# Appendix L:

Attainment Testi 

## Table of Contents

List of Figures

............................................................................................................................. ii



## List of Tables

.............................................................................................................................. . ii

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

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

2.1 Determine Baseline Design Values ...................................................................................... 1 2.1.1 Mean PM2.5 Baseline Design Values ........................................................................... 2 2.1.2 Speciated Baseline Conditions ....................................................................................... 4

2.1.2.1. SANDWICH.................................................................................4 2.1.2.2. Speciated Profile............................................................................5 2.2 Relative Response Factor Calculation .................................................................................. 8 2.3. Future Year Quarterly Concentration Calculation ............................................................. 10 2.4. Future Year Annual Average Estimate .......................................................................... 1211

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

3.1 Additional Air Quality Modeling........................................................................................ 13 3.1.1 Air Quality Modeling Metrics ..................................................................................... 13 3.1.2 Other Modeling Results ............................................................................................... 17 3.1.2.1 Ohio and Indiana Modeling......................................................... ...18 3.2 Air Quality and Emission Trends Analysis ........................................................................ 19 3.3 Supplemental Analysis Conclusions ................................................................................... 21

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

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

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

## List of Figures

Figure 3-1: Louisville area for which the air quality metrics were applied.............................14 Figure 3-2: NKY area for which the ai r quality metrics were applied...................................14 Figure 3-3: Ashland area for which the air quality metrics were applied.............................14 Figure 3-4: Percentage of Cell in Nonattainment Areas within C oncentration Categories for 2002

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 2-9: Estimated Annual Mean 2 009 PM2.5 Mass Compared to the DVB ........................... 12

Table 3-1: Number of Cells within Concentration Bins. Increases (decreas es) in the number of cells within the bins are noted by red (b lue) coloration in the last column. ................................. 17

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

Table 3-3: Summary of L ADCO 2009 Design Values.................................................. 19 Table 3-4: Annual Average PM2.5 valu es for the past 8 years. ................................................... 20

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

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

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

defined. 241 

### 1 Attainment Demonstration

This Appendix summarizes the procedures that were used to demonstrate attainment of the annual fine particulate matter (P M2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in this State Implementation Plan (SIP) package. As described in the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Guidance On The Use Of M odels And Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze (“ Attainment

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

selected emissions reductions will result in ambi ent concentrations that meet the NAAQS, and (b) an identified set of control measures which will result in the required emissions reductions. The necessary emission reductions for both of th ese attainment demonstration components may be determined by relying on results obtained with air quality models.

Section 3.0 of the Attainment Guidance recommends applying both a modeled attainment test and a subsequent screening test to the air qua lity modeling results to determine if the annual PM2.5 NAAQS will be met. Additi onal technical or corroboratory an alyses may also be used as part of a “supplemental analysis” or a more st ringent “weight of evidence” determination to supplement the modeled attainment test and to further support a demonstration of attainment of the NAAQS.

The modeled attainment test, additional corrobora tive analyses and weight of evidence, and unmonitored area analysis are described in furt her detail in the remaining portions of this Appendix, detailing how the respective test or analysis was performed and applied to the

attainment demonstration.

2 Model Attainment Test

The purpose of a modeling assessment determin e if control strategies currently being implemented and proposed control strategies will lead to attainment of the NAAQS for PM2.5 by the attainment year of 2009. Th e modeling is applied in a relativ e sense, similar to the 8-hour
ozone attainment test. However, the PM2.5 attainment test is mo re complicated and reflects the

fact that PM2.5 is a mixture.

In the test, ambient PM2.5 is divided into majo r components, with a separate relative response factor (RRF) and future design value (DVF) calculated for each of the PM2.5 components. Since the attainment test is calculated on a per species basis, the attainment test for PM2.5 is referred to as the Speciated Modeled Attainment Test (SMAT). The fo llowing sections outline the process to determine 2009 projections of PM2.5 will meet the NAAQS from regional modeling, as suggested in the US EPA’s Attainment Guidance.

2.1 Determine Baseline Design Values

The first step in any attainment test process is to determine the baseline design value (DVB). In
the Attainment Guidance, the US EPA recommends using a DVB that is the average of the three design value periods that stradd le the baseline inventory year (e.g., the average of the 2000-2002, 2001-2003, and 2002-2004 design value periods for a 2002 baseline inventory year). This works2 

### out to a 5-year weighted average, with the base line year having the heav iest weight (e.g. {[2000] + 2*[2001] + 3*[2002] + 2*[ 2003] + [2004]}/9).

For the SMAT process, a mean PM2.5 DVB is de termined, as well as component specific DVB for each quarter. The following section will detail the calculation of baseline design values

needed for the PM2.5 attainment test.

2.1.1 Mean PM2.5 Baseline Design Values

To begin the SMAT process, a mean PM2.5 DVB is calculated on a quarterly basis for each Federal Reference Method (FRM) monitor in th e PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Concentrations are calculated based on calendar quarters (Q1: January - March; Q2: April - June; etc.) as the NAAQS is calculated for a calendar year, and the quart ers need to fit evenly within a year. Also, calculating the attainment test on a quarterly basis allows states to examine the differences in PM2.5 composition that occur durin g the different seasons.

Table 2-1 contains the quarterly average PM2.5 concentration for the FRM monitors in the nonattainment areas. This quarterly data was then averaged, using the weighted scheme suggested by the US EPA, to produce a 5-year weighted DVB. In the case of the Jefferson County FRM site (37th, 21-111-0043), there is less than 5 years of data available, as the 2001 site data is available only for the first quarter. Per the Attainment Guidance, when only 3 years

of data are available at a site , the baseline design value is th en based on a single three-year design value. However, since there are four y ears of data for first quarter, then the baseline design value is based on an average of two desi gn value periods (2001-2003 and 2002-2004). Table 2-2 presents the final mean PM 2.5 DVBs for the nonattainment areas.

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

Nonattainment Areas

Table 2

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

Areas

AIRS ID County Site Name Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

21

‐ 019

‐ 0017 Boyd Ashland 2000 13.667 16.438 17.514 15.026

2001 13.370 15.519 21.028 11.169

2002 12.003 17.886 21.586 10.689

2003 12.393 13.116 19.393 10.826

2004 11.419 13.004 17.903 10.850

21

‐ 029

‐ 0006 Bullitt Shepherdsville 2000 15.644 15.478 19.037 15.555

2001 15.557 15.979 19.890 10.793

2002 11.572 15.450 20.657 11.090

2003 12.924 13.743 20.300 10.529

2004 11.610 13.663 18.104 11.118

21

‐ 037

‐ 0003 Campbell 2000 13.650 15.634 15.177 15.900

2001 15.750 14.711 14.035 9.257

2002 11.355 15.313 21.912 10.6503 2003 12.256 13.270 18.216 9.938

2004 11.266 12.797 16.567 10.467

21

‐ 117

‐ 0007 Kenton 2000 14.842 16.519 17.126 16.534

2001 16.352 15.141 19.321 10.197

2002 10.830 14.948 22.178 12.287

2003 13.688 14.058 18.940 10.500

2004 11.789 13.261 17.858 10.771

21

‐ 111

‐ 0043 Jefferson 2000 15.022 15.753 20.863 17.584

2001 17.104 x x x

2002 12.042 16.414 26.403 13.797

2003 14.590 16.314 20.870 12.049

2004 12.540 14.542 18.047 12.989

21

‐ 111

‐ 0044 Jefferson Beecher 2000 15.028 15.660 19.047 16.982

2001 17.258 16.564 22.915 14.199

2002 12.135 17.633 26.466 13.570

2003 14.696 15.052 20.171 11.591

2004 12.427 13.499 17.766 12.499

21

‐ 111

‐ 0048 Jefferson Barret 2000 14.680 16.435 19.319 16.387

2001 16.609 16.120 21.941 12.950

2002 10.935 16.000 25.308 13.460

2003 13.932 14.629 21.273 12.296

2004 10.838 13.852 18.207 11.948

21

‐ 111

‐ 0051 Jefferson Watson 2000 13.810 17.387 18.763 17.236

2001 15.357 15.213 21.067 13.450

2002 11.080 17.878 20.938 13.000

2003 13.479 14.873 20.847 10.485

2004 11.050 12.187 16.706 10.593



### Table 2-2: Observed Quarterly Mean PM 2.5 DVB for Monitors in the Kentucky

Nonattainment Areas

Table 2

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

AIRS ID County Site Name 2000

‐ 2004

Q1 2000

‐ 2004

Q2 2000

‐ 2004

Q3 2000

‐ 2004

Q4

21

‐ 019

‐ 0017 Boyd Ashland 12.0 15.1 19.6 10.8

21

‐ 029

‐ 0006 Bullitt Shepherdsville 12.7 14.5 19.4 10.9

21

‐ 037

‐ 0003 Campbell 12.3 14.0 17.5 10.2

21

‐ 117

‐ 0007 Kenton 12.7 14.3 19.3 11.2

21

‐ 111

‐ 0043 Jefferson 13.6 15.6 22.5 13.4

21

‐ 111

‐ 0044 Jefferson Beecher 13.7 15.6 22.0 13.0

21

‐ 111

‐ 0048 Jefferson 12.8 15.0 21.7 12.7

21

‐ 111

‐ 0051 Jefferson Watson 12.4 15.4 19.7 12.24 

### 2.1.2 Speciated Baseline Conditions

The monitored attainment test for PM2.5 utilizes both PM2.5 and individual PM2.5 component species. A separate RRF is calculated for each PM2.5 species. In order to perform the
recommended modeled attainment test, States should divide observed mass concentrations of

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

1. Mass associated with sulfates (SO4)

2. Mass associated with nitrates (NO3)

3. Mass associated with ammonium (NH4)

4. Mass associated with organic carbon (OC)

5. Mass associated with elemental carbon (EC)

6. Mass associated with pa rticle bound water (PBW)

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

8. And passively collected mass or th e mass of the blank filter (0.5 μ g/m 3 

### )

The second part of the process is to use th e quarterly mean PM2.5 DVBs (as calculated in Section 2.1.1) with speciated data to calculate the qua rterly mean concentrations of these 7 components at the FRM sites. This need to speciate the FRM data presents two issues:

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

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

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

values needed for this at tainment demonstration.

2.1.2.1 SANDWICH

As the Attainment Guidance notes, recent data analyses (Frank, 2006) have noted that the FRM monitors do not measure the same components and do not retain all of the PM2.5 that is measured by routine speciation samplers and theref ore cannot be directly compared to speciation measurements from the Speciation Trends Network (STN). By design, the FRM mass

measurement does not retain all ammonium nitrat e and other semi-volatile materials (negative sampling artifacts) and includes pa rticle bound water associated with sulfates, nitrates and other hygroscopic species (positive sampling artifacts). This results in concentrations (and percent contributions to PM2.5 mass), which may be differe nt than the ambient levels of some PM2.5

chemical constituents.

To resolve the differences between FRM and STN total mass, the US EPA has recommended using the “sulfate, adjusted nitrate, derived water, inferred carbonaceous material balance approach” or SANDWICH approach. With the SANDWHICH approach, nitrate mass is adjusted to account for volatili zation based on hourly meteorology parameters. Subsequently, quarterly average nitrate, sulfat e, elemental carbon, and crustal ma ss can be calculated, as well as the Degree of Neutralization (DON) of sulfates. Quarterly averag e NH4 can then be calculated from adjusted the adjusted nitrate mass, sulfat e mass, and DON of sulfate. Next the mass of5 

### particle bound water can be calcula ted from the previously obtaine d DON, sulfate, nitrate, and ammonium values. Finally, orga nic carbon is calculated by taking the di fference between the

total PM2.5 mass as measured at the FRM monitor, and the calcul ated component mass (i.e. OC from mass balance ([OCMmb]) = PM2.5 FRM 

### - {[EC] + [SO4] + [NO3] + [NH4] + [water] + [crustal material] + [passive mass]}).

2.1.2.2 Speciated Profiles

While the SANDWICH method reconciles the di fferences between FRM and STN, a lingering issue is not all FRM monitoring sites have co-lo cated STN monitors to provide speciated data. The US EPA Attainment Guidance suggests four meas ures that can be taken to resolve the lack of speciated data:

1. Use of concurrent data from a nearby speciated monitor

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

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

4. Use of interpolation technique s to create spatial fields, a nd gridded modeling outputs to adjust the species concentrations

Of the four methodologies, the US EPA recomme nds using one of the spatial interpolation techniques to estimate species concentrations at FRM sites that do not have speciation data (numbers 3 and 4 above). To assist in this ta sk, the EPA is developing software tool called “Modeled Attainment Test Software” (or MATS) that will perform the spatial analysis of described options number 3 and 4. However, th e PM2.5 portion of the MATS tool has not been released at this time. In trying to pursue the US EPA recommended course, we have used the speciated profiles from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) SMAT tool, which is the predecessor for the MATS program , as an alternative.

The CAIR SMAT tool uses data from both the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) and the US EPA’s Speciation Network (ESPN) to derive mean concentrations for six PM2.5 components. Quar terly average concentrations between Jan 2002

to December 2002 were retained for sites that had at least 11 monitored values per quarter for each of the major PM2.5 species. Major specie s for ESPN include EC , OC, NH4, SO4, NO3, and crustal material (whi ch includes the five tr ace elements aluminum, calcium, iron, silicon, and titanium). The major species for IMPROVE are th e same except for NH4, which is not routinely measured in the IMPROVE protocol.

The quarterly averaged species concentrations at the IMPROVE and ESPN monitors were used to interpolate concentrations at the PM2.5 FRM monitoring sites us ing a technique called Voronoi Neighbor Averaging (VNA). Attachment L1 to this a ppendix contains the document “Procedures for Estimating Future PM2.5 Values fo r the CAIR Final Rule by Application of the (Revised) Speciated Modeled Attainment Test (S MAT) Updated- 11/8/04” , which describes the interpolation process, and the data speciation proce ss in detail.

As a result of the CAIR SMAT process, quarter ly species fraction were generated for the FRM site, which are presented in Tabl e 2-3 below. These fractions we re then applied to Observed6 

### Quarterly Mean PM2.5 values ca lculated in Section 2.1.1 to determine quarterly component specific concentrations. Table 2-4 shows the quarterly DVBs for crustal, EC, OC, SO4, NO3,
NH4 and PBW assuming a constant passive mass of 0.5 μ g/m 3



### .

Table 2

‐ 3: Quarterly Species Fractions from the CAIRS SMAT Tool

AIRS

ID County Site Name Blank

Mass Qtr DON Frac

Crustal Frac

EC Frac

OC Frac

SO4 Frac

NO3 Frac

NH4 Frac

H2O

21

‐
019

‐
0017 Boyd Ashland 0.50 1 0.2938 0.0374 0.0722 0.3484 0.3086 0.0435 0.1033 0.0867

2 0.3006 0.0339 0.0380 0.3266 0.3750 0.0006 0.1129 0.1130

3 0.2532 0.0204 0.0256 0.3491 0.4140 0.0005 0.1050 0.0854

4 0.2791 0.0353 0.1040 0.2216 0.3494 0.0775 0.1200 0.0922

21

‐
029

‐
0006 Bullitt Shepherdsville 0.50 1 0.3151 0.0316 0.0415 0.2883 0.3098 0.1075 0.1288 0.0925

2 0.3527 0.0495 0.0435 0.3472 0.3231 0.0007 0.1142 0.1219

3 0.3027 0.0407 0.0322 0.3116 0.3820 0.0005 0.1158 0.1172

4 0.3322 0.0353 0.0547 0.2156 0.2842 0.1756 0.1453 0.0892

21

‐
037

‐
0003 Campbell NKU 0.50 1 0.3108 0.0313 0.0470 0.3133 0.2920 0.1078 0.1220 0.0865

2 0.3513 0.0371 0.0405 0.3270 0.3436 0.0014 0.1211 0.1294

3 0.2841 0.0304 0.0355 0.2873 0.4157 0.0005 0.1182 0.1125

4 0.3310 0.0335 0.0561 0.1863 0.2887 0.1928 0.1515 0.0911

21

‐
117

‐
0007 Kenton Covington 0.50 1 0.3108 0.0329 0.0494 0.2784 0.3069 0.1133 0.1282 0.0909

2 0.3513 0.0381 0.0415 0.3099 0.3523 0.0014 0.1241 0.1326

3 0.2841 0.0300 0.0351 0.2960 0.4106 0.0005 0.1168 0.1112

4 0.3310 0.0314 0.0526 0.2373 0.2706 0.1807 0.1420 0.0854

21

‐
111

‐
0043 Jefferson 37th 0.50 1

2

3

4

21

‐
111

‐
0044 Jefferson Beecher 0.50 1 0.3171 0.0301 0.0413 0.3205 0.2931 0.1040 0.1231 0.0880

2 0.3550 0.0397 0.0321 0.4402 0.2807 0.0006 0.0998 0.1068

3 0.3021 0.0308 0.0243 0.4651 0.2981 0.0004 0.0902 0.0911

4 0.3368 0.0298 0.0451 0.3154 0.2464 0.1568 0.1285 0.0780

21

‐
111

‐
0048 Jefferson Barret 0.50 1 0.3171 0.0335 0.0460 0.2423 0.3268 0.1160 0.1373 0.0982

2 0.3550 0.0439 0.0355 0.3812 0.3103 0.0006 0.1104 0.1181

3 0.3021 0.0322 0.0254 0.4402 0.3120 0.0004 0.0944 0.0954

4 0.3368 0.0301 0.0455 0.3096 0.2485 0.1582 0.1295 0.0786

21

‐
111

‐
0051 Jefferson Watson 0.50 1 0.3161 0.0331 0.0406 0.2659 0.3204 0.1106 0.1334 0.0961

2 0.3534 0.0426 0.0357 0.4336 0.2814 0.0006 0.0996 0.1066

3 0.3033 0.0465 0.0298 0.3097 0.3807 0.0005 0.1156 0.1172

4 0.3309 0.0328 0.0456 0.2946 0.2584 0.1568 0.1310 0.08097 Table 2

‐ 4: Quarterly PM2.5 Component

‐ Specific DVB for Monitors in the Kentucky Nonattainment Area

AIRS ID County Site Name Qtr FRM

Mass Blank

Mass Non

‐ Blank

Mass Crustal EC OC SO4 NO3 NH4 PBW

21

‐ 019

‐

0017 Boyd Ashland 1 12.01 0.5 11.51 0.04 0.07 0.35 0.31 0.04 0.1 0.09

2 15.1 0.5 14.6 0.03 0.04 0.33 0.38 0.00 0.11 0.11

3 19.61 0.5 19.11 0.02 0.03 0.35 0.41 0.00 0.1 0.09

4 10.83 0.5 10.33 0.04 0.1 0.22 0.35 0.08 0.12 0.09

21

‐ 029

‐

0006 Bullitt Shepherdsville 1 12.72 0.5 12.22 0.03 0.04 0.29 0.31 0.11 0.13 0.09

2 14.49 0.5 13.99 0.05 0.04 0.35 0.32 0.00 0.11 0.12

3 19.44 0.5 18.94 0.04 0.03 0.31 0.38 0.00 0.12 0.12

4 10.9 0.5 10.4 0.04 0.05 0.22 0.28 0.18 0.15 0.09

21

‐ 037

‐

0003 Campbell NKU 1 12.28 0.5 11.78 0.03 0.05 0.31 0.29 0.11 0.12 0.09

2 13.98 0.5 13.48 0.04 0.04 0.33 0.34 0.00 0.12 0.13

3 17.5 0.5 17 0.03 0.04 0.29 0.42 0.00 0.12 0.11

4 10.25 0.5 9.75 0.03 0.06 0.19 0.29 0.19 0.15 0.09

21

‐ 117

‐

0007 Kenton Covington 1 12.75 0.5 12.25 0.03 0.05 0.28 0.31 0.11 0.13 0.09

2 14.28 0.5 13.78 0.04 0.04 0.31 0.35 0.00 0.12 0.13

3 19.28 0.5 18.78 0.03 0.04 0.3 0.41 0.00 0.12 0.11

4 11.23 0.5 10.73 0.03 0.05 0.24 0.27 0.18 0.14 0.09

21

‐ 111

‐

0043 Jefferson 37th 1 13.62 0.5 13.12

2 15.57 0.5 15.07

3 22.51 0.5 22.01

4 13.35 0.5 12.85

21

‐ 111

‐

0044 Jefferson Beecher 1 13.7 0.5 13.2 0.03 0.04 0.32 0.29 0.10 0.12 0.09

2 15.64 0.5 15.14 0.04 0.03 0.44 0.28 0.00 0.1 0.11

3 21.99 0.5 21.49 0.03 0.02 0.47 0.3 0.00 0.09 0.09

4 13.03 0.5 12.53 0.03 0.05 0.32 0.25 0.16 0.13 0.08

21

‐ 111

‐

0048 Jefferson Barret 1 12.77 0.5 12.27 0.03 0.05 0.24 0.33 0.12 0.14 0.1

2 15.03 0.5 14.53 0.04 0.04 0.38 0.31 0.00 0.11 0.12

3 21.71 0.5 21.21 0.03 0.03 0.44 0.31 0.00 0.09 0.1

4 12.75 0.5 12.25 0.03 0.05 0.31 0.25 0.16 0.13 0.08

21

‐ 111

‐

0051 Jefferson Watson 1 12.36 0.5 11.86 0.03 0.04 0.27 0.32 0.11 0.13 0.1

2 15.43 0.5 14.93 0.04 0.04 0.43 0.28 0.00 0.1 0.11

3 19.74 0.5 19.24 0.05 0.03 0.31 0.38 0.00 0.12 0.12

4 12.24 0.5 11.74 0.03 0.05 0.29 0.26 0.16 0.13 0.088 

### 2.2 Relative Response Factor Calculation

The next step in the SMAT process is to use base year and future year modeling results to estimate a relative response factor (RRF) for each component of PM2.5 for each quarter. Simply put, the RRF is the quarterly average future y ear concentration near a monitor divided by the quarterly average base year concentr ation near the same monitor, or:

X" " Monitor Near" " ion Concentrat Year Base Modeled Mean Quarterly X" " Monitor Near" " ion Concentrat Year Future Modeled Mean Quarterly

= RRF

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

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

the attainment test allows for variations in th e model performance, as the peak concentrations may not occur in the grid cell that contains the monitor, but rather nearby the monitor. Table 2-4 provides the USEPA's recommendations for defining “nearby” cells for grid systems having cells of various sizes. Since the modeling for the Ke ntucky attainment demonstration was performed at a 12km grid resolution, a 3x3 grid array was used.

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

Size of Cell (km) Size of the Array of “Nearby” Cells

< 5 7 x 7

>5-8 5 x 5

>8-15 3 x 3

>15 1 x 1



### For the PM2.5 SMAT, the RRF is calculated for each component, for each quarter. To accomplish this step, daily concen tration for each component of PM2.5 is extracted from the base year and future year modeling output near the FRM monitoring sites for each day. The daily component concentrations from the 3x3 arra y are then averaged to develop a mean daily component mass for each day in both the base and future years. These mean daily component concentrations are then averaged for each quarter to develop base and future year quarterly mean component concentration. The fu ture year quarterly mean com ponent concentrations are then divided by their respective base year quarterly mean component concentrations to develop quarterly RRFs for each component of PM2.5. Th e quarterly RRFs for the FRM monitors in the Kentucky PM2.5 nonattainment areas are presented belo w in Table 2-6. In lieu of using RRFs, the estimated future mass of NH4 and PBW will be determined by the estimated future mass of
SO4 and NO3, as was done in the CAIR SM AT tool, per the fo llowing equations:

NH4 = DON * SO4 + 0.29*NO3

PBW =(-0.002618) + (0.980314*NH4) + (- 0.260011* NO3) + (-0.000784* SO4) + (-0.159452* (NH4^2)) + (-0.356957* NO3* NH4) + (0.15389 4* (NO3^2)) + (0.212891* SO4* NH4) + 0.0444366* SO4* NO3) + (-0.048352* (SO4^2))9 

### Table 2-6: Quarterly Component RRFs for Mo nitors in the Kentucky Nonattainment

Areas

RRF

AIRS ID County Site Name Qtr Crustal EC OC SO4 NO3

21

‐ 019

‐ 0017 Boyd Ashland 1 1.1336 0.8366 0.9844 0.9143 1.0340

2 1.1702 0.7857 0.9759 0.7420 0.8271

3 1.2175 0.8001 0.9712 0.6528 0.8498

4 1.1500 0.7867 0.9857 0.8608 1.0193

21

‐ 029

‐ 0006 Bullitt Shepherdsville 1 1.1054 0.8518 0.9920 0.9235 0.9859

2 1.1180 0.8100 0.9756 0.7924 0.8030

3 1.1492 0.8151 0.9741 0.6620 1.0278

4 1.1304 0.8114 0.9972 0.9065 0.9642

21

‐ 037

‐ 0003 Campbell NKU 1 1.1202 0.8510 0.9932 0.9001 0.9947

2 1.1556 0.8034 0.9756 0.7270 0.8482

3 1.1888 0.8060 0.9748 0.6369 1.0112

4 1.1434 0.8117 0.9932 0.8860 0.9551

21

‐ 117

‐ 0007 Kenton Covington 1 1.1188 0.8314 0.9979 0.9000 0.9883

2 1.1478 0.7704 0.9721 0.7241 0.8408

3 1.1820 0.7726 0.9714 0.6357 0.9937

4 1.1432 0.7909 0.9951 0.8851 0.9491

21

‐ 111

‐ 0043 Jefferson 37th 1 1.0949 0.8486 0.9935 0.9093 0.9607

2 1.1042 0.8177 0.9811 0.7836 0.7824

3 1.1287 0.8268 0.9798 0.6600 0.9374

4 1.1199 0.8190 0.9991 0.9027 0.9312

21

‐ 111

‐ 0044 Jefferson Beecher 1 1.0988 0.8297 0.9896 0.9049 0.9619

2 1.1066 0.8041 0.9785 0.7814 0.7935

3 1.1355 0.8127 0.9777 0.6580 0.9262

4 1.1220 0.8074 0.9934 0.8986 0.9356

21

‐ 111

‐ 0048 Jefferson Barret 1 1.0988 0.8297 0.9896 0.9049 0.9619

2 1.1066 0.8041 0.9785 0.7814 0.7935

3 1.1355 0.8127 0.9777 0.6580 0.9262

4 1.1220 0.8074 0.9934 0.8986 0.9356

21

‐ 111

‐ 0051 Jefferson Watson 1 1.1041 0.8583 0.9907 0.9160 0.9802

2 1.1171 0.8263 0.9769 0.7924 0.7953

3 1.1433 0.8321 0.9765 0.6637 0.9802

4 1.1283 0.8240 0.9958 0.9039 0.946210 

### 2.3. Future Year Quarterly Concentration Calculation

The next step in the SMAT process is to calcula te future quarterly mean concentration estimates for each component of PM2.5. To accomplish th is, the current quarterly mean component concentration (Step 1, Section 2.1.3) is multipli ed by the component-specific RRFs obtained in Step 2 (Section 2.2). The quarterly component DVFs for the monitors in the Kentucky PM2.5 nonattainment areas are provi ded below in Table 2-7.11 

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

Nonattainment Areas

DVF

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

21

‐ 019

‐

0017 Boyd Ashland 1 0.5091 0.7251 4.1201 3.3895 0.5399 1.1523 0.9522

2 0.5995 0.4503 4.8122 4.2009 0.0072 1.2649 1.2532

3 0.4869 0.4019 6.6503 5.3006 0.0079 1.3444 1.1775

4 0.4399 0.8860 2.3642 3.2558 0.8555 1.1567 0.8652

21

‐ 029

‐

0006 Bullitt Shepherdsville 1 0.4443 0.4499 3.6361 3.6375 1.3472 1.5369 1.0823

2 0.8020 0.5104 4.9091 3.7100 0.0078 1.3109 1.3711

3 0.9090 0.5111 5.9012 4.9172 0.0099 1.4915 1.4875

4 0.4349 0.4839 2.3432 2.8075 1.8456 1.4678 0.8940

21

‐ 037

‐

0003 Campbell NKU 1 0.4308 0.4908 3.8207 3.2272 1.3163 1.3846 0.9565

2 0.5999 0.4549 4.4600 3.4924 0.0160 1.2314 1.2771

3 0.6315 0.5006 4.8994 4.6325 0.0083 1.3187 1.2677

4 0.3923 0.4667 1.8954 2.6207 1.8864 1.4146 0.8441

21

‐ 117

‐

0007 Kenton Covington 1 0.4693 0.5231 3.5410 3.5198 1.4266 1.5075 1.0381

2 0.6240 0.4568 4.3023 3.6426 0.0166 1.2843 1.3357

3 0.6834 0.5223 5.5440 5.0325 0.0088 1.4325 1.3759

4 0.4029 0.4671 2.6509 2.6897 1.9259 1.4489 0.8646

21

‐ 111

‐

0043 Jefferson 37th 1

2

3

4

21

‐ 111

‐

0044 Jefferson Beecher 1 0.4527 0.4688 4.3438 3.6324 1.3701 1.5493 1.0864

2 0.6871 0.4038 6.7383 3.4318 0.0072 1.2205 1.2719

3 0.7692 0.4336 9.9991 4.3124 0.0078 1.3052 1.2968

4 0.4362 0.4749 4.0829 2.8846 1.9120 1.5260 0.9232

21

‐ 111

‐

0048 Jefferson Barret 1 0.4705 0.4873 3.0610 3.7756 1.4240 1.6103 1.1264

2 0.7298 0.4289 5.6071 3.6451 0.0077 1.2963 1.3566

3 0.7949 0.4480 9.3425 4.4565 0.0081 1.3488 1.3411

4 0.4303 0.4685 3.9197 2.8456 1.8861 1.5053 0.9116

21

‐ 111

‐

0051 Jefferson Watson 1 0.4516 0.4313 3.2562 3.6286 1.3402 1.5358 1.0827

2 0.7341 0.4549 6.5364 3.4406 0.0071 1.2179 1.2680

3 1.0487 0.4901 5.9690 4.9855 0.0095 1.5147 1.5128

4 0.4531 0.4601 3.5916 2.8599 1.8167 1.4730 0.905412 

### 2.4. Future Year Annual Average Estimate

The final step in the SMAT process is to sum the quarterly mean components (from Step 3, Section 2.3) to get annual mean PM2.5 values. Table 2-7 displays the quarterly mean PM2.5

values for the FRM sites in the No rth Carolina nonattainment areas.

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

AIRS ID County Site Name NonBlank

Mass

Q1 NonBlank

Mass

Q2 NonBlank

Mass

Q3 NonBlank

Mass

Q4

21-019-0017 Boyd Ashland 11.388 12.588 15.370 9.823
21-029-0006 Bullitt Shepherdsville 3.034 3.155 3.807 2.569
21-037-0003 Campbell NKU 2.907 2.883 3.315 2.380
21-117-0007 Kenton Covington 3.006 2.916 3.650 2.613

21-111-0044 Jefferson Beecher 12.094 13.761 18.124 12.240

21-111-0048 Jefferson Barret 11.955 13.071 17.740 11.967

21-111-0051 Jefferson Watson 11.726 13.659 15.530 11.560



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

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

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

μ 

### g/m 3 

### ). Since the values at the FRM s ite in the nonattainment areas are < 15.0 μ 

### g/m 3 

### , the test is passed.

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

AIRS ID County Site Name 2002

Annual

DVB 2009

NonBlank

Mass Blank

Mass 2009

Annual

DVF

21-019-0017 Boyd Ashland 14.9 12.292 0.5 12.8
21-029-0006 Bullitt Shepherdsville 14.9 12.565 0.5 13.1
21-037-0003 Campbell NKU 14.0 11.484 0.5 12.0
21-117-0007 Kenton Covington 14.9 12.184 0.5 12.7

21-111-0044 Jefferson Beecher 16.6 14.257 0.5 14.8

21-111-0048 Jefferson Barret 16.1 13.683 0.5 14.2

21-111-0051 Jefferson Watson 15.4 13.119 0.5 13.6



### 3 Supplemental Analysis

The Attainment Guidance asserts that all attain ment demonstrations sh ould be accompanied by supplemental analysis that further supports th e modeling conclusions. This supplemental analysis can include additional analyses of ai r quality, emissions and meteorological data, and consider modeling outputs other than the results of the attainment test. If the attainment test
results fall short of the standard, the results of co rroboratory analyses may be used in a weight of13 

### evidence determination (WOE) to show that atta inment is likely despit e modeled results, which may be inconclusive.

The Attainment Guidance defines the guideline s for supplemental analys is/WOE for the annual

PM2.5 standard as follows:

- Site with a DVF less than 14.5 μ g/m 3 

### should submit basic supplemental analysis to

confirm the outcome of the model attainment test.

- Sites with a DVF between 14.5 and 15.5 μ g/m 3 

### should submit a weight of evidence demonstration to aggregate supplemental analysis to support the model attainment

demonstration

- Sites with a DVF greater than or equal to 15.5 μ g/m 3 

### should consider additional control measure to ensure attainment, as more qual itative analysis is unlikely to attainment

The Cincinnati- Middletown, OH-KY-IN and Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH PM 2.5 

### nonattainment areas have DVFs lower than 14.5 μ g/m 3 

### . One monitor in the Louisville, KY-IN

PM 2.5 

### nonattainment area has a DVF of 14.8 μ g/m 3 

### . The following section will be an examination of supplemental analysis to corr oborate modeling results. An additional WOE analysis section will follow to show attainment for the Louisville, KY-IN PM 2.5 

### nonattainment

area.

3.1 Additional Air Quality Modeling

The Attainment Guidance suggests several additional modeling exercises that can be performed as part of supplemental/WOE analysis. Suggestions include completing additional analysis on the air quality modeling preformed, or modeling a lternative set ups and emissions as part of sensitivity. Each of these items will be discussed in the following sections.

3.1.1 Air Quality Modeling Metrics

In Section 7.0 of the Attainment Guidance, various aspects of air quality models, modeled performance, and uncertainties associated w ith the length of modeled episodes and limited

observational datasets are described. Sectio n 7.1 suggests that some types of “absolute” modeling results may be used to assess general progress towards attainment from the baseline inventory to the projected futu re inventory. The Attainment Guidance goes on to describe several metrics that can be considered as part of this type of additional analysis, which include:

1. Percent change in to tal amount of PM2.5 >= 15 μ g/m 3 

### within the nonattainment area

2. Percent change in number of grid cells >= 15 μ g/m 3 

### within the nonattainment area

3. Percent change in grid cell-hours (days) >= 15 μ g/m 3 

### within the nonattainment area

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

nonattainment area

As the US EPA notes in the Attainment Guidance, care should be taken in interpreting absolute metrics if the model evaluation shows a large under prediction or over prediction of ozone or14 

### PM2.5 concentrations, because under (over) predicti on of observed concentrations will make it artificially easy (hard) to show progress towards absolute attainment levels. To better coincide with model performance evaluati on results, the same subset of days from the modeling were used in the model performance evaluation were used to develop the air quality metrics.

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

μ g/m^3 at any of the monitoring sites in either nona ttainment area, as well as the four days with the highest average daily values from each quart er. This selection process identified 59 days, whereupon 29 were selected (after consulting with the VISTA contractor) for presentation in this appendix. The 59 days identified also coincides w ith the 59 days used in the model performance evaluation (Appendix J) and in the model results s ection (Appendix K). A full listing of the days

and the observed 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations fr om the monitors in the nonattainment areas can be found in either Appendix J or Appendix K.

Because of the complexity of the model ex traction for PM2.5, only the second metric is presented for supplemental analysis. The cell co unts of modeling data was tallied from both the 2002 baseline and the 2009 attainment year mode ling run for the identified days. Data was extracted for only the grid cells that contained po rtions of the either of the nonattainment areas.

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

Louisville area, Kentucky-Indiana Figure 3-1: Area for which the air quality metrics were applied.15 

### NKY-Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN Figure 3-2: Area for which the air quality metrics were applied.

Huntington-Ashland area, KY-WV-OH Figure 3-3: Area for which the air quality metrics were applied.

The cell counts were binned based on concentration ranges of 15 μ g/m 3 

### intervals to help illuminate the change in severity on the days in Kentucky with the highest PM2.5 concentrations.

Figure 3-4 presents the cell count results both gra phically and in tabular form. The graph clearly
shows a striking increase in the number of days below 15 μ g/m 3 

### . By 2009 only x% of cells fall in the 0 –15 range, a substantial increase from the 17.21% in 2002. Raw cell counts shows a

total of 342 cells shif ted to the 0 – 15 μ g/m 3 

### range between 2002 and 2009 (Table 3-1).

Figure 3-2 also shows a decrease in the number of cell in the 15 – 30 μ g/m 3 

### bin (269 cell
decrease) and the 30 - 45 μ g/m 3 

### bin (75 cell decrease). The numb er of cells in the 45 –60 range remains relatively constant from 2002 to 2009. A closer examination of the daily cell counts shows that all of the cells in the highest concen tration category occur on the same day in both the 2002 and 2009 modeling. Overall, the results from the air quality modeling metric are16 

### encouraging. The metric shows a substant ial increase in the number of cells below 15 μ g/m 3



### , and an increase in cells below 30 μ g/m 3



### .

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2002 2009

Modeling YearPercentage of Nonattainment Area

45-60

30-45

15-30

0-15



### Figure 3-4: Percentage of Cell in PM2.5 No nattainment Areas within Concentration Categories for 2002 and 2009. Table of actual values is Table 3-1.17 

### Table 3-1: Number of Cells within Concentr ation Bins. Increases (decreases) in the number of cells within the bins are noted by blue (red) coloration in the last column.

Cincinnati

Concentration 2002 2009 Difference

<= 15 ug/m3 12523 15026 2503

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

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

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

> 60 ug/m3 0 0 0

Huntington/Ashland

Concentration 2002 2009 Difference

<= 15 ug/m3 21248 24116 2868

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

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

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

> 60 ug/m3 0 0 0

Louisville

Concentration 2002 2009 Difference

<= 15 ug/m3 6761 8119 1358

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

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

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

> 60 ug/m3 0 0 0



### 3.1.2 Other Modeling Results

One way to acquire modeling sensitivity runs is to examine the modeling results from other RPOs or from USEPA modeling st udies. Other modeling studies may use different physical and chemical modeling options for their meteorologi cal and air quality modeling runs, which would provide a comparison or sensitivity based on these different options. An air quality modeling exercise th at contained results for Kentucky PM 2.5 

### nonattainment areas is the USEPA’s modeling for the CAIR. The T echnical Support Document for the final CAIR, March 2005, provided modeling resu lts with and without the im plementation for the CAIR. Differences between the USEPA’s modeling and the attainment demonstration are: 1) the meteorology was for 2001, 2) the DVB was the weighted design values the 1999-2003 period and 3) the modeling results were for 2010.18 

### The DVF was calculated using the CAIR SMAT tool, so met hodologies between the CAIR DVF and the values presented in Section 6.4 are the sa me. These modeling results are listed in Table

6.3.2-1 below. Table 3.2. USEPA’s CAIR Modeling Results

Future Year Boyd Co Bullitt Co Jefferson Co Kenton Co

2010 13.38 13.67 15.44 13.72

2015 12.95 N/A 15.13 13.26

The USEPA’s results were for the highest monitor in a county where more than one monitor is located. The USEPA’s modeling re sults predicts that the Kent ucky nonattainment areas should

be below the annual PM 2.5 

### standard by 2010. Although this is one year later than the attainment year fo r these areas, The USEPA’s 2010
CAIR DVFs are approximately 0.5 μ g/m 3 

### higher than what the KYDAQ is showing in the attainment demonstration, but still supports that the Kentucky nonattainment areas will attain the

annual PM 2.5 

### standard by the attainment year of 2009.

3.1.2.1 Ohio and Indiana Modeling

Additional air quality modeling that encompassed the Ke ntucky nonattainment areas was performed by the Midwest Regional Planning Or ganization (MRPO) for both the Indiana and

Ohio attainment demonstration submittals. The MRPO is made up of the five Midwest states (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin) and the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO). The air quality model selected fo r this technical anal ysis was CAMx (version 4.30), an Eulerian photochemical grid model developed by ENVIRON and approved by US EPA for this use. CAMx allows for integrated “one-atmosphere” assessment of ozone and Pm2.5. More notable

features of CAMx include flexi- nesting, which allows for reconfi guration of nested grids within the model, multiple gas phase chemistry mechanism options, Plume-in-Grid (PiG) and Ozone Source Apportionment Technology. CAMx m odeling is performed on a Linux computing platform with a Portland Group (PGI) FORTRA N compiler to create executable files. After the 2005 base episodes were modeled and determined to be within accuracy parameters, several future-year exercises were performed such as projecting emissions to 2008 and 2009 and modeling the projected emission reductions from national, regional and local control measures

that are in effect or considered “on the books”. This includes the NO

x 

### SIP Call and Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) as well as the la test gasoline and engine control measures. Table 6.3.2-2 shows the results of the modeling and illustrates that all monitored areas in the nonattainment areas will attain the NAAQS by 2009.19 

### Table 3.3

VISTAS

BaseG4

21-019-0017 KY Boyd 14.9 12.8 11.8

54-011-0006 WV Cabell 16.5 14.1 13.4

39-053-0003 OH Gallia - - -

39-087-0010 OH Lawrence 15.7 13.7 12.7

39-145-0013 OH Scioto 17.1 14.8 12.2

21-029-0006 KY Bullitt 14.9 13.1 12.4

21-111-0043 KY Jefferson - - -

21-111-0044 KY Jefferson 16.6 14.8 12.8

21-111-0048 KY Jefferson 16.1 14.2 12.5

21-111-0051 KY Jefferson 15.4 13.6 12.1

21-111-1041 KY Jefferson - - -

18-019-0006 IN Clark 16.8 14.9 13.6

18-043-1004 IN Floyd 14.9 13.0 12.1

21-037-0003 KY Campbell 14.0 12.0 11.6

21-117-0007 KY Kenton 14.9 12.7 11.8

39-017-0003 OH Butler 16.1 14.1 -

39-017-0016 OH Butler 15.7 13.4 13.0

39-017-0017 OH Butler 15.4 13.4 13.6

39-017-1004 OH Butler - - -

39-025-0022 OH Clermont - - -

39-061-0014 OH Hamilton 17.7 15.4 14.4

39-061-0040 OH Hamilton 15.6 13.3 12.7

39-061-0041 OH Hamilton 15.4 13.2 13.0

39-061-0042 OH Hamilton 17.1 14.9 13.9

39-061-0043 OH Hamilton 15.8 13.5 12.9

39-061-7001 OH Hamilton 16.3 14.0 13.3

39-061-8001 OH Hamilton 17.3 15.0 14.6 LADCO RPO

2009 Value PM

Round 5 Summary of LADCO 2009 Design Values

AIRS ID State County 00-04 DV

CONC of PM



### 3.2 Air Quality Trends Analysis

Since the annual PM 2.5 

### designation in 2002, annual average concentrations of PM 2.5 

### have decreased. Table 6.3.3-1 provides the annual average data, with Figure 6.3.3-1 providing a graphical representation of the data, with preliminary 2007 annual average values. These 2007

values show the monitors are st ill trending towards the NAAQS.20 

### Table 3-3: Annual Average PM2.5 Concen trations for the past 8 years.

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

21

‐ 019

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

21

‐ 029

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

21

‐ 037

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

21

‐ 117

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

21

‐ 111

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

21

‐ 111

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

21

‐ 111

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

21

‐ 111

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

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

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

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (i.e. greater than 15.0 ug/m 3 ).
n/a

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



## Annual PM2.5 Averages

11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

21-019-0017 Boyd 21-029-0006 Bullitt 21-037-0003 Campbell NKU
21-117-0007 Kenton 21-111-0043 Jefferson 21-111-0044 Jefferson 21-111-0048 Jefferson 21-111-0051 Jefferson



### Figure 3-5: Annual Average PM2.5 Concentratio ns for the FRM Monito rs in the Kentucky

Nonattainment Areas.21 

### With the improvement in annual average PM2.5valu es, there has also been an improvement in PM2.5 design values. When one takes into acco unt the period of record, PM2.5 design values improved significantly over the last 6 years. Like with the annual averages, the three-year design values have also begun to hover near the level of the standard for the monitors in recent years. It is also important to note the m onitors have also maintained design values that meet the NAAQS over the past 3 design value periods (See Table 3-4).

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

Nonattainment areas.

AIRS ID County Site Name 2000

‐
2002 2001

‐
2003 2002

‐
2004 2003

‐
2005 2004

‐
2006 2005

‐
2007

21

‐ 019

‐ 0017 Boyd Ashland 15.5 14.9 14.3 14.4 14.4 14.7

21

‐ 029

‐ 0006 Bullitt Shepherdsville 15.6 14.9 14.2 14.8 14.7 15.3

21

‐ 037

‐ 0003 Campbell NKU 14.4 13.9 13.7 13.7 13.1 13.6

21

‐ 117

‐ 0007 Kenton Covington 15.5 14.9 14.3 14.5 14.2 14.5

21

‐ 111

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

21

‐ 111

‐ 0044 Jefferson Beecher 17.3 16.9 15.6 15.3 15.2 15.5

21

‐ 111

‐ 0048 Jefferson Barret 16.7 16.3 15.2 15.3 14.8 15.3

21

‐ 111

‐ 0051 Jefferson Watson 16.3 15.6 14.4 14.7 14.3 15.3

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

Source: USEPA/AQS

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

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (i.e. greater than 15.0 ug/m 3 ).
n/a

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



### 3.3 Supplemental Analysis Conclusions

After examining the totality of the modeling ev idence, the Kentucky Divi sion for Air Quality (KYDAQ) is confident the Kentucky portions of the Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH, the

Cincinnati-Middletow n, OH-KY-IN, and the Louisville, KY-IN PM2.5 nonattainment areas should reach attainment status by the 2009 dead line. US EPA CAIR modeling corroborates KYDAQ modeling results suggesting al l three nonattainment areas should be below the standard. In addition, current PM2.5 design values are near NAAQS, with s ubstantial sulf ate reductions anticipated in the vicinity of the nonattainment area over th e next two years. KYDAQ feels

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

2009.22 

### 4 Unmonitored Area Analysis

Regarding the U.S. EPA guidance (Section 3) in “The Use of Models a nd Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Go als for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze” (April 2007), the States are asked to review unmonitore d areas in nonattainment areas. The test is called an “unmonitored test analysis”, and is necessary in nonattainment areas where the PM 2.5 

### monitoring network just meets or minimally exceeds the size of the network required to report data to Air Quality System (AQS). The purpose of the analysis is to use a combination of model output and ambient data to iden tify areas that might exceed the NAAQS if monitors were located

there.

This review is intended to ensure that a control strategy leads to reductions in PM 2.5 

### at other locations which could have baseline (and futu re) design values exceeding the NAAQS were a monitor deployed there. The unmonitored area anal ysis should identify areas where future year design values are predicted to be greater than the NAAQS.

The unmonitored analysis area is intended to be the primary means for identifying high PM 2.5 

### concentrations outside of traditionally monito red locations. The spatial resolution of the modeling that is the underlying basis of the un monitored area analysis will determine how ell it addresses primary PM hotspot issues. The finer the resolution of the grid model, the more likely that primary PM hotpots will be recognized.

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

12km or finer resolution is suffi cient to address unmonitored PM 2.5 

### for the annual NAAQS.

The ASIP modeling provided current-year (DVC) and projected future-year (DVF) PM 2.5 

### Design Values (ug/m 3 

### ) in Kentucky using the 2002 Typical and 2009 BaseG4 CMAQ 12 km modeling results. See Appendix P whic h contains various Technical Support Documents (TSD) from VISTAS and ASIP, “Chapter 4.0 PM 2.5 

### Projections” from the Technical Support Document provided by ENVIRON, January, 2008 discusses the DVC and the DVF.

As noted in the ENVIRON Technical Support Document, Chapter 4.0, “Section 4.7.6 Kentucky”, of the 28 FRM monitoring sites in the state, three of them have current-year PM2.5 Design Values (DVCs) that exceed the annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS in the BaseG2.

However the BaseG4 Jefferson County was the highest DVC of 16.6 μ g/m 3 

### which then has a projected 2009 DVF of 14.8 μ g/m 3 

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

All FRM monitoring sites in Kentucky are projecte d in 2009g4a to be belo w the annual average

PM 2.5



### .

See the figure and table below.23 

### Figure 4-1.

Kentucky 12km 2009 Projected DVF by G4a_EXCEL(Left) and G4a_MATS (Middle) andG2a_EXCEL (Right)

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

Kentuckyug/m3 PBW

NH4

Crustal

EC

OC

NO3

SO4

blank24 

### Table 4-1. Current Year (DVC) and pr ojected future-year (DVF) PM 2.5 

### Design Values (ug/m 3 

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

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

2002

Annual 2009g4a

Annual Difference (2009g4a and 2002gt2a) Notes
AIRS ID State County DVC DVF

21-013-0002 KY Bell 11.3 10.6 -0.7

21-019-0017 KY Boyd 13.5 12.3 -1.2

21-029-0006 KY Bullitt 13.0 11.7 -1.3

21-037-0003 KY Campbell 14.9 13.3 -1.6

21-043-0500 KY Carter 12.8 11.9 -0.9

21-047-0006 KY Christian 15.3 0.0 -15.3

21-059-0005 KY Daviess Site Discarded

21-059-0014 KY Daviess 0.0 0.0 0.0

21-061-0501 KY Edmonson Site Discarded

21-067-0012 KY Fayette 15.0 13.8 -1.2

21-067-0014 KY Fayette 13.0 11.8 -1.2

21-073-0006 KY Franklin 17.1 15.8 -1.3

21-093-0006 KY Hardin 15.1 13.8 -1.3

21-101-0006 KY Henderson 14.0 12.7 -1.3

21-101-0014 KY Henderson 14.1 12.8 -1.3

21-111-0043 KY Jefferson 14.2 missing SMAT data

21-111-0044 KY Jefferson 12.9 12.1 -0.8

21-111-0048 KY Jefferson 12.6 0.0 -12.6

21-111-0051 KY Jefferson 11.9 11.1 -0.8

21-111-1041 KY Jefferson Site Discarded

21-117-0007 KY Kenton 15.8 0.0 -15.8

21-125-0004 KY Laurel 18.2 missing SMAT data

21-145-1004 KY McCracken 13.1 11.8 -1.3

21-151-0003 KY Madison 16.1 14.8 -1.3

21-183-0032 KY Ohio Site Discarded

21-193-0003 KY Perry 12.3 11.3 -1.0

21-195-0002 KY Pike 15.0 13.8 -1.2

21-227-0007 KY Warren 16.2 0.0 -16.225 

### 5 Attachments to Appendix L Attached to this Appendix is the following supporting do cumentation for Section 2.1:

“Procedures for Estimating Future PM2.5 Values fo r the CAIR Final Rule by Application of the (Revised) Speciated Modeled Attainment Test (SMAT) Updated- 11/8/04”

6 Reference

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

Reference Method Fine Particulate Ma tter for Six Eastern U.S. Cities” J. Air Waste
Mange. Assoc. , 56, 500-511.ASIP PMProjections for Unmonitored2.5AreasENVIRON International Corporation AlpineGeophysics, LLCSep 18, 2008ppt assembled by Pat Brewer, VISTAS Technical CoordinatorPM2.5Projections for UnmonitoredAreasMATS tool applied to develop PM2.5projections forunmonitored areasEPA has requested aspart of PM2 5SIP submittalpM2.5S2002typical G2, 2009G4, 2012initial, 2018G4PM2.5Unmonitored Area Analyses - 2002 DVCPM2.5Unmonitored Area Analyses – 2009 DVFPM2.5Unmonitored Area Analyses – 2012 DVFPM2.5Unmonitored Area Analyses – 2018 DVFSTATE KentuckyCount of STATE AIRS ID State County 2002 Annu Annual DVF DifferenceID COUNTY Total 2009g4a 2012g4a 2018g4a 09g4a-02gt12g4a-02gt18g4a-02gt22.1E+08 Bell 1 21-013-00KY Bell 14.78 12.75 11.48 10.96 -2.03 -3.3 -3.822.1E+08 Boyd 1 21-019-00KY Boyd 14.88 12.61 11.94 11.49 -2.27 -2.94 -3.392.1E+08 Bullitt 1 21-029-00KY Bullitt 14.88 12.98 12.66 12.07 -1.9 -2.22 -2.812.1E+08 Campbell 1 21-037-00KY Campbel 13.77 11.61 11.33 10.63 -2.16 -2.44 -3.142.1E+08 Carter 1 21-043-05KY Carter 12.18 10.19 9.48 9.02 -1.99 -2.7 -3.162.1E+08 Christian 1 21-047-00KY Christian 13.47 11.9 11 10.93 -1.57 -2.47 -2.542.11E+08 Daviess 1 21-059-00KY Daviess 14.36 12.78 11.88 11.99 -1.58 -2.48 -2.372.11E+08 Fayette 1 21-067-00KY Fayette 14.87 12.47 11.53 11.28 -2.4 -3.34 -3.592.11E+08 Fayette 1 21-067-00KY Fayette 15.6 13.19 12.21 11.99 -2.41 -3.39 -3.612.11E+08 Franklin 1 21-073-00KY Franklin 13.67 11.48 10.64 10.37 -2.19 -3.03 -3.32.11E+08 Hardin 1 21-093-00KY Hardin 13.97 12.07 11.21 10.93 -1.9 -2.76 -3.042.11E+08 Henderson 1 21-101-00KY Henderso14.46 13 12.05 12.28 -1.46 -2.41 -2.182.11E+08 Jefferson 1 21-111-00KY Jefferson15.9 13.95 14.24 13.2 -1.95 -1.66 -2.72.11E+08 Jefferson 1 21-111-00KY Jefferson16.58 14.49 15.29 13.65 -2.09 -1.29 -2.932.11E+08 Jefferson 1 21-111-00KY Jefferson16.06 14.02 14.72 13.19 -2.04 -1.34 -2.872.11E+08 Jefferson 1 21-111-00KY Jefferson15.44 13.42 13.44 12.56 -2.02 -2 -2.882.11E+08 Kenton 1 21-117-00KY Kenton 14.88 12.57 12.23 11.61 -2.31 -2.65 -3.272.11E+08 Laurel 1 21-125-00KY Laurel 12.2 10.47 9.49 9.03 -1.73 -2.71 -3.172.11E+08 McCracken1 21-145-10KY McCracke13.1 11.8 10.98 10.98 -1.3 -2.12 -2.122.12E+08 Madison 1 21-151-00KY Madison 13.53 11.39 10.45 10.01 -2.14 -3.08 -3.522.12E+08 Perry 1 21-193-00KY Perry 13.15 11.19 10.18 9.63 -1.96 -2.97 -3.522.12E+08 Pike 1 21-195-00KY Pike 13.67 11.56 10.6 9.99 -2.11 -3.07 -3.682.12E+08 Warren 1 21-227-00KY Warren 13.81 12.11 11.17 10.91 -1.7 -2.64 -2.9STATE OhioCount of STATE AIRS ID State County 2002 Annu Annual DVF DifferenceID COUNTY Total 2009g4a 2012g4a 2018g4a 09g4a-02gt12g4a-02gt18g4a-02gt23.9E+08 Athens 1 39-009-00OH Athens 12.31 10.19 9.73 9.13 -2.12 -2.58 -3.183.9E+08 Butler 1 39-017-00OH Butler 16.12 14.02 13.87 13.28 -2.1 -2.25 -2.843.9E+08 Butler 1 39-017-00OH Butler 15.47 13.21 12.85 12.25 -2.26 -2.62 -3.223.9E+08 Butler 1 39-017-00OH Butler 15.32 13.26 13.06 12.52 -2.06 -2.26 -2.83.9E+08 Butler 1 39-017-10OH Butler 14.13 12.12 11.88 11.39 -2.01 -2.25 -2.743.9E+08 Clark 1 39-023-00OH Clark 14.45 12.47 11.94 11.7 -1.98 -2.51 -2.753.9E+08 Cuyahoga 1 39-035-00OH Cuyahog 17.57 15.61 15.85 14.47 -1.96 -1.72 -3.13.9E+08 Cuyahoga 1 39-035-00OH Cuyahog 16.53 14.57 14.71 13.47 -1.96 -1.82 -3.063.9E+08 Cuyahoga 1 39-035-00OH Cuyahog 13.81 12.2 12.27 11.38 -1.61 -1.54 -2.433.9E+08 Cuyahoga 1 39-035-00OH Cuyahog 18.36 16.36 16.61 15.18 -2 -1.75 -3.183.9E+08 Cuyahoga 1 39-035-00OH Cuyahog 16.69 14.72 14.84 13.61 -1.97 -1.85 -3.083.9E+08 Cuyahoga 1 39-035-00OH Cuyahog 17.54 15.57 15.78 14.43 -1.97 -1.76 -3.113.9E+08 Cuyahoga 1 39-035-00OH Cuyahog 16.14 14.19 14.28 13.1 -1.95 -1.86 -3.043.9E+08 Cuyahoga 1 39-035-00OH Cuyahog 14.24 12.57 12.76 11.55 -1.67 -1.48 -2.693.9E+08 Cuyahoga 1 39-035-10OH Cuyahog 14.52 12.61 12.61 11.63 -1.91 -1.91 -2.893.9E+08 Franklin 1 39-049-00OH Franklin 16.52 14.27 14.12 13.17 -2.25 -2.4 -3.353.9E+08 Franklin 1 39-049-00OH Franklin 16.02 13.78 13.51 12.73 -2.24 -2.51 -3.293.9E+08 Franklin 1 39-049-00OH Franklin 15.95 13.72 13.55 12.66 -2.23 -2.4 -3.293.91E+08 Hamilton 1 39-061-00OH Hamilton 17.76 15.45 15.53 14.34 -2.31 -2.23 -3.423.91E+08 Hamilton 1 39-061-00OH Hamilton 15.57 13.43 13.42 12.41 -2.14 -2.15 -3.163.91E+08 Hamilton 1 39-061-00OH Hamilton 15.83 13.53 13.33 12.52 -2.3 -2.5 -3.313.91E+08 Hamilton 1 39-061-00OH Hamilton 16.77 14.33 14 13.28 -2.44 -2.77 -3.493.91E+08 Hamilton 1 39-061-00OH Hamilton 15.53 13.28 13.12 12.26 -2.25 -2.41 -3.273.91E+08 Hamilton 1 39-061-70OH Hamilton 16.26 14.06 14.08 13.02 -2.2 -2.18 -3.243.91E+08 Hamilton 1 39-061-80OH Hamilton 17.25 15.03 15.11 13.96 -2.22 -2.14 -3.293.91E+08 Jefferson 1 39-081-00OH Jefferson18.07 14.85 14.5 13.77 -3.22 -3.57 -4.33.91E+08 Jefferson 1 39-081-10OH Jefferson17.48 14.27 13.91 13.18 -3.21 -3.57 -4.33.91E+08 Lake 1 39-085-10OH Lake 13.25 11.64 11.53 10.94 -1.61 -1.72 -2.313.91E+08 Lawrence 1 39-087-00OH Lawrence15.7 13.66 13.14 12.72 -2.04 -2.56 -2.983.91E+08 Lorain 1 39-093-00OH Lorain 13.6 11.99 11.84 11.19 -1.61 -1.76 -2.413.91E+08 Lorain 1 39-093-30OH Lorain 12.53 10.99 10.83 10.24 -1.54 -1.7 -2.293.91E+08 Lucas 1 39-095-00OH Lucas 14.73 13.18 12.91 12.35 -1.55 -1.82 -2.383.91E+08 Lucas 1 39-095-00OH Lucas 14.7 13.14 12.87 12.3 -1.56 -1.83 -2.43.91E+08 Lucas 1 39-095-00OH Lucas 14.46 12.87 12.52 12.08 -1.59 -1.94 -2.383.91E+08 Mahoning 1 39-099-00OH Mahoning15.11 12.91 12.79 11.82 -2.2 -2.32 -3.293.91E+08 Montgomer1 39-113-00OH Montgom15.53 13.42 12.92 12.49 -2.11 -2.61 -3.043.91E+08 Montgomer1 39-113-00OH Montgom15.53 13.5 13.04 12.6 -2.03 -2.49 -2.933.91E+08 Portage 1 39-133-00OH Portage 14.19 12.21 12.1 11.11 -1.98 -2.09 -3.083.91E+08 Scioto 1 39-145-00OH Scioto 17.11 14.74 14.2 13.48 -2.37 -2.91 -3.633.92E+08 Stark 1 39-151-00OH Stark 17.26 14.95 14.55 13.6 -2.31 -2.71 -3.663.92E+08 Stark 1 39-151-00OH Stark 16.12 13.88 13.47 12.56 -2.24 -2.65 -3.563.92E+08 Summit 1 39-153-00OH Summit 16.42 14.38 14.31 13.16 -2.04 -2.11 -3.263.92E+08 Summit 1 39-153-00OH Summit 15.62 13.61 13.52 12.42 -2.01 -2.1 -3.23.92E+08 Trumbull 1 39-155-00OH Trumbull 14.96 12.89 12.8 11.84 -2.07 -2.16 -3.12STATE IndianaCount of STATE AIRS ID State County 2002 Annu Annual DVF DifferenceID COUNTY Total 2009g4a 2012g4a 2018g4a 09g4a-02gt12g4a-02gt18g4a-02gt21.8E+08 Allen 1 18-003-00IN Allen 14.29 12.66 11.66 12.31 -1.63 -2.63 -1.981.8E+08 Allen 1 18-003-00IN Allen 13.73 12.12 11.18 11.74 -1.61 -2.55 -1.991.8E+08 Clark 1 18-019-00IN Clark 16.33 14.32 14.84 13.57 -2.01 -1.49 -2.761.8E+08 Delaware 1 18-035-00IN Delaware14.33 12.56 11.55 11.9 -1.77 -2.78 -2.431.8E+08 Dubois 1 18-037-20IN Dubois 16.12 14.28 13.37 13.58 -1.84 -2.75 -2.541.8E+08 Elkhart 1 18-039-00IN Elkhart 14.99 13.91 12.99 14.15 -1.08 -2 -0.841.8E+08 Floyd 1 18-043-10IN Floyd 14.9 12.93 12.82 12.16 -1.97 -2.08 -2.741.81E+08 Henry 1 18-065-00IN Henry 13.26 11.54 10.59 10.89 -1.72 -2.67 -2.371.81E+08 Howard 1 18-067-00IN Howard 14.55 12.95 11.98 12.41 -1.6 -2.57 -2.141.81E+08 Lake 1 18-089-00IN Lake 15.01 13.55 12.5 13.65 -1.46 -2.51 -1.361.81E+08 Lake 1 18-089-00IN Lake 14.23 12.89 11.85 12.92 -1.34 -2.38 -1.311.81E+08 Lake 1 18-089-10IN Lake 14.63 13.04 12.05 13.36 -1.59 -2.58 -1.271.81E+08 Lake 1 18-089-20IN Lake 14.52 13.17 12.12 13.33 -1.35 -2.4 -1.191.81E+08 Lake 1 18-089-20IN Lake 14.38 12.97 11.95 13.04 -1.41 -2.43 -1.341.81E+08 LaPorte 1 18-091-00IN LaPorte 13.25 11.83 10.95 11.83 -1.42 -2.3 -1.421.81E+08 LaPorte 1 18-091-00IN LaPorte 13.23 11.97 11.1 11.73 -1.26 -2.13 -1.51.81E+08 Madison 1 18-095-00IN Madison 13.99 12.25 11.22 11.62 -1.74 -2.77 -2.371.81E+08 Marion 1 18-097-00IN Marion 14.7 12.69 11.62 12.03 -2.01 -3.08 -2.671.81E+08 Marion 1 18-097-00IN Marion 16.21 14.12 12.9 13.57 -2.09 -3.31 -2.641.81E+08 Marion 1 18-097-00IN Marion 15.43 13.43 12.2 12.84 -2 -3.23 -2.591.81E+08 Marion 1 18-097-00IN Marion 16.27 14.24 12.99 13.73 -2.03 -3.28 -2.541.81E+08 Marion 1 18-097-00IN Marion 16.54 14.46 13.22 13.97 -2.08 -3.32 -2.571.81E+08 Porter 1 18-127-00IN Porter 13.18 11.68 10.83 11.75 -1.5 -2.35 -1.431.81E+08 Porter 1 18-127-00IN Porter 13.75 12.03 11.09 12.35 -1.72 -2.66 -1.41.81E+08 St. Joseph 1 18-141-00IN St. Josep13.84 12.8 11.93 12.87 -1.04 -1.91 -0.971.81E+08 St. Joseph 1 18-141-10IN St. Josep13.93 12.91 12.03 12.8 -1.02 -1.9 -1.131.81E+08 St. Joseph 1 18-141-20IN St. Josep13.68 12.63 11.73 12.53 -1.05 -1.95 -1.151.81E+08 Spencer 1 18-147-00IN Spencer 14 12.29 11.42 11.53 -1.71 -2.58 -2.471.82E+08 Vanderburg1 18-163-00IN Vanderbu15.14 13.53 12.53 12.86 -1.61 -2.61 -2.281.82E+08 Vanderburg1 18-163-00IN Vanderbu15.14 13.53 12.52 12.9 -1.61 -2.62 -2.241.82E+08 Vanderburg1 18-163-00IN Vanderbu15.29 13.67 12.66 13.01 -1.62 -2.63 -2.281.82E+08 Vigo 1 18-167-00IN Vigo 14.51 12.96 11.79 12.39 -1.55 -2.72 -2.121.82E+08 Vigo 1 18-167-00IN Vigo 13.29 11.76 10.68 11.18 -1.53 -2.61 -2.111.81E+08 Lake 1 18-089-10IN Lake 16.02 14.19 13.13 14.46 -1.83 -2.89 -1.56STATE West VirginiaCount of STATE AIRS ID State County 2002 Annu Annual DVF DifferenceID COUNTY Total 2009g4a 2012g4a 2018g4a 09g4a-02gt12g4a-02gt18g4a-02gt25.4E+08 Berkeley 1 54-003-00WV Berkeley 16.23 13.52 12.93 12.29 -2.71 -3.3 -3.945.4E+08 Brooke 1 54-009-00WV Brooke 16.69 13.62 13.27 12.57 -3.07 -3.42 -4.125.4E+08 Cabell 1 54-011-00WV Cabell 16.54 14.37 13.69 13.25 -2.17 -2.85 -3.295.4E+08 Hancock 1 54-029-00WV Hancock 16 12.99 12.63 11.94 -3.01 -3.37 -4.065.4E+08 Hancock 1 54-029-10WV Hancock 17.3 14.02 13.72 13.01 -3.28 -3.58 -4.295.4E+08 Harrison 1 54-033-00WV Harrison 13.99 11.57 10.71 10.44 -2.42 -3.28 -3.555.4E+08 Kanawha 1 54-039-00WV Kanawha15.38 13.1 12.2 11.69 -2.28 -3.18 -3.695.4E+08 Kanawha 1 54-039-10WV Kanawha17.08 14.67 13.69 13.18 -2.41 -3.39 -3.95.4E+08 Marion 1 54-049-00WV Marion 15.32 12.86 11.95 11.6 -2.46 -3.37 -3.725.41E+08 Marshall 1 54-051-10WV Marshall 15.61 13.23 12.66 12.09 -2.38 -2.95 -3.525.41E+08 Mercer 1 54-055-00WV Mercer 12.67 10.59 9.71 9.09 -2.08 -2.96 -3.585.41E+08 Monongalia1 54-061-00WV Mononga14.81 12.31 11.47 10.97 -2.5 -3.34 -3.845.41E+08 Ohio 1 54-069-00WV Ohio 15.08 12.64 12.11 11.54 -2.44 -2.97 -3.545.41E+08 Raleigh 1 54-081-00WV Raleigh 13.05 10.97 10.13 9.54 -2.08 -2.92 -3.515.41E+08 Summers 1 54-089-00WV Summers10.1 8.26 7.62 7.12 -1.84 -2.48 -2.985.41E+08 Wood 1 54-107-10WV Wood 16.07 13.81 13.38 12.63 -2.26 -2.69 -3.44