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 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 

PM2.5 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 emission 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.)

Source sector emission summaries for the base years and future years are shown in Figure 48. 

Additional detail is provided in Tables 6a 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 48. Base year and future year emissions for 5-State LADCO Region (TPD, July weekday)

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 CONCEPT Modeling (July weekday – tons per day)

Year State Sum of CO Sum of TOG Sum of NOx 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 1,650,128,709.9

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 4,619.2 423.7 693.5 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 30.2 288,042,232.1

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
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 completed by EPA in February 2007 for Base M. Several CAIR 

scenarios were assumed:

Base K

1a: IPM2.1.9, with 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 assumed 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 IPM3.0, 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 States, future year emission files were based on data 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 information 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

• Inspection - maintenance programs, including IL’s vehicle emissions tests (NE IL), IN’s vehicle 

emissions testing program (NW IN), OH’s E-check program (NE OH), and WI’s vehicle inspection 

program (SE WI) – note: a special emissions modeling run was done for the Cincinnati/Dayton area to 

reflect the removal of the state’s E-check program and inclusion of low RVP gasoline

• Reformulated 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 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 (Base M only)

• Consumer solvents

• AIM coatings

• Aerosol 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

• Combustion turbine MACT

Other controls included in the modeling include: consent decrees (refineries, ethanol plants, and 

ALCOA)9, NOx RACT in Illinois and Ohio10, 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 additional 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 Modeling 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 model performance evaluation 

focused on the magnitude, spatial pattern, and temporal of modeled and measured 

concentrations. This exercise was intended to assess whether, and to what degree, confidence 

in the model is warranted (and to assess whether model improvements are necessary).

Model performance was assessed by comparing modeled and monitored concentrations. 

Graphical (e.g., side-by-side spatial plots, time series plots, and scatter plots) and statistical 

analyses were conducted. No rigid acceptance/rejection criteria were used for this study. 

Instead, the statistical guidelines recommended by EPA and other modeling studies (e.g., 

modeling by the other RPOs) were used to assess the reasonableness of the results. The 

model performance results presented here describe how well the model replicates observed 

ozone and PM2.5 concentrations after a series of iterative improvements to model inputs.

Ozone: Spatial plots are provided for high ozone periods in June 2002 and June 2005 (see 

Figures 49a and 49b). The plots 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-counting 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 49a. Modeled (top) v. monitored (bottom) 8-hour ozone concentrations: June 20 – 25, 2002
62

 

 

Figure 49b Modeled (top) v. monitored (bottom) 8-hour ozone concentrations: June 23– 28 2005
63

Standard model performance statistics were generated 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 generally within 30% (see Figure 50). 

Figure 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 52). 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 52. 4 km grids for Lake Michigan region and Detroit-Cleveland region

Hourly time series plots were prepared for several monitors (see Figure 53). The results are 

similar at 12 km and 4 km, with some site-by-site and day-by-day differences.

Figure 53. Ozone time series plots for 12 km and 4 km modeling (June 17-29, 2002)
65

An additional diagnostic analysis was performed to assess the response of the modeling system 

to 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 95th 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 the modeled and 

monitored ozone concentration changes (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 strategies.

Figure 54. Comparison of change in predicted and observed ozone concentrations (2002 v. 2005) 
66

PM2.5: Time series plots of the monthly average mean bias and annual fractional bias for Base 

M and Base K are shown in Figure 55. 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 carbon 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 55. PM2.5 Model performance - monthly average mean bias and annual fractional bias for 

Base M (left column) and Base K (right column)

Base M Base K
67

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

• Assess Meteorological Influences: The MM5 model performance evaluation showed that 

rainfall is over-predicted by MM5 over most of the domain during the summer months 

(LADCO, 2007c). Because CAMx does not explicitly use the rainfall output by MM5, this 

may or may not result in over-prediction sulfate wet deposition (and under-prediction 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 56)

showed a noticeable difference from the basecase (i.e., higher sulfate concentrations), 

and suggests 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 basecase 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 performance (see purple line in Figure 56)

showed little difference from the basecase.

Figure 56. Monthly sulfate bias for Base M (MRPO EGU) v. two sensitivity analyses (Note: positive 

values indicate over-prediction, negative values 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 values were only slightly different from the 

current base strategy run. In general, the future year values (without wet deposition) 

were a little higher (+0.15 ug/m3 or less) in the Ohio Valley and a little lower (-.10 ug/m3

of less) in the Great Lakes region. 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 results are not expected to change very much.

Time series plots of daily sulfate, nitrate, elemental carbon, and organic carbon concentrations 

for three Midwestern locations are presented in Figures 57 (2002) and 58 (2005). These results 

are consistent with 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 57. Time series of sulfate, nitrate, and organic carbon at three Midwest sites for 2005
69

 SULFATE NITRATE ORGANIC CARBON

Seney

Detroit

Chicago

Figure 58. Time series of sulfate, nitrate, and organic carbon at three Midwest sites for 2005
70

In summary, model performance for ozone and PM2.5 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 patterns of modeled 

concentrations are consistent with monitored data

• Model accurately simulates the change in monitored ozone concentrations due to 

reductions in precursor emissions.

PM2.5

• Good agreement in the magnitude of fine particle mass, but some species 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: 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 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 these 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, consistent 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 attainment modeling is supplemented by additional information to provide a 

weight of evidence determination.
71

Section 4.0 Attainment Demonstration for Ozone and PM2./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 PM2.5

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

Traditionally, attainment demonstrations involved a “bright line” test in which a single modeled 

value was compared to the ambient standard. To provide a more robust assessment of 

expected future year air quality, EPA’s modeling guidelines call for consideration of 

supplemental information. This section summarizes the results of the primary (guideline) 

modeling analysis and a weight of evidence determination 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 effectiveness of existing and possible 

additional control programs. The model was used in a relative sense to project future year 

values, which are then compared to the standard to determine attainment/nonattainment. 

Specifically, the modeling test consists of the following steps:

(1) Calculate base year design values: For ozone and PM2.5, 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 2005-200711

(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 values: For each grid cell (with a monitor), the 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 2002 and 2005 base year design values for ozone and PM2.5 is provided in 

Figure 59. 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 59. 2002 v. 2005 base year design values for ozone (top) and PM2.5 (bottom)

2002 2005

Statistical 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 41

Peak Value 19.3 ug/m3 17.7 ug/m3

Ave Exceedance Amount 1.2 ug/m3 0.9 ug/m3
73

Ozone results are provided for those grid cells with ozone monitors. The RRF calculation 

considers 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.) PM2.5 results are provided for those grid cells with 

FRM (PM2.5-mass) monitors. Spatial mapping was performed to extrapolate PM2.5-speciation 

data from STN and IMPROVE sites to FRM sites. RRF values for PM2.5 were derived as a 

function of quarter and chemical species.

Additional, hot-spot modeling will be performed by the states for certain PM2.5 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 Gaussian 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 the 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 10 (PM2.5), and spatial maps of the 

Base M future year concentrations are provided in Figures 60-62.
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

2008 2009 2012

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 PM2.5 (annual average)–Base M
78

 2005 (observed) 2009 

2012 2018

Figure 62. Observed base year and projected future year design values for PM2.5 (24-hr average)-Base M
79

The number of monitors with design values 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/m3)

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 26 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 Section 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 PM2.5 concentrations (i.e., about 0.1 ug/m

3

 for PM2.5 and 0.1-0.2 ppb for ozone). 

Second, EPA suggested adjustments 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 PM2.5 concentrations (on the 

order of 0.1 – 0.2 ug/m3), 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 shows the 2009 values with 12 km and 4 km grid 

spacing for the LADCO modeling and similar modeling conducted by a stakeholder group

(Midwest 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 year (2009) values for Lake Michigan area (top) and Detroit-Cleveland region

(bottom)

These 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 results for northwestern Indiana/northeastern Illinois should be viewed with 

caution (i.e., probably 1 – 4 ppb too high).
81

In summary, the ozone modeling provides the following information for the nonattainment areas 

in the region (see Table 12):

Table 12. Ozone Nonattainment Areas in the LADCO Region (as of December 31, 2007)

Area Name Category

Number of

Counties

Attainment 

Deadline

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 planning 

year. Rather, 2005 – 2007 air quality data are available to determine attainment.

Basic (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 Indianapolis

• 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 PM2.5 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 75 ppb. With respect to the new lower 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard, the modeling shows 13 sites in 2012 and 10 in 2018 with design values greater 

than 35 ug/m3.
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 supplemental 

analyses are recommended:

• additional modeling

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

• observational models and diagnostic analyses

Furthermore, according to EPA’s guidelines, if the future year modeled values are “close” to the 

standard (i.e., 82 – 87 ppb for ozone and 14.5 – 15.5 ug/m3 for PM2.5), 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 attainment. 

A WOE determination for ozone and PM2.5 is provided in the following 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):

 Ozone 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 Determination for Ozone

The WOE determination for ozone consists of the primary 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 in Section 4.1. Key findings 

from this modeling include:

• Base M regional modeling shows attainment by 2008 and 2009 at all sites, except 

Holland (MI), and attainment at all sites by 2012.

• Base K modeling results reflect generally higher future year values, and show more 

sites in nonattainment 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 modeling also shows that the proposed lower 8-hour standard will not be 

met at many sites, even by 2018, with existing controls.

Additional Modeling: Four additional 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 of 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 estimates of future year ozone concentrations were calculated based 

on model-based RRFs and appropriate monitor-based concentrations for each year between 

2001 and 2007. RRF values for 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, and 2007 were derived based on the 

2002 and 2005 modeling results. Monitor-based concentrations reflect 4th high values, design 

values, or average of three design values centered on the year in question. The probability of 

attainment was determined as the percentage of these seven estimates below the standard. 

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 redone with different types of assumptions for 

calculating base year design values (i.e., using the 3-year period centered on base year, and 

using the highest 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 and “acceptable” model performance). The 

results for several high concentration sites are presented in Tables 13a and 13b 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 associated 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 monitoring network 

just meets or 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 

predicted to be greater than the NAAQS. 

Based on examination of the spatial plots in Figures 49a and 49b, the most notable areas of 

high modeled ozone concentrations are over the Great Lakes. Over-water monitoring, however, 

is not required by EPA12. A cursory analysis of unmonitored areas for ozone was performed 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 observed values (in monitored grid 

cells). A spatial map of the estimated 2009 values is provided in Figure 64. 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 of high ozone throughout the region.

 

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

ozone 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 13a. Primary and Additional Ozone Modeling Results – Lake Michigan and Cleveland Areas (2009)

2009 Modeling Results Lake Michigan Area Cleveland 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 guidance-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-2002baseyear)

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 95.0

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 Projected 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-year 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 81.4 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 13b. Primary and Additional Ozone Modeling Results – Cincinnati, Columbus, St. Louis, Indianapolis, and Detroit (2009)

2009 Modeling Results Cincinnati Area Columbus St. Louis Area Indianapolis Area Detroit Area

Wilmington Lebanon Sycamore NewAlbany W. Alton OrchardFarm Noblesville Fortville New Haven

390271002 39165007 390610006 390490029 291831002 291831004 180571001 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) 0.885 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 three 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 86.3 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 Year 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

Figure 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, 2007b). 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 standard 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 Trends: EPA’s modeling guidelines note that while air quality models are generally 

the most 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 trends should first be 

normalized to account for year-to-year variations in meteorological conditions (EPA, 2002). 

Meterologically-adjusted 4th high 8-hour ozone concentrations were derived using the 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 trends in precursor 

emissions. Both VOC and NOx emissions affect ozone concentrations. Given that observationbased 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 considered 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 values 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 Cleveland 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 65. Estimates of Future Year Ozone Concentrations – Lake Michigan Area (Sheboygan and Holland), Cincinnati (Sycamore), and 

Cleveland (Ashtabula)

Note: Primary (guideline) modeling values (Base K and Base M results) are represented by large red diamonds, additional modeling 

values by small black circles, and trends-based values by small pink squares
88

Observational Models and Diagnostic Analyses: The observation-based modeling (i.e., 

MAPPER) is presented in Section 3. The key findings from this modeling are that most urban 

areas are VOC-limited and rural areas are NOx-limited.

The primary diagnostic analysis is source apportionment modeling with CAMx to provide more 

quantitative information 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 66) and 6 source sectors (EGU point, non-EGU point, on-road, off-road, 

area, and biogenic sources) at ozone monitoring sites in the region.

 

Figure 66. Source regions (left) and key monitoring sites (right) for ozone modeling analysis

Modeling results for 2009 (Base M) and 2012 (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 contributions from NOx emissions are shown 

in blue, and from VOC emissions in green.)

The sector-level results (see, for example, Figure 67) show that on-road and nonroad NOx 

emissions generally have the largest contributions 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 67. Source-sector results for Holland (left) and Ashtabula (right) monitors – 2009 (Base M)

Kenosha County

Cook County

Indianapolis

Holland

St. Louis

Detroit

Cincinnati

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

nonattainment 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 68. Source-region results for Holland (left) and Ashtabula (right) monitors – 2009 (Base M)

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

future year ozone concentrations. Based on this information, the following general conclusions 

can be made:

• Existing (“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 of 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 current 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 the 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 weather 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 hand, if either of these conditions is not met, 

then attainment may be less likely.
90

4.3 Weight-of-Evidence Determination for PM2.5

The WOE determination for PM2.5 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 regional modeling shows attainment by 2009 at all sites, except Detroit, 

Cleveland, and Granite City, and attainment at all sites by 2012, except for Detroit 

and Granite City.

The regional modeling for PM2.5 does not reflect any air quality benefit expected 

from local controls. States are conducting local-scale analyses and will use these 

results, in conjunction with the regional-scale modeling, to support their attainment 

demonstrations for PM2.5

• Base K modeling results reflect generally higher future year values, and show more 

sites in nonattainment in 2009 and 2012 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 PM2.5 should reflect a weight-of-evidence approach, 

with consideration of monitoring based information.

• Base M modeling also shows that the new PM2.5 24-hour standard will not be met at 

many sites, even by 2018, with existing controls.

Additional Modeling: EPA’s latest regional PM2.5 modeling was considered as corroborative 

information. This modeling was performed as part of the September 2006 revision to the PM2.5

standard (USEPA, 2006). EPA applied the CMAQ model with 2001 meteorology to estimate 

PM2.5 levels in 2015 and 2020 first with national rules in effect or proposed, and then with 

additional controls to attain the current standard (15 ug/m3 annual/65 ug/m3 daily). Additional 

analyses were performed to evaluate strategies for attaining more stringent standards in 2020 

(15/35, and 14/35). Baseline (2015) PM2.5 levels were predicted to be above the current 

standard in four counties in the LADCO region: Madison County, IL at 15.2 ug/m3, Wayne 

County, MI at 17.4, Cuyahoga County, OH at 15.4, and Scioto County, OH at 15.6. These 

results are consistent with LADCO’s Base K modeling for 2012/2018, which is not surprising 

given that EPA’s modeling and LADCO’s Base K modeling have a similar base year (2001 v. 

2002).

Observational Models and Diagnostic Analyses: The observation-based modeling (i.e., 

application of thermodynamic equilibrium models) is presented in Section 3. The key findings 

from this modeling are that PM2.5 mass is sensitive to reductions in sulfate, nitric acid, and 

ammonia concentrations. Even 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 PM2.5 mass decreases. Under conditions 

with lower sulfate levels (i.e., proxy of future year conditions), PM2.5 is more sensitive to 

reductions in nitric acid compared to reductions in ammonia.
91

The primary diagnostic analysis is source apportionment modeling with CAMx to provide more 

quantitative information on source region (and source sector) impacts (Baker, 2007b). 

Specifically, the model estimated the impact of 18 geographic source regions (which are 

identified in Figure 69) and 6 source sectors (EGU point, non-EGU point, on-road, off-road, 

area, and biogenic sources) at PM2.5 monitoring sites in the region.

 

Figure 69. Source regions (left) and key monitoring sites (right) for PM2.5 modeling analysis

Modeling results for 2012 (Base K) and 2018 (Base M) are provided in Appendix III 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 sector-level results (see, for example, Figure 70) show that EGU sulfate, 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 Cleveland (right) monitors – 2018 (Base M)

Cook County

Steubenville

Granite City

Detroit

Cincinnati

Cleveland
92

The source region results (see, for example, 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 Ohio), 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 were performed to estimate 

future year PM2.5 concentrations. Based on this information, the following general conclusions 

can be made:

• Existing (“on the books”) controls are expected to produce significant 

improvement in PM2.5 air quality.

• The choice of the 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, PM2.5 concentrations are not as strongly influenced by 

meteorology as ozone.

• Most sites are expected to meet the current PM2.5 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 16 – 17 ug/m3). 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 appropriate 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

Air 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 subject to such requirements

• uniform rate of visibility improvement needed to attain natural visibility conditions 

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 state to “address regional haze in each mandatory Class I 

Federal area located within the 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 information 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). The 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 14. Draft List of 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 Wilderness 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-Glades 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) VISTAS 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, Voyageurs, Isle Royale, and 

Seney (see Section 2.3);

• use of the new IMPROVE light extinction equation; and

• use of EPA default values for natural conditions, based on the new IMPROVE 

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 15 (2002 base year) and Table 16 (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 improvement 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 the other four factors, in setting reasonable progress goals. 

An assessment of the five factors was performed for LADCO and the State of Minnesota by a 

contractor (EC/R, 2007). Specifically, ECR examined reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions 

from EGUs and industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) boilers; NOx emissions from mobile 

sources and reciprocating engines and turbines; and ammonia emissions from agricultural 

operations. 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 Compliance): The average cost effectiveness values (in terms of $M 

per ton) are provided in Table 16. 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 Boundary 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 17. Estimated Cost Effectiveness for Potential Control 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 more 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 believed 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 additional 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 equipment. 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 74, along with the costeffectiveness expressed in $M per deciview improvement). These results show that 

although 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

SO2NOx NH3 SO2NOx NH3 SO2 NOx NH3 SO2 NOx NH3 SO2NOx 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 SO2NOx NH3 SO2 NOx NH3 SO2 NOxNH3 SO2 NOx NH3

Strategy 1 Strategy 2

EGUs ICI Boilers Rec.Eng. Mobile Ag

Figure 74. Results of ECR analysis of reasonable progress 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 areas 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 modeling 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 to differences 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.

Additional Modeling: Two 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 receptor 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 used to calculate the baseline, given that 

the Base M modeling reflects a 2005 base year. The results of this alternative analysis (see 

Table 18) are generally consistent with the primary modeling (see Table 16).

Second, Minnesota’s modeling reflects a 2002 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 northern 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 

results at the IMPROVE monitor. This variability in visibility levels should be kept in mind when 

reviewing the values presented in Tables 15, 16, and 18, which reflect results at 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

Observational Models and Diagnostic Analyses: The observation-based modeling (i.e., 

application of thermodynamic equilibrium models) is presented in Section 3. The key findings 

from this modeling are that PM2.5 mass is sensitive to reductions in sulfate, nitric acid, and 

ammonia concentrations. Even 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 PM2.5 mass decreases and visibility 

improves. Under conditions with lower sulfate levels (i.e., proxy of future year conditions), PM2.5

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

As discussed in Section 2, thermodynamic equilibrium modeling based on data collected at 

Seney indicates that PM2.5 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 PM2.5 concentrations and improve visibility levels in the 

northern Class I areas.

Trajectory analyses for the 20% worst visibility days for the four northern Class I areas are 

provided in Figure 75. (Note, this figure is similar to Figure 34, but the trajectory results for each 

Class I area are displayed separately here.) The orange 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 regions located to the south, and good air days with transport from Canada. 
107

Seney Isle Royale

Boundary Waters Voyageurs

Figure 75. Trajectory analysis results for northern Class I areas on 20% worst visibility days

The primary diagnostic analysis is source apportionment modeling with CAMx to provide more 

quantitative information on source region (and source sector) impacts (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 76) and 6 source se ctors (EGU point, non-EGU point, on-road, off-road, 

area, and ammonia sources) at visibility/haze monitoring sites in the eastern U.S.
108

 

Figure 76. 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 IV 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 region and sector-level contributions in 

terms of absolute modeled values.

The sector-level results (see, for example, Figure 77) show that EGU sulfate, non-EGU-sulfate, 

and ammonia emissions generally have the largest contributions at the key monitor locations. 

The source group contributions vary by receptor location due to emissions inventory differences. 

Figure 77. Source-sector results for Seney (left) and Boundary Waters (right) – 2018 (Base M)

The source region results (see, for example, Figure 78) show that emissions from a number of 

nearby states contribute to regional haze levels.
109

Figure 78. Source-region results for Seney (left) and Boundary Waters (right) – 2018 (Base M)

Table 19 provides a summary of the estimated state-level culpabilities 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 general conclusions can be 

made:

• Existing (“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 uniform rate of visibility improvement 

values in 2018, including those in northern Michigan and some in the 

northeastern U.S. 

• Visibility levels in 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.
110

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

Boundary Waters Seney

LADCO -

Round 4 

PSAT

LADCO -

Round 5 

PSAT

MPCAPSATCENRAP -

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%

Illinois 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%

CENRAPWRAP 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

MPCAPSATCENRAP -

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%

CENRAPWRAP 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

To support the development of SIPs for ozone, PM2.5, and regional haze in the States 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 base 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 summary of the physical, chemical, and meteorological 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 or industrial centers

PM2.5

• Current monitoring data show 30 sites in violation of the annual PM2.5 standard of 15 

ug/m3. Nonattainment sites are characterized by an elevated regional background 

(about 12 – 14 ug/m3) and a significant local (urban) increment (about 2 – 3 ug/m3). 

Historical PM2.5 data show a slight downward trend since deployment of the PM2.5

monitoring network in 1999.

• PM2.5 concentrations are also influenced by meteorology, but the relationship is more 

complex and less well understood compared to ozone.

• On an annual average basis, PM2.5 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 22 – 24 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 quality models were applied to support the regional planning efforts. Two base years were 

used in the modeling analyses: 2002 and 2005. EPA’s modeling guidance recommends using 
112

2002 as the baseline inventory year, but also allows for use of an alternative baseline 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 2002 was more severe compared to 2005. Examination of multiple base 

years provides for a more complete technical assessment. Both sets of model runs are 

discussed in this document. 

Basecase modeling was conducted to evaluate model performance (i.e., assess the model's 

ability to reproduce the observed concentrations). This exercise was intended to assess 

whether, and to degree, confidence in the model is warranted (and to assess whether model 

improvements are necessary). Model performance for ozone and PM2.5 was 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 patterns of modeled 

concentrations are consistent with monitored data

• Model accurately simulates the change in monitored ozone concentrations due to 

reductions in precursor emissions.

PM2.5

• 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 meteorological 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 would be sufficient to provide for attainment of the standards for ozone and PM2.5 and if 

not, then what additional emission reductions would be necessary for attainment. Traditionally, 

attainment demonstrations involved a “bright line” test in which a single 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, 

according to EPA’s modeling guidance, if the future year modeled values are “close” to the 
113

standard (i.e., 82 – 87 ppb for ozone and 14.5 – 15.5 ug/m3 for PM2.5 ), then the results of the 

primary modeling should be reviewed along with the supplemental information in a “weight of 

evidence” (WOE) assessment of whether each area is likely to achieve timely attainment. Key 

findings of the WOE determination include:

• Existing controls are expected to produce significant improvement in ozone and 

PM2.5 concentrations and visibility levels.

• The choice of the base year 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 are expected to meet the current PM2.5 standard by the applicable 

attainment date, except for sites in Detroit, Cleveland, and Granite City.

The regional modeling for PM2.5 does not reflect air quality benefits expected 

from local controls. States are conducting local-scale analyses and will use

these results, in conjunction with the regional-scale modeling, to support their 

attainment demonstrations for PM2.5.

• These findings of residual nonattainment for ozone and PM2.5 are supported by 

current (2005 – 2007) monitoring data which show significant nonattainment in 

the region (e.g., peak ozone design values on the order of 90 – 93 ppb, and peak 

PM2.5 design values on the order of 16 - 17 ug/m3). 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 likely) 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.

• The new PM2.5 24-hour standard 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 visibility improvement 

values in 2018 based on existing controls, including those in northern Michigan 

and some in the northeastern U.S. Visibility levels in 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.
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 PM2.5 and Regional Haze at Receptors in 

the Great Lakes Region”, Lake Michigan 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.

Blanchard, C.L., and S. Tanenbaum, 2003, “VOC and NOx 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 Effects of Changes in Sulfate, Ammonia, and 

Nitric Acid on Fine PM Composition at Monitoring Sites in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, 

Ohio, and Wisconsin, 2000-2002”, Report to LADCO, February 2004.

Blanchard, C.L., and S. Tanenbaum, 2005a, “Weekday/Weekend Differences in Ambient 

Concentrations of Primary and Secondary Air Pollutants in Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, DallasFort Worth, Denver, Houston, New York, Phoenix, Washington, and Surrounding Areas”, 

Prepared for National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL Project ES04-1, July 30, 2005.

Blanchard, C.L., and S. Tanenbaum, 2005b, “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, “Classification 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. Atmospheric Environment 41, 7127-7137

Cox, W.M, and S.-H. Chu, 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 Patterns 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 Northern 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 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, 2007a, “Modeling Weekend and Weekday Ozone in Southeast Michigan”, Draft Final 

Report, Prepared for National Renewable Energy Laboratory, July 30, 2007.

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

Environ, 2007c, “LADCO 2005 Commercial Marine Emissions”, 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 PM2.5: A GIS Analysis, Proc. 

AWMA 97th Annual Conf., Indianapolis, June 2004.

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

2007.

Kenski, D.M., 2007b, “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. 2008b, “Updated CART Analysis for Ozone through 2007”, January 30, 2008.
116

LADCO, 2005, “Meteorological Modeling Performance Summary for Applications to 

PM2.5/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, 2007c, “An Evaluation of an Annual 2005 MM5 Simulation to Support Photochemical 

and Emissions Modeling Applications”, January 10, 2007.

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

LADCO, 2008a, “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-wide 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. Ramsey, 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, March 4, 2008.

MRPO, 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, 2008, “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 Aerosol 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 Technology, Inc, August 5, 

2004.

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

STI-903520-2942-FR, Sonoma Technology, Inc. March 31, 2006.

STI, 2008, “Data Analysis and Source Apportionment of PM2.5 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 

Rule”, 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, 2006, “Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards”, September 2006 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html#ria2007)

EPA, 2007a, "Guidance for on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze”, EPA-454/B07-002, April 

2007. 

EPA, 2007b, “Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards”, EPA-452/R-07-008, July 2007

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html#ria2007)

EPA, 2007c, Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule, 72 FR 20586, 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 PM2.5 Modeling Results
Key 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 - OTB
Key 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 - OTB 2009 - Will Do
Key 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) 2012 - OTB 2018 - OTB
2005 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 Results
2005 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 Results
2005 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 PM2.5 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 Results
Site 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 0.8888
Site 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 0.8564
Site 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 0.8172
Site 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 0.8475
Site 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 II

Ozone Source Apportionment Modeling Results

















120

APPENDIX III

PM2.5 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, Michigan

2005 (Round 5)

2012 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)
Cincinnati, Ohio

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 IV

Haze Source Apportionment Modeling Results
Boundary Waters, Minnesota

2005 (Round 5)

2018 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)
Voyageurs, Minnesota

2005 (Round 5)

2018 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)
Seney, Michigan

2005 (Round 5)

2018 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)
Isle Royale, Michigan

2005 (Round 5)

2018 (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 emission estimates prepared for LADCO’s

latest (Base M) 2005 base year and 2008, 2009, 2012, and 2018 future year modeling. Base 

year emissions by state and source 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.

Additional 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 Emissions

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). 

Examination of multiple base years provides for a more complete technical assessment. All 

modeling was conducted in accordance with USEPA modeling guidelines (USEPA, 2007).

3
February 27, 2008

For on-road, ammonia, and biogenic sources, 2005 emissions were estimated by emission 

models. 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, 2007a). Specifically, the following versions of these emissions files were used:

MANE-VU: Version 3.1, WRAP: Pre2002d, CENRAP: Base F, and VISTAS: Base F. The 2005 

emissions were then estimated by linearly interpolating between the 2002 and 2009 emissions. 

Further discussion of the development of the 2005 base year emissions is provided below:

On-Road: 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 (Travel Demand 

Modeling [TDM] Transformation Tool) to provide input 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, Saturday, and Sunday (July 15 – 17 

and January 16 – 18) to produce link-specific, hourly emission estimates. A spatial 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 (right)

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 between 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 weekday, 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.

4
February 27, 2008

Off-Road: NMIM2005 was run by Grant Hetherington (Wisconsin DNR) to produce emissions 

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 

contractor 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 RPOs to produce 

weekday, Saturday, and Sunday emissions for each month.

Additional off-road sectors (i.e., commercial marine, aircraft, and railroads [MAR]) were handled 

separately. 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 previous 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 RPOs 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 LADCO States and, for the 

non-LADCO States, using emission files supplied by Alpine based on data from the other RPOs

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: The NEI shows this to be a large VOC 

emissions category in the LADCO States (i.e.., 50,000 TPY) USEPA 

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 Adhesives and Sealants nonpoint category (SCC 2460600000 - all 

adhesives and sealants).” (USEPA, 2007b) Consequently, this category was 

omitted from the 2005 regional emissions inventory.

5
February 27, 2008

Outdoor Wood Boilers: Over the past several years, the installation and 

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 category.

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 

RPOs 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/Saturday/Sunday 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-Ladco states, the annual EGUs emissions were 

replaced with the 2005 sum of hourly emissions for all 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 

RPOs to produce weekday, Saturday, and Sunday emissions for each month. EGUs were 

removed from this 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 Canadian 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 emission 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.

 

 

6
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 the 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 Base K, there 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 precursors of secondary PM2.5 organic carbon mass.

Figure 4. Isoprene emissions for Base M (left) v. Base K (right)

7
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. These annual

emissions were then adjusted by applying monthly temporal factors based on the processbased ammonia emissions model (http://www.conceptmodel.org/nh3/nh3_index.html). The 

model was run for the following list of model farms using 2002 meteorological 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., all LADCO states used the Wisconsin farm results). The following figure shows 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

01/03/0201/17/0201/31/0202/14/0202/28/0203/14/0203/28/0204/11/0204/25/0205/09/0205/23/0206/06/0206/20/0207/04/0207/18/0208/01/0208/15/0208/29/0209/12/0209/26/0210/10/0210/24/0211/07/0211/21/0212/05/0212/19/02

Date

NH3 emissions (Kg / day)

Daily Total - Dairy 55001

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

01/03/0201/17/0201/31/0202/14/0202/28/0203/14/0203/28/0204/11/0204/25/0205/09/0205/23/0206/06/0206/20/0207/04/0207/18/0208/01/0208/15/0208/29/0209/12/0209/26/0210/10/0210/24/0211/07/0211/21/0212/05/0212/19/02

Date

NH3 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

01/03/0201/17/0201/31/0202/14/0202/28/0203/14/0203/28/0204/11/0204/25/0205/09/0205/23/0206/06/0206/20/0207/04/0207/18/0208/01/0208/15/0208/29/0209/12/0209/26/0210/10/0210/24/0211/07/0211/21/0212/05/0212/19/02

Date

NH3 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

01/03/0201/17/0201/31/0202/14/0202/28/0203/14/0203/28/0204/11/0204/25/0205/09/0205/23/0206/06/0206/20/0207/04/0207/18/0208/01/0208/15/0208/29/0209/12/0209/26/0210/10/0210/24/0211/07/0211/21/0212/05/0212/19/02

Date

NH3 emissions (Kg / day)

Figure 5. Daily emissions for 2002 for various model farms

8
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 Iow 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 2003 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 

PM2.5 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).

9
February 27, 2008

Future Year Emissions

Complete emission inventories were developed for two future years: 2009 and 20181. 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. Additional emission reports are available on the LADCO website 

(http://64.27.125.175/tech/emis/r5/round5_reports.htm.

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 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 point sources (for which, the 2009 emissions 

were used).

10
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-LADCO 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 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 (E.H. Pechan, 2007):

On-Highway Mobile Sources

• Federal motor vehicle emission control program, low sulfur gasoline, 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 coatings

• 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 standards2

• Combustion turbine MACT

• Consent decrees (refineries, 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 the other four 

LADCO States.

11
February 27, 2008

• Other (Illinois and Ohio NOx RACT4, and BART in IN and WI)

Further discussion of the development of the future year emissions is provided below:

On-Road: Similar to the base year modeling, CONCEPT was run using transportation 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 25.

For the non-LADCO States, CONCEPT was run by Environ using HPMS county-level data and 

MOBILE6 inputs 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 analysis 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.

12
February 27, 2008

Table 2. Summary of On-road Emissions (TPD – 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 2,824.4 268.0 527.8 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 4,619.2 423.7 693.5 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 30.2 288,042,232.1

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

13
February 27, 2008

EGU Point: Future year emissions were based on EPA’s IPM3.0 modeling6. Three CAIR 

scenarios were addressed:

5a: EPA’s IPM3.0 was assumed 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).7

5c: EPA’s IPM3.0, 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).

Table 3 summarizes the SO2 and NOx emissions for the three scenarios. The individual 

facilities affected by the “will do” and “may do” adjustments are identified in Attachment 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 modeling 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 emissions 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 sensitivity 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 years 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.

EPA 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.

14
February 27, 2008

Table 4 provides information from USEPAs Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) on scrubber 

installation dates. This information is based on various sources, including company 

announcements, consent decrees, vendors, and organizations that track scrubber installations.

While there may be uncertainty in any projection of control installations, USEPA considers these 

adequate projections 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 PM2.5 air 

quality in the upper Midwest (see highlighting in Table 4). To reflect uncontrolled (2009) 

emissions 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.

15
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

16
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

OnlineYear

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 718 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 Greenidge LLC 2527_B_5 2527 5 26.5 2010

NorthCarolina Cliffside 2721_B_1 2721 1 38 2010

17
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 Cliffside 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

NorthCarolina 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 Sammis 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 Ferry 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 Keystone 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 Kingston 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 2010

Virginia Yorktown 3809_B_1 3809 1 159 2010

18
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

Pennsylvania Cheswick 11.53 103.98

Tennessee Kingston 41.15 155.20

19
February 27, 2008

References

Alpine Geophysics, 2007a, “Emissions Inventory Assistance: 2005 Base Year Biogenic and 

Other (non-LADCO) State Emissions, Preparation and Delivery of Non-MRPO 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 Midwest 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, 2007a, “LADCO 2005 Locomotive Emissions”, Draft, February 2007.

Environ, 2007b, “LADCO 2005 Commercial Marine Emissions”, Draft, March 2, 2007.

Environ, 2008, “LADCO On-Road Emission Inventory Development Using CONCEPT MV”, 

January 2008.

LADCO, 2006a, “Base K/Round 4 Strategy Modeling” 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, PM2.5, and Regional Haze”, EPA-454/B07-002, April 

2007. 

USEPA, 2007b, E-mail from Dennis Beauregard (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 Outdoor Wood Boiler Methodology”, PowerPoint 

presentation by Bart Sponseller, November 13, 2006.

20
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

21
February 27, 2008

ATTACHMENT 1

Emissions Summaries

22
VOC 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 234419 10263 10564 6581 5781 5928 5504 5280 539 727 723
February 27, 2008

ATTACHMENT 2

“Will Do” and “May Do” EGU Facility Emissions

24
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 Minnesota 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

 18 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 Alliant 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

25
February 27, 2008

------------------------------------------------------------ polid=SO2 --------------------------------------------------------

-----

 Obs cntryid stid cyid fcid name polid aceebase aceenew diff

 28 US 17 97 097190AAC MIDWEST GENERAT SO2 49.91 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 12.822

 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

26
February 27, 2008

2009 – Difference between “will do” (5b) and “may do” (5c) 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 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

27
Appendix I

Notice of Public Hearing &

Statement of Consideration
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 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 PM2.5

nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 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 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 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. 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 locations listed below. 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 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 disability an equal opportunity to participate in all services, programs, 

and activities. 

Ashland Regional Office Bowling Green Regional Office Florence Regional Office Frankfort Regional Office 

1550 Wolohan Drive, Suite 1 1508 Westen Avenue 8020 Veterans Mem Dr, Suite 110 200 Fair Oaks Ln., 3rd Floor 

Ashland, KY 41102-8942 Bowling Green, KY 42104-3356 Florence, KY 41042 Frankfort, KY 40601-1758 

Hazard Regional Office London Regional Office Owensboro Regional Office Paducah Regional Office 

233 Birch Street, Suite 2 875 S. Main Street 3032 Alvey Park Dr W, Suite 700 130 Eagle Nest Drive 

Hazard, KY 41701-2179 London, KY 40741 Owensboro, KY 42303-2191 Paducah, KY 42003-0823 

Boone County Clerk Campbell County Clerk Kenton County Clerk 

2950 Washington Street 1098 Monmouth Street 303 Court Street 

Burlington, KY 41005 Newport, KY 41071 Covington, KY 41011 

 

 
Thursday, November 11, 2010 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 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 PM2.5

nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 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 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 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.

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 locations listed below. 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 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 disability an equal opportunity to participate in all services, programs, and activities.

Ashland Regional Office Bowling Green Regional Office

1550 Wolohan Dr. Suite 1 1508 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 2 875 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 United States for the Selection of United States

Bankruptcy Judge Nominees, and the Procedures

of the Sixth Circuit Judicial Council for the Selection of Bankruptcy Judge Nominees, the Sixth Circuit Judicial Council received applications from

persons interested in appointment to the bankruptcy judge position in the Southern District of

Ohio, vice J. Vincent Aug.

A Merit Selection Panel considered all applications received and recommended the following

four candidates to the Sixth Circuit Judicial Council 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 position. Under the Act, the final selection of a person 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 qualifications of the above-four final nominees. Such

written comments must be received in the Office

of the Circuit Executive, 503 Potter Stewart United States Courthouse, 100 East Fifth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, no later than November 22,

2010.

Please contact Clarence Maddox, Circuit Executive, (513) 564-7200 for further information.

Issue date: November 8, 2010

REQUEST FOR

PROPOSAL

The Kenton County Airport Board (the “Board”), owner and operator

of the Cincinnati

/Northern Kentucky International Airport, is requesting competitive

proposals from interested parties to enter into

an agreement to operate

and manage an on demand taxicab service at

the Cincinnati/Northern

Kentucky International

LEGAL NOTICE

Queen City Self Storage,

4775 Red Bank Expressway, Cincinnati, Ohio

45227 (513) 271-5599,

Fax (513) 271-5645.

Sale November 23,

2010 at 10 A.M. Auction

conducted by Jerry Rogers. 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 Ellison Ave., Cinti, OH

45226 misc., household

items, building supplies,

Isabella Minnifield, 3185

Ferncrest Ct.#12, Cinti,

OH 45211 misc. household items; Michael F.

Paul, 5122 Kenwood

Rd, Cinti., OH 45227,

couches; Karmin Digby,

PO Box 36352, Cinti,

OH 45236, misc., household 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 documents 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 submitted no later than 2:00

P.M. (EST) on December

9, 2010. A pre-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,

Cincinnati /Northern

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 programs of the Department of Transportation,

hereby notifies all Proposers that it will affirmatively assure that disadvantaged business enterprises 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 reject any and all proposals, to waive any informality in any proposal,

and to negotiate with

the Proposer submitting

the proposal most favorable 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 described as household goods,

boxes, bags, clothing,

furniture, appliances,

bedding, mattresses,

toys, tools, bikes, luggage, trunks, personal

effects, equipment, office supplies, fixtures,

and business inventories.

Auction will take place

on 11/26/10 at 9:00 am

and continue from location to location in the sequence 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 Bowlin 636 Carlisle Ave.

45013 1329 Brian Howard Krieger 151

Timberhill Dr. Apt. H

45013 2301 R i c h ard

Bowling 1348 Carriage

Hill Ln. 45013 2421

Marissa Baker 132 Gordon Ave. 45013 3125

Billie Cox Jr. 2109 Fairfax

Ave. 45015 3507 Aimee

Blundell 1800 Eaton Ave.

Apt. 7 45013 4111 David 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, Lebanon, 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 Auction will take place on

11/29/10 at 9:00 am

and continue from location to location in the sequence 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 Alexandria Neal 4315 Harding 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 45205 4518

Inez Jackson PO Box

58690 45258 5353 Michael Alter 3415 Michigan Ave. #2 45208 5410

Pauletta Nixon 1197

Rulison Ave. 45238

American Self Storage

8100 Hamilton Ave,

Cincinnati, OH 45231

1120 Mooney & John75 legal

advertising

EQUAL HOUSING

OPPORTUNITY

All real estate advertising in this newspaper is subject to the Federal Fair Housing

Act of 1968 which makes it illegal to advertise any preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national 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 hereby informed that all dwellings advertised

in this newpaper are available on an equal

opportunity basis.

Kentucky Commission on HumanRights

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 Madeira. For more info please

call Dave @ 513-678-3995

Or 513-984-4450

GOSHEN LAKESHORE

Free rent. Will finance!

’95, 3BR, 2BA, vinyl/ shingle, great schls, lot rent

$299. 513-348-5232

117 mobile homes

and lots

WHITE OAK - 4br, 2.5ba,

2 stry, liv rm, din rm, 1st flr

fam, w/ wbfp, ovrd deck,

fncd yrd, 2 car 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 hours 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 Willis 1615 W. Kemper Rd.

45240 2133 Mooney &

Johnson LLC 5401 Bluebird 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 Davis 5986 Sunridge Dr.

45224 6017 Daniel Davis 5986 Sunridge Dr.

45224 6018 Daniel Davis 5986 Sunridge Dr.

45224 6107 A n t h ony

Brice 333 Forest Ave. #1

45229 8105 Henry Wallace 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 Wayne

Ave. 45215 5108 Monica 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 Lake Shore

Dr. Apt. 13 45237 8501

Gary Smith 701 Mulberry St. 45215American

Self Storage 525 W.

35TH St, Covington, KY

41015 2509 W i llia m

Luke 26 W 31st 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 Edward Bullock Jr. 2 West

30th St. 41015 3357 Jerry Dority 37 W 32nd 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 ENTERPRISE IN 127 beautiful

acres, will not divide,

PEACEFUL, 110

acre woods, 17 ac pasture,

2 stocked ponds, hunter’s

cabin, trails, 2 creeks,

$2900. per ac. 812-593-2948

147 farms/country

homes

NORRIS LAKE, TN .4BR ,

2 ba floating houses.

Large kitch & living area,

covered deck, attached

sundeck, slide & diving

board. Fully furnished.

937-623-1498 or view online at gonesouth.4t.com

140 resort

property/Sale

RICHWOOD - Steeplechase Sub. No steps, secure, intercom, 2 BR, 2 BA,

large closets, extra storage, appliances, fireplace,

1 car garage, overlooks

lake. 859-806-6236

120 condominiums

CLEVES

E. Miami River Rd.

2 BR, 2 BA with lot.

918-378-5210

117 mobile homes

and lots

100-297

Real Estate for Sale

Apartments for Sale 155

Auctions/Real Estate 191

Auctions/Personal Property 192

Condominiums 120

Farms/Country Homes 147

Homes, Indiana 110

Homes, Kentucky 105

Homes, Ohio 100

Industrial for Lease 175

Industrial for Sale 170

Investment Property 190

Land for Lease 165

Land for Sale/Commercial 160

Land Sale/Residential 150

Mobile Homes/Lots 117

Modular, Pre-cut Homes 130

Mortgages/RE Loans 124

Office Space/Lease 183

Office Space/Sale 185

Out-of-State Property 145

Real Estate Services 149

Real Estate Wanted 197

Resort Memberships 137

Resort Property/Sale 140

Retail for Lease 177

Retail for Sale 180

Real Estate for Rent

Apartments, Furnished 200

Apts-Houses to Share 215

Apartments Unfurnished 225

Condos for Rent 240

Condos-Rent/Option Buy 245

Corporate Rentals 222

Farms/Country Homes 285

Garages, Storage 260

Hotels/Motels 210

Houses for Rent 250

Houses-Lease/Option 255

Housing for the Disabled 230

Mobile Homes for Rent 235

Rental Services 259

Resorts/Cottages 290

Room and Board 275

Rooms for Rent 270

Senior Living 220

Wanted to Rent 297

YO U D ES ERV E

A JO B

A N DAH I G H-F IV E.

START BUILDING

© 2009 CareerBuilder, LLC. 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

Sycamore Total $149/wk

Frig, micro, lndry, cable,

free calls, bus line.

513-761-2575 Cinti, Oh.

$39.99 + tax

per night =

$159Wk + tax

for 1 person

Microwave-fridgephone-cable INDOOR

HEATED POOL,

Breakfast and BAR

I-75 at 2100 Dixie Hwy.

USA Hotel

859-331-1500

210 hotels

motels

NORWOOD - Furnished 1

BR, fl 3, incl heat, water &

elec, $450/mo. + $450 dep.

513-891-5601

MT AUBURN- 1&2rm

effic, all util furnished, $375

& $395, nr bus line, very

nice, 513-381-6690

Covington-2 Rm clean,

nicely furnished, parking

lndry, utils pd, refs $95/wk

$150 dep 859-581-3643

200 apartments,

furnished

2 Private COUNTRY CLUBS

East Loc. & Lrg Mbrshps

drive growth, buy 1 or both

Bill Sawyer 203-625-0900

190 investment

property

WESTSIDE

Newly remodeled.

4 rms. HVAC incl.

Ideal for Attorney,

Accountant, or

Sales Reps, etc.

513-451-3400

MONTGOMERY--CLASS

A Office space 500 sq. ft

with a private street entrance and foyer. Private

restroom. lg open office

area w/small office/ storage room & walk in closet

Unlimited parking and walk

up entrance wooded & secluded in private prof. office condo complex "Montgomery Station" $650/ mo +

shared gas/electric

Owner pays $325/month

condo assoc. fees & water. Call 543-4600

HAMILTON-- 633 High.

Close to downtown. Offices from 500-1100sf.

Ample parking. Heat & a/c

incl. 513-260-4185

Florence , KY

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 ON D - 15

acres, beautiful, private,

wildlife, rolling woods &

creek, water & electric, 15

mins from Downtown,

$135,000. 513-553-9750

5 Secluded 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 bd1ba farmhouse needs

TLC, $5,000 down, $658 mo

5 Ac. 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 OK.

513-520-1437/ 513-619-7922

BATAVIA

Willowbrook Apts

SPECIAL

Starting at $550/mo

w/1 year lease

& Security Dep. $99

2br, w/cpt, pool, lake view, blcny plygrd.

Section 8 accepted.

513-520-1437 or 513-619-7922

Corryville/ Mt. AuburnSecure, Clean, Quiet..

1Br $450.; 2Br $650.

ht /wtr incl. 513-861-6588

CORRYVILLE--

1 BR, Coin lndry No

Section; No pets. $475 +

dep + utils. 513-706-8864

CORRYVILLE- 1br, carpet,

equipped, busline, shopping, $350+G&E

513-281-2500/281-5555

COLL EGE HILL- 5400

Hamilton Ave. Deposit

special! 1 BR, 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/Excel, AC Included.

Kroger card giveaway!

513-481-2900

COLLEGE HILL- 1&2BR,

heat/wtr paid, laundry,

parking, a/c, equipt.

Sect. 8 ok. 513-615-0640.

Clifton, Avondale ,

Bond Hill, Roselawn,

Western Hills. 1-2BR

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

CLIFTON-1, 2 & 3 BR, newly

renovated, over 1000 sf ea,

$495-$695. Sect 8 ok, free

wash/dry. 513-444-7712

Cheviot- 1 BR Lg dlx Davis

Ave. D/W, crpt, balc,

ht/wtr, sec. w/caretaker.

No Sec 8. $495. Dep. Special w/refs. 513-661-2143

CHEVIOT- 1 BR,

$405/mo. Heat/water paid.

Newly remodeled. Sorry,

no dogs. Also Eff, $325. all

utils incl. 513-235-7972

BON D HILL- 4848 Reading Rd. Nice 1 BR apts

$475/mo, all utils incl, deposit special. 937-281-0858

BOND HIL L- 1st month

RENT FREE. Newly remod

lg 2BR, 2nd fl of 2 fam. Wtr

pd. $625/mo, 513-417-4932

AVONDALE

Virginia Woods Apts,

1, 23&4BR, 1st month

free with full deposit.

Section 8 ready, newly

remod, new lndry

facility, all utils incl.

Call today for specials!

513-344-0097

937-281-0858

AVONDALE- 1&2BR,

heat & water paid, equipped kitchen, Section 8 ok.

513-961-2482

ALL AREAS - effcy, 1, 2, 3,

&4BR, newly remod,

equipt, W/D, gar, some

ht/wtr pd, Sec 8 ok, Movein Special! 513-453-4713

225 apartments,

unfurnished

HOUSE TO SHARE

New finished LL, separate

entrance, 2BR, full kitchen

& bath, 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 / frig, 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

Lincoln Hts -Centennial

1, 2&3BR Apts; 3&4BR

Twnhses - Immed. Occup.

1st Month RENT FREE!

513-733-4700 EHO

LAKESIDE PARK--10 E.

Lakeside Ave. 2 BR, 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&2BR starting at $400,

Sect 8 Acpt.

513-520-1437/619-7922

Hyde Park - Effic $350/mo

1BR $550/mo. 2BR $750/mo

Jackson Advisory Group

513-602-2469

HARTWELL- 1br + den,

hdwd flrs, fully equipt, d/w,

nwr appl, off st prkng,

lndry, wtr pd, no pets,

$530/mo, 513-821-3555

FT THOMAS -1BR, 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 & WATER PAID.

a/c, d/w, microwave.

Deposit special! $595.

513-829-0007, 513-779-1730

Fairfield Best Landlord!

Newer 2 BR condos and

townhomes starting at

$750. $40 app fee. Call for

specials! 513-870-9228

FAIRFIELD. 5467 Southgate Blvd, Apt 4

2 BR, $485. Deposit

Special! 513-703-0534

FAIRFIELD- 2 BR, 2 BA,

gas heat, dlx kit w/micwv,

W/D hkup, $635 & up +

dep, no pets. 513-868-7082

FAIRFIELD -1st Mo Rent

Special. Dep starting at

$200- lg 1& 2 BR $460-$550

513-858-1444; 349-8899

ERLANGER

Large 1&2BR’s

AC, free heat & water.

$470-$545. 859-342-5444

ERLANGER, KY 1 & 2BR,

avail. Start $500. Sec 8 accept. No deposit req’d

859-727-2256. TDD 7-1-1 .

Ashcraft Real Estate Services, Inc EHO ∫

ELMWOOD PL. / Hasler

Units w/crpt, ceiling fan;

eqp kit; heat pd.

1BR $400. Sect 8 ok.

513-520-1437, 513-619-7922

Eastgate, Nr--Special

$99 dep. 2 BD, C/A, pool,

$499. 2 BD $585, Cats ok,

ex w/dhkup. 513-753-6191

EASTGATE

1Br, heat, water, sewer,

& trash paid. $375 a mo. +

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 OV IN GTON -- Wallace

Woods. 1st flr 1BR 2nd flr

2BR, Equipped kit, W/D,

fenced yard, 614-851-9119

COVINGTON- Very nice 2

BR, nice hdwd flrs, c/a &

ht, lots of upgrades, w/d

hkup. $600. 859-428-0159

225 apartments,

unfurnished

Price Hill /West -- Westridge Apts

2BR’s from $500

Air, eqpt kit, ht pd, all units w/crpt.

Section 8 OK

513-520-1437 or 513-619-7922

Is there any better way to

advertise? Call

513-421-6300

to place your ad.

St. Bernard/ Elmwood

Lrg 1Br in 2 family, hdwd

flrs, eqpt & eat in kitch, off

St pkg, nr 75 & bus, $485 +

util, Sec 8 ok, 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 central air sec 8 ok no dogs

7875 Reading Rd. 227-7280

ROSELAWN-2BR,

new crpt, c/a, w/d hkup,

$625/mo + sec dep. & utils.

Sec 8 okay 513-870-0883

PRICE HILL Upper- 2 BR,

balc, $495. Covedale-1 BR,

balc, $400. Heat/water included. 513-451-3191

Price Hill --SPACIOUS

1&2BR, Equipt kitchen,

laundry, prkg $300-$400

$130 dep. 513-277-9854

Price Hill New 1&2BR

"Leaves aren’t the

only thing falling!"

Rent starting @ $400!

513-251-0551 M-F 9-5

PRICE HILL-- 1&2BR,

w/d hkup, cent. heat & air,

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 BR, equipt, carpet, a/c,

storage, gar, heat/wtr pd,

$525 + dep, 513-841-0331

PARK HILLS-- Nice 2BR,

$495. Includes heat & water. Section 8 ok. 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 BR Apts, 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 BR, heat/

wtr pd, crpt, balc, eqpt kit,

lndry, on-site mgr, no pets

$580 513-542-0848 851-9887

NORTHSIDE1 BR ($380), free ht,

2br ($450), + ht, w/w carp,

eqpt kit, a/c, lndry, prkg,

water pd. No pets or sec 8,

513-574-6011

NORTHSIDE- 1&2BR,

heat & water paid, equipped kit, parking, elevator.

Sect. 8 app. 513-961-2482

N. C ollege Hill North

Creek Apts . Lg. fully

eqpt, crpt, balc, pool.

Heat pd. 1br $480+,

2br 1.5ba $600+ Move

in special 521-5800

N Avondale - NEW

renov 2 BR nr XU/ hosp.

Rent now-get 1 mo free

& flat screen 513-569-9999

MT. WASHINGTON -1 &

2BR balc, ht/wtr, quiet,

$435-$545. No pets

231-8690

MT. AIRY - Large 1BR &

2BR; 1⁄2 block to all stores.

Starting at $350 - $450.

Heat and water paid.

Let us help you!

513-376-7167, 631-0072

MT. AIRY- 2&3BR’s, ht

& wtr pd balc, lndry, prkg,

1 MO FREE TO QUALIFYING TENANTS. 681-5333

MT. AIRY- 1, 2&3 BR’s,

heat & water paid, lndry,

prkg, starting $490/mo.

Sec. 8 ok. 513-309-2469

MILFORD 1 MO FREE

Large 1&2BR eqpt kit

cable ready $395-$495. Nr

Rt 28 & I-275. 513-831-6970

225 apartments,

unfurnished

225 apartments,

unfurnished

Call 513-421-6300 or visit

www.cincinnati.com to

place your classified ad.

COVINGTON-- 4 BR, 2

BA, $750 + dep & utils. 2

BR apt $485+dep & utils. .

859-750-0515/859-380-9067

COVINGTON- 2, 3&4 BR

houses, $575, $675 & $775.

Plus utilities. Section 8 ok.

859-912-2351.

COLLEGE HILL-- 2BR,

1BA, hdwd flrs, fireplace,

updated kitchen, 1 car

garage, $800. 513-256-8320

COLERAIN- 3 BR, 1.5 BA,

Bi level, equipt kit, c/a, FP,

2 car gar, deck, $925 + dep,

513-319-6415

250 houses for

rent

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 BR, 2.5

ba townhome, bsmt., eat-in

kit $750. 2 BR, 2.5 BA, 1 car

garage, $825. 513-752-2888

EASTGATE- 1 BR $475

2 BR $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

+ dep, 513-677-8858

Beechmont Nr 275. Luxury 2-3 Br townhm, 2.5 ba,

eqpt kit, utility rm, gar,

From $850. 513-260-1840

240 condos for

rent

WINTON PLACE- 1 & 2

BR, $350 & up, water paid,

a/c, w/w crpt, eqpt kit,

513-615-0640.

WHITE OAK- 1 BR,

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 BR,

eqpt kit, w/w carpet,

heat/water incl. $540-

$565/mo 513-379-2419

Westwood -2 BR, 4 fam,

hdwd, a/c, ceil fans, sec

sys, gar, ht pd $399 Move

in Spec. No dep 553-1195

Westwood-1 & 2 BR, heat

& water paid, equipped

kitchen. Section 8 ok, a/c.

513-481-2400

Westwood -1, 2 BR&Eff

from $295 Section 8

OK. Lndry. 1st mo $99.

No app fee. 513-826-6851

WESTERN HILLS -

lrg 1br, newly remod, clean

& quiet, $385 & up, call for

description, 513-481-0339

WESTERN HILLS -

clean 2br, 2 family, equipt,

off st prkng, $530/mo,

513-659-1341

treicoproperties@

gmail.com

WEST END-Parktown

Co-Op. Studio, 1, 2&3BR

Accepting applications

M-F, 7:30-4p. 513-721-6080

WEST CHESTER - 2br,

2 full 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 ok. By appt

only, 513-382-2672

WALNUT HILLS-2 BR

starts at $450/mo + dep.

Sec. bldg, No appl. fee.

Voucher OK, on busline,

wtr incL. 513-979-5395

WALNUT HILLS-- 1BR,

fully equipped. New carpet

& hardwood floors. A/C.

Very nice. 513- 253-8581

225 apartments,

unfurnished
(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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 Drive, Florence, Kentucky. Written comments 

were received during the public comment period. 

The following individuals from the Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection 

Cabinet attended the public hearing and drafted responses to comments received during 

the public review period. 

 John Gowins, Environmental Control Supervisor Division for Air Quality 

 Susan Weaver, Internal Policy Analyst III* Division for Air Quality 

 * Agency moderator 

Response to Comments for the proposed revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to 

redesignate Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties as attainment for the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for annual PM2.5 . 

1. Comment: Please update that maximum available control technology (MACT) 

controls section on page 22 to reflect the current status of the EPA MACT rule for the 

industrial boiler and process heater reciprocating internal combustion engines. As 

written, it may appear that the reductions from these sources where <sic> relied upon 

with redesignation inventories. 

(Lynorae Benjamin, U.S. EPA)

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment. 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 inventory but the specific data for the Kentucky counties do not 
2 

appear to be presented. Please include a listing 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, and for all years, see Table 25 (PM2.5), Table 26 (NOx), 

and Table 27 (SO2).

3. Comment: EPA notes that the air quality design value for the monitor with site ID 39-

061-0014 in Hamilton, Ohio was 15.04 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3

). There is no 

margin for increase since the monitor just meets the 15.0 μg/m3 standard. For the final 

rulemaking, please provide additional information 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 particulate data thru December 31, 2010 is not yet 

available. Although the Ohio monitor shows 15.04 μg/m3

, 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 the projections do not 

appear to include the impacts of the economic downturn. In particular, please document 

whether vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimates used to calculate mobile source 

emissions for 2008 do not over predict utilization to assure that they 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 Model used by OKI has 

been validated by U.S. EPA as explained in the OKI documentation contained in 

Appendix E. 

5. Comment: To further support the maintenance plan, EPA recommends that Kentucky 

considers including information of the sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions in the Ohio and 

Indiana portions of this nonattainment area regarding permanent and enforceable 

emissions reductions that are expected to occur, 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 comment. Emissions information for 

EGUs in the Ohio and Indiana portions of the 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 obtained 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 PM2.5 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 discussion on the conditions, causes and 

variations of PM2.5 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 PM2.5 formation. Referencing the large 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 is redundant and negates the usefulness of cited 

reference material. 

8. Comment: The reductions from the federal and local measures should be presented on 

pages 14-21. These pages as presented in the attainment SIP need to be modified and 

reorganized for a redesignation SIP. There should be two sections that discuss controls: 

(a) controls that led to attainment (a list of controls, reductions and affected precursors 

would be ideal); and (b) controls 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 inventory” 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 PM2.5 since volatile organic compounds are not 

presumed precursor for the PM2.5 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 reasonably 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 PM2.5 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 nonattainment area emission inventories for SO2, NOx, and 

PM2.5 are expected to decline through 2021. 

(Lynorae Benjamin, U.S. EPA)

Response: The Cabinet acknowledges this comment. Kentucky lists “Projection 

Totals” by pollutant/emission source category for the entire KY Portion of the 

nonattainment area Tables 25 (PM2.5)-26 (NOx)-27 (SO2) 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 comment. There were no permit 

revocations in this area, and the plant 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 the designation of the Area 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 controls 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 recommend deleting the references to modeling and 

other revisions throughout the redesignation 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 typographical 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 PM2.5 has been added.