Appendix L: 

Attainment Test 
i

Table of Contents

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. ii 

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii 

1 Attainment Demonstration ........................................................................................................... 1 

2 Model Attainment Test ................................................................................................................ 1 

2.1 Determine Baseline Design Values ...................................................................................... 1 

2.1.1 Mean PM2.5 Baseline Design Values ........................................................................... 2 

2.1.2 Speciated Baseline Conditions ....................................................................................... 4

 2.1.2.1. SANDWICH.................................................................................4 

 2.1.2.2. Speciated Profile............................................................................5 

2.2 Relative Response Factor Calculation .................................................................................. 8 

2.3. Future Year Quarterly Concentration Calculation ............................................................. 10 

2.4. Future Year Annual Average Estimate .......................................................................... 1211 

3 Supplemental Analysis............................................................................................................... 12 

3.1 Additional Air Quality Modeling........................................................................................ 13 

3.1.1 Air Quality Modeling Metrics ..................................................................................... 13 

3.1.2 Other Modeling Results ............................................................................................... 17

 3.1.2.1 Ohio and Indiana Modeling......................................................... ...18 

3.2 Air Quality and Emission Trends Analysis ........................................................................ 19 

3.3 Supplemental Analysis Conclusions ................................................................................... 21 

4 Unmonitored Area Analysis ...................................................................................................... 22 

5 Attachments to Appendix L ....................................................................................................... 25 

6 Reference ................................................................................................................................... 25 
ii

List of Figures 

Figure 3-1: Louisville area for which the air quality metrics were applied.............................14

Figure 3-2: NKY area for which the air quality metrics were applied...................................14 

Figure 3-3: Ashland area for which the air quality metrics were applied.............................14 

Figure 3-4: Percentage of Cell in Nonattainment Areas within Concentration Categories for 2002 

and 2009. Table of actual values is presented on the right. ......................................................... 16 

Figure 3-5: Annual PM2.5 Average Values for the Monitors in the Hickory and Triad 

Nonattainment Areas. ................................................................................................................... 20 

Figure 4-1: Kentucky 12km 2009 Projected DVF ........................................................................ 24 

List of Tables

Table 2-1: Quarterly Average PM2.5 Mass for the FRM Monitors in the Kentucky 

Nonattainment Areas ...................................................................................................................... 2 

Table 2-2: Observed Quarterly Mean PM2.5 DVB for Monitors in the Kentucky Nonattainment 

Areas ............................................................................................................................................... 3 

Table 2-3: Quarterly Species Fractions from the CAIR SMAT Tool ............................................... 

Table 2-4: Quarterly PM2.5 Component-Specific DVB for Monitors in the Kentucky 

Nonattainment Areas .................................................................................................................. 6 

Table 2-5: USEPA’s Recommendation for Defining “Near” Cells ................................................ 8 

Table 2-6: Quarterly Component RRFs for Monitors in the Kentucky Nonattainment Areas ....... 9 

Table 2-7: Quarterly Component Future Design Values for Monitors in the Kentucky 

Nonattainment Areas .................................................................................................................... 11 

Table 2-8: Quarterly Mean PM2.5 Mass estimates for 2009 ........................................................ 12 

Table 2-9: Estimated Annual Mean 2009 PM2.5 Mass Compared to the DVB ........................... 12 

Table 3-1: Number of Cells within Concentration Bins. Increases (decreases) in the number of 

cells within the bins are noted by red (blue) coloration in the last column. ................................. 17 

Table 3-2: US EPA CAIR Modeling Results ............................................................................... 18

Table 3-3: Summary of LADCO 2009 Design Values.................................................. 19 

Table 3-4: Annual Average PM2.5 values for the past 8 years. ................................................... 20 

Table 3-5: Three Year Design values for the Monitors in Kentucky’s PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Areas. ............................................................................................................................................ 21 

Table 4-1: Current Year DVC and Projected Future-Year DVF . ............... Error! Bookmark not 

defined.24
1

1 Attainment Demonstration 

This Appendix summarizes the procedures that were used to demonstrate attainment of the 

annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in this 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) package. As described in the US Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (USEPA’s) Guidance On The Use Of Models And Other Analyses for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze (“Attainment 

Guidance”), an attainment demonstration consists of (a) analyses which estimate whether 

selected emissions reductions will result in ambient concentrations that meet the NAAQS, and 

(b) an identified set of control measures which will result in the required emissions reductions. 

The necessary emission reductions for both of these attainment demonstration components may 

be determined by relying on results obtained with air quality models. 

Section 3.0 of the Attainment Guidance recommends applying both a modeled attainment test 

and a subsequent screening test to the air quality modeling results to determine if the annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS will be met. Additional technical or corroboratory analyses may also be used as 

part of a “supplemental analysis” or a more stringent “weight of evidence” determination to 

supplement the modeled attainment test and to further support a demonstration of attainment of 

the NAAQS. 

The modeled attainment test, additional corroborative analyses and weight of evidence, and 

unmonitored area analysis are described in further detail in the remaining portions of this 

Appendix, detailing how the respective test or analysis was performed and applied to the 

attainment demonstration. 

2 Model Attainment Test 

The purpose of a modeling assessment determine if control strategies currently being 

implemented and proposed control strategies will lead to attainment of the NAAQS for PM2.5 

by the attainment year of 2009. The modeling is applied in a relative sense, similar to the 8-hour 

ozone attainment test. However, the PM2.5 attainment test is more complicated and reflects the 

fact that PM2.5 is a mixture. 

In the test, ambient PM2.5 is divided into major components, with a separate relative response 

factor (RRF) and future design value (DVF) calculated for each of the PM2.5 components. 

Since the attainment test is calculated on a per species basis, the attainment test for PM2.5 is 

referred to as the Speciated Modeled Attainment Test (SMAT). The following sections outline 

the process to determine 2009 projections of PM2.5 will meet the NAAQS from regional 

modeling, as suggested in the US EPA’s Attainment Guidance. 

2.1 Determine Baseline Design Values 

The first step in any attainment test process is to determine the baseline design value (DVB). In 

the Attainment Guidance, the US EPA recommends using a DVB that is the average of the three 

design value periods that straddle the baseline inventory year (e.g., the average of the 2000-2002, 

2001-2003, and 2002-2004 design value periods for a 2002 baseline inventory year). This works 
2

out to a 5-year weighted average, with the baseline year having the heaviest weight (e.g. {[2000] 

+ 2*[2001] + 3*[2002] + 2*[2003] + [2004]}/9). 

For the SMAT process, a mean PM2.5 DVB is determined, as well as component specific DVB 

for each quarter. The following section will detail the calculation of baseline design values 

needed for the PM2.5 attainment test. 

2.1.1 Mean PM2.5 Baseline Design Values 

To begin the SMAT process, a mean PM2.5 DVB is calculated on a quarterly basis for each 

Federal Reference Method (FRM) monitor in the PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Concentrations 

are calculated based on calendar quarters (Q1: January - March; Q2: April - June; etc.) as the 

NAAQS is calculated for a calendar year, and the quarters need to fit evenly within a year. Also, 

calculating the attainment test on a quarterly basis allows states to examine the differences in 

PM2.5 composition that occur during the different seasons. 

Table 2-1 contains the quarterly average PM2.5 concentration for the FRM monitors in the 

nonattainment areas. This quarterly data was then averaged, using the weighted scheme 

suggested by the US EPA, to produce a 5-year weighted DVB. In the case of the Jefferson 

County FRM site (37th, 21-111-0043), there is less than 5 years of data available, as the 2001 

site data is available only for the first quarter. Per the Attainment Guidance, when only 3 years 

of data are available at a site, the baseline design value is then based on a single three-year 

design value. However, since there are four years of data for first quarter, then the baseline 

design value is based on an average of two design value periods (2001-2003 and 2002-2004). 

Table 2-2 presents the final mean PM2.5 DVBs for the nonattainment areas. 

Table 2-1: Quarterly Average PM2.5 Mass for the FRM Monitors in the Kentucky 

Nonattainment Areas 

Table 2‐1: Quarterly Average PM2.5 Mass for the FRM monitors in the Kentucky Nonattainment

Areas

AIRS ID County Site Name Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

21‐019‐0017 Boyd Ashland 2000 13.667 16.438 17.514 15.026

         2001 13.370 15.519 21.028 11.169

         2002 12.003 17.886 21.586 10.689

         2003 12.393 13.116 19.393 10.826

         2004 11.419 13.004 17.903 10.850

21‐029‐0006 Bullitt Shepherdsville 2000 15.644 15.478 19.037 15.555

         2001 15.557 15.979 19.890 10.793

         2002 11.572 15.450 20.657 11.090

         2003 12.924 13.743 20.300 10.529

         2004 11.610 13.663 18.104 11.118

21‐037‐0003 Campbell     2000 13.650 15.634 15.177 15.900

         2001 15.750 14.711 14.035 9.257

         2002 11.355 15.313 21.912 10.650
3

         2003 12.256 13.270 18.216 9.938

         2004 11.266 12.797 16.567 10.467

21‐117‐0007 Kenton     2000 14.842 16.519 17.126 16.534

         2001 16.352 15.141 19.321 10.197

         2002 10.830 14.948 22.178 12.287

         2003 13.688 14.058 18.940 10.500

         2004 11.789 13.261 17.858 10.771

21‐111‐0043 Jefferson     2000 15.022 15.753 20.863 17.584

         2001 17.104 x x x

         2002 12.042 16.414 26.403 13.797

         2003 14.590 16.314 20.870 12.049

         2004 12.540 14.542 18.047 12.989

21‐111‐0044 Jefferson Beecher 2000 15.028 15.660 19.047 16.982

         2001 17.258 16.564 22.915 14.199

         2002 12.135 17.633 26.466 13.570

         2003 14.696 15.052 20.171 11.591

         2004 12.427 13.499 17.766 12.499

21‐111‐0048 Jefferson Barret 2000 14.680 16.435 19.319 16.387

         2001 16.609 16.120 21.941 12.950

         2002 10.935 16.000 25.308 13.460

         2003 13.932 14.629 21.273 12.296

         2004 10.838 13.852 18.207 11.948

21‐111‐0051 Jefferson Watson 2000 13.810 17.387 18.763 17.236

         2001 15.357 15.213 21.067 13.450

         2002 11.080 17.878 20.938 13.000

         2003 13.479 14.873 20.847 10.485

         2004 11.050 12.187 16.706 10.593

Table 2-2: Observed Quarterly Mean PM2.5 DVB for Monitors in the Kentucky 

Nonattainment Areas 

Table 2‐2: Observed Quarterly Mean PM2.5 DVB for Monitors in the Kentucky Nonattainment Areas

AIRS ID County Site Name

2000‐2004  

Q1

2000‐2004  

Q2

2000‐2004  

Q3

2000‐2004  

Q4

21‐019‐0017 Boyd Ashland 12.0 15.1 19.6 10.8

21‐029‐0006 Bullitt Shepherdsville 12.7 14.5 19.4 10.9

21‐037‐0003 Campbell     12.3 14.0 17.5 10.2

21‐117‐0007 Kenton     12.7 14.3 19.3 11.2

21‐111‐0043 Jefferson     13.6 15.6 22.5 13.4

21‐111‐0044 Jefferson Beecher 13.7 15.6 22.0 13.0

21‐111‐0048 Jefferson     12.8 15.0 21.7 12.7

21‐111‐0051 Jefferson Watson 12.4 15.4 19.7 12.2
4

2.1.2 Speciated Baseline Conditions 

The monitored attainment test for PM2.5 utilizes both PM2.5 and individual PM2.5 component 

species. A separate RRF is calculated for each PM2.5 species. In order to perform the 

recommended modeled attainment test, States should divide observed mass concentrations of 

PM2.5 into 7 components (plus passive mass): 

1. Mass associated with sulfates (SO4) 

2. Mass associated with nitrates (NO3) 

3. Mass associated with ammonium (NH4) 

4. Mass associated with organic carbon (OC) 

5. Mass associated with elemental carbon (EC) 

6. Mass associated with particle bound water (PBW) 

7. Mass associated with “other” primary inorganic particulate matter (Crustal) 

8. And passively collected mass or the mass of the blank filter (0.5 μg/m3

) 

The second part of the process is to use the quarterly mean PM2.5 DVBs (as calculated in 

Section 2.1.1) with speciated data to calculate the quarterly mean concentrations of these 7 

components at the FRM sites. This need to speciate the FRM data presents two issues: 

1. FRM measurements and speciated PM2.5 measurements do not always measure the same 

mass 

2. Not all FRM monitoring sites have co-located STN speciation monitors. 

The following sections will explain how these issues were overcome to produce the speciated 

values needed for this attainment demonstration. 

2.1.2.1 SANDWICH 

As the Attainment Guidance notes, recent data analyses (Frank, 2006) have noted that the FRM 

monitors do not measure the same components and do not retain all of the PM2.5 that is 

measured by routine speciation samplers and therefore cannot be directly compared to speciation 

measurements from the Speciation Trends Network (STN). By design, the FRM mass 

measurement does not retain all ammonium nitrate and other semi-volatile materials (negative 

sampling artifacts) and includes particle bound water associated with sulfates, nitrates and other 

hygroscopic species (positive sampling artifacts). This results in concentrations (and percent 

contributions to PM2.5 mass), which may be different than the ambient levels of some PM2.5 

chemical constituents. 

To resolve the differences between FRM and STN total mass, the US EPA has recommended 

using the “sulfate, adjusted nitrate, derived water, inferred carbonaceous material balance 

approach” or SANDWICH approach. With the SANDWHICH approach, nitrate mass is 

adjusted to account for volatilization based on hourly meteorology parameters. Subsequently, 

quarterly average nitrate, sulfate, elemental carbon, and crustal mass can be calculated, as well as 

the Degree of Neutralization (DON) of sulfates. Quarterly average NH4 can then be calculated 

from adjusted the adjusted nitrate mass, sulfate mass, and DON of sulfate. Next the mass of 
5

particle bound water can be calculated from the previously obtained DON, sulfate, nitrate, and 

ammonium values. Finally, organic carbon is calculated by taking the difference between the 

total PM2.5 mass as measured at the FRM monitor, and the calculated component mass (i.e. OC 

from mass balance ([OCMmb]) = PM2.5FRM - {[EC] + [SO4] + [NO3] + [NH4] + [water] + 

[crustal material] + [passive mass]}). 

2.1.2.2 Speciated Profiles 

While the SANDWICH method reconciles the differences between FRM and STN, a lingering 

issue is not all FRM monitoring sites have co-located STN monitors to provide speciated data. 

The US EPA Attainment Guidance suggests four measures that can be taken to resolve the lack 

of speciated data: 

1. Use of concurrent data from a nearby speciated monitor 

2. Use of representative data (from a different time period) 

3. Use of interpolation techniques to create a spatial field using ambient speciation data 

4. Use of interpolation techniques to create spatial fields, and gridded modeling outputs to 

adjust the species concentrations 

Of the four methodologies, the US EPA recommends using one of the spatial interpolation 

techniques to estimate species concentrations at FRM sites that do not have speciation data 

(numbers 3 and 4 above). To assist in this task, the EPA is developing software tool called 

“Modeled Attainment Test Software” (or MATS) that will perform the spatial analysis of 

described options number 3 and 4. However, the PM2.5 portion of the MATS tool has not been 

released at this time. In trying to pursue the US EPA recommended course, we have used the 

speciated profiles from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) SMAT tool, which is the 

predecessor for the MATS program, as an alternative. 

The CAIR SMAT tool uses data from both the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) and the US EPA’s Speciation Network (ESPN) to derive mean 

concentrations for six PM2.5 components. Quarterly average concentrations between Jan 2002 

to December 2002 were retained for sites that had at least 11 monitored values per quarter for 

each of the major PM2.5 species. Major species for ESPN include EC, OC, NH4, SO4, NO3, 

and crustal material (which includes the five trace elements aluminum, calcium, iron, silicon, and 

titanium). The major species for IMPROVE are the same except for NH4, which is not routinely 

measured in the IMPROVE protocol. 

The quarterly averaged species concentrations at the IMPROVE and ESPN monitors were used 

to interpolate concentrations at the PM2.5 FRM monitoring sites using a technique called 

Voronoi Neighbor Averaging (VNA). Attachment L1 to this appendix contains the document 

“Procedures for Estimating Future PM2.5 Values for the CAIR Final Rule by Application of the 

(Revised) Speciated Modeled Attainment Test (SMAT) Updated- 11/8/04”, which describes the 

interpolation process, and the data speciation process in detail. 

As a result of the CAIR SMAT process, quarterly species fraction were generated for the FRM 

site, which are presented in Table 2-3 below. These fractions were then applied to Observed 
6

Quarterly Mean PM2.5 values calculated in Section 2.1.1 to determine quarterly component 

specific concentrations. Table 2-4 shows the quarterly DVBs for crustal, EC, OC, SO4, NO3, 

NH4 and PBW assuming a constant passive mass of 0.5 μg/m3. 

Table 2‐3: Quarterly Species Fractions from the CAIRS SMAT Tool

AIRS

ID County Site Name

Blank

Mass Qtr DON

Frac

Crustal

Frac

EC

Frac

OC

Frac

SO4

Frac

NO3

Frac

NH4

Frac

H2O

21‐

019‐

0017

Boyd Ashland 0.50

1 0.2938 0.0374 0.0722 0.3484 0.3086 0.0435 0.1033 0.0867

2 0.3006 0.0339 0.0380 0.3266 0.3750 0.0006 0.1129 0.1130

3 0.2532 0.0204 0.0256 0.3491 0.4140 0.0005 0.1050 0.0854

4 0.2791 0.0353 0.1040 0.2216 0.3494 0.0775 0.1200 0.0922

21‐

029‐

0006

Bullitt Shepherdsville 0.50

1 0.3151 0.0316 0.0415 0.2883 0.3098 0.1075 0.1288 0.0925

2 0.3527 0.0495 0.0435 0.3472 0.3231 0.0007 0.1142 0.1219

3 0.3027 0.0407 0.0322 0.3116 0.3820 0.0005 0.1158 0.1172

4 0.3322 0.0353 0.0547 0.2156 0.2842 0.1756 0.1453 0.0892

21‐

037‐

0003

Campbell NKU 0.50

1 0.3108 0.0313 0.0470 0.3133 0.2920 0.1078 0.1220 0.0865

2 0.3513 0.0371 0.0405 0.3270 0.3436 0.0014 0.1211 0.1294

3 0.2841 0.0304 0.0355 0.2873 0.4157 0.0005 0.1182 0.1125

4 0.3310 0.0335 0.0561 0.1863 0.2887 0.1928 0.1515 0.0911

21‐

117‐

0007

Kenton Covington 0.50

1 0.3108 0.0329 0.0494 0.2784 0.3069 0.1133 0.1282 0.0909

2 0.3513 0.0381 0.0415 0.3099 0.3523 0.0014 0.1241 0.1326

3 0.2841 0.0300 0.0351 0.2960 0.4106 0.0005 0.1168 0.1112

4 0.3310 0.0314 0.0526 0.2373 0.2706 0.1807 0.1420 0.0854

21‐

111‐

0043

Jefferson 37th 0.50

1                        

2                        

3                        

4                        

21‐

111‐

0044

Jefferson Beecher 0.50

1 0.3171 0.0301 0.0413 0.3205 0.2931 0.1040 0.1231 0.0880

2 0.3550 0.0397 0.0321 0.4402 0.2807 0.0006 0.0998 0.1068

3 0.3021 0.0308 0.0243 0.4651 0.2981 0.0004 0.0902 0.0911

4 0.3368 0.0298 0.0451 0.3154 0.2464 0.1568 0.1285 0.0780

21‐

111‐

0048

Jefferson Barret 0.50

1 0.3171 0.0335 0.0460 0.2423 0.3268 0.1160 0.1373 0.0982

2 0.3550 0.0439 0.0355 0.3812 0.3103 0.0006 0.1104 0.1181

3 0.3021 0.0322 0.0254 0.4402 0.3120 0.0004 0.0944 0.0954

4 0.3368 0.0301 0.0455 0.3096 0.2485 0.1582 0.1295 0.0786

21‐

111‐

0051

Jefferson Watson 0.50

1 0.3161 0.0331 0.0406 0.2659 0.3204 0.1106 0.1334 0.0961

2 0.3534 0.0426 0.0357 0.4336 0.2814 0.0006 0.0996 0.1066

3 0.3033 0.0465 0.0298 0.3097 0.3807 0.0005 0.1156 0.1172

4 0.3309 0.0328 0.0456 0.2946 0.2584 0.1568 0.1310 0.0809
7

Table 2‐4: Quarterly PM2.5 Component‐Specific DVB for Monitors in the Kentucky Nonattainment Area    

AIRS ID County Site Name Qtr

FRM

Mass

Blank

Mass

Non‐

Blank

Mass Crustal EC OC SO4 NO3 NH4 PBW

21‐019‐

0017 Boyd Ashland  

1 12.01 0.5 11.51 0.04 0.07 0.35 0.31 0.04 0.1 0.09

2 15.1 0.5 14.6 0.03 0.04 0.33 0.38 0.00 0.11 0.11

3 19.61 0.5 19.11 0.02 0.03 0.35 0.41 0.00 0.1 0.09

4 10.83 0.5 10.33 0.04 0.1 0.22 0.35 0.08 0.12 0.09

21‐029‐

0006 Bullitt Shepherdsville

1 12.72 0.5 12.22 0.03 0.04 0.29 0.31 0.11 0.13 0.09

2 14.49 0.5 13.99 0.05 0.04 0.35 0.32 0.00 0.11 0.12

3 19.44 0.5 18.94 0.04 0.03 0.31 0.38 0.00 0.12 0.12

4 10.9 0.5 10.4 0.04 0.05 0.22 0.28 0.18 0.15 0.09

21‐037‐

0003 Campbell   NKU

1 12.28 0.5 11.78 0.03 0.05 0.31 0.29 0.11 0.12 0.09

2 13.98 0.5 13.48 0.04 0.04 0.33 0.34 0.00 0.12 0.13

3 17.5 0.5 17 0.03 0.04 0.29 0.42 0.00 0.12 0.11

4 10.25 0.5 9.75 0.03 0.06 0.19 0.29 0.19 0.15 0.09

21‐117‐

0007 Kenton Covington  

1 12.75 0.5 12.25 0.03 0.05 0.28 0.31 0.11 0.13 0.09

2 14.28 0.5 13.78 0.04 0.04 0.31 0.35 0.00 0.12 0.13

3 19.28 0.5 18.78 0.03 0.04 0.3 0.41 0.00 0.12 0.11

4 11.23 0.5 10.73 0.03 0.05 0.24 0.27 0.18 0.14 0.09

21‐111‐

0043 Jefferson   37th

1 13.62 0.5 13.12                     

2 15.57 0.5 15.07                     

3 22.51 0.5 22.01                     

4 13.35 0.5 12.85                     

21‐111‐

0044 Jefferson   Beecher  

1 13.7 0.5 13.2 0.03 0.04 0.32 0.29 0.10 0.12 0.09

2 15.64 0.5 15.14 0.04 0.03 0.44 0.28 0.00 0.1 0.11

3 21.99 0.5 21.49 0.03 0.02 0.47 0.3 0.00 0.09 0.09

4 13.03 0.5 12.53 0.03 0.05 0.32 0.25 0.16 0.13 0.08

21‐111‐

0048 Jefferson   Barret

1 12.77 0.5 12.27 0.03 0.05 0.24 0.33 0.12 0.14 0.1

2 15.03 0.5 14.53 0.04 0.04 0.38 0.31 0.00 0.11 0.12

3 21.71 0.5 21.21 0.03 0.03 0.44 0.31 0.00 0.09 0.1

4 12.75 0.5 12.25 0.03 0.05 0.31 0.25 0.16 0.13 0.08

21‐111‐

0051 Jefferson   Watson

1 12.36 0.5 11.86 0.03 0.04 0.27 0.32 0.11 0.13 0.1

2 15.43 0.5 14.93 0.04 0.04 0.43 0.28 0.00 0.1 0.11

3 19.74 0.5 19.24 0.05 0.03 0.31 0.38 0.00 0.12 0.12

4 12.24 0.5 11.74 0.03 0.05 0.29 0.26 0.16 0.13 0.08
8

2.2 Relative Response Factor Calculation 

The next step in the SMAT process is to use base year and future year modeling results to 

estimate a relative response factor (RRF) for each component of PM2.5 for each quarter. Simply 

put, the RRF is the quarterly average future year concentration near a monitor divided by the 

quarterly average base year concentration near the same monitor, or: 

Quarterly Mean Modeled Base Year Concentration "Near"Monitor "X"

Quarterly Mean Modeled Future Year Concentration "Near"Monitor "X" RRF =

Instead of focusing on the individual cell containing the monitor, an array of cells that are “near” 

a monitor are considered in the attainment test. By sampling an array of cells from the modeling, 

the attainment test allows for variations in the model performance, as the peak concentrations 

may not occur in the grid cell that contains the monitor, but rather nearby the monitor. Table 2-4 

provides the USEPA's recommendations for defining “nearby” cells for grid systems having cells 

of various sizes. Since the modeling for the Kentucky attainment demonstration was performed 

at a 12km grid resolution, a 3x3 grid array was used. 

Table 2-5: USEPA’s Recommendation for Defining “Near” Cells 

Size of Cell 

(km) 

Size of the Array of 

“Nearby” Cells 

<5 7 x 7 

>5-8 5 x 5 

>8-15 3 x 3 

>15 1 x 1 

For the PM2.5 SMAT, the RRF is calculated for each component, for each quarter. To 

accomplish this step, daily concentration for each component of PM2.5 is extracted from the 

base year and future year modeling output near the FRM monitoring sites for each day. The 

daily component concentrations from the 3x3 array are then averaged to develop a mean daily 

component mass for each day in both the base and future years. These mean daily component 

concentrations are then averaged for each quarter to develop base and future year quarterly mean 

component concentration. The future year quarterly mean component concentrations are then 

divided by their respective base year quarterly mean component concentrations to develop 

quarterly RRFs for each component of PM2.5. The quarterly RRFs for the FRM monitors in the 

Kentucky PM2.5 nonattainment areas are presented below in Table 2-6. In lieu of using RRFs, 

the estimated future mass of NH4 and PBW will be determined by the estimated future mass of 

SO4 and NO3, as was done in the CAIR SMAT tool, per the following equations: 

NH4 = DON * SO4 + 0.29*NO3 

PBW =(-0.002618) + (0.980314*NH4) + (-0.260011* NO3) + (-0.000784* SO4) + (-0.159452* 

(NH4^2)) + (-0.356957* NO3* NH4) + (0.153894* (NO3^2)) + (0.212891* SO4* NH4) + 

0.0444366* SO4* NO3) + (-0.048352* (SO4^2)) 
9

Table 2-6: Quarterly Component RRFs for Monitors in the Kentucky Nonattainment 

Areas 

       RRF

AIRS ID County Site Name Qtr Crustal EC OC SO4 NO3

21‐019‐0017 Boyd Ashland

1 1.1336 0.8366 0.9844 0.9143 1.0340

2 1.1702 0.7857 0.9759 0.7420 0.8271

3 1.2175 0.8001 0.9712 0.6528 0.8498

4 1.1500 0.7867 0.9857 0.8608 1.0193

21‐029‐0006 Bullitt Shepherdsville

1 1.1054 0.8518 0.9920 0.9235 0.9859

2 1.1180 0.8100 0.9756 0.7924 0.8030

3 1.1492 0.8151 0.9741 0.6620 1.0278

4 1.1304 0.8114 0.9972 0.9065 0.9642

21‐037‐0003 Campbell NKU

1 1.1202 0.8510 0.9932 0.9001 0.9947

2 1.1556 0.8034 0.9756 0.7270 0.8482

3 1.1888 0.8060 0.9748 0.6369 1.0112

4 1.1434 0.8117 0.9932 0.8860 0.9551

21‐117‐0007 Kenton Covington

1 1.1188 0.8314 0.9979 0.9000 0.9883

2 1.1478 0.7704 0.9721 0.7241 0.8408

3 1.1820 0.7726 0.9714 0.6357 0.9937

4 1.1432 0.7909 0.9951 0.8851 0.9491

21‐111‐0043 Jefferson 37th

1 1.0949 0.8486 0.9935 0.9093 0.9607

2 1.1042 0.8177 0.9811 0.7836 0.7824

3 1.1287 0.8268 0.9798 0.6600 0.9374

4 1.1199 0.8190 0.9991 0.9027 0.9312

21‐111‐0044 Jefferson Beecher

1 1.0988 0.8297 0.9896 0.9049 0.9619

2 1.1066 0.8041 0.9785 0.7814 0.7935

3 1.1355 0.8127 0.9777 0.6580 0.9262

4 1.1220 0.8074 0.9934 0.8986 0.9356

21‐111‐0048 Jefferson Barret

1 1.0988 0.8297 0.9896 0.9049 0.9619

2 1.1066 0.8041 0.9785 0.7814 0.7935

3 1.1355 0.8127 0.9777 0.6580 0.9262

4 1.1220 0.8074 0.9934 0.8986 0.9356

21‐111‐0051 Jefferson Watson

1 1.1041 0.8583 0.9907 0.9160 0.9802

2 1.1171 0.8263 0.9769 0.7924 0.7953

3 1.1433 0.8321 0.9765 0.6637 0.9802

4 1.1283 0.8240 0.9958 0.9039 0.9462
10

2.3. Future Year Quarterly Concentration Calculation 

The next step in the SMAT process is to calculate future quarterly mean concentration estimates 

for each component of PM2.5. To accomplish this, the current quarterly mean component 

concentration (Step 1, Section 2.1.3) is multiplied by the component-specific RRFs obtained in 

Step 2 (Section 2.2). The quarterly component DVFs for the monitors in the Kentucky PM2.5 

nonattainment areas are provided below in Table 2-7. 
11

Table 2-7: Quarterly Component Future Design Values for Monitors in the Kentucky 

Nonattainment Areas 

      DVF

AIRS ID County Site Name Qtr Crustal EC OC SO4 NO3 NH4 PBW

21‐019‐

0017 Boyd Ashland

1 0.5091 0.7251 4.1201 3.3895 0.5399 1.1523 0.9522

2 0.5995 0.4503 4.8122 4.2009 0.0072 1.2649 1.2532

3 0.4869 0.4019 6.6503 5.3006 0.0079 1.3444 1.1775

4 0.4399 0.8860 2.3642 3.2558 0.8555 1.1567 0.8652

21‐029‐

0006 Bullitt Shepherdsville

1 0.4443 0.4499 3.6361 3.6375 1.3472 1.5369 1.0823

2 0.8020 0.5104 4.9091 3.7100 0.0078 1.3109 1.3711

3 0.9090 0.5111 5.9012 4.9172 0.0099 1.4915 1.4875

4 0.4349 0.4839 2.3432 2.8075 1.8456 1.4678 0.8940

21‐037‐

0003 Campbell NKU

1 0.4308 0.4908 3.8207 3.2272 1.3163 1.3846 0.9565

2 0.5999 0.4549 4.4600 3.4924 0.0160 1.2314 1.2771

3 0.6315 0.5006 4.8994 4.6325 0.0083 1.3187 1.2677

4 0.3923 0.4667 1.8954 2.6207 1.8864 1.4146 0.8441

21‐117‐

0007 Kenton Covington

1 0.4693 0.5231 3.5410 3.5198 1.4266 1.5075 1.0381

2 0.6240 0.4568 4.3023 3.6426 0.0166 1.2843 1.3357

3 0.6834 0.5223 5.5440 5.0325 0.0088 1.4325 1.3759

4 0.4029 0.4671 2.6509 2.6897 1.9259 1.4489 0.8646

21‐111‐

0043 Jefferson 37th

1                     

2                     

3                     

4                     

21‐111‐

0044 Jefferson Beecher

1 0.4527 0.4688 4.3438 3.6324 1.3701 1.5493 1.0864

2 0.6871 0.4038 6.7383 3.4318 0.0072 1.2205 1.2719

3 0.7692 0.4336 9.9991 4.3124 0.0078 1.3052 1.2968

4 0.4362 0.4749 4.0829 2.8846 1.9120 1.5260 0.9232

21‐111‐

0048 Jefferson Barret

1 0.4705 0.4873 3.0610 3.7756 1.4240 1.6103 1.1264

2 0.7298 0.4289 5.6071 3.6451 0.0077 1.2963 1.3566

3 0.7949 0.4480 9.3425 4.4565 0.0081 1.3488 1.3411

4 0.4303 0.4685 3.9197 2.8456 1.8861 1.5053 0.9116

21‐111‐

0051 Jefferson Watson

1 0.4516 0.4313 3.2562 3.6286 1.3402 1.5358 1.0827

2 0.7341 0.4549 6.5364 3.4406 0.0071 1.2179 1.2680

3 1.0487 0.4901 5.9690 4.9855 0.0095 1.5147 1.5128

4 0.4531 0.4601 3.5916 2.8599 1.8167 1.4730 0.9054
12

2.4. Future Year Annual Average Estimate 

The final step in the SMAT process is to sum the quarterly mean components (from Step 3, 

Section 2.3) to get annual mean PM2.5 values. Table 2-7 displays the quarterly mean PM2.5 

values for the FRM sites in the North Carolina nonattainment areas. 

Table 2-8: Quarterly Mean PM2.5 Mass estimates for 2009 

AIRS ID County Site Name 

NonBlank 

Mass 

Q1 

NonBlank 

Mass 

Q2 

NonBlank 

Mass 

Q3 

NonBlank 

Mass 

Q4 

21-019-0017 Boyd Ashland 11.388 12.588 15.370 9.823 

21-029-0006 Bullitt Shepherdsville 3.034 3.155 3.807 2.569 

21-037-0003 Campbell NKU 2.907 2.883 3.315 2.380 

21-117-0007 Kenton Covington 3.006 2.916 3.650 2.613 

21-111-0044 Jefferson Beecher 12.094 13.761 18.124 12.240 

21-111-0048 Jefferson Barret 11.955 13.071 17.740 11.967 

21-111-0051 Jefferson Watson 11.726 13.659 15.530 11.560 

The quarterly mean PM2.5 values are then averaged to produce a future year annual average 

PM2.5 estimate for each FRM site in the nonattainment area (Table 2-8). 

In Table 2-9 these estimated annual PM2.5 values are then compared to the NAAQS (15.0 

μg/m3). Since the values at the FRM site in the nonattainment areas are < 15.0 μg/m3, the test 

is passed. 

Table 2-9: Estimated Annual Mean 2009 PM2.5 Mass Compared to the DVB 

AIRS ID County Site Name 

2002 

Annual 

DVB 

2009 

NonBlank 

Mass 

Blank 

Mass 

2009 

Annual 

DVF 

21-019-0017 Boyd Ashland 14.9 12.292 0.5 12.8 

21-029-0006 Bullitt Shepherdsville 14.9 12.565 0.5 13.1 

21-037-0003 Campbell NKU 14.0 11.484 0.5 12.0 

21-117-0007 Kenton Covington 14.9 12.184 0.5 12.7 

21-111-0044 Jefferson Beecher 16.6 14.257 0.5 14.8 

21-111-0048 Jefferson Barret 16.1 13.683 0.5 14.2 

21-111-0051 Jefferson Watson 15.4 13.119 0.5 13.6 

3 Supplemental Analysis 

The Attainment Guidance asserts that all attainment demonstrations should be accompanied by 

supplemental analysis that further supports the modeling conclusions. This supplemental 

analysis can include additional analyses of air quality, emissions and meteorological data, and 

consider modeling outputs other than the results of the attainment test. If the attainment test 

results fall short of the standard, the results of corroboratory analyses may be used in a weight of 
13

evidence determination (WOE) to show that attainment is likely despite modeled results, which 

may be inconclusive. 

The Attainment Guidance defines the guidelines for supplemental analysis/WOE for the annual 

PM2.5 standard as follows: 

- Site with a DVF less than 14.5 μg/m3 should submit basic supplemental analysis to 

confirm the outcome of the model attainment test. 

- Sites with a DVF between 14.5 and 15.5 μg/m3 should submit a weight of evidence 

demonstration to aggregate supplemental analysis to support the model attainment 

demonstration 

- Sites with a DVF greater than or equal to 15.5 μg/m3 should consider additional control 

measure to ensure attainment, as more qualitative analysis is unlikely to attainment 

The Cincinnati- Middletown, OH-KY-IN and Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH PM2.5

nonattainment areas have DVFs lower than 14.5μg/m3

. One monitor in the Louisville, KY-IN 

PM2.5 nonattainment area has a DVF of 14.8μg/m3

. The following section will be an 

examination of supplemental analysis to corroborate modeling results. An additional WOE 

analysis section will follow to show attainment for the Louisville, KY-IN PM2.5 nonattainment 

area. 

3.1 Additional Air Quality Modeling 

The Attainment Guidance suggests several additional modeling exercises that can be performed 

as part of supplemental/WOE analysis. Suggestions include completing additional analysis on 

the air quality modeling preformed, or modeling alternative set ups and emissions as part of 

sensitivity. Each of these items will be discussed in the following sections. 

3.1.1 Air Quality Modeling Metrics 

In Section 7.0 of the Attainment Guidance, various aspects of air quality models, modeled 

performance, and uncertainties associated with the length of modeled episodes and limited 

observational datasets are described. Section 7.1 suggests that some types of “absolute” 

modeling results may be used to assess general progress towards attainment from the baseline 

inventory to the projected future inventory. The Attainment Guidance goes on to describe 

several metrics that can be considered as part of this type of additional analysis, which include: 

1. Percent change in total amount of PM2.5 >= 15 μg/m3

 within the nonattainment area 

2. Percent change in number of grid cells >= 15 μg/m3

 within the nonattainment area 

3. Percent change in grid cell-hours (days) >= 15 μg/m3 within the nonattainment area 

4. Percent change in maximum modeled 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations within the 

nonattainment area 

As the US EPA notes in the Attainment Guidance, care should be taken in interpreting absolute 

metrics if the model evaluation shows a large under prediction or over prediction of ozone or 
14

PM2.5 concentrations, because under (over) prediction of observed concentrations will make it 

artificially easy (hard) to show progress towards absolute attainment levels. To better coincide 

with model performance evaluation results, the same subset of days from the modeling were 

used in the model performance evaluation were used to develop the air quality metrics. 

This subset of days included all days with an 24-hour PM2.5 concentration greater than 30 

μg/m^3 at any of the monitoring sites in either nonattainment area, as well as the four days with 

the highest average daily values from each quarter. This selection process identified 59 days, 

whereupon 29 were selected (after consulting with the VISTA contractor) for presentation in this 

appendix. The 59 days identified also coincides with the 59 days used in the model performance 

evaluation (Appendix J) and in the model results section (Appendix K). A full listing of the days 

and the observed 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations from the monitors in the nonattainment areas 

can be found in either Appendix J or Appendix K. 

Because of the complexity of the model extraction for PM2.5, only the second metric is 

presented for supplemental analysis. The cell counts of modeling data was tallied from both the 

2002 baseline and the 2009 attainment year modeling run for the identified days. Data was 

extracted for only the grid cells that contained portions of the either of the nonattainment areas. 

Figures 3-1 through 3-3 highlight the cells that encompass the Kentucky nonattainment areas. 

Louisville area, Kentucky-Indiana 

Figure 3-1: Area for which the air quality metrics were applied. 
15

NKY-Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 

Figure 3-2: Area for which the air quality metrics were applied. 

Huntington-Ashland area, KY-WV-OH

Figure 3-3: Area for which the air quality metrics were applied. 

The cell counts were binned based on concentration ranges of 15 μg/m3 intervals to help 

illuminate the change in severity on the days in Kentucky with the highest PM2.5 concentrations. 

 

Figure 3-4 presents the cell count results both graphically and in tabular form. The graph clearly 

shows a striking increase in the number of days below 15 μg/m3

. By 2009 only x% of cells fall 

in the 0 –15 range, a substantial increase from the 17.21% in 2002. Raw cell counts shows a 

total of 342 cells shifted to the 0 – 15 μg/m3 range between 2002 and 2009 (Table 3-1). 

Figure 3-2 also shows a decrease in the number of cell in the 15 – 30 μg/m3 bin (269 cell 

decrease) and the 30 - 45μg/m3

 bin (75 cell decrease). The number of cells in the 45 –60 range 

remains relatively constant from 2002 to 2009. A closer examination of the daily cell counts 

shows that all of the cells in the highest concentration category occur on the same day in both the 

2002 and 2009 modeling. Overall, the results from the air quality modeling metric are 
16

encouraging. The metric shows a substantial increase in the number of cells below 15 μg/m3, 

and an increase in cells below 30μg/m3. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2002 2009

Modeling Year

Percentage of Nonattainment Area

45-60

30-45

15-30

0-15

 Figure 3-4: Percentage of Cell in PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas within Concentration 

Categories for 2002 and 2009. Table of actual values is Table 3-1. 
17

Table 3-1: Number of Cells within Concentration Bins. Increases (decreases) in the 

number of cells within the bins are noted by blue (red) coloration in the last column. 

Cincinnati 

Concentration 2002 2009 Difference 

<= 15 ug/m3 12523 15026 2503 

> 15 ug/m3 - <= 30 ug/m3 11502 9437 -2065 

> 30 ug/m3 - <= 45 ug/m3 795 357 -438 

> 45 ug/m3 - <= 60 ug/m3 0 0 0 

> 60 ug/m3 0 0 0 

Huntington/Ashland 

Concentration 2002 2009 Difference 

<= 15 ug/m3 21248 24116 2868 

> 15 ug/m3 - <= 30 ug/m3 8108 5409 -2699 

> 30 ug/m3 - <= 45 ug/m3 209 40 -169 

> 45 ug/m3 - <= 60 ug/m3 0 0 0 

> 60 ug/m3 0 0 0 

Louisville 

Concentration 2002 2009 Difference 

<= 15 ug/m3 6761 8119 1358 

> 15 ug/m3 - <= 30 ug/m3 5942 4905 -1037 

> 30 ug/m3 - <= 45 ug/m3 431 116 -315 

> 45 ug/m3 - <= 60 ug/m3 6 0 -6 

> 60 ug/m3 0 0 0 

3.1.2 Other Modeling Results 

One way to acquire modeling sensitivity runs is to examine the modeling results from other 

RPOs or from USEPA modeling studies. Other modeling studies may use different physical and 

chemical modeling options for their meteorological and air quality modeling runs, which would 

provide a comparison or sensitivity based on these different options. 

An air quality modeling exercise that contained results for Kentucky PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

is the USEPA’s modeling for the CAIR. The Technical Support Document for the final CAIR, 

March 2005, provided modeling results with and without the implementation for the CAIR. 

Differences between the USEPA’s modeling and the attainment demonstration are: 1) the 

meteorology was for 2001, 2) the DVB was the weighted design values the 1999-2003 period 

and 3) the modeling results were for 2010. 
18

The DVF was calculated using the CAIR SMAT tool, so methodologies between the CAIR DVF 

and the values presented in Section 6.4 are the same. These modeling results are listed in Table 

6.3.2-1 below. 

Table 3.2. USEPA’s CAIR Modeling Results 

Future Year Boyd Co Bullitt Co Jefferson Co Kenton Co 

2010 13.38 13.67 15.44 13.72 

2015 12.95 N/A 15.13 13.26 

The USEPA’s results were for the highest monitor in a county where more than one monitor is 

located. The USEPA’s modeling results predicts that the Kentucky nonattainment areas should 

be below the annual PM2.5 standard by 2010. 

Although this is one year later than the attainment year for these areas, The USEPA’s 2010 

CAIR DVFs are approximately 0.5 μg/m3

 higher than what the KYDAQ is showing in the 

attainment demonstration, but still supports that the Kentucky nonattainment areas will attain the 

annual PM2.5 standard by the attainment year of 2009. 

3.1.2.1 Ohio and Indiana Modeling 

Additional air quality modeling that encompassed the Kentucky nonattainment areas was 

performed by the Midwest Regional Planning Organization (MRPO) for both the Indiana and 

Ohio attainment demonstration submittals. The MRPO is made up of the five Midwest states 

(Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin) and the Lake Michigan Air Directors 

Consortium (LADCO). 

The air quality model selected for this technical analysis was CAMx (version 4.30), an Eulerian 

photochemical grid model developed by ENVIRON and approved by US EPA for this use. 

CAMx allows for integrated “one-atmosphere” assessment of ozone and Pm2.5. More notable 

features of CAMx include flexi-nesting, which allows for reconfiguration of nested grids within 

the model, multiple gas phase chemistry mechanism options, Plume-in-Grid (PiG) and Ozone 

Source Apportionment Technology. CAMx modeling is performed on a Linux computing 

platform with a Portland Group (PGI) FORTRAN compiler to create executable files. 

After the 2005 base episodes were modeled and determined to be within accuracy parameters, 

several future-year exercises were performed such as projecting emissions to 2008 and 2009 and 

modeling the projected emission reductions from national, regional and local control measures 

that are in effect or considered “on the books”. This includes the NOx SIP Call and Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) as well as the latest gasoline and engine control measures. 

Table 6.3.2-2 shows the results of the modeling and illustrates that all monitored areas in the 

nonattainment areas will attain the NAAQS by 2009. 
19

Table 3.3

VISTAS 

BaseG4

21-019-0017 KY Boyd 14.9 12.8 11.8

54-011-0006 WV Cabell 16.5 14.1 13.4

39-053-0003 OH Gallia - - -

39-087-0010 OH Lawrence 15.7 13.7 12.7

39-145-0013 OH Scioto 17.1 14.8 12.2

21-029-0006 KY Bullitt 14.9 13.1 12.4

21-111-0043 KY Jefferson - - -

21-111-0044 KY Jefferson 16.6 14.8 12.8

21-111-0048 KY Jefferson 16.1 14.2 12.5

21-111-0051 KY Jefferson 15.4 13.6 12.1

21-111-1041 KY Jefferson - - -

18-019-0006 IN Clark 16.8 14.9 13.6

18-043-1004 IN Floyd 14.9 13.0 12.1

21-037-0003 KY Campbell 14.0 12.0 11.6

21-117-0007 KY Kenton 14.9 12.7 11.8

39-017-0003 OH Butler 16.1 14.1 -

39-017-0016 OH Butler 15.7 13.4 13.0

39-017-0017 OH Butler 15.4 13.4 13.6

39-017-1004 OH Butler - - -

39-025-0022 OH Clermont - - -

39-061-0014 OH Hamilton 17.7 15.4 14.4

39-061-0040 OH Hamilton 15.6 13.3 12.7

39-061-0041 OH Hamilton 15.4 13.2 13.0

39-061-0042 OH Hamilton 17.1 14.9 13.9

39-061-0043 OH Hamilton 15.8 13.5 12.9

39-061-7001 OH Hamilton 16.3 14.0 13.3

39-061-8001 OH Hamilton 17.3 15.0 14.6

LADCO RPO 

2009 Value PM 

Round 5

 Summary of LADCO 2009 Design Values

AIRS ID State County 00-04 DV 

CONC of PM

3.2 Air Quality Trends Analysis 

Since the annual PM2.5 designation in 2002, annual average concentrations of PM2.5 have 

decreased. Table 6.3.3-1 provides the annual average data, with Figure 6.3.3-1 providing a 

graphical representation of the data, with preliminary 2007 annual average values. These 2007 

values show the monitors are still trending towards the NAAQS. 
20

Table 3-3: Annual Average PM2.5 Concentrations for the past 8 years. 

AIRS ID County Site Name 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

21‐019‐0017 Boyd Ashland 15.7 15.3 15.5 13.9 13.3 16.0 13.8 14.3

21‐029‐0006 Bullitt Shepherdsville 16.4 15.6 14.7 14.4 13.6 16.3 14.1 15.4

21‐037‐0003 Campbell NKU 15.1 13.4 14.8 13.4 12.8 14.8 11.5 14.6

21‐117‐0007 Kenton Covington 16.3 15.3 15.1 14.3 13.4 15.9 13.3 14.3

21‐111‐0043 Jefferson 37th 17.3 n/a 17.2 16.0 14.5 16.7 15.0 15.1

21‐111‐0044 Jefferson Beecher 16.7 17.7 17.5 15.4 14.1 16.5 15.2 14.9

21‐111‐0048 Jefferson Barret 16.7 16.9 16.4 15.5 13.7 16.8 14.0 15.1

21‐111‐0051 Jefferson Watson 16.8 16.3 15.7 14.9 12.6 16.5 13.7 15.7

Annual average PM2.5 values are presented in micrograms per meter cubed (ug/m3).  Source: USEPA/AQS.

Bolded values represent annual average values that exceed the level of the annual PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (i.e. greater than 15.0 ug/m3

).     

n/a – The site did not meet the 75% data recovery requirement.

       

Annual PM2.5 Averages

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

21-019-0017 Boyd 21-029-0006 Bullitt 21-037-0003 Campbell NKU

21-117-0007 Kenton 21-111-0043 Jefferson 21-111-0044 Jefferson

21-111-0048 Jefferson 21-111-0051 Jefferson

Figure 3-5: Annual Average PM2.5 Concentrations for the FRM Monitors in the Kentucky 

Nonattainment Areas. 
21

With the improvement in annual average PM2.5values, there has also been an improvement in 

PM2.5 design values. When one takes into account the period of record, PM2.5 design values 

improved significantly over the last 6 years. Like with the annual averages, the three-year design 

values have also begun to hover near the level of the standard for the monitors in recent years. It 

is also important to note the monitors have also maintained design values that meet the NAAQS 

over the past 3 design value periods (See Table 3-4). 

Table 3-5: Three Year Design values for the FRM Monitors in the Kentucky 

Nonattainment areas. 

AIRS ID County Site Name

2000‐

2002

2001‐

2003

2002‐

2004

2003‐

2005

2004‐

2006

2005‐

2007

21‐019‐0017 Boyd Ashland 15.5 14.9 14.3 14.4 14.4 14.7

21‐029‐0006 Bullitt Shepherdsville 15.6 14.9 14.2 14.8 14.7 15.3

21‐037‐0003 Campbell NKU 14.4 13.9 13.7 13.7 13.1 13.6

21‐117‐0007 Kenton Covington 15.5 14.9 14.3 14.5 14.2 14.5

21‐111‐0043 Jefferson 37th n/a n/a 15.9 15.7 15.4 15.6

21‐111‐0044 Jefferson Beecher 17.3 16.9 15.6 15.3 15.2 15.5

21‐111‐0048 Jefferson Barret 16.7 16.3 15.2 15.3 14.8 15.3

21‐111‐0051 Jefferson Watson 16.3 15.6 14.4 14.7 14.3 15.3

PM2.5 design values are presented in micrograms per meter cubed (ug/m3).

Source: USEPA/AQS

Bolded values represent annual average values that exceed the level of the annual PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (i.e. greater than 15.0 ug/m3

).

n/a – The site did not meet the 75% data recovery requirement.

3.3 Supplemental Analysis Conclusions 

After examining the totality of the modeling evidence, the Kentucky Division for Air Quality 

(KYDAQ) is confident the Kentucky portions of the Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH, the 

Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN, and the Louisville, KY-IN PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

should reach attainment status by the 2009 deadline. US EPA CAIR modeling corroborates 

KYDAQ modeling results suggesting all three nonattainment areas should be below the standard. 

In addition, current PM2.5 design values are near NAAQS, with substantial sulfate reductions 

anticipated in the vicinity of the nonattainment area over the next two years. KYDAQ feels 

these reductions will more than allow the PM2.5 nonattainment areas to achieve the NAAQS by 

2009. 
22

4 Unmonitored Area Analysis 

Regarding the U.S. EPA guidance (Section 3) in “The Use of Models and Other Analyses for 

Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze” (April 

2007), the States are asked to review unmonitored areas in nonattainment areas. The test is 

called an “unmonitored test analysis”, and is necessary in nonattainment areas where the PM2.5

monitoring network just meets or minimally exceeds the size of the network required to report 

data to Air Quality System (AQS). The purpose of the analysis is to use a combination of model 

output and ambient data to identify areas that might exceed the NAAQS if monitors were located 

there. 

This review is intended to ensure that a control strategy leads to reductions in PM2.5 at other 

locations which could have baseline (and future) design values exceeding the NAAQS were a 

monitor deployed there. The unmonitored area analysis should identify areas where future year 

design values are predicted to be greater than the NAAQS. 

The unmonitored analysis area is intended to be the primary means for identifying high PM2.5

concentrations outside of traditionally monitored locations. The spatial resolution of the 

modeling that is the underlying basis of the unmonitored area analysis will determine how ell it 

addresses primary PM hotspot issues. The finer the resolution of the grid model, the more likely 

that primary PM hotpots will be recognized. 

Based on the monitoring guidance, it is believed that an unmonitored area analysis conducted at 

12km or finer resolution is sufficient to address unmonitored PM2.5 for the annual NAAQS. 

The ASIP modeling provided current-year (DVC) and projected future-year (DVF) PM2.5 Design 

Values (ug/m3) in Kentucky using the 2002 Typical and 2009 BaseG4 CMAQ 12 km modeling 

results. See Appendix P which contains various Technical Support Documents (TSD) from 

VISTAS and ASIP, “Chapter 4.0 PM2.5 Projections” from the Technical Support Document 

provided by ENVIRON, January, 2008 discusses the DVC and the DVF. 

As noted in the ENVIRON Technical Support Document, Chapter 4.0, “Section 4.7.6 

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

Design Values (DVCs) that exceed the annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the BaseG2. 

However the BaseG4 Jefferson County was the highest DVC of 16.6 μg/m3 which then has a 

projected 2009 DVF of 14.8 μg/m3

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

 

All FRM monitoring sites in Kentucky are projected in 2009g4a to be below the annual average 

PM2.5. 

See the figure and table below. 
23

Figure 4-1.

Kentucky 12km 2009 Projected DVF by G4a_EXCEL(Left) and

G4a_MATS (Middle) andG2a_EXCEL (Right)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Bell-0002

Boyd-0017

Bullitt-0006

Campbell-0003

Carter-0500

Christian-0006

Daviess-0014

Fayette-0012Fayette-0014

Franklin-0006

Hardin-0006

Henderson-0006Henderson-0014

Jefferson-0044Jefferson-0048Jefferson-0051

Kenton-0007

Madison-0003

McCracken-1004

Perry-0003

Pike-0002

Warren-0007

Kentucky

ug/m3

PBW

NH4

Crustal

EC

OC

NO3

SO4

blank
24

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

) 

in Kentucky using the 2002 Typical and 2009 Base G4 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. 

Source: “Chapter 4, Environ Technical Support Document”, provided in Appendix P. 

 

2002 

Annual 

2009g4a 

Annual 

Difference (2009g4a 

and 2002gt2a) Notes 

AIRS ID State County DVC DVF 

21-013-0002 KY Bell 11.3 10.6 -0.7 

21-019-0017 KY Boyd 13.5 12.3 -1.2 

21-029-0006 KY Bullitt 13.0 11.7 -1.3 

21-037-0003 KY Campbell 14.9 13.3 -1.6 

21-043-0500 KY Carter 12.8 11.9 -0.9 

21-047-0006 KY Christian 15.3 0.0 -15.3 

21-059-0005 KY Daviess Site Discarded 

21-059-0014 KY Daviess 0.0 0.0 0.0 

21-061-0501 KY Edmonson Site Discarded 

21-067-0012 KY Fayette 15.0 13.8 -1.2 

21-067-0014 KY Fayette 13.0 11.8 -1.2 

21-073-0006 KY Franklin 17.1 15.8 -1.3 

21-093-0006 KY Hardin 15.1 13.8 -1.3 

21-101-0006 KY Henderson 14.0 12.7 -1.3 

21-101-0014 KY Henderson 14.1 12.8 -1.3 

21-111-0043 KY Jefferson 14.2 missing SMAT data 

21-111-0044 KY Jefferson 12.9 12.1 -0.8 

21-111-0048 KY Jefferson 12.6 0.0 -12.6 

21-111-0051 KY Jefferson 11.9 11.1 -0.8 

21-111-1041 KY Jefferson Site Discarded 

21-117-0007 KY Kenton 15.8 0.0 -15.8 

21-125-0004 KY Laurel 18.2 missing SMAT data 

21-145-1004 KY McCracken 13.1 11.8 -1.3 

21-151-0003 KY Madison 16.1 14.8 -1.3 

21-183-0032 KY Ohio Site Discarded 

21-193-0003 KY Perry 12.3 11.3 -1.0 

21-195-0002 KY Pike 15.0 13.8 -1.2 

21-227-0007 KY Warren 16.2 0.0 -16.2 

 
25

5 Attachments to Appendix L 

Attached to this Appendix is the following supporting documentation for Section 2.1: 

“Procedures for Estimating Future PM2.5 Values for the CAIR Final Rule by Application of the 

(Revised) Speciated Modeled Attainment Test (SMAT) Updated- 11/8/04” 

6 Reference 

Frank, N., 2006: “Retained Nitrate, Hydrated Sulfates, and Carbonaceous Mass in Federal 

Reference Method Fine Particulate Matter for Six Eastern U.S. Cities” J. Air Waste 

Mange. Assoc., 56, 500-511. 
ASIP PM Projections for Unmonito

2.5

Areas

ENVIRON International Corporation Alpi

Geophysics, LLC

Sep 18, 2008

ppt assembled by Pat Brewer, VISTAS Technical Coordinator
PM2.5 Projections for Unmoni

A reas

MATS tool applied to develop PM2.5 projectiounmonitored areasEPA has req pM uested as part of PM2 5 SIP submi

2.5 S

2002typical G2, 2009G4, 2012initial, 2018
PM2.5 Unmonitored Area Analyses - 2002 
PM2.5 Unmonitored Area Analyses – 2009 DV
PM2.5 Unmonitored Area Analyses – 2012 D
PM2.5 Unmonitored Area Analyses – 2018 D
STATE Kentucky

Count of STATE AIRS ID State County 2002 Annu Annual DVF ID COUNTY Total 2009g4a 2012g4a 2018g4a 

2.1E+08 Bell 1 21-013-00KY Bell 14.78 12.75 11.48 10.96 

2.1E+08 Boyd 1 21-019-00KY Boyd 14.88 12.61 11.94 11.49 2.1E+08 Bullitt 1 21-029-00KY Bullitt 14.88 12.98 12.66 12.07 2.1E+08 Campbell 1 21-037-00KY Campbel 13.77 11.61 11.33 10.63 2.1E+08 Carter 1 21-043-05KY Carter 12.18 10.19 9.48 9.02 2.1E+08 Christian 1 21-047-00KY Christian 13.47 11.9 11 10.93 

2.11E+08 Daviess 1 21-059-00KY Daviess 14.36 12.78 11.88 11.99 2.11E+08 Fayette 1 21-067-00KY Fayette 14.87 12.47 11.53 11.28 2.11E+08 Fayette 1 21-067-00KY Fayette 15.6 13.19 12.21 11.99 2.11E+08 Franklin 1 21-073-00KY Franklin 13.67 11.48 10.64 10.37 2.11E+08 Hardin 1 21-093-00KY Hardin 13.97 12.07 11.21 10.93 2.11E+08 Henderson 1 21-101-00KY Henderso 14.46 13 12.05 12.28 

2.11E+08 Jefferson 1 21-111-00KY Jefferson 15.9 13.95 14.24 13.2 

2.11E+08 Jefferson 1 21-111-00KY Jefferson 16.58 14.49 15.29 13.65 

2.11E+08 Jefferson 1 21-111-00KY Jefferson 16.06 14.02 14.72 13.19 2.11E+08 Jefferson 1 21-111-00KY Jefferson 15.44 13.42 13.44 12.56 2.11E+08 Kenton 1 21-117-00KY Kenton 14.88 12.57 12.23 11.61 

2.11E+08 Laurel 1 21-125-00KY Laurel 12.2 10.47 9.49 9.03 2.11E+08 McCracken 1 21-145-10KY McCracke 13.1 11.8 10.98 10.98 

2.12E+08 Madison 1 21-151-00KY Madison 13.53 11.39 10.45 10.01 

2.12E+08 Perry 1 21-193-00KY Perry 13.15 11.19 10.18 9.63 2.12E+08 Pike 1 21-195-00KY Pike 13.67 11.56 10.6 9.99 2.12E+08 Warren 1 21-227-00KY Warren 13.81 12.11 11.17 10.91 
STATE Ohio

Count of STATE AIRS ID State County 2002 Annu Annual DVF DifferenceID COUNTY Total 2009g4a 2012g4a 2018g4a 09g4a-02gt12g

3.9E+08 Athens 1 39-009-00OH Athens 12.31 10.19 9.73 9.13 -2.12 

3.9E+08 Butler 1 39-017-00OH Butler 16.12 14.02 13.87 13.28 -2.1 3.9E+08 Butler 1 39-017-00OH Butler 15.47 13.21 12.85 12.25 -2.26 3.9E+08 Butler 1 39-017-00OH Butler 15.32 13.26 13.06 12.52 -2.06 3.9E+08 Butler 1 39-017-10OH Butler 14.13 12.12 11.88 11.39 -2.01 3.9E+08 Clark 1 39-023-00OH Clark 14.45 12.47 11.94 11.7 -1.98 3.9E+08 Cuyahoga 1 39-035-00OH Cuyahog 17.57 15.61 15.85 14.47 -1.96 3.9E+08 Cuyahoga 1 39-035-00OH Cuyahog 16.53 14.57 14.71 13.47 -1.96 3.9E+08 Cuyahoga 1 39-035-00OH Cuyahog 13.81 12.2 12.27 11.38 -1.61 3.9E+08 Cuyahoga 1 39-035-00OH Cuyahog 18.36 16.36 16.61 15.18 -2 3.9E+08 Cuyahoga 1 39-035-00OH Cuyahog 16.69 14.72 14.84 13.61 -1.97 3.9E+08 Cuyahoga 1 39-035-00OH Cuyahog 17.54 15.57 15.78 14.43 -1.97 3.9E+08 Cuyahoga 1 39-035-00OH Cuyahog 16.14 14.19 14.28 13.1 -1.95 3.9E+08 Cuyahoga 1 39-035-00OH Cuyahog 14.24 12.57 12.76 11.55 -1.67 3.9E+08 Cuyahoga 1 39-035-10OH Cuyahog 14.52 12.61 12.61 11.63 -1.91 3.9E+08 Franklin 1 39-049-00OH Franklin 16.52 14.27 14.12 13.17 -2.25 3.9E+08 Franklin 1 39-049-00OH Franklin 16.02 13.78 13.51 12.73 -2.24 3.9E+08 Franklin 1 39-049-00OH Franklin 15.95 13.72 13.55 12.66 -2.23 

3.91E+08 Hamilton 1 39-061-00OH Hamilton 17.76 15.45 15.53 14.34 -2.31 3.91E+08 Hamilton 1 39-061-00OH Hamilton 15.57 13.43 13.42 12.41 -2.14 3.91E+08 Hamilton 1 39-061-00OH Hamilton 15.83 13.53 13.33 12.52 -2.3 3.91E+08 Hamilton 1 39-061-00OH Hamilton 16.77 14.33 14 13.28 -2.44 3.91E+08 Hamilton 1 39-061-00OH Hamilton 15.53 13.28 13.12 12.26 -2.25 3.91E+08 Hamilton 1 39-061-70OH Hamilton 16.26 14.06 14.08 13.02 -2.2 3.91E+08 Hamilton 1 39-061-80OH Hamilton 17.25 15.03 15.11 13.96 -2.22 3.91E+08 Jefferson 1 39-081-00OH Jefferson 18.07 14.85 14.5 13.77 -3.22 

3.91E+08 Jefferson 1 39-081-10OH Jefferson 17.48 14.27 13.91 13.18 -3.21 3.91E+08 Lake 1 39-085-10OH Lake 13.25 11.64 11.53 10.94 -1.61 

3.91E+08 Lawrence 1 39-087-00OH Lawrence 15.7 13.66 13.14 12.72 -2.04 

3.91E+08 Lorain 1 39-093-00OH Lorain 13.6 11.99 11.84 11.19 -1.61 

3.91E+08 Lorain 1 39-093-30OH Lorain 12.53 10.99 10.83 10.24 -1.54 3.91E+08 Lucas 1 39-095-00OH Lucas 14.73 13.18 12.91 12.35 -1.55 3.91E+08 Lucas 1 39-095-00OH Lucas 14.7 13.14 12.87 12.3 -1.56 
3.91E+08 Lucas 1 39-095-00OH Lucas 14.46 12.87 12.52 12.08 -1.59 

3.91E+08 Mahoning 1 39-099-00OH Mahoning 15.11 12.91 12.79 11.82 -2.2 

3.91E+08 Montgomer 1 39-113-00OH Montgom 15.53 13.42 12.92 12.49 -2.11 3.91E+08 Montgomer 1 39-113-00OH Montgom 15.53 13.5 13.04 12.6 -2.03 3.91E+08 Portage 1 39-133-00OH Portage 14.19 12.21 12.1 11.11 -1.98 

3.91E+08 Scioto 1 39-145-00OH Scioto 17.11 14.74 14.2 13.48 -2.37 3.92E+08 Stark 1 39-151-00OH Stark 17.26 14.95 14.55 13.6 -2.31 3.92E+08 Stark 1 39-151-00OH Stark 16.12 13.88 13.47 12.56 -2.24 3.92E+08 Summit 1 39-153-00OH Summit 16.42 14.38 14.31 13.16 -2.04 3.92E+08 Summit 1 39-153-00OH Summit 15.62 13.61 13.52 12.42 -2.01 3.92E+08 Trumbull 1 39-155-00OH Trumbull 14.96 12.89 12.8 11.84 -2.07 
STATE Indiana

Count of STATE AIRS ID State County 2002 Annu Annual DVF DifferenceID COUNTY Total 2009g4a 2012g4a 2018g4a 09g4a-02gt12g

1.8E+08 Allen 1 18-003-00IN Allen 14.29 12.66 11.66 12.31 -1.63 

1.8E+08 Allen 1 18-003-00IN Allen 13.73 12.12 11.18 11.74 -1.61 1.8E+08 Clark 1 18-019-00IN Clark 16.33 14.32 14.84 13.57 -2.01 1.8E+08 Delaware 1 18-035-00IN Delaware 14.33 12.56 11.55 11.9 -1.77 

1.8E+08 Dubois 1 18-037-20IN Dubois 16.12 14.28 13.37 13.58 -1.84 

1.8E+08 Elkhart 1 18-039-00IN Elkhart 14.99 13.91 12.99 14.15 -1.08 1.8E+08 Floyd 1 18-043-10IN Floyd 14.9 12.93 12.82 12.16 -1.97 

1.81E+08 Henry 1 18-065-00IN Henry 13.26 11.54 10.59 10.89 -1.72 1.81E+08 Howard 1 18-067-00IN Howard 14.55 12.95 11.98 12.41 -1.6 1.81E+08 Lake 1 18-089-00IN Lake 15.01 13.55 12.5 13.65 -1.46 1.81E+08 Lake 1 18-089-00IN Lake 14.23 12.89 11.85 12.92 -1.34 1.81E+08 Lake 1 18-089-10IN Lake 14.63 13.04 12.05 13.36 -1.59 1.81E+08 Lake 1 18-089-20IN Lake 14.52 13.17 12.12 13.33 -1.35 1.81E+08 Lake 1 18-089-20IN Lake 14.38 12.97 11.95 13.04 -1.41 1.81E+08 LaPorte 1 18-091-00IN LaPorte 13.25 11.83 10.95 11.83 -1.42 1.81E+08 LaPorte 1 18-091-00IN LaPorte 13.23 11.97 11.1 11.73 -1.26 1.81E+08 Madison 1 18-095-00IN Madison 13.99 12.25 11.22 11.62 -1.74 1.81E+08 Marion 1 18-097-00IN Marion 14.7 12.69 11.62 12.03 -2.01 1.81E+08 Marion 1 18-097-00IN Marion 16.21 14.12 12.9 13.57 -2.09 1.81E+08 Marion 1 18-097-00IN Marion 15.43 13.43 12.2 12.84 -2 1.81E+08 Marion 1 18-097-00IN Marion 16.27 14.24 12.99 13.73 -2.03 1.81E+08 Marion 1 18-097-00IN Marion 16.54 14.46 13.22 13.97 -2.08 1.81E+08 Porter 1 18-127-00IN Porter 13.18 11.68 10.83 11.75 -1.5 1.81E+08 Porter 1 18-127-00IN Porter 13.75 12.03 11.09 12.35 -1.72 1.81E+08 St. Joseph 1 18-141-00IN St. Josep 13.84 12.8 11.93 12.87 -1.04 

1.81E+08 St. Joseph 1 18-141-10IN St. Josep 13.93 12.91 12.03 12.8 -1.02 1.81E+08 St. Joseph 1 18-141-20IN St. Josep 13.68 12.63 11.73 12.53 -1.05 1.81E+08 Spencer 1 18-147-00IN Spencer 14 12.29 11.42 11.53 -1.71 

1.82E+08 Vanderburg 1 18-163-00IN Vanderbu 15.14 13.53 12.53 12.86 -1.61 

1.82E+08 Vanderburg 1 18-163-00IN Vanderbu 15.14 13.53 12.52 12.9 -1.61 1.82E+08 Vanderburg 1 18-163-00IN Vanderbu 15.29 13.67 12.66 13.01 -1.62 1.82E+08 Vigo 1 18-167-00IN Vigo 14.51 12.96 11.79 12.39 -1.55 

1.82E+08 Vigo 1 18-167-00IN Vigo 13.29 11.76 10.68 11.18 -1.53 
1.81E+08 Lake 1 18-089-10IN Lake 16.02 14.19 13.13 14.46 -1.83 
STATE West Virginia

Count of STATE AIRS ID State County 2002 Annu Annual DVF DifferenceID COUNTY Total 2009g4a 2012g4a 2018g4a 09g4a-02gt12g4

5.4E+08 Berkeley 1 54-003-00WV Berkeley 16.23 13.52 12.93 12.29 -2.71 

5.4E+08 Brooke 1 54-009-00WV Brooke 16.69 13.62 13.27 12.57 -3.07 5.4E+08 Cabell 1 54-011-00WV Cabell 16.54 14.37 13.69 13.25 -2.17 5.4E+08 Hancock 1 54-029-00WV Hancock 16 12.99 12.63 11.94 -3.01 5.4E+08 Hancock 1 54-029-10WV Hancock 17.3 14.02 13.72 13.01 -3.28 5.4E+08 Harrison 1 54-033-00WV Harrison 13.99 11.57 10.71 10.44 -2.42 5.4E+08 Kanawha 1 54-039-00WV Kanawha 15.38 13.1 12.2 11.69 -2.28 

5.4E+08 Kanawha 1 54-039-10WV Kanawha 17.08 14.67 13.69 13.18 -2.41 5.4E+08 Marion 1 54-049-00WV Marion 15.32 12.86 11.95 11.6 -2.46 

5.41E+08 Marshall 1 54-051-10WV Marshall 15.61 13.23 12.66 12.09 -2.38 5.41E+08 Mercer 1 54-055-00WV Mercer 12.67 10.59 9.71 9.09 -2.08 5.41E+08 Monongalia 1 54-061-00WV Mononga 14.81 12.31 11.47 10.97 -2.5 

5.41E+08 Ohio 1 54-069-00WV Ohio 15.08 12.64 12.11 11.54 -2.44 

5.41E+08 Raleigh 1 54-081-00WV Raleigh 13.05 10.97 10.13 9.54 -2.08 5.41E+08 Summers 1 54-089-00WV Summers 10.1 8.26 7.62 7.12 -1.84 

5.41E+08 Wood 1 54-107-10WV Wood 16.07 13.81 13.38 12.63 -2.26