# REGIONAL HAZE

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

FOR ILLINOIS

AQPSTR 1 0

- 08

May 10, 2011

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

1021 NORTH GRAND AVENUE EAST

P.O. BOX 19276 SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62794

- 9276

### 2 

## Table of Contents

List of Acronyms...................................................

... ..................... 3
List of Figures...

... .............................. .......................................... . 4
List of T ables.........

......... .............................................................. 5 Executive Summary

............................................................... ......... 6
1.0 Introduction

............................................................... ......... 8
2 .0 Regional Planning

......................................................... ........ 1 1
3 .0 Assessment of Baseline, Current, and Natural Conditions in Class I
Areas

................................. ............................................. 1 4
4 .0 Monitoring Strategy

.................................... ..... ................... 1 5
5 .0 Emissions Inventory

...... ................................................ ...... 1 7
6 .0 Best Available Retrofit Technology

.................................... ..... 19
7 .0 Reasonable Progress Goals

................................................ .... 24
8 .0 Long

- term Strategy

......................................................... ..... 31
9 .0 Consultation

............................................................... ....... 39
1 0 .0 Summary

.................................................................. ........ 48
References

........................................................................... ...... 50

Appendix A Draft List of Class I Areas Located Within (or Impacted by) Midwest

RPO States, Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, June 26, 2007 Appendix B Regional Air Quality Analyses for Ozone, PM 2.5 

### , and

Regional Haze: Final Technical Support Document, States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin, Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, April 25, 2008 Appendix C Illinois Air Monitoring Network

- 2012

### 3 

## List o f Acronyms

BART Best Available Retrofit Technology CAA Clean Air Act CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule CO Carbon Monoxide CPS Combined Pollutant Standard EGAS Economic Growth Analysis System EGU Electrical Generating Unit FGD Flu e Gas Desulfurization IPM Integrated Planning Model LADCO Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium LNB Low NO x 

### Burner MRPO Midwest Regional Planning Organization MPS Multi

- Pollutant Standards NH 3 

### Ammonia NO x 

### Oxides of Nitrogen OFA Over

- F ire Air PAMS Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Sites PM Particulate Matter PM 2.5 

### Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter PM 10 

### Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration RPO Regional Planning Organization SCR Select ive Catalytic Reduction SDA Spray Dryer Absorbers SIP State Implementation Plan SLAMS State / Local Air Monitoring S tation SNCR Selective Non

- C atalytic Reduction SO 2 

### Sulfur Dioxide SPM Special Purpose Monitors U

. S

. EPA United States Environmental Protec tion Agency VOC Volatile Organic Compounds VOM Volatile Organic Material

### 4 

## List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Mandatory Class I Federal Areas

................................. .. 9 Figure 2 .1 Regional Planning Organizations

................................. .. 11 Figure 2.2 Class I Areas Impacted by Illinois

.............................. .... 13 Figure 4 .1 Illinois Monitoring Locations

.................................... ... 1 6 Figure 6.1 Estimated NOx Emissions from Coal

- Fired EGUs in Illinois

... 2 2 Figure 6. 2 Estimated SO 2 

### Emissions from Coal

- Fired EGUs in Illinois

.... . 2 2 Figure 7.1 Reasona ble P rogress Factors ........................................28 Figure 9.1 Caney Uniform Rate of Progress Glidepath ........................ 42 Figure 9.2 Upper Buffalo Uniform Rate of Progress Glidepath .............. 42 Figure 9.3 Hercules

- Glades Uniform Rate of Progress Glidepath .........

.. 43 Figure 9.4 Mingo Uniform Rate of Progress Glidepath .....................

.. 43 Figure 9.5 Sipsey Wilderness Uniform Ra te of Progress Glidepath .........45 Figure 9.6 Great Smoky Mountains Uniform Rate of Progress Glidepath ..45 Figure 9.7 Mammoth Cave NP Uniform Rate of Progress Glidep ath .......46

### 5 

## List of Tables

Table 5 .1 Illinois Statewide Emissions for 2002

.................. ...... ............... 17
Table 5 .2 Projected Statewide Emissions for 2018

.................. ....... ............18
Table 5 .3 Comparison of Illinois Statewide Emissions, 2002 to 2018

... ......... ...18
Table 6.1 List of Sources Subject to BART

........................ ....... .............. 20
Table 6.2 Summary of 2018 BART Requirements in Illinois for

Coal

- Fired EGUs

................................................ ....... ...... ... 2 1
T able 6.3 Presumptive BART Emission Limits for Coal

- Fired EGUs

........ .......2 1
Table 7.1 Estimated Cost Effectiveness for Potential Control Measures .......26

- 27
Table 7. 2 Comparison between National Control M easures and Illinois’

Measures ...........................

....... .............................. . ...... ... 30
Table 8.1 Ratios of Emission Rates and Distance (Q/D) for Emission

Sources in Illinois

.............. .......................................... . .......33

### 6 Executive Summary

The F ederal Regional Haze Rule was published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“ USEPA ”) on July 1, 1999 (64 F ed. R eg. 35714) to address visibility impairment in 156 protected parks and wilderness areas. The Clean Air Act (“CAA”) identifies these areas as “mandatory Class I Federal areas” (CAA Section 169A(a)(1)). Even though there are no Class I areas in Illinois, the Regional Haze Rule requires that
each state submit a State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) to provide for reasonable progress toward improving visibility, with the eventual goal of achieving pristine visibility
conditions in these protected areas by 2064. The states’ initial strateg y must contain
enforceable emission reduction measures that achieve the reasonable progress goals in 10 to 15 years, with reassessment and revision of the goals in 2018 and every 10 years
thereafter.

The purpose of this document i s to describe Illinois’ strategy for meeting the reasonable progress goals by 2018 for Class I areas where emission sources in Illinois have been shown to cause adverse visibility impacts. Technical analys e s conducted by the Midwest Regional Planning Orga nization ("MRPO") and others ha ve shown that sources in Illinois are causing or contributing to visibility impairment in several Class I areas in the eastern United States, including
, but not limited to
, Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky, the Mingo Wilderness Area in Missouri, and Isle Royale National Park in Michigan. Illinois is therefore required to submit revisions to its SIP to address the contributions made by emission sources located in Illinois.

T o ad dress the Regional Haze Rule r equirements , Illinois has develop ed a long

- term emission reduction strateg y to address visibility impairment in nearby Class I areas. This strategy is described in this document. An element of that strategy is the applicatio n of Best Available Retrofit Technology ("BART") for a specific subset of emission sources , as required by USEPA ’s Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule (“BART Guidelines”) (70 F ed

. R eg

. 39104, July 6, 2005). The IEPA has
determi ned that Illinois has 59 emission units located at 11 major emission sources that

### 7

are subject to BART. T hese sources have committed to enforceable emission reduction
measures that will meet or exceed the BART requirements on or before 2018.

The F edera l Regional Haze Rule requires consultation between the states, tribes, and Federal Land Managers ( “ FLM s ” ) responsible for managing Class I areas. This multi

state and multi

- agency consultation process has been facilitated by Regional Planning Organizations (“RPO s ”) established specifically for this purpose. Illinois fully participated in the planning and technical development efforts of the Midwest Regional Planning Organization, which also includes the States of Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and
W isconsin. States in other parts of the country participated in similar RPOs . Illinois has also participated in consultations with other RPOs and states that have requested Illinois’ participation in their planning process.

The IEPA , in conjunction wit h the MRPO, has made adequate plans to meet the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule by performing the necessary modeling to determine its impact on visibility in Class I areas
, setting goals to reduce the impact of
Illinois sources on these areas , and a chieving the identified emission reduction targets. Further, Illinois commit s to implement the long

- term strategy for meeting Regional H aze Rule goals and requirements. Illinois also commits to maintain adequate monitoring

net works
, and will continue to provid e required progress reports , emissions inventories,
and future SIP revisions , as required, to meet the requirements of the Regional Haze
Rule

.

### 8

1.0 Introduction The purpose of this document is to describe Illinois’ strategy for meeting the requirements established by the F ederal Regional Haze Rule, which was published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“ USEPA ”) on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35714) to a ddress visibility impairment in 156 protected national and state parks and wilderness areas. The Clean Air Act (“CAA”) identifies these areas as “mandatory Class I Federal areas” (CAA Section 169A(a)(1) , 42 USC §7491(a)(1) ). The protected Class I areas are shown in Figure 1.1. As illustrated in Figure 1.1, there are no Class I areas in
Illinois . However, the Regional Haze Rule requires that all state s submit State Implementation Plan s (“SIP”) to provide for reasonable progre ss toward improving visibility, with the eventual goal of achieving pristine visibility conditions in these protected areas by 2064. The states’ initial strategy must contain enforceable emission reduction measures that achieve the reasonable progress goa ls in 10 to 15 years, with reassessment and revision of the goals in 2018 and every 10 years thereafter. As specified in 40 CFR §51.308(f) , Illinois commits to revise and submit its SIP by July 31, 2018, and every ten years thereafter consistent with the national goal of continued improvement of visibility in these protected areas.

Specifically, the Regional Haze Rule provides several general planning provisions that
states must address in the SIPs. Pursuant to 40 CFR § 51.308, these requirement s include: (1) setting reasonable progress goals; (2) calculating baseline and natural visibility conditions; (3) providing a long

- term strategy for regional haze; (4) submi tting a plan for the application of Best Available Retrofit Technology ("BART") for a specific subset of emission sources, as required by USEPA ’s Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule (“BART Guidelines”) (70 FR 39104, July 6, 2005) ; and (5) providing a monitoring strategy and other implementation plan requiremen ts

.

The Illinois E nvironmental P rotection A gency (“IEPA”) , in conjunction with the Midwest Regional Planning Organization ("MRPO"), has made adequate plans to meet the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule by performing the necessary modeling to
determin e its impact on visibility in Class I areas, setting goals to reduce the impact of

### 9

Illinois sources on these areas, and achieving the identified emission reduction targets. Illinois commits to implement the long

- term strategy for meeting Regional Haze Rul e

Figure 1.1 Mandatory Class I Federal Areas

progress goals and requirements. Illinois has developed a long

- term emission reduction strategy to address the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule, including the application
of BART for a specific sub set of emission sources in Illinois. Illinois will continue in its efforts to maintain monitoring networks and emissions inventories, and will continue to provide required progress reports and future SIP revisions for the Regional Haze Rule.

The F ederal Regional Haze Rule also requires consultation between the states, tribes, and Federal Land Managers ( “ FLM s ” ) responsible for managing Class I areas. This multi

state and multi

- agency consultation process has been facilitated by Regional Planning
Or ganizations (“RPO s ”) established specifically for this purpose. Illinois fully

### 10

participated in the planning and technical development efforts of the MRPO, which also includes the States of Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. States in other parts of the country participated in similar regional planning organizations. Illinois has also participated in consultations with other RPOs and states that have requested Illinois’ participation in their planning process.

Finally, 40 CFR §51.308(g) requires t hat each state submit a report to USEPA every five years evaluating progress towards the reasonable progress goal for each mandatory Class I area which may be affected by emissions from within the state. The first progress report is due five years from su bmittal of the initial implementation plan addressing regional haze and BART. 40 CFR §51.308(h) also requires that at the same time the state is required to submit its five

- year progress report to US EPA the state must either provide

to the USEPA a negativ e declaration that further revision of the existing implementation plan is not needed , or revise its implementation plan to address the plan’s deficiencies within one year. Illinois commits that it will submit the progress report evaluating the adequacy o f the state’s plan, as specified in 51.308(g) and (h)
, within five years , revise its SIP as needed, and will continue the consultation process with other states and FLMs in the development of the progress evaluation.

### 11

2 .0 Regional Planning
The State of Illinois is a member of the MRPO , and has fully participated in the MRPO’s planning, analysis, and consultation efforts

. In addition to Illinois, t he MRPO includes
the States of Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin
, and is one of five regional planning organizations funded by the USEPA to address regional haze requirements

.

Figure 2 .1

- T he Regional Planning Organizations

The analyses conducted by the MRPO included preparation of regional emissions
inventories
, met eorological data, evaluation and application of regional chemical transport models, and collection and analysis of ambient monitoring data.

One of the analyses prepared by the MRPO identified the Class I areas that were impacted by each of the states in t he MRPO. Using several technical approaches, including modeling and back trajectories, the MRPO prepared a list of Class I areas impacted by the five Midwestern states . This analysis, “Draft List of Class I Areas Located Within (or Impacted by) Midwest R PO States” (June 26, 2007)
, is included as

### 12

Appendix A. According to the MRPO analyses, sources in Illinois are causing or contributing to visibility impairment in several Class I areas in the eastern United States, including Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky, the Mingo Wilderness Area in Missouri, and Isle Royale National Park in Michigan. These areas are listed below and are shown in Figure 2.2: Sipsey Wilderness Area, Alabama Caney Creek Wilderness Area, Arkansas Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area, Arka nsas Mammoth Cave National Park, Kentucky Acadia National Park, Maine Moosehorn Wilderness Area, Maine Isle Royale National Park, Michigan Seney Wilderness Area, Michigan Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, Minnesota Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota
H ercules

- Glades Wilderness Area, Missouri Mingo Wilderness Area, Missouri Great Gulf Wilderness Area, New Hampshire Brigantine Wilderness Area, New Jersey Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee and North Carolina Lye Brook Wilderness, Vermont
James River Face Wilderness Area, Virginia Shenandoah National Park, Virginia Dolly Sods/Otter Creek Wilderness, West Virginia

Illinois is relying on the MRPO’s technical support document, “ Regional Air Quality Analysis for Ozone, PM 2.5 

### , and Regional Haze: Final Technical Support Document” (“MRPO TSD”)
, to address a number of the above

- mentioned requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. The MRPO TSD is included as Appendix B to this document.

### 13 Figure 2.2 Class I Areas Impacted by Illinois

Class I areas tha t are in the southern Appalachians, particularly Cohotta, Shining Rock, and Joyce Kilmer/Slickrock, are such a great distance from Illinois that IEPA did not model them explicitly. Rather, IEPA modeled the C lass I areas closer to Illinois , such as Sipsy W ilderness, Linville Gorge, and Great Smoky Mountains National Park , and assumed that impacts at these areas were conservatively representative of impacts at areas
that are farther from Illinois. This is consistent with the MRPO analysis, which used analys es from other RPOs
, as well as their own analys e s , to assess the impacts from

sources in the Midwest on all Class I areas in the eastern U.S.

### 14

3 .0 A ssessment of Baseline , Current , and Natural Conditions in Class I Areas To track progress toward the long

- term goal of remedying impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas, the Regional Haze Rule requires states containing such Class I areas to establish baseline conditions representing visibility for the best and worst days at the time the regio nal haze program is initiated for each Class I area. The baseline represents the starting point from which reasonable progress is measured. Using available monitoring data from 2000 through 2004, states with Class I areas are to determine the average vis ibility for the 20% most impaired days, and for the 20% least impaired days . These values represent the baseline conditions for the worst and best days. Natural conditions are also determined based on the level of visibility on the least impaired days.

Since t here are no F ederal Class I areas located in Illinois, the state is not required to
determine and submit baseline, current and natural conditions for any Class I areas

. Illinois has participated , however, in the efforts of the MRPO to perform suc h analyses
for Class I areas located in other MRPO states. A detailed description of these analyses
can be found in S ection 3 .0 of the MRPO TSD (see Appendix B ).

### 15

4 .0 Monitoring Strategy
Pursuant to 40 CFR § 51.308(d)(4) of the F ederal Regional Haze Rule, Illinois currently maintains a monitoring network to measure and report levels of various pollutants
, including those that contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas. Th e monitoring program relies upon Illinois ’ net work of monitoring sites that include SLAMS ( S tate and L ocal A ir M onitoring S ites), SPM ( S pecial P urpose M onitors), PM 2.5 

### speciation sites (trend and State), and PAMS ( P hotochemical A ssessment M onitoring
S ites). Since there are no Class I areas located in the state, Illinois does not operate any monitoring sites under the F ederal IMPROVE ( Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments) program. However, the Illinois State Water Survey operates a monitoring site at Bondville, which is a rural location near Champaign in central Illinois, that conforms with the IMPROVE protocol.

Figure 4.1 illustrates Illinois’ ambient monitoring netwo rk. Specific site information
, including the pollutants measured, site locations (address and latitude/longitude), and the sampling schedule are included as Appendix C

.

Illinois is required, pursuant to 40 CFR § 51.308(d)(4)(iii), to establish procedures for using monitoring data, along with other information, to determine the contribution of emissions from Illinois sources to visibility impairment at all affected Class I areas outside of the state. These procedures were established in conjunction with th e MRPO and are discussed in detail in Sections
3 .0 and 4 .0 of the MRPO TSD (see Appendix B ).

The monitoring network in Illinois will be maintained and will continue to measure pollutants that contribute to visibility degradation. In addition
, Illinois wi ll continue to determine its contribution to visibility impairment in mandatory Class I Federal areas, and to assess whether reasonable progress goals addressing regional haze are being
achieved.

### 16 Figure 4 .1 Ambient Air Monitoring Locations in Illinois

### 17

5 .0 Emissions Inventory
Pursuant to 40 CFR § 51.308(d)(4)(v) , Illinois is required to provide a statewide inventory of pollutants that could reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas. These pollutants include volatile organic compounds ("VOCs"), NO x 

### ( “ nitrogen oxides ” )
, PM ( “ particulate matter ” ) , ammonia ("NH 3 

### "), and
S O 2 

### (sulfur dioxide)

. Table 5 .1 is a summary of statewide emissions of the relevant pollutants from each emission sourc e category based on the "Illinois Particulate Matter and Haze Inventory for 2002 ”

. 3 

### Note that point source emissions are separated into those from electric generating units ( “ EGUs ” ), and other non

- EGU point sources.

Table 5 .1 Illinois Statewide Emission s for 2002 Category CO NH 3 

### NOx PM 10 

### PM 2.5 

### SO 2 

### VOM

EGU
Non

- EGU 16,7968

75,042 99

5 21 182,377

84,944 9,027

27,546 4,637

6,751 369,082

138,015 1,666

7 5,002
Area 94,116 29,905 47,435 507,268 113,102 5,264 222,390
On

- Road 2,165,756 10,773 309,868 7,854 5,760 8,934 143,495
Off

- Road 884,602 108 209,361 13,334 12,295 9,304 92,609
Animal

--- 44,180

--- --- --- --- --- Biogenic 79,459

--- 38,772

--- --- --- 528,583
Total 3,315, 774 85,590 872,760 565,03 1 1 42 , 548 530,600 1,063,7 47



### The 2018 emission projections are listed in Table 5.2. Statewide emissions for 2002 were
used to project 2018 emissions for the same categories using the Economic Growth Analysis System ("EGAS")

. The projected emissions from EGUs reflect the implementation of Illinois Multi

- Pollutant Standards ( “ MPS ” )
, Combined Pollutant Standard ( “ CPS ” ), and agreements to implement BART. T able 5.3 provides a comparison of 2002 and 2018 statewide emissions for the same pollutants and emission categories

.

Fro m Table 5.3, it is expected that emissions of NH 3 

### and PM (both PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### ) will increase from 2002 to 2018 due largely to increases in area source emissions of these pollutants. These increases are offset, however, by substantial decreases of the prim ary visibility impairing pollutants, SO 2 

### and NO x 

### , expected in Illinois by 2018. These

### 18 Table 5 .2 Projected Illinois Statewide Emissions for 2018 Category 

### CO NH 3 

### NOx PM 10 

### PM 2.5 

### SO 2 

### VOM

EGU
Non

- EGU 24,620

94,570 100

568 34,085

76,326 11,313

36,737 4,698

7,916 12 2,907

129,014 1,926

98,822
Area 106
, 716 42
, 958 54
, 162 744
, 042 162
, 256 5
, 968 230,151
On

- road 1, 000
, 229 1 1
, 757 61
, 019 3
, 686 1,820 1, 155 4 1
, 882
Off

- road 970
, 732 810 188
, 997 8
, 927 8
, 260 9 , 612 74
, 083
Animal

--- 63,211

--- --- --- --- --- Biogenic 79 , 459

--- 38,772

--- --- --- 528
, 583
Total 2 ,276, 32 6 1 19,40 4 453,361 80 4 , 70 5 18 4 , 95 0 2 6 8,656 975,4 47



### Table 5 .3 Comparison of Illinois Statewide Emissions, 2002 to 2018 Category 

### CO NH 3 

### NOx PM 10 

### PM 2.5 

### SO 2 

### VOM

2002 3,315,774 85,59 0 872,76 0 565,03 1 142,548 530,60 0 1,063,747
2018 2,276,32 6 119,40 4 4 53
, 361 804,70 5 184,95 0 26 8,656 975,4 47
Difference

- 1,039,44 8 +33,81 4

- 419 , 399 +239,67 4 +42,40 2

- 2 6 1,944

- 88, 300



### reductions are largely due to Illinois’ MPS/CPS and BART regulatory requirements affecting coal

- fired EGUs , as well as significant reductions from on

- road and off

- road
mobile sources . Illinois’ regulatory programs for EGUs are more stringent than the
F ederal Clean A ir Interstate Rule ( “ CAIR ” ) , and do not rely on the CAIR interstate trading program. This ensures that Illinois will achieve its long

- term strategy needed to meet the Reasonable Progress Goals established for eastern and m idwestern Class I areas regardles s of the outcome of litigation affecting CAIR. The Reasonable Progress Goals
and Illinois’ Long

- term Strategy are discussed in Sections 7 .0 and 8 .0

.

Pursuant to 40 CFR §51.308(d)(4)(v), the IEPA commits to update the statewide emissions inventory periodi cally to ensure continued progress in meeting the visibility goals described in the document.

### 19

6 .0 Best Available Retrofit Technology The Regional Haze Rule requires stationary emission units that were constructed from
1962 to 1977 that have not been subject to other provisions of the CAA to install and operate BART on those units
, or implement another program that achiev es greater visibility improvements

. USEPA ’s BART Guidelines 1 

### de scribe how BART determinations are made with regard to the cost of retrofit technology, the remaining useful life of an emission unit, alternative emission reduction strategies
, and other factors to be considered in making BART determinations.

Illinois has followed the BART G uidelines in meeting th e requirements for emission sources subject to BART, as described in the IEPA ’s report: “ Technical Support Document for Best Available Retrofit Technology Under the Regional Haze Rule ” 2 

### (“BART TSD”) . Th e BART TSD describes the IEPA ’s methodologies for determining
BART

- eligible sources, for modeling the visibility impacts of eligible sources, and for meeting the BART control requirements.

Table 6.1 lists the 11 sources in Illinois that are subject to BART. Of the 11 sources, nine

are EGUs and two are non

- EGU sources. The two non

- EGUs are petroleum refineries located near Chicago ( C ITGO and ExxonMobil ) . The nine power generation sources are spread geographically across Illinois

. Table 6.1 provides a list of the sources in Illinois that are subject to BART.

To meet the BART emission reduction requirements for EGUs , Illinois is relying on the MPS/CPS requirements affecting all emission units at sources operated by Midwest Generation, Ameren, and Dynegy; and specific BART

- related provisions to be included in federally enforceable permits for Dominion

- Kincaid and the City of Springfield, Office
of Public Utilities d/b/a City Water, Light, and Power ( “ CWLP ” )

. The existing emission reduction requirements and com mitments for coal

- fired EGUs in Illinois that are subject

to

- BART include:

### 20 the Multi

- Pollutant Standard s (“MPS”) and Combined Pollutant Standard (“CPS”) codified in the Illinois Mercury Rule, 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 225, that apply to Ameren, Dynegy, and M idwest Generation;
a multi

- pollutant agreement between the IEPA and Dominion Energy Services, as operator, and Kincaid Generation, LLC, as owner, of the Kincaid Generating Station (collectively “Dominion Kincaid”), to achieve BART

- control levels; and
a si milar agreement between the IEPA and the City of Springfield, Office of Public Utilities, d/b/a CWLP, to achieve BART

- control levels and to shut down one of its existing subject

- to

- BART units.

T able 6.1 List of Sources Subject to BART

S ource N ame County S ource ID Category CITGO Petroleum Corp Will 197090AAI 11 Exxon Mobil Oil Corp Will 197800AAA 11 Dynegy Baldwin Randolph 157851AAA 1
Dominion Kincaid Christian 021814AAB 1
Ameren Coffeen Montgomery 135803AAA 1
Ameren Edwards Peoria 143805AAG 1
Ameren Duck Creek Fulton 057801AAA 1
Midwest Generation Powerton Tazewell 179801AAA 1
Midwest Generation Joliet Will 197809AAO 1 Midwest Generation Will County Will 197810AAK 1 Springfield CWLP Sangamon 167120AAO 1



### Table 6. 2 summarizes the BART requirements for coal

- fired EGUs in Illinois for 2018, the progress

- related milestone year under the Regional Haze Ru le. It should be noted
that NO x 

### and SO 2 

### reduction requirements will be phased in beginning in 2009 through
2019. IEP A ’s BART TSD provides a more detailed description of these requirements.

The BART Guidelines provide presumptive emission limits or control levels for coal

fired EGUs, for various boiler types and coal types. The presumptive emission limits for
coal

- fire d EGUs are shown in Table 6.3. The IEPA has compared these presumptive BART emission levels to existing emission reduction requirements and commitments for

### 21

the subject

- to

- BART EGUs in Illinois. For coal

- fired EGU s in Illinois, the system

- wide
emission li mits required by the MPS/CPS for

T able 6.2 Summary of 2018 BART Requirements in Illinois

for Coal

- Fired EGUs

S ource N ame NOx Emission Rate (lb/mmBTU) SO 2 Emission Rate (lb/mmBTU) 2002 Base BART 2002 Base BART Dynegy a 0.32 0.10 0.63 0.19
Ameren a 0.29 0.11 1.10 0.23
Midwest Generation a ,b 0.36 0.11 0.52 0.13 City Water, Light and Power 1.08 0.11 1.09 0.23
Dominion Kincaid 0.65 0.07 0.55 0.1 5

a Sources affected by MPS/CPS required to meet emission rates on a system

- wide basis. b Midwest Generation is required to meet a system

- wide SO 2 average emission rate 0.13 lb/mmBTU by 2018 and 0.11 lb/mmBTU by 2019.



### Table 6. 3 Presumptive BART Emission Limits for Coal

- Fired EGUs

Pollutant Boiler Type Coal Type Presumptive Limit (lbs/mmBTU) SO 2 All units All coal types 0.15 (or 95% control) NOx Dry

- bottom wall

- fired Bituminous 0.39 Sub

- bituminous 0.23 Lignite 0.29 Tangential

- fired Bituminous 0.28 Sub

- bituminous 0.15 Lignite 0.17 Cell burners Bituminous 0.40 Sub

- bituminous 0.45 Dry

- turbo

- fired Bituminous 0.32 Sub

- bituminous 0.23 Wet

- bottom tangential

fired All 0.62 Cyclone All 0.10



### Midwest Generation, Ameren, and Dynegy
, and the specific BART

- related provisions for
Dominion

- Kincaid and the City of Springfield, Office of Public Utilities, d/b/a CWLP either meet or exceed the requirements for BART. As shown in Figure s 6.1 and 6.2
, Illinois’ requirements will provide significantly greater emission reductions for NO x 

### and

### 22

SO 2 

### than will insta llation of BART controls on just the subject

- to

- BART emission units, and will provide greater emission reductions than implementation of CAIR.

Figure 6.1 Estimated NOx Emissions from Coal

- Fired EGUs in Illinois

Figure 6.2 Estimated SO 2 

### Emissions from C oal

- Fired EGUs in Illinois

The two non

- utility sources that have emission units that are subject to BART are both petroleum refineries located in the Chicago area. These sources are the C ITGO refinery
at Lemont and the ExxonMobil refinery at Joliet

. To meet the BART emission reduction requirements, Illinois is relying on federal consent decrees affecting both sources. Both

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 

### 50,000 60,000

MWGen Ameren Dynegy Dominion CWLP NO x Emissions (tons per year) 2002 Base Year

Presumptive BART



### 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000

MWGen Ameren Dynegy Dominion CWLP SO 2 Emissions (tons per year )

2002 Base Year

Presumptive BART

### 23

refineries have been the subject of litigation by USEPA that has resulted in legal
settlements as set forth in consent decree s

. The consent decrees establish federally
enforceable emission l imits f or these sources that have resulted , or will result, in significant reductions in SO 2 

### and NO x 

### emissions. The IEPA considers the requirements
of these consent decrees to be sufficient to meet the requirements for BART. IEPA ’s BART TSD provides a more detailed description of these requirements.

### 24

7 .0 Reasonable Progress Goals The Regional Haze Rule does not establish presumptive targets for showing reasonable progress goals for Class I areas. Rather, the rule allows states the flexibility to determine reasonable progress goals for Class I areas that improve visibility on the most impaired days and ensure that no degradation occurs on the clearest days. The reasonable progress goals ar e intended as interim goals that represent incremental progress toward the
national goal of mitigating all man

- made visibility impairment. The national goal of no

man

- made impairment is intended to encompass several planning periods of 10 years
duration. The first planning period spans from the beginning of the regional haze program until the year 2018.

Since t here are no Class I areas located in Illinois, the IEPA is not required to prepare and submit any analyses regarding the establishment of reasona ble progress goals for any Class I areas. Illinois has participated in the efforts of the MRPO to perform such analyses for Class I areas located in other MRPO states. A detailed description of these analyses can be found in Section 5 .0 of the MRPO TSD (see Appendix B ). A summary
of th e MRPO’s findings is provided below

.

Section 169A ( g ) of the CAA states that “

... in determining reasonable progress there shall be taken into consideration the costs of compliance, the time necessary for complia nce, and the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such requirements” . 42 USC §7491(g). Federal regulations also include visibility improvements as they relate to th e Uniform Rate of Progress

. 40 CFR §51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). The MRPO conducted analyses to determine reasonable progress based upon these f ive factors and determined that the implementation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (“ CAIR ”) would be sufficient for th e region to achieve reasonable progress toward the visibility goals of the Regional Haze
Rule and CA I R. These analyses were based on reductions that would be achieved by 2018 with the implementation of CAIR Phase I and Phase II by that time. The

assessme nt of the five factors was performed for the MRPO and the State of Minnesota by EC/R Incorporated (“EC/R”), as documented in their report, “Reasonable Progress for

### 25

Class I Areas in the Northern Midwest” 4 

### . Specifically, EC / R examined reductions in
SO 2 

### and NO x 

### emissions from EGUs and industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) boilers; NO x 

### emissions from mobile sources and reciprocating engines and turbines; and ammonia emissions from agricultural operations. The impacts of “on the books” controls

were also examined to provide a frame of reference for assessing the impacts of the
additional control measures.

The results of EC / R’s analysis of the five factors are summarized below:

Factor 1 (Cost s of Compliance) : The average cost effectiveness values (in terms of $M per ton) are provided in Table 7.1

. Two control levels were considered for EGUs (EGU1 and EGU2) and for industrial, commercial, and industrial (“ICI”) boilers (ICI

- 1 and “ICI Workgroup”). For compar ison, cost

- effectiveness estimates previously provided for “on
the books” controls include:

CAIR SO 2 

### : $700

- $1,200, NO x 

### : $1,400

– $2.600 ($/T)
BART SO 2 

### : $300

- $963, NO x 

### : $248

- $1,770
MACT SO 2 

### : $1,500, NO x 

### : $7,600

Most of the cost

- effectiveness value s for the additional controls are within the range of

cost

- effectiveness values for “on the books” controls.

Factor 2 (Time Necessary for Compliance) : All of the control measures can be implemented by 2018. Thus, this factor can be easily addressed.

Factor 3 (Energy and NonAir Quality Environmental Impacts) : The energy and other environmental impacts are believed to be manageable. For example, the increased energy
demand from add

- on control equipment is less than 1% of the total electricity and steam production in the region, and solid waste disposal and wastewater treatment costs are less than 5% of the total operating costs of the pollution control equipment. It should also be
noted that the SO 2 

### and NO x 

### controls would have beneficial environmental impacts (e.g., reduced acid deposition and nitrogen deposition).

### 26 Table 7.1 Estimated Cost Effectiveness for Potential Control Measures

Emission category Control strategy Region Average Cost Effectiveness ($/ton) SO 2 NOx NH 3 EGU EGU1 3

- State 1,540 2,037 9

- State 1,743 1,782 EGU2 3

- State 1,775 3,016 9

- State 1,952 2,984 ICI boilers ICI1 3

- State 2,992 2,537 9

- State 2,275 1,899 ICI Workgroup 3

- State 2,731 3,814 9

- State 2,743 2,311 Reciprocating engines and turbines Reciprocating engines

emitting 100 tons/year or

more 3

- State 538

9

- State 506 Turbines emitting 100 tons/year or more 3

- State 754 9

- State 754 Reciprocating engines emitting 10 tons/year or

more 3

- State 1,286

9

- State 1,023 Turbines emitting 10 tons/year or more 3

- State 800 9

- State 819 Agricultural sources 10% reduction 3

- State 31

- 2,700

9

- State 31

- 2,700

15% reduction 3

- State 31

- 2,700

9

- State 31

- 2,700 Mobile sources Low

- NO x Reflash 3

- State 241 9

- State 241 MCDI 3

- State 10,697 9

- State 2,408

Anti

- Idling 3

- State (430)

- 1,700

9

- State (430)

- 1,700 Cetane Additive Program 3

- State 4,119 9

- State 4,119 Cement Plants Process Modification Michigan

-

Conversion to dry kiln Michigan 9,848 LoToxTM Michigan 1,399 Glass Manufacturing LNB Wisconsin 1,041

Oxy

- firing Wisconsin 2,833 Electric boost Wisconsin 3,426 SCR Wisconsin 1,054 SNCR Wisconsin 1,094

### 27

Table 7.1 Estimated Cost Effectiveness for Potential Control Measures (continued)

Emission category Control strategy Region Average Cost Effectiveness ($/ton) SO 2 NOx NH 3 Lime Manufacturing Mid

- kiln firing Wisconsin 688

LNB Wisconsin 837 SNCR Wisconsin 1,210 SCR Wisconsin 5,037 FGD Wisconsin 128

- 4,828 Oil Refinery LNB Wisconsin 3,288

SNCR Wisconsin 4,260 SCR Wisconsin 17,997 LNB+FGR Wisconsin 4,768 ULNB Wisconsin 2,242 FGD Wisconsin 1,078



### Factor 4 (Remaining Useful Life) : It is not expected that the control s will be applied to units that will be retired prior to the amortization period for the control equipment. Thus, this factor can be easily addressed.

Factor 5 (Visibility Impacts) : The estimated increment al improvement in 2018 visibility levels for the additional measures is shown in Figure 7.1 , along with the cost

effectiveness expressed in millions of dollars per deciview ($M/dv) improvement. Strategy 1 and Strategy 2, as shown in the figure, refer to t he two control levels evaluated
for EGUs and ICI boilers. These results show that although EGU and ICI boiler controls have higher cost

- per

- deciview values (compared to some of the other measures), the potential for visibility improvements from these cate gories is also greater

. However, the potential visibility improvements are small for all categories except for EGUs, and the EGU controls in Illinois exceed those required by either CAIR or the proposed Transport
Rule (75 Fed. Reg. 45210 (August 2, 2010))

.

### 28 Figure 7.1 Results of EC / R A nalysis of R easonable P rogress F actors

### 29

Subsequent to these analyses
, the F ederal CAIR rule has been remanded and USEPA has proposed Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (“ Transport Rule ”) (75 F ed. R eg. 45210 (August 2, 2010) ). The IEPA
consider s the emission reductions that were anticipated from CAIR Phase II to be
Illinois’ “fair share” of reductions for achieving the progress goals set by the MRPO.
Ta ble 7. 2 shows the EGU emission rates resulting from CAIR Phase II and the proposed Transport Rule Phase II for several Midwestern states, including Illinois . Also shown in Table 7.2 are the average emission rates expected from EGUs in Illinois as a result of the
multi

- pollutant control measures , including the MPS/CPS and agreements to meet BART requirements, which will be in place by 2018

. As shown in the table, the emission limits on EGUs in Illinois are more stringent than CAIR Phase II and the Proposed Transport Rule Phase II, and are lower than the emission rates to be achieved from these programs
in all other Midwestern states. I f other Midwestern states were to achieve emission reductions comparable to those anticipated in Illinois, the region woul d likely exceed the

progress goals identified by the MRPO.

Similar to the MRPO, the Mid

- Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (“ MANE

- VU ”) and Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (“ VISTAS ”) RPOs performed modeling to evaluate rate of progress goals at eastern Class I areas. In a stakeholder briefing in April 2008, MANE

- VU concluded from their modeling that

“

... the Uniform Rate is achieved and exceeded at all MANE

- VU Class I sites.” 9 

### In the
V I STAS T echnical S upport D ocument , 8 

### which was prepared to support their states’

r egional h aze SIPs, the 2018 modeling results (without international effects) shows that
all VISTAS Class I areas show visibility improvements greater than the Uniform Rate of Progress. Both the MANE

- VU and VISTAS studies assume CAIR control levels for
EGUs in Illinois.

### 30

Table 7. 2 Projected SO 2 

### and NOx Emission Rates from National Control

Programs for EGUs in Several Midwestern States

* The projected average SO 2 

### emission rate in Illinois in 2018 is 0.19 lb/MMBTU and the projected NOx emission rate is 0.10 lb/MMBTU State SO 2 

### Emission Rate

(lb/MMBTU) NOx Emission Rate (lb/MMBTU)

CAIR Phase II Proposed Transport

Rule Phase II CAIR

Phase II Proposed Transport

Rule Phase II Wisconsin 0.25 0.27 0.14 0.18
Ohio 0.36 0.27 0.14 0.15
Missouri 0.24 0.39 0.13 0.14
Minnesota 0.18 0.24 0.14 0.21 Michigan 0.33 0.40 0.14 0.17 Kentucky 0.27 0.23 0.14 0.15
Indiana 0.28 0.31 0.14 0.18
Illinois * 0.26 0.28 0.12 0.10
Iowa 0.21 0.40 0.13 0.21

### 31

8 .0 Long

- Term Strategy
Pursuant to 40 CFR § 51.308(d)(3)
, Illinois is required to submit a long

- term strategy addressing Regional Haze Rule requirements for visibility improvement for the F ederal
Class I areas im pacted by Illinois sources. The long

- term strategy is the compilation of
enforceable emissions control measures needed to achieve the reasonable progress goals established for these Class I areas. As required, the Illinois plan details the emission

contr ol measures that Illinois is implementing, including measures t o comply with
BART , to achieve the reasonable progress goals established for Class I areas impacted by
emissions sources located in Illinois

.

The Regional Haze Rule also requires under 40 CFR § 51.308(d)(3)(iv) that states identify all major and minor anthropogenic (stationary, mobile, and area) sources of visibility impairment that were considered by the state in preparing its long

- term strategy

. IEPA ’s emissions inventory is described in Sec tion 5 .0 of this report and in Section 3.6 of the
MRPO TSD ( see Appendix B ). Additional ly, the Regional Haze Rule ( 40 CFR § 51.308(d)(3)(v) ) require s that states consider the following factors in developing their long

- term strategy :
E mission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address reasonably attributable visibility impairment;
M easures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities;
E missions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the reasonable progress goal;
S ource retirement and replacement schedules;
S moke management techniques for agricultural and forestry management

purposes including plans as currently exist within the State for these purposes;
E nforceability of emissions limitat ions and control measures; and
T he anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and
mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the long

- term strategy.

Illinois has considered each of these factors in developing i ts long

- term strategy. As
documented in the MRPO TSD ( see Appendix B , Section 3.6), the reasonable progress

### 32

goals for the Class I areas in the m idwest ern and e astern U nited S tates will be achieved by 2018 from implementation of “on

- the

- books” control meas ures in the states contributing to visibility impairment. “On

- the

- books” control measures include a number of controls that were modeled by the MRPO for power plants, other point sources, area sources, and off

- highway and on

- highway mobile sources. These control measures have already been adopted by USEPA and/or the states, are fully enforceable, and will be in place by 2018 (except for fleet turnover of certain mobile source measures).

8.1 Point S ource Q/D A nalysis
The IEPA has evaluated all SO 2 

### and NOx sources in the state to determine if they could potentially affect visibility in Class I Federal areas using a methodology that is consistent
with the BART Guidelines

. The BART G uidelines state, in part :

“Based on our model plant analysis, EPA b elieves that a State could reasonably choose to exempt sources that emit less than 500 tons per year of NO X 

### or SO 2 

### (or
combined NO x 

### and SO 2 

### ), as long as they are located more than 50 km from any Class I area; and sources that emit less than 1000 tons per y ear of NO X 

### or SO 2 

### (or
combined NO x 

### and SO 2 

### ), as long as they are located more than 100 km away from any Class I area.” 1



### This USEPA criteria is equivalent to a Q/D of 10, where Q is the emission rate in tons per year and D is the distance of the source f rom the nearest Class I area. Since there are no Class I area s within 1 0 0 k ilometers of any emission source in Illinois, the IEPA evaluated
all sources with combined NO x 

### and SO 2 

### emissions greater than 1 0 00 TPY.

Table 8.1 lists the sources in Illinois that have combined NO x 

### and SO 2 

### emissions exceeding 1 0 00 TPY that were not previously evaluated in the subject

- to

- BART analysis. Also listed is the distance from each source to the nearest Class I area, and the Q/D ratio
for e ach source.

### 33 Table 8.1 Ratios of Emission Rates and Distance (Q/D) for

Emission Sources in Illinois

Source Location SO2 + NOx emissions (TPY) Distance to nearest Class I area (km) Q/D (tons/km) Electric Energy Joppa 31
, 487 115 274
Corn Products Bedford Park 22
, 050 523 42
Conoco

- Phillips Roxana 17
, 994 207 87
Aventine Pekin 14
, 963 400 37
ADM Decatur 14
, 074 340 41
S outhern Illinois Power Marion 11
, 700 128 91
SUEZ DEGS Tuscola 10
, 757 350 3 1
US Steel Granite City 9 , 718 191 51
ADM Peoria 8
, 737 414 21
CII Carbon Robinson 5
, 963 248 24 Tate & Lyle Decatur 5
, 022 337 1 5
Lone Star Oglesby 4
, 469 489 9 Oxbow Calcining Lemont 4
, 468 529 8 Lafarge Joppa 4
, 254 115 37
Emerald Materials Henry 4
, 106 468 9 St Marys Cement Dixon 3
, 997 546 7
Panhandle Eastern Tuscola 3
, 688 350 10
PPG Mt Zion 3
, 163 330 9
Prairie Power Pearl 2
, 922 278 10 Nat’l Gas Pipeline Hammond 2
, 475 340 7 Nat’l Gas Pipeline Herscher 2
, 241 465 4 Nat’l Gas Pipeline Geneseo 1
, 954 491 4
Marathon Petroleum Robinson 1
, 902 249 7
Panhandle Eastern Pleasant Hill 1
, 661 286 6
ADM Quincy 1
, 627 344 5 Rentech Energy E Dubuque 1
, 453 562 3
John Deere E Moline 1
, 414 507 3
Panhandle Eastern Glenarm 1
, 319 299 4
Trunkline Gas Grand Chain 1
, 291 117 11
Exolon Hennepin 1
, 274 486 3
U of Illinois Champaign 1
, 268 377 3 ANR Pipeline Sandwich 1
, 183 559 2 Nat’l Gas Pipeline Centralia 1
, 151 190 6 ANR Pipeline New Windsor 1
, 144 475 2
Carmeuse Lime Chicago 1
, 138 525 2
J’Ville Dev. Center Jacksonville 1
, 103 305 3
Western IL Univ. Macomb 1
, 087 392 3
St

- Gobain Containers Dolton 1
, 059 533 2
Illinois Cement La S alle 1
, 013 493 2

### 34

Most of the sources in Illinois with combined NOx and SO 2 

### emissions have Q/D ratios less than 10, and will therefore not affect visibility significantly in any Class I areas. Of
the 15 sources that have a Q/D ratio greater than 10, the IEPA believes that they are already subject, or will soon be subject to additional con trol measures that will provide additional emissions reductions that will ensure reasonable progress. These measures
include:
Illinois Multi

- Pollutant Standards and Combined Pollutant Standards for EGUs Phase I and II of the proposed Transport Rule for EG Us
Federal c onsent d ecrees for petroleum refineries
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for utility
boilers
NESHAPs for industrial boilers
NESHAPs for iron and steel
NESHAPs for cement kilns
NESHAPs for combustion turbines at natural gas pipeline station Reasonably Available Control Technology for NOx sources (“ NO x 

### RACT ”) in
ozone nonattainment area s NOx SIP Call requirements for turbines at natural gas pipeline stations

8.2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration
As to the construction of any new major stationary source or the major modification of any existing major stationary source, the visibility impacts of such sources will remain under the purview of existing requirements under Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”). 40 CFR § 52.21. The IEPA administers the PSD program in Illinois under authority provided by Section 9.1 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act , 415 ILCS 5/9.1 (2010), and a delegation agreement with USEPA authorizing Illinois to enforce the Federal PSD regulations.

Under the PSD program, if the emissions from a proposed new stationary source or the increase in emissions from a modification to an existing source meet the relevant criteria to be considered major, specific requirements apply to the project. These requirements

### 35

include a control technology element or installation of Best Available Control Technology, an analysis of the air quality impacts of the project, an additional impacts analysis, which assesses the impacts of air, ground and water pollution on soils, vegetation, and visibility caused by any increase in emissions of any regulated pollutant from the source or modification under review, and from associ ated growth, and public participation. Furthermore, there are additional PSD requirements for sources impacting Federal Class I Areas, including notification to a Federal Land Manager (“FLM”) of a permit application for such a proposed source that may aff ect a Federal Class I Area that includes an analysis of the proposed source’s anticipated impacts on visibility in the Class I Area and the consideration of any visibility analysis performed by the FLM that demonstrates that such a proposed source may hav e an adverse impact on visibility in any Federal Class I Area. Permitting of new and modified sources in Illinois via the PSD process includes review by and input from the FLMs, who are charged with direct responsibility for management of Class I Areas an d have an affirmative responsibility to protect the air quality related values including visibility

. D eterminations of adverse visibility impact s enable Illinois to reduce the impact s of any new and modified sources on visibility. Furthermore, in conform ity with 40 C.F.R. § 51.307, in conducting such reviews, Illinois shall ensure that such sources’ emissions will be consistent with making reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, impairm ent of visibility in Class I Areas.

8. 3 Important C ontrol S trategies in Illinois
“On

- the

- Books” Control Measures Many of the aforementioned control programs, along with many others that affect smaller point sources, area, and mobile sources, will reduce emissions of the constituents that cause visibility impairment

. The chemical constituents that cause the vast majority of visibility impairment in the northern Class I area are ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate, and organic carbon. According to a MRPO analysis of species that comprise the PM loading in the northern Class I areas, on the 20% worst visibility days, sulfates comprise 35

- 55%, nitrates 25

- 30%, and organic carbon 12

- 22% of the PM loading

. 6 

### On a seasonal basis, sulfate and organic carbon con centrations are generally higher in the

### 36

summer, with nitrate s having a larger contribution in the winter. Most of the visibility impairing particles in these Class I areas are due to emissions that have been transported from large urban and industrial are as far removed from these areas. Emission sources in

t hese urban/industrial areas are expected to decrease due to various “on the books” control programs for on

- road and off

- road mobile sources, area sources, and industrial point sources

. Following is a list of “on

- the

- books” control measures that are expected to further reduce visibility impairing pollutants in future years:

On

- Road Mobile Sources Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program, low

- sulfur gasoline and
ultra

- low sulfur diesel fuel Inspection

- maintenance programs, including I llinois’ enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program , I ndiana’s vehicle emissions testing program, O hio’s E

- check program, and W isconsin ’s vehicle inspection

program (N ote: a special emissions modeling run was done for the Cincinnati/Dayton area to reflect the removal of the state’s E

- check program and inclusion of low RVP gasoline ) Reformulated gasoline, including in Chicago

- Gary

- Lake County, IL,IN; and Milwaukee, Racine, WI
Off

- Road 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 standard s Federal commercial marine vessel engine standards
Area Sources
Consumer solvents
A rchitectural and Industrial Maintenance coatings Aerosol coatings
Portable fuel containers

### 37 Electric Generating Units
Illinois Multi

- Pollutant Standards and Combined Pollut ant Standards for
EGUs Title IV ( Acid Rain

-- Phases I and II)
NO x 

### SIP Call
Clean Air Interstate Rule

– Phase I
Other Point Sources
VOC 2

- , 4

- , 7

- , and 10

- year M aximum A chievable Control Technology (“MACT”) standards
Combustion turbine MACT
C onsent decrees (refineries, ethanol plants, and ALCOA)
NO x 

### R easonably A vailable C ontrol T echnology ( “RACT”) in Illinois
, Wisconsin and Ohio

It should be noted that some of the measures listed above that will yield significant
additional emission reductions in Illinois that have not been included as “on the books”
control measures in the MRPO analys e s . These include the regulatory compliance options, such as the MPS and CPS codified in the Illinois Mercury Rule, which provide greater NO x 

### and SO 2 

### reductions than the F ederal CAIR, as well as BART controls for the
Dominion

- Kincaid and the CWLP electric generation facilit ies . These additional agreements and emission reductions are discussed in detail in the Illinois BART TSD

.

Construction Activities
In consideration of construction activities and their effect on regional haze
, construction activities in Illinois are subject to federal non

- road standards for construction equipment and vehicles. Additionally, a number of large construction projects in Illinois , includ ing
the current airport expansion at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport and recent work on the Dan Ryan expressway, have been conducted under contract restrictions requiring
additional measures to mitigate environmental impact s . These measures include the following : the use of ultra low

- sulfur fuels ; idling restrictions for construction vehicles and equipment ; USEPA

- approved controls for off

- road diesel equipment ; use of newer,

### 38

cleaner
, and more fuel

- efficient engines for equipment; and optimizing eart hwork and excavation to limit haul trips to the maximum extent possible. I EPA anticipates that future construction projects will entail similar environmental consideration s , and the
I EPA will continue to work with other state and federal agencies to ensure that environmental impact s are given due consideration in contracting for similar construction projects.

Smoke Management for Prescribed Fires
In consideration of s moke management techniques for conducting prescribed burns for ecological managemen t and restoration, the I EPA has worked with land managers in the
S tate to prepare the “Illinois Smoke Management Plan ” 7



### . This plan provides recommended approaches for minimizing smoke during prescribed burns. The plan is voluntary, and targets controlle d ecological burns. The plan does require the implementation of best management practices for burns and also requires the use of the Air Quality Index to inform the decision to burn . The plan does not explicitly consider Class I areas as sensitive recepto rs, since the distance to the nearest Class I area from any point in Illinois is large (at least 100 km) and ecological burns are relatively small and
short lived.

### 39

9 .0 Consultation

Illinois is required by the Regional Haze Rule to participate in a consultation process with
states that have Class I areas that have identified emission sources in Illinois that contribute to visibility impairment. Illinois’ SIP submittal must also conta in documentation of the consultation process.

I llinois has participated in meetings and conference calls with states within the MRPO
and with the other RPOs outside the Midwest to discuss their assessments of visibility conditions, analyses of culpability, and possible measures tha t could be taken to meet visibility goals

. The sections later in this document provide that information on a stat e

by

- state basis.

9.1 Coordination with Federal Land Manager s Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
, § 51.308(i)
, requires coordination between
I llinois and the Federal Land Managers ( “ FLMs ” ) . Opportunities have been provided by
the MRPO for FLMs to review and comment on each of the technical documents developed by the MRPO and included in this SIP. I l linois has provided agency contacts
to the FLMs as required. In development of this plan, the FLMs were consulted in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR § 51.308(i)(2).

During the consultation process, the FLMs were given the opportunity to addres s their

a ssessment s of the impairment of visibility in any Class I areas , to provide

r ecommendations on the development of reasonable progress goals , and to provide

r ecommendations on the development and implemen tation of strategies to address

v isibility i mpairment.

I llinois has consulted directly with FLMs by email and phone, during periodic MRPO calls and meetings, and during discussions with other states and RPOs with Class I areas (for example, the MANE

- VU meeting August 6, 2007 in Chicago).

### 40

Illinois provided the FLMs an opportunity for review of the SIP, and in conformity with
the f ederal regulations, it was at least 60 days prior to holding the public hearing for the
SIP. Comments were received from the FLMs on th is plan and have been summa r ized ; the responses are encompassed in the Responsive ness Summary for Public Questions and Comments on the State Implementation Plan Submittal to Address Regional Haze

. Illinois will continue to coordinate and consult with the FLMs during the development of future progress reports and plan revisions, as well as during the implementation of programs having the potential to contribute to visibility impairment in the Class I areas. The FLMs will be consulted during the d evelopment and review of implementati on plan
revisions and during the r eview of five

- year progress reports

.

9.2 Consultation with States with Class I Areas As a result of the various analyses performed by the MRPO and other RPOs, I llinois was invited to participate in consultations with states w ith Class I areas where sources in Illinois were shown to cause or contribute to visibility impairment . These include d
Arkansas and Missouri ( as part of CENRAP)
, Kentucky, New Jersey, New Hampshire,
and Vermont ( each individually and together as part of MANE

- VU ) , Minnesota, and Michigan. In addition, the MRPO consulted with VISTAS (the southeastern U nited
S tates ’ RPO) regarding impacts in a number of Class I areas in the southeastern U nited
S tates

.

I EPA assessed each of the Class I areas identified in t he MRPO report as being impacted by Illinois sources. Information provided by the MRPO, technical documents from the other RPOs, and letters received from other states indicating their decisions regarding reasonable further progress goals were used to mak e these assessments.

In determining reasonable progress for regional haze, Section 169 A of the Clean Air Act and USEPA’s visibility rule require s states to consider these factors in establishing their progress goals : c osts of compliance ; the t ime necessary for compliance ; the e nergy and

non

- air quality environmental impacts of compliance ; the r emaining useful life of any

### 41

existing source subject to such requirements ; and the u niform rate of visibility improvement needed to attain natural visibility conditions by 2064

.

Since Illinois has no Class I areas, the states with Class I areas took the lead in establishing reasonable progress goals. Illinois participated in the discussions and provided information to assist in setting the goals. The states developing the plans
addressed the required factors and developed the uniform rate of progress glide paths.

In the following sections, these analyses are summarized for most of the Class I areas impacted by sources in Illinois

.

9.2.1 Voyageurs National Park and Boundary Waters Canoe Area National Wilderness Area , MN Illinois sources have been shown to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Voyageurs National Park and Boundary Waters Canoe Area National Wilderness Area in
Minnesota. Illinois has par ticipated in consultation s with Minnesota and the MRPO in the development of the modeling analyses used by Minnesota to develop its reasonable

progress goals

. Minnesota has developed a long

- term strategy sufficient to meet its 2018 reasonable progress goa ls, and has not requested additional emissions reductions from
Illinois.

9.2.2 Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo National Wilderness Area s , A R , and Hercules

- Glades and Mingo National Wilderness Area s , MO Illinois sources have been shown to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in the Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo National Wilderness Areas in Arkansas and the
Hercules

- Glades and Mingo National Wilderness Areas in Missouri. Illinois was invited to participate in the consultation process for these areas, pri marily through conference phone calls with other participating states

. Arkansas and Missouri have both developed long

- term strategies that meet Rate of Progress Goals by 2018. The results of their modeling for these C lass I areas, showing improvements that exceed the Uniform Rate of Progress glide path s , are shown in Figures 9

- 1, 9

- 2, 9

- 3, and 9

- 4

. 10 

### CENRAP ha s

### 42

concluded that no further reductions are necessary from Illinois and has notified IEPA that they consider th e consultation process completed

.

Figure 9

. 1 Caney Uniform Rate of Progress Glide P ath

Figure 9

. 2 Upper Buffalo Uniform Rate of Progress Glide P ath

### 43 Figure 9

. 3 Hercules

- Glades Uniform Rate of Progress Glide P ath

Figure 9

. 4 Mingo Uniform Rate of Progress Glide P ath

9.4.4 Isle Royale National Park and Seney National Wilderness Area , MI Illinois sources have been shown to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Isle Royale National Park and in the Seney National Wilderness Area in Michigan. Illinois

### 44

and the other Midwestern states participated extensively in the MRPO modeling and data analysis efforts for fine particulates, ozone, and haze in these areas. Michigan determined that existing and on

- the

- books controls (those controls scheduled in response to regulatory actions within this time period ) will be sufficient to meet its r easonable progress goals. Michigan has concluded that no further reductions are necessary from
Illinois. Illinois will continue to work with Michigan through the MRPO to evaluate the progress in the Class I areas.

9.4.5 Mammoth Cave NP, KY; Sipsey Wilderness, AL; Great Smoky Mountains NP, TN/NC (VISTAS) The s outheastern states represented by VISTAS did not request Illinois’ participation in consultations to address visibility impairment in their Class I areas. The MRPO did consult with VISTAS in the developme nt of their progress goals. During this process, VISTAS produced glide path plots for Sipsey Wilderness in Alabama (Figure 9.5 ), the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in Tennessee and North Carolina (Figure 9.6 ), and
Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentuc ky (Figure 9.7 )

. 8 

### The glide paths all show that

on

- the

- books and on

- the

- way controls (including CAIR) will be more than sufficient to demonstrate reasonable further progress. Because of these results, none of the VISTAS
states asked I llinois to take furt her action beyond the emissions reductions assumed in
their model ing.

9.4.6 Wilderness Area, NH; Brigantine National Wilderness Area , NJ; and Lye Brook National Acadia National Park, ME; Moosehorn Wilderness Area, ME; Great Gulf Wilderness Area , V T (MANE

- VU)

Illinois sources have been shown to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in several Class I areas in the Northeastern States represented by MANE

- VU. Illinois, along with the other MRPO states, participated in consultations with MANE

- VU.

In Jul y 2007, MANE

- VU released its “Assessment of Reasonable Progress for Regional
Haze in MANE

- VU Class I Areas

- Methodology for Source Selection, Evaluation of Control Options, and Four Factor Analysis” 11 

### that supported requests of states outside
that area t o examine controls for specific types of sources.

### 45 Figure 9.5 Sipsey Wilderness Uniform Rate of Progress Glidepath

Figure 9. 6 Great Smoky Mountains Uniform Rate of Progress Glidepath 29.03 27.52

24.80

21.78

18.76

15.74

12.72 10.90

26.43

23.53

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 Haziness Index (Deciviews)

Year

Uniform Rate of Progress Glide Path Sipsey

- W20% Data Days

Glide Path Natural Condition (Worst Days)

30.28 28.67

25.79

22.59

19.38

16.18

12.97 11.05

26.72

23.50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 Haziness Index (Deciviews)

Year

Uniform Rate of Progress Glide Path Great Smoky Mountains

- W20% Data Days

Glide Path Natural Condition (Worst Days)

### 46 Figure 9. 7 Mammoth Cave NP Uniform Rate of Progress Glidepath

In its “Statement of the Mid

- Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE

- VU) Concerning a Request for a Course of Action by States Outside of MANE

- VU Toward Assuring Reasonable Progress” ( Appendix 3, pages 63

– 64 ) 12



### , MANE

- VU suggested
that several control strategies should be pursued for adoption and implementation, including:

Application of Best Available Retrofit Technology 90% (or greater) reduction in SO 2 

### emissions from each of the EGU stacks on
MANE

- VU’s list of 167 stacks (located in 19 state s), which reflect those stacks determined to be reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in the MANE

- VU Class I areas 28% reduction in non

- EGU (point, area, on

- road, and off

- road) SO 2 

### emissions
relative to on

- the

- books, on

- the

- way 2018 projections Continued evaluation of other measures, including measures to reduce SO 2 

### and
NO x 

### emissions from coal

- burning facilities and promulgation of new source performance standards for wood combustion 31.37 29.68

26.64

23.26

19.87

16.49

13.11 11.08

28.04
25.40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 Haziness Index (Deciviews)

Year

Uniform Rate of Progress Glide Path Mammoth Cave

- W20% Data Days

Glide Path Natural Condition (Worst Days)

### 47 Further reduction in power plant SO 2 

### (and NO x 

### ) emissio ns beyond the current
Clean Air Interstate Rule program

In " Recent MANE

- VU Projections of Visibility for 2018 " 9



### , MANE

- VU concluded that

t he Uniform Rate is achieved and exceeded at all MANE

- VU Class I sites based on the implementation of the above control measures.

Of the 167 EGU stacks identified by MANE

- VU , only one is from a source in Illinois. This stack (at Ameren

- Coffeen) has an SCR (which will operate year

- round) and a wet scrubber installed to comply with the MPS

. The resulting level of control will satisfy the
MANE

- VU “ask” for this source. Illinois is implementing BART on subject sources, and through the on

- the

- books control measures listed previously in Section 8, Illinois has
achieved s ufficient reductions to satisfy the MANE

- VU “ask”.

### 48

1 0 .0 Summary This document describes Illinois’ strategy for meeting the requirements established by
the F ederal Regional Haze Rule, which was published by the USEPA on July 1, 1999 (64
F ed. R eg. 35714) t o address visibility impairment in 156 protected Class I areas. Even though there are no Class I areas in Illinois, the Regional Haze Rule requires that Illinois prepare and submit a SIP to provide for reasonable progress toward improving visibility,
with the eventual goal of achieving pristine visibility conditions in these protected areas by 2064. The states’ initial strategy must contain enforceable emission reduction measures that achieve the reasonable progress goals in 10 to 15 years, with reassessm ent and revision of the goals in 2018 and every 10 years thereafter.

Specifically, the Regional Haze Rule provides several general planning provisions that
states must address in the SIPs. Pursuant to 40 CFR § 51.308, these requirements include: (1) sett ing reasonable progress goals; (2) calculating baseline and natural visibility conditions; (3) providing a long

- term strategy for regional haze; (4) submi tting a plan for the application of BART for a specific subset of emission sources; and (5) providing a monitoring strategy and other implementation plan requirements.

The IEPA , in conjunction with the MRPO, has made adequate plans to meet the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule by performing the necessary modeling to determine its impact on visibility in Class I areas, setting goals to reduce the impact of Illinois sources on these areas, and achieving the identified emission reduction targets. Illinois commits to implement the long

- term strategy for meeting Regional Haze Rule progress goals and requi rements. Illinois has developed a long

- term emission reduction strategy to address the Regional Haze Rule requirements, including the application of BART for a specific subset of emission sources in Illinois. Illinois will continue in its
efforts to main tain monitoring networks and emissions inventories, and will continue to provide required progress reports and future SIP revisions for the Regional Haze Rule.

The F ederal Regional Haze Rule also requires consultation between the states, tribes, and
FL Ms responsible for managing Class I areas. This multi

- state and multi

- agency

### 49

consultation process has been facilitated by the MRPO. Illinois fully participated in the planning and technical development efforts of the MRPO, which also includes the States of Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. States in other parts of the country participated in similar regional planning organizations. Illinois has also participated in consultations with other RPOs and states that have requested Illinois’ participatio n in their planning process.

### 50 References

1. 

### Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations; Final , 69 F ed. R eg. 39104, July 6, 2005.

2. 

### “ Technical Support Document for Best Available Retrofit Technology Under the Regional Haze Rule”, Illinois E nvironmental P rotection A gency, AQPSTR 09

- 06, April 29, 2011

.

3. 

### Illinois Base Year Particulate Matter and Haze Inventory for 2002 , Illinois
E nvironmental P rotection A gency , AQPSTR 06

- 04, June 2006.

4. “Reasonable Progress for Class I Areas in the Northern Midwest

- Factor Analysis
, ” EC/R Incorporated, July 18, 2007.

5. “Establishing Reasonable Progress Goals for the Northern Class I Areas : Treatment of Organic Carbon
, ” LADCO, April 2, 2007.

6. 

### “ Region al Haze in the Upper Midwest: Summary of Technical Information
, ” LADCO, February 22, 2008.

7. 

### Illinois Smoke Management Plan , Illinois E nvironmental P rotection A gency , AQPSTR 08

- 05, May 8, 2009

.

8. 

### “ Technical Support Document for VISTAS Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to Support Regional Haze State Implementation Plans (Draft Final Report)
, ” Environ; November 14, 2007.

9. 

### “ Recent MANE

- VU Projections of Visibility for 2018 ” ; presented by Gary Kleiman, MANE

- VU Stakeholder Briefing, April 4, 2008.

### 51

10. 

### “ Techn ical Support Document for CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to Support Regional Haze State Implementation Plans (Draft Final Report)
, ” Environ; September 12, 2007.

11. 

### “Assessment of Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANE

- VU Class I
Areas

- Methodology for Source Selection, Evaluation of Control Options, and Four Factor Analysis”, MANE

- VU, July 2007.

12. 

### “Statement of the Mid

- Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE

- VU) Concerning a Request for a Course of Action by States Outside of MANE

- VU
Tow ard Assuring Reasonable Progress” , MANE

- VU, June 20, 2007

.June 26 , 2007



### Draft List of Class I Areas Located Within (or Impacted by) Midwest RPO States
The purpose of this paper is to provide a draft list of Class I areas located within or impacted by a Midwest Regional Planning Organization (MRPO) State. A variety of techni cal analyses were considered in developing the draft list , including base year (2002) and future year (2018) modeling, back trajectories, and other data analyses. This information shows that every MRPO State impacts multiple Class I areas in the eastern U .S.

Regulatory Requirements EPA’s regional haze rule requires a state to “address regional haze I each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the State which may be affected by e missions from within the State.” (40 CFR Part 51.308(d)) EPA has interpreted this provision as requiring a table identifying each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State and each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the State af fected by emissions from within the State (see Draft EPA Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.308

- 7/13/06 Staff Draft ).

Discussion Technical analyses conducted by the RPOs were consulted to obtain information on areas of influenc e and culpability for Class I areas in the eastern U.S. 1 A summary of this information is provided below and in Table 1

. For the MRPO analyses, a state was assumed to affect visibility impairment in a Class I area if it contributes 2% (or more) to total light extinction. This criteri on was selected based on a review of the back trajectory and modeling results which showed that states contributing 2% (or more) make

- up about 9 0

- 95 % of total light extinction, whereas states contributing 5% (or more) make

up only about 75

- 80 % of total light extinction. For the other RPO analyses, deference was given to the criteria established by each group to identify contributing states.

(1) MRPO Back Trajectory Analys es A n initial trajectory analysis was conducted using data for 1997

- 2001 (all sampling days), a start height of 200 m, and a 72

- hour (3

- day) trajectory period (Cite: “Quantifying Transboundary Transport of PM2.5: A GIS Analysis”, May 2003, LADCO). By combining trajectory frequencies with concentration infor mation, the average contribution to PM 2. 5 mass and individual PM 2. 5 species was estimated (which, in turn, was used to estimate the average contribution to light extinction). The results for 17 Class I areas in eastern U.S. were examined to identify those Class I areas where a n MRPO state had at least a 2 % contribution to total light extinction (based on all days).

1 Back trajectories and modeling conducted by the WRAP indicate that the Midwest RPO States are not important contributors to visibility impairment due to sulfates and nitrates in western Class I areas (Cite: “Attribution of Haze Phase I Report, Geographic Attribution for the Implementation of the Regional Haze Rule”, March 14, 2005). The analyses show only five groups of western Class I areas with at least 5% contribution from states outside the WRAP. The outside

- WRAP contribution is generally small (on the order of 0

- 15%), and is likely due mostly to nearby CENRAP states.June 26 , 2007

A second trajectory analysis was conducted using data for 2000

- 2003 (20% highest and lowest days), a start height of 200m, and a 120

- hour (5

- d ay) trajectory period (Cite: “Sensitivity Analysis of Various Trajectory Parameters”, June 2005, LADCO). B ack trajectory plots were prepared for each of the four northern Class I areas in Michigan and Minnesota for the high extinction days (see Figure 1

– note: area s in orange are mostly likely upwind and the areas in green are least likely upwind on poor visibility days )

. Although somewhat qualitative, t he se results provide additional information in identifying states impacting the northern Class I areas

.

Voyageurs Boundary Waters

Isle Royale Seney

Figure 1. Contoured trajectory plot s for poor visibility days for Class I areas in northern Minnesota and Michigan

( 2 ) MRP O PSAT Modeling A photochem ical grid model (CAMx) was applied to provide source contribution information for 2018 conditions . Specifically, the model estimated the impact of 18 geographic source regions and 6 source sectors (EGU point, non

- EGU point, on

- road, off

- road, area, and amm onia sources) at Class I areas in the eastern U.S. Example results for four Class I areas (Seney, Mammoth Cave, Mingo, and Shenandoah) are presented in Figure 2

. The results for 13 Class I areas in eastern U.S. were examined to identify those Class I are as where an MRPO state had at least a 2% contribution to total light extinction.June 26 , 2007

Figure 2

. Source region contributions to light extinction based on MRPO PSAT modeling for select Class I areas: Seney, Mammoth Cave, Mingo, and Shenandoah

( 3 ) MANE

- V U Contribution Assessment A weight

- of

- evidence report was prepared by NESCAUM (on behalf of MANE

- VU) to understand the causes of sulfate

- driven visibility impairment at Class I areas in the northeastern and mid

- Atlantic portions of the U.S. (cite: “Contri butions to Regional Haze in the Northeast and Mid

- Atlantic United States”, August 2006) The report provides information on the relative contribution of various emissions sources and geographic source regions. The analytical and assessment tools considere d include Eulerian and Lagangian air quality models, and data analysis techniques, such as source apportionment analyses, back trajectories, and examination of emissions and monitoring data. Sulfate impacts were quantified using five analytical techniques based on 2002 conditions : REMSAD, Q/d, CALPUFF (w/ NWS data), CALPUFF (w/ MM5 data), and percent time upwind (based on trajectory analyses). Figure 3 summarizes the five sets of results for three MANE

- VU Class I areas. Although n o specific criteria were identified in the report to determine a significant contribution , the States of Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and New Jersey assumed a 2% sulfate impact in recent letters to other states inviting them to consult on reasonable progress goals. The MRPO St ates identified as contributing to a MANE

- VU Class I area were Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and OhioJune 26 , 2007

Figure 3

. Percent contribution results using different techniques for ranking state contributions to sulfate levels at MANE

- VU Class areas (cite : “Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeastern and Mid

- Atlantic Portions of the U.S.”, August 2006)June 26 , 2007

( 4 ) Missouri

- Arkansas Contribution Assessment The draft Consultation Plan for the two Missouri and two Arkansas Class I areas provides information on source regions affecting these Class I areas (i.e., areas of influence) using a variety of data and analyses. (cite: “Central Class I Areas Consultation Plan”, States of Missouri and Arkansas, February 2007) A decision on whether a given state is a cont ributor to visibility impairment in these Class I areas was based on the combined results of three a pproaches: areas of influence (see Figure 4) , PSAT modeling (based on 2018 conditions) , and monitoring data analyses (PMF and back trajectories). According to the draft plan, if a state was a major contributor for at least two of the three approaches (for either sulfate or nitrate) , then it was determined to be a significant contributor. The MRPO States identified as contributing to a central CENRAP Class I area were Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio.

Figure 4 . Areas of Influence for Central CENRAP Class I Areas (cite: “Central Class I Areas Consultation Plan”, States of Missouri and Arkansas, February 2007)

( 5 ) VISTAS Area of Influence Analysis Ar eas of infl uence (AOI) were identified for Class I areas in the southeastern U.S. using
r esidence time plots based on wind trajectory direction and frequency
, and weighted by visibility impact (light extinction by ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate, or elemental carb on)

. (Cite: “VISTAS A reas of Influence Analysis”, Draft, February 28, 2007)

. These extinction

weighted residence time analyses w ere overlay ed on gridded emissions (for both 2002 and 2018) to define emission sources in the areas of greatest influence for e ach Class I area. Figure 5 shows the plots for two VISTAS Class I areas. AOIs were defined on the basis of residence times greater than 10%. The MRPO States identified as contributing to a VISTAS Class I area were Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio.June 26 , 2007

Figure 5 . Areas of Influence for Shenandoah (left) and Mammoth Cave (right) for 2018 conditions (cite: “ VISTAS Area of Influence Analyses” PowerPoint presentation, November 28, 2006 )
Note: green circles indicate 100

- and 200

- km radii f rom Class I area, red line perimeter indicate AOI with residence time > 10%, and orange line perimeter indicate AOI with residence time > 5%June 26 , 2007

Table 1 . Draft List of Class I Areas Impacted by MRPO States

- References

AREA NAME IL IN MI OH WI 81.401 Alab ama. Sipsey Wilderness Area (1) (1)

81.404 Arkansas. Caney Creek Wilderness Area (2), ( 4 ) (2), ( 4 ) (2), ( 4 ) Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area (1), ( 2 ),( 4 ),( 5 ) ( 2) , ( 4 ) (2), ( 4 ) (2)

81.408 Georgia. Cohotta Wilderness Area Okefenokee Wilderness Area Wolf Island Wilderness Area

81.411 Kentucky. Mammoth Cave NP (1), (2), ( 5 ) (1), ( 2 ), ( 5 ) (1), (2) (1), ( 2 ), ( 5 )

81.412 Louisiana. Breton Wilderness Area

81.413 Maine. Acadia National Park (3) (3) (3) ( 3 ) Moosehorn Wilderness Area. (3) (3) (3) ( 3 )

81.414 Michigan. Isle Royale NP. ( 1 ), ( 2 ) (1), ( 2 ) (1), ( 2 ) ( 1 ), ( 2 ) Seney Wilderness Area (1), (2) (1), ( 2 ) (1), (2) (1), (2) (1), ( 2 )

81.415 Mi nnesota. Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (2) (2) (2) (1), (2) Voyageurs NP (2) (2) ( 1 ), ( 2 )

81.416 Missouri. Hercules

- Glades Wilderness Area ( 2 ), ( 4 ), ( 5 ) ( 2 ), ( 4 ), ( 5 ) (2), ( 4 ) (2) Mingo Wilderness Area ( 2 ), ( 4 ), ( 5 ) ( 2 ), ( 4 ), ( 5 ) (2) ( 2 ), ( 4 ) (2)

81.419 New Hampshire. Great Gulf Wilderness Area (3) ( 3 ) (3) (1), ( 3 ) Pres

. Range

- Dry River Wilderness Area.

81.42 New Jersey. Brigantine Wilderness Area (3) (3) (1), (3) (1), ( 3 )June 26 , 2007

81.422 North Carolina. Great Smoky Mountains NP{1} (1) (1) (1) Joyce Kilmer

- Slickrock Wilderness Area{2} Linville Gorge Wilderness Area. Shining Rock Wilderness Area. Swanquarter Wilderness Area

81.426 South Carolina. Cape Romain Wilderness

81.428 Tennessee. Great Smoky Mountains NP{1}. (1) (1) (1) Joyce Kilmer

- Slickrock Wilderness{2}

81.431 Vermont. Lye Brook Wilderness (2), ( 3 ) (2), ( 3 ) (2), ( 3 ) (1), (2), ( 3 )

81.433 V irginia. James River Face Wilderness. (2) (2) (2) ( 2 ), ( 5 ) Shenandoah NP (2) , (3) (1), ( 2 ), ( 3 ) (2) , (3) (1),( 2 ),( 3 ),( 5 )

81.435 West Virginia. Dolly Sods/Otter Creek Wilderness. (2) , (3) (1), ( 2 ), ( 3 ) (1), (2) , (3) (1),( 2 ),( 3 ),( 5 )
Key (1) MRPO Back Trajectory Analys es ( 2 ) MRP O PSAT Modeling ( 3 ) MANE

- VU Contribution Assessment ( 4 ) Missouri

- Arkansas Contribution Assessment ( 5 ) VISTAS Areas of Influence

# 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

# Illinois

Ambient Air Monitoring

Network Plan

- 2012

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Bureau of Air Air Monitoring Section
July, 2011

### Illinois Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan

- 2012



### Introduction

Federal Regulation 40 CFR Part 58 Subpart B 58.10 requires the States to submit to USEP A an annual air monitoring network plan for the next calendar year. The plan is to provide a detailed description ofthe monitoring network for all of the criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (N02), sulfur dioxide (S02), ozone (03), particulate matter (PM1 0 and PM2.5), and lead (Pb). The monitoring sites are categorized by the following types: NCore (national trend sites), SLAMS (state and local air monitoring sites), SPM (special purpose monitors), PM2.5 speciation sites (trend and State), and PAMS (photochemical assessment monitoring sites). Specific site infOlmation is to include locational information (address and latitude/longitude), site type, objectives, spatial scale, sampling schedule, and equipment used. In addition, changes from the previous network plan are to be listed. The proposed annual network plan is to be made available for public inspection for 30 days prior to submission to USEP A.

Relevant supporting air quality data in past Illinois Annual Air Quality Reports are available at the following link http://www.epa.state.il.us/air/air-quality-reportlindex.htrnl. These data reports contain detailed monitoring data summaries from the network, show comparisons to the applicable air quality standards, as well as, illustrate pollutant trends

over various time periods.

Network Design
Appendix D to Part 58 establishes the design criteria for the ambient air monitoring network. The network is designed to meet three general objectives: provide air pollution data to the public in a timely manner, support compliance with ambient air quality standards and emissions strategy development, and support air pollution research studies. Specific objectives for the monitoring sites are to determine the highest pollution concentrations in an area (peak), to measure typical concentrations in areas of high population density (population), to determine the impact of significant sources or source categories (source), to determine general background levels (background), and to determine the extent of regional pollutant transport among populated areas (transport).

Minimum site requirements are provided for ozone and particulate matter based on metropolitan statistical area (MSA) population. There are no minimum site requirements for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, or sulfur dioxide. Minimum site requirements for lead only apply in areas where sources (facilities) emit more than one-half ton per year of lead. The Illinois air monitoring network meets or, in most cases, exceeds the minimum network requirements.

The 2012 annual monitoring plan has also incorporated the recommendations provided within the Regional Network Assessment prepared by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) and submitted to US EPA in July, 2010. The Regional Network Assessment was prepared in conjunction with all of the US EPA Region 5 states and

### constitutes, not only an assessment of current state monitoring networks but also provides

a multi-year plan (3-5 years) for development of state/regional network modifications.

Network Implementation
Appendix E to Part 58 establishes the specific requirements for monitor/probe siting to
ensure that the ambient data represents the stated objectives and spatial scale. These requirements are pollutant/scale specific and involve horizontal/vertical placement, spacing from obstructions, spacing from trees, and spacing from roadways. The Illinois air monitoring network meets these siting requirements. Illinois also operates a P AMS network in Chicago that is part of an USEPA approved "Alternate Plan for the Regional Lake Michigan P AMS Network". The PAMS network encompasses monitoring requirements for both the Milwaukee and Chicago ozone nonattainment areas.
Monitoring Methods
Appendix C to Part 58 specifies that monitoring methods used for comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) must be Federal Reference or Equivalent Methods (FRM or FEM). All monitors listed in this network plan use either FRM or FEM with the following exceptions. The carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide monitors at N Olihbrook are trace-level samplers which are not FEMs. Thus, these data will not be used for compliance purposes. None ofthe continuous PM2.5 samplers used

are FRM or FEM. These samplers are intended to provide real-time particulate data for the Air Quality Index (AQI) and AIRNOW mapping purposes rather than compliance.
Ouality Assurance
Appendix A to Part 58 establishes the minimum quality system requirements for the criteria pollutant data submitted to EPA. There are two primary Quality Assurance Organizations applicable to this network plan, the Illinois EPA (IEPA) and the Cook County Department of Enviromnental Control (CCDEC). These two organizations meet and in most cases exceed the minimum requirements of Appendix A.



### Network Changes for 2012

The proposed 2012 network is nearly the same as that approved by US EPA and operated in 201 I. The main additions to the proposed network are new lead (Pb) source-oriented sites required by the December 14, 2010 changes to 40 CFR Part 58 and which are to begin operation January 1,2012. The design of the monitoring network for 2012 has also been based upon the assumption that funding to support the monitoring program is likely to be reduced in fiscal year 2012 and that all efforts would be made to keep as much of the network intact as possible. Also, the assumption was made that complete funding would be provided in 2012 to support the completion and continued operation of the two NCore sites located in Northbrook and Bondville.

### Proposed Monitoring Network Changes for 2012

A pollutant by pollutant discussion of the basis for the changes to the network, the underlying rules and requirements, Illinois EPA's proposed actions in specific areas and a detailed listing of specific sites that have proposed changes is provided on the following pages.

Carbon Monoxide

There is no federal/state monitoring requirement for carbon monoxide. Nine sites were operated in 2011 with no changes proposed for 2012.
Nitrogen Dioxide

There is no federal/state monitoring requirement for nitrogen dioxide. However, three sites are required in the Chicago area as part of the USEP A approved "Lake Michigan Alternate PAMS Plan". Seven sites were operated in 2011 with no changes proposed for 2012.

Sulfur Dioxide

There are eight sites required under federal/state rules, three sites in the Metropolitan Chicago area, two in the Metropolitan St. Louis area and three areas where concentrations were found to exceed the hourly sulfur dioxide air quality standard. A total of fourteen sites were operated in 2011 with no changes proposed for 2012.

Particulate Matter (PM10)

There are four sites required under federal/state rules, one in each of the four original PMlO nonattainment areas. A total of five sites were operated in 2011 and no changes have been proposed in 2012.

Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

There are five sites required under federal/state monitoring rules and two sites required as part of the USEPA approved plan for NCore (National Trend Sites) monitoring bringing the state total number of required sites to seven. Thirty four sites were operated in 2011. The 2012 plan also proposes thirty four sites with one site being relocated as follows:

170190004 Champaign 606 E. Grove Neighborhood and moved to a new location at: 170190006 Champaign 904 N. Walnut Neighborhood SLAMS discontinued

Scale SLAMS

### Ozone

There are fifteen sites required under federaVstate monitoring rules and four sites required as part of the USEP A approved "Lake Michigan Alternate P AMS Plan" bringing the state total number of required sites to nineteen. Thirty three sites were operated in 20 II. The 2012 plan proposes thirty four sites with a new site being added in Rockford due to an increase in population and an associated requirement within Part 58 that specifies a second site in Rockford area. An additional site change in Champaign and Springfield has also been proposed. The 2012 network changes are as follows:

17201XXXX Rockford New site Urban Scale SLAMS

170190004 Champaign 606 E. Grove Urban Scale SLAMS discontinued and moved to a new location at: 170190007 Thomasboro North Thomas St. Urban Scale SLAMS

171670013 Springfield 3050 Mayden Rd. Urban Scale SLAMS discontinued and moved to a new location at: 170190014 Springfield State Fairgrounds Urban Scale SLAMS

There are ten sites required under federal/state rules, eight in areas where significant lead industrial sources are located and two in large urbanized areas with populations greater than 500,000 people (Chicago and St. Louis). There were thirteen lead sites operated in 20 II. The 2012 plan proposes fifteen sites with two new source oriented sites being proposed as follows:

171190008 Alton 17XXXXX Geneva 409 Main Street Johnson Controls Neighborhood Scale SLAMS Neighborhood Scale SLAMS

These new lead sites are required under USEPA's revisions to Part 58 monitoring rules adopted December 14,2010. While currently not expected, further analysis and dispersion modeling of identified industrial sources of lead may dictate additional lead monitoring requirements.

### Metropolitan Statistical Areas

lllinois EPA BweauofAir

Legend C] County Boundaries 

### D Springfield (Metro SA) St. Louis (Metro SA) Rockford (Metro SA) Peoria (Metro SA) 

## o Davenport-Moline-Rock Island (Metro SA) 

### o Cbicago-Naperville-Michigan City (Consolidated SA) Champaign-Urbana (Metro SA) Metropolitan Statistical Areas (Metro SA) Rockfj d

N 

# +

a to 20 30 40 50 Miles

### ILLINOIS

- ANNUAL MONITORING NETWORK PLAN

- 2012 CARBON MONOXIDE

AQSSite County Cil)' t\lh.lrell Sile Dilcrill1ion Sile 0l.crnlor GeolO1'llPbic:11 Coordinates AI'('I1 Represented Moniloriul: Objeclivcl Spalial Scale Propoul to MOlliloring; Type Parameter IdcnliliclIliull /1101'1' or CO

Number Di'con'inue Code 42101 Analrsis& Primary S«olldary Sam Ilin.l!. L:Ilitllde Lou::illlde 

# _.



# - ,.,

......... jo 17-031-0063 Cook Chic:al'.o 321 S. ffllnlclin CTA 8uilo.1illll IEPA +41.8n628 -87.635027 Chical!o-Nallcwillc-Michillllll Ci",. 1l

... IN.\Vl Hi llesl Conc. N/A Micro N/A SLAMS TE Hourly 17-031_3103 Cook Schiller Park 4743 M311llheim Rd. II!PA Trailer lEPA +41.96519348 -87.87626473 Chicallo-NaperviUc-Michillall Ci",. II.

... IN.WT Hi IIeSI Conc. N/A Middle NlA SLM'IS TE Hourlv
17-031-4002 Cook Cicero**1820S.51~lAye.** Cook Counlv Troiter CCDEC +41.85524313 _111.1524697 Cllica o-Na rville-Michi an Cit .nAN-WT Po Illation NlA Nei hborllOod NlA SLM'IS API HourlY
11-031-420 I Cook Northbrook 750 Dundee Rd. Northbrook Water Plaut lEPA +42.13999619 .81.79922692 Cllical!o-Nanerville-Michil<an Cil .IL·IN·Wl PODlilMion NlA Nei hhorllood NlA NCORE TEl Hourlv
17-031-6004 Cook Mavwood 1505 S. Firsl Ave. Com Bd MainlclIllocc Bldll. ccoec +41.81211684 -81.82908025 Chic81!o-Naucrvillc-Michillau Ci",. IL·[N·WT Hi heSI Cone, NlA Micro N/A SLAMS API HOllrlv
11-143-0036 Peoria Peoria 1005 N.**Unive~it** Commercial Bid.':. lEPA +40.70001191 _89.61341375 Peoril. lL Hi IICStCOIlO, NlA Micro N/A SLAMS Tlj Hourlv
17.163.0010 51. Clair East St. Louis 13th & Tudor RAPS TTlliler !EPA +38.61203448 -90.16041663 St Louis. lL-MO Hi hest COIlO, NlA Nc:i hborllood N/A SLAMS TE Houri
17-161-0008**S30~amOll** Sorin field 6th St. & MOllroe**Fetler~1** BltllI.. lEPA +39.7993092 .89.64760789 SlIril1 field. 11. Hi hut COllO. NlA Micro N/A SLM'IS TE Iiouriv
11-201-0011**Winncba~o** Rockford 425 E. State City Hnll JCPA +42.26767353 _89.08785092 Rockford. lL Hi host COIlO. N/A Micro N/A SLMlS DA Hourlv**A.tlalysi~Melhod·** TE (TECO 48), API (API 300), DA (OASIDI3008), TEl(T.GCO 48J-TU!) Sampling Schedule. Hourly (1 hour mnples) CCDEC. Cook Counl1 Depertmenl 01 Environmental Control
IEPA • illinois Environmental I'rolee:tlon Agency

### Carbon Monoxide

•

### ILLINOIS

- ANNUAL MONITORING NETWORK PLAN

- 2012 NITROGEN DIOXIDE

AQS**Sil~** County City AIlllreJl Sile I>i,cripl

.... n Sile Operalor Geotrllphitlll**COllrdillat~. A",~** **R~pr~JCIIICIl** Moullor;111( ObJccli,'u Sp;.tial Scl.lc ProJ}OJallo Moniloriul Type**Param~lft Id~"tilkalio"**  l'I1o"c or NO. Nurllber LJucollt;oue Code 42602 Analysis & Primary Secondnry 5110111i02 Llltitooe Longitude 

# -,- 

# - .. "'"


## .... 17.(l31..()063 Cook Chica II 321 S. Franklin CTA Buildin IEPA +41.877628 -87.635027 ChiCli o-N:I. NiIl.,..Michi Cilv, D..-IN·WJ Hi"hest Cone. Source Middle N/A SLAMS TE Houri 17.(l31..()072 Cook ChicaJlo 1000 E. Ohio Jmdine Water Planl IEPA +41.89581227 -117.60768329**Chica~o.NaJM'rvill.,..Michinn** Cilv. D..-IN·W! POllulalion SOllfU Nti ·hborhood NlA PAMS TE HOllrl 17..()31..()076 Cook Chica 0 7801**Lawn(191~** Com Bd**Mainl~mmco** Bldll. CCDEC +41.15139998 -111.7134111115**ChiUl~o·NaJM'rville-Michi** n Cilv,lL-m·WJ Po ulalion NlA Nei hborhood NlA SLAMS TE Hourt 17-0)1-3103 Cook Schiller ?ark 4143 Mannheim Rd, !EPA Trnilor mPA +41,96519348 -1I7.lI7626413 Chica"o-NanefViHe-Michipan Citv, !T..IN.WJ Hi hUI Cone, SOIII'CO Middk NlA SLAMS T' HOllrl
17-031-4002 Cook Cicero 1820S.5IslAvo. Cool: COlll1lv Tl1Iilcr CCDEC +41.85524313 -81.1524691 Chical!o-Naocrvillc-MichilGU\ Citv, It-IN-WJ Poolilation NlA Nei liOOrhood NlA SLAMS TE HOllrl 17-0)1-4201 Cook Northbrook 150 Dundee Rd, Northbrook Water Planl I!::VA +42,13999619 .81,79922692 Chicago-NallefViIle-MichiRan Ciry.lL·IN.Wr Po 1I10lion NlA Urball NlA PAMSINCORE TE**Ho~rr** 17·163-0010 SI. Clair**Ea~t** 51. LOlli, 131h & Tudor RAPS**TTlli1~r** IEPA +38,61203448 .9(),16047663 St**Lo~is,** IL.MO POOll10lion N/A**N~i** hoorhood NlA SLAMS TE Houri

Allal)"';, Method. TE (TECD 42) S3mpling Schedule

- Hourly (1 hour**lamplc~)** CCDEC

- Cook County Depertmenl of**Environment~1** Control
IEPA·**~lIr'lOili E"vlro"m~ntal**  Protoction Agency

# ~. '

...... \1

Nl "trogen Dl"OXl"de 

# (2:;; 

# "'-'"""-,FC:f'=±=c-rfdr--.'71 k )**~.~~= 1~**  1\

- ..... '0 

## 1'0 

# -d.\

Chicago

- Jardine

# ~=-i--=;::::::;""-'n---~r-.**~~hiCagO** - CTA

# ~_ i-' I' 

# res.**~'** Chicago-CornEd



# -

# "'--'~"'rt~----~----~+-~+-i"" ) C L

# .~ lL'l----'

1----T--;-'----1 

## ,),..r--rl'...... ( 

# L

)

### ILLINOIS

- ANNUAL MONITORING NETWORK PLAN

- 2012 SULFUR DIOXIDE
AQS Silf COUllI)' City**ALllh"el~** Silt DiuripliQIl Sile 01)UOlor**Gell~l'apbkal** a.D,·Llillale. Arca Rept""'111eu**Monilorin~ ObJe~li\'~1**  Spalial Scale: PtllPlll1l110 1\1ouil0tlll: Type Pa""lllclcr ILlfnlifjealioll MO\'t or SOl

l'iluubfr**Dil~Olllimlf** Colle 42401 AnDIYlil & I' rimn l'J**St~o"uary** SlIm,liol[ Lalillltle Lo0l:ilutlf 

# . ...,. 

# - ._- 

# -

11-031-0076 Cool: Cbical!o 7801 Lawndalf Com Ed**M~jlllenDlICll** Bldl!. CCDEC -4-4],15139998 .87.71348815 Cbicol!OoNanerville-Mitllil!aI1 Citv.IIAN.W1 Pooularioll NIA U,ban NlA SLAMS API Hourlv 17..(l31_1601 Cool 

### Lo_, n9HouS'lOll Cool: County Tmil c' CCOEC -+41.66812034 -87.9905691>9**Chicm:o-NapcJVine-Michi.~** Cltv. nAN-WI p" ulalion N/A NeiRhhor1lOOd NlA SLAMS API Hm>"" 17..(l31-4002 Cool: Cicero 1820S.5Is,Ave. Cool: County Tmile' CCDEC -+-41.85524313 -87.7524697 Chi""l!o-NalleTVille-Michi"an Citv. Q...m·WJ Pooula,ion N/A**Nci~hbo,hood** NlA SLAMS API Hourlv 17-031-4201 Cool: Northbrool: 750 Dundee Rd. NOf1hblool: Wa,c. Plan' IE'A -+<12.13999619 ·87.799126'12**ChiClll!o-Na\lcJVillc-Michi~an** Citv.lL-fN·WJ r ula,ion N/A U.han NlA NCORE DA Hm>rl, 17...(l99...(l007 laSalle 1000lesbv 30R Ponllllid A

.... , IEPA Traile. IEPA -+<11.29301454 _89.04942498 OlJawa-Sflcak>r. IL Hil:!l\MtCono. SoUM:f**N~i~hllorhood** NlA SLAMS DA Hourlv 17-115..0013 Macon "=",, 2200 N, 22m! Sl ffiT'A Traile. IEPA +39.86683389 _88,92559445 Decatur. iL 

## , 1I1aooi N/A Nfi ·hborhood NlA SLAMS DA Houri 17_117-0002 Maccuoin Nilwood Henton &. Duboi1 IBPA**Tr~ile.** IEI'A 1'39.39607533 .89.80973892 SI Louis. ll.-MO BllCkll..Cl1l1d POPulation Rt ·iollnl NlA SLAMS DA Hourlv 17-119·1010 Madison Sollth**Rox~n~** Michi an 51, S. ROXllnD Grnde School IE'A +38.82830334 ·90,05843262 51 Louis. IL-MO Hi heSl Cono. SouM:e Nel hoorhood NlA SLAMS DA 1 lour! 17-119·3007 Madison Wood River 54 N, Walcott Wntcr T.oatme-nll'llUll mPA +38.86066947 .90,10585111 SI Lollis. U

..... MO Po lllllriOIl N/A Nelllhborhood N/A**SLA.~IS** DA I·lomlv 17-14J..o024**Peori~ Peori~**  Hurlhurt &. Ml\l)Arlhur lIi.a Station ItS IEPA +40.68742038 _R9,60694277 Peoria. IL Po ulalion N/A Nei hborhond N/A SLAMS DA 110url 17-157"()()()1 Randolph Hou.toll Hickorv GmVl! & Felivicw ral'ATrlliler JEPA +38.17627761 -89,78845862 N/A Back 'round N/A Neio.hbOlhood N/A SLAMS DA Hourlv 17-163..()(l10 SL Clair Easl St. Lllui. lJlh&TLldo. MAPS Trailer lEPA +38.61203448 .90,16047663 SI Louis.lL-MO POllulatiol1 N/A Neio.hborhood N/A SLAMS DA Hourlv 17-167.()()()6 Sanllamon ISorillll.lield HOO Mcchenicsbur Rd. Sewall"**Tre~lme-nt** Plml )EPA +39.80061377 -89.59122532 ISorinll.fic1d. IL HicllflitCOIlO. Source NeiohborbtlOd N/A SLAMS DA Hourlv 17-179.()004 Tazewell Pelin 272**D~rby** Pekin Fire Stillion IfJ IEPA -+40,55646017 ·89.65402807 Peoria.lL Hilthe5t Cone. Source Neilthborhood N/A SLAMS DA Hourly

Analym Method -API (API 100). DA(DASIB14108) SlmIflling Schedule. Hourly(1**hoursamp~)** CCOEC • Coot Comly Olpal1menl 01**Environm~nIal** COlIlrol IEPA ·lIllols Environmenllli Praleelion .-.oency

# • Houston

### ILLINOIS

- ANNUAL MONITORING NETWORK PLAN

- 2012 OZONE

AQS Silt County City Alldrtlll SlIt DllCrlJlliou Silt Opnnlor Ctllltnphir.al Cllordinall':S Area ReprtSI'UltLl Mooilol'inl: Objecli,'U SpatiaJ ScaJe Prllllo.aJ 10 M011110riOlt Typt**Parnnl~lft** Idtnlificatilln "to"ellr 0'**Numb~r** Oisoo"li'Il.lt Code 44201 Analysis & Primnry S!'clloilary 511n1,lin Lalifude IAmgihtde 

# _.**~..:-** , 17-001-0007 Adams uin"" 13015. 481h SI John Wood Communitv Colle e IEPA +39,91540937 -91.33586832 lOuin

. IL-MO Po ulo1ioll N/A Urbon NlA SLAMS TE HourI CbamlXliJtl\ ChamlXlilUl 606 E, Grove WlI5hinllton**~Io:nnentorv** !EPA +40.1237962 -311.2295]0911**ChamOO;Illl-Ur~** IL PODulotlon N/A !Jrb

.. l SLAMS TE Hnurly Chamnaipn Thomasboro Nonh Thomas SI. Resident !EPA +40.144183 -88.111144 C"m 

## , Urbana. JL Po ulatioll N/A Urban SLAMS TE HourI
17-031-0001 Cook AlsiD 4500 W. 123rd 51. VillllQe Garalle CCDEC +41.6709919 -81.7324569 Chic:l.lw-Naoerville-Michilllln Ciw, lL.-lN_WI POlllllalion N/A Uman NlA SLAMS OM Hourly /7-0]1-0032 CMk ChiCBRO 3300 I.'.. Cheltenham Pl, Soulh Waler FiltT'lltion Plant CCDEC +41.75583241 _87.54534967 Chica 'o-Nnpervit1e.MichiRan Cily, IL·IN·WI Hi hesl Conc. Po ulalion Neillhbcrhood NlA SLAMS OM HourI 17-031_0064 Cook Chica '0 5720 S. Ellis Ave. Uniyersitv IlfChiClno CCD?C +41.79078685 -87.60164649**Chic.1~o-NlInerville-Michil!lIn** Citv, IL.IN-WI Pooulation N/A Neillhoorhood NlA SLAMS OM Hourly
/7-031-0072 Cook**Chic3~0** 1000 E. Ohio Jnrclinc Waler Planl )EPA +41.89581227 _87.60768329 Ch;C3 'o-Naoerville_Michill:3n City, IL·[N·WI Poculotion SOllrce Ncillhhorhorxl N/A I'AMS OA HourI
17-031-0076 Cook Chica 0 7801 Llwndale Com Ed**Mainl~I1UllCC** BId

. CCOIlC +41.75139998 .87.71348815 Chic.1 o-Na erville-Michi '311 Cil • JL.TN.WI**Pon\Jl~tiOIi** N/A Utbun N/A SLAMS API HOllrl
/7-031-1003 Cook**Chic3~0** 6545 W, llurlbllt St 1nA Iii h St:hool CCDBC +41.98433233 _87,7920017**Chic3~O_NIIPerville_Michill:an** Cily, IL·IN·WI Pocnlatiol1 N/A Urban N/A SLAMS API HOllrly
17-031-1601 Cook Lemont 729 HOUSlon euok Counl Trnilcr CCDBC +41,66812034 .87.99056969 Chic3j1;o-Napervil1e-Michip;a.n Cily, IL·IN.WI Po ulation N/A Urban N/A SLAIIIS API Hour!
17-031-4002 Cook Cicero 1820S.5IstAve, Cook ('Ilunt Trailer CCDEC +41.85524313 _87.7524697 Ch;ea 'o-NlIocrville_Miehiunn City, JL·IN·WI Pooulation N/A Neiuhborhood N/A SLAMS API Hourly
17-031-4007 Cook Des**Plaine~** 9511 W,**Hnrri~on** SI. Rellional Offico Iildll. IEPA +42.06028469 -37.86322543 Chic3lto-Naperville-Michil!.1I11 City, IL.-IN-Wl Population N/A Urb.n N/A SLAMS OA Hourly
17-031-4201 Cook Nonhbmok 750 Dundee Rd. NDrlhhrool.: Waler Pbnt lEPA +42.13999619 -87.79922692 Chiea o.Na""rvil1e-Miehi an Cil ,JL·LN·WI**I'onul~lion** NA Uman NlA I'AMS/NCQRE OA Hourl 17-031_7002 Cook EvansTon 531 E. Linooln EVIln!ton Wiler PI,1l1 IEPA +42.06185724 -37.67416716 Chic3lto-Naocrville-M ichillllH Citv, JL·lN-Wl POOlllllion NlA Ncill.hborhood NlA SLAMS DA Hourly
17-043-6001 DIIPa I'**Li~le** RouI'" 53 MOrlOll Arboretulll IEPA +41.81304939 -38.0728269 Chicn o.NI rville-Miehi 'an Citv, IL-lN.WJ Po ulltion NlA Uman NlA SLAMS OA IInutl
17-065-0002 Hamilton Kni hI Prairie Twn Roule 14 Ten Mile Ct«!k DNR OffiOll !EPA +38.08215516 -38.6249434 MTVcmon,lL Dack<''Tound NlA Kc i('lnal NlA SLAMS DA Houri 17-08)_1001 Jtrscv J=cvville Libenv SI. &. Counl Rd. llIini Junior**~Iil!h** School IBPA +39.11053947 -90.32407986 St Louis, IL-MO TranSllOrl PODulation Rrlciollal NlA SLM.IS OA Hourlv
17-0119-0005 Kane EI in 665 Oumlee RIl. Larun Junior Hiuh School mPA <+42.04914n6 -SS.2730293**Chica~NaJ.ll'rvill~MichiWl.ll** CilY,lL-lN·WI Po ulalion NlA Urblll1 N/A SLAMS DA Hourly
17-097-1007 Lok. Zion Illinoi, Beach Slale I'ark Camn Leulln Tmiler IEPA <+42.4675733 -81.111004705 Chical!o-Naocrvillt:-Michil!3ll CiTY, JL.lN·WI Hi"hesf Cone. Trallsnorl Urban NlA PAMS DA Hourly
17-111-0001 McHenry C'N Pint SI. k Three Oaks Rd. Cllrv Grove Hi h School IEPA +42.22144166 -38.24220734 Chicasm-Nancrvillt:-MichilWl CiTV. JL-IN-WI 1'00ulaliol1 NlA Urban NlA NAMS OA Hourly
/7-113-2003 McLean Nonnal Main&:.G ISU Ph ielll Plant lEPA +40.511173537 .8K.99689571 Blonmin.<:ton-Nonnal. JL Po ulalion NlA Ur1llln NlA Sl.MIS re Hourly
17-115-0013 Macon Decntur 2200 N. 'l2lld SI. IEI'A Trniler IEPA +39.86683389 -118.92559445 Decatur.IL PODulation NlA Urban N/A SJ..MIS TE Hourly
17·117-0002 Macou in Nilwood Heaton &:. Dubois !EPA TJ1Iiler IIiI'A +39.39607533 -89.80973892 St Louis, IL-MO TrnnsllOrl l'Ollulntillll Re ional N/A SLAMS OA Huurly )7-119-0008 Madison Altoo 409 Maio 51 Clam Barton School mPA +3B.89018605 -90.14803114 St Lvuis, IL-MO Hi"hest Cone. Po ulltiOn UrlJan N/A SLAMS DA Houri
17-119-1009 Madison Maryville 200 W. Division Southwesl Cablo TV tEPA +311.72657262 -89.95996251 ST Loui., JL-MO Ponulalion NlA UrlJan N/A SLAMS AJ'J Hourly
17-119-3007 Madison Wood River 54 N. Walcott Wiler Treatment PlanT Il!I'A +38.86066947 -90.10585111 St Louis. JL-MO Ponuialion NlA UrlJan N/A SLAMS OA Houri
17-143-0024 Peoria Peoria Hllrlbun &. MacArthur Fire Station 118 illPA +40,687420311 _89,60694277 Peorin,1L Pooulation N/A Noiahhorhood N/A SLAMS TE Hourlv
17-143-1001 Peoria Peoria Hei

.. hts 508 E, Glen Ave. Peoria J loi hili J Ii h School IEI'A +40.7455039] -89,58586902 Peoria. IL Hi heS! Conc, Po ulation Urban N/A SLAMS TE Hourlv 17-157-0001 Randolnh Houston Hickorv Gmvo &. Fallview tEPA**Tmil~r** IEPA +38,17627761 _89,78845862 N/A Bllck'r<)und N/A Re ional N/A SLAMS DA Hourlv
17-161-3002 Rock Island Rock Island 32 Rodman Ave, Rock Islllnd A:lICn.1 IEPA +4l.SJ472697 -90.51735026 Daven rt-MoJine-Rock Island, IA-IL Po Illation N/A Nei hborhood N/A SLAMS TE Houri**~'Cl'"** Easl SI. Louis I3lh &. Tudor RAPS Tl1ilar IEPA +38,61203448 -90.16047663 St Loui., JL-MO I'onuillion N/A
N., 

# h'"hOO* SLAMS TE Hourly
SilO amon S rio 'field ]050 MI den Ril. Blandco Dldll, IEPA +39.84S356 -89.597457 ISprincl'leld.1L J'ollllialion N/A Urban SLAMS T£ Hourly
Slnl!.lllllon S mn.meld lIIino;. Buildillll SIRte rair roundl U!I'A +39.831522 -89.640926 S rill mehl. JL 1'0nulRli()n N/A Urban SLAMS re Hourly
17-197-1011 Will Bmidwood 36400 S. Esselt Rd. COin Ed Traininll Clr. lEIlA +<I1.22J53707 -88.19096718 Chical:!o-Naoervilie-Michillin CiTY, lL,'N-WJ Backllround N/A Re i01lll1 NIA I'AMS DA Hourlv
17-201-2001 Winneba"o LoV\!' Park 1405 Malle AvtI. Ma 10) P.1cmenta Sclml JEI'A +<12.33498222 -89.0377748 Rockford. JL Hi hesl Conc. Po 1I11ltion 0,,"" N/A I SLAMS DA Houri Winoebago To Bo DClcrmincd To Be Dclonnined To Be**Del~nnined** mPA = = Rockford. IL Hi hesl Cone. Ponulalion Urban SLM.1S DA 1I0l>rlv

Analysis Method

- DA (DASIDII003), DA8 {DASIDI 1(08). m (TECO 49), API (API 4(0) Sampling 5clttdule

- Hourly{l hour samples) CCOEC

- Cook County Oepartmenl or ErwIronmental Control
IEPA .llllrillil**E~onm&lltal** Protecliun .AQencyRocklsllnd 

### ....... Ozone

# ~~;=t::;:~Loves~P~Y~'-~·irOll' '-" RocKfo •

## ~___ 1\**.I~** k 

### ) ) lJes;

... Evanston

# rP**}-"'"'-:::::::~I:::::::;;;.~r--~~~S""~CI"'::"~icer~~** Chic·cagO-TaftH.S. ". ' --.... hicago

- Jardine Chicago

- Univenlity

'" ' Chicago

- South Water

## ~./f--,-_...L_---ii-.l----I 

# )**~i1'4** . go-CornEd

II 

# ;

I

) 

# •

### ILLINOIS

- ANNUAL MONITORING NETWORK PLAN ·2012 PARTICULATE MATTER

- PM10
AQS Silf County City Alhlrfll SlIe Dileripllon SlIe Operator GUlrl\pb\cnl Coonlin"t"" Ana**RcpUJtntt~** Moni!orinf: ObJtctl.'t, SI,DII/I] Sellle J""pDul til**Monitol'in~** Type rnramtttr Identilication MO\'eor J'MID

Number Dileonlinllt COdeHIID2 Allal,...iJ & SampUne PriRlnry Second/lry Lalilmle Lonliludt 

## ,...,. 

# - ,_. , 11-031-0022 Cook Chic.:lRo 3535 e. II'hh Sl WMhinl{ton Hildl School CCDEC +41.(,11716544 _87.53931548**Chicaeo-NDnen~ne-Michil!'lI1** Cih'.IL-IN_WI Hillhest Conc. Source Neil.'hborhood NlA SLAMS a""A Hourh' 11-031_1016 Cook Lnm

.. To"nshi SOl" SI. &. Glencoe Vi11 eH:IlI /EPA '1'41.1I0116701**-~U319447** ChicDl.'o-NDller\'lIIe-Michi :lIl Ci

.. •. IL-IN_WT Hil!.hest CDrIC, Source Middle NlA Sl.AMS S""A Houri,· 17-031-4201 Cook Nonhbrook 750 Duudee Rd, No,'hbmol: WilIer Pl:ml IEPA +42.139'>9fiI9 .87.79922692**CbicD.,....NDoen~Ile-Michi** .. <lIl Cill·. IL-IN.WI POllUllliion NlA**Um~** NlA NCORE Iii_vol 116 

## , 11_119-0010 M:ldi'on Gr.lIlileCil\' ISIh &:: Madison Air Producil IEPA**+3~.fi'N4lR31** _I)O,15l95426 51 Loui •. IL-MO Hiehest COllI.'. Somte Nei hbOfhood NlA SLMIS Hi-vol 1/. 17-119-1007 M:ldisoll Gr.lIlileCil\, 2Jrd. &. Mooison Fire Slalion III IEPA**+3~.70453426** _90,ll%74114 51 Loni •. IL_MO**Hi~hoest** Conc, Somee Nciwhborllond NIA SLAMS BETA Hou,h'

Analylls Melllod

- Hi-voIIHlgh volume ,ampler), BETA**(AridetID~** Bell**Atle~ulllilln** MDr1ltDr) S'lmpling Schedule

- HOllfly (I hour**~ample~),** 1/6 (I • 24 hour snmple el'ery G do)'s) CCDEC

_ Cook**Cou~ty** Departll14lnt or Envlronmlntal Colllrol
IEPA**·1~lnoll** Enlllranmental Prolllolion A'Ienoy

### PMlO

, 

## \

...,ILLINOIS

- ANNUAL MONITORING NETWORK PLAN

- 2012 PARTICULATE MATTER

- PM2.5
AQS Site I COUnl)" hIoMlir",,,Ciou Cil,. ",hlr

...**Slt.I)I'''~'llon** 5110 O""'or I**(""'oJr.~h!<.1** C"."lln.'" Arco 1I.,n"".tod**~lollilorln~** ObJ«U

....**Sr~Il.1** s."

.. 10 I Stud.,ll I rropolOl to I ""o.llorl"l: 1)',", )10.-00< 1'."'lI>l'lor**r~u..~** NlI.IIIbcr**D~.tlJl,",** Code 88101,**lIlI~1 (IIA~l**  AlIlll

..... & S.mrH.;

B<nl>';n.

""" A Cool; C)oc. Cool: Chi •• Cool: Chie. Cook t.1lic.""

11_119-Jlo(r1 Mt>Jisom Wrnl Ri."Cf 11-14]..{,tm P=i. Pcori. 17_1S7..{(,(ll lu"wl 1-1<"1St,,,,**I1_161_~OO2** RoctJ,hmd Rocl:I.:Iolld**17_16]-l~'l!'** Sl..CI"ir E,!!{SI,lo,," 17_1(,7-0012 Son 'lImon 'rin fidJ 17-197-Hlll Will Ilf"i<h

..**~,j** 17-197-1002 Will Jdiel 17-201-OOD**W;m",~"~) R(od~"J**  II

.. ;"" SPurcc Hi

.... Cooc-. "l.tlrm Pn ")01;"" NlA Popul.Hoo NlA

,loIion NlA Ila1ion NlA loIion Nih nun<! Jolion Pnpnl.linn NlA



### '"



# .. '"
'"



# ,. '" 

# '" '" _,_"-**~.** ----UL.**~\'** -!!!L..**~Lrh'**

!i!l ---!L**~I'**

!!!. !!!. 1&


### ,,, 

# - .....

'"

.J!L**~\'** 

### -'-"- 1I.',IIn,..I" 1f.l.HIlI.,I"

ill. l!l l!l l!l ....l!L

1/li.lloorh· &


### "'''

-2!:L .B!:l:!!&1 ...!lli!& t::'!:f!lli ----'!!'L UOl(2).BAM**DOl(2~flAM**

--"'-

t:!:!ill .oJ.



### " MoolI·

.......

.!!:ill. 

## '"' !!Q!. ..!!ill.

ASUAM ...Liliill...

AS.HMt

M t:1i

MQ

ASill:!!!'M

.M. .!ill:L R1'1.flAM .!:!£!2!!.!i !tJ'M!4
SI.AMS.lWMS**~I.AM~ ~I.AMS**  SI'MS**~1~**

NCQliliJ!!MS

S»MS SI.i\MS.SPMS**~MS**

SI.AMS SLAMS.SJ'MS

Sl.AMS !U.AM!!I.llJ'M!!I

SI.AMS**~'1** S'AMs !fJ.AMS.**SJ'M.~ SJ~M.~** 

SLAM.q N"

!:2:.

!:!!!l !:!!!l

!:!!!l !:!!!l !:!!!l !:!!!l .t!i<> !:!!!l NI' .t!i<> !:!!!l !:!!!l NlA WA

!:!!!l WA
NlA

N'A

NlA

AtuPIt\t.l4

AlVlllOlI24

Anllu.V24 --!!L Al.lUfo1l24

f\nr:lIIIlr:l4

AI\l\IIOI124**~.** --!!L AlUlt<.VH J!!ll!!!

NdKloborl.,oo .....!hI!!!!!!L**J4c,~I"""IIoJo,j** NdflohurlloJo>J Noifhhnrhn...t**Nd~hblllt,ooJ** NoiEht>crhooll

N.;ilhtK'll"hMd

N.;il1lbr>tll<>rd

NI';Fhh<

... !I<"xl NdFhl'l<'Il"h.>od

1M,"" Rof;"nol lIrb

.. lli!!!!!. "",", 

### "


# ...

Noi.h"'".t..ol NoiFbbo".b

... >d Nei&hb«'bond

ReFioool

Nci&hooltloOO

lle"".,.1 Ncirhomh< •• ;

Urn"n Sero.dary I'r

.....**r~·**

S-ouroc Pu "1"li",, Pu**ul.li,~,** NlA
Hi !l<;<t Cu'''. ro 1,I'lioo
Pu uloli"" NlA
P nloli,,,, NlA p" "I.t; • ..., :NIA P 0101;00 NIA P ,,101;00 "NIA l'''lIul

.. ;.", :NIh Dod: round r "I

.. ioo

r ull1m T,

... P, ulol;"" "NIh

,u1..x.. NIA ,,,101m NIA

.. ;.", NIA IloIn, S<o<rce "lelion So»oee HI.best COlIC. "lalion ,IOli"" NlA dolioln NlA ,101M'll NlA Haol l' ,lIlhon

ul,tion NlA Po LI,I.'" Sl-.lU'tC p" "I,t;"" NlA**BIlC~** \lid Po "Inti""
1'" "inti"" NIA**PoP"I,ti~"** NlA 1.&11'11. LooJI.udc
-+l'l91S<1119l1 _01 n5f16fr.tl**"lCY.l1~MO** +40 12.11%2 -ll1l,22953O!ll1 CIl.. ..tJrbollo. n.
+40 121KKG ·n 240553 Ch

.. l1rbII>rO. n.**+oIOll5n~171 -lj1l1125J~16**  um

..... rr. +41,6109919 .111132-1569 ClIic. N ...-rvi1le-Michi Citv.tt.-IN-II"1 -+4.1,6117165JJ .11153931548 ClIio. N illc-Michl Cj .tt.-IN-Wl +oI1.96:>4lW8) -/(/,14992!lOli (,1Iie. N"""""lbM"'h1 Cit

....**Il~IN_Wl** +oI1.91:ll!6212 ·11172272J45 (,l,i

.. Nn ;Ile-Michi ."Ci .tt.-IN-Wl +4\ 15119998**~,1n,IS81S Chi<uo-N~I\.-M"'h,.""C;I·.IIAN-W1**  -+4.1.110116701.1>'1,1l31'}44'7 Chiu No orvill.-Mieh; onC; .lL·IN-Wl -o.-l1.662H(04) -k1,(,%JMS2 Ch;u

..... N."cn-illo_Mieh; :m Cit. 1l._IN-WI -+Jl,965193,18 -81,8762("m Chi,. N. mille-Mieh; anC; .1l._IN_Wl +41.18216601**-81,SOS~1(,79** Ch;o.""",No"orvill._Michi.:m Cit .II,_IN_WI o.I2,1)I;(l2R4(,9**_R7,ll(,n2S.~** Ch;o. ,..No cn-illo_Mich; on C;I '. 1I,_1N-W1**-+4.2.1~(),)%19** ·S7.19'J22692 Ch;eo ,>-No 'c"ilk-Michi •• n Cilv. lL-1N-W1 +41l16442iS42**-87,148902~8** Chioo No llfe-Michi Of)**C;ty.It~IN-WI** -+4.1 812S912 -81.825812<19 Chiool!l'-Nlt>Of'lllo-Michio'" C;Iv. IL-IN-WI -+4.1 71101004 .lIS,1525n65 Chi<:o_Nop<nilk-Mic:h;.." City. rr

... JN..W1 HROUIS516**-8~6l494~.** MIV""""LIL**-+~1l110531l41** ·'XI

.. 124019S6 Sl l.wis. Il.-MO -+4.205040.1 .sa 28001411 Chico**N~** ilk-

. "" C,tv.1L-1N-\Vl -+411lW11t'51**4L1112~.11.1t'1** Cllico N ille-Michi C,"·.11

.. IN_WJ -+42221«1(,(, .JUL242201J4 Chicll N. illc-Mi<:hi<tOl\ Cill·. tt.-IN_WJ +40.511115.\1 -8899689511 Dloom,n NOIlI\III.ll.**'~o** fV,l;811R9 ./11I**~lS5~44S** Oealur.11. +)g1006l1S ·90,1«76261 SILoois.ll,MO**+)81lW53~2(i** .00]l%1-1!l'1 ml

.. "ilt.ll.·MO**+)1190.\O85~** -00 14116fl(13 St ,;".**II~MO** +)1l,lUi0669-17 -90 IOSR5111**.~II** , ...**II~MO** +40,691007 -811 5847:1122 Pm" •. n. +)H 1'7621'7/i1 -89,'788-1'5(;2 Nil\. +4l.SHHG97 ·90,5113S02(' I).v,,"**"t·M,~i** ....**~Il,..,ll.,hltld_** lA_IL +)H,6120)4J8 -90 16041((,) St LO"L'.lL-MO

-+w**H31~2m17 -H~.64416)s~** **.~** ,rin lelo. JL -+41.221S37fn**,HH,I~lJ%7tH** ('hie" ""Nn ville-Melli .,nCilv.lL-IN-WI -+41**,S2('HHS(]~** ·HH,**11('J7:I~1** ('hM'" ,,_NL1 'rvillc-Melli on City. lL-IN-WI -+42 2(,lDHlOS**·H~ ()~2'76116**  l("dJ",,1. IL '''YA

II:1'A

lli!'A lliPA !liPA lHPA lIJPA

.!lEe:. 

### me, llll''''

1lJl" Effi!!£ f£illj£ cWlle

.!:1!2ll£

.!£!lli£

WI'A

££!llif. £:!lli£ rHPi\
"f"" M,k:**c""'~** L)NIt om,. JIli", Jo"i", HiEh School McKinlwSdltoc>l 11

.. llh !?g!."""""
Cory (iro", Hi"h School ISlJPIn."..1 PI

... t IIlI'A TII,kr O.t

.... *" Medil:ll**C~** ... l'in:St.h".,'1 Sl1}I),:.lIol CIl,,;" W.tc,Tn:ouncnll'l

.. t C,t\· om..

.... Hid., !'F.PA T",;!<r )l"d.I't""'I""

.... ""1**RAP.~Trlil<:r** A@IlC",lt"u**BJ~f** Com lld Trnlnm; Ceoler P

.. ollln@Ulemontnry.'I<:hooru W"\IlChn@:'(;,',H •• ltbl')ep'r1m.nt J""" Wond Community Colk' W",I",,,I1M rn

.. """"
AJ

........ llS,ot>.oI00n SWS eli"

.... !>1.h"n Vinlf!lOlru. WUlln!flM lliSIl !ld

.... '1**M.~r.trl'1""r"1.ti,** ..**Spri",r,ckll~"lI\'** Sl,lioo
COOl Ed Mimi""""". H1JV' V;lIlg.11.lI E,,,,,M,,,., Illfh**~ohool** !EPA Tro,l

... (Jr.vu m.mo"t"", !lch,,,,1 Refioll.l(lll\ccllklK**Nl"lhloll~** W,I., rl,nl**L;hOl1l'~",,1** 4Ihlltltl'",1 (h,n IUd C,tvtl.1l R<olle 14 LiI>em' St. 4 C""""'lld US 1

.... "11 St 1240 N.11iliblolld**~1,"** St

. .to llu""O

.... IIJ M

.. n4 GI'eP" 2200 N. 22nd Sl.

2)nl4 MoJ

... ", 1100**Anne~,** :'It S4N, W.ltrln 613 N.E. Joffmlron Hicl;<l", {t,,,

... A F,Il.·.,,.

n ROOm'n Ave. 13tb&Tlm Stol<:I'.;rUu'JTlJo )MOO S, H'ilts Kd M,JI"n<loi: C''''noell SbI 2111l)iv;';,'nSl 'rwr, Rd. SIlO I! 4500 W. 12.1nl!>1. '35351;,**1141"~** :.18SOWilomAw 1745 N. Srrirwf.,IJ A",

S01h Sl.di: 01<.,,,,,,,, 12700 SllCramento 4N) M:lIl"hehn Rd 60lh St, &-. 74th AI'\!**9~11** W, lIoni",,"SI, 750 l)u"cIcc IW.**1~IhSt.&$OthAI'\!** 1 SOO**M.\'~rook** Or. 400 S, E"I0 St.

OnmileCity 

### ""00**~i** U1uoblmltl**Sc~,lI,-.,-** Pork

Summit 0..1'1.;"""
lWl1hhrook lClOC-m

N,,,,,,,,;ll.
Kmshll'niTieT"**~';11e** .&!!. A

... , ....**IH),T~IOI(,** Cool;

]7

..

IJ:ll·2001 Cook**1?"J:ll-~lIl~** Cook**J?-lJ:ll-~,01** Cook
1?-OJI-4W7 Cook 17..0:11-4201 Cook 17,(),1-600j c""k 17-ti'1.(,(t)6 Cook 11.(14,-4002 DuP."" !?..()6S-{o(o02 11o",1110n 17.os'

.. IOOl .le=\"**IH189.ooo~** KIIIlC
17..089-0001 1Cm>e 17-111.0001 MclJcnry 17-113-200) McJ.ao**11·1l~..ool)** 1'_11'UK114 Mad

...... 11119-1001 Madisnn 17_119-2009 MlkI

......

Aa:ol)"'i, Me'hod

- I\.S (Andm"n Seq"""till\j. AI (A!ldoI."..inllc-cv.nt). RS**{R&~ ll~qLlC~u.I).IU**  (ilkI' .U4lr.:",....,IJ. U(;J. UAM (Mol OllC**l'el~** Atte"Ullllon Monilor) S1mplini Schodul.

- Hourly (l boUf ....-nplcs). III (1.24 hu,.. .,,,,plc e",ry.J.j), \Il (I ·24 1.,10' 'llIljlk """" J d.l)'ll). J/lj (l •**~J** hour

.. mple**~"1J'6** do)'ll)



# - CCOEC • C'" C-.l1**Oo~** 01 Emnnmo

.... Control IEPA

__ EtNt

__**lion~**

## "

"" •

w

# j~!~~~;~~Chi~'cagO - Mayfair Chicago

- Springfield Cicero .' Chicago

- Com Ed Chicago

- Washington H,S, 

# \'- .... RocldOnI 

# • 

# . '"'\. 1 

### PM2.5 

# rr>- J:'

.... A

## ,c(..~ 

# ...... 

# - r

.... r Rod< h ,rod

# -~ 

# " '. I, 

### j 1./

## .~**BraidwoO~** 

# ) 11'

.... 

# I I..-.. 

# 1-.....1 J PooriCit 

### I 

# LL, I I 

# r "" II r?' I


## .......... 1-/',/ 

### -J 

# Y / aign 

# .. .JI' •

"(; 0

- 

### 7 

## -r 

# ../1..(



# .. !:/
B.

### ~ll, Q=ry • 

### .h--, 

# ,.J Id 

# r ') r

_ 

# V '1 \

....

# ~-& .1 '{

# -~ 

# \

---: on 

# ./'V
i 7 

# J Of ""_**.~City(,)** I 

# I" ? 

# "" 

# 1 

# LI

, ,n. ° Townshi 

# i • Houston 

# • 

# ?

/ 

# \. 

# \l ::L'

### ILLINOIS

- ANNUAL MONITORING NETWORK PLAN

- 2012 LEAD
AQSSite County City Al.hlrl:.u Site DiJcrlpllou Site Operalor Gcotnpbicnl**CODrtJi,,~les** Area**~presellied** Mcmilor;,,/: Objec:li,'u Spalial Senle. 1'l'1)l'OJallo Monilorllll: Type Parllmrler Idcnlificalioo M""cor Lud

NumbH DiKil,,'inue Cnde 14129 Apal)'sl, & Sllml'lint Primary Stcondllry Lalilnde Lollcilude 

# ,-


# -- Colloc

... 

## ....... 

# . 17-031-0022 Cook Cbita J5J5 E. 1141h SI. Wa.d'l;JlJl.lonl1illb SchllOl CCDOC +41.68716H4 -87.53911548 Chio;:l-,w

..**N;lpc""llc-Michi~** Citv.I

..... IN-WJ Hiclles! COliC. NlA NC;lIhborbood NfA SLAMS Hj'\o1)1 116 y 17.031-0026 Cook Chicaoo 735 W. HllrOson CcrmllJ: Plimn SteriJlll CCDOC +41.87372041 ·87.64532569 Chic.wn-NancJVille-Michi

.. an City, II

.... N-WJ Hi"he51 Cone. NlA Middle NfA SLAMS Hi·...:!1 

### ,/0**17_{l3I-00~2** Cool.: ChiCltJ:n 4850 Wilson Ave. Mavfeir Pumo SI:lIion CCDF..c +41.96548483 -87.74992806**Chica~o-Napervillt-Michil!.an** Cit\'. tl.-IN-WI PUOl.llarion NlA Neildlborhood NfA SI.AMS Hj"\o1)1 116 17-031-o110 Cook Chicaoo 1241 19t1l SI. PCleZ Blemcnlarv School CCDEC +41.855917 ·87.658419 H.G. K,:;nncr Source NlA Middle NfA SlAAIS Hj·vol 

### ,/0

17.ml.3103 Cool Schiller Par\( 4743 MlInnheim Rd. IEPA Troilcr !El'A +41.96519348 ·87.87626473 ChicaJ!o-NuocfVillc-Mkhi an City. R

... IN-Wl Hi 'hes! Cone. NlA Middle NfA SLAMS Hi·...:!1 116
17-031-4201 Couk Northbrook 7S0 Dundee Rd, Nonhhrook Water Plllll! JEPA +42.13999619 ·87.79922692 Chica o-Nu crville-Michi·an Ci

. JL.IN.Wl ponu1atkm NlA Nei hhorhood NfA NCORI:: Hi • ...:!l 

## "' y 17-031-6003 Cool.: Mavwood 1**~OO** Mnvbrook Or. 4th Districl COlin Bldg, CCDEC +41.87220158 ·87.8261648**Chica~o-NuoefVille-Michi~an** CiTv. II

... IN-WT Hi 'best Cone NlA Middle NfA SLAMS Hi·vol 116 y
Kmo**,","o~** 300 S, Glen 'nr D,. Johnson Controb lHPA xxxx 

### ,= Johnson Controls Source NlA Middle , SLAMS Hi·vol 116 17

.. 115-0110 Macon Decatur 1226 H. Garfield Mueller lEl'A +39.H62542 .n.940894 Gurfiold nc:;rr M""ller SollrCe NfA Middle NfA SLA/YIS Hi·vol 116
Madison Alton 409 MRin Sl Clarft Darton School lHPA +38.89018605 -90.14803114 51 Loui" ll...MO Source NfA Middlo SLAMS Hi·vol 116 17

.. 119-0010 Madison Granite City I 51h & Madilloll Air Prootlct!! IHI'A +38.69443831 -90,1539S426 St Loui,. ll...MO Source NfA Middle NfA SLAMS Hi-vol 

## "' y 17

.. 143-0110 Peoria BarTonville**Sanit~rion** Rd. Plim' Statioo lEPA +40.65J70J -89.64337S K -Slone Steal & Wire Source NfA Middle NfA SI

.. AMS Hi.vol 116 17

.. 143-0210 Peoria Manklon 9725 W, Wheeler Ri.l. David Resideroce IHPA +40.562633 -89.747114 Cateoillar

.. lvluoleton Pit. Source NfA Middle NfA SLAMS Hi-...:!l 

## "' 17_195-0110 Whitcsidc Slerlin 705 West 3rd St. Sault Medical Clinic !EPA -+<t1.788383 .89.706'nS Starlin Sleal Co. Sourco NfA Middle NfA SLAMS Hi·voI 

## "' 17-201-0110 Winnebago Rockford 305 I'eol>!es Ave. J. Rubin &. CulnlllUlV lIJPA +42.240867 .119.091467 Gun;!e ('.orooration Source NfA Middle NfA SLAMS Hi·vol 116

AJlalysis Method

.. lli

.. ",,1 (lligh \o1)lumc sampler) S.llllp1ing Schedule

.. 1/6 (I

.. 24 hoursample every 6 dayli) ccoec • Cook ColA'Iy Dep

.. tmont el Envi-onmontal Conltol IEPA .1Iino1l Environmenlal ProlactiOJl AgenI;y

### Lead

# ~. Rockfo,d \: 

# • _ I\'.nbrn 1

..... J },\

# >~~~J:;~"7"'"tr-i Sc Chicago

- Mayfair 

# rP terling • eva. Ma""'" Chicago

- Cermak Chicago

- Perez Elementary School

## ~~---.,_L-_-rt--'--If---f-+-/-:lo'E::,~~ Chkago

- WashiogtonH.S.

### ~~ II
V 

# i

f-+----,---I"- 

## V

..... L-----l 1 ( 

### i1-----T---.L-l /; 

# r
Ir_ 

# r I

__

# ~.,--.I---I--r-----I~~**I-~Fb-.7 /l-~\-I--I-J---I**  MIr'" 

# I r? I 

# /1"'-....

J 

# J