# APPENDIX I

Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium

(LADCO) Round 5 Modeling Technical Support

Document (Round 5 Photochemical Modeling

Based on “Base M” Emissions Inventory, Revised

Version of “Base K”)

## F - 1 This page left intentionally blank.

### February 27, 2008



# Base M Strategy Modeling: Emissions (Revised)

The purpose of this document is to summarize the emis sion estimates prepared for LADCO’s

latest (Base M) 200 5 base year and 200 8, 2009, 2012, and 2018 future year modeling

. Base

year emissions by state and s ource sector for Base K (2002) and Base M (2005) are compared

in Figure 1. A more detailed state and source sector summary is provided in Attachment 1

. A dditional

emission reports are available on the LADCO website :

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

.

VOC NOx SO2



### 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

2002

(K) 2005

( M) 2002

(K) 2005

(M) 2002

(K) 2005

( M) 

## WI

OH

MI

IN

IL

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

2002

(K) 2005

( M) 2002

(K) 2005

(M) 2002

(K) 2005

(M) Area

Nonroad+MAR

Onroad

Non-EGU

EGU

Figure 1 . Base K and Base M Emissions for 5

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



### Base Year Em i ssions

In mid

- 2006, LADCO completed modeling analyses for a 2002 base year and several future

year control strategies ( LADCO, 2006a and LADCO, 2006b) . Following those analyses, a

decision was made to conduct additional modeling using a more current base year (2005).

Examin ation of multiple base years provides for a more complete technical assessment. All

modeling was conducted in accordance with USEPA modeling guidelines (USEPA, 2007).

### February 27, 2008



### For on

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

m odels. For other sectors in the LADCO States, 2005 emissions were either supplied by a

contractor ( railroads and commercial marine ) or by the States (point sources, area sources, and

aircraft). For other sectors in non

- LADCO States, a contractor obtained the latest base (2002)

and future year emission files (2009, 2018) from the other Regional Planning Organizations

(RPOs) (Alpine, 2007 a ) . Specifically, the following versions of these emissions files were used :

MANE

- VU: Version 3.1

, WRAP: Pre2002d

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

. The 2005

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

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

On

- R oad : CONCEPT was run by a contractor using transportation data (e.g., VMT and vehicle

speeds) for 24 networks supplied by the state and local planning agencies in the LADCO States

and Minnesota (Environ, 2008 ) . These data were first processed with T3 (Tra vel Demand

Modeling [TDM] Transformation Tool) to pro vide inpu t files for CONCEPT

. For some networks,

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

– 17

a nd January 16

– 18) to produce link

- specific, hourly emission estimates

. A s patial plots of

emissions for July 15 are provided in Figure 2

.

VOC Emissions NOx Emissions

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



### For the non

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

- based HPMS

county

- level data (2002 and 2009) and MOBILE6 inputs (2002) compiled by another contractor

(Environ, 2008) . HPMS VMT for 2005 were generated by linearly interpolating b etween the

2002 and 2009 data. The 2002 MOBILE6 inputs were used for the 2005 modeling, with a few

adjustments (e.g., fuel sulfur content was set to 30 ppm, as required by the Tier 2/low sulfur

regulations). Meteorological data for a July and January wee kday, Saturday, and Sunday (July

15

– 17 and January 16

– 18) were used.

For other months (for both LADCO and non

- LADCO States), weekday, Saturday, and Sunday

emissions were linearly interpolated based on the January and July emissions

.

### February 27, 2008



### Off

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

for most off

- road sectors for

the LADCO States plus Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri. Improved

model inputs included local data for construction and agricultural equipment prepared by a

c ontractor were incorporated (E.H. Pechan, 2004), and 2005 gasoline parameters. (Note,

model updates prepared by AIR to address evaporative emissions were not included.)

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

- LADCO

States, using emission files supplied by Alpine based on data from the other R POs to produce

weekday, Saturday, and Sunday emissions for each month.

Additional off

- road sectors (i.e., commercial marine, aircraft, and railroads [MAR]) were handled

separate ly. Aircraft emissions were supplied by the LADCO States. Updated information for

railroads and commercial marine for the LADCO States was prepared by a contractor (Environ

, 2007a and Environ 2007b)

. Table 1 compares the new 2005 emissions with the prev ious 2002

emission estimates. The new 2005 emissions reflect substantially lower commercial marine

emissions and lower locomotive NOx emissions.

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

- LADCO States,

using emission files supplied by Alpine based on data from the other R POs to produce

weekday, Saturday, and Sunday emissions for each month.

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

Railroads (TPY) Commercial Marine (TPY)

2002 2005 2002 2005

VOC 7,890 7,625 1,562 828

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

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

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

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

NH3 86 85

---- ----



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

non

- LADCO States, using emission files supplied by Alpine based on data from the other R POs

to produce weekday, Saturday, and Sunday emissions for each month. Special attention was

given to two source categories: industrial adhesive and sealant solvent emissions and outdoor

wood boilers.

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

emissions category

in the LADCO States ( i.e.

., 50,000 TPY ) US EPA

subsequently determined that “ (f) or the Region V states, we no longer believe

that there are any activities in the Industrial Adhesives and Sealants category

(SCC 2440020000) that have not been inventoried either in the point source

Industrial Adhesives and Sealants category or under the Consumer and

Commercial Adh esives and Sealants nonpoint category (SCC 2460600000

- all

adhesives and sealants).” (USEPA, 2007b) Consequently, this category was

omitted from the 2005 regional emissions inventory.

### February 27, 2008



### Outdoor Wood Boilers: Over the past several years, the installation a nd

operation of outdoor wood boilers for residential use has increased dramatically

in many northern states. Relying on an emission estimation methodology

prepared by Bart Sponseller (WDNR , 2006 ), emissions were calculated by the

other states for this cat egory.

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

the non

- LADCO States, using emission files supplied by Alpine based on data from the other

R POs to produce weekday, Saturday, and Sunday emissions for each month. 2005 EGU

emissions were temporalized for modeling purposes using profiles prepared by Scott Edick

(Michigan DEQ) based on CEM data for the period 2004

- 2006. Profiles were generated for

monthly weekday/ S aturday/ S unday based on the median hourly emissions for that month, day,

and hour of the day for the three years. Over 90% of NOX and SO2 emissions from EGUs in the

LADCO states were assigned profiles. In non

- L adco states

, the annual EGUs emissions were

replaced with the 2005 sum of hourly emissions for al l 365 days.

Non

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

for the non

- LADCO States, using emission files supplied by Alpine based on data from the other

R POs to produce weekday, Saturday, and Sunday emissions for each month. EGUs were

removed from th is point source file.

Other improvements to the base year inventory included:

Canadian Emissions : Previous modeling inventories for Canadian sources were flawed due to

problems with emissions (e.g., LADCO inventories omitted ammonia emissions) or stack

parameters (e.g., VISTAS inventories failed to include proper stack parameters, resulting in

emissions getting dumped in the surface layer of the model). For Base M, Scott Edick

(Michigan DEQ) processed the 2005 Canadi an National Pollutant Release Inventory ( NPRI

–

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

. Specifically, a subset of the NPRI data which are relevant to

the air quality modeling were reformatted. A number of emissi on reports are available on the

LADCO website ( http://www.ladco.org/tech/emis/basem/canada/index.htm ). Circle plot of point

source emissions are presented in Figure 3

.

### February 27, 2008

Figure 3

. Base year emission plots for Canada



### Biogenic Emissions : A contractor provided an updated version of the CONCEPT/MEGAN

(Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature

– see http://bai.acd.ucar.edu/Megan/ )

biogenics model , which was used to produce base year biogenic emission estimates (Alpine,

2007b)

. MEGAN includes functions for soil moisture plant stress, a more complete canopy

model, full plant growth cycle emissions calculations, and state of the science emission rates.

Subsequent to deliver of the updated CONCEPT/MEGAN code, it was found that more recent

data sets and model formulations were available. For t he purposes of the Round 5 modeling,

LADCO simply scaled the emission estimates from the updated code to reflect these newer

data. This resulted in lower emissions for several organic aerosol species and NOx

Compared to the EMS/BIOME emissions used for B ase K , t here is more regional isoprene with

MEGAN (see Figure 4)

. Also, with the secondary organic aerosol updates to the CAMx air

quality model, Base M includes emissions for monoterpenes and sesquiterpenes , which are pre

cursors of secondary PM 2. 5 

### organ ic carbon mass

.

Figure 4

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

### February 27, 2008



### Ammonia Emissions : The CMU

- based 2002 (Base K) annual ammonia emissions were

projected to 2005 using growth factors from the Round 4 emissions modeling. The se annual

emis sions were then adjusted by applying monthly temporal factors based on the process

based ammonia emissions model ( http://www.conceptmodel.org/nh3/nh3_index.html ). The

model was run for the fo llowing list of model farms using 200 2 meteor o logical data : Dairy

(California, Wisconsin), Swine (Iowa, Wisconsin), and Beef (Texas, Washington, Wisconsin)

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

, swine was use in its place

given that both use confined operations.

Each model farms ’ emissions were used to generate monthly average day emissions and a

monthly profile. The profiles were applied to geographies most associated with that farm type

(e.g., a ll LADCO states used the Wisc onsin fa rm results) . The following figure show s the daily

variation in emissions for the model farms

.

Wisconsin

–

dairy Wisconsin

- swine

Daily Total - Swine 55001

0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500

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

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

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00

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

DateNH3 emissions (Kg / day)



### Washington

–

beef Texas

- beef

Daily Total - Beef 53001

0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000

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

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

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00

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

DateNH3 emissions (Kg / day)



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

### February 27, 2008



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

.

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800

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

Illinois Indiana Io w a Michigan

Minnesota Ohio Wisconsin

Figure 6

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



### Fires : For Base K, a contractor (EC/R, 2004) developed a 2001, 2002, and 20 03 fire emissions

inventory for eight Midwest States (five LADCO states plus Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri),

including emissions from wild fires, prescribed fires, and agricultural burns. Projected emissions

were also developed for 2010 and 2018 assuming “no smoke management” and “optimal smoke

management” scenarios. An early model sensitivity run showed very little difference in modeled

PM 2.5 

### concentrations. Consequently, the fire emissions were not included in subsequent

modeling runs (i.e., they were not in the Base K or Base M modeling inventories).

### February 27, 2008



### Future Year Emissions

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



### . Source

sector emission summaries for the base years (2002

– Base K and 2005

– Base M) and future

years are shown in Figure 7

. A more detailed state and source sector summary is provided in

Attachment 1. A dditional emission reports are available on the LADCO website

( http://64.27.125 .175/tech/emis/r5/round5_reports.htm

.

VOC NOx S O2

0 3000 6000 9000 12000

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

On-road

Nonroad

Non-EGU

EGU



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

- State LADCO Region (TPD, July weekday)

1 

### A 2008 proxy inventory was prepared to support a preliminary 2008 modeling analysis to assess

attainment for the basic nonattainment areas (i.e, for areas with a 2009 attainment date, the appropriate

panning year is 2008). This inventory reflects the following assumptions:

On

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

– 2009 trend (except for the

Cincinnati

- Dayton area, where 2008 emissions were generated using CONCEPT and 2008 data

supplied by the local planning agency)

Off

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

- 2009 trend

Point

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

- 10%)

Point

– Non

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

- 2009 trend suggests little

change)

Biogenics: use new 2005 base year emissions

A 2012 proxy inventory was prepared to support a preliminary 2012 modeling analysis to assess the

effect of further emission reductions from existing controls. This inventory was derived by interpolating

between 2009 and 2018 emissions for all sectors, except p oint sources (for which, the 2009 emissions

were used).

### February 27, 2008



### For on

- road, off

- road, and EGU sources, the future year emissions were estimated by models

(i.e., CONCEPT, NMIM2005, and IPM, respectively) and then processed by LADCO with EMS.

For other sectors (area, MAR, and non

- EGU point sources)

, the future year emissions for the

LADCO States were derived by applying growth and control factors to the base year inventory.

These factors were developed by a contractor (E.H. Pechan , 2007 ). Growth factors were

based initially on EGAS (version 5.0), and were subsequently modified (for select, priority

categories) by examining emissions activity data. For the non

- L ADCO States, future year

emission files were supplied by Alpine based on data from the other RPOs. Due to a lack of

information on future year conditions, the biogenic VOC and NOx emissions, and all Canadian

emissions were assumed to remain constant betwe en the base year and future years.

A “base” control scenario was prepared for each future year based on the following “on the

books” controls (E.H. Pechan, 2007):

On

- Highway Mobile Sources

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

- low

sulfur diesel fuel

• Inspection/Maintenance programs (nonattainment areas)

• Reformulated gasoline (nonattainment areas)

Off

- Highway Mobile Sources

• Federal control programs incorporated into NONROAD model (e.g., nonroad diesel

rule), plus the evaporative Large Spark Ignition and Recreational Vehicle standards

• Heavy

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

• Federal railroad/locomotive standards

• Federal commercial marine vessel engine standards

Area Sources

• Consumer solvents

• AIM coa tings

• Aerosol coatings

• Portable fuel containers

Power Plants

• Title IV (Phases I and II)

• NOx SIP Call

• Clean Air Interstate Rule

• Clean Air Mercury Rule

Other Point Sources

• VOC 2

- , 4

- , 7

- , and 10

- year MACT standards 2



### • Combustion turbine MACT

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

2 

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

- default control factor information. Alternative control

factors were developed by Wisconsin for a few MACT categories, and were also applied to th e other four

LADCO States.

### February 27, 2008



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



### , and BART in IN and WI)

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

On

- R oad : Similar to the base year modeling, CONCEPT was run using t ransportation data

(e.g., VMT and vehicle speeds) supplied by the state and local planning agencies for 2009 and

2018 (Environ, 2008) . CONCEPT was only run with meteorological data for a July weekday

(July 15) . The emissions for Saturday and Sunday were derived by using scaling factors based

on the 2005 emissions. The state

- level emissions for the five LADCO States plus Minnesota

are summarized in Table 2 5



### .

For the non

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

- level data and

MOBILE6 inp uts compiled by another contractor for VISTAS. Note, the emissions modeling for

IA, MO, and OK was redone for 2009 to reflect the state

- developed registration distribution data.

(The initial modeling for 2009 used national default values for registration distribution assumed

by VISTAS’ contractor. CENRAP’s contractor developed emissions inventories for 2002 and

2018 using the state

- developed data. For consistency, Environ’s remodeling for these three

states for 2009 also used the state

- developed data.) Meteorological data for a July weekday

(July 15) were used. The emissions for Saturday and Sunday were derived by using scaling

factors based on the 2005 emissions.

For other months (for both LADCO and non

- LADCO States), January weekday, Saturday, and

Sunday emissions were derived based on the July:January ratios for 2005, and then the

weekday, Saturday, and Sunday emissions for other months were linearly interpolated based on

the January and July emissions

.

3 

### E.H. Pechan’s original control file included control factors for three sources in Wayne County, MI.

These control factors were not applied in the regional

- scale modeling to avoid double

- counting with the

State’s local

- scale a nalysis for PM2.5.

4 

### WI believes that NOx RACT for their sources is already included in the 2005 basecase and EGU “will

do” scenario, and IN provided NOx RACT information for inclusion as a no

- EGU “may do” scenario.

5 

### For northeastern IL (CATS region), 2009 and 2018 emissions were increases by 9% and 8%,

respectively, to reflect newer transportation modeling by CATS.

### February 27, 2008

Table 2. Summary of On

- road Emissions (TP D

– July 15, 2005)

Year State CO

- tpd TOG

- tpd NOx

- tpd PM2.5

- tpd SO2

- tpd NH3

- tpd Sum of VMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

### February 27, 2008



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



### . Three CAIR

scenarios were addressed:

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

5 b: EPA’s IPM3.0, with several “will do” adjustments identified by the States. These

adjustments should reflect a legally binding commitment (e.g., signed contract, consent

decree, or operating permit). 7



### 5 c: EPA’s IPM3.0, with several “may do” adjustments identified by the States. These

adjustments reflect less rigorous criteria, but should stil l be some type of public reality

(e.g., BART determination or press announcement).

Table 3 summarizes the SO2 and NOx emissions for the three scenarios. The individual

f acilities affected by the “will do” and “may do” adjustments are identified in Attac hment 2. The

net effect of these adjustments is a small increase in regional SO2 and NOx emissions.

Based on initial discussions with USEPA, a decision was made to use the 2010 IPM emissions

in the 2009 modeling. USEPA subsequently insisted that 2009 mo deling must represent 2009

conditions. Because 2009 and 2010 EGU NOx emissions are expected to be similar (note:

CAIR Phase I compliance date for NOx is 2009), the Round 5.1 ozone modeling was not

redone.

USEPA believes that 2009 and 2010 EGU SO2 emissio ns may be significantly different (note:

CAIR Phase I compliance date for SO2 is 2010). In particular, USEPA noted that information on

projected scrubber installations identifies several facilities are not expected to be completed

until 2010. A model sen sitivity run was conducted with adjusted (higher) EGU SO2 emissions.

6 

### The second set of new IPM runs by EPA were used. These runs were performed at the request of the

RPOs and reflect the addition of run y ears 2012 and 2018 , and the use of four load segments for 2032 to

decrease model size (instead of six segments). Comparing the results in this run with EPA’s initial v3.0,

showed small differences Below is a quick summary of the run year differences.

EP A Base Case for IPM v.3.0

2010: 2009

- 2012

2015: 2013

- 2017

2020: 2018

- 2022

2025: 2023

- 2027

2032: 2028

- 2035

Base Case RPO Run for IPM v3.0 (added 2012 and 2018 run years, 2020 run year merged with the 2025

run year, and four load segments used for the 2032 run year)

2010: 2009

- 2011

2012: 2012

- 2012

2015: 2013

- 2017

2018: 2018

- 2019

2025: 2020

- 2028

2032: 2029

- 2035

7 

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

### February 27, 2008



### Table 4 provides information from USEPA s Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) on scrubber

installation dates. This information is based on various sources, including company

announcements, consent decrees, v endors, and organizations that track scrubber installations.

While there may be uncertainty in any projection of control installations, USEPA conside rs these

adequate project ions for SIP planning purposes.

USEPA identified six plants which: (1) are projected in IPM3.0 to have scrubbers in place by

2010 (or 2011), but will not be completed by 2009, and (2) are most likely to impact PM 2. 5 

### air

quality in the upper Midwest (see highlighting in Table 4 ). To reflect uncontrolled (2009)

emi ssions for those facilities (and units), LADCO substituted actual 2005 emissions for the

IPM3.0 projected 2010 emissions. The revised (2009) SO2 emissions for the six facilities (see

Table 5) represent a 5

- 6% increase in domainwide SO2 emissions.

### February 27, 2008

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



### 2010 2018

SO2 5a 5b 5c 5a 5b 5c

IL 958 881 881 869 433 433

IN 1033 1318 1318 1036 1194 1194

MI 667 667 667 725 725 725

OH 1326 1410 1410 983 1127 1127

WI 460 460 421 435 499 235

4444 4736 4697 4048 3978 3714

MN 162 148 148 187 167 157

NOx 5a 5b 5c 5a 5b 5c

IL 275 247 247 224 195 195

IN 370 372 372 255 266 266

MI 242 242 242 243 243 243

OH 281 305 305 285 310 310

WI 165 164 155 176 172 145

1333 1330 1321 1183 1186 1159

MN 116 142 142 132 157 125

### February 27, 2008

Table 4. Facilities Anticipating SO2 Controls in 2009 and 2010

State Name Plant Name UniqueID_Final ORIS

Code Unit

ID Capacity

MW Scrubber

On lineYear Scrubber

OnlineMonth

Alabama Barry 3_B_5 3 5 768 2010

Alabama E C Gaston 26_B_5 26 5 861 2010

Arizona Cholla 113_B_3 113 3 271 2009

Florida Crystal River 628_B_4 628 4 720 2010

Florida Crist 641_B_6 641 6 302 2010

Florida Crist 641_B_ 7 641 7 477 2010

Florida Crystal River 628_B_5 628 5 717 2009 5

Florida Deerhaven Generating Station 663_B_B2 663 B2 228 2009 5

Georgia Bowen 703_B_1BLR 703 1BLR 713 2010

Georgia Wansley 6052_B_2 6052 2 892 2009 5

Georgia Bowen 703_B_2BLR 703 2BLR 7 18 2009 4

Indiana Clifty Creek 983_B_1 983 1 217 2010

Indiana Clifty Creek 983_B_2 983 2 217 2010

Indiana Clifty Creek 983_B_3 983 3 217 2010

Indiana Clifty Creek 983_B_4 983 4 217 2010

Indiana Clifty Creek 983_B_5 983 5 217 2010

Indiana Clifty Creek 983_B_6 983 6 217 2010

Indiana Warrick 6705_B_4 6705 4 300 2010

Kentucky Big Sandy 1353_B_BSU2 1353 BSU2 800 2009 11

Kentucky E W Brown 1355_B_1 1355 1 94 2009 1

Kentucky E W Brown 1355_B_2 1355 2 160 2009 1

Kentucky E W Brown 1355_B_3 1355 3 422 2009 1

Kentucky H L Spurlock 6041_B_1 6041 1 315 2009

Maryland Brandon Shores 602_B_1 602 1 643 2010

Maryland Brandon Shores 602_B_2 602 2 643 2010

Maryland Chalk Point LLC 1571_B_1 1571 1 341 2010

Maryland Chalk Point LLC 1571_B_2 1571 2 342 2010

Maryland Dickerson 1572_B_1 1572 1 182 2010

Maryland Dickerson 1572_B_2 1572 2 182 2010

Maryland Dickerson 1572_B_3 1572 3 182 2010

Maryland Morgantown Generating Plant 1573_B_1 1573 1 624 2009

Maryland Morgantown Generating Plant 1573_B_2 1573 2 620 2009

Michigan Monroe 1733_B_4 1733 4 775 2009

(2010?)

Missouri Sioux 2107_B_1 2107 1 497 2010

Missouri Sioux 2107_B_2 2107 2 497 2010

New Jersey PSEG Mercer Gen. Station 2408_B_1 2408 1 315.3 2010

New Jersey PSEG Mercer Gen

. Station 2408_B_2 2408 2 309.9 2010

New York AES Westover 2526_B_11 2526 11 21.85 2010

New York AES Westover 2526_B_12 2526 12 21.85 2010

New York AES Westover 2526_B_13 2526 13 84 2010

New York AES Greenidge LLC 2527_B_4 2527 4 26.5 2010

New York AES Gr eenidge LLC 2527_B_5 2527 5 26.5 2010

NorthCarolina Cliffside 2721_B_1 2721 1 38 2010

### February 27, 2008

NorthCarolina Cliffside 2721_B_2 2721 2 38 2010

NorthCarolina Cliffside 2721_B_3 2721 3 61 2010

NorthCarolina Cliffside 2721_B_4 2721 4 61 2010

NorthCarolina Cl iffside 2721_B_5 2721 5 550 2010

NorthCarolina G G Allen 2718_B_1 2718 1 161.73 2009 5

NorthCarolina Roxboro 2712_B_1 2712 1 369 2009

NorthCarolina G G Allen 2718_B_2 2718 2 161.73 2009

NorthCarolina G G Allen 2718_B_3 2718 3 259.77 2009

NorthC arolina G G Allen 2718_B_4 2718 4 274.77 2009

NorthCarolina G G Allen 2718_B_5 2718 5 265 2009

NorthCarolina Mayo 6250_B_1A 6250 1A 361.5 2009

NorthCarolina Mayo 6250_B_1B 6250 1B 361.5 2009

Ohio W H Sammis 2866_B_6 2866 6 630 2011

Ohio W H S ammis 2866_B_7 2866 7 630 2011

Ohio R E Burger 2864_B_7 2864 7 156 2010

Ohio R E Burger 2864_B_8 2864 8 156 2010

Ohio Kyger Creek 2876_B_1 2876 1 217 2010

Ohio Kyger Creek 2876_B_2 2876 2 217 2010

Ohio Kyger Creek 2876_B_3 2876 3 217 2010

Ohio Kyger Creek 2876_B_4 2876 4 217 2010

Ohio Kyger Creek 2876_B_5 2876 5 217 2010

Ohio Conesville 2840_B_4 2840 4 780 2009 4

Ohio Bay Shore 2878_B_4 2878 4 215 2009

Pennsylvania Cheswick Power Plant 8226_B_1 8226 1 580 2010

Pennsylvania Hatfields Fe rry Power Station 3179_B_1 3179 1 530 2009 1

Pennsylvania Hatfields Ferry Power Station 3179_B_2 3179 2 530 2009 1

Pennsylvania Hatfields Ferry Power Station 3179_B_3 3179 3 530 2009 1

Pennsylvania Keystone 3136_B_1 3136 1 850 2009

Pennsylvania Keyst

one 3136_B_2 3136 2 850 2009

Pennsylvania PPL Brunner Island 3140_B_1 3140 1 321 2009

Pennsylvania PPL Brunner Island 3140_B_2 3140 2 378 2009

Tennessee Kingston 3407_B_1 3407 1 135 2010

Tennessee Kingston 3407_B_2 3407 2 135 2010

Tennessee Ki ngston 3407_B_3 3407 3 135 2010

Tennessee Kingston 3407_B_4 3407 4 135 2010

Tennessee Kingston 3407_B_5 3407 5 177 2010

Tennessee Kingston 3407_B_6 3407 6 177 2010

Tennessee Kingston 3407_B_7 3407 7 177 2010

Tennessee Kingston 3407_B_8 3407 8 177 2010

Tennessee Kingston 3407_B_9 3407 9 178 2010

Tennessee Bull Run 3396_B_1 3396 1 881 2009 1

Texas Fayette Power Project 6179_B_1 6179 1 598 2009

Texas Fayette Power Project 6179_B_2 6179 2 598 2009

Virginia Chesterfield 3797_B_5 3797 5 310 2 010

Virginia Yorktown 3809_B_1 3809 1 159 2010

### February 27, 2008

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

State Plant 2010 IPM 2005 BY

Indiana Clifty Creek 41.41 225.32

Missouri Ameren Sioux 22.25 141.92

Ohio Kyger Creek 21.53 197.68

Ohio Sammis 147.97 305.90

Pennsylv a nia Cheswick 11.53 103.98

Tennessee Kingston 41.15 155.20

### February 27, 2008



### References

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

Other (non

- LADCO) State Emissions, Preparation and Delivery of Non

- MR PO Emission Files<

March 12, 2007.

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

delivered via e

- mail from James Wilkinson on February 9, 2007.

EC/R, Incorporated, 2004, “Fire Emissions Inventory Development for the M idwest Regional

Planning Organization”, Final Report, September 30, 2004.

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

– Development of Local

Data for Construction and Agricultural Equipment”, Final Report, September 10, 2004

E.H. Pechan , 2005, “Development of Updated Growth and Control Factors for Lake Michigan

Air Directors Consortium (LADCO)”, Draft Report, December 29, 2005.

E. H. Pechan, 2007, “Development of 2005 Base Year Growth and Control Factors for Lake

Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO)”, Final Report, September 2007.

Environ, 2004, “LADCO Nonroad Emissions Inventory Project for Locomotive, Commercial

Marine, and Recreational Marine Emission Sources, Final Report, December 2004.

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

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

Environ, 200 8 , “LADCO On

- Road Emission Inventory Developm ent Using CONCEPT MV”,

January 2008

.

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

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

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

Improved Process

- Based Ammonia Emissions Model for Agricultural Sources

– Emission

Estimates”

USEPA, 2007a, "Guidance for on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2. 5 

### , and Regional Haze”, EPA

- 454/B07

- 002, April

2007.

USEPA, 2007b, E

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

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

Process

- Based Ammonia Emissions Model for Agricultural Sources

– Model Development”

WDNR, 2006, “ Wisconsin Draft 2005 Ou tdoor Wood Boiler Methodology ”, PowerPoint

presentation by Bart Sponseller, November 13, 2006.

### February 27, 2008



### Web Sites:

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

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

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

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

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

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

### February 27, 2008



# ATTACHME NT 1

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

July 2002 2005 2009 2009 2012 2018 2018 2002 2005 2009 2009 2012 2018 2018 2002 2005 2009 2009 2012 2018 2018 2002 2005 2009 2009 2012 2018 2018

Nonroad

IL 224 321 164 257 149 130 213 324 333 263 275 224 154 155 31 33 5 5 0.6 0.4 0.4 30 24 14

IN 125 195 94 160 95 95 128 178 191 142 158 141 141 89 17 19 3 3 3 0.3 0.2 17 13 7

MI 348 414 307 350 276 222 271 205 239 159 197 133 93 112 19 22 3 3 0.5 0.3 0.3 22 18 11

OH 222 356 161 294 145 126 238 253 304 195 246 162 109 135 23 29 4 5 0.5 0.3 0.4 27 22 13

WI 214 238 194 203 175 140 157 145 157 114 129 97 69 77 13 15 2 2 0.3 0.2 0.2 14 12 7

5-State Total 1133 1524 920 1264 840 713 1007 1105 1224 873 1005 757 566 568 103 118 17 18 4.9 1.5 1.5 110 89 52

U.S. Total 8463 9815 5442 8448 5244 6581 6041 9060 6057 8120 5832 5100 505 654 117 153 104 13 573 750 475

MAR

IL 10 11 10 10 10 10 6 277 246 201 228 195 186 165 0 22 0 19 0 0 17 7 6 4

IN 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 123 93 89 87 87 84 65 0.2 8 0.2 7 0.2 0.2 6 2 2 2

MI 7 7 7 7 7 8 7 114 87 112 82 111 110 65 0.6 21 0.7 14 0.7 0.8 8 3 3 2

OH 8 7 8 7 8 8 5 177 134 128 126 126 122 94 0.4 14 0.3 12 0.3 0.3 10 4 4 2

WI 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 79 58 59 54 59 57 41 12.7 8 9.5 6 9.5 8.7 5 2 2 1

5-State Total 34 34 34 33 34 35 24 770 618 589 577 578 559 430 13.9 73 10.7 58 10.7 10 46 18 17 11

U.S. Total 307 317 321 157 329 346 334 4968 4515 4002 1813 3964 3919 3812 620 512 509 122 509 503 290 147 57 165

OtherArea

IL 679 675 688 594 700 738 582 62 48 68 48 70 73 49 11 11 12 16 12 13 16 40 64 69

IN 354 391 365 358 373 398 384 62 56 65 58 67 69 59 158 32 150 32 151 153 32 2 2 2

MI 518 652 516 562 520 541 549 49 49 52 50 53 54 51 71 29 68 29 68 68 28 111 114 120

OH 546 604 550 506 558 593 487 50 93 59 108 60 62 108 22 6 34 15 35 35 14 19 35 34

WI 458 315 467 290 474 506 293 32 37 34 37 34 35 37 9 17 9 13 10 10 13 11 12 12

5-State Total 2555 2637 2586 2310 2625 2776 2295 255 283 278 301 284 293 304 271 95 273 105 276 279 103 183 227 237

U.S. Total 17876 21093 18638 18683 20512 24300 3856 4899 4100 4220 4418 5357 2075 2947 2062 2559 2189 2709 2735 2621 2570

On-Road

IL 446 341 314 268 260 197 151 890 748 578 528 474 300 201 9 4 3 13 10 6

IN 405 282 237 235 193 150 138 703 541 425 402 313 187 173 11 3 2 9 7 2

MI 522 351 335 269 303 217 163 926 722 680 501 619 385 204 14 4 3 12 9 3

OH 574 680 365 424 340 238 242 1035 934 609 693 512 270 274 18 4 4 16 12 4

WI 238 175 144 119 117 88 68 481 457 303 322 226 118 138 9 2 2 8 6 2

5-State Total 2185 1829 1395 1315 1213 890 762 4035 3402 2595 2446 2144 1260 990 61 17 14 58 44 17

U.S. Total 14263 7825 23499 13170

EGU

IL 9 7 8 6 8 9 7 712 305 227 275 244 231 224 1310 1158 944 958 789 810 869 13 34 77

IN 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 830 393 406 370 424 283 255 2499 2614 1267 1033 1263 1048 1036 16 73 74

MI 12 6 11 4 11 12 4 448 393 218 242 219 247 243 1103 1251 1022 667 1031 1058 725 15 25 29

OH 5 4 6 5 7 7 6 1139 408 330 280 322 271 285 3131 3405 1463 1326 994 701 983 28 94 80

WI 3 5 3 2 4 4 3 293 213 146 165 139 147 177 602 545 512 460 492 500 435 0 22 25

5-State Total 35 28 34 23 37 38 26 3422 1712 1327 1332 1348 1179 1184 8645 8973 5208 4444 4569 4117 4048 72 248 285

U.S. Total 214 140 195 124 197 215 138 14371 10316 7746 7274 7721 7007 6095 31839 34545 20163 16903 17629 14727 14133 685 1131 1571

Non-EGU

IL 313 221 286 218 305 350 258 356 330 334 218 338 343 235 373 423 251 335 257 249 346 16 17 19

IN 150 130 160 137 170 199 167 238 179 212 175 216 225 178 292 218 270 216 274 290 180 35 36 44

MI 123 116 115 119 122 139 140 216 240 208 242 214 229 271 162 158 166 148 171 185 163 20 21 25

OH 77 84 75 87 79 90 104 177 175 157 166 160 167 178 240 289 231 288 210 216 293 27 28 33

WI 88 84 97 87 104 120 106 98 97 91 93 92 94 81 163 156 154 152 155 156 85 0 0.1 0.1

5-State Total 751 635 733 648 780 898 775 1085 1021 1002 894 1020 1058 943 1230 1244 1072 1139 1067 1096 1067 98 102 121

U.S. Total 4087 3877 4409 4700 5378 6446 6730 6129 6435 6952 5759 5630 6093 6340 6970 1444 1777

IL 1681 1576 1470 1353 1432 1434 1217 2621 2010 1671 1572 1545 1287 1029 1725 1656 1212 1337 1059 1072 1251 119 155 189

IN 1045 1009 867 901 843 853 826 2134 1453 1339 1250 1248 989 819 2966 2902 1690 1294 1691 1492 1256 81 133 131

MI 1530 1546 1291 1311 1239 1139 1134 1958 1730 1429 1314 1349 1118 946 1356 1495 1260 865 1271 1312 927 183 190 190

OH 1432 1735 1165 1323 1137 1062 1082 2831 2048 1478 1619 1342 1001 1074 3416 3761 1732 1650 1240 953 1304 121 195 166

WI 1005 821 909 705 878 862 630 1128 1019 747 800 647 520 551 800 750 687 635 667 675 540 35 54 47

5-State Total 6693 6687 5702 5593 5529 5350 4889 10672 8260 6664 6555 6131 4915 4419 10263 10564 6581 5781 5928 5504 5280 539 727 723

### February 27, 2008



# ATTACHMENT 2

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

### February 27, 2008



### 2009

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

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

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

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

-----

Obs cntryid stid cyid fcid name polid aceebase aceenew diff

1 US 17 97 097190AAC MIDWEST GENERAT NOX 11.54 6.28

- 5.266

2 US 17 197 197810AAK MIDWEST GENERAT NOX 21.11 9.46

- 11.652

3 US 18 73 00008 NIPSCO

- R.M. S NOX 26.50 24.81

- 1.691

4 US 18 77 00001 IKEC

- CLIFTY C NOX 11.58 16.42 4.836

5 US 18 89 00117 NIPSCO

- DEAN H NOX 20.51 19.13

- 1.384

6 US 27 37 2703700003 NSP dba Xcel En NOX 8.03 26.74 18.709

7 US 27 61 2706100004 Minne sota Power NOX 15.43 18.40 2.969

8 US 27 163 2716300005 Xcel Energy

- A NOX 4.21 5.92 1.718

9 US 29 183 0001 AMERENUE

- SIOUX NOX 28.47 12.81

- 15.658

10 US 38 55 126 Coal Creek Stat NOX 30.49 30.36

- 0.132

11 US 38 57 12 Leland Olds Sta NOX 11 .32 36.67 25.348

12 US 38 57 125 Stanton Station NOX 6.11 6.11 0.002

13 US 38 57 13 Antelope Valley NOX 33.00 36.39 3.385

14 US 38 57 289 Coyote NOX 35.12 36.95 1.839

15 US 38 59 172 RM Heskett Stat NOX 5.45 4.72

- 0.727

16 US 38 65 165 M R Young Stati NOX 6.02 71.10 65.081

17 US 39 93 0247030013 AVON LAKE POWER NOX 3.98 20.54 16.561

1 8 US 39 129 0165000006 NOX . 1.69 .

19 US 55 11 606034110 DAIRYLAND POWER NOX 19.24 18.96

- 0.279

20 US 55 21 111003090 Alliant Energy

- NOX 14.23 17.16 2.927

21 US 55 43 122014530 Alliant Energy

- NOX 7.61 7.77 0.160

22 US 55 59 230006260 WIS ELECTRIC PO NOX 7.39 14.03 6.647

23 US 55 71 436035930 MANITOWOC PUBLI NOX 2.06 1.80

- 0.259

24 US 55 79 241007690 WIS ELECTRIC PO NOX 15.25 15.41 0.166

25 US 55 79 241007800 WIS ELECTRIC PO NOX 7.87 6.07

- 1.801

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

- 7.215

27 US 55 123 663020930 DAIRYLAND POWER NOX 10.47 8.52

- 1.955

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

### February 27, 2008

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

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

-----

Obs cntryid stid cyid fcid name polid aceebase aceenew diff

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

- 20.636

29 US 17 197 197810AAK MIDWEST GENERAT SO2 91.90 62.70

- 29.198

30 US 18 29 00002 AMERICAN ELECTR SO2 66.34 102.72 36.389

31 US 18 43 00004 PSI ENERGY

- GA SO2 25.53 66.01 40.488

32 US 18 73 00008 NIPSCO

- R.M. S SO2 82.52 63.71

- 18.817

33 US 18 147 00020 INDIANA MICHIGA SO2 71.67 198.71 127.042

34 US 18 167 00021 PSI ENERGY

- WA SO2 76.09 175.87 99.786

35 US 27 31 2703100001 Minnesota Power SO2 12.27 5.75

- 6.512

36 US 27 61 2706100004 Minnesota Power SO2 30.76 20.79

- 9.968

37 US 27 163 2716300005 Xcel Energy

- A SO2 5.33 7.11 1.777

38 US 29 183 0001 AMERENUE

- SIOUX SO2 22.25 8.34

- 13.903

39 US 38 55 126 Coal Creek Stat SO2 27.45 75.37 47.926

40 US 38 57 12 Leland Olds Sta SO2 108.15 126.06 17.906

41 US 38 57 125 Stanton Station SO2 25.29 12.37

- 12.922

42 US 38 57 13 Antelope Valley SO2 26.60 43.72 17.128

43 US 38 57 289 Coyote SO2 19.26 53.19 33.932

44 US 38 59 172 RM Heskett Stat SO2 9.23 30.11 20.872

45 US 38 65 165 M R Young Stati SO2 27.98 82.23 54.249

46 US 39 81 0641160017 W. H. SAMMIS PL SO2 147.97 55.61

- 92.363

47 US 39 93 0247030013 AVON LAKE POWER SO2 7.62 127.04 119.417

48 US 39 129 0165000006 SO2 . 16.55 .

49 US 55 21 111003090 Alliant Energy

- SO2 61.97 74.80 1 2.822

50 US 55 43 122014530 Alliant Energy

- SO2 11.49 42.60 31.111

51 US 55 59 230006260 WIS ELECTRIC PO SO2 7.39 12.34 4.949

52 US 55 71 436035930 MANITOWOC PUBLI SO2 5.90 9.95 4.050

53 US 55 79 241007690 WIS ELECTRIC PO SO2 59.72 41.19

- 18.535

54 US 55 79 241007800 WIS ELECTRIC PO SO2 38.79 21.36

- 17.433

55 US 55 123 663020930 DAIRYLAND POWER SO2 19.56 3.79

- 15.772

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

======== ======= ========

1520.97 2055.32 516.112

### February 27, 2008



### 2009

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

The SAS System 09:55 Wednesday, February 27,

2008 1

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

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

-----

Obs cntryid stid cyid fcid name polid aceebase aceenew diff

1 US 19 139 70

- 01

- 011 MUSCATINE POWER NOX 5.649 3.926

- 1.7226

2 US 55 9 405031990 WI PUBLIC SERVI NOX 9.234 7.786

- 1.4476

3 US 55 11 606034110 DAIRYLAND POWER NOX 18.957 18.994 0.0377

4 US 55 21 111003090 Alliant Energy

- NOX 17.158 17.156

- 0.0021

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

- 1.2470

6 US 55 43 122014530 Alliant Energy

- NOX 7.765 7.756

- 0.0091

7 US 55 59 230006260 WIS ELECTRIC PO NOX 14.034 9.826

- 4.2074

8 US 55 71 436035930 MANITOWOC PUBLI NOX 1.800 0.439

- 1.3610

9 US 55 79 241007690 WIS ELECTRIC PO NOX 15.413 15.435 0.0219

10 US 55 79 241007800 WIS ELECTRIC PO NOX 6.068 6.072 0.0041

11 US 55 117 460033090 WP & L Alliant NOX 11.847 11.892 0.0456

12 US 55 123 663020930 DAIRYLAND POWER NOX 8.517 8.482

- 0.0343

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

- 9.9218

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

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

-----

Obs cntryid stid cyid fcid name polid aceebase aceenew diff

13 US 19 139 70

- 01

- 011 MUSCATINE POWER SO2 6.237 11.178 4.9415

14 US 55 9 405031990 WI PUBLIC SERVI SO2 21.750 18.074

- 3.6753

15 US 55 21 111003090 Alliant Energy

- SO2 74.796 74.988 0.1924

16 US 55 25 113004430 MADISON GAS & E SO2 16.331 0.063

- 16.2672

17 US 55 43 122014530 Alliant Energy

- SO2 42.604 42.640 0.0362

18 US 55 59 230006260 WIS ELECTRIC PO SO2 12.336 9.850

- 2 .4867

19 US 55 71 436035930 MANITOWOC PUBLI SO2 9.949 3.001

- 6.9477

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

21 US 55 79 241007800 WIS ELECTRIC PO SO2 21.360 21.430 0.0699

22 US 55 123 663020930 DAIRYLAND POWER SO2 3.785 3.716

- 0.0694

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

- 24.1856

======== ======= ========

370.662 336.554

- 34.1074

# APPENDIX J

Public Participation Process Documents

## This page left intentionally blank.

## LEGAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

Redesignation and Maintenance Plan in association w ith the 8-Hour

Ozone Standard for Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County, Indiana

Notice is hereby given under 40 CFR 51.102 that th e Indiana Department of Environmental

Management (IDEM) will hold a public hearing on Thu rsday, January 7, 2010. The purpose of this

hearing is to receive public comment on the Draft R edesignation Petition and Maintenance Plan in

association with the 8-hour ozone standard, for Law renceburg Township, Dearborn County, Indiana.

The meeting will convene at 5:30 p.m. (local time) in the Lawrenceburg Public Library, Depot Meeting

Room, 150 Mary Street, Lawrenceburg, Indiana. All interested persons are invited and will be given

opportunity to express their views concerning the d raft documents.

Lawrenceburg Township, located in Dearborn County, Indiana is part of the Cincinnati 8-hour

ozone nonattainment area. This area was designated as a “basic” nonattainment area and subject to the

requirements of Section 172 of the Clean Air Act (C AA). 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

meet the federal 8-hour air quality standard by the required attainment date. This Redesignation

Petition and Maintenance Plan is being drafted and submitted consistent with United States

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) guidance

.

Copies of the draft documents will be available on or before December 7, 2009 to any person

upon request at the following locations:

• Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Off ice of Air Quality, Indiana

Government Center North, 100 North Senate, Room N10 03, Indianapolis, Indiana.

• Lawrenceburg Public Library, 150 Mary Street, Lawre nceburg, Indiana.

• Lawrenceburg City Building, 230 Walnut Street, Lawr enceburg, Indiana.

Oral statements will be heard, but for the accurac y of the record, statements should be

submitted in writing. Written statements may be sub mitted to the attendant designated to receive

written comments at the public hearing.

IDEM will also accept written comments through Janu ary 13, 2010. Mailed comments should

be addressed to:

Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County Redesignati on and Maintenance Plan

Scott Deloney, Chief

Air Programs Branch, Office of Air Quality – Mail C ode 61-50

100 North Senate Avenue

Indiana Department of Environmental Management

Indianapolis, IN 46206-2251

## A transcript of the hearing and all written submiss ions 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 shall be given

written notice of actions resulting from the hearin g.

For additional information contact Ms. Sarah Raymon d, at the Indiana Department of

Environmental Management, Office of Air Quality, Ro om N1001, Indiana Government Center North,

100 North Senate Avenue, Indianapolis, IN 46204 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 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordina tor at:

Attn: ADA Coordinator

Indiana Department of Environmental Management – Ma il Code 50-10

100 North Senate Avenue

Indianapolis, IN 46204-2251

Or call (317) 233-1785 (voice) or (317) 233-6565 (T DD). Please provide a minimum of 72 hours

notification.