1
GENERAL
COMMENTS
On
June
29,
2004,
U.
S.
EPA
responded
to
states
on
recommendations
made
in
February
for
designations
of
areas
under
the
new
fine
particulate
standards.
In
that
response,
EPA
states
that:
 
Consistent
with
the
Clean
Air
Act,
this
letter
is
to
notify
you
that
based
on
the
information
contained
in
your
submittal,
EPA
intends
to
make
modifications
to
recommended
designations
and
boundaries
in
your
State. 
Although
U.
S.
EPA
had
previously
issued
specific
guidance
on
information
and
documentation
that
was
expected
in
states 
first
round
submittals,
EPA
did
not
use
information
provided
by
states
in
developing
its
June
29
response.
In
fact,
EPA
used
very
different
information
and
methodologies
in
developing
those
proposals.

In
its
April
and
June
2003
guidance
on
methodologies
and
emissions
data
used
in
making
recommendations
under
the
PM2.5
standard,
EPA
outlined
the
importance
of
having
  
an
available
emissions
data
set
that
can
be
shared
and
used
by
all
parties
involved
in
the
process
of
defining
boundaries. 
In
order
to
have
comparable
emissions
data
for
all
areas
under
review,
the
1999
National
Emissions
Inventory
(
NEI)
was
used
in
developing
Kentucky s
February
2004
submittal,
as
recommended
by
EPA.
However,
in
EPA s
June
2004
response
back
to
states,
EPA
stated
it
had
used
the
2001
NEI
data.
This
dataset
has
still
not
been
made
available
to
states
for
review.
States
have
had
no
opportunity
to
review
the
emissions
data,
nor
the
methodology
by
which
EPA
 
grew 
the
emissions
from
the
1999
NEI.
Despite
EPA s
inconsistent
approach,
Kentucky
took
the
initiative
and
used
the
most
recent
emissions
inventory
available
in
order
to
show
changes
in
emissions
levels
in
specific
areas.
This
was
very
important
in
showing
where
additional
emissions
reductions
had
occurred
within
a
specific
geographic
region.

Two
of
the
components
EPA
used
in
their
analysis
of
areas
were
county
level
emissions
estimates
for
carbon
and
crustal
emissions.
EPA
used
the
SMOKE
model
information
from
the
Clear
Skies
modeling
that
was
based
on
the
1996
NEI
to
generate
this
data.
Using
this
modeled
data,
especially
with
1996
information
as
the
basis,
is
questionable
at
best
and
should
not
be
used
in
this
analysis.

Weighted
Emissions
Score
The
Commonwealth
was
surprised
to
learn
that
EPA
had
employed
the
use
of
a
 
weighted
emissions
scoring 
process
to
evaluate
counties
for
emissions
contributions
to
an
area
attainment
problem.
At
no
time
did
U.
S.
EPA
offer
information
concerning
this
methodology.
Further,
EPA
did
not
afford
the
states
the
opportunity
to
provide
input
on
the
appropriateness
of
or
the
science
behind
this
methodology.
This
approach
was
revealed
in
late
May
2004,
a
full
three
months
after
states
had
been
required
to
submit
boundary
recommendations
to
EPA.
Taking
this
approach,
especially
at
such
a
late
date,
is
not
only
contrary
to
boundary
guidance
provided
to
states
by
U.
S.
EPA,
but
insults
the
established
designation
process
which
allows
states
to
use
their
thorough
knowledge
of
the
monitoring
network
and
local
and
regional
circumstances
to
make
those
designations.
A
full
detailed
explanation
of
the
origin
2
of
the
data
and
how
EPA
has
used
the
scoring
methodology
has
still
not
been
released
for
review.

Given
the
facts
presented
above,
the
Commonwealth
must
go
on
record
as
being
strongly
opposed
to
the
use
of
this
process.

However,
since
EPA
has
utilized
the
weighted
emission
scores
in
its
PM2.5
response
letter
to
the
states,
it
still
remains
important
to
document
the
problems
that
exist
with
the
methodology
used
by
EPA
in
determining
those
weighted
emission
scores:

 
EPA
did
not
include
adjacent
county
(
i.
e.,
county
outside
the
MSA)
emissions
into
the
total
emissions
for
an
area
when
calculating
the
weighted
emissions
score.
The
weighted
emissions
score,
in
some
instances
for
counties
within
the
MSA,
would
have
been
drastically
different
if
all
counties
emissions
had
been
included
in
calculating
the
weighted
emissions
scores.

 
EPA s
choice
of
regional
speciation
monitors
must
be
questioned.
EPA,
has
provided
no
explanation
how
it
determined
 
appropriate 
regional
monitoring
sites
to
use
in
the
weighted
emissions
scoring
process.
This
eliminates
states
air
quality
agencies
from
having
any
input
on
the
appropriateness
of
those
sites.
States
have
 
background 
monitors
located
to
determine
background
pollutant
levels.
For
EPA
to
ignore
the
availability
of
area
specific
information,
or
request
input
from
states
on
the
appropriateness
of
using
one
site
versus
another,
is
shortsighted.
It
stands
to
reason
that
an
in­
state
regional
background
monitor
would
have
been
more
representative
of
the
area
than
a
monitor
located
in
another
state.
This
could
have
drastic
impacts
on
the
results
obtained
from
the
analysis.

 
EPA
used
the
SMOKE
model
information
from
the
Clear
Skies
modeling
that
was
based
on
the
1996
NEI
to
generate
the
total
carbon
and
crustal
components
of
the
emissions
data
used
in
their
analyses.
This
data
was
used
in
an
attempt
to
generate
urban
excess
in
the
weighted
emissions
score
calculation.
This
approach
is
subjective
at
best.

 
The
use
of
a
cumulative
percentage
roll­
up
of
the
weighted
emissions
scores
is
inherently
flawed
since
it
causes
the
inclusion
of
counties
that
have
scores
that
are
significantly
lower
than
the
top
scoring
counties
in
an
area.
The
cumulative
roll­
up
is
purely
an
arbitrary
mathematical
exercise
that
does
not
take
into
account
important
information
(
e.
g.
geographic
location,
predominant
wind
patterns,
future
national
control
measures,
etc.)
that
should
be
considered
in
making
PM2.5
nonattainment
designations.

 
EPA
has
still
not
supplied
the
speciation
data
nor
the
timeframes
used
in
their
analysis
for
the
background
monitor
sites
used
in
the
regional
analysis.
3
 
Other
national
studies
performed
have
taken
a
different
approach
in
determining
source
apportionment.
Of
particular
note
are
conclusions
contained
in
2003
National
Air
Quality
and
Emissions
Trends
Report
that
compares
the
percent
difference
in
PM
constituency
from
regionally
representative
monitors
and
urban
monitors.
While
this
approach
on
the
front
end
is
similar
to
the
methodology
EPA
used,
EPA
went
a
step
further
in
attempting
to
use
that
data
to
correlate
with
actual
emissions
within
a
set
geographic
area.
Of
a
more
specific
concern,
when
reviewing
regional
background
PM
constituency
compared
with
urban
data,
sulfates
appear
to
make
up
a
small
percentage
of
urban
excess.
We
believe
this
shows
that
sulfates
are
a
regional
problem
and
that
the
proposed
regional
controls
of
SO2
should
alleviate
the
problem.
The
second
concern
is
that
carbon
mass
seems
to
make
up
the
largest
percentage
of
the
urban
excess
and
it
appears
that
mobile
sources
are
a
major
contributor
to
PM2.5
levels
in
our
urban
areas.
With
the
proposed
federal
changes
to
fuels
and
engine
requirements,
contributions
from
this
sector
will
also
be
lowered
within
the
next
few
years.

Additional
Regional/
National
Controls
EPA
has
finalized
or
is
in
the
process
of
finalizing
several
new
control
initiatives
that
are
designed
to
lower
emissions
that
contribute
to
PM2.5
levels.
The
implementation
dates
for
many
of
these
initiatives
will
begin
within
the
next
two
years
and
in
many
instances,
will
be
in
place
well
before
control
plan
submittal
deadlines
or
attainment
dates.
This
fact
should
lead
to
the
conclusion
that
greater
caution
should
be
exercised
before
saddling
an
area
with
a
nonattainment
designation
when
no
local
control
strategies
will
be
available
or
required.

Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule
(
CAIR)/
BART
In
the
June
29,
2004,
response
to
Kentucky,
EPA
has
proposed
nonattainment
designations
for
several
counties,
either
within
the
MSA
or
adjacent
to
an
MSA,
due
to
the
location
of
a
power
plant
within
their
borders.

The
May
5,
2004,
proposed
BART
rule
states
on
page
25204
that
 
Based
on
our
current
evaluation,
we
believe
the
IAQR
rule,
as
proposed,
is
clearly
better
than
BART
for
those
affected
EGUs
in
the
affected
States
which
we
propose
to
cover
under
the
IAQR.
We
thus
expect
that
the
final
IAQR
would
satisfy
the
BART
requirements
for
affected
EGUs
that
are
covered
pursuant
to
the
final
IAQR .
Per
this
EPA
finding
regarding
PM
and
EGUs
under
the
IAQR/
BART,
EPA
should
not
include
counties
in
PM2.5
nonattainment
areas
because
they
contain
a
power
plant.
EPA
has
determined
that
the
IAQR
(
i.
e.,
CAIR)
will
achieve
the
necessary
PM
air
quality
improvements.
4
Upon
implementation
of
the
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule
(
CAIR)
SO2
emissions
from
power
plants
will
be
reduced
nationwide
by
3.6
million
tons
in
2010
(
approximately
40
percent
below
current
levels)
and
by
another
2
million
tons
per
year
when
the
rules
are
fully
implemented
(
approximately
70
percent
below
current
levels).
NOx
emissions
would
be
cut
by
1.5
million
tons
nationwide
in
2010
and
1.8
million
tons
annually
in
2015
(
about
65
percent
below
today s
levels).

To
designate
counties
nonattainment
because
they
have
a
power
plant
in
them
would
place
additional
hardships
on
the
county
and
would
be
counterproductive
since
the
EGUs
in
the
entire
region
will
be
mandated
by
EPA s
CAIR
rule
to
significantly
control
their
PM
precursor
emissions
without
being
designated
nonattainment.
In
addition,
Non­
EGUs
in
Kentucky
will
also
be
required
to
put
on
BART
controls,
which
will
further
achieve
PM
air
quality
improvements.

Mobile
Controls
In
many
areas,
EPA
based
potential
nonattainment
designations
on
the
supposition
that
population,
commuter
traffic,
or
local
VMT
played
an
important
role
in
determining
potential
impacts
on
PM2.5
levels
within
an
MSA.
It
is
not
feasible
to
designate
a
county
as
nonattainment
if
the
only
reason
an
area
has
been
included
was
due
to
these
population­
based
factors.
With
national
controls
being
implemented
that
would
address
this
contribution,
including
these
counties
as
nonattainment
would
place
additional,
burdensome
planning
requirements
on
these
local
areas
for
no
useful
purpose.
Due
to
the
Tier
2
Vehicle
and
Low
Sulfur
Gasoline,
scheduled
to
be
in
place
by
2006,
average
national
gasoline
sulfur
levels
will
be
90%
lower.
The
new
Low
Sulfur
Diesel
Rule,
scheduled
to
be
phased
in
beginning
in
2007,
along
with
new
clean
engines
operating
requirements
will
reduce
NOx
emissions
by
50%,
and
reduce
PM
emissions
by
more
than
90%.
The
implementation
of
these
new
federal
rules
will
significantly
decrease
the
fine
particulate
contribution
in
and
from
areas
impacted
by
population
and
transportation
factors.

The
final
compliance
dates
under
the
CAIR
and
BART
rules
are
set
for
relatively
the
same
time
frame
as
attainment
of
the
 
presumed 
attainment
date
for
PM2.5
levels.
As
seen
with
all
control
programs,
emission
reductions
are
seen
in
advance
over
a
broad
time
frame
with
final
compliance
achieved
on
a
specific
date.
Emission
reductions
of
PM
and
precursor
emissions
will
begin
to
take
place
well
in
advance
of
the
final
compliance
dates
for
PM
attainment.

Additionally,
although
final
compliance
for
the
national
engine
and
fuel
improvements
will
take
place
over
several
years
before
being
fully
implemented,
incremental
improvements
will
be
seen
in
the
urban
areas
beginning
within
a
year
after
designations.
5
Continuing
PM
Reductions
in
State
Ambient
data
for
the
period
of
1999­
2004
continues
to
show
a
downward
trend
in
PM2.5
levels
in
Kentucky.
This
improvement
in
PM2.5
levels
is
consistent
with
those
seen
in
the
southeast
during
the
same
time
period.
According
to
a
recent
EPA s
report
on
air
quality
improvements,
PM2.5
levels
have
decreased
18%
in
the
southeastern
U.
S.
since
monitoring
began
in
1999.

It
would
appear
that
consideration
of
this
data
would
be
prudent
in
the
designation
process.
Failure
to
do
so
ignores
the
fact
that
some
areas
in
Kentucky
are
on
track
to
achieve
the
PM2.5
standard
by
the
end
of
2004.

Contradictions
in
the
June
29,
2004
Response
Letter
There
were
many
contradictions
or
inaccuracies
noted
throughout
the
June
29,
letter
from
EPA
 
On
page
3,
the
letter
states
 
Campbell
and
Kenton
Counties 
and
both
counties
part
[
sic]
of
the
Cincinnati
1­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
area
due
to
violating
monitors. 
This
statement
is
incorrect.
On
August
30,
2002,
EPA s
final
rule,
redesignating
the
Kentucky
portion
of
the
Cincinnati­
Hamilton
1­
Hour
Ozone
Nonattainment
Area
to
maintenance,
became
effective.

 
On
page
4,
the
table
that
EPA
utilizes
in
it s
analysis
of
the
weighted
emissions
factor
for
the
area
includes
Montgomery
County,
Ohio.
However,
Montgomery
County,
Ohio
is
not
in
the
MSA,
it
is
in
the
Dayton­
Springfield
MSA,
so
the
emissions
from
this
county
would
skew
the
analysis.

 
Comments
on
page
5
and
page
12
indicate
that
even
though
a
monitor
shows
attainment
with
the
standard,
being
close
to
the
standard
is
a
reason
for
nonattainment
designation.

 
On
page
20,
the
letter
states
 
Although
Pulaski
County
This
factor
did
not
appear
significant
for
the
remaining
counties
listed
in
this
table. 
It
appears
that
a
sentence
ending
is
missing.

 
On
page
22,
the
letter
states
that
Madison
County
  
has
the
largest
number
of
workers
commuting
into
Fayette
County
(
6,870),
which
is
relatively
insignificant
for
such
a
large
county
as
Fayette.
Based
on
the
analysis
for
this
factor,
there
are
no
counties
with
commuting
data
showing
a
potential
to
contribute
to
the
PM
2.5
violations
in
Fayette
County. 
On
page
23,
the
letter
states,
  
no
other
Kentucky
counties,
with
the
exception
of
Madison
County,
have
VMT
and
commuting
data
with
a
potential
to
contribute
to
the
PM
2.5
violations
in
Fayette
County. 
One
page
indicates
that
commuting
data
indicates
no
potential
impact;
the
next
page
states
that
the
commuting
data
indicates
a
potential
impact.
6
Date
Extension
EPA
indicated
in
previous
guidance
its
intention
to
consider
2002­
2004
monitoring
when
making
PM2.5
designations.
Kentucky
feels
that
EPA
should
follow
through
with
its
original
intentions.

Kentucky
believes
that
the
date
for
official
designation
should
be
extended
until
after
the
beginning
of
2005,
instead
of
mid­
November
2004.
This
would
allow
states
to
utilize
the
2004
data,
and
would
provide
the
use
of
the
most
recent
available
data,
a
requirement
that
EPA
consistently
espouses.

Meteorological
Conditions/
Upwind
Counties
The
geographic
location
of
a
county
and
the
historic
prevailing
wind
data
in
an
area
has
an
impact
on
PM2.5
monitored
values.
In
addressing
comments
from
information
presented
in
the
February
2004
recommendations
from
Kentucky,
EPA
claims
that
an
area
may
contribute
to
the
monitored
violation
even
if
it
is
located
downwind
of
another
area,
due
to
this
being
a
 
year­
long 
standard.
EPA
has
previously
made
numerous
references
to
 
upwind
areas
impacting
downwind
areas 
and
 
predominant
wind
patterns. 
This
has
been
the
premise
for
several
control
programs
recently
implemented
by
EPA
and
most
recently
set
the
stage
for
the
CAIR
and
BART
proposals.
Therefore,
if
the
geographic
location
and
predominant
wind
patterns
are
an
important
variable
when
determining
when
and
at
what
levels
PM
impacts
are
seen,
including
at
Class
I
areas,
then
the
same
variable
should
be
taken
into
account
when
EPA
makes
final
PM2.5
designations.

Conclusions
 
EPA
should
abandon
its
approach
of
using
the
weighted
emissions
factor
screening
levels
as
the
sole
reason
to
include
an
area
in
nonattainment.
The
method
used
by
EPA
has
not
been
reviewed
by
states
and
other
interested
parties.
This
study,
while
applying
similar
methodologies
for
parts
of
the
analysis
goes
beyond
comparison
and
looks
for
ways
to
associate
a
regional
pollutant
on
a
localized
level,
without
taking
into
account
other
variables
in
a
geographic
location.

 
EPA
is
in
the
process
of
adopting
CAIR
to
lower
the
regional
concentrations
of
SO2
and
NOx.
New
fuel
and
engine
requirements
to
assist
in
lowering
PM
concentrations
in
our
urban
areas
are
being
implemented
within
the
next
two
years.
EPA s
position
has
been
that
the
implementation
of
these
national/
regional
controls
will
alleviate
PM2.5
problems
in
most
areas
of
the
nation.
To
require
nonattainment
designations
for
 
possible
potential 
contributions
from
these
sectors,
when
control
programs
have
already
been
adopted
to
address
them
is
nothing
more
than
a
unnecessary
paper
exercise
for
state
and
local
agencies
resulting
in
costly
resource
expenditures.

 
As
other
national
studies
have
shown,
urban
PM
levels
can
definitely
be
driven
by
localized
activities.
EPA
needs
to
be
cognizant
of
information
submitted
by
7
states
where
there
appear
to
be
definite
 
pockets 
of
nonattainment
and
an
urban
core
impact
area.
This
can
most
readily
be
seen
where
there
are
monitors
attaining
the
standard
located
within
a
short
distance
of
a
monitor
in
violation.
