# DCoGOVERNMENTOFTHEDISTRICTOFCOLUMBIADistrictDepartmentoftheEnvironment 

# F r

*

* *i.v.OfficeoftheDirector 

# APR 4 2OC

Al a & (t21)APR-.22008RECEIVEDMr.DonaldS.WelshRegionalAdministrator,EPARegion3 

# 4 08MailCode3RAOOb1650ArchStreetPhiladelphia,PA19103-2029OFF1CEOFREG1ONALADMI°’DearMr.Welsh,PursuanttotheauthoritysetforthintheDistrictofColumbiaAirPollutionControlActof1984(“theAct”),Mayor’sOrder98-44,effectiveApril10,1998,andMayor’sOrder2006-61,effectiveJune14,2006,theDistrictofColumbiaisherebyrequestingapprovaloftheattachedStateImplementationPlans(SIPs)pertainingtoattainmentoftheFineParticle(PM2.5)NationalAmbientAirQualityStandards(NAAQS).Pleasefindattached:Three(3)copiesoftheSIPswithappendicesthatinclude:-The2002Base-YearEmissionsInventory;-TheAttainmentDemonstrationfor2010;-Ananalysisofreasonablyavailablecontrolmeasures;-TheContingencyPlan;•Thepublichearingnoticeandaffidavitofpublication;and•Thehearingofficer’scertification.•ACDcontaininganelectronicversionoftheSIPsplustheemissionsinventoryinNWformatYourexpeditiousreviewandapprovaloftheattacheddocumentsisrequested.Shouldyouhaveanyquestionsorrequireadditionalinformation,pleasecontactmeon(202)535-2615orMs.CecilyBeall,AssociateDirectorfortheAirQualityDivision,on(202)535-2626.SinceelGeorgeS.HawkinsDirectorcc:JudithKatz,Director,AirProtectionDivision,EPARegion3CecilyBeall,AssociateDirector,AirQualityDivision,DDOESIIUCrDEPARTMENT51NStreet,NE,6thFl.,Washington,DC20002Phone:(202)535-2615Facsimile:(202)535-2881‘THEENVIRONMENT

# GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Department of the Environment

***

Air Quality Division___________



# MEMORANDUM

TO: George Hawkins Director, Department of the Environment

FROM: Cecily Beau Hearing Officer

DATE: February 12,2008

SUBJECT: Hearing Officer’s Certification for the Public Hearing on Air Quality

Control Measures

This is to certify that, pursuant to the enclosed Notice of Public Hearing published in the

Washington Times, a hearing was held at approximately 6:00 p.m. on February 11, 2008 to give

the public the opportunity to comment on the draft State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Fine

Particle (PM2.5) Standard and 2002 Base Year Inventory.

Cecily Beau of the Department of the Environment, Air Quality Division, represented the

District. There were eight attendees who signed the attached attendance sheet.

Testimony was presented by:

1. Jessica Daniels Buchanan Street, NW Washington, D.C.

2. Jeff HolmsteadV



# Bracewell & Giuliani

2000 K Street, NW Suite 500

Washington, D.C. 20006-1872

51 N Street N.E.3rd 

# Floor, Washington, DC 20002 (202) 535-2257 FAX (202) 535-1371CAppendixKPublicHearingNoticesPublicCOmmentSummaryandResponse•C;AppendixK.PublicHearingNoticesexaminer,cornTbiirsday,I)ecemberZ2007LEGALSjLUIALS1jLEIIAI.SLESALSLEGALSMDEMarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironmenNoticeofPublicHearingonAirQualityPlanbeMarylandDepartmentoftheEnvtnuml(MUll)willholdaPublicHearingonaStateIniplemepiationPlan(SIP)addressingtheAnnualPineParticle(PM25)StandardfortheWaslungconDC-MD-VANonattainsnentArea.TheMishlngiunDC-MD-VANonartainrneniAreaincludeshefollowingMarylandcounties;Charles,Frederick.MontgomeryendPrinceGeorgc.TheHearingwillbeheldon:lanuary3fl,2008atfii00PMattheMarylandNadonalCapitolParkandt’IaimirtgCosiimlssion,FirstFlourAuditorium,8787GeorgiaAvenueSilverSpring,Maryland.ThePublicHearitiwillbeheldasrequiredbyfederallaw(cicanAirActat32u.S.C.7410(a)dod40CFR51.102).TheproposedplanisrirlgdtheStareImpleinentaUorzPlait(SIP?fr#AnnuaiThisParticle(PMZ.5)SWn4ardand2002BaseiisarIrweitioiyfortheWaskiizgfarz1)C-MD-VANo,laUain,nentArea.theplancontainsemissioninaentorles.controlmeisuresanati’unme-stderrLonstratlmsandmoLrichicleemissionbudctsthisplancontabsthebisoyear2002airpollutintemtsslnnsinventoryand2009proleetedmseniorywhichseneaaxthebasisforallplanningactivltiesrelatedtotheAnnuslPineParticleSianthirdfortheWashingtonDC-MD-VANortattainmentArea.OnDecember12,2007.theMetropolitanWsshingtonAirQualbyCommittee(MWAQC)approvedtheproposedplanforreleasefrpublicreviewandcomment.AfterconsiderationofcommeBtareceived,theplanwillbefinalizedandsubmittedtotheUnitedSlatelinvlronnsentalProtectionAgency.TheSIPdocumenthasbeenmadeavaiIablontheMarylandDepartmentOfLbsEuvironments.Wehsiteat1lnrLto,mde,aiate,uicLcriui2rnramsIAirProgrsmsIiirplsnninglindex.asptitledthe‘S’lantoImproveAtrQualityinthetMishinguinDC-MD-VARegion”Noic;thepubliclibrarysyslemsinlheregloncanbeusedfnrIntemetaccesstoviewthedocument.Copitsofthedocumentcanheviewedatthefollowi.ngiocatlons:1.MarylandDepartmentofthelinvironmentOffice,AirandRadiatlonManagementAdmmtstrttionJ800’.’iahinlllonBoulevardSUIIC73OEalijanoreMarylandContactRa,ulallCarrollorBrianHug.2,MelropalitariWashinglonCornellof’Governtnents,Suite300,777NorthCapitolStreet,NE,Washington,DC20002-Contact;JeffreyKingCommentsmaybepresentedatthehearing,mailed,emailed,orfaxedtoBrian1,Hug,MarylandDepartmentoftheEnvimnment,ArrandRadiationManagementAdmlrilstratldn.1800WashIngtonBoulevard,Baltimore,MD,21230,PasS410..537-4223bhug@mde.state.md.ustobereceivedbeforecloseofbusinessJanuary30,2008.hearingimpairedpersonmayrequestthataninterpreterbepresentatthehearingbynotifyingMUllflv(5)busineasdaysbeforethehearing.flYviaMarylandRClayforthehearingimpairedis(410)537-4396.FormoreinformatloncontactRandallCarrOll,AirQoslilyPlannerat(4101537-3232(Toll(neCInMarylandcall(800)633-6101ext.32521orRCarro1l@mde.slstemd.us.December27,200762413SMWAQCPM25SIPAppendixKPublicHearingNotices-Page:1March7,2008

# 0

0 

# tIa

ledUDAJGOVERNMENTOFTHEDISTRICTCOLUMBIADEPARTMENTOFThEENVIRONMENTNOTICEOFPUBUCHEARINGONAIRQUALITYISSUESNeticoisherebygleanthatapublichearlnwillbeheldnoMoudairsFebruaryIi2000at600p.m.hrtheSibFloorconferenceroomat51Ntreet.NE,Wusttlngtnn,D.C.TillshearlagprovidesIninrestedpartiesopopportunitytocunairoototttheDiStrict’sStateImplementatIonPlan(5199furtheWashingtonDC-MD00AOttoparticle(P012.5)norraltalnmentarea.Thepropusird‘StainImpItmeitIStIDsPlan(SIP)iorAnnualFloet’attlcledPM2.00Standardarid2002BaseseerriuentortrtartheWaslilitgtsnDC-MbVANonatlalgnientArea”,consistsof(I)adescrlppnn.dfebrst)ttgcontrolmeasures1(Illananalysisofrita’sotlablyavallabjecltettolmeasures.(((ifmolaroclilcieendssloebudgets.1(0)00ettainmptthdemnosfratinn,nod(0)entitle.gencpplugsibr:falpretoattainlireairqualitystandard:TheplanhIssSotsialonmebaseyear3002airpollutantemissiOnslonentetyend02009prr,jeclrvdineenlniry.shieSservesasthebasio.Foralliplhotilugschylticnrelatedtotoestandard.ThePrepeirodSIPearspreparedbylireDistrictnodtheMelpelltanWaahlnglorrAirQualifyCnmrnilee(MWAQC)1whichcutotlsisntelectednIrcnls1mmthealiectrillocalitiesand-represaniatjvetofIfrestolenaridSCtrartnpyrtaliOnaodairqualityilattnIngagencies.TileylznrisiritivadedInshowtltepaogcesub&ngmadetoImpecacarrqualityntheWashleetun-noflatlaittifletltannaandtireeffOrtsunderwayInassurethatallstepsaretaben10reachlireiedernlhealthslaedeadforPM2.by2000.F.IWAQCpreparonfireplantocomplywiltstheCleanArrACArrrerrlmentsot1990.1IretederalCleanAirFloeParticlefmplenientatisntalc,andgalatanceforimplementatIOnoftire5997PMZ.SStandards.OnDecember12.2007.MWA9Capprovedtheproponedplan,andDCandthestatesaremousingiibrpublicreniewandcumcsenr.TlrcprsposedSIPrevisionsareavailabletampublicreviewSanto0normalbuynrssSnortattheofPensoflireDlntrktDepart.martsvitireEnairnrrnveof102(001.51ft50-net.NC.110dm6051,Washingino,D.C.20057;litMetropolitanWahinotooCouncilofGoqernbveills,SuIte300,p71NnrltiCapitolStreel.96,Wash.iriglen,oc20002.cfrn0-cIleftCfrip;andoil-lineathttn:?Ahlr-,‘nwcon.irt/uir-qoalilyiSlrnred%2nllectenepis/vrmSfAlrm6.asgvhair:thepusliclibrarysystemin11wDistrictcanbuusedIorInlanietOCCOSStoulewliredncunrerrLinlefeatatip-irlhinWlnlvnrjIatqstlfyr)rhlshootingmustSubmitinwrlllirgfOrtehomes.adriresnes,wieplrnoerrumlteruandsiirlialiiin,ifany.IttMs.CrystalPrndlurattil)Oli1202-535-22571ho4:00p.m.,February15,2000.finwrittencomnlarrtsWillbea000pteilalterFelrrrrvry11,2000.rotnrowirlinrmatlon,cailMoCerilySnailan202-535-2020oremailheratCeclly,bealltybc.govMWAQCPM25SIPAppendixKPublicHearingNotices-Page:2March7,2008CCi1ICarH—_____IU18DEPATMENOFENRONMENTALQUAIflVtoattainandmaintainIhnotionalambieMairqualitystandardfOrP1225inthemetropelitain‘Nashnrgtort,DC.area,wInchincludesthenOrthernVirOiniajurisdictions0fLeadoanCoUnty.PrinceWilliamCounty.FairfaxCountyArllngoanCounty,ttleCityofFallsChurch,dieCityofAlenandrra.theCityofManassas,tileCityofFoirfan,andtIreCityofManirssasPark.Ifadopted,tileCommonwealthintendstOSubmittileplanorportiontIlOrcOtasaroviarontotileCommon.wealthelVirginiaStoleImplementationPlan(SIP)inaccordancew,’htheri’qiilremnrttsof§110(a)ofthefederalCleanAirAct.TtteSiPisthepinedevelopedbytheCootmpnweatthinsrd’rrtofoley55respon$ibiliIisunderthefederalCleanMrActtoattainandmaintainthearttbicntairqualitystandardspromulgatedttytile(1.5,En-alra,imentuiProtectionagency(EPA)undertileAct.Purposeofnotice’DEQisseekin0cOmmentsontheuvuraliplan,In.cludingIi)theatralemontplan,Is)theanalysisofreasonablyavailablecontrolninasures,(iii)theattainmentdemonstration(in)thecontrngcncyplansfprfailuretoattainthesirqaaiitystandard,(a)mobilesourcebudgets,andlvi)thebaseyear2082aIrpollutantemissionsiotentnry.Thebaseyear2002airpoi)utintemIssionsinventoryhonbeeapreparedinresponsetoIlteemissionInventoryrequirementsnnifr§172lc)ofthetederalCteanAirActntaccordancewith40CUR51,010,PublIccommentperiod:December28,2007,toJanuary30.2008PublIcheoring-GeorgeMasOnHighSchool,7t)-fLhi’sbarqPIke,tellsChurch.Viroinla(willeo,viilhin3distanceoftheW”,fC,-1i5ChurchMetroStation)at7:00pjsunJane-ary29,2000.Descriptionofproposal:Theyr000sodrcvivinn,Stateimpli’mooiSonPlan(SiP)furfileAnnuallineP-irllr,ulatal°M2.5)StandardandtIre2q02BaseYearinventorytirrtheWushnrptsn.DCMD-VAboostthininr’nlAres,”waspreparedbytheMetropolitanW,nnhsioptnnAirQualityCommittee(IiIWAQCI,.nthitliconsistsofClottedofbciolstruerlbsattestedis-ahilies,iirdrepreonotalivesofotatstrantporluironredairqualityetaeninagencies.TheplanisintondeijtoshowthenromrssheoigwasteinimproveairqualityintheWasltinsjtouriooatturnmeeliirCilSonlireeffortsunderwaytoassurethatiiincr.rsceiyslopsarelkei,toreachthefederalhr’olilist,sridrdfor‘122.0by7S09Mi’MQCpreparedtheplaittocomplywiththeCleanArtActArnpnrtmtntsof1990andwithfederalimpiementotungeldsoceFedurolInfrinnetion-Thisnoticeinbeinggivente‘ifythyysirincparticIpatIon)t-ijeirerfltfllsoffl-dmalrcqiiii’lronr,(lbOCRSt0?iTheprOposalwillhesubmittedassre-soontthCOnv,r’unaeithofV,g‘retOil’unrtertt8(alrhtheledgrstiCleanAirAnacnirrdaoccwill,tOCOO51.104.uIprw,ssnsoflhproprreaiarc’ylerinedtohaSuhlm,ttnrlasarevisionlvlilyCinoons-nullSriVirgiulasipHwwto000iinentrDLQar.rrpl’wrnlti’nrornoentobynn-wi,15‘sireliermvnsmssiso.andousfolmail,isonooprocs005ylototi),WRi’Tt’4COMMENTSYOSti’.CSUD(1118FULLNAMEACIJOESS.ANDttl(p[fOgEir’tJMRtnt0rpq3QCOMMFST1bCANDopRECEiVEDBY0(0iT5-00rY09THELASTDAYOFtHECO9MCNTPERti3D(JANUARy30,2000).Duotoproblcmswin’thenoalityatfacsimiletransmissions,cumn’colnlyureuncunrugn,jwprosiethesignedcirniinalbypostalmailwithinoness-eek,exitTrslandwritlviicnmmentareacceptedattftepublichewingSEQ‘rOtOrsthatCOmm,’ntsIreproscladinwriting,alonqwithanyOuops-’rngdocumentsorevhihifs.Alllestirenrny,‘ohibitaanddecnrueinhsrcrieedarcps’SofthepuhicrecordPleasenotethisprnpoplanisbeinscn’rrnrreotlyreviewedbytheu.S.EPA.Toreviewproposal:TheProposalandanystippnrtr’iqdn:jrr’rtuar’unalstblenotinsDEQAIrPublicNoticesfurOlusnobsilthttp:/Jwwwdeqergrnia.ovJhircfmlrtieg/pianotosh1riTheilacumoetsmayalsobeabtainedbycontactingtheSEQrcprecenlacs-onomadbelowThepublicmayreeiewthedocumentsbetween830n.m.and4.30Piii.SIeachbusinessdayuntilthecloseoftlnyse-ccuenuTneryperiodattheFollowinglocatinq;11OEQMonShe’)01(ice.8thFloor,629[.MainStreet,Richmond,Virginia.sc-icoyaogawl2)SEQNorthernVrirriaRegionalDffic.13801CoonCnorl,Weixibridge,Virginia.703-583-3850,Contactforpubltccomments,documentrequestsendadditionalInformution.DmisMct,eoct,AirQualityPlanner,DPparL’enntofAirDataAnalysIsandPlanning,DepartmentofEnvlronmo5aiQuality,P.O.Bonn1105.Richmond,VA232tn(phone804408-41°7.fan0)34-608-4515,emaildamcleodcleq,vniniagout1105OslO:Llscember78th,2007MWAQCPM25SIPAppendixKPublicHearingNotices-Page:3March7,2008

# List of Comments Received on the Draft PM 2

. 5 State Implementation Plan for the Washington, DC-MD-VA

Nonattainment Area

Comment Date

Number Commenter(s) Received Recipient

1 William Skrabak, on behalf ofthe City of Alexandria 1/30/08 VDEQ

2 Jeffrey Holmstead, Bracewell and Giuliani, on behalf 1/30/08 VDEQ

of Mirant Potomac River LLC

3 Jeffrey Holmstead, Bracewell and Giuliani, on behalf 1/30/08 MDE

of Mirant Potomac River LLC

4Ana Prados and Mike Town 1/29/08 VDEQ

Sierra Club, Virginia Chapter

5 Flint Webb, Fairfax Federation of Citizens 1/30/08 VDEQ

Associations

6 Julie Crenshaw Van Fleet 1/30/08 VDEQ

7Air Quality Public Advisory Committee 2/6/08 MWAQC

8 Roger Waud 2/7/08 DC DOE

9Tom Ballou, on behalf of Virginia DEQ 1/29/08 MWAQC

10 Marilyn Powers, U.S. EPA, Region III 1/30/08 VDEQ

11 Charley Baummer, on behalf of Metropolitan 1/30/08 VDEQ

Washington Airports Authority

l2William Skrabak, on behalf of the City of Alexandna 2/11/08 DCDOE

l3Jeffrey Holmstead, Bracewell and Giuliani, on behalf 2/11/08 DCDOE

of Mirant Potomac River LLC

14 Elizabeth Chimento 2/11/08 DCDOE



# MWAQC PM 2

. 5 SIP Appendix K Attachment 1

- 

# Page Number: 1 March 7, 2008

# Comment Summary and Response for Comments Received on the Draft PM 2

. 5 State Implementation Plan for the Washington, DC-MD-VA

Nonattainment Areaa

C

al



# Comment Commenter Recipient Response

General Comments on SIP

I The SIP include reference to the scientific community’s insistence Elizabeth Chimento DCDOE The main purpose of this attainment plan Continues to be demonstrating compliance with the 1997 standards of 15.0

that the annual 15 ug/m 3 

# NAAQS is too high andshould be reduced ug/m’ annually and 65 ug/m’ daily. FRM data show that the region has already attained the 1997 standards of 15.0

to 13-14 ug/m’ to be protective of human health. ug/m’ on an annual average and 65 ug/m’ on a daily average. While lower levels of air pollution are desirable, MWAOC

. 

# and the states do not agree that it is appropriate to comment on whether the NMQS provides a satisfactory level of

human health protection in the attainment SIP.

2 The SIP should include additional information on the health benefits Julie Crenshaw VDEQ, Language has been added to the attainment plan to indicate that attainment of the PM, 5 NA’QS, as well as further air

• expected to accwe from implementation of the plan, including the Van Fleet, AOPAC MWAQC quality improvements, will have a positive influence on the health and well-being of the citizens of the region,

health impacts around the PRGS.

. 

# The attainment plan requires that PRGS perform an ambient air quality analysis when the methodology for such an analysis is finalized. The results of this study may show that additional controls on PRGS are needed to ensure the PM 2

. 5

. 

# NMQS is met,

3 ATSDR Health Consultations for River Terrace in the District and the Julie Crenshaw 

# VDEQ MWAQC and the states will review and consider the identified health consultation studies.

Potomac River Generating Station in Alexandria should be reviewed. Van Fleet

4 The SIP should address the potential impact of the use of pollution Julie Crenshaw 

# VDEQ, MWAQC and the states do not believe that the attainment plan is an appropriate place to enumerate details about a

control additives such as TRONA. Van Fteet, AQPAC MWAQC specific facility’s Operational considerations. Such details are routinely examined and incorporated into permits through

the normal permitting process.

5 Direct primary PM,. 5 emissions, while not a large part of the inventory, AQPAC MWAQC MWAQC and the states agree that in the future more attention needs to be paid to PM 25 emissions sources and

are increasing and may need to be addressed in the future, emissions inventories, Much more federal guidance, including a more robust test results data base and the resulting

emission factors that may be developed for various source categories for that data base, needs to be provided to state

and local agencies. This information needs to contain information on both filterable and condensable PM,. 5

.

An area needing 

# work is the area source emissions inventory. The chemistry of PM 2

. 5 is still being examined by EPA

scientists, and until more information is known about PM, 5 formation, the relative importance of various area source

categories, and the need for area source controls, cannot be adequately evaluated.

6 In Section 2.6, the OCMs and the sulfates as mentioned and depicted AQPAC MWAQC MWAQC and the states agree that the science related to OCM/aerosots and VOCs is rapidly developing. While the

are of greater concern if considered cumulatively. Yet there is no current plan shows how we will attain the annual PM 2

. 5 standard changes in the PM 2

. 5 standard are eventual and there will

dialogue regarding them, and in this same Section the primary be a need to further develop our understanding of the complex Science of PM 2

. 5 However, for the purpose of this SIP the

aerosols, given the capacity to create new PM, should be dearly region has completed a plan that shows how the region will meet the current annual standard.

explained. The term 0CM should be included in the glossary.

7 Section 9.4.5 dubs .5 percent a “margin of safety.” The SIP should AQPAC MWAQC The commenter appears to be referring to the statement in Section 9.4.5 that notes, ‘EPA modeting guidance states that

clearly explain this percentage and justify its adequacy as a margin, those modeling analyses that show that attainment with the NASQS will be reached in the future with some margin of

since it may not be adequate.

- 

# safety (i.e., estimated concentration below 14.5 ug/m 3 for annual PM 15 and 62 ug/m 3 for 24-hour PM 25 ) need more limited

supporting material.’

The weight of evidence range, as suggested by EPA guidance for the annual PM,. 5 standard of 15.0 ug/m 3

, is 14.5 ug/m 3



# MWAQC PM 2

. 5 SIP Appendix K Attachment 1

- 

# Page Number: 2 March , 

# 2008

# C



# Comment Commenter Recipient Response

to 15.5 ug!m. Should the design values predicted by the regional modeng fall into this range, EPA has provided

guidance on what must be included in a weight of evidence showing to demonstrate that attainment of the standard will

be achieved in 2009.

Modeling results that fall beneath 14.5 ugfm 3

, such as those for metropolitan Washington, need a less comprehensive

weight of evidence demonstration. Modeling, which includes the additional suite of control measures prescribed by the 8-

hour ozone attainment plan, projects the area’s 2009 design value to be 13.9 ug/m 3

. See Table 9-3 of the draft PM 2

. 5

attainment demonstration.

Control StrategylMeasures

8 The states and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments AQPAC MWAQC MWAQC and the states agree and appreciate the recognition for the considerable progress being made to improve air

for their considerable efforts to reduce particle pollution below the quality in the region, induding adoption of local innovative programs.

annual standard.

The commenter urges that alternative and non-air-polluting energy

sources be promoted by measures like Green Buildings and LED

lighting.

9 The draft SIP does not adequately outline a process that will assure City of Alexandria, VDEQ, MWAQC and the states disagree; they believe that the programs outlined in the attainment plan are sufficient to

that the DC-MD-VA Region meets the NAQS standard for PM2.5. Roger Waud DCDOE accomplish the SIP goal. The main purpose of this attainment plan continues to be demonstrating compliance with the

How will existing permit programs be specifically implemented, or 1997 standards of 15.0 ug/m 3 annually and 65 ug/m 3 daily. FRM data show that the region has already attained the

enhanced, in regards to PM 25

. 1997 standards of 15.0 uglm 3 on en annual average and 65 ug/m 3 on a daily average. These accomplishments may be

attributed to many of the control programs implemented in previous attainment plans for ozone. Additional federal, state,

and supplemental control programs, as outlined in the draft attainment plan, will continue to reduce precursor and direct

emissions of PM 25

.

MWAQC and the states agree that it is important to be mindful of the 2006 

# PM NPAQS standard on a regional basis.

Section 8.2 of the draft attainment plan discusses the changes made to the major stationary source permitting program

in regards to PM 5

.

Section 8.4 notes the intention by the state agencies to adopt further PM 25 nonattainment permitting requirements,

including requirements for precursor emissions, controls, and offsets, when these regulations are finalized by EPA.

10 The attainment plan should contain.more rigorous monitoring, Alexandria, VDEQ, MWAQC and the states disagree with the comment that current permitting, enforcement, and monitoring program

permitting, and enforcement programs. Rigorous monitoring Elizabeth Chimento DCDOE requirements are lax and that there is an absence of a compliance and enforcement apparatus. Facilities that trigger

programs and more severe limitations are necessary due to model major new source review permitting, either as new or modified sources, must install technology deemed to meet lowest

uncertainty. Lax permitting, monitoring, and compliance programs achievable emission rates (LAER). Monitoring and enforcement programs in the Northern Virginia Regional Office

allow increases of emissions over this attainment plan’s emissions (NRO), VDEQ, MDE, and DCDOE are strong.

inventories and caps.

11 VDEQ’s proposed permit for PRGS is contradictory to SIP goals. City of Alexandria VDEQ, MWAQC and the states disagree. The main purpose of this attainment plan continues to be demonstrating compliance

The inventory used in the attainment plan regional modeling exercise DCDOE with the 1997 standards of 15.0 ug/m 3 annually and 65 ug/m 5 daily. FRM data show that the region has already attained

is less than proposed permit limits and therefore underestimates the 1997 standards of 15.0 uglm 3 on an annual average and 65 ug/m 3 on a daily average.

emissions.



# MWAQC 25 

# SIP Appendix K Attachment I

- 

# Page Number; 3 March 7, 2008

# C



# e

Comment Commenter Recipient Response

The proposed PRGS permit reduces emissions from the baseline year for this facitity. MWAQC and the states believe

that the proposed permit will improve air quatity and is not contrary to the goats of the PM 2

. 5 attainment ptan.

In addition, the attainment plan requires that PROS perform an ambient air quality analysis when the methodology for

.

- 

# such an anatysis is finalized. The results of this study may show that additional controls on PROS are needed to ensure

. 

# the PM 25 NPAQS is met.

MWAQC and the states do not support the approach of setting projection year emission inventories equal to permitted

limits or potential to emit. Regional modeling inventories are based on actual emissions and projected emissions.

Projected emissions are rarely, if ever, as high as the potential to emit of a facility. Projected emissions are generally

extrapolated using a base year’s actual emissions inventory and applying a conservative growth factor, as required by

EPA. In some instances, projected emissions are adjusted based on control estimates. However, projected emissions

are almost never based on potential to emit of a facility. MWAQC and the states believe that the 2009 projection year inventory is quite conservative.

12 The attainment plan does not discuss additional RACT/RACM in City of Alexandria VDEQ, 40 CFR 51.1010, which delineates requirements for reasonably available control measures (RACM) and reasonably

enough detail. DCDOE available control technology (RACT), predicates the implementation of a suite of measures on whether those measures

can collectively advance the attainment date of a nonattainment area by one year. Since the metropolitan Washington

area is currently attaining the PM 2

. 5 NAAQS, based on FRM data for 2003-2005 and 2004-2006, it is not possible for any

suite of measures to advance attainment. This explanation is provided in section 8.3 of the draft attainment plan.

13 U.S. EPA’s 

# Clean Air Fine Particulate Implementation Rule suggests City of Alexandria VDEQ, MWAQC and the states disagree with the comment. The justification for examining monitoring and opacity standards is

the use of more stringent monitoring and opacity standards, DCDOE discussed in EPA’s Clean Air Fine Particulate Implementation Rule (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) in the RACT/RACM

Virginia’s current opacity standard of 20% allows PM emission requirements. RACT/RACM requirements are predicated on advancing the attainment date, which is not possible for the

increases without adequate review. Opacity limitations should be metropolitan Washington area. Unless a facility undergoes a major modification as part of the new source review major

strengthened to no more than 10%, permitting process, in which case LAER must be applied, or undergoes a minor modification in which case state Best

Available Control Technology (BACT) must be applied, there currently is no basis for reviewing source-specific opacity

standards applied to major stationary sources.

14 Both proactive and piescriptive measures to reduce fine particle AQPAC MWAQC MWAQC and the states agree that additional measures need to be implemented to continue to improve air quality in the

pollution are of significant interest to the public and we encourage region, especially considering the pending new lower daily PM 25 standard, States and local govemments continue to

their development and implementation. Pushing forward on these identity and develop new policies and programs to reduce emissions in the region and in areas upwind of the region.

initiatives now, especially since some require medium- to long-term

planning, is essential in light of the reduction of the daily standard to

35 ug/m.

15 Education of the public on the health related issues of fine particles AQPAC MWAQC MWAQC and the states agree that public education programs are an important part of the region’s strategy to protect

should also be intensified, since it will facilitate future voluntary or human heath and improve air quality.

regulatory reductions for both fine particles as well as expected

requirements to reduce other pollutants with similar sources, such as greenhouse gases.

Attainment Modeling

- 

# 16 CMAQ generally over-predicts during winter months and under- City of Alexandria VDEQ. The Model Performance Evaluation (MPE) included in the metropolitan Washington attainment plan was developed

predicts during summer months, Statistical metrics such as fractional DCDOE based on input from several regional planning groups such as the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU),



# MWAQC PM 2

. 5 SIP Appendix K AttaChment 1

- 

# Page Number: 4 MarCh 

# 7, 2008

# C



# Comment Commenter Recipient Response

error and bias do not provide assurance that the model predictions the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and the Association for Southeastern Integrated Planning (ASIP). Specifically,

meet the modeling performance goats on either a 24-hour or an all elements of the modeling platform, including the emissions, meteorology, and air quality model, have undergone

annual basis. There is no observed error in model performance on extensive evaluation,

the end model result in the target year of 2010, The design value

calculations should include columns of maximum predicted values The results of the MPE for the metropolitan Washington area for PM 25 and its individual species indicate that the CMAQ



# that reflect the model’s worst-case performance for this modeling model performance for surface PM 2

. 5 is good, with acceptable bias and error. The MPE was consistent with EPA

domain. The analysis relies too heavily on the trend in 

# observed guidance and includes the proper statistical performance metrics.

PM 25 levels.

MWAQC and the States believe the issues identified by the commenter are not regulatory requirements and are not

appropriate for inclusion in the attainment demonstration since 

# attainment tests are based on the application of relative

response_factors.

17 The analysis relies too heavily on the trend in observed PM 2

. 5 levels. City of Alexandria VDEQ, MWAOC and the states recognize that model results and projections will continue to have associated uncertainty. 

# The

DCDOE attainment demonstration that EPA recommends recognizes this by including modeling plus other Supplemental

analyses such as air quality trends to determine whether all available evidence supports a conclusion that a proposed

emission_reduction_plan_will_suffice_to_meet the_NAAQS.

18 VDEQ should not rely on PM, 0 as a surrogate for PM 25 in the City of Alexandria VDEQ, MWAQC and the States not believe that the PM 25 attainment plan is an appropriate arena in which to discuss federal

permitting process for PRGS. DCDOE permitting guidance. Such permitting concerns are more appropriately addressed through the many significant public

participation_opportunities afforded_the_public_during_the_permitting_process.

19 The SIP does not address the reduced operational loads of PRGS City of Alexandria VDEQ, The goal of the attainment plan is to demonstrate compliance with the 1997 PM 2

. 5 NAAQS by 2009 on a regional basis.

that were important events in relation to the downward 24-hour

. 

# DCDOE

design level trends between 2002-04 and 2003-05. Chapter 9 -MWAOC and the States do not agree that detailed discussions of every facility’s operational changes between 2002 and

should include a thorough discussion, along with a timeline that 2009 are necessary.

matches the implementation of the regional programs with the FRM

monitoring results and include the effects of various actions

concerning PRGS on the decline in regional values.

Local Hotspots

20 Local hotspots should be addressed in the SIP. City of Alexandria, VDEQ. EPA does not define a hotspot in the implementation rule. The current EPA guidance for regional modeling to support

Julie Crenshaw DCDOE attainment plans notes that local area analyses are required for areas within a region that show elevated monitored PM 15

Van Fleet, AOPAC, MWAQC concentrations at monitors within the federal reference monitoring network when compared to data from other federal

Roger Waud, reference monitors in the region. There is no identified gradient in PM concentrations in the FRM network in the

Elizabeth Chimento metropolitan Washington region. Therefore, by EPA’s definition. there is no requirement to conduct a local area

. 

# analysis. MWAQC and the states are aware of highly conservative micro-scale modeling that indicates the possibility of a

“hotspot” in the City of Alexandria even though current data from the monitors located in the modeled area show that

concentrations are well beneath the NAAQS. Additionally, FRM monitoring data at the monitoring station in Arlington

. 

# show compliance with the NAOS. Regardless, the SIP does include requirements for further actions to address the

concerns regarding emissions from PRGS through additional analyses, when methodologies become available, as

required by Section 9.4.3.



# MWAQC PM 25 SIP Appendix K Attachment 1

- 

# Page Number: 5 March 7, 2008

# C



# s

. 

# Comment Commenter Recipient Response

21 The SIP should include either an Unmonitored Area Analysis or a City of Alexandria, VDEQ, MWAQC and the states believe that the most appropriate means to address the concerns raised about the emissions

Local Area Analysis for the Potomac River Generating Station and Julie Crenshaw DCDOE. from PRGS on the surrounding community is through the Virginia permitting process,but the SIP does contain a

other large point sources. The regional monitoring network is not Van Fleet, AQPAC, MWAQC requirement for Mirant to prepare and submit a modeling analysis 

# once federal guidance is available.

robust enough to detect exceedances of the NPAQS in the City of Roger Wauct,

Alexandria that are caused by the Mirant facility, modeling tools are Elizabeth VDEQ is currently in the process of conducting the Unmodeled Area Analysis (U.AA) for the metropolitan Washington

available, and the SIP is 

# the appropriate means to address the Chimento, Sierra area. VDEQ is also part of the test group for 

# the recently released beta version of EPA’s Model Attainment Test

situation. Club, Flint Webb Software (MATS) 

# which is the tool required to conduct the UAA. Unfortunately, this tool is limited and does not have

the spatial field feature necessary to complete the UA. EPA expects that this component will be added in the next

version of MATS and VDEQ will complete the analysis upon release of the updated software.

22 The requirement for a Local Area Analysis for the Potomac River Mirant Potomac VDEQ, MWAQC and the states disagree. The Commonwealth of Virginia has the authority to require analysis of the emissions

Generating Station should be removed from the SIP. River LLC MDE, from the PRGS to determine whether the facility causes or contributes to exceedances of the NAQS in the City of

DCDOE Alexandria or elsewhere within the nonattainment area.

. 

# The PM SIP is a regional document to address the regional PM health concerns within an EPA designated

nonattainment area. The SIP therefore provides a nonattainment control approach to health concerns that are jointly shared by all jurisdictions in the designated metropolitan Washington area.

23 An FRM monitor should be sited in the City of Alexandria and at other Julie Crenshaw VDEQ, For a number of reasons, it is impractical to locate PM 2

. 5 FRMs near every source, or even 

# every major point source, of

- 

# locations that have large PM 25 sources, Van Fleet, AQPAC, DCDOE. PM 2

. 5 emissions in the metropolitan Washington area. However. the Commonwealth of Virginia is considering siting a

. 

# Roger Waud MWAQC new FRM monitor in the City of Alexandria. 

# Two special purpose monitors located near the PRGS are providing data on

the impacts of the facility on air quality in the City. These data will continue to be collected and analyzed.

24 The language in Section 9.4.3 that requires an ambient air quality City of Alexandria VDEQ. MWAQC and the states do not believe the language suggested by the commenter is appropriate, It is not certain that

analysis is deficient since it fails to insure that the analysis will be DCDOE Gaussian dispersion modeling will be a requirement of PM 2

. 5 ambient air quality analyses. EPA has not yet published

done in a timely manner, It also suggests that methodology to modeling guidance for PM 2

. 5 pollution. Use of published guidance for other pollutants, such as 

# SO 2

, is not prudent given

conduct such an analysis is not available at the present time, which that the highly complex nature of PM 2

. 5 chemistry may not make the use of guidance for other pollutants applicable. If

is contrary to existing EPA guidance. The language should be Gaussian dispersion modeling is eventually required, no federal guidance currently exists explaining the application to

revised to read:

. 

# PM 2

. 5 of this technique, 

# which is multi-faceted and highly complicated.

Using an available Gaussian dispersion model, such as AEROMOD, The language included in Section 9.4.3 states that the timeline for submitting the analysis will be determined by VDEQ



# for stationary sources, which has been approved by.USEPA to management. This language 

# was included to account for the fact that the requirements of the ambient air quality

model primary PM 25 impacts, VDEQ shall conduct an ambient air methodology are not known so that a reasonable timeframe cannot currently be fixed. However, VDEQ can require that

qualify analysis of the emissions of PM 25 from the Mirant Potomac PRGS submit a protocol once the final methodologies are approved by the SAPCB within a certain time frame, for

River Power Generating facility. VDEQ shall complete this analysis instance 60 days. Section 9.4.3 has been updated to reflect this change and now reads:

within 120 days Of adoption of the SIP by MWAQC.

Based on a schedule and protocol to be established by VDEQ after US EPA promulgates final rules for PM 25 analysis,

or US EPA promulgates revised implementation guidance or policy for PM2. 5 analysis, or VDEQ establishes a morn

appropriate implementation methodology for P14 25

, Mirant Potomac River Power Station shall conduct an ambient air

. 

# quality analysis 

# for the emissions of PM 25 from the facility. No later than 60 days after approval of the implementation

methodology by the_Visqinib_State Air Pollution_Control Board,_Mirant Potomac River Power Station_shall provide_to



# MWAQC PM 2

. 5 SIP Appendix K Attachment 1

- 

# Page Number: 6 March 7, 2008

# C

. 

# Comment Commenter Recipient Response

VDEQ a detailed protocol outlining how the facility will implement the approved methodologies. VDEQ will make this

document available to the public by publishing this protocol on the VDEQ website.

Technical Corrections

25 The SIP should be revised to include reference to the 24-hour PM 2

. 5 Marilyn Powers, VDEQ MWAQC and the states agree. The SIP was revised to incorporate the commenters suggestion.

standard. U.S. EPA Region III

26 The SIP should be revised to reflect the fact that Virginia’s rule Marilyn Powers, VDEQ MWAQC and the states agree. The SIP was revised to incorporate the commenter’s suggestions.

capping emissions from power plants in the region is a state-only U.S. EPA Region Ill

requirement and is not part of the CAIR rule. The commenter also

suggested a minor editorial change for Section 9.3.1.

27 The commenter requests that the following revisions bit incorporated Thomas Ballou, MWAQC MWAQC and the states agree. The SIP was revised to incorporate the commenter’s suggestions.

into the SIP document for the nine jurisdictions in Northern Virginia VDEQ

that are a part of the Washington, DC-MD-VA PM2.5 nonattainment

area:

1. For the following source categories, update emissions, associated

documentation and NIF 3.0 emission files in the BY 2002 emission

inventory document and its appendices (Appendix B of SIP) to reflect

the BY 2002 emission estimates for these categories: 1) The

emissions for the 9 Northern Virginia jurisdictions coded under SCC

2810015000 should be moved to SCC 2810014000; 2) The

emissions for the 9 Northern Virginia jurisdictions coded under SCC

2285002005 should be moved to SCC 2285002006; 3) Zero Out the

emissions for SCC 2610000500, Open Burning-Land Clearing for all

9 Northem Virginia jurisdictions. The emissions for this SCC that

were included in the SIP inventory were originally developed by the

EPA and added to the National Emission lnventoiy as part of EPA’s

augmentation process. Since the SIP inventory was compiled, we

have discovered that EPA has reviewed these emissions and for

jurisdictions that were greater than 80% urban, those emissions were

zeroed Out of the EPA 2002 National Emission Inventory. Therefore,

we are requesting that MWCOG remove those corresponding

emissions from the PM2.5 SIP.

2. Changes in the BY 2002 emission inventory made above will

change the future year inventories and associated analyses and

documentation. Therefore, also update future year emissions and



# MWAQC SIP Appendix K Attachment 1

- 

# Page Number: 7 March 7, 2008

# C



# o

Comment Commenter Recipient Response

associated analyses and documentation in the main SIP document

and related appendices.

The recommended changes do not change the overall SIP

conclusions.

28 The commenter requests additional detail on an appropriate method Charley Baummer, VDEQ Through the MWAQC process an airports subcommittee was formed and discussions were held regarding the

to determine whether and how airport construction emissions are Metropolitan development of specific airport emission inventory line items for regional airports. This emissions information would be

reflected in the SIP. Washington Airports the metric to examine all the emissions related to airport operations (construction, airplanes, operation emissions, etc.).

Authority Stakeholders declined the offer to pursue airport specific emission inventory line items. Details of what 

# can be done to

estimate the construction emissions attributable to airport construction in the SIP 

# can be determined at the time the

information is needed.

29 The commenter provided a list of voluntary local air quality City of Alexandria VDEQ MWAQC and the states support inclusion of local voluntary initiatives in the SIP. The SIP 

# was revised to include the

improvement initiatives and asked that they be included in the SIP, measures identified by the commenter.

for no emission reduction credit.

30 The Figure (Figure 2-5) does not include data for March through Sept Flint Webb VDEQ Included data in the graph through December 2005 as requested and also to be consistent with other graphs in Chapter

05. 2.

31 The text (in Section 2.2 4) doesn’t appear to be supported by the Flint Webb VDEQ Updated Figure 2-6 to replace ammonium ion data with ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate and section 2.2 4) to

figure. The figure is of ammonium ion concentrations but the text provide information on ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate as requested.

discusses ammonium nitrates and ammonium sulfates. Perhaps

there should be two plots, one of ammonium sulfates and one for

ammonium nitrates.



# 32 The Figure The terms on the figure need to be explained (i.e. what is Flint Webb VDEQ Figure 2-10 title was updated to better explain the content and terms of the figure as requested.

“Passive”). What are the units

- 

# I presume it is % by mass but it is not

stated.

33 Section 3.2.2

- 

# Need to clarify the difference between area “non- Flint Webb VDEQ The difference between area “non-stationary” sources and mobile sources was clarified by providing a few examples.

stationary” sources and mobile sources. Perhaps examples like

mobile generators which are stationary when operated but could

operated anywhere in the region.

34 Section 3.2.2

- 

# “or county-equivalent” should probably be defined Flint Webb VDEQ Since MWAQC area inventory is calculated at county level, the term “county-equivalent” is not relevant in the discussion

earlier on in the document or perhaps footnoted, in this paragraph and therefore is being deleted.

35 Section 3.2.2

- 

# The distinctions between Area and Mobile sources Flint Webb VDEQ A line has been added in the 1 paragraph of the Section 3.2.3 (Onroad mobile sources) to define what constitute mobile



# MWAQC PM 2

. 5 SIP Appendix K Attachment I

- 

# Page Number: 8 March 7, 2008

# C



# Comment Commenter Recipient Response

need to be clarified. sources. Axea source 

# section (Section 3.22) provides details about area sources. Discussions in these two sections

make distinctions 

# between area and mobile sources very dear.

36 This figure (Figure 2-10) still either needs much more explanation or Flint Webb VDEO The reason 

# wtry ammonia is 

# not considered a significant precursor is explained in detail in various places in the SIP

the whole section 

# should be deleted. The figure shows that induding chapter 2 (section 2.8) immediately after Figure 2-10.

ammoniated compounds account 

# for 65% of the SAND1MCH material

and yet we are not considering ammonia emissions. The minor

modification to the text from the previous version is an improvement

but does not go far enough.

37 Figure 2-11 y-axis should show a jog indicating that the x-axis is not Flint Webb VDEQ The range of the y axis in Figure 2-11 

# was defined from 14.0 to 17.5 in order to dearly visualize a declining design value

at zero or the x-axis should go down to zero. The figure makes it trend line. Extending the y axis all the way to 0.0 instead of 14.0 wit make the trend line look almost flat. Also, data are

look like the annual concentration is almost 0. Alternatively there labeled for design values for different years and the annual PM2.5 standard line in the graph, 

# which make the graph quite



# should be a zig-zag line indicating that the 

# axis is not at zero, dear.

38 Section 3.2.4

- 

# Non-road 

# airport vehicles need to be mentioned in 

# the Flint Webb VDEQ All nonroad vehicles are part of nonroad inventory and so must stay in nonroad section itself and should not go to area

Area source 

# section (3.2.2). source section.

39 Section 4.1.1.2

- 

# Since the Pica sources make up a large portion of Flint Webb VDEQ Growth surrogates for different area and nonroad source categories were decided in consultation with the state air

the inventory it is important that the growth factors are correct, It agency staff and the Emissions Inventory Sub-Committee. Though the surrogates for the categories mentioned in the

would be good to compare some of the factors 

# with historical growth comment above may not completely provide tree picture of growth for those categories, they are certainly the most

factors. Specifically a comparison with historical growth for the

. 

# appropriate surrogate available to us.

following is requested:

•Residential Fuel Combustion

- 

# Has there been an increase in natural Also, the commenter now should not be concerned about 50% growth for “Open Burning” as these emissions are not

gas usage that may off-set the household increases? removed from Virginia inventory as part of the public comment made by VDEQ.

“Open Burning

- 

# Using population as a growth factor means that it

would increase by 50% for Loudon County.

•Municipal landfills and Incineration

- 

# much of the trash in the region

is disposed of in municipal waste incinerators. Unless the municipal

waste incinerators are operating at 

# capacity it is questionable

whether a zero growth factor is appropriate for incinerators and if they

are at full capacity then the municipal landfill emissions may grow

faster than simply the rate of population growth.

•Fugitive Dust

- 

# Using VMT as the growth factor implies that all

fugitive dist emissions are associated with on-read vehicles. Isn’t

much of it associated with constwclion activity?

Notes:

For additional 

# detailed response to comments, please see 

# Appendix K Attachment 2.



# MWAQC PM 25 SIP Appendix K Attachment 1

- 

# Page Number: 9 March 7, 2008•CENCLOSURE3RECORDOFHEARINGANDSUMMARYOFTESTIMONYAsrequiredby40CFR51.102(e),thecompleterecordofthehearing,alongwithalistofwitnessesandthetextofthewrittenpresentationsorsummaryoftheoralpresentations,islocatedattheOfficeofAirRegulatoryDevelopmentoftheDepartmentofEnvironmentalQuality.ThedepartmentcontacttoaccessthisinformationistheDirector,OfficeofAirRegulatoryDevelopment.AsrequiredbySection2.1(h)ofAppendixVof40CFRPart51,belowisasummaryofthetestimonyreceivedandresponsesthereto.Includedisabriefstatementofthesubject,theidentificationofthecommenter,thesummaryofthecommentandtheresponse(analysisandactiontaken).Eachissueisdiscussedinlightofallofthecommentsreceivedthataffectthatissue.Allcommentshavebeenreviewedandresponsesdevelopedbasedonanevaluationoftheissuesraisedinconsiderationoftheoverallgoalsandobjectivesoftheairqualityprogramandtheintendedpurposeofthedocumentunderreview.1.SUBJECT:ThecommenterobjectstotheinclusionoftherequirementforMirantPotomacRiverGeneratingStation(PRGS)tosubmitanairqualityanalysisforPM25emissionsoncemethodologiesforsuchananalysisarefinalized.TherequirementisfoundinSection9.4.3ofthedraftPM2.5SIP.•COMMENTER:Mr.JeffreyHolmsteadofBracewellandGuiliani,onbehalfofMirantCorporation.TEXT:Thefulltextofthissubmittal,datedJanuary30,2008,isattachedtothisdocument.Thefollowingisasummaryofmainpointsmadeinthedocument.•NotechnicalorlegalbasisexistsfortheinclusionofthisrequirementinthePM2.5SIP.•Actualmonitoringdatadonotsupporttheconclusionthatsuchananalysisisnecessary.•TheairqualityanalysisrequiredtobesubmittedbyPRGShasnorelationshiptothePM25attainmentSIP.•PM25emissionsfromPRGSarewell-controlled.RESPONSE:InregardstothestatementthatnotechnicalorlegalbasisexistsfortheinclusionofthePRGSPM2.5ambientairqualityanalysisrequirementinthePM2.5SIP,VDEQbelievesthattherequirementissupportedbyavarietyofdocuments.9VAC5-20-180IgivestheStateAirPollutionControlBoard(Board)authoritytoshutdownafacilitytopreventviolationsoftheNAAQS:AppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber:

# C

C“Regardlessofanyotherprovisionofthissection,theownerofanyfacilitysubjecttotheRegulationsfortheControlandAbatementofAirPollutionshall,uponrequestoftheboard,reducethelevelofoperationatthefacilityiftheboarddeterminesthatthisisnecessarytopreventaviolationofanyprimaryambientairqualitystandard...”9VAC5-20-160AprovidestheBoardauthoritytorequestinformationfromregisteredfacilities:“Theownerofanystationarysourcetowhichpermitsareissuedunder9VAC5Chapter80(9VAC5-80-10etseq.)orforwhichemissionstandardsaregivenin9VAC5Chapter40(9VAC5-40-10etseq.),9VAC5Chapter50(9VAC5-50-10etseq.),and9VAC5Chapter60(9VAC5-60-10etseq.)shall,uponrequestoftheboard,registersuchsourceoperationswiththeboardandupdatesuchregistrationinformation.Theinformationrequiredforregistrationshallbedeterminedbytheboardandshallbeprovidedinthemannerspecifiedbytheboard.”9VAC5-40-50HrequiresfacilitiestoprovidevariousreportsattherequestoftheBoard:“Uponrequestoftheboard,theownerofanexistingsourcesubjecttotheprovisionsofthischaptershallprovidenotificationsandreport,revisereports,maintainrecordsorreportemissiontestormonitoringresultinamannerandformandusingproceduresacceptabletotheboard...”TheCleanAirActAmendmentsof1990(CAAA)notesin§172(c)(1)NonattainmentPlanProvisions—InGeneralthatplansshall“...provideforattainmentofthenationalprimaryambientairqualitystandards.”§172(c)(1)NonattainmentPlanProvisions—OtherMeasuresrequiresthatplanscontainemissionlimitationsandothersuchcontrolmeasures,means,ortechniquesasmaybenecessaryorappropriatetoprovideforattainment.VDEQagreesthattheactualmonitoringdatacurrentlyavailablemaynotnecessarilyindicatethepresenceofaNAAQSviolationforPM2.5attributabletoPRGS.However,toacertainextent,thesedataareinconclusive.AmbientairqualityviolationsoftheNAAQSaredependentuponmeteorology;facilitystackconfiguration;localareatopographysuchasthepresenceofhills,peaks,valleysandnearbystructures;emissionratesfromanyfacility;regionalloadbeingtransportedintothearea;andanumberofotherfactors.Emissionratesfromanyfacilitycanbedependentuponfueltype;demand;limitationsplacedonthefacilitybyavarietyofpermits;andotheroperationalandeconomicfactors.VDEQagreesthatthereareseveralusesofairqualitydatainevaluatingtheimpactsfromafacilitysuchasPRGS.OneofthemostimportantusesidentifiedintheEPA’sGuidelineonAirQualityModelistheuseofairqualitymeasurements“inacomplementarymannertodispersionmodels,withdueregardforthestrengthsandweaknessesofbothanalysistechniques.”Whileairqualitymeasurementsareparticularlyusefulinassessingtheaccuracyofmodelestimates,suchmeasurementsdonotnecessarilyeliminatetheneedtoapplyamodeltoassessanindividualfacility’simpact.AlthoughitispossibletouseairqualitymeasurementsalonetoassessNAAQScompliance,thisapproachwouldAppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber:2CCnotlikelybepreferredunlessavailablemodelsarefoundtobeunacceptable,andmonitoringdatahavesufficientspatialandtemporalcoverage.ThereforeVDEQdisagreesthatthepresenceoflocalmonitoringdatashowingnoNAAQSviolationshouldnecessarilyobviatetheneedforaspecificfacilityanalysisusingamodel.VDEQdisagreesthatthePM2.5airqualityanalysis,requiredtobesubmittedbyPRGS,hasnorelationshiptothePM25attainmentplan.ThefacilityoperateswithintheboundariesofthenonattainmentareaandisconsideredtobeupwindofmanyothernonattainmentareassuchasBaltimoreandCecilCountyinMaryland.ItshouldbenotedthatthefederalreferencemonitoringprogramforPM2.5inthemetropolitanWashingtonareaisoneofthemostrobustmonitoringnetworksintheU.S.Basedonthedatafromthisfederalreferencemonitoringprogram,thenonattainmentareahasdemonstratedcompliancewiththeannualPM2.5standardof15.0ug/m3.However,attainmentplansoftenfocusonspecificfacilitiesaswellastheoverallregionalairquality.Forinstance,facility-specificRACTrequirementsmaybeenumeratedwithinattainmentplans,andfacilityspecificrequirementsmayalsobeusedforcontingencymeasuresinattainmentplansaswellasmaintenanceplans.Animportantpartoftheattainmentplanistheassumptionsmadeforgrowthinvariousemissionscategoriesandhowsuchgrowthisincorporatedintotheattainmentplan.Totakeintoaccountgrowthinemissions,VDEQmustoftenexaminespecificfacilitiesortypesoffacilitiestodeterminelikelygrowthrates.Therefore,specifyingrequirementsorspecifyingfacilitydataforaparticularfacilityisnotadeviationfrompastorcurrentattainmentplanningpractices.CertainlyVDEQbelievesthatascertainingwhetherornotaparticularfacility,theoperationofwhichhasengenderedenforcementactionsandsignificantpubliccommentinthelastfewyears,causesorcontributestoaPM2.5ambientairqualityviolationinanareathatcurrentlydoesnotcontainafederalreferencemonitor,viaanapprovedanalysismethodology,maybeanappropriatetopicforthePM2.5attainmentplan.Whetherornotthedescriptionof‘well-controlled”shouldbeappliedtotheexistingPM2.5controldevicesatPRGS(electrostaticprecipitatorsorESPs)isunclear.Acomparisonoftestedemissionrates,asprovidedbythecommenterinhisJanuary30,2008,submittal,tothoserequiredbytheexistingsourceregulationsin9VAC5Chapter40ExistingStationarySourcesindicatesthatPRGSappearstooperateatwellbelow0.12lbsPM/mmbtu.However,acomparisonofthosesameemissionrates,andemissionlimitationsinthedraftPRGSpermit,tolimitationsplacedonnewcoal-firedboilersthroughtheBestAvailableControlTechnology(BACT)processshowthatthelimitationsonnewcoal-firedboilersmaybesomewhatmorestringent.AppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber:3

# C.,

CRegardlessofwhetherornotthefacilityis“well-controlled,”otherfactorsoftenaffectambientairqualityimpacts,includingfacilityconfigurationsandlocaltopographicalconfigurations,asdiscussedabove.Therefore,VDEQdisagreesthattheexistenceofPM2.5controldevicesasPRGSmakestherequirementforanambientairqualityanalysismoot.2.SUBJECT:ThecommenterisconcernedaboutthePM2.5impactsfromthePRGSpowerplant.COMMENTER:Mr.WilliamJ.Skrabak,Chief,DivisionofEnvironmentalQuality,DepartmentofTransportationandEnvironmentalServices,CityofAlexandriaonbehalfoftheCityofAlexandria.TEXT:Thefulltextofthissubmittal,datedJanuary30,2008,isattachedtothisdocument.ThesubmittalislengthyandrequestsmanychangestothedraftPM2.5attainmentplan.Theparagraphsbelowgroupthesuggestionsandcommentsintovarioussub-categories.VDEQhasrespondedtoeachsubcategoryseparately.(a)Comment:Theattainmentplandoesnotcontainadetaileddescriptionofhowexistingpermitprogramswillbespecificallyimplemented,orenhanced,inregardstoPM2.5Theattainmentplanshouldcontainmorerigorousmonitoring,permitting,andenforcementprograms.Response:ItisimportanttonotethatforregionalairqualityandthepurposesofdeterminingattainmentofaNAAQSbyaregionalarea,federalreferencemonitoring(FRM)datamustbeusedtoshowcomplianceornoncompliancewiththestandard.TheexistingFRMnetworkinthemetropolitanWashingtonareaconsistsof14PM2.5monitorsandisoneofthemostrobustmonitoringnetworksinthecountry.Foryears2003-2005aswellasforyears2004-2006,thismonitoringnetworkhasdemonstratedcompliancewiththe1997PM2.5standardsof15.0ug/m3onanannualbasisand65ug/m3ona24-hourbasis.FRMdatafortheyear2007arenotcurrentlyavailableforMarylandandWashington,D.C.However,VDEQhascompletedqualityassurancereviewsandhascertifiedtheVirginia2007PM2.5data.ThesedatashowthatthehighestmeasurementsinnorthernVirginiareflectPM2.5designvaluesof14.1ug/m3onanannualbasisand34.0ug/m3ona24-hour•basis,wellbeneathboth1997standards.Thisdraftattainmentplanisdesignedtoaddressthe1997standards.CertainlythenewNAAQSstandards,whichwerepromulgatedin2006AppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber:4Candloweredthe24-hourrequirementto35ug/m3PM2.5,shouldbeconsidered.However,theattainmentplanningprocessforthe1997standardhasinnowaybeensubjugatedbythe2006standards.Themainpurposeofthisattainmentplancontinuestobedemonstratingcompliancewiththe1997standardsof15.0ug/m3annuallyand65ug/m3daily.Section8.2ofthedraftattainmentplandiscussesthechangesmadetothemajorstationarysourcepermittingprograminregardstoPM2,5.Section8.4notestheintentionbythestateagenciestoadoptfurtherPM2,5nonattainmentpermittingrequirements,includingrequirementsforprecursoremissions,controls,andoffsets,whentheseregulationsarefinalizedbyEPA.Inthe2008-2010GrantWorkPlan,ofwhichbothEPARegionIllandVDEQareparties,VDEQhasagrantcommitmenttosubmitadraftNSRSIPforPM2.5nonattainmentareasnolaterthan6monthsafterEPAfinalizesthePM2.5NSRimplementationrule.Thiscommitmentisfound•underObjective1.1-HealthierOutdoorAir,SubObjective1.1.1—MorePeopleBreathingCleanerAir,WorkPlanComponent—NAAQSNSR.ItisclearfromthesevariousparagraphsthatVDEQintendstoadoptthe•EPA’sfinalizedversionofnonattainmentpermittingrequirementswhentheybecomeavailable.However,toincludeinthedraftattainmentplananoutlineoftheserequirementspriortopublicationofafinalversionwouldbeprematuresinceEPAhaspublishedlittleregardingthesenewregulationsandsincechangesarealwayslikelybetweenproposedandfinalversions.Additionally,includinginanattainmentplanspecificrequirementsofthenewsourcereviewpermittingprogramwouldbeduplicative.ThenewsourcereviewpermittingprogramispublishedunderaseparatechapteroftheVirginiaStateAirPollutionControlBoard’sRegulationsfortheControlandAbatementofAirPollution.ChangeswillundergopublicscrutinyifrequiredbytheAdministrativeProcessAct.ModelingrequirementsthatmaybenecessaryfortheprogramaregenerallyguidelinespublishedbyEPAandusedbymanystatesacrossthecountry.Ifsuchdetailswereincludedintheattainmentplan,anychangesmadetomodelingguidanceorthenewsourcereviewprogramwouldalsonecessitatearevisionoftheattainmentplan,whichisatimeconsuming,resourceintensiveprocess.Therefore,VDEQdoesnotdeemitappropriateornecessarytoincludeadditionaldetailaboutthepermittingprogramwithintheattainmentplan.AppendixKAttachment2PageNumber5

# C (b) Comment:

The existing permitting

program

and regional/national

control programs

alone

are insufficient

to accomplish

the

SIP goal.

The goals must

be accomplished

as expeditiously

as possible,

mindful

of 2006 standards.

Rigorous monitoring

programs

and more severe limitations

are necessary

due

to model uncertainty.

Lax permitting,

monitoring,

and compliance

programs

allow increases

of emissions

over

this attainment plan’s emissions

inventories

and caps. Response:

VDEQ disagrees

that

the programs

outlined

within

the attainment

plan

are insufficient

to accomplish

the

SIP goal.

FRM

data show

that

the region

has already

attained

the 1997 standards

of 15.0 ug/m 3

on

an annual average

and

65 ug/m 3

on

a daily average.

These accomplishments

may

be attributed

to many

of the control programs implemented

in previous attainment

plans

for ozone. Additional

federal, state,

and supplemental

control programs,

as Outlined

in the draft attainment

plan,

will continue

to reduce precursor

and direct emissions

of PM 25 .

This attainment

plan should improve

air quality. VDEQ

agrees

that

it

is important

to

be mindful

of the 2006

PM 2 . 5 NAAQS standard

on

a regional

basis.

For years 2004-2006,

only

one regional FRM located

in Washington,

D.C. showed

a 24-hour

design

value

above 35 ug/m 3 .

The

data

for

all states

have

not

yet been certified

for years 2005-2007.

However,

VDEQ’s

data

have

been certified

for these

years, and these

data

show

all monitors

in northern

Virginia

have 24-hour averages

of

no more

than

34.0 ug/m 3 .

On

a regional

basis,

these

data show

that

air quality

is improving

and appears

to

be attaining

or nearly attaining

the 2006 standard. Modeling uncertainty

does

exist

and

is documented

as part

of the modeling evaluation

report. However,

EPA

has recognized

the

fact

that PM 2 . 5 models

have intrinsic uncertainties

due

to many factors, including but

not limited

to the complex

nature

of PM 2 . 5 formation

and

the current state

of the science

of PM 2 . 5 modeling.

To address

these uncertainties, EPA requires

the

use

of the modeling

results

in

a relative

sense

rather than

an absolute

sense.

VDEQ

must

make comparisons

between modeling

outputs

for 2002

and 2009

then

use these

ratios

with actual FRM

data

to predict

future

design

values.

Direct

model

output

results

for 2009

may

not

be used

to show

future attainment

status.

The

use

of the modeling

outputs

in

a relative

sense, coupled

with

the current improved

air quality

in the metropolitan

Washington

D.C.

area,

does

not support

the development

of more stringent permitting requirements

than those

that

will be published

for implementation

of the PM 2 . 5 nonattainment

permitting program.AppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber:6

# CItisimportanttonotedifferencesbetweenregionalmodelingprotocolsandfacility-specificpointsourcemodelingthatisperformedfornewandmodifiedunitsunderthePreventionofSignificantDeterioration(PSD)MajorNewSourceReviewPermittingProgram.ModelingperformedwithinthePSDpermittingprogramtodetermineifafacilitycausesorcontributestoaNAAQSviolationisperformedwhenguidanceforsuchanalysesisavailable.Additionally,suchanalysesaretypicallyperformedatthefacility’spotentialtoemitorpermittedlevelstoensurethatalllevelsofoperationbythenewfacilitywillnotimpacttheNAAQS.Regionalmodelinginventoriesarebasedonactualemissionsandprojectedemissions.Projectedemissionsarerarely,ifever,ashighasthepotentialtoemitofafacility.Projectedemissionsaregenerallyextrapolatedusingabaseyear’sactualemissionsinventoryandapplyingaconservativegrowthfactor,asrequiredbyEPA.Insomeinstances,‘projectedemissionsareadjustedbasedoncontrolestimates.However,projectedemissionsarealmostneverbasedonpotentialtoemitofafacility.Usingsuchamethodology,region-widewoulddrasticallyoverinflatethepoint-sourceemissionsinventoryofanarea.Drasticoverinflationoftheprojectedemissionsinventorywouldhavetheeffectofrequiringcostlyandlikelyunnecessaryregionalcontrolmeasureimplementationtomeettheairqualitystandardsandprotectpublichealth.SuchmitigationeffortscannotbesupportedifthereiseveryreasonableexpectationthatPM2,5airqualityisgoodandgettingbetter,asindicatedbytheFRMdata.Therefore,VDEQdoesnotsupporttheapproachofsettingprojectionyearemissioninventoriesequaltopermittedlimitsorpotentialtoemit.VDEQdisagreeswiththecommentthatcurrentpermitting,enforcement,andmonitoringprogramrequirementsarelax.FacilitiesthattriggermajornewsourcereviewpermittinginthenorthernVirginiaPM2.5nonattainmentarea,eitherasnewormodifiedsources,mustinstalltechnologydeemedtomeetlowestachievableemissionrates(LAER).Thistechnologydeterminationdoesnotallowthecostofacontroldevicetobeconsideredinfeasibilitystudies,makingitaverystringenthurdle.Additionally,offsetsmustbepurchasedorobtainedtoensurethatemissionsincreaseswillnotadverselyaffectregionalairquality.ThesepermittingrequirementsarequitestringentandwillcontinuetobeappliedinPM2.5nonattainmentareas.MonitoringandenforcementprogramsintheNorthernVirginiaRegionalOffice(NRC)andVDEQarestrong.TheNRCaircomplianceandenforcementstaffconducted209fullcomplianceevaluationsoffacilities,reviewed55stacktests,andconducted96StageIIinspectionsin2007.Attotalof83enforcementfollow-upswereconductedin2007aswell.Additionally,in2007,thenorthernVirginiaInspectionandAppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber:7

# 0

C Maintenance

Program performed

463 overt inspections

and

177 covert inspections.

These inspections

resulted

in 138 inspectors

and/or stations being

fined,

losing licenses,

or otherwise

being prohibited

from operating. Across

the Commonwealth,

VDEQ conducted

over 8,500

full compliance evaluations,

more

than

200 stack

tests reviews,

and

over

390 enforcement follow-ups.

NRC

and VDEQ

have

a capable

and

able enforcement

and monitoring

program. (c) Comment:

The attainment

plan

does

not discuss additional RACT/RACM in enough

detail. Response:

40 CFR 51.1010,

which delineates requirements

for reasonably

available

control measures

(RACM)

and reasonably

available control technology

(RACT), predicates

the implementation

of

a suite

of measures

on whether

those measures

can collectively

advance

the attainment

date

of

a nonattainment

area

by one year.

Since

the metropolitan

Washington

area

is currently

attaining

the 1997

PM 2 . 5 NAAQS,

based

on FRM

data

for 2003-2005

and 2004-2006,

it

is not possible

for

any suite

of measures

to advance attainment.

This explanation

is provided

in section

8.3

of the draft attainment

plan.

No further requirements

or discussions

of RACT/RACM

are necessary

for

the plan

to

be approved.

Therefore,

VDEQ believes

that RACT/RACM requirements

for

this attainment

plan

are satisfied. (d) Comment:

U.S. EPA’s

Clean

Air Fine Particulate Implementation

Rule suggests

the

use

of more stringent monitoring

and opacity standards. Virginia’s

current

opacity standard

of 20% allows

PM 2 . 5 emission

increases without adequate

review.

Opacity limitations

should

be strengthened

to

no more

than

10%. Response:

How

the current

opacity standard

for large boilers

allows emissions

increases

above

a baseline

is unclear.

However,

the justification

for examining

monitoring

and opacity standards

as discussed in EPA’s

Clean

Air Fine Particulate Implementation

Rule

(72

FR 20586, April

25, 2007)

is that

of RACT/RACM.

The quote provided

by

the commenter

is found

in

72

FR 20617

and

is

in the context

of observations on control opportunities

when examining requirements

for RACT/RACM. As noted

in

a previous paragraph, RACTIRACM

requirements

are predicated

on advancing

the attainment

date, which

is not possible

for

the metropolitan

Washington

area. Therefore,

unless

a facility undergoes

a major modification

as part

of the new source

review

major permitting process,

in which

case LAER

must

be applied,

or undergoes

a minor modification

as part

of

9 VAC

5 Chapter

80 Article

6 “Permits

for New

and Modified Stationary

Sources,”

in which

case

state

Best Available

ControlAppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber:8CCTechnology(BACT)mustbeapplied,therecurrentlyisnobasisforreviewingsource-specificopacitystandardsappliedtomajorstationarysources,andVDEQmustdisagreewiththebomment.(e)Comment:CMAQgenerallyover-predictsduringwintermonthsandunder-predictsduringsummermonths.Thisaspectofmodelperformancecannotbeconsideredacceptable.Statisticalmetricssuchasfractionalerrorandbiasdonotprovideassurancethatthemodelpredictionsmeetthemodelingperformancegoalsoneithera24-houroranannualbasis.Thereisnoobservederrorinmodelperformanceontheendmodelresultinthetargetyearof2010.Thedesignvaluecalculationsshouldincludecolumnsofmaximumpredictedvaluesthatreflectthemodel’sworst-caseperformanceforthismodelingdomain.TheanalysisreliestooheavilyonthetrendinobservedPM2.5levels.Response:Acriticalcomponentofeveryairqualitymodelingstudyisthemodelperformanceevaluation(MPE)inwhichthemodeledestimatesforthecurrentyearbasecasearecomparedagainstobservedvaluestoassessthemodel’saccuracyandprovideanindicationofitsreliability.Thefirststepinthemodelingprocessistoverifythemodel’sperformanceintermsofitsabilitytopredictPM2.5anditsindividualcomponents(i.e.,sulfate,nitrate,ammonium,organiccarbon,elementalcarbonandotherPM25)intherightlocationsandattherightlevels.Todothis,themodelpredictionsforthebaseyearsimulationarecomparedtotheambientdataobservedinthehistoricalepisode.TheMPEincludedinthemetropolitanWashingtonattainmentplanwasdevelopedbasedoninputfromseveralregionalplanninggroupssuchastheMid-Atlantic/NortheastVisibilityUnion(MANE-VU),theOzoneTransportCommission(OTC)andtheAssociationforSoutheasternIntegratedPlanning(ASIP).Specifically,allelementsofthemodelingplatform,includingtheemissions,meteorology,andairqualitymodel,haveundergoneanevaluation.TheMPEconsistsofacombinationofstatisticalandgraphicalevaluationsrecommendedbyEPAinitsguidance.AfterreviewoftheMPE,ifthemodelappearstobeproducingPM2.5intherightlocationsfortherightreasons,thenthemodelcanbeusedasapredictivetooltoevaluatevariouscontrolstrategiesandtheireffectsonPM2.5TheissueofmodelperformancegoalsforPM2.5isanareaofongoingresearchanddebate.Performancegoalsrefertotargetsthatawellperformingmodelshouldachieve,whereasperformancebenchmarksarebasedonhistoricalmodelperformancemeasuresforthebestperformingAppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber:9CCsimulations.Performancegoalsarenecessaryinordertoprovideconsistencyinmodelapplicationsandexpectationsacrossthecountryandtoprovidestandardizationinhowmuchweightmaybeaccordedmodelingstudyresultsinthedecision-makingprocess.Themodelperformancegoalsandcriteriaarenotregardedasapass/failtestbutratherasabasisofinter-comparingmodelperformanceacrossstudies,sensitivitytests,andmodels.TheresultsoftheMPEforthemetropolitanWashingtonareaforPM2.5anditsindividualspeciesindicatethattheCMAQmodelperformanceforsurfacePM25isgood,withacceptablebiasanderror.TheMPEwasconsistentwithEPAguidanceandincludestheproperstatisticalperformancemetrics.EPAandVDEQrecognizethatalthoughgoodmodelperformanceremainsaprerequisiteforuseofamodelinanattainmentdemonstration,problemsposedbylessthanidealmodelperformanceonindividualdaysarereducedthroughtheuseofthemodelresultsinarelativesense.Furthermore,startingwithanobservedconcentrationasthebasevaluereducesproblemsininterpretingmodelresults.Itisrecognizedthatmodelresultsandprojectionswillcontinuetohaveassociateduncertainty.TheattainmentdemonstrationthatEPArecommendsrecognizesthisbyincludingmodelingplusothersupplementalanalysessuchasairqualitytrendstodeterminewhetherallavailableevidencesupportsaconclusionthataproposedemissionreductionplanwillsufficetomeettheNAAQS.Insummary,VDEQbelievestheissuesidentifiedbythecommenterarenotregulatoryrequirementsandarenotappropriateforinclusionintheattainmentdemonstrationsinceattainmenttestsarebasedontheapplicationofrelativeresponsefactors.TheregionalandlocalmodelperformanceisacceptableforPM25andwasevaluatedusingEPAapprovedprocedures.Whiletherearesomedifferencesbetweenthespatialdatabetweensub-regions,thereisnothingtosuggestatendencyforthemodeltorespondinasystematicallydifferentmannerbetweenregions.Examinationofthestatisticalmetricsbysub-regionconfirmstheabsenceofsignificantperformanceproblemsarisinginoneareabutnotinanother,buildingconfidencethattheCMAQmodelingsystemisoperatingconsistentlyacrossthefullmodelingdomain.ThisconfidenceinthemodelingresultsallowsforthemodelingsystemtobeusedtosupportthePM2.5attainmentplan.(f)Comment:TheproposedSIPprovidesnoassurancethatattainmentwiththeNAAQSwillbeachievedinunmonitoredareaswherelocal-scalemodelingistheonlymeansfordeterminingcompliance.AlexandriaisanAppendixK,ttachment2-PageNumber:10Cunmonitoredarea.DetailedspecialpurposemonitoringdatashowtimeperiodswhenconcentrationsatMarinaTowersapproachedorexceededtheNAAQS.ThesedatapresentaclearindicationthattheregionalmonitorsarenotrepresentativeofconcentrationsinAlexandriaandthatanunmonitoredareaanalysismustbeconducted.Response:Theinformationpresentedbythecommenteronpage6comparesallmonitoringdatatothe2006daily35ug/m3standard.Thisattainmentplanisdirectedatthe1997standards,forwhichthedailystandardis65ug/m3.Dataprovideddonotexceed65ug/m3.Additionally,UseofexceedenceperiodsisnotparticularlyhelpfulincomparisonstotheNAAQS.EachNAAQSstandardcontainsbothanumericallimitationandastatisticalmethodologyforcomputingthatstandardfrommonitoringdata.Thestatisticalmethodology,forexampleanannualaverageorafourthhighest,three-yearaverage,ispartlyduetoconcernsofexposuretimeandrates.ToviolateaNAAQS,thestandardmustbesurpassedusingtheappropriatestatisticalapproach.TheCleanAirAct(CAA)concernsitselfwithviolationsoftheNAAQS,notexceedences.Exceedencesmustthereforebeconsidereddatavariability,notactionableviolations.Inregardstotheinclusionofanunmonitoredareaanalysis,theregionalmodelingattainmentdemonstrationdoesnotaddressfutureairqualityatlocationswherethereisnoPM2.5monitornearby.Toguardagainstthepossibilitythatairqualitylevelscouldexceedthestandardinareaswithlimitedmonitoring,EPAsuggeststhatadditionalreviewisnecessary,particularlyinnonattainmentareaswherethePM2.5monitoringnetworkjustmeetsorminimallyexceedsthesizeofthenetworkrequiredtoreportdatatoAirQualitySystem(AQS).ThisreviewisintendedtoensurethataSIPcontrolstrategyleadstoreductionsinPM2.5anditsconstituentpollutantsatotherlocationsthatcouldhavebaseline(andfuture)designvaluesexceedingtheNAAQSwereamonitordeployedthere.Thetestiscalledan“UnmonitoredAreaAnalysis”(UAA).TheUAAusesacombinationofthe12-kmgriddedmodeloutputandambientdata.Theanalysisshouldinclude,ataminimum,allnonattainmentcountiesandcountiessurroundingthenon-attainmentarea.BasedonVDEQ’sinitialreviewofthegriddedmodeloutputandambientdata,theUAAisunlikelytorevealanyareaswherefuturedesignvalueswouldexceedtheNAAQSinthemetropolitanWashingtonarea.EPAstressesthatduetothelackofmeasureddata,theexaminationofconcentrationsaspartoftheUAAismoreuncertainthanthemonitorAppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber:11

# C)’basedattainmenttest.EPA’sguidancerecommendsthatpredictedviolationsoftheunmonitoredareaanalysisbecarefullyscrutinizedtodeterminewhethertheyarelikelytoexistintheambientairorwhethertheymaybecausedbyanerrororuncertaintyinthemodelingsystem.Ataminimum,itmaybeappropriatetocommittoadditionaldeploymentofambientmonitorsinareaswheretheUAApredictsfutureviolations.ThismonitoringwouldallowabetterassessmentinthefutureofwhethertheNAAQSisbeingmetatcurrentlyunmonitoredlocations.Infact,inmanywaystheanalysisofPRGSusingspecialpurposemonitorshasalreadyfulfilledthegoaloftheUAA.VDEQbelievesthatthePRGSshouldnotbeconsideredan“unmonitoredarea”basedonthefactthatthereisacontinuousPM2.5monitoroperatingonthesoutheastpropertylineandanFRMlocatedontheroofofMarinaTowers.TheMarinaTowersFRMmonitorsiteislocatedintheareaofexpectedmaximumimpactfromPRGS.PRGSremainsoneofthebestmonitoredsourcesinVirginia.PredictedviolationsoftheUAAshouldbehandledonacase-by-casebasis.Assuch,additionalanalysesand/ortrackingrequirementsmaybeneededdependingonthenatureoftheproblemandtheuncertaintyassociatedwiththepotentialviolation(s).EPAalsostatedatitsPM2.5modelingworkshopheldonJune20-21,2007,thattheUAAwasnotdesignedtolookforunmonitoredPMmicro-scalehot-spotissues.ThiswouldprecludetheuseoftheUAAasausefultechniqueinevaluatingimpactsfromanindividualsourcesuchasPRGS.VDEQiscurrentlyintheprocessofconductingtheUAAforthemetropolitanWashingtonarea.VDEQisalsopartofthetestgroupfortherecentlyreleasedbetaversionofEPA’s“ModelAttainmentTestSoftware(MATS)”whichisthetoolrequiredtoconducttheUAA.Unfortunately,thistoolislimitedanddoesnothavethespatialfieldfeaturenecessarytocompletetheUAA.EPAexpectsthatthiscomponentwillbeaddedinthenextversionofMATSandVDEQwillcompletetheanalysisuponreleaseoftheupdatedsoftware.ThemetropolitanWashingtonareacurrentlyhasanetworkof14PM2.5monitors.SeveralofthesemonitorswereestablishedasStateandLocalAirMonitoringStations(SLAMS).TheseSLAMSmonitorswereselectedbasedonspecificmonitoringobjectives(backgroundconcentration,areaofhighestconcentration,highpopulation,sourceimpact,transport,andruralimpact)asrequiredbyEPAandsitingscales(micro,middle,neighborhood,urban,andregional)establishedbyEPA.ItisbelievedthatthedensityofthemonitoringnetworkrelievesthenecessityofapplyingtheUAA.DespitebeingconfidentthatthemonitoringnetworkisrobustforthemetropolitanWashingtonarea,oncethefinalversionoftheMATStoolhasAppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber:12Cbeenreleased,andaftersufficientpeerreviewandproperguidancefortheanalysisoftheresultsisprovided,VDEQwillcompletetheUAA.(g)Comment:NoFRMmonitorexistsinAlexandria.Additionally,monitoringalone,especiallywithintheimpactareaofalargesource,isinsufficienttodemonstrateNAAQScompliance;OnlythroughamodelinganalysisthatincludesarobustreceptornetworkcanNAAQSprotectionbeassured.VDEQshouldimmediatelyaddressprimaryimpactsofPM2.5inthelocalareassurroundingPROS.Modelingtoolsareavailable.Resionse:VDEQisexaminingthepossibilityofinstallingeitheraspecialpurposePM2.5monitororaPM2.5FRMwithinAlexandria.WhetherornotsuchamonitorcanbesitedandoperatedwithinAlexandriadependsonanumberofissues,includingmanpowerandmonetaryresourcesaswellaslocatinganappropriatesiteforsuchamonitor.Ifatallpossible,VDEQwouldprefertogathernecessarymonitoringdatatodetermineairqualitywithinAlexandria’scitylimits.VDEQisalsoexploringthepossibilityofPRGScontinuingtooperateatleastoneofthetwoPM2.5monitoringstationstheycurrentlyareusingtogatherairqualitydata.VDEQdisagreesthatonlythroughamodelinganalysiscanNAAQSprotectionbeassured.Asstatedinapreviousparagraph,thereareseveralusesofairqualitydatainevaluatingtheimpactsfromafacilitysuchasthePRGS.OneofthemostimportantusesidentifiedintheEPA’sGuidelineonAirQualityModelsistheuseofairqualitymeasurements“inacomplementarymannertodispersionmodelswithdueregardforthestrengthandweaknessesofbothanalysistechniques.”Whileairqualitymeasurementsareparticularlyusefulinassessingtheaccuracyofmodelestimates,thesemeasurementsdonotnecessarilyeliminatetheneedtoapplyamodeltoassessanindividualfacility’simpact.AlthoughitispossibletouseairqualitymeasurementsalonetoassessNAAQScompliance,thisapproachwouldnotlikelybepreferredunlessavailablemodelsarefoundtobeunacceptable,andmonitoringdatahassufficientspatialandtemporalcoverage.Additionally,forcertainpollutants,suchasSO2,conservativeEPAapprovedmodelinganalyses.areindeedavailableandcanbeusedforsuchapurpose.However,thisisnotthecaseforallpollutants.Forexample,thereisnosourcespecific,EPA-approvedmodelingapproachforozonefromfacilitiesthatemitVOCandNOx.VDEQdisagreesthatappropriatemodelingmethodologiesexistforestimatingdirectPM2.5impacts.Afewstateshavepublishedguidanceforestimatingimpactsfromnewormodifiedsourcesusingstate-specificsignificantimpactlevels.Nofederalguidancehasyetbeenfinalizedonsuchprotocols.Currently,AppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber:13

# C

CitisunclearwhattypeofanalysesEPAwillrequireinregardstosoUrcespecificPM2.5emissions.Modelingmaynotbeapartofsuchanalyticalguidance.Adoptionofotherstates’(NY,NJ,orCT)guidance,whichwasintendedforuseonnewandmodifiedfacilitiesandnotexistingfacilities,wouldsetaprecedentforuseinotherareasoftheCommonwealth.Duetoitshighlyconservativenature,useofsuchguidancemayunjustifiablyprohibittheconstructionormodificationoffacilitieswithintheCommonwealth.Useofsuchguidance,asappliedtoexistingfacilities,mayunjustifiablyrequiresourcecurtailmentorotherexpensiveoperationalchangestomeetairqualitystandardsandprotectpublichealth.Section9.4.3requiresananalysisbeperformedafterananalyticalapproachisfinalizedbyEPAandpeerreviewed.ThisanalysismayormaynotinvolveGaussianmodelingofsometype.Regardless,theanalysiswillbeperformedtoensurePM2.5NAAQScompliancebyPRGS.(h)Comment:InSection9.4.3,VDEQdefersanymodelinganalysisofthePRGSfacilityuntilanappropriateimplementationmethodologyforPM2.5isestablished,whichappearstobeanacknowledgementthattheproposedSIPisdeficientandthatamoreappropriateimplementationplanisnecessary.Response:Section9.4.3wasinnowayaddedtotheattainmentplantoaddressany“deficiency”ofthatplan.Section9.4.3wasincludedtoaddressAlexandria’sconcernsregardingPM2.5airqualityeventhoughthespecialpurposemonitorsintheCitydonotshowviolationsofeitherthe1996orthe2006PM2.5NAAQSstandard.VDEQbelievesthatincludingsuchrequirementstoaddressconcernsisanappropriateuseoftheattainmentplan.However,itisnotarequirementofthePM2.5planningprocesstoaddressanyparticularfacility,andtheplanwouldbecompleteandapprovablewithoutthislanguage.Generally,VDEQbelievesthatsuchfacilityconcernsshouldbeaddressedwithinthenormalVDEQpermittingprocesses.Inthiscase,thelanguageinSection9.4.3,muchofwhichisalsoinclud.edintherecentdraftpermitforPRGS,wasaddedtoVthedraftattainmentplaninparttohelpbuildaconsensuswithAlexandria’sparticipantsintheplanningprocessandtohelpprovideassurancestothecitizensthatairqualityitbeingprotected.(i)Comment:Alexandriastronglyrecommendsthatalocalareaanalysis(LAA)beconducted.Response:TheLAAusesdispersionmodelstoaddressobservedprimaryPM2.5contributionsatmonitors.Specifically,inareaswithlargespatialgradientsofprimaryPM2.5,dispersionmodelsarebestsuitedtoAppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber:14flflcharacterizingthechangeinprimaryPM2.5inthefuture.AreasthatarerelyingonlocalprimaryparticulatemattercontrolstoreachattainmentshouldsubmitaLAAaspartoftheprimaryattainmentdemonstration.Inotherareas,aLAAmaybeusefulasasupplementalanalysis.EPAalsostatesinitsguidancethatthedispersionmodelingresultsshouldbeevaluatedtoensureadequatemodelperformance.Similartophotochemicalgridmodeling,thedispersionmodelresultsshouldbecomparedtoambientdatatoensurethatthemodelisworkingwell.ManyofthesamestatisticalcalculationsusedforphotochemicalgridmodelingarerecommendedforevaluatingprimaryPM2.5andPM2.5componentspredictedbyadispersionmodel.TheLAAisusedtodeterminetheactual(ortypical)contributionfromsourcesatamonitor,andthemodelresultsareusedinarelativesense.Therefore,itisonlyappropriate(andinfactconservative)touseactualemissionsinthebaseyearandprojectionyearemissionsinventories.Usingactualemissionsshouldleadtoareasonableestimateofairqualityimprovementsfromreducingemissionsatthecontributingsources.Usingallowableemissionsmightleadtoanoverestimateofbenefitsfromemissionscontrols.TheLAAappearstobeanoptionalelementoftheSIPmodelingdemonstration,andtheneedforthisanalysisisconsideredonacase-bycasebasis.TheLAAislikelynotrequiredbyEPAaspartofthemetropolitanWashingtonattainmentplanningprocess.ThisisduetothefactthatthemonitoringnetworkdoesnothaveanyobservedspatialgradientsofprimaryPM2.5andthattheattainmentplandoesnotneedtorelyonlocalprimaryPM2.5controlstoreachattainment.Basedonitsreviewofexistingmonitoringdata,EPAinitiallydidnotinviteVDEQtoparticipateinaLAAworkshopthatwasconductedinChicagoonOctober17-18,2007.However,duetoconcernsexpressedbystakeholders,VDEQrequestedandwasgrantedapprovalbyEPAtoattendthisworkshop.ThefocusoftheworkshopcenteredonareasthathaveelevatedprimaryPM2.5concentrationsintheircoreurbanareasorthatcontributetotheirhighestFRM.ThetablebelowprovidesalistoftheareasintheEasternUnitedStatesidentifiedbyEPAforaLAA:AppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber150EPAIdentifiedJurisdictionsforLocalAreaAnalysisCriteriaLocationBirmingham,ALAreaswith2004-2006annualdesignvaluesCincinnati,OH(DV)greaterthan17pg/rn3and24-hourDVCleveland,OHgreaterthan40pg/rn3.Detroit,MlPittsburgh,PAAreaswith2004-2006annualDVgreaterthan3AtlantaGA17pc/rnand24-hourDVgreaterthan35Indianapolis,INpg/rnAreaswith2004-2006annualDVgreaterthanChicago,IL15.5pg/rn3and24-hourDVgreaterthan40Steubenville,OHpg/rn3.NewYork,NYBaltimore,MDCharleston,WVHuntington/Ashland,WV/KY/OHAreaswith2004-2006annualDVgreaterthanLancaster,PA16.0pg/rn3.York,PALouisville,KYMacon,GASt._Louis,_MOAtthistime,nomonitorswithinthemetropolitanWashingtonareaareprojectedtoexceedtheNAAQSsoitdoesnotappeartobeanecessaryrequirementinthiscircumstancetoconducttheLAA.AlloftheregionalmonitorsareprojectedtoreachattainmentwiththePM2.5NAAQSin2009.ThefutureyearinventoryprojectionshavesignificantdecreasesinprimaryPM2.5andPM2.5precursorsresultingfromvariouscontrolprogramsthroughouttheregion.Furthermore,existingmonitoringdatasuggestauniformregionalpatternwithrespecttoPM2.5concentrations.Nomonitor’sdataappearssignificantlydifferent,onaverage,thandata•gatheredatothermonitorswithintheFRMnetwork.Forthesereasons,VDEQdoesnotbelievethatalocalareaanalysisisnecessary.(j)Comment:VDEQ’sproposedpermitforPRGSiscontradictorytoSIPgoals.Theinventoryusedintheattainmentplanregionalmodelingexerciseislessthanproposedpermitlimitsandthereforeunderestimatesemissions.Resjonse:VDEQdisagreesthattheproposedpermitiscontradictorytoSIPgoals.Thegoaloftheattainmentplanistodemonstratecomplianceby2009withthe1997PM2.5NAAQSstandards.CurrentFRMdatashow,asdiscussedinotherresponses,thattheregionisindeedmeetingthe1997PM25NAAQSstandards.TheproposedPRGSpermitreducesemissionsfromthebaselineyearforthisfacility.VDEQbelievesthattheAppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber:16CCproposedpermitwillimproveairqualityandisnotcontrarytothegoalsofthePM2.5attainmentplan.Asnotedinparagraph(b),therearedifferencesbetweenregionalmodelingprotocolsandfacility-specificpointsourcemodelingthatisperformedfornewandmodifiedunitsunderthePreventionofSignificantDeterioration(PSD)MajorNewSourceReviewPermittingProgram.ModelingperformedwithinthePSDpermittingprogramtodetermineifafacilitycausesorcontributestoaNAAQSviolationisperformedwhenguidanceforsuchanalysesisavailable.Additionally,suchanalysesaretypicallyperformedatthefacility’spotentialtoemitorpermittedlevelstoensurethatalllevelsofoperationbythefacilitywillnotimpacttheNAAQS.Regionalmodelinginventoriesarebasedonactualemissionsandprojectedemissions,partlyduetothefactthatthemodelisregionalinnature.Projectedàmissionsarerarely,ifever,ashighasthepotentialtoemitofafacility.Toassumethatprojectedemissionsequalpotentialtoemitforeveryfacilityinthepointsourceinventoryoveranentireregionwoulddrasticallyinflateemissionestimatesintheprojectionyear,especiallyconsideringtheconservativenatureoftheotherprojectionestimates.Forinstance,theemissionfactorsforareasourcecategoriesaregenerallyhighlyconservative.Theseestimatesarefurtherinflatedsincemanyaregrowninrelationtopopulationincreases,whichinthenorthernVirginiaareaarequitehigh.Additionally,transportationbudgetsintheprojectionyeardonottakeintoaccounttransportationemissionreductionmeasures(TERMS),whichaccountformanytonsofemissionreductionsandarewithheldforuseinrareconformitysituations.TransportationemissionsalsodonottakeintoaccountemissionreductionsachievedthroughVDEQ’sOn-RoadEmissionsTestingprogram,whichmonitorsthetailpipeemissionsofvehiclestolocateandrepairpollutingautomobilesbetweenrequiredstationinspections.Forthesereasons,andmanyothers,VDEQbelievesthatthe2009projectionyearinventoryisquiteconservative.Asnotedinparagraph(b),drasticoverinflationoftheprojectedpointsourceemissionsinventorymayhavetheeffectofrequiringcostlyandlikelyunnecessaryregionalcontrolmeasureimplementation.SuchmitigationeffortscannotbesupportedifthereiseveryreasonableexpectationthatPM2.5airqualityisgoodandgettingbetter,asindicatedbytheFRMdata.Therefore,VDEQdoesnotsupporttheapproachofsettingprojectionyearemissioninventoriesequaltopermittedlimitsorpotentialtoemit.(k)Comment:TheSIPdoesnotaddressthereducedoperationalloadsofPRGSthatwereimportanteventsinrelationtothedownward24-hourAppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber:17

# 0 design

level trends between

2002-04

and 2003-05.

Chapter

9 should include

a thorough discussion,

along

with

a timeline

that matches

the implementation

of the regional programs

with

the FRM monitoring

results and include

the effects

of various

actions concerning

PRGS

on

the decline in regional

values Response:

VDEQ

does

not agree

that detailed discussions

of every facility’s operational

changes

between

2002

and 2009

are necessary.

The goal

of the attainment

plan

is

to demonstrate

compliance

with

the 1997 PM 25 NAAQS

by 2009

on

a regional

basis.

The attainment

plan discusses

the enforceable

limits

of the Virginia

CAIR

Caps,

to which PRGS

is subject,

on Page

5-3,

as well

as

a variety

of other control measures

and their expected overarching

effect

on

air quality,

such

as

the Maryland

Healthy

Air

Act

and

a coal-to-natural

gas conversion

made

at

a nearby

power

plant.

None

of these descriptions

include

greatly detailed accounts

of each measure

or strategy

since

the

sum

total

of

all the reductions

are used

to show

that PM 2 . 5 regional

air quality

in northern Virginia

and metropolitan

Washington

is good

and getting

better. Additionally,

providing

in Chapter

9

a discussion

of various

control strategy and programs implementation

schedules

as they correspond

to FRM monitoring

results

would

be

an incredibly

lengthy process,

given

the number

and variety

of control programs

that have

gone

into

or are scheduled

to

go into effect between

2002

and 2009.

Such

an analysis would

have

to include reductions

from

such significant

source

sectors

as the power industry,

the transportation

sector,

the petroleum

fuel sector, auto

body refinishing,

surface

coating,

and many others.

Such

an analysis is unnecessary

in any event

due

to the regional

context

of the attainment plan. (I) Comment:

VDEQ

should

not

rely

on PM 10

as

a surrogate

for PM 2 . 5

in the permitting

process

for PRGS.

EPA

has suggested,

in May

31, 2006, correspondence

from

Mr. Donald

Welsh

to Congressman

James

Moran that

the PM 2 . 5

SIP

is

an appropriate

place

to address

the issue

of PRGS’ air quality

issues. Response:

VDEQ

does

not believe

that

the PM 2 . 5 attainment

plan

is

an appropriate

arena

in which

to discuss

federal permitting

guidance, adopted

by VDEQ,

in regards

to the

use

of PM 10

as

a surrogate

for PM 25 . Such permitting

concerns

are more appropriately

addressed

through

the many significant

public participation

opportunities

afforded

the public during

the permitting

process.

In any event,

VDEQ believes

that

the current permitting

guidance

is appropriate

since

it reflects

the suggested federal guidance

on

the issue

of PM 2 . 5

in permits.AppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber:18InregardstotheEPAdocumentationsenttoCongressmanMoran,VDEQbelievesthedraftPRGSpermitsatisfiesthesuggestionsmadeinthisletterregardingenforcementofthePM2.5NAAQS.Page3oftheaddendumprovidedbyMr.WelshtoCongressmanMorannotes,undertheheadingofEnforcementofPM2.5NAAQS,that“....Evenfo[IowingapprovaloftheSIPforPM2.5,itmybethattheonlyenforceablerestrictionsonMirantareageneral,statewideprovisionlimitingPM2.5emissions,oraspecificPM2.5permitlimitgiventothePRGSthroughthenormalVirginiapermittingprocess.ApermitlimitforPM2.5isthemostlikelymechanism;however,atpresentMirantisnotsubjecttoanysuchpermitlimits.”PRGSairqualityissuesarebeingaddressedthroughVDEQ’snormalpermittingprocess.RequirementsofthepermitandofthedraftattainmentplanaslistedinSection9.4.3mandateanambientairqualityanalysisaftermethodologiesforsuchanalysesarefinalized.VDEQbelievesthatuseofthenormalpermittingprocessisappropriateforaddressingspecificfacilityconcerns.(m)Comment:LanguageinSection9.4.3requiringanambientairqualityanalysisisdeficientsinceitfailstoinsurethattheanalysiswillbedoneinatimelymanner.Italsosuggeststhatmethodologytoconductsuchananalysisisnotavailableatthepresenttime,whichiscontrarytoexistingEPAguidance.Thelanguageshouldberevisedtoread:UsinganavailableGaussiandispersionmodel,suchasAEROMODYforstationarysources,whichhasbeenapprovedbyUSEPAtomodelprimaryPM2.5impacts,VDEQshallconductanambientairqualityanalysisoftheemissionsofPM2.5fromtheMirantPotomacRiverPowerGeneratingfacility.VDEQshallcompletethisanalysiswithin120daysofadoptionoftheSIPbyMWAQC.Resronse:VDEQdoesnotbelievethelanguagesuggestedbythecommenterisappropriate.Asnotedinpreviousparagraphs,itisnotcertainthatGaussiandispersionmodelingwillbearequirementofPM2.5ambientairqualityanalyses.EPAhasnotyetpublishedmodelingguidanceforPM2.5pollution.Useofpublishedguidanceforotherpollutants,suchasSO2,isnotprudentgiventhatthehighlycomplexnatureofPM2.5chemistrymaynotmaketheuseofguidanceforotherpollutantsapplicable.IfGaussiandispersionmodelingiseventuallyrequired,nofederalguidancecurrentlyexistsexplainingtheapplicationtoPM2.5ofthistechnique,whichismulti-facetedandhighlycomplicated.AppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber:1900.VDEQ-AirDivisioniscommittedtoworkingwiththepublic,regulatedcommunity,andotherstakeholdersinthedevelopmentofappropriatePM2.5guidance.VDEQhasformedaPM2.5ImplementationWorkgroup,whichwasadvertisedontheVirginiaRegulatoryTownHallJanuary2,2008.ThisadvertisementsolicitedparticipationinaworkgroupresponsibleforthedevelopmentofadraftpolicytoevaluatebothnewandexistingsourcesthathavethepotentialtoemitofPM2.5inquantitiesthatcouldhavepossiblesignificantadversehealthand/orenvironmentalimpacts.ThisapproachgoesbeyondthatofotherStatesthathave•developedproceduresthatevaluatenewandmodifiedfacilitiesonly.VDEQisseekingmembershipfromenvironmentalandhealthorganizations,academia,thelegalprofession,andindustryortradeassociationsthathaveabackgroundinairqualitymodeling,policies,orprogramstoserveonthisworkgroup.ThefirstmeetingwilllikelytakeplaceinMarchof2008.Duetotheexploratoryandcontroversialnatureofthisworkgroup,noestimationofthetimeframeforworkgroupproductcompletionandapprovalbytheSAPCBcanbemade.However,VDEQwillbeprovidingtheSAPCBperiodicupdatesontheprogressoftheworkgroup’sefforts.ThelanguageincludedinSection9.4.3statesthatthetimelineforsubmittingtheanalysiswillbedeterminedbyVDEQmanagement.Thislanguagewasincludedtoaccountforthefactthattherequirementsoftheambientairqualitymethodologyarenotknownsothatareasonabletimeframecannotcurrentlybefixed.However,itisreasonableforVDEQtorequirethatPRGSsubmitaprotocoloncethefinalmethodologiesareapprovedbytheSAPCBwithinacertaintimeframe,forinstance60days.VDEQwillalsocommittopublishingthisdocumentontheVDEQwebsitesothatcitizensmayreviewthecontents.Section9.4.3hasbeenupdatedtoreflectthischangeandnowreads:BasedonascheduleandprotocoltobeestablishedbyVDEQafterUSEPApromulgatesfinalrulesforPM2.5analysis,orUEEPApromulgatesrevisedimplantationguidanceorpolicyforPM2.5analysis,orVDEQestablishesamoreappropriateimplementationmethodologyforPM2.5,MirantPotomacRiverPowerStationshallconductanambientairqualityanalysisfortheemissionsofPM2.5fromthefacility.Nolaterthan60daysafterapprovaloftheimplementationmethodologybytheVirginiaStateAirPollutionControlBoard,MirantPotomacRiverPowerStationshallprovidetoVDEQadetailedprotocoloutlininghowthefacilitywillimplementtheapprovedmethodologies.VDEQwillmakethisdocumentavailabletothepublicbypublishingthisprotocolontheVDEQwebsite.AppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber:20

# o

CEvenwithoutthesechanges,VDEQbelievesthatthelanguageinSection9.4.3clearlyindicatestheintentionofVDEQtorequireananalysis,oncemethodologiesaredetermined,withinareasonableperiodoftime.3.SUBJECT:ThecommenterrequeststhatcertainvoluntarymeasuresbeingimplementedbytheCityofAlexandriabeincludedinthedraftattainmentplanaspartofthesupplementalanalysis.COMMENTER:Mr.WilliamJ.Skrabak,Chief,DivisionofEnvironmentalQuality,DepartmentofTransportationandEnvironmentalServices,CityofAlexandriaonbehalfoftheCityofAlexandria.TEXT:Thefulltextofthissubmittal,datedJanuary30,2008,isattachedtothisdocument.Alexandriaisrequestingtheinclusionofvariousmeasuresthatthecityfundsandoverseesintheattainmentplan,asthesemeasuresaredirectionallycorrectandimproveairquality.RESPONSE:VDEQhasaddedthesupplementalmeasuresaslistedbythecommenterintothedraftattainmentplan.4.SUBJECT:PRGSimpactsonPM2.5concentrationsintheCityofAlexandriaCOMMENTER:Mr.C.FlintWebb,P.E.,EnvironmentalCommitteeChair,FairfaxCountyFederationofCitizen’sAssociationsTEXT:ThefulltextofMr.Webb’scomments,submittedJanuary29,2008,isattachedtothisdocument.ThecommenterrequeststhattheCommunityMultiscaleAirQuality(CMAQ)modelbere-runtocalculateadesignvalueforamodelnodepointrepresentativeofdowntownAlexandria.RESPONSE:VDEQcannotusetheCMAQmodelingresultsasindicatedbyMr.WebbandstillconformtoEPAguidanceonhowCMAQresultsshouldbeused.Asnotedinvariousotherresponses,EPArecommendstheuseofCMAQresultsinarelativesensewhencalculatingfuturedesignvalues.Inotherwords,CMAQisrunforboth2002and2009,andestimatedconcentrationsforPM2.5foreachyearareusedtocreatearatio.Thisratiomaybethoughtofas2009dividedby2002;however,thisexplanationissomewhatoversimplifiedsincePM2.5isacompositeofavarietyofdifferentchemicalcompoundsthatmustbefactoredintotheequation.Thecalculatedratioof2009to2002isthenappliedtoactual2002monitoreddesignvaluesatFRMstocalculatetheprojected2009designvaluesforeachmonitoringsite.EPArecommendstheuseofCMAQinthismannerformanyreasons.OnereasonsuchmethodologyisrecommendedisthestateofAppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber:21

# the science

of PM 2 . 5 modeling,

which

is really

in

its infancy.

EPA recognizes

that the model

does

not account

for many physical

and chemical properties

of PM 2 . 5 and therefore

believes

using

the model

in

a relative

sense provides

more certain results.

Another

reason

such methodology

is recommended

is the belief

that actual monitoring

data should

play

a significant

role

in the projected

design

value calculations.

Using

the CMAQ

results

in the relative

sense ensures

that

the design

value projections

have

a strong

basis

in actual monitoring

results. Since

no FRM monitor

exists

in Alexandria,

this modeling

exercise

cannot

be performed

according

to EPA guidance.

Please

note

that

in other response

to comments,

VDEQ

states

that consideration

is being

given

to locating

either

a special purpose

PM 2 . 5 monitor

or

a PM 2 . 5

FRM

in the City. 5. SUBJECT:

PRGS impacts

on PM 2 . 5 concentrations

in the

City

of Alexandria COMMENTER:

Mr.

C. Flint Webb,

P.E., Environmental

Committee

Chair, Fairfax

County Federation

of Citizen’s Associations TEXT:

The

full text

of Mr. Webb’s comments,

submitted

January

29, 2008,

is attached

to this document.

The commenter recommends

that

the attainment

plan should

include

a Gaussian

dispersion

model

for PRGS

of direct

fine particulate emissions

with downwash.

He suggests

that

data

from

the model

should

not

be added

to background concentrations

to address

the issue

that background concentrations

may include

the effects

of PRGS’s emissions. RESPONSE:

VDEQ believes

that specific

facility concerns,

including

results

of any

air quality analysis performed

on PRGS

or any other facility,

do

not belong

in a regional attainment

plan.

Due

to significant

facility concerns,

Section

9.4.3, which reiterates

the requirement

in the draft permit

for PRGS, requires

an ambient

air quality analysis

be performed

on PRGS’s emissions

when methodology

for such

an analysis

is finalized.

Including

the results

of the Gaussian

dispersion

model performed

by

the

City

of Alexandria

on this facility

as part

of the attainment

plan would

not make

the plan

any more approvable. VDEQ believes

the draft attainment

plan

is fully approvable

in

its current

state. Including

the results

of the Gaussian

dispersion

model

may

also

be premature since

it

is unclear

what methodology

will

be recommended

for PM 2 . 5 ambient

air quality analyses.

If the recommended

methodology

is something

otherthan

a Gaussian

dispersion

model, including

the results

of such modeling

in the attainment

plan could

be misleading.

Lastly,

it

is unclear

what purpose

including the results

of Alexandria’s

Gaussian

dispersion

model

with

the background concentration

removed

would

serve.

The table

below

shows Alexandria’s calculated

impacts

by PRGS

in the Gaussian

model.

Not including

the background concentrations

would demonstrate

a maximum

impact

of 8.2 ug/m 3AppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber:22

# C,

Cona24-hourbasis,farlessthaneitherthe199724-hourstandardof65ug/m3orthe200624-hourstandardof35ug/m3.Themaximumimpactof2.6ug/m3onanannualbasisisfarlessthan15.0ug/m3.VDEQdoesnotbelieveincludingthisinformationprovidesanyadditionalinsighttotheregionalairqualityissuesofthemetropolitanWashingtonarea.PRGSModeledPM2.5Impacts(CaseID-5unitsoperatingatmid-range!oacifor24hoursoerday)24-hourAnnual(pglm3)(pglm3)StackImpactsonElevatedReceptors:6.50.93-yearavg.of8thhighest,stacksalone,amongallMarinaTowersrooftopreceptors.CoalandAshYardImpactsonGround-level8.22.6Receptors:3-yearavg.of8th.highest,ground-level,fromcoalandashyardsourcesonly.Background34.114.13-yearavg.of8tIhighest,closestmonitor.NAAQS3515.06.SUBJECT:Variousrecommendationsonclarifyingtext,providingtechnicaldetails,andgrowthratesforareasourceemissionsinventories.COMMENTER:Mr.C.FlintWebb,P.E.,EnvironmentalCommitteeChair,FairfaxCountyFederationofCitizen’sAssociationsTEXT:ThefulltextofMr.Webb’scomments,submittedJanuary29,2008,isattachedtothisdocument.Thefollowingparagraphslistthevariousrecommendationsmade.(a)Comment:Figure2-5d9esnotincludedataforMarchthroughSeptemberof2005.Response:ThisfigurehasbeenupdatedtoincludeinformationthroughDecemberof2005.(b)Comment:TextinSection2.2.4doesnotappeartosupportthefigure.Perhapsdifferentplotsshouldbeused.Response:Anupdatedfigureandadditionalinformationwithinthetextofthesectionhavebeenadded.(c)Comment:Figure2-10needsmoreexplanation,especiallyconcerningthereasonsfornotconsideringammoniaemissionsforcontrolpurposesintheSIP.Also,termsonthefigureneedmoreexplanation.AppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber:23

# CResrxnse:Figure2-10hasbeenupdatedtobetterexplainthecontentandtermsofthefigure.However,thereasonswhyammoniaisnotconsideredasignificantprecursortoPM2,5areexplainedthoroughlyinvariousplacesinthedraftattainmentplan,includingSection2.8.VDEQdoesnotbelievefurtherexplanationisnecessary.(d)Comment:Figure2-11ismisleading.Theaxisshouldbechangedtoreflectzeroorshouldcontainajogtoindicatethattheaxisdoesn’tbeginatzero.Resronse:TherangeoftheyaxisinFigure2-11wasdefinedfrom14.0to17.5inordertoclearlydemonstrateadecliningdesignvaluetrendline.Extendingtheyaxistozeroinsteadof14.0createsatrendlinethatisnearlyflat.AflattrendlinedoesnotclearlyindicatethesignificantlevelofairqualityimprovementmeasuredbytheFRMnetwork.Also,dataarelabeledfordesignvaluesfordifferentyears,andtheannualPM2.5standardlineisclearlydelineatedinthegraph.VDEQdisagreeswiththecommenterandbelievesthatthefigureisquiteclearinitsmeaning.(e)Comment:Theplanneedstoclarifythedifferencebetweenarea“nonstationary”sourcesandmobilesources.Adefinitionfor“countyequivalent”shouldbeprovided.Non-roadairportvehiclesneedtobementionedinSection3.2.2.Response:AsentencehasbeenaddedtoSection3.2.3todefinewhatconstitutesamobilesource.Section3.2.2providesdetailsaboutareasources,andthediscussionsinthesetwosectionsmakecleardistinctionsbetweenareaandmobilesources.ExampleshavebeenaddedinSection3.2.2toillustratethedifferencesbetweenarea“nonstationary”andmobilesources.SincetheMWAQCareainventoryiscalculatedatcountylevel,theterm“county-equivalent”isnotrelevantandhasbeendeleted.Nonroadairportvehiclesareincludedinthenon-roadinventory.(f)Comment:Thecommentersuggestsexaminingcertainsectorsoftheareasourceemissionsinventorytodetermineifappropriategrowthfactorshavebeenused.Thespecificsectorsmentionedareresidentialfuelcombustion,openburning,municipallandfillsandincineration,andfugitivedustemissions.Response:VDEQhasexaminedtheopenburningemissionscategoryandfoundupdatedguidancefordeterminingemissionsfromthissourcesector.SeethecommentonthissubjectsubmittedbyVDEQ.However,fortheothermentionedsectors,growthsurrogatesfordifferentareaandAppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber:24nonroadsourcecategoriesweredecidedinconsultationwiththestateairagencies’staffandtheEmissionsInventorySub-CommitteeoftheTechnicalAdvisoryCommittee.Thesefactorsarethemostappropriatefactorsavailabletoinventorystaffandhavethereforebeenemployedininventorydevelopment.AsEPAprovidesadditionalguidanceonhowtheseemissionsinventoriesshouldbedeveloped,suchguidancewillbeexaminedforuseinfutureinventories.7.SUBJECT:HealtheffectsofPM25.COMMENTER:Mrs.JulieCrenshaw-VanFleet,citizenoftheCityofAlexandriaandmemberoftheAirQualityPublicAdvisoryCommittee(AQPAC)TEXT:ThefulltextofMrs.Crenshaw-VanFleet’scommentsisattachedtothisdocument.Thefollowingbulletssummarizethesecommentsandquestionsregardinghealtheffects.•Theattainmentplanmakesnomentionthatthereductions,contingencies,orcontrolsasdocumentedwillcauseareductionintheoccurrencesofthehealthconditionsandproblemscausedbyPM25.•WillhealthproblemsandconditionsassociatedbytheDepartmentofEnergywithPRGSinitsSEAdecreasewiththeapplicationofthisattainmentplan?•ResultsfromastudydonebytheAgencyforToxicSubstancesandDiseaseRegistryareduesometimeinlatewinterorearlyspringof2008.Thisstudyshouldbecarefullyreviewed.Response:LanguagehasbeenaddedtotheattainmentplantoindicatethatattainmentofthePM2.5NAAQS,aswellasfurtherairqualityimprovements,willhaveapositiveinfluenceonthehealthandwell-beingofthecitizensoftheCommonwealth.TheattainmentplanrequiresthatPRGSperformanambientairqualityanalysiswhenthemethodologyforsuchananalysisisfinalized.TheresultsofthisstudymayshowthatadditionalcontrolsonPRGSareneededtoensurethePM2.5NAAQSismet.ThepurposeoftheattainmentdemonstrationistoensurethattheregionmeetstheNAAQSinatimelymanner.TheplanalsoensuresthatfurtherairqualityimprovementswillbeenjoyedbythecitizensofthemetropolitanWashingtonarea.However,theCAAdoesnotmandatethatastudydemonstratinghealthbenefitsfromeachcontrolprogramasappliedwithineachseparatenonattainmentareabeprovidedtocreateanapprovableplan.Whilesuchinformationwouldcertainlybeinterestingandnoteworthy,VDEQAppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber:25

# C does

not have

the resources

to undertake

such

an endeavor.

Such

an endeavor is also

not

a necessary requirement

of the PM 2 . 5 attainment

planning

process. The study

from

the Agency

for Toxic Substances

and Disease

Registry

will

be reviewed

by both VDEQ

central

office

and

the NRC. 8. SUBJECT:

PM 2 . 5 monitors

located

near

large

PM 2 . 5 sources COMMENTER:

Mrs.

Julie Crenshaw-Van

Fleet,

citizen

of the

City

of Alexandria and member

of the

Air Quality

Public Advisory Committee

(AQPAC) TEXT:

The

full

text

of Mrs. Crenshaw-Van

Fleet’s comments

is attached

to this document.

The following

bullets summarize

these comments

and questions regarding

health

effects. • Current

PM 2 . 5 monitors

at PRGS

do

not meet

siting criteria

and

thus cannot

be used

for

this

SIP. • Are there

other

point sources

in the Metropolitan

Washington

Region

that would benefit

from properly

sited

PM 2 . 5 monitors?

Any

and

all locations

that

are considered

sources

of PM 2 . 5 emissions

should

have

PM 2 . 5 monitors

properly

sited under

EPA criteria. Response:

One monitor

located

near PRGS,

the monitor

sited

on

top

of the Marina Towers,

uses federal reference measurement

methods

to collect

data

on that

site.

The location

does

not meet

the criteria

for FRM monitoring

sites

since FRM

siting criteria

include limitations

on

the height

of the sampling

probe.

The criteria suggest

that appropriate

heights

for probes

should

be approximately equal

to the level

at which

an average

person breathes. However,

data

from

this

site have

not been discounted.

Since

the FRM testing methodology

requires

the

use

of

a laboratory

to analyze

filters,

FRMs

are

not

real time monitors.

In other words,

there

is

a lag between

the sample collection

time and when

the results

of the laboratory

analyses

are received.

For

the FRM

on the

top

of Marina Towers,

at the time

the draft

SIP

was being written,

VDEQ

had 10 months

of 2007

data, January

through

October.

To calculate

an annual average,

12 months

of data

are needed.

As

a place holder,

data

from November and December

of 2006

were

used

to examine

the annual average

at that monitoring

site.

The

data indicate

an annual average

for one

year

of 13.7 uglm 3 , well below

15.0 ug/m 3 .

This information

was

not included

in the draft attainment plan because

using November

2006 through

October

2007

data

is

an irregular method

of calculating

an annual average;

because

three

years

of data

were

not available

from

this monitoring

site,

as required

by the statistical methodology

for the NAAQS;

and because

the calculated

annual average

was

well beneath

the •

Appendix

K, Attachment

2- 

# Page Number: 26C,15.0ug/m3standard.InearlyFebruaryof2008,thefinalmonthsof‘PM2.5datafor2007attheMarinaTowermonitorsbecameavailable.ForJanuarythroughDecemberof2007,theMarinaTowersmonitormeasuredanannualaverageof13.5ug/m3anda24-houraverageof31.3ug/m3.VDEQwillcontinuetoexaminethedatagatheredfromthismonitoringsite.Asmentionedinotherplaceswithinthisdocument,VDEQisconsideringlocatingaPM2.5monitorwithintheCityofAlexandriaduetoconcernsraisedabouttheMirantPotomacRiverGeneratingStation.Foranumberofreasons,however,itisimpracticaltolocatePM25FRMsneareverysource,oreveneverymajorpointsource,ofPM2.5emissionsinthemetropolitanWashingtonarea.First,PM2.5FRMsareresourceintensive.InstallingaPM2.5FRMcostsapproximately$13,000each.AnnualoperationsforeachPM2.5FRMcostapproximately$15,000.VDEQmustoperatewithinitsresourceconstraints.AddingadditionalmonitorstothealreadyrobustmonitoringnetworkinmetropolitanWashingtonwouldbequitecostly.AnotherreasonsuchaplanisimpracticalisthefactthatadditionalmonitorsmaylikelyshownogreatdeviationfromthemeasurementsmadeatthecurrentFRMsites.Todate,theFRMsinthemetropolitanWashingtonareadonotappeartoshowagreatdealofdatadeviation,indicatingthatthePM2.5airqualityinthemetropolitanWashingtonareaismorearegionalissuethanitisalocalizedissue.VDEQdoesnotbelieveitnecessaryorcosteffectivetolocateFRM’sneareverymajorpointsourceofPM2.5emissionsinthemetropolitanWashingtonarea.9.SUBJECT:EmissionsfromPRGS.COMMENTER:Mrs.JulieCrenshaw-VanFleet,citizenoftheCityofAlexandriaandmemberoftheAirQualityPublicAdvisoryCommittee(AQPAC)TEXT:ThefulltextofMrs.Crenshaw-VanFleet’scommentsisattachedtothisdocument.ThefollowingbulletssummarizethecommentsconcerningPRGS’semissions.•MirantPotomacRiverGeneratingStationisapointsourceconsideredtobeahighpolluterbyEPA.Highpollutersshouldbeconsideredhotspotproblemlocations.•TheuseofTRONAatPRGS,anditseffectsonPM2.5emissionsandhumanhealth,shouldbediscussedintheattainmentplan.RESPONSE:EPAdoesnotdefinea“hotspot”withinregionalmodelingguidance.ThecurrentEPAguidanceforregionalmodelingtosupportattainmentplansnotesthatLAA’sarerequiredforareaswithinaregionthatshowelevatedmonitoredPM25concentrationsatmonitorswithinthefederalreferenceAppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber:27

# Cmonitoringnetworkwhencomparedtodatafromotherfederalreferencemonitorsintheregion.ThereisnoidentifiedgradientinPM2.5concentrationsintheFRMnetworkinthemetropolitanWashingtonregion.Therefore,byEPA’sdefinition,thereisnorequirementtoconductalocalareaanalysis.VDEQisawareofhighlyconservativemicro-scalemodelingthatindicatesthepossibilityofa“hotspot”intheCityofAlexandriaeventhoughcurrentdatafromthemonitorslocatedinthemodeledareashowthatconcentrationsarewellbeneaththeNAAQS.Additionally,FRMmonitoringdataatthenearbymonitoringstationinArlingtonshowcompliancewiththeNAAQS.Regardless,theattainmentplandoesincluderequirementsforfurtheractionstoaddresstheconcernsregardingemissionsfromPRGSthroughadditionalanalyses,whenmethodologiesbecomeavailable,asrequiredbySection9.4.3.ThecommenterexpressedconcernabouttheuseofTRONAinjectionforSO2controlatthePRGSandtheneedforeffectsofTRONAinjectiontobedocumentedintheattainmentplan.VDEQdoesnotbelievetheattainmentplanisanappropriateplacetoenumeratedetailsaboutaspecificfacility’soperationalconsiderations.SuchdetailsareroutinelyexaminedandincorporatedintopermitsthroughthenormalVDEQpermittingprocess.SuchdetailshavebeenandcontinuetobethesubjectofscrutinybytheNRCpermittingstaffintheongoingPRGSpermittingprocess.ThePRGSpermittingprocesshasincorporatedmanypubliccommentopportunitiestoprovidecitizenstheopportunitytoexamineandmakecommentsonthedrafts.InregardstospecificconcernsaboutPM2.5increasesfromtheuseofTRONAinjectionatPRGS,anattachmenttothisdocumentgoesintogreatdetailaboutthatveryissue.TheMay31,2006,letterfromMr.DavidWelshtoCongressmanMoranprovidesanenclosurethataddressestheissuesoffullscaleevaluationsofTRONAuseandparticulateincreasesduetoTRONAinjection.Theenclosurestates,“EPAbelievesthereissufficientevidencethatTRONAisasuitableabsorbentforinjectionintoapowerplantfluegasstreamforthepurposeofremovingsulfurdioxide....TheMaterialSafetyDataSheet(MSDS)forTRONAidentifiesisasarelativelynon-toxiccompound....“TheenclosurealsosummarizestheeffectofTRONAatPRGSas,“TRONAwasdemonstratedtoremove80%ofSO2emissions,whilenotimpactingopacityandsignificantlydecreasingthePM10emissionrate.”PM2.5testswereperformedusingEPA’sConditionalTestMethod40(CTM-40)atPRGSonDecember14through17,2006.ThesetestsconfirmedthatTRONAinjectiondidnotincreasePM2.5emissionsfromtheboilers.AppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber:2810.SUBJECT:PM2.5impactsofthePRGSinAlexandria,VirginiaCOMMENTER:Ms.AnaPrados,AirQualityChair,SierraClub,VirginiaChapter;Mr.MikeTown,Director,SierraClub,VirginiaChapterTEXT:ThefulltextofMs.Prados’andMr.Town’scommentsisattachedtothisdocument.ThefollowingbulletssummarizethecommentsconcerningPRGS’semissions.•PRGSisthesinglelargestsourceofPM2.5innorthernVirginia.•PM25monitorsatMarinaTowersmeasuredconcentrationsabovethe35ug/m324-hourNAAQSonseveraloccasionsin2007.•EPAscientistshaverecommendedanannualPM25NAAQSlimitthatislowerthan15.0ug/m3.•TheCityofAlexandria’sdispersionmodelingtodate,includingdownwash,demonstratesthata“hotspot”exists.•PRGScontributessignificantlytoPM2.5nonattainmentinAlexandriaandthemetropolitanWashingtonareas.RESPONSE:VDEQagreesthatPRGSisalargeemitterofPM2.5However,itisnotthelargestpointsourceemitterinthemetropolitanWashingtonarea,norisitthelargestemitterinnorthernVirginia,whenallsegmentsofthepoint,area,nonroad,andtransportationinventoriesareconsidered.Asstatedinotherportionsofthisdocument,short-termexcursionsabovethe35uglm3standardarenotactionableviolations.Violationsarebasedonstatisticalmethodologiestotakeintoaccountexposurerates.Occasionalexceedencesofthe35ug/m3standardmustbetreatedasdatavariabilityunlessaviolationofthePM25NAAQSoccurs.Additionally,thisattainmentplanisdesignedtoaddressthe1997PM2.5NAAQS,whichsetsthestandardsat15.0ug/monanannualaverageand65ug/m3ona24-houraverage.SincetheNAAQSstandardisbasedonthreeyearsofdata,onlyapartialevaluationcanbemadeoftheMarinaTowersmonitoringdata.Asnotedinotherplaceswithinthisdocument,forJanuarythroughDecemberof2007,theMarinaTowersmonitormeasuredanannualaverageof13.5ug/m3anda24-houraverageof31.3ug/m3.VDEQwillcontinuetoexaminethedatagatheredfromthismonitoringsite.Thepurposeofthisattainmentplanistoaddressthe1997standardsasfinalized.Thesestandardsare15.0ug/m3onanannualaverageand65ug/m3ona24-houraverage.CertainlyitisimportantforVDEQtobemindfulofthe2006standardrevisionto35ug/rn3ona24-hourbasisaswellasotherinformationsuchasscientificrecommendations.However,thisdocument,whichshowsthatairqualityhasimprovedandcurrentlymeetsthe1997standardsatallAppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber:29FRMmonitorsandthatairqualityispredictedtomeetthe2006standardsatallFRMmonitorsby2009,isfullyapprovableaswritten.Previouscommentsprovideinformationon“hotspots.”Asnotedinotherplacesinthisdocument,thecurrentEPAguidanceforregionalmodelingtosupportattainmentplansrequiresLAA’sforareaswithinaregionthatshowelevatedmonitoredPM25concentrationsatmonitorswithinthefederalreferencemonitoringnetworkwhencomparedtodatafromotherfederalreferencemonitorsintheregion.EPAdoesnot,withinthecontextofSIPattainmentplanning,haveadefinitionfortheterm“hotspot.”Themonitoringnetworkshowssimilarresultsforvariousmonitoringsites.ToensurethatPRGSisnotcausingaNAAQSviolation,VDEQhasincludedarequirementintheattainmentdemonstrationthatanambientairqualityanalysisofPRGSemissionsbeprovidedoncesuchmethodologyisfinalized.TheCityofAlexandria’smodelingexerciseofPRGS’semissionsdoesnotuseamethodologythathasbeenpeerreviewedandfinalizedbyEPA.ThemethodologymaydoublecountPRGSemissionssinceitaddsbackgroundconcentrationsfromnearbyPM2.5FRMseventhoughPRGS,asanexistingfacility,contributestotheseconcentrations.ThemethodologyadoptedbyAlexandriahasbeenusedbyotherstates,butonlyfornewandmodifiedsources,notexistingsources.Thesereasons,andothers,makeAlexandria’smethodologyandresultsinappropriateforinclusioninthisattainmentdemonstration.11.SUBJECT:Non-roademissions.COMMENTER:Mr.J.CharlesBaummer,Jr.,EnvironmentalEngineer,OfficeofEngineering,MetropolitanWashingtonAirportsAuthorityTEXT:ThefulltextofMr.Baummer’scommentsisattachedtothisdocument.Thecommenterrequestsconfirmationthattheattainmentplanintendstoaccountforairportconstructionequipmentemissions.Additionally,thecommenterrequeststhatconstructionemissionbudgetsforairportscanbederivedfromtheplanaspercentagesofcountyconstructionequipmentemissions,basedonemploymentattheairportsrelativetocountyemployment.RESPONSE:Countylevelconstructionemissionsareintendedtoaccountforconstructionemissionsattheairportsaswellasotherfacilitieswithineachcounty.VDEQagreesthatpastmethodologieshaveusedapercentageofemploymentbytheairport,ascomparedtocountyemploymentdata,todemonstratetheinclusionoftheseemissionsintheimplementationplan.However,VDEQdoesnotbelieveitisappropriatetoincludethismethodologyinAppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber:30

# C)theattainmentdemonstrationnarrative.FutureguidancefromEPAmayprovideotheracceptablewaysinwhichtoapportiontheseemissionssothatinclusionintheattainmentplanofanyparticularwaymayrequireafutureSIPrevision,atimeandresourceintensiveprocess.12.SUBJECT:Typographicalclarifications.COMMENTER:Ms.MarilynPowers,EPARegionIllTEXT:ThefulltextofMs.Powers’commentsisattachedtothisdocument.Thecommenternotesthattheplanmustaddressboththeannualand24-hour1997NAAQSstandards;thatmuchoftheguidanceforthisplanisalsorelevanttoboththeannualand24-hourstandard;thattheappropriatelevelofprecisionfortheannualstandardis15.0ug/m3;thatclarifyinglanguageinregardstothestatusofthenonattainmentareaemissionscapswithintheVACAIRruleshouldbeadded;andthatatypographicalmistakewaslocatedinSection9.3.1.RESPONSE:BasedonEPAcomments,modificationshavebeenmadetotextinChapters1through4,andappendicesB,D,andEltoreflectthefactthattheplanaddressesthe24-hourPM2.5standardaswellastheannualstandard;toreflecttheappropriatelevelofsignificantfiguresinstandards;toclarifythestatusoftheVACAIRruleandassociatednonattainmentareaemissioncaps;andtocorrecttypographicalerrors.13.SUBJECT:PM2.5areasourceemissionsfromopenburning-landclearingCOMMENTER:Mr.ThomasBallou,DirectorofAirDataAnalysisandPlanning,VDEQ(ThecommentwassuppliedtoMDandDC,butincludedhereforcompleteness.)TEXT:ThefulltextofMr.BaIIou’scommentisattachedtothisdocument.ThecommenterrequeststhatthenorthernVirginiaareasourceemissionsinventorybecorrectedforyears2002and2009andthatallchartsandreferencestothesenumbersbeupdated.RESPONSE:AppendicesB,Cl,andDhavebeenupdatedtoreflect2002and2009PM2.5andPM10emissionschanges.Chapters1,3,and4havebeeneditedtoreflecttherevisednumbersforthesepollutantsinNorthernVirginia.AppendixK,Attachment2-PageNumber:31

# GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Department of the Environment

V 

# Environmental Protection Administration

Air Quality Division

FEBRUARY 11,2008

V



# Public Hearing on Draft State Implementation Plan

V V V 

# For Fine Particle (PM2.5) Standard and 2002 Base Year Inventory

V

V 

# V



# Please sign in below:

NAME 

# AFFILIATION (if 

# any) ADDRESS

. 

# $S1’c 

# aW

.



# 2. 

# LLC ______



# V

1 C 

# y4

6.

7. 

# 1 S- 1’ 

# 0

8. 

# w (I

V



# 9.

10.

# L..

1 fl

fl

• •-,04/O1/2@@8

@4:32 2@26363S

THE IaJASHINGTOH

T S

PAGE

@2/@2 AFFIDAVIT

OF PUBLICATION

AD# 10178807 District

of Columbia,

ss, Personaily

appeared

before

me, F]TH

H. ALLBR.1TTON. a Notary

Public

in and

for

the District

of Columbia, CARL

S. J.QHNS}

who

is being

duly sworn according

to law,

an oath

says

that

he

is an AUTHORIZED

AGENT

of THE WASHINGTON

TIMES,

L.LC., publisher

of Ciiculated

daily,

in the City

of Washington,

District

of Columbia, and

that

the advertisement,

of which

the annexed

is

a true copy

was published

in said newspaperj..

time(s)

on

the following

dates:

00 V!RNMDIT

OF ThE QISI1ICT GOWUSIA ZQ4)8_JANUARY.i

j

.

OW

A QUAUTV

IS5SJ Nelke

k letciby

glcee

;Iiee

a Wib(e hearlm

will

ilp fillS

CII bloeday.

Cilb,IlU,

it 2001c1

0:01,fIjil.

III tile

Cdl FIo, oon#r eIICn roonc,1I

5)

N l,eaa.

III, b01tWlwFCll.

O.C.

This fleadn preolCes IIIleiCutedparllssIi, 0p551

luiliCI

15 Cilmmllt

mi

lee at the rate

of $2.91

Per

line

Tile OreSceid

S1,le emere.tliiP!i,n

(SIP)

far Apeowl

lIne eve

fae (PM2!) SISISVd

end

aat

ease

eee 5NeMOl

lee

tej WIIIngtQft

OGMilVA

$00 tOllwnm

A,—; combs

01(I)

a deaerfatlocoaoxisenpcopflel

Ilmedoillo-

(III

an almimNeip

o1ll- ,,aasly

1,vabIbblt

Ctnirl

fl$Il0l.

(III) reeler

cuticle

cmli. Total

Cost

$ 331.74

Dollars

pliltil

ceezalea

lire beec

acm

Sic P01101W

CISISCIAm leneliluly

had

o .Oi9 pm(eottd

lIwontoly.

wihlCq

101141

10 SIC IlIjIS

Feral Sleonina

eeOvhFlc$

meiqeed

15 tee Cuand ‘,

The

ate oSed

SIP

aime precates

File Dietrict

And

the

U A -

OSteto

bIble

PeIda

10 IPFPIV14

alr QUAlIFY

In Foe wsSfIilFIisn nCL,lteIpment

InCA

AM

Inc *lirl

I hStu

Ia mre CecelcalyInc (CCCII 10150cC,

tIre 015cm’

‘realSi

Ilild Subscribed

and sworn

to before

me

42.5

UWAC

crepomef

enmp

wl lelIon

em

me

1q91 PMI... S100SIIFAI.

On Occember

IT, Q7. MWAQC

noulered

tOp prepsoed

Wa”,

AnA

DC

‘ad

eelites arr.mIe9ftotatIIc

11n10w3n510111M001. JA.NIJ.A..RY’

II. 2008

1110 DiCpesei

5IP reololoc,

are Ynalebic

tot peASe

rprlew

Cal In 9 riewlial beII14eS

hAute

‘n 51 oIIICII

Al theDiStrict

Dipot. 1,01St

of tuG EltelPonhlleel

(DDOEJ.

SI

II SeleCt.

NE. POem

PONt WuusImInQaen.

D.C. 20102:

III UCIFOSAISAn

heehinuepo

CQncII no Oov.rnrmi0C{b

SuIte

100

17? loriS CepiFol

Sheds.

Wash. It-

4f

j/ j3jjJ•__ Notary

Public

N’ L1LC/bWE9 —.

InOfeIted 1 pAr1Ies

wInMi’g

to tegilly

ii ISle Iievl,iQ

elliOt

CubITt

F II’ 31,11119

theIr eamee, adainclee.

IlleSfidSe

numoele

flop alhulAtlon.

II any

to UP. CP$L5I

filoctor

ii 0OO fZNU42I7) 00 410

Pin.. tehnary

SI. 1108.

ND P411CCcrellowni

a’te

be 1øL)

14. MbiItton t4ctiry

Public,

District

0? Columbia

‘-. My CammlIon

ExpIres 6-14-2010 My Commission

expires_________________U D

# AFFIDAVIT

OF PUBLICATION District

of Columbia,

ss, Personally

appeared

before

me, FAITH

H. ALLBRITF

ON. a Notary

Public

in and

for

the District

of Columbia

AD# 10183697 CARL

S. JOHNSON

who

is being

duly sworn according

to law,

an oath

says

that

he

is

an AUTHORIZED

AGENT

of THE WASHINGTON

TIMES,

L.L.C., publisher

of cW’.ntmc Circulated

daily,

in the City

of Washington,

District

of Columbia, and

that

the advertisement,

of which

the annexed

is

a true copy

was published

in said newspaper

.1 time(s)

on

the following

dates: 2008 FEBRUARY

29 at the

rate

of

$ 2.91

per line. Total

Cost

$ 320.10

Dollars(-i’(



# / 7/ Subscribed

and sworn

to before

me FEBRUARY

29. 2008 Notary Public..1tt?CFaithH.AlibriftonNotary



# Publjc,DistrictofColumbiaMyCommij0Expires6-14-2010••I•. 

# My Commission

expires

# 7.:.

• • •.



# it..

1GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Department of the Environment Environmental Protection Administration

Air Quality Division FEBRUARY 11,2008 Public Hearing on Draft State Implementation Plan (SIP) For Annual Fine Particle (PM2.5) Standard and 2002 Base Year Inventory As of the published deadline, February 11, 2008, the Air Quality Division received one request for the opportunity to testify. Should there be any other persons at the public hearing interested in making presentations who had missed the filing deadline, we will allow up to five (5) minutes for each person to testify. All presenters please sign in below: NAME AFFILIATION (if any) ADDRESS 1. \çLct(

J. 2.

- 3

V 4. V 5. 6. .7. 8. 9. 10.

# C

C