1

Clean Air Update

Ozone Rules (signed April 15, 2004) 8-hour ozone designations Final 8-hour Implementation Rule - Phase 1 Transition from the 1-hour ozone standard

PM Rules PM2.5 designations – Nov 2004 PM2.5 implementation Rule – proposal this

year Visibility Rule (proposal April 15, 2004)

Re-proposal of the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Guidelines of the Regional Haze Rule

Mercury Rule

2

Attainment or Unclassifiable Areas (2668 counties)

Nonattainment Areas (432 entire counties)

Nonattainment Areas (42 partial counties)

Attainment and Nonattainment Areas in the U.S.8-hour Ozone Standard

3

8-hour Nonattainment Areas

474 counties designated nonattainment 432 whole counties 42 partial counties

Approximately 159 million people exposed to ozone levels above 8-hour standard

4

5

Status of 8-hour Ozone Implementation Rule

Final rule to be issued in 2 Phases: Phase 1:

Classifications, transition/anti-backsliding, revocation of 1-hour standard, attainment dates, attainment date extensions, timing of emission reductions needed for attainment

Published: April 30, 2004 Effective Date: June 15, 2004

6

8-hour ozone implementation rule

Categorization Areas separated based generally on 1-hr

ozone design value Areas with 1-hr design value less than .121

ppm fall under general requirements of Subpart 1 (Basic Provision)

Areas with 1-hr design value greater than or equal to .121 ppm fall under more specific requirements under Subpart 2 (Specific Provision) and are classified as marginal, moderate, serious, or severe based on severity of 8-hr ozone problem

7

8-hour ozone implementation rule

Classifications Subpart 2 areas classified using 8-hr design

values and classified based on % above standard

Philadelphia – Moderate Lancaster – Moderate – intend to request bump-down

to Marginal No classification for Subpart 1 areas except

rural areas that meet overwhelming transport criteria

No PA nonattainment counties meet transport criteria

8

8-hour ozone implementation rule

Attainment dates –

Subpart 1 areas get no later than 5 years after effective date of designation or 10 years after designation if severity and availability and feasibility of pollution control measures indicate more time is needed

Subpart 2 areas get Subpart 2 attainment periods, running from effective date of designation/classification

marginal – 3 years moderate – 6 years serious – 9 years severe – 15 or 17 years extreme – 20 years

9

8-hour ozone implementation rule

Revocation of the 1-hr Ozone Standard The 1-hr ozone standard will be revoked on

June 15, 2005, one year after the effective date of the 8-hr ozone designations

To ensure progress toward clean air, anti-backsliding requirements require control measures mandated by Congress for 1-hr purposes continue to apply until the area meets the 8-hr standard

Consistent with 1-yr grace period for 8-hr Ozone conformity

10

8-hour Ozone Implementation Rule - NSR Transition

States are not required to retain the New Source Review program requirements that applied under the 1-hour standard (offset ratios and major source thresholds) once the 1-hour standard is revoked.

Instead, States must establish an 8-hour NSR program based on the 8-hour ozone designation and classification.

11

NSR Requirements in the OTR

Attainment areas in the OTR must comply with nonattainment NSR requirements as if the area is classified “moderate” nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard.

This means that areas located in the OTR will continue to apply a 50 tpy major source threshold for VOC, a 100 tpy major source threshold for NOx, and an offset ratio of 1:1.15.

12

8-hour Ozone Implementation Rule

Next Steps EPA’s Phase 2 Rule:

Remainder of rule elements (e.g., RACT, RFP, attainment demonstrations; 8-hr NSR)

EPA is planning to finalize the rule in September

13

PM2.5 Implementation Program

February 2004 – States/Tribes recommended designations

June 29, 2004 – EPA responded with letters describing intended “modifications”

September 1, 2004- States/Tribes response to EPA’s proposed designations

September 2004 – EPA proposes implementation rule

November 2004 – EPA finalizes designations February 2005 – effective date of PM2.5

designations March 2005 – EPA finalizes implementation rule February 2008 – States/Tribes submit plans 2010 – 2015 - Attainment dates

14

PM2.5 Designations Guidance

Signed 4/1/03 by Jeff Holmstead Regional problem similar to ozone Presumption: nonattainment area

should be the metropolitan area based on OMB definitions

Final designations to be based on most recent 3 years of complete data (e.g. 2001-2003)

15

PM2.5 Designations 9 Factors

Emissions in areas potentially included versus excluded from the nonattainment area

Air quality in potentially included versus excluded areas

Population density and degree of urbanization including commercial development in included versus excluded areas

Traffic and commuting patterns

Expected growth (including extent, pattern and rate of growth)

Meteorology (weather/transport patterns)

Geography/topography (mountain ranges or other air basin boundaries)

Jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., counties, air districts, Reservations, etc.)

Level of control of emission sources

16

PM2.5 Designations – Differences from Ozone Guidance

Five main pollutants: direct PM (carbon, crustal material), SO2, and ammonia in addition to NOx and VOC

PM2.5 is a year-round standard. Thus, contributions to nonattainment occur in all seasons and from many directions, not necessarily under one predominant wind direction.

PM2.5 guidance did not include a factor specifically identifying future regional emissions reduction strategies

Possible use of source apportionment studies using speciated data, or interpolated air quality data

17

State Recommendations for PM2.5 Designations

Summary 116 NA counties 8 partial NA counties 21 counties in OH and MD

recommended as NA in “options” under consideration

Total population of these 145 counties = 82 million

Presumptive metro areas associated with these counties ~300 counties with 105 million population

Website: www.epa.gov/pmdesignations

18

PM2.5 Designations

EPA Approach for Evaluating Potential PM2.5 nonattainment Counties Consider all 9 PM2.5 factors in analysis Initial focus on air quality and emissions

EPA developed a weighted emissions score to take multiple PM2.5 pollutants into account

Then a review of the other 7 factors is taken into account

19

Weighted Emissions Score

= [(County SO2 tons / CMSA SO2 tons) * (% sulfate of urban excess PM2.5)]+ [(County NOx tons / CMSA NOx tons) * (% nitrate of urban excess PM2.5)]+ [(County carbon tons / CMSA carbon

tons) * (% carbon of urban excess PM2.5)]+ [(County crustal PM tons / CMSA

crustal PM tons) * (% crustal of urban excess PM2.5)]

20

PM2.5 Factors - Other Issues EPA Considered

• Emissions and air quality are primary factors, but EPA decision is based on overall evidence for all 9 factors.

• A county with a non-violating monitor can still contribute emissions to another county with a violating monitor.

• Extra consideration is given to designating a county as NA if it is between counties with violating monitors or would provide for a contiguous NA area (i.e. avoid “donut holes”).

21

PM2.5 Factors – continued

Future controls are not a consideration Designations are based on current air quality, not

projected air quality “State of the art” controls need to be in place

by December 2004. Need to be federally enforceable or in process to become federally enforceable (i.e. in SIP or permit).

If operating SCR for NOx, need enforceable agreement requiring year-round operation

What is current effectiveness and maintenance of direct PM controls, and is there room for improvement? Are condensable emissions controlled?

22

PM2.5 Factors – continued

Meteorology: contributions to annual average will be from multiple directions, not just a predominant summer direction

Geography - mountainous terrain will be an important factor for a limited number of areas, primarily in California

No mountain top NA’s for PM2.5 as there are for ozone

23

PM2.5 Designation Recommendations Summary for Pennsylvania

February 2004, PADEP recommends 16 PM2.5 nonattainment counties in PA Allegheny, Beaver, Berks, Bucks, Cambria,

Chester, Cumberland, Dauphin, Delaware, Lancaster, Lebanon, Montgomery, Philadelphia, Washington, Westmoreland and York Counties

June 2004, PADEP revised recommendations removing several counties Bucks, Montgomery and Lebanon Counties

June 29, 2004, EPA announces 22 proposed nonattainment counties in PA

24

25

Regional Haze Timeline

Regional Haze (RH) final rule: July 1999 Regional Haze remand vacating BART

provisions in Section 308 of RH rule: May 2002 Court objected to inclusion of individual

sources based on collective assessment of visibility impacts from all sources

Consent Decree deadline for RH/BART re-proposal: April 15, 2004; deadline for final action: April 15, 2005

Regional Haze State implementation plans (SIPs) due 3 years after designation of PM2.5 attainment and nonattainment areas (February 2008)

26

1999 Regional Haze Rule – General Requirements

States must submit regional haze SIPs addressing emissions which “may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility” in any Class I area

States are required to establish reasonable progress goals and timetables; EPA establishes a rebuttable presumption that States should achieve natural conditions by 2064, with long-term strategies due every 10 years (first one in 2018).

Regional planning encouraged Regional Haze program applies to all States,

regardless of whether the State contains a Class I area

Emissions from States without Class I areas reach Class I areas in other States

Clean Air Act (CAA) directs states to “prevent any future impairment”

27

1999 Regional Haze Rule – Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Provisions

Requires States to implement BART for all BART-eligible sources.

Includes CAA mandate that BART determinations should be based on five factors:

Cost of compliance Energy and non-air quality environmental impacts Existing pollution control technology at the source Remaining useful life of the source, and Degree of visibility improvement which may

reasonably be anticipated from controls Includes option for States to implement “better

than BART” trading program in lieu of individual source BART determinations.

28

BART Guidelines

BART guidelines provide States with: Approach for determining which BART- eligible sources

should be subject to BART determinations; and Approach for making BART determinations.

Which sources are BART- eligible? Major sources >250 tons built between 1962 and 1977 Includes: electric generating units (EGUs), industrial boilers,

total of 26 source categories But only if such sources are reasonably anticipated to contribute

to regional haze in any Class I area BART guidelines proposed: July 2001; they have

been re-proposed in light of the Regional Haze Rule remand

29

BART

Major Issues in Re-proposal Creating a State exemption process using

individual source air quality modeling Requiring individual source air quality

modeling to evaluate visibility impacts when determining BART control requirements

Establishing control levels for SO2 and NOx from EGUs

30

BART Control Levels for SO2 and NOx from EGUs

States must require these control levels at units greater than 250 MW at >750 MW plants, unless analysis of other BART factors dictate otherwise.

EPA presumes that States should require these control levels at >250 MW units, unless analysis of other BART factors dictates otherwise.

SO2 Propose choice of 95% control or 0.1 to .15 lbs/MMBtu.

Facilities using Eastern coal can meet 95% control Facilities using Western coal can meet 0.1 to 0.15

lbs/MMBtu. NOx

All sources currently using selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for the ozone season (those subject to the NOx SIP call), keep and extend controls to year-round.

All sources currently without SCR, propose control to 0.2 lbs/MMBtu, and request comment on lower or higher levels.

31

BART Depending on approach reductions

associated with BART program or its alternative would begin to take effect in 2013.

EPA is also soliciting comments on whether the Clean Air Interstate Rule could serve to satisfy the BART requirements for power generators in the affected states

32

EPA’s Utility Mercury MACT Proposals

• Mercury, a potent neurotoxin, is a leading concern among the air toxic metals addressed in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA) because of its volatility, persistence, and bioaccumulation as methylmercury in the environment and its neurological health impacts.

• Coal-fired utility units are now identified as the largest source of mercury in the United States, releasing approximately 50 tons of mercury annually or about one-third of the total anthropogenic emissions.

33

EPA’s Utility Mercury MACT Proposals• PADEP opposes EPA proposed rules under both

Section 111 and Section 112 of the CAA

• The proposed rules do not adequately protect public health and the environment

• The proposed rules establish a bias against eastern coal

• PADEP opposes the establishment of a cap and trade

program for toxic substances which would establish

“hot spots” of mercury exposure detrimental to public

health and the environment

34

EPA’s Utility Mercury MACT Proposals

•PADEP recommended in its comments that EPA establish the “Utility Mercury” MACT under Section 112 of the CAA using an “appropriate and necessary” regulatory finding to develop and promulgate more stringent mercury emission reductions than have been proposed.

• PADEP submitted what it believes to be an appropriately calculated MACT floor in keeping with the Clean Air Act mandate to protect public health and environmental resources including air and water quality.