# APPENDIX H

Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium Emission Estimates Technical Support Document

## This page left intentionally blank.

# Regional Air Quality Analyses for

Ozone, PM 2. 5 

# , and Regional Haze:

F inal Technical Support Document

April 25 , 2008

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

# APPENDIX I

Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) Round 5 Modeling Technical Support Document (Round 5 Photochemical Modeling Based on “Base M” Emissions inventory, revised version of “Base K”)

## This page left intentionally blank.

### February 27, 2008



# Base M Strategy Modeling: Emissions (Revised)

The purpose of this document is to summarize the emis sion estimates prepared for LADCO’s latest (Base M) 200 5 base year and 200 8, 2009, 2012, and 2018 future year modeling

. Base year emissions by state and s ource sector for Base K (2002) and Base M (2005) are compared in Figure 1. A more detailed state and source sector summary is provided in Attachment 1

. A dditional

emission reports are available on the LADCO website : http://www.ladco.org /tech/emis/r5/round5_reports.htm

.

VOC NOx SO2



### 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

2002

(K) 2005 ( M) 2002

(K) 2005 (M) 2002

(K) 2005 ( M) 

## WI

OH

MI

IN

IL

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

2002

(K) 2005 ( M) 2002

(K) 2005 (M) 2002

(K) 2005 (M) Area

Nonroad+MAR

Onroad

Non-EGU

EGU

Figure 1 . Base K and Base M Emissions for 5

- State LADCO Region : VOC, NOx, and SO2 (TPD, July weekday)



### Base Year Em i ssions In mid

- 2006, LADCO completed modeling analyses for a 2002 base year and several future year control strategies ( LADCO, 2006a and LADCO, 2006b) . Following those analyses, a decision was made to conduct additional modeling using a more current base year (2005). Examin ation of multiple base years provides for a more complete technical assessment. All modeling was conducted in accordance with USEPA modeling guidelines (USEPA, 2007).

### February 27, 2008



### For on

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

m odels. For other sectors in the LADCO States, 2005 emissions were either supplied by a contractor ( railroads and commercial marine ) or by the States (point sources, area sources, and aircraft). For other sectors in non

- LADCO States, a contractor obtained the latest base (2002) and future year emission files (2009, 2018) from the other Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs) (Alpine, 2007 a ) . Specifically, the following versions of these emissions files were used : MANE

- VU: Version 3.1

, WRAP: Pre2002d

, CENRA P: Base F , and VISTAS: Base F

. The 2005 emissions were then estimated by linearly interpolating between the 2002 and 2009 emissions.

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

On

- R oad : CONCEPT was run by a contractor using transportation data (e.g., VMT and vehicle speeds) for 24 networks supplied by the state and local planning agencies in the LADCO States and Minnesota (Environ, 2008 ) . These data were first processed with T3 (Tra vel Demand Modeling [TDM] Transformation Tool) to pro vide inpu t files for CONCEPT

. For some networks, the VMT outputs from T3 were adjusted to match 2005 HPMS data. CONCEPT was then run with meteorological data for a July and January weekday, Satur day, and Sunday (July 15

– 17

a nd January 16

– 18) to produce link

- specific, hourly emission estimates

. A s patial plots of emissions for July 15 are provided in Figure 2

.

VOC Emissions NOx Emissions

Figure 2 . July 15, 2005 motor vehicle emissions for VOC (left) and NOx (r ight)



### For the non

- LADCO States, CONCEPT was run by a contractor using RPO

- based HPMS county

- level data (2002 and 2009) and MOBILE6 inputs (2002) compiled by another contractor (Environ, 2008) . HPMS VMT for 2005 were generated by linearly interpolating b etween the 2002 and 2009 data. The 2002 MOBILE6 inputs were used for the 2005 modeling, with a few adjustments (e.g., fuel sulfur content was set to 30 ppm, as required by the Tier 2/low sulfur regulations). Meteorological data for a July and January wee kday, Saturday, and Sunday (July 15

– 17 and January 16

– 18) were used.

For other months (for both LADCO and non

- LADCO States), weekday, Saturday, and Sunday emissions were linearly interpolated based on the January and July emissions

.

### February 27, 2008



### Off

- R oad : NMIM2 005 was run by Grant Hetherington (W isconsin DNR) to produce emission s for most off

- road sectors for

the LADCO States plus Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri. Improved model inputs included local data for construction and agricultural equipment prepared by a

c ontractor were incorporated (E.H. Pechan, 2004), and 2005 gasoline parameters. (Note, model updates prepared by AIR to address evaporative emissions were not included.)

EMS was run by LADCO using Grant Hetherington’s NMIM2005 data and , for the non

- LADCO States, using emission files supplied by Alpine based on data from the other R POs to produce weekday, Saturday, and Sunday emissions for each month.

Additional off

- road sectors (i.e., commercial marine, aircraft, and railroads [MAR]) were handled separate ly. Aircraft emissions were supplied by the LADCO States. Updated information for railroads and commercial marine for the LADCO States was prepared by a contractor (Environ

, 2007a and Environ 2007b)

. Table 1 compares the new 2005 emissions with the prev ious 2002 emission estimates. The new 2005 emissions reflect substantially lower commercial marine emissions and lower locomotive NOx emissions.

EMS was run by LADCO using the contractor and state data and , for the non

- LADCO States, using emission files supplied by Alpine based on data from the other R POs to produce weekday, Saturday, and Sunday emissions for each month.

Table 1. Locomotive and Commercial Marine Emissions for 2002 and 2005 Base Year

Railroads (TPY) Commercial Marine (TPY)

2002 2005 2002 2005

VOC 7,890 7,625 1,562 828

CO 20,121 20,017 8,823 6,727

NOx 182,226 145,132 64,441 42,336

PM 5,049 4,845 3,113 1,413

SO2 12,274 12,173 25,929 8,637

NH3 86 85

---- ----



### Area : EMS was run by LADCO using 2005 data supplied by the LAD CO States and, for the

non

- LADCO States, using emission files supplied by Alpine based on data from the other R POs to produce weekday, Saturday, and Sunday emissions for each month. Special attention was given to two source categories: industrial adhesive and sealant solvent emissions and outdoor wood boilers.

Industrial Adhesives and Sealants: T he NEI show s this to be a large VOC emissions category

in the LADCO States ( i.e.

., 50,000 TPY ) US EPA subsequently determined that “ (f) or the Region V states, we no longer believe that there are any activities in the Industrial Adhesives and Sealants category (SCC 2440020000) that have not been inventoried either in the point source Industrial Adhesives and Sealants category or under the Consumer and Commercial Adh esives and Sealants nonpoint category (SCC 2460600000

- all adhesives and sealants).” (USEPA, 2007b) Consequently, this category was omitted from the 2005 regional emissions inventory.

### February 27, 2008



### Outdoor Wood Boilers: Over the past several years, the installation a nd operation of outdoor wood boilers for residential use has increased dramatically in many northern states. Relying on an emission estimation methodology prepared by Bart Sponseller (WDNR , 2006 ), emissions were calculated by the other states for this cat egory.

EGU Point : EMS was run by LADCO using 2005 data supplied by the LADCO States and, for the non

- LADCO States, using emission files supplied by Alpine based on data from the other R POs to produce weekday, Saturday, and Sunday emissions for each month. 2005 EGU emissions were temporalized for modeling purposes using profiles prepared by Scott Edick (Michigan DEQ) based on CEM data for the period 2004

- 2006. Profiles were generated for monthly weekday/ S aturday/ S unday based on the median hourly emissions for that month, day, and hour of the day for the three years. Over 90% of NOX and SO2 emissions from EGUs in the LADCO states were assigned profiles. In non

- L adco states

, the annual EGUs emissions were replaced with the 2005 sum of hourly emissions for al l 365 days.

Non

- EGU Point : EMS was run by LADCO using 2005 data supplied by the LADCO States and, for the non

- LADCO States, using emission files supplied by Alpine based on data from the other R POs to produce weekday, Saturday, and Sunday emissions for each month. EGUs were removed from th is point source file.

Other improvements to the base year inventory included:

Canadian Emissions : Previous modeling inventories for Canadian sources were flawed due to problems with emissions (e.g., LADCO inventories omitted ammonia emissions) or stack parameters (e.g., VISTAS inventories failed to include proper stack parameters, resulting in emissions getting dumped in the surface layer of the model). For Base M, Scott Edick (Michigan DEQ) processed the 2005 Canadi an National Pollutant Release Inventory ( NPRI

– see http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/npri/ )

. Specifically, a subset of the NPRI data which are relevant to the air quality modeling were reformatted. A number of emissi on reports are available on the LADCO website ( http://www.ladco.org/tech/emis/basem/canada/index.htm ). Circle plot of point source emissions are presented in Figure 3

.

### February 27, 2008

Figure 3

. Base year emission plots for Canada



### Biogenic Emissions : A contractor provided an updated version of the CONCEPT/MEGAN (Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature

– see http://bai.acd.ucar.edu/Megan/ ) biogenics model , which was used to produce base year biogenic emission estimates (Alpine, 2007b)

. MEGAN includes functions for soil moisture plant stress, a more complete canopy model, full plant growth cycle emissions calculations, and state of the science emission rates.

Subsequent to deliver of the updated CONCEPT/MEGAN code, it was found that more recent data sets and model formulations were available. For t he purposes of the Round 5 modeling, LADCO simply scaled the emission estimates from the updated code to reflect these newer data. This resulted in lower emissions for several organic aerosol species and NOx

Compared to the EMS/BIOME emissions used for B ase K , t here is more regional isoprene with MEGAN (see Figure 4)

. Also, with the secondary organic aerosol updates to the CAMx air quality model, Base M includes emissions for monoterpenes and sesquiterpenes , which are pre

cursors of secondary PM 2. 5 

### organ ic carbon mass

.

Figure 4

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

### February 27, 2008



### Ammonia Emissions : The CMU

- based 2002 (Base K) annual ammonia emissions were projected to 2005 using growth factors from the Round 4 emissions modeling. The se annual emis sions were then adjusted by applying monthly temporal factors based on the process

based ammonia emissions model ( http://www.conceptmodel.org/nh3/nh3_index.html ). The model was run for the fo llowing list of model farms using 200 2 meteor o logical data : Dairy (California, Wisconsin), Swine (Iowa, Wisconsin), and Beef (Texas, Washington, Wisconsin)

. Because the model was not complete for the poultry housing model

, swine was use in its place given that both use confined operations.

Each model farms ’ emissions were used to generate monthly average day emissions and a monthly profile. The profiles were applied to geographies most associated with that farm type (e.g., a ll LADCO states used the Wisc onsin fa rm results) . The following figure show s the daily variation in emissions for the model farms

.

Wisconsin

–

dairy Wisconsin

- swine

Daily Total - Swine 55001

0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500

01/03/02 01/17/02 01/31/02 02/14/02 02/28/02 03/14/02 03/28/02 04/11/02 04/25/02 05/09/02 05/23/02 06/06/02 06/20/02 07/04/02 07/18/02 08/01/02 08/15/02 08/29/02 09/12/02 09/26/02 10/10/02 10/24/02 11/07/02 11/21/02 12/05/02 12/19/02

DateNH3 emissions (Kg / day) Daily Total - Dairy 55001

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00

01/03/02 01/17/02 01/31/02 02/14/02 02/28/02 03/14/02 03/28/02 04/11/02 04/25/02 05/09/02 05/23/02 06/06/02 06/20/02 07/04/02 07/18/02 08/01/02 08/15/02 08/29/02 09/12/02 09/26/02 10/10/02 10/24/02 11/07/02 11/21/02 12/05/02 12/19/02

DateNH3 emissions (Kg / day)



### Washington

–

beef Texas

- beef

Daily Total - Beef 53001

0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000

01/03/02 01/17/02 01/31/02 02/14/02 02/28/02 03/14/02 03/28/02 04/11/02 04/25/02 05/09/02 05/23/02 06/06/02 06/20/02 07/04/02 07/18/02 08/01/02 08/15/02 08/29/02 09/12/02 09/26/02 10/10/02 10/24/02 11/07/02 11/21/02 12/05/02 12/19/02

DateNH3 emissions (Kg / day) Daily Total - Beef 48001

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00

01/03/02 01/17/02 01/31/02 02/14/02 02/28/02 03/14/02 03/28/02 04/11/02 04/25/02 05/09/02 05/23/02 06/06/02 06/20/02 07/04/02 07/18/02 08/01/02 08/15/02 08/29/02 09/12/02 09/26/02 10/10/02 10/24/02 11/07/02 11/21/02 12/05/02 12/19/02

DateNH3 emissions (Kg / day)



### Figure 5. Daily emissions for 2002 for various model farms

### February 27, 2008



### A plot of the resulting average daily emissions by state and month is provided in Figure 6

.

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800

Jan Fed March Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Illinois Indiana Io w a Michigan

Minnesota Ohio Wisconsin

Figure 6

. Average daily ammonia emissions for Midwest States by month for 2005



### Fires : For Base K, a contractor (EC/R, 2004) developed a 2001, 2002, and 20 03 fire emissions inventory for eight Midwest States (five LADCO states plus Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri), including emissions from wild fires, prescribed fires, and agricultural burns. Projected emissions were also developed for 2010 and 2018 assuming “no smoke management” and “optimal smoke management” scenarios. An early model sensitivity run showed very little difference in modeled PM 2.5 

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

### February 27, 2008



### Future Year Emissions Complete e mission inventories were developed for t wo future year s : 2009 and 2018 1



### . Source sector emission summaries for the base years (2002

– Base K and 2005

– Base M) and future years are shown in Figure 7

. A more detailed state and source sector summary is provided in Attachment 1. A dditional emission reports are available on the LADCO website ( http://64.27.125 .175/tech/emis/r5/round5_reports.htm

.

VOC NOx S O2

0 3000 6000 9000 12000

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

On-road

Nonroad

Non-EGU

EGU



### Figure 7 . Base year and future year emissions for 5

- State LADCO Region (TPD, July weekday)

1 

### A 2008 proxy inventory was prepared to support a preliminary 2008 modeling analysis to assess attainment for the basic nonattainment areas (i.e, for areas with a 2009 attainment date, the appropriate panning year is 2008). This inventory reflects the following assumptions:

On

- road: scale 2005 base year emissions using the Base K 2002

– 2009 trend (except for the Cincinnati

- Dayton area, where 2008 emissions were generated using CONCEPT and 2008 data supplied by the local planning agency)

Off

- road and area: scale 2005 base year emissions using the Base K 2002

- 2009 trend

Point

– EGU: use 2005 base year emissions, with slight adjustment (

- 10%)

Point

– Non

- EGU: use 2005 base year emissions (note: Base K 2002

- 2009 trend suggests little change)

Biogenics: use new 2005 base year emissions

A 2012 proxy inventory was prepared to support a preliminary 2012 modeling analysis to assess the effect of further emission reductions from existing controls. This inventory was derived by interpolating between 2009 and 2018 emissions for all sectors, except p oint sources (for which, the 2009 emissions were used).

### February 27, 2008



### For on

- road, off

- road, and EGU sources, the future year emissions were estimated by models (i.e., CONCEPT, NMIM2005, and IPM, respectively) and then processed by LADCO with EMS. For other sectors (area, MAR, and non

- EGU point sources)

, the future year emissions for the LADCO States were derived by applying growth and control factors to the base year inventory. These factors were developed by a contractor (E.H. Pechan , 2007 ). Growth factors were based initially on EGAS (version 5.0), and were subsequently modified (for select, priority categories) by examining emissions activity data. For the non

- L ADCO States, future year emission files were supplied by Alpine based on data from the other RPOs. Due to a lack of information on future year conditions, the biogenic VOC and NOx emissions, and all Canadian emissions were assumed to remain constant betwe en the base year and future years.

A “base” control scenario was prepared for each future year based on the following “on the books” controls (E.H. Pechan, 2007):

On

- Highway Mobile Sources

• Federal motor vehicle emission control program, low sulfur gaso line, and ultra

- low sulfur diesel fuel

• Inspection/Maintenance programs (nonattainment areas)

• Reformulated gasoline (nonattainment areas)

Off

- Highway Mobile Sources

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

• Heavy

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

• Federal railroad/locomotive standards

• Federal commercial marine vessel engine standards

Area Sources

• Consumer solvents

• AIM coa tings

• Aerosol coatings

• Portable fuel containers

Power Plants

• Title IV (Phases I and II)

• NOx SIP Call

• Clean Air Interstate Rule

• Clean Air Mercury Rule

Other Point Sources

• VOC 2

- , 4

- , 7

- , and 10

- year MACT standards 2



### • Combustion turbine MACT

• Consent decrees (refiner ies, ethanol plants, and ALCOA) 3

2 

### E.H. Pechan’s original control file included EPA

- default control factor information. Alternative control factors were developed by Wisconsin for a few MACT categories, and were also applied to th e other four LADCO States.

### February 27, 2008



### • Other ( Illinois and Ohio NOx RACT 4



### , and BART in IN and WI)

Further discus sion of the development of the future year emissions is provided below:

On

- R oad : Similar to the base year modeling, CONCEPT was run using t ransportation data (e.g., VMT and vehicle speeds) supplied by the state and local planning agencies for 2009 and 2018 (Environ, 2008) . CONCEPT was only run with meteorological data for a July weekday (July 15) . The emissions for Saturday and Sunday were derived by using scaling factors based on the 2005 emissions. The state

- level emissions for the five LADCO States plus Minnesota are summarized in Table 2 5



### .

For the non

- LADCO States, CONCEPT was run by Environ using HPMS county

- level data and MOBILE6 inp uts compiled by another contractor for VISTAS. Note, the emissions modeling for IA, MO, and OK was redone for 2009 to reflect the state

- developed registration distribution data. (The initial modeling for 2009 used national default values for registration distribution assumed by VISTAS’ contractor. CENRAP’s contractor developed emissions inventories for 2002 and 2018 using the state

- developed data. For consistency, Environ’s remodeling for these three states for 2009 also used the state

- developed data.) Meteorological data for a July weekday (July 15) were used. The emissions for Saturday and Sunday were derived by using scaling factors based on the 2005 emissions.

For other months (for both LADCO and non

- LADCO States), January weekday, Saturday, and Sunday emissions were derived based on the July:January ratios for 2005, and then the weekday, Saturday, and Sunday emissions for other months were linearly interpolated based on the January and July emissions

.

3 

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

- scale modeling to avoid double

- counting with the State’s local

- scale a nalysis for PM2.5.

4 

### WI believes that NOx RACT for their sources is already included in the 2005 basecase and EGU “will do” scenario, and IN provided NOx RACT information for inclusion as a no

- EGU “may do” scenario. 5 

### For northeastern IL (CATS region), 2009 and 2018 emissions were increases by 9% and 8%, respectively, to reflect newer transportation modeling by CATS.

### February 27, 2008

Table 2. Summary of On

- road Emissions (TP D

– July 15, 2005)

Year State CO

- tpd TOG

- tpd NOx

- tpd PM2.5

- tpd SO2

- tpd NH3

- tpd Sum of VMT

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

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

MI 4,210.3 351.9 722.0 12.4 13.9 35.3 340,834,025.9

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

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

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

Total 22,168.0 2,049.0 3,782.9 64.5 70.2 170.8 1,650,128,709.9

2009 IL 2,824.4 268.0 52 7.8 10.1 4.2 38.9 372,132,591.1

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

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

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

OH 4,619.2 423.7 693.5 11.8 4.7 39.5 387,428,127.2

WI 1,673.4 11 9.4 322.1 5.7 2.3 20.6 197,729,964.9

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

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

IN 2,217.3 138.4 173.0 4.4 2.6 30.2 288,042,232.1

MI 2,434.3 163.5 204.1 5.9 3.6 40. 5 388,128,431.8

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

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

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

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

### February 27, 2008



### EGU Point : Future ye ar emissions were based on EPA’s IPM3.0 modeling 6



### . Three CAIR scenarios were addressed:

5 a: EPA’s IPM3.0 was assumed as the future year base for EGUs.

5 b: EPA’s IPM3.0, with several “will do” adjustments identified by the States. These adjustments should reflect a legally binding commitment (e.g., signed contract, consent decree, or operating permit). 7



### 5 c: EPA’s IPM3.0, with several “may do” adjustments identified by the States. These adjustments reflect less rigorous criteria, but should stil l be some type of public reality (e.g., BART determination or press announcement).

Table 3 summarizes the SO2 and NOx emissions for the three scenarios. The individual f acilities affected by the “will do” and “may do” adjustments are identified in Attac hment 2. The net effect of these adjustments is a small increase in regional SO2 and NOx emissions.

Based on initial discussions with USEPA, a decision was made to use the 2010 IPM emissions in the 2009 modeling. USEPA subsequently insisted that 2009 mo deling must represent 2009 conditions. Because 2009 and 2010 EGU NOx emissions are expected to be similar (note: CAIR Phase I compliance date for NOx is 2009), the Round 5.1 ozone modeling was not redone.

USEPA believes that 2009 and 2010 EGU SO2 emissio ns may be significantly different (note: CAIR Phase I compliance date for SO2 is 2010). In particular, USEPA noted that information on projected scrubber installations identifies several facilities are not expected to be completed until 2010. A model sen sitivity run was conducted with adjusted (higher) EGU SO2 emissions.

6 

### The second set of new IPM runs by EPA were used. These runs were performed at the request of the RPOs and reflect the addition of run y ears 2012 and 2018 , and the use of four load segments for 2032 to decrease model size (instead of six segments). Comparing the results in this run with EPA’s initial v3.0, showed small differences Below is a quick summary of the run year differences.

EP A Base Case for IPM v.3.0 2010: 2009

- 2012 2015: 2013

- 2017 2020: 2018

- 2022 2025: 2023

- 2027 2032: 2028

- 2035

Base Case RPO Run for IPM v3.0 (added 2012 and 2018 run years, 2020 run year merged with the 2025 run year, and four load segments used for the 2032 run year) 2010: 2009

- 2011 2012: 2012

- 2012 2015: 2013

- 2017 2018: 2018

- 2019 2025: 2020

- 2028 2032: 2029

- 2035

7 

### Scenario 5b and 5c also reflect changes in Minnesota, Missouri, and North Dakota.

### February 27, 2008



### Table 4 provides information from USEPA s Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) on scrubber installation dates. This information is based on various sources, including company announcements, consent decrees, v endors, and organizations that track scrubber installations. While there may be uncertainty in any projection of control installations, USEPA conside rs these adequate project ions for SIP planning purposes.

USEPA identified six plants which: (1) are projected in IPM3.0 to have scrubbers in place by 2010 (or 2011), but will not be completed by 2009, and (2) are most likely to impact PM 2. 5 

### air quality in the upper Midwest (see highlighting in Table 4 ). To reflect uncontrolled (2009) emi ssions for those facilities (and units), LADCO substituted actual 2005 emissions for the IPM3.0 projected 2010 emissions. The revised (2009) SO2 emissions for the six facilities (see Table 5) represent a 5

- 6% increase in domainwide SO2 emissions.

### February 27, 2008

Table 3. Comparison of EGU Emissions for Base (5a), Will Do (5b), and Will Do (5c) Scenarios



### 2010 2018 SO2 5a 5b 5c 5a 5b 5c
IL 958 881 881 869 433 433
IN 1033 1318 1318 1036 1194 1194
MI 667 667 667 725 725 725
OH 1326 1410 1410 983 1127 1127
WI 460 460 421 435 499 235

4444 4736 4697 4048 3978 3714

MN 162 148 148 187 167 157

NOx 5a 5b 5c 5a 5b 5c
IL 275 247 247 224 195 195
IN 370 372 372 255 266 266
MI 242 242 242 243 243 243
OH 281 305 305 285 310 310
WI 165 164 155 176 172 145

1333 1330 1321 1183 1186 1159

MN 116 142 142 132 157 125

### February 27, 2008

Table 4. Facilities Anticipating SO2 Controls in 2009 and 2010

State Name Plant Name UniqueID_Final ORIS Code Unit

ID Capacity

MW Scrubber

On lineYear Scrubber

OnlineMonth
Alabama Barry 3_B_5 3 5 768 2010
Alabama E C Gaston 26_B_5 26 5 861 2010
Arizona Cholla 113_B_3 113 3 271 2009
Florida Crystal River 628_B_4 628 4 720 2010
Florida Crist 641_B_6 641 6 302 2010
Florida Crist 641_B_ 7 641 7 477 2010
Florida Crystal River 628_B_5 628 5 717 2009 5
Florida Deerhaven Generating Station 663_B_B2 663 B2 228 2009 5 Georgia Bowen 703_B_1BLR 703 1BLR 713 2010 Georgia Wansley 6052_B_2 6052 2 892 2009 5 Georgia Bowen 703_B_2BLR 703 2BLR 7 18 2009 4
Indiana Clifty Creek 983_B_1 983 1 217 2010
Indiana Clifty Creek 983_B_2 983 2 217 2010
Indiana Clifty Creek 983_B_3 983 3 217 2010
Indiana Clifty Creek 983_B_4 983 4 217 2010
Indiana Clifty Creek 983_B_5 983 5 217 2010
Indiana Clifty Creek 983_B_6 983 6 217 2010
Indiana Warrick 6705_B_4 6705 4 300 2010 Kentucky Big Sandy 1353_B_BSU2 1353 BSU2 800 2009 11 Kentucky E W Brown 1355_B_1 1355 1 94 2009 1 Kentucky E W Brown 1355_B_2 1355 2 160 2009 1 Kentucky E W Brown 1355_B_3 1355 3 422 2009 1 Kentucky H L Spurlock 6041_B_1 6041 1 315 2009 Maryland Brandon Shores 602_B_1 602 1 643 2010 Maryland Brandon Shores 602_B_2 602 2 643 2010 Maryland Chalk Point LLC 1571_B_1 1571 1 341 2010 Maryland Chalk Point LLC 1571_B_2 1571 2 342 2010 Maryland Dickerson 1572_B_1 1572 1 182 2010 Maryland Dickerson 1572_B_2 1572 2 182 2010 Maryland Dickerson 1572_B_3 1572 3 182 2010 Maryland Morgantown Generating Plant 1573_B_1 1573 1 624 2009 Maryland Morgantown Generating Plant 1573_B_2 1573 2 620 2009

Michigan Monroe 1733_B_4 1733 4 775 2009 (2010?)
Missouri Sioux 2107_B_1 2107 1 497 2010
Missouri Sioux 2107_B_2 2107 2 497 2010 New Jersey PSEG Mercer Gen. Station 2408_B_1 2408 1 315.3 2010 New Jersey PSEG Mercer Gen

. Station 2408_B_2 2408 2 309.9 2010
New York AES Westover 2526_B_11 2526 11 21.85 2010
New York AES Westover 2526_B_12 2526 12 21.85 2010
New York AES Westover 2526_B_13 2526 13 84 2010
New York AES Greenidge LLC 2527_B_4 2527 4 26.5 2010
New York AES Gr eenidge LLC 2527_B_5 2527 5 26.5 2010 NorthCarolina Cliffside 2721_B_1 2721 1 38 2010

### February 27, 2008

NorthCarolina Cliffside 2721_B_2 2721 2 38 2010
NorthCarolina Cliffside 2721_B_3 2721 3 61 2010 NorthCarolina Cliffside 2721_B_4 2721 4 61 2010
NorthCarolina Cl iffside 2721_B_5 2721 5 550 2010 NorthCarolina G G Allen 2718_B_1 2718 1 161.73 2009 5
NorthCarolina Roxboro 2712_B_1 2712 1 369 2009
NorthCarolina G G Allen 2718_B_2 2718 2 161.73 2009 NorthCarolina G G Allen 2718_B_3 2718 3 259.77 2009
NorthC arolina G G Allen 2718_B_4 2718 4 274.77 2009 NorthCarolina G G Allen 2718_B_5 2718 5 265 2009
NorthCarolina Mayo 6250_B_1A 6250 1A 361.5 2009
NorthCarolina Mayo 6250_B_1B 6250 1B 361.5 2009 Ohio W H Sammis 2866_B_6 2866 6 630 2011
Ohio W H S ammis 2866_B_7 2866 7 630 2011 Ohio R E Burger 2864_B_7 2864 7 156 2010
Ohio R E Burger 2864_B_8 2864 8 156 2010
Ohio Kyger Creek 2876_B_1 2876 1 217 2010 Ohio Kyger Creek 2876_B_2 2876 2 217 2010
Ohio Kyger Creek 2876_B_3 2876 3 217 2010 Ohio Kyger Creek 2876_B_4 2876 4 217 2010
Ohio Kyger Creek 2876_B_5 2876 5 217 2010
Ohio Conesville 2840_B_4 2840 4 780 2009 4 Ohio Bay Shore 2878_B_4 2878 4 215 2009 Pennsylvania Cheswick Power Plant 8226_B_1 8226 1 580 2010 Pennsylvania Hatfields Fe rry Power Station 3179_B_1 3179 1 530 2009 1 Pennsylvania Hatfields Ferry Power Station 3179_B_2 3179 2 530 2009 1 Pennsylvania Hatfields Ferry Power Station 3179_B_3 3179 3 530 2009 1 Pennsylvania Keystone 3136_B_1 3136 1 850 2009 Pennsylvania Keyst

one 3136_B_2 3136 2 850 2009 Pennsylvania PPL Brunner Island 3140_B_1 3140 1 321 2009 Pennsylvania PPL Brunner Island 3140_B_2 3140 2 378 2009
Tennessee Kingston 3407_B_1 3407 1 135 2010
Tennessee Kingston 3407_B_2 3407 2 135 2010
Tennessee Ki ngston 3407_B_3 3407 3 135 2010
Tennessee Kingston 3407_B_4 3407 4 135 2010
Tennessee Kingston 3407_B_5 3407 5 177 2010
Tennessee Kingston 3407_B_6 3407 6 177 2010
Tennessee Kingston 3407_B_7 3407 7 177 2010
Tennessee Kingston 3407_B_8 3407 8 177 2010
Tennessee Kingston 3407_B_9 3407 9 178 2010
Tennessee Bull Run 3396_B_1 3396 1 881 2009 1
Texas Fayette Power Project 6179_B_1 6179 1 598 2009
Texas Fayette Power Project 6179_B_2 6179 2 598 2009 Virginia Chesterfield 3797_B_5 3797 5 310 2 010 Virginia Yorktown 3809_B_1 3809 1 159 2010

### February 27, 2008

Table 5. Summary of Adjusted EGU SO2 Emissions (TPD)

State Plant 2010 IPM 2005 BY

Indiana Clifty Creek 41.41 225.32

Missouri Ameren Sioux 22.25 141.92

Ohio Kyger Creek 21.53 197.68

Ohio Sammis 147.97 305.90

Pennsylv a nia Cheswick 11.53 103.98

Tennessee Kingston 41.15 155.20

### February 27, 2008



### References

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

- LADCO) State Emissions, Preparation and Delivery of Non

- MR PO Emission Files< March 12, 2007.

Alpine Geophysics, 2007b, Updated CONCEPT code with new (MEGAN) biogenic emissions delivered via e

- mail from James Wilkinson on February 9, 2007.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Environ, 200 8 , “LADCO On

- Road Emission Inventory Developm ent Using CONCEPT MV”, January 2008

. LADCO, 2006a, “Base K/Round 4 Strategy Modeli ng” Emissions”, May 16, 2006.

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

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

- Based Ammonia Emissions Model for Agricultural Sources

– Emission Estimates”

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

### , and Regional Haze”, EPA

- 454/B07

- 002, April 2007.

USEPA, 2007b, E

- mail from Dennis Bea uregard (OAQPS) dated February 22, 2007.

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

- Based Ammonia Emissions Model for Agricultural Sources

– Model Development”

WDNR, 2006, “ Wisconsin Draft 2005 Ou tdoor Wood Boiler Methodology ”, PowerPoint presentation by Bart Sponseller, November 13, 2006.

### February 27, 2008



### Web Sites:

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

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

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

http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/npri/

http://bai.acd.ucar.edu/Megan/

http://www.conceptmodel.org/nh3/nh3_index.html

### February 27, 2008



# ATTACHME NT 1

Emissions SummariesVOC Base M BaseK Base M BaseK BaseK Base M NOx Base M BaseK Base M BaseK BaseK Base M SOX Base M BaseK Base M BaseK BaseK Base M PM2.5 Base M BaseK Base M BaseK BaseK Base M

July 2002 2005 2009 2009 2012 2018 2018 2002 2005 2009 2009 2012 2018 2018 2002 2005 2009 2009 2012 2018 2018 2002 2005 2009 2009 2012 2018 2018
Nonroad
IL 224 321 164 257 149 130 213 324 333 263 275 224 154 155 31 33 5 5 0.6 0.4 0.4 30 24 14
IN 125 195 94 160 95 95 128 178 191 142 158 141 141 89 17 19 3 3 3 0.3 0.2 17 13 7
MI 348 414 307 350 276 222 271 205 239 159 197 133 93 112 19 22 3 3 0.5 0.3 0.3 22 18 11
OH 222 356 161 294 145 126 238 253 304 195 246 162 109 135 23 29 4 5 0.5 0.3 0.4 27 22 13
WI 214 238 194 203 175 140 157 145 157 114 129 97 69 77 13 15 2 2 0.3 0.2 0.2 14 12 7
5-State Total 1133 1524 920 1264 840 713 1007 1105 1224 873 1005 757 566 568 103 118 17 18 4.9 1.5 1.5 110 89 52
U.S. Total 8463 9815 5442 8448 5244 6581 6041 9060 6057 8120 5832 5100 505 654 117 153 104 13 573 750 475

MAR
IL 10 11 10 10 10 10 6 277 246 201 228 195 186 165 0 22 0 19 0 0 17 7 6 4
IN 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 123 93 89 87 87 84 65 0.2 8 0.2 7 0.2 0.2 6 2 2 2
MI 7 7 7 7 7 8 7 114 87 112 82 111 110 65 0.6 21 0.7 14 0.7 0.8 8 3 3 2
OH 8 7 8 7 8 8 5 177 134 128 126 126 122 94 0.4 14 0.3 12 0.3 0.3 10 4 4 2
WI 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 79 58 59 54 59 57 41 12.7 8 9.5 6 9.5 8.7 5 2 2 1
5-State Total 34 34 34 33 34 35 24 770 618 589 577 578 559 430 13.9 73 10.7 58 10.7 10 46 18 17 11
U.S. Total 307 317 321 157 329 346 334 4968 4515 4002 1813 3964 3919 3812 620 512 509 122 509 503 290 147 57 165

OtherArea
IL 679 675 688 594 700 738 582 62 48 68 48 70 73 49 11 11 12 16 12 13 16 40 64 69
IN 354 391 365 358 373 398 384 62 56 65 58 67 69 59 158 32 150 32 151 153 32 2 2 2
MI 518 652 516 562 520 541 549 49 49 52 50 53 54 51 71 29 68 29 68 68 28 111 114 120
OH 546 604 550 506 558 593 487 50 93 59 108 60 62 108 22 6 34 15 35 35 14 19 35 34
WI 458 315 467 290 474 506 293 32 37 34 37 34 35 37 9 17 9 13 10 10 13 11 12 12
5-State Total 2555 2637 2586 2310 2625 2776 2295 255 283 278 301 284 293 304 271 95 273 105 276 279 103 183 227 237
U.S. Total 17876 21093 18638 18683 20512 24300 3856 4899 4100 4220 4418 5357 2075 2947 2062 2559 2189 2709 2735 2621 2570

On-Road
IL 446 341 314 268 260 197 151 890 748 578 528 474 300 201 9 4 3 13 10 6
IN 405 282 237 235 193 150 138 703 541 425 402 313 187 173 11 3 2 9 7 2
MI 522 351 335 269 303 217 163 926 722 680 501 619 385 204 14 4 3 12 9 3
OH 574 680 365 424 340 238 242 1035 934 609 693 512 270 274 18 4 4 16 12 4
WI 238 175 144 119 117 88 68 481 457 303 322 226 118 138 9 2 2 8 6 2
5-State Total 2185 1829 1395 1315 1213 890 762 4035 3402 2595 2446 2144 1260 990 61 17 14 58 44 17
U.S. Total 14263 7825 23499 13170

EGU
IL 9 7 8 6 8 9 7 712 305 227 275 244 231 224 1310 1158 944 958 789 810 869 13 34 77
IN 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 830 393 406 370 424 283 255 2499 2614 1267 1033 1263 1048 1036 16 73 74
MI 12 6 11 4 11 12 4 448 393 218 242 219 247 243 1103 1251 1022 667 1031 1058 725 15 25 29
OH 5 4 6 5 7 7 6 1139 408 330 280 322 271 285 3131 3405 1463 1326 994 701 983 28 94 80
WI 3 5 3 2 4 4 3 293 213 146 165 139 147 177 602 545 512 460 492 500 435 0 22 25
5-State Total 35 28 34 23 37 38 26 3422 1712 1327 1332 1348 1179 1184 8645 8973 5208 4444 4569 4117 4048 72 248 285
U.S. Total 214 140 195 124 197 215 138 14371 10316 7746 7274 7721 7007 6095 31839 34545 20163 16903 17629 14727 14133 685 1131 1571

Non-EGU
IL 313 221 286 218 305 350 258 356 330 334 218 338 343 235 373 423 251 335 257 249 346 16 17 19
IN 150 130 160 137 170 199 167 238 179 212 175 216 225 178 292 218 270 216 274 290 180 35 36 44
MI 123 116 115 119 122 139 140 216 240 208 242 214 229 271 162 158 166 148 171 185 163 20 21 25
OH 77 84 75 87 79 90 104 177 175 157 166 160 167 178 240 289 231 288 210 216 293 27 28 33
WI 88 84 97 87 104 120 106 98 97 91 93 92 94 81 163 156 154 152 155 156 85 0 0.1 0.1
5-State Total 751 635 733 648 780 898 775 1085 1021 1002 894 1020 1058 943 1230 1244 1072 1139 1067 1096 1067 98 102 121
U.S. Total 4087 3877 4409 4700 5378 6446 6730 6129 6435 6952 5759 5630 6093 6340 6970 1444 1777

IL 1681 1576 1470 1353 1432 1434 1217 2621 2010 1671 1572 1545 1287 1029 1725 1656 1212 1337 1059 1072 1251 119 155 189
IN 1045 1009 867 901 843 853 826 2134 1453 1339 1250 1248 989 819 2966 2902 1690 1294 1691 1492 1256 81 133 131
MI 1530 1546 1291 1311 1239 1139 1134 1958 1730 1429 1314 1349 1118 946 1356 1495 1260 865 1271 1312 927 183 190 190
OH 1432 1735 1165 1323 1137 1062 1082 2831 2048 1478 1619 1342 1001 1074 3416 3761 1732 1650 1240 953 1304 121 195 166
WI 1005 821 909 705 878 862 630 1128 1019 747 800 647 520 551 800 750 687 635 667 675 540 35 54 47
5-State Total 6693 6687 5702 5593 5529 5350 4889 10672 8260 6664 6555 6131 4915 4419 10263 10564 6581 5781 5928 5504 5280 539 727 723

### February 27, 2008



# ATTACHMENT 2

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

### February 27, 2008



### 2009

– Difference between base (5a) and “will do” (5b) scenarios

The SAS System 09:55 Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1

------------------------ ------------------------------------ polid=NOX

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

-----

Obs cntryid stid cyid fcid name polid aceebase aceenew diff

1 US 17 97 097190AAC MIDWEST GENERAT NOX 11.54 6.28

- 5.266 2 US 17 197 197810AAK MIDWEST GENERAT NOX 21.11 9.46

- 11.652 3 US 18 73 00008 NIPSCO

- R.M. S NOX 26.50 24.81

- 1.691 4 US 18 77 00001 IKEC

- CLIFTY C NOX 11.58 16.42 4.836 5 US 18 89 00117 NIPSCO

- DEAN H NOX 20.51 19.13

- 1.384 6 US 27 37 2703700003 NSP dba Xcel En NOX 8.03 26.74 18.709 7 US 27 61 2706100004 Minne sota Power NOX 15.43 18.40 2.969 8 US 27 163 2716300005 Xcel Energy

- A NOX 4.21 5.92 1.718 9 US 29 183 0001 AMERENUE

- SIOUX NOX 28.47 12.81

- 15.658 10 US 38 55 126 Coal Creek Stat NOX 30.49 30.36

- 0.132 11 US 38 57 12 Leland Olds Sta NOX 11 .32 36.67 25.348 12 US 38 57 125 Stanton Station NOX 6.11 6.11 0.002 13 US 38 57 13 Antelope Valley NOX 33.00 36.39 3.385 14 US 38 57 289 Coyote NOX 35.12 36.95 1.839 15 US 38 59 172 RM Heskett Stat NOX 5.45 4.72

- 0.727 16 US 38 65 165 M R Young Stati NOX 6.02 71.10 65.081 17 US 39 93 0247030013 AVON LAKE POWER NOX 3.98 20.54 16.561 1 8 US 39 129 0165000006 NOX . 1.69 . 19 US 55 11 606034110 DAIRYLAND POWER NOX 19.24 18.96

- 0.279 20 US 55 21 111003090 Alliant Energy

- NOX 14.23 17.16 2.927 21 US 55 43 122014530 Alliant Energy

- NOX 7.61 7.77 0.160 22 US 55 59 230006260 WIS ELECTRIC PO NOX 7.39 14.03 6.647 23 US 55 71 436035930 MANITOWOC PUBLI NOX 2.06 1.80

- 0.259 24 US 55 79 241007690 WIS ELECTRIC PO NOX 15.25 15.41 0.166 25 US 55 79 241007800 WIS ELECTRIC PO NOX 7.87 6.07

- 1.801 26 US 55 117 460033090 WP & L All iant NOX 19.06 11.85

- 7.215 27 US 55 123 663020930 DAIRYLAND POWER NOX 10.47 8.52

- 1.955

----- -------- ------- -------- polid 382.05 486.07 102.327

### February 27, 2008

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

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

-----

Obs cntryid stid cyid fcid name polid aceebase aceenew diff

28 US 17 97 097190AAC MIDWEST GENERAT SO2 49.9 1 29.27

- 20.636 29 US 17 197 197810AAK MIDWEST GENERAT SO2 91.90 62.70

- 29.198 30 US 18 29 00002 AMERICAN ELECTR SO2 66.34 102.72 36.389 31 US 18 43 00004 PSI ENERGY

- GA SO2 25.53 66.01 40.488 32 US 18 73 00008 NIPSCO

- R.M. S SO2 82.52 63.71

- 18.817 33 US 18 147 00020 INDIANA MICHIGA SO2 71.67 198.71 127.042 34 US 18 167 00021 PSI ENERGY

- WA SO2 76.09 175.87 99.786 35 US 27 31 2703100001 Minnesota Power SO2 12.27 5.75

- 6.512 36 US 27 61 2706100004 Minnesota Power SO2 30.76 20.79

- 9.968 37 US 27 163 2716300005 Xcel Energy

- A SO2 5.33 7.11 1.777 38 US 29 183 0001 AMERENUE

- SIOUX SO2 22.25 8.34

- 13.903 39 US 38 55 126 Coal Creek Stat SO2 27.45 75.37 47.926 40 US 38 57 12 Leland Olds Sta SO2 108.15 126.06 17.906 41 US 38 57 125 Stanton Station SO2 25.29 12.37

- 12.922 42 US 38 57 13 Antelope Valley SO2 26.60 43.72 17.128 43 US 38 57 289 Coyote SO2 19.26 53.19 33.932 44 US 38 59 172 RM Heskett Stat SO2 9.23 30.11 20.872 45 US 38 65 165 M R Young Stati SO2 27.98 82.23 54.249 46 US 39 81 0641160017 W. H. SAMMIS PL SO2 147.97 55.61

- 92.363 47 US 39 93 0247030013 AVON LAKE POWER SO2 7.62 127.04 119.417 48 US 39 129 0165000006 SO2 . 16.55 . 49 US 55 21 111003090 Alliant Energy

- SO2 61.97 74.80 1 2.822 50 US 55 43 122014530 Alliant Energy

- SO2 11.49 42.60 31.111 51 US 55 59 230006260 WIS ELECTRIC PO SO2 7.39 12.34 4.949

52 US 55 71 436035930 MANITOWOC PUBLI SO2 5.90 9.95 4.050 53 US 55 79 241007690 WIS ELECTRIC PO SO2 59.72 41.19

- 18.535 54 US 55 79 241007800 WIS ELECTRIC PO SO2 38.79 21.36

- 17.433 55 US 55 123 663020930 DAIRYLAND POWER SO2 19.56 3.79

- 15.772

----- -------- ------- -------- polid 1138.93 1569.26 413.785

======== ======= ======== 1520.97 2055.32 516.112

### February 27, 2008



### 2009

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

The SAS System 09:55 Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1

------------------------------------------------------------ polid=NOX

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

-----

Obs cntryid stid cyid fcid name polid aceebase aceenew diff

1 US 19 139 70

- 01

- 011 MUSCATINE POWER NOX 5.649 3.926

- 1.7226 2 US 55 9 405031990 WI PUBLIC SERVI NOX 9.234 7.786

- 1.4476 3 US 55 11 606034110 DAIRYLAND POWER NOX 18.957 18.994 0.0377 4 US 55 21 111003090 Alliant Energy

- NOX 17.158 17.156

- 0.0021 5 US 55 25 113004430 MADISON GAS & E NOX 3.886 2.639

- 1.2470 6 US 55 43 122014530 Alliant Energy

- NOX 7.765 7.756

- 0.0091 7 US 55 59 230006260 WIS ELECTRIC PO NOX 14.034 9.826

- 4.2074 8 US 55 71 436035930 MANITOWOC PUBLI NOX 1.800 0.439

- 1.3610 9 US 55 79 241007690 WIS ELECTRIC PO NOX 15.413 15.435 0.0219 10 US 55 79 241007800 WIS ELECTRIC PO NOX 6.068 6.072 0.0041 11 US 55 117 460033090 WP & L Alliant NOX 11.847 11.892 0.0456 12 US 55 123 663020930 DAIRYLAND POWER NOX 8.517 8.482

- 0.0343

----- -------- ------- -------- polid 120.325 110.404

- 9.9218

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

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

-----

Obs cntryid stid cyid fcid name polid aceebase aceenew diff

13 US 19 139 70

- 01

- 011 MUSCATINE POWER SO2 6.237 11.178 4.9415 14 US 55 9 405031990 WI PUBLIC SERVI SO2 21.750 18.074

- 3.6753 15 US 55 21 111003090 Alliant Energy

- SO2 74.796 74.988 0.1924 16 US 55 25 113004430 MADISON GAS & E SO2 16.331 0.063

- 16.2672 17 US 55 43 122014530 Alliant Energy

- SO2 42.604 42.640 0.0362 18 US 55 59 230006260 WIS ELECTRIC PO SO2 12.336 9.850

- 2 .4867 19 US 55 71 436035930 MANITOWOC PUBLI SO2 9.949 3.001

- 6.9477 20 US 55 79 241007690 WIS ELECTRIC PO SO2 41.189 41.210 0.0207

21 US 55 79 241007800 WIS ELECTRIC PO SO2 21.360 21.430 0.0699 22 US 55 123 663020930 DAIRYLAND POWER SO2 3.785 3.716

- 0.0694

----- -------- ------- -------- polid 250.336 226.151

- 24.1856

======== ======= ======== 370.662 336.554

- 34.1074

# APPENDIX J

Public Participation Process Documents

## This page left intentionally blank.

## LEGAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

Redesignation Petition and Maintenance Plan In Association with the Annual Fine Particle (PM 2.5 

## ) Standard

Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County, Indiana

Notice is hereby given under 40 CFR 51.102 that the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) will hold a public hearing on January 5, 2011. The purpose of this hearing is to receive public comment on the Draft Redesignation Petition and Maintenance Plan in association with the Annual Fine Particle (PM 2.5 

## ) Standard, for Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County, Indi ana. The meeting will convene at 5:30 p.m. (local time) at the Lawrenceburg Pub lic Library, Ewbank Meeting Room 1 and 2, 150 Mary Street, Lawrenceburg, Indiana 47025. All interested persons are invited and will be given opportunity to express thei r views concerning the draft documents.

Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County, I ndiana is part of the CincinnatiHamilton OH-KY-IN Fine Particle Nonattainme nt Area. This area was designated as nonattainment for the annual fine particle standard and subj ect to the requirements of Section 172 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). One of the compliance requirements mandated by Section 172(c) of the CAA, is the devel opment of a plan demonstrating that the area will continue to meet the annual standard for fine particles. This Redesignation Petition and Maintenance Plan is bei ng drafted and submitted consis tent with United States Environmental Protection Agen cy (U.S. EPA) guidance.

Copies of the draft documents will be av ailable on or before December 5, 2010 to any person upon request and at the following locations:

 Indiana Department of Environmental Mana gement, Office of Air Quality, Indiana Government Center North, 100 North Sena te, Room N1003, Indianapolis, Indiana.

 Lawrenceburg Public Library, 150 Mary Street, Lawrenceburg, Indiana.

 Lawrenceburg City Building, 230 Walnut Street, Lawrenceburg, Indiana.

The draft documents will also be available on the following Web page:

http://www.in.gov/idem/4658.htm

Oral statements will be heard, but for the accuracy of the record, statements should be submitted in writing. Written statements may be submitted to the attendant designated to receive written comm ents at the public hearing.

IDEM will also accept written comments through January 7, 2010. Mailed comments should be addressed to:

## Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County, Indiana Fine Particle (PM 2.5 

## ) Redesignation Petition and Maintenance Plan Scott Deloney, Chief Programs Branch Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office of Air Quality MC 61-50 100 North Senate Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46206-2251

A transcript of the hearing and all wr itten submissions provided at the public hearing shall be open to public inspection at IDEM and copies may be made available to any person upon payment of reproduction costs. Any person heard or represented at the hearing or requesting notice sh all be given written notice of actions resulting from the hearing.

For additional information contac t Ms. Sarah Raymond, at the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Air Programs Branch, Office of Air Quality, Room 1001, Indiana Government Center Nort h, 100 North Senate Avenue, Indianapolis or call (317) 232-8449 or (800) 451-6027 ext. 2-8449 (in Indiana).

************************************************************************ Individuals requiring reasonable accommodations for participation in this hearing should contact the IDEM Am ericans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator at:

Attn: ADA Coordinator Indiana Department of Environmenta l Management – Mail Code 50-10 100 North Senate Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204-2251

Or call (317) 233-1785 (voice) or (317) 232- 6565 (TDD). Please provide a minimum of 72 hours notification.COMPUTM"'ON OF CHARGES

. 

# ) 02> lines, 

# .1 column wide equals 

# )08 equivalent lines at

. cents per lme

.

Additional charges for notices containing rule or tabular work 

### (50 per cent of above amount)

_ Charge for extra proofs of publication 

### ($1.00 for each proof in excess
mtwo)

------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL AMOUNT OF CLAIM



# ------------**~---~----------:-----,------**

### .~



# ..... 1.0

.

·
.. /0>9··

.. ·
.. ··· Fed. 1.0. 

### #35-1869520 Acct. 

### #15001 General Form No. 99P (Rev. 2009A)

Departmerlt

# ~~~~~i;~~~[;~:;~~~~rliSlgi~I~~rnicc)unty Register

### .,c"~"=""""'-"-'''"=~==~''''''''''"='~~~~''! ".v, Lawrenceburg, IN 

### 47025 .Dearborn County, Indiana

UNE COUNT Display Master (Must not exceed two actual lines, neither of which shall total more than four solid lines of the type in which the body of the advertisement is set)

- number of equivalent lines Head -. number of lines

_ Body

-- number of lines

. Tail- number of lines

_ Total number of lines in notice Prescribed by Slale Board of Accounts



### , w 0:::. 

### w :C'I

### Z 

### w 

## 2
w (,/) 

## i= 0:::. 

### w 

## > Cl <:(


### u. 

# o
>- 0- 

# o u 

## :c u

<:(

DATA FOR COMPUTING COST Width of single columnin picas .15.5 Number of insertions. 

# I

.. $I4:e of type 7 .point.

Pursuant to the provisions and penalties of Ie**5~'11-1 o~**  1,

. f hereby certifY that the foregoing account is just and correct, that the amount claimed is legally due, after allowing all just credits, and that no part of the same has been paid. '

.



# ......**~~** 

# ..**··t'.~f** 

# .. 2.0/C)

.
AddltionalJy, the statement checked below is true and correct:

Titlec ]!
'S IlJ J!J c 

# J

'0
g:
IlJ .$ .l!J U) <Il :0**.~** 0. 0- ro ill £ .5

III .$ l'! "iii

'0

Ql :0 .l!J Claim No.

_ Warrant No.

_______

IN FAVOR OF Accl. #15002; Journal-Press P.O. Box 59, Aurora, Indiana 47001



## $-----------

ON ACCOUNT OF APPROPRIATION FOR

Appropriation No.

__________ ,

__

ALLOWED ,--

IN THE SUM OF$ I have examined the within claim and hereby certify as follows:

That it is In proper form.

That it is duly authenticated as required by law.

That it is based upon statutory authority.

correct That it is apparently incorrect

Publisher's Affidavit

State of Indiana } } ss: Dearborn County }

Personally appeared before me, a notary public in and for said county and state, the undersigned, Joseph M. Awad who, being dUly sworn, says that he is Publisher of the JournalPress newspaper of general circulation printed in the city of Delphos, Ohio and published in the English language in the city of Aurora in the state and county aforesaid, and that the printed matter attached henj:<J is a true copy, which was duly pUblished in said paper for 

## -f-- times, the dates of pUblication being as follows:

SYf!9\iP41d and sworn to before me this day of**-F-..!o!U~V~~_,** 2010. 

# t1JfC:t 0') 

# c: CO 

## () <.0


# .- ll:::t



# ...... • 

# '- 

# ,.. Q)('t) U') 

# UJ C U')



# - I'-

'foi- 

# ,.. C 

# · 0 

# ,.. E '- 

# ::J Q)C\I CO



# - .c CO 

# 0 

# E 

# · 0 0


# ::J CO 

# Z 0 

# .- 

# ,.. CO 

# a. CO



## LO CO U')



## • 

# · LO 0



# ,..**L~ f)Wi>-~** 

Yvonne D. Waters, Notary Public My commission expires 5-30-13 

## CD N 

# .- W Q) 

# 0.

I'

4'

## DEARBORN COUNTY REGISTER, LAWRENCEBURG, IN

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18,2010

Lawrenceburg Public Library, 150 Mary Street, Lawrenceburg, Indiana. Lawrenceburg City Building, 230 Walnut Street, Lawrenceburg, Indiana. The draft documents will also be available on the following Web page: v; http://www.ln.govlldeml4658.htm •• ! 

### ! Oral statements will be heard, but for the accuracy qftherecord, statementsshquld be**sll.bOlIt.t~cf /~rl!lng.Wrlt.tenstatementsrnay**  be**su~mltted** to t itt.tel1cfalltdeslgnaied to receive**wrltt~11** comme**~'th!ilpubllchearlng..** .. 

### ,.,'i)/·, .' "./**IR~MJNlllalso** accept**wrlttellgoIllOl~'l1tsthro "'~l1l1ary**  7, 2010. Mailed c0D;lD;len!lif .s"'q.uld be dressed to:

L.llWrenceburg Township,**pearbotl'l~ounty,** India
i' IfIQe Panicle (PM2.5) Redeslgnatlon. Petition a M@llltenance Plan Spott Deloney, .Chief IJrolJral11s Brall911
Illdian. a De.pa.rtlll

.. e rit

.. O.'.'.En.ivlr.o. nme .• n

.. t.!lI

.•...... · •. 

### M

llpag.!il1l'l Office. ofAlr .Quallty MC lit-50 ..•.• i.!!/ 100 North**Senat~ ~"el111~**  . '.' i

. • 

### .'./1;' Indianapolis,**IN~6~Qli~~?5ti<** A t{@nscrlpt**ofth~~elJrlnlJ'I1~.@II""rl** slons provided

..**@tth~ pllbllg.~.~lJrllllJsh**  to Pllbllc**InspectlonatIDEp.nall~coples** made available to any person llPCln paYmel1to production costs. Any person.l1eardor repre at the hearing or requelltlngllotlce<lif written notice of actions**r~lifultlngfrom**

For additional Informatlori contact Ms.S mond, atthe Indiana Department of Envlronmentll.I!! Management, A.lr Programs Branch, Office of**~I~,I** Quality, Room 1001, Indiana Government Cente.ril North, 100 North Senate Avenue, Indianapolis Or! call (317) 232-8449 or (800) 451-6027 ext. 2-8449 (11l!!'j Indiana). '. .'

Indlvldualll requiring. reasonable accommodatlon 

### lJ 

## !,!
for partlclpat'on In this hearing should contact the.i;1 IDEM Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordl· ' nator at:

Attn: ADA Coordinator

. ·
.. Ui Indiana Department of Envlronmelltal.Managemel1li

- Mall Code 50-10 .• 

### 1 100 North Senate Avenue 'j Indianapolis, IN 46204-2251 Or call (317) 233-1785 (voice) or (317) 232·6565 (TOO). Please provide a minimum of 72. hou.rs 

### Il otlfl 

### $ 

## i
cation.

### INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DRAFT REDESIGNATION PETITION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN



# ORIGINAL

DATE:

TIME:

PLACE:

PRESENT: January 5, 2011

5:30 P.M.

Lawrenceburg Public Library 150 Mary Street Eckert Meeting Room Lawrenceburg, IN 47025

Shawn Seals, Indiana Dept. Env. Management Sarah Raymond, Hearing Officer

Sharon Shields, Reporter



# Sliaron Sliietifs S..fl.,s. 'RnJomng Servit:e 3650 N. Old 

# sf:? 62, Madison, IN 47250 Business: 

### (812) 265-2994

Fax 

### (812) 273-52201 

## A public hearing of the Department of Environment

2 

## Management Draft Redesignation and Maintenance Plan in

3 

## association with the Annual Fine Particle (PM 2

. 

### s ) 

## Standard

4 

## meeting was held at the Lawrenceburg Public LibrarYI 150

5 

## Mary Streetl Eckert Meeting 

## Room
l 

## Lawrenceburg I 

## IN 47025 at

6 

## 5:30 P.M. 

## on January 51 

### 2011.

7

8 

### OPENING STATEMENTS BY MS. SARAH RAYMOND:

9 

## This is a public hearing to accept comments concerning

10 

## the draft Redesignation Petition and Maintenance Plan in

11 

## association with the annual fine particulate matter standard

12 

## for the Indiana Portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton OH-KY-IN

13 

## Fine Particle Nonattainment Area; Dearborn County

14 

## (Lawrenceburg Township) I 

## Indiana. This hearing is being held

15 

## to conform to the provisions in 40 CFR Part 51 regarding

16 

## public hearings for State Implementation Plan submittals.

17



### 18 

## My name is Sarah Raymond. I am a Senior Environmental

19 

## Manager in the Rule and State Implementation Plan

20 

## Development Section of the Indiana Department of

21 

## Environmental Management/s Office of Air Quality. I have

22 

## been appointed to act as hearing officer for this public

23 

## hearing. Also l here with me from the Office of Air Quality

24 

## if Shawn Seals.

25

- 2

-1 

## Notice of the time and place of the hearing was given

2 

## as provided by law by publication in the following paper:

3

4

5

6 

# • The Dearborn County Register, Lawrenceburg,

Indiana.

7 

## The purpose of this public hearing is to provide

8 

## interested persons an opportunity to offer comments to the

9 

## State regarding the draft Redesignation Petition and

10 

## Maintenance Plan for the annual fine particulate matter

11 

## standard for Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County,

12 

## Indiana.

13

14 

## Appearance cards have been distributed in the hearing

15 

## room for all those desiring to be shown appearing on record

16 

## in this cause. If you have not already filled out the card,

17 

## please do so and indicate if you are appearing for yourself

18 

## or on behalf of a group or organization and identify such

19 

## group or organization. Also, note the capacity in which you

20 

## appear, such as, attorney, officer or authorized

21 

## spokesperson.

22

23 

## Any person who is heard or represented at this hearing

24 

## or who requests notice may be given written notice of the

25 

## final action taken on this State Implementation Plan

- 3 -1 

## submittal. Please indicate on the appearance card if you

2 

## wish to receive this notification. When appearance cards

3 

## have been completed, they should be handed to me and I will

4 

## include them with the official record of this proceeding.

5

6 

## Oral statements will be heard, but written statements

7 

## may be handed to me or mailed to the Office of Air Quality

8 

## on or before close of business on January 7, 2011. A

9 

## written transcript of this hearing is being made. The

10 

## transcript will be open for public inspection and a copy of

11 

## the transcript will be made available to any person upon

12 

## payment of the copying costs.

13

14 

## After the conclusion of this public hearing, I will

15 

## prepare a written report summarizing the comments received

16 

## at this hearing and recommended changes which may need to be

17 

## made to this document.

18

19 

## I would like to introduce the following documents into

20 

## the record:

21

22

23

24

25 

## 1) The notice of public hearing.

2) Draft Request for Redesignation Petition and

Maintenance Plan for the annual fine particulate

matter standard for the Indiana Portion of the

- 4

-1

2

3

4 

## Cincinnati-Hamilton OH-KY-IN Fine Particle

Nonattainment Area; Dearborn County (Lawrenceburg

Township), Indiana.

5 

## Finally, I would like to briefly go over the contents

6 

## of the draft documents.

7

8 

## In 1997, The United States Environmental Protection

9 

## Agency (U.S. EPA) set daily and annual ambient air quality

10 

## standards for fine particles at 15.0 micrograms per cubic

11 

## meter on an annual basis and at 65.0 micrograms per cubic

12 

## meter on a 24 hour or daily basis. Legal challenges to the

13 

## new standards for fine particles resulted in delayed

14 

## implementation of the standard until February 2001, when the

15 

## Supreme Court upheld the standards and ruled that the U.S.

16 

## EPA could proceed with implementation of the new standards.

17 

## The submittal pertains solely to the 1997 annual fine

18 

## particulate matter standard. The Cincinnati-Hamilton OH-KY19 

## IN Fine Particle Nonattainment Area complies with both the

20 

## 1997 and 2006 24-hour standards. Indiana began monitoring

21 

## for fine particles in 1999. Fine particulate matter monitors

22 

## are located in all counties in the Cincinnati-Hamilton OH23 

## KY-IN nonattainment area, except for Boone County, Kentucky

24 

## and Lawrenceburg Township in Dearborn County, Indiana. The

25 

## U.S. EPA originally designated counties under the fine

- 5

-1 

## particle standards based on 2001 through 2003 monitoring

2 

## data in December 2004. The 

# u.s. EPA formally designated

3 

## areas throughout the country on April 5, 

## 2005 as attainment,

4 

## nonattainment, or unclassifiable including Lawrenceburg

5 

## Township, Dearborn County, Indiana as part of the

6 

## Cincinnati-Hamilton OH-KY-IN Fine Particle Nonattainment

7 

## Area.

8

9 

## The Cincinnati-Hamilton OH-KY-IN Fine Particle

10 

## Nonattainment Area consists of Lawrenceburg Township,

11 

## Dearborn County, Indiana; Boone, Kenton and Campbell

12 

## counties, Kentucky; and Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and

13 

## Warren counties, Ohio.

14

15 

## The agencies responsible for assuring the

16 

## nonattainment area complies with the Clean Air Act

17 

## requirements are:

18

19



### 20

21

22

23

24

25 

# •

• The Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM), which is responsible for

Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County,

Indiana.

The Kentucky Department for Environmental

Protection, (KDEP), which is responsible for

Boone, Campbell and Kenton counties, Kentucky;

- 6 -1

2

3

4

5



### 6 

# • The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio
EPA), which is responsible for Butler,

Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton and Warren

Counties, Ohioi

7 

## Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky have worked

8 

## cooperatively with 

# u.s. EPA Regions IV and V to address

9 

## the planning issues.

10

11 

## Although Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky have

12 

## worked together on a comprehensive plan for multi-state

13 

## areas, each state is required to make a separate submittal

14 

## for its portion of the planning components to 

# u.s. EPA. As

15 

## such, this submittal only covers Indiana's portion of the

16 

## nonattainment areai Dearborn County (Lawrenceburg

17 

## Township), Indiana.

18

19 

## The highest most recent design value for the

20 

## area, based on 2007 through 2009 quality assured ambient

21 

## air quality monitoring data is 15.04 micrograms per cubic

22 

## meter. This design value represents fine particle

23 

## concentrations that are below the national ambient air

24 

## quality standard, thus the area is eligible to be

25 

## redesignated to attainment under the annual fine particle

- 7 -1 

## standard and classified as maintenance.

2

3 

## The Indiana Department of Environmental Management

4 

## has prepared the draft Redesignation Petition and

5 

## Maintenance Plan for Indiana's Portion of the Cincinnati6 

## Hamilton OH-KY-IN Fine Particle Nonattainment Area

7 

## consistent with U.8. EPA guidance. The draft petition

8 

## outlines a demonstration that the area has attained the

9 

## standard based on monitored concentrations, and that the

10 

## reductions in monitored concentrations are attributable to

11 

## permanent and enforceable reductions in precursor

12 

## emissions, specifically reductions of nitrogen oxides (NO x )

13 

## and sulfur dioxides (80 2 ). 

## Furthermore, the draft

14 

## maintenance plan outlines the following:

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 

# •

•



# • Dearborn County (Lawrenceburg ,Township),

Indiana, does not significantly contribute to

violations outside of its portion of the

nonattainment area.

Redesignating Indiana's portion of the

Nonattainment area to attainment will not
adversely affect any downwind area's ability

to attain the standard.

Regional Precursor emissions of nitrogen

oxides (NO x ) 

## and sulfur dioxides (80 2 ) 

## will

- 8 -1

2

3



### 4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12



### 13

14

15

16

17

18

19 

# •



# •



# •

• continue to decline in the future.

Due to existing and future emission controls,

the area's air quality is not projected to

worsen, and should further improve over time.

A commitment for all existing emission

controls to remain in place.

A commitment to revise the plan within eight

years of redesignation.

A commitment to adopt and expeditiously
implement necessary corrective actions if an

action level response is triggered.



## * An action level response is triggered by a

violation of the standard (a three year

average annual arithmetic mean value of

15.1 micrograms per cubic meter or

greater.



# * A mobile source budget for transportation

conformity purposes.

20 

## This concludes my comments regarding the draft

21 

## Redesignation Petition and Maintenance Plan for Indiana's

22 

## Portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton OH-KY-IN Fine Particle

23 

## Nonattainment Area. Before opening this hearing for public

24 

## comments, may I once again remind you that this hearing

25 

## pertains solely to this draft Redesignation Petition and

- 9

-

# * * * * * 1 

## Maintenance Plan in association with the annual fine

2 

## particle standard for Indiana's Portion of the Cincinnati3 

## Hamilton OH-KY-IN Fine Particle Nonattainment Area, and

4 

## only comments pertaining to this matter will be considered

5 

## as part of the public record.

6

7 

## Shawn and I will be available following this hearing

8 

## to address any questions you may have that do not pertain

9 

## to this specific matter.

10

11 

## This hearing is now open for public comment. Are

12 

## there any public comments?

13

14 

## In the absence of any further comments, these

15 

## proceedings are hereby concluded. This hearing is

16 

## adjourned.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 

### CONCLUSION OF HEARING

- 10

-1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16



### 17

18

19

20

21 

## C E R T I FIe ATE

STATE OF INDIANA SS: COUNTY OF JEFFERSON

I, Sharon Shields, do hereby certify that I am a
Notary Public in and for the County of Jefferson, State of

Indiana, duly authorized and qualified to administer oaths;

That the foregoing public hearing was taken by me in

shorthand and on a tape recorder on January 5, 2011 at the

Lawrenceburg Public Library, Eckert Room, 150 Mary Street,

Lawrenceburg, IN; That this public hearing was taken on

behalf of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management

pursuant to agreement for taking at this time and place;

That the testimony of the witnesses was reduced to
typewriting by me and contains a complete and accurate
transcript of the said testimony.

I further certify that pursuant to stipulation by and

between the respective parties, this testimony has been

transcribed and submitted to the Indiana Department of

Environmental Management.

WITNESS my hand and notarial seal this 14th day of

22

23

24

25 

## January, 2011.

My Commission Expires: Sharon Shields, Notary Public Jefferson County, State of Indiana

July 2, 2015

- 11

-

# Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn Co unty, Indiana Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan in Association with the Annual Fine Particle (PM 2.5 

# ) Standard

Summary/Response to Comments Received

The Indiana Department of Environmental Ma nagement (IDEM) requested public comment on the draft Redesignation Request and Maintenanc e Plan for Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County, Indiana from November 18, 2010 to January 7, 2011. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) provided minor technical updates that included an updated Mobile Source Emissions Inventory for the Cincinnati PM 2.5 

## Nonattainment Area from the Ohio Kentucky Indiana (OKI) Regiona l Council of Governments. Based on the updated Mobile Source Emission Inventory, the Redesignation Reque st and Maintenance Plan for Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County, Indiana has been updated, as well as the following appendices:

o Appendix C: Nitrogen Oxides (NO x 

## ), Sulfur Dioxides (SO 2 

## ) and Direct Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 

## ) (2005 and 2008) Emission Trends, All Sources, Entire Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Nonattainment Area

o Appendix E : 2008 Base Year Emissions Inventory and 2015 and 2021 Projected Emissions Inventory for Nitrogen Oxides (NO x 

## ), Sulfur Dioxides (SO 2 

## ) and Direct Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 

## ) in Entire Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Nonattainment Area
A public hearing was also held on January 5, 2011 in Lawrenceburg, Indiana. IDEM received no comments at the public hearing.