### 91



## The primary diagnostic analysis is source apportionment modeling with CAMx t o provide more quantitative information on source reg ion (and source sector) impacts (Baker, 2007b)

. Specifically, the model estimated the impact of 18 geographic source regions (which are identified in Figure 6 9 ) and 6 source sectors (EGU point, non

- EGU point, on

- road, off

- road, area, and biogenic sources) at PM 2. 5 

## monitoring site s in the region.

Figure 6 9 . Source regions (left) and key monitoring sites (right) for PM 2. 5 

### modeling analysis



## Modeling results for 20 12 (Base K) and 201 8 (Base M) are provided in Appendix I I I for several key monitoring sites. For each monitoring site, there are two graphs: one showing sector

- level contributions, and one showing source region and sector

- level contributions in terms of absolute

modeled values.

The sect or

- level res ults (see, for example, Figure 70 ) show that EGU sulf ate, non

- EGU

- sulfate, and area organic carbon emissions generally have the largest contributions at the key monitor locations (> 15% each). Ammonia emissions are also important contributors (> 10%). The source group contributions vary by receptor location due to emissions inventory differences.

Figure 70 . Source

- sector results for Detroit (left) and Cle v eland (right) monitors

– 2018 (Base M) Cook County

Steubenville

Granite City Detroit

Cincinnati Cleveland

### 92



## The source region results (see, for examp le, Figure 71) show that while nearby areas generally have the highest impacts (e.g., Detroit nonattainment counties contribute 40% to high sites in southeastern Michigan, and Cleveland nonattainment counties contribute 35% to high sites in
northeastern Oh io), there is an even larger regional impact (i.e., contribution from other states).

Figure 71 . Source

- region results for Detroit (left) and Cleveland (right) monitors

– 2018 (Base M)



## Summary : Air quality modeling and other supplemental analyses wer e performed to estimate future year PM 2. 5 

## concentrations. Based on this information, the following general conclusions

can be made:

• E xisting (“on the books”) controls are expected to produce significant improvement in PM 2. 5 

## air quality.

• The choice of th e base year affects the future year model projections. It is not clear how much of this is attributable to differences in meteorology, because, as noted in Section 3, PM 2 .5 

## concentrations are not as strongly influenced by meteorolog y as ozone

.

• Most sites are expected to meet the current PM 2. 5 

## standard by the applicable attainment date, except for sites in Detroit, Cleveland, and Granite City

.

• Current monitoring data show significant nonattainment in these areas (e.g., peak design values on the order of 1 6

– 17 ug/m 3 

## ). It is not clear whether sufficient emission reductions will occur in the next couple of years to provide for attainment. States are conducting local

- scale analyses for Detroit, Cleveland, and Granite City , in particular, to identify approp riate additional local controls.

• Attainment by the applicable attainment date is dependent ( possibly) on actual future year meteorology and (more likely ) on actual future year emissions (e.g., if
the emission reductions associated with the “on the books” controls are achieved, then attainment is likely). On the other hand, if either of these

conditions is not met

(especially, with respect to emissions) , then attainment may be less likely.

### 93 

## Section 5. Reasonable Progress Assessment for Regional Haze

Ai r quality modeling and other information were used to assess the improvement in visibility that would be provided by existing (“on the books”) controls and possible additional control programs. In determining reasonable progress for regional haze, Section 169A of the Clean Air

Act and EPA’s visibility rule requires states to consider five factors :

• costs of compliance

• time necessary for compliance

• energy and non

- air quality environmental impacts of compliance

• remaining useful life of any existing source su bject to such requirements

• uniform rate of visibility improvement needed to attain natural visibility condit ions by 2064

The uniform rate of visibility improvement requirement can be depicted graphically in the form of a “glide path” (see Figure 72 ).

Figure 72 . Visibility “glide paths” for northern Class I areas (units: deciviews)



## 5.1 Class I Areas Impacted EPA’s visibility

rule requires a s tate to “address regional haze in each mandatory Class I

Federal area located within t he State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the State which may be affected by emissions from within the State.” (40 CFR Part 51.308(d)) To meet this requirement, technical analyses conducted by the RPOs were

consulted to obtain i nformation on areas of influence and culpability for Class I areas in the

eastern U.S. (MRPO, 2007). A summary of this information is provided in Table 1 (MRPO, 2007). Th e table shows that every LADCO State impacts multiple Class I areas in the eastern

U .S

. 5

10 15 20 25

2004 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2064

Voyageurs Bounday Waters

Isle Royale Seney

Voyageurs Boundry Waters



## 20% best visibility days 20% worst visibility days Baseline
Conditions

Baseline
Conditions Natural
Conditions

### 94 Table 1 4 . Draft List o f Class I Areas Impacted by LADCO States

AREA NAME IL IN MI OH WI

81.401 Alabama.

Sipsey Wilderness Area (1) (1)

81.404 Arkansas.

Caney Creek Wilderness Area (2), ( 4 ) (2), ( 4 ) (2), ( 4 )

Upper Buffalo Wi lderness Area (1), ( 2 ),( 4 ),( 5 ) ( 2) , ( 4 ) (2), ( 4 ) (2)

81.408 Georgia.

Cohotta Wilderness Area

Okefenokee Wilderness Area

Wolf Island Wilderness Area

81.411 Kentucky.

Mammoth Cave NP (1), (2), ( 5 ) (1), ( 2 ), ( 5 ) (1 ), (2) (1), ( 2 ), ( 5 )

81.412 Louisiana.

Breton Wilderness Area

81.413 Maine.

Acadia National Park (3) (3) (3) ( 3 )

Moosehorn Wilderness Area. (3) (3) (3) ( 3 )

81.414 Michigan.

Isle Royale NP. ( 1 ), ( 2 ) (1), ( 2 ) (1), ( 2 ) ( 1 ), ( 2 )

Seney Wilderness Area (1), (2) (1), ( 2 ) (1), (2) (1), (2) (1), ( 2 )

81.415 Minnesota.

Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (2) (2) (2) (1), (2)

Voyageurs NP (2) (2) ( 1 ), ( 2 )

81.416 Missouri.

Hercules

- Gl ades Wilderness Area ( 2 ), ( 4 ), ( 5 ) ( 2 ), ( 4 ), ( 5 ) (2), ( 4 ) (2)

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

81.419 New Hampshire.

Great Gulf Wilderness Area (3) ( 3 ) (3) (1), ( 3 )

Pres

. Range

- Dry River Wilderness Area.

81.42 New Jersey.

Brigantine Wilderness Area (3) (3) (1), (3) (1), ( 3 )

### 95

81.422 North Carolina.

Great Smoky Mountains NP{1} (1) (1) (1)

Joyce Kilmer

- Slickrock Wilderness Area{2}

Linville Gorge Wilderness Area.

Shining Rock Wilderness Area.

Swanquarter Wilderness Area

81.426 South Carolina.

Cape Romain Wilderness

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

Joyce Kilmer

- Slickrock Wilderness{2}

81.431 Vermont.

Lye Brook Wilderness (2), ( 3 ) (2), ( 3 ) (2), ( 3 ) (1), (2), ( 3 )

81.433 Virginia.

James River Face Wilderness. (2) (2) (2) ( 2 ), ( 5 )

Shenandoah NP (2), (3) (1), ( 2 ), ( 3 ) (2), (3) (1),( 2 ),( 3 ),( 5 )

81.435 West Virginia.

Dolly Sods/Otter Creek Wilderness. (2), (3) (1), ( 2 ), ( 3 ) (1), (2), (3) (1),( 2 ),( 3 ),( 5 )



## Key (1) MRPO Back Trajectory Analyses (2) MRPO PSAT Modeling (3) MANE

- VU Contribution Assessment (4) Missouri

- Arkansas Contribution Assessment (5) VI STAS Areas of Influence

### 96



## 5. 2 Future Year Modeling Results For regional haze, the calculation of future year conditions assumed:

• baseline concentrations based on 2000

- 2004 IMPROVE data, with updated (subsitituted) data for Mingo, Boundary Waters, Voyage urs, Isle Royale, and Seney (see Section 2.3 ) ;

• u se of the new IMPROVE light extinction equation ; and

• use of EPA default values for natural conditions, based on the new IM PROVE light extinction equation.

The uniform rate of visibility improvement values for the 2018 planning year were derived (for the 20% worst visibility days) based on a straight line between baseline concentration value (plotted in the year 2004

-- end year of the 5

- year baseline period) and natural condition value (plotted in the year 2064

-- date for achieving natural conditions). Plots of these “glide paths” with the Base M modeling results are presented in Figure 73 for Class I areas in the eastern U.S. A tabular summary of measured baseline and modeled future year deciview values for

these Class I areas are provided in Table 1 5 (2002 base year) and Table 1 6 (2005 base year) 13



## .

The haze results show that several Class I areas in the eastern U.S. are expected to be greater

than (less improved than) the uniform rate of visibility impr ovement values (in 2018), including those in northern Michigan and several in the northeastern U.S. Many other Class I areas in the eastern U.S. are expected to be less than (more improved than) the uniform rate of visibility improvement values (in 2018). As noted above, states should consider these results, along with
information on th e other four factors , in setting reasonable progress goals.

A n assessment of the f ive factors was performed for LADCO and the State of Minnesota by a contractor (EC/R, 2 007). Sp ecifically, ECR examined reductions in S O 2 and NO x emissions

from EGUs and i ndustrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) boilers; NO x emissions from mobile

sources and reciprocating engines and turbines; and a mmonia emissions from agricultural

op erations. The impacts of “on the books” controls were also examined to provide a frame of reference for assessing the impacts of the additional control measures.

The results of ECR’s analysis of the five factors are summarized below:

Factor 1 (Cost of C ompliance): The average cost effectiveness values (in terms of $M
per ton ) are provided in Table 1 6 . For comparison, cost

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

CAIR SO2: $700

- $1,200, NOx: $1,400

– $2.600 ($/ T)

BART SO2: $300

- $963, NOx: $248

- $1,770

MACT SO2: $1,500, NOx: $7,600

Most of the cost

- effectiveness values for the additional controls are within the range of

cost

- effectiveness values for “on the books” controls.

13 

### Model results reflect the grid cell where the IMPROVE monitor is located.

### 97 Voyageurs Bou ndary Waters

Isle Royale Seney

Mammoth Cave Upper Buffalo

Figure 73 . Visibility modeling results for Class I areas in eastern U.S.

### 98 Mingo Shenandoah

Dolly Sods Bringantine

Lye Brook Acadia

Figure 73 (cont.) Visibility modeling results for Class I areas in eastern U.S

.Worst 20% 2018 2009 2012 2018 2018 2018

Site Baseline URP OTB OTB OTB EGU2 (5-state region) EGU2 (12-state region)

BOWA1 19.86 17.70 19.05 19.01 18.94 18.40 17.72

VOYA2 19.48 17.56 19.14 19.19 19.18 18.94 18.38

SENE1 24.38 21.35 22.98 22.71 22.38 21.26 20.63

ISLE1 21.59 19.21 20.46 20.28 20.04 19.09 18.64

HEGL1 26.75 22.76 24.73 24.34 23.85 23.01 22.04

MING1 28.15 24.08 25.18 24.67 24.01 22.53 21.45

CACR1 26.36 22.55 24.01 23.55 22.99 22.43 21.57

UPBU1 26.27 22.47 24.02 23.58 23.06 22.31 21.38

MACA1 31.37 26.14 28.06 27.03 25.52 24.27 22.57

DOSO1 29.04 24.23 24.86 23.59 22.42 21.60 20.15

SHEN1 29.31 24.67 24.06 22.79 21.57 20.43 19.42

JARI1 29.12 24.48 24.81 23.79 22.42 21.59 20.88

BRIG1 29.01 24.68 25.87 25.25 24.39 23.91 23.45

LYBR1 24.45 21.16 21.80 21.32 20.69 20.18 19.79

Best 20% 2018 2009 2012 2018 2018 2018

Site Baseline URP OTB OTB OTB EGU2 (5-state region) EGU2 (12-state region)

BOWA1 6.42 6.42 6.71 6.73 6.87 6.83 6.81

VOYA2 7.09 7.09 7.21 7.25 7.34 7.31 7.26

SENE1 7.14 7.14 7.19 7.19 7.23 7.06 6.91

ISLE1 6.75 6.75 6.57 6.51 6.47 6.20 6.06

HEGL1 12.84 12.84 12.61 12.62 12.61 12.43 12.02

MING1 14.46 14.46 13.96 13.93 13.94 13.74 13.33

CACR1 11.24 11.24 10.91 10.92 10.90 10.75 10.42

UPBU1 11.71 11.71 11.47 11.46 11.42 11.28 11.01

MACA1 16.51 16.51 16.06 15.91 15.54 15.18 14.75

DOSO1 12.28 12.28 11.72 11.45 11.19 10.93 10.67

SHEN1 10.93 10.93 9.73 9.53 9.17 9.05 8.90

JARI1 14.21 14.21 13.56 13.33 12.97 12.65 12.46

BRIG1 14.33 14.33 13.74 13.69 13.47 13.32 13.21

LYBR1 6.36 6.36 6.12 6.05 5.96 5.88 5.82 

### Table 15. Haze Results - Round 4 (Based on 2000-2004)Worst 20% 2018 2009 2012 2018 2018

Site Baseline URP OTB OTB OTB OTB+Will DO

BOWA1 19.86 17.94 18.45 18.33 17.94 17.92

VOYA2 19.48 17.75 18.20 18.07 17.63 17.66

SENE1 24.38 21.64 23.10 23.04 22.59 22.42

ISLE1 21.59 19.43 20.52 20.43 20.09 20.13

ISLE9 21.59 19.43 20.33 20.22 19.84 19.82

HEGL1 26.75 23.13 24.72 24.69 24.22 24.17

MING1 28.15 24.27 25.88 25.68 24.74 24.83

CACR1 26.36 22.91 23.39 23.29 22.44 22.40

UPBU1 26.27 22.82 23.34 23.27 22.59 22.55

MACA1 31.37 26.64 27.11 27.01 26.10 26.15

DOSO1 29.05 24.69 24.00 23.90 23.00 23.04

SHEN1 29.31 25.12 24.99 24.87 23.92 23.95

JARI1 29.12 24.91 25.17 25.01 24.06 24.12

BRIG1 29.01 25.05 25.79 25.72 25.21 25.22

LYBR1 24.45 21.48 22.04 21.86 21.14 21.14

ACAD1 22.89 20.45 21.72 21.72 21.49 21.49

Best 20% 2018 2009 2012 2018 2018

Site Baseline Max OTB OTB OTB OTB+Will DO

BOWA1 6.42 6.42 6.21 6.19 6.14 6.12

VOYA2 7.09 7.09 6.86 6.83 6.75 6.76

SENE1 7.14 7.14 7.57 7.58 7.71 7.78

ISLE1 6.75 6.75 6.62 6.59 6.60 6.62

ISLE9 6.75 6.75 6.56 6.55 6.52 6.50

HEGL1 12.84 12.84 12.51 12.32 11.66 11.64

MING1 14.46 14.46 14.07 13.89 13.28 13.29

CACR1 11.24 11.24 10.88 10.85 10.52 10.52

UPBU1 11.71 11.71 11.13 11.08 10.73 10.74

MACA1 16.51 16.51 15.76 15.69 15.25 15.25

DOSO1 12.28 12.28 11.25 11.23 11.00 11.01

SHEN1 10.93 10.93 10.13 10.11 9.91 9.91

JARI1 14.21 14.21 13.38 13.38 13.14 13.14

BRIG1 14.33 14.33 14.15 14.08 13.92 13.92

LYBR1 6.37 6.37 6.25 6.23 6.14 6.15

ACAD1 8.78 8.78 8.86 8.86 8.82 8.82



## Table 16. Haze Results - Round 5.1 (Based on 2000-2004)

### 101 Table 1 7 . Estimated Cost Effectiveness for Potential C ontrol Measures

Average Cost effectiveness ($/ton)

Emission category Control strategy Region SO2 NOX NH3

EGU EGU1 3

- State 1,540 2,037

9

- State 1,743 1,782

EGU2 3

- State 1,775 3,016

9

- State 1,952 2,984

ICI boilers ICI1 3

- State 2,992 2,537

9

- State 2,275 1,899

ICI Workgroup 3

- State 2,731 3,814

9

- State 2,743 2,311

3

- State 538 Reciprocating engines emitting 100 tons/year or

more 9

- State 506 Reciprocating engines

and turbines

3

- State 754 Turbines emitting 100 tons/year or m ore 9

- State 754

3

- State 1,286 Reciprocating engines emitting 10 tons/year or more 9

- State 1,023

3

- State 800 Turbines emitting 10 tons/year or more 9

- State 819

10% reduction 3

- State 31

- 2,700 Agricultural sources

9

- State 31

- 2,700

15% reduction 3

- State 31

- 2,700

9

- State 31

- 2,700

Mobile sources Low

- NOX Reflash 3

- State 241

9

- State 241

MCDI 3

- State 10,697

9

- State 2,408

Anti

- Idling 3

- State (430)

- 1,700

9

- State (430)

- 1, 700

Cetane Additive Program 3

- State 4,119

9

- State 4,119

Cement Plants Process Modification Michigan

- Conversion to dry kiln Michigan 9,848

LoToxTM Michigan 1,399

Glass Manufacturing LNB Wisconsin 1,041

Oxy

- firing Wisconsin 2,833

Electric boost Wisconsin 3,426

SCR Wisconsin 1,054

SNCR Wisconsin 1,094

Lime Manufacturing Mid

- kiln firing Wisconsin 688

LNB Wisconsin 837

SNCR Wisconsin 1,210

SCR Wisconsin 5,037

FGD Wisconsin 128

- 4,828

Oil Refinery LNB Wisconsin 3,288

SNCR Wisconsin 4,260

SCR Wisconsin 17,997

LNB+FGR Wisconsin 4,768

ULNB Wisconsin 2,242

FGD Wisconsin 1,078

### 102



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

Factor 3 (Energy and Non

- Air Quality Environmental Impacts): The energy and other environmental impacts are belie ved to be manageable. For example, the increased energy demand from add

- on control equipment is less than 1% of the total electricity and steam production in the region, and solid waste disposal and wastewater treatment

costs are less than 5% of the total operating costs of the pollution control equipment. It
should also be noted that the SO2 and NOx controls would have beneficial environmental impacts (e.g., reduced acid deposition and nitrogen deposition).

Factor 4 (Remaining Useful Life): The addition al control measures are intended to be

market

- based strategies applied over a broad geographic region. It is not expected that the control requirements will be applied to units that will be retired prior to the amortization period for the control equipmen t. Thus, this factor can be easily addressed.

Factor 5 (Visibility Impacts ): The estimated incremental improvement in 2018 visibility levels for the additional measures is shown in Figure 7 4 , along with the cost

effectiveness expressed in $M per deciview improvement). These results show that

a lthough EGU and ICI boiler controls have higher cost

- per

- deciview values (compared to some of the other measures), their visibility impacts are larger

.

### 103 

# Visibility Improvement (dv)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

SO2 NOx NH3 SO2 NOx NH3 SO2 NOx NH3 SO2 NOx NH3 SO2 NOx NH3

Strategy 1 Strategy 2 

## EGUs ICI Boilers Rec.Eng. Mobile Ag



# Cost Effectiveness ($M/dv)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

SO2 NOx NH3 SO2 NOx NH3 SO2 NOx NH3 SO2 NOx NH3 SO2 NOx NH3

Strategy 1 Strategy 2 

## EGUs ICI Boilers Rec.Eng. Mobile Ag

Figure 74. Results of ECR analysis of reasonable p rogress factors

– visibility improvement (Factor 5) is on top, and cost effectiveness (Factor 1) is on bottom

### 104



## 5. 3 Weight

- of

- Evidence Determination for Haze
The WOE determination for haze consists of the primary modeling and other supplemental analyses. A summary of this information is provided below.

Primary ( Guideline

) Modeling : The results of the guideline modeling are presented in Section 4.1. Key findings from this modeling include:

• Base M modeling results show that the northern Minnesota Class I ar eas are close to the glide path, whereas the northern Michigan Class I areas are above the glide path in 2018

. Other sites in the eastern U.S. are close to (or below) the glide path, except for Mingo (MO), Brigantine (NJ), and Acadia (ME).

• Base K modelin g results show that the northern Minnesota and northern Michigan

Class I areas are above the glide path in 2018. Other sites in the eastern U.S. are close to (or below) the glide path.

• The difference in the two modeling analyses is due mostly t o differ ences in future year emission projections , especially for EGUs (e.g., use of IPM2.1.9 v. IPM3.0).



## • Base K and Base M modeling analyses are considered “SIP quality”, so the

attainment demonstration for haze should reflect a weight

- of

- evidence approach,

with consideration of monitoring based information.

A dditional Modeling : T wo additional modeling analyses were considered: (1) the primary modeling redone with different baseline values, and (2) modeling by the State of Minnesota
which looked at different rec eptor locations in the northern Class I areas (MPCA, 2008) . Each of these analyses is described below.

First, the primary modeling analysis (Base M) was revised using an alternative baseline value. Specifically, the data for the period 2000

- 2005 were us ed to calculate the baseline, given that the Base M modeling reflects a 2005 base year. The results of this alternative analysis (see

Table 1 8 ) are generally consistent with the primary modeling (see Table 1 6 ).

Second, Minnesota’s modeling reflects a 200 2 base year and much of the data developed by LADCO for its modeling. (Note, Minnesota conducted modeling for LADCO’s domain at 36 km, and for a statewide domain at 12 km.) The purpose of the 12 km modeling was to address local scale impacts on the north ern Class I areas at several locations, not just the location of the IMPROVE monitor. Results for the Boundary Waters on the 20% worst days range from 18.3

– 19.0 dv, with an average value of 18.7 dv, which is consistent with Minnesota’s 36 km modeling

re sults at the IMPROVE monitor. This variability in visibility levels should be kept in mind when reviewing the values presented in Tables 1 5 , 1 6

, and 1 8

, which reflect results a t the IMPROVE

monitor locations.Worst 20% 2009 2012 2018 2018

Site Baseline URP OTB OTB OTB OTB+Will DO

BOWA1 20.10 18.12 18.63 18.51 18.12 18.09

VOYA2 19.62 17.86 18.27 18.15 17.70 17.72

SENE1 24.77 21.94 23.44 23.39 22.94 22.77

ISLE1 21.95 19.71 20.84 20.76 20.41 20.44

ISLE9 21.95 19.71 20.65 20.55 20.15 20.13

HEGL1 27.45 23.67 25.30 25.27 24.79 24.73

MING1 28.92 24.86 25.88 25.68 24.74 24.83

CACR1 27.05 23.44 23.88 23.78 22.92 22.86

UPBU1 26.97 23.36 23.92 23.85 23.14 23.09

MACA1 31.76 26.93 27.42 27.32 26.39 26.44

DOSO1 29.36 24.92 24.20 24.11 23.19 23.23

SHEN1 29.45 25.23 25.06 24.94 23.98 24.01

JARI1 29.40 25.13 25.32 25.17 24.22 24.28

BRIG1 29.12 25.14 25.84 25.77 25.26 25.26

LYBR1 24.71 21.69 22.22 22.06 21.36 21.36

ACAD1 22.91 20.47 21.72 21.72 21.49 21.49

Best 20% 2009 2012 2018 2018

Site Baseline URP OTB OTB OTB OTB+Will DO

BOWA1 6.40 6.40 6.20 6.17 6.13 6.10

VOYA2 7.05 7.05 6.82 6.78 6.71 6.71

SENE1 7.20 7.20 7.60 7.61 7.73 7.80

ISLE1 6.80 6.80 6.67 6.64 6.65 6.66

ISLE9 6.80 6.80 6.62 6.61 6.57 6.55

HEGL1 13.04 13.04 12.71 12.51 11.85 11.82

MING1 14.68 14.68 14.07 13.89 13.28 13.29

CACR1 11.62 11.62 11.24 11.20 10.86 10.86

UPBU1 11.99 11.99 11.41 11.36 11.01 11.02

MACA1 16.64 16.64 15.88 15.82 15.37 15.38

DOSO1 12.24 12.24 11.21 11.19 10.96 10.97

SHEN1 10.85 10.85 10.04 10.02 9.82 9.83

JARI1 14.35 14.35 13.51 13.51 13.27 13.27

BRIG1 14.36 14.36 14.17 14.10 13.94 13.94

LYBR1 6.21 6.21 6.11 6.09 6.01 6.01

ACAD1 8.57 8.57 8.67 8.66 8.62 8.62



## Table 18. Haze Results - Round 5.1 (Based on 2000-2005)

### 106



## Observation al Models and Diagnostic Analyse s : The observation

- based modeling (i.e., application of thermodynamic equilibrium models) is presented in Section 3. The key findings from this modeling are that PM 2. 5 

## mass is sensitive to reductions in sulfate, nitric acid, and

ammonia concentrations . E ven though sulfate reductions cause more ammonia to be available
to form ammonium nitrate ( PM

- nitrate increases slightly when sulfate is reduced ) , this increase is generally offset by the sulfate reductions, such that PM 2. 5 

## mass decreases and visibility

im proves

. Under conditions with lower sulfate levels (i.e., proxy of future year c onditions), PM 2.5 

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

As discussed in Section 2, t hermodynamic equilibrium modeling based on dat a collected at Seney indicates that PM 2. 5 

## there is most sensitive to reductions in sulfate, but also responsive to reductions in nitric acid (Blanchard

, 2004). An analysis using data from the Midwest ammonia monitoring network for a site in Minnesota (i.e ., Great River Bluffs, which is the closest ammonia monitoring site to the northern Class I areas) suggested that reductions in sulfate, nitric acid,

and ammonia concentrations will lower PM 2. 5 

## concentrations and improve visibility levels in the

northern C lass I areas

.

Trajectory analyses for the 20% worst visibility days for the four northern Class I areas are provided in Figure 7 5 . (Note, this figure is similar to Figure 3 4 , but the trajectory results for each

Class I area are displayed separately here

. ) The o range areas are where the air is most likely to come from, and the green areas are where the air is least likely to come from . Darker shading represents higher frequency. As can be seen, bad air days are generally associated with transport from r egions located to the south, and good air days with transport from Canada.

### 107 

## Seney Isle Royale

Boundary Waters Voyageurs

Figure 7 5 . Trajectory analysis results for northern Class I areas on 20% worst visibility days



## The primary diagnostic analysis is source apportionment modeling with CAMx t o provide more quantitative information on source region (and source sector) im pacts (Baker, 2007b)

. Specifically , the CAMx model was applied to provide source contribution information. Specifically, the model estimated the impact of 18 geographic source regions (which are identified in Figure 7 6 ) and 6 source se ctors (EGU point, n on

- EGU point, on

- road, off

- road, area, and ammonia sources) at visibility/haze monitoring site s in the eastern U.S.

### 108

Figure 7 6 . Source regions (left) and key monitoring sites (right) for haze modeling analysis



## Modeling results for 2018 (Base K and Base M) are provided in Appendix I V for several key monitoring sites ( Class I areas). For each monitoring site, there are two graphs: one showing

sector

- level contributions, and one showing source r egion and sector

- level contributions in
terms of absolute modeled values.

The sector

- level results (see, for example, Figure 7 7 ) show that EGU sulfate, non

- EGU

- sulfate, and ammonia emissions generally have the largest contributions at the key monitor loca tions. The source group contributions vary by receptor location due to emissions inventory differences.

Figure 7 7 . Source

- sector results for Seney (left) and Boundary Waters (right)

– 2018 (Base M)



## The source region results (see, for example, Fi gure 7 8 ) show that emissions from a number of nearby states contribute to regional haze levels.

### 109

Figure 7 8 . Source

- region results for Seney (left) and Boundary Waters (right)

– 2018 (Base M)



## Table 19 provides a summary of the estimated state

- level culp abilities based on the LADCO back trajectory analyses and the PSAT analyses for 2018.

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

visibility levels

. Based on this information, the following genera l conclusions can be

made:

• E xisting (“on the books”) controls are expected to improve visibility levels in the

northern Class I areas

.

• Visibility levels in a few Class I areas in the eastern U.S. are expected to be greater than (less improved than) the u niform rate of visibility improvement

value s in 2018, including those in northern Michigan and s ome in the
northeastern U.S.

• Visibility levels in m any other Class I areas in the eastern U.S. are expected to

be less than

(more improved than) the uniform rate of visibility improvement

value s in 2018.

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

Boundary Waters Seney

LADCO

- Round 4
PSAT LADCO

-

Round 5
PSAT MPCA

PSAT CENRAP

-

PSAT LADCO

-

Traj. Analysis LADCO

- Round 4
PSAT LADCO

-

Round 5
PSAT CENRAP

-

PSAT LADCO

-

Traj. Analysis

Michigan 3.4% 4.8% 3.0% 1.9% 0.7% 13.8% 18.1% 14.7%

Minnesota 30.5% 23.5% 28.0% 30.6% 37.6% 4.8% 1.6% 3.8%

Wisconsin 10.4% 10.9% 10.0% 6.4% 10.6% 12.6% 10.9% 8.4%

Ill inois 5.2% 5.1% 6.0% 3.5% 2.7% 13.0% 14.3% 7.4%

Indiana 2.9% 3.9% 3.0% 1.8% 1.2% 9.6% 11.6% 2.2%

Iowa 7.6% 8.3% 8.0% 2.5% 7.4% 6.2% 3.8% 5.7%

Missouri 5.2% 3.4% 6.0% 2.1% 3.3% 6.5% 4.8% 3.2%

N. Dakota 5.7% 1.1% 6.0% 4.6% 5.9% 1.5% 0.1% 0.6%

Canada 1.9% 2.7% 3.0% 12.5% 15.1% 2.1% 1.2% 11.1%

CENRAP

WRAP 10.9% 13.5% 4.2% 10.1% 13.1% 10.0% 7.0%

83.6% 77.2% 73.0% 70.2% 94.6% 83.3% 76.4% 64.1%



### Voyageurs Isle Royale

LADCO

- Round 4
PSAT LADCO

-

Round 5
PSAT MPCA

PSAT CENRAP

-

PSAT LADCO

-

Traj. Analysis LADCO

- Round 4
PSAT LADCO

-

Round 5
PSAT CENRAP

-

PSAT LADCO

-

Traj. Analysis

Michigan 2.0% 4.9% 2.0% 1.0% 1.6% 12.7% 13.4%

Minnesota 35.0% 20.2% 31.0% 31.5% 36.9% 14.1% 9.5%

Wisconsin 6.3% 7.9% 6.0% 3.7% 9.7% 16.3% 14.7%

Illinois 3.0% 7.1% 3.0% 1.8% 1.2% 7.0% 8.7%

Indiana 1.6% 4.6% 2.0% 0.8% 5.6% 5.2%

Iowa 7.4% 7.1% 7.0% 2.4% 10.2% 6.9% 8.3%

Missouri 4.3% 4.0% 4.0% 1.6% 0.3% 3.9% 4.6%

N. Dakota 10.3% 1.7% 13.0% 6.1% 7.1% 3.6% 0.3 %

Canada 2.7% 3.3% 5.0% 17.2% 13.3% 2.2% 1.7%

CENRAP

WRAP 10.2% 13.7% 6.1% 16.5% 12.5% 12.6%

82.7% 74.5% 73.0% 72.2% 96.8% 84.9% 79.0%

### 111 

## Section 6. Summary

T o support the development of SIPs for ozone, PM 2.5 

## , and regional haze in the Sta tes of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin, technical analyses were conducted by LADCO, its member states, and various contractors

. The analyses include preparation of regional emissions inventories and meteorological modeling data for two ba se years, evaluation and application of regional chemical transport models, and review of ambient monitoring data.

Analyses of monitoring data were conducted to produce a conceptual model, which is a qualitative summar y

of the physical, chemical

, and m e teorological processes that control the formation and distribution of pollutants in a given region. Key findings of the analyses include:

Ozone

• Current monitoring data show about 20 sites in violation of the 8

- hour ozone

standard of 85 ppb . Historical ozone data show a steady downward trend over the past 15 years, especially since 2001

- 2003, due likely to federal and state emission control programs.

• Ozone concentrations are strongly influenced by meteorological conditions, with more high ozone days and higher ozone levels during summers with above normal temperatures.

• Inter

- and intra

- regional transport of ozone and ozone precursors affects many portions of the five states , and is the principal cause of nonattainment in some areas far from population o r industrial centers

PM 2.5



## • Current monitoring data show 3 0 sites in violation of the annual PM 2.5 

## standard of 15 ug/m 3 

## . Nonattainment sites are characterized by an elevated regional background ( about 12

– 14 ug/m 3 

## ) and a significant local (urban) incre ment ( about 2

– 3 ug/m 3 

## ).

Historical PM 2.5 

## data show a slight downward trend since deployment of the PM 2.5 

## monitoring network in 1999.

• PM 2.5 

## concentrations are also influenced by meteorology, but the relationship is more complex and less well understood compared to ozone.

• On an annual average basis, PM 2.5 

## chemical composition consists of mostly sulfate, nitrate, and organic carbon in similar proportions.

Haze

• Current monitoring data show visibility levels in the Class I areas in northern Michigan are on the order of 2 2

– 2 4 deciviews. The goal of EPA’s visibility program is to achieve natural conditions, which is on the order of 12 deciviews for these

Class I areas, by the year 2064.

• Visibility impairment is dominated by sulfate and nitrate.

Air qu ality models were applied to support the regional planning efforts. Two base years were

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

### 11 2



## 2002 as the baseline inventory year, but also allows for use of an alternative b aseline inventory year, especially a more recent year. Initially, LADCO conducted modeling with a 2002 base year (i.e., Base K modeling, which was completed in 2006). A decision was subsequently made to conduct modeling with a 2005 base year (i.e., Base M, which was completed in 2007). Statistical analyses showed that 2002 and 2005 both had above normal ozone

- conducive conditions, although 200 2 was more severe compared to 200 5 . Examination of multiple base years provides for a more complete technical as sessment. Both sets of model runs are

discussed in this document.

B asecase modeling was conducted to evaluate model performance (i.e., assess the model's ability to reproduce the observed concentrations ) . This exercise wa s intended to assess whether, a nd to degree, confidence in the model is warranted (and to assess whether model improvements are necessary) . M odel performance for ozone and PM 2.5 

## was generally acceptable and can be characterized as follows:

Ozone

• Good agreement between modeled and mon itored concentration for higher concentration levels (> 60 ppb)

– i.e., bias within 30%

• Regional modeled concentrations appear to be underestimated in the 2002 base year, but show better agreement (with monitored data) in the 2005 base year due to

model a nd inventory improvements

.

• Day

- to

- day and hour

- to

- hour variation in and spatial patterns of modeled

concentrations are consistent with monitored data

• Model accurately simulates the change in monitored ozone concentrations due to reductions in precursor e missions.

PM 2. 5



## • Good agreement in the magnitude of fine particle mass, but some species are

overestimated and some are underestimated

• Sulfates: good agreement in the 2002 base year, but underestimated in

the summer in the 2005 base year due probably to m eteorological factors

• Nitrates: slightly overestimated in the winter in the 2002 base year, but good agreement in the 2005 base year as a result of model and inventory improvements

• Organic Carbon: grossly underestimated in the 2002 and 2005 base years due likely to missing primary organic carbon emissions

• Temporal variation and spatial patterns of modeled concentrations are consistent

with monitored data

Future year strategy modeling was conducted to determine whether existing (“on the books”)

controls wo uld be sufficient to provide for attainment of the standards for ozone and PM 2.5 

## and if not, then what additional emission reductions would be necessary for attainment. Traditionally, attainment demonstrations involved a “bright line” test in which a sing le modeled value (based

on EPA guidance) was compared to the ambient standard. To provide a more robust assessment of expected future year air quality, other information was considered. Furthermore,

a ccording to EPA’s modeling guidance, if the future yea r model ed values are “close” to the

### 113



## standard (i.e., 82

– 87 ppb for ozone and 14.5

– 15.5 ug/m 3 

## for PM 2.5 

## ) , then the results of the primary modeling should be reviewed along with the supplemental information in a “weight of evidence” (WOE) assessment of w hether each area is likely to achieve timely attainment. Key findings of the WOE determination include:

• E xisting controls are expected to produce significant improvement in ozone and

PM 2.5 

## concentrations and visibility levels.

• The choice of the base yea r affects the future year model projections. A key difference between the base years of 2002 and 2005 is meteorology. 2002 was more ozone conducive than 2005. The choice of which base year to use as the basis for the SIP is a policy decision (i.e., how much safeguard to incorporate).

• Most sites are expected to meet the current 8

- hour standard by the applicable attainment date, except for sites in western Michigan and, possibly, in eastern
Wisconsin and northeastern Ohio.

• Most sites a re expected to meet the current PM 2.5 

## standard by the applicable attainment date, except for sites in Detroit, Cleveland, and Granite City

.

T he regiona l modeling for PM 2.5 

## does not reflect air quality benefit s expected from local controls. States are conducting local

- scale analyses and will us e these results, in conjunction with the regional

- scale modeling, to support their
attainment demonstrations for PM 2.5



## .

• These findings of residual nonattainment for ozone and PM 2.5 

## are supported by current (2005

– 2007) monitoring dat a which show significant nonattainment in the region (e.g., peak ozone design values on the order of 90

– 93 ppb, and peak

PM 2.5 

## d esign values on the order of 16

- 17 ug/m 3 

## ). It is unlikely that sufficient

emission reductions will occur in the next few of years to provide for attainment at

all sites.

• Attainment at most sites by the applicable attainment date is dependent on actual future year meteorology (e.g., if the weather conditions are consistent with [or less severe than] 2005, then attainment is li kely) and actual future year emissions (e.g., if the emission reductions associated with the existing controls are achieved, then attainment is likely). If either of these conditions is not met, then attainment may be less likely.

• T he new PM 2.5 

## 24

- hour s tandard and the new lower ozone standard will not be

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

• Visibility levels in a few Class I areas in the eastern U.S. are expected to be greater than

(less improved than) the uniform rate of visibili ty improvement

value s in 2018 based on existing controls , including those in northern Michigan

and s ome in the northeastern U.S. Visibility levels in m any other Class I areas in the eastern U.S. are expected to be less than (more improved than) the unifor m rate of visibility improvement value s in 2018.

### 114 

## Section 7. References

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

- LADCO) State Emissions, Preparation and Delivery of Non

- MRPO Emission Files<

March 12 , 2007.

AER, 2004, “Analysis of Recent Regional Haze Data”, Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc., August 2004.

Baker, K., “Hot Spot Test (Draft), Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, March 23, 2005

Baker, K. 2007a, “Ozone Source Apportionment Results for Receptors in Non

- Attainment Counties in the Great Lakes Region”, Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, October 2007.

Baker, K., 2007b, “Source Apportionment Results for PM 2. 5 

## and Regional Haze at Receptors in the Great Lakes Region”, Lake M ichigan Air Directors Consortium, November 2007.

Baker, K. and D. Kenski, 2007, “Diagnostic and Operational Evaluation of 2002 and 2005 8

- Hour Ozone to Support Model Attainment Demonstrations”, Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, October 2007.

Blanch ard, C.L., and S. Tanenbaum, 2003, “ VOC and NO

x 

## Limitation of Ozone Formation at Monitoring Sites in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin, 1998

- 2002 ”

, Report to LADCO

, February 2003.

.

Blanchard, C.L., and S. Tanenbaum, 2004, “ The Eff ects of Changes in Sulfate, Ammonia, and Nitric Acid on Fine PM Composition at Monitoring Sites in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin, 2000

- 20 02”, Report to LADCO, February 2004

.

Blanchard, C.L., and S. Tanenbaum , 2005 a , “Weekday/W eekend Differences in Ambient Concentrations of Primary and Secondary Air Pollutants in Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Dallas

Fort Worth, Denver, Houston, New York, Phoenix, Washington, and Surrounding Areas”, Prepared for National Renewable Energy Laborator y, NREL Project ES04

- 1, July 30, 2005.

Blanchard, C.L., and S. Tanenbaum, 2005 b , “ Analysis of Data from the Midwest Ammonia Monitoring Project

”, Draft Final Technical Memorandum, March 31, 2005.

Breiman, L., J. Friedman, R. Olshen, and C. Stone, 1984, “C lassification and Regression Trees”, Chapman & Hall (1984).

Camalier, L., Cox, W., Dolwick, P., 2007. The effects of meteorology on ozone in urban areas and their use in assessing ozone trends. Atmosp heric Environment 41, 7127

- 7137

Cox, W.M, and S.

- H. Ch u, 1993, Meteorologically Adjusted Ozone Trends in Urban Areas: A Probabililistic Approach, Atmospheric Environment 27B(4):425

- 434 (1993).

DeBell, L.J., K. Gebhart, J. Hand, W. Malm, M. Pitchford, B. Schichtel, and W. White, 2006, “Spatial and Seasonal P atterns and Temporal Variability of Haze and its Constituents in the United States, Report IV”, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, November

2006

### 115



## DRI, 2005, “Source Apportionment Analysis of Air Quality Monitoring Data: Phase II”, Desert

Research Institute. March 2005

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

EC/R, Incorporated, 2007, “Reasonable Progress for Class I Areas in the Nor thern Midwest

– Factor Analysis”, Draft Final Technical Memorandum, July 18, 2007.

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

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

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

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

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

Environ, 2007 a , “Modeling Week end and Weekday Ozone in Southeast Michigan”, Draft Final Report, Prepared for National Renewable Energy Laboratory, July 30, 2007.

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

Environ, 2007 c , “LADCO 2005 Commercial Marine Em issions”, Draft, March 2, 2007.

Environ, 2008 , “LADCO On

- Road Emission Inventory Development Using CONCEPT MV”, January 2008.

.

Hollander, M. and D. Wolfe, 1973, “Nonparametric Statistical Methods”, John Wiley & Sons, New York (1973).

Hopke, P. K., 2005, Analyses of Midwest PM

- Related Measurements, Report to LADCO

, March

2005.

Kenski, D.M., 2004, Quantifying Transboundary Transport of PM 2. 5 

## : A GIS Analysis, Proc.

AWMA 97 th 

## Annual Conf., Indianapolis

, June 2004

.

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

2007.

Kenski, D.M., 2007 b , “ Impact of Missing Data on Worst Days at Midwest Northern Class 1

Areas ”, Donna Kenski

, Midwest RPO

, March 12, 2007 (revised 6/19/07)

.

Kenski, D.M., 2008a, “Updated Cox Trends Analysis”, February 2008.

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

### 116



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

PM 2. 5 

## /Haze/Ozone Modeling Projects”, February 18, 2005

.

LADCO, 2006a, “Base K/Round 4 Strategy Modeling” Emissions”, May 16, 2006

.

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

.

LADCO, 2007a, “Modeling Protocol: 2002 Basecase Technical Details”, October 17, 2007

LADCO, 2007b, “Modeling Protocol : 2005 Basecase Technical Details”, October 19, 2007

LADCO, 2007 c , “An Evaluation of an Annual 2005 MM5 Simulation to Support Photochemical and Emissions Modeling Applications”, January 10, 2007

.

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

LADCO, 2008 a , “Base M Strategy Modeling: Emissions (Revised)”, February 27, 2008

LADCO, 2008b, “ Critique: Modeled Attainment Probability (i.e., Bob Lopez’ analysis) ”, January 10, 2008

Lopez, 2007, “Assessing the Site

- Specific and Region

- w ide Probability of Attainment Level Ozone Air Quality under varying seasonal conditions using the results of 2002 (Round 4) and 2005 (Round 5) Regional Modeling”, Draft 2, Bob Lopez

, WDNR

, December 12 , 2007

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

- Based Ammonia Emissions Model for Agricultural Sources

– Emission

Estimates”

MPCA, 2008, “Technical Support Document for the Minnesota State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze”, Draft, Marc h 4, 2008

.

M RPO , 2001, “Principles for Regional Planning”, March 9, 2001.

MRPO, 2007, “Draft List of Class I Areas Located Within (or Impacted by) Midwest RPO States”, June 26, 2007.

MRPO, 200 8 , “Regional Haze in the Upper Midwest: Summary of Technical Information”, Version 2.2, February 22, 2008

.

Millstein, D.E., R.A. Harley, and S.V. Hering, 2007, “Weekly cycles in fine particulate matter”, Atmospheric Environment (2007), doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.10.010.

Poirot, R. L.; Wishinski, P. R.; Hopke, P. K.; Polissar, A. V.; Comparative Application of Multiple Receptor Methods To Identify Aerosol Sources in Northern Vermont, Environ. Sci. Technol

., 36 (4); 820

- 820 (2002 ).

Sheesley, R.J., J.J. Schauer, E. Bean, and D. Kenski, Trends in Secondary Organic Aer osol at a Remote Site in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, Env. Sci. and Tech. 38 (24); 6491

- 6500 (Oct 2004).

### 117



## STI, 2004, “Data Processing and Analysis of Aloft Air Quality Data Collected in the Upper Midwest”, Executive Summary, STI

- 903470

- 2568

- ES3, Sonoma Techno logy, Inc, August 5,

2004

.

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

STI

- 903520

- 2942

- FR, Sonoma Technology, Inc. March 31, 2006.

STI, 200 8 , “Data Analysis and Source Apportionment of PM 2. 5 

## in Selected Midwestern Cities”, Final Report, STI

- 907018.03

- 3264

- DRF, Sonoma Technology, Inc., February 2008.

EPA, 1999, Regional Haze Regulations, 64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999

.

EPA, 2003, “Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze

R ule”, EPA

- 454/B

- 03

- 005, September 2003.

EPA, 2002, “Recommended Approach for Performing Mid

- Course Review of SIPs to Meet the

1

- Hour NAAQS for Ozone”, January 2002.

EPA, 2005, Final Rule to Implement the 8

- Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard

, 70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005

EPA, 200 6 , “Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards”, September 2006 ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html#ria2 007 )

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

## , and Regional Haze”, EPA

- 454/B07

- 002, April

2007.

EPA, 2007b, “Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Revisio ns to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards”, EPA

- 452/R

- 07

- 008, July 2007 ( h ttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html#ria2007 )

EPA, 2007c, Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule, 72 FR 2058 6, April 25, 2007

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

Process

- Based Ammonia Emissions Model for Agricultural Sources

– Model Development”

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

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

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

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/

### 118 

## APPENDIX I

Ozone and PM 2. 5 

## Modeling ResultsKey Sites 2005 BY 2002 BY

'03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '03-'05 '04-'06 '05-'07 Average Average RRF Round 5
Lake Michigan Area Lake Michigan Area

Chiwaukee 550590019 88 78 93 79 85 86 83 85 84.7 98.3 0.968 82.0 Chiwaukee

Racine 551010017 82 69 95 71 77 82 78 81 80.3 91.7 0.966 77.6 Racine
Milwaukee-Bayside 550190085 92 73 93 73 83 86 79 83 82.7 91.0 0.963 79.6 Milwaukee-Bayside
Harrington Beach 550890009 99 72 94 72 84 88 79 83 83.3 93.0 0.960 80.0 Harrington Beach

Manitowoc 550710007 92 74 95 78 85 87 82 86 85.0 87.0 0.957 81.3 Manitowoc
Sheboygan 551170006 93 78 97 83 88 89 86 89 88.0 97.0 0.959 84.4 Sheboygan

Kewaunee 550610002 97 73 88 76 85 86 79 83 82.7 89.3 0.954 78.9 Kewaunee
Door County 550290004 93 78 101 79 92 90 86 90 88.7 91.0 0.956 84.8 Door County

Hammond 180892008 81 67 87 75 77 78 76 79 77.7 88.3 0.971 75.4 Hammond
Whiting 180890030 64 88 81 88 76 77 85 79.3 0.971 77.0 Whiting
Michigan City 180910005 82 70 84 75 73 78 76 77 77.0 90.3 0.964 74.2 Michigan City
Ogden Dunes 181270020 77 69 90 70 84 78 76 81 78.3 86.3 0.967 75.7 Ogden Dunes

Holland 260050003 96 79 94 91 94 89 88 93 90.0 94.0 0.951 85.6 Holland

Jenison 261390005 91 69 86 83 88 82 79 85 82.0 86.0 0.950 77.9 Jenison
Muskegon 261210039 94 70 90 90 86 84 83 88 85.0 90.0 0.951 80.8 Muskegon

Indianapolis Area Indianapolis Area

Noblesville 189571001 101 75 87 77 84 87 79 82 82.7 93.7 0.944 78.0 Noblesville

Fortville 180590003 92 72 80 75 81 81 75 78 78.0 91.3 0.948 73.9 Fortville

Fort B. Harrison 180970050 91 73 80 76 83 81 76 79 78.7 90.0 0.951 74.8 Fort B. Harrison

Detroit Area Detroit Area

New Haven 260990009 102 81 88 78 93 90 82 86 86.0 92.3 0.962 82.7 New Haven

Warren 260991003 101 71 89 78 91 87 79 86 84.0 90.0 0.982 82.5 Warren

Port Huron 261470005 87 74 88 78 89 83 80 85 82.7 88.0 0.956 79.0 Port Huron

Cleveland Area Cleveland Area

Ashtabula 390071001 99 81 93 86 92 91 86 90 89.0 95.7 0.954 84.9 Ashtabula
Geauga 390550004 97 75 88 70 68 86 77 75 79.3 99.0 0.954 75.7 Geauga

Eastlake 390850003 92 79 97 83 74 89 86 84 86.3 92.7 0.959 82.8 Eastlake

Akron 391530020 89 77 89 77 91 85 81 85 83.7 93.3 0.948 79.3

Cincinnati Area Cincinnati Area
Wilmington 390271002 96 78 83 81 82 85 80 82 82.3 94.3 0.945 77.8 Wilmington
Sycamore 390610006 93 76 89 81 90 86 82 86 84.7 90.3 0.965 81.7 Sycamore

Lebanon 391650007 95 81 92 86 88 89 86 88 87.7 87.0 0.954 83.6 Lebanon

Columbus Area Columbus Area

London 390970007 90 75 81 76 83 82 77 80 79.7 88.7 0.946 75.4 London
New Albany 390490029 94 78 92 82 87 88 84 87 86.3 93.0 0.954 82.4 New Albany

Franklin 290490028 84 73 86 79 79 81 79 81 80.3 86.0 0.958 77.0 Franklin

St. Louis Area St. Louis Area W. Alton (MO) 291831002 91 77 89 91 89 85 85 89 86.3 90.0 0.954 82.4 W. Alton (MO) Orchard (MO) 291831004 90 76 92 92 83 86 86 89 87.0 90.0 0.958 83.3 Orchard (MO) Sunset Hills (MO) 291890004 88 70 89 80 89 82 79 86 82.3 88.3 0.966 79.5 Sunset Hills (MO) Arnold (MO) 290990012 82 70 92 79 87 81 80 86 82.3 84.7 0.956 78.7 Arnold (MO) Margaretta (MO) 295100086 90 72 91 76 91 84 79 86 83.0 87.7 0.962 79.8 Margaretta (MO) Maryland Heights (MO) 291890014 88 84 94 88 86 88 87.3 0.967 84.5 Maryland Heights (MO) 4th High 8-hour Value Des. Values (truncated) 2008 - OTBKey Sites 2005 BY 2002 BY

'03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '03-'05 '04-'06 '05-'07 Average Average RRF Round 5 Round 4 RRF Round 5
Lake Michigan Area Lake Michigan Area

Chiwaukee 550590019 88 78 93 79 85 86 83 85 84.7 98.3 0.972 82.3 92.0 0.971 82.2 Chiwaukee

Racine 551010017 82 69 95 71 77 82 78 81 80.3 91.7 0.965 77.5 84.9 0.964 77.4 Racine
Milwaukee-Bayside 550190085 92 73 93 73 83 86 79 83 82.7 91.0 0.965 79.8 84.9 0.964 79.7 Milwaukee-Bayside
Harrington Beach 550890009 99 72 94 72 84 88 79 83 83.3 93.0 0.961 80.1 85.4 0.960 80.0 Harrington Beach

Manitowoc 550710007 92 74 95 78 85 87 82 86 85.0 87.0 0.951 80.8 78.9 0.949 80.7 Manitowoc
Sheboygan 551170006 93 78 97 83 88 89 86 89 88.0 97.0 0.955 84.0 88.9 0.953 83.9 Sheboygan

Kewaunee 550610002 97 73 88 76 85 86 79 83 82.7 89.3 0.945 78.1 81.0 0.943 78.0 Kewaunee
Door County 550290004 93 78 101 79 92 90 86 90 88.7 91.0 0.946 83.9 81.8 0.945 83.8 Door County

Hammond 180892008 81 67 87 75 77 78 76 79 77.7 88.3 0.971 75.4 86.6 0.970 75.3 Hammond
Whiting 180890030 64 88 81 88 76 77 85 79.3 0.971 77.0 0.970 77.0 Whiting
Michigan City 180910005 82 70 84 75 73 78 76 77 77.0 90.3 0.960 73.9 86.5 0.959 73.8 Michigan City
Ogden Dunes 181270020 77 69 90 70 84 78 76 81 78.3 86.3 0.965 75.6 82.8 0.964 75.5 Ogden Dunes

Holland 260050003 96 79 94 91 94 89 88 93 90.0 94.0 0.948 85.3 83.4 0.947 85.2 Holland

Jenison 261390005 91 69 86 83 88 82 79 85 82.0 86.0 0.940 77.1 77.6 0.939 77.0 Jenison
Muskegon 261210039 94 70 90 90 86 84 83 88 85.0 90.0 0.947 80.5 81.5 0.945 80.3 Muskegon

Indianapolis Area Indianapolis Area

Noblesville 189571001 101 75 87 77 84 87 79 82 82.7 93.7 0.945 78.1 83.7 0.946 78.2 Noblesville

Fortville 180590003 92 72 80 75 81 81 75 78 78.0 91.3 0.947 73.9 83.8 0.948 73.9 Fortville

Fort B. Harrison 180970050 91 73 80 76 83 81 76 79 78.7 90.0 0.955 75.1 83.7 0.956 75.2 Fort B. Harrison

Detroit Area Detroit Area

New Haven 260990009 102 81 88 78 93 90 82 86 86.0 92.3 0.947 81.4 85.3 0.947 81.4 New Haven

Warren 260991003 101 71 89 78 91 87 79 86 84.0 90.0 0.968 81.3 83.3 0.969 81.4 Warren

Port Huron 261470005 87 74 88 78 89 83 80 85 82.7 88.0 0.937 77.5 79.1 0.938 77.5 Port Huron

Cleveland Area Cleveland Area

Ashtabula 390071001 99 81 93 86 92 91 86 90 89.0 95.7 0.937 83.4 82.7 0.941 83.7 Ashtabula
Geauga 390550004 97 75 88 70 68 86 77 75 79.3 99.0 0.942 74.7 88.8 0.945 75.0 Geauga

Eastlake 390850003 92 79 97 83 74 89 86 84 86.3 92.7 0.949 81.9 82.8 0.954 82.4 Eastlake

Akron 391530020 89 77 89 77 91 85 81 85 83.7 93.3 0.934 78.1 81.4 0.935 78.2

Cincinnati Area Cincinnati Area
Wilmington 390271002 96 78 83 81 82 85 80 82 82.3 94.3 0.941 77.5 83.5 0.942 77.6 Wilmington
Sycamore 390610006 93 76 89 81 90 86 82 86 84.7 90.3 0.967 81.9 84.7 0.968 82.0 Sycamore

Lebanon 391650007 95 81 92 86 88 89 86 88 87.7 87.0 0.947 83.0 79.0 0.948 83.1 Lebanon

Columbus Area Columbus Area

London 390970007 90 75 81 76 83 82 77 80 79.7 88.7 0.941 75.0 78.4 0.942 75.0 London
New Albany 390490029 94 78 92 82 87 88 84 87 86.3 93.0 0.947 81.8 82.6 0.948 81.8 New Albany

Franklin 290490028 84 73 86 79 79 81 79 81 80.3 86.0 0.945 75.9 76.5 0.948 76.2 Franklin

St. Louis Area St. Louis Area W. Alton (MO) 291831002 91 77 89 91 89 85 85 89 86.3 90.0 0.938 81.0 85.2 0.932 80.5 W. Alton (MO) Orchard (MO) 291831004 90 76 92 92 83 86 86 89 87.0 90.0 0.942 82.0 82.2 0.939 81.7 Orchard (MO) Sunset Hills (MO) 291890004 88 70 89 80 89 82 79 86 82.3 88.3 0.956 78.7 81.9 0.954 78.5 Sunset Hills (MO) Arnold (MO) 290990012 82 70 92 79 87 81 80 86 82.3 84.7 0.938 77.2 77.4 0.937 77.1 Arnold (MO) Margaretta (MO) 295100086 90 72 91 76 91 84 79 86 83.0 87.7 0.955 79.3 83.4 0.955 79.3 Margaretta (MO) Maryland Heights (MO) 291890014 88 84 94 88 86 88 87.3 0.955 83.4 0.954 83.3 Maryland Heights (MO) 4th High 8-hour Value Des. Values (truncated) 2009 - Will Do 2009 - OTBKey Sites 2005 BY 2002 BY

'03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '03-'05 '04-'06 '05-'07 Average Average RRF Round 5 Round 4 RRF Round 5
Lake Michigan Area Lake Michigan Area

Chiwaukee 550590019 88 78 93 79 85 86 83 85 84.7 98.3 0.956 80.9 90.3 0.900 76.2 Chiwaukee

Racine 551010017 82 69 95 71 77 82 78 81 80.3 91.7 0.947 76.1 82.9 0.886 71.2 Racine
Milwaukee-Bayside 550190085 92 73 93 73 83 86 79 83 82.7 91.0 0.944 78.0 82.3 0.880 72.7 Milwaukee-Bayside
Harrington Beach 550890009 99 72 94 72 84 88 79 83 83.3 93.0 0.939 78.3 82.9 0.870 72.5 Harrington Beach

Manitowoc 550710007 92 74 95 78 85 87 82 86 85.0 87.0 0.925 78.6 76.3 0.853 72.5 Manitowoc
Sheboygan 551170006 93 78 97 83 88 89 86 89 88.0 97.0 0.930 81.8 86.4 0.857 75.4 Sheboygan

Kewaunee 550610002 97 73 88 76 85 86 79 83 82.7 89.3 0.918 75.9 79.1 0.845 69.9 Kewaunee
Door County 550290004 93 78 101 79 92 90 86 90 88.7 91.0 0.919 81.5 79.3 0.843 74.7 Door County

Hammond 180892008 81 67 87 75 77 78 76 79 77.7 88.3 0.960 74.6 86.3 0.922 71.6 Hammond
Whiting 180890030 64 88 81 88 76 77 85 79.3 0.960 76.2 0.922 73.1 Whiting
Michigan City 180910005 82 70 84 75 73 78 76 77 77.0 90.3 0.942 72.5 85.4 0.884 68.1 Michigan City
Ogden Dunes 181270020 77 69 90 70 84 78 76 81 78.3 86.3 0.951 74.5 82.0 0.904 70.8 Ogden Dunes

Holland 260050003 96 79 94 91 94 89 88 93 90.0 94.0 0.920 82.8 81.0 0.846 76.1 Holland

Jenison 261390005 91 69 86 83 88 82 79 85 82.0 86.0 0.909 74.5 75.5 0.838 68.7 Jenison
Muskegon 261210039 94 70 90 90 86 84 83 88 85.0 90.0 0.918 78.0 79.4 0.846 71.9 Muskegon

Indianapolis Area Indianapolis Area

Noblesville 189571001 101 75 87 77 84 87 79 82 82.7 93.7 0.914 75.6 82.0 0.831 68.7 Noblesville

Fortville 180590003 92 72 80 75 81 81 75 78 78.0 91.3 0.916 71.4 82.1 0.835 65.1 Fortville

Fort B. Harrison 180970050 91 73 80 76 83 81 76 79 78.7 90.0 0.931 73.2 82.4 0.879 69.1 Fort B. Harrison

Detroit Area Detroit Area

New Haven 260990009 102 81 88 78 93 90 82 86 86.0 92.3 0.932 80.2 83.5 0.885 76.1 New Haven

Warren 260991003 101 71 89 78 91 87 79 86 84.0 90.0 0.961 80.7 81.9 0.924 77.6 Warren

Port Huron 261470005 87 74 88 78 89 83 80 85 82.7 88.0 0.913 75.5 77.0 0.858 70.9 Port Huron

Cleveland Area Cleveland Area

Ashtabula 390071001 99 81 93 86 92 91 86 90 89.0 95.7 0.910 81.0 80.2 0.844 75.1 Ashtabula
Geauga 390550004 97 75 88 70 68 86 77 75 79.3 99.0 0.916 72.7 86.2 0.848 67.3 Geauga

Eastlake 390850003 92 79 97 83 74 89 86 84 86.3 92.7 0.932 80.5 80.6 0.883 76.2 Eastlake

Akron 391530020 89 77 89 77 91 85 81 85 83.7 93.3 0.903 75.6 78.5 0.821 68.7 Akron

Cincinnati Area Cincinnati Area
Wilmington 390271002 96 78 83 81 82 85 80 82 82.3 94.3 0.910 74.9 81.1 0.830 68.3 Wilmington
Sycamore 390610006 93 76 89 81 90 86 82 86 84.7 90.3 0.948 80.3 82.9 0.881 74.6 Sycamore

Lebanon 391650007 95 81 92 86 88 89 86 88 87.7 87.0 0.921 80.7 77.0 0.846 74.2 Lebanon

Columbus Area Columbus Area

London 390970007 90 75 81 76 83 82 77 80 79.7 88.7 0.911 72.6 76.5 0.832 66.3 London
New Albany 390490029 94 78 92 82 87 88 84 87 86.3 93.0 0.922 79.6 80.2 0.845 73.0 New Albany

Franklin 290490028 84 73 86 79 79 81 79 81 80.3 86.0 0.923 74.1 74.7 0.859 69.0 Franklin

St. Louis Area St. Louis Area W. Alton (MO) 291831002 91 77 89 91 89 85 85 89 86.3 90.0 0.911 78.6 84.0 0.868 74.9 W. Alton (MO) Orchard (MO) 291831004 90 76 92 92 83 86 86 89 87.0 90.0 0.919 80.0 80.4 0.876 76.2 Orchard (MO) Sunset Hills (MO) 291890004 88 70 89 80 89 82 79 86 82.3 88.3 0.937 77.1 80.6 0.897 73.9 Sunset Hills (MO) Arnold (MO) 290990012 82 70 92 79 87 81 80 86 82.3 84.7 0.918 75.6 75.8 0.874 72.0 Arnold (MO) Margaretta (MO) 295100086 90 72 91 76 91 84 79 86 83.0 87.7 0.939 77.9 82.5 0.896 74.4 Margaretta (MO) Maryland Heights (MO) 291890014 88 84 94 88 86 88 87.3 0.936 81.7 0.894 78.1 Maryland Heights (MO) 4th High 8-hour Value Des. Values (truncated) 2018 - OTB 2012 - OTB2005 BY 2002 BY

Key Site County Site ID '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '03 - '05 '04 - '06 '05 - '07 Average

w/ 2007 Average

Round 5 Round4 Key Site

Chicago - Washington HS Cook 170310022 15.6 14.2 16.9 13.2 15.7 15.6 14.8 15.3 15.2 15.9 14.1 14.8 Chicago - Washington HS
Chicago - Mayfair Cook 170310052 15.9 15.3 17.0 14.5 15.5 16.1 15.6 15.7 15.8 17.1 14.4 15.8 Chicago - Mayfair
Chicago - Springfield Cook 170310057 15.6 13.8 16.7 13.5 15.1 15.4 14.7 15.1 15.0 15.6 13.9 14.5 Chicago - Springfield
Chicago - Lawndale Cook 170310076 14.8 14.2 16.6 13.5 14.3 15.2 14.8 14.8 14.9 15.6 13.8 14.5 Chicago - Lawndale

Blue Island Cook 170312001 14.9 14.1 16.4 13.2 14.3 15.1 14.6 14.6 14.8 15.6 13.7 14.5 Blue Island

Summit Cook 170313301 15.6 14.2 16.9 13.8 14.8 15.6 15.0 15.2 15.2 16.0 14.2 14.8 Summit

Cicero Cook 170316005 16.8 15.2 16.3 14.3 14.8 16.1 15.3 15.1 15.5 16.4 14.4 15.3 Cicero
Granite City Madison 171191007 17.5 15.4 18.2 16.3 15.1 17.0 16.6 16.5 16.7 17.3 15.1 16.0 Granite City

E. St. Louis St. Clair 171630010 14.9 14.7 17.1 14.5 15.6 15.6 15.4 15.7 15.6 16.2 14.1 14.9 E. St. Louis

Jeffersonville Clark 180190005 15.8 15.1 18.5 15.0 16.5 16.5 16.2 16.7 16.4 17.2 13.8 15.5 Jeffersonville
Jasper Dubois 180372001 15.7 14.4 16.9 13.5 14.4 15.7 14.9 14.9 15.2 15.5 12.4 13.8 Jasper
Gary Lake 180890031 16.8 13.3 14.5 16.8 15.1 14.9 15.6 13.0 Gary
Indy-Washington Park Marion 180970078 15.5 14.3 16.4 14.1 15.8 15.4 14.9 15.4 15.3 16.2 12.8 14.5 Indy-Washington Park
Indy-W 18th Street Marion 180970081 16.2 15.0 17.9 14.2 16.1 16.4 15.7 16.1 16.0 13.4 Indy-W 18th Street
Indy- Michigan Street Marion 180970083 16.3 15.0 17.5 14.1 15.9 16.3 15.5 15.8 15.9 16.6 13.4 14.8 Indy- Michigan Street

Allen Park Wayne 261630001 15.2 14.2 15.9 13.2 12.8 15.1 14.4 14.0 14.5 15.8 13.0 14.5 Allen Park

Southwest HS Wayne 261630015 16.6 15.4 17.2 14.7 14.5 16.4 15.8 15.5 15.9 17.3 14.2 15.8 Southwest HS

Linwood Wayne 261630016 15.8 13.7 16.0 13.0 13.9 15.2 14.2 14.3 14.6 15.5 13.1 14.1 Linwood

Dearborn Wayne 261630033 19.2 16.8 18.6 16.1 16.9 18.2 17.2 17.2 17.5 19.3 15.8 17.7 Dearborn
Wyandotte Wayne 261630036 16.3 13.7 16.4 12.9 13.4 15.5 14.3 14.2 14.7 16.6 13.1 15.1 Wyandotte

Middleton Butler 390170003 17.2 14.1 19.0 14.1 15.4 16.8 15.7 16.2 16.2 16.5 13.5 14.2 Middleton

Fairfield Butler 390170016 15.8 14.7 17.9 14.0 14.9 16.1 15.5 15.6 15.8 15.9 13.1 13.5 Fairfield

Cleveland-28th Street Cuyahoga 390350027 15.4 15.6 17.3 13.0 14.5 16.1 15.3 14.9 15.4 16.5 13.5 14.4 Cleveland-28th Street

Cleveland-St. Tikhon Cuyahoga 390350038 17.6 17.5 19.2 14.9 16.2 18.1 17.2 16.8 17.4 18.4 15.2 16.1 Cleveland-St. Tikhon
Cleveland-Broadway Cuyahoga 390350045 16.4 15.3 19.3 14.1 15.3 17.0 16.2 16.2 16.5 16.7 14.4 14.6 Cleveland-Broadway
Cleveland-E14 & Orange Cuyahoga 390350060 17.2 16.4 19.4 15.0 15.9 17.7 16.9 16.8 17.1 17.6 15.0 15.3 Cleveland-E14 & Orange
Newburg Hts - Harvard Ave Cuyahoga 390350065 15.6 15.2 18.6 13.1 15.8 16.5 15.6 15.8 16.0 16.2 14.0 14.1 Newburg Hts - Harvard Ave
Columbus - Fairgrounds Franklin 390490024 16.4 15.0 16.4 13.6 14.6 15.9 15.0 14.9 15.3 16.5 12.9 14.6 Columbus - Fairgrounds

Columbus - Ann Street Franklin 390490025 15.3 14.6 16.5 13.8 14.7 15.5 15.0 15.0 15.1 16.0 12.7 14.1 Columbus - Ann Street
Columbus - Maple Canyon Franklin 390490081 14.9 13.6 14.6 12.9 13.1 14.4 13.7 13.5 13.9 16.0 11.7 14.0 Columbus - Maple Canyon
Cincinnati - Seymour Hamilton 390610014 17.0 15.9 19.8 15.5 16.5 17.6 17.1 17.3 17.3 17.7 14.5 15.5 Cincinnati - Seymour

Cincinnati - Taft Ave Hamilton 390610040 15.5 14.6 17.5 13.6 15.1 15.9 15.2 15.4 15.5 15.7 12.8 13.6 Cincinnati - Taft Ave

Cincinnati - 8th Ave Hamilton 390610042 16.7 16.0 19.1 14.9 15.9 17.3 16.7 16.6 16.9 17.3 14.0 14.6 Cincinnati - 8th Ave

Sharonville Hamilton 390610043 15.7 14.9 16.9 14.5 14.8 15.8 15.4 15.4 15.6 16.0 12.9 13.6 Sharonville

Norwood Hamilton 390617001 16.0 15.3 18.4 14.4 15.1 16.6 16.0 16.0 16.2 16.3 13.4 14.2 Norwood

St. Bernard Hamilton 390618001 17.3 16.4 20.0 15.9 16.1 17.9 17.4 17.3 17.6 17.3 14.7 15.2 St. Bernard

Steubenville Jefferson 390810016 17.7 15.9 16.4 13.8 16.2 16.7 15.4 15.5 15.8 17.7 12.8 16.3 Steubenville
Mingo Junction Jefferson 390811001 17.3 16.2 18.1 14.6 15.6 17.2 16.3 16.1 16.5 17.5 13.5 15.5 Mingo Junction

Ironton Lawrence 390870010 14.3 13.7 17.0 14.4 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.5 15.2 15.7 12.8 14.2 Ironton
Dayton Montgomery 391130032 15.9 14.5 17.4 13.6 15.6 15.9 15.2 15.5 15.5 15.9 13.2 13.7 Dayton

New Boston Scioto 391450013 14.7 13.0 16.2 14.3 14.0 14.6 14.5 14.8 14.7 17.1 12.1 15.4 New Boston

Canton - Dueber Stark 391510017 16.8 15.6 17.8 14.6 15.9 16.7 16.0 16.1 16.3 17.3 14.0 15.0 Canton - Dueber

Canton - Market Stark 391510020 15.0 14.1 16.6 11.9 14.4 15.2 14.2 14.3 14.6 15.7 12.6 13.6 Canton - Market

Akron - Brittain Summit 391530017 15.4 15.0 16.4 13.5 14.4 15.6 15.0 14.8 15.1 16.4 13.0 14.4 Akron - Brittain
Akron - W. Exchange Summit 391530023 14.2 13.9 15.7 12.8 13.7 14.6 14.1 14.1 14.3 15.6 12.3 13.6 Akron - W. Exchange Annual Average Conc. Design Values 2009 Modeling Results2005 BY 2002 BY

Key Site County Site ID '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '03 - '05 '04 - '06 '05 - '07 Average

w/ 2007 Average

Round 5 Round4 Key Site

Chicago - Washington HS Cook 170310022 15.6 14.2 16.9 13.2 15.7 15.6 14.8 15.3 15.2 15.9 14.0 14.6 Chicago - Washington HS
Chicago - Mayfair Cook 170310052 15.9 15.3 17.0 14.5 15.5 16.1 15.6 15.7 15.8 17.1 14.2 15.5 Chicago - Mayfair
Chicago - Springfield Cook 170310057 15.6 13.8 16.7 13.5 15.1 15.4 14.7 15.1 15.0 15.6 13.8 14.3 Chicago - Springfield
Chicago - Lawndale Cook 170310076 14.8 14.2 16.6 13.5 14.3 15.2 14.8 14.8 14.9 15.6 13.7 14.3 Chicago - Lawndale

Blue Island Cook 170312001 14.9 14.1 16.4 13.2 14.3 15.1 14.6 14.6 14.8 15.6 13.6 14.3 Blue Island

Summit Cook 170313301 15.6 14.2 16.9 13.8 14.8 15.6 15.0 15.2 15.2 16.0 14.0 14.6 Summit

Cicero Cook 170316005 16.8 15.2 16.3 14.3 14.8 16.1 15.3 15.1 15.5 16.4 14.3 15.1 Cicero
Granite City Madison 171191007 17.5 15.4 18.2 16.3 15.1 17.0 16.6 16.5 16.7 17.3 14.9 15.8 Granite City

E. St. Louis St. Clair 171630010 14.9 14.7 17.1 14.5 15.6 15.6 15.4 15.7 15.6 16.2 13.9 14.7 E. St. Louis

Jeffersonville Clark 180190005 15.8 15.1 18.5 15.0 16.5 16.5 16.2 16.7 16.4 17.2 13.7 15.0 Jeffersonville
Jasper Dubois 180372001 15.7 14.4 16.9 13.5 14.4 15.7 14.9 14.9 15.2 15.5 12.2 13.5 Jasper
Gary Lake 180890031 16.8 13.3 14.5 16.8 15.1 14.9 15.6 12.8 Gary
Indy-Washington Park Marion 180970078 15.5 14.3 16.4 14.1 15.8 15.4 14.9 15.4 15.3 16.2 12.6 14.2 Indy-Washington Park
Indy-W 18th Street Marion 180970081 16.2 15.0 17.9 14.2 16.1 16.4 15.7 16.1 16.0 13.2 Indy-W 18th Street
Indy- Michigan Street Marion 180970083 16.3 15.0 17.5 14.1 15.9 16.3 15.5 15.8 15.9 16.6 13.1 14.9 Indy- Michigan Street

Allen Park Wayne 261630001 15.2 14.2 15.9 13.2 12.8 15.1 14.4 14.0 14.5 15.8 12.8 14.1 Allen Park

Southwest HS Wayne 261630015 16.6 15.4 17.2 14.7 14.5 16.4 15.8 15.5 15.9 17.3 13.9 15.3 Southwest HS

Linwood Wayne 261630016 15.8 13.7 16.0 13.0 13.9 15.2 14.2 14.3 14.6 15.5 12.8 13.7 Linwood

Dearborn Wayne 261630033 19.2 16.8 18.6 16.1 16.9 18.2 17.2 17.2 17.5 19.3 15.5 17.1 Dearborn
Wyandotte Wayne 261630036 16.3 13.7 16.4 12.9 13.4 15.5 14.3 14.2 14.7 16.6 12.8 14.7 Wyandotte

Middleton Butler 390170003 17.2 14.1 19.0 14.1 15.4 16.8 15.7 16.2 16.2 16.5 13.2 13.7 Middleton

Fairfield Butler 390170016 15.8 14.7 17.9 14.0 14.9 16.1 15.5 15.6 15.8 15.9 12.9 12.9 Fairfield

Cleveland-28th Street Cuyahoga 390350027 15.4 15.6 17.3 13.0 14.5 16.1 15.3 14.9 15.4 16.5 13.2 13.8 Cleveland-28th Street

Cleveland-St. Tikhon Cuyahoga 390350038 17.6 17.5 19.2 14.9 16.2 18.1 17.2 16.8 17.4 18.4 14.8 15.4 Cleveland-St. Tikhon
Cleveland-Broadway Cuyahoga 390350045 16.4 15.3 19.3 14.1 15.3 17.0 16.2 16.2 16.5 16.7 14.0 14.0 Cleveland-Broadway
Cleveland-E14 & Orange Cuyahoga 390350060 17.2 16.4 19.4 15.0 15.9 17.7 16.9 16.8 17.1 17.6 14.6 14.7 Cleveland-E14 & Orange
Newburg Hts - Harvard Ave Cuyahoga 390350065 15.6 15.2 18.6 13.1 15.8 16.5 15.6 15.8 16.0 16.2 13.6 13.5 Newburg Hts - Harvard Ave
Columbus - Fairgrounds Franklin 390490024 16.4 15.0 16.4 13.6 14.6 15.9 15.0 14.9 15.3 16.5 12.6 14.0 Columbus - Fairgrounds

Columbus - Ann Street Franklin 390490025 15.3 14.6 16.5 13.8 14.7 15.5 15.0 15.0 15.1 16.0 12.4 13.5 Columbus - Ann Street
Columbus - Maple Canyon Franklin 390490081 14.9 13.6 14.6 12.9 13.1 14.4 13.7 13.5 13.9 16.0 11.4 13.4 Columbus - Maple Canyon
Cincinnati - Seymour Hamilton 390610014 17.0 15.9 19.8 15.5 16.5 17.6 17.1 17.3 17.3 17.7 14.3 14.8 Cincinnati - Seymour

Cincinnati - Taft Ave Hamilton 390610040 15.5 14.6 17.5 13.6 15.1 15.9 15.2 15.4 15.5 15.7 12.6 13.0 Cincinnati - Taft Ave

Cincinnati - 8th Ave Hamilton 390610042 16.7 16.0 19.1 14.9 15.9 17.3 16.7 16.6 16.9 17.3 13.8 14.0 Cincinnati - 8th Ave

Sharonville Hamilton 390610043 15.7 14.9 16.9 14.5 14.8 15.8 15.4 15.4 15.6 16.0 12.7 13.0 Sharonville

Norwood Hamilton 390617001 16.0 15.3 18.4 14.4 15.1 16.6 16.0 16.0 16.2 16.3 13.2 13.6 Norwood

St. Bernard Hamilton 390618001 17.3 16.4 20.0 15.9 16.1 17.9 17.4 17.3 17.6 17.3 14.4 14.6 St. Bernard

Steubenville Jefferson 390810016 17.7 15.9 16.4 13.8 16.2 16.7 15.4 15.5 15.8 17.7 12.5 15.9 Steubenville
Mingo Junction Jefferson 390811001 17.3 16.2 18.1 14.6 15.6 17.2 16.3 16.1 16.5 17.5 13.2 15.0 Mingo Junction

Ironton Lawrence 390870010 14.3 13.7 17.0 14.4 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.5 15.2 15.7 12.5 13.7 Ironton
Dayton Montgomery 391130032 15.9 14.5 17.4 13.6 15.6 15.9 15.2 15.5 15.5 15.9 12.9 13.2 Dayton

New Boston Scioto 391450013 14.7 13.0 16.2 14.3 14.0 14.6 14.5 14.8 14.7 17.1 11.9 14.8 New Boston

Canton - Dueber Stark 391510017 16.8 15.6 17.8 14.6 15.9 16.7 16.0 16.1 16.3 17.3 13.6 14.3 Canton - Dueber

Canton - Market Stark 391510020 15.0 14.1 16.6 11.9 14.4 15.2 14.2 14.3 14.6 15.7 12.3 13.0 Canton - Market

Akron - Brittain Summit 391530017 15.4 15.0 16.4 13.5 14.4 15.6 15.0 14.8 15.1 16.4 12.7 13.6 Akron - Brittain
Akron - W. Exchange Summit 391530023 14.2 13.9 15.7 12.8 13.7 14.6 14.1 14.1 14.3 15.6 12.0 13.0 Akron - W. Exchange Annual Average Conc. Design Values 2012 Modeling Results2005 BY 2002 BY

Key Site County Site ID '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '03 - '05 '04 - '06 '05 - '07 Average

w/ 2007 Average Round 5

OTB Round 5

Will Do Round4 Key Site

Chicago - Washington HS Cook 170310022 15.6 14.2 16.9 13.2 15.7 15.6 14.8 15.3 15.2 15.9 13.9 13.8 14.4 Chicago - Washington HS
Chicago - Mayfair Cook 170310052 15.9 15.3 17.0 14.5 15.5 16.1 15.6 15.7 15.8 17.1 13.9 13.8 15.0 Chicago - Mayfair
Chicago - Springfield Cook 170310057 15.6 13.8 16.7 13.5 15.1 15.4 14.7 15.1 15.0 15.6 13.7 13.5 14.1 Chicago - Springfield
Chicago - Lawndale Cook 170310076 14.8 14.2 16.6 13.5 14.3 15.2 14.8 14.8 14.9 15.6 13.6 13.4 14.1 Chicago - Lawndale

Blue Island Cook 170312001 14.9 14.1 16.4 13.2 14.3 15.1 14.6 14.6 14.8 15.6 13.4 13.3 14.1 Blue Island

Summit Cook 170313301 15.6 14.2 16.9 13.8 14.8 15.6 15.0 15.2 15.2 16.0 13.9 13.8 14.4 Summit

Cicero Cook 170316005 16.8 15.2 16.3 14.3 14.8 16.1 15.3 15.1 15.5 16.4 14.2 14.0 14.9 Cicero
Granite City Madison 171191007 17.5 15.4 18.2 16.3 15.1 17.0 16.6 16.5 16.7 17.3 14.3 14.2 15.5 Granite City

E. St. Louis St. Clair 171630010 14.9 14.7 17.1 14.5 15.6 15.6 15.4 15.7 15.6 16.2 13.4 13.3 14.5 E. St. Louis

Jeffersonville Clark 180190005 15.8 15.1 18.5 15.0 16.5 16.5 16.2 16.7 16.4 17.2 13.4 13.4 14.4 Jeffersonville
Jasper Dubois 180372001 15.7 14.4 16.9 13.5 14.4 15.7 14.9 14.9 15.2 15.5 11.8 11.9 13.0 Jasper
Gary Lake 180890031 16.8 13.3 14.5 16.8 15.1 14.9 15.6 12.4 12.4 Gary
Indy- Washington Park Marion 180970078 15.5 14.3 16.4 14.1 15.8 15.4 14.9 15.4 15.3 16.2 12.0 12.1 13.7 Indy- Washington Park
Indy- W 18th Street Marion 180970081 16.2 15.0 17.9 14.2 16.1 16.4 15.7 16.1 16.0 12.6 12.7 Indy- W 18th Street
Indy- Michigan Street Marion 180970083 16.3 15.0 17.5 14.1 15.9 16.3 15.5 15.8 15.9 16.6 12.6 12.6 14.0 Indy- Michigan Street

Allen Park Wayne 261630001 15.2 14.2 15.9 13.2 12.8 15.1 14.4 14.0 14.5 15.8 12.4 12.4 13.3 Allen Park

Southwest HS Wayne 261630015 16.6 15.4 17.2 14.7 14.5 16.4 15.8 15.5 15.9 17.3 13.5 13.5 14.4 Southwest HS

Linwood Wayne 261630016 15.8 13.7 16.0 13.0 13.9 15.2 14.2 14.3 14.6 15.5 12.5 12.5 13.0 Linwood

Dearborn Wayne 261630033 19.2 16.8 18.6 16.1 16.9 18.2 17.2 17.2 17.5 19.3 15.1 15.1 16.1 Dearborn
Wyandotte Wayne 261630036 16.3 13.7 16.4 12.9 13.4 15.5 14.3 14.2 14.7 16.6 12.5 12.5 13.9 Wyandotte

Middleton Butler 390170003 17.2 14.1 19.0 14.1 15.4 16.8 15.7 16.2 16.2 16.5 12.8 12.8 13.1 Middleton

Fairfield Butler 390170016 15.8 14.7 17.9 14.0 14.9 16.1 15.5 15.6 15.8 15.9 12.5 12.6 12.2 Fairfield

Cleveland-28th Street Cuyahoga 390350027 15.4 15.6 17.3 13.0 14.5 16.1 15.3 14.9 15.4 16.5 12.7 12.9 12.9 Cleveland-28th Street

Cleveland-St. Tikhon Cuyahoga 390350038 17.6 17.5 19.2 14.9 16.2 18.1 17.2 16.8 17.4 18.4 14.3 14.5 14.4 Cleveland-St. Tikhon
Cleveland-Broadway Cuyahoga 390350045 16.4 15.3 19.3 14.1 15.3 17.0 16.2 16.2 16.5 16.7 13.5 13.7 13.1 Cleveland-Broadway
Cleveland-E14 & Orange Cuyahoga 390350060 17.2 16.4 19.4 15.0 15.9 17.7 16.9 16.8 17.1 17.6 14.1 14.2 13.7 Cleveland-E14 & Orange
Newburg Hts - Harvard Ave Cuyahoga 390350065 15.6 15.2 18.6 13.1 15.8 16.5 15.6 15.8 16.0 16.2 13.1 13.3 12.6 Newburg Hts - Harvard Ave
Columbus - Fairgrounds Franklin 390490024 16.4 15.0 16.4 13.6 14.6 15.9 15.0 14.9 15.3 16.5 12.0 12.1 13.0 Columbus - Fairgrounds

Columbus - Ann Street Franklin 390490025 15.3 14.6 16.5 13.8 14.7 15.5 15.0 15.0 15.1 16.0 11.9 11.9 12.5 Columbus - Ann Street
Columbus - Maple Canyon Franklin 390490081 14.9 13.6 14.6 12.9 13.1 14.4 13.7 13.5 13.9 16.0 10.9 11.0 12.5 Columbus - Maple Canyon
Cincinnati - Seymour Hamilton 390610014 17.0 15.9 19.8 15.5 16.5 17.6 17.1 17.3 17.3 17.7 13.8 13.9 14.0 Cincinnati - Seymour

Cincinnati - Taft Ave Hamilton 390610040 15.5 14.6 17.5 13.6 15.1 15.9 15.2 15.4 15.5 15.7 12.2 12.3 12.3 Cincinnati - Taft Ave

Cincinnati - 8th Ave Hamilton 390610042 16.7 16.0 19.1 14.9 15.9 17.3 16.7 16.6 16.9 17.3 13.4 13.4 13.2 Cincinnati - 8th Ave

Sharonville Hamilton 390610043 15.7 14.9 16.9 14.5 14.8 15.8 15.4 15.4 15.6 16.0 12.3 12.4 12.2 Sharonville

Norwood Hamilton 390617001 16.0 15.3 18.4 14.4 15.1 16.6 16.0 16.0 16.2 16.3 12.8 12.8 12.8 Norwood

St. Bernard Hamilton 390618001 17.3 16.4 20.0 15.9 16.1 17.9 17.4 17.3 17.6 17.3 14.0 14.1 13.8 St. Bernard

Steubenville Jefferson 390810016 17.7 15.9 16.4 13.8 16.2 16.7 15.4 15.5 15.8 17.7 12.7 12.7 16.2 Steubenville
Mingo Junction Jefferson 390811001 17.3 16.2 18.1 14.6 15.6 17.2 16.3 16.1 16.5 17.5 13.4 13.4 15.3 Mingo Junction

Ironton Lawrence 390870010 14.3 13.7 17.0 14.4 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.5 15.2 15.7 12.3 12.3 13.2 Ironton
Dayton Montgomery 391130032 15.9 14.5 17.4 13.6 15.6 15.9 15.2 15.5 15.5 15.9 12.4 12.5 12.3 Dayton

New Boston Scioto 391450013 14.7 13.0 16.2 14.3 14.0 14.6 14.5 14.8 14.7 17.1 11.6 11.6 14.2 New Boston

Canton - Dueber Stark 391510017 16.8 15.6 17.8 14.6 15.9 16.7 16.0 16.1 16.3 17.3 13.3 13.3 13.6 Canton - Dueber

Canton - Market Stark 391510020 15.0 14.1 16.6 11.9 14.4 15.2 14.2 14.3 14.6 15.7 11.9 12.0 12.2 Canton - Market

Akron - Brittain Summit 391530017 15.4 15.0 16.4 13.5 14.4 15.6 15.0 14.8 15.1 16.4 12.3 12.3 12.9 Akron - Brittain
Akron - W. Exchange Summit 391530023 14.2 13.9 15.7 12.8 13.7 14.6 14.1 14.1 14.3 15.6 11.5 11.6 12.2 Akron - W. Exchange Annual Average Conc. Design Values 2018 Modeling Results

## 24-Hour PM 2.5 Base Year

Key Site County Site ID '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '03-'05 '04-'06 '05-'07 Average

w/ 2007 2009 2012 2018 Key Site

Chicago - Washington HS Cook 170310022 37.7 32.5 45.7 27.0 35.7 38.6 35.1 36.1 36.6 36 36 35 Chicago - Washington HS
Chicago - Mayfair Cook 170310052 37.3 38.8 48.3 31.6 39.4 41.5 39.6 39.8 40.3 36 36 36 Chicago - Mayfair
Chicago - Springfield Cook 170310057 36.4 33.1 46.5 27.7 38.9 38.7 35.8 37.7 37.4 32 32 31 Chicago - Springfield
Chicago - Lawndale Cook 170310076 32.6 39.7 45.1 29.0 37.2 39.1 37.9 37.1 38.1 35 35 34 Chicago - Lawndale

McCook Cook 170311016 43.0 39 39 38 McCook

Blue Island Cook 170312001 39.6 38.5 43.8 28.1 35.1 40.6 36.8 35.7 37.7 34 34 33 Blue Island

Schiller Park Cook 170313103 40.7 50.3 30.0 36.6 45.5 40.3 39.0 41.6 39 39 39 Schiller Park

Summit Cook 170313301 38.4 42.4 49.1 27.4 36.7 43.3 39.6 37.7 40.2 38 38 37 Summit
Maywood Cook 170316005 38.5 42.5 44.6 29.2 36.9 41.9 38.8 36.9 39.2 38 38 37 Maywood
Granite City Madison 171191007 40.8 35.4 44.1 36.3 36.0 40.1 38.6 38.8 39.2 33 33 32 Granite City

E. St. Louis St. Clair 171630010 32.6 30.2 39.6 29.2 33.1 34.1 33.0 34.0 33.7 28 28 28 E. St. Louis

Jeffersonville Clark 180190005 28.4 45.5 35.9 43.3 37.0 36.6 41.6 38.4 29 31 31 Jeffersonville
Jasper Dubois 180372001 39.5 30.0 41.2 31.6 39.5 36.9 34.3 37.4 36.2 28 29 28 Jasper
Gary - IITRI Lake 180890022 39.0 34 34 35 Gary - IITRI
Gary - Burr School Lake 180890026 39.0 33 34 32 Gary - Burr School
Gary Lake 180890031 38.7 27.1 36.2 38.7 32.9 34.0 35.2 24 24 27 Gary
Indy-West Street Marion 180970043 38.0 33 33 33 Indy-West Street
Indy-English Avenue Marion 180970066 38.0 32 32 32 Indy-English Avenue
Indy-Washington Park Marion 180970078 39.3 31.0 42.5 31.7 37.6 37.6 35.1 37.3 36.6 31 31 32 Indy-Washington Park
Indy-W 18th Street Marion 180970081 36.2 31.9 45.7 34.8 38.4 37.9 37.5 39.6 38.3 31 31 31 Indy-W 18th Street
Indy- Michigan Street Marion 180970083 36.7 31.3 40.3 33.5 37.2 36.1 35.0 37.0 36.0 28 28 29 Indy- Michigan Street

Luna Pier Monroe 261150005 34.7 35.0 49.3 32.6 32.2 39.7 39.0 38.0 38.9 32 32 31 Luna Pier

Oak Park Oakland 261250001 36.6 32.5 52.2 33.0 35.3 40.4 39.2 40.2 39.9 36 36 35 Oak Park

Port Huron St. Clair 261470005 37.2 32.2 47.6 37.9 36.3 39.0 39.2 40.6 39.6 34 34 33 Port Huron
Ypsilanti Washtenaw 261610008 38.8 31.5 52.1 31.3 34.5 40.8 38.3 39.3 39.5 35 35 34 Ypsilanti

Allen Park Wayne 261630001 40.5 36.9 43.0 34.1 35.9 40.1 38.0 37.7 38.6 35 34 33 Allen Park

Southwest HS Wayne 261630015 33.6 36.0 49.7 36.2 34.0 39.8 40.6 40.0 40.1 35 35 33 Southwest HS

Linwood Wayne 261630016 46.2 38.3 51.8 36.9 34.8 45.4 42.3 41.2 43.0 39 39 38 Linwood

E 7 Mile Wayne 261630019 37.1 35.0 52.3 36.2 33.0 41.5 41.2 40.5 41.0 38 38 37 E 7 Mile

Dearborn Wayne 261630033 42.8 39.4 50.2 43.1 36.6 44.1 44.2 43.3 43.9 40 40 39 Dearborn
Wyandotte Wayne 261630036 34.8 32.3 46.7 33.2 28.6 37.9 37.4 36.2 37.2 35 35 34 Wyandotte
Newberry Wayne 261630038 36.8 57.5 28.6 33.4 39.1 39.8 42.7 38 37 36 Newberry

FIA Wayne 261630039 43.9 32.4 34.8 37.0 39.7 33 33 31 FIA

Middleton Butler 390170003 38.6 37.2 47.6 30.2 37.1 41.1 38.3 38.3 39.3 28 28 27 Middleton

Fairfield Butler 390170016 34.8 32.2 43.4 35.2 34.5 36.8 36.9 37.7 37.1 27 28 27 Fairfield

Butler 390170017 34.6 34.3 44.9 37.9 39.6 40.8 29 29 28

Cleveland-28th Street Cuyahoga 390350027 41.3 40.9 35.7 31.5 39.0 39.3 36.0 35.4 36.9 32 32 31 Cleveland-28th Street

Cleveland-St. Tikhon Cuyahoga 390350038 47.3 42.5 51.2 36.1 39.7 44.9 47.0 42.3 44.2 36 35 34 Cleveland-St. Tikhon
Cleveland-Broadway Cuyahoga 390350045 42.2 36.1 46.2 29.5 37.0 41.5 37.3 37.6 38.8 31 30 29 Cleveland-Broadway
Cleveland-GT Craig Cuyahoga 390350060 45.5 42.2 49.5 31.0 38.7 45.7 40.9 39.7 42.1 37 37 35 Cleveland-GT Craig
Newburg Hts - Harvard Ave Cuyahoga 390350065 39.1 36.1 47.9 27.8 39.1 41.0 37.3 38.3 38.9 31 30 30 Newburg Hts - Harvard Ave
Columbus - Fairgrounds Franklin 390490024 39.2 35.1 45.0 34.0 34.2 39.8 38.0 37.7 38.5 33 32 31 Columbus - Fairgrounds

Columbus - Ann Street Franklin 390490025 37.0 35.5 44.9 34.0 35.5 39.1 38.1 38.1 38.5 31 31 30 Columbus - Ann Street

Cincinnait Hamilton 390610006 45.0 33.3 34.7 37.7 40.6 27 28 27 Cincinnait
Cincinnati - Seymour Hamilton 390610014 37.8 42.0 38.5 35.2 38.1 39.4 38.6 37.3 38.4 26 25 24 Cincinnati - Seymour

Cincinnati - Taft Ave Hamilton 390610040 31.9 30.5 45.8 32.8 34.7 36.1 36.4 37.8 36.7 24 24 23 Cincinnati - Taft Ave

Cincinnati - 8th Ave Hamilton 390610042 33.8 31.9 44.4 34.5 35.9 36.7 36.9 38.3 37.3 28 28 27 Cincinnati - 8th Ave

Sharonville Hamilton 390610043 37.3 31.4 39.9 34.9 34.0 36.2 35.4 36.3 36.0 28 28 27 Sharonville

Norwood Hamilton 390617001 37.1 34.6 47.1 34.0 33.7 39.6 38.6 38.3 38.8 30 30 29 Norwood

St. Bernard Hamilton 390618001 35.8 33.9 51.4 36.1 35.4 40.4 40.5 41.0 40.6 30 30 29 St. Bernard

Steubenville Jefferson 390810016 39.6 43.8 43.8 32.1 43.5 42.4 39.9 39.8 40.7 29 28 28 Steubenville
Mingo Junction Jefferson 390811001 40.9 51.5 44.2 32.9 35.4 45.5 42.9 37.5 42.0 30 30 30 Mingo Junction
Dayton Montgomery 391130032 42.7 32.5 45.0 30.3 36.9 40.1 35.9 37.4 37.8 30 30 30 Dayton

Canton - Dueber Stark 391510017 34.2 36.3 47.6 32.2 33.4 39.4 38.7 37.7 38.6 28 28 27 Canton - Dueber

Akron - Brittain Summit 391530017 36.9 36.9 45.2 31.5 33.3 39.7 37.9 36.7 38.1 30 30 29 Akron - Brittain

Green Bay - Est High Brown 550090005 33.5 32.3 41.5 36.9 37.1 35.8 36.9 38.5 37.1 35 34 32 Green Bay - Est High

Madison Dane 550250047 32.0 31.9 40.1 33.4 44.3 34.7 35.1 39.3 36.4 32 31 29 Madison

Milwaukee-Health Center Milwaukee 550790010 33.2 38.4 38.7 40.7 40.6 36.8 39.3 40.0 38.7 35 34 33 Milwaukee-Health Center
Milwaukee-SER Hdqs Milwaukee 550790026 29.6 28.7 41.5 42.6 39.8 33.3 37.6 41.3 37.4 34 34 33 Milwaukee-SER Hdqs
Milwaukee-Virginia FS Milwaukee 550790043 39.2 41.4 37.1 44.0 38 39.2 40.8 39.7 39.9 36 36 36 Milwaukee-Virginia FS
Milwaukee- Fire Dept Hdqs Milwaukee 550790099 33.7 38.9 37.1 38.3 40.7 36.6 38.1 38.7 37.8 33 32 32 Milwaukee- Fire Dept Hdqs

Waukesha Waukesha 551330027 29.1 38.4 41.1 28.2 33.8 36.2 35.9 34.4 35.5 31 31 29 Waukesha 98th Percentile (24-hour) Design Values Round 5 Modeling ResultsSite ID State County Season Species Species Comp. of Ave. FRM (fraction) Species RRF

1703100521 IL Cook winter so4 0.1772 0.9342

1703100521 IL Cook winter no3 0.3099 1.0128

1703100521 IL Cook winter ocm 0.2147 0.9942

1703100521 IL Cook winter ec 0.0372 0.888

1703100521 IL Cook winter soil 0.0242 1.1674

1703100521 IL Cook winter nh4 0.1421 0.97

1703100521 IL Cook winter pbw 0.0947 0.9678

1703100521 IL Cook spring so4 0.32 0.8018

1703100521 IL Cook spring no3 0.0609 0.9385

1703100521 IL Cook spring ocm 0.2742 1.0629

1703100521 IL Cook spring ec 0.0501 0.8712

1703100521 IL Cook spring soil 0.0505 1.1796

1703100521 IL Cook spring nh4 0.1203 0.8619

1703100521 IL Cook spring pbw 0.0984 0.8492

1703100521 IL Cook summer so4 0.3089 0.725

1703100521 IL Cook summer no3 0 1.0124

1703100521 IL Cook summer ocm 0.1599 1.069

1703100521 IL Cook summer ec 0.0351 0.8683

1703100521 IL Cook summer soil 0.0318 1.204

1703100521 IL Cook summer nh4 0.0932 0.7354

1703100521 IL Cook summer pbw 0.094 0.7217

1703100521 IL Cook fall so4 0.1872 0.9151

1703100521 IL Cook fall no3 0.1628 0.9408

1703100521 IL Cook fall ocm 0.2389 1.0091

1703100521 IL Cook fall ec 0.0403 0.8623

1703100521 IL Cook fall soil 0.0284 1.1443

1703100521 IL Cook fall nh4 0.1062 0.9247

1703100521 IL Cook fall pbw 0.0614 0.9233

1711910071 IL Madison winter so4 0.213 0.9195

1711910071 IL Madison winter no3 0.2705 1.0306

1711910071 IL Madison winter ocm 0.2093 0.9289

1711910071 IL Madison winter ec 0.0434 0.9083

1711910071 IL Madison winter soil 0.0306 1.1782

1711910071 IL Madison winter nh4 0.1528 0.9513

1711910071 IL Madison winter pbw 0.0804 0.9243

1711910071 IL Madison spring so4 0.3194 0.7717

1711910071 IL Madison spring no3 0.0189 0.8611

1711910071 IL Madison spring ocm 0.2455 1.1103

1711910071 IL Madison spring ec 0.0564 1.0046

1711910071 IL Madison spring soil 0.0459 1.2252

1711910071 IL Madison spring nh4 0.1121 0.7894

1711910071 IL Madison spring pbw 0.1085 0.7783

1711910071 IL Madison summer so4 0.313 0.705

1711910071 IL Madison summer no3 0 0.884

1711910071 IL Madison summer ocm 0.153 1.1546

1711910071 IL Madison summer ec 0.0345 1.0513

1711910071 IL Madison summer soil 0.0302 1.2532

1711910071 IL Madison summer nh4 0.102 0.7409

1711910071 IL Madison summer pbw 0.1096 0.7133

1711910071 IL Madison fall so4 0.2058 0.9037

1711910071 IL Madison fall no3 0.1308 0.9426

1711910071 IL Madison fall ocm 0.259 1.0233

1711910071 IL Madison fall ec 0.0563 0.9248

1711910071 IL Madison fall soil 0.0549 1.1412

1711910071 IL Madison fall nh4 0.1073 0.9185

1711910071 IL Madison fall pbw 0.0655 0.918



### PM2.5 RRFs by Species and Season (2009)Site ID State County Season Species Species Comp. of Ave. FRM (fraction) Species RRF

1803720011 IN Dubois winter so4 0.2669 0.8833

1803720011 IN Dubois winter no3 0.2548 0.9526

1803720011 IN Dubois winter ocm 0.1747 0.9374

1803720011 IN Dubois winter ec 0.0313 0.9319

1803720011 IN Dubois winter soil 0.0192 1.1349

1803720011 IN Dubois winter nh4 0.1646 0.9069

1803720011 IN Dubois winter pbw 0.0885 0.9006

1803720011 IN Dubois spring so4 0.4141 0.6808

1803720011 IN Dubois spring no3 0.0022 0.8106

1803720011 IN Dubois spring ocm 0.178 0.9997

1803720011 IN Dubois spring ec 0.0324 0.9083

1803720011 IN Dubois spring soil 0.0218 1.1284

1803720011 IN Dubois spring nh4 0.1432 0.7075

1803720011 IN Dubois spring pbw 0.1556 0.6916

1803720011 IN Dubois summer so4 0.3687 0.644

1803720011 IN Dubois summer no3 0 0.8029

1803720011 IN Dubois summer ocm 0.1174 1.0136

1803720011 IN Dubois summer ec 0.0207 0.913

1803720011 IN Dubois summer soil 0.0213 1.1988

1803720011 IN Dubois summer nh4 0.1168 0.6789

1803720011 IN Dubois summer pbw 0.1246 0.6613

1803720011 IN Dubois fall so4 0.2964 0.8232

1803720011 IN Dubois fall no3 0.138 0.8797

1803720011 IN Dubois fall ocm 0.2116 0.9861

1803720011 IN Dubois fall ec 0.0437 0.9019

1803720011 IN Dubois fall soil 0.03 1.1387

1803720011 IN Dubois fall nh4 0.1449 0.8444

1803720011 IN Dubois fall pbw 0.0941 0.8558

1809700811 IN Marion winter so4 0.2358 0.9192

1809700811 IN Marion winter no3 0.2729 0.9769

1809700811 IN Marion winter ocm 0.1851 0.9546

1809700811 IN Marion winter ec 0.0385 0.8647

1809700811 IN Marion winter soil 0.0239 1.0835

1809700811 IN Marion winter nh4 0.1561 0.9446

1809700811 IN Marion winter pbw 0.0877 0.944

1809700811 IN Marion spring so4 0.3745 0.6868

1809700811 IN Marion spring no3 0.0167 0.8082

1809700811 IN Marion spring ocm 0.2034 0.9881

1809700811 IN Marion spring ec 0.0447 0.8547

1809700811 IN Marion spring soil 0.0376 1.0625

1809700811 IN Marion spring nh4 0.1313 0.7182

1809700811 IN Marion spring pbw 0.1309 0.7056

1809700811 IN Marion summer so4 0.3582 0.6529

1809700811 IN Marion summer no3 0 0.8099

1809700811 IN Marion summer ocm 0.1231 1.0043

1809700811 IN Marion summer ec 0.03 0.8444

1809700811 IN Marion summer soil 0.0253 1.0918

1809700811 IN Marion summer nh4 0.1114 0.6854

1809700811 IN Marion summer pbw 0.1163 0.6674

1809700811 IN Marion fall so4 0.2751 0.8538

1809700811 IN Marion fall no3 0.149 0.9452

1809700811 IN Marion fall ocm 0.223 0.9648

1809700811 IN Marion fall ec 0.0525 0.8412

1809700811 IN Marion fall soil 0.0358 1.089

1809700811 IN Marion fall nh4 0.1378 0.8905

1809700811 IN Marion fall pbw 0.0865 0.8888Site ID State County Season Species Species Comp. of Ave. FRM (fraction) Species RRF

2616300331 MI Wayne winter so4 0.1587 0.9206

2616300331 MI Wayne winter no3 0.2394 0.9813

2616300331 MI Wayne winter ocm 0.3193 1.0781

2616300331 MI Wayne winter ec 0.0383 0.9279

2616300331 MI Wayne winter soil 0.0541 1.0206

2616300331 MI Wayne winter nh4 0.1188 0.9518

2616300331 MI Wayne winter pbw 0.0714 0.9566

2616300331 MI Wayne spring so4 0.3383 0.7398

2616300331 MI Wayne spring no3 0.0259 0.8787

2616300331 MI Wayne spring ocm 0.3543 1.0234

2616300331 MI Wayne spring ec 0.0504 0.8671

2616300331 MI Wayne spring soil 0.0915 1.0153

2616300331 MI Wayne spring nh4 0.1191 0.7818

2616300331 MI Wayne spring pbw 0.1126 0.7619

2616300331 MI Wayne summer so4 0.3311 0.6681

2616300331 MI Wayne summer no3 0 0.8431

2616300331 MI Wayne summer ocm 0.2297 1.0029

2616300331 MI Wayne summer ec 0.0362 0.8332

2616300331 MI Wayne summer soil 0.061 1.0177

2616300331 MI Wayne summer nh4 0.1027 0.6974

2616300331 MI Wayne summer pbw 0.1073 0.6754

2616300331 MI Wayne fall so4 0.1898 0.854

2616300331 MI Wayne fall no3 0.1075 0.9367

2616300331 MI Wayne fall ocm 0.3689 1.0607

2616300331 MI Wayne fall ec 0.0546 0.8862

2616300331 MI Wayne fall soil 0.1676 1.0317

2616300331 MI Wayne fall nh4 0.0866 0.8919

2616300331 MI Wayne fall pbw 0.0553 0.8821

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga winter so4 0.2117 0.8993

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga winter no3 0.2665 0.9856

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga winter ocm 0.2048 0.9716

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga winter ec 0.0413 0.8903

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga winter soil 0.0465 1.0959

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga winter nh4 0.1459 0.9416

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga winter pbw 0.0832 0.9541

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga spring so4 0.3334 0.7145

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga spring no3 0.0374 0.8393

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga spring ocm 0.2068 1.0899

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga spring ec 0.052 0.9362

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga spring soil 0.0697 1.0601

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga spring nh4 0.1256 0.7666

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga spring pbw 0.115 0.7761

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga summer so4 0.3241 0.6303

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga summer no3 0 0.89

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga summer ocm 0.1306 1.0998

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga summer ec 0.0419 0.9354

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga summer soil 0.0583 1.0906

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga summer nh4 0.1074 0.7038

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga summer pbw 0.1183 0.6674

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga fall so4 0.2055 0.8193

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga fall no3 0.1275 0.9189

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga fall ocm 0.2234 1.0245

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga fall ec 0.0499 0.8913

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga fall soil 0.0675 1.0927

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga fall nh4 0.1034 0.8615

3903500381 OH Cuyahoga fall pbw 0.0637 0.8564Site ID State County Season Species Species Comp. of Ave. FRM (fraction) Species RRF

3904900241 OH Franklin winter so4 0.2555 0.8622

3904900241 OH Franklin winter no3 0.2373 1.0002

3904900241 OH Franklin winter ocm 0.2082 0.974

3904900241 OH Franklin winter ec 0.0375 0.8537

3904900241 OH Franklin winter soil 0.0259 1.0844

3904900241 OH Franklin winter nh4 0.1495 0.9261

3904900241 OH Franklin winter pbw 0.0861 0.9274

3904900241 OH Franklin spring so4 0.3754 0.6615

3904900241 OH Franklin spring no3 0.0176 0.8436

3904900241 OH Franklin spring ocm 0.2069 1.062

3904900241 OH Franklin spring ec 0.0405 0.8678

3904900241 OH Franklin spring soil 0.0371 1.0551

3904900241 OH Franklin spring nh4 0.1296 0.7212

3904900241 OH Franklin spring pbw 0.128 0.6992

3904900241 OH Franklin summer so4 0.3703 0.622

3904900241 OH Franklin summer no3 0 0.9056

3904900241 OH Franklin summer ocm 0.1343 1.0654

3904900241 OH Franklin summer ec 0.0311 0.8565

3904900241 OH Franklin summer soil 0.0267 1.0667

3904900241 OH Franklin summer nh4 0.1142 0.7021

3904900241 OH Franklin summer pbw 0.1186 0.6614

3904900241 OH Franklin fall so4 0.2692 0.8119

3904900241 OH Franklin fall no3 0.1186 0.9099

3904900241 OH Franklin fall ocm 0.2489 1.019

3904900241 OH Franklin fall ec 0.0533 0.8371

3904900241 OH Franklin fall soil 0.0423 1.0924

3904900241 OH Franklin fall nh4 0.1217 0.8539

3904900241 OH Franklin fall pbw 0.0821 0.8519

3906100141 OH Hamilton winter so4 0.2685 0.8104

3906100141 OH Hamilton winter no3 0.2378 1.0886

3906100141 OH Hamilton winter ocm 0.19 0.961

3906100141 OH Hamilton winter ec 0.035 0.8969

3906100141 OH Hamilton winter soil 0.0229 1.4146

3906100141 OH Hamilton winter nh4 0.1583 0.9077

3906100141 OH Hamilton winter pbw 0.0874 0.8687

3906100141 OH Hamilton spring so4 0.3583 0.6331

3906100141 OH Hamilton spring no3 0.0025 1.0155

3906100141 OH Hamilton spring ocm 0.1986 1.0798

3906100141 OH Hamilton spring ec 0.0466 0.9228

3906100141 OH Hamilton spring soil 0.0289 1.3785

3906100141 OH Hamilton spring nh4 0.1215 0.6968

3906100141 OH Hamilton spring pbw 0.128 0.6307

3906100141 OH Hamilton summer so4 0.3722 0.577

3906100141 OH Hamilton summer no3 0 1.0923

3906100141 OH Hamilton summer ocm 0.121 1.082

3906100141 OH Hamilton summer ec 0.0309 0.9099

3906100141 OH Hamilton summer soil 0.0199 1.537

3906100141 OH Hamilton summer nh4 0.1178 0.6441

3906100141 OH Hamilton summer pbw 0.1261 0.5734

3906100141 OH Hamilton fall so4 0.2608 0.7754

3906100141 OH Hamilton fall no3 0.1184 0.9857

3906100141 OH Hamilton fall ocm 0.213 1.0235

3906100141 OH Hamilton fall ec 0.0512 0.8876

3906100141 OH Hamilton fall soil 0.0328 1.4007

3906100141 OH Hamilton fall nh4 0.1254 0.846

3906100141 OH Hamilton fall pbw 0.0828 0.8172Site ID State County Season Species Species Comp. of Ave. FRM (fraction) Species RRF

3908110011 OH Jefferson winter so4 0.2367 0.8217

3908110011 OH Jefferson winter no3 0.1709 1.0522

3908110011 OH Jefferson winter ocm 0.3288 0.8819

3908110011 OH Jefferson winter ec 0.0435 0.9091

3908110011 OH Jefferson winter soil 0.0272 0.4368

3908110011 OH Jefferson winter nh4 0.1199 0.8904

3908110011 OH Jefferson winter pbw 0.073 0.8583

3908110011 OH Jefferson spring so4 0.3508 0.6666

3908110011 OH Jefferson spring no3 0.0154 0.9156

3908110011 OH Jefferson spring ocm 0.3078 0.9995

3908110011 OH Jefferson spring ec 0.0395 0.9853

3908110011 OH Jefferson spring soil 0.0407 0.4844

3908110011 OH Jefferson spring nh4 0.114 0.7054

3908110011 OH Jefferson spring pbw 0.1095 0.6713

3908110011 OH Jefferson summer so4 0.3779 0.6156

3908110011 OH Jefferson summer no3 0 1.0837

3908110011 OH Jefferson summer ocm 0.2098 1.0145

3908110011 OH Jefferson summer ec 0.0308 0.9689

3908110011 OH Jefferson summer soil 0.0323 0.3632

3908110011 OH Jefferson summer nh4 0.1065 0.6428

3908110011 OH Jefferson summer pbw 0.1007 0.625

3908110011 OH Jefferson fall so4 0.2315 0.7694

3908110011 OH Jefferson fall no3 0.0702 1.0302

3908110011 OH Jefferson fall ocm 0.372 0.9312

3908110011 OH Jefferson fall ec 0.051 0.9086

3908110011 OH Jefferson fall soil 0.0344 0.4555

3908110011 OH Jefferson fall nh4 0.0859 0.8284

3908110011 OH Jefferson fall pbw 0.0629 0.7951

3911300321 OH Montgomer winter so4 0.2613 0.8598

3911300321 OH Montgomer winter no3 0.2407 1.029

3911300321 OH Montgomer winter ocm 0.1954 0.9442

3911300321 OH Montgomer winter ec 0.036 0.8746

3911300321 OH Montgomer winter soil 0.0259 1.1295

3911300321 OH Montgomer winter nh4 0.1531 0.9304

3911300321 OH Montgomer winter pbw 0.0876 0.9205

3911300321 OH Montgomer spring so4 0.3659 0.6606

3911300321 OH Montgomer spring no3 0.0163 0.8639

3911300321 OH Montgomer spring ocm 0.1895 1.0976

3911300321 OH Montgomer spring ec 0.0442 0.9417

3911300321 OH Montgomer spring soil 0.0253 1.0873

3911300321 OH Montgomer spring nh4 0.1313 0.7149

3911300321 OH Montgomer spring pbw 0.1326 0.6839

3911300321 OH Montgomer summer so4 0.375 0.6234

3911300321 OH Montgomer summer no3 0 0.9474

3911300321 OH Montgomer summer ocm 0.128 1.1047

3911300321 OH Montgomer summer ec 0.029 0.9496

3911300321 OH Montgomer summer soil 0.0205 1.1299

3911300321 OH Montgomer summer nh4 0.1114 0.6931

3911300321 OH Montgomer summer pbw 0.1114 0.6482

3911300321 OH Montgomer fall so4 0.3062 0.8033

3911300321 OH Montgomer fall no3 0.1012 0.9634

3911300321 OH Montgomer fall ocm 0.2221 1.0158

3911300321 OH Montgomer fall ec 0.0514 0.877

3911300321 OH Montgomer fall soil 0.028 1.1391

3911300321 OH Montgomer fall nh4 0.1352 0.8625

3911300321 OH Montgomer fall pbw 0.0982 0.8475Site ID State County Season Species Species Comp. of Ave. FRM (fraction) Species RRF

3915100171 OH Stark winter so4 0.2362 0.8558

3915100171 OH Stark winter no3 0.2234 1.0222

3915100171 OH Stark winter ocm 0.2478 0.9255

3915100171 OH Stark winter ec 0.0414 0.8866

3915100171 OH Stark winter soil 0.0334 1.099

3915100171 OH Stark winter nh4 0.1376 0.925

3915100171 OH Stark winter pbw 0.0802 0.9155

3915100171 OH Stark spring so4 0.3581 0.6834

3915100171 OH Stark spring no3 0.0236 0.855

3915100171 OH Stark spring ocm 0.221 1.0892

3915100171 OH Stark spring ec 0.0501 1.0017

3915100171 OH Stark spring soil 0.058 1.0528

3915100171 OH Stark spring nh4 0.1288 0.7264

3915100171 OH Stark spring pbw 0.1256 0.7009

3915100171 OH Stark summer so4 0.3621 0.6277

3915100171 OH Stark summer no3 0 0.8203

3915100171 OH Stark summer ocm 0.1483 1.0984

3915100171 OH Stark summer ec 0.0403 1.016

3915100171 OH Stark summer soil 0.037 1.0781

3915100171 OH Stark summer nh4 0.1157 0.6739

3915100171 OH Stark summer pbw 0.124 0.651

3915100171 OH Stark fall so4 0.2293 0.8041

3915100171 OH Stark fall no3 0.1262 0.9363

3915100171 OH Stark fall ocm 0.2722 1.0226

3915100171 OH Stark fall ec 0.0545 0.9202

3915100171 OH Stark fall soil 0.0461 1.0959

3915100171 OH Stark fall nh4 0.1105 0.8549

3915100171 OH Stark fall pbw 0.0706 0.8428

3915300171 OH Summit winter so4 0.2511 0.8771

3915300171 OH Summit winter no3 0.2376 1.0052

3915300171 OH Summit winter ocm 0.2185 0.9429

3915300171 OH Summit winter ec 0.0334 0.8677

3915300171 OH Summit winter soil 0.0255 1.0835

3915300171 OH Summit winter nh4 0.1489 0.9374

3915300171 OH Summit winter pbw 0.0851 0.945

3915300171 OH Summit spring so4 0.387 0.7046

3915300171 OH Summit spring no3 0.0072 0.8466

3915300171 OH Summit spring ocm 0.1901 1.0967

3915300171 OH Summit spring ec 0.035 0.9482

3915300171 OH Summit spring soil 0.0304 1.0524

3915300171 OH Summit spring nh4 0.1294 0.7521

3915300171 OH Summit spring pbw 0.1342 0.7384

3915300171 OH Summit summer so4 0.3694 0.6378

3915300171 OH Summit summer no3 0 0.8587

3915300171 OH Summit summer ocm 0.1417 1.1077

3915300171 OH Summit summer ec 0.0332 0.9506

3915300171 OH Summit summer soil 0.0198 1.0744

3915300171 OH Summit summer nh4 0.1121 0.6961

3915300171 OH Summit summer pbw 0.1146 0.6691

3915300171 OH Summit fall so4 0.2443 0.8074

3915300171 OH Summit fall no3 0.1175 0.9392

3915300171 OH Summit fall ocm 0.2636 1.0252

3915300171 OH Summit fall ec 0.0623 0.8883

3915300171 OH Summit fall soil 0.0494 1.086

3915300171 OH Summit fall nh4 0.109 0.8622

3915300171 OH Summit fall pbw 0.0723 0.8506

### 119 

## APPENDIX I I

Ozone Source Appor tionment Modeling Results

### 120 

## APPENDIX I II

PM 2.5 

## Source Apportionment Modeling Results

## Chicago ( Cicero ) , Illinois

2005 (Round 5)

2012 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)

## Clark County, Indiana

2005 (Round 5)

2012 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)

## Dearborn , Mi chigan

2005 (Round 5)

2012 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)

## Cincinnati, Oh io

2005 (Round 5)

2012 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)

## Cleveland, Ohio

2005 (Round 5)

2012 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)

## Steubenville, Ohio

2005 (Round 5)

2012 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)

### 121 

## APPENDIX I V

Haze Source Apportionment Modeling Results

## Boundary Waters, Minnesota

2005 (Round 5)

201 8 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)

## Voyageurs, Minnesota

2005 (Round 5)

201 8 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)

## Seney, Michigan

2005 (Round 5)

201 8 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)

## Isle Royale, Mich igan

2005 (Round 5)

201 8 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)

## Shenandoah, Virginia

2005 (Round 5)

2018 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)

## Mammoth Cave, Kentucky

2005 (Round 5)

2018 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)

## Lye Brook, Vermont

2005 (Round 5)

2018 (Round 4)

2018 (Round 5)

### 1



## Regional Air Quality Analyses for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze: Final Technical Support Document ( Supplement ), September 12, 2008

The purpose of this paper is to summarize a new modeling analysis performed by the Lake Michigan Air Dir ectors Consorti um (LADCO) to address the effect of the recent court decision

vacat ing EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). This new modeling is intended to supplem ent the LADCO Technical Support Document (“ Regional Air Quality Analyses for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze: Final Technical Support Document”, April 25, 2008) , which summarizes the air quality analyses conducted by LADCO and its contractors to support the development of State Implementation Plans for ozone, PM2.5, and regional haze in the States of Illinoi s, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin

.

Compared to the previous LADCO modeling (Round 5.1), the new modeling shows similar results for ozone, but much more nonattainment for PM2.5 and higher visibility levels for regional haze. Specifically, the new modeling shows:

Ozone : Attainment of the 0.08 ppm standard by 2009 everywhere in the region, except Holland, MI , and n onattainment of the 0.075 ppm standard through at least 2018.

PM2.5 : Widespread nonattainment of annual (15 ug/m 3 

## ) and daily (35 ug/m 3 

## ) standards.

Haze : Higher visibility levels on the 20% worst visibility days in 2018 in Class I areas in

the eastern U.S., resulting in most areas being above the glide path.

Background : On July 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit v acated EPA’s CAIR rule (cite). The reductions in NOx and SO2 emissions associated with this rule were a key part

of the LADCO States’ attainment demonstrations for ozone and PM2.5 and the reasonable progress determinations for regional haze . LADCO’s prev ious modeling (Round 5.1) relied on EGU emission projections from EPA’s IPM3.0 analysis, which assumed implementation of Phases I and II of CAIR. For this new modeling, alternative EGU emission projections were developed , which did not rely on CAIR (or IP M).

Model Set

- Up : The new modeling was performed consistent with LADCO’s previous modeling (Round 5.1):

Model Version: CAMx v4.50beta_deposition

Future Years: 2009, 2012, 2018

Runs: (a) Ozone : Summer 2005 meteorology with 12 km grids (b) PM2.5 an d haze : F ull year 2005 meteorology with 36 km grids



## Emission Scenarios: The new modeling assumed the same set of “on the books” controls as

in LADCO’s previous modeling (Round 5.1) for all sectors, except EGUs. In light of the CAIR decision, three new E GU scenarios were prepared:

### 2

Scenario A: 2007 CEM

- based emissions w ere projected for all states in the modeling domain based on EIA growth rates by state (NERC region) and fuel type. The assumed growth rates for the Midwest States were: MAIN (IL, IA, MO, WI): 8.8% (2007

- 2018); ECAR (IN, KY, MI, OH): 13.5% (2007

- 2018); and MAPP (MN): 15.1% (2007

- 2018). No control w as applied. The annual

emissions w ere temporalized based on profiles derived from 2004

- 2006 CEM data. (Note, these are the same temporal prof iles used in R ound 5.1 .)

Scenario B. Scenario A emissions for the LADCO States and select neighboring states (e.g., MN, IA, MO, KY, TN, and WV) w ere adjusted by applying legally enforceable controls (i.e., emission reductions required by a Consent Decree , state rule, or permit). Only those legally enforceable controls identified (and justified) by the States w ere applied. The States also supplied the appropriate control factors. A table summarizing the Scenario B con trols is provided in Appendix I.

Sc enario C. For the years 2009 and 2012, Scenario A emissions for all states w ere adjusted by applying all planned SO2 and NOx controls based on the July 10 CAMD list (i.e., 9 0 % reduction for scrubbers, 9 5 % reduction for SCRs). Because the July 10 CAMD list only includes controls generally out to 2011, additional SO2 and NOx controls for the year 2018 w ere assumed for all

BART

- eligible EGUs in the five LADCO State plus MN, IA, MO, KY, TN, and MO list (i.e., 9 0 % reduction for scrubbers, 9 5 % reduction for SCRs )

. 1 

### A ll Scenario B controls we re included in

Scenario C. A table summarizing the Scenario C controls is provided in Appendix II.



## Table 1 and Figure 1 provide a summary of the 5

- state regional NOx and SO2 emissions for each scenario and future year. (No te, the CAIR emissions included here are based on EPA’s IPM3.0 modeling.) Several comments on the emissions should be noted:

Summer NOx

• There is ll ittle difference between the three alternative scenarios and CAIR . T his suggests that summer ozone concen trations for the alternative scenarios are likely to be similar to those predicted with CAIR (i.e., Round 5.1).

Annual NOx:

• There is a s ignificant change in emissions between scenarios , mostly during the

non

- summer months.

• Scenario B reflects application of NOx controls in several states (e.g., IL,OH, WI).

• Because there are relatively few SCRs (in the LADCO States) on the CAMD list, Scenario C results in only a small emissions decrease compared to Scenario B

.

• Assumed BART controls result in a significant em issions decrease.
Annual SO2

• There is a s ignificant change in emissions between scenarios

.

• Scenario B reflects application of SO2 controls in several states (e.g., I L,OH, WI).

• Because there are several FGD s (in the LADCO States) on the CAMD list,

Scenario C results in a large emissions decrease compared to Scenario B

.

• Assumed BART controls result in a significant emissions decrease (i.e., even

lower emissions than t he IPM

- estimated CAIR emissions).

1 

### A subsequent analysis was conducted with the following inventory changes: (a) 95% reduction for scrubbers, 90% redcuction for SCRs (consistent with EPA’s default assumptions for IPM), and (b) revisions provided for a few plants in Indiana and Minnesota. The changes resulted in a relatively small difference in the regioinal NOx and SO2 emissions (e.g., about a 2% NOx increase and about a 1

- 2% decrease in SO2). To assess the impact of the chan ges, PM2.5 modleing was conducted with the new Scenario B and Scenario C emissions for 2012. The modeling showed little change in the predicted

PM2.5 concentrations.

### 3 

## Figure 1. Regional NOx and SO2 Emissions

Summe r NO x Emi ss ions

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

2005 2007 200

9A 200 9B 200 9C 200 9 C AIR 201 2A 201 2B 201 2C
201 2 C AIR 201 8A 201 8B 201 8C

201 8BART 201 8 C AIR



### Annu al NO x Emi ss ions

0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000

2005 2007 200

9A 200 9B 200 9C 200 9 C AIR 201 2A 201 2B 201 2C
201 2 C AIR 201 8A 201 8B 201 8C

201 8BART 201 8 C AIR



### Annu al SO2 Emi ss ions

0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000

2005 2007 200

9A 200 9B 200 9C 200 9 C AIR 201 2A 201 2B 201 2C
201 2 C AIR 201 8A 201 8B 201 8C

201 8BART 201 8 C AIR

### 4 

## Table 1. Regional NOx and SO2 Emissions



# Summer NOx Emissions (TPD)

2005 2007 2009 A 2009 B 2009 C 2010
CAIR 2012 A 2012 B 2012 C 2012
CAIR 2018 A 2018 B 2018 C 2018 C

BART 2018

CAIR

IL 305 305 311 311 311 275 340 236 236 266 333 227 227 219 224

I N 393 393 376 376 374 384 393 393 390 368 410 386 383 292 264

MI 393 393 350 350 350 242 366 366 366 229 377 377 377 260 243

OH 408 408 395 355 335 285 423 351 351 290 431 366 366 230 290

WI 413 413 167 160 160 238 184 170 170 177 183 168 168 168 17 7

1,912 1,912 1,599 1,552 1,530 1,424 1,706 1,516 1,513 1,330 1,734 1,524 1,521 1,169 1,198



# Annual NOx Emissions (TPY)

2005 2007 2009 A 2009 B 2009 C 2010
CAIR 2012 A 2012 B 2012 C 2012
CAIR 2018 A 2018 B 2018 C 2018 C

BART 2018

CAIR

IL 126,786 121,006 124,917 124,917 124,917 83,224 137,438 81,989 81,989 82,248 135,983 79,771 79,771 63,590 69,958

IN 214,727 203,493 203,776 203,776 201,947 133,188 212,790 212,790 210,877 125,541 221,950 212,805 210,81 0 177,027 90,415

MI 120,332 112,484 112,478 112,478 112,478 83,117 117,621 117,621 117,621 77,897 122,447 122,447 122,447 89,444 79,543

OH 255,554 240,351 240,016 173,071 164,911 94,346 251,065 172,514 172,514 97,679 261,644 179,737 179,737 125,762 95, 678

WI 71,414 54,582 56,540 54,065 54,065 53,032 62,266 57,759 57,759 56,480 61,812 56,952 56,952 56,952 56,158

788,812 731,917 737,727 668,307 658,317 446,908 781,179 642,673 640,760 439,845 803,837 651,712 649,717 512,774 391,752



# Annual SO2 Emissions (TPY)

2005 2007 2009 A 2009 B 2009 C 2010
CAIR 2012 A 2012 B 2012 C 2012
CAIR 2018 A 2018 B 2018 C 2018 C

BART 2018

CAIR

IL 326,598 273,467 281,028 281,028 281,028 295,516 309,209 196,238 194,746 267,1 10 305,364 106,638 105,152 82,351 275,716

IN 866,964 722,301 721,252 721,252 619,486 374,335 754,323 754,323 558,567 379,144 786,551 764,065 559,945 426,695 359,915

MI 350,694 343,487 343,140 343,140 315,326 227,296 358,879 358,879 301,062 233,204 373, 964 373,964 313,677 178,680 242,853

OH 1,100,510 960,820 959,466 959,466 693,438 427,145 1,003,633 897,099 572,807 370,532 1,045,945 819,770 481,623 333,740 315,560

WI 181,426 137,562 142,007 142,007 133,738 139,181 156,659 144,818 133,592 139,203 155, 818 144,027 132,849 77,214 127,073

2,826,192 2,437,638 2,446,892 2,446,892 2,043,017 1,463,473 2,582,703 2,351,356 1,760,775 1,389,192 2,667,641 2,208,463 1,593,245 1,098,679 1,321,116

### 5



## Modeling Results: Several tables summarizing the modeling result s are provided:

Table 2

- future year ozone and PM2.5 concentrations for key monitors in the LADCO region

Table 3

- number of monitoring sites greater than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NNAQS)

Table 4

– visibility levels fo r Class I areas in the eastern U.S.

Note, given that Scenario B and BART controls were only applied in an 11

- state Midwest region, the validity of the results for other Class I areas in the eastern U.S. may be questionable. The Scenario C controls, on the other hand, cover all states and are, thus, likely valid in other Class I areas.

Spatial plots of the future year ozone and PM2.5 concentrations are provided in Figures 2

– 4.

Based on these results, the following key findings should be noted:

Ozone

• There is little change from the previous LADCO modeling (Round 5.1 with CAIR)

• The modeling shows a ttainment of the 0.08 ppm (85 ppb) standard by 2009, except Holland. (Note, Holland does meet this standard by 2012.)

• The modeling shows nonattainm ent of the 0.075 ppm (75 ppb) standard through

2018.

PM2.5

- Annual

• There is a significant change from the previous LADCO modeling (Round 5.1 with CAIR)

• The modeling shows extensive non atta inment of the annual standard.

PM2.5

- Daily

• There is a signif icant change from the previous LADCO modeling (Round 5.1 with CAIR)

• Th e modeling shows extensive nonattainment of the daily standard.

Haze

• There is a significant change from the previous LADCO modeling (Round 5.1 with CAIR)

• T he modeling shows higher vis ibility levels in 2018 for the 20% worst visibility days (average about 0.5 deciviews for the northern Class I areas ). The resulting visibility levels in the northern Class I areas (except Voyageurs) a re above t he glide path.2005

Round 5

with CAIR Round 5

with CAIR Round 5

with CAIR

Site Site ID Base Year Scen. A Scen. B Scen.C Scen. A Scen. B Scen.C Scen. A Scen. B Scen.C Scen.C-BART
Lake Michigan Area

Chiwaukee 550590019 84.7 82.2 82.2 82.0 82.3 81.1 80.8 80.6 80.9 77.2 77.2 77.0 76.0 76.2

Racine 551010017 80.3 77.8 77.8 77.5 77.5 76.6 76.2 76.1 76.1 72.9 72.3 72.1 71.1 71.2
Milwaukee-Bayside 550890085 82.7 79.9 79.9 79.7 79.8 78.5 78.0 78.0 78.0 74.3 73.6 73.4 72.4 72.7
Harrington Beach 550890009 83.3 80.1 80.1 79.9 80.1 78.6 78.1 78.0 78.3 73.9 73.2 73.1 72.2 72.5

Manitowoc 550710007 85.0 80.8 80.8 80.7 80.8 79.0 78.5 78.4 78.6 73.9 73.2 73.1 72.0 72.5
Sheboygan 551170006 88.0 84.1 84.0 83.9 84.0 82.2 81.7 81.5 81.8 76.9 76.0 75.9 74.8 75.4

Kewaunee 550610002 82.7 78.2 78.2 78.0 78.1 76.4 75.9 75.7 75.9 71.3 70.7 70.5 69.4 69.9
Door County 550290004 88.7 84.1 84.1 83.9 83.9 82.0 81.4 81.3 81.5 76.5 75.6 75.5 74.2 74.7

Hammond 180892008 77.7 76.2 76.2 76.0 75.4 75.6 75.3 75.2 74.6 73.2 72.7 72.6 71.7 71.6
Whiting 180890030 79.3 77.8 77.8 77.7 77.0 77.2 76.9 76.8 76.2 74.8 74.3 74.2 73.2 73.1
Michigan City 180910005 77.0 74.5 74.5 74.3 73.9 73.3 72.9 72.8 72.5 69.7 69.2 69.1 68.1 68.1
Ogden Dunes 181270020 78.3 76.3 76.3 76.2 75.6 75.5 75.1 75.0 74.5 72.9 72.3 72.1 71.2 70.8

Holland 260050003 90.0 85.7 85.7 85.5 85.3 83.5 83.1 82.9 82.8 78.2 77.5 77.3 76.0 76.1

Jenison 261390005 82.0 76.8 76.8 76.7 76.0 75.1 74.6 74.5 74.5 70.2 69.6 69.5 67.9 68.7
Muskegon 261210039 85.0 80.6 80.6 80.5 80.5 78.6 78.2 78.1 78.0 73.5 72.8 72.8 71.5 71.9

Indianapolis Area

Noblesville 189571001 82.7 78.3 78.3 78.1 78.1 76.1 75.9 75.7 75.6 70.2 69.9 69.8 68.9 68.7

Fortville 180590003 78.0 74.1 74.1 73.9 73.9 71.9 71.8 71.7 71.4 66.7 66.5 66.3 65.4 65.1

Fort B. Harrison 180970050 78.7 75.4 75.3 75.2 75.1 73.8 73.6 73.6 73.2 70.6 70.3 70.2 69.3 69.1

Detroit Area

New Haven 260990009 86.0 82.4 82.3 82.1 81.4 81.4 81.2 81.1 80.2 78.1 77.8 77.7 76.5 76.1

Warren 260991003 84.0 82.4 82.3 82.2 81.3 82.1 81.8 81.7 80.7 79.7 79.4 79.3 78.0 77.6

Port Huron 261470005 82.7 78.2 78.2 78.1 77.5 76.5 76.3 76.2 75.5 72.6 72.5 72.3 70.9 70.9

Cleveland Area

Ashtabula 390071001 89.0 84.2 84.1 83.9 83.4 82.0 81.8 81.6 81.0 76.8 76.5 76.4 74.8 75.1
Geauga 390550004 79.3 75.8 75.8 75.6 74.7 74.0 73.8 73.7 72.7 69.5 69.2 69.1 67.6 67.3

Eastlake 390850003 86.3 83.1 83.1 82.9 81.9 81.8 81.6 81.5 80.5 78.2 78.0 77.8 76.5 76.2

Akron 391530020 83.7 79.1 79.1 79.0 78.1 76.9 76.7 76.6 75.6 70.9 70.6 70.4 68.7 68.7

Cincinnati Area
Wilmington 390271002 82.3 77.3 77.4 77.1 77.5 75.3 75.2 74.8 74.9 70.1 69.9 69.5 67.1 68.3
Sycamore 390610006 84.7 81.5 81.4 81.1 81.9 80.4 80.2 79.8 80.3 76.4 76.0 75.7 73.5 74.6

Lebanon 391650007 87.7 82.8 82.8 82.4 83.0 80.8 80.7 80.3 80.7 75.4 75.1 74.8 72.6 74.2

Columbus Area

London 390970007 79.7 75.0 75.0 74.8 75.0 73.0 72.8 72.7 72.6 68.1 67.8 67.6 65.9 66.3
New Albany 390490029 86.3 82.1 82.1 81.9 81.8 80.2 80.0 79.9 79.6 74.7 74.3 74.2 73.3 73.0

Franklin 290490028 80.3 76.7 76.6 76.5 75.9 75.1 74.9 74.8 74.1 70.5 70.2 70.1 70.2 69.0

St. Louis Area
W. Alton (MO) 291831002 86.3 81.1 81.2 81.1 81.0 80.0 79.9 79.9 78.6 76.9 76.8 76.7 74.2 74.9
Orchard (MO) 291831004 87.0 82.1 82.1 82.0 82.0 80.9 80.8 80.7 80.0 77.7 77.6 77.4 75.2 76.2
Sunset Hills (MO) 291890004 82.3 79.2 79.2 79.1 78.7 78.3 78.1 78.1 77.1 75.3 75.2 75.1 73.0 73.9
Arnold (MO) 290990012 82.3 77.8 77.8 77.7 77.2 76.7 76.6 76.5 75.6 73.6 73.4 73.4 71.3 72.0
Margaretta (MO) 295100086 83.0 79.8 79.8 79.7 79.3 78.8 78.7 78.6 77.9 75.7 75.6 75.5 73.7 74.4
Maryland Heights (MO) 291890014 87.3 85.4 85.4 85.3 84.0 84.3 84.1 84.0 81.7 81.1 80.9 80.8 78.4 78.1 Round 5 without CAIR Round 5 without CAIR Round 5 without CAIR 

# Table 2a. Ozone Modeling Results

2009 2012 20182005

Round 5

with CAIR Round 5

with CAIR Round 5

with CAIR

Site Site ID Base Year Scen. A Scen. B Scen.C Scen. A Scen. B Scen.C Scen. A Scen. B Scen.C Scen.C-BART

Illinois
Chicago - Washington HS 170310022 15.2 14.9 14.8 14.5 14.1 14.8 14.7 14.2 14.0 15.0 14.6 14.2 13.7 13.9
Chicago - Mayfair 170310052 15.8 15.1 15.1 14.8 14.4 15.1 14.9 14.5 14.2 15.1 14.7 14.3 13.7 13.9
Chicago - Springfield 170310057 15.0 14.6 14.6 14.3 13.9 14.6 14.4 14.0 13.8 14.8 14.4 14.0 13.4 13.7
Chicago - Lawndale 170310076 14.9 14.5 14.5 14.2 13.8 14.5 14.3 13.9 13.7 14.7 14.3 13.9 13.3 13.6

Blue Island 170312001 14.8 14.4 14.4 14.0 13.7 14.4 14.2 13.8 13.6 14.5 14.1 13.7 13.2 13.4

Summit 170313301 15.2 14.9 14.9 14.6 14.2 14.9 14.7 14.3 14.0 15.0 14.6 14.3 13.7 13.9

Cicero 170316005 15.5 15.1 15.1 14.8 14.4 15.1 14.9 14.5 14.3 15.2 14.9 14.4 13.9 14.2
Granite City 171191007 16.7 16.3 16.2 15.9 15.1 16.1 16.0 15.3 14.9 15.9 15.6 14.9 14.2 14.3

E. St. Louis 171630010 15.6 15.2 15.2 14.8 14.1 15.0 14.9 14.3 13.9 14.9 14.6 14.0 13.3 13.4

Indiana

Jeffersonville 180190005 16.4 15.8 15.7 14.8 13.8 15.8 15.6 14.5 13.7 16.0 15.5 14.3 13.7 13.4
Jasper 180372001 15.2 14.3 14.2 13.4 12.4 14.2 14.0 13.0 12.2 14.3 13.9 12.8 12.1 11.8
Gary 180890031 15.6 13.9 13.9 13.5 13.0 13.8 13.6 13.1 12.8 13.7 13.4 12.9 12.3 12.4
Indy-Washington Park 180970078 15.3 14.4 14.4 13.6 12.8 14.3 14.2 13.2 12.6 14.3 13.9 12.9 12.2 12.0
Indy-W 18th Street 180970081 16.0 15.1 15.1 14.3 15.0 14.9 13.9 15.0 14.6 13.5 12.8
Indy- Michigan Street 180970083 15.9 15.0 15.0 14.2 13.4 14.9 14.8 13.8 13.1 14.9 14.5 13.5 12.8 12.6

Michigan

Allen Park 261630001 14.5 11.0 14.0 13.5 13.0 14.0 13.8 13.2 12.8 13.9 13.6 13.0 12.4 12.4

Southwest HS 261630015 15.9 15.3 15.3 14.8 14.2 15.2 15.0 14.4 13.9 15.1 14.8 14.1 13.5 13.5

Linwood 261630016 14.6 14.1 14.1 13.6 13.1 14.0 13.9 13.3 12.8 13.9 13.6 13.0 12.5 12.5

Dearborn 261630033 17.5 17.0 17.0 16.4 15.8 16.9 16.7 16.0 15.5 16.8 16.4 15.7 15.1 15.1
Wyandotte 261630036 14.7 14.2 14.1 13.6 13.1 14.1 13.9 13.3 12.8 14.0 13.7 13.0 12.4 12.5

Ohio

Middletown - Bonita 390170003 16.2 15.3 15.2 14.3 13.5 15.2 15.0 13.9 13.2 15.2 14.8 13.7 13.0 12.8

Fairfield 390170016 15.8 15.1 15.0 14.1 13.1 15.1 14.9 13.7 12.9 15.2 14.7 13.5 12.8 12.5

Cleveland-28th Street 390350027 15.4 14.9 14.9 14.3 13.5 14.7 14.5 13.9 13.2 14.6 14.2 13.5 12.8 12.7

Cleveland-St. Tikhon 390350038 17.4 16.7 16.7 16.0 15.2 16.5 16.3 15.6 14.8 16.3 16.0 15.2 14.4 14.3
Cleveland-Broadway 390350045 16.5 15.9 15.8 15.2 14.4 15.6 15.5 14.8 14.0 15.5 15.1 14.4 13.6 13.5
Cleveland-GT Craig 390350060 17.1 16.5 16.4 15.8 15.0 16.3 16.1 15.4 14.6 16.1 15.7 15.0 14.2 14.1
Newburg Hts - Harvard Ave 390350065 16.0 15.4 15.3 14.7 14.0 15.2 15.0 14.3 13.6 15.1 14.7 14.0 13.2 13.1
Columbus - Fairgrounds 390490024 15.3 14.6 14.5 13.7 12.9 14.4 14.1 13.2 12.6 14.2 13.8 12.8 12.2 12.0

Columbus - Ann Street 390490025 15.1 14.4 14.3 13.5 12.7 14.2 13.9 13.1 12.4 14.1 13.6 12.6 12.0 11.9
Cincinnati - Seymour 390610014 17.3 16.6 16.5 15.5 14.5 16.5 16.3 15.1 14.3 16.6 16.2 14.9 14.2 13.8

Cincinnati - Taft Ave 390610040 15.5 14.8 14.7 13.8 12.8 14.8 14.6 13.4 12.6 14.9 14.5 13.2 12.5 12.2

Cincinnati - 8th Ave 390610042 16.9 12.0 16.1 15.0 14.0 16.1 15.9 14.7 13.8 16.2 15.7 14.4 13.7 13.4

Sharonville 390610043 15.6 14.9 14.8 13.9 12.9 14.9 14.7 13.5 12.7 14.9 14.5 13.3 12.6 12.3

Norwood 390617001 16.2 15.5 15.4 14.4 13.4 15.4 15.2 14.0 13.2 15.5 15.1 13.8 13.1 12.8

St. Bernard 390618001 17.6 16.8 16.7 15.7 14.7 16.7 16.5 15.3 14.4 16.8 16.4 15.1 14.3 14.0

Steubenville 390810016 15.8 14.5 14.4 13.5 12.8 14.3 14.2 13.1 12.5 14.8 14.5 13.3 12.9 12.7
Mingo Junction 390811001 16.5 15.2 15.2 14.3 13.5 15.0 14.9 13.8 13.2 15.6 15.2 14.0 13.6 13.4

Ironton 390870010 15.2 14.8 14.6 13.6 12.8 14.6 14.4 13.2 12.5 14.8 14.1 12.8 12.4 12.3
Dayton 391130032 15.5 14.9 14.8 14.0 13.2 14.8 14.6 13.6 12.9 14.8 14.3 13.3 12.6 12.4

New Boston 391450013 14.7 12.0 14.0 13.0 12.1 14.1 13.8 12.5 11.9 14.2 13.6 12.2 11.7 11.6

Canton - Dueber 391510017 16.3 15.7 15.6 14.8 14.0 15.5 15.3 14.4 13.6 15.4 14.9 14.0 13.3 13.3

Canton - Market 391510020 14.6 11.0 14.1 13.3 12.6 13.9 13.7 12.9 12.3 13.9 13.5 12.6 12.0 11.9

Akron - Brittain 391530017 15.1 14.6 14.5 13.8 13.0 14.4 14.2 13.4 12.7 14.3 13.8 13.0 12.3 12.3
Akron - W. Exchange 391530023 14.3 13.7 13.7 13.0 12.3 13.6 13.3 12.6 12.0 13.4 13.0 12.2 11.6 11.5 Round 5 without CAIR Round 5 without CAIR Round 5 without CAIR

2009 2018 2012 

# Table 2b. PM 2.5 

# Modeling Results (Annual)2005

Round 5

with CAIR Round 5

with CAIR Round 5

with CAIR
Key Site County Site ID Base Year Scen. A Scen. B Scen.C Scen. A Scen. B Scen.C Scen. A Scen. B Scen.C Scen. C - BART

Illinois
Chicago - Washington HS Cook 170310022 36.6 36 36 36 36 36 36 37 36 37 36 37 37 35
Chicago - Mayfair Cook 170310052 40.3 37 37 37 36 37 36 37 36 38 37 37 37 36
Chicago - Springfield Cook 170310057 37.4 34 34 33 32 35 34 33 32 36 34 33 33 31
Chicago - Lawndale Cook 170310076 38.1 35 35 35 35 36 35 36 35 36 35 36 36 34

McCook Cook 170311016 43.0 39 39 39 39 40 39 40 39 40 40 41 40 38

Blue Island Cook 170312001 37.7 35 35 35 34 36 35 36 34 36 35 36 36 33

Schiller Park Cook 170313103 41.6 40 40 40 39 40 40 40 39 41 40 40 39 39

Summit Cook 170313301 40.2 38 38 39 38 39 38 39 38 39 38 39 39 37
Maywood Cook 170316005 39.2 38 38 38 38 38 38 39 38 39 38 39 39 37
Granite City Madison 171191007 39.2 36 36 35 33 36 35 34 33 36 35 35 33 32

E. St. Louis St. Clair 171630010 33.7 31 31 30 28 31 30 29 28 31 30 30 29 28

Indiana

Jeffersonville Clark 180190005 38.4 35 33 31 29 35 34 32 31 37 35 34 33 31
Jasper Dubois 180372001 36.2 32 32 30 28 32 32 30 29 33 31 31 30 28
Gary - IITRI Lake 180890022 39.0 35 35 35 34 35 34 35 34 36 36 36 35 35
Gary - Burr School Lake 180890026 39.0 34 34 34 33 34 34 35 34 34 34 34 34 32
Gary Lake 180890031 35.2 29 28 26 24 28 28 24 24 29 28 27 27 27
Indy-West Street Marion 180970043 38.0 34 34 33 33 35 35 34 33 36 35 34 34 33
Indy-English Avenue Marion 180970066 38.0 34 34 32 32 35 34 33 32 35 34 33 33 32
Indy-Washington Park Marion 180970078 36.6 33 33 32 31 33 33 32 31 34 33 32 32 32
Indy-W 18th Street Marion 180970081 38.3 33 33 31 31 33 33 32 31 34 33 32 32 31
Indy- Michigan Street Marion 180970083 36.0 32 32 29 28 32 31 29 28 32 31 29 29 29

Michigan

Luna Pier Monroe 261150005 38.9 34 34 32 32 34 34 32 32 34 33 32 31 31

Oak Park Oakland 261250001 39.9 38 38 37 36 38 37 37 36 38 37 37 36 35

Port Huron St. Clair 261470005 39.6 36 35 35 34 35 35 35 34 35 35 34 33 33
Ypsilanti Washtenaw 261610008 39.5 37 37 36 35 37 36 36 35 37 36 36 35 34

Allen Park Wayne 261630001 38.6 36 36 36 35 36 35 35 34 36 35 35 34 33

Southwest HS Wayne 261630015 40.1 36 36 36 35 36 35 35 35 36 35 35 34 33

Linwood Wayne 261630016 43.0 40 40 40 39 40 40 40 39 40 39 39 39 38

E 7 Mile Wayne 261630019 41.0 39 39 39 38 39 39 39 38 39 38 38 38 37

Dearborn Wayne 261630033 43.9 41 41 41 40 41 41 41 40 41 40 40 40 39
Wyandotte Wayne 261630036 37.2 36 36 36 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 34
Newberry Wayne 261630038 42.7 39 39 39 38 39 38 38 37 39 38 38 37 36

FIA Wayne 261630039 39.7 35 34 34 33 35 34 34 33 35 34 33 33 31

Ohio

Middleton Butler 390170003 39.3 33 32 29 28 33 33 29 28 34 32 29 28 27

Fairfield Butler 390170016 37.1 32 31 29 27 31 30 28 28 32 30 29 28 27

Butler 390170017 40.8 33 32 30 29 33 33 30 29 33 32 30 29 28

Cleveland-28th Street Cuyahoga 390350027 36.9 34 34 33 32 34 33 33 32 34 33 33 31 31

Cleveland-St. Tikhon Cuyahoga 390350038 44.2 40 40 37 36 40 39 36 35 40 38 36 35 34
Cleveland-Broadway Cuyahoga 390350045 38.8 35 35 33 31 35 34 32 30 35 34 31 29 29
Cleveland-GT Craig Cuyahoga 390350060 42.1 39 39 38 37 39 38 38 37 39 38 37 36 35
Newburg Hts - Harvard Ave Cuyahoga 390350065 38.9 35 35 33 31 35 34 32 30 36 35 32 31 30
Columbus - Fairgrounds Franklin 390490024 38.5 34 34 33 33 34 33 32 32 34 34 33 32 31

Columbus - Ann Street Franklin 390490025 38.5 34 33 31 31 33 33 31 31 34 33 31 31 30

Cincinnait Hamilton 390610006 40.6 33 33 30 27 33 32 29 28 34 32 29 28 27 Round 5 without CAIR Round 5 without CAIR Round 5 without CAIR

2009 2012 2018 

# Table 2c. PM 2.5 

# Modeling Results (Daily)2005

Round 5

with CAIR Round 5

with CAIR Round 5

with CAIR
Key Site County Site ID Base Year Scen. A Scen. B Scen.C Scen. A Scen. B Scen.C Scen. A Scen. B Scen.C Scen. C - BART Round 5 without CAIR Round 5 without CAIR Round 5 without CAIR

2009 2012 2018 

# Table 2c. PM 2.5 

# Modeling Results (Daily)

Cincinnati - Seymour Hamilton 390610014 38.4 33 33 28 26 33 32 27 25 33 31 29 25 24

Cincinnati - Taft Ave Hamilton 390610040 36.7 31 30 26 24 31 30 26 24 32 29 26 24 23

Cincinnati - 8th Ave Hamilton 390610042 37.3 32 32 30 28 32 31 29 28 33 31 29 28 27

Sharonville Hamilton 390610043 36.0 32 31 30 28 32 31 29 28 32 31 29 28 27

Norwood Hamilton 390617001 38.8 34 33 32 30 33 33 31 30 34 33 31 30 29

St. Bernard Hamilton 390618001 40.6 35 35 32 30 35 34 31 30 35 33 32 31 29

Steubenville Jefferson 390810016 40.7 36 35 32 29 35 34 30 28 37 35 31 29 28
Mingo Junction Jefferson 390811001 42.0 37 37 33 30 37 36 32 30 38 36 32 30 30
Dayton Montgomery 391130032 37.8 34 33 31 30 33 33 31 30 34 33 31 31 30

Canton - Dueber Stark 391510017 38.6 33 32 30 28 33 31 30 28 33 30 29 28 27

Akron - Brittain Summit 391530017 38.1 33 33 31 30 33 32 31 30 33 32 30 29 29

Wisconsin
Green Bay - Est High Brown 550090005 37.1 35 34 35 35 34 35 35 34 33 33 33 32 32

Madison Dane 550250047 36.4 33 33 32 32 33 32 32 31 32 31 30 29 29

Milwaukee-Health Center Milwaukee 550790010 38.7 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 34 35 34 34 34 33
Milwaukee-SER Hdqs Milwaukee 550790026 37.4 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 33
Milwaukee-Virginia FS Milwaukee 550790043 39.9 37 37 37 36 37 36 37 36 36 36 37 36 36
Milwaukee- Fire Dept Hdqs Milwaukee 550790099 37.8 34 34 33 33 34 33 33 32 34 33 33 33 32

Waukesha Waukesha 551330027 35.5 32 32 32 31 32 32 32 31 32 31 31 30 29

### 10 

## Table 3. Mo deling Res ults: Number of Sites > NAAQS

Ozone (85 ppb) Round 5 without CAIR Round 5 w/ CAIR

2009 Baseyear Scen. A Scen. B Scen. C Scen. C

- BART

IL 0 0 0 0

---- 0

IN 0 0 0 0

---- 0

MI 3 1 1 1

---- 1

OH 4 0 0 0

---- 0

WI 2 0 0 0

---- 0

Total 9 1 1 1 1

2012

IL 0 0 0 0

---- 0

IN 0 0 0 0

---- 0

MI 3 0 0 0

---- 0

OH 4 0 0 0

---- 0

WI 2 0 0 0

---- 0

Total 9 0 0 0 0

2018

IL 0 0 0 0 0 0

IN 0 0 0 0 0 0

MI 3 0 0 0 0 0

OH 4 0 0 0 0 0

WI 2 0 0 0 0 0

Total 9 0 0 0 0 0

O zone (75 ppb) Round 5 without CAIR Round5 w/ CAIR

2009 Baseyear Scen. A Scen. B Scen. C Scen. C

- BART

IL 12 6 6 6

---- 4

IN 26 10 9 8

---- 5

MI 21 12 12 12

---- 12

OH 45 27 25 24

---- 21

WI 12 10 10 10

---- 10

Total 116 65 62 60

---- 52

20 12

IL 12 3 3 3

---- 1

IN 26 5 4 4

---- 3

MI 21 9 8 8

---- 6

OH 45 18 14 12

---- 11

WI 12 10 9 9

---- 9

Total 116 45 38 36 30

2018

IL 12 0 0 0 0 0

IN 26 0 0 0 0 0

MI 21 3 3 3 3 3

OH 45 3 3 2 1 1

WI 12 3 2 1 1 1

Total 116 9 8 6 5 5

### 11

PM2.5

- Annual Round 5 without CAIR Round 5 w/ CAIR

2009 Baseyear Scen. A Scen. B Scen. C Scen. C

- BART

IL 7 4 4 1

---- 1

IN 6 2 2 0

---- 0

MI 2 2 2 1

---- 1

OH 26 1 3 12 5

---- 1

WI 0 0 0 0

---- 0

Total 41 21 20 7 3

2012

IL 7 3 1 1

---- 0

IN 6 1 1 0

---- 0

MI 2 2 1 1

---- 1

OH 26 12 9 4

---- 0

WI 0 0 0 0

---- 0

Total 41 18 12 6 1

2018

IL 7 3 1 0 0 0

IN 6 1 1 0 0 0

MI 2 2 1 1 1 1

OH 26 13 8 2 0 0

WI 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 41 19 11 3 1 1

PM2.5

- Daily

Round 5 without CAIR Round 5 w/ CAIR

2009 Baseyear Scen. A Scen. B Scen. C Scen. C

- BART

IL 16 7 7 6

---- 6

IN 13 0 0 0

---- 0

MI 14 10 9 9

---- 5

OH 31 4 3 2

---- 2

WI 8 1 1 1

---- 1

Total 82 2 2 20 18

---- 14

2012

IL 16 9 6 8

---- 6

IN 13 0 0 0

---- 0

MI 14 8 6 6

---- 5

OH 31 3 3 2

---- 1

WI 8 1 1 1

---- 1

Total 82 21 16 1 7 13

2018

IL 16 10 6 8 8 5

IN 13 4 1 1 0 0

MI 14 8 6 6 5 4

OH 31 5 3 2 1 0

WI 8 1 1 1 1 1

Total 82 2 8 17 18 1 5 10

### 12 

## Ta ble 4 . Mo deling Results: Future Year Visibility Levels

Worst 20% 2018

Round 5 without CAIR Round 5 w/ CAIR

Site Baseline

(2000

- 2004) 2018 URP Scen. A Scen. B Scen. C Scen. C

BART

BOWA1 19.86 17.94 19.09 18.87 18.54 18.02 17.94

VOYA2 19.48 17.75 18.60 18.44 18.17 17.77 17.63

SENE1 24.38 21.64 24.02 23.58 23.03 22.38 22.59

ISLE1 21.59 19.43 21.05 20.86 20.62 20.22 20.09

ISLE9 21.59 19.43 20.83 20.58 20.38 19.84 19.84

HEGL1 26.75 23.13 26.24 25.83 24.87 24.23 24.22

MI NG1 28.15 24.27 27.51 26.98 25.81 24.93 24.74

CACR1 26.36 22.91 25.32 24.80 23.57 22.97 22.44

UPBU1 26.27 22.82 25.31 24.79 23.50 22.79 22.59

MACA1 31.37 26.64 30.11 29.08 27.06 26.24 26.10

DOSO1 29.05 24.69 27.88 26.96 24.36 23.74 23.00

SHEN1 29 .31 25.12 28.38 27.65 25.24 24.69 23.92

JARI1 29.12 24.91 28.06 27.21 25.00 24.48 24.06

BRIG1 29.01 25.05 28.10 28.07 26.57 26.25 25.21

LYBR1 24.45 21.48 24.06 23.86 22.58 22.30 21.14

ACAD1 22.89 20.45 22.88 22.76 22.31 22.16 21.49

Best 20% 2018

Round 5 without CAIR Round 5 w/ CAIR

Site Baseline

(2000

- 2004) 2018 Max Scen. A Scen. B Scen. C Scen. C

BART

BOWA1 6.42 6.42 6.20 6.17 6.16 6.12 6.14

VOYA2 7.09 7.09 6.87 6.83 6.81 6.78 6.75

SENE1 7.14 7.14 7.80 7.78 7. 81 7.77 7.71

ISLE1 6.75 6.75 6.77 6.76 6.72 6.67 6.60

ISLE9 6.75 6.75 6.63 6.61 6.58 6.53 6.52

HEGL1 12.84 12.84 12.17 12.20 12.07 11.63 11.66

MING1 14.46 14.46 13.78 13.77 13.70 13.37 13.28

CACR1 11.24 11.24 10.94 10.99 10.97 10.78 10. 52

UPBU1 11.71 11.71 11.18 11.23 11.18 10.96 10.73

MACA1 16.51 16.51 16.32 16.21 15.76 15.34 15.25

DOSO1 12.28 12.28 12.02 11.84 11.27 11.03 11.00

SHEN1 10.93 10.93 10.98 10.91 10.25 10.16 9.91

JARI1 14.21 14.21 14.19 13.98 13.42 13.21 13.14

BRI G1 14.33 14.33 14.32 14.46 14.22 14.17 13.92

LYBR1 6.37 6.37 6.39 6.38 6.31 6.28 6.14

ACAD1 8.78 8.78 8.97 8.96 8.90 8.89 8.82

### 13 

## Figure 2. Ozone Modeling Results

2009 Round 5

–

S cen

. A Round 5

– Scen. B Round 5

– Scen. C Round 5

- CAIR

2012 Round 5

–

Scen. A Round 5

– Scen. B Round 5

– Scen. C Round 5

- CAIR

2018 Round 5

–

Scen. A Round 5

– Scen. B Round 5

– Scen. C Round 5

- CAIR

### 14 

## Figure 3. PM2.5 Annual Modeling Results

2009 Round 5

– Scen. A Round 5

– S cen. B Round 5

– Scen. C Round 5

- CAIR

2012 Round 5

– Scen. A Round 5

– Scen. B Round 5

– Scen. C Round 5

- CAIR

2018 Round 5

– Scen. A Round 5

– Scen. B Round 5

– Scen. C Round 5

- CAIR

### 15 

## Figure 4 . PM2.5 Daily Modeling Results

2009 Round 5

– Scen. A Round 5

– Scen. B Round 5

– Scen. C Round 5

- CAIR

2012 Round 5

– Scen. A Round 5

– Scen. B Round 5

– Scen. C Round 5

- CAIR

2018 Round 5

– Scen. A Round 5

– Scen. B Round 5

– Scen. C Round 5

- CAIR

# Appendix I

Scenario B (Legally Enforceable) ControlsNOx

– 2009

Point Source Grown and Controlled Emissions by facility for NOX r6s1b_2009 Base Year = 2002

Future Year = 2009

STID=17 CYID=57 fcid=057801AAA name=AES DUCK CREEK

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 57 057801AAA 0001 0001 01 10100202 NOX 0.8147 0.8416 0.8416 0.00 0.00 SCR SCR added by LADCO

STID=17 CYID=143 fcid=143805AAG name=AES ED EDWARDS STATION

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 143 143805AAG 0001 0001 01 10100202 NOX 3.0515 3.1522 3.1522 0.00 0.00 lnb LNB added by LADCO

17 143 143805AAG 0001 0003 01 10100202 NOX 6.9419 7.1708 7.1708 0.00 0.00 lnb LNB added by LADCO 17 143 143805AAG 0002 0004 01 10100202 NOX 2.1310 2.2013 2.2013 0.00 0.00 lnb LNB added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 12.1244 12.5243 12.5243 cyid 12.1244 12.5243 12.5243

stid 12.9392 13.3659 13.3659

STID=39 CYID=1 fcid=0701000007 name="DP&L, J.M. STUART GENERATING STATION"

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrlde s

39 1 0701000007 R1 B001 B001P1 10100202 NOX 6.9860 6.9756 2.3252 0.85 0.95 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 1 0701000007 R2 B002 B002P1 10100202 NO X 3.6327 3.6273 1.2091 0.85 0.95 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 1 0701000007 R3 B003 B003P1 10100202 NOX 5.0133 5.0058 1.6686 0.85 0.95 SCR SCR added by LADCO 39 1 0701000007 R4 B004 B004P1 10100202 NOX 7.8493 7.8376 2.6125 0.85 0.95 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 23.4814 23.4464 7.8155 cyi d 23.4814 23.4464 7.8155

STID=39 CYID=167 fcid=0684000000 name=MUSKINGUM RIVER POWER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control E F Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

39 167 0684000000 R1 B001 B001P1 10200501 NOX 0.0017 0.0017 0.0001 0.00 0.95 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R2 B002 B002P1 10100201 NOX 5.8167 5.8080 0.2904 0.00 0.95 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R2 B002 B002P2 10100501 NOX 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.95 SCR SCR added by LADCO 39 167 0684000000 R3 B003 B003P1 10100201 NOX 7.9017 7.8899 0.3945 0.00 0.95 SCR SCR added by LADCO 39 167 0684000000 R3 B003 B003P2 10100501 NOX 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.95 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R4 B004 B004P1 10100203 NOX 7.8775 7.8657 0.3933 0.00 0.95 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R4 B004 B004P2 10100501 NOX 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.95 SCR SCR added by LADCO 39 167 0684000000 R6 B006 B006P1 10100202 NOX 3.8586 3.8528 0.1926 0.00 0.95 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R6 B006 B006P2 10100501 NOX 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.95 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- f cid 25.4561 25.4182 1.2709 cyid 25.4561 25.4182 1.2709

stid 48.9375 48.8646 9.0864

STID=55 CYID=79 fcid=241007800 name=WIS ELECTRIC POWER VALLEY STATION

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future YearSTID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

55 79 241007800 S11 B21 01 10100202 NOX 2.7972 2.8 895 1.6470 0.00 0.43 SCR SCR added by LADCO 55 79 241007800 S11 B22 01 10100202 NOX 2.9073 3.0032 1.7118 0.00 0.43 SCR SCR added by LADCO 55 79 241007800 S12 B23 01 10100202 NOX 2.3270 2.4038 1.2740 0.00 0.47 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 79 241007800 S12 B24 01 1010020 2 NOX 2.3427 2.4199 1.2826 0.00 0.47 SCR Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 10.3742 10.7164 5.9154 cyid 10.3742 10.7164 5.9154

STID=55 CYID=117 fcid=460033090 name=WP & L Alliant Energy

- Edgewater Gen Station

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

55 117 460033090 S1 1 B23 01 10100203 NOX 1.6197 1.6731 1.0038 0.00 0.40 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 117 460033090 S11 B24 01 10100203 NOX 4.1072 4.2426 3. 4789 0.00 0.18 SCR SCR added by LADCO 55 117 460033090 S12 B25 01 10100221 NOX 5.6804 5.8677 4.9876 0.00 0.15 SCR SCR added by LADCO

- --- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 11.4072 11.7834 9.4703 cyid 11.4072 11.7834 9.4703

stid 21.7814 22.4997 15.3857

======== ======== ========== 83.6581 84.7302 37.8380NOx

- 2012

Point Source Grown and Controlled Emissions by facility for N OX r6s1b_2012 Base Year = 2002

Future Year = 2012

STID=17 CYID=33 fcid=0338 01AAA name=AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING CO

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc poli d Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 33 033801AAA 0005 0005 01 10100202 NOX 1.642 1.871 0.9357 0.00 0.500 SCR SCR added by LADCO 17 33 033801AAA 0006 0006 01 10100202 NOX 2.116 2.413 1.2063 0.00 0.500 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 3.758 4.284 2.1420 cyid 3.758 4.284 2.1420

STID=17 CYID=57 fcid=057801AAA name=AES DUCK CREEK

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 57 057801AAA 0001 0001 01 10100202 NOX 0.815 0.929 0.9288 0.00 0.000 SCR SCR added by LADCO

STID=17 CYID=79 fcid=079808AAA name=AMER EN ENERGY GENERATING CO

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 79 079808AAA 0003 0003 01 10100202 NOX 6.735 7.678 7.6780 0.00 0.000 SCR SCR added by LADCO 17 79 079808AAA 0012 0013 01 10100501 NOX 5.936 5.378 5.3781 0.00 0.000 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 12.671 13.056 13.0561 cyid 12.671 13.056 13.0561

STID=17 CYID=97 fcid=097190AAC name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctr ltype ctrldes

17 97 097190AAC 0016 0031 02 10100401 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SCR added by LADCO

STID=17 CYID=137 fcid=137805AAA name=AMEREN ENE RGY GENERATING CO

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons /Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 137 137805AAA 0003 0003 01 10100202 NOX 5.356 6.106 6.1058 0.00 0.000 LNB LNB added by LADCO

STID=17 CYID=143 fcid=143805AAG name=AES ED EDWARDS STATION

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 143 143805AAG 0001 0001 01 10100202 NOX 3.052 3.479 3.4789 0.00 0.000 lnb LNB added by LADCO 17 143 143805AAG 0001 0003 01 10100202 NOX 6.942 7.914 7.9141 0.00 0.000 lnb LNB added by LADCO

17 143 14

3805AAG 0002 0004 01 10100202 NOX 2.131 2.429 2.4294 0.00 0.000 lnb LNB added by LADCO

---- -------- - ------- ---------- fcid 12.124 13.822 13.8224 cyid 12.124 13.822 13.8224STID=17 CYID=167 fcid=167120AAO name=CITY WATER LIGHT & POWER

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 167 167120AAO 0010 0012 01 10100203 NOX 6.527 7.441 0.0074 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SHUTDOWN added by LADCO

17 167 167120AAO 0010 0013 01 10100203 NOX 2.646 3.017 0.0030 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SHUTDOWN added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 9.173 10.458 0.0105 cyid 9.173 10.458 0.0 105

STID=17 CYID=179 fcid=179801AAA name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 179 179801AAA 0018 0029 01 10 100203 NOX 22.429 25.570 1.2785 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

17 179 179801AAA 0018 0031 01 10100203 NOX 38.993 44.454 2.2227 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 61.422 7 0.024 3.5012 cyid 61.422 70.024 3.5012

STID=17 CYID=197 fcid=197809AAO name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 197 197809AAO 0032 0033 02 10100604 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.800 SCR SCR added by LADCO

STID=17 CYID=197 fcid=197810AAK name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year F uture Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 197 197810AAK 0011 0016 02 10100222 NOX 5.731 6.534 3.9203 0.00 0.400 SCR SCR added by LADCO

17 197 197810AAK 0011 0016 03 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.400 SCR SCR added by LADCO 17 197 197810AAK 0013 0010 02 10100223 NOX 8.598 9.802 0.0098 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SCR added by LADCO

17 197 197810AAK 0013 0010 03 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SCR added by LADCO

17 197 197810AAK 0007 0012 02 10100223 NOX 10.974 12.511 0.01 25 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SCR added by LADCO 17 197 197810AAK 0007 0012 03 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SCR added by LADCO

-- -- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 25.303 28.847 3.9426 cyid 25.303 28.847 3.9426

stid 130.622 147.527 43.5096

STID=27 CYID=61 fcid=2706100004 name=Minnesota Power Inc

- Boswell Energy Ctr

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

27 61 2706100004 SV003 EU003 001 10100226 NOX 13.661 14.142 2.8284 0.00 0.800 SCR SCR added by LADCO

27 61 2706100004 SV003 EU00 3 002 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.800 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fci d 13.661 14.142 2.8284 cyid 13.661 14.142 2.8284

STID=27 CYID=109 fcid=2710900011 name=Rochester Public Utilities

- Silver Lake

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes27 1 09 2710900011 SV003 EU004 001 10100202 NOX 2.079 2.152 1.2911 0.00 0.400 SNCR SCR added by LADCO

---- ---- ---- -------- ---------- stid 15.739 16.294 4.1195

STID=39 CYID=1 fcid=0701000007 name="DP&L, J.M. STUART GENERATING STATION"

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid T ons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

39 1 0701000007 R1 B001 B001P1 10100202 NOX 6.986 7.296 2.4319 0.85 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO 39 1 0701000007 R2 B002 B002P1 10100202 NOX 3.633 3.794 1.2646 0.85 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 1 0701000007 R3 B003 B003P 1 10100202 NOX 5.013 5.235 1.7452 0.85 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 1 0701000007 R4 B004 B004P1 10100202 NOX 7.849 8.197 2.7324 0.85 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 23.481 24.522 8.1740 cyid 23.481 24.522 8.1740

STID=39 CYID=31 fcid=0616000000 name=CONESVILLE POWER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid s tkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

39 31 0616000000 R4 B004 B004P1 10100212 NOX 20.852 21.776 1.0888 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

STID=39 CYID=167 fcid=0684000000 name=MUSKINGUM RIVER POWER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

39 167 0684000000 R1 B001 B001P1 10200501 NOX 0.002 0.002 0.0001 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R2 B002 B002P1 10100201 NOX 5.817 6.074 0.3037 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO 39 167 0684000000 R2 B002 B002P2 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 068400

0000 R3 B003 B003P1 10100201 NOX 7.902 8.252 0.4126 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R3 B003 B003P2 10100501 NOX 0.000 0. 000 0.0000 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO 39 167 0684000000 R4 B004 B004P1 10100203 NOX 7.877 8.227 0.4113 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO 39 167 0684000000 R4 B004 B004P2 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R6 B006 B006P1 1010 0202 NOX 3.859 4.030 0.2015 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R6 B006 B006P2 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0. 950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 25.456 26. 584 1.3292 cyid 25.456 26.584 1.3292

stid 69.789 72.882 10.5920

STID=55 CYID=79 fcid=241007690 name=WIS ELECTRIC POWER OAK CR EEK STATION

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

55 79 241007690 S13 B25 01 10100202 NOX 4.755 5.421 3.0898 0.00 0.430 SCR SCR added by LADCO 55 79 241007690 S13 B26 01 10100202 NOX 3.277 3.736 2.2045 0.00 0.410 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 79 241007690 S14 B27 01 10100212 NOX 3.333 3.800 2.8499 0.00 0.250 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 79 241007690 S14 B28 01 10100212 NOX 3.384 3.857 2.9316 0.00 0.240 SC R SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 14.749 16.814 11. 0757

STID=55 CYID=79 fcid=241007800 name=WIS ELECTRIC POWER VALLEY STATIONBase Yr Grown Controll ed Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

55 79 241007800 S11 B21 0 1 10100202 NOX 2.797 3.189 1.8177 0.00 0.430 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 79 241007800 S11 B22 01 10100202 NOX 2.907 3.314 1.8893 0.0 0 0.430 SCR SCR added by LADCO 55 79 241007800 S12 B23 01 10100202 NOX 2.327 2.653 1.4061 0.00 0.470 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 79 241007800 S12 B24 01 10100202 NOX 2.343 2.671 1.4155 0.00 0.470 SCR Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 10.374 11.827 6.5285 cyid 25.123 28.641 17.6042

STID=55 CYID=117 fcid=460033090 name=WP & L Alliant Energy

- Edgewater Gen Station

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrl type ctrldes

55 117 460033090 S11 B23 01 10100203 NOX 1.620 1.846 1.1079 0.00 0.400 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 117 460033090 S11 B24 0 1 10100203 NOX 4.107 4.682 3.8395 0.00 0.180 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 117 460033090 S12 B25 01 10100221 NOX 5.680 6.476 5.5045 0.0 0 0.150 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 11 .407 13.005 10.4519 cyid 11.407 13.005 10.4519

stid 36.530 41.646 28.0562

======== ======== ========== 252.681 278.349 86.2773NOx 20 18

Point Source Grown and Controlled Emissions by facility for NOX r6s1b_2018 Base Year = 2002

Future Year = 2018

STID=17 CYID=31 fcid=031600AIN name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 31 031600AIN 0010 0013 01 10100226 NOX 2.283 2. 592 1.5550 0.00 0.400 SCR SCR added by LADCO 17 31 031600AIN 0010 0013 02 10100601 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.400 SCR SCR added by LADCO 17 31 031600AIN 0012 0016 01 10100226 NOX 3.991 4.531 2.7184 0.00 0.400 SCR SCR added by LADCO

17 31 031600AIN 0012 0016 02 1010 0601 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.400 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 6.274 7.122 4.2734 cyid 6.274 7. 122 4.2734

STID=17 CYID=33 fcid=033801AAA name=AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING CO

Base Yr Grown Co ntrolled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 33 033801AAA 0005 0005 01 10100202 NOX 1.642 1.863 0.9317 0.00 0.500 SCR SCR added by LADCO

17 33 033801AAA 0006 0006 01 10100202 NOX 2.116 2.402 1.2012 0.00 0.500 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 3.758 4.266 2.1329 cyid 3.758 4.266 2.1329

STID=17 CYID=57 fcid=057801AAA name=AES DUCK CREEK

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 57 057801AAA 0001 0001 01 10100202 NOX 0.815 0.925 0.924 9 0.00 0.000 SCR SCR added by LADCO

STID=17 CYID=79 fcid=079808AAA name=AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING CO

Base Yr Grown Controlled Ba se Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 79 079808AAA 0003 0003 01 10100202 NOX 6.735 7.645 7.6453 0.00 0.000 SCR SCR added by LADCO

17 79 079808AAA 0012 0013 01 10100501 NOX 5.936 3.984 3.9838 0.00 0.000 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 12.671 11.629 11.6291 cyid 12.671 11.629 11.6291

STID=17 CYID=97 fcid=097190AAC name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 97 097190AAC 0016 0031 02 10100401 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SCR added by LADCO

STID=17 CYID=137 fcid=137805AAA name=AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING CO

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Ye ar Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 137 137805AAA 0003 0003 01 10100 202 NOX 5.356 6.080 6.0798 0.00 0.000 LNB LNB added by LADCOSTID=17 CYID=143 fcid=143805AAG name=AES ED EDWARDS STATION

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 143 143805AAG 0001 0001 01 10100202 NOX 3.052 3.464 3.4641 0.00 0.000 lnb LNB added by LADCO

17 143 143805AAG 0001 0003 01 10100202 NOX 6.942 7.880 7.8804 0.00 0.000 lnb LNB added by LADCO

17 143 143805AAG 0002 0004 01 10100202 NOX 2.131 2.419 2.4191 0.00 0.000 lnb LNB added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 12.124 13.764 13.7636 cyid 12.124 13.764 13.7636

STID=17 CYID= 167 fcid=167120AAO name=CITY WATER LIGHT & POWER

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 167 167120AAO 0010 0012 01 10100203 NOX 6.527 7.410 0.0074 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SHUTDOWN added by LADCO 17 167 167120AAO 0010 0013 01 10100203 NOX 2.646 3.004 0.0030 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SHUTDOWN added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 9.173 10.414 0.0104 cyid 9.173 10.414 0.0104

STID=17 CYID=179 fcid=179801AAA name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Contro l EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 179 179801AAA 0018 0029 01 10100203 NOX 22.429 25.462 1.2731 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

17 179 179801 AAA 0018 0031 01 10100203 NOX 38.993 44.265 2.2132 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- ----- --- ---------- fcid 61.422 69.726 3.4863 cyid 61.422 69.726 3.4863

STID=17 CYID=197 fcid=197809AAO name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 197 197809AAO 0032 0033 02 10100604 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.800 SCR SCR added by LADCO

STID=17 CYID=197 fcid=197810AAK name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 197 197810AAK 0011 0016 02 10100222 NOX 5.731 6.506 3.9036 0.00 0.400 SCR SCR added by LADCO

17 197 197810AAK 0 011 0016 03 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.400 SCR SCR added by LADCO

17 197 197810AAK 0013 0010 02 10100223 NOX 8.598 9.760 0.0098 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SCR added by LADCO 17 197 197810AAK 0013 0010 03 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SCR added by LADCO 17 197 197810AAK 0007 0012 02 10100223 NOX 10.974 12.458 0.0125 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SCR added by LADCO

17 197 197810AAK 0007 0012 03 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.999 SHUTDOWN SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 25.303 28.724 3.9258 cyid 25.303 28.724 3.9258

stid 136.896 152.649 46.2263STID=18 CYID=147 fcid=00020 name=INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER

- ROCKPORT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

18 147 00020 1 001 01 10100222 NOX 23.226 25.291 1.2646 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO 18 147 00020 1 001 02 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 23.226 25.291 1.2646 cyid 23.226 25.291 1.2646

stid 23.226 25.291 1.2646

STID=27 CYID=61 fcid=2706100004 name=Minnesota Power Inc

- Boswell Energy Ctr

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

27 61 2706100004 SV003 EU003 001 10100226 NOX 13.661 15.733 3.1466 0.00 0.800 SCR SCR added by LADCO

27 61 2706100004 SV003 EU003 002 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.800 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 13.661 15.733 3.1466 cyid 13.661 15.733 3.1466

STID=27 CYID=109 fcid=2710900011 name=Rochester Public Utilities

- Silver Lake

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

27 109 271090

0011 SV003 EU004 001 10100202 NOX 2.079 2.394 1.4363 0.00 0.400 SNCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- ----- --- ---------- stid 15.739 18.127 4.5830

STID=39 CYID=1 fcid=0701000007 name="DP&L, J.M. STUART GENERATING STATION"

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day To ns/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

39 1 0701000007 R1 B001 B001P1 10100202 NOX 6.986 7.607 2.5358 0.85 0.950 SCR SCR added by LAD CO 39 1 0701000007 R2 B002 B002P1 10100202 NOX 3.633 3.956 1.3186 0.85 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 1 0701000007 R3 B003 B003P1 10100202 NOX 5.013 5.459 1.8197 0.85 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 1 0701000007 R4 B004 B004P1 10100202 NOX 7.849 8.547 2.8491 0.85 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 23.481 25.570 8.5232 cyid 23.481 25.570 8.5232

STID=39 CYID=31 fcid=0616000000 name=CONESVILLE POWER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

39 31 0616000000 R4 B004 B004P1 10100212 NOX 20.852 22.706 1.1353 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

STID=39 CYID=167 fcid=0684000000 name=MUSKINGUM RIVER POWER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year F uture Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

39 167 0684000000 R1 B001 B001P1 10200501 NOX 0.002 0.002 0.0001 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO39 167 0684000000 R2 B002 B002P1 10100201 NOX 5.817 6.334 0.3167 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R2 B002 B002P2 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R3 B003 B003P1 10100201 NOX 7.902 8.604 0.4302 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R3 B003 B003P2 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.00 00 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO 39 167 0684000000 R4 B004 B004P1 10100203 NOX 7.877 8.578 0.4289 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO 39 167 0684000000 R4 B004 B004P2 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R6 B006 B006P1 10100202 NOX 3.859 4.202 0.2101 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R6 B006 B006P2 10100501 NOX 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.950 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 25.456 27.720 1.38 60 cyid 25.456 27.720 1.3860

st id 69.789 75.996 11.0445

STID=54 CYID=39 fcid=0006 name=APPALACHIAN POWER

- KANAWHA RIVER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

54 39 0006 012 001 99 10100202 NOX 4.829 5.258 2.6291 0.00 0.500 SCR Scrubber added by LADCO

54 39 0006 012 002 99 10100202 NOX 4.921 5.359 2.6794 0.00 0.500 SCR Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 9.750 10.617 5.3085 cyid 9.750 10.617 5.3085

stid 9.750 10.617 5.3085

STID=55 CYID=79 fcid=241007690 name=WIS ELECTRIC POWER OAK CREEK STATION

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

55 79 241007690 S13 B25 01 10 100202 NOX 4.755 5.398 3.0766 0.00 0.430 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 79 241007690 S13 B26 01 10100202 NOX 3.277 3.720 2.1951 0.00 0.410 SCR SCR added by LADCO 55 79 241007690 S14 B27 01 10100212 NOX 3.333 3.784 2.8378 0.00 0.250 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 79 241007690 S14 B28 01 10100212 NOX 3.384 3.841 2.9191 0.00 0.240 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 14.749 16.743 11.0285

STID=55 CYID=79 fcid=241007800 name=WIS ELECTRIC POWER VALL EY STATION

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

55 79 241007800 S11 B21 01 10100202 NOX 2.797 3.175 1.4289 0.00 0.550 SCR SCR added by LADCO 55 79 241007800 S11 B22 01 10100202 NOX 2.907 3.300 1.4852 0.00 0.550 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 79 241007800 S12 B23 01 10100202 NOX 2.327 2.642 1.1887 0.00 0.550 SCR SCR added by LADCO

55 79 241007800 S12 B24 01 10100202 NOX 2.343 2.659 1.1967 0.00 0.550 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 10.374 11.777 5.2 995 cyid 25.123 28.519 16.3281

STID=55 CYID=117 fcid=460033090 name=WP & L Alliant Energy

- Edgewater Gen Station

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

55 117 460033090 S11 B23 01 10100203 NOX 1.620 1.839 1.103 2 0.00 0.400 SCR SCR added by LADCO55 117 460033090 S11 B24 01 10100203 NOX 4.107 4.662 3.8232 0.00 0.180 SCR SCR added by LADCO

5 5 117 460033090 S12 B25 01 10100221 NOX 5.680 6.448 5.4811 0.00 0.150 SCR SCR added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 11.407 12.949 10.4074 cyid 11.407 12.949 10.4074

stid 36.530 41.469 26.735 5

======== ======== ========== 291.931 324.149 95.1624SO2

– 2009

Point Source Grown and Controlled Emissions by facility for SO2 r6s1b_2009 1

Base Year = 2002

Future Year = 2009

STID=19 CYID=115 fcid=58

- 07

- 001 name=MIDAMERICAN ENERGY CO.

- LOUISA STATION

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Cont rol EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

19 115 58

- 07

- 001 117487 147281 99 10100222 SO2 33.664 34.774 3.4774 0.0 0.90 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

STID=21 CYID=161 fc

id=2116100009 name=EAST KY POWER COOP

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

21 161 2116100009 1 001 99 10100202 SO2 42.166 42.103 4.2103 0.0 0.90 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO 21 161 2116100009 2 002 99 10100212 SO2 55.385 55.303 5.5303 0.0 0.90 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 97.551 97.406 9.7406 cyid 97.551 97.406 9.7406

stid 9 7.551 97.406 9.7406

STID=27 CYID=141 fcid=2714100004 name=NSP

- Sherburne Generating Plant

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

27 141 271410

0004 SV001 EU001 001 10100222 SO2 16.765 16.987 3.6401 0.3 0.85 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

27 141 2714100004 SV001 EU002 001 10100222 SO2 22.549 22. 848 4.8959 0.3 0.85 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 39.314 39.834 8.5360 cyid 39.314 39.834 8.5360

stid 39.314 39.834 8.5360

STID=54 CYID=51 fcid= 0005 name=OHIO POWER

- MITCHELL PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

54 51 0005 012 001 99 10100202 SO2 17.775 17.748 1.7748 0.0 0.90 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO 54 51 0005 012 002 99 10100202 SO2 5.689 5.680 0.5680 0.0 0.90 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 23.463 23.428 2.3428 cyid 23.463 23.428 2.3428

STID=54 CYID=53 fcid=0009 name=APPALACHIAN POWER

- MOUNTAINEER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

54 53 0009 001 001 99 10100202 SO2 11.196 11.179 1.1179 0.0 0.90 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

STID=54 CYID=79 fcid= 0006 name=APPALACHIAN POWER

- JOHN E AMOS PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes54 79 0006 012 001 99 10100202 SO2 79.635 79.516 7.9516 0.0 0.90 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

54 79 0006 003 003 99 10100202 SO2 139.377 139.169 13.9169 0.0 0.90 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 219.012 218.685 21.8685 cyid 219.012 218.685 21.8685

stid 253.671 253.293 25.3293

======== ======== ==========

424.200 425.307 47.0832SO2

– 2012

Point Source Grown and Controlled Emissions by facility for SO2 r6s1b_2012 1

Base Year = 2002

Future Year = 2012

STID=17 CYID=31 fcid=031600AMI name=MIDWEST GENERATION L LC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day To ns/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 31 031600AMI 0007 0010 01 10100226 SO2 16.13 18.39 1.839 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

ST ID=17 CYID=97 fcid=097190AAC name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 97 097190AAC 0018 0033 01 10100226 SO2 24.14 27.52 2.752 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO 17 97 097190AAC 0021 0036 01 10100226 SO2 19.23 21.92 2.192 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 97 09719

0AAC 0016 0031 01 10100203 SO2 4.59 5.24 0.005 0.0 0.999 SHUTDOWN Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 47.96 54.68 4.950 cyid 47.96 54.68 4.950

STID=17 CYID=125 fcid=125804AAB name=DYNEGY MIDWEST GENERATION INC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 125 125804AAB 0019 0023 01 10100202 SO2 22.34 25.47 3.821 0.0 0.850 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

STID=17 CYID=127 fcid=127855AAC name=ELECTRIC ENERGY INC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/D ay Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 127 127855AAC 0001 0001 01 10100222 SO2 11.83 13.48 13.482 0.0 0.000 LNB LNB added by LADCO

17 127 127855AAC 0001 0002 01 10100222 SO2 11.48 13.09 13.085 0.0 0.000 LNB LNB added by LADCO

17 127 127855AAC 0002 0003 01 10100222 SO2 10.25 11.68 11.680 0.0 0.000 LNB LNB added by LADCO

17 127 127855AAC 0002 0004 01 10100222 SO2 12.04 13.73 13.731 0.0 0.000 LNB LNB added by LADCO 17 127 127855AAC 0003 0006 01 10100222 SO2 12.68 14.46 14.456 0.0 0.000 LNB LNB added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 58.27 66.43 66.435 cyid 58.27 66.43 66.435

STID=17 CYID=135 fcid=135803AAA name=AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING C O

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Ton s/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 135 135803AAA 0001 0001 01 10100203 SO2 32.99 37.61 3.761 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 135 135803AAA 0001 0003 01 10100203 SO2 72.92 83.13 8.313 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 105.91 120.74 12.074 cyid 105.91 120.74 12.074STID=17 CYID=157 fcid=157851AAA name=DYNEGY MIDWEST GENERATION INC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 157 157851AAA 0001 0001 01 10100203 SO2 25.14 28.66 4.299 0.0 0.850 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 157 157851AAA 0002 00 02 01 10100203 SO2 25.79 29.41 4.411 0.0 0.850 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 157 157851AAA 0013 0013 01 10100202 SO2 27.79 31.68 4.752 0.0 0.850 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 78.72 89.75 13.462 cyid 78.72 89.75 13.462

STID=17 CYID=167 fcid=167120AAO name=CITY WATER LIGHT & POWER

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 167 167120AAO 0010 0012 01 10100203 SO2 4 4.20 50.39 0.050 0.0 0.999 SHUTDOWN Scrubber added by LADCO

17 167 167120AAO 0010 0013 01 10100203 SO2 16.40 18.70 0.019 0.0 0.999 SHUTDOWN Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 60.61 69.10 0.06 9 cyid 60.61 69.10 0.069

STID=17 CYID=179 fcid=179801AAA name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid p rid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 179 179801AAA 0018 0029 01 10100203 SO2 25.35 28.90 2.890 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO 17 179 179801AAA 0018 0031 01 10100203 SO2 41.57 47.39 4.739 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 66.91 76.29 7.629 cyid 66.91 76.29 7.629

STID=17 CYID=197 fcid=197810AAK name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Ton s/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 197 197810AAK 0013 0010 03 10100501 SO2 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.999 SHUTDOWN Scrubber added by LADCO 17 197 197810AAK 0007 0012 02 10100223 SO2 15.33 17.48 0.017 0.0 0.999 SHUTDOWN Scrubber added by LADCO

17 197 197810AAK 0007 0012 03 101 00501 SO2 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.999 SHUTDOWN Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 15.33 17.48 0.017 cyid 15.33 17.48 0.017

stid 472.19 538.32 110.295

STID=19 CYID=115 fcid=58

- 07

- 001 name=MIDAMERICAN ENERGY CO.

- LOUISA STATION

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYI D fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

19 115 58

- 07

- 001 117487 147281 99 10100222 SO2 33.66 38.38 3.838 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

STID=21 CYID=161 fcid=2116100009 name=EAST KY POWER COOP

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes21 161 2116100009 1 001 99 10100202 SO2 42.17 44.03 4.403 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

21 161 2116100009 2 002 99 10100212 SO2 55.39 57.84 5.784 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 97.55 101.87 10.187 cyid 97.55 101.87 10.187

stid 97.55 101.87 10.187

STID=27 CYID=61 fcid=27 06100004 name=Minnesota Power Inc

- Boswell Energy Ctr

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

27 61 2706100004 SV003 EU003 001 10100226 SO2 33.99 35.19 15.081 0.3 0.700 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO 27 61 2706100004 SV003 EU003 002 10100501 SO2 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.3 0.700 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 33.99 35.19 15.081 cyid 33.99 35.19 15.081

STID=27 CYID=109 fcid=2710900011 name=Rochester Pu blic Utilities

- Silver Lake

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid T ons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

27 109 2710900011 SV003 EU004 001 10100202 SO2 7.86 8.13 1.220 0.0 0.850 SCRUBBER S crubber added by LADCO

STID=27 CYID=141 fcid=2714100004 name=NSP

- Sherburne Generating Plant

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID f

cid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

27 141 2714100004 SV001 EU001 001 10100222 SO2 16.76 17.36 3.719 0.3 0.850 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

27 141 2714100004 SV001 EU002 001 10100222 SO2 22.55 23.34 5.002 0.3 0.850 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 39.31 40.70 8.721 cyid 39.31 40.70 8.721

stid 81.16 84.02 25.023

STID=39 CYID=13 fcid=0607130015 name=R. E. BURGER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Cont rol EF ctrltype ctrldes

39 13 0607130015 R6 B011 B011P1 10100202 SO2 29.83 31.15 3.115 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

39 13 0607130015 R7 B012 B012P1 10100202 SO2 34.77 36.31 3.631 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 64.60 67.46 6.746 cyid 64.60 67.46 6.746

STID=39 CYID=31 fcid=0616000000 name=CONESVILLE POWER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

39 31 0616000000 R4 B004 B004P1 10100212 SO2 316.00 330.00 33.000 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- stid 380.60 397.46 39.746

STID=47 CYID=1 fcid=0009 name=TVA BULL RUN FOSSIL PLANTBase Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Da y Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

47 1 0009 S

- 1 001 99 10100212 SO2 130.81 133.01 13.301 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubbe r added by LADCO

STID=47 CYID=73 fcid=0007 name=TVA JOHN SEVIER FOSSIL PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stk id dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

47 73 0007 S

- 1A 001 99 10100212 SO2 20.15 20.49 2.0 49 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 73 0007 S

- 1B 002 99 10100212 SO2 20.25 20.59 2.059 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 73 0007 S

- 2A 003 99 10100212 SO2 19.62 19.95 1.995 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 73 0007 S

- 2B 004 99 10100212 SO2 18.93 19.25 1.925 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 78.95 80.28 8.028 cyid 78.95 80.2 8 8.028

STID=47 CYID=85 fcid=0011 name=TVA JOHNSONVILLE FOSSIL PLANT

Base Yr Grown Contr olled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

47 85 0011 S1

- 01 001 99 10100212 SO2 17.06 17.35 1.735 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 85 0011 S1

- 04 004 99 10100212 SO2 19.85 20.18 2.018 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 85 0011 S1

- 05 005 99 10100212 SO2 24.11 24.52 2.452 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 61.02 62.04 6.204 cyid 61.02 62.04 6.204

STID=47 CYID=145 fcid=0013 name =TVA KINGSTON FOSSIL PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Ton s/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

47 145 0013 S

- 1 001 99 10100202 SO2 12.68 12.89 1.289 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scr ubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 1 002 99 10100202 SO2 14.00 14.24 1.424 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 1 003 9 9 10100202 SO2 13.80 14.04 1.404 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 1 004 99 10100202 SO2 12.24 12.44 1.244 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 1 005 99 10100202 SO2 19.57 19.90 1.990 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 2 006 99 10100202 SO2 18.92 19.24 1.924 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 2 007 99 10100202 SO2 21.30 21.66 2.166 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 2 008 99 10100202 SO2 18.54 18.85 1.885 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBE R Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 2 009 99 10100202 SO2 20.72 21.07 2.107 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 151.77 154.33 15.433 cyid 151.77 154.33 15.433

STID=47 CYID=165 fcid=0025 name=TVA GALLATIN FOSSIL PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Cont rol EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

47 165 0025 S

- 01 001 99 10100212 SO2 13.91 14.14 1.414 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 165 00

25 S

- 01 002 99 10100212 SO2 14.87 15.12 1.512 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 165 0025 S

- 02 003 99 10100212 SO2 16.33 16.60 1.660 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 165 0025 S

- 02 004 99 10100212 SO2 20.39 20.73 2.073 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Sc rubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ----------fcid 65.49 66.59 6.659

cyid 65.49 66.59 6.659

stid 488.04 496.25 49.625

STID=54 CYID=51 fcid=0005 name=OHIO POWER

- MITCHELL PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

54 51 0005 012 001 99 10100202 SO2 17.77 18.56 1.856 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

54 51 0005 012 002 99 10100202 SO2 5.69 5.94 0.594 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- --- ----- ---------- fcid 23.46 24.50 2.450 cyid 23.46 24.50 2.450

STID=54 CYID=53 fcid=0009 name=APPALACHIAN POWER

- MOUNTAINEER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

54 53 0009 001 001 99 10100202 SO2 11.20 11.69 1.169 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

STID=54 CYID=79 fcid=0006 name=APPALACHIAN POWER

- JOHN E A MOS PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

54 79 0006 012 001 99 10100202 SO2 79.63 83.16 8.316 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LA DCO 54 79 0006 012 002 99 10100202 SO2 100.33 104.78 10.478 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

54 79 0006 003 003 99 10100202 SO2 139.38 145.55 14.555 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 319.35 333.50 33.350 cyid 319.35 3 33.50 33.350

stid 354.00 369.69 36.969

STID=55 CYID=79 fcid=241007690 name=WIS ELECTRIC POWER OAK CREEK STATION

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

55 79 241007690 S13 B25 01 10100202 SO2 12.75 14.5 4 3.490 0.0 0.760 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

55 79 241007690 S13 B26 01 10100202 SO2 8.68 9.89 2.473 0.0 0.750 SCRUBBER Scrubber add ed by LADCO 55 79 241007690 S14 B27 01 10100212 SO2 10.97 12.51 2.876 0.0 0.770 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

55 79 241007690 S14 B28 01 10100212 SO2 11.28 12.86 2.958 0.0 0.770 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 43.68 49.80 11.797 cyid 43.6 8 49.80 11.797

stid 43.68 49.80 11.797

======== ======== ========== 1950.90 2075.80 287.480SO2

– 2018

Point Source Grown and Controlled Emissions by facility for SO2 r6s1b_2018 1

Base Year = 2002

Future Year = 2018

STID=17 CYID=31 fcid=031600AIN name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 31 031600AIN 0010 0013 01 10100226 SO2 10.92 12.39 1.239 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 31 031600AIN 0012 0016 01 10100226 SO2 17.69 20.08 2.008 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 28.61 32.48 3.248

STID=17 CYID=31 fcid=031600AMI name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 31 031600AMI 0007 0010 01 10100226 SO2 16.13 18.31 1.831 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- cyid 44.74 50.79 5.079

STID=17 CYID =79 fcid=079808AAA name=AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING CO

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 79 079808AAA 0003 0003 01 10100202 SO2 36.35 41.27 4.127 0.0 0. 900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO 17 79 079808AAA 0012 0013 01 10100501 SO2 28.99 19.46 1.946 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 65.34 60.72 6.072 cyid 65.34 60.72 6.072

STID=17 CYID=97 fcid=097190AAC name=MIDWEST GENERATIO N LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 97 097190AAC 0018 0033 01 10100226 SO2 24.14 27.40 2.740 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO 17 97 097190AAC 0021 0036 01 10100226 SO2 19.23 21.83 2.183 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 97 097190AAC 0016 0031 01 10100203 SO2 4.59 5.22 0.005 0.0 0.999 SHUTDOWN Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 47.96 54.45 4.928 cyid 47.96 54.4 5 4.928

STID=17 CYID=125 fcid=125804AAB name=DYNEGY MIDWEST GENERATION INC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 125 125804AAB 0019 0023 01 10100202 SO2 22.34 25.36 3.805 0.0 0.850 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

STID=17 CYID=127 fcid=127855AAC name=ELECTRIC ENERGY INC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes17 127 127855AAC 0002 0003 01 10100222 SO2 10.25 11.63 11.630 0.0 0.000 LNB LNB added by LADCO

17 127 127855AAC 0002 0004 01 10100222 SO2 12.04 13.67 13.673 0.0 0.000 LNB LNB added by LADCO

17 127 127855AAC 0001 0001 01 10100222 SO2 11.83 13.42 1.342 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO 17 127 127855AAC 0001 0002 01 10100222 SO2 11.48 13.03 1.303 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 127 1 27855AAC 0003 0005 01 10100222 SO2 11.72 13.31 1.331 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 127 127855AAC 0003 0006 01 10100222 SO2 12.68 14.39 1.439 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 70.00 79.46 30.719 cyid 70.00 79.46 30.719

STID=17 CYID=135 fcid=135803AAA name=AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING CO

Base Yr Grown Controlled Bas e Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 135 135803AAA 0001 0001 01 10100203 SO2 32.99 37.45 3.745 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 135 135803AAA 0001 0003 01 10100203 SO2 72.92 82.77 8.277 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 10 5.91 120.22 12.022 cyid 105.91 120.22 12.022

STID=17 CYID=143 fcid=143805AAG name=AES ED EDWARDS STATION

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 143 143805AAG 0002 0004 01 10100202 SO2 15.28 17.34 1.734 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

STID=17 CYID=157 fcid=157851AAA name=DYNEGY MIDWEST GENERATION INC

Base Yr Grown C ontrolled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 157 157851AAA 0001 0001 01 10100203 SO2 25.14 28.54 4.281 0.0 0.850 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 157 157851AAA 0002 0002 01 10100203 SO2 25.79 29.28 4.3 92 0.0 0.850 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO 17 157 157851AAA 0013 0013 01 10100202 SO2 27.79 31.54 4.732 0.0 0.850 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 78.72 89.36 13.404 cyid 78.72 89.36 13.404

STID=17 CYID=167 fcid=16712 0AAO name=CITY WATER LIGHT & POWER

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc poli d Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 167 167120AAO 0010 0012 01 10100203 SO2 44.20 50.18 0.050 0.0 0.999 SHUTDOW N Scrubber added by LADCO 17 167 167120AAO 0010 0013 01 10100203 SO2 16.40 18.62 0.019 0.0 0.999 SHUTDOWN Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 60.61 68.80 0.069 cyid 60.61 68.80 0.069

STID=17 CYID=179 fcid=179801AAA name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Co ntrol EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 179 179801AAA 0018 0029 01 10100203 SO2 25.35 28.77 2.877 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 179 179801AAA 0018 0031 01 10100203 SO2 41.57 47.19 4.719 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- ------- - -------- ----------fcid 66.91 75.96 7.596

cyid 66.91 75.96 7.596

STID=17 CYID=197 fcid=197809AAO name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 197 197809AAO 0006 0009 01 10100203 SO2 15.89 18.04 1.804 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 197 197809AAO 0016 0031 01 1 0100202 SO2 27.43 31.13 3.113 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 197 197809AAO 0017 0033 01 10100202 SO2 23.13 26.26 2.626 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 66.45 75.44 7.544

STID=17 CYID=197 fcid=197810AAK name=MIDWEST GENERATION LLC

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

17 197 197810AAK 0009 0014 02 10100222 SO2 11.64 13.21 1.321 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

17 197 197810AAK 0011 0016 02 10100222 SO2 25.67 29.14 2.914 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO 17 197 197810AAK 0013 0010 03 10100501 SO2 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.999 SHUTDOWN Scrubber added by LADCO 17 197 197810AAK 0007 0012 02 10100223 SO2 15.33 17.40 0.017 0.0 0.999 SHUTDOWN Scrubber added by LADCO

17 197 197810AAK 0007 0012 03 101005 01 SO2 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.999 SHUTDOWN Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 52.64 59.75 4.252 cyid 119.09 135.19 11.796

stid 696.90 777.66 97.225

STID=18 CYID=147 fcid=00020 name=INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER

- ROCKPORT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

18 147 00020 1 001 01 10100222 SO2 66.42 72.32 7.232 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO 18 147 00020 1 001 02 10100501 SO2 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 66.42 72.32 7.232 cyid 66.42 72.32 7.232

stid 66.42 72.32 7.232

STID=19 CYID=115 fcid=58

- 07

- 001 name=MIDAMERICAN ENERGY CO.

- LOUISA STATION

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

19 115 58

- 07

- 001 117487 147281 99 10100222 SO2 33.66 38.22 3.822 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

STID=21 CYID=127 fcid =2112700003 name=KENTUCKY POWER CO

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc poli d Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

21 127 2112700003 2 002 99 10100202 SO2 104.52 113.82 11.382 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBE R Scrubber added by LADCO

STID=21 CYID=161 fcid=2116100009 name=EAST KY POWER COOP

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes21 161 2116100009 1 001 99 10100202 SO2 42.17 45.92 4.592 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

21 161 2116100009 2 002 99 10100212 SO2 55.39 60.31 6.031 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 97.55 106.23 10.623 cyid 97.55 106.23 10.623

stid 202.07 220.04 22.004

STID=27 CYID=61 fcid=2706100004 name=Minnesota Power Inc

- Boswell Energy Ctr

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Cont rol EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

27 61 2706100004 SV003 EU003 001 10100226 SO2 33.99 39.15 16.778 0.3 0.700 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

27 61 27

06100004 SV003 EU003 002 10100501 SO2 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.3 0.700 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 33.99 39.15 16.778 cyid 33.99 39.15 16.778

STID=27 CYID=109 fcid=2710900011 name=Rochester Public Utilities

- Silver Lake

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF c trltype ctrldes

27 109 2710900011 SV003 EU004 001 10100202 SO2 7.86 9.05 1.357 0.0 0.850 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

STID=27 CYID=141 fcid=2714100004 name=NSP

- Sherburne Generating Plant

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid To ns/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

27 141 2714100004 SV001 EU001 001 10100222 SO2 16.76 19.31 4.138 0.3 0.850 SCRUBBER Sc rubber added by LADCO 27 141 2714100004 SV001 EU002 001 10100222 SO2 22.55 25.97 5.565 0.3 0.850 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 39.31 45.28 9.703 cyid 39.31 45.28 9.703

stid 81.16 93.48 27.838

STID=39 CYID=13 fcid=0607130015 name=R. E. BURGER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

39 13 0607130015 R6 B011 B011P1 10100202 SO2 29.83 32.48 3.248 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

39 13 0607130015 R7 B012 B012P1 10100202 SO2 34.77 37. 86 3.786 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 64.60 70.34 7.034 cyid 64.60 70.34 7.034

STID=39 CYID=31 fcid=0616000000 name=CONESVILLE POWER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Futur e Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

39 31 0616000000 R4 B004 B004P1 10100212 SO2 316.00 344.11 34.411 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

STID=39 CYID=167 fcid=0684000000 name=MUSKINGUM RIVER POWER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes39 167 0684000000 R2 B002 B002P1 10100201 SO2 65.07 70.85 7.085 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R2 B002 B002P2 10100501 SO2 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R3 B003 B003P1 10100201 SO2 94.58 103.00 10.300 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBE R Scrubber added by LADCO 39 167 0684000000 R3 B003 B003P2 10100501 SO2 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R4 B00 4 B004P1 10100203 SO2 81.64 88.90 8.890 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R4 B004 B004P2 10100501 SO2 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO 39 167 0684000000 R5 B005 B005P1 10100203 SO2 97.22 105.87 10.587 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

3 9 167 0684000000 R5 B005 B005P2 10100501 SO2 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R6 B006 B006P1 10100202 SO 2 113.96 124.10 12.410 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

39 167 0684000000 R6 B006 B006P2 10100501 SO2 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 452.48 492.72 49.272 cyid 452.48 492.72 49.272

stid 833.08 907.16 90.716

STID=47 CYID=1 fcid=0009 name=TVA BULL RUN FOSSIL PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

47 1 0009 S

- 1 001 99 10100212 SO2 130.81 136.82 13.682 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

STID=47 CY ID=73 fcid=0007 name=TVA JOHN SEVIER FOSSIL PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

47 73 0007 S

- 1A 001 99 10100212 SO2 20.15 21.07 2.107 0.0 0.90 0 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 73 0007 S

- 1B 002 99 10100212 SO2 20.25 21.18 2.118 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 73 0007 S

- 2A 003 99 10100212 SO2 19.62 20.52 2.052 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 73 0007 S

- 2B 004 99 10100212 SO2 18.93 19.8 0 1.980 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 78.95 82.57 8.257 cyid 78.95 82.57 8.257

STID=47 CYID=85 fcid=0011 name=TVA JOHNSONVILLE FOSSIL PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Futur e Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

47 85 0011 S1

- 01 001 99 10100212 SO2 17.06 17.84 1.784 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 85 0011 S1

- 04 004 99 10100212 SO2 19.85 20.76 2.076 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 85 0011 S1

- 05 005 99 10100212 SO2 24.11 25.22 2.522 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 61.02 63.82 6.382 cyid 61.02 63.82 6.382

STID=47 CYID=145 fcid=0013 name=TVA KINGSTON FOSSIL PLAN T
Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Ton s/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

47 145 0013 S

- 1 001 99 10100202 SO2 12.68 13.26 1.326 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 1 002 99 10100202 SO2 14.00 14.65 1.465 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO47 145 0013 S

- 1 003 99 10100202 SO2 13.80 14.44 1.444 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 1 004 99 10100202 SO2 12.24 12.80 1.280 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 1 005 99 10100202 SO2 19.57 20.47 2.047 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 2 006 99 10100202 SO2 18.92 19.79 1.979 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 2 007 99 10100202 SO2 21.30 22.28 2.228 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 145 0013 S

- 2 008 99 10100202 SO2 18.54 19.39 1.939 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LA DCO

47 145 0013 S

- 2 009 99 10100202 SO2 20.72 21.68 2.168 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 151.77 158.75 15.875 cyid 151.77 158.75 15.875

STID=47 CYID=165 fcid=0025 name=TVA GALLATIN FOSSIL PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

47 165 0025 S

- 01 001 99 10100212 SO2 13.91 14.54 1.454 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 165 0025 S

- 01 002 99 10100212 SO2 14.87 15.56 1.556 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 165 0025 S

- 02 003 99 10100212 SO2 16.33 17.08 1.708 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

47 165 0025 S

- 02 004 99 10100212 SO2 20.39 21.32 2.132 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

--- - -------- -------- ---------- fcid 65.49 68.50 6.850 cyid 65.49 68.50 6.850

stid 488.04 510.46 51.046

STID=54 CYID=39 fcid=0006 name=APPALACHIAN POWER

- KANAWHA RIVER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

54 39 0006 012 001 99 10100202 SO2 19.45 21.18 10.591 0.0 0.500 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

54 39 0006 012 002 99 10100202 SO2 20.94 22.80 11.399 0.0 0.500 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- --- ------- fcid 40.39 43.98 21.990 cyid 40.39 43.98 21.990

STID=54 CYID=51 fcid=0005 name=OHIO POWER

- MITCHELL PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

54 51 0005 012 001 99 10100202 SO2 17.77 19.36 1.936 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

54 51 0005 012 002 99 10100202 SO2 5.69 6.19 0.619 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 23.46 25.55 2.555

STID=54 CYID=51 fcid=0006 name=OHIO POWER

- KAMMER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

54 51 0006 013 001 99 10100203 SO2 47.06 51.25 5.125 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

54 51 0006 013 002 99 10100203 SO2 47.66 51.90 5.190 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

54 51 0006 013 003 99 10100203 SO2 41.94 45.67 4.567 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO---- -------- -------- ----------

fcid 136.67 148.82 14.882 cyid 160.13 174.37 17.437

STID=54 CYID=53 fcid=0001 name=APPALACHIAN POWER CO.

- PHILIP SPORN PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year

STID C YID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

54 53 0001 014 001 99 10100202 SO2 18.6 5 20.31 2.031 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

54 53 0001 014 002 99 10100202 SO2 15.87 17.28 1.728 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO 54 53 0001 014 003 99 10100202 SO2 21.46 23.36 2.336 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

54 53 0001 014 004 99 10100202 SO2 20.53 22.36 2.236 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

54 53 0001 005 005 99 10100202 SO2 46.82 50.98 5.098 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 123.33 134.30 13.430

STID=54 CYID=53 fcid=0009 name=APPALACHIAN POWER

- MOUNTAINEER PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

54 53 0009 001 001 99 10100202 SO2 11.20 12.19 1.219 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- --- ----- -------- ---------- cyid 134.53 146.49 14.649

STID=54 CYID=79 fcid=0006 name=APPALACH IAN POWER

- JOHN E AMOS PLANT

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

54 79 0006 012 001 99 10100202 SO2 79.63 86.72 8.672 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO 54 79 0006 012 002 99 10100202 SO2 100.33 109.26 10.926 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

54 79 0006 003 003 99 10100202 SO2 139.38 151.77 15.177 0.0 0.900 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ---------- fcid 319.35 347.75 34.775 cyid 319.35 347.75 34.775

stid 654.39 712.59 88.851

STID=55 CYID=79 fcid=241007690 name=WIS ELECTRIC POWER OAK CREEK STATION

Base Yr Grown Controlled Base Year Future Year STID CYID fcid stkid dvid prid scc polid Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Control EF Control EF ctrltype ctrldes

55 79 241007690 S13 B25 01 10100202 SO2 12.75 14.48 3.475 0.0 0.760 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

55 79 241007690 S13 B26 01 10100202 SO2 8.68 9.85 2.462 0.0 0.750 SCR UBBER Scrubber added by LADCO 55 79 241007690 S14 B27 01 10100212 SO2 10.97 12.45 2.864 0.0 0.770 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

55 79 241007690 S14 B28 01 10100212 SO2 11.28 12.81 2.945 0.0 0.770 SCRUBBER Scrubber added by LADCO

---- -------- -------- ------ ---- fcid 43.68 49.59 11.746 cyid 43.68 49.59 11.746

stid 43.68 49.59 11.746

======== ======== ========== 3099.41 3 381.52 400.481

# Appendix II

Scenario C Controls (CAMD List)

### 1 

## NOx Controls (SCRs , 2007

– 2013) )

Plant Name UniqueID_Final State Name County Capacity

MW On Line

Year SCR

Online

Year

Chesterfield 3797_B_4 Virginia Chesterfield 166 1960 2013

Chesterfield 3797_B_5 Virginia Chesterfield 310 1964 2012

Scherer 6257_B_3 Georgia Monroe 875 1987 2011

Chesterfield 3797_B_6 Virginia Chesterfield 658 1969 2011

Sandow No 4 6648_B_4 Texas Milam 545 1981 2011

Beech Hollow Power Project 82704_B_1 Pennsylvania Washington 272 2011 2011

Longview Power 82702_B_1 West Virginia Monongalia 695 201 1 2011

Cliffside 2721_B_6 North Carolina Cleveland 800 2011 2011

AES Westover 2526_B_11 New York Broome 22 1943 2010

AES Westover 2526_B_12 New York Broome 22 1943 2010

AES Westover 2526_B_13 New York Broome 84 1951 2010

Iatan 2 6065_B_2 Missouri Plat te 850 2010 2010

Southwest 6195_B_2 Missouri Greene 300 2010 2010

Trimble Station (LGE) 6071_B_2 Kentucky Trimble 732 2010 2010

Elm Road Generating Station 56068_B_2 Wisconsin Milwaukee 615 2010 2010

Clay Boswell 1893_B_3 Minnesota Itasca 350 1973 2009

Asheville 2706_B_2 North Carolina Buncombe 184 1971 2009

Conesville 2840_B_4 Ohio Coshocton 780 1973 2009

Marshall 2727_B_3 North Carolina Catawba 657 1969 2009

St Johns River Power Park 207_B_1 Florida Duval 626 1987 2009

Ghent 1356_B_2 Kentucky Car roll 469 1977 2009

Chalk Point LLC 1571_B_1 Maryland Prince George's 341 1964 2009

Chalk Point LLC 1571_B_2 Maryland Prince George's 342 1965 2009

San Juan 2451_B_2 New Mexico San Juan 320 1973 2009

Big Bend 645_B_BB01 Florida Hillsborough 411 1970 200 9

Big Bend 645_B_BB02 Florida Hillsborough 391 1973 2009

Big Bend 645_B_BB03 Florida Hillsborough 414 1976 2009

Nebraska City Unit 2 6096_B_2 Nebraska Otoe 663 2009 2009

Cross 130_B_4 South Carolina Berkeley 652 2009 2009

Springerville 8223_B_4 Arizon a Apache 400 2009 2009

Sandow 5 82010_B_5 Texas Milam 600 2009 2009

Oak Grove 82011_B_1 Texas Robertson 800 2009 2009

Oak Grove 82011_B_2 Texas Robertson 800 2009 2009

TS Power Plant 82013_B_1 Nevada Eureka 200 2009 2009

Plum Point Energy 82014_B_1 Ar kansas Mississippi 665 2009 2009

Comanche 470_B_3 Colorado Pueblo 750 2009 2009

Elm Road Generating Station 56068_B_1 Wisconsin Milwaukee 615 2009 2009

Two Elk Generating Station 55360_B_1 Wyoming Campbell 300 2009 2009

J K Spruce 7097_B_BLR2 Texas Bex ar 750 2009 2009

Dallman 963_B_34 Illinois Sangamon 200 2009 2009

AES Greenidge LLC 2527_B_4 New York Yates 27 1950 2008

AES Greenidge LLC 2527_B_5 New York Yates 27 1950 2008

AES Greenidge LLC 2527_B_6 New York Yates 106 1953 2008

Charles R Lowman 56 _B_2 Alabama Washington 238 1979 2008

Charles R Lowman 56_B_3 Alabama Washington 238 1980 2008

Barry 3_B_5 Alabama Mobile 750 1971 2008

St Johns River Power Park 207_B_2 Florida Duval 626 1988 2008

Morgantown Generating Plant 1573_B_2 Maryland Charles 620 1971 2008

### 2

Bailly 995_B_7 Indiana Porter 160 1962 2008

San Juan 2451_B_1 New Mexico San Juan 322 1976 2008

San Juan 2451_B_3 New Mexico San Juan 495 1979 2008

Weston 4078_B_4 Wisconsin Marathon 519 2008 2008

AES Deepwater 10670_B_AAB001 Texas Harri s 140 1986 2007

La Cygne 1241_B_1 Kansas Linn 724 1973 2007

Morgantown Generating Plant 1573_B_1 Maryland Charles 624 1970 2007

PSEG Hudson Generating Station 2403_B_2 New Jersey Hudson 583 1967 2007

San Juan 2451_B_4 New Mexico San Juan 506 1982 2007

Big Bend 645_B_BB04 Florida Hillsborough 457 1985 2007

Cross 130_B_3 South Carolina Berkeley 620 2007 2007

Wygen II 55479_B_4 Wyoming Campbell 90 2007 2007

Council Bluffs 1082_B_4 Iowa Pottawattamie 790 2007 2007



## SO2 Controls (FGDs, 2007

– 2012)

Plan t Name UniqueID_Final State Name County Capacity

MW On Line

Year Scrubber

Online

Year

James H Miller Jr 6002_B_1 Alabama Jefferson 684 1978 2011

James H Miller Jr 6002_B_2 Alabama Jefferson 687 1985 2011

James H Miller Jr 6002_B_3 Alabama Jefferson 687 1989 2011

James H Miller Jr 6002_B_4 Alabama Jefferson 688 1991 2011

Cape Fear 2708_B_5 North Carolina Chatham 143 1956 2011

Baldwin Energy Complex 889_B_1 Illinois Randolph 624 1970 2011

Baldwin Energy Complex 889_B_2 Illinois Randolph 629 1973 2011

Baldwin Energy Complex 889_B_3 Illinois Randolph 629 1975 2011

Scherer 6257_B_3 Georgia Monroe 875 1987 2011

Milton R Young 2823_B_B1 North Dakota Oliver 250 1970 2011

W H Sammis 2866_B_6 Ohio Jefferson 630 1969 2011

W H Sammis 2866_B_7 Ohio Jefferson 630 1971 2011

PSEG Hudson Generating Station 2403_B_2 New Jersey Hudson 583 1967 2011

John Sevier 3405_B_1 Tennessee Hawkins 176 1955 2011

John Sevier 3405_B_2 Tennessee Hawkins 176 1955 2011

John Sevier 3405_B_3 Tennessee Hawkins 176 1956 2011

John S evier 3405_B_4 Tennessee Hawkins 176 1957 2011

Beech Hollow Power Project 82704_B_1 Pennsylvania Washington 272 2011 2011

Longview Power 82702_B_1 West Virginia Monongalia 695 2011 2011

Cliffside 2721_B_6 North Carolina Cleveland 800 2011 2011

AES Gree nidge LLC 2527_B_4 New York Yates 27 1950 2010

AES Greenidge LLC 2527_B_5 New York Yates 27 1950 2010

Barry 3_B_5 Alabama Mobile 750 1971 2010

E C Gaston 26_B_5 Alabama Shelby 861 1974 2010

Warrick 6705_B_4 Indiana Warrick 300 1970 2010

Coffeen 861_B_ 01 Illinois Montgomery 340 1965 2010

Coffeen 861_B_02 Illinois Montgomery 560 1972 2010

Cardinal 2828_B_3 Ohio Jefferson 630 1977 2010

Brandon Shores 602_B_1 Maryland Anne Arundel 643 1984 2010

Brandon Shores 602_B_2 Maryland Anne Arundel 643 1991 2010

Monroe 1733_B_4 Michigan Monroe 775 1974 2010

Cliffside 2721_B_5 North Carolina Cleveland 550 1972 2010

Crystal River 628_B_4 Florida Citrus 720 1982 2010

Bowen 703_B_1BLR Georgia Bartow 713 1971 2010

### 3

Crist 641_B_6 Florida Escambia 302 1970 2010

Cri st 641_B_7 Florida Escambia 477 1973 2010

Clifty Creek 983_B_1 Indiana Jefferson 217 1955 2010

Clifty Creek 983_B_2 Indiana Jefferson 217 1955 2010

Clifty Creek 983_B_3 Indiana Jefferson 217 1955 2010

Clifty Creek 983_B_4 Indiana Jefferson 217 1955 201 0

Clifty Creek 983_B_5 Indiana Jefferson 217 1955 2010

Clifty Creek 983_B_6 Indiana Jefferson 217 1956 2010

Chalk Point LLC 1571_B_1 Maryland Prince George's 341 1964 2010

Chalk Point LLC 1571_B_2 Maryland Prince George's 342 1965 2010

Dickerson 1572_ B_1 Maryland Montgomery 182 1959 2010

Dickerson 1572_B_2 Maryland Montgomery 182 1960 2010

Dickerson 1572_B_3 Maryland Montgomery 182 1962 2010

R E Burger 2864_B_7 Ohio Belmont 156 1955 2010

R E Burger 2864_B_8 Ohio Belmont 156 1955 2010

Kyger Creek 2 876_B_1 Ohio Gallia 217 1955 2010

Kyger Creek 2876_B_2 Ohio Gallia 217 1955 2010

Kyger Creek 2876_B_3 Ohio Gallia 217 1955 2010

Kyger Creek 2876_B_4 Ohio Gallia 217 1955 2010

Kyger Creek 2876_B_5 Ohio Gallia 217 1955 2010

Cheswick 8226_B_1 Pennsylvani a Allegheny 580 1970 2010

PSEG Mercer Generating Station 2408_B_1 New Jersey Mercer 315 1960 2010

PSEG Mercer Generating Station 2408_B_2 New Jersey Mercer 310 1961 2010

Silver Lake 2008_B_4 Minnesota Olmsted 61 1969 2010

Kingston 3407_B_1 Tennessee Ro ane 135 1954 2010

Kingston 3407_B_2 Tennessee Roane 135 1954 2010

Kingston 3407_B_3 Tennessee Roane 135 1954 2010

Kingston 3407_B_4 Tennessee Roane 135 1954 2010

Kingston 3407_B_5 Tennessee Roane 177 1955 2010

Kingston 3407_B_6 Tennessee Roane 177 195 5 2010

Kingston 3407_B_7 Tennessee Roane 177 1955 2010

Kingston 3407_B_8 Tennessee Roane 177 1955 2010

Kingston 3407_B_9 Tennessee Roane 178 1955 2010

Sioux 2107_B_1 Missouri St. Charles 497 1967 2010

Sioux 2107_B_2 Missouri St. Charles 497 1968 2010

Chesterfield 3797_B_5 Virginia Chesterfield 310 1964 2010

Yorktown 3809_B_1 Virginia York 159 1957 2010

AES Westover 2526_B_11 New York Broome 22 1943 2010

AES Westover 2526_B_12 New York Broome 22 1943 2010

AES Westover 2526_B_13 New York Broome 84 1 951 2010

Iatan 2 6065_B_2 Missouri Platte 850 2010 2010

Southwest 6195_B_2 Missouri Greene 300 2010 2010

Trimble Station (LGE) 6071_B_2 Kentucky Trimble 732 2010 2010

Elm Road Generating Station 56068_B_2 Wisconsin Milwaukee 615 2010 2010

Cholla 113_B _3 Arizona Navajo 271 1980 2009

Mayo 6250_B_1A North Carolina Person 362 1983 2009

Mayo 6250_B_1B North Carolina Person 362 1983 2009

Conesville 2840_B_4 Ohio Coshocton 780 1973 2009

G G Allen 2718_B_1 North Carolina Gaston 162 1957 2009

G G Allen 271 8_B_2 North Carolina Gaston 162 1957 2009

G G Allen 2718_B_3 North Carolina Gaston 260 1959 2009

### 4

G G Allen 2718_B_4 North Carolina Gaston 275 1960 2009

G G Allen 2718_B_5 North Carolina Gaston 265 1961 2009

H L Spurlock 6041_B_1 Kentucky Mason 315 1977 2009

Crystal River 628_B_5 Florida Citrus 717 1984 2009

Deerhaven Generating Station 663_B_B2 Florida Alachua 228 1981 2009

Bowen 703_B_2BLR Georgia Bartow 718 1972 2009

Wansley 6052_B_2 Georgia Heard 892 1978 2009

E W Brown 1355_B_1 Kentucky Mercer 94 1957 2009

E W Brown 1355_B_2 Kentucky Mercer 160 1963 2009

E W Brown 1355_B_3 Kentucky Mercer 422 1971 2009

Ghent 1356_B_2 Kentucky Carroll 469 1977 2009

Fayette Power Project 6179_B_1 Texas Fayette 598 1979 2009

Fayette Power Project 6179_B_2 Texa s Fayette 598 1980 2009

Morgantown Generating Plant 1573_B_1 Maryland Charles 624 1970 2009

Morgantown Generating Plant 1573_B_2 Maryland Charles 620 1971 2009

PPL Brunner Island 3140_B_1 Pennsylvania York 321 1961 2009

PPL Brunner Island 3140_B_2 Penn sylvania York 378 1965 2009

Keystone 3136_B_1 Pennsylvania Armstrong 850 1967 2009

Keystone 3136_B_2 Pennsylvania Armstrong 850 1968 2009

Bull Run 3396_B_1 Tennessee Anderson 881 1967 2009

Bay Shore 2878_B_4 Ohio Lucas 215 1968 2009

Hatfields Ferry Po wer Station 3179_B_1 Pennsylvania Greene 530 1969 2009

Hatfields Ferry Power Station 3179_B_2 Pennsylvania Greene 530 1970 2009

Hatfields Ferry Power Station 3179_B_3 Pennsylvania Greene 530 1971 2009

Nebraska City Unit 2 6096_B_2 Nebraska Otoe 663 2009 2009

Cross 130_B_4 South Carolina Berkeley 652 2009 2009

Springerville 8223_B_4 Arizona Apache 400 2009 2009

Sandow 5 82010_B_5 Texas Milam 600 2009 2009

Oak Grove 82011_B_1 Texas Robertson 800 2009 2009

Oak Grove 82011_B_2 Texas Robertson 800 2009 2 009

TS Power Plant 82013_B_1 Nevada Eureka 200 2009 2009

Plum Point Energy 82014_B_1 Arkansas Mississippi 665 2009 2009

Comanche 470_B_3 Colorado Pueblo 750 2009 2009

Elm Road Generating Station 56068_B_1 Wisconsin Milwaukee 615 2009 2009

Two Elk Gene rating Station 55360_B_1 Wyoming Campbell 300 2009 2009

J K Spruce 7097_B_BLR2 Texas Bexar 750 2009 2009

Dallman 963_B_34 Illinois Sangamon 200 2009 2009

Charles R Lowman 56_B_1 Alabama Washington 86 1969 2008

John E Amos 3935_B_1 West Virginia Putnam 800 1971 2008

John E Amos 3935_B_2 West Virginia Putnam 800 1972 2008

Cholla 113_B_4 Arizona Navajo 380 1981 2008

Roxboro 2712_B_1 North Carolina Person 369 1966 2008

Roxboro 2712_B_3A North Carolina Person 341 1973 2008

Roxboro 2712_B_3B North Caroli na Person 341 1973 2008

Miami Fort 2832_B_7 Ohio Hamilton 500 1975 2008

Miami Fort 2832_B_8 Ohio Hamilton 500 1978 2008

Cogentrix Virginia Leasing Corp 10071_B_2A Virginia Portsmouth 19 1988 2008

Cogentrix Virginia Leasing Corp 10071_B_2B Virginia Port smouth 19 1988 2008

Cogentrix Virginia Leasing Corp 10071_B_2C Virginia Portsmouth 19 1988 2008

J M Stuart 2850_B_1 Ohio Adams 585 1971 2008

J M Stuart 2850_B_2 Ohio Adams 597 1970 2008

### 5

J M Stuart 2850_B_3 Ohio Adams 597 1972 2008

J M Stuart 2850_B_4 Ohio Adams 597 1974 2008

Monroe 1733_B_3 Michigan Monroe 795 1973 2008

Belews Creek 8042_B_1 North Carolina Stokes 1,115 1974 2008

Belews Creek 8042_B_2 North Carolina Stokes 1,115 1975 2008

Bowen 703_B_3BLR Georgia Bartow 902 1974 2008

Bowen 703_B_4B LR Georgia Bartow 929 1975 2008

Hammond 708_B_1 Georgia Floyd 112 1954 2008

Hammond 708_B_2 Georgia Floyd 112 1954 2008

Hammond 708_B_3 Georgia Floyd 112 1955 2008

Hammond 708_B_4 Georgia Floyd 510 1970 2008

Wansley 6052_B_1 Georgia Heard 891 1976 200 8

Harding Street 990_B_70 Indiana Marion 435 1973 2008

Cogentrix Hopewell 10377_B_1A Virginia Hopewell (city) 18 1987 2008

Cogentrix Hopewell 10377_B_1B Virginia Hopewell (city) 18 1987 2008

Cogentrix Hopewell 10377_B_1C Virginia Hopewell (city) 18 198 7 2008

Ghent 1356_B_4 Kentucky Carroll 478 1984 2008

Council Bluffs 1082_B_3 Iowa Pottawattamie 690 1978 2008

PPL Brunner Island 3140_B_3 Pennsylvania York 749 1969 2008

PPL Montour 3149_B_1 Pennsylvania Montour 774 1972 2008

PPL Montour 3149_B_2 Penn sylvania Montour 766 1973 2008

Comanche 470_B_1 Colorado Pueblo 366 1973 2008

Comanche 470_B_2 Colorado Pueblo 370 1975 2008

Cayuga 1001_B_2 Indiana VermilIon 473 1972 2008

Winyah 6249_B_1 South Carolina Georgetown 295 1975 2008

Winyah 6249_B_2 South Carolina Georgetown 295 1977 2008

Winyah 6249_B_3 South Carolina Georgetown 295 1980 2008

Chesterfield 3797_B_6 Virginia Chesterfield 658 1969 2008

Brayton Point 1619_B_1 Massachusetts Bristo 243 1963 2008

Brayton Point 1619_B_2 Massachusetts Bristo 24 4 1964 2008

Weston 4078_B_4 Wisconsin Marathon 519 2008 2008

Gorgas 8_B_10 Alabama Walker 690 1972 2007

Gorgas 8_B_8 Alabama Walker 165 1956 2007

Gorgas 8_B_9 Alabama Walker 175 1958 2007

John E Amos 3935_B_3 West Virginia Putnam 1,300 1973 2007

Moun taineer 6264_B_1 West Virginia Mason 1,300 1980 2007

Cardinal 2828_B_1 Ohio Jefferson 600 1967 2007

Cardinal 2828_B_2 Ohio Jefferson 600 1967 2007

Roxboro 2712_B_2 North Carolina Person 639 1968 2007

Roxboro 2712_B_4A North Carolina Person 343 1980 200 7

Roxboro 2712_B_4B North Carolina Person 343 1980 2007

Cogentrix Virginia Leasing Corp 10071_B_1A Virginia Portsmouth 19 1988 2007

Cogentrix Virginia Leasing Corp 10071_B_1B Virginia Portsmouth 19 1988 2007

Cogentrix Virginia Leasing Corp 10071_B_1C V irginia Portsmouth 19 1988 2007

Killen Station 6031_B_2 Ohio Adams 615 1982 2007

Marshall 2727_B_2 North Carolina Catawba 378 1966 2007

Marshall 2727_B_3 North Carolina Catawba 657 1969 2007

Cogentrix Hopewell 10377_B_2A Virginia Hopewell (city) 18 198 7 2007

Cogentrix Hopewell 10377_B_2B Virginia Hopewell (city) 18 1987 2007

Cogentrix Hopewell 10377_B_2C Virginia Hopewell (city) 18 1987 2007

Ghent 1356_B_3 Kentucky Carroll 478 1981 2007

### 6

Louisa 6664_B_101 Iowa Louisa 700 1983 2007

Allen S King 1915_ B_1 Minnesota Washington 571 1968 2007

Mitchell 3948_B_1 West Virginia Marshall 800 1971 2007

Gibson 6113_B_1 Indiana Gibson 630 1975 2007

Gibson 6113_B_2 Indiana Gibson 628 1975 2007

Winyah 6249_B_4 South Carolina Georgetown 270 1981 2007

Pleasant Pr airie 6170_B_2 Wisconsin Kenosha 617 1985 2007

Cross 130_B_3 South Carolina Berkeley 620 2007 2007

Wygen II 55479_B_4 Wyoming Campbell 90 2007 2007

Council Bluffs 1082_B_4 Iowa Pottawattamie 790 2007 2007



## Assumed BART Facilities and Units

State County Fac ID Facilit y Name Unit ID

MI Bay B2840 CE

- KARN/WEADOCK EU00036

MI Bay B2840 CE

- KARN/WEADOCK EU00037

MI Eaton B4001 LAN. BW&L ERICKSON EU00007

MI Houghton B6553 UP POWER CO / PORTAGE EU00008

MI Huron B2815 DTE

- HARBOR BEACH EU00009

MI Ingham B2647 LAN. BW&L Eckert RG00023

MI Ingham B2647 LAN. BW&L Eckert RG00023

MI Ingham B2647 LAN. BW&L Eckert RG00023

MI Ingham B2647 LAN. BW&L Moores Park RG00021

MI Marquette B4261 WE

- ENERGIES EU00029

MI Marquette B4261 WE

- ENERGIES EU00030

MI Marq uette B4261 WE

- ENERGIES EU00031

MI Marquette B4261 WE

- ENERGIES EU00032

MI Marquette B4261 WE

- ENERGIES EU00033

MI Monroe B2816 DTE

- MONROE EU00062

MI Monroe B2816 DTE

- MONROE EU00068

MI Monroe B2816 DTE

- MONROE EU00063

MI Monroe B2816 DTE

- MONROE EU00064

MI Ottawa B2835 CE

– CAMPBELL EU00062

MI Ottawa B2835 CE

– CAMPBELL EU00061

MI Saint Clair B2796 DTE

- ST. CLAIR / BELLE RIVER EU00111

MI Saint Clair B6145 DTE

– GREENWOOD EU00009

MI Wayne B2132 WYANDOTTE EU00036

MI Wayne B2185 DET ROIT PLD, MISTERSKY EU00014

MI Wayne B2811 DTE

– TRENTON EU00035

OH Lake 0243160009 CEI., EASTLAKE PLANT B005

OH 0247030013 Orion Power Midwest B012

OH 0285010188 Dept of Public Utilities, City of Orrville B001

OH 0285010188 Dept of Public Utilities, City of Orrville B004

OH 0448020006 Toledo Edison Co., Bay Shore B003

OH 0448020006 Toledo Edison Co., Bay Shor e B004

OH 0616000000 Conesville Power Plant B003

OH 0616000000 Conesville Power Plant B004

OH 0616000000 Conesville Power Pl ant B007

OH 0641050002 Cardinal Power Pl ant B001

OH 0641050002 Cardinal Power Pl ant B002

### 7

OH 0641050002 Cardinal Power Plant B003

OH 0641050002 Cardinal Power Pl ant B004

OH 0641050002 Cardinal Power Pl ant B008

OH 0641050002 Cardinal Power P l ant B009

OH 0641050002 Cardinal Power Plant B009

OH Jefferson 0641160017 W. H. SAMMIS PLANT B011

OH Jefferson 0641160017 W. H. SAMMIS PLANT B012

OH Jefferson 0641160017 W. H. SAMMIS PLANT B013

OH 0684000000 Muskingum River Power Plant B006

OH Ada ms 0701000007 DP&L, J.M. Stuart Generating Station B001

OH Adams 0701000007 DP&L, J.M. Stuart Generating Station B002

OH Adams 0701000007 DP&L, J.M. Stuart Generating Station B003

OH Adams 0701000007 DP&L, J.M. Stuart Generating Station B004

OH 070100 0060 DP&L, Killen Station B001

OH 1409040243 City of Hamilton Dept of Public Utilities B002

OH 1409040243 City of Hamilton Dept of Public Utilities B008

OH 1409040243 City of Hamilton Dept of Public Utilities B009

OH 1413100008 CG&E W. C. BECKJORD B005

OH 1413100008 CG&E W. C. BECKJORD B006

OH 1431350093 CG&E MIAMI FORT STATION B015

IL Peoria 856 Ameren

– Edwards 2

IL Sangamon 963 CWLP

– Dallman 31

IL Sangamon 963 CWLP

– Dallman 32

IL Christian 876 Dominion

– Kincaid 1

IL Christian 87 6 Dominion

– Kincaid 2

WI COLUMBIA 111003090 Alliant En ergy

- Columbia Generating B20

WI COLUMBIA 111003090 Alliant En ergy

- Columbia Generating B21

WI COLUMBIA 111003090 Alliant En ergy

- Columbia Generating B22

WI GRANT 122014530 Alliant Energy, Nelso n Dewey B22 (unit 2)

WI MILWAUKEE 241007690 We Energies

- Oak Creek Station B26 (Unit 6)

WI MILWAUKEE 241007690 We Energies

- Oak Creek Station B27 (Unit 7)

WI MILWAUKEE 241007690 We Energies

- Oak Creek Station B28

WI MILWAUKEE 241007800 We Energies

- Valley Station B21

WI MILWAUKEE 241007800 We Energies

- Valley Station B23

WI MILWAUKEE 241007800 We Energies

- Valley Station B24

WI BRO WN 405031990 WI Public Service Corp

- JP Pulliam B27 (unit 8)

WI SHEBOYGAN 460033090 WP & L Allian t Energy

– Edgewater B24

W I BUFFALO 606034110 Dairyland Power Coop Alma Station (J.P. Madgett boilers) B25 (+B26)

WI BUFFALO 606034110 Dairyland Power Coop Alma Station B27

WI VERNON 663020930 Dairyland Power Coop Genoa Station B20

WI VERNON 663020930 Dairyland Power Coop Genoa Station B25

IN Porter 995 Bailly 7

IN Porter 995 Bailly 8

IN Vermillion 1001 Cayuga 1

IN Vermillion 1001 Cayuga 2

IN Montgomery 1024 Crawfordsville 6

IN Warrick 1012 Culley 2

### 8

IN Warrick 1012 Culley 3

IN Gibson 6113 

### Gibson 1

IN Gibson 6113 

### Gi bson 2

IN Cass 1032 Logansport 6

IN Sullivan 6213 Merom 1

IN Sullivan 6213 Merom 2

IN LaPorte 997 Michigan City 12

IN Lake 996 Mitchell 11

IN Pike 994 Petersburg 1

IN Pike 994 Petersburg 2

IN Pike 994 Petersburg 3

IN Pike 1043 Ratts 1

IN Pike 104 3 Ratts 2

IN Wayne 7335 RPL 2

IN Jasper 6085 Schahfer 14

IN Jasper 6085 Schahfer 15

IN Lake 981 Stateline 4

IN Marion 990 Stout 70

IN Dearborn 988 

### Tanners Creek 4

IN Vigo 1010 

### Wabash River 6

IN Warrick 6705 

### Warrick 4

IA 07

- 02

- 005 Cedar Fal ls Utilities Unit #7 (EU10.1A)

IA 88

- 01

- 004 Central Iowa Power Cooperative (CIPCO)

– Summit Lake Station Comb Turbines (EU

1 /1G , EU2 /2 G)

IA 70

- 08

- 003 Central Iowa Power Cooperative (CIPCO)

– Fair Station Unit # 2 (EU 2 & EU 2G)

IA 85

- 01

- 006 City of Am es

- Steam Electric Plant Boiler #7 (EU 2)

IA 29

- 01

- 013 Interstate Power & Light

- Burlington Main Plant Boiler.

IA 03

- 03

- 001 Interstate Power & Light

- Lansing Boiler #4. Sixteen

units in total.

IA 23

- 01

- 014 Interstate Power & Light

- ML Kapp Boiler #2. Six units

in total.

IA 57

- 01

- 042 Interstate Power & Light

- Prairie Creek Boiler #4. Fourteen

units in total.

IA 78

- 01

- 026 MidAmerican Energy Co

- Council Bluffs Boiler #3 (EU003)

IA 97

- 04

- 010 MidAmerican Energy Co

- Neal North Boilers #1

- 3 (EU0 01

- EU003)

IA 97

- 04

- 011 MidAmerican Energy Co

- Neal South Boiler #4 (EU003)

IA 70

- 01

- 011 Muscatine Power and Water Boiler #8

IA 63

- 02

- 005 Pella Municipal Power Plant Boilers #6

- 8

MN 2709900001 Austin Utilities NE Power Station EU001

MN 27 13700027 Hibbing Public Utilities EU003

MN 2703100001 MN Power, Taconite Harbor EU003

MN 2706100004 MN Power, Boswell Energy Center EU003

MN 2701500010 New Ulm Public Utilities EU003

- Boiler 4

MN 2711100002 Otter Tail Power Hoot Lake EU003

MN 27 10900011 Rochester Public Utilities, Silver Lake EU003

MN 2710900011 Rochester Public Utilities, Silver Lake EU004

MN 2713700028 Virginia Public Utilities EU003

- Boiler 9

MN 2714100004 Xcel Energy, Sherco EU001, EU002

MN 2716300005 Xcel Energy, Allen S King EU001

- Boiler 1

### 9

MN 2705300015 Xcel Energy, Riverside EU003

- Boiler 8

MO 290710003 Ameren

- Labadie B1, B2, B3, B4

MO 291830001 Ameren

- Sioux B1, B2

MO 290990016 Ameren

- Rush Island B1, B2

MO 290950031 Auila

- Sibley B3

- 5C

MO 291430004 Assoc. Electric

- New Madrid B1(EP

- 01), B2 (EP

- 02)

MO 290770039 City Utilities Springfield

- Southwest B1 (E09)

MO 290770005 City Utilities Springfield

- James River EO7, EO8

MO 290970001 Empire Distric Electric

- Asbury B7

MO 29083 0001 KC Power and Light

- Montrose EP08

MO 290210004 Aqula

- Lake Road EP06

MO 291750001 Assoc. Electric

- Thomas Hill EP01, EP02

MO 290950021 Trigen

- Kansas City B1A

MO 290190002 City of Columbia Municipal Power Plant EP02

MO 291950010 Marshall Munipal Utilities EP05

MO 290950050 Independence Power & Light

- Blue Valley B3 (EP05)

WV 3943 Fort Martin

WV 6004 Pleasants

WV 3948 Mitchell

WV 3935 Amos

WV 6264 Mountaineer

WV 3944 Harrison

TN 3396 TVA Bull Run

TN 3399 TVA Cumberland

KY 1363 Cane Run

KY 1364 Mill Creek

KY 6041 Spurlock

KY 1384 John Sherman Cooper

KY 1353 Big Sandy

KY 1356 Ghent

KY 1355 Brown

KY 1374 Owensboro Municipal

KY 1372 Henderson Municipal

KY 1378 Paradise

KY 1361 Coleman

KY 1382 Reid/Henderson 2

KY 6639 Green

## Public Notice Ohio Environmental Protection AgencyRedesignation and Maintenance Plan for the Ohio Portion of the CincinnatiHamilton, OH-KY-IN Annual PM 2.5 

## Nonattainment Area

Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren Counties

Notice is hereby given that the Director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, (Ohio EPA) is requesting that the United States Environment al Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) revise the current air quality designation for the Ohio portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area, including Butler, Clermont, Ha milton, and Warren counties to attainment with respect to the 1997 annual PM 2.5 

## national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Air quality monitoring data collected bet ween 2007 and 2009 in the region demonstrate
attainment of the NAAQS and t here is evidence that the im proved air quality is due to permanent, enforceable emission reductions. In addition, existing requirements are
sufficient to maintain the 1997 annual PM 2.5 

## standard in this area at least ten years into

the future.

Computer models show that existing stat e and federal emission reduction requirements

are sufficient to attain and maintain t he NAAQS in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. Therefore, Ohio EPA proposes to utilize ex isting emission inventory information and projections of future emissions as the dem onstration of the ability to maintain the
NAAQS in the Cincinnati-Ham ilton area in the future.

The Cincinnati-Hamilton area is currently designated as nonattainment for the 1997

annual PM 2.5 

## standard. As part of an acceptable maintenance plan, Ohio EPA is required to develop a contingency plan to prov ide for additional emission reductions if a
violation of the NAAQS is monitored afte r the area has been redes ignated. The plan which Ohio EPA is proposing to USEPA as part of this redesignation contains reductions which will help alleviate the ambi ent problem until a re vised SIP can be developed.

The State of Ohio proposes to:

1. Request the U.S. EPA redesignate the Cincinnati-Hamilton area to attainment with respect to the 1997 annual PM 2.5 

## NAAQS and revise the maintenance plan. This request will document t hat existing enforceable control measures are responsible for the observed improvement in air quality.

2. Designate existing controls as sufficient to maintain the NAAQS into the future.

3. Commit to the proposed contingency plan.

These actions must be noticed to allo w public comment and to satisfy USEPA requirements for public involvement in SIP re lated activities. This notice addresses Ohio

## EPA’s reliance on the emission projections as evidence of attainment and maintenance

and the commitment to instit ute contingency measures if ambient exceedances or violations trigger the contingency plan r equirements. Written comments will be received on or before November 29, 2010 at the following address:

E-mail: Carolina.Prado@epa.state.oh.us

Mailing address: Carolina Prado Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, DAPC
Lazarus Government Center
P.O. Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 Phone: (614)- 728-1743

Pursuant to Section 119.03 of the Ohio Revised Code, a public hearing on this redesignation request will be conducted as follows : November 29, 2010 at 2:30 P.M., at Hamilton County Department of Environmental Services loca ted at 250 William Howard Taft Road, Cincinnati, Ohio.

All interested persons are entitled to att end or be represented at the hearings and give

written or oral comments on these changes. All oral comments presented at the hearing, and all written statements submitted at the hear ing or to the above address by the close of business on November 30, 2010 will be considered by Ohio EPA prior to final action on this redesignat ion. Written statements subm itted after November 30, 2010 may be considered as time and circumst ances permit, but will not be part of the official record of the hearing.

This redesignation and maintenance request is available on Ohio EPA DAPC’s Web page for electronic downloading. The URL is: http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dapc/SIP/annual.aspx . Questions regarding accessing the web

site should be directed to Arunee Niamlar b at 614-728-1342; other questions or

comments about this document should be dire cted to either Caro lina Prado, (614)-644- 2310, Carolina.Prado@epa.state.oh.us or Jennifer Hunter at (614) 644-3696, Jennifer.Hunter@epa.state.oh.us or mailed to Carolina Prado or Jennifer Hunter at the

above address.

## ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

PUBLIC HEARING

IN THE MATTER OF:

OHIO EPA REQUESTS

RECOGNITION OF IMPROVED

AIR QUALITY XN CINCINNATI

PUBLIC HEARING HELD AT THE

HAMILTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

SERVICES, 250 WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT ROAD, CINCINNATI,

OHIO, ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2010, BEGINNING AT

2:37 P.M., REPORTED BY MARY A. SCHWEINHAGEN, RPR,

RMR. AND CRR.

DAYTON 

# - (937) 228-3370 CINCINNATI 

# - (513) 651-3370

## MS. MCCARRON: My name is Mary

McCarron. I am the public involvement coordinator,

and I'll be presiding over the hearing today.

Thank you for taking the time to

attend this hearing. It's to gather any comments

from interested parties regarding Ohio EPA's

proposed action.

Ohio EPA is planning to ask U.S.

EPA to revise the current air quality designation

for the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton

area to attainment with respect to the 1997 annual

PM2.5 national ambient air quality standard. The

proposed redesignation request affects Butler,

Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren counties.

Comments can be submitted until

the close of business on November 30th, 2010, to

Carolina Prado at Carolina.prado@epa.ohio.gov.



## All interested persons are

entitled to attend or to be represented and to

present oral and/or written comments concerning the

proposed action. All written and oral comments

received as part of the official record will be

considered by the director of Ohio EPA.

To be included in the official

record, written comments must be received, as I

WWW.BRITTONANDASSOCIATES.COM

DAYTON 

# - (937) 228-3370 CINCINNATI 

# - (513) 651-3370

## said earlier, by November 30th, 2010. These

comments can be filed with me today or e-mailed to

the address mentioned earlier. All written

comments submitted for the record receive the same

consideration as any oral testimony given today.

Written comments submitted after

November 30th may be considered as time and

circumstances permit but won't be part of the

official record.

At this point I am going to read

the names of the folks who have registered at the

hearing today, and if you don't want to speak just

go ahead and say pass.

The first person who registered is

Dick Brewer.

MR. DICK BREWER: Pass.

MS. MCCARRON: And Andy Reser?

MR. ANDY RESER: Pass.

MS. MCCARRON: I think at this

point there is nobody else who is signed in to

present testimony, and so we will go off the record

until 3 

## p.m.

(WHEREUPON, the parties went off

the record. )



## MS. MCCARRON: At this time is

~ 

## WWW.BRITTONANDASSOCIATES.COM

DAYTON 

# - (937) 228-3370 CINCINNATI 

# - (513) 651-3370

## there anybody 

## else who would wish to testify for

the hearing? Okay. Seeing none, 

## we are going to

go ahead and close out this hearing.

I remind you that written comments

can be submitted through November 30th.

The 

## time is now 3:06, and this

hearing is 

## adjourned.

(Hearing adjourned at 3:06 p.m.)

DAYTON 

# - (937) 228-3370 CINCINNATI 

# - (513) 651-3370

## CERTIFICATE

I, Mary 

## A. Schweinhagen, a Registered

Merit Reporter and Certified Realtime Reporter do

hereby certify that the foregoing is 

## a full, true

and correct transcript of my notes taken in the

above-styled case and thereafter transcribed by me.



# -nV+ \ 

# -2?&L-.&Q~

Mary A. Schweinhagen') RMR, CRR

WWW.BRITTONANDASSOCIATES.COM

DAYTON 

# - (937) 228-3370 

## CINCINNATI 

# - (513) 651-3370

## Division of Air Pollution Control

Response to Comments

PM 2.5 

## redesignation request for the 1997 PM 2.5 

## Annual Standard
for the Cincinnati-Hamilton Area

Agency Contact for this Package

Division Contact: (Carolina Prado, Division of Air Po llution Control, 614-644-2310, Carolina.Prado@epa.state.oh.us)

Ohio EPA held a public hearing in Cincinnati, OH on November 29, 2010, regarding the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Cincinnati-Hamilton PM 2.5 

## Nonattainment Area. This document summarizes the comments and questions received at the public hearing and during the asso ciated comment period, which ended on November 30, 2010. Ohio EPA reviewed an d considered all comments received during the public comment period.

By law, Ohio EPA has authority to consider specific issues related to protection of the environment and public health.

In an effort to help you review this doc ument, the questions are grouped by topic and organized in a consistent format. The name of the commenter follo ws the comment in parentheses.

General/Overall Concerns

Comment 1: The final submission shoul d include electronic copies of the RunSpec files, the user-supplied input database(s), and the output databases(s) produced for the analysis. The inclusion of post-processing scripts in Sect ion 4.6 and 5 is very helpful (Patricia Morris, U. S. EPA - Region 5).

Response 1: The RunSpec files, input and output databases, SQL postprocessing scripts, and the revised documentation have been saved to CDs and 2 copies will be provided to U.S. EPA.

Comment 2: Table 3 in the unnumbere d section at the beginning of the document includes a summary of the RunSpec parameters used in this analysis. The Appendix, which starts on numbered page 11, includes a mo re detailed description of the RunSpec parameters and u ser inputs. There are some discrepancies between Table 3 and the Attachment text

## which are listed in order below (Patricia Morris, U.S. EPA – Region 5).

Response 2: The text discrepancies between Table 3 and Appendix C have

been corrected as indicated.

Comment 3: The default database version listed in Table 3 (“MOVES

default database 2010615111524” ) does not exist. The documentation needs to accurately refer to the version of the database used (Patricia Morr is, U.S. EPA – Region 5).

Response 3: We have correctly identified the version in the final document.

Comment 4: For calculating annual PM 2.5 

## emissions, OKI used a single daily temperature profile that was based on annual average temperatures (Table 3 and Section 1.3). PM emissions in MOVES are sensitive to temperature, and the use of a single day temperature profile to repr esent the entire year may not accurately reflect the impact of seasonal temperature changes on PM emissions form motor vehicles. For a PM inventory that is going to be used for air quality modeling in

an attainment demonstrati on, seasonal, monthly, or even daily temperatures may be needed, depending on the

detailed circumstances of the analysis. Given that this analysis is not being used for an attainment demonstration, the use of an average annual temperature profile is acceptable, but approval of this approach should be taken as a general approval of the use of a single daily temperature profile for all uses (Patricia Morris, U.S. EPA - Region 5).

Response 4: It is our understanding that the use of one set of annual averages is acceptable for developing a motor vehicle emissions budget and for transportation conformity. This methodology is similar to
what OKI used for MOBILE. We agree that MOVES assumptions used for different state implement ation purposes may need to vary. OKI will be experimenting with a four season approach to
annual emissions. When MOVES is used for attainment demonstrations purposes we will discuss further the appropriate assumptions to use with all parties involved.

Comment 5: Section 1.3 of the A ppendix says, “Ozone season daily analysis is done using July temperatures.” What is the purpose of this analysis in th e context of this submission?

## There doesn’t seem to be any ot her reference to this in the document (Patricia Morris, U.S. EPA - Region 5).

Response 5: OKI's MOVES runs generated additional information (i.e. July emission rates) that was not r equired for this PM2.5 SIP. Document references to an ozone season analysis and July temperatures have been deleted.

Comment 6: Table 3 says that all roads types including off-network were included. Section 1.6 says, “ There are five types of road types available in MOVES, since OKI travel demand model could not predict the VMT in pa rking lots (off network) only four road types is used to assign activity for vehicles starts and for evap emissions while veh icles are parked. It does not apply to VMT parking lots. Given that start emissions were calculated, the entry in Table 3 seems to be the correct one,

but the document should be clar ified (Patricia Morris, U.S. EPA - Region 5).

Response 6: We have included the appropriate clarification in the final

document.

Comment 7: Table 3 says that all PM2. 5 categories were selected in the Pollutants and Processes panel, but Section 1.7 says that

"total PM2.5 emi ssions are selected in a ddition of (sic) sulfur

dioxide." If that is accurate , the inventory would not include

brake-wear and tire-wear emi ssions which are calculated separately from "Total PM2.5" which only includes exhaust

emissions. Given that the inve ntories include brake and tire wear, Table 3 seems to have the correct information, but the

documentation should be clarifie d (Patricia Morris, U.S. EPA - Region 5).

Response 7: We have included the appropriate clarification in the final

document.

Comment 8: Table 3 and Section 2.2 i ndicate that for the Ohio counties, local populations were used for all source types except 41, 61, and 62. However, in the Ke ntucky counties, default data were also used for the light truck categories (31 - passenger trucks and 32- light commercial trucks). We are concerned about the use of default data for the light truck categories. Our technical guidance is very clear on the importance of

## local information for source type population. While it may be reasonable to use national defaults for some of the heavy duty categories as was done in the Ohio counties, OKI should be able to develop lo cal data for the light duty categories. If Kentucky has local data for passenger cars, they should also have local da ta for light trucks (Patricia Morris, U.S. EPA - Region 5).

Response 8: The Kentucky Transportation Cabi net (KYTC) decoded VINs and provided the results by HPMS source type to OKI.

Inconsistencies were found in the results and could not be
corrected in time for OKI's an alysis. It was decided that a
combination of the KYTC VI N data and MOVES default data would provide the most accurate re sults. KYTC continues to try to correct the VIN decoding errors.

End of comments

## LEGAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

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

## ) Standard

Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County, Indiana

Notice is hereby given under 40 CFR 51.102 that the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) will hold a public hearing on January 5, 2011. The purpose of this hearing is to receive public comment on the Draft Redesignation Petition

and Maintenance Plan in association with the Annual Fine Particle (PM 2.5 

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

Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County, I ndiana is part of the CincinnatiHamilton OH-KY-IN Fine Particle Nonattainme nt Area. This area was designated as

nonattainment for the annual fine particle standard and subj ect to the requirements of Section 172 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). One of the compliance requirements mandated by Section 172(c) of the CAA, is the devel opment of a plan demonstrating that the area

will continue to meet the annual standard for fine particles. This Redesignation Petition

and Maintenance Plan is bei ng drafted and submitted consis tent with United States Environmental Protection Agen cy (U.S. EPA) guidance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IDEM will also accept written comments through January 7, 2010. Mailed

comments should be addressed to:

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

## ) Redesignation Petition and Maintenance Plan Scott Deloney, Chief Programs Branch Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office of Air Quality MC 61-50

100 North Senate Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46206-2251

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

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

************************************************************************ Individuals requiring reasonable accommodations for participation in this hearing

should contact the IDEM Am ericans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator at:

Attn: ADA Coordinator Indiana Department of Environmenta l Management – Mail Code 50-10

100 North Senate Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204-2251

Or call (317) 233-1785 (voice) or (317) 232- 6565 (TDD). Please provide a minimum of 72 hours notification.

# REQUEST FOR REDESIGNATION AND

MAINTENANCE PLAN

UNDER THE ANNUAL NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY

STANDARD FOR FINE PARTICLES



# For the Indiana Portion

of the

Cincinnati – Hamilton, OH-KY-IN

Nonattainment Area for Fine Particles

Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County,

Indiana

Prepared By: The Indiana Department of Environmental Management

November 2010

## This page intentionally left blank

ii

## TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................ ................1 1.2 Geographical Description .................................................................................................. ........2 1.3 Status of Air Quality ..................................................................................................... .............3

2.0 REQUIREMENTS FOR REDESIGNATION ......................................................................3

2.1 General ................................................................................................................... ....................3 2.2 Fine Particles Monitoring ................................................................................................. .........4 2.3 Emission Inventory ........................................................................................................ ............4 2.4 Modeling Demonstration .................................................................................................... .......4 2.5 Controls and Regulations .................................................................................................. .........5

2.6 Corrective Actions for Potential Future Viol ations of the Fine Particles Standard ...................5

3.0 FINE PARTICLES MONITORING .....................................................................................5 3.1 Fine Particles Monitoring Network ......................................................................................... ..5 3.2 Ambient Fine Particles Monitoring Data ...................................................................................7 3.3 Quality Assurance ......................................................................................................... ...........10 3.4 Continued Monitoring ...................................................................................................... ........10

4.0 EMISSION INVENTORY ....................................................................................................10

4.1 Emission Trends ........................................................................................................... ............11 4.2 Base Year Inventory ....................................................................................................... .........22 4.3 Emission Projections ...................................................................................................... ..........23

4.4 Demonstration of Maintenance .............................................................................................. ..29

4.5 Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions ..................................................................29 4.6 Provisions for Future Updates ............................................................................................. ....30

5.0 MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS BUDGET ......................................................................30

5.1 Onroad Emission Estimates ................................................................................................. ....30

5.2 Overview .................................................................................................................. ................30

5.3 Emission Estimates ........................................................................................................ ..........31

6.0 CONTROL MEASURES AND REGULATIONS ..............................................................33 6.1 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) ...............................................................33 6.2 Implementation of Past SIP Revisions .....................................................................................3 3 6.3 Nitrogen Oxides (NO

x 

## ) Rule ....................................................................................................33 6.4 Measures Beyond Clean Ai r Act SIP Requirements ...............................................................34

6.5 Controls to Remain in Effect .............................................................................................. .....38

6.6 New Source Review Provisions .............................................................................................. .38

iii

## 7.0 MODELING AND METEOROLOGY ................................................................................39 7.1 Summary of Modeling Results to Support Rulemakings ........................................................39 7.2 LADCO’s Round 5 Particulate Source Apportionment Results ..............................................43 7.3 Summary of Existing Modeling Results ..................................................................................46 7.4 Meteorological Analysis for Southeastern Indiana ..................................................................46 7.4.1 Surface Air Conditions Present during High Fine Particles Concentrations Days ...............46 7.4.2 Upper Air Conditions Present during High Fine Particles Concentration Days ...................47 7.4.3 Analyses of Atmospheric Conditi ons for Fine Particles Build-Up .......................................47 7.5 Summary of Air Quality Index Days in Southeastern Indiana ................................................48 7.6 Summary of Meteorological Analys is for Southeastern Indiana .............................................49

8.0 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ...................................................................................................49

8.1 Commitment to Revise Plan ................................................................................................. ...49

8.2 Commitment for Con tingency Measures .................................................................................49 8.3 Contingency Measures ...................................................................................................... .......50

9.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ................................................................................................51

10.0 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................51

FIGURES

Figure 3.1 Cincinnati Basic Nonattainment Area ............................................................................6

CHARTS

Chart 7.1 Regional/Emission Sect or PSAT Results at Murray Road in Hamilton County ...........44 Chart 7.2 Species Modeled Contributions to Murray Road PM 2.5 

## Monitor ..................................45 Chart 7.3 Species Modeled Contribu tions to Seymour & Vine St. PM 2.5 

## Monitor .......................45 Chart 7.4 Species Modeled C ontributions to 101 West 8 th 

## Street PM 2.5 

## Monitor .........................45 Chart 7.5 Species Modeled Contributions to University College PM 2.5 

## Monitor..........................46

Chart 7.6 Distribution of PM 2.5 

## Concentration Days on the AQI Levels of Health Concern ........48

iv

## TABLES

Table 1.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Fine Particles ............................................2 Table 3.1 Monitoring Data for the Cincinnati Area (Annual Average and 2007 – 2009 Design Values ................................................................................................................. .................7 Table 4.1 Comparison of 2008 Estimated and 2021 Projected Emission Estimates Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn C ounty, Indiana (Tons Per Year) .........................................28 Table 4.2 Comparison of 2008 Estimated a nd 2021 Projected Emission Estimates Entire Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN N onattainment Area (Tons Per Year) ...........................29

Table 5.1 Emission Estimations for Onroad Mobile Sources for the Cincinnati-Hamilton

OH-KY-IN PM 2.5 

## Nonattainment Area ..........................................................................................31 Table 5.2 Mobile Source Emission Budgets for the Ohio and Indiana Portions of the

Cincinnati PM 2.5 

## Nonattainment Area ............................................................................................31

Table 6.1 Trends in EGU NO

x 

## Emissions Statewide in Indiana....................................................34 Table 7.1 Transport Rule Modeling Results from U.S. EPA - 2010 .............................................40 Table 7.2 LADCO’s Round 6 Modeling Results for the Cincinnati Area .....................................42 Table 7.3 Ranking and Percentage of Highest Number of Days at AQI Levels of Health

Concern ....................................................................................................................... ...................49

GRAPHS

Graph 3.1 Design Values for the Cincinnati Area for Fine Particles, 2003 through 2009 .............9 Graph 3.2 Cincinnati Area Annual Fine Particles Trends, 2005 through 2009 ...............................9 Graph 4.1 Dearborn County, IN NO

x 

## Point Source Emission Trends, 2005 and 2008 .................11 Graph 4.2 Dearborn County, IN SO 2 

## Point Source Emission Trends, 2005 and 2008 ..................12 Graph 4.3 Dearborn County, IN PM 2.5 

## Point Source Emission Trends, 2005 and 2008 ...............12 Graph 4.4 Entire Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Nonattainment Area NO

x 

## Point Source Emission Trends, 2005 and 2008 .......................................................................................13 Graph 4.5 Entire Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Nonattainment Area SO 2 

## Point Source Emission Trends, 2005 and 2008 .......................................................................................13 Graph 4.6 Entire Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY- IN Nonattainment Area Direct PM 2.5 

## Point Source Emission Trends, 2005 and 2008 .............................................................................14 Graph 4.7 NO

x 

## Emission Trends, All Sources in Dearborn County, IN, 2005 and

2008-With CAIR ................................................................................................................ ............16 Graph 4.8 SO 2 

## Emission Trends, All Sources in Dearborn County, IN, 2005 and

2008-With CAIR ................................................................................................................ ............16 Graph 4.9 Direct PM 2.5 

## Emission Trends, All Sources in Dearborn County, IN, 2005

and 2008-With CAIR ............................................................................................................ .........17 Graph 4.10 NO

x 

## Emission Trends, All Sources in Entire Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Nonattainment Area, 2005 and 2008-With CAIR ......................................................17

v

## Graph 4.11 SO 2 

## Emission Trends, All Sources in Entire Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Nonattainment Area, 2005 and 2008-With CAIR ......................................................18 Graph 4.12 Direct PM 2.5 

## Emission Trends, All Sources in Entire Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Nonattainment Area, 2005 and 2008-Without CAIR .................................................18 Graph 4.13 Lawrenceburg Townshi p, Dearborn County, Indiana NO

x 

## Emissions from EGUs, 1999 to 2009 ............................................................................................................ ...........20 Graph 4.14 Entire Cincinnati-Hamilt on OH-KY-IN Nonattainment Area NO

x 

## Emissions from EGUs, 1999 to 2009 ....................................................................................................... .......21 Graph 4.15 Lawrenceburg Townshi p, Dearborn County, Indiana SO 2 

## Emissions from EGUs, 1999 to 2009 ............................................................................................................ ...........21 Graph 4.16 Entire Cincinnati-Hamilt on, OH-KY-IN Nonattainment Area SO 2 

## Emissions from EGUs, 1999 to 2009 ....................................................................................................... .......22 Graph 4.17 Comparison of 2008, 2015 and 2021 Projected NO

x 

## Emissions, Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County, Indiana-With CAIR ................................................24 Graph 4.18 Comparison of 2008, 2015 and 2021 Projected SO 2 

## Emissions, Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County, Indiana-With CAIR ................................................25 Graph 4.19 Comparison of 2008, 2015 and 2021 Projected Direct PM 2.5 

## Emissions, Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County, Indiana-With CAIR ................................................25 Graph 4.20 Comparison of 2008, 2015 and 2021 Projected SO 2 

## , NO

x 

## and Direct

PM 2.5 

## Emissions, Lawrenceburg Township, D earborn county, Indiana-With CAIR ....................26 Graph 4.21 Comparison of 2008, 2015 and 2021 Projected NO

x 

## Emissions for the Entire Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Nonattainment Area-With CAIR ..................................26 Graph 4.22 Comparison of 2008, 2015 and 2021 Projected SO 2 

## Emissions for the Entire Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Nonattainment Area-With CAIR ..................................27 Graph 4.23 Comparison of 2008, 2015 and 2021 Projected Direct PM 2.5 

## Emissions for the Entire Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY -IN Nonattainment Area-Without CAIR .................27 Graph 4.24 Comparison of 2008, 2015 and 2021 Projected SO 2 

## , NO

x 

## and Direct

PM 2.5 

## Emissions for the Entire Cincinnati -Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Nonattainment Area-(NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## With CAIR, PM 2.5 

## Without CAIR) ...............................................................28 Graph 7.1 PM 2.5 

## Design Value Trends for Cincinnati Area: 1999 - 2009 .....................................41 Graph 7.2 Modeling Results (without CAIR) for the Cincinnati Area PM 2.5 

## Monitors ................43

vi

## APPENDICES

A Air Quality System (AQS) and Indiana De partment of Environmental Management (IDEM) Monitor Data Values for the Cincinnati-Hamilton OH-KY-IN Nonattainment Area (2000-2009) B Nitrogen Oxides (NO

x 

## ), Sulfur Dioxides (SO 2 

## ) and Direct Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 

## ) Point Source Emissions (2005 and 2008) for the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN

Nonattainment Area C Nitrogen Oxides (NO

x 

## ), Sulfur Dioxides (SO 2 

## ) and Direct Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 

## ) (2005 and 2008) Emission Trends, All Sour ces, Entire Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN

Nonattainment Area D Nitrogen Oxides (NO

x 

## ) and Sulfur Dioxides (SO 2 

## ) Emissions from Electric Generating Units, Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County, Indiana and Entire CincinnatiHamilton, OH-KY-IN Nonattainment Area E 2008 Base Year Emissions Inventory and 2015 and 2021 Projected Emissions Inventory for Nitrogen Oxides (NO

x 

## ), Sulfur Dioxides (SO 2 

## ) and Direct Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 

## ) in Entire Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Nonattainment Area F Mobile Source Input/Output Calculation Files G Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) Area Source Inventory Standard Operating Procedure H Lake Michigan Air Directors Consor tium Emission Estimates Technical Support

Document I Lake Michigan Air Directors Consor tium (LADCO) Round 5 Modeling Technical Support Document (Round 5 Photochemical Modeling Based on “Base M” Emissions inventory, revised version of “Base K”) J Public Participation Process Documents

vii

## 1 REQUEST FOR REDESIGNATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN

UNDER THE ANNUAL NATI ONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD FOR FINE PARTICLES

CINCINNATI-HAMILTON OH-KY-IN AREA

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This document supports Indiana’s request that Lawrenceburg Township in Dearborn County, Indiana, which is part of the Cincinnati-Ham ilton OH-KY-IN fine partic les nonattainment area (herein referred to as the Cinc innati area), be redesignated from nonattainment to attainment of the 1997 annual standard for fine particles. Th ere are no monitors for fine particles in the Indiana portion of the Cincinnati area. However, because the Cincinnati area has recorded three years of quality assured ambien t air quality monitoring data for the years 2007 through 2009, demonstrating attainment with th e annual standard for fine partic les, the Indiana portion of the Cincinnati area is eligib le for redesignation.

Section 107 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishe s specific requirements to be met in order for

an area to be considered fo r redesignation, including:

(a) A determination that the area has attained the annual standard for fine particles. (b) An approved State Implementation Plan (S IP) for the area under Section 110(k). (c) A determination that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and

enforceable reductions in emissions resul ting from implementation of the SIP and other federal requirements. (d) A fully approved maintenance plan under Section 175A. (e) A determination that all Section 110 and Part D requirements have been met.

A maintenance plan provides for the continued atta inment of the air quality standard by an area for a period of ten years after the United Stat es Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has formally redesignated the area to attainment. The plan also pr ovides assurances that even if there is a subsequent exceedance of the air quality standard, measures in the maintenance plan will prevent any future occurrences through con tingency measures that would be triggered.

This document addresses each of these requireme nts, and provides additional information to support continued compliance with the a nnual standard for fine particles.

1.1 Background

The CAA requires states with areas designate d nonattainment of th e applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particul ate matter to develop SI Ps to expeditiously

attain and maintain the standar d. In 1997, U.S. EPA set daily and annual air quality standards for fine particles (PM 2.5 

## ), as shown in Table 1.1. The sta ndards were legally challenged and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in February of 2001. In 1999, Indiana began monitoring for

## 2 fine particle concentrations. The U.S. EPA desi gnated areas in Indiana un der the fine particle standards on December 17, 2004, as attainment, nonattainment, or unclass ifiable, with an effective date of April 5, 2005.

Table 1.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Fine Particles

Annual 24-Hour

1997 Fine Particles

Standard (PM 2.5 

## ) 15 μg/m 3



## Annual arithmetic mean, averaged over three years 65 μg/m 3


## 24-hour average, 98 th 

## percentile, averaged over three years

2006 Fine Particles

Standard (PM 2.5 

## ) 15 μg/m 3



## Annual arithmetic mean, averaged over three years 35 μg/m 3


## 24-hour average, 98 th 

## percentile, averaged over three years

Note: The Cincinnati area meets the 1997 and 2006 24-hour NAAQS for fine particles. Since this area is solely designated nonattainment under the 1997 annual standard for fine particles, this document only

addresses the annual standard.



## On December 17, 2004, based on 2001 through 2003 monitoring data, U.S. EPA designated the

Cincinnati-Hamilton OH-KY-IN area as nonattainment of the annual st andard for fine particles, and subject to CAA, Part D, Title 1, Secti on 172 of Subpart 1 requirements, including the development of a plan to reduce nitrogen oxides (NO

x 

## ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

## ), and direct PM 2.5 

## emissions and a demonstration that the area will meet the annual standard for fine particles by April 5, 2010. In order to satisfy these requirements, Indiana submitted an attainment demonstration to U.S. EPA on April 3, 2008, demons trating that with the combination of clean air measures and the implementation of local and federally required control measures, air quality

in the nonattainment area would meet the annual NAAQS for fine particles by April 5, 2010, and provide for an ample margin of safety. The Cincinnati-Hamilton OH-KY-IN area monitors have met the annual NAAQS for fine particles since the end of 2009.

There were no monitors in th e Cincinnati-Hamilton OH-KY-IN fi ne particles nonattainment area

that violated the 1997 24-hour standard for fine particles and or curr ently violates the 2006 24- hour standard for fine particles. As a result , the Cincinnati-Hamilton OH-KY-IN fine particles nonattainment area was designa ted nonattainment solely unde r the 1997 annual standard. Therefore, this document pertains only to the 1997 annual standard for fine particles.

The Cincinnati-Hamilton OH-KY-IN fine particle s nonattainment area, as defined in Section 1.2, has not previously been subject to nonattainment area rulemakings for fine particles. However, the area had been subject to nonattainment ar ea rulemakings under the 1-hour and the 8-hour

ozone standards. The 1-hour ozone standard was revoked on June 15, 2005, and the Cincinnati area was redesignated to attainment of the 1997 ozone standard on May 11, 2010.

1.2 Geographical Description

The entire Cincinnati fine particles nonattainment area consists of: Lawrenceburg Township in Dearborn County, Indiana; Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren counties, Ohio; Boone, Campbell, and Kenton counties, Kentucky; and cont ains such cities as Cincinnati, Hamilton, and

## 3 Middletown, all in Ohio. This ar ea is depicted in Figure 3.1.

The agencies responsible for assuring the fine particles nonattainment area complies with the CAA requirements are:

 The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA), which is responsible for Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Hamilt on, and Warren counties, Ohio.

 The Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, (KDEP) which is responsible for Boone, Campbell, and Kenton counties, Kentucky.

 The Indiana Department of Environm ental Management (IDEM), which is responsible for Lawrenceburg Town ship, Dearborn County, Indiana.

These three state agencies have worked coope ratively with U.S. EPA Regions IV and V to

address attainment planning issues.

Although the three agencies, in the three states, have worked together on a comprehensive plan

for the multi-state nonattainment areas, each state is re quired to make a separate submittal for its portion of the planning components to U.S. EPA. Attainment demonstrations are SIP submittals and U.S. EPA action on them is taken separately. As such, this submittal only covers Lawrenceburg Township in Dearborn County, Indiana.

1.3 Status of Air Quality

Monitoring data for fine particles for the th ree years, 2007 through 2009, demonstrates that air quality has met the annual NAAQS for fine partic les in the Cincinnati area. This fact, accompanied by the permanent and enforceable reductions in emission levels discussed in Section 4.0, justifies a redesignati on to attainment for the Indi ana portion of the CincinnatiHamilton, OH-KY-IN nonattainment area base d on Section 107(d)(3 )(E) of the CAA.

2.0 REQUIREMENTS FOR REDESIGNATION

2.1 General

Section 110 and Part D of the CAA list a num ber of requirements that must be met by nonattainment areas prior to consideration for rede signation to attainment. In addition, U.S. EPA has published detailed guidance in a document entitled Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment , issued September 4, 1992, to Re gional Air Directors. This document is hereafter referred to as “Redesigna tion Guidance.” This Request for Redesignation

and Maintenance Plan is based on the Redesi gnation Guidance, supplemented with additional guidance received from staff of the Air Planni ng and Maintenance Section of U.S. EPA Region V. The specific requirements fo r redesignation are listed below.

## 4 2.2 Fine Particles Monitoring

1) A demonstration that the annual standard for fine particles, as published in 40 CFR 50.13, has been attained. Fine partic les monitoring data must show that

violations of the annual ambient standard are no longer occurring.

2) Ambient monitoring data quality a ssured in accordance with 40 CFR 58.15, recorded in the U.S. EPA Air Quality Sy stem (AQS) database, and available for public view.

3) A showing that the three-year average of annual values, based on data from all monitoring sites in the area or its aff ected downwind environs, do not exceed 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 

## ). This showing must rely on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality assured data.

4) A commitment that, once redesignated, the state will continue to operate an appropriate monitoring network to veri fy the maintenance of the standard.

2.3 Emission Inventory

1) A comprehensive emissi on inventory of direct PM 2.5 

## and the precursors of fine particles completed for the base year (2008 in this case).

2) A projection of the emission inventory to a year at least ten years following redesignation.

3) A demonstration that the pr ojected level of emissions is sufficient to maintain the annual standard for fine particles.

4) A demonstration that improvement in air quality between th e year violations occurred and the year attainment wa s achieved is based on permanent and

enforceable emission reductions a nd not on temporary adverse economic conditions or unusually favorable meteorology.

5) Provisions for future annual updates of the inventory to enable tracking of the emission levels, including an annual em ission statement from major sources.

2.4 Modeling Demonstration

While no modeling is required for redesignating nonattainment areas, IDEM has evaluated the results of federal control-case modeling to demonstrate that compliance with the standard will be

maintained.

## 5 2.5 Controls and Regulations

1) A U.S. EPA-approved SIP control stra tegy that includes Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements fo r existing stationary sources covered by Control Technology Guidelines (CTG ) and non-CTG RACT for all major

sources.

2) Evidence that control measures required in past SIP revisi ons have been fully implemented.

3) Acceptable provisions to pr ovide for new source review.

4) Assurances that existing controls will remain in effect after redesignation, unless the state demonstrates through photochemical modeling that the standard can be

maintained without one or more controls.

5) If appropriate, a commitment to adopt a requirement that all transportation plans

conform with and are cons istent with the SIP.

2.6 Corrective Actions for Potential Future Vi olations of the Fine Particles Standard

1) A commitment to submit a revised plan eight years af ter redesignation.

2) A commitment to expeditiously enact and implement additional contingency control measures in response to excee ding specified predetermined levels (triggers) or in the event that future vi olations of the ambient standard occur.

3) A list of potential contingency measures that would be implemented in such an

event.

4) A list of Nitrogen Oxides (NO

x 

## ), Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 

## ) and direct PM 2.5 

## sources potentially subject to future controls.

3.0 FINE PARTICLES MONITORING

3.1 Fine Particles Monitoring Network

There are currently 12 Federal Reference Me thod monitors measuring fine particle

concentrations for the Cincinnati area. Fine particle monitors are located in Campbell and Kenton counties in Kentucky and Butler, Clermont, Warren, and Hamilton counties in Ohio.

There are no monitors for fine particles in the Indiana porti on of the Cincinnati nonattainment area. The highest levels of fine particle concentrations have been typically monitored at the Seymour and Vine Street monitor (39-0061-0014) in Hamilton County, Ohio. The locations of the monitoring sites for the Cincinnati area ar e shown in Figure 3.1. A listing of the monitor readings from 2007 through 2009, is shown in Tabl e 3.1 and Appendix A. The monitor readings

## 6 were retrieved from the U.S. EP A’s Air Quality System (AQS).

The Wilwood and Winneste Ave. monitors in Oh io were discontinued on December 31, 2005.

The Alexandria Park monitor in Kentuc ky was discontinued on December 31, 2006. The Hook Field Airport monitor in Ohio was discontinued on December 31, 2007. Therefore, these discontinued monitors are not shown in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1

Cincinnati Basic Nonattainment Area

! ! !

!

! !

!

!
! ! ! !



# μ Date: 5/17/2010

Map Projection: UTM Zone 16 N Map Datum: NAD83 0 10 5 mi

0 10 5 km University College

ID# 21-117-0007 W. 8th St.

ID# 39-061-0042 Nilles Rd.

ID# 39-017-0016 Southeast St.

ID# 39-165-0007

Murray Rd.

ID# 39-061-8001

Howard Taft

ID# 39-061-0040 Grooms Rd.

ID# 39-061-0006

Sherman Ave.

ID# 39-061-7001 Bonita & St. John

ID# 39-017-0003

Seymour & Vine St.

ID# 39-061-0014

John Hill Rd.

ID# 21-037-3002 Clermont Dr.

ID# 39-025-0022

Legend

! PM 2.5 Monitors

State Boundary

Attainment Area

Nonattainment Area Butler

Hamilton Warren

Kenton Lawrenceburg Township Clermont

Campbell Boone

## 7 3.2 Ambient Fine Particles Monitoring Data

The following information summarizes U.S. EP A's "Guideline on Data Handling Conventions for the annual fine particles NAAQS," U.S. EPA-454/R-99-008, April 1999. Three complete years of fine particles monitori ng data are required to demonstr ate attainment at a monitoring site. The annual ambient air quality standard for fine particles is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the three-year average of th e annual average of fine particle concentrations is less than or equal to 15.0 μg/m 3 

## . When this occurs, the site is said to be in attainment. While calculating design values, three sign ificant digits must be carried in the computations, with final values rounded to the nearest 0.1 μg/m 3 

## . Decimals 0.05 or greater are rounded up, and those less than 0.05 are rounded down, so that 15.049 μg/m 3 

## is the largest concentration that is less than or equal to 15.0 μg/m 3 

## . Values at or below 15.0 μg/m 3 

## meet the standard. Values equal to or greater than 15.1 μg/m 3 

## exceed the standard.

Data handling procedures are applied on an indi vidual basis at each monitor in the area. An individual site’s three-year av erage of the annual average fine particles concentr ation is also

called the site’s design value . An area is in compliance w ith the annual NAAQS for fine particles only if all monitoring sites meet the NAAQS. The air quality design value for the area is the highest design value among all sites in the area. Table 3.1 shows the annual fine particle values by site and the 2007 through 2009 design valu es for the 12 active fine particle monitoring

sites in the Cincinnati area.

Table 3.1

Monitoring Data for the Cincinnati Area (Annual Average and 2007-2009 Design Values)

SITE ID STATE COUNTY SITE NAME YEAR Annual Average (μg/m 3 

### ) 2007-2009 Average (μg/m 3 

### )

21-037-3002 Kentucky Campbell John Hill Rd. 2007 14.36

12.51 21-037-3002 Kentucky Campbell John Hill Rd. 2008 11.83
21-037-3002 Kentucky Campbell John Hill Rd. 2009 11.34

21-117-0007 Kentucky Kenton Univ. College 2007 14.20

12.41 21-117-0007 Kentucky Kenton Univ. College 2008 11.99

21-117-0007 Kentucky Kenton Univ. College 2009 11.04

39-017-0003 Ohio Butler Bonita & St. John 2007 15.41

13.93 39-017-0003 Ohio Butler Bonita & St. John 2008 13.69

39-017-0003 Ohio Butler Bonita & St. John 2009 12.68

39-017-0016 Ohio Butler Niles Rd. 2007 14.94

13.92 39-017-0016 Ohio Butler Niles Rd. 2008 13.75

39-017-0016 Ohio Butler Niles Rd. 2009 13.08

39-017-1004 Ohio Butler Hook Fld. Airport 2007 14.63

N/A 39-017-1004 Ohio Butler Hook Fld. Airport 2008
39-017-1004 Ohio Butler Hook Fld. Airport 2009

39-025-0022 Ohio Clermont Clermont Dr. 2007 14.01

12.26 39-025-0022 Ohio Clermont Clermont Dr. 2008 11.75

39-025-0022 Ohio Clermont Clermont Dr. 2009 11.01

## 8 39-061-0006 Ohio Hamilton Grooms Rd. 2007 14.63

13.07 39-061-0006 Ohio Hamilton Grooms Rd. 2008 12.48

39-061-0006 Ohio Hamilton Grooms Rd. 2009 12.11

39-061-0014 Ohio Hamilton Seymour & Vine St. 2007 16.59

15.04 39-061-0014 Ohio Hamilton Seymour & Vine St. 2008 15.12

39-061-0014 Ohio Hamilton Seymour & Vine St. 2009 13.40

39-061-0040 Ohio Hamilton Howard Taft 2007 15.09

13.48 39-061-0040 Ohio Hamilton Howard Taft 2008 12.62

39-061-0040 Ohio Hamilton Howard Taft 2009 12.73

39-061-0042 Ohio Hamilton W. 8th St. 2007 15.90

14.67 39-061-0042 Ohio Hamilton W. 8th St. 2008 14.40

39-061-0042 Ohio Hamilton W. 8th St. 2009 13.71

39-061-0043 Ohio Hamilton Kemper Rd. 2007 14.85

N/A 39-061-0043 Ohio Hamilton Kemper Rd. 2008 13.32
39-061-0043 Ohio Hamilton Kemper Rd. 2009

39-061-7001 Ohio Hamilton Sherman Ave. 2007 15.09

13.93 39-061-7001 Ohio Hamilton Sherman Ave. 2008 13.74

39-061-7001 Ohio Hamilton Sherman Ave. 2009 12.97

39-061-8001 Ohio Hamilton Murray Rd. 2007 16.07

14.64 39-061-8001 Ohio Hamilton Murray Rd. 2008 14.40

39-061-8001 Ohio Hamilton Murray Rd. 2009 13.44

39-165-0007 Ohio Warren Southeast St. 2007 13.98

12.53 39-165-0007 Ohio Warren Southeast St. 2008 11.92

39-165-0007 Ohio Warren Southeast St. 2009 11.70

Value Above the Annual PM 2.5 

### Standard



## Graph 3.1 visually demonstrates the 2003 throug h 2009 design values for the Cincinnati area.

## 9 Graph 3.1 Design Values for the Cincinnati Area for Fine Particles, 2003 through 2009

Note: The AlexandriaPark monitor in Kentucky was disconti nued on December 31, 2006. Th e Wilwood and Winneste Ave.

monitors in Ohio were discontinued on De cember 31, 2005. The Hook Field Airport monitor in Ohio was discontinued on December 31, 2007.



## Graph 3.2

Cincinnati Area Annual Fine Particles Trends, 2005 through 2009

Note: The Alexandria Park monitor in Kentucky was discontinued on December 31, 2006. The Wilwood and Winneste Ave.

monitors in Ohio were discontinued on De cember 31, 2005. The Hook Field Airpor t monitor in Ohio was discontinued on December 31, 2007. 

### 0 5 10 15 20 25

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Alexandria Pk. John Hill Rd. Univ. College

Bonita & St. John Nilles Rd. Wilwood

Hook Field Airport Clermont Dr. Grooms Rd. Seymour & Vine St. Howard Taft Winneste Ave.

W. 8th St Kemper Rd. Sherman Ave.μg/m3 

### 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0AlexandriaPk.JohnHillRd.Univ.CollegeBonita&St....NillesRd.WilwoodHookField...ClermontDr.GroomsRd.Seymour&...HowardTaftWinnesteAve.W.8thStKemperRd.ShermanAve.MurrayRd.SoutheastSt.



### 03

‐ 05 04

‐ 06 05

‐ 07 06

‐ 08 07

‐ 09μg/m3

## 10 The design values for the Cincinnati area demons trate that the annual NAAQS for fine particles has been attained. Refer to Appendix A for the complete fine particles monitoring data summary for the years 2000 to 2009.

Graph 3.1 shows the trend in design values, wh ile Graph 3.2 shows the trend for annual fine particles. A comprehensive list of the fine part icles monitoring sites’ design values over this period is outlined in Appendix A. The area's de sign values have recently trended downward, as emissions have declined due to programs su ch as the Acid Rain program and cleaner automobiles and fuels both regionally and locally. U.S. EPA’s rule to control nitrogen oxides from specific source categories (40 CFR Pa rts 51, 72, 75 and 96, published on October 17, 1998

and referred to as the “NO

x 

## SIP Call”) has significantly reduced emissions from large electric generating units (EGUs), industrial boile rs, and cement kilns. Indiana's NO

x 

## SIP Call Rule was adopted into the Indiana Admi nistrative Code on June 6, 2001 at 326 IAC 10-3 and 326 ICA 10- 4. The elevated fine particle values for 2005 are considered an abnormal occurrence. An analysis of meteorological conditions and monitoring values is included in Section 7.0 and supports the conclusion that attainment of the st andard as of 2009 is not the result of unusually favorable meteorological conditions. It is expected that this dow nward trend will continue as the above programs continue and the U.S. EPA’s proposed Transport Rule is implemented.

3.3 Quality Assurance

Kentucky and Ohio have quality assured all da ta shown in Appendix A in accordance with 40 CFR 58.10 and recorded the data in the AQS databa se and, thus, the data is available to the public.

3.4 Continued Monitoring

Ohio and Kentucky commit to continue monitoring c oncentrations of fine particles at the active sites indicated in Table 3.1 and Appendix A. Ther e are no monitors in the Indiana portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN nonattainment ar ea, however, IDEM will consult with U.S. EPA Region V staff should changes to the existing Indiana monitoring network become necessary in the future.

4.0 EMISSION INVENTORY

U.S. EPA Redesignation Guidance and Implementation Rules require the submittal of a comprehensive inventory of precursor emissions for fine particles (NO

x 

## , SO 2 

## , and direct PM 2.5 

## ) representative of the year wh en the area achieved attainment of the annual NAAQS for fine particles (base year). IDEM is using 2008 as the base year. IDEM must also demonstrate that the improvement in air quality between the year that violations occurred and the year that attainment was achieved is based on permanen t and enforceable emission reductions. Other requirements related to the emissi ons inventory include: a projecti on of the emission inventory to a year at least ten years following redesignation; a demonstration that the projected level of

emissions is sufficient to maintain the annual stan dard for fine particles; and, a commitment to provide future updates of the inventory to enable tracking of emission leve ls during the ten year

## 11 maintenance period. Consistent with the implemen tation rule for fine particles, IDEM and U.S. EPA do not consider volatile organi c compounds (VOCs) or ammonia (NH 3 

## ) to be significant contributors to fine particles. The following subsections addre ss each of these requirements.

4.1 Emission Trends

Point Sources

Graphs 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 show that the tr end in point source emissions of NO

x 

## , SO 2, 

## and direct

PM 2.5 

## respectively for Lawrenceburg Township, D earborn County, Indiana, generally correspond to the years of monitored values used in this redesignation petition. The point source data are taken from Indiana's emissions reporting pr ogram. While an increase in direct PM 2.5 

## point source emissions for Lawrenceburg Township in Dearborn County, Indiana is noted, the increase

in direct PM 2.5 

## emissions from 2005 to 2008 is due to previously unreported emissions from companies that did not submit their direct PM 2.5 

## emissions data in 2005, but did submit direct

PM 2.5 

## data in the 2008 emissions inventory. Gr aphs 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 show the trend in point

source emissions for the entire Cincinnati-Ham ilton, OH-KY-IN nonattainment area. The entire

Cincinnati area had a 14.6% reduction in NO

x 

## point source emissions, a 52.1% reduction in SO 2 

## point source emissions, and a 9.5% reduction in direct PM 2.5 

## point source emissions. Point

source data for the entire Cinci nnati area is the combination of data from Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio’s annual emissions reporting program. Graphs and data tables of emissions for the point source category can be found in Appendix B.

Graph 4.1 Dearborn County, IN NO

x 

## Point Source Emission Trends, 2005 and 2008

9,100 9,200 9,300 9,400 9,500 9,600 9,700 9,800 9,900 10,000 10,100

2005 2008TonsperYear



### Year NOX

## 12 Graph 4.2 Dearborn County, IN SO 2 

## Point Source Emission Trends, 2005 and 2008

Graph 4.3 Dearborn County, IN Direct PM 2.5 

## Point Source Emission Trends, 2005 and 2008 ‐ 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 17,500 20,000 22,500 25,000 27,500 30,000 32,500 35,000 37,500 40,000 42,500 45,000 47,500 50,000 52,500

2005 2008TonsperYear



### Year SO2

660 680 700 720 740 760 780 800 820 840 860 880

2005 2008TonsperYear



### Year Direct PM 2.5

## 13 Graph 4.4 Entire Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-K Y-IN Nonattainment Area NO

x 

## Point Source Emission Trends, 2005 and 2008

Graph 4.5 Entire Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-K Y-IN Nonattainment Area SO 2 

## Point Source Emission Trends, 2005 and 2008 50,000 52,000 54,000 56,000 58,000 60,000 62,000 64,000 66,000 68,000

2005 2008TonsperYear



### Year NOX

50,000 70,000 90,000 110,000 130,000 150,000 170,000 190,000 210,000 230,000 250,000

2005 2008TonsperYear



### Year SO2

## 14 Graph 4.6 Entire Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY- IN Nonattainment Area Direct PM 2.5 

## Point Source Emission Trends, 2005 and 2008

All Anthropogenic Sources

Periodic inventories, which include emissions fr om all sectors (mobile, area, nonroad, and point source), were prepared for 2005 and 2008. Th e 2008 data was extrapolated from the 2005 emission inventory. Graphs 4.7, 4.8, and 4.9 show the trends for total NO

x 

## , SO 2 

## , and direct

PM 2.5 

## emissions for all anthropogenic source categor ies in Lawrenceburg Township in Dearborn County, Indiana for 2005 and 2008. While an increase in direct PM 2.5 

## anthropogenic source emissions for Lawrenceburg Township in Dearbor n County, Indiana is noted, the increase in

direct PM 2.5 

## emissions from 2005 to 2008 is due to previously unreported emissions from companies that did not submit their direct PM 2.5 

## emissions data in 2005, but did submit direct

PM 2.5 

## data in the 2008 emissions inventory. Graphs 4.10, 4.11, and 4.12 show the trends for

total NO

x 

## , SO 2 

## , and direct PM 2.5 

## emissions for all anthropogenic source categories for the entire Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN nonattainment ar ea for 2005 and 2008. These emissions trends roughly follow the years of monitored trends discussed in Section 3.0. There is a downward

trend in NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## emissions from 2005 to 2008. The decrease in NO

x 

## can be largely attributed to the impact of the NO

x 

## SIP Call. As can be seen by Graph 4.12, overall the direct

PM 2.5 

## anthropogenic source emissions for the entire Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN

nonattainment area have substantia lly decreased. Graphs and data tables of emissions from each source category are available in Appendix C. 2,900 3,000 3,100 3,200 3,300 3,400 3,500

2005 2008TonsperYear



### Year Direct PM 2.5

## 15 Mobile emissions inventories and projections for all countie s were prepared by the OhioKentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments (OKI) and is e xplained in further detail in

Section 5.0. All 2005 data for the entire Cinci nnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN nonattainment area is from the 2005 periodic inventory wh ich has been identified as one of the preferred databases for SIP development. For the 2008 attainment year , emissions were extrapolated from the 2005 Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (L ADCO) modeling invent ory, using LADCO’s growth factors, for all sections except point sources (electrical ge nerating units and non-electrical generating units). Point source emissions for 2008 were compiled from Indiana, Kentucky, and

Ohio’s annual emissions inventory databases.

The emissions inventory development and emissi ons projection discussion below, with the exception of the mobile emissions inventory and projections, identify procedures used by Ohio EPA and LADCO regarding emissions from Ohio’s portion of the counties in the CincinnatiHamilton, OH-KY-IN nonattainment area that di ffer from procedures used by Kentucky and Indiana. Indiana and Kentucky emissions da ta were obtained thr ough the LADCO emission inventory and projections which were prepared using similar methodologies.

For Ohio, the 2005 and 2008 actual PM 2.5 

## emissions data below generally contains filterable fraction emissions only and not the condensable fractions, because Ohio EPA did not have a consistent reporting requirement in those years. U.S. EPA In tegrated Planning Model(IPM) modeling was used to generate future year EGU emissions with the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) program. The IPM modeling added additional PM 2.5 

## condensible emissions into future years. Therefore, comparing base and attainment year emissions with the future year predictions is not accurate in the IPM CAIR modeling. This step leads to a false perception of significant

PM 2.5 

## emissions increase. Modeling performed by LADCO, without CAIR, did not incorporate added condensable fraction emissions. Although Ohio EPA has stated that it is most appropriate to evaluate future year emissions that include th e CAIR program, because of this flaw, it is more accurate and appropriate for the purposes of PM 2.5 

## to evaluate future year emissions without the CAIR program. Therefore all numbers for Ohio for PM 2.5 

## in this document are without CAIR,

while all numbers for Ohio for NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## are with CAIR. Both Indiana and Kentucky have

used numbers for NO

x 

## , SO 2 

## , and PM 2.5 

## with CAIR. Emissions tables and charts in this document are labeled accordingly and can also be found in Appendix C.

## 16 Graph 4.7

NO

x 

## Emission Trends, All Sources in De arborn County, IN, 2005 and 2008-With CAIR

Graph 4.8

SO 2 

## Emission Trends, All Sources in De arborn County, IN, 2005 and 2008-With CAIR 10,200 10,400 10,600 10,800 11,000 11,200 11,400 11,600

2005 2008TonsperYear



### Year NOX

‐ 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

2005 2008TonsperYear



### Year SO2

## 17 Graph 4.9

Direct PM 2.5 

## Emission Trends, All Sources in Dearborn County, IN,

2005 and 2008-With CAIR

Graph 4.10

NO

x 

## Emission Trends, All Sources in En tire Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Nonattainment Area, 2005 and 2008-With CAIR 740 760 780 800 820 840 860 880 900 920 940

2005 2008TonsperYear



### Year

Direct PM 2.5

135,000 140,000 145,000 150,000 155,000 160,000 165,000 170,000

2005 2008TonsperYear



### Year NOX

## 18 Graph 4.11

SO 2 

## Emission Trends, All Sources in En tire Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Nonattainment Area, 2005 and 2008-With CAIR

Graph 4.12

Direct PM 2.5 

## Emission Trends, All Sources in En tire Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Nonattainment Area, 2005 and 2008-Without CAIR ‐ 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000

2005 2008TonsperYear



### Year SO2

8,200 8,400 8,600 8,800 9,000 9,200 9,400 9,600

2005 2008TonsperYear



### Year Direct PM 2.5

## 19 EGU Sources

Both NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## emissions are decreasing substantiall y in response to national programs affecting all EGUs such as th e Acid Rain program and the NO

x 

## SIP Call. Other sectors of the inventory also impact the formation of fine part icles, but large regional sources such as EGUs have a substantial impact on the formation of fine particles.

The data was taken from U.S. EPA's Clean Air Markets database 1



### . 

## Data are available sooner for these units than other point sources in the inventory because of the NO

x 

## SIP Call budget and trading requirements. Information from 2003 is significant because some EGUs started operation of their NO

x 

## SIP Call controls in order to gene rate Early Reduction Credits for their future year NO

x 

## budgets. The first season of the NO

x 

## SIP Call budget period began May 31,

2004.

As part of the NO

x 

## SIP Call, the states were required to adopt into their rules a budget for all large EGUs. Indiana’s budget is referenced in 326 IAC 10-4. The budget represents a statewide cap on NO

x 

## emissions. Although each unit is allocated emissions based upon hi storic heat input, utilities can meet this budget by over-controlling certain units or purchasing credits from the market to account for overages at other units. To summarize, NO

x 

## emissions have dramatically decreased over the years represented on these graphs.

These emissions, capped by the state rule, are exp ected to remain near these levels throughout the maintenance period covered by this request. The state cap for the NO

x 

## SIP Call remained in place through 2008, at which time the CAIR program superseded it. CAIR, issued in March 2005, adopted by the Indiana Air Pollution Control Board on November 1, 2006, and implemented beginning in 2010, will continue to reduce regional EGU NO

x 

## emissions statewide by approximately another 17% by 2015 and 57% for EGU SO 2 

## emissions by 2015. The D.C. Circuit court’s vacatur of CAIR in July of 2008 and subsequent remand without vacatur in

December of 2008 directs U.S. EPA to revise the CAIR rule in the future. The proposed Clean Air Transport Rule (Transport Ru le) (CAIR’s replacement rule) will result in similar or greater

emission reductions than assumed within the current emission i nventories once it is implemented.

There is one EGU located in the Indiana por tion (Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County, Indiana) of the Cincinnati area: American Electric Power (AEP)- Tanner’s Creek. Graphs 4.13 and 4.15 depict the trends in NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## emissions from the EGU in Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County, Indiana for the years 1999 to 2009. AEP-Tanner’s Creek entered into a Consent Decree with U.S. EPA on October 9, 2007. For NO

x 

## , the Consent Decree calls for lowNOx burners and overfire air. Further, they installed Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCRs) on Units 1, 2, and 3 in 2008 to meet CAIR requirements. As a general rule, low NO

x 

## burners are around 40% control and SNCRs are an additional 30%. AEP-Tanner’s Creek’s permit does not require operation of these units, bu t they need to operate the controls to meet CAIR allowances for now, and the proposed Transpor t Rule will control when it is effective. For

SO 2 

## , the Consent Decree and the permit state AEP-Tanner’s Creek has to burn coal not exceeding 1.2% sulfur. With the Consent Decree in place these contro ls are, therefore,

1 

### http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets

## 20 considered permanent and enforceable and can be associated with the downward trend in NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## emissions from AEP-Tanner’s Creek. Gr aphs 4.14 and 4.16 depict the trends in NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## emissions from the entire Cincinnati -Hamilton, OH-KY-IN nonattainment area for the years 1999 to 2009. Graphs and data tables of em issions from the EGU source category can be found in Appendix D.

Graph 4.13

Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County, Indiana NO

x 

## Emissions from EGUs, 1999 to

2009

0.0 5,000.0 10,000.0 15,000.0 20,000.0 25,000.0 30,000.0 35,000.0 40,000.0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Total NOx Emissions, tons / year

## 21 Graph 4.14

Entire Cincinnati-Hamilton OH-K Y-IN Nonattainment Area NO

x 

## Emissions from EGUs,

1999 to 2009

Graph 4.15 Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County, Indiana SO 2 

## Emissions from EGUs, 1999 to 2009 0.0 20,000.0 40,000.0 60,000.0 80,000.0 100,000.0 120,000.0 140,000.0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Total NOx Emissions, tons / year

0.0 10,000.0 20,000.0 30,000.0 40,000.0 50,000.0 60,000.0 70,000.0 80,000.0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Total SO2 Emissions, tons / year

## 22 Graph 4.16

Entire Cincinnati-Hamilton OH-K Y-IN Nonattainment Area SO 2 

## Emissions from EGUs, 1999

to 2009

4.2 Base Year Inventory

IDEM prepared a comprehensive inventory for the Cincinnati area, in cluding area, mobile, nonroad, and point sources for direct PM 2.5 

## and precursors of fine particles (NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## ) for 2005 (the year with the most complete emission s inventory available at this time). The 2008 data was extrapolated from the 2005 emission invent ory to represent a base year for maintenance purposes. The 2007 implementation rule for the a nnual fine particles sta ndard states that NO

x 

## , SO 2 

## , and direct PM 2.5 

## are the regulated precursors of fine particles. Ammonia and VOCs are not required to be addressed unless the state or U.S. EPA makes a technical demonstration that emissions of these pollutants from sources in the state significantly contribute to PM 2.5 

## concentrations in a given nonattainment area. U.S. EPA and Indiana have not determined ammonia or VOCs to be significant contributors to fine particles formation in the State of Indiana. Indiana’s 2008 base year invent ory was determined by the following:

 Area sources were extrapolated from the Indiana 2005 periodic inventory submitted to

U.S. EPA.

 Mobile source emissions were calculated fr om U.S. EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model-produced emission factors and data ex tracted from the region’s travel-demand model. These emissions were then interpolated as needed to determine 2008 base year values. 0.0 50,000.0 100,000.0 150,000.0 200,000.0 250,000.0 300,000.0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Total SO2 Emissions, tons / year

## 23  Point source information was compiled from IDEM’s emissions statement database and

U.S. EPA's Clean Air Mark ets acid rain database.

 Biogenic emissions are not included in these summaries.

 Nonroad emissions were extrapolated fr om the 2002 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). To address concerns about the accuracy of some of the categories in U.S. EPA’s nonroad emissions model, LADCO contracted with two companies to review the base

data and make recommendations. One of th e contractors also estimated emissions for two nonroad categories not included in U.S. EPA's nonroad model. Emissions were

estimated for commercial marine vessels a nd railroads. The recreational motorboat population and spatial surrogates (used to as sign emissions to each) were significantly updated. The populations for the constructi on equipment category were reviewed and updated based upon surveys completed in the Midwest and the temporal allocation for agricultural sources was also updated. A new nonroad es timation model was provided by U.S. EPA for the 2002 analysis.

● 

## The emissions data referenced for Kentuc ky’s portion of the nonattainment area were pulled from LADCO’s emissions inventory files. This i nventory was prepared using similar methodologies. The 2008 data wa s extrapolated from the 2005 emission inventory to represent a base year for maintenance purposes.

4.3 Emission Projections

In consultation with the U.S. EPA and other stakeholders, IDEM se lected the year 2021 as the maintenance year for this redesignation request . This document contai ns projected emission

inventories for 2015 and 2021. Emission projections were pr epared for Dearborn County, Indiana, as well as for the entire nonattainme nt area. IDEM, with assistance from LADCO, prepared emission projections for 2015 a nd 2021 for the entire nonattainment area.

The detailed 2015 and 2021 emissions inventory for the entire Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN nonattainment area can be found in Appendix E. Emission trends are an important gauge for continued compliance with the annu al standard for fine particles. Therefore, IDEM performed an initial comparison of the inventories for th e base year (2008-extr apolated from the 2005 emission inventory), interim year (2015-inter polated from 2009 emissions and 2018 emissions estimates) and maintenance year (2021-extrapolated from 2018 emission estimates) for Dearborn County, Indiana and the entire Cincinnati -Hamilton OH-KY-IN nonattainment area.

For the 2008 attainment year, emissions we re extrapolated from the 2005 LADCO modeling inventory, using LADCO’s growth factors, for all sections except point sources (electrical generating units and non-electri cal generating units). Point source emissions for 2008 were compiled from Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio’s a nnual emissions inventory databases. The 2015 interim year emissions were estimated ba sed on the 2009 and 2018 LADCO modeling inventory, using LADCO’s growth factors, for all sect ors. The 2021 maintenance year is based on emissions estimates from the 2018 LADCO modeling.

## 24 Graphs 4.17, 4.18, 4.19, and 4.20 visually compare 2008 (base year) NO

x 

## , SO 2 

## , and direct PM 2.5 

## estimated emissions with the 2015 and 2021 projected emissions for Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County, Indiana. Graphs 4.21, 4.22, 4.23, and 4.24 visually compare the 2008 (base year) NO

x 

## , SO 2 

## and direct PM 2.5 

## estimated emissions with the 2015 and 2021 projected emissions for the entire Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN nonattainment area. AEP-Tanner’s Creek accounts for over 80% of Lawrenceburg Township’s total emissions. However, Lawrenceburg Township accounts for a minor portion (14%) of th e total nonattainment ar ea emissions. While an increase can be seen in the projected em issions for Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County, Indiana for NO

x 

## , SO 2 

## and direct PM 2.5 

## , overall emissions in the entire CincinnatiHamilton, OH-KY-IN nonattainment area are decreasi ng substantially as can be seen in Graphs 4.21, 4.22, 4.23 and 4.24. Mobile source emission inve ntories are further de scribed in Section 5.0. In addition to LADCO’s estimates, point source emissions were projected based upon the

statewide EGU NO

x 

## budgets from the Indiana NO

x 

## rule. It should be noted that EGU emission estimates for 2015 and 2021 were projected utiliz ing the Department of Energy Information’s Annual Energy Outlook Supplemental tables for the year 2018. These tables were generated for the reference case of the Annual Energy Ou tlook 2007 (AEO 2007) using the National Energy Modeling System. Future year actual emissions for Lawrenceburg Township may vary based upon the consent decree for AEP which incl udes Tanner’s Creek. Additionally, the SO 2 

## and

NO

x 

## allocations for AEP-Tanner’s Creek for 201 4 and beyond within the proposed Transport Rule are less than 2008 actual emissions. Graphs and data tables of emissions from the EGU source category can be found in Appendix D.

Graph 4.17 Comparison of 2008, 2015 and 2021 Projected NO

x 

## Emissions, Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County, Indiana-With CAIR

Refer to Section 4.3 above for explanat ion of projected increase in emissions. ‐ 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000

2008 2015 2021TonsperYear



### Year NOX

## 25 Graph 4.18 Comparison of 2008, 2015 and 2021 Projected SO 2 

## Emissions, Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County, Indiana-With CAIR

Refer to Section 4.3 above for expl anation of projected increase in emissions.



## Graph 4.19 Comparison of 2008, 2015 and 2021 Projected Direct PM 2.5 

## Emissions, Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn Co unty, Indiana-With CAIR

Refer to Section 4.3 above for explanation of projected increase in emissions. ‐ 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000

2008 2015 2021TonsperYear



### Year SO2

860 880 900 920 940 960 980 1,000 1,020

2008 2015 2021TonsperYear



### Year Direct PM 2.5

## 26 Graph 4.20 Comparison of 2008, 2015 and 2021 Projected SO 2 

## , NO

x 

## and Direct PM 2.5 

## Emissions, Lawrenceburg Township, Dearbo rn County, Indiana-With CAIR

Graph 4.21 Comparison of 2008, 2015 and 2021 Projected NO

x 

## Emissions for the Entire CincinnatiHamilton, OH-KY-IN Nonattainment Area-With CAIR ‐ 5,000.00 10,000.00 15,000.00 20,000.00 25,000.00 30,000.00 35,000.00 40,000.00 45,000.00

2008 2015 2021TonsperYear



### NOX SO2 Direct PM2.5

‐ 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000

2008 2015 2021TonsperYear



### Year NOX

## 27 Graph 4.22 Comparison of 2008, 2015 and 2021 Projected SO 2 

## Emissions for the Entire CincinnatiHamilton, OH-KY-IN Nonattainment Area-With CAIR

Graph 4.23 Comparison of 2008, 2015 and 2021 Projected Direct PM 2.5 

## Emissions for the Entire Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN No nattainment Area-Without CAIR ‐ 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000

2008 2015 2021TonsperYear



### Year SO2

7,900 8,000 8,100 8,200 8,300 8,400 8,500 8,600 8,700 8,800

2008 2015 2021TonsperYear



### Year Direct PM 2.5

## 28 Graph 4.24 Comparison of 2008, 2015 and 2021 Projected SO 2 

## , NO

x 

## and Direct PM 2.5 

## Emissions for the

Entire Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-K Y-IN Nonattainment Area-(NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## With CAIR,

PM 2.5 

## Without CAIR)

NO

x 

## emissions within the entire Cincinna ti-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN nonattainment area are projected to decline by 46.9% between 2008 and 2021. Emission reduction benefits from U.S. EPA rules covering the NO

x 

## SIP Call, Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements, Hi ghway Heavy-Duty Engine Rule, and Nonroad Diesel Engine

Rule are factored into the changes. Additionally, due to implementation of the NO

x 

## SIP Call across the eastern United States, NO

x 

## and fine particle levels en tering the Cincinnati area will

also be decreased. SO 2 

## emissions within the Cincinnati area are projected to decline by 24.3%

between 2008 and 2021. Direct PM 2.5 

## emissions from 2008 to 2021 are also projected to decline by 5.6% within the Cincinnati area, see Tables 4.1 and 4.2.

Table 4.1 Comparison of 2008 Estimated and 2021 Proj ected Emission Estimates Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County, Indiana (Tons Per Year)

2008 2021 Change % Change

NO

x 

### 10,621.35 13,767.56 3,146.21 29.6%

SO 2 

### 27,164.52 38,261.63 11,097.11 40.9%

Direct PM 2.5 

### 920.29 1,011.29 91.00 9.9% ‐ 20,000.00 40,000.00 60,000.00 80,000.00 100,000.00 120,000.00 140,000.00 160,000.00

2008 2015 2021TonsperYear



### NOX SO2 Direct PM2.5

## 29 Table 4.2 Comparison of 2008 Estimated and 2021 Projected Emission Estimates Entire CincinnatiHamilton, OH-KY-IN Nonattainme nt Area (Tons Per Year)

2008 2021 Change % Change

NO

x 

### 148,706.15 78,819.18 -69,886.97 -46.9%

SO 2 

### 116,966.42 88,540.12 -28,426.30 -24.3%

Direct PM 2.5 

### 8,687.22 8,202.63 -484.59 -5.6%



## 4.4 Demonstration of Maintenance

Quality assured ambient air quality data from all the monitoring sites indicat e that air quality in the Cincinnati area met the annual NAAQS for fine particles for the three-year period ending in 2009. Furthermore, quality assured ambient air quality monitoring data from all monitoring sites

within the Cincinnati area indi cate that air quality met the NAAQS for fine particles for the three-year period ending in 2009. U.S. EPA’s Re designation Guidance (Page 9) states, “A state may generally demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by either showing that future emissions of a pollutant or its precursors will not exceed the level of the attain ment inventory, or by modeling to show that the future mix of sources and emissions rates will not cause a violation of the NAAQS.” Emissions projections outlined in Secti on 4.0 of this document clearly illustrate that regional NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## emissions in the area will continue to decline leading to local

reductions between 2008 and 2021 (maintenance plan horizon). S ection 7.0 further discusses the implications of these emission tr ends and provides an analysis to support these conclusions.

In Indiana, major point sources in all counties are required to submit air emissions information once every three years, or annually, if the NO

x 

## or SO 2 

## potential to emit is greater than 2,500 tons per year in accordance with the Emission Reporting Rule, 326 IAC 2-6. IDEM prepares a new periodic inventory for all precurs or emission sectors every three y ears. These precursor emission inventories will be prepared for 2011, 2014, a nd 2017, as necessary, to comply with the inventory reporting requirements established in the CAA. Emissions information will be compared to the 2008 base year and the 2021 proj ected maintenance year inventories to assess emission trends, as necessary, to assure continue d compliance with the a nnual standard for fine particles.

4.5 Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions

Permanent and enforceable reductions of NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## have contributed to th e attainment of the annual standard for fine particles. Some of th ese reductions were due to the implementation of

the NO

x 

## SIP Call and some were due to the applica tion of tighter federal standards on motor

vehicles and fuels.

Section 6.0 identifies the emission control measur es specific to Dearborn County, Indiana, as well as the implementation status of each measure.

## 30 4.6 Provisions for Future Updates

As required by Section 175A(b) of the CAA, Indi ana commits to submit to the Administrator, eight years after redesignation, an additional revi sion of this SIP. The revision will contain Indiana's plan for maintaining the national primary fine particles air quality standard for ten years beyond the first ten-year pe riod after re designation.

5.0 MOBILE SOURCE EMISSION BUDGETS

U.S. EPA requirements outlined in 40 CFR 93.118( e)(4) stipulate that mobile source emissions budgets for PM 2.5 

## and NO

x 

## be established as part of a SIP. The mobile source emissions budgets are necessary to demonstrate conformance of transportation plans and improvement programs

with the SIP.

The following is a summary of the detailed mobile input and output calcul ation files located in Appendix F.

5.1 Onroad Emissions Estimates

The Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments (OKI) is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Cinci nnati-Hamilton OH-KY-IN area which includes: Dearborn County in Indiana; Butler, Clermont , Hamilton, and Warren counties in Ohio; and, Boone, Campbell, and Kenton counties in Kentuc ky. This organization maintains a travel demand forecasting model that is used to simulate the traffic in the area and to predict what traffic would be in future years given growth exp ectations. The model is used mostly to identify where travel capacity will be needed and to de termine the infrastructure requirements necessary

to meet that need. It is also used to support the calculation of mobile source emissions. The travel demand forecasting model is used to predic t the total daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and the U.S. EPA software program referred to as MOVES is used to produce emission factors to calculate the emissions per mile. The product of these two outputs, once combined, is the total amount of pollution emitted by onroad vehicles for the particular analyzed area.

5.2 Overview

Broadly described, MOVES is used to genera te “emission factors,” which are the average emissions per mile (grams/mile) for direct PM 2.5 

## and PM 2.5 

## precursors, including NO

x 

## and SO 2



## . There are numerous variables that can affect the emission factors. The ve hicle-fleet (vehicles on the road) age and the vehicle types have a major a ffect on the emission factors. The facility-type the vehicles are traveling on (MOVES facility-t ypes are Freeway, Arterial, Local, and Ramp) and the vehicle speeds also affect the emission f actor values. Meteorological factors such as air temperature and humidity affect the emission factors, as does fuel type, such as low Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) gasoline. These data are estimated using the best available data to generate
emission factors for direct PM 2.5 

## and PM 2.5 

## precursors, including NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## . After emission factors are generated, the emission factors must be multiplied by the VMT to determine the quantity of vehicle-related emissions. This info rmation derives from the travel demand model

## 31 (TDM).

It should be noted that each year analyzed will have different emission factors, volumes, speeds, and likely some additional links. MOVES input a nd output files can all be found in Appendix F.

5.3 Emission Estimates

Table 5.1 outlines the onroad emission estimates for the Ohio and Indiana portions of the nonattainment area for the years 2005, 2008 (Att ainment Year), 2015 (Interim Year), and 2021 (Horizon Year). The following emission estimates are based on the actual TDM network runs for the years 2005, 2008, 2015, and 2021.

Table 5.1

Emission Estimates for Onroad Mobile Sources

for the Cincinnati-Hamilton OH-KY-IN PM 2.5 

## Nonattainment Area

Cincinnati-Hamilton OHKY-IN NA Area 2005 2008 2015 2021

PM 2.5 

## (tons/year) 2,272.50 2,034.23 1,598.67 1,128.35

NO

x 

## (tons/year) 58,423.36 51,357.02 31,064.20 18,911.05

Lawrenceburg Township (Dearborn County Indiana)

subtotal

PM 2.5 

## (tons/year) 33.98 29.89 25.14 18.11

NO

x 

## (tons/year) 865.46 748.81 482.33 297.95

Lawrenceburg Township

subtotal %

PM 2.5 

## (tons/year) 1.50 1.47 1.57 1.61

NO

x 

## (tons/year) 1.48 1.46 1.55 1.58

Table 5.2 contains the 2015 and 2021 regional mob ile source emissions budgets for the Ohio and Indiana portions of the nonattainment area.

Table 5.2 Mobile Source Emission Budgets for the Ohio and Indiana Portions

of the Cincinnati PM 2.5 

## Nonattainment Area

2015 2021

PM 2.5 

## (tons/year) 1,678.60 1,241.19

NO

x 

## (tons/year) 35,723.83 21,747.71

## 32 Consistent with the federal im plementation rule for fine part icles, IDEM does not consider

mobile SO 2 

## to be a significant contributor to fine particles for this nona ttainment area, as SO 2 

## constitutes less than one percen t (<1%) of the area’s total anthropogenic emi ssions for the years 2005, 2008, 2015, or 2021.

This document creates an interim year budge t for 2015 and a horizon year budget for 2021 for the Ohio and Indiana portions of the nonattainment area. Th ese budgets are based on the 2008 onroad emission inventory used to support photoc hemical modeling for the same year, and has incorporated an appropriate safety margin as described below. A similar document was created for the Kentucky portion of the nonattainment area.

Initial Base M (2005) Comprehensive Air Qual ity Model with Extension (CAMx) modeling results indicated a worst case future design value in the Cincinnati-Hamilton OH-KY-IN nonattainment area of 84 ppb. In an effort to accommodate future variations in TDMs and vehicle miles traveled forecast when no change to the network is planned, IDEM consulted with the interagency consultation gr oup, including U.S. EPA – Region 5, to determine a reasonable approach to address this variation. The inte ragency consultation group approved a five percent (5%) safety margin for PM 2.5 

## mobile source emissions estimates for the year 2015, a ten percent (10%) safety margin for PM 2.5 

## mobile source emissions estimates for the year 2021, and a fifteen percent (15%) safety margin for NO

x 

## mobile source emissions estimates for the years 2015 and

2021.

Safety margins are appropriate b ecause: 1) there is an acknowl edged potential variation in VMT forecast and potential estimated mobile source em issions due to expected modifications to TDM and mobile emissions models; and 2) the total decrease in emissions from all sources is sufficient to accommodate the safety margin allocations detailed above to mobile sources while still continuing to maintain total emissions in the Cincinnati-Hamilton OH-KY-IN area well below the 2008 attainment level of emissions. These safety margins were calculated by adding a straight-line percentage to the mobile source emission estimates for the years 2015 and 2021. Safety margin, as defined by the conformity rule, looks at the total emissions from all sources in the nonattainment area. The resulting 2015 and 2021 budgets for PM 2.5 

## and NO

x 

## emissions remain well below the 2005 base year emissions referenced in Table 5.1.

In summary, for all three states combined, the mobile budget safety margin allocation translates

into:

 An allocation of 98.49 tons/year for PM 2.5 

## and 5,709.06 tons/year for NO

x 

## for 2015.

 An allocation of 140.38 tons/year for PM 2.5 

## and 3,799.82 tons/year for NO

x 

## for 2021.

The federal rule at 40 CFR 93.101 defines safety margin as the amount by which the total projected emissions from all sources of a given pollutant are less than the total emissions that would satisfy the applicable requirement for reasonable further progress, attainment, or maintenance. When compared to the overall safety margin as defined by 40 CFR 93.101, it is

evident this allocation to mobile sources is si gnificantly below the total safety margin for all

sources in the Cincinnati-Hamilton OH-KY -IN area as detailed in Table 4.2.

## 33 While IDEM believes that this is sufficient to support the requested increase, IDEM and its partners will be conducting additional air qualitymodeling which will include the adjusted onroad mobile emissions as well as any additiona l corrections and modifications that may be necessary due to the constant review and evaluation of the model inputs.

All methodologies, latest planning assumptions, and margins of safety were determined appropriate through the interage ncy consultation process.

6.0 CONTROL MEASURES AND REGULATIONS

This section provides specific information on the control measures that have been or will be implemented in Dearborn County, Indiana, includ ing CAA requirements and additional state or local measures implemented beyond CAA requirements.

6.1 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)

As required by Section 172 of the CAA, Indi ana in the mid-1990s promulgated rules requiring

RACT for emissions of VOCs. There were no specific rules required by the CAA, such as RACT for existing sources, beyond st atewide rules. Statewide RACT rules have applied to all new sources locating in Indiana since that time. The Indiana rules are found in 326 IAC 8. The following is a listing of applicable rules:

326 IAC 8-1-6 BACT fo r Non-Specific Sources 326 IAC 8-2 Surface Coating Emission Limitations 326 IAC 8-3 Solvent Degreasing Operations

326 IAC 8-4 Petroleum Sources 326 IAC 8-5 Miscellaneous Operation 326 IAC 8-6 Organic Solvent Emission Limitations

Since Dearborn County, Indiana, attained the annual NAAQS for fine particles prior to an Attainment SIP or RACT SIP being due, and sin ce the Implementation Rule for fine particles stipulates that states are only required to draft and implemen t RACT rules for the precursor emission reductions necessary to attain the sta ndard, no further RACT rules are required for this area. These Indiana rules are CAA requirement s already in the SIP and provide secondary

benefits for PM 2.5



## .

6.2 Implementation of Past SIP Revisions

The Cincinnati area was only recent ly designated nonattainment for the annual standard for fine particles and the area has attained the standard well in advance of its attainment deadline of 2010. As a result, Indiana is no longer required to develop and submit an Attainment SIP or

RACT SIP for this area under the an nual NAAQS for fine particles.

## 34 6.3 Nitrogen Oxides (NO

x 

## ) Rule

The U.S. EPA NO

x 

## SIP Call required twenty-two states to adopt rules that would result in significant emission reductions from large EGUs, industrial boilers, and cement kilns in the eastern United States. Indiana adopted this ru le in 2001. Beginning in 2004, this rule accounted for a reduction of approximately thirty-one percent (31%) of all NO

x 

## emissions statewide compared to previous uncontrolled years.

Twenty-one other states have also adopted these rules. The result is that significant reductions have occurred regionally and within the nonattai nment area because of th e number of affected units within the region. From Graphs 4.13 and 4.14, it can be seen that emissions covered by this program have been trending downward since 1999. Table 6.1, compiled from data taken from

the U.S. EPA Clean Air Markets We b site, quantifies the gradual NO

x 

## reductions that have

occurred in Indiana as a result of Titl e IV (Acid Rain) of the CAA and the NO

x 

## SIP Call Rule. The NOx SIP Call cap stayed in place through 2008, at which time the caps in the CAIR program superseded it. Since CAIR is a regiona l cap and trade program, it cannot be predicted at

this time what effect this will have on EGU units located in the nonattainment area or other upwind counties.

Further, U.S. EPA published Phase II of the NO

x 

## SIP Call that estab lishes a budget for large (emissions of greater than 1 ton pe r day) stationary internal combus tion engines. In Indiana, the

rule decreases emissions statewide from natural gas compressor stations by 4,263 tons during the ozone season (May through September). The Indiana Phase II NOx SIP Call Rule became effective February 26, 2006 and im plementation began in 2007.

Table 6.1

Trends in EGU NO

x 

## Emissions Statewide in Indiana

Year NO

x 

## Emissions (tons /year)
1999 347,216.5
2000 334,522.1
2001 315,419.7
2002 281,146.1
2003 260,980.0
2004 224,311.3
2005 207,981.6
2006 202,728.0
2007 196,553.1
2008 196,134.5
2009 110,968.9 Budget 2009-2014 108,935 Budget 2015 and later 90,779

6.4 Measures Beyond CAA SIP Requirements

Reductions in fine particles precurs or emissions have occurred, or are anticipated to occur, as a result of local and federal programs. These additional control measures include:

## 35 Tier 2 Vehicles Standards 2



## Federal Tier 2 motor vehicle st andards require all passenger ve hicles in a manufacturer’s fleet, including light-duty trucks and sport util ity vehicles (SUVs), to meet an average standard of 0.07 grams of NO

x 

## per mile. Implementation began in 2004 and was completed in 2007. The Tier 2 standards al so cover passenger vehicles over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight ra ting (larger pickup trucks and SUVs), which are not covered by the current Tier 1 standards. For these vehicles, the standards were phased in beginning in 2008, with full compliance in 2009. The new standards require vehicles to

be 77% to 95% cleaner than those on the road prior to the program. The Tier 2 standards also reduced the sulfur content of gasolin e to 30 parts per million (ppm) beginning in January 2006. Most gasoline sold in Indian a prior to January 2006 had a sulfur content of about 500 ppm. Sulfur occurs naturally in gasoline, but interfer es with the operation of catalytic converters on ve hicles resulting in higher NO

x 

## emissions. Lower sulfur gasoline is necessary to achieve the Ti er 2 vehicle emissions standards.

Heavy-Duty Gasoline and Diesel Highway Vehicle Standards 3


## New U.S. EPA standards designed to reduce NO

x 

## and VOC emissions from heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway vehicles took e ffect in 2004. A second phase of standards and testing procedures th at began in 2007, reduced PM 2.5 

## emissions from heavy-duty highway engines and also reduced highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 15 ppm since the sulfur can damage emissions control devices. The total program is expected to achieve a

90% reduction in direct PM 2.5 

## emissions and a 95% reduction in NO

x 

## emissions for these new engines using low sulfur diesel, compared to existing engines using higher sulfur

content diesel. There will also be SO 2 

## reductions from these rules. The U.S. EPA has not quantified the expected reductions.

Large Nonroad Diesel Engine Standards 4


## In May 2004, U.S. EPA promulgated new rules fo r large nonroad diesel engines, such as those used in construction, agri cultural and indu strial equipment, to be phased in between

2008 and 2014. The nonroad diesel rules also reduce the allowable sulfur in nonroad diesel fuel by over 99%. Nonroad diesel fuel currently averages approximately 3,400 ppm sulfur. This rule limits nonroad dies el sulfur content to 500 ppm in 2006 and 15 ppm in 2010. The combined engine and fuel rules will reduce NO

x 

## and PM 2.5 

## emissions from large nonroad diesel engines by over 90%, compared to current nonroad engines using higher sulfur content diesel.

Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines an d Recreational Engines Standards This standard, effective in July 2003, regulates NO

x 

## , VOCs, and carbon monoxide (CO) for groups of previously unre gulated nonroad engines. The standard applies to all new engines sold in the United States and importe d after the standards went into effect. The standard applies to large spark-ignition e ngines (forklifts and airport ground service equipment), recreational vehicles (off-highway motorcycles and all-te rrain vehicles), and recreational marine diesel engines. The re gulation varies based upon the type of engine

and vehicle.

2 

### http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AI R/2000/February/Day-10/a19a.htm

3 

### http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AI R/1997/October/Day-21/a27494.htm

4 

### http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AI R/1998/October/Day-23/a24836.htm

## 36 The large spark-ignition engines contribute to ozone formation and ambient CO and

PM 2.5 

## levels in urban areas. Tier 1 of this standard was implemented in 2004 and Tier 2 started in 2007. Like the large spark-ignition engines, recreational vehicles contribute to ozone and fine particles formation and ambient CO and PM 2.5 

## levels. For model year 2006 off-highway motorcycles and all-terrain ve hicles, at least 50% of a manufacture’s fleet was required to meet the new exhaust emissions standard and 100% of the fleet was required to meet the standards in 2007. Recreational marine diesel engines over 37 kilowatts are used in yachts, cruisers and ot her types of pleasure craft. Recreational marine engines contribute to ozone formation and PM 2.5 

## levels, especially surrounding

marinas.

When all of the nonroad spark-ignition engines and recreat ional engine standards are fully implemented, an overall 72% re duction in VOCs, 80% reduction in NO x, 

## and 56% reduction in CO emissions are expected by 2020.

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine Standards 5


## This new standard, effective in May 2010, re gulates air toxics emissions from existing diesel powered stationary reciprocating inte rnal combustion engine s that meet specific siting, age, and size criteria. These engines ar e typically used at i ndustrial facilities (e.g. power, chemical, and manufacturing plants) to generate electricity for compressors and pumps and to produce electricity to pump water for flood and fire control during emergencies.

The standard applies to stationary diesel engi nes: (1) used at area sources of air toxics

emissions and constructed or reconstructed before June 12, 2006; (2) used at major sources of air toxics emissions, having a site rating of less th an or equal to 500 horsepower, and constructed or reconstructed before June 12, 2006; and, (3) used at major sources of air toxics for non-emergenc y purposes, having a site rating of greater than 500 horsepower, and constructed or reconstructed before December 19, 2002.

Operators of existing engines wi ll be required to: (1) insta ll emissions control equipment that would limit air toxics up to 70% for st ationary non-emergency engines with a site rating greater than 300 horsepower; (2) perfor m emissions tests to demonstrate engine performance and compliance with rule requirements; and, (3) bur n ultra-low sulfur fuel in stationary non-emergency engines with a si te rating greater than 300 horsepower.

When all of the reciprocating internal com bustion engine standards are fully implemented in 2013, U.S. EPA estimates that emissions fr om these engines will reduce air toxics by approximately 1,000 tons per year (tpy), PM 2.5 

## by 2,800 tpy, carbon monoxide by 14,000 tpy, and volatile organic compounds by 27,000 tpy.

5 

### http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rice/fr03mr10.pdf

## 37 Category 3 Marine Diesel Engine Standards 6


## This new standard, effective in June 2010, pr omulgates more stringent exhaust emission standards for new large marine diesel engines with per-cylinder displacement at or above 30 liters (commonly referred to as Category 3 compression-ignition marine engines) as part of a coordinated strategy to address emi ssions from all ships that affect U.S. air quality. These emission standards are equivale nt to those adopted in the amendments to

Annex VI to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Annex VI). The emission sta ndards apply in two stages—near-term standards for newly built engines will a pply beginning in 2011; long-term standards requiring an eighty percen t (80%) reduction in NO X 

## emissions will begin in 2016.

U.S. EPA is adopting changes to the diesel fuel program to allow for the production and sale of diesel fuel with up to 1,000 ppm sulf ur for use in Category 3 marine vessels. The regulations generally forbid pr oduction and sale of fuels with more than 1,000 ppm sulfur for use in most U.S. waters, unless operator s achieve equivalent emission reductions in other ways. U.S. EPA is also adopting pr ovisions to apply some emission and fuel standards to foreign-flagged a nd in-use vessels that are c overed by MARPOL Annex VI.

When this strategy is fully implemen ted in 2030, U.S. EPA estimates that NO

x 

## and PM emissions in the U.S. will be reduced by approximately 1.2 million tpy and 143,000 tpy, respectively.

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) On May 12, 2005, the U.S. EPA promulgated the “Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of

Fine Particulate Matter and Oz one (Clean Air Interstate Rule ); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NO

x 

## SIP Call”; Final Rule. (40 CFR Parts 51, 72, 75 and 96) This rule established the requirement for stat es to adopt rules limiting the emissions of

NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## and provided a model rule for the states to use in developing their rules to meet federal requirements. The purpose of CAIR is to reduce interstate transport of precursors to fine particles and ozone.

CAIR applies to: (1) any stati onary fossil-fuel-fired boiler or stationary fossil-fuel-fired combustion turbine, a genera tor with nameplate capacity of more than 25 megawatt electrical (MWe) producing el ectricity for sale; and, (2) a unit that qualifies as a cogeneration unit during the 12-month period starting on the date that the unit first produces electricity and continues to qualify as a cogeneration unit, a cogeneration unit serving at any time a generator with a na meplate capacity of more than 25 MWe and supplying in any calendar year more than one-t hird of the unit’s poten tial electric output capacity or 219,000 MWh (megawatt hours), whic hever is greater to any utility power distribution system for sale.

6 

### http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/ home.html#documentDetai l?R=0900006480ae43a6

## 38 This rule provides annual state caps for NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## in two phases, with the Phase I caps

for NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## starting in 2009 and 2010, respectively. Phase II caps become effective in 2015. The U.S. EPA is allowing the caps to be met through a cap and trade program if a state chooses to participate in the program.

In response to U.S. EPA’s rulemaking, IDEM adopted a state rule in 2006 based on the

model federal rule. IDEM’s rule includes an annual and seasonal NO

x 

## trading program

and an annual SO 2 

## trading program. This rule requi res compliance effective January 1,

2009.

On March 10, 2005, the U.S. EPA finalized CAIR. SO 2 

## emissions from power plants in

the 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia covered by CAIR will be cut by 4.3 million tons by 2009 and reduced by an additional 5.4 million tons in 2015. NO

x 

## emissions will be cut by 1.7 million tons by 2009 and reduced by an additional 1.3

million tons in 2015. The D.C. Circuit cour t’s vacatur of CAIR in July of 2008 and subsequent remand without vacatur of CAIR in December of 2008 directs U.S. EPA to revise/replace CAIR in order to properly address the deficiencies outlined by the court.

Since the court’s opinion made it clear that CAIR is deficient and must be revised/replaced, the program cannot be defined as permanent and enforceable for SIP purposes. On July 6, 2010, U.S. EPA proposed the Clean Air Transport Rule to replace CAIR. The Transport Rule will result in even further benefits above and beyond CAIR

than what is assumed within the emission inventories and modeling.

Together, these rules will substantially reduce local and regional sour ces of fine particle precursors. The modeling analyses discussed in Section 7.0 include thes e rules and show the reductions in annual fine particle concentrations expected to result from the implementation of

these rules.

6.5 Controls to Remain in Effect

Indiana commits to maintain the control measur es listed above after redesignation, or submit to U.S. EPA, as a SIP revision, any changes to its rules or emission limits applicable to NO

x 

## , SO 2, 

## or direct PM 2.5 

## sources as required for maintenance of th e annual standard for fine particles in Dearborn County, Indiana.

Indiana, through IDEM’s Office of Air Quality and its Compliance and Enforcement Branch, has the legal authority and necessary resources to act ively enforce any violations of its rules or permit provisions. After redesignati on, it intends to continue enforci ng all rules that relate to the emission of fine particles and fine partic le precursors in Dearborn County, Indiana.

6.6 New Source Review Provisions

Indiana has a long standing and fully implemente d New Source Review (NSR) program that is outlined at 326 IAC 2. The rule includes provisions for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program in 326 IAC 2-2. Indiana's PSD program was

## 39 conditionally approved on March 3, 2003 (68 FR 9892) and received final approval on May 20, 2004 (69 FR 29071) by U.S. EPA as part of the SIP.

Any facility that is not listed in the 2005 emission inventory, or for which credit through the shutdown or curtailment was taken in demonstrating attainment, will not be allowed to construct, reopen, modify, or reconstruct without meeting a ll applicable permit rule requirements. The review process will be identical to that used for new sources. Once the area is redesignated, OAQ will implement NSR through the PSD program, wh ich requires an air quality analysis to

evaluate whether the new sour ce will threaten the NAAQS.

7.0 MODELING AND METEOROLOGY

Although U.S. EPA Redesignation Guidance does not require modeling for nonattainment areas seeking redesignation, extensive modeling has be en performed covering the Cincinnati, Ohio region to determine the effect of national emission control strategies on fine particle levels. These modeling analyses determined that the Cincinnati area, includ ing Dearborn County in southeastern Indiana is significantly impacted by regional transport of fi ne particles and its precursors, and that regional SO 2 

## and NO

x 

## reductions are an effectiv e way to attain the annual standard for fine particles in th is area. Future year modeled a nnual fine particle concentrations are expected to be reduced by 0.6 to 1.3 μg/m 3 

## . Examples of these modeling analyses are

described below.

7.1 Summary of Modeling Results to Support Rulemakings

U.S. EPA Modeling for Transport Rule, 2010

U.S. EPA performed modeling to support the emission re ductions associated with the Transport Rule. U.S. EPA used Comprehensive Air Qual ity Model with Extension (CAMx, Version 5), applied to the 2005 meteorology, as processed by the Mesoscale Model (MM5), Version 3.7.4. Emissions input into CAMx included SO 2 

## , NO

x 

## , volatile organic compounds (VOC), ammonia,

and direct PM 2.5 

## for 2005. The modeling was based on the annual fine particles design values calculated from 2003 through 2005, 2004 through 2006, and 2005 through 2007. Future year modeling was conducted, which included the Cincinna ti area, and the future year design values

for 2012 and 2014 were evaluated for attainment of the annual NAAQS for fine particles of 15 μg/m 3 

## , as shown in Table 7.1. Fine particle con centrations are accounted for by modeling both the base future year emissions and then the em issions reductions associat ed with the Transport Rule. U.S. EPA found model performance met s uggested benchmark performance goals within or close to the ranges found in other compar able modeling applica tions (Technical Support Document for the Transport Ru le – Air Quality Modeling).

7 

### http://www.epa.gov/airquality/transp ort/pdfs/TR_AQModeling_TSD.pdf

## 40 Table 7.1 Transport Rule Modeling Results from U.S. EPA – 2010

County Monitor ID Design Value

2003-2007 Future Design

Value

2012 Base Future Design

Value

2014 Base (μg/m 3 

### ) (μg/m 3 

### ) (μg/m 3 

### ) Butler County 39-017-0016 15.74 15.25 14.76 Butler County 39-017-0017 15.36 14.93 14.48 Butler County 39-017-1004 14.90 14.51 14.06 Hamilton County 39-061-0006 14.84 14.36 13.88 Hamilton County 39-061-0014 17.29 16.69 16.14 Hamilton County 39-061-0040 15.50 15.03 14.51 Hamilton County 39-061-0042 16.85 16.33 15.80 Hamilton County 39-061-0043 15.55 15.05 14.56 Hamilton County 39-061-7001 16.17 15.65 15.12 Hamilton County 39-061-8001 17.54 16.93 16.38 Campbell County 21-037-0003 13.67 13.30 12.81

Kenton County 21-117-0007 14.36 13.98 13.50



## Modeling results show that the base future year modeling with emi ssion reductions from the Transport Rule accounts for approximately 0.4 to 0.6 μg/m 3 

## decreases in concentrations for 2012 and approximately 0.8 to1.2 μg/m 3 

## decreases in concentrations fo r 2014 in the Cincinnati area.

While results of U.S. EPA’s Transport Rule m odeling show modeled con centrations above the standard using base case emissions at several PM 2.5 

## monitoring sites in Hamilton County, Ohio, it should be noted that base ye ar design value used by U.S. EPA was taken from 2003 through 2007 and considered higher than current 2005 th rough 2009 design values in the area. Graph 7.1 shows the downward trend of the design values from 1999 through 2009 for the PM 2.5 

## monitors

in the Cincinnati area. The resulting decreases of the 2003 through 2007 design values to the 2005 through 2009 design value at the Murray Road PM 2.5 

## monitor is 1.75 μg/m 3 

## , the decrease at the Seymour and Vine Street monitor is 1.27 μg/m 3 

## and 1.39 μg/m 3 

## at the West 8 th 

## Street

monitor. The results decrease from all the area monitors ranged from 1.05 μg/m 3 

## to 1.75 μg/m 3



## . Therefore, U.S. EPA’s Transport Rule mode ling, using current 2005 through 2009 design values, would show lower modeled concentrations approa ching the annual fine pa rticle standard of 15.0 μg/m 3



## .

## 41 Graph 7.1

PM 2.5 

## Design Value Trends for Cincinnati Area: 1999 - 2009

Results of the U.S. EPA Transport Rule modeling show that the Cincinnati area will approach the annual fine particles NAAQS in 2012 with modeled impacts reduced by 3% to 4%. The 2014 projected design values will decrease by 6% to 7% from the 2003 through 2007 design values. If using current design values, U.S. EPA’s CAIR modeling would show the Cincinnati area would approach the current a nnual fine particles standard.

LADCO Modeling for CAIR

LADCO conducted modeling to determine the imp act of CAIR in the Midwest. LADCO’s modeling used the CAMx model applied to th e year 2005 meteorology, as processed by the MM5. Emissions input into CAMx included SO 2 

## , NO

x 

## , VOC, ammonia, and direct PM 2.5 

## for 2005. The modeling was based on 2003 through 2007 design values. Future year modeling for 2009, 2012, and 2018 was conducted and the future y ear design values were determined without

the emission reductions associated with CAIR (Round 6), as shown in Table 7.2.

## 42 Table 7.2 LADCO’s Round 6 Modeling Result s for the Cincinnati Area

Monitor ID Monitor

Name County Design Value

2003-2007 Base-case

2012 Base-case

2018 (μg/m 3 

### ) (μg/m 3 

### ) (μg/m 3 

### )



### 390170003 Bonita & St. John Butler 16.0 15.0 14.7

390170016 Nilles Rd Butler 15.7 14.9 14.7

390170017 3300 Wilwood Butler 16.1 15.1 14.9 390171004 Hook Field Airport Butler 14.9 14.0 13.7

390250022 400 Clermont Dr Clermont 14.7 13.8 13.6

390610006 Grooms Rd Hamilton 15.4 14.5 14.3 390610014 Seymour & Vine St Hamilton 17.3 16.3 16.1

390610040 Howard Taft Hamilton 15.5 14.6 14.4

390610041 5300 Winneste Ave Hamilton 15.4 14.7 14.5

390610042 101 W. 8th St Hamilton 16.9 15.9 15.7 390610043 254 Kemper Rd Hamilton 15.5 14.6 14.5

390617001 Sherman Ave Hamilton 16.2 15.2 15.0 390618001 Murray Rd Hamilton 17.5 16.5 16.3 210370003 Alexandria Park Campbell 13.3 13.2 13.0 211170007 University College Kenton 14.4 13.5 13.4



## Results of the LADCO Round 6 modeling show that all but five of the fifteen monitors in the

Cincinnati area continue to attain the annual NAAQS for fine particles of 15 μg/m 3 

## in 2012. Modeled concentrations at the five fine partic le monitors, Murray Road, Seymour & Vine Street, Wilwood, Sherman Avenue and West 8 th 

## Street were above the fine particles standard. Table 7.2 shows future year modeled annual fine partic le results without CAIR emission reductions.

Concentrations for 2009 will be 5% to 6% lowe r than baseline annual fine particles design values, 6% to 8% lower in 2018. A graphical representation of the modeling results is shown in Graph 7.2. Modeled results for the Cincinnati area would approach the current annual fine particle standard would be lo wer if the current 2005 through 2009 design values, as shown in Graph 7.1, were used.

## 43 Graph 7.2 Modeling Results (without CAIR) for the Cincinnati Area PM 2.5 

## Monitors

7.2 LADCO’s Round 5 Particulate Source Apportionment Results

Particulate Source Apportionment (PSAT) modeli ng was conducted by LADCO. The results of the PSAT Round 5 modeling shows the regional contributions by emission sectors on each

monitor that was modeled. Chart 7.1 shows the PSAT modeling results for the Murray Road fine particles monitor in Hamilton County in southw est Ohio. Ohio was the biggest regional contributor to the Murray Road fine particles monitor with In diana, Kentucky, the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTA S) Regional Planning Organization (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, No rth Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia and the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians), the Central Regional Air Planning Associati on (CENRAP) Regional Planning Organization (Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana), the Western Regional Air Partne rship (WRAP) Regional Pla nning Organization (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexi co, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming) and Pennsylvania also contributing.

The sector emissions are de scribed as EGU, non-EGU, NH 3 

## – ammonium emission sources,

offroad emission sources includi ng marine, air travel and rail road emission sources, onroad mobile emission sources, area, and boundary conditions.

The PSAT modeling results show the majority of Indiana’s emission sector contributions come from EGUs, ammonium, onroad, offroad (including marine, aircraft and railroad), non-EGU, and

area sources. Other contributions resulted mainly from EGU, non-EGU, and ammonium emissions from other regional areas. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

2003-2007 D.V. 2009 2012 2018Concentratins (ug/m3)



### Future Year

Bonita & St. John Nilles Rd 3300 Wilwood Hook Field Airport 400 Clermont Dr Grooms Rd Seymour & Vine St Howard Taft 5300 Winneste Ave
101 W. 8th St 254 Kemper Rd Sherman Ave Murray Rd Alexandria Park University College

## 44 Chart 7.1 Regional/Emission Sector PSAT Result s at Murray Road in Hamilton County

The following pie charts depict the species contribu tions to fine particle concentrations at the Cincinnati area monitors. The pie charts incl ude both the observed 2005 contributions and future year 2009 modeled contributions for each monitor. Since the monitors are in close proximity of each other, results are fairly similar in the di stribution of species concentrations among the monitors. Charts 7.2 through 7.5 cover the three fine particle monitors in southwestern Ohio and one fine particles monitor in northern Kentuc ky with the highest con centrations used to determine compliance with the annu al fine particles NAAQS of 15 μg/m 3



## .

The speciation listed in the pie charts include SO 4 

## – sulfate mass, NO 3 

## – nitrate mass, OC – organic carbon mass, EC – elemental carbon mass, Soil – crustal material mass, NH 4 

## – ammonium mass, PBW – partic les bound water mass, BLAN – passively collected mass.

## 45 Chart 7.2 Species Modeled Contributions to Murray Road PM 2.5 

## Monitor

Chart 7.3 Species Modeled Contributions to Seymour & Vine St. PM 2.5 

## Monitor

Chart 7.4 Species Modeled Contributions to 101 West 8th Street PM 2.5 

## Monitor Observed 2005 Contributions at Murray Road PM2.5 Monitor

so4

33%

no3

8%

oc

26% ec

4% soil

2% nh4

13% pbw

11% blan

3%

so4

no3

oc

ec

soil

nh4

pbw

blan 2009 Modeled Contributions at Murray Road PM2.5 Monitor

so4

37%

no3

7% oc

22% ec

3% soil

2% nh4

14% pbw

13% blan

2%

so4

no3

oc

ec

soil

nh4

pbw

blan

Observed 2005 Contributions at Seymour & Vine St. PM2.5 Monitor

so4

34%

no3

8%

oc

25% ec

4% soil

2% nh4

13% pbw

11% blan

3%

so4

no3

oc

ec

soil

nh4

pbw

blan 2009 Modeled Contributions at Seymour & Vine St. PM2.5 Monitor

so4

37%

no3

7% oc

22% ec

3% soil

2% nh4

14% pbw

13% blan

2%

so4

no3

oc

ec

soil

nh4

pbw

blan

Observed 2005 Contributions at 101 West 8th St. PM2.5 Monitor

so4

34%

no3

8%

oc

25% ec

4% soil

2% nh4

13% pbw

11% blan

3%

so4

no3

oc

ec

soil

nh4

pbw

blan 2009 Modeled Contributions at the 101 West 8th St. PM2.5 Monitor

so4

39%

no3

6% oc

21% ec

3% soil

2% nh4

14% pbw

13% blan

2%

so4

no3

oc

ec

soil

nh4

pbw

blan

## 46 Chart 7.5 Species Modeled Contributions to University College PM 2.5 

## Monitor

Results of the Round 5 PSAT modeling for the Cinci nnati area fine particle monitors show the highest pollutant contributors to base case and future year fine particle concentrations are sulfate, organic carbon, ammonium and nitrate. Future year modeling shows decreases in organic carbon, nitrates and elemental carbon . The future year modeling di d show increases in sulfates, particles bound water and a mmonium from the base-cas e modeled concentrations.

7.3 Summary of Existing Modeling Results

U.S. EPA and LADCO modeling for future year design values ha ve consistently shown that existing national emission control measures will he lp the Cincinnati area ap proach attainment of the annual NAAQS for fine part icles standard of 15 μg/m 3 

## . Emission control measures to be implemented in the next several years will help air quality meet the standard in the future. U.S. EPA future year modeling of national emissi on control strategies, based on current design values, showed the Cincinnati area will approach the annual NAAQS for fine particles. Future

national and local emission contro l strategies will ensure that the Cincinnati fine particles

nonattainment area will maintain the lo wer fine particle concentrations.

7.4 Meteorological Analysis for Southeastern Indiana

Meteorological conditions are one of the most important factors that influence development and transport of fine particles. Stagnant surface conditions and upper air ridging during any time of the year provides conducive conditions for deve lopment and transport of fine particles. Ultimately, passage of surface cold fronts with a clean air mass ch ange will lower fine particle readings in the Cincinnati area.

7.4.1 Surface Air Conditions Present during Hi gh Fine Particles Concentrations Days

Higher annual concentrations of fine particles tend to correlate with warmer temperatures and lighter wind speeds, although high fine particle ep isodes can occur in the summer fall, winter or spring. It should be noted that hi gher annual fine particle concentr ations are driven by individual days with higher fine particle concentrations throughout the m onitored year. Therefore, it is difficult to attribute higher fine particle concentrations to an nualized meteorological rankings. Review of several of the higher fine particles concentration epis odes (days with concentrations Observed 2005 Contributions at University College PM2.5 Monitor

so4

34%

no3

8%

oc

23% ec

4% soil

3% nh4

13% pbw

11% blan

4%

so4

no3

oc

ec

soil

nh4

pbw

blan 2009 Modeled Contributions at University College PM2.5 Monitor

so4

39%

no3

6% oc

20% ec

3% soil

2% nh4

14% pbw

13% blan

3%

so4

no3

oc

ec

soil

nh4

pbw

blan

## 47 over 35 μg/m 3 

## ) over the past few years shows conditi ons were hot in the summer with temperatures in the middle 80 o 

## Fahrenheit or higher and averag e wind speeds were fairly light. Fall and winter high fine particles concentrati on days had near normal temperatures but very light wind speeds with higher humidity. Surface condi tions present for higher fine particle days had a high pressure system east of the Cincinnati ar ea with a front located e ither north or west of

the area.

Analysis of the Murray Road PM 2.5 

## monitor data on the higher c oncentration days showed over

60% occurred with maximu m temperatures above 80 o 

## F and only 5% of the high concentration days occurred at maximum temperatures below 40 o 

## F. The location of this monitor is considered

downwind of the urban center of Cincinnati so the urban emissions are transported to the monitor. However, surface meteorological conditions would also play a large role in increased fine particle readings at the monitor.

7.4.2 Upper Air Conditions Present during Hi gh Fine Particles Concentrations Days

Upper air ridges and more stagnant surface wind conditions predominately affect development and build up of fine particles. Slow movi ng upper air ridges can effectively suppress mixing within the many levels of the atmosphere and caus e pollutants to build up over time. Inversions or increases in temperature with a rise in al titude will prevent mixing with air from the upper atmosphere. These conditions can occur at any time of the year and are evident in elevated fine particle episodes in spring, summer, fall and winter months. Review of upper air features present during higher concentration days in the Cincinnati area during the summer showed generally a ridge over the area with fairly light winds in th e upper atmosphere and warm air advection. The upper air features present during hi gher concentration days in th e fall and winter were upper air troughs with extremely light winds and moderate temperatures.

Review of surface and upper air feat ures of higher fine particles concentration days showed stagnant surface conditions and upper air ridges exis ted on those days. These conditions help in the buildup of fine particle concen trations in the Cincinnati area.

7.4.3 Analyses of Atmospheric Conditi ons for Fine Particles Build-Up

Analyses have been conducted to determine the atmospheric conditions that are most prevalent during higher fine particles con centration days in Indiana. LA DCO applied a Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis to data from Indiana that correla ted different le vels of fine particle concentrations to meteorological condi tions from 1999 through 2004. (Donna Kenski, 2005). This type of analysis looks at the me teorological conditions, such as temperature, pressure, wind speed, wind direction, relative hu midity and dew point temperatures at the surface, as well as lower morning and evening mixing heights in the upper atmosphere which were present when higher concentrations of fine particles were monitored. Results of this CART analysis indicated factors that played a larger role in fine particle concen trations in the southern portion of the Midwest were warm-weather cond itions with high dew points, southwest winds and low evening mixing heights as well as the previ ous day’s concentrations of fine particles.

## 48 Fine particles are made up of severa l constituents, including direct PM 2.5 

## , sulfates, nitrates, ammonium, organic carbon and elemental car bon. Depending on the time of the year, concentrations of particulate cons tituents vary, with nitrates bei ng more prevalent in the winter and sulfates more prevalent in the summer. Su lfates and nitrate emissi on reductions have the biggest impact on lower future year fine particle concentrations.

7.5 Summary of Air Quality Index Days in Southeastern Indiana

An analysis was conducted to review the daily fine particle concentrations over a year to determine the Air Quality Index (AQI) trends. Chart 7.6 shows by year (2000 through 2009), the percentage number of days during which fine pa rticle concentrations re ached the AQI ranges for “Good” (0 to 15.3 μg/m 3 

## ), “Moderate” (15.4 μg/m 3 

## to 40.4 μg/m 3 

## ) and “Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups (USG)” (40.5 μg/m 3 

## to 65.4 μg/m 3 

## ) at the Murray Road PM 2.5 

## monitor in Hamilton County in Ohio. There were no da ys which the fine particle leve ls reached the “Unhealthy” level of 65.5 μg/m 3 

## to 150.4 μg/m 3 

## or above.

Chart 7.6

Distribution of PM 2.5 

## Concentration Days on the AQI Levels of Health Concern

Table 7.3 shows the rankings, by year, for the th ree AQI ranges. The year 2009 had the most “Good” concentration days during the 10-year period analyzed (2000 through 2009) at 61%. The year 2005 had the most “Moderate” concen trations days at 60% and “Unhealthy for Sensitive Group” concentration days at 8%. As ca n be seen, weather plays a large role in fine particle concentrations development and transport as 2000, 2001, 2004 and 2005 were conducive

to PM 2.5 

## development which translated to moderate and unhealthy for sensitive group levels of air quality over 50% of the time. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 USG

Moderate

Good

## 49 Table 7.3 Ranking and Percentage of Highest Number of Days at AQI Levels of Health Concern

Ranking Good Moderate Unhealthy for Sensitive Group

1 st 

## 2009 – 61% 2005 – 60% 2005 – 8%

2 nd 

## 2008 – 60% 2000 – 58% 2000 – 7%

3 rd 

## 2006 – 58% 2004 – 52% 2008 – 6%

4 th 

## 2007 – 56% 2001 – 49% 2001 – 5%

5 th 

## 2002 – 51% 2003 – 46% 2003 – 3%

6 th 

## 2003 – 51% 2002 – 45% 2002 – 3%

7 th 

## 2001 – 46% 2007 – 41% 2007 – 3%

8 th 

## 2004 – 46% 2006 – 39% 2006 – 3%

9 th 

## 2000 – 35% 2009 – 39% 2004 – 2%

10 th 

## 2005 – 32% 2008 – 35% 2009 – 0%

7.6 Summary of Meteorological Anal ysis for Southeastern Indiana

Annual fine particle concentrations in the Ci ncinnati area are driven by higher fine particles concentration days that can occur during any ti me of the year. Conditions that are most prevalent during higher fine pa rticle concentration days are lighter winds, higher relative humidity and above average maximum temperat ures in the summer and lighter winds, higher relative humidity and normal temperatures in th e fall, winter or spring. Upper air weather patterns generally include ridging over the area with stagnant c onditions at the surface caused by lower mixing heights and stable conditions for su mmer episodes and ridging or troughs over the area in the fall, winter or spring episodes. Surface winds from any direction can transport pollutants from surrounding areas into the Cincinnati area. Nitrates are bigger contributors to fine particle concentrations in the winter and su lfates are bigger contributors to fine particle

concentrations in the summer.

8.0 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

8.1 Commitment to Revise Plan

As noted in Section 4.6 above, Indiana commits to review and revise as appropriate its Maintenance Plan eight years after redesignation, as require d by Section 175A of the CAA.

8.2 Commitment for Contingency Measures

IDEM will monitor fine particle concentrations to determine whether trends indicate higher values or whether emissions appear to be increasing. If it is determ ined that fine particle levels and emissions are increasing and action is necessary to reverse that trend, IDEM will take action to reverse the noted trend, prior to a violation of th e standard occurring.

## 50 Indiana commits to adopt and expeditiously im plement necessary corrective action in the following circumstance:

Action Level Response

An Action Level Response shall be prompted wh enever a violation of the standard (three year average annual arithmetic mean value of 15.1 μg/m 3 

## or greater) occurs. In the event that the Action Level is trigge red and is not found to be due to an atypical unfavorable meteorological condition, exceptional event, malfunction or noncompliance with a permit condition or rule requirement, IDEM will determine additiona l control measures needed

to assure future attainment of the annual NAAQS for fine particles. In this case, measures that can be implemented in a short tim e will be selected in order to be in place within eighteen months from the close of th e fine particles season that prompted the

Action Level.

Control Measure Selection and Implementation

Adoption of any additional control measures is subject to the necessary administrative and legal processes. This pr ocess will include publication of notices, an opportunity for public hearing and other measures require d by Indiana law for rulemaking by state

environmental boards.

If a new measure or control is already promulgated and schedul ed to be implemented at the federal or state level, and that measure or contro l is determined to be sufficient to address the upward trend in air quality, additi onal local measures may be unn ecessary. Furthermore, IDEM will submit to U.S. EPA an analysis to demonstrate the proposed measures are adequate to return

the area to attainment.

8.3 Contingency Measures

Contingency measures to be considered will be se lected from a comprehensive list of measures deemed appropriate and effective at the time the selection is made. Listed below are example measures that may be considered. The se lection of measures will be based upon costeffectiveness, emission reduction po tential, economic and social c onsiderations, or other factors that IDEM deems appropriate. ID EM will solicit input from intere sted and affected persons in the maintenance area prior to selecting appropria te contingency measures. All of the listed contingency measures are potentially effectiv e or proven methods of obtaining significant reductions of fine particles precursor emissions. Because it is not possible at this time to determine what control measure will be appropriate at an unspecified time in the future, the list of contingency measures outlined below is not comprehensive. IDEM anticipates that if contingency measures should ever be necessary, it is unlikely th at a significant number (i.e., all those listed below) will be required.

1) Vehicle inspection an d maintenance program. 2) Alternative fuel and diesel retrofit programs for fleet vehicle operations. 3) Require NO

x 

## or SO 2 

## emission offsets for new and modified major sources.

## 51 4) Require NO

x 

## or SO 2 

## emission offsets for new a nd modified minor sources. 5) Increase the ratio of emission of fsets required for new sources. 6) Require NO

x 

## or SO 2 

## controls on new minor sour ces (less than 100 tons). 7) Wood stove change-out program. 8) Require increased recovery effici ency at sulfur recovery plants. 9) Various emissions reduction measures or dus t suppressant for unpaved roads and/or parking

lots. 10) Idling Restrictions. 11) Broader geographic applicab ility of existing measures. 12) One or more transportation co ntrol measures sufficient to achie ve at least a half a percent (0.5%) reduction in actual area-wide precursor emissions. Transportation measures will be selected from the following, based upon the f actors listed above, af ter consultation with affected local governments: a) Trip reduction programs, including, but not limited to, employer-based transportation management plans, area wide rideshare programs, work schedule changes and telecommuting. b) Transit improvements. c) Traffic flow improvements. d) Other new or innovative transportation measur es not yet in widespread use that affect state and local governments deemed appropriate.

No contingency measure shall be implemented w ithout providing the opportunity for full public participation during which the relative costs and be nefits of individual meas ures, at the time they are under consideration, can be fully evaluated.

9.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

This section will be finalized upon completion of the public heari ng and public comment period.

10.0 CONCLUSIONS

Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County, Indiana, has attained the annual NAAQS for fine particles and does not significantl y contribute to violations outs ide its portion of the CincinnatiHamilton OH-KY-IN nonattainment area. This petition demonstrates that Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County, Indiana, has complied with the applicable provisions of the CAA regarding redesignation of nonattainment areas for fine partic les. IDEM has prepared a State Implementation and Maintenance Plan that meet s the requirement of S ection 110(a)(1) of the

CAA.

Indiana has performed an analysis that shows the air quality imp rovements are due to permanent and enforceable measures and that additional significant regional NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## reductions following implementation of Phase II NO

x 

## SIP Call and CAIR and/or its replacement rule or program will ensure continued compliance (maint enance) with the standard. Furthermore, emission projections indicate that NO

x 

## and SO 2 

## emissions will continue to decline, thus ensuring

## 52 that the area continues to maintain compliance with the standard and provide for an increasing margin of safety. Based on this presenta tion, Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County, Indiana, meets the requirements for redesign ation under the CAA (Secti on 107(d)(3)) and U.S. EPA guidance for fine particles.

Consistent with the authority granted to the U.S. EPA, the State of Indiana requests that Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County, Indiana, be redesignated to attainment for the annual fine particles standard simultaneously with U.S. EPA approval of this Indiana State Implementation and Maintenance Pl an provisions contained herein.

# APPENDIX A

Air Quality System (AQS) and Indiana Department of Environmental Management(IDEM) Monitor Data Values for the CincinnatiHamilton, OH-KY-IN Nonattainment Area (2000-2009)

## This page left intentionally blank.