-----Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 07/28/2010 11:02PM -----

To: "Bromberg, Kevin L." <kevin.bromberg@sba.gov> From: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US Date: 07/28/2010 04:21PM cc: "Kymn, Christine J." <Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov>, "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>, "Johnson, Nancy" <Nancy.Johnson@hq.doe.gov>, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Larry Sorrels/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter Nagelhout/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Horowitz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Subject: Re: FW: Emission Factors and Percent Reduction by Catalysts

Kevin, Where are you seeing that the CO % reduction for 4SLB should be 71%? If you look at the table for 4SLB which is Table 2, see the far right column, the % reductions for CO are all greater than 90%. The % reductions for formaldehyde, which is what we use for HAP and VOC, is provided in each table (see CH2O). Table 4 for 4SRB engines does show the NOx % reductions, see the far right column. None of the other subcategories has NOx reductions.

The emission factors come from our Emissions Database that was put together several years ago, plus we supplemented that information with new data where we could. We're working on a memo that documents the information.

Melanie King Energy Strategies Group Sector Policies and Programs Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code D243-01 RTP, NC 27711

Phone: (919) 541-2469 Fax: (919) 541-5450 king.melanie@epa.gov

"Bromberg, Kevin L." ---07/28/2010 04:06:55 PM---Hi - Melanie - I'm forwarding this because I think Cortney is jammed. Not sure if we will get to thi

From:

"Bromberg, Kevin L." <kevin.bromberg@sba.gov>

To:

Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc:

"Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>, "Kymn, Christine J." <Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov>, "Johnson, Nancy" <Nancy.Johnson@hq.doe.gov>

Date:

07/28/2010 04:06 PM

Subject

:
FW: Emission Factors and Percent Reduction by Catalysts

Hi – Melanie – I’m forwarding this because I think Cortney is jammed. Not sure if we will get to this tomorrow in preamble questions, because it’s really about the RIA. But these are pretty basic, and your contractor could probably readily answer these. Kevin

_____________________________________________ From: Bromberg, Kevin L. Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:25 AM To: 'Higgins, Cortney'; Kymn, Christine J. Cc: Lee, Amanda I.Subject: Emission Factors and Percent Reduction by Catalysts

<<EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059-0665[1].pdf>> Cortney, Christine – I think we should forward this to EPA this AM. See below: This document is cited on page 2 of in the July 26 Cost/Ton memo, as the source of the control efficiencies represented in Table 2. The July 26 memo reports CO emission reductions of 94% and 49% for 4 SLB and 4 SRB respectively, and the figures in this document appear to indicate 71% and 49% respectively by my inspection. Although, EPA has properly identified the 49% reduction, it appears that the 4SLB figure used by EPA is incorrect: it should be 71% instead of 94% reduction. More importantly, this document does not provide the percent emission reductions for HAPs, VOCs, or NOx – where is this document? Perhaps, EPA meant to cite a different document in footnote 3 of the July 27 th document? Most importantly, the July 26 memo does not identify the source of the original emission factors of uncontrolled emissions listed in Table 2, before adoption of the percent reductions. What is the source of the original emission factors? Without this information, I can’t verify EPA’s emission reductions in two ways – can’t verify the control efficiencies or the original emission factors – which can very much modify the cost reasonableness of the GACT analyses. I thought I should send this in advance of tomorrow’s questions to give you a heads-up. If you could answer today, that would be even better. Thanks Kevin Thanks

Kevin (See attached file: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059-0665[1].pdf)