VANDERBURGH COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

ROOM 127 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX

ONE NORTHWEST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BLVD

EVANSVILLE, INDIANA 47708-1888

\(812\) 435-5764

o3office@evansville.net

# 

> May 3^rd^, 2002

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center

Docket Number A-2001-31

U.S. EPA

401 M Street, SW.

Room M-1500 (Mail Code 6102)

Washington, DC 20460

To Whom It May Concern:

As Vanderburgh County Ozone Officer (Evansville, Indiana), I submit
these written comments as a follow up to my participation in discussions
regarding the 8-hr ozone NAAQS implementation options at the public
meeting in Alexandria on 3/5/02 and with the USEPA during Stappa/Alapco
conference calls.

I am concerned that instead of working on an implementation plan that
would provide the flexibility to choose the appropriate measures needed
to address the air quality problems in any particular ozone
nonattainment area (however it may be so designated), the USEPA's main
concern is that the plan be legal given the constraints of the Clean Air
Act, and the DC Circuit's and US Supreme Court's decisions. If
addressing these legal constraints precludes an implementation strategy
that is sound with respect to our knowledge of monitored ambient ozone,
precursor emissions inventories, ozone photo chemistry, and obtainable
(re: engineering and cost) emissions controls, then I believe any
attempt to initiate and implement designation and control plans for the
8-hr ozone NAAQS be dropped at this time. I support a scientifically
sound (politically and legally benign) plan that provides for ozone
attainment and healthful air for all Americans. That may be possible
given your working constraints, however I do not believe a clear,
coherent, executable proposal has yet to materialize. I don't claim to
present one here. Instead, I provide comment to emphasize my position on
relevant issues. These positions are based on my knowledge and analysis
of the air quality problems in Vanderburgh County (SW Indiana) and our
Tri-State Area.

There are four issues I believe to be most critical to the development
of a sound implementation strategy. These include, in order of what I
believe to be relative importance, designation area size, control
measures, nonattainment classification, and NSR and PSD. I believe that
after these basic nonattainment issues are addressed and reasonable
expectations are proposed for the implementation of the standard, the
others, including SIP submittal, conformity, attainment date, and rate
of progress requirements will fall into place.

Clearly there are counties around the country that contribute to
nonattainment problems that will not be designated nonattainment given
current guidance (8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Guidance on Nonattainment
Designations, March 28, 2000). In addition, the ozone air quality
problems in monitored violation areas around the country are not the
same. The amounts and proportions of contributing sources differ from
place to place. Mobile sources are problematic in some areas, while
point sources may be more so in others. Point and area source industries
vary depending on geography. Transported pollution is likely a
ubiquitous problem, yet one that is not easily quantified.

It is extremely important that the implementation plan rule for the 8-hr
ozone NAAQS gets to the root of our nation's ozone problems rather than
merely address the legalities that plague it. What follows are some
thoughts and suggestions that I trust will be considered.

1\. Should the 8-hr ozone standard finally be deemed lawful, and steps
towards it's implementation initiated, the 1-hr ozone NAAQS should be
revoked ASAP. With a single health based goal, attainment of the 8-hour
standard nationwide, there is no reason to retain requirements for the
1-hr standard as well. Keeping both standards in place will only
complicate the implementation process and confuse the public.
Backsliding should not occur if current regulatory programs are
continued.

2\. Final deadlines for ozone SIPs should be reconciled with PM~2.5~
SIPs. This might cause some delay. Guarantees from the ongoing
implementation of regional and national controls and the expectation of
state and local measures should insure that emissions reductions will
come to pass.

3\. There is no need to force the rapid promulgation of designations in
order to inform the public of the state of our air quality. This
information is readily available where monitors exist. I see a bigger
problem created by our current "monitoring disincentive." According to
model results and interpolations between monitor data, there are many
areas where people are likely to be exposed to ambient air in exceedance
of the 8-hr standard. Yet people in those areas believe they are
breathing clean air because there is no monitor data in their town that
proves their ambient air is anything less than pure. Nonattainment
designations should be based on both monitored violations as well as
emissions contributions and modeling. At this time, I don't believe a
reasonable method has been proposed to account for modeled violations
and "upwind" contributions to monitored nonattainment. I feel quite
strongly that these issues need to be addressed before designations are
made and reflected in final designations.

4\. Clear guidance or regulation must be provided concerning transport
issues. The quantification of transport is enigmatic. The relationship
between ozone and wind speed is strong support that transport impacts an
area, however, it does not quantify the magnitude of the problem. Source
apportionment model estimates can quantify transport, yet are based on
assumed emissions and meteorological inputs and photochemical
algorithms, and have not been computed for all areas (Vanderburgh County
for example). Furthermore, the USEPA's Guidelines on Air Quality Models
(40CFR Part 51 Appendix W) is not current. To my knowledge UAM-V and
CAMx are out, and Models-3 CMAQ is in. The USEPA needs to take a lead on
model developments especially because all interested parties may not
have access to adequate resources to perform modeling at the level
needed to determine the root causes of their air quality problems.

5\. Nonattainment areas (or areas of influence or ..... etc.) need to
encompass and embrace all emissions sources that have potential to
impact ozone air quality problems. The USEPA upheld that upwind areas,
as far away as 600 miles, impacted ozone attainment. Why then am I not
able to prove that large sources within 25-100 miles affect my air
quality? This fact is practically self evident, yet source areas
adjacent to or near to my county line may not suffer the consequence or
bear any burden in reaching solutions to a problem they contribute to.

I propose that nonattainment areas, or whatever else they might be
called, be larger than counties or MSAs. As a default, you might start
with the Air Quality Control Regions described in 40CFR Part 81 and
possibly adjust them to reflect the state of our knowledge about
airsheds. I believe that the Ozone Transport Regions proposed by the OTC
(April 22, 2002) are too large to get down to addressing the root causes
of our ozone problems. Emissions reductions must be made over areas
larger than traditional non-attainment areas, and targets for emissions
reductions need to be determined by examining the sources within an
area's emissions inventory. All inclusive multi-state nonattainment
areas would make this process cumbersome and might not allow for the
flexibility needed to maximize the air quality benefits of emissions
control regulations.

6\. Should section 181 Table 1 or an 8-hr ozone translation of Table 1
be used to impose the mandatory requirements and control measures of
subpart 2, some modification of the requirements must be made. Our
knowledge of our Country's ozone problems and emission control
technologies have been dramatically improved since the Clean Air Act was
amended in 1990, therefore, any plan promulgated in 2002 (or 2003 etc.)
needs to reflect these improvements. For instance Stage II vapor
recovery is probably not necessary as onboard vapor recovery is
introduced into our fleets, and emission reductions from inspection and
maintenance programs may not live up to our previous expectations and
may not be cost effective.

I do believe there should be some sort of graded classification scheme
(e.g. marginal, moderate, serious etc.) that reflects the magnitude of
the nonattainment problem (whether it be by monitored air quality or
emissions inventory), however I am uncomfortable with a simple
translation of the existing Table 1. Perhaps cutoff points could be
determined using modeling information. For instance, a marginal area is
expected to attain with only NOx SIP call reductions, a moderate with
NOx SIP call plus Tier II reductions, a serious with NOx SIP plus Tier
II plus local VOC controls, and so on. Classification levels should
reflect stepped emission reduction needs, not only ozone design values.

7\. Finally, I feel it necessary that strong New Source Review
(including Prevention of Significant Deterioration) provisions remain as
an integral component of ozone NAAQS implementation because this program
is an important first line of defense with respect to air quality
deterioration. New sources must be required to incorporate modern
technology and emission controls. To prevent ever expanding emissions
inventories, offsets and/or trading scenarios should be developed within
air quality control regions (or expanded nonattainment areas).

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on ozone NAAQS implementation
scenarios. The implementation of the new 8-hr ozone standard is an
extremely important and complicated issue that will likely have a
profound impact on Vanderburgh County and all who live and breath in the
Tri-State Region. I will undoubtedly submit additional comments as the
process moves forward.

Please contact me should you need clarification of my positions or would
like to discuss the issues in more detail.

Sincerely,

Joanne Alexandrovich, Ph.D.

Vanderburgh County Ozone Officer