Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0253-0177
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2008-10-16T04:00Z

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US 

09/24/2008 10:26 AM

	

To

Lydia Wegman, Al McGartland, simon.nathalie@epa.gov

cc

Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, kathy kaufman

Subject

Fw: Pb NAAQS RIA Follow Ups

For those not on Heidi's original distribution list

----- Forwarded by Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US on 09/24/2008 10:24 AM -----

"King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov> 

09/23/2008 05:48 PM

	

To

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Brian
Heninger/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Darryl Weatherhead/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Charlotte
Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

"Clark, Michael C." <Michael_C._Clark@omb.eop.gov>, "Mancini, Dominic
J." <Dominic_J._Mancini@omb.eop.gov>, "Lee, Amanda I."
<Amanda_I._Lee@omb.eop.gov>, "Fraas, Arthur G."
<Arthur_G._Fraas@omb.eop.gov>

Subject

Pb NAAQS Follow Ups

Ron and Kathy,

 

Below are the follow ups for both EPA and OMB that I noted during our
call on Monday morning.  One of the OMB follow up items is a suggested
agenda / list of questions for our next Monday RIA conversation, and
that is provided below.

 

Thanks all,

 

Heidi

Note:  Please let me know if the formatting has made the email difficult
to read.  I cut and paste bulleted text from MSWord into Outlook; I hope
that translation into Lotus Notes does not introduce any new characters
or formatting.

 

  *******************************************************

 

EPA follow ups:

 

1.  Confirm value used for non-industrial fugitive / re-entrained dust
and soils (from analysis spreadsheet – do I recall 0.02 ug/m3?)

 

2.  Further information on distance weighting (from analysis
spreadsheet?)

 

3.  From the Briefing 9/5/2008, could we please see the curves estimated
on slide 9 excluding Herculaneum, also excluding Dallas outlier.

 

4.  Confirm appropriateness of changing analytical year to 2016, given
implementation timeline for rules assumed in baseline

 

5.	Referring to spreadsheet of estimated Cost per Ton Emissions
Controlled, (sent 8/25 by Ron) could you provide the estimated lbs /
tons of Pb reduction achieved for each unique control measure for
identified sources/known control measures (where control measure is the
combination of the control measure and the source category to which it
is applied).   

 

6.	Write up on relationship between existing analysis avg time/form
(second max monthly) and rolling quarterly 

 

7.	Write-up explaining the difference/similarities between benefit and
cost estimates for controls / emission reductions by a source

 

8.	Clarification on the contribution of utilities to the analysis
(Second attachment to email 9/19 showed relatively high costs to EGUs in
the first row)

 

 

OMB follow ups:

 

1.	We will send suggestions on alternative cost approaches

 

2.	Agenda items and questions for next Monday meeting (below)

 

 

Proposed Agenda for RIA meeting Monday Sept 29th:

 

 

I.                Benefits

a.      Quick review of methodology used to estimate benefits in area
around monitor

                                                              i.     
VNA extrapolation

                                                            ii.     
Radius

                                                          iii.     
Specific question:  Why design benefits analysis around monitors, not
sources?

                                                          iv.     
Methodological changes from proposal 

b.      % of US population included in analysis (pop around the189
monitors) and % of US population for which benefits are positive
non-zero

 

II.             Aligning Benefit and Cost estimation methodologies
appropriately for Benefit Cost Analysis consistent with circular A-4

a.      Write up on comparability of RIA methods to estimates Benefits
and Costs

                                                              i.     
Time horizon

                                                            ii.     
Baseline assumptions

                                                          iii.     
Affected population

                                                          iv.     
Thresholds analyzed

                                                            v.     
Other methodological issues: for example how spatial variation in Pb
levels is treated analytically from source to monitor vs source to human
exposure

 

III.                   Other remaining follow up items from previous
conversations (see follow ups above)