Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments
description
Transcript of Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments
![Page 1: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS
andDraft WRAP Technical
Comments
![Page 2: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
PM2.5
• Annual primary standard currently 15 ug/m3
– No change in the proposal– Taking comment on 13 or 14 ug/m3
• 24-hr primary standard currently 65 ug/m3
– Proposal would reduce to 35 ug/m3
– Taking comment on 30-35 ug/m3
• Secondary standards would be equivalent– Taking comment on urban visibility standard of
20-30 ug/m3 averaged over 4-8 daylight hours
![Page 3: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
![Page 4: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
![Page 5: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
PM2.5
• Draft WRAP technical comments support secondary standard for urban visibility– Would have direct benefits to Class I areas
impacted by urban areas
![Page 6: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
![Page 7: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
PM10
• Proposal would revoke annual standard in all areas
• Proposal would revoke 24-hr standard in all areas except in urbanized areas where:– Population is at least 100,000, and– At least one monitor is violating the standard
• 24-hr standard would remain in areas above until PM10-2.5 designations occur
![Page 8: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Locations where EPA proposes to retain the 24-hr PM10 standard.
![Page 9: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Current PM10 nonattainment areas where EPA proposed to revoke the 24-hr standard.
![Page 10: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
69 PM10 nonattainment and maintenance areas in the WRAP region.
![Page 11: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
PM10
• EPA taking comment on retaining 24-hr standard in areas with population less than 100,000
• Draft WRAP technical comments support elimination of 100,000 population distinction
![Page 12: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
PM10-2.5
• PM10-2.5 defined as:
– Any ambient mix of PM10-2.5 that is dominated by resuspended dust from high-density traffic on paved roads and PM generated by industrial sources and construction sources.
– This definition excludes any ambient mix of PM10-2.5 that is dominated by rural windblown dust and soils and PM generated by agricultural and mining sources.
– Agricultural sources, mining sources, and other similar sources of crustal material shall not be subject to control in meeting this standard.
![Page 13: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
PM10-2.5
• The indicator is not defined or limited to any specific geographic area, but includes a mix of PM10-2.5 in any location that is dominated by these sources.
• 24-hr primary standard set at 70 ug/m3
– 3-year average of 98th percentile
• No annual primary standard• Secondary standards equivalent to primary
– Does this protect visibility?
![Page 14: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
PM10-2.5
• EPA taking comment on:– Alternative approaches for selecting level of
PM10-2.5 standard
– Selecting an unqualified PM10-2.5 indicator
– Alternative approaches to retaining the 24-hr PM10 standard
![Page 15: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Draft WRAP Technical Comments on PM10-2.5 Standard
• Eliminate distinction of urban PM10-2.5
• Eliminate exemption for ag, mining, and rural windblown dust– Without eliminating these two provisions, the
ability to make reasonable visibility progress in Class I areas will be jeopardized
• EPA should adopt a 24-hr PM10-2.5 standard in the range of 50-135 ug/m3
![Page 16: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
3
The percentage of sampling days when dust dominated aerosol light extinction is as high as ~ 50 –70% in some of the sites. “Dominated” means that it caused more light extinction than any of the other major categories -- SO4, NOx, EC, and OC.
Percentage of IMPROVE sample days between 1997 and 2002 when hazefrom dust (coarse mass plus fine soil) is the largest component.
![Page 17: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
![Page 18: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Annual PM10-2.5 concentration from the IMPROVE network for 2004.
![Page 19: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Modeled windblown dust emissions for 2002.
![Page 20: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Average 2002-04 98th percentile PM10-2.5 concentration valuesfor the IMPROVE Network sites.
![Page 21: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
PM10-2.5 98th percentile concentrations for sites withthree year mean values above 30 μg/m3.
![Page 22: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Chiricahua NM Typical Visibility Day
![Page 23: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Chiricahua NM Worst Visibility Day
![Page 24: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Chiricahua NM Typical Visibility Day + 135 ug/m3 of PMcoarse
![Page 25: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Chiricahua NM Typical Visibility Day + 100 ug/m3 of PMcoarse
![Page 26: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Chiricahua NM Typical Visibility Day + 70 ug/m3 of PMcoarse
![Page 27: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Chiricahua NM Typical Visibility Day + 50 ug/m3 of PMcoarse
![Page 28: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
PM10-2.5 Monitoring
• Only required in MSAs > 100,000 people– 0-5 sites per MSA– 225-250 sites across 150 MSAs– Emphasis on continuous mass conc. monitors
• Additionally …– Non-required PM10-2.5 concentration sites to
assess urban/rural differences– 50-100 speciation monitors at urban/rural sites
![Page 29: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
![Page 30: Summary of EPA Proposal to Revise the PM NAAQS and Draft WRAP Technical Comments](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051820/56814748550346895db486b2/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
PM10-2.5 Monitoring
• Draft WRAP technical comments– Too little emphasis on non-urban areas– Too little emphasis on speciation– EPA should endorse use of IMPROVE
PM10-2.5 monitoring and support speciation of IMPROVE PM10-2.5 samples