west virginia department of environmental protection



# Appendix Q Public Participation Documentation

Promoting a healthy environment.

### [This page intentionally left blank.]

## Table of Contents Public Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Q - 5 Public Notice 7-17-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Q - 7 Public Notice 9-25-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Q - 9
Transmittal Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Q- 11
Transmittal Letter to EPA 7-16-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Q - 13
Transmittal Letter to EPA 9-24-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Q - 15
Transmittal Letter to EPA 11-4-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Q - 17 Legal Ads (7-17-09) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Q - 19 State Register 7-17-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Q - 21 Charleston Gazette 7-17-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Q - 25 Legal Ads (9-25-09) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Q - 27 State Register 9-25-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Q - 29 Charleston Gazette 9-25-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Q - 33 Public Hearing Sign-In Sheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Q - 35 Hearing Sign-In Sheet 8-18-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Q - 37 Hearing Sign-In Sheet 10-27-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Q - 39 Public Hearing Transcripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Q - 41 Hearing Transcript 8-18-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Q - 43 Hearing Transcript 10-27-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Q - 49 Public Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Q - 55 EPA Comments 8-25-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Q - 59 EPA Comments 9-2-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Q - 69 Response to Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page Q - 71

### [This page intentionally left blank.]

# Public Notice

### [This page intentionally left blank.]

### NOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENT AND HEARING The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is offering an opportunity for public comment, and will hold a public hearing, on a proposed revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 

### ). In this proposed revision to the SIP, DEP demonstrates that the Charleston, WV PM 2.5 

### nonattainment area, comprising Kanawha and Putnam Counties, will meet the annual PM 2.5 

### standard by the mandatory date of April 2010. Further, DEP shows that the expected air quality improvement will be achieved through federally enforceable emission reduction measures. The area was designated as nonattainment with the 1997 PM 2.5 

### annual National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in the January 5, 2005 Federal Register [70 FR 944], effective April 5, 2005. Once finalized, the West Virginia 1997 Fine Particle (PM 2.5 

### ) Attainment Demonstration and State Implementation Plan for the Charleston, We st Virginia Nonattainment Area, Comprising Kanawha and Putnam Counties will be submitted to U. S. EPA for approval and incorporation as a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Written and oral comments will be accepted until the close of the public hearing and will be made part of the formal record. The public hearing shall be held in the Dolly Sods Conference Room beginning at 6:00 p.m. on August 18, 2009 at DEP headquarters: 601 57 th

### Street SE, Charleston WV 25304. Written comments will also be accepted for inclusion in the formal record by mail, facsimile (304-926-0479), e-mail (Tammy.L.Mowrer@wv.gov) or other delivery to th e Division of Air Quality if received by the close of business on August 18, 2009. Send written comments to be included in the formal record to John A. Benedict, Director, Division of Air Quality at the address above. Please identify the document to which the comments apply, the commenter’s name, address, and telephone number. Copies of the proposed SIP revision may be viewed on weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Division of Air Quality, 601 57 th

### SE, Charleston, WV 25304. The proposed SIP revision may also be accessed via the following web address: http://www.wvdep.org/item.cfm?ssid=8&ss1id=376

### [This page intentionally left blank.]

### NOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENT AND HEARING The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is offering an opportunity for public comment, and will hold a public hearing, on one specific element of a proposed revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 

### ). In the proposed revision to the SIP, DEP demonstrates that the Charleston, WV PM 2.5 

### nonattainment area, comprising Kanawha and Putnam Counties, will meet the 1997 PM 2.5 

### standard by the mandatory date of April 2010. Further, DEP shows that the expected air quality improvement will be achieved through federally enforceable emission reduction measures. The area was designated as nonattainment with the 1997 PM 2.5 

### NAAQS in the January 5, 2005 Federal Register [70 FR 944], effective April 5, 2005. DEP previously offered a 30 day comment period on this proposed SIP revision and only received comments from the U.S. EPA. In response, we have established PM 2.5 

### and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Motor Vehicle Emissi ons Budgets (MVEB) for highway vehicles; significantly revised the Transportation Conformity chapter (Chapter 2.5); and are reopening the comment period only with respect to this chapter of the proposed SIP revision. Once finalized, the West Virginia 1997 Fine Particle (PM 2.5 

### ) Attainment Demonstration and State Implementation Plan for the Charleston, We st Virginia Nonattainment Area, Comprising Kanawha and Putnam Counties will be submitted to U. S. EPA for approval and incorporation as a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Written and oral comments will be accepted until the close of the public hearing and will be made part of the formal record. The public hearing will be held in the Dolly Sods Conference Room beginning at 6:00 p.m. on October 27, 2009 at DEP headquarters: 601 57 th

### Street SE, Charleston WV 25304. Written comments will also be accepted for inclusion in the formal record by mail, facsimile (304-926-0479), e-mail (Tammy.L.Mowrer@wv.gov) or other delivery to th e Division of Air Quality if received by the close of business on October 27, 2009. Send written comments to be included in the formal record to John A. Benedict, Director, Divisi on of Air Quality at the address above. Please identify the document to which the comments apply, the commenter’s name, address, and telephone number. Copies of the proposed SIP revision may be viewed on weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Division of Air Quality, 601 57 th

### SE, Charleston, WV 25304. The proposed SIP revision may also be accessed via the following web address: http://www.wvdep.org/item.cfm?ssid=8&ss1id=376

### [This page intentionally left blank.]

# Transmittal Letters

### [This page intentionally left blank.]west virginia department of environmental protection

-- - - - Division of Air Quality 601 57'h Street SE Charleston, WV 25304 Phone: 304.926.0475 

## + Fax: 304.926.0479 Joe Manchin 111, Governor Randy C. Huffman, Cabinet Secretary www.wvdep.org



### July 16,2009 Diana Esher, Director Air Protection Division U.S. EPA Region I11 1650 Arch Street (3AP00) Philadelphia, PA 19 103-2029

Re: Proposed Revision to the West Virginia SIP to Demonstrate Attainment of the 1997 PM,,, NAAQS for the Charleston, WV Nonattainment Area

Dear Ms. Esher: The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality is herein submitting for your review and comment the enclosed 

### West Virginia 1997 Fine Particle (PM,.,) Attainment Demonstration and State Implementation Plan for the Charleston, West Virginia Nonattainment Area, Comprising Kanawha and Putnam Counties (proposed). We are providing a hard copy of the primary narrative but the supporting documentation is being supplied on a digital compact disk because of the extremely large volume of a comparable print out. As you know, the Charleston area, comprising Kanawha and Putnam Counties, was designated as nonattainment with the 1997 PM,,, National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in the January 5,2005 

### Federal Register [70 

### FR 9441, effective April 5,2005. Upon finalization, the State of West Virginia plans to request that the EPA approve the Charleston attainment demonstration, with a projected attainment date of April 2010, as a revision to the state implementation plan (SIP).



### Promoting a healthy environment.

### Letter to Diana Esher July 16,2009 Page 2

Written and oral comments will be accepted until the close of the public hearing and will be made part of the formal record. The public hearing shall be held beginning at 6:00 p.m. on August 18,2009 in the Dolly Sods Conference Room of the DEP Headquarters, 601 57'h Street, Charleston, West Virginia 25304. Written comments will also be accepted for inclusion in the formal record by mail, facsimile (304-926-0479), e-mail 

### (Tamm~.L.MowrerOwv.crov) or other delivery to the Division of Air Quality if received by the close of business on August 18,2009.
Send written comments to be included in the formal record to John A. Benedict, Director, Division of Air Quality via any of the mechanisms noted above. Mail should be sent to the address shown in the letterhead. Please identify the document to which the comments apply, the commenter's name, address, and telephone number
If you or your staff have any questions, have any difficulty reading the CD or would like additional information, please feel free to contact Fred Durham, Deputy Director, at the address shown in the letterhead or at (304) 926-0499, ext. 1242.

y~ohn A.Benedict, Director Division of Air Quality

Enclosures



### Promoting a healthy environment.west virginia department of environmental protection

Division of Air Quality 601 57" Street SE Charleston, WV 25304 Phone: 304.926.0475 

### + Fax: 304.926.0479 Joe Manchin 111, Governor Randy C. Huffman, Cabinet Secretaq www.wvdep.org 

### September 24,2009 Diana Esher, Acting Director Air Protection Division U.S. EPA Region I11 1650 Arch Street (3AP00) Philadelphia, PA 19 103-2029

Re: Proposed Revision to the West Virginia SIP to Demonstrate Attainment of the 1997 PM2., NAAQS for the Charleston, WV Nonattainment Area 

## - Reopening Comment Period on Transportation Conformity Chapter

Dear Ms. Esher:
The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality is offering an opportunity for public comment, and will hold a public hearing, on one specific element of a proposed revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM,,,). In the proposed revision to the SIP, DEP demonstrates that the Charleston, WV PM2,,nonattainment area, comprising Kanawha and Putnam Counties, will meet the 1997 PM2., standard by the mandatory date of April 201 0. We are herein submitting for your review and comment the enclosed 

### West Virginia 1997 Fine Particle (PM,, ,) 

### Attainment Demonstration and State Implementation Plan for the Charleston, West Virginia Nonattainment Area, Comprising Kanawha and Putnam Counties (proposed September 2009). DEP previously offered a 30 day comment period on the proposed SIP revision and only received comments from the U.S. EPA. In response, we have established PM,., and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEB) for highway vehicles; significantly revised the Transportation Conformity chapter (Chapter 2.5); and are reopening the comment period only with respect to this chapter of the proposed SIP revision.
Written and oral comments will be accepted until the close of the public hearing and will be made part of the formal record. The public hearing will be held beginning at 6:00 p.m. on October 27,2009 in the Dolly Sods Conference Room of the DEP Headquarters, 601 57th Street, Charleston, West Virginia 25304. Written comments will also be accepted for inclusion in the formal record by mail, facsimile (304-926-0479), e-mail 

### (Tammv.L.Mowrer@,wv.qov) or other delivery to the Division of Air Quality if received by the close of business on October 27,2009.



### Promoting a healthy environment,

### Letter to Diana Esher September 24,2009 Page 2

Send written comments to be included in the formal record to John A. Benedict, Director, Division of Air Quality via any of the mechanisms noted above. Mail should be sent to the address shown in the letterhead. Please identify the document to which the comments apply, the commenter's name, address, and telephone number
If you or your staff have any questions or would like additional information, please feel free to contact Fred Durham, Deputy Director, at the address shown in the letterhead or at (304) 926- 0499, ext. 1242.

/~ohn A. Benedict, Director Division of Air Quality

Enclosures



### Promoting a healthy environment.

### west virginia department of environmental protection

- -- -- -- -- - - -- - - Executive Office Joe Manch~n 111, Governor 601 5Th Street SE Randy C Hufhan, Cabinet Secretary CharIeston, WV 25304 www wvdep org 

### November 4,2009
Mr. William C. Early Acting Regional Administrator U.S. EPA, Region I11 (3RA00) 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19 103-2029 Re: Final Charleston, WV 

### PM2,, Attainment Demonstration State Implementation Plan (SIP) Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule (40 CFR 5 1, Subpart 

### Z) Dear Administrator Early: In a letter dated July 16,2009, this agency submitted to the Air Division a proposed revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of West Virginia to meet its obligations under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Federal Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule, for the Charleston, WV 

### PM2., nonattainment area (1 997 standard). Based upon comments received from EPA, DEP made revisions; reopened the comment period and notified EPA in a letter dated September 24,2009. We have now completed the public participation process and are herein submitting the final SIP. We certifj7 that the public hearing required by 40 CFR 55 1.102(a) was held in accordance with the applicable state laws and the requirements of 40 CFR 55 1.102(d).
Please be advised that pursuant to 40 CFR 5 1.1 16 (Data Availability), and in consultation with EPA Region 3 senior staff, certain detailed data and calculations are being provided in electronic form but not in hard copy. The State of West Virginia requests that the EPA approve this Charleston attainment demonstration, with a projected attainment date of April 201 0, as a revision to the SIP. If you have any questions regarding this submittal or require additional information, please contact John A. Benedict, Director of the Division of Air Quality, at (304) 926-0462. 

# -9- Randy C. 

### H an Cabinet Secretary

Enclosure

cc: Judy Katz, EPA John A. Benedict, DEP

Promoting 

### a healthy environment.

### [This page intentionally left blank.]

# Legal Ads (7-17-09)

### [This page intentionally left blank.]

# WEST VIRGINIA REGISTER

Volume XXVI
Issue 29 July 17,2009 Pages 1306

- 1353

A Weekly Publication

Administrative Law Division Judy Cooper, Manager

Natalie E. Tennant Secretary of State Administrative Law Division Bldg. 1, Suite 157K 1900 Kanawha Blvd. E. Charleston, 

### WV 25305-0770 (304) 558-6000 www.wvsos.com 

## Published by the Office of the Secretary of State

CONTENTS I. Chronological Index II. Open Government Meetings Listing
III. Price List
IV. Rule Monitor
V. Notices a. Legislative Rules b. Interpretive Rules
c. Procedural Rules d. Emergency Rules e. Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee VI. Legislative Interims
VII. Orders VIII. Ethics Commission Opinions

IX. Office of Tax Appeal Decisions
X. Other Documents or Information Filed
XI. Publication Deadlines and Publication DatesAGENCY
Accountancy, VI/V Board of Administration Agriculture Athletic Commission, WV State City Hospital, Inc Coal Heritage Highway Authority Commerce, Dept. of - Div. of Forestry Conservation Agency, WV Consolidated Public Retirement Board Corrections, WV Div. of Counseling Board Dental Examiners, WV Board of DEP Development Office, WV Developmental Disabilities Council, WV Education Film Office, WVlDivision of Tourism Forestry, Division of-DOC Grievance Report Health Care Authority Highland Hospital Association Human Rights Commission Information Technology Council Infrastructure & Jobs Development Council Insurance Commission Licensed Practical Nurses Lottery Miners' Health, Safety & Training Natural Resources Physical Therapy Board Public Defender Corporation 18th Judicial Circuit Public Service Commission Real Estate Appraiser Licensing & Certification Board Real Estate Commission Region 7 Workforce Investment Board Secondary Schools Activities Commission Speech-Pathology and Audiology State Auditor's Office Tax Department Waste Management Wheeling-Ohio County Board of Health WorkForce West Virginia INDEX PAGElS)

1307 1307 1338 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307-8 1347 1308 1350 1308, 1352 1308 1308 1306,1308,1312,1338-9 1309 1309 1351 1306,1312,1339,1344-5,1350 1309 1350 1309 1309 1345-6 1340 1309, 1340-1 1310 1341-2 1310 1310 1310 1342, 1348 1350 1311 1343 1348 1311 1352-3 1349 1311 1311SUBJECT: ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT - - Notice of Statewide Average Nonfarm Payroll Wage for Tax Years Beginning In 2010 Application of CurrentYear Annual Cradlt Allowance

- As stated In subsectfon 11-13Q-7(b) of the W. Va. Code, the amount of aggregate annual credit allowance for the currant taxable year Is allowed as a credit against eighty percentof that portionof the Taxpayer's Statetax liabilitywhich Is attributable to and the direct rasultof the Taxpayer's qualified Investment, and applied against the taxes enumerated in W.Va. Code subsectIons 11-13Q-7(c) through 11-13Q-7(f), both Inclusive, and In the order specffied: Provided, That If the median salary of the new Jobs is higher than the atatewlde average nonfarm payroll wage, as determined annually by the West VirgInia Bureau of Employment Programs, the amountof aggregate annualcredit allowance for the curranttaxableyear la allowed as a credit againstone hundred percentof that portionof the Taxpayer's Statetax liabilitywhich is attributable to and the direct resultof the Taxpayer's qualffied Investment, and shallbe applied, as proVided In W.Va.Code subsections 11-13Q-7(c) through 11-13Q-7(f), both inclusive, and In the order specified. Accordingly, for taxyears beginning dUring calendar year 2010: "Statewide Average Nonfarm Payroll Wage" for purposes of determining the portionof the Taxpayer's Statetax liability againstwhich the Economic Opportunity Tax Creditmaybe applied, Is $35,985. A summary of the applicable annual Statewide Average Nonfarm Payroll Wage criteria, by calendar year,for tax years baglnnlng Inauchyears, follows: CRITERIA NOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENTAND HEARINQU09 JUL 14 PH 4: 50
The WestVirginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)Is**Offering~pf.lrtunlty ~NIA**  public comment, andwillholda public hearing, ona proposed revision to the**~ir~ii'** (IF STATE Implementation Plan(SIP)toattainand maintain the national ambient air quail d'a1'IIs Tor fine particulate matter (PMu>. In this proposed revision to the SIP,DEP demonstrates that the Charleston, WV PM u nonattalnment area, comprising Kanawha and Putnam Counties, will meet the annual PM u standard bythe mandatory date of April2010. Further, DEPshows that the expected air quality Improvement will be achieved through federally enforceable emission reduction measures. The area was designated as nonattalnment withthe 1997 PM u annual National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) In the January S, 2005 Federal RBgister [70 FR 944], effective April S, 2005. Once t1naIlzcd, the West Virginia 1997 FineParticle (PMuJ Attainment Demonstration and StateImplementation Plan/or the Charleston, West Virginia Nonattainment Area. Comprising Kanawha andPutnam Counties will be submitted to U. S. EPAfor approval and Incorporation as a revision to theState Implementation Plan(SIP). Written andoral commenta will be accepted untilthecloseof the publichearingandwill be made part ofthe formal record. Thepublic hearing shallbe heldInthe DollySods Conference Room beginning at 6:00p.m.on August 18, 2009at DEP hcadquartara: 601 57'" Street SE, Charleston WV25304. Written commenta will also be accepted for Inclusion Inthe formal record by mall, facsimile (304-926-0479), e-mail (Tammy.L.Mowrcr@wv.gov)orotherdellverytothe Division of Air Quality if received bythe closeofbuslncsson August 18,2009. Send written comments to be Included Inthe formal record to John A. Benedict, Director, Division of Air Quality at the address above. Please IdentitY the document to whichthe comments apply, the commenter's name, address, and telephone number. Copies of.the proposed SIP revision**~ay** be vlcwed on weekdays between 8:30 am. and 4:30 p.m. at the Division of Air Quality, 601 57'" SE, Charleston, WV25304.The proposed SIP revision mayalso be accessed viathe following web address: http;/{www.wvdc:p.orgJltem&fm1ssld=8&sslld=376 OTHER STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA Department of Revenue State Tax Department Joe Mancbln m Governor

ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE 2009-23 Christopher G. Monis State Tax Commlaloner

CalendarYear Statewide Average Nonfarm Payroll Wage 2003 $27,981 2004 $28,615 2005 $29,284

LEllAL DMSlON, P.D.BOX 1005. CHARLllSTON, WV:I5324005 TELEPHONlI (304) 558-5330 FAX (304) 558-1721[This page intentionally left blank.]LEGAL. AWERTlSEMENT '

The West Virginia Dewrtment of Envlronmentat Protection (DEP) 1s offering an oppartunltv for public comment, and wlll hold a public hearing, on o proposed revision to the State Im lamentation Plan (SIP) 

# Po attain and mainlain the national ambient air quality standards for fine mrticulate matter (PM2.5)' In this proposed revlslon to the SIP. DEP demonstrates that the Charleston, WV PM25 nonattainment area, com- prising Kanowha and Putnam Counties, will meet the annual PM25 standard by the mandato- rv date of April 2010. Further, DEP shows that the expected air quality lmprovement will be achieved through

. feerally enforceable emlsslon re- duction measures. The area was desleyted as nonattalnment wlth the 1997 PM2.5 annual National Ambient Air Quolitv Standard (NAAQS) In the January 5, 2005 Federal Resister [70 FR 9441, effediveAprll5,2005.

Once flnalized, the West Virginia T997 Fine Particle (PM2.5) Attainment Demonstration and State lm~lementatlon Plan for the Charleston. West Virginia Nonottalnment Arm, Corn rising Kanawha and Butnam Counties will be submitted to U. S. EPA for a~~roval and incorwrotlon as a re- vision to the State Imple mentatlon Plan (SIP). Written and oral com- ments will be accepted un- til the close of the publ~c hearing and wlll be made part of the formal record. The public hearlng shall be held in the Dollv Sods Conference Room begin- ning at 6:W a.m. on August 18,2009 at DEP hwdquarters: 601 57b Street SE, Charleston WV 25304. Wr~tten comments w!ll al- K) be accepted for ~nclusion in the formal record by mail, facsimile (304- 92684791, e-mail (Tammv.L.Mowrer@wv.g OV) or other dellvery to the Division of Air Quality if received by the close of busi~ on August 18. 2009. Send written com- ments to be included in the formal record to John A. ~enediti, Director, Division of Air Quality at the address above. Please identify the document to which the comments ap ply, the commenter's name, address, and teleMane number. 1 Copfes of the pro~ed

SIP revision mav be 

## ] viewed on weekdovs between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Division of Air Qualltv. 601 57' SE, Charleston, WV 25304.The pro- posed SIP revislon may also be accessed via the 

### 1 followins web address: 

# I http:!!www.wvde or ~t

etfififi?s_sid=JBs&&=?i6

- TW259)

- 

### ---

### CHARLESTON NEWSPAPERS P.O. Box 2993 Charleston, West Virg~nia 25330 Billing 348-4898 Classified 348-4848 1-800-WVA-NEWS



# I WVDEP AIR QUALITY SANDRA ADKINS
:ILLED 

### 601 57TH ST., SE

TO 

### CHARLESTON WV 25304 USA 

# A LEGAL 

### ADVERTISING INVOICE



# I SALES REP ID I VVJJ INVOICE NBR 

### 598294UUI

Please return this portion with your payment. AMOUNT PAID: Make checks payable to: Charleston Newspapers 

### M INVOICE DATE ACCOUNT NBR 

### u//zu/uY 

### 013644105 I\ II U -2

INVOICE DATE ACCOUNT NBR SALES REP ID INVOICE NBR

State of West Virginja, 

### AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION


## --

. - I, , of 

### u I/LU/UY 

### 013644105 U0Y.j 598294UUl 

### CHARLESTON NEWSPAPERS P 0 Box 2993 Charleston, West Vlrgln~a 25330 Bllllng 348-4898 Classified 348-4848 I-800-WVA-NEWS Legal pricing is based upon 63 words per column inch. FEIN 55-0676079 Each successive insertion is discounted by 25% of the first insertion rate The Daily Mail rate is $.I3 per word, the Charleston Gazette rate is $. 14 per word, and the Metro Putnam rate 1s $. 13 per word.



### THE CHARLESTON GAZETTE, do solemnly swear that the legal notice of: 

### Notice of public comment NET AEQWT


### 74.97

74.97

was duly published in said newspaper(s) at the stated pri
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of GR059 AMOUNT


### 74.97 ISSUE DM+"l' AD TYPE DESCRIPTION PUB 

### [mrnmcE 

### am wxwHAsE 

### ameR t 

# -1 mBER 

### : //l/ AD Sf ZE mu RUN 

# /
RITE LEG 

### U3Y325Y 1XU8SU 8.50 GL 

### 8.82 Notlce ot public corn .398294001

TOTAL INVOICE AMOUNT

# Legal Ads (9-25-09)

### [This page intentionally left blank.]Volume XXVI
Issue 39 Sepurrnber25,2009 Pages 1806

- 1848

A Weekly Publication

Administrative Law Division Judy Cooper, Manager

Natalie E. Tennant Secretary of State Administrative Law DMsion Bldg. 1, Suite 157K 1900 Kanawha Blvd. E. Charieston, VVV**2530~0770** (304) 558-6000 WWW.wvsos.com 

# WEST VIRGINIA REGISTER**-~**
Published by the Office of the Secretary of State

CONTENTS I. Chronological Index II. Open Govemment Meetings Listing
III. Price List
IV. Rule Monitor
V. Notices a. Legislative Rules b. Interpretive Rules
c. ProceduraI Rules d. Emergency Rules e. Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee VI. Legislative Interims
VII. Orders VIII. Ethics Commission Opinions

IX. Office of Tax Appeal Decisions
X. Other Documents or Information Filed
XI. Publication Deadlines and Publication DatesINDEX AGENCY

AccessWV Agriculture Center for Nursing, WV Conservation Agency, WV Consolidated Public Retirement Board Corridor G Regional Development Authority Courthouse Facilities Improvement Authority Culture and History DEP Education Environmental Protection' Ethics Commission**FairShake--Networkilnc.~-~··_~~-_··_----_·__·** Forestry, Division of Funeral Service Examiners, Board of GOHELP HCA Health and Human Resources Health Care Authority Health Enhancement and Lifestyle Planning, Governors Office of Higher Education Policy Commission Highways Information Technology Council Infrastructure & Jobs Development Council McDowell Co Solid Waste Authority Medicine Military Affairs and Public Safety Motor Vehicles Natural Resources, Division of New River Community and Technical College Outdoor Heritage Conservation Fund Board Partnership to Promote Community Well-Being Property Tax Division, Dept. of Revenue Prosecuting Attorneys Institute Pubic Transit, WV Division of Public Works, WV Board of Real Estate Appraiser Licensing and Certification Board Real Estate Division REAP, Environmental Protection, Dept. of Ron Yost Personal Assistance Services Board School Building Auth. of WV Statewide Independent Living Council, WV Tax Department Treasury Investments, Board of Water Resources WorkForce West Virginia PAGE(S)

1807 1833 1807 1807 1807, 1834-5 1807 1807 1807 1807 1807-8 1846 1808

..
_ ..
__ .. ---. ,.'. -"'1808-

....**~.-** .. _--- 1808 1808 1806,1812 1809 1836 1844, 1845, 1847-8 1835, 1841 1809 1841-2 1809 1809 1809 1844 1809 1842-3 1809 1809 1836 1810 1810 1840 1810-- 1810' 1837 1810 1810 1810 1811 1811 1837 1811 1838-9 1811e.g.. NOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENT AND HEARING 

### I The West Virginia Department ofEnVlronmentai Protection (DBP) is offering an opportunity for public comment, andwill holda publ!c hearing, on one specific elementof a proposed revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP> to attain and maintain the national ambientair quality standards (NAAQS) for**finc~'c** . matter (pM:u). In the proposed revision to the SIP,DEP demonstrates that the Charleston, PMu nonattalnment area, comprising Kanawha and PutnamCounties, willmeetthe 1997· Mu standard by the mandatory date of April2010. Further, DEP showsthat the air quality improvement will be achieved through federally enforceable emlsaion reduction measures. Thearea was designated as nonattalnment withthe 1997 PM:u NAAQS inthe January 5,12005 Federal Register [70 FR 944], effective April5, 2005.DEP previously offered a 30 day comment periodon this proposed SIP revision and only receivedcomments from the U.S.**EP~.** In response, wehave established PM:u and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Motor Vehicle Emissl ns Budgets (MVEB) for highway vehicles; signIficantly revised the Transportation Conformt chapter (Chapter 2.5); and are reopening the comment periodonlywith respect to this chaPT of the proposed SIP revision.

. Once:finalizcd, the West Virginia**19~7** Fine Particle (pM2.s) Affalnment Demonstration and State Implementation Plan/or ths Charleston, West Ylrglnla Nonaffalnment Area, Comprising Kanawha and Putnam Counties will submitted to U. S. EPAfor approval and incorporation as a revision to the State Implemcntatiot1 Plan(SIP). Written andoral comments will be accepted untilthe closeof the public hearing**~d** will be madepartof the formal record. Thepublic hearingwill be heldinthe Dolly Sod!! Conference Room beginnIng at 6:00 p.m, on October 27, 2009 at DEP headquarters: 60157 th**S~** SE, Charleston WV 25304. Written comments will also be accepted for inclusion in the**~rma1** recordby mall, facsimile (304-926-0479), e-mail (TarnmyL.Mowrer@wv.gov)orotherdeliveryto the Division of AIr QualIty ifrecclved by the closeof business on October 27,**200~.** Send written comments to be included in the formal recordto JohnA. Benedict, Director, Division of Air Quality at the address above. Please identifythe document to whichthe cdmments apply, the commenter's name, addreas, and telephone number. 

# 1

Copiesofthe proposed SIP revision

. y be viewedon weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and4:30 p.m, at the Division of AIr Quality, 601 57 th SE, Charleston, WV 25304. The proposed SIP revisionmay also be accessed viathe Ifollowlng web address: htto:/lwww.wvdep.orglitem.cfi:n?ssid.b8&sslid=376 OTHER



# -n



# - ro- \n' \ \ 

## r -:: en 

### r: f1' Q ,'"l"\.**~: ~"i..** **~~**

### *-'~ NOTICEOF PUBLIC HEARING CAN'cE1:.LATION

, In the August 21, 2009 West Virginia RJlgister, the**W~** Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DBP) announced an opportunity fora public hearing ona proposed revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality standards for ozone and very fine particulate matter. Inthis proposed revision to the SIP, West Virginia Is demonstrating compliance with specific Clean AirAct (CAA) section IIO(a)(2) requlrcmcnis through a document affirming thatthe State meets these express requirements through authorities granted under state laws andregulations, as well as Implementation of exIsting air programs. DEP 50ught commehts on whether the document adequately demonstrates West Vlrglnla's compliance with the!pertlnent federal eAA mandates related to these so-called Inftastructure elements. The public Comment period began August 21, 2009 and ended September 21, 2009. No comments were rcce!lved andno person requested a public hcsrlng. Therefore the public hearing tentatively schedUled on Sogtember 28. 2009 Is hereby cancelled. I

\;'I**~~~** ::a 

## II**~;** :i:: N 

# , N Q;:; -0 

## rT\ :II:**~-:::** 'iJ 

# r-**~I!!.>:** >F- en 0



# - CO
en[This page intentionally left blank.]NOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENT AND HEARING The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protectlon (DEP) is offering an opportunity for public comment, and will hold a public hearing, on one specific element of a proposed revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to attain and maihtain the national am- bient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particu- late matter (PM2.5). In the proposed revision to the SIP, DEP demonstrates that the Charleston, WV PM2.5 nonattainment area, com- prising Kanawha and Putnam Counties, will meet the 1997 PM2.5 stondard by the mandatory date of April 2010. Further, DEP shows that the expected air pualitv improvement w~ll be achieved through ,f+erallv enforceable emlsslon re- duction measures. The area was designated as nanattainment with the 1 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the

January 5, 2005 Federal Reglster [70 FR 9441, effective April 5, 2005. DEP previousty offered a 30 ' day comment Period on

this proposed S!P revision and onlv recetved romtor Vehicle Emissions Budgets {MVEB] for.highway vehlcles; stgn~flcont- iv revised the Transwrta
### 1 posed SIP revision. Once finalized, the West Virginia 1997 Fine Particle (PM2.5 ) Attainment Demonstration and State lmplementetion Plan for the Charleston, West VlrI ginia Nonattainment

~rea, Comprising Kanawha .and Putnam Count~es will be subm~tted to V. S. EPA for approval and incorporation as a re- vision to the State Imple- mentotion Plan (SIP). Written and oral com- ments will be accepted un- til the close of the public hearing and will be made part of fhe formal record The public hearing will be held in the Dolly Sods Conference Room beginning at 6:00 p.m. on October 27, 2009 at DEP heodquar- ters: 601 57th Street SE, Charleston WV 25304. Written comments will al- so be accepted for inclusion in ,the formal record by mall, facslmlle (304- 926-0479), e-mail (Tammv.L.Mowrer@wv.g ov) or other del~very to the Division of Air Quality if received by the close of business on October 27, 2009. Send written com- ments to be Included in the formal record to John A. Benedict, Director, Division of Air Qualitv at the address above. Please identify the document to which the comments ap- PIY, the commenter's name, address, and telePhone number.

Copies of the proposed SIP revision may be viewed on weekdays be- tween 8:.30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Division of Air Qualitv, 601 57th SE. Charleston, WV 25304. The pro- posed SIP revision. may also be accessed v~a the following web address: http://www.wvde~.org/ite m.cfm?ssid=8&sslid=376 (401648)

### CHARLESTON NEWSPAPERS P.O. Box 2993 Charleston, West Virginia 25330 Billing 348-4898

.......



## I WDEP AIR QUALITY SANDRA ADKINS
ILLED 

### 601 

### 57TH ST., SE

TO 

### CHARLESTON 

### W 25304 

### USA 

### LEGAL ADVERTISING 

### INVOICE

Please return this portion with your payment. AMOUNT PAID: Make checks payable to: Charleston Newspapers 7 INVOICE DATE ACCOUNT NBR
7 4 S~ES REP ID INVOICE NBR 

### UY/L8/UY 013644105 0093 613320001

INVOICE DATE ACCOUNT NBR SALES REP ID INVOICE NBR

-- - - -- State of West Virginia, 

### AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION ur/~t(/OT 

### 013644105 0093 b1332UOUI' 

### CHARLESTON NEWSPAPERS P 0. Box 2993 Charleston, West Virginia 25330 Billing 348-4898 Classified 348-4848 1-800-WVA-NEWS Legal pricing is based upon 63 words per column inch. FEIN 55-0676079 Each successive insertion is discounted by 25% of the first insertion rate. The Daily Mail rate is $. 13 per word, the Charleston Gazette rate is $. 14 per word, and the Metro Putnarn rate is $.I3 per word.



### THE CHARLESTON GAZETTE, do solemnly swear that the legal notice of: 

### Notice of public comment .............. ,,I,'l i-ssm,'::"l?li,: :,' ii-"' .;:-:,::: :i

.....

..... .. ............. .m:-I:.;

......... ............................. ................................................
. . /.~ip~~.~,~~,~~:.~~~~~,:~

. .................. - 09/25 LEG

was duly published in said newspaper(s) at the stated price for the respective newspaper(s)
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 

## ,--9 <f day of ................................................................................................................................................................................ i:ii ,'. i:.:i;:i ;i-iliiiiii:ii

... i:,eij::j:::j!j :>:: ;...
... "'.":.' :.;:

.... 7:::. :. ..:: :...... ,!.:,:: ;i-:.. ........................ : ..... . ~~gsag~$x~~:@~,,,;;$;~,.r:,::_i~;,~,;,~ij:y

. ...-.............: ,:,:,, ''ii'-iili,:i':ii:l:l;~.~::::L.~i:~~:~j::f~ ..Pm:::i::?. ..Y ...- -... ..;. -.:... -. ~::~Wl~MBER:,

..................................................................... ::,:;:::;:;:;:,.;:32:;: ~REEERXg@::;@B&:5::~pURC.@&SB~:..Q&BgR:~j;$:~ .-

. ,..:.
........... 

### z;::~::;:~:::~~~:~:~~:~.; .2::;:i:i:! .................................................................. ..... ;:ii;iii:ijj(5?: .:,,:

.,, :<:i>:iiii:y:' .'i ,:, f.:' ,'.;;;. .:.

. ,..'

.. ,:~f~:~;,:i~~:~~::::, BET. momT . : ..

. :::~~P;D~{;$~~&~~~~;~i.iil,j,;;:;:;;rir:..~,~

........ .. :,,iS:?:.;

.. :,, ,::~,-,,.. ,,,*

\::.:::mTE;::;, x:: ,,::,: ,::,. ::.;>, .,: : .,..: < ..::. ,.,. 

### 88.20 ......................................................................................................................................................... 

### z<:.~~~:&:.am-[:2i:;::;,. :.,.. :.: ..:.:
..... 

### 88.20

88.20 :::::::;: ::;.:, ::;:;:: 

### GZ Notlce ot publlc 

### corn 1513320001 

### Dee Smith

TOTAL INVOICE AMOUNT 8.82 0401648 1x1000 10.00

# Public Hearing Sign-In Sheets

### [This page intentionally left blank.]

## Public Hearing Sign In Sheet Topic: Charleston, 1997 

### PMZv5 SIP August 18,2009,6:00 pm, 

### DEP Headquarters, 601 57th 

### Street, Charleston, Dolly Sods Conference Room 

### The Department of Environmental Protection asks for the information below so that agency staff may provide responses and information about decisions to you. The information you voluntarily provide on this sheet becomes part of the public record related to this topic and may be released if requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

Name (please print) Address Organization Phonemax E-mail Comment Yes/No[This page intentionally left blank.]

# Public Hearing Sign In Sheet Topic: Charleston 1997 PM2.5 SIP Public Hearing #2 October 27,2009,6:00 pm, DEP Headquarters, 601 57th Street, Charleston, Dolly Sods Conference Room

The Department of Environmental Protection asks for the information below so that agency staff may provide responses and information about decisions to you. The information you voluntarily provide on this sheet becomes part of the public record related to this topic and may be released if requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

Name (please print) Address Organization E-mail Comment YesJNo[This page intentionally left blank.]

# Public Hearing Transcripts

### [This page intentionally left blank.]

### BEFORE THE WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY

IN THE MATTER OF:

CHARLESTON 1997 PM 

### 2,5 SIP

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS had or testimony adduced in the above-entitled matter, on the on the 18'~ day of August, 2009, commencing
at 6.16 p.m. and concluding at 6:20 p.m., at 601 57th Street, S.E., Charleston. Kanawha County, West Virginia, pursuant to notice to all interested parties.

BEFORE: FRED DURHAM Deputy Director, Division of Air Quality



### NANCY MCNEALY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER Post Office Box 134 15 Charleston, West Virginia 25360-0415 (304) 988-2873 FAX (304) 988-1419

### Reporter's Certificate. 

### INDEX

. .. . . 

## . . . 

## . . . . . 

## . . 

## . . . 

## . . .Page 5

### Proceedings 3



### MR. DURHAM: This public hearing will now come to order on this I 8th day of August 2009, at the Dolly Sod's Conference Room, located in the DEP Headquarters Building at 601 57th Street, Charleston, West Virginia 25304. This public hearing is being held by the Division of Air Quality to accept comments on the Proposed West Virginia 1997 Fine Particle (PM2.5) Attainment Demonstration and State Implementation Plan for the Charleston, West Virginia, Nonattainment Area, Comprising Kanawha and Putnam Counties. A notice for the hearing was filed with the Secretary of State's office and published in the State Register on July 17, 2009. A Class I Legal Advertisement was also published in the Charleston Gazette on July 17, 2009. Additionally, the notice was posted on the Department of Environmental Protection's web site. This public hearing is being held pursuant to the provisions of 29A of the West Virginia Code and in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act. My name is Fred Durham and 

### I am the Deputy Director for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality. I will be the moderator for these proceedings this evening. Comments and testimony will be accepted until the close of this hearing and will be made part of the formal public record. The court reporter is Nancy McNealy. If anyone desires a transcript of this proceeding, please contact her at 304-988-2873. The subject of these proceedings is a proposed revision to

### Proceedings 4



### the State lmplementation Plan, sometimes referred to as a SIP, which demonstrates that the Charleston PM 

### 2,s nonattainment area, comprising Kanawha and Putnam Counties, will meet the 

### 1997 PM 

### 2.5 standard by the mandatory date of April 201 0. Further, the SIP demonstrates that the expected air quality improvement will be achieved through federally enforceable errlission reduction measures. The area was designed as nonattainment with the 

### 1997 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard in the January 25th, 2005, Federal Register. Once finalized, the Attainment Demonstration will be submitted to the USEPA for approval and incorporation as a revision to the State Implementation Plan. The floor is now open for any comments. Please state your name and any affiliation. Hearing no commenters, thank you and there being nothing further, these proceedings are now closed.

### BEFORE THE WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC-I-ION DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF KANAWHA, to wit:

I, NANCY MCNEALY, Certified Verbatim Court Reporter and Commissioner of West Virginia, do hereby certify that the foregoing is, to the best of my skill and ability, a true and accurate transcript of all the proceedings as set forth in the caption hereof. Given under my hand this 19th day of August, 2009. My commission expires November 26, 2010.

Commissioner of West Virginia

### [This page intentionally left blank.]

### BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY

IN THE MATTER OF:
CHARLESTON 1997 PM2.5 SIP PUBLIC HEARING #2

TRANSCRIPT OF 

### PROCEEDINGS 

### had or testimony adduced pursuant to the West Virginia Rules of Civil
Procedure in the above-entitled action, on the 27th day of October, 2009, commencing at 6:05 p.m. and concluding at 6:10 p.m., at the Department of Environmental Protection,
601 57th Street, Charleston, Kanawha County, West Virginia,
taken by Jo Ann Wilson, Certified Court Reporter, duly certified by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals and Notary of West Virginia, pursuant to notice to all interested parties.

BEFORE: FRED DURHAM, Moderator



### NANCY MCNEALY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER Post M~ce Box 13415 Charlestoa, West Virginia 253604 15 (304) 988-2873 FAX (304) 988-1419INDEX



# 1 Reporter's Certificate..................... Page 

### 6

### Proceedings 3



### MR. DURHAM: This public hearing will now

come to order on this 27thday of October, 2009, at the Dolly Sods Conference Room located in the DEP Headquarters Building at 601 57th Street, Charleston, West Virginia
25304. My name is Fred Durham. 

### I am the Deputy Director for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Division of Air Quality. I will be the
moderator for the proceedings this evening.
Comments and testimony will be accepted until the close of this hearing and will be made part of
the formal public record. Let the record show that no members of the public are in attendance. But, we will read
the hearing script just for completeness. This public hearing is being held by the Division of Air Quality to accept comments on one specific
element of a proposed revision to the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter, which we also refer to as PM2.5. In a proposed revision to the SIP, DEP demonstrates that the Charleston, West Virginia PMz.5 nonattainment area, comprising Kanawha and
Putnam Counties, will meet the 1997 PM2.5 standard by the mandatory date of April, 2010.

### Proceedings 

### 4

DEP previously offered a thirty-day comment period on the proposed SIP revision, and only received
comments from the U.S. EPA. In response, we have established PM2.s and Nitrogen Oxides (Nox) Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEB) for highway vehicles. We've significantly revised Transportation Conformity Chapter

(Chapter 2.5) and reopened the comment period only with respect to this chapter of the proposed SIP revision.
A notice for the hearing was filed with the Secretary of State's office and published in The State Recrister on September 25th, 2001. A Class 

### I Legal Advertisement was also published in The Charleston Gazette

on September 25th, 2009. Additionally, the notice was posted on the Division of Air Quality's web site. This public hearing is being held pursuant
to the provisions of 29A of the West Virginia Code and in
accordance with the requirements of the federal Clean Air
Act. Once finalized, the Attainment Demonstration will be submitted to the U.S. EPA for approval and incorporation as

a revision to the State Implementation Plan.
The floor is now open for any comments. Please state your name and any affiliation. (No response. )


### MR. DURHAM: Let the record show that there

### REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA,
COUNTY 

### OF KANAWHA, 

### to wit:

I, JO ANN 

### WILSON, Certified Court Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing is, to the best of my skill 

### and ability, a true and accurate transcript of all
the proceedings as set forth in the caption hereof.
Given under my hand this 4th 

### day of November,
2009. My commission expires July 10, 2016.

Certified Court Reporter

# Public Comments

### [This page intentionally left blank.]

# EPA Comments

### [This page intentionally left blank.]

### 2.v 

# -ob UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION Ill 

### e 

# a

qr



# =I

< 1650 Arch Street 4~ pR~dG Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029



### Mr. John A. Benedict, Director Division of Air Quality 

### -- West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
. ..-'.. ..--- ry r~ I> 

### 601 57thSt. SE :I?")< 

# 1 i?] - 

## (,Cj I -. 

## z. Charleston, West Virginia 25304 ,; ! 

### '.

,, .," 

# " 2 

# 8 ji-i 

## 11 Dear Mr. Benedict,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed West Virginia 1997 Fine Particulate (PM2,5) Attainment Demonstration and State Implementation Plan for the Charleston, West Virginia Nonattainment Area. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) comments are provided in the enclosure to this letter.
We look forward to working with you to resolve these comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me, or have your staff person contact Ms. Marilyn Powers of my staff at (215) 814- 2308 for any questions pertaining to general comments or 

### Mr. Tim Leon-Guerrero at (215) 814- 2 192'for questions pertaining to modeling comments. Sincerely,

m 

### Diana Esher, Acting Director Air Protection Division
Enclosure cc: Fred Durham, WVDEP

m tJ Printed on 100% recycled/recyclablepaper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free. 

### Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-24 74

### EPA Comments West Virginia 1997 Fine Particle (PM 2.5 

### ) Attainment Demonstration and State Implementation Plan for the Charleston WVNonattainment Area, Comprising Kanawha and Putnam Counties
General Comments
1. The first sentence of Section 1.0 states: “The Charleston, WV annual PM 2.5 

### nonattainment area is a single-state nonattainment area, comprising Kanawha and Putnam Counties.” The area was designated as nonattainment for the fine particle (PM 2.5 

### ) national ambient ai r quality standard (NAAQS) not just the annual NAAQS . Although most of the designations were made because of annual NAAQS violations no distinction was made between annual and 24-hour areas. The fact that the 24-hour NAAQS was revised in 2006 an d will be addressed with designations and subsequent State Implementation Plan (SIP) requir ements does not relieve West Virginia from the obligation of demonstrating attainment with both the annual and 24-hour (1997 version) NAAQS. It is noted that the attainment demonstrati on contained in this doc ument does address both averaging periods. 2. The third paragraph of Section 8.7 states: “The WVDAQ believes that with the exception of 110(a)(2(G) concern discussed above, through West Vi rginia’s certification efforts and the Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP revisi on, along with this attainment de monstration address the relevant requirements of Section 110(a)(2).” This statement does not appearto be consistent with the certification submitted to EPA by WVDEP regardi ng the section 110(a)(2)(G) requirements. As part of the State’s obligation to address section 110(a)(2) infras tructure requirements, on July 14, 2008, WVDEP submitted a letter that certifies that West Virginia satisfies the requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(G), therefore the language in S ection 8.7 of the attainment plan should be revised. 3. West Virginia is relying on reductions from th e Philip Sporn Power Station for a portion of its contingency requirements. This power plant inst alled selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) on Units 31 and 41 starting in 2009 to comply with th e federal AEP Consent Decree. Please confirm that the reductions from these units will be federa lly enforceable, for example, will the requirement that the controls operate year round be included in a federally enforceable state operating permit? The AEP consent decree requires only that 600 megawatts be controlled from any of a number of different power plants by December 31, 2018. 4. Table 8.9.6 identifies the contingency measur es for the Charleston nonattainment area. In addition to three sources within the nonattainment area that have shut down or will be shut down by April 1, 2010, the contingency measures incl ude reductions from sources outside of the nonattainment area. It is noted that these reductions outside the nonattainment area are also relied upon as contingency measures that are outside of other nonattainment areas. Because of the dispersion that would be expected at distances fro m these sources, it doesn’t appear appropriate to include the entire reductions in the nonattainment area. Please provide additional information to support inclusion of these reducti ons as contingency measures.

### 5. On page 129, the discussion directly followi ng Table 8.9.7 states: While the contingency measures identified above do not fully meet the contingency targets (6500 tons NOx, 8 tons PM 2.5 

### , and 11,200 tons SO 2 

### ,) suggested by EPA in the PM 2.5 

### Implementation Rule (see Table 8.9-1) for NOx and PM 2.5 

### , they do account for significant reduc tions beyond what is required for attainment.” Although the measures account for additional reductions beyond the reductions needed for attainment, the lack of sufficient reductions to meet the requirement for NOx contingency may be cause for disapproval of the Charleston Attainment Plan. Page 20604 of the PM 2.5 

### Implementation Rule (72 FR 20636, April 25, 2007), reads (in part): “CAA section 172(c)(9) provides th at SIPs in nonattainment ar eas ‘‘[S]hall provide for the implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to attain the [NAA QS] by the attainment date app licable under this part. Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as contingency measures to take effect in any such case without further action by the State or [EPA].” Modeling Comments 1. Section 2.2 PM-2.5 Component Species Analysis Figures 2.2-3 and 2.2-4 show quarter ly speciation results for two (2) monitors in the Charlestown, WV PM-2.5 nonattainment area. Figure 2.2-3 is labeled “2009” though the caption states that it contains data for 2002. Figure 2.2-4 is labeled 2000-04 though the figure caption is labeled 2002. Both figures should be corrected to show the actual dates that are represented. The speciation data dates used in figures 2.2-3 and 2.2-4 are not consistent w ith each other. If possible, data from the same date ranges should be used so a direct comparison can be made between the two speciation monitors. No reference to speciation data located in Appendix A was made in this section. Sample calculations illustrating the “SANDWICH” method could also be included withthe speciation data (in Appendix A).
The vertical axis labels should be corrected in figures 2.2-5 and 2.2-6. Iden tifiers on the right side of these figures should be included in the acr onyms and abbreviations section of WV DEP’s SIP document (for example, there is no listing for CEN). A reference should be provided for the sensitivity runs used to construc t these figures to direct the read er to more detailed information.
Please indicate if the 2009 model values shown infigure 2.2-7 are calculated using the Speciated Model Attainment Test (SMAT) as noted in EPA’s Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze , EPA -454/B-07-002, April 2007. A reference to other documents describing this calculation in more detail could also be provided. The final paragraph in this section sh ould acknowledge thatit is already 2009.

### 2. Section 2.3 Attribution of Emissions Sources WV DEP’s statement in the second paragraph of this section regarding the contribution of biogenic emissions to Organic Carbon (OC) could use furthe r refinement. Figures 2.2-3 and 2.2-4 show OC contributions remain unchanged, percentagewise, throughout the year even though 1 st 

### and 4 th 

### quarter biogenic emissions, which make up a large portion of OC, should have declined considerably during these quarters. It would seem, therefore, that anthropogenic sources of OC are significant contributors to PM-2.5 concentrations during these quarters and coul d be targeted if further reductions are needed fo r Charleston to reach attainment. The last paragraph of this section should indicate which year SO 2

### emissions are being discussed (2002). Figure 2.3-3 should also indicate what year these SO 2

### emissions represent.
3. Section 2.4.a Direct PM-2.5 Emissions No breakdown of PM-2.5 emissions was given in this section for the 2002 base year or for the projected 2009 attainment date. These emissi ons should be included as well as any caveats regarding their construction. Any qualitative trends should also beincluded in this section.
4. Section 2.4.b SO 2

### Emissions
Table 2.4.b-1 shows substantial redu ctions in the projected 2009 SO 2

### emissions for the state of West Virginia and the Charleston PM-2.5 nonattainment area, which includes Kanawha and Putnam Counties. WV DEP should determine if SO 2

### controls will actually be in place for 2009 (the current year) as projected.
5. Section 2.4.d VOC Emissions While anthropogenic VOC emissions show little effect on PM-2.5 concentrations on an annual basis they may contribute to hi gh OC percentages during the 1 st 

### and 4 th

### quarters when biogenic emissions are relatively small. VOC controls could provide PM-2.5 reduc tions during the winter months if additional controls are needed to get Charleston into attainment.
6. Section 5.1 Model Performanc e Goals, Criteria and Results Typo: Last paragraph on page 71, should the first sentence read “...12 km grid...”?
7. Section 5.2 VISTAS/ASIP Domain-wide Performance Clarification regarding figures 5.2-1, 5.2-2 and 5.2-3: Do these plots represent average model performance statistics for all VISTAS STN monito rs or only those monitors shown in figure 5.1-1?

### 8. Section 5.3 West Virginia PM-2.5 Model Performance Comments regarding figure 5.3-1: Fractional bias and fractional gross errors scores could be removed from the figures and put into separate tabl es to make them clearer. Scatter plots based on quarters instead of months would be more relevant to the annual standard and indicate which quarters are better simulated by CMAQ. In all cases it appears the 12 km grid CMAQ runs outperformed the 36 km CMAQ runs.
9. Section 5.4 Conclusions of Model Performance Evaluation Please clarify how many CMAQ grid cells were used in the SMAT. The “OCM” term in this section is not clearly de fined in the document. This term appears in section 5.4.1 of EPA’s Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze , EPA -454/B-07-002, April 2007. Quarterly averages from the South Charleston m onitor (54-039-1005) indicate substantially higher average PM-2.5 concentr ations during the 3 rd

### quarter than other times of the year. This quarter is typically dominated by sulfates (see figure 2.2-4) . The CMAQ model under-prediction mentioned in this section could affect the SMAT possi bly giving an artificially low projected 2009 concentration. This in turn could lead to an under prediction of South Ch arleston’s 2009 projected PM-2.5 design value.
10. Section 7.1 Attainment Test Introduction
The most recent version of EP A’s Model Attainment Test Software (MATS) is version 2.2.1 released in March of 2009. While the most recen t version of MATS still does not calculate 24-hr PM-2.5 concentrations it is capable of calcu lating projected annual PM-2.5 concentrations. WV DEP’s comparison of results between the ASIP PM-2.5 projection tool and EPA’s MATS program confirm results are similar. Final resu lts, however, should come from the most recent version of the MATS program in accordance with EPA guidance.
11. Section 7.2 Attainment Test Results
Modeled annual PM-2.5 concentrations for both m onitors in the Charleston nonattainment area are presented in this section. Results for the 24-hour PM-2.5 standard should also be included. Please indicate how projected 24- hour PM-2.5 concentrations will be reconstructed. In tables 7.2-1, 7.2-2 and 7.2-3 quarterly PM-2.5 values should be reported out to two (2) significant figures. Design values should be reported to one significant figure. 2008 annual PM-2.5 design values for both monitors in the Charleston n onattainment area are higher than their 2009 CMAQ projected design values. The following table summarizes monitoring data taken from WV DE P’s Appendix A along with projec ted values from table 7.2-3.

### 1 st 

### Quarter 2 nd

### Quarter 3 rd

### Quarter 4 th

### Quarter Annual Design Value 2008 Monitored 13.60 13.54 18.53 11.08 15.4 2009 Projected 13.5 15.3 17.1 12.8 14.7

1 st 

### Quarter 2 nd

### Quarter 3 rd

### Quarter 4 th

### Quarter Annual Design Value 2008 Monitored 11.55 12.21 18.06 9.56 14.2 2009 Projected 11.8 14.1 15.6 11.0 13.1

12. Section 7.3.a.2 Midwest RPO Modeling Table 7.3-2 highlights the Weirt on nonattainment area instead of the Charleston nonattainment area. 13. Section 7.3.b Trends in Ambi ent Air Quality and Emissions WV DEP displays recent trends in annual PM-2.5 concentrations for both Charleston nonattainment area monitors. Figure 7.3.b-1 shows annual concentrations along with fitted linear tend lines. No analysis was offered to determine if these inferred trends were statistically significant. The South Charleston monitor’s long-term trends were examined using quarterly data from Appendix A and the R statistical package ( http://www.r-project.org/ ). Annual concentrations at this monitor do appear to be falling at a statistic ally significant level (see Graph 1, next page). Trends in quarterly data show th at PM-2.5 concentrations have fa llen at statistically significant levels for both the 1 st 

### and 4 th

### quarters. The 2 nd

### quarter, while declining, does not have a statistically significant trend. Th ird quarter trends remain generally unchanged. This may be due to the lack of significant SO 2

### emission reductions, which contribute to high sulfate levels during the warmer summer months. Graphical results for point source emissions presented in figure 7.3.b-2 indicate SO 2

### emission trends are flat matching 3 rd

### quarter PM-2.5 monitoring trends. WV DEP should survey its major point so urces to determine if and when SO 2

### controls will be put in place to confirm that modeled PM-2.5 reductions will occur as projected. WV DEP should be careful attributing recent declines in local PM- 2.5 concentrations to reductions in emissions. The state of West Virginia as wellas most of the United States is experiencing a significant economic contraction. Th is is evident in the state’s economic activity indexes, which shows substantial reductions during the last months of 2008 and have continued into 2009. Economic contraction in neighboring st ates such as Ohio, a much larg er state in terms of real GDP, started earlier beginning in 2008 (s ee graphs from the St. Louis Fe d on the following pages). This economic contraction has idled factories, redu ced electrical demand along with demand for regional coal. All of these factors ultimately cont ribute to lower emission levels and in turn lower PM-2.5 concentrations. Without documented emission controls inplace on West Virginia and

### neighboring state sources, PM-2.5 concentrations will undoubtedly increase once economic activity returns to pre-contraction levels. 14. Graph 1. Yearly and Quarterly Trends using R

### Economic Activity Index Graphs for WV and OH Data Source: St. Louis Fed: http://alfred.stlouisfed.org/category?cid=27281

### 15. Section 7.4 Unmonitored Area Analysis This section references the “current-year” whil e discussing the unmonitored area analysis even though it appears to be referencing the base-year or 2002. Figure 7.4-1 and 7.4-2 also appear to refer to base-year PM-2.5 concentrati ons (2002) but are not labeled as such. 16. Appendix A Quarterly data for monitor 54-039-0010 do not appear in this appendix. 17. Appendix B Please provide the source or sources of the land-use data used in the MM5 and CMAQ models.

Enclosure

### [This page intentionally left blank.]1 

### Crowder, Laura M
From: Durham, William F Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 3:22 PM To: Crowder, Laura M Subject: FW: West Virginia Proposal for Insignificanc e Finding for NOx Precursor for On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions for PM2.5 Attainm ent Demonstration for Charleston WV

From: Fernandez.Cristina@epamail.epa.gov [mailt o:Fernandez.Cristina@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 3:34 PM To: Durham, William F Subject: Fw: West Virginia Proposal for Insignificance Findin g for NOx Precursor for On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions for PM2.5 Attainment Demonstration for Charleston WV

Hi Fred, Martin is gone for the day and he is not in tomorrow. Please, take a look at the message that we got from OTAQ. If you would like to meet and discuss this would Tuesday at 3 PM work for you?
Let me know. Thanks, Cristina Cristina Fernandez, Chief Air Quality Planning Branch (3AP21) Air Protection Division U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2023 Work: (215) 814-2178 Fax: (215) 814-2124 ----- Forwarded by Cristina Fernandez/R3/USEPA/US on 09/02/2009 03:31 PM ----- From: Rudolph Kapichak/AA/USEPA/US To: Martin Kotsch/R3/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Astrid Larsen/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Carol Febbo/R3/USEPA/US@EPA, Cristina Fernandez/R3/USEPA/US@EPA, David Bizot/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Gary Dolce/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Laura Berry/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Marilyn Powers/R3/USEPA/US@EPA, Meg Patulski/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Patty Klavon/AA/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 09/02/2009 09:04 AM Subject: Re: West Virginia Proposal for Insignificance Finding for NOx Precursor for On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions for PM2.5 Attainmen t Demonstration for Charleston WV

Martin - You asked us to review West Virginia's analysis that attempts to demonstrate that on-road emissions of NOx are insignificant for PM2.5 conformity purposes in Charleston. T he information in the attainment demonstration indicates that on-road emissions of NOx account for about 20% of the area's NOx inventory. West Virginia applied a trading ratio included in the PM2.5 NSR rule and converted all NOx emissions in the area to PM2.5 equivalents and made an argument that, when all of the emissions are converted using this ratio, on-road NOx emissions are responsible for only a small percentage of PM2.5 in the area.2 We consulted with OAQPS on the use of these ratios in th is manner and have concluded that it is inappropriate to apply the trading ratio to all NOx emissions in the area to make an insignificance demonstration. The ratio was developed to apply to individual stationary source trades. It was not in tended to be applied to all emissions sources across an entire nonattainment area. A lso, EPA has accepted a petition to reconsider the use of these rati os for NSR purposes; therefore, we believe that they should not be used by West Virginia fo r purposes of demonstrating insi gnificance. Given that on-road sources account for about 20% of the NOx emissions in the area, we cannot agree that on-road emissions of NOx are insignificant in Charleston. We also believe that it is unnecessary and inappropriate to use the SO2 to PM2.5 trading ratio from the NSR rule to show that on-road emissions of SO2 are insignif icant. We have advised areas to make the case that on-road emissions of SO2 represented only a small percentage of the inventory in the base year, since that time EPA has implemented the low sulfur gasoline and low sulfur diesel regulations which e liminated over 90% of on-road SO 2 emissions from base year levels and those rules will ensure that on-road SO2 emissi ons remain at insignificant levels into the future. Finally, we had discussions with you beginning in October 20 07 concerning whether or not direct PM2.5 emissions were insignificant in Charleston. At that time we concluded that direct PM2.5 emissions are not insignificant. After reviewing the information presented in the attainment demonstration, we continue to believe that direct emissions of PM2.5 from onroad sources are not insignificant for conformity purposes. If you have questions, please let us know. Rudy

Martin Kotsch/R3/USEPA/US EPA-REG,03,APD Sent by: Martin Kotsch

Received Date: 08/13/2009 10:45 AM Transmission Date: 08/13/2009 10:45:31 AM To Rudolph Kapich ak/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Meg Patu lski/AA/USEPA/ US@EPA, Gary Dolce/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Laura Berry/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Astrid Larsen/AA/USEPA/US, Patty Klavon/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, David Bizot/AA/USEPA/US@EPA
cc Marilyn Powers/R3/USEPA/US@EPA, Cristina Fernandez/R3/USEPA/US, Carol Febbo/R3/USEPA/US@EPA Subject West Virginia Proposal for Insignificance Finding for NOx Precursor for On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions for PM2.5 Attainment Demonstration for Charleston WV

I am requesting that OTAQ review the attached WV attain ment demonstration narrative starting on page 34 for their rationale for an insignificance finding for NOx as a pr ecursor for on-road motor vehicle emissions fro their PM2.5 attainment demonstration and provide feedback if we can agree to their finding. [attachment "DRAFT Charleston PM2.5 SIP Narrative 7- 16-09.pdf" deleted by Cristina Fernandez/R3/USEPA/US]

# Response to Comments

### [This page intentionally left blank.]

## West Virginia 1997 Fine Particle Matter (PM 2.5 

## ) Attainment Demonstration and State Implementation Plan for the Charleston, West Vi rginia Nonattainment Area, Comprising Kanawha and Putnam Counties

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS On July 17, 2009, the Department of Environmen tal Protection, Division of Air Quality (WVDAQ) commenced the public comment period and subs equently held a public hearing on August 18, 2009 to accept oral comments on the proposed West Virginia 1997 Fine Particle (PM 2.5 

### ) Attainment Demonstration and State Implementation Plan for the Charleston, West Virginia Nonattainment Area, Comprising Kanawha and Putnam Counties . Written comments were also accepted through 6:00 PM on Tuesday, August 18, 2009. One person attended the public hearing, however no verbal comments were received. The United States E nvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted written comments on the proposed SIP. WVDAQ addresses these comments below. In response to EPA’s Comment W (below), the WVDAQ has established PM 2.5 

### and Nitrogen Oxides (NO x 

### ) Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEB) fo r highway vehicles; and significantly revised the Transportation Conformity chapter (Chapter 2.5) of the West Virginia 1997 Fine Particle (PM 2.5 

### ) Attainment Demonstration and State Implemen tation Plan for the Charleston, West Virginia Nonattainment Area, Comprising Kanawha and Putnam Counties . On September 25, 2009 the WVDAQ reopened the comment period with respect to this chapter of the proposed SIP revision, and subsequently held a public hearing on October 27, 2009 to accept oral comments on the proposed revisions to Chapter 2.5. Written co mments were also accepted through 6:00 PM on Tuesday, October 27, 2009. No one attended the public hearing and no written comments were received.

I. United Stated Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
COMMENT A: The first sentence of Section 1.0 states: “The Charleston, WV annual PM 2.5

### nonattainment area is a single-state nonattainment area, comprising Kanawha and Put nam Counties.” The area was designated as nonattainment for the fine particle (PM 2.5 

### ) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) not just the annual NAAQS. Although most of the designations were made because of annual NAAQS viola tions no distinction was made between annual and 24-hour areas. The fact that the 24-hour NAAQS was revised in 2006 and will be addressed with designations and subsequent State Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements does not relieve West Virginia from the obligati on of demonstrating attainment with both the

Charleston, WV PM 2.5 SIP Response to Comments Page 1

### annual and 24-hour (1997 version) NAAQ S. It is noted that the attainment demonstration contained in this document does address both averaging periods.
RESPONSE A: The first sentence of Section 1.0 has been modified to read: “The Charleston, WV 1997 PM 2.5 

### nonattainment area is a single-state nonattainment area, comprising Kanawha and Putnam Counties.”
COMMENT B: The third paragraph of Section 8.7 states: "The WVDAQ believes that with the exception of 110(a)(2(G) concern discussed above, through West Virginia's certification efforts and the Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP revisi on, along with this attainment demonstration address the relevant requirements of Section 110(a)(2)." This statement does not appear to be consistent with the certification subm itted to EPA by WVDEP regarding the section 110(a)(2)(G) requirements. As part of the State's obligation to address section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements, on July 14, 2008, WVDEP submitted a letter that certifies that West Virginia satisfies the requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(G), therefore the language in Section 8.7 of the attainment plan should be revised.
RESPONSE B: WVDAQ has removed the referenced statement from the SIP Narrative, and added the following language: On October 22, 2008, EPA published a finding that West Virginia had submitted a complete State Implementation Plan (SIP) that provides the basic program elements specified in section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) necessary to implement the 1997 Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 

### ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) [73 Federal Register 62902/62905].
COMMENT C: West Virginia is relying on reductions fromthe Philip Sporn Power Station for a portion of its contingency requirements. This power plant installed selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) on Units 31 and 41 starting in 2009 to comp ly with the federal AEP Consent Decree. Please confirm that the reductions from thes e units will be federally enforceable, for example, will the requirement that the controlsoperate year round be included in a federally enforceable state operating permit? The AEP consent decree requires only that 600 megawatts be controlled from any of a numbe r of different power plants by December 31, 2018.

Charleston, WV PM 2.5 SIP Response to Comments Page 2

### RESPONSE C: The company submitted a request for a permit determination regarding the installation of SNCR at the Philip Sporn plant. The request has undergone agency review. Since the operation of SNCR results in a decrease in the emission of NO x 

### , it was determined that a permit was not required for the installation and operation of SNCR. SNCR was installed to comply with the federal consent decree, so the controls are enforceable under the federal AEP Consent Decree, and we assu me that since they were in stalled they will be operated. In addition, EPA has determined that CAIR is equal to RACT and Philip Sporn is subject to CAIR for SO 2

### and NO x 

### , both annual and ozone season. In addition, Philip Sporn is located in the Huntington 1997 PM 2.5 

### nonattainment area, and it was determined that SNCR satisfied RACT for Philip Sporn. Furthermore, Philip Sporn Unit 5 is required to “Retire, Retrofit or Re-power” by December 31, 2013 to comply with the federal Consent Decree, and AEP has indicated that they plan to retire Unit 5 at th at time. The retirement of this unit will result in additional reductions beyond what is required for attainment.
COMMENT D: Table 8.9.6 identifies the contingency measures for the Charleston nonattainment area. In addition to three sources within the nonattainment area that have shut down or will be shut down by April 1, 2010, the contingency measures include reductions from sources outside of the nonattainment area. It is noted that these reductions outside the nonattainment area are also relied upon as contingency measures that are outside of other nonattainment areas. Because of the dispersion that would be expected at distances from these sources, it doesn't appear appropriate to include the entire reduc tions in the nonattainment area. Please provide additional information to support inclusion of these reductions as contingency measures. RESPONSE D:
As stated in Section 8.9.c: To ensure that the contingency measures from outside the nonattainment area actually impact the area, an SO 2

### Area of Influence (AoI) was defined for the Charleston area to represent the geographic area containing sources that would likely have the greatest impact on PM 2.5 

### concentrations in the Charleston area. The first step was to generate meteorological back trajectories for monitoring sites in West Virginia. Back trajectory analyses use interpolated, measured or modeled meteorological fields to estimate the most likely central path of air masses that arrive at a receptor at a given time. The method essentially follows a parcel of air backward in hourly steps for a specified length of time. Trajectories were

Charleston, WV PM 2.5 SIP Response to Comments Page 3

### started at 100 meters and 500 meters above the surface and run backward from the site for 72 hours. The next step was to plot residence time for each monitor using five years of back trajectories for the high PM 2.5 

### days in 2000-2004. Residence time is the frequency that winds pass over a specific geographic area on the way to a monitor. Separate residence time plots were generated using trajectories with 100m and 500m start heights. The next step was to develop sulf ate weighted residence time plots to define the geographic area with the highest probability of influencing the monitor on the high PM 2.5 

### days in 2000-2004 that were dominated by sulfate. Sulfate weighted b ack trajectories for the high PM 2.5 

### days were combined for 5 years of da ta. The resulting sulfate weighted residence time plots were used to define the geographic Area of Influence for sources of SO 2

### emissions. In Figures 8.9-2 and 8.9-3 the area representing 10 percent or greater residence time is outlined in red and the area representing 5 percent or greater residence time is outlined in orange. As explained above, the modeling demonstrates that the sources within the AoI impact the nonattainment area, and it is therefore appropriate to include these reductions as contingency measures. COMMENT E: On page 129, the discussion directly following Table 8.9.7 states: While the contingency measures identified above do not fully meet the contingency targets (6500 tons NOx 

### , 8 tons PM 2.5

### , and 11,200 tons SO 2 

### ,) suggested by EPA in the PM 2.5

### Implementation Rule (see Table 8.9-1) for NOx 

### and PM 2.5

### , they do account for significant re ductions beyond what is required for attainment." Although the measures account for additional re ductions beyond the reductions needed for attainment, the lack of sufficient reductions to meet the requirement for NOx 

### contingency may be cause for disapproval of the Charleston Attainment Plan. Page 20604 of the PM 2.5 

### Implementation Rule (72 FR 20636, April 25, 2007), reads (in part): “CAA section 172(c)(9) provides that SIPs in nonattainment areas “'[S]hall provide for the implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date applicable under this part. Such measures shall be included in the plan revi sion as contingency measures to take effect in any such case without further action by the State or [EPA].”

Charleston, WV PM 2.5 SIP Response to Comments Page 4

### RESPONSE E:
As EPA notes: CAA section 172(c)(9) provides that SIPs in nonattainment areas “'[S]hall provide for the implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to makereasonable further progress, or to attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date applicable under this part. Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as contingency measures to take effect in any su ch case without further action by the State or [EPA].” WV notes that the CAA does not establish a specific requirement for the amount of reductions required for contingency measures. Further, as we noted in Section 8.9.b: In the preamble to the Implementation Rule [72 FR 20643, 25 APR 2007] EPA suggests that contingenc y measures should provide for emission reductions equivalent to about one year of reductions needed for RFP, based on the overall level of reductions needed to demonstrate attainment divided by the number of years from the 2002 base year to the attainment year. However, EPA acknowledged that this level of reductions may be excessive in some cases.
As we stated in Section 8.9.b: West Virginia has demonstrated that the target for contingency measures equal to one full year’s worth of the emission reductions necessary to achieve attainment is excessive within the Charleston area, since it is unreasonable to expect to achieve a 114% and 35% reduction in SO 2

### and NO x

### emissions, respectively, from the remaining point sources, area sources and mobile sources – both nonroad and onroad – within one year . Therefore, the state extended its analysis to other areas in the state which impact the designated nonattainment area. We went on to note that, while the contingency measures identified do not fully meet the contingency targets (6500 tons NO x 

### , 8 tons PM 2.5 

### and 11,200 tons SO 2 

### ) suggested by EPA in the PM 2.5 

### Implementation Rule for NO x

### and PM 2.5 

### , they do account for significant reductions beyond what is required for attainment . In fact, the reductions resulting from the contingency measures within the Area of Influence account for 130.4%, 14.8% and 7.0% of the 2009 projected SO 2 

### , NO x

### and PM 2.5 

### emissions, excluding EGU emissions, respectively, in the nonattainment area.

Charleston, WV PM 2.5 SIP Response to Comments Page 5

### It is important to realize that the projected 2009 emissions reflect a 59.9% decrease in the 2002 NO x

### emissions, and 58.8% decrease in the 2002 SO 2

### emissions in the nonattainment area. Due to the large reductions projected, it is a practical impossibility to identify additional reductions in the Area of Influence w ithin West Virginia which could be achieved within one year.
COMMENT F: Section 2.2 PM-2.5 Component Species Analysis Figures 2.2-3 and 2.2-4 show quarterly speciation results for two (2) monitors in the Charlestown [sic] , WV PM-2.5 nonattainment area. Figure 2.2-3 is labeled “2009" though the caption states that it contains data for 2002. Figure 2.2-4 is labeled 2000-04 though the figure caption is labeled 2002. Both figures should be corrected to show the actual dates that are represented. The speciation data dates used in figures 2.2-3 and 2.2-4 are not consistent with each other. If possible, data from the same date ranges s hould be used so a direct comparison can be made between the two speciation monitors. No reference to speciation data located in A ppendix A was made in this section. Sample calculations illustrating the “SANDWICH” method could also be included with the speciation data (in Appendix A). The vertical axis labels should be corrected in figures 2.2-5 and 2.2-6. Identifiers on the right side of these figures should be included in the acronyms and abbreviations section of WV DEP’s SIP document (for example, there isno listing for CEN). A reference should be provided for the sensitivity runs used to construct these figures to direct the reader to more detailed information. Please indicate if the 2009 model values show n in figure 2.2-7 are calculated using the Speciated Model Attainment Test (SMAT) as noted in EPA’s Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, EPA -454/B-07-002, April 2007. A reference to other documents describing this calculation in more detail could also be provided. The final paragraph in this section should acknowledge that it is already 2009.
RESPONSE F: Figure 2.2-3 shows the predicted future (2009) concentrations of PM 2.5 

### component species which were estimated by assuming that the quarterly average component concentration will change in the same proportion as the model predicted change. The species fractions are

Charleston, WV PM 2.5 SIP Response to Comments Page 6

### based on 2002 speciation data. The caption has b een modified to clarify what is being presented. Figure 2.2-4 shows the average of the three design value periods that straddle 2002, or 2000- 2002, 2001-2003 and 2003-2004. The species fractions from 2002 speciation data were used to estimate the species concentrations. The caption has been modified to clarify what is being presented. The 2002 speciation data was reconstructed using the SANDWICH method and spatial interpolation of data since there were no co -located speciation monitors at the Charleston (54-039-0010) or South Charleston (54- 039-1005) FRM monitor sites in 2002. The speciation data in Appendix A is for the co-l ocated South Charleston speciation monitor for 2004 - 2008, and does not reallocate the “other” portion of the mass to the remaining components. A reference to the speciation data contained in Appendix A has been added. A more detailed explanation of the SANDWIC H method and the projection methodology can be found in Chapter 4 of the ASIP TSD which is contained in Appendix N.2 The vertical axes of Figures 2.2-5 and 2.2-6 were improperly translated by the printing software, they have been corrected. Identifiers in the legend on the right side of figures 2.2-5 and 2.2-6 have been added to the acronyms and abbreviations section. The 2009 model values shown in figure 2.2-7 are calculated using the Speciated Model Attainment Test (SMAT). For a more detailed explanation of SMAT see Chapter 4 of the ASIP TSD contained in Appendix N.2. Details on SMAT can also be found in the report “Procedures for Estimating Future PM 2.5 

### Values for the CAIR Final Rule by Application of the (Revised) Speciated Modeled Attainment Test (SMAT)” (EPA, 2004). http://www.epa.gov/CAIR/pdfs/Revised-SMAT.pdf
A sentence has been added at the end of the section which states: West Virginia acknowledges that the 2009 projections are modeled projections for 2009 and not based upon 2009 monitoring data, although we are now in calendar year 2009. Data collection for 2009 will not be complete until the end of the calendar year, and will not be quality assured until early 2010.
COMMENT G: Section 2.3 Attribution of Emissions Sources WV DEP’s statement in the second paragraph of this section regarding the contribution of biogenic emissions to Organic Carbon (OC) could use further refinement. Figures 2.2-3 and 2.2-4 show OC contributions remain unchange d, percentage wise, throughout the year even though 1 st 

### and 4 th

### quarter biogenic emissions, which ma ke up a large portion of OC, should

Charleston, WV PM 2.5 SIP Response to Comments Page 7

### have declined considerably during these quarters. It would seem, therefore, that anthropogenic sources of OC are significant c ontributors to PM-2.5 concentrations during these quarters and could be targeted if further re ductions are needed for Charleston to reach attainment. The last paragraph of this section should indicate which year SO 2 

### emissions are being discussed (2002). Figure 2.3-3 should also indicate what year these SO 2 

### emissions represent.
RESPONSE G: VISTAS/ASIP conducted a study to better unde rstand the role of organic carbon in the formation of PM 2.5 

### , the results of which are presented in the June 30, 2009 final report

“ Comparison of Particulate Source Contributions in the Southeastern U.S. using Photochemical Grid and Receptor Modeling ”. The entire report has been included as Appendix N.3. The report states: The two largest components of visibility impairment and PM 2.5 

### mass in the southeastern U.S. are ammonium sulfate [(NH 4 

### ) 2 

### SO 4

### also referred to as SO 4 

### ] and organic carbon mass (OCM). The visibility improvements between 2002 and 2018 calculated by the VISTAS modeling was primarily due to reductions in SO 4

### (Morris et al., 2009a). Similarly, most of the reductions in PM 2.5 

### mass between 2002 and 2009/2012 estimated by ASIP were due to reductions in SO 4 

### . There was less change in OCM concentrations between the current and future years, making OCM a more important component of the PM budgets and visibility impairment in the Southeastern U.S. in the future. The report goes on to explain: Total Carbon (TC) consists of OCM and Elemental Carbon (EC). EC is formed primarily through combustion (e.g., diesel mobile sources and fires) and is a small fraction of the TC, which is dominated by OCM. OCM is a complex mixture of compounds that consist of primary emitted Carbon from anthropogenic and natural sources and Secondary Organic Aerosols (SOA) that are formed from primary emitted anthropogenic and biogenic Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) species that can condense to form particulate SOA. SOA can also form from Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (SVOC) emissions that are either not accounted for or not well characterized in the current generation of emission inventories. Because the source of OCM measured at a monitor can be either primary or secondary in origin and from either anthropogenic or biogenic sources, it is

Charleston, WV PM 2.5 SIP Response to Comments Page 8

### difficult to attribute the source of the OCM using standard measurements. This is in contrast to SO 4 

### , the other major constituent of fine PM in the eastern U.S., which is formed primarily from SO 2 

### emissions with electrical generation (primarily from coal combustion) being the largest contributor of SO 2

### in the VISTAS/ASIP states (77% based on 2002 inventories; MACTEC, 2008). The primary emissions component of OCM in the southeastern U.S. has been attributed to source categories in several recent studies using the Chemical Bass Balan ce (CMB) receptor model (Zheng et al., 2002; Yu et al., 2004; Sang il et al., 2007). These CMB studies have identified the three largest categories of OCM concentrations in the southeastern U.S. as vegetative burning, mobile sources and an unexplained fraction that is presumed to be secondary in origin. There are large spatial and seasonal variations in these attributions and the source and the composition of the unexplained fraction is not well understood. As discussed in Section 2.3, the speciated analysis of the PM 2.5 

### concentrations in the Charleston area demonstrate that the OC and SO 4

### components are the most important portions of the total PM 2.5 

### mass throughout the year. However, SO4 is the only significant PM 2.5 

### component species found throughout the year th at is attributed to a set of emission sources that are controllable through regulatory actions by the WV Division of Air Quality. The last paragraph of Section 2.3 ha s been amended to indicate that SO 2

### emissions for 2002 are being discussed. The caption for Figure 2.3-3 has also been amended to indicated that 2002 SO 2

### emissions are being presented.
COMMENT H:
Section 2.4.a Direct PM-2.5 Emissions No breakdown of PM-2.5 emissions was given in this section for the 2002 base year or for the projected 2009 attainment date. These emissions should be included as well as any caveats regarding their construction. Any qualita tive trends should also be included in this section.
RESPONSE H: Tables 2.4.a-1 and 2.4a-2 have been added, which provide a breakdown of statewide PM 2.5 

### emissions and PM 2.5 

### emission in Kanawha and Putnam counties.

Charleston, WV PM 2.5 SIP Response to Comments Page 9

### COMMENT I:
Section 2.4.b SO2 Emissions Table 2.4.b-1 shows substantial reductions in the projected 2009 SO 2 

### emissions for the state of West Virginia and the Charleston PM- 2.5 nonattainment area, which includes Kanawha and Putnam Counties. WV DEP should determine if SO 2 

### controls will actually be in place for 2009 (the current year) as projected.
RESPONSE I: The majority of the SO 2

### emission reductions in the state, including Kanawha and Putnam Counties, are expected as a result of controls being installed on EGUs. The schedule for installation of controls on EGUs is contained in Table 6.1. In addition, the shutdowns of FMC and Flexsys in Kanawha and Putnam Counties, respectively, have already occurred, resulting in a 1,516 ton SO 2

### reduction, as well as reduc tions of 704 tons of NO x

### and 7 tons of PM 2.5 

### , that were not accounted for in the 2009 modeling projections. Furthermore, there were reductions from the shutdowns of Cabot and Cytec, within the Area of Influence (AoI), which resulted in reductions of 10,301 tons of SO 2 

### , 1,261 tons of NO x

### and 194 tons of PM 2.5 

### , that were also not accounted for in the 2009 modeling projections. These reductions have been included in Section 8.9 as contingency measures.
COMMENT J:
Section 2.4.d VOC Emissions While anthropogenic VOC emissions show little effect on PM-2.5 concentrations on an annual basis they may contribute to high OC percentages during the 1st and 4th quarters when biogenic emissions are relatively small. VOC controls could provide PM-2.5 reductions during the winter months if additional controls are needed to get Charleston into attainment.
RESPONSE J: West Virginia has expected reductions state wide of 17.6% of anthropogenic VOC emissions from 2002 to 2009, with an expected 19.1% reduc tion in the Charleston nonattainment area. Area source VOC emissions are expected to decrease 9%, onroad mobile VOC emissions are expected to decrease 41%, nonroad mobile VOC emissions are expected to decrease 21%, while point source VOC emissions are expected to increase by 1%. VISTAS/ASIP had sensitivity studies conducted by Georgia Tech which indicated that a domain-wide 30% reduction in anthropogenic VOC emissions would have little, if any, effect on organic carbon concentrations.

Charleston, WV PM 2.5 SIP Response to Comments Page 10

### Organic carbon (OC) contribution to PM 2.5 

### is not well understood and VISTAS/ASIP conducted studies of the organic carbon in order to better understand the role of OC’s contribution to PM 2.5 

### formation. The final report “ Comparison of Particulate Carbon Source Contributions in the Southeastern U.S. Usi ng Photochemical Grid and Receptor Modeling ” has been added as Appendix N.3. PM 2.5 Response (D1 - Typical) at Site to D1: Summer

-13.0
-11.0
-9.0
-7.0
-5.0
-3.0
-1.0
1.0
3.006/0106/0206/0306/0406/0506/0606/0706/0806/0906/1006/1106/1206/1306/1406/1506/1606/1706/1806/1906/2006/2106/2206/2306/2406/2506/2606/2706/2806/2906/3007/0107/0207/0307/0407/0507/0607/0707/0807/09delta PM2.5(microgram/m⎝)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

SOIL EC OC NO3 NH4 SO4 PM25 

### PM2.5

### Response (D1 - Typical) at Site to D1: Winter

-3.5
-2.5
-1.5
-0.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.511/1911/2011/2111/2211/2311/2411/2511/2611/2711/2811/2911/3012/0112/0212/0312/0412/0512/0612/0712/0812/0912/1012/1112/1212/1312/1412/1512/1612/1712/18delta PM2.5(microgram/m♦)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

SOIL EC OC NO3 NH4 SO4 PM25

Charleston, WV PM 2.5 SIP Response to Comments Page 11

### COMMENT K: Typo: Last paragraph on page 71, should the first sentence read “...12 km grid...”?
RESPONSE K: The first sentence of the last paragraph on page 71 should read “...12/36 km grid...”. The correction has been made.
COMMENT L: Section 5.2 VISTAS/ASIP Domain-wide Performance Clarification regarding figures 5.2-1, 5.2-2 and 5.2-3: Do these plots represent average model performance statistics for all VISTAS STN monitors or only those monitors shown in figure 5.1-1?
RESPONSE L: As stated in the captions for Figures 5.2-1, 5.2- 2 and 5.2-3, these figures present data for all VISTAS STN sites. Figure 5-1 shows the IMPROVE, STN, CASTNet, NADP and SEARCH monitoring sites located in the VISTAS/A SIP region (outlined in green) and the VISTAS/ASIP 12 km grid. For a more detailed explanation of the model performance evaluation see Chapter 3 of the ASIP Technical Support Document contained in Appendix N.2.
COMMENT M: Section 5.3 West Virginia PM-2.5 Model Performance Comments regarding figure 5.3-1: Fractional bi as and fractional gross errors scores could be removed from the figures and put into separate tables to make them clearer. Scatter plots based on quarters instead of months would be more relevant to the annual standard and indicate which quarters are be tter simulated by CMAQ. In all cases it appears the 12 km grid CMAQ runs outperformed the 36 km CMAQ runs.
RESPONSE M: DAQ disagrees that removal of the data values from the graphs would make them clearer. The agency believes that presentation of thes e values helps inform interpretation of the charts. For a more detailed explanation of th e model performance evaluation see Chapter 3 of the ASIP Technical Support Document contained in Appendix N.2.

Charleston, WV PM 2.5 SIP Response to Comments Page 12

### Quarterly scatter plots and time series of predicted and observed PM 2.5 

### concentration plots are contained in Appendix D of the ASIP TSD which is contained in Appendix N.2.
COMMENT N: Section 5.4 Conclusions of Model Performance Evaluation Please clarify how many CMAQ grid cells were used in the SMAT.
The “OCM” term in this section is not clearl y defined in the document. This term appears in section 5.4.1 of EPA's Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air QualityGoals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, EPA -454/B-07-002, April 2007. Quarterly averages from the South Charleston monitor (54-039-1005) indicate substantially higher average PM-2.5 concentrations during th e 3rd quarter than other times of the year. This quarter is typically dominated by sulfates (see figure 2.2-4). The CMAQ model under-prediction mentioned in this section could affect the SMAT possibly giving an artificially low projected 2009 concentration. Th is in turn could lead to an under prediction of South Charleston's 2009 projected PM-2.5 design value.
RESPONSE N: As stated in Section 4.6 of the ASIP TSD, which is contained in Appendix N:
. . . for the ASIP 2009 PM 2.5 

### Design Value projections, RRFs were based on the modeling results with in the grid cell containing the FRM monitoring when using the CMAQ 36 km modeling results, and in the 9 grid cells centered on the FRM monitor for the CMAQ 12 km modeling results. OCM means organic carbon mass. It has been a dded to the list of acronyms and defined in Section 5.4. The June 30, 2009 final report “ Comparison of Particulate Source Contributions in the Southeastern U.S. using Photochemical Grid and Receptor Modeling ” explains OCM in greater detail. The entire report has been included as Appendix N.3. The report states: Total Carbon (TC) consists of OCM and Elemental Carbon (EC). EC is formed primarily through combustion (e.g., diesel mobile sources and fires) and is a small fraction of the TC, which is dominated by OCM. OCM is a complex mixtur e of compounds that consist of primary emitted Carbon from anthropogenic and natural sources and Secondary Organic Aerosols (SOA) that are formed from primary

Charleston, WV PM 2.5 SIP Response to Comments Page 13

### emitted anthropogenic and biogenic Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) species that can condense to form particulate SOA. SOA can also form from Semi-VolatileOrganic Compound (SVOC) emissions that are either not accounted for or not well characterized in the current generation of emission inventories. Because the source of OCM measured at a monitor can be either primary or secondary in origin and from either anthropogenic or biogenic sources, it is difficult to attribute the source of the OCM using standard measurements. This is in contrast to SO 4 

### , the other major constituent of fine PM in the eastern U.S., which is formed primarily from SO 2 

### emissions with electrical generation (primarily from coal combustion) being the largest contributor of SO 2

### in the VISTAS/ASIP states (77% based on 2002 inventories; MACTEC, 2008). The primary emissions component of OCM in the southeastern U.S. has been attributed to source categories in several recent studies using the Chemical Bass Balance (CMB) receptor model (Zheng et al., 2002; Yu et al., 2004; Sangil et al., 2007). These CMB studies have identified the three largest categories of OCM concentrations in the southeastern U.S. as vegetative burning, mobile sources and an unexplained fraction that is presumed to be secondary in origin. There are large spatial and seasonal variations in these attributions and the source and the composition of the unexplained fraction is not well understood. Quarterly averages from the South Charleston monitor (54-039-1005) do indicate substantially higher average PM 2.5 

### concentrations during the 3rd quarter than other times of the year as indicated in Section 2.1 of the SI P narrative which states: “It was determined that higher PM 2.5 

### concentrations are more likely to occur during the second and third quarters, or between April and September, with most occurring between June and September.” As the commenter noted Figure 2.2-4 shows that PM 2.5 

### formation for this quarter is typically dominated by sulfates. In regard to the CM AQ model underprediction of sulfate mentioned in Section 5.4 of the SIP narrative, which states: Sulfate Underprediction Bias : Although SO 4

### is performing well, it does have an underprediction bias that is largest in the summer months. But this underprediction is not severe and the model appears to be capturing the temporal and spatial variations in the observed sulfate well and is responding to the SO 2

### emission reductions between 2002 and 2009 in a manner as expected. Thus the model performance indicates that the modeled relative changes in SO 4 

### concentrations are likely a valid response.

Charleston, WV PM 2.5 SIP Response to Comments Page 14

### The SIP narrative goes on to state:
SO 4

### reductions dominate the changes in PM 2.5 

### Design Values between 2002 and 2009. SO 4

### performance is quite good in the CMAQ 2002 Base G2 Actual Base Case simulation, almost always achieving the PM performance goal and frequently also achieving the more stringent ozone performance goal. These factors provide confidence in the Design Value pr ojections using the CMAQ Base G modeling results. The calculations for the projections are done on a relative basis, rather than an absolute basis. Even with a sulfate underprediction in the absolute sense, the relative change in sulfate between the base case and future case, should still give an accurate projection. Furthermore, the third quarter monitored PM 2.5 

### concentration, as of September 7, 2009, for the South Charleston monitor (54-039-1005) is 14.34 μg/m 3 

### , which is well below the 17.06 μg/m 3 

### projected for the 3 rd

### quarter of 2009. For a more detailed explanation of model perf ormance evaluation see Chapter 3 of the ASIP TSD contained in Appendix N.2.
COMMENT O:
Section 7.1 Attainment Test Introduction The most recent version of EPA's Model Attain ment Test Software (MATS) is version 2.2.1 released in March of 2009. While the most recent version of MATS still does not calculate 24-hr PM-2.5 concentrations it is capable of calculating projected annual PM-2.5 concentrations. WV DEP's comparison of results between th e ASIP PM-2.5 projection tool and EPA’s MATS program confirm results are similar. Finalresults, however, should come from the most recent version of the MATS program in accordance with EPA guidance.
RESPONSE O: MATS Version 1.5.1 dated June 6, 2008 was used. The March 2009 version was not available at the time the analysis was completed. The submittal of this SIP was delayed at EP A’s request due to the July 11, 2008 vacatur of CAIR. At the time of the Court’s v acatur of CAIR the Parkersburg 1997 PM 2.5 

### SIP, which relies on the same technical basis as the Charleston SIP, was out for public comment, and the modeling had been completed for all of the West Virginia 1997 PM 2.5 

### nonattainment areas. Due to the vacatur of CAIR EPA gui dance was that DAQ should not submit any SIP

Charleston, WV PM 2.5 SIP Response to Comments Page 15

### which relied on CAIR to demonstrate attainment. The Court later, in a December 23, 2008 decision, remanded CAIR back to EPA to re medy its fatal flaws, without vacatur. EPA guidance continued to indicate that any SIP which relied on CAIR may not be approvable. EPA guidance and tools have frequently been late, often issued after the majority of the technical work has been completed. Such wa s the case for the issuance of MATS. The PM 2.5 

### projections were originally done using the ASIP projection tool, which was developed by ASIP contractors, while awaiting the MATS tool from EPA. Upon issuance of the MATS tool, the PM 2.5 

### projections were redone using MATS, and the results of both are included in the SIP and Appendix N. EPA has since updated MATS, however, all the modeling work had already been completed using the previous version of MATS. The work was completed using the most recent version of MATS available at the time the work was completed. DEP does not have sufficient time or resources to redo the attainment demonstration for a second time but we would expect substantively the same result. In its review, EPA may want to recalculate the attainment results using the most recent version of MATS.
COMMENT P:
Section 7.2 Attainment Test Results Modeled annual PM-2.5 concentrations for both monitors in the Charleston nonattainment area are presented in this section. Results for the 24-hour PM-2.5 standard should also be included. Please indicate how projected 24-hour PM-2.5 concentrations will be reconstructed. In tables 7.2-1, 7.2-2 and 7.2-3 quar terly PM-2.5 values should be reported out to two (2) significant figures. Design values should be reported to one significant figure. 2008 annual PM-2.5 design values for both mon itors in the Charleston nonattainment area are higher than their 2009 CMAQ projected design values. The following table summarizes monitoring data taken from WV DEP's Appendix A along with projected values from table 7.2-3.

1 st Quarter 2 nd Quarter 3 rd Quarter 4 th Quarter Annual Design Value 2008 Monitored 13.60 13.54 18.53 11.08 15.4 2009 Projected 13.5 15.3 17.1 12.8 14.7

Charleston, WV PM 2.5 SIP Response to Comments Page 161 st Quarter 2 nd Quarter 3 rd Quarter 4 th Quarter Annual Design Value 2008 Monitored 11.55 12.21 18.06 9.56 14.2 2009 Projected 11.8 14.1 15.6 11.0 13.1



### RESPONSE P: As stated in Section 4.1 of the ASIP TSD (contained in Appendix N.2):
The current PM 2.5 

### State Implementation Plans (SIPs) are addressing the 1997 PM 2.5 

### NAAQS that have thresholds of 15.0 μg/m 3 

### annual and 65 μg/m 3 

### 24-hour PM 2.5 

### concentrations. Currently, all FRM monitors in ASIP states attain the 65 μg/m3 

### 24-hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS so projections are only made for the annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. Note that in 2006 EPA revised the 24-hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS with a new threshold of 35 μg/m 3 

### . The new 35 μg/m 3 

### 24-hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS will be addressed in future PM 2.5 

### SIP actions. Furthermore, EPA has not yet updated the MATS tool to calculate the 24-hour PM 2.5 

### concentrations. As EPA states on their Phot ochemical Modeling website, as of September 22, 2009, http://www.epa.gov/scram001/modelingapps_mats.htm : The 24-hour PM 2.5 

### attainment test is not currently implemented. An updated version (which includes the 24-hour PM 2.5 

### attainment test) is currently in beta testing and will be posted when available. WVDAQ notes that the worst 24-hour design value in the state from 2000 - present is 47 μg/m 3 

### (see data in Appendix A), which is 72% of the 65 μg/m 3 

### standard. No RRFs produced by the modeling would result in a design value exceeding 65 μg/m 3 

### . Therefore, the 24-hour NAAQS continues to be attained throughout the state. DAQ believes the commenter meant to comment on the number of decimal places rather than the number of significant figures. Tabl es 7.2-1, 7.2-2 and 7.2-3 have been updated to 2 decimal places for quarterly values and one decimal place for annual values. The DAQ notes that the quarterly values measured to 2 decimal places contain 4 significant figures, while the annual average values carried out to 1 decimal place contain 3 significant figures. In regard to the difference between the 2008 monitored values and the 2009 projected values – there are reductions expected in 2009, whic h had not occurred in 2008, so are not reflected in the 2008 monitored values. Furthermore, th e 2002 meteorological conditions used for the modeling are not the actual meteorological conditions for 2008 or 2009, so the modeled PM 2.5 

### concentrations will rarely match the monitored PM 2.5 

### concentrations.

Charleston, WV PM 2.5 SIP Response to Comments Page 17

### As can be seen in the table below, the 2009 monitored values are well below both the 2008 monitored values and the projected 2009 values.

Year PM 2.5Concentration 1 st Quarter 2 nd Quarter 3 rd Quarter 4 th Quarter Annual Design Value 2008 54-039-0010 (monitored) 11.55 12.21 18.06 9.56 14.2 2009 54-039-0010 (monitored) 10.32 11.32 NA NA NA 2009 54-039-0010 (projected) 11.76 14.08 15.61 10.97 13.1 2008 54-039-1005 (monitored) 13.60 13.54 18.53 11.08 15.4 2009 54-039-1005 (monitored) 13.26 11.73 14.34* NA NA 2009 54-039-1005 (projected) 13.51 15.32 17.06 12.81 14.7 *Third quarter 2009 monitored value is not for full quarter, reflects monitored data as of September 7, 2009. 

### COMMENT Q: Section 7.3.a.2 Midwest RPO Modeling Table 7.3-2 highlights the Weirton nonattainment area instead of the Charleston nonattainment area RESPONSE Q: Table 7.3-2 has been corrected to highlight th e Charleston nonattainment area rather than the Weirton nonattainment area.
COMMENT R: Section 7.3.b Trends in Ambient Air Quality and Emissions WV DEP displays recent trends in annual PM-2.5 concentrations for both Charleston nonattainment area monitors. Figure 7.3.b-1 shows annual concentrations along with fitted linear tend lines. No analysis was offered to determine if these inferred trends were statistically significant. The South Charleston monitor's long-term tre nds were examined using quarterly data from Appendix A and the R statistical package (http://www.r-project.org/). Annual concentrations at this monitor do appear to be falling at a statistically significant level (see Graph 1, next page). Trends in quarterly data show that P M-2.5 concentrations have fallen at statistically significant levels for both the 1st and 4th quarte rs. The 2nd quarter, while declining, does not have a statistically significant trend. Th ird quarter trends remain generally unchanged. This may be due to the lack of significant SO 2 emission reductions, which contribute to high
Charleston, WV PM 2.5 SIP Response to Comments Page 18

### sulfate levels during the warmer summer months. Graphical results for point source emissions presented in figure 7.3.b-2 indicate SO2 emission trends are flat matching 3rd quarter PM-2.5 monitoring trends. WV DEP should survey its major point sources to determine if and when SO2 contro ls will be put in place to confirm that modeled PM-2.5 reductions will occur as projected. WV DEP should be careful attributing recent declines in local PM-2.5 concentrations to reductions in emissions. The state of West Virg inia as well as most of the United States is experiencing a significant economic contraction. This is evident in the state's economic activity indexes, which shows substantial reductions during the last months of 2008 and have continued into 2009. Economic contraction in neighboring states such as Ohio, a much larger state in terms of real GDP, started earlier beginning in 2008 (see graphs from the St. Louis Fed on the following pages). This economiccontraction has idled factories, reduced electrical demand along with demand for regional coal. All of these factors ultimately contribute to lower emission levels and in tu rn lower PM-2.5 concentrations. Without documented emission controls in place on West Virginia and neighboring state sources, PM-2.5 concentrations will undoubtedly increase once economic activity returns to pre-contraction levels.
RESPONSE R: Figures 2.5-1 and 7.3.b-1 show signifi cant reductions in the observed PM 2.5 

### annual design values for the Charleston nonattainment area. West Virginia’s demonstrated reductions in design values for PM 2.5 

### meet all regulatory requirements and EPA’s Clean Data Policy has no component for a test of sta tistical significance. EPA does notsuggest a specific test for statistical significance to be applied to the desi gn values in this case. In addition, our review of 40 CFR 51, Appendix W, does not reveal a speci fic statistical procedure to apply in this situation. Nonetheless, WV has shown reductions in the PM 2.5 

### annual design values for the Charleston nonattainment area. Furthermore, as EPA notes “ (a)nnual concentrations at this monitor [South Charleston monitor] do appear to be falling at a statistically significant level” (emphasis added). WVDAQ did not represent them as necessarily statistically significant. As noted above, WVDAQ does not know of any requirement to determine statistical significance. A plot of WV's economic activity index combined with PM 2.5 

### ambient concentrations data reveals that concentrations of PM 2.5 

### steadily decreased even with a strongly increasing economic activity. [See chart in Response S, below.] The speculation that PM 2.5 

### concentrations will increase once economic activity returns to pre-contraction levels does not seem to supported by the available data.

Charleston, WV PM 2.5 SIP Response to Comments Page 19

### COMMENT S: Graph 1. Yearly and Quarterly Trends using R

Charleston, WV PM 2.5 SIP Response to Comments Page 20

### Economic Activity Index Graphs for WV and OH Data Source: St. Louis Fed: http://alfred.stlouisfed.org/category?cid=27281

Charleston, WV PM 2.5 SIP Response to Comments Page 21

### RESPONSE S:

As noted in Response S above, a plot of West Virginia’s economic activity index combined with PM 2.5 

### ambient concentrations data reveals that concentrations of PM 2.5 

### steadily decreased even with a strongly increasing economic activity. The speculation that PM 2.5 

### concentrations will increase once economic activity returns to pre-contraction levels does not seem to supported by the available data.
COMMENT T: Section 7.4 Unmonitored Area Analysis This section references the “current-year” while discussing the unmonitored area analysis even though it appears to be referencing the base-year or 2002. Figure 7.4-1 and 7.4-2 also appear to refer to base-year PM-2.5 concentrations (2002) but are not labeled as such.
RESPONSE T: The “current year” is referring to the base year of 2002, as indicated in Table 7.4. To further clarify that the base year of 2002 is the basis for the current-year design value (DVC), the third paragraph of Section 7.4 has been modified as shown below. Coincident Economic Activity Index for West Virginia (Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia) and PM2.5 Ambient Monitoring Data

135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175

Jan

‐ 9 9 May

‐ 99 Se

p ‐ 9 9 Jan

‐ 00 May

‐ 00 Se

p ‐ 0 0 Jan

‐ 01 Ma

y ‐ 01 S e p ‐ 0 1 Ja

n ‐ 02 May

‐ 02 Sep

‐ 02 Jan

‐ 0 3 May

‐ 03 Se

p ‐ 0 3 Jan

‐ 04 May

‐ 04 Se

p ‐ 0 4 Jan

‐ 05 Ma

y ‐ 05 S e p ‐ 0 5 Ja

n ‐ 06 May

‐ 06 Sep

‐ 06 Jan

‐ 0 7 May

‐ 07 Se

p ‐ 0 7 Jan

‐ 08 M

a y ‐ 08 Se

p ‐ 0 8 Jan

‐ 09 May

‐ 09(July1992=100)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20PM2.5(ug/m3) WV Economic Index Kanawha (054

‐ 039

‐ 0010) Kanawha (054

‐ 039

‐ 1005) Annual PM2.5 Standard Linear (Kanawha (054

‐ 039

‐ 0010)) Linear (Kanawha (054

‐ 039

‐ 1005))

Charleston, WV PM 2.5 SIP Response to Comments Page 22

### EPA’s PM 2.5 

### projection procedure includes an unmonitored area analysis that has been established in MATS (Modeled AttainmentTest Software). The unmonitored area analysis uses the futureyear annual PM 2.5 

### Design Values projection procedure applied to each grid cell in the modeling domain. In this procedure, the current-year (2002) annual PM 2.5 

### Design Values (DVC) are interpolated to each grid cell in the modeling domain. For a more detailed explanation of the procedure see Section 4.9 of the ASIP TSD contained in Appendix N.2. The legend in Figures 7.4-1 and 7.4-2 indicate that the concentrations are for the year 2002, however, to further clarify that 2002 is the year that is the basis for the DVC, “2002" has been added to the caption for Figures 7.7-1 and 7.4-2.
COMMENT U: Appendix A Quarterly data for monitor 54-039-0010 do not appear in this appendix.
RESPONSE U: Quarterly data for monitor 54-039-0010 was incorrectly labeled as monitor 54-039-0009. This typo has been corrected.
COMMENT V: Appendix B Please provide the source or sources of the land-use data used in the MM5 and CMAQ models.
RESPONSE V: The MM5 terrain file was generated using the MM5 TERRAIN preprocessor by BAMS as part of the VISTAS 2002 36/12 km MM5 modeling (Olerud, 2003a,b,c,d; Olerud and Sims, 2004). The MM5 TERRAIN processor uses terrain and land cover data available from the NCAR website: http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/mm5/documents/tutorial-v3-notes-pdf/terrain.pdf The CMAQ terrain input file was generated using the CMAQ MCIP processor that converts the MM5 13 land use categories to the 11 RADM land use categories used by CMAQ.

Charleston, WV PM 2.5 SIP Response to Comments Page 23

### COMMENT W: You asked us to review West Virginia’s analysis that attempts to demonstrate that on-road emissions of NOx 

### are insignificant for PM 2.5

### conformity purposes in Charleston. The information in the attainment demonstration indicates that on-road emissions of NOx 

### account for about 20% of the area’s NOx 

### inventory. West Virginia applied a trading ratio included in the PM 2.5

### NSR rule and converted all NOx emissions in the area to PM 2.5

### equivalents and made an argument that, when all of the emissions are converted using this ratio, on-road NOx 

### emissions are responsible for only a small percentage of PM 2.5

### in the area. We consulted with OAQPS on the use of these ratios in this manner and have concluded that it is inappropriate to apply the trading ratio to all NOx 

### emissions in the area to make an insignificance demonstration. The ratio was developed to apply to individual stationary source trades. It was not intended to be applied to all emissions sources across an entire nonattainment area. Also, EPA has accepted a petition to reconsider the use of these ratios for NSR purposes; therefore, we believe that they should not be used by West Virginia for purposes of demonstrating insignificance. Given that on-road sources account for about 20% of the NOx emissions in the area, we cannot agree that on-road emissions of NOx 

### are insignificant in Charleston. We also believe that it is unnecessary and inappropriate to use the SO 2 

### to PM 2.5

### trading ratio from the NSR rule to show that on-road emissions of SO 2 

### are insignificant. We have advised areas to make the case that on-road emissions of SO 2 

### represented only a small percentage of the inventory in the base year, since that time EPA has implemented the low sulfur gasoline and low sulfur diesel regulations which eliminated over 90% of on-road SO 2 

### emissions from base year levels and those rules will ensure that on-road SO 2 

### emissions remain at insignificant levels into the future. Finally, we had discussions with you begi nning in October 2007 concerning whether or not direct PM 2.5

### emissions were insignificant in Charleston. At that time we concluded that direct PM 2.5

### emissions are not insignificant. After reviewing the information presented in the attainment demonstration, we continue to believe that direct emissions of PM 2.5

### from on-road sources are not insignificant for conformity purposes.
RESPONSE W: The original proposed SIP had concluded that highway NO x

### and direct PM emissions were insignificant with respect to transportation conformity. This conclusion was based on the limited ability of NO x

### to form PM and the relative contribution to the overall equivalent PM emissions. Adverse comments from EPA indicated that the agency disagreed with our application of New Sour ce Review interpollutant trading ratios for NO x 

### . The agency also disagreed with our initia l finding that a 3.5% contribution of direct highway PM to the overall direct emissions is insignificant under the conformity rule.

Charleston, WV PM 2.5 SIP Response to Comments Page 24

### The DEP continues to believe that our results for NO x

### and direct PM are correct, i.e., we still believe that these pollutants should be exempt from emissions analysis under 40CFR93.109(k) for the Charleston area. Notwith standing that belief, we also recognize that such findings have far-ranging implications and that the EPA must consider the national ramifications for both interpollutant trading and significance thresholds. Further, we acknowledge that the Metropolitan Planni ng Organization, RIC, would likely prefer definitive emissions budgets to the uncertainty of our taking a position contrary to EPA guidance. In response, we have established PM 2.5 

### and Nitrogen Oxides (NO x 

### ) Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEB) for hi ghway vehicles; significantly revised the Transportation Conformity chapter (Chapter 2.5); and are reopening the comment period only with respect to this chapter of the proposed SIP revision.
2009 PM 2.5

### Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets NOx: 6,147 tons per year PM 2.5 

### : 116 tons per year

Charleston, WV PM 2.5 SIP Response to Comments Page 25