, and Nitric Acid on Fine PM Composition at Monitoring Sites in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin, 2000

- 20 02”, Report to LADCO, February 2004

.

Blanchard, C.L., and S. Tanenbaum , 2005 a , “Weekday/W eekend Differences in Ambient Concentrations of Primary and Secondary Air Pollutants in Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Dallas

Fort Worth, Denver, Houston, New York, Phoenix, Washington, and Surrounding Areas”, Prepared for National Renewable Energy Laborator y, NREL Project ES04

- 1, July 30, 2005.

Blanchard, C.L., and S. Tanenbaum, 2005 b , “ Analysis of Data from the Midwest Ammonia Monitoring Project

”, Draft Final Technical Memorandum, March 31, 2005.

Breiman, L., J. Friedman, R. Olshen, and C. Stone, 1984, “C lassification and Regression Trees”, Chapman & Hall (1984).

Camalier, L., Cox, W., Dolwick, P., 2007. The effects of meteorology on ozone in urban areas and their use in assessing ozone trends. Atmosp heric Environment 41, 7127

- 7137

Cox, W.M, and S.

- H. Ch u, 1993, Meteorologically Adjusted Ozone Trends in Urban Areas: A Probabililistic Approach, Atmospheric Environment 27B(4):425

- 434 (1993).

DeBell, L.J., K. Gebhart, J. Hand, W. Malm, M. Pitchford, B. Schichtel, and W. White, 2006, “Spatial and Seasonal P atterns and Temporal Variability of Haze and its Constituents in the United States, Report IV”, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, November
2006

### 115



## DRI, 2005, “Source Apportionment Analysis of Air Quality Monitoring Data: Phase II”, Desert
Research Institute. March 2005

EC/R, Incorporated, 2004, “Fire Emissions Inventory Development for the Midwest Regional Planning Organization”, Final Report, September 30, 2004.

EC/R, Incorporated, 2007, “Reasonable Progress for Class I Areas in the Nor thern Midwest

– Factor Analysis”, Draft Final Technical Memorandum, July 18, 2007.

E.H. Pechan, 2004, “LADCO Nonroad Emissions Inventory Project

– Development of Local Data for Construction and Agricultural Equipment”, Final Report, September 10, 2004

E. H. Pechan, 2005, “Development of Updated Growth and Control Factors for Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO)”, Draft Report, December 29, 2005.

E. H. Pechan, 2007, “Development of 2005 Base Year Growth and Control Factors for Lake Michigan Air D irectors Consortium (LADCO)”, Final Report, September 2007.

Environ, 2004, “LADCO Nonroad Emissions Inventory Project for Locomotive, Commercial Marine, and Recreational Marine Emission Sources, Final Report, December 2004.

Environ, 2007 a , “Modeling Week end and Weekday Ozone in Southeast Michigan”, Draft Final Report, Prepared for National Renewable Energy Laboratory, July 30, 2007.

Environ, 2007 b , “LADCO 2005 Locomotive Emissions”, Draft, February 2007.

Environ, 2007 c , “LADCO 2005 Commercial Marine Em issions”, Draft, March 2, 2007.

Environ, 2008 , “LADCO On

- Road Emission Inventory Development Using CONCEPT MV”, January 2008.

.
Hollander, M. and D. Wolfe, 1973, “Nonparametric Statistical Methods”, John Wiley & Sons, New York (1973).

Hopke, P. K., 2005, Analyses of Midwest PM

- Related Measurements, Report to LADCO

, March 2005.

Kenski, D.M., 2004, Quantifying Transboundary Transport of PM 2. 5 

## : A GIS Analysis, Proc.
AWMA 97 th 

## Annual Conf., Indianapolis

, June 2004

.
Kenski, D.M., 2007a, “CART Analysis for O zone Trends and Meteorological Similarity”, May 10,
2007.

Kenski, D.M., 2007 b , “ Impact of Missing Data on Worst Days at Midwest Northern Class 1
Areas ”, Donna Kenski

, Midwest RPO

, March 12, 2007 (revised 6/19/07)

.
Kenski, D.M., 2008a, “Updated Cox Trends Analysis”, February 2008.

Kenski, D.M. 2008 b , “Updated CART Analysis for Ozone through 2007”, January 30, 2008.

### 116



## LADCO, 2005, “Meteorological Modeling Performance Summary for Applications to PM 2. 5 

## /Haze/Ozone Modeling Projects”, February 18, 2005

.

LADCO, 2006a, “Base K/Round 4 Strategy Modeling” Emissions”, May 16, 2006

.
LADCO, 2006b, “Base K/Round 4 Modeling: Summary”, August 31, 2006

.
LADCO, 2007a, “Modeling Protocol: 2002 Basecase Technical Details”, October 17, 2007

LADCO, 2007b, “Modeling Protocol : 2005 Basecase Technical Details”, October 19, 2007

LADCO, 2007 c , “An Evaluation of an Annual 2005 MM5 Simulation to Support Photochemical and Emissions Modeling Applications”, January 10, 2007

.

LADCO, 2007 d , “Base M/Round 5 Modeling: Summary (DRAFT), O ctober 10, 2007

LADCO, 2008 a , “Base M Strategy Modeling: Emissions (Revised)”, February 27, 2008

LADCO, 2008b, “ Critique: Modeled Attainment Probability (i.e., Bob Lopez’ analysis) ”, January 10, 2008

Lopez, 2007, “Assessing the Site

- Specific and Region

- w ide Probability of Attainment Level Ozone Air Quality under varying seasonal conditions using the results of 2002 (Round 4) and 2005 (Round 5) Regional Modeling”, Draft 2, Bob Lopez

, WDNR

, December 12 , 2007

Mansell, G, Z. Wang, R. Zhang, J. Fadel, T. Rams ey, H. Xin, Y. Liang, and J. Arogo, 2005, “An Improved Process

- Based Ammonia Emissions Model for Agricultural Sources

– Emission Estimates”

MPCA, 2008, “Technical Support Document for the Minnesota State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze”, Draft, Marc h 4, 2008

.

M RPO , 2001, “Principles for Regional Planning”, March 9, 2001.

MRPO, 2007, “Draft List of Class I Areas Located Within (or Impacted by) Midwest RPO States”, June 26, 2007.

MRPO, 200 8 , “Regional Haze in the Upper Midwest: Summary of Technical Information”, Version 2.2, February 22, 2008

.
Millstein, D.E., R.A. Harley, and S.V. Hering, 2007, “Weekly cycles in fine particulate matter”, Atmospheric Environment (2007), doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.10.010.

Poirot, R. L.; Wishinski, P. R.; Hopke, P. K.; Polissar, A. V.; Comparative Application of Multiple Receptor Methods To Identify Aerosol Sources in Northern Vermont, Environ. Sci. Technol

., 36 (4); 820

- 820 (2002 ).

Sheesley, R.J., J.J. Schauer, E. Bean, and D. Kenski, Trends in Secondary Organic Aer osol at a Remote Site in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, Env. Sci. and Tech. 38 (24); 6491

- 6500 (Oct 2004).

### 117



## STI, 2004, “Data Processing and Analysis of Aloft Air Quality Data Collected in the Upper Midwest”, Executive Summary, STI

- 903470

- 2568

- ES3, Sonoma Techno logy, Inc, August 5, 2004

.

STI, 2006 a , “Integration of Results for the Upper Midwest Urban Organics Study”, Final Report, STI

- 903520

- 2942

- FR, Sonoma Technology, Inc. March 31, 2006.

STI, 200 8 , “Data Analysis and Source Apportionment of PM 2. 5 

## in Selected Midwestern Cities”, Final Report, STI

- 907018.03

- 3264

- DRF, Sonoma Technology, Inc., February 2008.

EPA, 1999, Regional Haze Regulations, 64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999

.
EPA, 2003, “Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze
R ule”, EPA

- 454/B

- 03

- 005, September 2003.

EPA, 2002, “Recommended Approach for Performing Mid

- Course Review of SIPs to Meet the
1

- Hour NAAQS for Ozone”, January 2002.

EPA, 2005, Final Rule to Implement the 8

- Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard

, 70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005

EPA, 200 6 , “Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards”, September 2006 ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html#ria2 007 )

EPA, 2007 a , "Guidance for on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2. 5 

## , and Regional Haze”, EPA

- 454/B07

- 002, April 2007.

EPA, 2007b, “Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Revisio ns to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards”, EPA

- 452/R

- 07

- 008, July 2007 ( h ttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html#ria2007 )

EPA, 2007c, Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule, 72 FR 2058 6, April 25, 2007

Zhang, R, T. Ramsey, J. Fadel, J. Arogo, Z. Wang, G. Mansell, and H. Xin, 2005, “An Improved Process

- Based Ammonia Emissions Model for Agricultural Sources

– Model Development”

Web Sites: http://www.ladco.org/tech/emis/basem/canada/index.htm

http://www.ladco.org/tech/emis/basek/BaseK_Reports.htm

http://www.ladco.org/tech/emis/r5/round5_reports.htm

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/

### 118 

## APPENDIX I

Ozone and PM 2. 5 

## Modeling ResultsKey Sites 2005 BY 2002 BY

'03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '03-'05 '04-'06 '05-'07 Average Average RRF Round 5 Lake Michigan Area Lake Michigan Area

Chiwaukee 550590019 88 78 93 79 85 86 83 85 84.7 98.3 0.968 82.0 Chiwaukee

Racine 551010017 82 69 95 71 77 82 78 81 80.3 91.7 0.966 77.6 Racine Milwaukee-Bayside 550190085 92 73 93 73 83 86 79 83 82.7 91.0 0.963 79.6 Milwaukee-Bayside Harrington Beach 550890009 99 72 94 72 84 88 79 83 83.3 93.0 0.960 80.0 Harrington Beach

Manitowoc 550710007 92 74 95 78 85 87 82 86 85.0 87.0 0.957 81.3 Manitowoc Sheboygan 551170006 93 78 97 83 88 89 86 89 88.0 97.0 0.959 84.4 Sheboygan

Kewaunee 550610002 97 73 88 76 85 86 79 83 82.7 89.3 0.954 78.9 Kewaunee Door County 550290004 93 78 101 79 92 90 86 90 88.7 91.0 0.956 84.8 Door County

Hammond 180892008 81 67 87 75 77 78 76 79 77.7 88.3 0.971 75.4 Hammond Whiting 180890030 64 88 81 88 76 77 85 79.3 0.971 77.0 Whiting Michigan City 180910005 82 70 84 75 73 78 76 77 77.0 90.3 0.964 74.2 Michigan City Ogden Dunes 181270020 77 69 90 70 84 78 76 81 78.3 86.3 0.967 75.7 Ogden Dunes

Holland 260050003 96 79 94 91 94 89 88 93 90.0 94.0 0.951 85.6 Holland

Jenison 261390005 91 69 86 83 88 82 79 85 82.0 86.0 0.950 77.9 Jenison Muskegon 261210039 94 70 90 90 86 84 83 88 85.0 90.0 0.951 80.8 Muskegon

Indianapolis Area Indianapolis Area

Noblesville 189571001 101 75 87 77 84 87 79 82 82.7 93.7 0.944 78.0 Noblesville

Fortville 180590003 92 72 80 75 81 81 75 78 78.0 91.3 0.948 73.9 Fortville

Fort B. Harrison 180970050 91 73 80 76 83 81 76 79 78.7 90.0 0.951 74.8 Fort B. Harrison

Detroit Area Detroit Area

New Haven 260990009 102 81 88 78 93 90 82 86 86.0 92.3 0.962 82.7 New Haven

Warren 260991003 101 71 89 78 91 87 79 86 84.0 90.0 0.982 82.5 Warren

Port Huron 261470005 87 74 88 78 89 83 80 85 82.7 88.0 0.956 79.0 Port Huron

Cleveland Area Cleveland Area

Ashtabula 390071001 99 81 93 86 92 91 86 90 89.0 95.7 0.954 84.9 Ashtabula Geauga 390550004 97 75 88 70 68 86 77 75 79.3 99.0 0.954 75.7 Geauga

Eastlake 390850003 92 79 97 83 74 89 86 84 86.3 92.7 0.959 82.8 Eastlake

Akron 391530020 89 77 89 77 91 85 81 85 83.7 93.3 0.948 79.3

Cincinnati Area Cincinnati Area Wilmington 390271002 96 78 83 81 82 85 80 82 82.3 94.3 0.945 77.8 Wilmington Sycamore 390610006 93 76 89 81 90 86 82 86 84.7 90.3 0.965 81.7 Sycamore

Lebanon 391650007 95 81 92 86 88 89 86 88 87.7 87.0 0.954 83.6 Lebanon

Columbus Area Columbus Area

London 390970007 90 75 81 76 83 82 77 80 79.7 88.7 0.946 75.4 London New Albany 390490029 94 78 92 82 87 88 84 87 86.3 93.0 0.954 82.4 New Albany

Franklin 290490028 84 73 86 79 79 81 79 81 80.3 86.0 0.958 77.0 Franklin

St. Louis Area St. Louis Area W. Alton (MO) 291831002 91 77 89 91 89 85 85 89 86.3 90.0 0.954 82.4 W. Alton (MO) Orchard (MO) 291831004 90 76 92 92 83 86 86 89 87.0 90.0 0.958 83.3 Orchard (MO) Sunset Hills (MO) 291890004 88 70 89 80 89 82 79 86 82.3 88.3 0.966 79.5 Sunset Hills (MO) Arnold (MO) 290990012 82 70 92 79 87 81 80 86 82.3 84.7 0.956 78.7 Arnold (MO) Margaretta (MO) 295100086 90 72 91 76 91 84 79 86 83.0 87.7 0.962 79.8 Margaretta (MO) Maryland Heights (MO) 291890014 88 84 94 88 86 88 87.3 0.967 84.5 Maryland Heights (MO) 4th High 8-hour Value Des. Values (truncated) 2008 - OTBKey Sites 2005 BY 2002 BY

'03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '03-'05 '04-'06 '05-'07 Average Average RRF Round 5 Round 4 RRF Round 5 Lake Michigan Area Lake Michigan Area

Chiwaukee 550590019 88 78 93 79 85 86 83 85 84.7 98.3 0.972 82.3 92.0 0.971 82.2 Chiwaukee

Racine 551010017 82 69 95 71 77 82 78 81 80.3 91.7 0.965 77.5 84.9 0.964 77.4 Racine Milwaukee-Bayside 550190085 92 73 93 73 83 86 79 83 82.7 91.0 0.965 79.8 84.9 0.964 79.7 Milwaukee-Bayside Harrington Beach 550890009 99 72 94 72 84 88 79 83 83.3 93.0 0.961 80.1 85.4 0.960 80.0 Harrington Beach

Manitowoc 550710007 92 74 95 78 85 87 82 86 85.0 87.0 0.951 80.8 78.9 0.949 80.7 Manitowoc Sheboygan 551170006 93 78 97 83 88 89 86 89 88.0 97.0 0.955 84.0 88.9 0.953 83.9 Sheboygan

Kewaunee 550610002 97 73 88 76 85 86 79 83 82.7 89.3 0.945 78.1 81.0 0.943 78.0 Kewaunee Door County 550290004 93 78 101 79 92 90 86 90 88.7 91.0 0.946 83.9 81.8 0.945 83.8 Door County

Hammond 180892008 81 67 87 75 77 78 76 79 77.7 88.3 0.971 75.4 86.6 0.970 75.3 Hammond Whiting 180890030 64 88 81 88 76 77 85 79.3 0.971 77.0 0.970 77.0 Whiting Michigan City 180910005 82 70 84 75 73 78 76 77 77.0 90.3 0.960 73.9 86.5 0.959 73.8 Michigan City Ogden Dunes 181270020 77 69 90 70 84 78 76 81 78.3 86.3 0.965 75.6 82.8 0.964 75.5 Ogden Dunes

Holland 260050003 96 79 94 91 94 89 88 93 90.0 94.0 0.948 85.3 83.4 0.947 85.2 Holland

Jenison 261390005 91 69 86 83 88 82 79 85 82.0 86.0 0.940 77.1 77.6 0.939 77.0 Jenison Muskegon 261210039 94 70 90 90 86 84 83 88 85.0 90.0 0.947 80.5 81.5 0.945 80.3 Muskegon

Indianapolis Area Indianapolis Area

Noblesville 189571001 101 75 87 77 84 87 79 82 82.7 93.7 0.945 78.1 83.7 0.946 78.2 Noblesville

Fortville 180590003 92 72 80 75 81 81 75 78 78.0 91.3 0.947 73.9 83.8 0.948 73.9 Fortville

Fort B. Harrison 180970050 91 73 80 76 83 81 76 79 78.7 90.0 0.955 75.1 83.7 0.956 75.2 Fort B. Harrison

Detroit Area Detroit Area

New Haven 260990009 102 81 88 78 93 90 82 86 86.0 92.3 0.947 81.4 85.3 0.947 81.4 New Haven

Warren 260991003 101 71 89 78 91 87 79 86 84.0 90.0 0.968 81.3 83.3 0.969 81.4 Warren

Port Huron 261470005 87 74 88 78 89 83 80 85 82.7 88.0 0.937 77.5 79.1 0.938 77.5 Port Huron

Cleveland Area Cleveland Area

Ashtabula 390071001 99 81 93 86 92 91 86 90 89.0 95.7 0.937 83.4 82.7 0.941 83.7 Ashtabula Geauga 390550004 97 75 88 70 68 86 77 75 79.3 99.0 0.942 74.7 88.8 0.945 75.0 Geauga

Eastlake 390850003 92 79 97 83 74 89 86 84 86.3 92.7 0.949 81.9 82.8 0.954 82.4 Eastlake

Akron 391530020 89 77 89 77 91 85 81 85 83.7 93.3 0.934 78.1 81.4 0.935 78.2

Cincinnati Area Cincinnati Area Wilmington 390271002 96 78 83 81 82 85 80 82 82.3 94.3 0.941 77.5 83.5 0.942 77.6 Wilmington Sycamore 390610006 93 76 89 81 90 86 82 86 84.7 90.3 0.967 81.9 84.7 0.968 82.0 Sycamore

Lebanon 391650007 95 81 92 86 88 89 86 88 87.7 87.0 0.947 83.0 79.0 0.948 83.1 Lebanon

Columbus Area Columbus Area

London 390970007 90 75 81 76 83 82 77 80 79.7 88.7 0.941 75.0 78.4 0.942 75.0 London New Albany 390490029 94 78 92 82 87 88 84 87 86.3 93.0 0.947 81.8 82.6 0.948 81.8 New Albany

Franklin 290490028 84 73 86 79 79 81 79 81 80.3 86.0 0.945 75.9 76.5 0.948 76.2 Franklin

St. Louis Area St. Louis Area W. Alton (MO) 291831002 91 77 89 91 89 85 85 89 86.3 90.0 0.938 81.0 85.2 0.932 80.5 W. Alton (MO) Orchard (MO) 291831004 90 76 92 92 83 86 86 89 87.0 90.0 0.942 82.0 82.2 0.939 81.7 Orchard (MO) Sunset Hills (MO) 291890004 88 70 89 80 89 82 79 86 82.3 88.3 0.956 78.7 81.9 0.954 78.5 Sunset Hills (MO) Arnold (MO) 290990012 82 70 92 79 87 81 80 86 82.3 84.7 0.938 77.2 77.4 0.937 77.1 Arnold (MO) Margaretta (MO) 295100086 90 72 91 76 91 84 79 86 83.0 87.7 0.955 79.3 83.4 0.955 79.3 Margaretta (MO) Maryland Heights (MO) 291890014 88 84 94 88 86 88 87.3 0.955 83.4 0.954 83.3 Maryland Heights (MO) 4th High 8-hour Value Des. Values (truncated) 2009 - Will Do 2009 - OTBKey Sites 2005 BY 2002 BY

'03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '03-'05 '04-'06 '05-'07 Average Average RRF Round 5 Round 4 RRF Round 5 Lake Michigan Area Lake Michigan Area

Chiwaukee 550590019 88 78 93 79 85 86 83 85 84.7 98.3 0.956 80.9 90.3 0.900 76.2 Chiwaukee

Racine 551010017 82 69 95 71 77 82 78 81 80.3 91.7 0.947 76.1 82.9 0.886 71.2 Racine Milwaukee-Bayside 550190085 92 73 93 73 83 86 79 83 82.7 91.0 0.944 78.0 82.3 0.880 72.7 Milwaukee-Bayside Harrington Beach 550890009 99 72 94 72 84 88 79 83 83.3 93.0 0.939 78.3 82.9 0.870 72.5 Harrington Beach

Manitowoc 550710007 92 74 95 78 85 87 82 86 85.0 87.0 0.925 78.6 76.3 0.853 72.5 Manitowoc Sheboygan 551170006 93 78 97 83 88 89 86 89 88.0 97.0 0.930 81.8 86.4 0.857 75.4 Sheboygan

Kewaunee 550610002 97 73 88 76 85 86 79 83 82.7 89.3 0.918 75.9 79.1 0.845 69.9 Kewaunee Door County 550290004 93 78 101 79 92 90 86 90 88.7 91.0 0.919 81.5 79.3 0.843 74.7 Door County

Hammond 180892008 81 67 87 75 77 78 76 79 77.7 88.3 0.960 74.6 86.3 0.922 71.6 Hammond Whiting 180890030 64 88 81 88 76 77 85 79.3 0.960 76.2 0.922 73.1 Whiting Michigan City 180910005 82 70 84 75 73 78 76 77 77.0 90.3 0.942 72.5 85.4 0.884 68.1 Michigan City Ogden Dunes 181270020 77 69 90 70 84 78 76 81 78.3 86.3 0.951 74.5 82.0 0.904 70.8 Ogden Dunes

Holland 260050003 96 79 94 91 94 89 88 93 90.0 94.0 0.920 82.8 81.0 0.846 76.1 Holland

Jenison 261390005 91 69 86 83 88 82 79 85 82.0 86.0 0.909 74.5 75.5 0.838 68.7 Jenison Muskegon 261210039 94 70 90 90 86 84 83 88 85.0 90.0 0.918 78.0 79.4 0.846 71.9 Muskegon

Indianapolis Area Indianapolis Area

Noblesville 189571001 101 75 87 77 84 87 79 82 82.7 93.7 0.914 75.6 82.0 0.831 68.7 Noblesville

Fortville 180590003 92 72 80 75 81 81 75 78 78.0 91.3 0.916 71.4 82.1 0.835 65.1 Fortville

Fort B. Harrison 180970050 91 73 80 76 83 81 76 79 78.7 90.0 0.931 73.2 82.4 0.879 69.1 Fort B. Harrison

Detroit Area Detroit Area

New Haven 260990009 102 81 88 78 93 90 82 86 86.0 92.3 0.932 80.2 83.5 0.885 76.1 New Haven

Warren 260991003 101 71 89 78 91 87 79 86 84.0 90.0 0.961 80.7 81.9 0.924 77.6 Warren

Port Huron 261470005 87 74 88 78 89 83 80 85 82.7 88.0 0.913 75.5 77.0 0.858 70.9 Port Huron

Cleveland Area Cleveland Area

Ashtabula 390071001 99 81 93 86 92 91 86 90 89.0 95.7 0.910 81.0 80.2 0.844 75.1 Ashtabula Geauga 390550004 97 75 88 70 68 86 77 75 79.3 99.0 0.916 72.7 86.2 0.848 67.3 Geauga

Eastlake 390850003 92 79 97 83 74 89 86 84 86.3 92.7 0.932 80.5 80.6 0.883 76.2 Eastlake

Akron 391530020 89 77 89 77 91 85 81 85 83.7 93.3 0.903 75.6 78.5 0.821 68.7 Akron

Cincinnati Area Cincinnati Area Wilmington 390271002 96 78 83 81 82 85 80 82 82.3 94.3 0.910 74.9 81.1 0.830 68.3 Wilmington Sycamore 390610006 93 76 89 81 90 86 82 86 84.7 90.3 0.948 80.3 82.9 0.881 74.6 Sycamore

Lebanon 391650007 95 81 92 86 88 89 86 88 87.7 87.0 0.921 80.7 77.0 0.846 74.2 Lebanon

Columbus Area Columbus Area

London 390970007 90 75 81 76 83 82 77 80 79.7 88.7 0.911 72.6 76.5 0.832 66.3 London New Albany 390490029 94 78 92 82 87 88 84 87 86.3 93.0 0.922 79.6 80.2 0.845 73.0 New Albany

Franklin 290490028 84 73 86 79 79 81 79 81 80.3 86.0 0.923 74.1 74.7 0.859 69.0 Franklin

St. Louis Area St. Louis Area W. Alton (MO) 291831002 91 77 89 91 89 85 85 89 86.3 90.0 0.911 78.6 84.0 0.868 74.9 W. Alton (MO) Orchard (MO) 291831004 90 76 92 92 83 86 86 89 87.0 90.0 0.919 80.0 80.4 0.876 76.2 Orchard (MO) Sunset Hills (MO) 291890004 88 70 89 80 89 82 79 86 82.3 88.3 0.937 77.1 80.6 0.897 73.9 Sunset Hills (MO) Arnold (MO) 290990012 82 70 92 79 87 81 80 86 82.3 84.7 0.918 75.6 75.8 0.874 72.0 Arnold (MO) Margaretta (MO) 295100086 90 72 91 76 91 84 79 86 83.0 87.7 0.939 77.9 82.5 0.896 74.4 Margaretta (MO) Maryland Heights (MO) 291890014 88 84 94 88 86 88 87.3 0.936 81.7 0.894 78.1 Maryland Heights (MO) 4th High 8-hour Value Des. Values (truncated) 2018 - OTB 2012 - OTB2005 BY 2002 BY

Key Site County Site ID '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '03 - '05 '04 - '06 '05 - '07 Average
w/ 2007 Average
Round 5 Round4 Key Site Chicago - Washington HS Cook 170310022 15.6 14.2 16.9 13.2 15.7 15.6 14.8 15.3 15.2 15.9 14.1 14.8 Chicago - Washington HS Chicago - Mayfair Cook 170310052 15.9 15.3 17.0 14.5 15.5 16.1 15.6 15.7 15.8 17.1 14.4 15.8 Chicago - Mayfair Chicago - Springfield Cook 170310057 15.6 13.8 16.7 13.5 15.1 15.4 14.7 15.1 15.0 15.6 13.9 14.5 Chicago - Springfield Chicago - Lawndale Cook 170310076 14.8 14.2 16.6 13.5 14.3 15.2 14.8 14.8 14.9 15.6 13.8 14.5 Chicago - Lawndale

Blue Island Cook 170312001 14.9 14.1 16.4 13.2 14.3 15.1 14.6 14.6 14.8 15.6 13.7 14.5 Blue Island

Summit Cook 170313301 15.6 14.2 16.9 13.8 14.8 15.6 15.0 15.2 15.2 16.0 14.2 14.8 Summit

Cicero Cook 170316005 16.8 15.2 16.3 14.3 14.8 16.1 15.3 15.1 15.5 16.4 14.4 15.3 Cicero Granite City Madison 171191007 17.5 15.4 18.2 16.3 15.1 17.0 16.6 16.5 16.7 17.3 15.1 16.0 Granite City

E. St. Louis St. Clair 171630010 14.9 14.7 17.1 14.5 15.6 15.6 15.4 15.7 15.6 16.2 14.1 14.9 E. St. Louis

Jeffersonville Clark 180190005 15.8 15.1 18.5 15.0 16.5 16.5 16.2 16.7 16.4 17.2 13.8 15.5 Jeffersonville Jasper Dubois 180372001 15.7 14.4 16.9 13.5 14.4 15.7 14.9 14.9 15.2 15.5 12.4 13.8 Jasper Gary Lake 180890031 16.8 13.3 14.5 16.8 15.1 14.9 15.6 13.0 Gary Indy-Washington Park Marion 180970078 15.5 14.3 16.4 14.1 15.8 15.4 14.9 15.4 15.3 16.2 12.8 14.5 Indy-Washington Park Indy-W 18th Street Marion 180970081 16.2 15.0 17.9 14.2 16.1 16.4 15.7 16.1 16.0 13.4 Indy-W 18th Street Indy- Michigan Street Marion 180970083 16.3 15.0 17.5 14.1 15.9 16.3 15.5 15.8 15.9 16.6 13.4 14.8 Indy- Michigan Street

Allen Park Wayne 261630001 15.2 14.2 15.9 13.2 12.8 15.1 14.4 14.0 14.5 15.8 13.0 14.5 Allen Park

Southwest HS Wayne 261630015 16.6 15.4 17.2 14.7 14.5 16.4 15.8 15.5 15.9 17.3 14.2 15.8 Southwest HS

Linwood Wayne 261630016 15.8 13.7 16.0 13.0 13.9 15.2 14.2 14.3 14.6 15.5 13.1 14.1 Linwood

Dearborn Wayne 261630033 19.2 16.8 18.6 16.1 16.9 18.2 17.2 17.2 17.5 19.3 15.8 17.7 Dearborn Wyandotte Wayne 261630036 16.3 13.7 16.4 12.9 13.4 15.5 14.3 14.2 14.7 16.6 13.1 15.1 Wyandotte

Middleton Butler 390170003 17.2 14.1 19.0 14.1 15.4 16.8 15.7 16.2 16.2 16.5 13.5 14.2 Middleton

Fairfield Butler 390170016 15.8 14.7 17.9 14.0 14.9 16.1 15.5 15.6 15.8 15.9 13.1 13.5 Fairfield

Cleveland-28th Street Cuyahoga 390350027 15.4 15.6 17.3 13.0 14.5 16.1 15.3 14.9 15.4 16.5 13.5 14.4 Cleveland-28th Street

Cleveland-St. Tikhon Cuyahoga 390350038 17.6 17.5 19.2 14.9 16.2 18.1 17.2 16.8 17.4 18.4 15.2 16.1 Cleveland-St. Tikhon Cleveland-Broadway Cuyahoga 390350045 16.4 15.3 19.3 14.1 15.3 17.0 16.2 16.2 16.5 16.7 14.4 14.6 Cleveland-Broadway Cleveland-E14 & Orange Cuyahoga 390350060 17.2 16.4 19.4 15.0 15.9 17.7 16.9 16.8 17.1 17.6 15.0 15.3 Cleveland-E14 & Orange Newburg Hts - Harvard Ave Cuyahoga 390350065 15.6 15.2 18.6 13.1 15.8 16.5 15.6 15.8 16.0 16.2 14.0 14.1 Newburg Hts - Harvard Ave Columbus - Fairgrounds Franklin 390490024 16.4 15.0 16.4 13.6 14.6 15.9 15.0 14.9 15.3 16.5 12.9 14.6 Columbus - Fairgrounds

Columbus - Ann Street Franklin 390490025 15.3 14.6 16.5 13.8 14.7 15.5 15.0 15.0 15.1 16.0 12.7 14.1 Columbus - Ann Street Columbus - Maple Canyon Franklin 390490081 14.9 13.6 14.6 12.9 13.1 14.4 13.7 13.5 13.9 16.0 11.7 14.0 Columbus - Maple Canyon Cincinnati - Seymour Hamilton 390610014 17.0 15.9 19.8 15.5 16.5 17.6 17.1 17.3 17.3 17.7 14.5 15.5 Cincinnati - Seymour

Cincinnati - Taft Ave Hamilton 390610040 15.5 14.6 17.5 13.6 15.1 15.9 15.2 15.4 15.5 15.7 12.8 13.6 Cincinnati - Taft Ave

Cincinnati - 8th Ave Hamilton 390610042 16.7 16.0 19.1 14.9 15.9 17.3 16.7 16.6 16.9 17.3 14.0 14.6 Cincinnati - 8th Ave

Sharonville Hamilton 390610043 15.7 14.9 16.9 14.5 14.8 15.8 15.4 15.4 15.6 16.0 12.9 13.6 Sharonville

Norwood Hamilton 390617001 16.0 15.3 18.4 14.4 15.1 16.6 16.0 16.0 16.2 16.3 13.4 14.2 Norwood

St. Bernard Hamilton 390618001 17.3 16.4 20.0 15.9 16.1 17.9 17.4 17.3 17.6 17.3 14.7 15.2 St. Bernard

Steubenville Jefferson 390810016 17.7 15.9 16.4 13.8 16.2 16.7 15.4 15.5 15.8 17.7 12.8 16.3 Steubenville Mingo Junction Jefferson 390811001 17.3 16.2 18.1 14.6 15.6 17.2 16.3 16.1 16.5 17.5 13.5 15.5 Mingo Junction

Ironton Lawrence 390870010 14.3 13.7 17.0 14.4 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.5 15.2 15.7 12.8 14.2 Ironton Dayton Montgomery 391130032 15.9 14.5 17.4 13.6 15.6 15.9 15.2 15.5 15.5 15.9 13.2 13.7 Dayton

New Boston Scioto 391450013 14.7 13.0 16.2 14.3 14.0 14.6 14.5 14.8 14.7 17.1 12.1 15.4 New Boston

Canton - Dueber Stark 391510017 16.8 15.6 17.8 14.6 15.9 16.7 16.0 16.1 16.3 17.3 14.0 15.0 Canton - Dueber

Canton - Market Stark 391510020 15.0 14.1 16.6 11.9 14.4 15.2 14.2 14.3 14.6 15.7 12.6 13.6 Canton - Market

Akron - Brittain Summit 391530017 15.4 15.0 16.4 13.5 14.4 15.6 15.0 14.8 15.1 16.4 13.0 14.4 Akron - Brittain Akron - W. Exchange Summit 391530023 14.2 13.9 15.7 12.8 13.7 14.6 14.1 14.1 14.3 15.6 12.3 13.6 Akron - W. Exchange Annual Average Conc. Design Values 2009 Modeling Results2005 BY 2002 BY

Key Site County Site ID '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '03 - '05 '04 - '06 '05 - '07 Average
w/ 2007 Average
Round 5 Round4 Key Site Chicago - Washington HS Cook 170310022 15.6 14.2 16.9 13.2 15.7 15.6 14.8 15.3 15.2 15.9 14.0 14.6 Chicago - Washington HS Chicago - Mayfair Cook 170310052 15.9 15.3 17.0 14.5 15.5 16.1 15.6 15.7 15.8 17.1 14.2 15.5 Chicago - Mayfair Chicago - Springfield Cook 170310057 15.6 13.8 16.7 13.5 15.1 15.4 14.7 15.1 15.0 15.6 13.8 14.3 Chicago - Springfield Chicago - Lawndale Cook 170310076 14.8 14.2 16.6 13.5 14.3 15.2 14.8 14.8 14.9 15.6 13.7 14.3 Chicago - Lawndale

Blue Island Cook 170312001 14.9 14.1 16.4 13.2 14.3 15.1 14.6 14.6 14.8 15.6 13.6 14.3 Blue Island

Summit Cook 170313301 15.6 14.2 16.9 13.8 14.8 15.6 15.0 15.2 15.2 16.0 14.0 14.6 Summit

Cicero Cook 170316005 16.8 15.2 16.3 14.3 14.8 16.1 15.3 15.1 15.5 16.4 14.3 15.1 Cicero Granite City Madison 171191007 17.5 15.4 18.2 16.3 15.1 17.0 16.6 16.5 16.7 17.3 14.9 15.8 Granite City

E. St. Louis St. Clair 171630010 14.9 14.7 17.1 14.5 15.6 15.6 15.4 15.7 15.6 16.2 13.9 14.7 E. St. Louis

Jeffersonville Clark 180190005 15.8 15.1 18.5 15.0 16.5 16.5 16.2 16.7 16.4 17.2 13.7 15.0 Jeffersonville Jasper Dubois 180372001 15.7 14.4 16.9 13.5 14.4 15.7 14.9 14.9 15.2 15.5 12.2 13.5 Jasper Gary Lake 180890031 16.8 13.3 14.5 16.8 15.1 14.9 15.6 12.8 Gary Indy-Washington Park Marion 180970078 15.5 14.3 16.4 14.1 15.8 15.4 14.9 15.4 15.3 16.2 12.6 14.2 Indy-Washington Park Indy-W 18th Street Marion 180970081 16.2 15.0 17.9 14.2 16.1 16.4 15.7 16.1 16.0 13.2 Indy-W 18th Street Indy- Michigan Street Marion 180970083 16.3 15.0 17.5 14.1 15.9 16.3 15.5 15.8 15.9 16.6 13.1 14.9 Indy- Michigan Street

Allen Park Wayne 261630001 15.2 14.2 15.9 13.2 12.8 15.1 14.4 14.0 14.5 15.8 12.8 14.1 Allen Park

Southwest HS Wayne 261630015 16.6 15.4 17.2 14.7 14.5 16.4 15.8 15.5 15.9 17.3 13.9 15.3 Southwest HS

Linwood Wayne 261630016 15.8 13.7 16.0 13.0 13.9 15.2 14.2 14.3 14.6 15.5 12.8 13.7 Linwood

Dearborn Wayne 261630033 19.2 16.8 18.6 16.1 16.9 18.2 17.2 17.2 17.5 19.3 15.5 17.1 Dearborn Wyandotte Wayne 261630036 16.3 13.7 16.4 12.9 13.4 15.5 14.3 14.2 14.7 16.6 12.8 14.7 Wyandotte

Middleton Butler 390170003 17.2 14.1 19.0 14.1 15.4 16.8 15.7 16.2 16.2 16.5 13.2 13.7 Middleton

Fairfield Butler 390170016 15.8 14.7 17.9 14.0 14.9 16.1 15.5 15.6 15.8 15.9 12.9 12.9 Fairfield

Cleveland-28th Street Cuyahoga 390350027 15.4 15.6 17.3 13.0 14.5 16.1 15.3 14.9 15.4 16.5 13.2 13.8 Cleveland-28th Street

Cleveland-St. Tikhon Cuyahoga 390350038 17.6 17.5 19.2 14.9 16.2 18.1 17.2 16.8 17.4 18.4 14.8 15.4 Cleveland-St. Tikhon Cleveland-Broadway Cuyahoga 390350045 16.4 15.3 19.3 14.1 15.3 17.0 16.2 16.2 16.5 16.7 14.0 14.0 Cleveland-Broadway Cleveland-E14 & Orange Cuyahoga 390350060 17.2 16.4 19.4 15.0 15.9 17.7 16.9 16.8 17.1 17.6 14.6 14.7 Cleveland-E14 & Orange Newburg Hts - Harvard Ave Cuyahoga 390350065 15.6 15.2 18.6 13.1 15.8 16.5 15.6 15.8 16.0 16.2 13.6 13.5 Newburg Hts - Harvard Ave Columbus - Fairgrounds Franklin 390490024 16.4 15.0 16.4 13.6 14.6 15.9 15.0 14.9 15.3 16.5 12.6 14.0 Columbus - Fairgrounds

Columbus - Ann Street Franklin 390490025 15.3 14.6 16.5 13.8 14.7 15.5 15.0 15.0 15.1 16.0 12.4 13.5 Columbus - Ann Street Columbus - Maple Canyon Franklin 390490081 14.9 13.6 14.6 12.9 13.1 14.4 13.7 13.5 13.9 16.0 11.4 13.4 Columbus - Maple Canyon Cincinnati - Seymour Hamilton 390610014 17.0 15.9 19.8 15.5 16.5 17.6 17.1 17.3 17.3 17.7 14.3 14.8 Cincinnati - Seymour

Cincinnati - Taft Ave Hamilton 390610040 15.5 14.6 17.5 13.6 15.1 15.9 15.2 15.4 15.5 15.7 12.6 13.0 Cincinnati - Taft Ave

Cincinnati - 8th Ave Hamilton 390610042 16.7 16.0 19.1 14.9 15.9 17.3 16.7 16.6 16.9 17.3 13.8 14.0 Cincinnati - 8th Ave

Sharonville Hamilton 390610043 15.7 14.9 16.9 14.5 14.8 15.8 15.4 15.4 15.6 16.0 12.7 13.0 Sharonville

Norwood Hamilton 390617001 16.0 15.3 18.4 14.4 15.1 16.6 16.0 16.0 16.2 16.3 13.2 13.6 Norwood

St. Bernard Hamilton 390618001 17.3 16.4 20.0 15.9 16.1 17.9 17.4 17.3 17.6 17.3 14.4 14.6 St. Bernard

Steubenville Jefferson 390810016 17.7 15.9 16.4 13.8 16.2 16.7 15.4 15.5 15.8 17.7 12.5 15.9 Steubenville Mingo Junction Jefferson 390811001 17.3 16.2 18.1 14.6 15.6 17.2 16.3 16.1 16.5 17.5 13.2 15.0 Mingo Junction

Ironton Lawrence 390870010 14.3 13.7 17.0 14.4 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.5 15.2 15.7 12.5 13.7 Ironton Dayton Montgomery 391130032 15.9 14.5 17.4 13.6 15.6 15.9 15.2 15.5 15.5 15.9 12.9 13.2 Dayton

New Boston Scioto 391450013 14.7 13.0 16.2 14.3 14.0 14.6 14.5 14.8 14.7 17.1 11.9 14.8 New Boston

Canton - Dueber Stark 391510017 16.8 15.6 17.8 14.6 15.9 16.7 16.0 16.1 16.3 17.3 13.6 14.3 Canton - Dueber

Canton - Market Stark 391510020 15.0 14.1 16.6 11.9 14.4 15.2 14.2 14.3 14.6 15.7 12.3 13.0 Canton - Market

Akron - Brittain Summit 391530017 15.4 15.0 16.4 13.5 14.4 15.6 15.0 14.8 15.1 16.4 12.7 13.6 Akron - Brittain Akron - W. Exchange Summit 391530023 14.2 13.9 15.7 12.8 13.7 14.6 14.1 14.1 14.3 15.6 12.0 13.0 Akron - W. Exchange Annual Average Conc. Design Values 2012 Modeling Results2005 BY 2002 BY

Key Site County Site ID '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '03 - '05 '04 - '06 '05 - '07 Average
w/ 2007 Average Round 5
OTB Round 5

Will Do Round4 Key Site Chicago - Washington HS Cook 170310022 15.6 14.2 16.9 13.2 15.7 15.6 14.8 15.3 15.2 15.9 13.9 13.8 14.4 Chicago - Washington HS Chicago - Mayfair Cook 170310052 15.9 15.3 17.0 14.5 15.5 16.1 15.6 15.7 15.8 17.1 13.9 13.8 15.0 Chicago - Mayfair Chicago - Springfield Cook 170310057 15.6 13.8 16.7 13.5 15.1 15.4 14.7 15.1 15.0 15.6 13.7 13.5 14.1 Chicago - Springfield Chicago - Lawndale Cook 170310076 14.8 14.2 16.6 13.5 14.3 15.2 14.8 14.8 14.9 15.6 13.6 13.4 14.1 Chicago - Lawndale

Blue Island Cook 170312001 14.9 14.1 16.4 13.2 14.3 15.1 14.6 14.6 14.8 15.6 13.4 13.3 14.1 Blue Island

Summit Cook 170313301 15.6 14.2 16.9 13.8 14.8 15.6 15.0 15.2 15.2 16.0 13.9 13.8 14.4 Summit

Cicero Cook 170316005 16.8 15.2 16.3 14.3 14.8 16.1 15.3 15.1 15.5 16.4 14.2 14.0 14.9 Cicero Granite City Madison 171191007 17.5 15.4 18.2 16.3 15.1 17.0 16.6 16.5 16.7 17.3 14.3 14.2 15.5 Granite City

E. St. Louis St. Clair 171630010 14.9 14.7 17.1 14.5 15.6 15.6 15.4 15.7 15.6 16.2 13.4 13.3 14.5 E. St. Louis

Jeffersonville Clark 180190005 15.8 15.1 18.5 15.0 16.5 16.5 16.2 16.7 16.4 17.2 13.4 13.4 14.4 Jeffersonville Jasper Dubois 180372001 15.7 14.4 16.9 13.5 14.4 15.7 14.9 14.9 15.2 15.5 11.8 11.9 13.0 Jasper Gary Lake 180890031 16.8 13.3 14.5 16.8 15.1 14.9 15.6 12.4 12.4 Gary Indy- Washington Park Marion 180970078 15.5 14.3 16.4 14.1 15.8 15.4 14.9 15.4 15.3 16.2 12.0 12.1 13.7 Indy- Washington Park Indy- W 18th Street Marion 180970081 16.2 15.0 17.9 14.2 16.1 16.4 15.7 16.1 16.0 12.6 12.7 Indy- W 18th Street Indy- Michigan Street Marion 180970083 16.3 15.0 17.5 14.1 15.9 16.3 15.5 15.8 15.9 16.6 12.6 12.6 14.0 Indy- Michigan Street

Allen Park Wayne 261630001 15.2 14.2 15.9 13.2 12.8 15.1 14.4 14.0 14.5 15.8 12.4 12.4 13.3 Allen Park

Southwest HS Wayne 261630015 16.6 15.4 17.2 14.7 14.5 16.4 15.8 15.5 15.9 17.3 13.5 13.5 14.4 Southwest HS

Linwood Wayne 261630016 15.8 13.7 16.0 13.0 13.9 15.2 14.2 14.3 14.6 15.5 12.5 12.5 13.0 Linwood

Dearborn Wayne 261630033 19.2 16.8 18.6 16.1 16.9 18.2 17.2 17.2 17.5 19.3 15.1 15.1 16.1 Dearborn Wyandotte Wayne 261630036 16.3 13.7 16.4 12.9 13.4 15.5 14.3 14.2 14.7 16.6 12.5 12.5 13.9 Wyandotte

Middleton Butler 390170003 17.2 14.1 19.0 14.1 15.4 16.8 15.7 16.2 16.2 16.5 12.8 12.8 13.1 Middleton

Fairfield Butler 390170016 15.8 14.7 17.9 14.0 14.9 16.1 15.5 15.6 15.8 15.9 12.5 12.6 12.2 Fairfield

Cleveland-28th Street Cuyahoga 390350027 15.4 15.6 17.3 13.0 14.5 16.1 15.3 14.9 15.4 16.5 12.7 12.9 12.9 Cleveland-28th Street

Cleveland-St. Tikhon Cuyahoga 390350038 17.6 17.5 19.2 14.9 16.2 18.1 17.2 16.8 17.4 18.4 14.3 14.5 14.4 Cleveland-St. Tikhon Cleveland-Broadway Cuyahoga 390350045 16.4 15.3 19.3 14.1 15.3 17.0 16.2 16.2 16.5 16.7 13.5 13.7 13.1 Cleveland-Broadway Cleveland-E14 & Orange Cuyahoga 390350060 17.2 16.4 19.4 15.0 15.9 17.7 16.9 16.8 17.1 17.6 14.1 14.2 13.7 Cleveland-E14 & Orange Newburg Hts - Harvard Ave Cuyahoga 390350065 15.6 15.2 18.6 13.1 15.8 16.5 15.6 15.8 16.0 16.2 13.1 13.3 12.6 Newburg Hts - Harvard Ave Columbus - Fairgrounds Franklin 390490024 16.4 15.0 16.4 13.6 14.6 15.9 15.0 14.9 15.3 16.5 12.0 12.1 13.0 Columbus - Fairgrounds

Columbus - Ann Street Franklin 390490025 15.3 14.6 16.5 13.8 14.7 15.5 15.0 15.0 15.1 16.0 11.9 11.9 12.5 Columbus - Ann Street Columbus - Maple Canyon Franklin 390490081 14.9 13.6 14.6 12.9 13.1 14.4 13.7 13.5 13.9 16.0 10.9 11.0 12.5 Columbus - Maple Canyon Cincinnati - Seymour Hamilton 390610014 17.0 15.9 19.8 15.5 16.5 17.6 17.1 17.3 17.3 17.7 13.8 13.9 14.0 Cincinnati - Seymour

Cincinnati - Taft Ave Hamilton 390610040 15.5 14.6 17.5 13.6 15.1 15.9 15.2 15.4 15.5 15.7 12.2 12.3 12.3 Cincinnati - Taft Ave

Cincinnati - 8th Ave Hamilton 390610042 16.7 16.0 19.1 14.9 15.9 17.3 16.7 16.6 16.9 17.3 13.4 13.4 13.2 Cincinnati - 8th Ave

Sharonville Hamilton 390610043 15.7 14.9 16.9 14.5 14.8 15.8 15.4 15.4 15.6 16.0 12.3 12.4 12.2 Sharonville

Norwood Hamilton 390617001 16.0 15.3 18.4 14.4 15.1 16.6 16.0 16.0 16.2 16.3 12.8 12.8 12.8 Norwood

St. Bernard Hamilton 390618001 17.3 16.4 20.0 15.9 16.1 17.9 17.4 17.3 17.6 17.3 14.0 14.1 13.8 St. Bernard

Steubenville Jefferson 390810016 17.7 15.9 16.4 13.8 16.2 16.7 15.4 15.5 15.8 17.7 12.7 12.7 16.2 Steubenville Mingo Junction Jefferson 390811001 17.3 16.2 18.1 14.6 15.6 17.2 16.3 16.1 16.5 17.5 13.4 13.4 15.3 Mingo Junction

Ironton Lawrence 390870010 14.3 13.7 17.0 14.4 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.5 15.2 15.7 12.3 12.3 13.2 Ironton Dayton Montgomery 391130032 15.9 14.5 17.4 13.6 15.6 15.9 15.2 15.5 15.5 15.9 12.4 12.5 12.3 Dayton

New Boston Scioto 391450013 14.7 13.0 16.2 14.3 14.0 14.6 14.5 14.8 14.7 17.1 11.6 11.6 14.2 New Boston

Canton - Dueber Stark 391510017 16.8 15.6 17.8 14.6 15.9 16.7 16.0 16.1 16.3 17.3 13.3 13.3 13.6 Canton - Dueber

Canton - Market Stark 391510020 15.0 14.1 16.6 11.9 14.4 15.2 14.2 14.3 14.6 15.7 11.9 12.0 12.2 Canton - Market

Akron - Brittain Summit 391530017 15.4 15.0 16.4 13.5 14.4 15.6 15.0 14.8 15.1 16.4 12.3 12.3 12.9 Akron - Brittain Akron - W. Exchange Summit 391530023 14.2 13.9 15.7 12.8 13.7 14.6 14.1 14.1 14.3 15.6 11.5 11.6 12.2 Akron - W. Exchange Annual Average Conc. Design Values 2018 Modeling Results

## 24-Hour PM 2.5 Base Year

Key Site County Site ID '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '03-'05 '04-'06 '05-'07 Average
w/ 2007 2009 2012 2018 Key Site Chicago - Washington HS Cook 170310022 37.7 32.5 45.7 27.0 35.7 38.6 35.1 36.1 36.6 36 36 35 Chicago - Washington HS Chicago - Mayfair Cook 170310052 37.3 38.8 48.3 31.6 39.4 41.5 39.6 39.8 40.3 36 36 36 Chicago - Mayfair Chicago - Springfield Cook 170310057 36.4 33.1 46.5 27.7 38.9 38.7 35.8 37.7 37.4 32 32 31 Chicago - Springfield Chicago - Lawndale Cook 170310076 32.6 39.7 45.1 29.0 37.2 39.1 37.9 37.1 38.1 35 35 34 Chicago - Lawndale

McCook Cook 170311016 43.0 39 39 38 McCook

Blue Island Cook 170312001 39.6 38.5 43.8 28.1 35.1 40.6 36.8 35.7 37.7 34 34 33 Blue Island

Schiller Park Cook 170313103 40.7 50.3 30.0 36.6 45.5 40.3 39.0 41.6 39 39 39 Schiller Park

Summit Cook 170313301 38.4 42.4 49.1 27.4 36.7 43.3 39.6 37.7 40.2 38 38 37 Summit Maywood Cook 170316005 38.5 42.5 44.6 29.2 36.9 41.9 38.8 36.9 39.2 38 38 37 Maywood Granite City Madison 171191007 40.8 35.4 44.1 36.3 36.0 40.1 38.6 38.8 39.2 33 33 32 Granite City

E. St. Louis St. Clair 171630010 32.6 30.2 39.6 29.2 33.1 34.1 33.0 34.0 33.7 28 28 28 E. St. Louis

Jeffersonville Clark 180190005 28.4 45.5 35.9 43.3 37.0 36.6 41.6 38.4 29 31 31 Jeffersonville Jasper Dubois 180372001 39.5 30.0 41.2 31.6 39.5 36.9 34.3 37.4 36.2 28 29 28 Jasper Gary - IITRI Lake 180890022 39.0 34 34 35 Gary - IITRI Gary - Burr School Lake 180890026 39.0 33 34 32 Gary - Burr School Gary Lake 180890031 38.7 27.1 36.2 38.7 32.9 34.0 35.2 24 24 27 Gary Indy-West Street Marion 180970043 38.0 33 33 33 Indy-West Street Indy-English Avenue Marion 180970066 38.0 32 32 32 Indy-English Avenue Indy-Washington Park Marion 180970078 39.3 31.0 42.5 31.7 37.6 37.6 35.1 37.3 36.6 31 31 32 Indy-Washington Park Indy-W 18th Street Marion 180970081 36.2 31.9 45.7 34.8 38.4 37.9 37.5 39.6 38.3 31 31 31 Indy-W 18th Street Indy- Michigan Street Marion 180970083 36.7 31.3 40.3 33.5 37.2 36.1 35.0 37.0 36.0 28 28 29 Indy- Michigan Street

Luna Pier Monroe 261150005 34.7 35.0 49.3 32.6 32.2 39.7 39.0 38.0 38.9 32 32 31 Luna Pier

Oak Park Oakland 261250001 36.6 32.5 52.2 33.0 35.3 40.4 39.2 40.2 39.9 36 36 35 Oak Park

Port Huron St. Clair 261470005 37.2 32.2 47.6 37.9 36.3 39.0 39.2 40.6 39.6 34 34 33 Port Huron Ypsilanti Washtenaw 261610008 38.8 31.5 52.1 31.3 34.5 40.8 38.3 39.3 39.5 35 35 34 Ypsilanti

Allen Park Wayne 261630001 40.5 36.9 43.0 34.1 35.9 40.1 38.0 37.7 38.6 35 34 33 Allen Park

Southwest HS Wayne 261630015 33.6 36.0 49.7 36.2 34.0 39.8 40.6 40.0 40.1 35 35 33 Southwest HS

Linwood Wayne 261630016 46.2 38.3 51.8 36.9 34.8 45.4 42.3 41.2 43.0 39 39 38 Linwood

E 7 Mile Wayne 261630019 37.1 35.0 52.3 36.2 33.0 41.5 41.2 40.5 41.0 38 38 37 E 7 Mile

Dearborn Wayne 261630033 42.8 39.4 50.2 43.1 36.6 44.1 44.2 43.3 43.9 40 40 39 Dearborn Wyandotte Wayne 261630036 34.8 32.3 46.7 33.2 28.6 37.9 37.4 36.2 37.2 35 35 34 Wyandotte Newberry Wayne 261630038 36.8 57.5 28.6 33.4 39.1 39.8 42.7 38 37 36 Newberry

FIA Wayne 261630039 43.9 32.4 34.8 37.0 39.7 33 33 31 FIA

Middleton Butler 390170003 38.6 37.2 47.6 30.2 37.1 41.1 38.3 38.3 39.3 28 28 27 Middleton

Fairfield Butler 390170016 34.8 32.2 43.4 35.2 34.5 36.8 36.9 37.7 37.1 27 28 27 Fairfield

Butler 390170017 34.6 34.3 44.9 37.9 39.6 40.8 29 29 28

Cleveland-28th Street Cuyahoga 390350027 41.3 40.9 35.7 31.5 39.0 39.3 36.0 35.4 36.9 32 32 31 Cleveland-28th Street

Cleveland-St. Tikhon Cuyahoga 390350038 47.3 42.5 51.2 36.1 39.7 44.9 47.0 42.3 44.2 36 35 34 Cleveland-St. Tikhon Cleveland-Broadway Cuyahoga 390350045 42.2 36.1 46.2 29.5 37.0 41.5 37.3 37.6 38.8 31 30 29 Cleveland-Broadway Cleveland-GT Craig Cuyahoga 390350060 45.5 42.2 49.5 31.0 38.7 45.7 40.9 39.7 42.1 37 37 35 Cleveland-GT Craig Newburg Hts - Harvard Ave Cuyahoga 390350065 39.1 36.1 47.9 27.8 39.1 41.0 37.3 38.3 38.9 31 30 30 Newburg Hts - Harvard Ave Columbus - Fairgrounds Franklin 390490024 39.2 35.1 45.0 34.0 34.2 39.8 38.0 37.7 38.5 33 32 31 Columbus - Fairgrounds

Columbus - Ann Street Franklin 390490025 37.0 35.5 44.9 34.0 35.5 39.1 38.1 38.1 38.5 31 31 30 Columbus - Ann Street

Cincinnait Hamilton 390610006 45.0 33.3 34.7 37.7 40.6 27 28 27 Cincinnait Cincinnati - Seymour Hamilton 390610014 37.8 42.0 38.5 35.2 38.1 39.4 38.6 37.3 38.4 26 25 24 Cincinnati - Seymour

Cincinnati - Taft Ave Hamilton 390610040 31.9 30.5 45.8 32.8 34.7 36.1 36.4 37.8 36.7 24 24 23 Cincinnati - Taft Ave

Cincinnati - 8th Ave Hamilton 390610042 33.8 31.9 44.4 34.5 35.9 36.7 36.9 38.3 37.3 28 28 27 Cincinnati - 8th Ave

Sharonville Hamilton 390610043 37.3 31.4 39.9 34.9 34.0 36.2 35.4 36.3 36.0 28 28 27 Sharonville

Norwood Hamilton 390617001 37.1 34.6 47.1 34.0 33.7 39.6 38.6 38.3 38.8 30 30 29 Norwood

St. Bernard Hamilton 390618001 35.8 33.9 51.4 36.1 35.4 40.4 40.5 41.0 40.6 30 30 29 St. Bernard

Steubenville Jefferson 390810016 39.6 43.8 43.8 32.1 43.5 42.4 39.9 39.8 40.7 29 28 28 Steubenville Mingo Junction Jefferson 390811001 40.9 51.5 44.2 32.9 35.4 45.5 42.9 37.5 42.0 30 30 30 Mingo Junction Dayton Montgomery 391130032 42.7 32.5 45.0 30.3 36.9 40.1 35.9 37.4 37.8 30 30 30 Dayton

Canton - Dueber Stark 391510017 34.2 36.3 47.6 32.2 33.4 39.4 38.7 37.7 38.6 28 28 27 Canton - Dueber

Akron - Brittain Summit 391530017 36.9 36.9 45.2 31.5 33.3 39.7 37.9 36.7 38.1 30 30 29 Akron - Brittain

Green Bay - Est High Brown 550090005 33.5 32.3 41.5 36.9 37.1 35.8 36.9 38.5 37.1 35 34 32 Green Bay - Est High

Madison Dane 550250047 32.0 31.9 40.1 33.4 44.3 34.7 35.1 39.3 36.4 32 31 29 Madison

Milwaukee-Health Center Milwaukee 550790010 33.2 38.4 38.7 40.7 40.6 36.8 39.3 40.0 38.7 35 34 33 Milwaukee-Health Center Milwaukee-SER Hdqs Milwaukee 550790026 29.6 28.7 41.5 42.6 39.8 33.3 37.6 41.3 37.4 34 34 33 Milwaukee-SER Hdqs Milwaukee-Virginia FS Milwaukee 550790043 39.2 41.4 37.1 44.0 38 39.2 40.8 39.7 39.9 36 36 36 Milwaukee-Virginia FS Milwaukee- Fire Dept Hdqs Milwaukee 550790099 33.7 38.9 37.1 38.3 40.7 36.6 38.1 38.7 37.8 33 32 32 Milwaukee- Fire Dept Hdqs

Waukesha Waukesha 551330027 29.1 38.4 41.1 28.2 33.8 36.2 35.9 34.4 35.5 31 31 29 Waukesha 98th Percentile (24-hour) Design Values Round 5 Modeling ResultsSite ID State County Season Species Species Comp. of Ave. FRM (fraction) Species RRF

1703100521 IL Cook winter so4 0.1772 0.9342

1703100521 IL Cook winter no3 0.3099 1.0128

1703100521 IL Cook winter ocm 0.2147 0.9942

1703100521 IL Cook winter ec 0.0372 0.888

1703100521 IL Cook winter soil 0.0242 1.1674

1703100521 IL Cook winter nh4 0.1421 0.97

1703100521 IL Cook winter pbw 0.0947 0.9678

1703100521 IL Cook spring so4 0.32 0.8018

1703100521 IL Cook spring no3 0.0609 0.9385

1703100521 IL Cook spring ocm 0.2742 1.0629

1703100521 IL Cook spring ec 0.0501 0.8712

1703100521 IL Cook spring soil 0.0505 1.1796

1703100521 IL Cook spring nh4 0.1203 0.8619

1703100521 IL Cook spring pbw 0.0984 0.8492

1703100521 IL Cook summer so4 0.3089 0.725

1703100521 IL Cook summer no3 0 1.0124

1703100521 IL Cook summer ocm 0.1599 1.069

1703100521 IL Cook summer ec 0.0351 0.8683

1703100521 IL Cook summer soil 0.0318 1.204

1703100521 IL Cook summer nh4 0.0932 0.7354

1703100521 IL Cook summer pbw 0.094 0.7217

1703100521 IL Cook fall so4 0.1872 0.9151

1703100521 IL Cook fall no3 0.1628 0.9408

1703100521 IL Cook fall ocm 0.2389 1.0091

1703100521 IL Cook fall ec 0.0403 0.8623

1703100521 IL Cook fall soil 0.0284 1.1443

1703100521 IL Cook fall nh4 0.1062 0.9247

1703100521 IL Cook fall pbw 0.0614 0.9233

1711910071 IL Madison winter so4 0.213 0.9195

1711910071 IL Madison winter no3 0.2705 1.0306

1711910071 IL Madison winter ocm 0.2093 0.9289

1711910071 IL Madison winter ec 0.0434 0.9083

1711910071 IL Madison winter soil 0.0306 1.1782

1711910071 IL Madison winter nh4 0.1528 0.9513

1711910071 IL Madison winter pbw 0.0804 0.9243

1711910071 IL Madison spring so4 0.3194 0.7717

1711910071 IL Madison spring no3 0.0189 0.8611

1711910071 IL Madison spring ocm 0.2455 1.1103

1711910071 IL Madison spring ec 0.0564 1.0046

1711910071 IL Madison spring soil 0.0459 1.2252

1711910071 IL Madison spring nh4 0.1121 0.7894

1711910071 IL Madison spring pbw 0.1085 0.7783

1711910071 IL Madison summer so4 0.313 0.705

1711910071 IL Madison summer no3 0 0.884

1711910071 IL Madison summer ocm 0.153 1.1546

1711910071 IL Madison summer ec 0.0345 1.0513

1711910071 IL Madison summer soil 0.0302 1.2532

1711910071 IL Madison summer nh4 0.102 0.7409

1711910071 IL Madison summer pbw 0.1096 0.7133

1711910071 IL Madison fall so4 0.2058 0.9037

1711910071 IL Madison fall no3 0.1308 0.9426

1711910071 IL Madison fall ocm 0.259 1.0233

1711910071 IL Madison fall ec 0.0563 0.9248

1711910071 IL Madison fall soil 0.0549 1.1412

1711910071 IL Madison fall nh4 0.1073 0.9185

1711910071 IL Madison fall pbw 0.0655 0.918



## PM2.5 RRFs by Species and Season (2009)Site ID State County Season Species Species Comp. of Ave. FRM (fraction) Species RRF

1803720011 IN Dubois winter so4 0.2669 0.8833

1803720011 IN Dubois winter no3 0.2548 0.9526

1803720011 IN Dubois winter ocm 0.1747 0.9374

1803720011 IN Dubois winter ec 0.0313 0.9319

1803720011 IN Dubois winter soil 0.0192 1.1349

1803720011 IN Dubois winter nh4 0.1646 0.9069

1803720011 IN Dubois winter pbw 0.0885 0.9006

1803720011 IN Dubois spring so4 0.4141 0.6808

1803720011 IN Dubois spring no3 0.0022 0.8106

1803720011 IN Dubois spring ocm 0.178 0.9997

1803720011 IN Dubois spring ec 0.0324 0.9083

1803720011 IN Dubois spring soil 0.0218 1.1284

1803720011 IN Dubois spring nh4 0.1432 0.7075

1803720011 IN Dubois spring pbw 0.1556 0.6916

1803720011 IN Dubois summer so4 0.3687 0.644

1803720011 IN Dubois summer no3 0 0.8029

1803720011 IN Dubois summer ocm 0.1174 1.0136

1803720011 IN Dubois summer ec 0.0207 0.913

1803720011 IN Dubois summer soil 0.0213 1.1988

1803720011 IN Dubois summer nh4 0.1168 0.6789

1803720011 IN Dubois summer pbw 0.1246 0.6613

1803720011 IN Dubois fall so4 0.2964 0.8232

1803720011 IN Dubois fall no3 0.138 0.8797

1803720011 IN Dubois fall ocm 0.2116 0.9861

1803720011 IN Dubois fall ec 0.0437 0.9019

1803720011 IN Dubois fall soil 0.03 1.1387

1803720011 IN Dubois fall nh4 0.1449 0.8444

1803720011 IN Dubois fall pbw 0.0941 0.8558

1809700811 IN Marion winter so4 0.2358 0.9192

1809700811 IN Marion winter no3 0.2729 0.9769

1809700811 IN Marion winter ocm 0.1851 0.9546

1809700811 IN Marion winter ec 0.0385 0.8647

1809700811 IN Marion winter soil 0.0239 1.0835

1809700811 IN Marion winter nh4 0.1561 0.9446

1809700811 IN Marion winter pbw 0.0877 0.944

1809700811 IN Marion spring so4 0.3745 0.6868

1809700811 IN Marion spring no3 0.0167 0.8082

1809700811 IN Marion spring ocm 0.2034 0.9881

1809700811 IN Marion spring ec 0.0447 0.8547

1809700811 IN Marion spring soil 0.0376 1.0625

1809700811 IN Marion spring nh4 0.1313 0.7182

1809700811 IN Marion spring pbw 0.1309 0.7056

1809700811 IN Marion summer so4 0.3582 0.6529

1809700811 IN Marion summer no3 0 0.8099

1809700811 IN Marion summer ocm 0.1231 1.0043

1809700811 IN Marion summer ec 0.03 0.8444

1809700811 IN Marion summer soil 0.0253 1.0918

1809700811 IN Marion summer nh4 0.1114 0.6854

1809700811 IN Marion summer pbw 0.1163 0.6674

1809700811 IN Marion fall so4 0.2751 0.8538

1809700811 IN Marion fall no3 0.149 0.9452

1809700811 IN Marion fall ocm 0.223 0.9648

1809700811 IN Marion fall ec 0.0525 0.8412

1809700811 IN Marion fall soil 0.0358 1.089

1809700811 IN Marion fall nh4 0.1378 0.8905

1809700811 IN Marion fall pbw 0.0865 0.8888Site ID State County Season Species Species Comp. of Ave. FRM (fraction) Species RRF

2616300331 MI Wayne winter so4 0.1587 0.9206

2616300331 MI Wayne winter no3 0.2394 0.9813

2616300331 MI Wayne winter ocm 0.3193 1.0781

2616300331 MI Wayne winter ec 0.0383 0.9279

2616300331 MI Wayne winter soil 0.0541 1.0206

2616300331 MI Wayne winter nh4 0.1188 0.9518

2616300331 MI Wayne winter pbw 0.0714 0.9566

2616300331 MI Wayne spring so4 0.3383 0.7398

2616300331 MI Wayne spring no3 0.0259 0.8787

2616300331 MI Wayne spring ocm 0.3543 1.0234

2616300331 MI Wayne spring ec 0.0504 0.8671

2616300331 MI Wayne spring soil 0.0915 1.0153

2616300331 MI Wayne spring nh4 0.1191 0.7818

2616300331 MI Wayne spring pbw 0.1126 0.7619

2616300331 MI Wayne summer so4 0.3311 0.6681

2616300331 MI Wayne summer no3 0 0.8431

2616300331 MI Wayne summer ocm 0.2297 1.0029

2616300331 MI Wayne summer ec 0.0362 0.8332

2616300331 MI Wayne summer soil 0.061 1.0177

2616300331 MI Wayne summer nh4 0.1027 0.6974

2616300331 MI Wayne summer pbw 0.1073 0.6754

2616300331 MI Wayne fall so4 0.1898 0.854

2616300331 MI Wayne fall no3 0.1075 0.9367

2616300331 MI Wayne fall ocm 0.3689 1.0607

2616300331 MI Wayne fall ec 0.0546 0.8862

2616300331 MI Wayne fall soil 0.1676 1.0317

2616300331 MI Wayne fall nh4 0.0866 0.8919

2616300331 MI Wayne fall pbw 0.0553 0.8821

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga winter so4 0.2117 0.8993

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga winter no3 0.2665 0.9856

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga winter ocm 0.2048 0.9716

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga winter ec 0.0413 0.8903

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga winter soil 0.0465 1.0959

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga winter nh4 0.1459 0.9416

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga winter pbw 0.0832 0.9541

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga spring so4 0.3334 0.7145

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga spring no3 0.0374 0.8393

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga spring ocm 0.2068 1.0899

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga spring ec 0.052 0.9362

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga spring soil 0.0697 1.0601

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga spring nh4 0.1256 0.7666

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga spring pbw 0.115 0.7761

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga summer so4 0.3241 0.6303

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga summer no3 0 0.89

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga summer ocm 0.1306 1.0998

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga summer ec 0.0419 0.9354

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga summer soil 0.0583 1.0906

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga summer nh4 0.1074 0.7038

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga summer pbw 0.1183 0.6674

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga fall so4 0.2055 0.8193

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga fall no3 0.1275 0.9189

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga fall ocm 0.2234 1.0245

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga fall ec 0.0499 0.8913

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga fall soil 0.0675 1.0927

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga fall nh4 0.1034 0.8615

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga fall pbw 0.0637 0.8564Site ID State County Season Species Species Comp. of Ave. FRM (fraction) Species RRF

3904900241 OH Franklin winter so4 0.2555 0.8622

3904900241 OH Franklin winter no3 0.2373 1.0002

3904900241 OH Franklin winter ocm 0.2082 0.974

3904900241 OH Franklin winter ec 0.0375 0.8537

3904900241 OH Franklin winter soil 0.0259 1.0844

3904900241 OH Franklin winter nh4 0.1495 0.9261

3904900241 OH Franklin winter pbw 0.0861 0.9274

3904900241 OH Franklin spring so4 0.3754 0.6615

3904900241 OH Franklin spring no3 0.0176 0.8436

3904900241 OH Franklin spring ocm 0.2069 1.062

3904900241 OH Franklin spring ec 0.0405 0.8678

3904900241 OH Franklin spring soil 0.0371 1.0551

3904900241 OH Franklin spring nh4 0.1296 0.7212

3904900241 OH Franklin spring pbw 0.128 0.6992

3904900241 OH Franklin summer so4 0.3703 0.622

3904900241 OH Franklin summer no3 0 0.9056

3904900241 OH Franklin summer ocm 0.1343 1.0654

3904900241 OH Franklin summer ec 0.0311 0.8565

3904900241 OH Franklin summer soil 0.0267 1.0667

3904900241 OH Franklin summer nh4 0.1142 0.7021

3904900241 OH Franklin summer pbw 0.1186 0.6614

3904900241 OH Franklin fall so4 0.2692 0.8119

3904900241 OH Franklin fall no3 0.1186 0.9099

3904900241 OH Franklin fall ocm 0.2489 1.019

3904900241 OH Franklin fall ec 0.0533 0.8371

3904900241 OH Franklin fall soil 0.0423 1.0924

3904900241 OH Franklin fall nh4 0.1217 0.8539

3904900241 OH Franklin fall pbw 0.0821 0.8519

3906100141 OH Hamilton winter so4 0.2685 0.8104

3906100141 OH Hamilton winter no3 0.2378 1.0886

3906100141 OH Hamilton winter ocm 0.19 0.961

3906100141 OH Hamilton winter ec 0.035 0.8969

3906100141 OH Hamilton winter soil 0.0229 1.4146

3906100141 OH Hamilton winter nh4 0.1583 0.9077

3906100141 OH Hamilton winter pbw 0.0874 0.8687

3906100141 OH Hamilton spring so4 0.3583 0.6331

3906100141 OH Hamilton spring no3 0.0025 1.0155

3906100141 OH Hamilton spring ocm 0.1986 1.0798

3906100141 OH Hamilton spring ec 0.0466 0.9228

3906100141 OH Hamilton spring soil 0.0289 1.3785

3906100141 OH Hamilton spring nh4 0.1215 0.6968

3906100141 OH Hamilton spring pbw 0.128 0.6307

3906100141 OH Hamilton summer so4 0.3722 0.577

3906100141 OH Hamilton summer no3 0 1.0923

3906100141 OH Hamilton summer ocm 0.121 1.082

3906100141 OH Hamilton summer ec 0.0309 0.9099

3906100141 OH Hamilton summer soil 0.0199 1.537

3906100141 OH Hamilton summer nh4 0.1178 0.6441

3906100141 OH Hamilton summer pbw 0.1261 0.5734

3906100141 OH Hamilton fall so4 0.2608 0.7754

3906100141 OH Hamilton fall no3 0.1184 0.9857

3906100141 OH Hamilton fall ocm 0.213 1.0235

3906100141 OH Hamilton fall ec 0.0512 0.8876

3906100141 OH Hamilton fall soil 0.0328 1.4007

3906100141 OH Hamilton fall nh4 0.1254 0.846

3906100141 OH Hamilton fall pbw 0.0828 0.8172Site ID State County Season Species Species Comp. of Ave. FRM (fraction) Species RRF

3908110011 OH Jefferson winter so4 0.2367 0.8217

3908110011 OH Jefferson winter no3 0.1709 1.0522

3908110011 OH Jefferson winter ocm 0.3288 0.8819

3908110011 OH Jefferson winter ec 0.0435 0.9091

3908110011 OH Jefferson winter soil 0.0272 0.4368

3908110011 OH Jefferson winter nh4 0.1199 0.8904

3908110011 OH Jefferson winter pbw 0.073 0.8583

3908110011 OH Jefferson spring so4 0.3508 0.6666

3908110011 OH Jefferson spring no3 0.0154 0.9156

3908110011 OH Jefferson spring ocm 0.3078 0.9995

3908110011 OH Jefferson spring ec 0.0395 0.9853

3908110011 OH Jefferson spring soil 0.0407 0.4844

3908110011 OH Jefferson spring nh4 0.114 0.7054

3908110011 OH Jefferson spring pbw 0.1095 0.6713

3908110011 OH Jefferson summer so4 0.3779 0.6156

3908110011 OH Jefferson summer no3 0 1.0837

3908110011 OH Jefferson summer ocm 0.2098 1.0145

3908110011 OH Jefferson summer ec 0.0308 0.9689

3908110011 OH Jefferson summer soil 0.0323 0.3632

3908110011 OH Jefferson summer nh4 0.1065 0.6428

3908110011 OH Jefferson summer pbw 0.1007 0.625

3908110011 OH Jefferson fall so4 0.2315 0.7694

3908110011 OH Jefferson fall no3 0.0702 1.0302

3908110011 OH Jefferson fall ocm 0.372 0.9312

3908110011 OH Jefferson fall ec 0.051 0.9086

3908110011 OH Jefferson fall soil 0.0344 0.4555

3908110011 OH Jefferson fall nh4 0.0859 0.8284

3908110011 OH Jefferson fall pbw 0.0629 0.7951

3911300321 OH Montgomer winter so4 0.2613 0.8598

3911300321 OH Montgomer winter no3 0.2407 1.029

3911300321 OH Montgomer winter ocm 0.1954 0.9442

3911300321 OH Montgomer winter ec 0.036 0.8746

3911300321 OH Montgomer winter soil 0.0259 1.1295

3911300321 OH Montgomer winter nh4 0.1531 0.9304

3911300321 OH Montgomer winter pbw 0.0876 0.9205

3911300321 OH Montgomer spring so4 0.3659 0.6606

3911300321 OH Montgomer spring no3 0.0163 0.8639

3911300321 OH Montgomer spring ocm 0.1895 1.0976

3911300321 OH Montgomer spring ec 0.0442 0.9417

3911300321 OH Montgomer spring soil 0.0253 1.0873

3911300321 OH Montgomer spring nh4 0.1313 0.7149

3911300321 OH Montgomer spring pbw 0.1326 0.6839

3911300321 OH Montgomer summer so4 0.375 0.6234

3911300321 OH Montgomer summer no3 0 0.9474

3911300321 OH Montgomer summer ocm 0.128 1.1047

3911300321 OH Montgomer summer ec 0.029 0.9496

3911300321 OH Montgomer summer soil 0.0205 1.1299

3911300321 OH Montgomer summer nh4 0.1114 0.6931

3911300321 OH Montgomer summer pbw 0.1114 0.6482

3911300321 OH Montgomer fall so4 0.3062 0.8033

3911300321 OH Montgomer fall no3 0.1012 0.9634

3911300321 OH Montgomer fall ocm 0.2221 1.0158

3911300321 OH Montgomer fall ec 0.0514 0.877

3911300321 OH Montgomer fall soil 0.028 1.1391

3911300321 OH Montgomer fall nh4 0.1352 0.8625

3911300321 OH Montgomer fall pbw 0.0982 0.8475Site ID State County Season Species Species Comp. of Ave. FRM (fraction) Species RRF

3915100171 OH Stark winter so4 0.2362 0.8558

3915100171 OH Stark winter no3 0.2234 1.0222

3915100171 OH Stark winter ocm 0.2478 0.9255

3915100171 OH Stark winter ec 0.0414 0.8866

3915100171 OH Stark winter soil 0.0334 1.099

3915100171 OH Stark winter nh4 0.1376 0.925

3915100171 OH Stark winter pbw 0.0802 0.9155

3915100171 OH Stark spring so4 0.3581 0.6834

3915100171 OH Stark spring no3 0.0236 0.855

3915100171 OH Stark spring ocm 0.221 1.0892

3915100171 OH Stark spring ec 0.0501 1.0017

3915100171 OH Stark spring soil 0.058 1.0528

3915100171 OH Stark spring nh4 0.1288 0.7264

3915100171 OH Stark spring pbw 0.1256 0.7009

3915100171 OH Stark summer so4 0.3621 0.6277

3915100171 OH Stark summer no3 0 0.8203

3915100171 OH Stark summer ocm 0.1483 1.0984

3915100171 OH Stark summer ec 0.0403 1.016

3915100171 OH Stark summer soil 0.037 1.0781

3915100171 OH Stark summer nh4 0.1157 0.6739

3915100171 OH Stark summer pbw 0.124 0.651

3915100171 OH Stark fall so4 0.2293 0.8041

3915100171 OH Stark fall no3 0.1262 0.9363

3915100171 OH Stark fall ocm 0.2722 1.0226

3915100171 OH Stark fall ec 0.0545 0.9202

3915100171 OH Stark fall soil 0.0461 1.0959

3915100171 OH Stark fall nh4 0.1105 0.8549

3915100171 OH Stark fall pbw 0.0706 0.8428

3915300171 OH Summit winter so4 0.2511 0.8771

3915300171 OH Summit winter no3 0.2376 1.0052

3915300171 OH Summit winter ocm 0.2185 0.9429

3915300171 OH Summit winter ec 0.0334 0.8677

3915300171 OH Summit winter soil 0.0255 1.0835

3915300171 OH Summit winter nh4 0.1489 0.9374

3915300171 OH Summit winter pbw 0.0851 0.945

3915300171 OH Summit spring so4 0.387 0.7046

3915300171 OH Summit spring no3 0.0072 0.8466

3915300171 OH Summit spring ocm 0.1901 1.0967

3915300171 OH Summit spring ec 0.035 0.9482

3915300171 OH Summit spring soil 0.0304 1.0524

3915300171 OH Summit spring nh4 0.1294 0.7521

3915300171 OH Summit spring pbw 0.1342 0.7384

3915300171 OH Summit summer so4 0.3694 0.6378

3915300171 OH Summit summer no3 0 0.8587

3915300171 OH Summit summer ocm 0.1417 1.1077

3915300171 OH Summit summer ec 0.0332 0.9506

3915300171 OH Summit summer soil 0.0198 1.0744

3915300171 OH Summit summer nh4 0.1121 0.6961

3915300171 OH Summit summer pbw 0.1146 0.6691

3915300171 OH Summit fall so4 0.2443 0.8074

3915300171 OH Summit fall no3 0.1175 0.9392

3915300171 OH Summit fall ocm 0.2636 1.0252

3915300171 OH Summit fall ec 0.0623 0.8883

3915300171 OH Summit fall soil 0.0494 1.086

3915300171 OH Summit fall nh4 0.109 0.8622

3915300171 OH Summit fall pbw 0.0723 0.8506

### 119 

## APPENDIX I I

Ozone Source Appor tionment Modeling Results

### 120 

## APPENDIX I II

PM 2.5 

## Source Apportionment Modeling Results

## Chicago ( Cicero ) , Illinois

2005 (Round 5)

2012 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)

## Clark County, Indiana

2005 (Round 5)

2012 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)

## Dearborn , Mi chigan

2005 (Round 5)

2012 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)

## Cincinnati, Oh io

2005 (Round 5)

2012 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)

## Cleveland, Ohio

2005 (Round 5)

2012 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)

## Steubenville, Ohio

2005 (Round 5)

2012 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)

### 121 

## APPENDIX I V

Haze Source Apportionment Modeling Results

## Boundary Waters, Minnesota

2005 (Round 5)

201 8 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)

## Voyageurs, Minnesota

2005 (Round 5)

201 8 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)

## Seney, Michigan

2005 (Round 5)

201 8 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)

## Isle Royale, Mich igan

2005 (Round 5)

201 8 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)

## Shenandoah, Virginia

2005 (Round 5)

2018 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)

## Mammoth Cave, Kentucky

2005 (Round 5)

2018 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)

## Lye Brook, Vermont

2005 (Round 5)

2018 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)

# APPENDIX I

Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) Round 5 Modeling Technical Support Document (Round 5 Photochemical Modeling Based on “Base M” Emissions inventory, revised version of “Base K”)

## This page left intentionally blank.

### February 27, 2008



# Base M Strategy Modeling: Emissions (Revised)

The purpose of this document is to summarize the emis sion estimates prepared for LADCO’s latest (Base M) 200 5 base year and 200 8, 2009, 2012, and 2018 future year modeling

. Base year emissions by state and s ource sector for Base K (2002) and Base M (2005) are compared in Figure 1. A more detailed state and source sector summary is provided in Attachment 1

. A dditional

emission reports are available on the LADCO website : http://www.ladco.org /tech/emis/r5/round5_reports.htm

.

VOC NOx SO2



## 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

2002

(K) 2005 ( M) 2002

(K) 2005 (M) 2002

(K) 2005 ( M) 

## WI

OH

MI

IN

IL

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

2002

(K) 2005 ( M) 2002

(K) 2005 (M) 2002

(K) 2005 (M) Area

Nonroad+MAR

Onroad

Non-EGU

EGU

Figure 1 . Base K and Base M Emissions for 5

- State LADCO Region : VOC, NOx, and SO2 (TPD, July weekday)



## Base Year Em i ssions
In mid

- 2006, LADCO completed modeling analyses for a 2002 base year and several future year control strategies ( LADCO, 2006a and LADCO, 2006b) . Following those analyses, a decision was made to conduct additional modeling using a more current base year (2005).
Examin ation of multiple base years provides for a more complete technical assessment. All modeling was conducted in accordance with USEPA modeling guidelines (USEPA, 2007).

### February 27, 2008



## For on

- road, ammonia, and biogenic sources, 2005 emissions were estimated by emission

m odels. For other sectors in the LADCO States, 2005 emissions were either supplied by a contractor ( railroads and commercial marine ) or by the States (point sources, area sources, and aircraft). For other sectors in non

- LADCO States, a contractor obtained the latest base (2002) and future year emission files (2009, 2018) from the other Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs) (Alpine, 2007 a ) . Specifically, the following versions of these emissions files were used : MANE

- VU: Version 3.1

, WRAP: Pre2002d

, CENRA P: Base F , and VISTAS: Base F

. The 2005 emissions were then estimated by linearly interpolating between the 2002 and 2009 emissions.

Further discussion of t he development of the 2005 base year emissions is provided below:

On

- R oad : CONCEPT was run by a contractor using transportation data (e.g., VMT and vehicle speeds) for 24 networks supplied by the state and local planning agencies in the LADCO States and Minnesota (Environ, 2008 ) . These data were first processed with T3 (Tra vel Demand Modeling [TDM] Transformation Tool) to pro vide inpu t files for CONCEPT

. For some networks, the VMT outputs from T3 were adjusted to match 2005 HPMS data. CONCEPT was then run with meteorological data for a July and January weekday, Satur day, and Sunday (July 15

– 17

a nd January 16

– 18) to produce link

- specific, hourly emission estimates

. A s patial plots of emissions for July 15 are provided in Figure 2

.

VOC Emissions NOx Emissions

Figure 2 . July 15, 2005 motor vehicle emissions for VOC (left) and NOx (r ight)



## For the non

- LADCO States, CONCEPT was run by a contractor using RPO

- based HPMS county

- level data (2002 and 2009) and MOBILE6 inputs (2002) compiled by another contractor (Environ, 2008) . HPMS VMT for 2005 were generated by linearly interpolating b etween the 2002 and 2009 data. The 2002 MOBILE6 inputs were used for the 2005 modeling, with a few adjustments (e.g., fuel sulfur content was set to 30 ppm, as required by the Tier 2/low sulfur regulations). Meteorological data for a July and January wee kday, Saturday, and Sunday (July 15

– 17 and January 16

– 18) were used.

For other months (for both LADCO and non

- LADCO States), weekday, Saturday, and Sunday emissions were linearly interpolated based on the January and July emissions

.

### February 27, 2008



## Off

- R oad : NMIM2 005 was run by Grant Hetherington (W isconsin DNR) to produce emission s for most off

- road sectors for

the LADCO States plus Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri. Improved model inputs included local data for construction and agricultural equipment prepared by a

c ontractor were incorporated (E.H. Pechan, 2004), and 2005 gasoline parameters. (Note, model updates prepared by AIR to address evaporative emissions were not included.)

EMS was run by LADCO using Grant Hetherington’s NMIM2005 data and , for the non

- LADCO States, using emission files supplied by Alpine based on data from the other R POs to produce weekday, Saturday, and Sunday emissions for each month.

Additional off

- road sectors (i.e., commercial marine, aircraft, and railroads [MAR]) were handled separate ly. Aircraft emissions were supplied by the LADCO States. Updated information for
railroads and commercial marine for the LADCO States was prepared by a contractor (Environ

, 2007a and Environ 2007b)

. Table 1 compares the new 2005 emissions with the prev ious 2002 emission estimates. The new 2005 emissions reflect substantially lower commercial marine emissions and lower locomotive NOx emissions.

EMS was run by LADCO using the contractor and state data and , for the non

- LADCO States, using emission files supplied by Alpine based on data from the other R POs to produce weekday, Saturday, and Sunday emissions for each month.

Table 1. Locomotive and Commercial Marine Emissions for 2002 and 2005 Base Year

Railroads (TPY) Commercial Marine (TPY)

2002 2005 2002 2005

VOC 7,890 7,625 1,562 828

CO 20,121 20,017 8,823 6,727

NOx 182,226 145,132 64,441 42,336

PM 5,049 4,845 3,113 1,413

SO2 12,274 12,173 25,929 8,637

NH3 86 85

---- ----



## Area : EMS was run by LADCO using 2005 data supplied by the LAD CO States and, for the

non

- LADCO States, using emission files supplied by Alpine based on data from the other R POs to produce weekday, Saturday, and Sunday emissions for each month. Special attention was given to two source categories: industrial adhesive and sealant solvent emissions and outdoor wood boilers.

Industrial Adhesives and Sealants: T he NEI show s this to be a large VOC emissions category

in the LADCO States ( i.e.

., 50,000 TPY ) US EPA subsequently determined that “ (f) or the Region V states, we no longer believe that there are any activities in the Industrial Adhesives and Sealants category (SCC 2440020000) that have not been inventoried either in the point source Industrial Adhesives and Sealants category or under the Consumer and Commercial Adh esives and Sealants nonpoint category (SCC 2460600000

- all adhesives and sealants).” (USEPA, 2007b) Consequently, this category was omitted from the 2005 regional emissions inventory.

### February 27, 2008



## Outdoor Wood Boilers: Over the past several years, the installation a nd operation of outdoor wood boilers for residential use has increased dramatically in many northern states. Relying on an emission estimation methodology prepared by Bart Sponseller (WDNR , 2006 ), emissions were calculated by the other states for this cat egory.

EGU Point : EMS was run by LADCO using 2005 data supplied by the LADCO States and, for
the non

- LADCO States, using emission files supplied by Alpine based on data from the other R POs to produce weekday, Saturday, and Sunday emissions for each month. 2005 EGU emissions were temporalized for modeling purposes using profiles prepared by Scott Edick (Michigan DEQ) based on CEM data for the period 2004

- 2006. Profiles were generated for monthly weekday/ S aturday/ S unday based on the median hourly emissions for that month, day, and hour of the day for the three years. Over 90% of NOX and SO2 emissions from EGUs in the LADCO states were assigned profiles. In non

- L adco states

, the annual EGUs emissions were replaced with the 2005 sum of hourly emissions for al l 365 days.

Non

- EGU Point : EMS was run by LADCO using 2005 data supplied by the LADCO States and, for the non

- LADCO States, using emission files supplied by Alpine based on data from the other R POs to produce weekday, Saturday, and Sunday emissions for each month. EGUs were removed from th is point source file.

Other improvements to the base year inventory included:

Canadian Emissions : Previous modeling inventories for Canadian sources were flawed due to problems with emissions (e.g., LADCO inventories omitted ammonia emissions) or stack parameters (e.g., VISTAS inventories failed to include proper stack parameters, resulting in emissions getting dumped in the surface layer of the model). For Base M, Scott Edick (Michigan DEQ) processed the 2005 Canadi an National Pollutant Release Inventory ( NPRI

–
see http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/npri/ )

. Specifically, a subset of the NPRI data which are relevant to the air quality modeling were reformatted. A number of emissi on reports are available on the LADCO website ( http://www.ladco.org/tech/emis/basem/canada/index.htm ). Circle plot of point source emissions are presented in Figure 3

.

### February 27, 2008

Figure 3

. Base year emission plots for Canada



## Biogenic Emissions : A contractor provided an updated version of the CONCEPT/MEGAN (Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature

– see http://bai.acd.ucar.edu/Megan/ ) biogenics model , which was used to produce base year biogenic emission estimates (Alpine, 2007b)

. MEGAN includes functions for soil moisture plant stress, a more complete canopy model, full plant growth cycle emissions calculations, and state of the science emission rates.

Subsequent to deliver of the updated CONCEPT/MEGAN code, it was found that more recent data sets and model formulations were available. For t he purposes of the Round 5 modeling, LADCO simply scaled the emission estimates from the updated code to reflect these newer data. This resulted in lower emissions for several organic aerosol species and NOx

Compared to the EMS/BIOME emissions used for B ase K , t here is more regional isoprene with MEGAN (see Figure 4)

. 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 

## organ ic carbon mass

.

Figure 4

. Isoprene emissions for Base M (left) v. Base K (right)

### February 27, 2008



## Ammonia Emissions : The CMU

- based 2002 (Base K) annual ammonia emissions were projected to 2005 using growth factors from the Round 4 emissions modeling. The se annual
emis sions were then adjusted by applying monthly temporal factors based on the process

based ammonia emissions model ( http://www.conceptmodel.org/nh3/nh3_index.html ). The model was run for the fo llowing list of model farms using 200 2 meteor o logical data : Dairy (California, Wisconsin), Swine (Iowa, Wisconsin), and Beef (Texas, Washington, Wisconsin)

. Because the model was not complete for the poultry housing model

, swine was use in its place given that both use confined operations.

Each model farms ’ emissions were used to generate monthly average day emissions and a monthly profile. The profiles were applied to geographies most associated with that farm type (e.g., a ll LADCO states used the Wisc onsin fa rm results) . The following figure show s the daily variation in emissions for the model farms

.

Wisconsin

–

dairy Wisconsin

- swine

Daily Total - Swine 55001

0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500

01/03/02 01/17/02 01/31/02 02/14/02 02/28/02 03/14/02 03/28/02 04/11/02 04/25/02 05/09/02 05/23/02 06/06/02 06/20/02 07/04/02 07/18/02 08/01/02 08/15/02 08/29/02 09/12/02 09/26/02 10/10/02 10/24/02 11/07/02 11/21/02 12/05/02 12/19/02

DateNH3 emissions (Kg / day) Daily Total - Dairy 55001

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00

01/03/02 01/17/02 01/31/02 02/14/02 02/28/02 03/14/02 03/28/02 04/11/02 04/25/02 05/09/02 05/23/02 06/06/02 06/20/02 07/04/02 07/18/02 08/01/02 08/15/02 08/29/02 09/12/02 09/26/02 10/10/02 10/24/02 11/07/02 11/21/02 12/05/02 12/19/02

DateNH3 emissions (Kg / day)



### Washington

–

beef Texas

- beef

Daily Total - Beef 53001

0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000

01/03/02 01/17/02 01/31/02 02/14/02 02/28/02 03/14/02 03/28/02 04/11/02 04/25/02 05/09/02 05/23/02 06/06/02 06/20/02 07/04/02 07/18/02 08/01/02 08/15/02 08/29/02 09/12/02 09/26/02 10/10/02 10/24/02 11/07/02 11/21/02 12/05/02 12/19/02

DateNH3 emissions (Kg / day) Daily Total - Beef 48001

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00

01/03/02 01/17/02 01/31/02 02/14/02 02/28/02 03/14/02 03/28/02 04/11/02 04/25/02 05/09/02 05/23/02 06/06/02 06/20/02 07/04/02 07/18/02 08/01/02 08/15/02 08/29/02 09/12/02 09/26/02 10/10/02 10/24/02 11/07/02 11/21/02 12/05/02 12/19/02

DateNH3 emissions (Kg / day)



### Figure 5. Daily emissions for 2002 for various model farms

### February 27, 2008



## A plot of the resulting average daily emissions by state and month is provided in Figure 6

.

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800

Jan Fed March Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Illinois Indiana Io w a Michigan

Minnesota Ohio Wisconsin

Figure 6

. Average daily ammonia emissions for Midwest States by month for 2005



## Fires : For Base K, a contractor (EC/R, 2004) developed a 2001, 2002, and 20 03 fire emissions inventory for eight Midwest States (five LADCO states plus Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri), including emissions from wild fires, prescribed fires, and agricultural burns. Projected emissions were also developed for 2010 and 2018 assuming “no smoke management” and “optimal smoke management” scenarios. An early model sensitivity run showed very little difference in modeled PM 2.5 

## concentrations. Consequently, the fire emissions were not included in subsequent modeling runs (i.e., they were not in the Base K or Base M modeling inventories).

### February 27, 2008



## Future Year Emissions Complete e mission inventories were developed for t wo future year s : 2009 and 2018 1



## . Source sector emission summaries for the base years (2002

– Base K and 2005

– Base M) and future years are shown in Figure 7

. A more detailed state and source sector summary is provided in Attachment 1. A dditional emission reports are available on the LADCO website ( http://64.27.125 .175/tech/emis/r5/round5_reports.htm

.

VOC NOx S O2

0 3000 6000 9000 12000

2002 2005 2009 2012 2015 2018 2002 2005 2009 2012 2015 2018 2002 2005 2009 2012 2015 2018 Area

On-road

Nonroad

Non-EGU

EGU



### Figure 7 . Base year and future year emissions for 5

- State LADCO Region (TPD, July weekday)

1 

### A 2008 proxy inventory was prepared to support a preliminary 2008 modeling analysis to assess attainment for the basic nonattainment areas (i.e, for areas with a 2009 attainment date, the appropriate panning year is 2008). This inventory reflects the following assumptions:

On

- road: scale 2005 base year emissions using the Base K 2002

– 2009 trend (except for the Cincinnati

- Dayton area, where 2008 emissions were generated using CONCEPT and 2008 data supplied by the local planning agency)

Off

- road and area: scale 2005 base year emissions using the Base K 2002

- 2009 trend

Point

– EGU: use 2005 base year emissions, with slight adjustment (

- 10%)

Point

– Non

- EGU: use 2005 base year emissions (note: Base K 2002

- 2009 trend suggests little change)

Biogenics: use new 2005 base year emissions

A 2012 proxy inventory was prepared to support a preliminary 2012 modeling analysis to assess the effect of further emission reductions from existing controls. This inventory was derived by interpolating between 2009 and 2018 emissions for all sectors, except p oint sources (for which, the 2009 emissions were used).

### February 27, 2008



## For on

- road, off

- road, and EGU sources, the future year emissions were estimated by models (i.e., CONCEPT, NMIM2005, and IPM, respectively) and then processed by LADCO with EMS. For other sectors (area, MAR, and non

- EGU point sources)

, the future year emissions for the LADCO States were derived by applying growth and control factors to the base year inventory. These factors were developed by a contractor (E.H. Pechan , 2007 ). Growth factors were based initially on EGAS (version 5.0), and were subsequently modified (for select, priority categories) by examining emissions activity data. For the non

- L ADCO States, future year emission files were supplied by Alpine based on data from the other RPOs. Due to a lack of information on future year conditions, the biogenic VOC and NOx emissions, and all Canadian emissions were assumed to remain constant betwe en the base year and future years.

A “base” control scenario was prepared for each future year based on the following “on the books” controls (E.H. Pechan, 2007):

On

- Highway Mobile Sources

• Federal motor vehicle emission control program, low sulfur gaso line, and ultra

- low sulfur diesel fuel

• Inspection/Maintenance programs (nonattainment areas)

• Reformulated gasoline (nonattainment areas)

Off

- Highway Mobile Sources

• Federal control programs incorporated into NONROAD model (e.g., nonroad diesel rule), plus the evaporative Large Spark Ignition and Recreational Vehicle standards

• Heavy

- duty diesel (2007) engine standard/Low sulfur fuel

• Federal railroad/locomotive standards

• Federal commercial marine vessel engine standards

Area Sources

• Consumer solvents

• AIM coa tings

• Aerosol coatings

• Portable fuel containers

Power Plants

• Title IV (Phases I and II)

• NOx SIP Call

• Clean Air Interstate Rule

• Clean Air Mercury Rule

Other Point Sources

• VOC 2

- , 4

- , 7

- , and 10

- year MACT standards 2



## • Combustion turbine MACT

• Consent decrees (refiner ies, ethanol plants, and ALCOA) 3

2 

### E.H. Pechan’s original control file included EPA

- default control factor information. Alternative control factors were developed by Wisconsin for a few MACT categories, and were also applied to th e other four LADCO States.

### February 27, 2008



## • Other ( Illinois and Ohio NOx RACT 4



## , and BART in IN and WI)

Further discus sion of the development of the future year emissions is provided below:

On

- R oad : Similar to the base year modeling, CONCEPT was run using t ransportation data (e.g., VMT and vehicle speeds) supplied by the state and local planning agencies for 2009 and 2018 (Environ, 2008) . CONCEPT was only run with meteorological data for a July weekday (July 15) . The emissions for Saturday and Sunday were derived by using scaling factors based
on the 2005 emissions. The state

- level emissions for the five LADCO States plus Minnesota are summarized in Table 2 5



## .

For the non

- LADCO States, CONCEPT was run by Environ using HPMS county

- level data and MOBILE6 inp uts compiled by another contractor for VISTAS. Note, the emissions modeling for IA, MO, and OK was redone for 2009 to reflect the state

- developed registration distribution data. (The initial modeling for 2009 used national default values for registration distribution assumed by VISTAS’ contractor. CENRAP’s contractor developed emissions inventories for 2002 and 2018 using the state

- developed data. For consistency, Environ’s remodeling for these three states for 2009 also used the state

- developed data.) Meteorological data for a July weekday (July 15) were used. The emissions for Saturday and Sunday were derived by using scaling factors based on the 2005 emissions.

For other months (for both LADCO and non

- LADCO States), January weekday, Saturday, and Sunday emissions were derived based on the July:January ratios for 2005, and then the weekday, Saturday, and Sunday emissions for other months were linearly interpolated based on the January and July emissions

.

3 

### E.H. Pechan’s original control file included control factors for three sources in Wayne County, MI. These control factors were not applied in the regional

- scale modeling to avoid double

- counting with the State’s local

- scale a nalysis for PM2.5.

4 

### WI believes that NOx RACT for their sources is already included in the 2005 basecase and EGU “will do” scenario, and IN provided NOx RACT information for inclusion as a no

- EGU “may do” scenario.

5 

### For northeastern IL (CATS region), 2009 and 2018 emissions were increases by 9% and 8%, respectively, to reflect newer transportation modeling by CATS.

### February 27, 2008

Table 2. Summary of On

- road Emissions (TP D

– July 15, 2005)

Year State CO

- tpd TOG

- tpd NOx

- tpd PM2.5

- tpd SO2

- tpd NH3

- tpd Sum of VMT

2005 IL 3,684.3 341.5 748.2 12.9 9.6 35.9 344,087,819.6

IN 3,384.9 282.0 541.1 8.9 11.1 25.7 245,537,231.9

MI 4,210.3 351.9 722.0 12.4 13.9 35.3 340,834,025.9

MN 2,569.1 218.7 380.5 6.3 7.6 17.7 170,024,599.7

OH 6,113.4 679.8 933.6 16.2 18.8 36.5 360,521,068.6

WI 2,206.0 175.1 457.5 7.8 9.2 19.7 189,123,964.3

Total 22,168.0 2,049.0 3,782.9 64.5 70.2 170.8 1,650,128,709.9

2009 IL 2,824.4 268.0 52 7.8 10.1 4.2 38.9 372,132,591.1

IN 2,839.5 234.9 401.9 6.7 2.8 26.1 249,817,026.3

MI 3,172.0 269.2 500.9 9.2 4.0 37.1 356,347,010.5

MN 2,256.8 206.3 307.5 5.1 2.3 21.5 204,443,017.8

OH 4,619.2 423.7 693.5 11.8 4.7 39.5 387,428,127.2

WI 1,673.4 11 9.4 322.1 5.7 2.3 20.6 197,729,964.9

Total 17,385.3 1,521.5 2,753.6 48.7 20.3 183.6 1,767,897,737.8

2018 IL 2,084.7 151.5 200.7 6.3 3.7 43.1 413,887,887.3

IN 2,217.3 138.4 173.0 4.4 2.6 30.2 288,042,232.1

MI 2,434.3 163.5 204.1 5.9 3.6 40. 5 388,128,431.8

MN 1,799.6 123.1 137.1 3.6 2.2 24.9 237,022,213.7

OH 3,361.5 242.5 274.1 6.8 4.0 43.1 421,694,093.4

WI 1,255.5 68.4 138.5 3.9 2.0 22.2 218,277,167.5

Total 13,152.9 887.5 1,127.5 30.8 18.1 203.9 1,967,052,025.8

### February 27, 2008



## EGU Point : Future ye ar emissions were based on EPA’s IPM3.0 modeling 6



## . Three CAIR scenarios were addressed:

5 a: EPA’s IPM3.0 was assumed as the future year base for EGUs.

5 b: 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). 7



## 5 c: EPA’s IPM3.0, with several “may do” adjustments identified by the States. These adjustments reflect less rigorous criteria, but should stil l be some type of public reality (e.g., BART determination or press announcement).

Table 3 summarizes the SO2 and NOx emissions for the three scenarios. The individual f acilities affected by the “will do” and “may do” adjustments are identified in Attac hment 2. The net effect of these adjustments is a small increase in regional SO2 and NOx emissions.

Based on initial discussions with USEPA, a decision was made to use the 2010 IPM emissions in the 2009 modeling. USEPA subsequently insisted that 2009 mo deling must represent 2009 conditions. Because 2009 and 2010 EGU NOx emissions are expected to be similar (note: CAIR Phase I compliance date for NOx is 2009), the Round 5.1 ozone modeling was not redone.

USEPA believes that 2009 and 2010 EGU SO2 emissio ns may be significantly different (note: CAIR Phase I compliance date for SO2 is 2010). In particular, USEPA noted that information on projected scrubber installations identifies several facilities are not expected to be completed until 2010. A model sen sitivity run was conducted with adjusted (higher) EGU SO2 emissions.

6 

### The second set of new IPM runs by EPA were used. These runs were performed at the request of the RPOs and reflect the addition of run y ears 2012 and 2018 , and the use of four load segments for 2032 to decrease model size (instead of six segments). Comparing the results in this run with EPA’s initial v3.0, showed small differences Below is a quick summary of the run year differences.

EP A Base Case for IPM v.3.0 2010: 2009

- 2012 2015: 2013

- 2017 2020: 2018

- 2022 2025: 2023

- 2027 2032: 2028

- 2035

Base Case RPO Run for IPM v3.0 (added 2012 and 2018 run years, 2020 run year merged with the 2025 run year, and four load segments used for the 2032 run year) 2010: 2009

- 2011 2012: 2012

- 2012 2015: 2013

- 2017 2018: 2018

- 2019 2025: 2020

- 2028 2032: 2029

- 2035

7 

### Scenario 5b and 5c also reflect changes in Minnesota, Missouri, and North Dakota.

### February 27, 2008



## Table 4 provides information from USEPA s Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) on scrubber installation dates. This information is based on various sources, including company announcements, consent decrees, v endors, and organizations that track scrubber installations. While there may be uncertainty in any projection of control installations, USEPA conside rs these adequate project ions for SIP planning purposes.

USEPA identified six plants which: (1) are projected in IPM3.0 to have scrubbers in place by 2010 (or 2011), but will not be completed by 2009, and (2) are most likely to impact PM 2. 5 

## air quality in the upper Midwest (see highlighting in Table 4 ). To reflect uncontrolled (2009) emi ssions for those facilities (and units), LADCO substituted actual 2005 emissions for the IPM3.0 projected 2010 emissions. The revised (2009) SO2 emissions for the six facilities (see Table 5) represent a 5

- 6% increase in domainwide SO2 emissions.

### February 27, 2008

Table 3. Comparison of EGU Emissions for Base (5a), Will Do (5b), and Will Do (5c) Scenarios



## 2010 2018

SO2 5a 5b 5c 5a 5b 5c

IL 958 881 881 869 433 433

IN 1033 1318 1318 1036 1194 1194

MI 667 667 667 725 725 725

OH 1326 1410 1410 983 1127 1127

WI 460 460 421 435 499 235

4444 4736 4697 4048 3978 3714

MN 162 148 148 187 167 157

NOx 5a 5b 5c 5a 5b 5c

IL 275 247 247 224 195 195

IN 370 372 372 255 266 266

MI 242 242 242 243 243 243

OH 281 305 305 285 310 310

WI 165 164 155 176 172 145

1333 1330 1321 1183 1186 1159

MN 116 142 142 132 157 125

### February 27, 2008

Table 4. Facilities Anticipating SO2 Controls in 2009 and 2010

State Name Plant Name UniqueID_Final ORIS Code Unit

ID Capacity

MW Scrubber

On lineYear Scrubber

OnlineMonth

Alabama Barry 3_B_5 3 5 768 2010

Alabama E C Gaston 26_B_5 26 5 861 2010

Arizona Cholla 113_B_3 113 3 271 2009

Florida Crystal River 628_B_4 628 4 720 2010

Florida Crist 641_B_6 641 6 302 2010

Florida Crist 641_B_ 7 641 7 477 2010

Florida Crystal River 628_B_5 628 5 717 2009 5

Florida Deerhaven Generating Station 663_B_B2 663 B2 228 2009 5 Georgia Bowen 703_B_1BLR 703 1BLR 713 2010 Georgia Wansley 6052_B_2 6052 2 892 2009 5 Georgia Bowen 703_B_2BLR 703 2BLR 7 18 2009 4

Indiana Clifty Creek 983_B_1 983 1 217 2010

Indiana Clifty Creek 983_B_2 983 2 217 2010

Indiana Clifty Creek 983_B_3 983 3 217 2010

Indiana Clifty Creek 983_B_4 983 4 217 2010

Indiana Clifty Creek 983_B_5 983 5 217 2010

Indiana Clifty Creek 983_B_6 983 6 217 2010

Indiana Warrick 6705_B_4 6705 4 300 2010 Kentucky Big Sandy 1353_B_BSU2 1353 BSU2 800 2009 11 Kentucky E W Brown 1355_B_1 1355 1 94 2009 1 Kentucky E W Brown 1355_B_2 1355 2 160 2009 1 Kentucky E W Brown 1355_B_3 1355 3 422 2009 1 Kentucky H L Spurlock 6041_B_1 6041 1 315 2009 Maryland Brandon Shores 602_B_1 602 1 643 2010 Maryland Brandon Shores 602_B_2 602 2 643 2010 Maryland Chalk Point LLC 1571_B_1 1571 1 341 2010 Maryland Chalk Point LLC 1571_B_2 1571 2 342 2010 Maryland Dickerson 1572_B_1 1572 1 182 2010 Maryland Dickerson 1572_B_2 1572 2 182 2010 Maryland Dickerson 1572_B_3 1572 3 182 2010 Maryland Morgantown Generating Plant 1573_B_1 1573 1 624 2009 Maryland Morgantown Generating Plant 1573_B_2 1573 2 620 2009

Michigan Monroe 1733_B_4 1733 4 775 2009 (2010?)

Missouri Sioux 2107_B_1 2107 1 497 2010

Missouri Sioux 2107_B_2 2107 2 497 2010 New Jersey PSEG Mercer Gen. Station 2408_B_1 2408 1 315.3 2010 New Jersey PSEG Mercer Gen

. Station 2408_B_2 2408 2 309.9 2010

New York AES Westover 2526_B_11 2526 11 21.85 2010

New York AES Westover 2526_B_12 2526 12 21.85 2010

New York AES Westover 2526_B_13 2526 13 84 2010

New York AES Greenidge LLC 2527_B_4 2527 4 26.5 2010

New York AES Gr eenidge LLC 2527_B_5 2527 5 26.5 2010

NorthCarolina Cliffside 2721_B_1 2721 1 38 2010

### February 27, 2008

NorthCarolina Cliffside 2721_B_2 2721 2 38 2010

NorthCarolina Cliffside 2721_B_3 2721 3 61 2010

NorthCarolina Cliffside 2721_B_4 2721 4 61 2010

NorthCarolina Cl iffside 2721_B_5 2721 5 550 2010

NorthCarolina G G Allen 2718_B_1 2718 1 161.73 2009 5

NorthCarolina Roxboro 2712_B_1 2712 1 369 2009

NorthCarolina G G Allen 2718_B_2 2718 2 161.73 2009

NorthCarolina G G Allen 2718_B_3 2718 3 259.77 2009

NorthC arolina G G Allen 2718_B_4 2718 4 274.77 2009

NorthCarolina G G Allen 2718_B_5 2718 5 265 2009

NorthCarolina Mayo 6250_B_1A 6250 1A 361.5 2009

NorthCarolina Mayo 6250_B_1B 6250 1B 361.5 2009

Ohio W H Sammis 2866_B_6 2866 6 630 2011

Ohio W H S ammis 2866_B_7 2866 7 630 2011

Ohio R E Burger 2864_B_7 2864 7 156 2010

Ohio R E Burger 2864_B_8 2864 8 156 2010

Ohio Kyger Creek 2876_B_1 2876 1 217 2010

Ohio Kyger Creek 2876_B_2 2876 2 217 2010

Ohio Kyger Creek 2876_B_3 2876 3 217 2010

Ohio Kyger Creek 2876_B_4 2876 4 217 2010

Ohio Kyger Creek 2876_B_5 2876 5 217 2010

Ohio Conesville 2840_B_4 2840 4 780 2009 4

Ohio Bay Shore 2878_B_4 2878 4 215 2009 Pennsylvania Cheswick Power Plant 8226_B_1 8226 1 580 2010 Pennsylvania Hatfields Fe rry Power Station 3179_B_1 3179 1 530 2009 1 Pennsylvania Hatfields Ferry Power Station 3179_B_2 3179 2 530 2009 1 Pennsylvania Hatfields Ferry Power Station 3179_B_3 3179 3 530 2009 1 Pennsylvania Keystone 3136_B_1 3136 1 850 2009 Pennsylvania Keyst

one 3136_B_2 3136 2 850 2009 Pennsylvania PPL Brunner Island 3140_B_1 3140 1 321 2009 Pennsylvania PPL Brunner Island 3140_B_2 3140 2 378 2009

Tennessee Kingston 3407_B_1 3407 1 135 2010

Tennessee Kingston 3407_B_2 3407 2 135 2010

Tennessee Ki ngston 3407_B_3 3407 3 135 2010

Tennessee Kingston 3407_B_4 3407 4 135 2010

Tennessee Kingston 3407_B_5 3407 5 177 2010

Tennessee Kingston 3407_B_6 3407 6 177 2010

Tennessee Kingston 3407_B_7 3407 7 177 2010

Tennessee Kingston 3407_B_8 3407 8 177 2010

Tennessee Kingston 3407_B_9 3407 9 178 2010

Tennessee Bull Run 3396_B_1 3396 1 881 2009 1

Texas Fayette Power Project 6179_B_1 6179 1 598 2009

Texas Fayette Power Project 6179_B_2 6179 2 598 2009 Virginia Chesterfield 3797_B_5 3797 5 310 2 010 Virginia Yorktown 3809_B_1 3809 1 159 2010

### February 27, 2008

Table 5. Summary of Adjusted EGU SO2 Emissions (TPD)

State Plant 2010 IPM 2005 BY

Indiana Clifty Creek 41.41 225.32

Missouri Ameren Sioux 22.25 141.92

Ohio Kyger Creek 21.53 197.68

Ohio Sammis 147.97 305.90

Pennsylv a nia Cheswick 11.53 103.98

Tennessee Kingston 41.15 155.20

### February 27, 2008



## References

Alpine Geophysics, 2007 a , “Emissions Inventory Assistance: 2005 Base Year Biogenic and Other (non

- LADCO) State Emissions, Preparation and Delivery of Non

- MR PO Emission Files< March 12, 2007.

Alpine Geophysics, 2007b, Updated CONCEPT code with new (MEGAN) biogenic emissions delivered via e

- mail from James Wilkinson on February 9, 2007.

EC/R, Incorporated, 2004, “Fire Emissions Inventory Development for the M idwest Regional Planning Organization”, Final Report, September 30, 2004.

E.H. Pechan, 2004, “LADCO Nonroad Emissions Inventory Project

– Development of Local Data for Construction and Agricultural Equipment”, Final Report, September 10, 2004

E.H. Pechan , 2005, “Development of Updated Growth and Control Factors for Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO)”, Draft Report, December 29, 2005.

E. H. Pechan, 2007, “Development of 2005 Base Year Growth and Control Factors for Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO)”, Final Report, September 2007.

Environ, 2004, “LADCO Nonroad Emissions Inventory Project for Locomotive, Commercial Marine, and Recreational Marine Emission Sources, Final Report, December 2004.

Environ, 2007 a , “LADCO 2005 Locomotive Emissions”, Draft, February 2007.

Environ, 2007 b , “LADCO 2005 Commercial Marine Emissions”, Draft, March 2, 2007.

Environ, 200 8 , “LADCO On

- Road Emission Inventory Developm ent Using CONCEPT MV”, January 2008

.

LADCO, 2006a, “Base K/Round 4 Strategy Modeli ng” Emissions”, May 16, 2006.

LADCO, 2006b, “Base K/Round 4 Modeling: Summary”, August 31, 2006.

Mansell, G, Z. Wang, R. Zhang, J. Fadel, T. Ramsey, H. Xin, Y. Liang, and J. Arogo, 2005, “An Improved Process

- Based Ammonia Emissions Model for Agricultural Sources

– Emission Estimates”

USEPA, 2007a, "Guidance for on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2. 5 

## , and Regional Haze”, EPA

- 454/B07

- 002, April 2007.

USEPA, 2007b, E

- mail from Dennis Bea uregard (OAQPS) dated February 22, 2007.

Zhang, R, T. Ramsey, J. Fadel, J. Arogo, Z. Wang, G. Mansell, and H. Xin, 2005, “An Improved Process

- Based Ammonia Emissions Model for Agricultural Sources

– Model Development”

WDNR, 2006, “ Wisconsin Draft 2005 Ou tdoor Wood Boiler Methodology ”, PowerPoint presentation by Bart Sponseller, November 13, 2006.

### February 27, 2008



## Web Sites:

http://www.ladco.org/tech/emis/basek/BaseK_Reports.htm

http://www.ladco.org/tech/emis/r5/round5_reports.htm

http://www.ladco.org/tech/emis/basem/canada/index.htm

http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/npri/

http://bai.acd.ucar.edu/Megan/

http://www.conceptmodel.org/nh3/nh3_index.html

### February 27, 2008



# ATTACHME NT 1

Emissions SummariesVOC Base M BaseK Base M BaseK BaseK Base M NOx Base M BaseK Base M BaseK BaseK Base M SOX Base M BaseK Base M BaseK BaseK Base M PM2.5 Base M BaseK Base M BaseK BaseK Base M

July 2002 2005 2009 2009 2012 2018 2018 2002 2005 2009 2009 2012 2018 2018 2002 2005 2009 2009 2012 2018 2018 2002 2005 2009 2009 2012 2018 2018

Nonroad

IL 224 321 164 257 149 130 213 324 333 263 275 224 154 155 31 33 5 5 0.6 0.4 0.4 30 24 14

IN 125 195 94 160 95 95 128 178 191 142 158 141 141 89 17 19 3 3 3 0.3 0.2 17 13 7

MI 348 414 307 350 276 222 271 205 239 159 197 133 93 112 19 22 3 3 0.5 0.3 0.3 22 18 11

OH 222 356 161 294 145 126 238 253 304 195 246 162 109 135 23 29 4 5 0.5 0.3 0.4 27 22 13

WI 214 238 194 203 175 140 157 145 157 114 129 97 69 77 13 15 2 2 0.3 0.2 0.2 14 12 7

5-State Total 1133 1524 920 1264 840 713 1007 1105 1224 873 1005 757 566 568 103 118 17 18 4.9 1.5 1.5 110 89 52

U.S. Total 8463 9815 5442 8448 5244 6581 6041 9060 6057 8120 5832 5100 505 654 117 153 104 13 573 750 475

MAR

IL 10 11 10 10 10 10 6 277 246 201 228 195 186 165 0 22 0 19 0 0 17 7 6 4

IN 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 123 93 89 87 87 84 65 0.2 8 0.2 7 0.2 0.2 6 2 2 2

MI 7 7 7 7 7 8 7 114 87 112 82 111 110 65 0.6 21 0.7 14 0.7 0.8 8 3 3 2

OH 8 7 8 7 8 8 5 177 134 128 126 126 122 94 0.4 14 0.3 12 0.3 0.3 10 4 4 2

WI 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 79 58 59 54 59 57 41 12.7 8 9.5 6 9.5 8.7 5 2 2 1

5-State Total 34 34 34 33 34 35 24 770 618 589 577 578 559 430 13.9 73 10.7 58 10.7 10 46 18 17 11

U.S. Total 307 317 321 157 329 346 334 4968 4515 4002 1813 3964 3919 3812 620 512 509 122 509 503 290 147 57 165

OtherArea

IL 679 675 688 594 700 738 582 62 48 68 48 70 73 49 11 11 12 16 12 13 16 40 64 69

IN 354 391 365 358 373 398 384 62 56 65 58 67 69 59 158 32 150 32 151 153 32 2 2 2

MI 518 652 516 562 520 541 549 49 49 52 50 53 54 51 71 29 68 29 68 68 28 111 114 120

OH 546 604 550 506 558 593 487 50 93 59 108 60 62 108 22 6 34 15 35 35 14 19 35 34

WI 458 315 467 290 474 506 293 32 37 34 37 34 35 37 9 17 9 13 10 10 13 11 12 12

5-State Total 2555 2637 2586 2310 2625 2776 2295 255 283 278 301 284 293 304 271 95 273 105 276 279 103 183 227 237

U.S. Total 17876 21093 18638 18683 20512 24300 3856 4899 4100 4220 4418 5357 2075 2947 2062 2559 2189 2709 2735 2621 2570

On-Road

IL 446 341 314 268 260 197 151 890 748 578 528 474 300 201 9 4 3 13 10 6

IN 405 282 237 235 193 150 138 703 541 425 402 313 187 173 11 3 2 9 7 2

MI 522 351 335 269 303 217 163 926 722 680 501 619 385 204 14 4 3 12 9 3

OH 574 680 365 424 340 238 242 1035 934 609 693 512 270 274 18 4 4 16 12 4

WI 238 175 144 119 117 88 68 481 457 303 322 226 118 138 9 2 2 8 6 2

5-State Total 2185 1829 1395 1315 1213 890 762 4035 3402 2595 2446 2144 1260 990 61 17 14 58 44 17

U.S. Total 14263 7825 23499 13170

EGU

IL 9 7 8 6 8 9 7 712 305 227 275 244 231 224 1310 1158 944 958 789 810 869 13 34 77

IN 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 830 393 406 370 424 283 255 2499 2614 1267 1033 1263 1048 1036 16 73 74

MI 12 6 11 4 11 12 4 448 393 218 242 219 247 243 1103 1251 1022 667 1031 1058 725 15 25 29

OH 5 4 6 5 7 7 6 1139 408 330 280 322 271 285 3131 3405 1463 1326 994 701 983 28 94 80

WI 3 5 3 2 4 4 3 293 213 146 165 139 147 177 602 545 512 460 492 500 435 0 22 25

5-State Total 35 28 34 23 37 38 26 3422 1712 1327 1332 1348 1179 1184 8645 8973 5208 4444 4569 4117 4048 72 248 285

U.S. Total 214 140 195 124 197 215 138 14371 10316 7746 7274 7721 7007 6095 31839 34545 20163 16903 17629 14727 14133 685 1131 1571

Non-EGU

IL 313 221 286 218 305 350 258 356 330 334 218 338 343 235 373 423 251 335 257 249 346 16 17 19

IN 150 130 160 137 170 199 167 238 179 212 175 216 225 178 292 218 270 216 274 290 180 35 36 44

MI 123 116 115 119 122 139 140 216 240 208 242 214 229 271 162 158 166 148 171 185 163 20 21 25

OH 77 84 75 87 79 90 104 177 175 157 166 160 167 178 240 289 231 288 210 216 293 27 28 33

WI 88 84 97 87 104 120 106 98 97 91 93 92 94 81 163 156 154 152 155 156 85 0 0.1 0.1

5-State Total 751 635 733 648 780 898 775 1085 1021 1002 894 1020 1058 943 1230 1244 1072 1139 1067 1096 1067 98 102 121

U.S. Total 4087 3877 4409 4700 5378 6446 6730 6129 6435 6952 5759 5630 6093 6340 6970 1444 1777

IL 1681 1576 1470 1353 1432 1434 1217 2621 2010 1671 1572 1545 1287 1029 1725 1656 1212 1337 1059 1072 1251 119 155 189

IN 1045 1009 867 901 843 853 826 2134 1453 1339 1250 1248 989 819 2966 2902 1690 1294 1691 1492 1256 81 133 131

MI 1530 1546 1291 1311 1239 1139 1134 1958 1730 1429 1314 1349 1118 946 1356 1495 1260 865 1271 1312 927 183 190 190

OH 1432 1735 1165 1323 1137 1062 1082 2831 2048 1478 1619 1342 1001 1074 3416 3761 1732 1650 1240 953 1304 121 195 166

WI 1005 821 909 705 878 862 630 1128 1019 747 800 647 520 551 800 750 687 635 667 675 540 35 54 47

5-State Total 6693 6687 5702 5593 5529 5350 4889 10672 8260 6664 6555 6131 4915 4419 10263 10564 6581 5781 5928 5504 5280 539 727 723

### February 27, 2008



# ATTACHMENT 2

“Will Do” and “May Do” EGU Facility Emissions

### February 27, 2008



## 2009

– Difference between base (5a) and “will do” (5b) scenarios

The SAS System 09:55 Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1

------------------------ ------------------------------------ polid=NOX

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

-----

Obs cntryid stid cyid fcid name polid aceebase aceenew diff

1 US 17 97 097190AAC MIDWEST GENERAT NOX 11.54 6.28

- 5.266
2 US 17 197 197810AAK MIDWEST GENERAT NOX 21.11 9.46

- 11.652
3 US 18 73 00008 NIPSCO

- R.M. S NOX 26.50 24.81

- 1.691
4 US 18 77 00001 IKEC

- CLIFTY C NOX 11.58 16.42 4.836
5 US 18 89 00117 NIPSCO

- DEAN H NOX 20.51 19.13

- 1.384
6 US 27 37 2703700003 NSP dba Xcel En NOX 8.03 26.74 18.709 7 US 27 61 2706100004 Minne sota Power NOX 15.43 18.40 2.969 8 US 27 163 2716300005 Xcel Energy

- A NOX 4.21 5.92 1.718
9 US 29 183 0001 AMERENUE

- SIOUX NOX 28.47 12.81

- 15.658
10 US 38 55 126 Coal Creek Stat NOX 30.49 30.36

- 0.132
11 US 38 57 12 Leland Olds Sta NOX 11 .32 36.67 25.348
12 US 38 57 125 Stanton Station NOX 6.11 6.11 0.002 13 US 38 57 13 Antelope Valley NOX 33.00 36.39 3.385 14 US 38 57 289 Coyote NOX 35.12 36.95 1.839
15 US 38 59 172 RM Heskett Stat NOX 5.45 4.72

- 0.727 16 US 38 65 165 M R Young Stati NOX 6.02 71.10 65.081
17 US 39 93 0247030013 AVON LAKE POWER NOX 3.98 20.54 16.561
1 8 US 39 129 0165000006 NOX . 1.69 .
19 US 55 11 606034110 DAIRYLAND POWER NOX 19.24 18.96

- 0.279
20 US 55 21 111003090 Alliant Energy

- NOX 14.23 17.16 2.927 21 US 55 43 122014530 Alliant Energy

- NOX 7.61 7.77 0.160
22 US 55 59 230006260 WIS ELECTRIC PO NOX 7.39 14.03 6.647
23 US 55 71 436035930 MANITOWOC PUBLI NOX 2.06 1.80

- 0.259
24 US 55 79 241007690 WIS ELECTRIC PO NOX 15.25 15.41 0.166
25 US 55 79 241007800 WIS ELECTRIC PO NOX 7.87 6.07

- 1.801
26 US 55 117 460033090 WP & L All iant NOX 19.06 11.85

- 7.215

27 US 55 123 663020930 DAIRYLAND POWER NOX 10.47 8.52

- 1.955

----- -------- ------- -------- polid 382.05 486.07 102.327

### February 27, 2008

------------------------------------------------------------ polid=SO2

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

-----

Obs cntryid stid cyid fcid name polid aceebase aceenew diff

28 US 17 97 097190AAC MIDWEST GENERAT SO2 49.9 1 29.27

- 20.636
29 US 17 197 197810AAK MIDWEST GENERAT SO2 91.90 62.70

- 29.198

30 US 18 29 00002 AMERICAN ELECTR SO2 66.34 102.72 36.389
31 US 18 43 00004 PSI ENERGY

- GA SO2 25.53 66.01 40.488
32 US 18 73 00008 NIPSCO

- R.M. S SO2 82.52 63.71

- 18.817
33 US 18 147 00020 INDIANA MICHIGA SO2 71.67 198.71 127.042
34 US 18 167 00021 PSI ENERGY

- WA SO2 76.09 175.87 99.786
35 US 27 31 2703100001 Minnesota Power SO2 12.27 5.75

- 6.512 36 US 27 61 2706100004 Minnesota Power SO2 30.76 20.79

- 9.968
37 US 27 163 2716300005 Xcel Energy

- A SO2 5.33 7.11 1.777
38 US 29 183 0001 AMERENUE

- SIOUX SO2 22.25 8.34

- 13.903
39 US 38 55 126 Coal Creek Stat SO2 27.45 75.37 47.926
40 US 38 57 12 Leland Olds Sta SO2 108.15 126.06 17.906
41 US 38 57 125 Stanton Station SO2 25.29 12.37

- 12.922 42 US 38 57 13 Antelope Valley SO2 26.60 43.72 17.128 43 US 38 57 289 Coyote SO2 19.26 53.19 33.932
44 US 38 59 172 RM Heskett Stat SO2 9.23 30.11 20.872 45 US 38 65 165 M R Young Stati SO2 27.98 82.23 54.249

46 US 39 81 0641160017 W. H. SAMMIS PL SO2 147.97 55.61

- 92.363
47 US 39 93 0247030013 AVON LAKE POWER SO2 7.62 127.04 119.417
48 US 39 129 0165000006 SO2 . 16.55 . 49 US 55 21 111003090 Alliant Energy

- SO2 61.97 74.80 1 2.822 50 US 55 43 122014530 Alliant Energy

- SO2 11.49 42.60 31.111
51 US 55 59 230006260 WIS ELECTRIC PO SO2 7.39 12.34 4.949

52 US 55 71 436035930 MANITOWOC PUBLI SO2 5.90 9.95 4.050
53 US 55 79 241007690 WIS ELECTRIC PO SO2 59.72 41.19

- 18.535
54 US 55 79 241007800 WIS ELECTRIC PO SO2 38.79 21.36

- 17.433
55 US 55 123 663020930 DAIRYLAND POWER SO2 19.56 3.79

- 15.772

----- -------- ------- -------- polid 1138.93 1569.26 413.785

======== ======= ======== 1520.97 2055.32 516.112

### February 27, 2008



## 2009

– Difference between “will do” (5b) and “may do” (5c) s cenario s

The SAS System 09:55 Wednesday, February 27,
2008 1

------------------------------------------------------------ polid=NOX

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

-----

Obs cntryid stid cyid fcid name polid aceebase aceenew diff

1 US 19 139 70

- 01

- 011 MUSCATINE POWER NOX 5.649 3.926

- 1.7226

2 US 55 9 405031990 WI PUBLIC SERVI NOX 9.234 7.786

- 1.4476
3 US 55 11 606034110 DAIRYLAND POWER NOX 18.957 18.994 0.0377 4 US 55 21 111003090 Alliant Energy

- NOX 17.158 17.156

- 0.0021
5 US 55 25 113004430 MADISON GAS & E NOX 3.886 2.639

- 1.2470
6 US 55 43 122014530 Alliant Energy

- NOX 7.765 7.756

- 0.0091
7 US 55 59 230006260 WIS ELECTRIC PO NOX 14.034 9.826

- 4.2074
8 US 55 71 436035930 MANITOWOC PUBLI NOX 1.800 0.439

- 1.3610
9 US 55 79 241007690 WIS ELECTRIC PO NOX 15.413 15.435 0.0219
10 US 55 79 241007800 WIS ELECTRIC PO NOX 6.068 6.072 0.0041 11 US 55 117 460033090 WP & L Alliant NOX 11.847 11.892 0.0456
12 US 55 123 663020930 DAIRYLAND POWER NOX 8.517 8.482

- 0.0343

----- -------- ------- -------- polid 120.325 110.404

- 9.9218

------------------------------------------------------------ polid=SO2

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

-----

Obs cntryid stid cyid fcid name polid aceebase aceenew diff

13 US 19 139 70

- 01

- 011 MUSCATINE POWER SO2 6.237 11.178 4.9415
14 US 55 9 405031990 WI PUBLIC SERVI SO2 21.750 18.074

- 3.6753 15 US 55 21 111003090 Alliant Energy

- SO2 74.796 74.988 0.1924
16 US 55 25 113004430 MADISON GAS & E SO2 16.331 0.063

- 16.2672 17 US 55 43 122014530 Alliant Energy

- SO2 42.604 42.640 0.0362
18 US 55 59 230006260 WIS ELECTRIC PO SO2 12.336 9.850

- 2 .4867
19 US 55 71 436035930 MANITOWOC PUBLI SO2 9.949 3.001

- 6.9477
20 US 55 79 241007690 WIS ELECTRIC PO SO2 41.189 41.210 0.0207

21 US 55 79 241007800 WIS ELECTRIC PO SO2 21.360 21.430 0.0699
22 US 55 123 663020930 DAIRYLAND POWER SO2 3.785 3.716

- 0.0694

----- -------- ------- -------- polid 250.336 226.151

- 24.1856

======== ======= ======== 370.662 336.554

- 34.1074

# Appendix I

Notice of Public Hearing &

Statement of Consideration

## KENTUCKY DIVISION FOR AIR QUALITY
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO REVISE KENTUCKY'S ST ATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

The Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet will conduct a public hearing on December 15, 2010, at 6:00 p.m. (EDT) in the Conference Room of the Northern Kentucky Area Development District (NKADD), 22 Spiral Drive, Florence, Kentucky. This hearing is being held to receive comments on a proposed State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to redesignate the Kentucky portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana PM 2.5 

## nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 

## National Ambient Air Quality Standard. This revision, when approved by U.S. EPA, will redesignate Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties to attainment, and document that the ambient monitoring data for fine partic ulate matter indicates attainment of the standard.

This hearing is open to the public and all interested pe rsons will be given the opportunity to present testimony. To assure that all comments are accurately recorded, the Division requests that oral comments presented at the hearing also be provided in written form, if possible. To be considered part of the hearing record, comments must be received by the close of the hearing. Comme nts should be sent to the contact person.

The full text of the proposed SIP revision is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours (8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) at the locations listed belo w. Any individual requiring copies may submit a request to the Division for Air Quality in writing, by telephone, or by fax. Requests for copies should be directed to the contact person. In addition, an electronic version of the proposed SIP revision document and relevant attachments
can be downloaded from the Division for Air Quality’s web site at: http://air.ky.gov/Pages/PublicNoticesandHearings.aspx

The hearing facility is accessible to people with disabilities. An interpreter or other auxiliary aid or service will be provided upon request. Please direct these requests to the contact person.

CONTACT PERSON: Susan Weaver, Internal Policy Analys t III, Division for Air Quality, 200 Fair Oaks Lane, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601. Phone (502) 564-3999 ; Fax (502) 564-4666; E-mail susan.weaver@ky.gov.

The Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet does not discriminate on the ba sis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, or disability and provides, upon request , reasonable accommodation including auxiliary aids and services necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in all services, programs,
and activities.

Ashland Regional Office Bowl ing Green Regional Office Florence Regional Office Frankfort Regional Office 1550 Wolohan Drive, Suite 1 1508 Westen Avenue 8020 Ve terans Mem Dr, Suite 110 200 Fair Oaks Ln., 3 rd Floor Ashland, KY 41102-8942 Bowling Green, KY 42104 -3356 Florence, KY 41042 Frankfort, KY 40601-1758

Hazard Regional Office L ondon Regional Office Owensboro Region al Office Paducah Regional Office 233 Birch Street, Suite 2 875 S. Main Street 3032 Alve y Park Dr W, Suite 700 130 Eagle Nest Drive Hazard, KY 41701-2179 London, KY 40741 Owe nsboro, KY 42303-2191 Paducah, KY 42003-0823

Boone County Clerk Campbell C ounty Clerk Kenton County Clerk 2950 Washington Street 1098 Monmouth Street 303 Court Street Burlington, KY 41005 Newport, KY 41071 Covington, KY 41011Thursday , N ovember 11 , 2 010 THE ENQUIRER E5

KENTUCKY DIVISION FOR AIR QUALITY NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO REVISE KENTUCKY’S STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

The Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet will conduct a p ublic hearing

on December 15, 2010, at 6:00 p.m. (EDT) in the Conference Room of the Northern Kentucky Area Development District (NKADD), 22 Spiral Drive, Florence, Kentucky. This hearing is being held to receive comments on a proposed State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to redesignate the Ken

tucky portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana PM2.5 nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 National Am

bient Air Quality Standard. This revision, when approved by U.S. EPA, will redesignate Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties to attainment, and docu

ment that the ambient monitoring data for fine particulate matter indicates attainment of the standard.

This hearing is open to the public and all interested persons will be given the opportunity to present testimony. To assure that all comments are accurate

ly recorded, the Division requests that oral comments presented at the hear

ing also be provided in written form, if possible. To be considered part of the hearing record, comments must be received by the close of the hearing. Comments should be sent to the contact person.

The full text of the proposed SIP revision is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours (8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) at the lo

cations listed below. Any individual requiring copies may submit a r equest to the Division for Air Quality in writing, by telephone, or by fax. Requests for copies should be directed to the contact person. In addition, an electron

ic version of the proposed SIP revision document and relevant attachments

can be downloaded from the Division for Air Quality’s web site at: http://air.ky.gov/Pages/PublicNoticesandHearings.aspx

The hearing facility is accessible to people with disabilities. An interpreter or other auxiliary aid or service will be provided upon request. Please direct these requests to the contact person.

CONTACT PERSON: Susan Weaver, Internal Policy Analyst III, Division for Air Quality, 200 Fair Oaks Lane, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601. Phone (502) 564-3999; Fax (502) 564-4666; E-mail susan.weaver@ky.gov.

The Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, or disability and provides, upon request, reasonable accommodation including auxiliary aids and services necessary to afford an individual with a d isability an equal op

portunity to participate in all services, programs, and activities.

Ashland Regional Office Bowling Green Regional Office 1550 Wolohan Dr. Suite 1 1 508 Western Ave 3rd Floor Ashland, KY 41102-8942 Bowling Green, KY 42104

Florence Regional Office Frankfort Regional Office 8020 Veterans Mem Dr. #110 200 Fair Oaks Ln. Florence, KY 41042 Frankfort, KY 40601-1758

Hazard Regional Office London Regional Office 233 Birch St., Suite 2 8 75 S. Main St. Hazard, KY 41701-2179 London, KY 40741

Owensboro Regional Office Paducah Regional Office 3032 Alvey Park Dr. Suite 700 130 Eagle Nest Dr. Owensboro, KY 42303-2191 Paducah, KY 42003-0823

Boone County Clerk Campbell County Clerk 2950 Washington St. 1098 Monmouth St. Burlington, KY 41005 Newport, KY 41071

Kenton County Clerk 303 Court St. Covington, KY 41011 1001604401 SIXTH CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COUNCIL Office of the Circuit Executive FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Pursuant to the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, P.L. 98-353, the Regulations of the Judicial Conference of the Unit

ed States for the Selection of United States Bankruptcy Judge Nominees, and the Procedures of the Sixth Circuit Judicial Council for the Selec

tion of Bankruptcy Judge Nominees, the Sixth Cir

cuit Judicial Council received applications from
persons interested in appointment to the bank

ruptcy judge position in the Southern District of Ohio, vice J. Vincent Aug.

A M erit Selection Panel considered all applica

tions received and recommended the following four candidates to the Sixth Circuit Judicial Coun

cil for consideration for appointment to the bankruptcy judge vacancy:

Beth A. Buchanan Waynesville, OH Monica Villarejos Kindt Cincinnati, OH Jeffrey Alan Moyer Coopersville, MI Louis F. Solimine Cincinnati, OH

The Sixth Circuit Judicial Council must narrow the list to three recommended candidates for this posi

tion. Under the Act, the final selection of a p er

son for appointment as bankruptcy judge will be made by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Any person may now submit written comments for consideration by the Judicial Council and the Court of Appeals regarding the qualifica

tions of the above-four final nominees. Such written comments must be received in the Office of the Circuit Executive, 503 Potter Stewart Unit

ed States Courthouse, 100 East Fifth Street, Cin

cinnati, Ohio 45202, no later than November 22, 2010.

Please contact Clarence Maddox, Circuit Execu

tive, (513) 564-7200 for further information.

Issue date: November 8, 2010 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL The Kenton County Air

port Board (the “Boar

d”), owner and operator of the Cincinnati /Northern Kentucky In

ternational Airport, is re

questing competitive proposals from interest

ed parties to enter into

an agreement to operate and manage an on de

mand taxicab service at the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International LEGAL NOTICE Queen City Self Storage, 4775 Red Bank Express

way, Cincinnati, Ohio 45227 (513) 271-5599, Fax (513) 271-5645. Sale November 23, 2010 at 10 A.M. Auction conducted by Jerry Rog

ers. Auctioneer selling contents on premises of delinquent accounts of parties listed below: Carole A. Saturday, 2527 W. 74th St., Oklahoma City, OK 73159 bed, a/c unit misc., unseen items; Michelle Banks, 930 Elli

son Ave., Cinti, OH 45226 misc., household items, building supplies, Isabella Minnifield, 3185 Ferncrest Ct.#12, Cinti, OH 45211 misc. house

hold items; Michael F. Paul, 5122 Kenwood Rd, Cinti., OH 45227, couches; Karmin Digby, PO Box 36352, Cinti, OH 45236, misc., house

hold items; Jared McVey, 5149 Winton Rd Apt. D, Fairfield, OH 45014 & Melissa A. Barger, 4634 Carter Ave. #1, Cinti, OH 45212. 1001603827 75 legal advertising Kentucky

Airport. Proposal docu

ments may be obtained

on or after November 11, 2010 at www.cvgairport.com

– Business Opportunities /Procurement/Items Out for Bid or by contacting Lisa Ransom at: (859) 767-7023 or e-mail lransom@cvgairport.com Proposals are to be sub

mitted no later than 2:00 P.M. (EST) on December 9, 2010. A p re-proposal meeting will be held at 1:00 P.M., on Tuesday, November 23, 2010, at Administrative Offices of the Board, Terminal Building 1, Second Floor, Cin ci nn ati /N ort hern Kentucky International Airport. The Board, in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000d et seq.) and 49 CFR, Part 21, Non-Discrimination in federally assisted pro

grams of the Depart

ment of Transportation, hereby notifies all Pro

posers that it will affir

matively assure that dis

advantaged business en

terprises are afforded full opportunity to submit proposals in response to this invitation and will not be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, or national original in consideration for an award. The Board

reserves the right to re

ject any and all propos

als, to waive any infor

mality in any proposal, and to negotiate with the Proposer submitting the proposal most favor

able to the Board. Each Proposer is required to submit his/her proposal in the manner stated on the RFP. 1001604220 75 legal advertising

LEGAL NOTICE

American Self Storage will sell items at public auction. The items to be sold are generally descri

bed as household goods, boxes, bags, clothing, furniture, appliances, bedding, mattresses, toys, tools, bikes, lug

gage, trunks, personal effects, equipment, of

fice supplies, fixtures, and business inventories. Auction will take place

on 11/26/10 at 9:00 am and continue from loca

tion to location in the se

quence listed below. American Self Storage 1775 Eden Park Dr, Hamilton OH 45013 1113 B r e t t Procaccini 9250 Deer Cross Pkwy Apt. 2B 45236 1118 Todd Bowl

in 636 Carlisle Ave. 45013 1329 Brian Ho

ward Krieger 151 Timberhill Dr. Apt. H 45013 2301 R i c h ard Bowling 1348 Carriage Hill Ln. 45013 2421 Marissa Baker 132 Gor

don Ave. 45013 3125 Billie Cox Jr. 2109 Fairfax Ave. 45015 3507 Aimee Blundell 1800 Eaton Ave. Apt. 7 4 5013 4111 Da

vid Ream 412 Snowmess Rd. Columbus, OH 43235 4209 Carrie Carr 1033 Eaton Ave. Apt. 4B 45013 American Self Storage 909 Elliott Dr, Middletown, OH 45044 3118 Mikki Crouch 704 The Alameda 45044 7501 Rocky Tate 520 Garfield St. 45044 American Self Storage 800 Cincinnati Ave, Leb

anon, OH 45036 1265 Michael Vaughn 780 Harvard Dr. Apt. A 45036 1266 Dani Bolser 1063 Hart Rd. 45036 1267 J a c q u e l i n Grenzebach 7312 Cold Water Ct. Dayton, OH 45459 3117 K e n i tra Spidle 3044 Henry Inkster, MI 48141 3410 Lisa Beth Brauninger 31 Pleasant St. 45036 Auc

tion will take place on 11/29/10 at 9:00 am and continue from loca

tion to location in the se

quence listed below. American Self Storage 5151 Glencrossing Way, Cincinnati, OH 45238 1305 J e n n i f e r Gooding 2963 Four Towers Dr. 45238 1403 James Massengale III 1013 Fisk Ave. 45205 2505 W i llia m Poole 3749 Herbert Ave. 45211 2605 C r y s t a l Riddell 1033 Lockman Ave. 45238 2706 Alex

andria Neal 4315 Har

ding Ave. 45211 3101 Joseph Lee 3643 Werk Rd. 45248 4227 Shawntee Horton 2712 Bello Ct. 45231 4322 Regina Whitehead 2971 West Knoll Ln. 45211 4508 Lisa Love 2677 Montana Ave. 45211 4511 D a mio n Matthews 960 Grand Ave. Apt. 3 4 5205 4518 Inez Jackson PO Box 58690 45258 5353 Mi

chael Alter 3415 Michi

gan Ave. #2 45208 5410 Pauletta Nixon 1197 Rulison Ave. 45238 American Self Storage 8100 Hamilton Ave, Cincinnati, OH 45231 1120 Mooney & J ohn

75 legal advertising



### EQUAL HOUSING

OPPORTUNITY

All real estate advertising in this newspa

per is subject to the Federal Fair Housing
Act of 1968 which makes it illegal to adver

tise any preference, limitation or discrimina

tion based on race, color, religion, sex, na

tional origin, handicap or familial status or

an intention to make any such preference, limitation or discrimination. This newspaper will not knowingly accept
any advertising for real estate which is in violation of the law. Our readers are here

by informed that all dwellings advertised
in this newpaper are available on an equal opportunity basis.

Kentucky Commission on Human Rights

800-292-5566 H.O.M.E. (Housing Opportunities Made Equal)

513-721-4663 

### 100 homes, ohio MADERIA MOBILE HOME PARK- Mobile Home lots available located in Ma

deira. For more info please call Dave @ 5 13-678-3995 Or 513-984-4450 GOSHEN LAKESHORE Free rent

. Will finance! ’95, 3BR, 2BA, vinyl/ shin

gle, great schls, lot rent $299. 513-348-5232 

### 117 mobile homes and lots WHITE OAK - 4 br, 2.5ba, 2 s try, liv rm, din rm, 1st flr fam, w/ wbfp, ovrd deck, fncd yrd, 2 c ar gar, $154,000, 513-941-6696 DEADLINES PUBLICATION DEADLINES

Sun Business Class 5:00 Thur. Sun. Enquirer 5:00 Fri. Mon. Enquirer 5:00 Fri. Tue. Enquirer 5:00 Mon. Wed. Enquirer 5:00 Mon. Thurs. Enquirer 5:00 Tue. Fri. Enquirer 5:00 Wed. Sat Enquirer 5:00 Thur.

FAX Deadlines: 3 h ours prior to above published deadlines.

PROOF Deadlines: 24 hours in advance. 

### 100 homes, ohio Mooney

son LLC 5401 Bluebird Ln. 45239 1215 Lenay Hardin PO Box 8875 45208 1405 Ronald Wil

lis 1615 W. Kemper Rd. 45240 2133 Mooney & Johnson LLC 5401 Blue

bird Ln. 45239 2412 Dion Crockett 1955 Crest Dr. 45240 3330 Reginald Mitchell 1950 Goodman Ave. Apt. 1 45239 3408 Dianne Akins 3984 Fawnhill Ln. 45205 4339 Nikki Smith 3332 Curtis Dr. #303 Hillcrest Heights, MD 20746 4507 Hazel Smith 3332 Curtis Dr. #303 Hillcrest Heights, MD 20746 6015 Daniel Da

vis 5986 Sunridge Dr. 45224 6017 Daniel Da

vis 5986 Sunridge Dr. 45224 6018 Daniel Da

vis 5986 Sunridge Dr. 45224 6107 A n t h ony Brice 333 Forest Ave. #1 45229 8105 Henry Wal

lace Jr. 1189 Highcliff Ct. 45224 American Self Storage 101 GlendaleMilford Rd, Cincinnati, OH 45215 1207 Michele Ballew 728 Stout Ave. 45215 4102 Ton y a Brown 10144 Love Ct. 45215 4225 C a r l o t t a Simes 338 N W ayne Ave. 45215 5108 Moni

ca Portis 1627 Maryland Ln. 45231 6125 Darrick Wilson 671 Jackson St. 45215 7305 Thom a s William 1178 Schmard Ave. 45215 8113 Charmagne Robinson 10690 Deauville Rd. 45240 8314 A l e x i s Lovett 31 E L ake Shore Dr. Apt. 13 45237 8501 Gary Smith 701 Mulber

ry St. 45215 Am er ic an Self Storage 525 W. 35TH St, Covington, KY 41015 2509 W i llia m Luke 26 W 3 1st St. 41015 3120 T e r e n c e Lane 34 Indiana Dr. 41015 3232 J o s e p h Sherrill 4250 Aspen Dr. #9 41051 3240 Leslie Stewart 17 Indiana Dr. 41015 3324 Kyle Ed

ward Bullock Jr. 2 W est 30th St. 41015 3357 Jer

ry Dority 37 W 3 2nd St. 41015 4601 Roy Iles 3080 Squiresville Rd. Owenton, KY 40359 4606 Kimberly Balzer 1609 Cumberland Ave. 41011 4607 R o b e r t Murphy 1828 Pearl St. 41014 American Self Storage 5700 Wooster Pike, Cincinnati, OH 45227 7212 T r e v o r Ramsey PO Box #30392 45230 1001604324 75 legal advertising



### 100 homes,

ohio 

### Call Today
To run your Auto Ad in the Classifieds.

421-6300 Call 513-421-6300 to place your Classified ad. E E NTERPRISE IN 127 beautiful

acres, will not divide, PEACEFUL , 1 10

acre woods, 17 ac pasture, 2 s tocked ponds, hunter’s cabin, trails, 2 c reeks, $2900. per ac. 812-593-2948 147 farms/countr y homes NORRIS LAKE, TN .4B R , 2 b a f loating houses. Large kitch & l iving area, covered deck, attached sundeck, slide & d iving board. Fully furnished. 937-623-1498 or view on

line at gonesouth.4t.com 

### 140 resort property/Sale RICHWOOD - S te eple

chase Sub. No steps, secure, intercom, 2 B R, 2 B A, large closets, extra storage, appliances, fireplace, 1 c ar garage, overlooks lake. 859-806-6236 120 condominiums CLEVES E. Miami River Rd. 2 B R, 2 B A w ith lot. 918-378-5210 117 mobile homes and lots 

# 100 -29 7

Re al Es tat e f or Sale

Apar tment s f or Sale 155

Au ctions/Real Estate 191

Au ctions/P er sonal Proper ty 192

Condominiums 120

Fa rm s/Countr y H omes 147
Homes, Indiana 110
Homes, Ke ntuck

y 1 05
Homes, Ohio 100

Industrial fo r L ease 175

Industrial fo r S ale 170

In vestment Proper ty 190

Land fo r L ease 165

Land fo r S ale/Commercial 160

Land Sale/Residential 150

Mobile Homes/Lots 117

Modular , P re-cut Homes 130

Mor tgages/RE Loans 124

Office Space/Lea se 183

Office Space/Sale 185

Out-of-State Proper ty 145

Real Estate Ser vices 149

Real Estate Wa nted 197

Resor t M ember ships 137

Resor t P roper ty/Sale 140

Retail fo r L ease 177

Retail fo r S ale 180 

### Real Estate for Rent

Apar tments, Fur nished 200 Apts-Houses to Share 215 Apar tments Unfur nished 225

Condos fo r R ent 240 Condos-Rent/Option Buy 245

Cor porate Rentals 222

Fa rm s/Countr y H omes 285 Garages, Storage 260 Hotels/Motels 210

Houses fo r R ent 250 Houses-Lease/Option 255 Housing fo r t he Disabled 230

Mobile Homes fo r R ent 235

Rental Ser vices 259

Resor ts/Cottages 290

Room and Board 275

Rooms fo r R ent 270

Senior Living 220

Wa nted to Rent 297



# YO U D ES ER V E 

# A JO B

A N DAH I G H- F I V E

. ST AR T B UI LD IN G

© 2 009 CareerBuilder , L LC. All rights reserved. Tri-County Inn -Weekly rate. Free movies, Wi-Fi, coffee, micro/frig, DVD lndry, no dep 513-874-3345 Red Carpet Inn-Weekly
rates. Free movies /Wi-Fi micro, frig, flat scr TV/DVD, bus, no dep. 513-385-1444 Sy camore Total $1 49/ wk Frig, micro, lndry, cable, free calls, bus line. 513-761-2575 Cinti, Oh. 

### $39.99 + t ax per night = $159Wk + t ax for 1 p ersonMicrowave-fridgephone-cable INDOOR
HEATED POOL, Breakfast and BAR I-75 at 2100 Dixie Hwy. USA Hotel
859-331-1500 

### 210 hotels motels NORWOOD - F urnished 1 BR, fl 3, incl heat, water & elec, $450/mo. + $ 450 dep. 513-891-5601 MT AUBURN- 1&2 rm effic, all util furnished, $375 & $ 395, nr bus line, very nice, 513-381-6690 Covington

- 2 R m clean, nicely furnished, parking lndry, utils pd, refs $95/wk $150 dep 859-581-3643 200 apartments, fur nished 2 Private COUNTRY CLUBS East Loc. & L rg Mbrshps drive growth, buy 1 o r b oth Bill Sawyer 203-625-0900 190 investment
pr operty WESTSIDE Newly remodeled. 4 r ms. HVAC incl. Ideal for Attorney, Accountant, or Sales Reps, etc. 513-451-3400 MON TGO ME RY --C LAS S A O ffice space 500 sq. ft with a p rivate street entrance and foyer. Private
restroom. lg open office

area w/small office/ storage room & w alk in closet Unlimited parking and walk
up entrance wooded & s eclud ed in priv ate prof . o ffice condo complex "Mont

gomery Station " $ 650/ mo + shared gas/electric Owner pays $325/month condo assoc. fees & w ater. Call 543-460 0 HAMILTON

-- 633 High. Close to downtown . O ffices from 500-1100sf. Ample parking. Heat & a /c incl. 513-260-4185 Fl orence , K Y 100 to 2500 sq ft all 1st flr space, nr x-way Call 859-283-1140 183 office space for lease COLLEGE HILL - $ 102,000, FOUR UNIT BRICK, new wnds, nr bus, nets 11% + gar rental, A. Thompson & Co. 513-385-0227 155 apartments for sale NEW R I C H M O N D - 1 5

acres, beautiful, private, wildlife, rolling woods & creek, water & e lectric, 15 mins from Downtown, $135,000. 513-553-9750 5 S ecluded Acres on the Kentucky River. NEVER BEFORE SHOWN. Dockable--miles of ATV trails. Mature hardwoods, RV/camper OK. Possible

owner financing. $25,000. 864-376-8800 1 Ac. Williamstown area 4 b d1b a f armhouse needs TLC, $5,000 down, $658 mo 5 A c. Grant Co. Partly wooded, city water, 20 min to Florence, $2,000 down, $350 mo. TRI-STATE LAND CO. (859) 485-1330 150 land for sale/ residential



### College Hill

Pine Terr. 1BR $405
crpt, air, eqpt kit, includes heat. Sec 8 O K. 513-520-1437/ 513-619-7922 

### BATAVIA Willowbrook Apts SPECIAL Starting at $550/mo

w/1 year lease 

### & S ecurity Dep. $99

2br, w/cpt, pool, lake view, blcny plygrd.

Section 8 a ccepted.
513-520-1437 or 513-619-7922 Co rryville/ Mt. AuburnSecure, Clean, Quiet.. 1Br $450.; 2Br $650. ht /wtr incl. 513-861-6588 CORRYVILLE-- 1 B R, Coin lndry No Section; No pets. $475 + dep + u tils. 513-706-8864 CORRYVILLE- 1br, carpet, equipped, busline, shop

ping, $350+G&E 513-281-2500/281-5555 COLL EGE HILL- 5400 Hamilton Ave. Dep os it special! 1 B R, a/c, carpet, lndry, heat/wtr pd, onsite mgmt, on bus $470, no pets 513-591-1600 851-9887 COLLEGE HILL - $ 399 TOTAL MOVE IN 1626 Llanfair section 8/ Ex cel, AC Included. Kroger card giveaway! 513-481-2900 COLLEGE HILL- 1&2B R, heat/wtr paid, laundry, parking, a/c, equipt. Sect. 8 o k. 513-615-0640. Cl ifton, Av ondale

, Bond Hill, Ro selawn, Western Hills. 1-2B R apts, some with utils. paid, Rent Special call today $450-$850. 513-961-6906 CLIFTON 1 & 2BR, hdwd flrs, porch, a/c, eqpt kit, prking. $375-$385. 513-328-1918 CLI FTON -1, 2 & 3 B R, newly renovated, over 1000 sf ea, $495-$695. Sect 8 o k, free wash/dry. 513-444-7712 Cheviot- 1 B R L g d lx Davis Ave. D/W, crpt, balc, ht/wtr, sec. w/caretaker. No Sec 8. $495. Dep. Spe

cial w/refs. 513-661-2143 CHEVIOT- 1 B R, $405/mo. Heat/water paid. Newly remodeled. Sorry,

no dogs. Also Eff, $325. all utils incl. 513-235-7972 BO N D HILL - 4 848 Reading Rd. Nice 1 B R a pts $475/mo, all utils incl, deposit special. 937-281-0858 BOND HIL L

- 1st month RENT FREE . N ewly remod lg 2BR, 2nd fl of 2 f am. Wtr pd. $625/mo, 513-417-4932 AVONDALE Virginia Woods Apts, 1, 23&4B R, 1st month free with full deposit. Section 8 r eady, newly remod, new lndry facility, all utils incl. Call today for specials! 513-344-0097 937-281-0858 AVONDALE- 1&2B R, heat & w ater paid, equipped kitchen, Section 8 o k. 513-961-2482 ALL AREAS - e ffcy, 1, 2, 3, &4B R, newly remod, equipt, W/D, gar, some ht/wtr pd, Sec 8 o k, Movein Special! 513-453-4713 225 apartments, unfur nished HOUSE TO SHARE New finished LL, separate entrance, 2BR, full kitchen & b ath, lots of storage, use of pool, great neighborhood, schools, Crescent Springs, Ky. Must see! $750/mo.Incl utils. Call 859-250-6799 215 apts.-houses to share TRAVELODGE

- Newport Wkly rate, Free cont BKF, Micro / f rig, wireless. 859-291-4434 210 hotels motels

Place your ad today.

Call 513-421-6300 or visit www.cincinnati.com LUDLOW-- 2BR, 1BA, Lrg 2nd flr. c/a eqpt, w/d hkup, newly updated, no dogs. $600+dep. 859-760-8938 Li ncoln Hts -C entennial 1, 2&3B R A pts; 3&4B R Twnhses - I mmed. Occup. 1st Month RENT FREE! 513-733-4700 EHO LAKESIDE PARK-

- 10 E. Lakeside Ave. 2 B R, 2nd flr c/a, garage, new eqpt kitchen, DW, microwave,

no pets, $595. 859-380-4300 KENNEDY HTS / NORTHDALE PLACE w/crpt, air, eqpt kit, ht pd. 1&2B R s tarting at $400, Sect 8 A cpt. 513-520-1437/619-7922 Hy de Park

- Effic $350/mo 1BR $550/mo. 2BR $750/mo Jackson Advisory Group 513-602-2469 HARTWELL- 1br + d en, hdwd flrs, fully equipt, d/w,

nwr appl, off st prkng, lndry, wtr pd, no pets, $530/mo, 513-821-3555 FT THOMAS -1B R, 1st flr, A1 cond. Newer eqpt kit., hdwd flrs, C/A, $415/mo + dep + G &E, 859-781-2325 FAIRFIELD-FABULOUS, all new 2br, HEAT & W ATER PAID. a/c, d/w, microwave. Deposit special! $595. 513-829-0007, 513-779-1730 Fa irfield Best Landlord! Newer 2 B R c ondos and townhomes starting at $750. $40 app fee. Call for specials! 513-870-9228 FAIRFIELD. 5467 Southgate Blvd, Apt 4 2 B R, $485. Deposit Special! 513-703-0534 FAIRFIELD- 2 B R, 2 B A,
gas heat, dlx kit w/micwv, W/D hkup, $635 & u p + dep, no pets. 513-868-7082 FAIRFIELD

- 1s

t M o R ent Special. Dep starting at $200- lg 1& 2 B R $ 460-$550 513-858-1444; 349-8899 ERLANGER Large 1&2B R’s AC, free heat & w ater. $470-$545. 859-342-5444 ERLANGER, KY 1 & 2BR, avail. Start $500. Sec 8 a ccept. No deposit req’d 859-727-2256. TDD 7-1-1

. Ashcraft Real Estate Services, Inc EHO ∫ ELMWOOD PL. / H asler Units w/crpt, ceiling fan;
eqp kit; heat pd. 1BR $400. Sect 8 o k. 513-520-1437, 513-619-7922 Eastgate, Nr--Special $99 dep. 2 B D, C/A, pool, $499. 2 B D $ 585, Cats ok,

ex w/dhkup. 513-753-6191 EASTGATE 1Br, heat, water, sewer, & t rash paid. $375 a m o. + dep. 513-528-6929. DELHI- 1br, equipt, crpt, ht pd, lndry, a/c, prkng,

nr bus, no pets, $395/mo, 513-505-6539 DEER PARK 1BR, LR, DR, equipt kit, carpet, A/C, gar, storage, lndry, HEAT PAID $550. 513-314-7220 C O V I N G TO N - - W allace Woods. 1st flr 1BR 2nd flr 2BR, Equipped kit, W/D, fenced yard, 614-851-9119 CO VI NG TO N - V ery nice 2 BR, nice hdwd flrs, c/a & ht, lots of upgrades, w/d hkup. $600. 859-428-0159 225 apartments, unfur nished



### Price Hill /West

-- Westridge Apts

2BR’s from $500

Air, eqpt kit, ht pd, all units w/crpt.

Section 8 O K 

### 513-520-1437 or 513-619-7922 Is there any better way to advertise? Call 513-421-6300 to place your ad. St . B ernard/ El mwood Lrg 1Br in 2 f amily, hdwd flrs, eqpt & e at in kitch, off St pkg, nr 75 & b us, $485 + util, Sec 8 o k, 513-281-1107 SILVER GROVE, KY1BR’s from $540 Effcy’s from $340 Utils incl. No pets. 859-240-6210 Roselawn Lg updtd 2BR $575/mo coin lndry cen

tral air sec 8 o k n o d ogs 7875 Reading Rd. 227-7280 ROSELAWN-2BR,

new crpt, c/a, w/d hkup, $625/mo + s ec dep. & u tils. Sec 8 o kay 513-870-0883 PRICE HI LL Upper- 2 B R, balc, $495. Covedale-1 BR, balc, $400. Heat/water included. 513-451-3191 Pr ice Hill

-- SPACIOUS 1&2B R, Equipt kitchen, laundry, prkg $300-$400 $130 dep. 513-277-9854 Price Hill New 1&2B R "Leaves aren’t the only thing falling!" Rent starting @ $ 400! 513-251-0551 M-F 9-5 PRICE HILL-- 1&2B R, w/d hkup, cent. heat & a ir, prkg, w/w carpet, 513-921-2850 Pleasant Ridge 1br. Specials! Free ht, quiet
tree lined st. Conv to shops I-71/75. N/S. 513-631-6611 PLEASANT RIDGE

- 1 B R, equipt, carpet, a/c, storage, gar, heat/wtr pd, $525 + d ep, 513-841-0331 PARK HI LLS

-- Nice 2BR, $495. Includes heat & w ater. Section 8 o k. Off street parking. 859-912-2351 NORW OOD- Lrg efficy, lndry rm in bsmt, heat/wtr/trash pd good location $399. 513-497-1742 NORWOOD & E. HYDE PARK

- 1 B R A pts, heat/
wtr furn, eqpt kit, a/c, coinop lndry, (1) parking space,

sec bldg w/caretaker, $400-$425/mo, cats ok w/ fee. No dogs. 513-272-0100. NORTHSIDE- 2 B R, heat/
wtr pd, crpt, balc, eqpt kit, lndry, on-site mgr, no pets $580 513-542-0848 851-9887NORTHSIDE1 B R ( $380), free ht, 2br ($450), + h t, w/w carp, eqpt kit, a/c, lndry, prkg,
water pd. No pets or sec 8, 513-574-6011 NORTHSIDE- 1&2B R, heat & w ater paid, equipped kit, parking, elevator. Sect. 8 a pp. 513-961-2482 N. C o llege Hill North Creek Apts . L g. fully eqpt, crpt, balc, pool. Heat pd. 1br $480+, 2br 1.5ba $600+ Move in special 521-5800 N A vondale - N EW

renov 2 B R n r X U/ hosp. Rent now-get 1 m o f ree & f lat screen 513-569-9999 MT. WASHINGTON -1 & 2BR balc, ht/wtr, quiet, $435-$545. No pets 231-8690 MT. AI RY - L arge 1BR & 2BR; 1⁄2 b lock to all stores. Starting at $350 - $ 450. Heat and water paid. Let us help you! 513-376-7167, 631-0072 MT. AIRY- 2&3B R’s, ht & w tr pd balc, lndry, prkg, 1 M O F REE TO QUALIFYING TENANTS

. 681-5333 MT. AIRY- 1, 2&3 BR’s, heat & w ater paid, lndry, prkg, starting $490/mo. Sec. 8 o k. 513-309-2469 MILFORD 1 M O F REE Large 1&2B R e qpt kit cable ready $395-$495. Nr Rt 28 & I -275. 513-831-6970 225 apartments, unfur nished

225 apartments,

unfur nished Call 513-421-6300 or visit www.cincinnati.com to place your classified ad. COVI NGT ON-

- 4 B R, 2 BA, $750 + d ep & u tils. 2 BR apt $485+dep & u tils.

. 859-750-0515/859-380-9067 COVINGTON- 2, 3&4 BR houses, $575, $675 & $ 775. Plus utilities. Section 8 o k. 859-912-2351. COLLEGE HILL-- 2BR, 1BA, hdwd flrs, fireplace, updated kitchen, 1 c ar garage, $800. 513-256-8320 COLERAIN- 3 B R, 1.5 BA, Bi level, equipt kit, c/a, FP, 2 c ar gar, deck, $925 + d ep, 513-319-6415 250 houses for

re nt Milford--St Rt 28. 2&3 BR 2.5 BA townhome, eatin kit, w/d hook-up, bsmt, from $795. 513-943-7800 EASTGATE, Nr-- 2 B R, 2.5 ba townhome, bsmt., eat-in kit $750. 2 B R, 2.5 BA, 1 c ar garage, $825. 513-752-2888 EASTGATE- 1 B R $ 475 2 B R $ 650, Ranch, eat-in kit, w/d hookup, walk-out patio, cath clngs 943-3981 COLERAIN- 2nd flr, 2br, 2 full ba, gar, gas fp, all appl incl w/d, no pets, $760/mo + d ep, 513-677-8858 Beechmont Nr 275. Luxu

ry 2-3 Br townhm, 2.5 ba, eqpt kit, utility rm, gar, From $850. 513-260-1840 240 condos for

re nt WINTON PLACE- 1 & 2 BR, $350 & u p, water paid, a/c, w/w crpt, eqpt kit, 513-615-0640. WHITE OAK- 1 B R, heat/water paid, a/c, eqpt kit., off-Str prkng, no pets, $400-$450. 513-385-7407 WESTWOOD- $400/MO. 1BR/1BA. $400 will move you in! Avail now. Vouchers welcome. 513-481-7368 WESTWOOD-- 2 B R, eqpt kit, w/w carpet, heat/water incl. $540- $565/mo 513-379-2419 Westwood -2 BR, 4 f am, hdwd, a/c, ceil fans, sec sys, gar, ht pd $399 Move in Spec. No dep 553-1195 We stw oo d- 1 & 2 B R, heat & w ater paid, equipped kitchen. Section 8 o k, a/c

. 513-481-2400 Westwood -1, 2 B R&E ff from $295 Section 8 OK. Lndry. 1st mo $99. No app fee. 513-826-6851 WE STERN HILLS

- lrg 1br, newly remod, clean & q uiet, $385 & u p, call for description, 513-481-0339 WESTERN HILLS

- clean 2br, 2 f amily, equipt, off st prkng, $530/mo, 513-659-1341 treicoproperties@ gmail.com WEST END- Parktown Co-Op. Studio, 1, 2&3B R Accepting applications M-F, 7:30-4p. 513-721-6080 WEST CHESTER - 2 br, 2 f ull ba, equipt, off st prkng, w/d hkup, nr Union Center, $675, 513-615-3435 WALNUT HILLS 2BR, W/D hkup in kit., Section 8 o k. By appt only, 513-382-2672 WALNUT HILLS-2 BR
starts at $450/mo + d ep. Sec. bldg, No appl. fee. Voucher OK, on busline,
wtr incL. 513-979-5395 WALNUT HILLS-- 1B R, fully equipped. New carpet & h ardwood floors. A/C. Very nice. 513- 253-8581 225 apartments, unfur nished

# (859) 441-7297 NORTHERN KENTUCKY REPORTING SERVICE Page 1

KENTUCKY DIVISION FOR AIR QUALITY

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

TO REVISE KENTUCKY'S STATE IMPLEMENTATION

PLAN

DECEMBER 15, 2010

6:00 P.M.

NORTHERN KENTUCKY AREA DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

22 SPIRAL DRIVE

FLORENCE, KENTUCKY

APPEARANCES:

JOHN GOWINS

SUSAN WEAVER

# (859) 441-7297 NORTHERN KENTUCKY REPORTING SERVICE Page 2

1 BY MS. WEAVER: Good evening. It is December

2 15th, 2010, 6:00 p.m. My name is Susan

3 Weaver with the Kentucky Division for Air

4 Quality, Evaluation Section. As your

5 moderator, I declare this public hearing in

6 session.

7 The Division asks that everyone attending

8 today's hearing provide all of the

9 information requested on the attendance

10 roster located at the entrance to the

11 conference room.

12 Today's hearing announcement was mailed to

13 everyone on the Division's current mailing

14 list, to the Regional offices, the Louisville

15 Metro Air Pollution Control District, and

16 located at specified County Clerk's offices.

17 In addition, the notice was published in a

18 newspaper of wide circulation within the

19 Commonwealth.

20 This is a non-adversarial hearing, so the

21 Division will not respond to comments or

22 questions regarding the proposed actions, and

23 individuals who present testimony will not be

24 questioned by anyone attending this hearing.

# (859) 441-7297 NORTHERN KENTUCKY REPORTING SERVICE Page 3

1 A Division representative may, however, ask

2 questions in order to clarify the meaning or

3 intent of a comment.

4 All comments received in an appropriate

5 format by the close of the comment period

6 will receive equal consideration, and every

7 individual who submits comments will receive

8 a copy of the Statement of Consideration.

9 Ms. Christina Smith, to my left, is recording

10 today's hearing. Anyone interested in

11 obtaining a copy of the transcript should

12 contact Ms. Smith. Are there any questions?

13 This hearing is being held to receive

14 comments on a proposed redesignation request

15 and maintenance plan for the Kentucky portion

16 of the Cincinnati-Middletown, Ohio, Kentucky,

17 Indiana 1997 PM2.5 Nonattainment Area.

18 Since no one has indicated to present

19 testimony at today's hearing, we will pause

20 the hearing record for 10 to 15 minutes to

21 allow for late arrivals and reopen the

22 session. The time is 6:02 p.m.

23 (Short recess taken.)

24 BY MS. WEAVER: It is now 6:12 p.m. The

# (859) 441-7297 NORTHERN KENTUCKY REPORTING SERVICE Page 4

1 hearing record is reopened. Are there any

2 late arrivals who would like to present

3 testimony? There are none. In the absence

4 of any testimony, this public hearing is now

5 adjourned.

6 (Hearing concluded at 6:13 p.m.)

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

# NORTHERN KENTUCKY REPORTING SERVICE My Commission Expires: 3-10-12 Page 5

1 COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY )

2 STATE AT LARGE )

3

4

5

6

7 I, CHRISTINA R. SMITH, a Notary Public within and for the Commonwealth of Kentucky 8 at Large, do hereby certify that the foregoing hearing was taken before me at the 9 time and place and for the purpose in the caption stated; that the hearing was reduced 10 to stenotype by me; that the foregoing is a full, true and correct transcript of the said 11 hearing so given; that the appearances were stated in the caption.
12

13

14

15

16

17 WITNESS MY SIGNATURE THIS

18 20TH day of DECEMBER, 2010.

19

20

21

22 __________________________

23 CHRISTINA R. SMITH Notary Public 24 Commonwealth of Kentucky at Large

## STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATION

RELATING TO SIP REVISION FOR THE NORTHERN KENTUCKY COUNTIES OF BOONE, CAMPBELL, AND KENTON REDESIGNATION TO ATTAINMENT
FOR THE ANNUAL PM 2.5 

## STANDARD
Amended After Comments



# Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet

Department for Environmental Protection

Division for Air Quality

A public hearing on the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for redesignation of Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties to attainment for the annual PM 2.5 

## standard was held on December 15, 2010, at 6:00 p.m. The hearing was held at the Northern Kentucky Area Development District, 22 Spiral Driv e, Florence, Kentucky. Written comments were received during the public comment period.

The following individuals from the Kentuc ky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet attended the public he aring and drafted responses to comments received during the public review period.

John Gowins, Environmental Control Supervisor Division for Air Quality

Susan Weaver, Internal Policy Anal yst III* Division for Air Quality

* Agency moderator

Response to Comments for the proposed revision to the State Implementa tion Plan (SIP) to redesignate Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties as attainment for the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for annual PM 2.5 

## .

1. Comment: Please update that maximum ava ilable control technology (MACT) controls section on page 22 to reflect the current status of the EPA MACT rule for the industrial boiler and process h eater reciprocating internal combustion engines. As written, it may appear that the reductions fr om these sources where <sic> relied upon with redesignation inventories. (Lynorae Benjamin, U.S. EPA)

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this co mment. The RICE/Industrial Boiler/Process Heater MACT language has been removed from the reductions for attainment section, and added to the section on controls for maintenance on page 22.

2. Comment: Appendix D and the VISTAS report may describe the approach used to develop the emissions inventor y but the specific data fo r the Kentucky counties do not

## 2 appear to be presented. Please include a lis ting of the point, area, and nonroad sources by county, pollutant and tons per year for each precursor for the attainment year. (Lynorae Benjamin, U.S. EPA)

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment . Kentucky provided the sector pollutants by county, pollutant, an d for all years, see Table 25 (PM 2.5 

## ), Table 26 (NO
x 

## ), and Table 27 (SO 2 

## ).

3. Comment: EPA notes that the air quality design value for the monito r with site ID 39- 061-0014 in Hamilton, Ohio was 15.04 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 

## ). There is no margin for increase since the monitor just meets the 15.0 μg/m 3 

## standard. For the final rulemaking, please provide additional informa tion regarding the 2010 data to support the
maintenance demonstration. If the Area has a violating monitoring <sic> prior to EPA’s final action to redesignate the Area, the Area will not be redesignated. (Lynorae Benjamin, U.S. EPA)

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment . There is no defined standard for or requirement to address a “margin of increase.” The Ohio monitors attained the standard for 2007-2009, and Ohio particulat e data thru December 31, 2010 is not yet available. Although the Oh io monitor shows 15.04 μg/m 3 

## , the projected year inventories
show continued maintenance of the standard.

4. Comment: If 2008 is the attainment year and emissions for 2008 are overestimated,
this will result in an impermissible extra margin for attainment in the maintenance plan since the underlying assumption is that the 2008 emissions resulted in attainment. Since the 2008 inventory is projected from the 2005 inventory, it may be the case that the actual emissions in 2008 might have been lower than projected because th e projections do not appear to include the impact s of the economic downturn. In particular, please document whether vehicle miles traveled (VMT) esti mates used to calculate mobile source emissions for 2008 do not over predict utilizati on to assure that th ey were not unduly influenced by the economic downturn. (Lynorae Benjamin, U.S. EPA)

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment and does not agree. The issue regarding economic downturn is outside of the scope of, and not relevant to, the evaluation of this redesignation request. The Travel Demand M odel used by OKI has been validated by U.S. EPA as explaine d in the OKI documentation contained in Appendix E.

5. Comment: To further support the maintenance pl an, EPA recommends that Kentucky considers including information of the sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

## ) emissions in the Ohio and Indiana portions of this nonattainment area regarding permanent and enforceable emissions reductions that are expected to occu r, particularly for the electricity generating units (EGUs). Helpful information would include a discussion of the changes in emissions from 2006 through 2008 for those EGUs. (Lynorae Benjamin, U.S. EPA)

## 3 Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comm ent. Emissions information for EGUs in the Ohio and Indiana portions of th e nonattainment area is included in the Ohio redesignation request which was included as Appendix H in this redesignation request, and which also may be found at: http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dapc/SIP/annual.aspx



## .

6. Comment: EPA recommends that the maintenance section include a trends analysis of
emissions from the EGUs in the comment above that includes 2003-2009 data. All of this data can be easily obtai ned and analyzed from the EPA Clean Air Markets Division
website: http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm

. (Lynorae Benjamin, U.S. EPA)

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment , and respectfully declines the recommendation. See response to Comment 5 above, and Kentucky believes a trend analysis for Indiana and Ohio is better served in their redesignation requests.

7. Comment: A conceptual description of PM 2.5 

## formation would be helpful for the SIP narrative. A discussion on the types or local sources that are in the nonattainment area
and affect this formation is needed. Having this discussi on on the conditions, causes and
variations of PM 2.5 

## formation throughout the year is needed in the Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions section. Without this discussion, the information provided on temperature and precipitation is incomplete and we do not know if conditions occurring in the 2007-2009 attainment period were atypical or typical of conditions leading to PM 2.5 

## formation. Referencing the la rge reports in the appendices are useful, but a more complete and informative discussion to support the Commonwealth’s position in needed and must be in the SIP narrative. (Lynorae Benjamin, U.S. EPA)

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment. U.S. EPA has published a thorough study on PM 2.5 

## formation which can be accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_cr_sp.html

. This redesignation request was developed and is being submitted due to the area having three years of monitoring
data that show attainment of the standard. A protracted discussion regarding atmospheric chemistry and the formation of PM 2.5 

## is redundant and negates the usefulness of cited
reference material.

8. Comment: The reductions from the federal and lo cal measures should be presented on pages 14-21. These pages as presented in th e attainment SIP need to be modified and reorganized for a redesignation SIP. There shou ld be two sections that discuss controls: (a) controls that led to atta inment (a list of controls, re ductions and aff ected precursors would be ideal); and (b) contro ls applied to the development of the projection inventories
for maintenance. (Lynorae Benjamin, U.S. EPA)

## 4 Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment. The narrative has been modified to explain the controls that led to attainment and the controls applied to projection inventories.

9. Comment: It is unclear what “overall invent ory” is referenced in the Combustion Turbine MACT on page 18. Also, if reductions from this control are being relied upon in the base year inventory. (Lynorae Benjamin, U.S. EPA)

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment. The narrative has been modified for clarity.

10. Comment: Please provide more information on how the reader should interpret the last bullet prior to the State Control Measures on page 18 and whether this should be included in the redesignation SIP for PM 2.5 

## since volatile organic compounds are not presumed precursor for the PM 2.5 

## NAAQS. (Lynorae Benjamin, U.S. EPA)

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment. The narrative has been deleted.

11. Comment: List the regulation number for the r easonably available control measures in section on page 20. (Lynorae Benjamin, U.S. EPA)

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment. The regulation number is noted in the same section, following paragraph, 401 KAR 50:012 and a link provided. As well, the reader is directed to Appendix G where the regulation text is provided in full.

12. Comment: The open burning ban discussion references ozone. From the information provided, it is unclear what pollutant and precursors should be considered for this reference of the regulation as it relates to the PM 2.5 

## SIP. (Lynorae Benjamin, U.S. EPA)

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment . The Cabinet has included language that notes the reductions due to opening burning restrictions include fine particulate as
well.

13. Comment: Emissions inventory data totals for all emissions source categories for the 2011 and 2021 projection years should be presented in Tables 46, 47, and 48. This is needed to show that projected nonatt ainment area emission inventories for SO 2 

## , NOx, and
PM 2.5 

## are expected to de cline through 2021. (Lynorae Benjamin, U.S. EPA)

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this commen t. Kentucky lists “Projection Totals” by pollutant/emissi on source category for the en tire KY Portion of the nonattainment area Tables 25 (PM 2.5 

## )-26 (NO
x 

## )-27 (SO 2 

## ) for years 2005 through 2021.

## 5 14. Comment: In the development of the projection inventories, it is unclear how plant shutdowns were addressed in Kentucky or if permits were revoked and what facilities or sources were shut down and by what time. (Lynorae Benjamin, U.S. EPA)

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this co mment. There were no permit revocations in this area, and the plan t shutdown emissions were negligible.

15. Comment: The last sentence before the Controls Applied section on page 14 would benefit greatly with a trends analysis of emissions levels from several years prior to and including the attainment years for the three precursor pollutants. Otherwise, it is unclear how emissions levels have changed since th e designation of the Ar ea to nonattainment as compared to the changes in ambient air monitoring data. (Lynorae Benjamin, U.S. EPA)

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment . The data provided in Tables 16 through 49 clearly show a downward trend in emission levels.

16. Comment: Also, the last sentence in the contro ls section on page 14 and other pages throughout the Narrative refers to the modeling and attainment SIP. The redesignation SIP does not involve modeling. We recommen d deleting the referen ces to modeling and other revisions throughout the rede signation SIP as appropriate. (Lynorae Benjamin, U.S. EPA)

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment. The references to photochemical modeling have been deleted.

17. Comment: It is unclear why carbon monoxide is written at the bottom of page 30. This appears to be a typographi cal error. Also, it is unclear why primary point sources of
PM 2.5 are not mention <sic > in this paragraph. (Lynorae Benjamin, U.S. EPA)

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment . The reference to CO has been deleted and a reference to point sources of PM 2.5 

## has been added.