BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

R08-19

NITROGEN

OXIDES EMISSIONS FROM ) (Rulemaking - Air)

VARIOUS SOURCE CATEGORIES:

)

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE )

PARTS 211

and 217

)

NOTICE OF FILING

T O: Mr. John T. Therriault

Assistant Clerk of the Board

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100

W. Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL)

Timothy Fox, Esq.

Hearing Officer

Illinois

Pollution Control Board

100 W. Randolph

Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(VIA U.S. MAIL)

(SEE PERSONS ON ATTACHED SERVICE LIST)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed

with the Office of the Clerk of

the Illinois Pollution

Control Board the POST-HEARING

COMMENTS OF THE

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY

GROUP, copies of which are

herewith

served upon you.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated:

January 20, 2009

Alec M. Davis

General Counsel

Illinois

Environmental Regulatory

Group

215 East

Adams Street

Springfield, Illinois

62701

(217) 522-5512

By: /s/ Alec

M. Davis

Alec M. Davis

Katherine D. Hodge

Monica T. Rios

HODGE DWYER ZEMAN

3150 Roland

Avenue

Post Office Box 5776

Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776

(217) 523-4900

THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED

PAPER

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Alec M. Davis, the undersigned, hereby certify

that I have served the attached

POST-HEARING

COMMENTS OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

REGULATORY

GROUP

upon:

Mr.

John T. Therriault

Assistant

Clerk of the Board

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100

West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500

Chicago,

Illinois 60601

via electronic mail

on January 20, 2009; and upon:

Timothy Fox, Esq.

Hearing Officer

Illinois

Pollution Control Board

100

West

Randolph,

Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Matthew J. Dunn, Esq.

Chief,

Environmental

Bureau North

Office of the Attorney

General

69 West Washington Street, Suite 1800

Chicago, Illinois 60602

Gina Roccaforte, Esq.

John J. Kim, Esq.

Division of Legal Counsel

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Post

Office

Box

19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

Virginia

Yang, Esq.

Deputy Legal

Counsel

Illinois Department

of Natural Resources

One Natural Resources Way

Springfield, Illinois 62702-1271

K athleen

C.

Bassi, Esq.

Stephen J. Bonebrake, Esq.

Schiff Hardin, LLP

6 600 Sears Tower

233 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60606-6473

Christina L. Archer, Esq.

Associate General

Counsel

Arcelormittal USA, Inc.

1

South Dearborn, 19th Floor

Chicago,

Illinois

60603

by depositing said

documents in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in

Springfield, Illinois on January 20, 2009.

/s/ Alec M. Davis

Alec M. Davis

IERG:001/R

Dockets/Fil/R-08-19/NOF-COS - Post-Hearing

Comments

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

R08-19

NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSIONS FROM ) (Rulemaking

- Air)

VARIOUS SOURCE CATEGORIES: )

AMENDMENTS

TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE )

PARTS 211 and 217

)

POST-HEARING COMMENTS

OF

THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY

GROUP

IERG appreciates the opportunity to provide

comments with regard to the

December

9, 2008 NO,, RACT hearing in Chicago. IERG will attempt to clarify points

made at hearing and respond to the Illinois Pollution

Control Board's ("Board") specific

requests for

additional information. IERG intends to participate in the third hearing,

on

February 3, 2009, and will provide

additional clarification if necessary.

I.

SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY

To reiterate and emphasize the points made

in testimony and responses to

questions made by

both Ms. Deirdre K. Himer and Mr. David J. Kolaz, IERG, believes

that the emissions limits proposed by the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency

("Agency") go beyond what is

required to meet the Clean Air Act ("CAA") requirements

for

NO,, RACT.

IERG recognizes

that the CAA mandates that the State have rules in place

for its

nonattainment areas for both ozone and fine particulate

matter that satisfy the

requirement

of RACT for NO, Pre-filed Testimony of David J. Kolaz, In the Matter

of

Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various

Source Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill.

Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19

at 3 (I11.Pol.Control.Bd. Nov. 25, 2008) ("Kolaz

Testimony").

However, as described at hearing, the

United States Environmental

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

Protection Agency ("USEPA") has spoken, through rulemakings and guidance, as to

what it considers sufficient to meet the NO,, RACT requirement. Simply, the USEPA

has

stated that emission reductions of 30 to 50 percent satisfy NO,, RACT. Hearing

Transcript, In the Matter of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various Source

Categories:

Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19 at 84-85

(I11.Pol.Control.Bd. Dec. 9, 2008) ("Dec. 9 Transcript") (referencing 70 Fed. Reg. 71657,

Hearing Exhibit 6). The Agency's proposed 61 % reduction is more stringent than is

necessary to meet Illinois' obligation. Dec. 9 Transcript at 122. The alternative limits

proposed by IERG fall within the range specified by the USEPA and, therefore, satisfy

NOx RACT.

Id.;

see also

Kolaz

Testimony

at Exhibits 1 and 2.

IERG acknowledges that the State has discretion to adopt measures more

stringent than required by USEPA.

However, IERG does not

believe

that

the

justification

for such stringent rules has been provided by the Agency in its proposed rule, which is

the subject of this rulemaking.

IERG understands that the emissions limits proposed by the Agency cannot be

attained by affected industry by the proposed compliance date. As described by IERG in

testimony, and supported by various industry witnesses at hearing, the compliance

deadline

of

May 1, 2010 does not

provide

adequate time for affected sources to plan,

and

implement major capital projects. Kolaz Testimony at 20, see also Pre-Filed Testimony

of David

W.

Dunn, In the Matter of

Nitrogen Oxides

Emissions from

Various Source

Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19 at 3-6

(I11.Pol.Control.Bd.

Nov.

25, 2008) and Pre-Filed Testimony of Larry

G. Siebenberger,

In

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

the Matter of

Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various Source Categories:

Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19 at 7-8 (I11.Pol.Control.Bd.

Nov. 25, 2008).

IERG would again offer its proposed options to adopt a rule that, IERG maintains,

will meet the CAA requirements for

NO,

RACT,

and

will

be achievable by affected

industries

by the proposed compliance date. Kolaz Testimony at 21. These are:

1.

Adopt emissions limits equal

to

values,

such as those proposed by IERG,

that are "reasonably available," given the time frame for implementation,

based

on the Agency's proposed compliance date;

2.

If the Board chooses to retain the emissions limits

originally proposed by

the Agency, extend the compliance date to one that affected industries can

meet; and,

3.

Incorporate a provision in

the rule that would allow for site-specific

RACT determinations.

IERG believes there are

deficiencies in the proposed rule that need to be

addressed

prior to the Board's moving this proposal to first notice. Kolaz Testimony

at

19-25. Mr. Kolaz's testimony

outlined IERG's concerns and suggested changes to be

made

to the proposal. IERG is committed to work with the Agency to arrive

at a

mutually agreeable solution.

II.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES

Mr. Kolaz, at hearing, mentioned documents indicating

the roles of time and

economics in determining what constitutes "reasonably available" for determining

RACT. Dec. 9 Transcript at 101-102 and 127. In

this regard, IERG would like to draw

the Board's

attention to the Phase 2 of the Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone

National Ambient Air Quality Standard - Notice of Reconsideration,

72 Fed. Reg. 31727

3

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

(June 8, 2007). On its face, this document explains why compliance with

the Clean Air

Interstate Rule

("CAIR") satisfies the ozone NO,, RACT requirement for EGUs. Further,

IERG contends that the analysis provides some insight into the role that time plays in

determining

what is RACT:

"

CAIR is designed to achieve the greatest amount of reductions

that are

reasonable

to achieve by the 2009 target date. One factor in determining

the reasonableness is what is achievable "in the

timeframe." Id. at 31733.

CAIR requires the installation of NOx controls on the maximum capacity

on which it is feasible

to

install

such controls by 2009. Therefore,

additional controls are not "reasonably available." Id.

at 31734.

Also, see the

Clean

Air

Fine Particle Implementation Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. 20586, April 25,

2007, which provides:

One of the factors that could affect

estimated compliance costs of an

emission reduction measure is the timing of its implementation.

Hypothetically, if a short compliance period were contemplated for

a set

of sources,

and if the short compliance period resulted in high demand for

a limited supply of labor

or other resources, compliance costs could be

higher than if the same measure were implemented

by a later compliance

date. In such a case, it may be reasonable for the State to find that the

measure is reasonable

only if implemented by the later date.

Id. at 20619-20. (Emphasis added.)

A. Alternative Modeling

At the December 9, 2008 hearing, Ms. Himer

committed to provide the name of

the modeling group

to which she referred in her prefiled testimony. Dec. 9 Transcript

at

36. The modeling was a project of the Midwest Ozone

Group

("MOG").

IERG

contributed to

the

funding

of the modeling efforts. The modeling was performed

by

Alpine

Geophysics and ENVIRON International Corporation. Mr. Rao,

at the

December 9, 2008 hearing, queried

whether Ms. Himer could enter the results of the

4

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

MOG modeling into the record. Id. at 38. Also, Ms. Roccaforte asked who belongs to

MOG. Id. at 40. In response, see the attached documents, which list the MOG members,

and summarize the culmination of the MOG modeling effort, as provided to LADCO in

July of 2007.

It is important to note, that Ms. Hirner, in her testimony timeline, and again in

response to questions at hearing, referred to these modeling efforts to illustrate the level

of IERG's involvement and running dialog with the Agency on various issues that are the

subject of this rulemaking. Based on the MOG modeling results, which at the end of the

process

comports with the LADCO

results

on which the

Agency

based this

rule,

IERG

believes that the modeling does not show the need for additional stringent controls,

beyond what is currently "on the books" to achieve the NAAQS for ozone. Nor, during

the course of testimony, has the Agency attempted to show by modeling that the controls

imposed by the proposed rule are necessary to advance the PM2.5 attainment date.

B. CEMS Implementation

At

hearing,

the issue of implementing Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems

("CEMS") was brought up in the course of discussing extensions to compliance

deadlines. Both

Saint-Gobain Containers and ConocoPhillips referred to ongoing

negotiations with the Agency, that included provisions for extending the timeline for

implementation of

CEMS.

Id.

at

11, 140. IERG understands

that the situations faced by

these two industries are not unique. Rather, the difficulty of both obtaining the financing,

as well as of

obtaining the CEMS themselves,

is

of concern to all of the impacted

facilities. IERG would suggest that the Board consider amending the proposal under

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

consideration to allow for compliance with the requirements for CEMS by a future date

that is achievable for all affected sources.

C. Compliance Date

At hearing, Mr. Kolaz, testifying on behalf

of

IERG,

was asked when it would be

feasible

for affected industries to comply with the emissions limits contained in the

Agency's proposal. When pressed for a specific date, Mr. Kolaz suggested

January

1,

2014. Id.

at

49-50. In

discussions with IERG Members subsequent to the hearing, it has

come to IERG's attention that January 1, 2014 may not, in fact, be feasible for all

affected sources in that such a date may not fall within the specific range of planned

maintenance outages that some industries operate within. IERG

understands that the

Agency has been actively working with some of the affected industries (such as the

refineries) for whom this presents a problem.

III. CONCLUSION

IERG would like to thank the Board for providing the opportunity

to participate

in

this rulemaking, and to submit

these comments.

IERG

supports the adoption of a

federally required NOx RACT rule. However, in so stating, IERG strongly believes that

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

any such rule adhere to its letter and intent that emissions reductions be economically

reasonable and technologically achievable within a given compliance timeframe.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Alec M. Davis

Alec M. Davis

Dated:

January

20, 2009

Alec M. Davis

General Counsel

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group

215 East Adams Street

Springfield, Illinois 62701

(217) 522-5512

Katherine D. Hodge

Monica T. Rios

HODGE DWYER ZEMAN

3150 Roland Avenue

Post

Office

Box 5776

Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776

(217) 523-4900

IERG:001/R-D

ockets/Fil /R08-19/IERG Post-Hearing Comments

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

As of January 19, 2009, the Membership of the Midwest

Ozone Group includes the following:

American Electric Power

Ameren

DPL

Duke

First Energy

E On US

Springfield City Water P&L

Alcoa

American Coalition for Clean

Coal

Energy

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

1

prepared for:

T. W. Tesche

Dennis McNally

Gregory Stella

Cyndi Loomis

Modeled Ozone and PM

2.5

Five States Region in 2008 and 2015

Modeled 2008 8-hr Ozone DVs (ppb) in Detroit/Cleveland

65

67

69

71

73

75

77

79

81

83

85

87

89

Lake

Macomb

Summit

Portage

Macomb

Lake

Lucas

Lucas

Medina

Cuyahoga

Stark

Geauga

Washtenaw

Raisin

Wood

Oakland

Lucas

Stark

Lucas

Stark

Lucas

Detroit-7 Mile

Wayne

Cuyahoga

Cuyahoga

Wayne

8-hr Ozone DV, ppb

2005 Measured DV

2008 Modeled DV

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

2

Outline

§ Part I – Summary of Results and Recommendations

Ø Differences in AG and LADCo 2005 base case modeling

Ø 2005 Ozone and PM

2.5

base case model evaluation findings

Ø 2008 & 2015 8-hr ozone and PM

2.5

attainment test findings

Ø Recommendations

§ Part II – Modeling Support Information

Ø 8-hr Ozone Model Evaluation on 4 km Grid

Ø Annual PM

2.5

Model Evaluation on the 12 km grid

Ø 2008 and 2015 8-hr ozone attainment estimates: 4 km grids

(Detroit/Cleveland; Lower Lake Michigan)

Ø 2008 & 2015 8-hr ozone attainment estimates: 12 km grid over 5 States

Ø 2008 & 2015 8-hr ozone attainment estimates: 12 km grid in

Cincinnati/Dayton areas

Ø 2008 & 2015 PM

2.5

attainment estimates: 36 km grid

Ø 2008 & 2015 PM

2.5

attainment estimates: Cincinnati/Dayton areas

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

3

Part I: Summary of Results

and Recommendations

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

4

AG vs. LADCO Emissions Modeling

Differences for 2005 Base Case

§ AG modeling based on LADCO BaseK inventories

and Round IV Growth and Control Factors

Ø Latest available LADCO data at time of processing

• Base year of 2002

Ø LADCO staff indicates (June 27, 2007 e-mail) that final BaseM not

available until late in July 2007

Ø Forecast to 2005, 2008, and 2015

• Growth and Control Factors from E.H. Pechan reports dated June 30,

2004 and December 29, 2005 (Round IV factors)

– Exception EGU and onroad mobile

§ EGU forecast using LADCO IPM runs of IPM 2.1.9

§ Onroad forecast using interpolated LADCO VMT

§ No onroad network data used

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

5

LADCO vs. AG Design Value Choices for

2005 Base Year 8-hr Ozone Modeling

§ AG Measured Design Values (DV

m

) used in AttainDemo

Ø DVs supplied by LADCo (10 May 2007)

Ø We used average of 2004-2006 4

th

Highest 8-hr ozone to yield 2005 DVs

§ LADCo Measured Design Values (DV

m

)

Ø Estimated DV

m

for 2005-2007 period (2007 year still in progress);

Ø So DV

m

based on average of ’03-’05, ’04-’06, and ’05-’06 4

th

highest 8-hr

ozone values calculated by LADCo;

Ø OEPA believes this is a “conservative estimate” (OEPA Cincinnati-

Hamilton DRAFT 8-hr ozone SIP, page 23);

Ø LADCo will issue ‘final calculation’ of 2005 8-hr Ozone Design Values

(DV

m

) when 2007 ozone season is complete.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

6

LADCo 2005 DV

m

Ozone Using Currently Available Data

2002BaseYear

Key Site

'00

'01

'02

'03

'04

'05

'06

'04-'06

'03-'05,'04-

'06,'05-'06

'02-'04,'03-

'05,'04-'06

'00-'02,'01-

'03,'02-'04

Lake Michigan Area

Chiwaukee

86

99

116

88

78

93

79

83.3

85.2

87.9

98.4

Racine

78

92

111

82

69

95

71

78.3

81.1

82.6

92.0

Milwaukee-Bayside

83

93

99

92

73

93

73

79.7

82.9

84.6

91.4

Harrington Beach

86

102

93

99

72

94

72

79.3

83.6

85.2

93.2

Sheboygan

90

102

105

93

78

97

83

86.0

88.4

89.1

97.0

Kewaunee

84

90

92

97

73

88

76

79.0

82.3

84.1

89.7

Door County

84

95

95

93

78

101

79

86.0

88.9

88.4

91.4

Hammond

86

90

101

81

67

87

75

76.3

78.6

79.2

88.7

Michigan City

80

90

107

82

70

84

75

76.3

78.2

80.4

90.6

Holland

80

92

105

95

79

94

91

88.0

89.9

90.1

94.2

Muskegon

78

95

96

94

70

90

91

83.7

86.3

85.0

90.4

Indianapolis Area

Noblesville

90

88

101

101

75

87

79

80.3

83.7

86.8

94.0

Fortville

86

89

101

92

72

80

76

76.0

78.4

81.9

91.4

Fort B. Harrison

83

87

100

91

73

80

76

76.3

78.6

81.9

90.2

Detroit Area

New Haven

75

95

95

102

81

88

79

82.7

85.5

88.6

92.8

Warren

77

94

92

101

71

89

78

79.3

83.3

84.8

90.4

Port Huron

80

84

100

86

74

88

78

80.0

81.9

83.1

88.2

Cleveland Area

Ashtabula

82

97

103

99

81

93

86

86.7

89.1

90.7

96.0

Geauga

85

99

115

97

75

88

70

77.7

81.1

86.7

99.7

Eastlake

83

89

104

92

79

97

83

86.3

88.6

89.1

92.9

Cincinnati Area

Wilmington

97

93

99

96

78

83

81

80.7

82.8

85.8

94.4

Sycamore

81

88

100

93

76

89

80

81.7

84.1

85.8

91.0

Lebanon

86

85

98

95

81

92

86

86.3

88.2

89.0

91.2

Actual 4th High 8-Hr Value

2005 Base Year - Design Values

Options

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

7

CAMx O

3

Evaluation Summary

§ Episode average bias and error for 1-hr and 8-hr ozone over the

two 4 km domains are good, i.e., -1.5% to -9.6% (bias) and

13.4% to 18.1% (error);

§ Daily mean normalized bias in 1-hr and 8-hr ozone on both 4 km

domains generally satisfies EPA performance goals;

Ø Some days have low (< 60 ppb) ozone so bias/error histograms do not appear

Ø A few days have biases two time greater than goals.

§ Daily mean normalized gross errors in 1-hr and 8-hr ozone on

both grids are almost always well below the EPA performance

goal; Bias & Error statistics for ozone agree very well with

VISTAS CMAQ base G results

§ The CAMx operational evaluation for 1-hr and 8-hr ozone

concentrations does not suggest presence of serious bias or

compensating errors; and

§ Therefore, the current summertime 2005 36/12/4 km CAMx

ozone modeling simulation appears suited for policy explorations

Ø Further multi-species, multi-scale evaluations of the current simulation are

encouraged in order to search further for potential model limitations in certain sub

areas or time intervals.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

8

8-hr Ozone Attainment Findings

§ 8-hr Ozone: 4 km Grid

Ø All regulatory monitors in the Five States region 4 km grid domains are

estimated to be in attainment of the 8-hr NAAQS by 2008 as well as in

2015;

Ø The highest DVs in the Detroit/Cleveland 4 km study area in 2008 occur at

Eastlake (83.24 ppb), New Haven (80.28 ppb), Akron-Patterson

(78.17ppb), Akron Revena (78.05 ppb), Warren Fire Station (77.83ppb),

and Painsville (77.14 ppb);

Ø The highest DVs in the Lower Lake Michigan 4 km study area in 2008

occur at Holland (84.74 ppb), Kohler Andre (84.33 ppb), Door County

(83.51ppb), Pleasant Prairie (82.7 ppb), and La Porte (82.47ppb);

Ø Since EPA(2007) guidance calls for focused weight of evidence for those

monitors with modeled design values in the range of 82-87 ppb, it appears

that five monitors in the Lower Lake Michigan domain will need WOE

treatment while the Eastlake monitor would be the only in the

Detroit/Cleveland area needing such supplemental analyses.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

9

Modeled 2008 8-hr Ozone DVs (ppb) in Detroit/Cleveland

67

69

71

73

75

77

79

81

83

85

87

Macomb

Summit

Portage

Lake

Lucas

Lucas

Raisin

Lucas

Stark

Lucas

Stark

Cuyahoga

8-hr Ozone DV, ppb

2005 Measured DV

2008 Modeled DV

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

10

Modeled 2008 8-hr Ozone DVs (ppb) in Lower Lake Michigan

67

69

71

73

75

77

79

81

83

85

87

Kenosha

LaPorte

Manitowoc

Muskegon

Milwaukee

Benzie

Porter

Lake

MI-Kent

8-hr Ozone DV, ppb

2005 Measured DV

2008 Modeled DV

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

11

Modeled 2015 8-hr Ozone DVs (ppb) in Detroit/Cleveland

67

69

71

73

75

77

79

81

83

85

87

89

Lake

Macomb

Summit

Portage

Macomb

Lake

Lucas

Lucas

Medina

Cuyahoga

Stark

Geauga

Washtenaw

Raisin

Wood

Oakland

Lucas

Stark

Lucas

Stark

Lucas

Detroit-7 Mile

Wayne

Cuyahoga

Cuyahoga

8-hr Ozone DV, ppb

2005 Measured DV

2015 Modeled DV

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

12

Modeled 2015 8-hr Ozone DVs (ppb) in Lower Lake Michigan

65

67

69

73

75

77

79

81

83

85

87

89

Sheboygan

Kenosha

Allegan

Door

LaPorte

Milwaukee

Manitowoc

Milwaukee

Outagamie

Racine

Muskegon

Ozaukee

Cook

Lake

Benzie

Cook

Kewaunee

IN-Lake

Lake

IL-Cook

Coloma

Cook

Porter

Milwaukee

LaPorte

Lake

8-hr Ozone DV, ppb

2005 Measured DV

2015 Modeled DV

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

13

Ozone Attainment Findings

§ 8-hr Ozone: 12 km Grid

Ø On the 12 km grid, only the Maryland Heights, MO monitor is projected to

be nonattainment in 2008 with a Design Value 86.51 ppb;

Ø All regulatory monitors in Five States 12 km grid region are estimated to

be in attainment of the 8-hr NAAQS by 2015;

Ø In the Cincinnati/Dayton area, the Lebanon, OH monitor has the highest

DV of 84.31 ppb in 2008; and

Ø In the Cincinnati/Dayton area, the Fort Thomas, KY monitor has the

highest DV of 77.39 ppb in 2015.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

14

Modeled 2008 8-hr Ozone Design

Modeled 2008 8-hr Ozone DVs (ppb) over the 12 km Grid

67

69

71

73

75

77

79

81

83

85

87

Conneaut

Charlotte, NC

Charlotte, NC

Fort Thomas

St. Charles Co

Clay Co

Blair St. STL

Pacific, MO

Blount Co

Oldham Co

Hamilton Co

8-hr Ozone DV, ppb

2005 Measured DV

2008 Modeled DV

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

15

Modeled 2015 8-hr Ozone Design

Modeled 2015 8-hr Ozone DVs (ppb) over the 12 km Grid

67

69

71

73

75

77

79

81

83

85

87

Pleasant Prairie

St. Charles Co

La Porte

Conneaut

Hamilton Co

8-hr Ozone DV, ppb

2005 Measured DV

2015 Modeled DV

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

16

CAMx PM

2.5

Evaluation Summary

§ The annual average fractional bias in CAMx PM

2.5

estimates

for the 2005 Base Case using the FRM and IMPROVE

measurements are 28.6% and 49.4%, respectively while the

Fractional Errors are 46.4% and 58.2%.

§ Except for nitrate, the bias and errors in the 2005 Base Case

evaluation compare favorably with

Ad Hoc

Goals & Criteria.

§ Nitrate continues to present a simulation challenge, with

systematic overprediction in the Winter, Spring, and Autumn

and underprediction in the summer on 12 km domain.

§ CAMx model performance for the 2005 base case (12 km

grid) compares favorably with the final VISTAS CMAQ Base

2002G2 simulation for both fractional bias and error.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

17

Annual PM

2.5

Attainment Findings

§ Over the Five States 36 km Domain:

Ø In 2008, a total of 39 out of 351monitors are projected to exceed the annual

NAAQS over the Five State 36 km Domain.

Ø In 2015 two (2) monitors in Allegheny County, PA are projected to exceed

the annual NAAQS (19.5 μg/m

3

and 17.9 μg/m

3

) over the Five State 36 km

domain.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

18

Modeled 2008 PM

2.5

PM

2.5

Nonattainment Monitors in 2008 over 36 Km Domain

0

5

10

15

20

25

Allegheny

Allegheny

Allegheny

Cuyahoga

Wayne

Cuyahoga

Hamilton

Kanawha

Jefferson

Beaver

Kanawha

Hamilton

Brooke

Clark

Cuyahoga

Stark

Allegheny

Hamilton

Hancock

Hancock

Cabell

Hancock

Madison

Cuyahoga

Jefferson

Beaver

Washingto

Cook

St. Clair

Butler

Butler

Hamilton

Wayne

Allegheny

Allegheny

Cambria

Westmorel

Wood

Allegheny

PM

DV, ug/m3

2008 Modeled DV

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

19

Modeled 2015 PM

2.5

PM

2.5

Nonattainment Monitors in 2015 over 36 Km Domain

0

5

10

15

20

25

Allegheny

Allegheny

Wayne

Allegheny

Cuyahoga

Cook

Clark

Hamilton

Cuyahoga

Jefferson

Beaver

Brooke

Madison

Hamilton

Kanawha

Kanawha

Cook

St. Clair

Allegheny

PM

DV, ug/m3

2015 Modeled DV

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

20

Recommendations

§ Re-assess ozone and PM

2.5

modeled attainment status

when final 2007 air quality data are available;

§ Perform further attainment test calculations exploring

sensitivity of ozone & PM DVs to model performance

given the day-to-day variability in model skill:

§ Perform focused weight of evidence analyses for:

Ø The various procedures potentially justifiable for use in estimating the

base year 2005 ozone measured Design Values (DV

m

)

Ø The 8-hr ozone monitors in the 4 km domain that fall within the 72-75

ppb range.

Ø The PM

2.5

monitors on the 36 km domain that fall within the 14-16

μg/m

3

concentration ranges.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

21

Information

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

22

8-hr Ozone Model Evaluation for

2005

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

23

CAMx Ozone Evaluation

§ 1-hr and 8-hr operational evaluation statistics

Ø Nearly two dozen performance metrics calculated for ozone, NO

2

, and

NOx;

Ø All standard EPA graphical displays produced for ozone, NO

2

, and

NOx; full evaluation data sets and input emissions inventories available

upon request

Ø Emphasis on mean normalized bias & mean normalized gross error

(with standard ozone cutoff of 60 ppb)

§ Evaluation metrics and displays developed for

Ø All monitors in 12 km or 4 km domain

Ø All monitors in each of eleven (11) states

• IA, IL, IN, KY, MI, MN, MO, OH, TN, WI and WV

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

24

2005

2015

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

25

2005

2015

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

26

2005

2015

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

27

Ozone Mean Normalized Bias

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

20050601

20050609

20050621

20050628

20050705

20050712

20050719

20050726

20050803

20050810

20050819

20050901

20050911

EPA Performance Goal

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

28

1-hr Ozone Mean Normalized Error, (%).

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

20050601

20050609

20050621

20050628

20050705

20050712

20050719

20050726

20050803

20050810

20050819

20050901

20050911

EPA Performance Goal

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

29

Ozone Mean Normalized Bias

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

20050601

20050609

20050621

20050628

20050705

20050712

20050719

20050726

20050803

20050810

20050819

20050901

20050911

EPA Performance Goal

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

30

1-hr Ozone Mean Normalized Error, (%).

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

20050601

20050609

20050621

20050628

20050705

20050712

20050719

20050726

20050803

20050810

20050819

20050901

20050911

EPA Performance Goal

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

31

Ozone Mean Normalized Bias

-30.0

-25.0

-20.0

-10.0

-5.0

5.0

10.0

20.0

25.0

35.0

40.0

20050601

20050609

20050621

20050628

20050705

20050712

20050719

20050726

20050803

20050810

EPA Performance Goal

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

32

8-hr Ozone Mean Normalized Error, (%).

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

20050601

20050609

20050621

20050628

20050705

20050712

20050719

20050726

20050803

20050810

EPA Performance Goal

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

33

Ozone Mean Normalized Bias

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

20050601

20050609

20050621

20050628

20050705

20050712

20050719

20050726

20050803

20050810

20050819

EPA Performance Goal

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

34

8-hr Ozone Mean Normalized Error, (%).

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

20050601

20050609

20050621

20050628

20050705

20050712

20050719

20050726

20050803

20050810

20050819

EPA Performance Goal

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

35

CAMx Ozone Evaluation:

EPA Goal: < + 10-15%

for daily metrics

Avg Time 4 km Dom MNB MNGE MEAN_O MEAN_P RATIO

MB

NMB

MFB

ME NME

MFE

N

1-hr

Det/Clev

-2.7

15.3

68.8

66.6

1.0 -2.2

-3.1

-4.8

10.5

15.3

16.0 106

1-hr

LLMich

-9.6

18.1

68.7

61.8

0.9 -6.8

-9.9 -12.9

12.5

18.3

20.4 250

8-hr

Det/Clev

-1.5

13.4

66.9

65.6

1.0 -1.3

-1.8

-3.2

9.0

13.4

14.1

96

8-hr

LLMich

-7.5

15.0

66.4

61.4

0.9 -5.0

-7.6

-9.8

10.0

15.1

16.6 227

2005 Ozone Performance Statistics for the Detroit/Cleveland and Lower Lake Michigan Grids. (cutoff = 60 ppb)

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

36

PM

2.5

Model Evaluation for 2005

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

37

CAMx PM

2.5

Evaluation

§ Annual PM

2.5

data from AQS and speciated IMPROVE

networks

§ Operational evaluation statistics

Ø Fractional bias, fractional error (cutoff of 0.0 μg/m

3

used)

§ CAMx ‘Operational’ performance statistics and graphics

evaluated on both 36 km and 12 km grids

§ Focus of ‘operational’ evaluation on 12 km grid

§ CAMx annual 2005 evaluation results compared with

‘ad hoc’ performance goals set in other recent regional

studies (e.g., VISTAS, CENRAP)

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

38

CAMx PM

2.5

Evaluation

Boylan, J., and A. G. Russell, 2006. PM and light extinction model

performance metrics, goals, and criteria for three-dimensional air

quality models.

Atmospheric Environment

, 40, 4946-4959

Species

MNB

MNGE MEAN_O MEAN_P RATIO

MB

NMB

MFB

ME

NME

MFE

RSQR

N

IMP-PM2.5

109.4

116.6

9.7

14.7

2.1

5.0

72.0

49.4

6.5

83.1

58.2

0.4

21.4

FRM-PM2.5

115.4

129.5

14.4

18.8

2.2

4.4

38.9

28.6

7.5

58.2

46.4

0.2

145.1

NH4

28.3

79.9

1.3

1.1

1.3

-0.2

7.4

-13.0

0.7

61.1

58.1

-6.5

2.5

NO3

420.4

480.0

1.1

2.0

5.2

1.0

75.3

5.8

1.3

136.9

112.2

0.3

21.8

SO4

67.4

87.1

3.6

4.2

1.7

0.6

32.9

22.6

1.8

57.6

48.0

0.5

21.8

OC

144.7

153.9

2.0

4.0

2.4

1.9

96.9

56.8

2.3

112.6

68.7

0.2

21.5

EC

23.8

68.1

0.4

0.3

1.2

-0.1

-4.9

-8.2

0.2

50.2

51.9

0.3

Boylan et al

Species

Goals

Criteria

Goals

Criteria

IMP-PM2.5

35%

60%

50%

75%

FRM-PM2.5

35%

60%

50%

75%

NH4

35%

60%

50%

75%

NO3

35%

60%

50%

75%

SO4

35%

60%

50%

75%

OC

35%

60%

50%

75%

EC

35%

60%

50%

Fractional Bias

Fractional Error

Except for nitrate FE,

all species fall within

the goals/criteria range

and CENRAP

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

39

Daily PM

2.5

IMPROVE PM

2.5

-20.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

120.0

20050101

20050122

20050212

20050305

20050326

20050416

20050507

20050528

20050618

20050709

20050730

20050820

20050910

20051001

20051022

20051112

20051203

Fractional Bias, %

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

40

Daily PM

2.5

IMPROVE PM

2.5

Fractional Error, (%).

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

120.0

20050101

20050122

20050212

20050305

20050326

20050416

20050507

20050528

20050618

20050709

20050730

20050820

20050910

20051001

20051022

20051112

20051203

Fractional Error, %

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

41

Daily PM

2.5

FRM PM

2.5

-20.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

120.0

20050101

20050108

20050115

20050122

20050129

20050205

20050212

20050219

20050226

20050305

20050312

20050319

20050326

20050402

20050409

20050416

20050423

20050430

20050507

20050514

20050521

20050528

20050604

20050611

20050618

20050625

20050702

20050709

20050716

20050723

20050730

20050806

20050813

20050820

20050827

20050903

20050910

20050917

20050924

20051001

20051008

20051015

20051022

20051029

20051105

20051112

20051119

20051126

20051203

20051210

20051217

Fractional Bias, %

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

42

Daily PM

2.5

FRM PM

2.5

Fractional Error, (%).

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

120.0

20050101

20050108

20050115

20050122

20050129

20050205

20050212

20050219

20050226

20050305

20050312

20050319

20050326

20050402

20050409

20050416

20050423

20050430

20050507

20050514

20050521

20050528

20050604

20050611

20050618

20050625

20050702

20050709

20050716

20050723

20050730

20050806

20050813

20050820

20050827

20050903

20050910

20050917

20050924

20051001

20051008

20051015

20051022

20051029

20051105

20051112

20051119

20051126

20051203

20051210

20051217

Fractional Error, %

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

43

Daily NH

4

IMPROVE NH

4

-25.0

0.0

25.0

50.0

200.0

20050101

20050122

20050212

20050305

20050326

20050416

20050507

20050528

20050618

20050709

20050730

20050820

20050910

20051001

20051025

20051115

20051206

Fractional Bias, %

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

44

Daily NH

4

IMPROVE NH

4

Fractional Error, (%).

0.0

25.0

50.0

200.0

20050101

20050122

20050212

20050305

20050326

20050416

20050507

20050528

20050618

20050709

20050730

20050820

20050910

20051001

20051025

20051115

20051206

Fractional Error, %

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

45

Daily NO

3

IMPROVE NO

3

-25.0

0.0

25.0

50.0

200.0

20050101

20050122

20050212

20050305

20050326

20050416

20050507

20050528

20050618

20050709

20050730

20050820

20050910

20051001

20051022

20051112

20051203

Fractional Bias, %

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

46

Daily NO

3

IMPROVE NO

3

Fractional Error, (%).

0.0

25.0

50.0

200.0

20050101

20050122

20050212

20050305

20050326

20050416

20050507

20050528

20050618

20050709

20050730

20050820

20050910

20051001

20051022

20051112

20051203

Fractional Error, %

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

47

Daily SO

4

IMPROVE SO

4

-20.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

100.0

20050101

20050122

20050212

20050305

20050326

20050416

20050507

20050528

20050618

20050709

20050730

20050820

20050910

20051001

20051022

20051112

20051203

Fractional Bias, %

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

48

Daily SO

4

IMPROVE SO

4

Fractional Error, (%).

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

100.0

20050101

20050122

20050212

20050305

20050326

20050416

20050507

20050528

20050618

20050709

20050730

20050820

20050910

20051001

20051022

20051112

20051203

Fractional Error, %

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

49

-20.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

140.0

20050101

20050122

20050212

20050305

20050326

20050416

20050507

20050528

20050618

20050709

20050730

20050820

20050910

20051001

20051022

20051112

20051203

Fractional Bias, %

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

50

IMPROVE OC Fractional Error, (%).

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

140.0

20050101

20050122

20050212

20050305

20050326

20050416

20050507

20050528

20050618

20050709

20050730

20050820

20050910

20051001

20051022

20051112

20051203

Fractional Error, %

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

51

-20.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

100.0

20050101

20050122

20050212

20050305

20050326

20050416

20050507

20050528

20050618

20050709

20050730

20050820

20050910

20051001

20051022

20051112

20051203

Fractional Bias, %

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

52

IMPROVE EC Fractional Error, (%).

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

100.0

20050101

20050122

20050212

20050305

20050326

20050416

20050507

20050528

20050618

20050709

20050730

20050820

20050910

20051001

20051022

20051112

20051203

Fractional Error, %

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

53

CAMx PM

2.5

Intercomparison with

VISTAS CMAQ Base G2

-10.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Fractional Bias, %

Five States

VISTAS BaseG2

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

54

CAMx PM

2.5

Intercomparison with

Five States CAMx 2005 vs.VISTAS 2002G2 Fractional Error for PM2.5

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Fractional Error, %

Five States

VISTAS Base G2

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

55

8-hr Ozone Attainment

Demonstration for 2008 and

Grids

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

56

DVF =

RRF

* DVC

RRF is based

on modeled

data [2015/2005]

Future (2015) modeled values

Baseline(2005) modeled values

DVC is based

on observed

If DVf £ 84 ppb, the test is passed.

8

8

-

-

hr Ozone Attainment Test

hr Ozone Attainment Test

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

57

12/4 km Grids

§ 8-hr Ozone DVs obtained from MRPO (10 May ’07)

§ Formal EPA 8-hr Attainment Test applied on

Ø Detroit/Cleveland and Lower Lake Michigan 4 km grids

Ø Five States region on 12 km grid

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

58

Modeled 2008 8-hr Ozone DVs (ppb) in Detroit/Cleveland

67

69

71

73

75

77

79

81

83

85

87

Macomb

Summit

Portage

Lake

Lucas

Lucas

Raisin

Lucas

Stark

Lucas

Stark

Wayne

8-hr Ozone DV, ppb

2005 Measured DV

2008 Modeled DV

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

59

Modeled 2008 8-hr Ozone DVs (ppb) in Lower Lake Michigan

67

69

71

73

75

77

79

81

83

85

87

Kenosha

LaPorte

Manitowoc

Muskegon

Milwaukee

Benzie

Porter

Lake

MI-Kent

8-hr Ozone DV, ppb

2005 Measured DV

2008 Modeled DV

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

60

Modeled 2015 8-hr Ozone DVs (ppb) in Detroit/Cleveland

67

69

71

73

75

77

79

81

83

85

87

89

Lake

Macomb

Summit

Portage

Macomb

Lake

Lucas

Lucas

Medina

Cuyahoga

Stark

Geauga

Washtenaw

Raisin

Wood

Oakland

Lucas

Stark

Lucas

Stark

Lucas

Detroit-7 Mile

Wayne

Cuyahoga

Cuyahoga

8-hr Ozone DV, ppb

2005 Measured DV

2015 Modeled DV

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

61

Modeled 2015 8-hr Ozone DVs (ppb) in Lower Lake Michigan

67

69

71

73

75

77

79

81

83

85

87

89

Sheboygan

Kenosha

Allegan

Door

LaPorte

Milwaukee

Manitowoc

Milwaukee

Outagamie

Racine

Muskegon

Ozaukee

Cook

Lake

Benzie

Cook

Kewaunee

IN-Lake

Lake

IL-Cook

Coloma

Cook

Porter

Milwaukee

LaPorte

Lake

8-hr Ozone DV, ppb

2005 Measured DV

2015 Modeled DV

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

62

2008 8-hr Ozone Design Values for

MRPO '05

2008

2008

Long Name County

City or Monitor

MSA

DVC

THRESH -1ppbNDAYS >ThreshDVBM

DVFM

RRF

FDV

390850003 Lake

Eastlake

Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria

86.3

O

85

34

95.62

92.24

0.960

83.24

260990009 Macomb

New Haven

Detroit MI

82.3

85

15

92.58

90.31

0.980

80.28

391530020 Summit

Akron-Patterson

Akron OH

81.0

85

12

92.86

89.62

0.970

78.17

391331001 Portage

Akron-Revenna

Akron OH

81.0

85

14

90.76

87.46

0.960

78.05

260991003 Macomb

Warren Fire Sta

Detroit MI

79.3

85

22

91.25

89.56

0.980

77.83

390853002 Lake

Painesville

Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria

80.0

O

85

31

96.01

92.58

0.960

77.14

390950034 Lucas

Jerusalem Twp

Toledo OH

79.7

85

20

95.73

92.62

0.970

77.11

390950081 Lucas

Toledo-Shelter

Toledo OH

79.7

85

15

98.60

95.17

0.970

76.93

391030003 Medina

Lafayette Twp

Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria

80.0

O

82

11

91.88

88.33

0.960

76.91

390355002 Cuyahoga

Mayfield

Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria

79.0

O

85

32

92.53

89.78

0.970

76.66

391514005 Stark

Alliance

Canton-Massillon OH

79.0

84

11

89.71

87.02

0.970

76.64

390550004 Geauga

Geauga

Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria

77.7

O

85

21

90.69

87.42

0.960

74.90

261610008 Washtenaw Ypsilanti

Ann Arbor MI

76.7

82

11

91.59

89.33

0.980

74.81

260910007 Raisin

Raisin Center

Raisin Center

76.7

79

10

85.76

83.4

0.970

74.59

391730003 Wood

Bowling Green

Toledo OH

77.7

77

10

80.39

76.95

0.960

74.37

261250001 Oakland

Oak Park

Detroit MI

75.0

85

15

93.66

92.27

0.990

73.88

390950027 Lucas

Waterville

Toledo OH

75.7

80

10

84.07

81.79

0.970

73.65

391510016 Stark

Canton

Canton-Massillon OH

76.0

84

11

89.95

86.49

0.960

73.07

390930018 Lucas

Toledo-Erie St

Toledo OH

75.0

85

21

95.38

92.29

0.970

72.57

391510021 Stark

Brewster

Canton-Massillon OH

75.3

83

12

87.56

84.05

0.960

72.28

390950024 Lucas

Toledo-Erie St

Toledo OH

74.0

85

16

95.44

92.26

0.970

71.54

261630019 Detroit-7 Mile

Detroit-7 Mile

72.0

85

17

90.87

89.44

0.980

70.87

261630016 Wayne

Detroit-Linwood

Detroit MI

71.3

85

13

90.60

89.2

0.980

70.19

390350034 Cuyahoga

Cleveland

Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria

68.7

O

85

34

94.82

91.65

0.970

66.41

390350064 Cuyahoga

Berea

Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria

68.0

O

84

11

97.12

94.84

0.980

66.41

261630001 Wayne

Allen Park

Detroit MI

66.5

85

12

90.37

88.83

0.980

65.37

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

63

2015 8-hr Ozone Design Values for

MRPO '05

2015

2015

Long Name County

City or Monitor

MSA

DVC

THRESH -1ppbNDAYS >ThreshDVBM

DVFM

RRF

FDV

390850003 Lake

Eastlake

Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria

86.3

O

85

34

95.62

83.40

0.870

75.27

260990009 Macomb

New Haven

Detroit MI

82.3

85

15

92.58

84.18

0.910

74.83

260991003 Macomb

Warren Fire Sta

Detroit MI

79.3

85

22

91.25

83.84

0.920

72.86

390950034 Lucas

Jerusalem Twp

Toledo OH

79.7

85

20

95.73

85.64

0.890

71.30

390950081 Lucas

Toledo-Shelter

Toledo OH

79.7

85

15

98.60

87.69

0.890

70.88

391530020 Summit

Akron-Patterson

Akron OH

81.0

85

12

92.86

81.11

0.870

70.75

261610008 Washtenaw Ypsilanti

Ann Arbor MI

76.7

82

11

91.59

84.05

0.920

70.39

391331001 Portage

Akron-Revenna

Akron OH

81.0

85

14

90.76

78.31

0.860

69.89

390355002 Cuyahoga

Mayfield

Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria

79.0

O

85

32

92.53

81.44

0.880

69.54

261250001 Oakland

Oak Park

Detroit MI

75.0

85

15

93.66

86.73

0.930

69.45

390853002 Lake

Painesville

Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria

80.0

O

85

31

96.01

83.35

0.870

69.45

391030003 Medina

Lafayette Twp

Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria

80.0

O

82

11

91.88

79.02

0.860

68.81

391730003 Wood

Bowling Green

Toledo OH

77.7

77

10

80.39

70.74

0.880

68.37

390950027 Lucas

Waterville

Toledo OH

75.7

80

10

84.07

75.79

0.900

68.25

391514005 Stark

Alliance

Canton-Massillon OH

79.0

84

11

89.71

77.28

0.860

68.05

261630019 7 Mile

Detroit-7 Mile

72.0

85

17

90.87

84.33

0.930

66.82

390930018 Lucas

Toledo-Erie St

Toledo OH

75.0

85

21

95.38

84.75

0.890

66.64

390550004 Geauga

Geauga

Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria

77.7

O

85

21

90.69

77.69

0.860

66.56

261630016 Wayne

Detroit-Linwood

Detroit MI

71.3

85

13

90.60

84.55

0.930

66.54

390950024 Lucas

Toledo-Erie St

Toledo OH

74.0

85

16

95.44

85.44

0.900

66.25

391510021 Stark

Brewster

Canton-Massillon OH

75.3

83

12

87.56

76.88

0.880

66.12

391510016 Stark

Canton

Canton-Massillon OH

76.0

84

11

89.95

77.57

0.860

65.54

261630001 Wayne

Allen Park

Detroit MI

66.5

85

12

90.37

84.00

0.930

61.82

390350064 Cuyahoga

Berea

Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria

68.0

O

84

11

97.12

87.38

0.900

61.18

390350034 Cuyahoga

Cleveland

Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria

68.7

O

85

34

94.82

83.19

0.880

60.28

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

* * * * * PC # 3 * * * * *

---

64

2008 8-hr Ozone Design Values for

MRPO '05

2008

2008

Long Name County

City or Monitor

MSA

DVC

THRESH -1ppbNDAYS >ThreshDVBM

DVFM

RRF

FDV

Long Name

DVBM

DVFM

RRF

FDV

260050003 Allegan

Holland

Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Hol

88.0

85

19

99.22

95.55

0.960

84.74

551170006 Sheboygan

Kohler Andre Pk

Sheboygan WI

86.0

85

19

100.29

98.34

0.980

84.33

550290004 Door

Door County

86.0

85

14

96.43

93.64

0.970

83.51

550590019 Kenosha

Pleasant Prairie

Kenosha WI

83.3

85

21

95.73

95.05

0.990

82.71

180910010 LaPorte

La Porte

La Porte

84.0

85

12

96.82

95.06

0.980

82.47

550710007 Manitowoc

Manitowoc

82.3

85

18

98.42

96.10

0.980

80.36

261210039 Muskegon

Muskegon

Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Hol

83.3

85

24

97.11

93.10

0.960

79.86

550790085 Milwaukee

Bayside

Milwaukee-Waukesha

79.7

WI

85

20

96.93

95.82

0.990

78.78

550790041 Milwaukee

Milwaukee-UWM

Milwaukee-Waukesha

79.3

WI

85

19

97.74

96.88

0.990

78.60

550890009 Ozaukee

Harrington Park

Milwaukee-Waukesha

79.7

WI

85

21

98.26

96.71

0.980

78.44

260190003 Benzie

Benzonia

80.3

85

14

97.85

94.75

0.970

77.76

551010017 Racine

Racine

Racine WI

78.3

85

23

95.29

94.51

0.990

77.66

550890008 Ozaukee

Grafton

Milwaukee-Waukesha

78.3

WI

85

19

96.52

95.28

0.990

77.30

550610002 Kewaunee

Kewaunee

79.3

85

20

95.85

93.15

0.970

77.06

260210014 Berrien

Coloma

Benton Harbor MI

79.7

85

24

98.54

94.58

0.960

76.49

170317002 Cook

Chi-E. Lincoln

Chicago IL

76.3