­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
on
06/
08/
2005
01:
49
PM
­­­­­

Todd
Hawes/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
05/
03/
2005
08:
40
AM
T
o
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
c
c
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
Fw:
preliminary
model
plant
stack
parameters
fyi
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Todd
Hawes/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
on
05/
03/
2005
08:
39
AM
­­­­­

Todd
Hawes/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
05/
02/
2005
09:
50
PM
T
o
Bill
Wehrum/
DC/
USEPA/
US
c
c
Peter
Tsirigotis/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Lydia
Wegman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Joe
Paisie/
RTP/
USEPA/
US,
Mark
Evangelista/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Desmond
Bailey/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
preliminary
model
plant
stack
parameters
Below
is
a
summary
of
the
median
values
of
the
top
six
non­
EGU
source
categories
(
top
seven
if
you
split
up
the
acid
plants
between
sulfuric
acid
and
nitric
acid).
The
data
is
from
the
BART
eligible
sources
identified
in
the
CAIR
modeling
platform
file.
Please
note
this
data
is
preliminary
as
we
are
still
massaging
it
and
will
more
thoroughly
QA/
QC'ing
it.
The
RPOs
have
subsequently
sent
us
updated
information
on
the
BART
eligible
sources
which
will
have
to
be
analyzed
and
could
change
the
results
(
the
stack
parameter
data
was
not
available
from
the
RPO
files,
so
we
used
the
CAIR
file).
The
information
here
is
based
on
SO2
emissions
greater
than
250
TPY
for
each
category.
I
took
the
liberty
to
split
the
acid
plants
by
sulfuric
and
nitric
acid
as
the
parameters
differed
widely
for
each,
and
it
seemed
better
than
to
average
them
all
together
(
I
have
to
run
this
past
Joe
and
Peter.)
I'll
send
the
chemical
process
plants
as
soon
as
I
can
compile
them
in
the
morning.
The
raw
data
spreadsheet
is
attached.

Median
values
Stack
Height
Diameter
Temp.
flow
Velocity
NOX
SO2
VOC
PM10
feet
feet
Farenheit
ft
3/
sec
ft/
sec
TPY
TPY
TPY
TPY
Industrial
boilers
182.0
8.5
350.0
1833.0
37.4
241.7
777.7
1.4
19.5
Kraft
Pulp
Mills
234.0
8.5
339.0
2870.7
50.6
319.3
551.5
22.5
132.6
Petroleum
Refineries
177
7.085
550
1483
41.9
197
946.5
3.18
40.33
Portland
Cement
176.5
10.3
365
2895
41.215
1192
838.6
4.36
40.59
Sulfuric
Acid
186.5
7.25
170
1457
41.35
26.17
1140
0
0
Nitric
Acid
78
3.4
356
552.5
80.195
547.8
0
0
0
Chemical
Processes
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
tb
[
attachment
"
stack
parameter
averages.
xls"
deleted
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US]
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
on
06/
08/
2005
01:
49
PM
­­­­­
Lydia
Wegman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
E
PA
05/
03/
2005
05:
36
PM
T
o
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
c
c
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
Fw:
More
BART
Information
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Lydia
Wegman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
on
05/
03/
2005
05:
35
PM
­­­­­

Jeff
Holmstead/
DC/
USE
PA/
US
To
afraas@
omb.
eop.
gov
05/
02/
2005
09:
35
cc
PM
Bill
Wehrum
Subject
More
BART
Information
Attached
are
analyses
done
by
Larry
Sorrels
estimating
the
emission
reductions
and
costs
of
getting
all
the
SO2
and
NOx
reductions
from
non­
EGUs
that
can
be
achieved
at
a
marginal
cost
of
up
to
$
2,000
and
$
3,000
per
ton.

(
See
attached
file:
BARTnonEGU2000scenarioresults.
wpd)
(
See
attached
file:
BARTnonEGU3000scenarioresults.
wpd)[
attachment
"
BARTnonEGU2000scenarioresults.
wpd"
deleted
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US]
[
attachment
"
BARTnonEGU3000scenarioresults.
wpd"
deleted
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US]
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
on
06/
08/
2005
01:
49
PM
­­­­­

Lydia
Wegman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
E
PA
05/
03/
2005
05:
36
PM
T
o
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
c
c
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
Fw:
Response
to
questions
on
BART
non­
EGU
data
spreadsheet
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Lydia
Wegman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
on
05/
03/
2005
05:
36
PM
­­­­­

Jeff
Holmstead/
DC/
USE
PA/
US
To
afraas@
omb.
eop.
gov
05/
02/
2005
09:
31
cc
PM
Bill
Wehrum
Subject
Fw:
Response
to
questions
on
BART
non­
EGU
data
spreadsheet
Here
is
the
first
of
2
emails
containing
additional
information
related
to
BART.

­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Jeff
Holmstead/
DC/
USEPA/
US
on
05/
02/
2005
09:
26
PM
­­­­­

Larry
Sorrels/
RTP/
USEP
A/
US
To
Bill
Wehrum/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Jeff
04/
28/
2005
12:
50
Holmstead/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
PM
cc
Subject
Response
to
questions
on
BART
non­
EGU
data
spreadsheet
Bill,

I
have
the
following
responses
to
your
3
questions
from
last
night's
phone
message:

1)
All
of
the
unit
emissions
in
the
non­
EGU
data
spreadsheet
I
sent
you
on
Tuesday
are
actual,
not
potential,
emissions.
They
are
from
the
RPO
responses
to
the
ICR
we
sent
out
last
year
after
the
BART
proposal.

2)
Attached
is
the
same
spreadsheet
but
with
the
rankings
in
order
of
NOx
emissions
by
unit,
from
highest
to
lowest.

(
See
attached
file:
NonEGUBARTemissionsdatabaselineNOxranked42805.
xls)

3)
Attached
is
the
same
spreadsheet
but
with
the
emission
data
shown
by
facility,
with
facility
names
in
alphabetical
order.

(
See
attached
file:
NonEGUBARTemissionsdatabaselinefacilitylevel42805.
xls)
Let
me
know
if
you
have
any
questions
regarding
this
email.
Thank
you.

Larry
Sorrels
Economist
US
EPA/
OAQPS
C504­
02
RTP,
NC
27711
(
919)
541­
5041
fax:
(
919)
541­
5489[
attachment
"
NonEGUBARTemissionsdatabaselineNOxranked42805.
xls"
deleted
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US]
[
attachment
"
NonEGUBARTemissionsdatabaselinefacilitylevel42805.
xls"
deleted
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US]
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
on
06/
08/
2005
01:
49
PM
­­­­­

Lydia
Wegman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
E
PA
05/
03/
2005
05:
37
PM
T
o
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
c
c
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
Fw:
List
of
analysis
items
for
Holmstead
­
BART
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Lydia
Wegman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
on
05/
03/
2005
05:
36
PM
­­­­­

Jeff
Holmstead/
DC/
USE
PA/
US
To
Lydia
Wegman
04/
27/
2005
06:
54
cc
PM
Subject
Fw:
List
of
analysis
items
for
Holmstead
­
BART
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Jeff
Holmstead/
DC/
USEPA/
US
on
04/
27/
2005
06:
50
PM
­­­­­

Jeff
Holmstead/
DC/
USE
PA/
US
To
Art
Fraas
04/
26/
2005
09:
40
cc
PM
Bill
Wehrum
Subject
Fw:
List
of
analysis
items
for
Holmstead
­
BART
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Jeff
Holmstead/
DC/
USEPA/
US
on
04/
26/
2005
09:
37
PM
­­­­­

Tom
Rosendahl/
RTP/
US
EPA/
US
To
Larry
Sorrels/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
04/
26/
2005
04:
23
Jeff
Holmstead/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
PM
Steve
Page/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Gregory
Green/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc
Joe
Paisie/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Todd
Hawes/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject
Re:
List
of
analysis
items
for
Holmstead
­
BART(
Document
link:
Jeff
Holmstead)
Larry,
you
were
not
in
your
office
and
I
know
you
wanted
this
to
go
to
Jeff
for
the
4:
30
call
today
so
I
added
Jeff,
Steve,
and
Greg.

(
See
attached
file:
The
following
Table
summarizes
number
of
BART.
doc)

The
data
is
copied
here
for
convenience:

The
following
Table
summarizes
number
of
(
NonEGU)
BART­
eligible
units
in
the
Ozone
and
PM2.5
non
attainment
and
visibility
areas:
|­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­|
|
|
|
|­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­|
|
1130|
NonEGU
BART­
eligible
units
reside
in
20
States
which
have
N/
A
areas
for
|
|
|
PM2.5
|
|­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­|
|
|
|
|­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­|
|
1601|
NonEGU
BART­
eligible
units
(
NOx
only)
reside
in
30
States
which
have
N/
A
|
|
|
areas
for
Ozone
|
|­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­|
|
|
|
|­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­|
|
1129|
NonEGU
BART­
eligible
units
reside
in
19
States
which
have
N/
A
areas
for
|
|
|
both
Ozone
and
PM2.5
|
|­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­|
|
|
|
|­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­|
|
543|
NonEGU
BART­
eligible
units
reside
in
14
States
which
have
no
N/
A
areas
for|
|
|
Ozone
or
PM2.5
|
|­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­|
|
|
|
|­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­|

2,276
Total
Number
of
NonEGU
BART­
eligible
units
The
information
that
follows
provides
the
detail
of
which
States
are
in
which
group:

|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
Total
Number
of
|
Ozone,
PM2.5
|
States
|
Number
of
|
|
NonEGU­
BART­
eligibl|
Non­
attainmen|
|
NonEGU­(
NOxonly
|
e
sources
|
t
areas
|
|
)
BART­
eligible
|
|
|
|
|
sources
|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
101|
Both
|
Alabama
|
100|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
37|
Both
|
California
|
34|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
8|
Both
|
Connecticut
|
8|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
41|
Both
|
Delaware
|
37|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
100|
Both
|
Georgia
|
90|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
113|
Both
|
Illinois
|
102|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
140|
Both
|
Indiana
|
138|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
95|
Both
|
Kentucky
|
94|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
11|
Both
|
Maryland
|
7|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
58|
Both
|
Michigan
|
51|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
10|
Both
|
Missouri
|
9|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
7|
Both
|
New
Jersey
|
7|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
27|
Both
|
New
York
|
24|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
40|
Both
|
North
Carolina
|
40|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
80|
Both
|
Ohio
|
78|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
78|
Both
|
Pennsylvania
|
71|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
41|
Both
|
Tennessee
|
33|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
91|
Both
|
Virginia
|
82|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
51|
Both
|
West
Virginia
|
47|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
6|
Ozone
|
Arizona
|
5|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
21|
Ozone
|
Arkansas
|
19|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
36|
Ozone
|
Colorado
|
29|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
109|
Ozone
|
Louisiana
|
97|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
63|
Ozone
|
Maine
|
63|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
12|
Ozone
|
Massachusetts
|
12|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
18|
Ozone
|
New
Hampshire
|
18|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
3|
Ozone
|
Rhode
Island
|
3|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
109|
Ozone
|
South
Carolina
|
102|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
182|
Ozone
|
Texas
|
171|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
31|
Ozone
|
Wisconsin
|
30|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
1|
PM2.5
|
Montana
|
1|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
70|
|
Florida
|
60|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
24|
|
Idaho
|
24|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
68|
|
Iowa
|
47|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
37|
|
Kansas
|
35|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
19|
|
Minnesota
|
19|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
32|
|
Mississippi
|
28|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
3|
|
Nebraska
|
3|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
24|
|
New
Mexico
|
21|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
4|
|
North
Dakota
|
2|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
58|
|
Oklahoma
|
58|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
29|
|
Oregon
|
29|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
1|
|
South
Dakota
|
1|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
105|
|
Washington
|
104|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|
|
69|
|
Wyoming
|
60|
|­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­+­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­|

Thanks.
Thomas
E.
Rosendahl
EPA,
OAQPS,
AQSSD
(
919)
541­
5314
Larry
Sorrels/
RTP/
USEP
A/
US
To
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
04/
26/
2005
03:
40
cc
PM
Todd
Hawes/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Joe
Paisie/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Tom
Rosendahl/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject
List
of
analysis
items
for
Holmstead
­
BART
Kathy,
my
list
of
items
Holmstead
requested
and
our
response
up
to
now
is
the
following:

1)
Emission
Reductions
and
Costs
for
$
2,000/
ton
(
marginal
cost)
scenario
­
emailed
to
Holmstead
early
afternoon
2)
Non­
EGU
emissions
data
by
unit:
­
emailed
to
Holmstead
midafternoon
(
note:
EGU
unit
emissions
data
sent
up
to
him
around
noon)

3)
Number
of
non­
EGUs
in
States
with
PM2.5
and
ozone
nonattainment
areas
(
separately
and
together)
­
will
be
emailed
to
Holmstead
by
4:
30
today
Thanks.
I
think
this
is
right.

Larry
Sorrels
Economist
US
EPA/
OAQPS
C504­
02
RTP,
NC
27711
(
919)
541­
5041
fax:
(
919)
541­
5489
[
attachment
"
The
following
Table
summarizes
number
of
BART.
doc"
deleted
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US]
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
on
06/
08/
2005
01:
49
PM
­­­­­

Lydia
Wegman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
E
PA
05/
03/
2005
05:
37
PM
T
o
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
c
c
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
Fw:
Non­
EGU
emissions
data
by
BARTeligible
unit
­
spreadsheet
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Lydia
Wegman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
on
05/
03/
2005
05:
36
PM
­­­­­

Jeff
Holmstead/
DC/
USE
PA/
US
To
Lydia
Wegman
04/
27/
2005
06:
54
cc
PM
Subject
Fw:
Non­
EGU
emissions
data
by
BART­
eligible
unit
­
spreadsheet
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Jeff
Holmstead/
DC/
USEPA/
US
on
04/
27/
2005
06:
50
PM
­­­­­

Jeff
Holmstead/
DC/
USE
PA/
US
To
Art
Fraas
04/
26/
2005
09:
40
cc
PM
Bill
Wehrum
Subject
Fw:
Non­
EGU
emissions
data
by
BART­
eligible
unit
­
spreadsheet
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Jeff
Holmstead/
DC/
USEPA/
US
on
04/
26/
2005
09:
36
PM
­­­­­

Larry
Sorrels/
RTP/
USEP
A/
US
To
Jeff
Holmstead/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
04/
26/
2005
03:
33
cc
PM
Bill
Wehrum/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Steve
Page/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Gregory
Green/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Joe
Paisie/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Lydia
Wegman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Linda
Chappell/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Tom
Rosendahl/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Ron
Evans/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject
Non­
EGU
emissions
data
by
BART­
eligible
unit
­
spreadsheet
Jeff,
Attached
is
a
spreadsheet
containing
baseline
SO2
and
NOx
emissions
for
each
BART­
eligible
non­
EGU
unit
in
our
database.
This
spreadsheet
is
similarly
organized
to
the
one
that
Roman
Kramarchuk
sent
to
you
a
little
earlier
today.
Since
there
are
nearly
2,300
units
in
this
database,
printing
out
the
entire
spreadsheet
is
not
advisable.
I
have
sorted
the
units
by
pollutant,
however,
with
the
SO2
units
listed
first
in
order
of
most
to
least
emissions.
That's
a
small
part
of
the
whole
spreadsheet
(
less
than
200
units).

Let
me
know
if
you
have
any
questions.
This
is
in
response
to
your
request
for
non­
EGU
unit
emissions
data
in
yesterday's
4:
00
BART
call.
Thanks.

(
See
attached
file:
NonEGUBARTemissionsdatabaseline.
xls)

Larry
Sorrels
Economist
US
EPA/
OAQPS
C504­
02
RTP,
NC
27711
(
919)
541­
5041
fax:
(
919)
541­
5489[
attachment
"
NonEGUBARTemissionsdatabaseline.
xls"
deleted
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US]
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
on
06/
08/
2005
01:
48
PM
­­­­­

Lydia
Wegman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
E
PA
05/
03/
2005
05:
38
PM
T
o
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
c
c
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
Fw:
List
of
BART­
eligible
EGUs
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Lydia
Wegman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
on
05/
03/
2005
05:
37
PM
­­­­­

Jeff
Holmstead/
DC/
USE
PA/
US
To
Lydia
Wegman
04/
27/
2005
06:
53
cc
PM
Subject
Fw:
List
of
BART­
eligible
EGUs
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Jeff
Holmstead/
DC/
USEPA/
US
on
04/
27/
2005
06:
50
PM
­­­­­

Jeff
Holmstead/
DC/
USE
PA/
US
To
Art
Fraas,
Paul
Noe
04/
26/
2005
09:
39
cc
PM
Bill
Wehrum
Subject
Fw:
List
of
BART­
eligible
EGUs
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Jeff
Holmstead/
DC/
USEPA/
US
on
04/
26/
2005
09:
35
PM
­­­­­

Roman
Kramarchuk/
DC/
US
EPA/
US
To
Jeff
Holmstead/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
04/
26/
2005
06:
48
Lydia
Wegman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
PM
Sam
Napolitano/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Larry
Sorrels/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc
John
Robbins/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Kevin
Culligan/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Erin
Hoyt/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject
List
of
BART­
eligible
EGUs
Jeff,

I'm
including
a
spreadsheet
with
the
list
of
non­
CAIR
EGUs
­
along
with
their
size,
their
existing
controls,
their
2004
emissions,
and
the
cost
effectiveness
of
their
SO2
reductions.
(
I
have
included
one
cost
effectiveness
estimate
based
on
just
costs
and
one
factoring
in
Title
IV
allowance
costs
savings
of
$
300/
ton).

From
a
quick
glance:

There
are
109
non­
CAIR
BART
Coal
EGUs.
60
have
existing
controls
(
or
would
have
them
in
the
base
case
by
2015).

Twelve
of
the
remaining
49
units
without
controls
have
>$
2000
cost
effectiveness.
Ten
of
these
twelve
had
2004
SO2
emissions
below
5,000
tons
(
the
other
two
are
Mohave
units).
Nine
of
those
ten
units
are
<
200MW.

(
See
attached
file:
BART
units
ranked
by
2004
SO2
emissions
­
summary.
xls)

Roman
Kramarchuk
Clean
Air
Markets
Division,
US
EPA
(
202)
343
9089
(
202)
343
2359
(
FAX)[
attachment
"
BART
units
ranked
by
2004
SO2
emissions
­
summary.
xls"
deleted
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US]
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
on
06/
08/
2005
01:
48
PM
­­­­­

Lydia
Wegman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
E
PA
05/
03/
2005
05:
38
PM
T
o
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
c
c
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
Fw:
BART
information
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Lydia
Wegman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
on
05/
03/
2005
05:
37
PM
­­­­­

Jeff
Holmstead/
DC/
USE
PA/
US
To
Lydia
Wegman
04/
27/
2005
06:
53
cc
PM
Subject
Fw:
BART
information
Here
is
the
first
of
4­
mails
I
sent
to
Art
last
night.
I
will
also
forward
the
other
three.

­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Jeff
Holmstead/
DC/
USEPA/
US
on
04/
27/
2005
06:
48
PM
­­­­­

Jeff
Holmstead/
DC/
USE
PA/
US
To
Art
Fraas,
Paul
Noe
04/
26/
2005
09:
39
cc
PM
Bill
Wehrum
Subject
BART
information
Here
is
the
list
of
the
additional
information
I
wanted
to
have
before
deciding
how
to
proceed
with
the
final
BART
rule:

1.
List
of
all
BART­
eligible
EGUs
in
non­
CAIR
states,
sortable
by
annual
SO2
and
NOx
emissions.
2.
List
of
all
BART­
eligible
non­
EGUs,
again
sortable
by
annual
SO2
and
NOx
emissions
3.
An
analysis
of
how
many
of
these
units
are
located
in
states
that
are
required
to
develop
SIPs
for
PM2.5,
8­
hour
ozone,
or
both.
4.
An
analysis
of
the
impact
of
using
a
$
2,000/
ton
cutoff
as
a
decision
criterion
­­
i.
e.,
what
would
be
the
cost
and
emission
impacts
of
requiring
all
reductions
that
could
be
achieved
at
a
marginal
cost
of
$
2,000/
ton
or
less.
5.
A
projection
of
the
sources
that
would
likely
be
covered
if
the
visibility
part
of
the
applicability
test
looked
at
the
95th
or
98th
percentile,
instead
of
using
the
worst
visibility
day
in
the
last
5
years.
6.
Possible
modeling
approaches
that
would
support
a
simple
cut­
off
for
smaller
NOx
sources
that
don't
really
affect
visibility.

I
now
have
items
1,
2,
and
3
and
will
email
them
to
you
tonight.
I
should
have
the
other
items
by
COB
tomorrow
(
although
item
5
will
still
be
somewhat
preliminary).

I
am
hoping
we
can
get
back
together
soon
(
maybe
tomorrow
or
Thursday)
to
discuss
this
information
and
how
it
might
guide
our
decisions
here.
Bill
will
work
to
set
up
a
time
that
will
work
for
everyone.

­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
on
06/
08/
2005
01:
48
PM
­­­­­

Todd
Hawes/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
05/
03/
2005
06:
24
PM
T
o
afraas@
omb.
eop.
gov,
Bill
Wehrum/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Peter
Tsirigotis/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Lydia
Wegman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Joe
Paisie/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
c
c
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
data
for
developing
model
plants
(
and
a
call
in
#
for
noon
meeting)

Below
is
a
summary
of
the
median
values
for
the
stack
parameters
of
the
top
five
non­
EGU
source
categories
in
terms
of
SO2
emissions.
In
developing
"
model
plant"
stack
parameters,
we
used
the
BART­
eligible
sources
identified
in
the
CAIR
modeling
platform
file
for
each
of
the
categories.
The
data,
presented
in
the
table
below,
are
all
median
values
and
are
based
on
sources
having
actual
SO2
emissions
greater
than
250
TPY.
Using
SO2
as
the
"
controlling
stack"
is
consistent
with
what
was
done
for
the
EGU
analysis
and
is
appropriate
since
particle
formation
is
initially
preferentially
driven
by
Sulfate.
Note
that
we
did
not
include
Nitric
Acid
plants
since
there
are
no
SO2
emissions
from
those
plants.
Also,
Chemical
Process
sources
were
not
included
because
there
were
only
two
SO2
sources
and
median
values
from
those
two
stacks
are
not
meaningful.
The
attached
spreadsheet
includes
the
raw
data.

Median
values
Stack
Height
Diameter
Temp.
flow
Velocity
#
records
from
CAIR
modeling
file
feet
feet
Fahrenheit
ft3/
sec
ft/
sec
Industrial
boilers
182
8.5
350
1833
37.4
472
Kraft
Pulp
Mills
234
8.5
339
2871
50.6
48
Petroleum
Refineries
177
7.1
550
1483
41.9
95
Portland
Cement
177
10.3
365
2895
41.2
85
Sulfuric
Acid
187
7.3
170
1457
41.4
59
[
attachment
"
model
plant
data.
xls"
deleted
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US]
CALL
IN
#
for
12:
00
p.
m.
Wednesday:
919­
541­
4376
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
on
06/
08/
2005
01:
48
PM
­­­­­

Lula
Melton/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
05/
05/
2005
09:
14
AM
T
o
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
c
c
Joe
Paisie/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Peter
Tsirigotis/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
Files
Sent
to
Doug
Carter
Kathy,

Attached
are
the
files
that
we
sent
Doug
Carter.

Lula
Melton,
Acting
Group
Leader
EIG/
EMAD/
OAQPS/
EPA
Phone:
919­
541­
2910
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Lula
Melton/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
on
05/
05/
2005
09:
12
AM
­­­­­

Ron
Ryan/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
04/
29/
2005
10:
20
AM
T
o
Tsirigotis.
Peter@
epamail.
epa.
gov@
EPA
c
c
Lula
Melton/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
2
files
we
sent
to
Doug
Carter
re:
BART
rule
Peter,
Attached
are
the
two
final
versions
of
the
files
we
sent
to
Doug
Carter
for
his
review
of
the
BART
rule.
We
had
some
issues
trying
to
get
small
enough
files
to
pass
thru
Doug's
firewall
without
changing/
corrupting
the
file,
but
I
understand
he
now
has
what
was
needed.

ron
[
attachment
"
BART_
EGU_
2001_
2015medium.
zip"
deleted
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US]
[
attachment
"
BART_
negu2001rev2.
zip"
deleted
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US]

Here
is
text
of
the
emails
I
sent
him
explaining
the
contents:

Doug,
here's
a
revised
file
for
non­
egus.
I
added
the
"
BART­
eligible"
info
as
identified
in
our
BART
analyses.
The
MACT
codes
were
not
available
on
the
2001BART
inventory,
and
are
not
relevant
to
Criteria
pollutants.
I
have
added
a
column
called
"
category"
which
identifies
the
source
type
based
on
the
SCC
code,
which
is
the
primary
characterizing
data
element
for
the
criteria
inventories.
The
"
category"
is
based
on
the
first
6­
digits
of
the
8­
digit
SCC
code.
Let
me
know
if
any
questions.

Dear
Mr.
Carter,

Attached
to
this
message
is
a
zip
file
containing
the
info
you
requested
to
enable
your
review
of
the
BART
rule.
The
attached
contains
an
Access
file
of
the
non­
egu
sources
in
the
2001
inventory
used
for
our
BART
analysis.
As
you
suggested,
we
have
shown
the
full
detail
only
for
those
records
with
any
pollutant
(
SO2,
NOx,
PM10,
PM2.5,
or
VOC)
greater
than
100
tons/
year,
or
where
a
State
agency
identified
the
unit
as
"
BART­
eligible".
A
second
table
in
the
Access
file
shows
the
State­
level
sums
for
All
Other
non­
egu
records
not
meeting
that
criteria.
Due
to
email
size
restrictions,
we
will
be
sending
a
second
email
immediately
following
this
one
containing
a
zip
file
with
all
of
the
EGU
info
for
both
2001
and
the
2015
medium
control
scenario.
Note
that
our
split
of
the
files
into
"
EGU"
and
"
non­
egu"
is
actually
based
upon
whether
an
emission
unit
was
an
electric
generation
unit
contained
in
the
IPM
model.
Thus,
there
are
some
industrial
cogeneration
units
seen
in
the
"
EGU"
split.

We
have
included
in
the
attached
a
table
of
State
and
County
FIPS
codes
along
with
their
names.
This
table
includes
both
text
and
numeric
versions
of
the
ST
and
CNTY
FIPS,
which
is
needed
because
our
modeling
files
store
the
codes
as
numeric
values,
not
the
usual
text.
The
attached
codes
do
not
contain
any
MACT
codes,
which
are
not
relevant
for
criteria
pollutants.
The
SCC
codes
are
universally
populated,
and
are
the
primary
characteristic
supplied
by
the
State
data
providers.
The
SCC
codes
should
be
used
to
identify
types
of
sources.
Boilers
always
have
an
SCC
beginning
with
"
1".
The
sixth
digit
will
identify
the
fuel:

1=
anthracite;
2=
bitum
or
sub­
bitum
coal;
3=
lignite;
4=
residual
oil;
5=
distillate;
6=
Natural
gas.

The
file
extension
on
the
attached
has
been
renamed
from
zip
to
piz
to
avoid
being
stripped
by
network
security
checks.
Please
save
the
file
and
rename
it
as
".
zip",
and
it
should
unzip
to
an
Access
MDB
file.
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
on
06/
08/
2005
01:
48
PM
­­­­­

Lydia
Wegman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
E
PA
05/
06/
2005
05:
01
PM
T
o
Todd
Hawes/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Lea
Anderson/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Bill
Grantham/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
c
c
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
Fw:
Trading
FYI­­
it
would
probably
be
helpful
if
one
of
you
could
look
at
this.
Thanks.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Sent
from
my
BlackBerry
Wireless
Handheld
­­­­­
Original
Message
­­­­­

From:
"
Hunt,
Tim"
[
Tim_
Hunt@
afandpa.
org]

Sent:
05/
06/
2005
04:
22
PM
To:
John
Robbins;
Kevin
Culligan;
Lydia
Wegman
Cc:
Sarah
Dunham;
Rob
Kaufmann
(
rckaufma@
gapac.
com)"
<
rckaufma@
gapac.
com>;
David
Harrison
(
david.
harrison@
nera.
com)"
<
david.
harrison@
nera.
com>

Subject:
Trading
John,
Kevin,
and
Lydia,

As
a
follow­
up
to
our
call
yesterday
on
BART
and
CAIR,
I
am
forwarding
on
to
you
a
presentation
that
NERA's
David
Harrison
has
put
together
for
the
Midwest
(
today)
and
other
RPOs
(
future)
at
the
request
of
AF&
PA
and
others.
It
covers
the
basics
and
then
goes
into
some
of
the
issues
of
how
trading
would
work
for
BART/
haze.
Let
us
know
if
you
think
anything
is
missing
or
how
it
might
be
improved.
Thanks
again
for
taking
the
time
yesterday
to
talk
about
these
important
policy
issues.

Have
a
good
weekend.

Timothy
Hunt
Senior
Director,
Air
Quality
Programs
American
Forest
&
Paper
Association
1111
19th
St.,
NW
Washington,
DC
20036
phone:
202­
463­
2588
tim_
hunt@
afandpa.
org
[
attachment
"
NERA
haze
trading
5­
6­
05.
ppt"
deleted
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US]
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
on
06/
08/
2005
01:
48
PM
­­­­­

Kevin
Culligan/
DC/
USEPA/
US
05/
12/
2005
04:
55
PM
T
o
Arthur_
G._
Fraas@
omb.
eop.
gov,
Amy_
E._
Flynn@
omb.
eop.
gov
c
c
Jeff
Holmstead/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Bill
Wehrum/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Lydia
Wegman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Joe
Paisie/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Brian
Timin/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Todd
Hawes/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
John
Robbins/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
IPM
results
for
better
than
BART
analysis
Art
and
Amy
The
following
is
a
summary
of
the
differences
between
the
new
and
the
old
CAIR
is
better
than
BART
analysis.
For
more
detail,
see
the
attached
spreadsheet
Summary
of
Differences
Between
Old
analysis
and
New
Analysis
for
SO2
Difference
Between
New
BART
Difference
Between
Old
State
Name
and
New
CAIR
+
BART
and
Old
CAIR
+
BART
Alabama
29
­
17
District
of
Columbia
0
0
Florida
­
61
8
Georgia
­
15
44
Illinois
­
89
­
41
Indiana
­
757
­
775
Iowa
­
29
29
Kentucky
­
237
­
36
Louisiana
26
31
Maryland
­
56
­
60
Michigan
141
166
Minnesota
­
67
­
42
Mississippi
57
61
Missouri
20
61
New
York
­
88
­
90
North
Carolina
44
48
Ohio
­
874
­
898
Pennsylvania
­
193
­
239
South
Carolina
­
18
­
14
Tennessee
­
417
­
405
Texas
83
95
Virginia
­
87
­
101
West
Virginia
­
275
­
286
Wisconsin
46
74
Grand
Total
­
2,816
­
2387
Overall,
CAIR+
BART
gets
more
SO2
reductions
than
BART
in
the
new
analysis
than
in
the
old
analsyis
In
15
States,
CAIR
+
BART
gets
the
same
or
greater
reductions
than
BART
in
the
new
analysis
In
7
States
where
CAIR
+
BART
does
not
get
greater
reductions
than
BART,
the
difference
in
the
new
analsysis
is
Alabama
is
the
only
State
in
which
CAIR
+
BART
achieved
less
reductions
than
BART
in
both
analysis
and
the
diff
Summary
of
Differences
Between
Old
analysis
and
New
Analysis
for
NOx
Difference
Between
New
BART
Difference
Between
Old
BART
State
Name
and
New
CAIR
+
BART
and
Old
CAIR
+
BART
Alabama
­
58
­
62
District
of
Columbia
0
0
Florida
­
71
­
59
Georgia
­
27
­
11
Illinois
­
23
­
21
Indiana
­
96
­
82
Iowa
­
27
­
12
Kentucky
­
33
­
27
Louisiana
­
10
­
8
Maryland
­
10
­
12
Michigan
­
6
0
Minnesota
­
17
­
13
Mississippi
­
19
­
7
Missouri
­
10
­
8
New
York
­
9
­
10
North
Carolina
­
5
­
7
Ohio
­
92
­
89
Pennsylvania
­
70
­
46
South
Carolina
­
1
2
Tennessee
­
48
­
56
Texas
­
19
­
21
Virginia
­
21
­
23
West
Virginia
­
41
­
46
Wisconsin
­
26
­
15
Grand
Total
­
742
­
633
Summary
of
Differences
Between
Old
analysis
and
New
Analysis
for
NOx
Difference
Between
New
BART
Difference
Between
Old
BART
State
Name
and
New
CAIR
+
BART
and
Old
CAIR
+
BART
Alabama
­
58
­
62
District
of
Columbia
0
0
Florida
­
71
­
59
Georgia
­
27
­
11
Illinois
­
23
­
21
Indiana
­
96
­
82
Iowa
­
27
­
12
Kentucky
­
33
­
27
Louisiana
­
10
­
8
Maryland
­
10
­
12
Michigan
­
6
0
Minnesota
­
17
­
13
Mississippi
­
19
­
7
Missouri
­
10
­
8
New
York
­
9
­
10
North
Carolina
­
5
­
7
Ohio
­
92
­
89
Pennsylvania
­
70
­
46
South
Carolina
­
1
2
Tennessee
­
48
­
56
Texas
­
19
­
21
Virginia
­
21
­
23
West
Virginia
­
41
­
46
Wisconsin
­
26
­
15
Grand
Total
­
742
­
633
CAIR
+
BART
gets
the
same
or
more
reductions
than
BART
for
all
States
in
the
New
Analysis
Overall,
CARI
+
BART
gets
more
NOx
reductions
in
the
New
Analysis
[
attachment
"
BART
Runs
compared
(
CAIR
region).
51105.
xls"
deleted
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US]
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
on
06/
08/
2005
01:
48
PM
­­­­­

Bill
Wehrum/
DC/
USEPA/
US
05/
25/
2005
03:
11
PM
T
o
afraas@
omb.
eop.
gov,
aflynn@
omb.
eop.
gov
c
c
Lydia
Wegman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
Fw:
CAIR
Better
than
BART
Write
Up
Art
and
Amy
­­
Here's
our
explanation
of
why
we
think
the
new
IPM
runs
support
the
conclusion
that
CAIR
is
better
than
BART.
Note
that
this
write
up
focuses
only
on
the
technical
question
of
whether
we
can
rely
on
the
existing
air
quality
runs
in
light
of
the
new
IPM
runs
that
more
accurately
reflect
the
final
CAIR
rule
and
what
we
expect
from
the
final
BART
rule.
We
think
the
answer
is
yes,
the
new
IPM
runs
in
conjunction
with
the
existing
air
quality
runs
provide
a
solid
basis
for
concluding
that
CAIR
is
better
than
BART.

­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Bill
Wehrum/
DC/
USEPA/
US
on
05/
25/
2005
03:
04
PM
­­­­­

Bill
Grantham/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
05/
24/
2005
05:
38
PM
T
o
Jeff
Holmstead/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
c
c
Bill
Wehrum/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Lydia
Wegman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Peter
Tsirigotis/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Brian
Timin/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Joe
Paisie/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Lea
Anderson/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Chet
Thompson/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Steve
Page/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
CAIR
Better
than
BART
Write
Up
Jeff,

As
requested
on
yesterday's
call,
here
is
a
write­
up
summarizing
the
results
of
the
new
CAIR
better
than
BART
analysis,
which
Brian
Timin
and
I
put
together,
for
purposes
of
informing
the
interagency
review.
The
spreadsheet
referred
to
within
will
be
forwarded
tomorrow
(
it
is
done
but
needs
some
formatting).

[
attachment
"
btb­
updated­
4.
wpd"
deleted
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US]

Bill
Grantham
EPA
OGC
ARLO
202­
564­
2580
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
on
06/
08/
2005
01:
48
PM
­­­­­

Lydia
Wegman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
E
PA
05/
25/
2005
05:
56
PM
T
o
afraas@
omb.
eop.
gov,
aflynn@
omb.
eop.
gov
c
c
Jeff
Holmstead/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Bill
Wehrum/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Mark
Evangelista/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Desmond
Bailey/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
Spreadsheets
for
CALPUFF
runs
for
BART
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Lydia
Wegman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
on
05/
25/
2005
05:
48
PM
­­­­­

Mark
Evangelista/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
To
Jeff
Holmstead/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
05/
25/
2005
01:
25
Bill
Wehrum/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
PM
cc
Steve
Page/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Peter
Tsirigotis/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Lydia
Wegman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Tyler
Fox/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Joe
Paisie/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Desmond
Bailey/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Brian
Orndorff/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Todd
Hawes/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Lea
Anderson/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Brian
Timin/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Warren
Peters/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject
Complete
Spreadsheet
for
CALPUFF
BART
Art
and
Amy­­

Please
find
below
the
23
CALPUFF
runs
that
we
have
done
for
EGUs
and
non­
EGUs
for
BART.
We
spent
a
fair
amount
of
time
talking
with
Jeff
today
about
how
to
make
sense
of
these
results
and
plan
to
continue
talking
with
him
tomorrow.
We
hope
to
produce
in
the
next
day
or
two
a
proposed
approach
for
using
these
runs
in
the
BARTguideline
and
will
share
the
approach
with
you
as
soon
as
we
have
completed
it.
Let
me
know
if
you
have
any
questions.
The
work
was
done
by
Mark
Evangelista
and
Desmond
Bailey
and
we
will
no
doubt
need
them
to
answer
any
technical
questions
you
may
have.

Lydia
(
See
attached
file:
Complete
BART
CALPUFF
­
23
runs.
xls)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Mark
Evangelista
Chief,
Applied
Modeling
Branch
Atmospheric
Sciences
Modeling
Division**
NOAA
Air
Resources
Laboratory
(**
in
partnership
with
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency)

919­
541­
2803
(
voice)
919­
685­
3021
(
fax)

mark.
evangelista@
noaa.
gov
evangelista.
mark@
epa.
gov
Mailing
Address:
NOAA
Air
Policy
Support
Branch
EMAD
­
AQMG
Mail
Drop
D­
243­
01
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711[
attachment
"
Complete
BART
CALPUFF
­
23
runs.
xls"
deleted
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US]
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
on
06/
08/
2005
01:
48
PM
­­­­­

Mark
Evangelista/
RTP/
USEPA/
US
06/
03/
2005
02:
50
PM
T
o
afraas@
omb.
eop.
gov,
aflynn@
omb.
eop.
gov,
Jeff
Holmstead/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Bill
Wehrum/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Steve
Page/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Peter
Tsirigotis/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Lydia
Wegman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Tyler
Fox/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Joe
Paisie/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Desmond
Bailey/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Brian
Orndorff/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Todd
Hawes/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Lea
Anderson/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Brian
Timin/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Warren
Peters/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Eric
Ginsburg/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
c
c
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
Corrections
to
CALPUFF
Runs
for
BART
Yesterday
we
discovered
an
error
in
calculating
the
emission
rates
for
NOX
and
PM
for
Runs
1,3,4,5,6.
This
spreadsheet
contains
the
complete
23
runs,
with
the
corrected
runs
in
place.

[
attachment
"
BART_
CALPUFF­
ALL
Runs­
Correction­
1.
xls"
deleted
by
Kathy
Kaufman/
RTP/
USEPA/
US]

This
table
summarizes
the
corrections
made
to
the
emission
rate
inputs:

Erroneous
Corrected
Run
SO2
NOx
PM
SO2
NOx
PM
1
10,000
3,570
50
10,000
3,500
50
3
5,000
1,785
25
5,000
3,500
50
4
5,000
3,125
25
5,000
6,250
50
5
1,000
357
5
1,000
3,500
50
6
1,000
625
5
1,000
6,250
50
These
tables
summarize
the
differences
that
result
from
the
corrected
emission
inputs:
Days
Above
ddv
Threshold:
5­
yr.
Average
ddv
(
km)
Run
1
Run
3
Run
4
Threshold
Distance
Error
Correct
Error
Correct
Error
Correct
Erro
0.1
50
116
116
83
95
189
214
1
0.1
100
97
98
61
74
168
191
0.1
200
72
72
43
50
78
101
0.5
50
36
29
13
18
36
62
0.5
100
24
23
9
11
25
56
0.5
200
13
13
5
7
7
15
1.0
50
12
12
3
5
12
25
1.0
100
8
8
2
3
5
14
1.0
200
4
4
1
1
2
4
Ten
Highest
ddv
Values
for
200
km
(
5­
yr.
Average)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Run
1
Error
2.17
1.39
1.29
1.11
0.98
0.93
0.79
0.74
Correct
2.16
1.39
1.28
1.10
0.98
0.93
0.79
0.73
Run
3
Error
1.14
0.72
0.66
0.57
0.50
0.47
0.40
0.37
Correct
1.31
0.85
0.76
0.65
0.58
0.54
0.49
0.45
Run
4
Error
1.47
1.09
0.82
0.67
0.59
0.54
0.50
0.46
Correct
2.19
1.67
1.29
1.03
0.93
0.82
0.74
0.70
Run
5
Error
0.24
0.15
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.08
Correct
0.66
0.49
0.40
0.34
0.28
0.25
0.24
0.22
Run
6
Error
0.30
0.22
0.16
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.10
0.09
Correct
1.73
1.31
1.03
0.85
0.73
0.64
0.57
0.54
