### October 2008

S:\PLAN&SUP\Plan & Reg Dev\SIPs & Revisions\PM2.5\Macon\Appendices\Appendix G - ASIP_PM25_T SD_FINAL\Chap_5_AddAnalysis3.doc 

## 5-1 5.0 ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING ANALYSIS

This Chapter presents additional supporting analysis to the modeled future-year PM 2.5 

## projections presented in Chapter 4. These analyses may be used, along with additional statespecific analysis, as part of a weight of evidence (WOE) PM 2.5 

## attainment demonstration determination. The additional analysis includes the following:

• 2009 PM 2.5

## projections using alternative proj ection software to EPA’s Modeled Attainment Test Software (MATS) with the 2002 Base G2 and 2009 Base G4 CMAQ modeling results;

• 2009 PM 2.5 

## projections using an alternative mo del to CMAQ, the Comprehensive Airquality Model with extensions (CAMx; ENVIRON, 2008); and

• PM Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) modeling to estimate the contributions of specific nearby point sources to 2009 PM 2.5 

## concentrations in Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia and adjacent areas.

5.1 2009 PM 2.5

## PROJECTIONS USING ALTERNATIVE PROJECTION SOFTWARE

EPA has developed a PC-based so ftware tool entitled the Modeled Attainment Test Software (MATS) that includes the FRM PM 2.5

## mass and STN/IMPROVE speciated PM 2.5

## concentrations processed by the SANDWICH method. The Sp eciated Model Attainment Test (SMAT) presented in EPA’s modeling guidance (EPA, 2007a) is codified in MATS. Several beta versions of MATS have been released with the annual PM 2.5

## projection SMAT method first becoming available with the January 2008 releas e of MATS (Version 1.1.2). For the ASIP modeling performed in 2006-2007, the MATS tool with a PM 2.5 

## projection capability was not available. Thus, ASIP developed a PM 2.5 

## projection tool. The ASIP PM 2.5 

## projection tool is based on 2002 STN PM speciation data that wereprocessed using the SANDWICH procedure (see Chapter 4) and are assigned to nearby FRM sites with the SMAT projection procedure performed using Excel spreadsheets to obtain future-year PM 2.5

## Design Value projections.

Conceptually, the biggest difference between the MATS and ASIP Excel PM 2.5

## projection approaches is how the SANDWICH PM speciation data are mapped to the FRM monitors. As noted above, the ASIP approachassigns SANDWICH STN PM speciation data from a nearby STN monitor to a FRM site so that SMAT can be applied. MATS, on the other hand, interpolates the SANDWICH speciated PM dataand the Degree of Neutralization (DON) from the STN and IMPROVE sites to the FRM site to speciate the FRM PM 2.5 

## mass. Although how the FRM PM 2.5 

## mass is speciated is the biggest c onceptual difference between the ASIP spreadsheet and MATS PM 2.5 

## projection approaches, in practice we have found several differences in the two approaches as follows:

• Different methods for assigning SANDWICH PM speciation to FRM sites.

• Differences in the current-year (2000-2004) PM 2.5

## Design Values that serve as the starting point for the projections.

• Differences in the STN SANDWICH speciation data used.

• Inclusion of Sea Salt in the MATS SANDWICH PM 2.5 

## speciation.

### October 2008

S:\PLAN&SUP\Plan & Reg Dev\SIPs & Revisions\PM2.5\Macon\Appendices\Appendix G - ASIP_PM25_T SD_FINAL\Chap_5_AddAnalysis3.doc 

## 5-2 Sea Salt was included in the original SANDWICH paper (Frank, 2006a), however it was not included in the SANDWICH discussion in EPA’s modeling guidance (EPA, 2007a). As the ASIP spreadsheet projection approach was ba sed on EPA’s final modeling guidance, Sea Salt was not included.

Below we compare the 2009 PM 2.5 

## Design Value projections us ing the 2002 Base G2 and 2009 Base G4 12 km CMAQ modeling results and the ASIP spreadsheet and EPA MATS projection tools. These comparisons are made using Version 1.2.1 (January 2008) of MATS, as compared to the latest Version 1.5.1 (June 6, 2008) version of MATS that was used to make the future-year PM 2.5 

## Design Value projections presented in Chapter 4. Although the release notes for MATS v1.5.1 only mention updates to the 8-hour ozone and visibility projecti ons, we did notice two changes in the PM 2.5 

## projections:

• Some minor changes to the rounding conventions used; and

• The treatment of two PM 2.5

## monitoring in Birmingham, Alabama.

Regarding this latter difference, the North Birmingham and Wylam monitoring sites in Birmingham used to be treated as Community Monitoring Zone (CMZ) monitors whereby their PM 2.5 

## Design Values would be averaged, which is the way they were treated in MATS v1.2.1. However, this is no longer the case so MATS v1.5.1 was updated to treat them as separate monitoring sites.

5.1.1 Overview Comparison of MATS and ASIP Spreadsheet 2009 PM 2.5

## Projections

Figure 5-1 displays a scatter plot of the 2009 projected PM 2.5

## Design Values (DVFs) at FRM monitors in and nearby the ASIP region using the ASIP Excel spreadsheet and MATS projections methods. In general, there is good agreement between the projected DVFs using the two projection methods (r2

## = 0.982). However, there are somedifferences in the two methods’ DVF projections, with the ASIP method sometimes estimating higher and sometimes lower DVFs than MATS; although it appears the MATS method is usually estimating lower DVFs than the ASIP Excel method. At most all sites, the results of the two methods are within 0.1μg/m3 

## of each other. There are also some outliers with the largest two being sites where the ASIP Excel method estimates ~17.5 and ~14 μg/m3 

## DVFs, whereas the MATS tool estimates ~16.5 and ~12 μg/m3 

## DVFs, respectively.

One reason for the differences in projected DVF s is because the two methods are starting with different current year PM 2.5 

## Design Values (DVCs). Figure 5- 2 displays a scatter plot of the DVCs in the ASIP Excel and MATS projection tools. Again there is good agreement between the two methods (r2

## = 0.986), but there are differences. It appears that the biggest reason for the differences in the two projected DVFs outliers given in the above paragraph is due to the starting point DVCs. With the exception of a few outliers most of the DVCs in the two methods agree to within a tenth of a μg/m3



## . Figure 5-3 displays the differences in the 2009 projected minus the current year PM 2.5

## Design Values using the two methods. These differences will be mostly independent of the current year Design Values differences, so provide insight into the implementation of the SMAT and SANDWICH PM speciation in the ASIP Excel and MATS projection methods. Generally, the changes in Design Values (DVF-DVC) using the two methods agree within a few tenths of μg/m3 

## . But again, there are some differences.

### October 2008

S:\PLAN&SUP\Plan & Reg Dev\SIPs & Revisions\PM2.5\Macon\Appendices\Appendix G - ASIP_PM25_T SD_FINAL\Chap_5_AddAnalysis3.doc 

## 5-3 Finally, to understand the effects in the different SANDWICH speciation data and the effects of the MATS interpolation of the STN/IMPROVE PM 2.5

## speciation to the FRM monitoring site versus the ASIP method to assign an STN speciation, Figure 5-4 displays a comparison of the projected PM 2.5 

## Design Values using the two methodsat FRM sites withco-located STN monitors. Note that the ASIP Excel spreadsheet tool relies on just 2002 STN data, whereas the MATS tool SANDWICH speciation was developed using three years (2002-2004) of STN andIMPROVE data. The agreement of the DVFs using the two methods at FRM sites with colocated STN data is extremely good and any differences are explained by the starting DVCs. Thus, Figure 5-4 demonstrates that the development of the modeled RRFs from the CMAQ output and the application of the SMAT in the AS IP Excel and MATS tool s are the same and any differences in the projections can be completely explained by the differences in SANDWICH PM 2.5 

## speciation data and how they are assigned/interpolated to the FRM monitor site and the starting DVCs. It is unclear whether it is more appropriate to as sign or interpolate PM 2.5 

## speciation data to FRM monitors without STN data and which approach is more valid would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Scatter Plot of 2009 12km PM Projections (G4a_EXCEL vs. G4a_MATS)

7 9 11 13 15 17 19

7 9 11 13 15 17 19 G4a_EXCELG4a_MATS r2 = 0.982 y = 0.989x + 0.224



### Figure 5-1. Comparison of ASIP Excel versus MATS projected 2009 PM 2.5

### Design Values (DVFs) using the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 and 2009 Base G4 12 km modeling results.

### October 2008

S:\PLAN&SUP\Plan & Reg Dev\SIPs & Revisions\PM2.5\Macon\Appendices\Appendix G - ASIP_PM25_T SD_FINAL\Chap_5_AddAnalysis3.doc 

## 5-4 Scatter Plot of 2002 12km PM DVC (G4a_EXCEL vs. G4a_MATS)

7 9 11 13 15 17 19

7 9 11 13 15 17 19 G4a_EXCELG4a_MATS r2 = 0.986 y = 0.986x + 0.268



### Figure 5-2. Comparison of Current Year Design Values (DVCs) implemented in the ASIP Excel spreadsheet and MATS 2009 PM 2.5

### projections approaches.

Scatter Plot of 12km PM Difference (DVF - DVC)

-4 -3.5

-3 -2.5

-2 -1.5

-1 -0.5

0 0.5

1

-4.0 -3.5 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 G4a_EXCEL (DVF - DVC)G4a_MATS (DVF - DVC) r2 = 0.965 y = 0.927x - 0.089



### Figure 5-3. Differences in 2009 projection and current PM 2.5

### Design Values using the ASIP Excel and MATS projection methods (DVF-DVC).

### October 2008

S:\PLAN&SUP\Plan & Reg Dev\SIPs & Revisions\PM2.5\Macon\Appendices\Appendix G - ASIP_PM25_T SD_FINAL\Chap_5_AddAnalysis3.doc 

## 5-5 Scatter Plot of 2009 12km BaseG4a PM DV Projection

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 5 10 15 20 ASIP ExcelMATS_STN r2 = 0.982 y = 0.963x + 0.578



### Figure 5-4. Comparison of the ASIP Excel and MATS 2009 PM 2.5

### Design Value projection approach at FRM sites with co-located STN monitors.



## 5.1.2 Site-by-Site Comparison of MATS and ASIP Excel DVFs

Table 5-2 displays a tabular summary of the DVCs and DVFs using the ASIP Excel and MATS projection tools and their differences. One of the biggest differences is at the Birmingham AL NBHM (01-073-0023) and WYLM (01-073-2003) FRM monitors where the ASIP approach has DVCs of 18.38 and 17.07 μg/m3 

## , respectively, whereas MATS has identical DVCs of 17.71 μg/m3 

## for the two sites. As noted above, this is left over from when these two sites were considered Community Monitoring Zone (CMZ) sites whose results were averaged in the attainment demonstration. However, EPA revoke d the CMZ status of these two monitors in 2007.

Although there are differences in the DVCs and DVFs using these two methods, they are fairly consistent on which areas would attain the PM 2.5

## NAAQS by 2009. The three nonattainment areas projected to continue to violate the PM 2.5

## NAAQS in 2009 using the MATS v1.5.1 discussed in Chapter 4 (Birmingham, Atlanta and Cincinnati NAAs), are also projected to be in continued nonattainment in 2009 using the ASIP Excel spreadsheet method. However, there is one site in the Atlanta area (S ite No. 13-063-0091 in Clayton County, GA) that was projected to attain (i.e., < 15.05 μg/m3 

## ) the PM 2.5

## NAAQS using the ASIP Excel spreadsheet method (14.90 μg/m3 

## ) but is projected to exceed the PM 2.5

## NAAQS using MATS (15.08 μg/m3 

## ). But the differences between the two proj ections is very small (0.18 μg/m3 

## ).

### October 2008

S:\PLAN&SUP\Plan & Reg Dev\SIPs & Revisions\PM2.5\Macon\Appendices\Appendix G - ASIP_PM25_T SD_FINAL\Chap_5_AddAnalysis3.doc 

## 5-6 In conclusion, all nonattainment areas (NAAs ) that were projected to attain the PM 2.5

## NAAQS by 2009 using the ASIP Excel spreadsheet method were also projected to attain the PM 2.5 

## NAAQS using the MATS tool. Conversely, all NAAS that were proj ected to continue to violate the PM 2.5 

## NAAQS in 2009 using the ASIP Excel method were also projected to violate the PM 2.5 

## NAAQS using MATS. Thus, despite the small differences in the ASIP Excel and MATS PM 2.5 

## projections, they are who lly consistent with eachother on which areas are projected to attain and which areas are projected to not attain the PM 2.5

## NAAQS by 2009.

Table 5-1. Comparison of ASIP Excel Spreadsheet and MATS v1.2.1 projection approach current year DVCs and 2009 projected DVFs using the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 and 2009 Base G4 12 km modeling results. ASIP Spreadsheet MATS v1.2.1 Difference

AIRS ID State County 2002 DVC 2009 DVF 2002 DVC 2009 DVF 2002 DVC 2009 DVF 01-003-0010 AL Baldwin 11.32 10.60 11.38 10. 59 -0.06 0.01 01-027-0001 AL Clay 13. 50 12.30 13.50 12. 31 0.00 -0.01 01-033-1002 AL Colbert 13.02 11.70 12.65 11.32 0.37 0.38 01-049-1003 AL DeKalb 14. 87 13.30 14.95 13.43 -0.08 -0.13 01-053-0002 AL Escambia 12.77 11.90 12.82 11. 88 -0.05 0.02

01-073-0023 AL Jefferson 18.38 17.20 17.71 16.52 0.67 0.68 01-073-1005 AL Jefferson 14.97 13.80 14.96 13.71 0.01 0.09 01-073-1009 AL Jefferson 13.02 11.80 13.01 11.79 0.01 0.01 01-073-2003 AL Jefferson 17. 07 15.50 17.71 16.30 -0.64 -0.80 01-073-2006 AL Jefferson 15.07 13.80 15.06 13. 81 0.01 -0.01 01-073-5002 AL Jefferson 14.00 12.70 13.95 12. 73 0.05 -0.03 01-073-5003 AL Jefferson 14.09 12.80 14.08 12.78 0.01 0.02 01-089-0014 AL Madison 14.20 12.70 14.20 12. 79 0.00 -0.09 01-097-0002 AL Mobile 12.87 12.10 12.8 12.06 0.07 0.04

01-097-2005 AL Mobile 11. 91 11.10 12.03 11.27 -0.12 -0.17 01-101-0007 AL Montgomery 14.61 13.50 14.5 13.34 0.11 0.16

01-103-0011 AL Morgan 13. 05 11.80 13.36 11.95 -0.31 -0.15 01-113-0001 AL Russell 16.06 14.80 15.96 14.75 0.10 0.05

01-119-0002 AL Sumter 12.26 11.30 12.26 11. 32 0.00 -0.02 01-121-0002 AL Talladega 14.96 13.80 14.96 13. 82 0.00 -0.02

11-001-0041 DC District of Columbia 15.67 13.00 15.75 12. 88 -0.08 0.12

11-001-0042 DC District of Columbia 14.81 12.30 14.9 12. 12 -0.09 0.18

11-001-0043 DC District of Columbia 15.14 12.50 15.17 12.27 -0.03 0.23 12-001-0023 FL Alachua 9.94 9.00 9.87 8.79 0.07 0.21 12-001-0024 FL Alachua 9. 80 8.80 10.12 8.99 -0.32 -0.19 12-005-1004 FL Bay 10.79 9.90 11.04 10.04 -0.25 -0.14 12-009-0007 FL Brevard 8.13 7.10 7.88 7. 12 0.25 -0.02 12-011-1002 FL Broward 8.21 7.60 8.14 7.52 0.07 0.08 12-011-2004 FL Broward 8.39 7.70 8.3 7.64 0.09 0.06 12-011-3002 FL Broward 8. 39 7.80 8.45 7.83 -0.06 -0.03 12-017-0005 FL Citrus 9.19 8.20 9.13 8.11 0.06 0.09 12-031-0098 FL Duval 10. 09 9.00 10.13 9.06 -0.04 -0.06 12-031-0099 FL Duval 10. 24 9.40 10.34 9.42 -0.10 -0.02 12-033-0004 FL Escambia 11.60 12.20 11.56 12.14 0.04 0.06 12-057-0030 FL Hillsborough 11.27 9.80 11.25 9. 84 0.02 -0.04

### October 2008

S:\PLAN&SUP\Plan & Reg Dev\SIPs & Revisions\PM2.5\Macon\Appendices\Appendix G - ASIP_PM25_T SD_FINAL\Chap_5_AddAnalysis3.doc 

## 5-7 ASIP Spreadsheet MATS v1.2.1 Difference

AIRS ID State County 2002 DVC 2009 DVF 2002 DVC 2009 DVF 2002 DVC 2009 DVF 12-071-0005 FL Lee 8. 49 7.50 8.42 7. 45 0.07 0.05 12-073-0012 FL Leon 12. 72 11.80 12.67 11. 51 0.05 0.29

12-083-0003 FL Marion 10.13 9.00 10.04 8.83 0.09 0.17 12-086-1016 FL Miami-D ade 10.02 9.30 9.66 8.79 0.36 0.51 12-086-6001 FL Miami-D ade 7.85 7.60 7.83 7.45 0.02 0.15 12-095-1004 FL Orange 10. 29 9.20 10.19 9. 04 0.10 0.16 12-095-2002 FL Orange 10. 12 9.00 10.03 8. 85 0.09 0.15

12-099-0009 FL Palm Beach 7.58 6.90 7.69 7. 02 -0.11 -0.12 12-099-2005 FL Palm Beach 7.38 6.40 7.54 6. 89 -0.16 -0.49 12-103-0018 FL Pinellas 10.58 9.30 10.46 9.01 0.12 0.29

12-105-6006 FL Polk 10.47 9.30 10.36 9.18 0.11 0.12 12-111-1002 FL St. Lucie 8.58 7.70 8.61 7. 76 -0.03 -0.06

12-115-0013 FL Sarasota 9.28 8.30 9.28 8.17 0.00 0.13 12-117-1002 FL Seminole 9.34 8.40 9.31 8.26 0.03 0.14 12-127-5002 FL Volusia 9.30 8.20 9.28 8.18 0.02 0.02 13-021-0007 GA Bibb 15. 71 14.30 15.71 14. 33 0.00 -0.03 13-021-0012 GA Bibb 13. 75 12.50 13.75 12. 62 0.00 -0.12 13-051-0017 GA Chatham 13.87 12.80 13.87 12.63 0.00 0.17 13-051-0091 GA Chatham 13.76 12.70 13.44 12.21 0.32 0.49 13-059-0001 GA Clarke 15. 76 13.90 15.75 13. 91 0.01 -0.01

13-063-0091 GA Clayton 16.48 14.90 16.48 15. 08 0.00 -0.18 13-067-0003 GA Cobb 16.30 14.60 16.29 14.58 0.01 0.02

13-089-0002 GA DeKalb 15.91 14.40 15.91 14. 42 0.00 -0.02 13-089-2001 GA DeKalb 16.22 14.40 16.22 14.38 0.00 0.02 13-095-0007 GA Dougherty 14.25 13.20 14.24 13.16 0.01 0.04 13-115-0005 GA Floyd 15. 71 14.00 15.71 14. 05 0.00 -0.05 13-121-0032 GA Fulton 16.45 14.90 16.45 14.81 0.00 0.09 13-121-0039 GA Fulton 18.29 16.60 18.29 16.58 0.00 0.02 13-127-0006 GA Glynn 11.90 10.60 11.65 10.39 0.25 0.21 13-135-0002 GA Gwinnett 16.06 14.30 16.06 14.24 0.00 0.06 13-139-0003 GA Hall 15. 14 13.40 15.24 13. 39 -0.10 0.01 13-153-0001 GA Houston 13.28 11.90 12.99 11.85 0.29 0.05 13-185-0003 GA Lowndes 12.38 11.40 11.97 10.9 0.41 0.50 13-215-0001 GA Muscogee 14. 87 13.70 14.94 13.73 -0.07 -0.03

13-215-0011 GA Muscogee 14.87 13.60 14.87 13. 61 0.00 -0.01 13-223-0003 GA Paulding 14.30 12.80 14.30 12.79 0.00 0.01 13-245-0005 GA Richmond 15. 57 13.80 16.03 14.24 -0.46 -0.44 13-245-0091 GA Richmond 15.05 13.40 15.05 13. 45 0.00 -0.05 13-295-0002 GA Walker 15.65 13.90 15.65 13.81 0.00 0.09 13-303-0001 GA Washingt on 14.47 13.00 14.23 12.9 0.24 0.10 13-319-0001 GA Wilkinson 15.15 13.80 15.15 13. 92 0.00 -0.12 18-019-0006 IN Clark 16.84 14.90 16.33 14.31 0.51 0.59 18-043-1004 IN Floyd 14.90 13.00 14.90 12.93 0.00 0.07 21-013-0002 KY Bell 14. 79 12.80 14.78 12. 78 0.01 0.02 21-019-0017 KY Boyd 14. 89 12.80 14.88 12. 93 0.01 -0.13 21-029-0006 KY Bullitt 14. 89 13.10 14.88 12. 98 0.01 0.12 21-037-0003 KY Campbell 14.00 12.00 14.00 11.84 0.00 0.16 21-043-0500 KY Carter 12. 18 10.20 12.18 10. 21 0.00 -0.01

### October 2008

S:\PLAN&SUP\Plan & Reg Dev\SIPs & Revisions\PM2.5\Macon\Appendices\Appendix G - ASIP_PM25_T SD_FINAL\Chap_5_AddAnalysis3.doc 

## 5-8 ASIP Spreadsheet MATS v1.2.1 Difference

AIRS ID State County 2002 DVC 2009 DVF 2002 DVC 2009 DVF 2002 DVC 2009 DVF 21-047-0006 KY Christian 13.48 11.90 13.47 11.9 0.01 0.00

21-059-0014 KY Daviess 14. 71 13.00 14.7 13. 1 0.01 -0.10 21-067-0012 KY Fayette 14. 88 12.70 14.87 12. 74 0.01 -0.04 21-067-0014 KY Fayette 15.63 13.40 15.60 13.18 0.03 0.22 21-073-0006 KY Franklin 13.67 11.60 13.67 11.47 0.00 0.13 21-093-0006 KY Hardin 13.97 12.20 13.97 12.07 0.00 0.13 21-101-0006 KY Henderson 14. 34 12.70 14.46 13.01 -0.12 -0.31

21-111-0044 KY Jefferson 16.59 14.80 16.58 14.48 0.01 0.32 21-111-0048 KY Jefferson 16.06 14.20 16.06 14.02 0.00 0.18 21-111-0051 KY Jefferson 15.44 13.60 15.44 13.42 0.00 0.18

21-117-0007 KY Kenton 14. 88 12.70 14.88 12. 58 0.00 0.12 21-145-1004 KY McCracken 13.40 12.20 13.10 11.83 0.30 0.37 21-151-0003 KY Madison 13.54 11.40 13.53 11.38 0.01 0.02

21-193-0003 KY Perry 13. 65 11.60 13.15 11. 16 0.50 0.44 21-195-0002 KY Pike 13. 68 11.60 13.67 11. 59 0.01 0.01 21-227-0007 KY Warren 13. 82 12.10 13.81 12. 13 0.01 -0.03 24-003-0014 MD Anne Arunde l 12.28 9.90 12.10 9.72 0.18 0.18 24-003-0019 MD Anne Arunde l 13.23 10.60 12.89 10.29 0.34 0.31 24-003-1003 MD Anne Arunde l 15.38 12.60 15.36 12.52 0.02 0.08 24-003-2002 MD Anne Arunde l 14.41 11.80 14.14 11.52 0.27 0.28 24-031-3001 MD Montgomery 12.83 10.40 12.82 10.36 0.01 0.04

24-043-0009 MD Washingt on 14.40 11.70 14.25 11.47 0.15 0.23 28-001-0004 MS Adams 11.82 11.40 11.20 10.82 0.62 0.58 28-011-0001 MS Bolivar 13.19 12.40 12.56 11.83 0.63 0.57 28-033-0002 MS DeSoto 13.08 12.00 12.60 11.63 0.48 0.37 28-035-0004 MS Forrest 13.35 12.70 13.37 12. 66 -0.02 0.04 28-045-0001 MS Hancock 10.33 9.70 10.34 9. 70 -0.01 0.00

28-047-0008 MS Harrison 11.56 11.40 11.57 11. 08 -0.01 0.32 28-049-0010 MS Hinds 12. 90 12.20 13.53 12.74 -0.63 -0.54 28-049-0018 MS Hinds 13. 29 12.50 13.80 12.99 -0.51 -0.49 28-059-0006 MS Jackson 12.35 11.60 11.84 11.30 0.51 0.30 28-067-0002 MS Jones 14.90 13.90 14.48 13.73 0.42 0.17 28-075-0003 MS Lauderdale 13.05 12.10 13.71 12. 7 -0.66 -0.60 28-081-0005 MS Lee 12. 48 11.40 12.48 11. 35 0.00 0.05 28-087-0001 MS Lowndes 15.05 13.90 13.00 11.91 2.05 1.99 28-109-0001 MS Pearl River 11.82 11.30 11.70 11.11 0.12 0.19 28-121-0001 MS Rankin 13.96 13.20 13.10 12.34 0.86 0.86 28-123-0001 MS Scott 11. 93 11.20 12.07 11.36 -0.14 -0.16 28-149-0004 MS Warren 13.29 12.70 12.26 11.75 1.03 0.95 37-001-0002 NC Alamance 13.93 11.80 13.93 11.31 0.00 0.49 37-021-0034 NC Buncombe 13.33 11.20 13.19 10.86 0.14 0.34 37-025-0004 NC Cabarrus 14.72 12.20 14.68 12.17 0.04 0.03 37-033-0001 NC Caswell 13. 42 11.30 13.43 10. 82 -0.01 0.48 37-035-0004 NC Catawba 15. 64 13.00 15.60 13. 02 0.04 -0.02 37-037-0004 NC Chatham 12.35 10.40 12.34 10.09 0.01 0.31 37-051-0009 NC Cumberland 14.09 12.10 14.17 12. 02 -0.08 0.08 37-057-0002 NC Davidson 16.01 13.30 15.94 13.16 0.07 0.14

37-061-0002 NC Duplin 12. 09 10.30 12.08 10. 32 0.01 -0.02

### October 2008

S:\PLAN&SUP\Plan & Reg Dev\SIPs & Revisions\PM2.5\Macon\Appendices\Appendix G - ASIP_PM25_T SD_FINAL\Chap_5_AddAnalysis3.doc 

## 5-9 ASIP Spreadsheet MATS v1.2.1 Difference

AIRS ID State County 2002 DVC 2009 DVF 2002 DVC 2009 DVF 2002 DVC 2009 DVF 37-063-0001 NC Durham 14. 08 11.90 14.09 11. 70 -0.01 0.20

37-067-0022 NC Forsyth 14. 77 12.00 14.79 12. 00 -0.02 0.00 37-067-0024 NC Forsyth 14.26 11.60 13.96 11.19 0.30 0.41

37-071-0016 NC Gaston 14. 25 12.10 14.23 12. 00 0.02 0.10 37-081-0013 NC Guilford 13. 54 11.40 14.27 11.41 -0.73 -0.01 37-087-0010 NC Haywood 13.64 11.50 13.48 11.25 0.16 0.25 37-099-0006 NC Jackson 12. 46 10.30 12.27 10. 26 0.19 0.04 37-107-0004 NC Lenoir 11.56 9.70 11.57 9.78 -0.01 -0.08 37-111-0004 NC McDowell 14.43 12.10 14.41 11.99 0.02 0.11 37-119-0010 NC Mecklenburg 15.19 12.90 15.19 13. 00 0.00 -0.10 37-119-0041 NC Mecklenburg 14.41 12.10 14.41 12. 17 0.00 -0.07 37-119-0042 NC Mecklenburg 14.27 12.10 14.2 12.03 0.07 0.07 37-121-0001 NC Mitchell 13.60 11.40 13.56 11.21 0.04 0.19 37-123-0001 NC Montgomery 12.41 10.30 12.40 10.21 0.01 0.09 37-133-0005 NC Onslow 11.27 9.70 11.27 9.64 0.00 0.06 37-135-0007 NC Orange 13. 25 11.10 13.24 10. 85 0.01 0.25 37-147-0005 NC Pitt 12. 48 10.50 12.40 10. 42 0.08 0.08 37-155-0005 NC Robeson 12.78 10.90 12.69 10.79 0.09 0.11 37-173-0002 NC Swain 12. 89 10.80 12.67 10. 66 0.22 0.14 37-183-0014 NC Wake 13. 97 11.60 13.96 11. 68 0.01 -0.08 37-183-0015 NC Wake 13.57 11.30 13.76 11.49 -0.19 -0.19 37-191-0005 NC Wayne 13. 84 11.70 13.76 11. 71 0.08 -0.01 39-017-0003 OH Butler 16.05 14.10 16.12 14. 01 -0.07 0.09 39-017-0016 OH Butler 15.68 13.40 15.68 13.40 0.00 0.00 39-017-0017 OH Butler 15. 39 13.40 15.68 13.58 -0.29 -0.18 39-061-0014 OH Hamilton 17.67 15.40 17.76 15. 44 -0.09 -0.04 39-061-0040 OH Hamilton 15.56 13.30 15.57 13. 21 -0.01 0.09 39-061-0041 OH Hamilton 15.40 13.20 15.83 13. 54 -0.43 -0.34 39-061-0042 OH Hamilton 17.11 14.90 17.10 14.82 0.01 0.08 39-061-0043 OH Hamilton 15.76 13.50 15.76 13.48 0.00 0.02 39-061-7001 OH Hamilton 16.26 14.00 16.26 14. 06 0.00 -0.06 39-061-8001 OH Hamilton 17.25 15.00 17.25 15. 03 0.00 -0.03 39-087-0010 OH Lawrence 15.71 13.70 15.70 13.32 0.01 0.38 39-145-0013 OH Scioto 17.12 14.80 17.11 14.75 0.01 0.05 45-013-0007 SC Beaufort 10.94 9.80 10.91 9.75 0.03 0.05 45-019-0048 SC Charlest on 12.04 10.70 11.80 10.42 0.24 0.28 45-019-0049 SC Charlest on 11.40 10.40 11.38 10.08 0.02 0.32 45-025-0001 SC Chesterfie ld 12.38 10.50 12. 37 10.37 0.01 0.13 45-037-0001 SC Edgefield 12.75 11.10 12.71 11.02 0.04 0.08 45-041-0002 SC Florence 12.69 10.90 12.66 10.77 0.03 0.13 45-043-0009 SC Georgetow n 12.78 11.40 12.75 11.15 0.03 0.25 45-045-0008 SC Greenville 15.84 13.60 15.73 13. 62 0.11 -0.02 45-045-0009 SC Greenville 14.79 12.60 14.60 12.55 0.19 0.05 45-047-0003 SC Greenwood 13.41 11.50 13.36 11.49 0.05 0.01 45-051-0002 SC Horry 11. 18 9.60 11.22 9. 59 -0.04 0.01 45-063-0008 SC Lexington 13.93 12.10 13.87 11.99 0.06 0.11 45-073-0001 SC Oconee 10. 82 9.10 10.76 9. 11 0.06 -0.01 45-079-0007 SC Richland 13.17 11.40 13.11 11.24 0.06 0.16

### October 2008

S:\PLAN&SUP\Plan & Reg Dev\SIPs & Revisions\PM2.5\Macon\Appendices\Appendix G - ASIP_PM25_T SD_FINAL\Chap_5_AddAnalysis3.doc 

## 5-10 ASIP Spreadsheet MATS v1.2.1 Difference

AIRS ID State County 2002 DVC 2009 DVF 2002 DVC 2009 DVF 2002 DVC 2009 DVF 45-079-0019 SC Richland 14.15 12.20 13.61 11.76 0.54 0.44 45-083-0010 SC Spartanbur g 13.94 11.80 13.82 11.78 0.12 0.02 47-009-0011 TN Blount 14.61 12.70 14.36 12.32 0.25 0.38 47-037-0023 TN Davidson 14. 44 13.10 15.25 13.73 -0.81 -0.63 47-045-0004 TN Dyer 12.06 11.00 12.05 10.99 0.01 0.01 47-065-1011 TN Hamilton 13.95 12.30 13.83 12.09 0.12 0.21 47-065-4002 TN Hamilton 15.35 13.60 15.34 13. 62 0.01 -0.02 47-093-0028 TN Knox 15. 38 13.40 15.79 13.63 -0.41 -0.23 47-093-1017 TN Knox 16.67 14.60 16.67 14.46 0.00 0.14 47-093-1020 TN Knox 15.98 13.90 15.97 13.77 0.01 0.13 47-099-0002 TN Lawrence 11.94 10.70 11.94 10.55 0.00 0.15 47-107-1002 TN McMinn 15.10 13.20 14.96 13.02 0.14 0.18 47-119-2007 TN Maury 12. 90 11.60 12.90 11. 73 0.00 -0.13 47-125-1009 TN Montgomery 13.22 11.80 13.21 11.77 0.01 0.03 47-141-0001 TN Putnam 13.54 11.90 13.43 11.79 0.11 0.11 47-145-0004 TN Roane 14.32 12.50 14.31 12.49 0.01 0.01 47-157-0014 TN Shelby 13.91 12.90 13.63 12.66 0.28 0.24 47-157-0038 TN Shelby 14.00 13.00 13.47 12.50 0.53 0.50 47-157-0047 TN Shelby 14.12 13.10 14.12 13. 22 0.00 -0.12 47-157-1004 TN Shelby 11.65 10.50 11.59 10. 66 0.06 -0.16 47-163-1007 TN Sullivan 14. 60 12.40 14.59 12. 51 0.01 -0.11 47-165-0007 TN Sumner 13.59 12.20 13.58 12.12 0.01 0.08 51-013-0020 VA Arlington 14.62 12.10 14.61 11.90 0.01 0.20 51-036-0002 VA Charles City 12.81 10.70 12.80 10.59 0.00 0.11 51-041-0003 VA Chesterfield 13.74 11.60 13.73 11.42 0.01 0.18 51-059-0030 VA Fairfax 13.64 11.00 13.60 10.96 0.04 0.04 51-059-5001 VA Fairfax 14.21 11.70 14.15 11.50 0.06 0.20 51-087-0014 VA Henrico 13.80 11.60 13.80 11.45 0.00 0.15 51-087-0015 VA Henrico 13. 03 11.00 13.07 10. 70 -0.04 0.30 51-107-1005 VA Loudoun 13. 64 11.10 13.63 11. 01 0.01 0.09 51-139-0004 VA Page 12. 96 10.60 12.96 10. 46 0.00 0.14 51-520-0006 VA Bristol 14.51 12.50 14.51 12.46 0.00 0.04 51-550-0012 VA Chesapeake 12. 51 10.60 12.75 10.74 -0.24 -0.14 51-650-0004 VA Hampton 12. 19 10.30 12.51 10.55 -0.32 -0.25 51-700-0013 VA Newport News 12.04 10.10 12.13 10. 22 -0.09 -0.12 51-710-0024 VA Norfolk 12.97 11.00 12.97 10.86 0.00 0.14 51-760-0020 VA Richmond 14. 07 11.80 14.24 11.92 -0.17 -0.12 51-770-0014 VA Roanoke 14. 37 11.90 14.36 11. 93 0.01 -0.03 51-775-0010 VA Salem 14. 79 12.30 14.78 12. 30 0.01 0.00 51-810-0008 VA Virginia Beac h 12.59 10.60 12.58 10.61 0.01 -0.01 54-003-0003 WV Berkeley 16.24 13.60 16.23 13.45 0.01 0.15 54-009-0005 WV Brooke 16.69 13.80 16.69 13.62 0.00 0.18 54-011-0006 WV Cabell 16. 54 14.10 16.54 14. 37 0.00 -0.27 54-029-0011 WV Hancock 15.84 13.10 16 12. 99 -0.16 0.11 54-029-1004 WV Hancock 17.31 14.20 17.3 14.02 0.01 0.18 54-033-0003 WV Harrison 14.00 11.60 13.99 11.46 0.01 0.14 54-039-0010 WV Kanawha 15.42 13.20 15.38 13.10 0.04 0.10 54-039-1005 WV Kanawha 17.12 14.80 17.08 14. 84 0.04 -0.04

### October 2008

S:\PLAN&SUP\Plan & Reg Dev\SIPs & Revisions\PM2.5\Macon\Appendices\Appendix G - ASIP_PM25_T SD_FINAL\Chap_5_AddAnalysis3.doc 

## 5-11 ASIP Spreadsheet MATS v1.2.1 Difference

AIRS ID State County 2002 DVC 2009 DVF 2002 DVC 2009 DVF 2002 DVC 2009 DVF 54-049-0006 WV Marion 15.33 13.00 15.32 12.75 0.01 0.25 54-051-1002 WV Marshall 15.62 13.40 15.61 13.20 0.01 0.20 54-055-0002 WV Mercer 12.68 10.50 12.67 10. 59 0.01 -0.09 54-061-0003 WV Monongali a 14.82 12.50 14.81 12.22 0.01 0.28 54-081-0002 WV Raleigh 13.06 10.90 13.05 10. 96 0.01 -0.06 54-089-0001 WV Summers 10.10 8.20 10.10 8. 29 0.00 -0.09 54-107-1002 WV Wood 16. 07 14.00 16.07 13. 86 0.00 0.14



## 5.2 2009 PM 2.5

## PROJECTIONS USING AN ALTERNATIVE MODEL

ASIP applied the CAMx model for the 2002 annual period using a 12/4 km grid focusing on a portion of the ASIP region. The primary purpose of the ASIP CAMx applic ation was to use its PM Source Apportionment Technol ogy (PSAT) to obtain contributi ons of specific local sources to the 2009 PM 2.5 

## concentrations at nearby PM 2.5 

## monitors in and near several northern ASIP States (i.e., KY, TN and WV). In performing the 2002 and 2009 CAMx simulations to analyze local source contributions, projected 2009 PM 2.5

## Design Values were also generated that can be compared with those obtained using the CMAQ modeling discussed in Chapter 4. Thus, below we compare the 2009 PM 2.5 

## Design Values projected by CMAQ and CAMx using the 2002 Base G2 and 2009 Base G4 emission scenarios. We alsodiscuss the contributionsof the local sources to 2009 PM 2.5

## concentrations. As these two discussi ons share a common CAMx application, the CAMx application approach is described first.

5.2.1 CAMx Model Application Methodology

The CAMx model was run with a 12/4 km grid configuration (Figure 5- 5) for the 2002 annual period and the 2002 Base G2 and 2009 Base G4 emi ssion scenarios with the 12 km grid covering the upper portion of the ASIP region and adjacentareas. Four 4 km nested-grids were defined that covered the following Nonattainment Areas(NAAs) and nearby regions (See Figure 5-5):

• Knoxville and Chattanooga, TN NAAs;

• Charleston, Ashland and Huntington, WV-OH-KY NAAs;

• Wheeling-Weirton-Steubenvill e, WV-OH-PA NAAs; and

• Louisville, KY-OH NAA.

The 12 km meteorological inputs were generated using the MM5CAMx processor and the VISTAS 2002 12 km MM5 simulation output (Olerud and Sims, 2004). The meteorological inputs for the 4 km nested grids were obtained using the CAMx flexi-nest feature. That is, the CAMx model internally interpolates the 12 km MM5 meteorological data to the 4 km grids. The CAMx 12/4 km nested-grid structure was run using two-way interactive grid nesting. That is concentrations can transfer both ways between the 12 km and 4 km domain boundaries. This is in contrast to the CMAQ 36/12 km modeling that uses one-way grid nesting where the CMAQ model is run first for the 36 km grid whose re sults are processed to obtain boundary conditions (BCs) for the 12 km grid domains. Thus, in one-way nesting mass can transfer from the 36 km grid into the 12 km grid but can not transf er from the 12 km grid to the 36 km grid.