Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0553
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2010-08-13T04:00Z

-----Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 07/28/2010 11:10PM -----
To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 
From: "Bromberg, Kevin L." <kevin.bromberg@sba.gov> 
Date: 07/28/2010 04:38PM 
cc: "Kymn, Christine J." <Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov>, "Higgins, Cortney" 
<Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>, "Johnson, Nancy" <Nancy.Johnson@hq.doe.gov>, 
RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Larry 
Sorrels/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter 
Nagelhout/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Horowitz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Kymn, Christine J." 
<Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov> 
Subject: RE: FW: Emission Factors and Percent Reduction by Catalysts 
 
Thanks for the quick reply.   
 
My mistake - I was reading the HAP figure for that one.  And, I've gone back 
to the source for the HAP and VOC reductions - and I can verify the 76% and 
71% reductions are consistent with the cited data - which I hadn't yet looked 
at. 
 
And the CO data is 94%, and that matches too. 
 
So the only missing piece is the Emissions Factors data - which is quite 
important.  Look forward to that being provided. 
 
FYI - For HAPs, INGAA suggests an EF of 2.43 E-04 (from AP-42) as more 
appropriate for 4SRB, whereas the proposal used 4.78 E-04  (HP<50) or 6.88 E-
04, and the new draft final uses 6.58 E-04.   EPA's EF factor alone makes the 
cost/ton  about a factor of two lower. 
 
-----Original Message----- 
From: King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov]  
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 4:21 PM 
To: Bromberg, Kevin L. 
Cc: Kymn, Christine J.; Higgins, Cortney; Johnson, Nancy; 
Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov; Talcott.Fred@epamail.epa.gov; 
Sorrels.Larry@epamail.epa.gov; Lamson.Amy@epamail.epa.gov; 
Nagelhout.Peter@epamail.epa.gov; horowitz.michael@epamail.epa.gov 
Subject: Re: FW: Emission Factors and Percent Reduction by Catalysts 
 
Kevin, 
Where are you seeing that the CO % reduction for 4SLB should be 71%?  If you 
look at the table for 4SLB which is Table 2, see the far right column, the % 
reductions for CO are all greater than 90%.  The % reductions for 
formaldehyde, which is what we use for HAP and VOC, is provided in each table 
(see CH2O).  Table 4 for 4SRB engines does show the NOx % reductions, see the 
far right column.  None of the other subcategories has NOx reductions. 
 
The emission factors come from our Emissions Database that was put together 
several years ago, plus we supplemented that information with new data where 
we could.  We're working on a memo that documents the information. 
 
Melanie King 
Energy Strategies Group 
Sector Policies and Programs Division 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency 
 
Mail Code D243-01 
RTP, NC  27711 
 
Phone:  (919) 541-2469 
Fax:       (919) 541-5450 
king.melanie@epa.gov 
 
 
|------------> 
| From:      | 
|------------> 
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------| 
  |"Bromberg, Kevin L." <kevin.bromberg@sba.gov>                               
                                                              | 
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------| 
|------------> 
| To:        | 
|------------> 
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------| 
  |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA             
                                                              | 
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------| 
|------------> 
| Cc:        | 
|------------> 
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------| 
  |"Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>, "Kymn, Christine J." 
<Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov>, "Johnson, Nancy"                  | 
  |<Nancy.Johnson@hq.doe.gov>                                                 
                                                               | 
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------| 
|------------> 
| Date:      | 
|------------> 
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------| 
  |07/28/2010 04:06 PM                                                         
                                                              | 
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------| 
|------------> 
| Subject:   | 
|------------> 
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------| 
  |FW: Emission Factors and Percent Reduction by Catalysts                     
                                                              | 
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------| 
 
 
 
 
 
Hi – Melanie – I’m forwarding this because I think Cortney is jammed. 
Not sure if we will get to this tomorrow in preamble questions, because it’s 
really about the RIA.  But these are pretty basic, and your contractor could 
probably readily answer these. 
 
 
Kevin 
 
 
_____________________________________________ 
From: Bromberg, Kevin L. 
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:25 AM 
To: 'Higgins, Cortney'; Kymn, Christine J. 
Cc: Lee, Amanda I. 
Subject: Emission Factors and Percent Reduction by Catalysts 
 
 
<<EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059-0665[1].pdf>> 
 
 
Cortney, Christine – I think we should forward this to EPA this AM.  See 
below: 
 
 
This document is cited on page 2 of in the July 26 Cost/Ton memo, as the 
source of the control efficiencies represented in Table 2.  The July 26 memo 
reports CO emission reductions of 94% and 49% for  4 SLB and 4 SRB 
respectively,  and the figures in this document appear to indicate 71% and 49% 
 respectively by my inspection.  Although, EPA has properly identified the 49% 
reduction, it appears that the 4SLB figure used by EPA is incorrect: it should 
be 71% instead of 94% reduction. 
 
 
More importantly, this document does not provide the percent emission 
reductions for HAPs, VOCs, or NOx – where is this document?  Perhaps, EPA 
meant to cite a different document in footnote 3 of the July 27th document? 
 
 
Most importantly, the July 26 memo does not identify the source of the 
original emission factors of uncontrolled emissions listed in Table 2, 
before adoption of the percent reductions.   What is the source of the 
original emission factors? 
 
 
 
 
 
Without this information, I can’t verify EPA’s emission reductions in two ways 
– can’t verify the control efficiencies or the original emission factors – 
which can very much modify the cost reasonableness of the GACT analyses. 
 
 
I thought I should send this in advance of tomorrow’s questions to give you a 
heads-up.  If you could answer today, that would be even better. 
 
 
Thanks 
Kevin 
 
 
 
 
 
Thanks 
 
Kevin(See attached file: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059-0665[1].pdf)