Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US 

08/27/2008 10:45 AM

	

To

"King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>

cc

Al McGartland, Alexander Cristofaro/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Charlotte
Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, simon.nathalie@epa.gov, Brian Heninger, Lydia
Wegman, rosalina rodriguez, kathy kaufman, darryl weatherhead,
walton.tom@epa.gov, fann.neal@epa.gov, Charles Fulcher/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,
Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Pb NAAQS RIA analysis data requested at meeting on 8/18









Heidi, here is the supporting data which Art Fraas requested during the
Pb NAAQS RIA cost meeting on 8/18.   The list of requested items is
below, with a brief explanation of what is provided.   Please let Kathy
or I know if you have any questions.

1.	Cost/ton by control measure

This data is provided in the attached excel file.  We have provided the
average cost/ton for each measure applied as part  of the 0.1 ug/m3
identified controls analysis.  

A unique control measure is the combination of the control measure and
the source category to which it is applied.

2.	$/ug for geographic areas where large sources (sources between
10-20km from monitor) were included in the analysis.

The air quality modelers suggested that sources greater than 10
kilometers from the monitor would have no appreciable effect in either
reality or in our simplified distance weighted monitor to emission
source model.

We screened the impact of including large sources located 10 to 20
kilometers from the monitor to see if adding the sources would result in
more attainment with identified control.   For the 0.1 standard the
change only affected three areas.  One of them, Salt Lake, UT, was
already reaching attainment but was overshooting the standard because of
lumpiness of available control options and the addition of large sources
made no significant change.   Adding the sources for Berks, PA reduced
the progress towards attainment.  For Cuyahoga, OH adding the sources
did not change the emission reductions but did lead to a slight
reduction in the baseline air quality after the adjustment for MACTs and
hence the post identified control air quality was slightly better.

Because of these small and sometimes counterintuitive changes and the
likelihood that these sources would neither actually contribute or be
chosen for control we will not pursue a scenario that includes sources
further than 10 kilometers from the monitor.

3.	Number of sources per geographic area

This data is provided in the 2nd tab of the attached excel file.  We
have provided the number of point source emission points included in the
analysis. 

Please note: emission point does not equal the number of plants, as a
single plant may have many emission points.  Also, the number of
emission points does not equal the number of emission points with
controls applied to them.

Ron Evans

Leader, Air Benefit & Cost Group

HEID/OAQPS/OAR/EPA

Mail Drop C-439-02

919-541-5488

919-541-0839 fax

