Transcript NSR A Presentation For The Clorox Company

PM 2.5 Implementation,
Proposed Revisions and Haze
Air Quality Issues Workshop
Allegheny Mountain Section of the Air & Waste
Management Association
May 23, 2006
Scott R. Dismukes, Esq.
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott
600 Grant Street, 44th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
(412) 566-1998
[email protected]
1
May 23, 2006
PM 2.5 Implementation
 PM
2.5
 PM 2.5 Proposed Revisions
 PM 10-2.5 Proposed Inhalable
Coarse Particles (“Thoracic
Standard”)
 Haze
2
May 23, 2006
3
May 23, 2006
NAAQS Implementation

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set two types of
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for
‘criteria’ air pollutants.



Primary standards to protect public health with an
adequate margin of safety
Secondary standards to protect public welfare and the
environment (visibility, wildlife, crops, vegetation,
national monuments and buildings)
The law requires EPA to review the scientific
information and the standards for each pollutant
every five years.
Cont’d.
4
May 23, 2006
NAAQS Implementation, cont’d.


Review NAAQS every 5 years
Revise NAAQS Standard





Modeling and attainment demonstrations
Nonattainment designations (5 years to attainment)
Develop Federal Implementation Rule
State SIP due (within 3 years of designation)





PM2.5, Ozone, Haze
RACT
RACM
RFP
Revised NSR “Part D”
Attainment demonstration (within 5 years of designation)
5
May 23, 2006
PM2.5 Designation
and Implementation Schedule








July 18, 1997 PM NAAQS Revised
December 17, 2004: EPA issued final PM2.5
designations (based on 2001-3 data)
April 5, 2005: Effective date of PM2.5 designations
November 1, 2005: Propose implementation rule
Summer/Fall 2006: Finalize implementation rule
December 2007: Regional haze implementation
plans due
April 2008: PM2.5 implementation plans due
April 2010: AQCR’s PM2.5 attainment date
6
May 23, 2006
PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
Atlanta, GA
Baltimore, MD
Birmingham, AL
Canton, OH
Charleston, WV
Chattanooga, TN-GA-AL
Chicago, IL-IN-WI
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN
Cleveland, OH
Columbus, OH
Dayton, OH
Detroit, MI
Evansville, IN-KY
Greensboro, NC
15) Hagerstown-Martinsburg,
MD-WV
16) Harrisburg, PA
17) Hickory, NC
18) Huntington-Ashland, OHWV-KY
19) Indianapolis, IN
20) Johnstown, PA
21) Knoxville, TN
22) Lancaster, PA
23) Libby, MT
24) Louisville, KY-IN
25) Macon, GA
26) New York, NY-NJ-CT
27) Parkersburg, WV-OH
7
28) Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE
29) Pittsburgh, PA
30) Pittsburgh/ LibertyClairton, PA
31) Reading, PA
32) Rome, GA
33) San Joaquin Valley, CA
34) South Coast, CA
35) St. Louis, MO-IL
36) Steubenville, OH-WV
37) Washington, DC-MD-VA
38) Wheeling, WV-OH
39) York, PA
Unclassifiable
Greenville, SC
May 23, 2006
PM2.5 Implementation Rule Issues








Attainment dates
Classifications
PM2.5 precursors (? NOx, SO2, VOC…)
Modeling and attainment demonstration
Reasonably available control technology (RACT)
Reasonably available control measures (RACM)
Reasonable further progress (RFP)
New source review
8
May 23, 2006
Attainment Dates


State attainment demonstrations and SIP revisions
are due April 2008
Under CAA, attainment date is no later than five
years from date of designation (e.g. Apr. 2010)



Extensions of 1-5 years are possible
Attainment determination would be based on most
recent 3 calendar years (e.g. 2007-2009 for Apr.
2010 attainment date).
State must provide thorough analysis of feasible
RACM and RACT in the nonattainment area.
9
May 23, 2006
Attainment Date Extension
At time of SIP submittal
 State must provide thorough analysis of
feasible RACM and RACT in the
nonattainment area

Based on this analysis, the State can propose an
attainment date extension and EPA can grant
such an extension, taking into consideration:
 The
severity of the nonattainment problem
 The availability and feasibility of control measures

The extension can be up to five years beyond
April 2010
10
May 23, 2006
Attainment Date Extension, cont’d.
 For
an extension, the State must
include a modeling demonstration
which:
 Shows
that attainment by April 2010 is not
practicable, considering the severity of the
problem and availability and feasibility of
controls
 Supports what future date is an
appropriate attainment date
11
May 23, 2006
Possibility of Attainment Extensions
Example
 Attainment date for an area is April 2010, to be
based on 2007-2009 data
 If 2007 and 2008 are over 15.05 µg/m3 but the
annual average for the 2009 attainment year is
below 15.05 µg/m3, the area can receive a 1-year
extension


Attainment then will be based on 2008-2010
If the average of 2009 and 2010 is below 15.05
µg/m3, the area can receive a second 1-year
extension

Attainment then will be based on 2009-2011
12
May 23, 2006
Coverage of PM2.5 Precursors


Atmospheric chemistry for PM2.5 formation is
complex
Proposed approach for PM2.5 implementation and
new source review



PM2.5 direct emissions (includes organic carbon,
elemental carbon, and crustal material) and S02 must be
addressed
NOx must be addressed in all areas, unless the State and
EPA provide a demonstration finding that NOx is not a
significant contributor in a specific area.
VOC and ammonia would not be addressed, unless EPA
or the State provides a demonstration that VOC or
ammonia is a significant contributor in a particular area.
13
May 23, 2006
Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT)


RACT is the lowest emission limit that a source is capable of
meeting with available control technology, considering
technological and economic feasibility.
So, SIP Option 1. RACT required for all stationary sources
with the potential to emit (PTE) more than 100 tpy of direct
PM2.5 or any precursor



EPA requesting comment on thresholds of 70 and 50 tpy
SIP Option 2. RACT required for stationary sources only to
the extent it is needed for expeditious attainment or to
meet RFP.
SIP Option 3.


Option 2 for areas with attainment dates within 5 years
Option 1 for areas with attainment dates > 5 years
14
May 23, 2006
RACT
 RACT
measures must be implemented
by no later than the beginning of the
calendar year preceding the attainment
date.
(Example: If attainment date is April
2010, any necessary RACT measures
would need to be implemented by no
later than January 2009.)
15
May 23, 2006
RACT, cont’d.
Previous RACT determinations:
 May be acceptable for purposes of PM2.5, if
State certifies and supports that previous
RACT determinations represent appropriate
level of control.
 EPA may revise control techniques guidelines
or alternative control technology documents
for selected categories with multipollutant
impacts (e.g.: revise presumptive baseline)
16
May 23, 2006
Reasonably Available Control
Measures (RACM)

A RACM demonstration must show that the State
has adopted all reasonable measures needed to
attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable
and meet RFP.


Demonstrate that no additional measures are available
that would advance the attainment date.
Preamble includes a list of specific measures that
States should consider as part of the RACM
analysis.


States should assess whether implementing such
measures are technically and economically feasible
States also must analyze additional measures raised in
public comment process.
17
May 23, 2006
Example Control Measures







Diesel retrofits (trucks, school
buses, stationary engines)
Diesel idling (trucks, trains, port
equipment, etc.)
Programs to reduce emissions
from poorly maintained vehicles
New or improved direct PM and
precursor controls on stationary
sources
Year-round operation of seasonal
stationary source NOx controls
Increase use of alternative fuel,
hybrid vehicles
Buy-back programs for small
engines (boats, vehicles,
equipment)





18
Year-round measures to reduce
VMT (Commuter Choice,
carpooling incentives, etc.)
Open burning laws and better
enforcement
Programs to reduced emissions
from residential wood
combustion and back yard barrel
burning
Smoke management plans
Reducing emissions of volatile
aromatic compounds (surface
coatings, gasoline, solvents, etc.)
May 23, 2006
Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)



RFP: annual incremental reductions in emissions for
purpose of ensuring timely attainment
Baseline emission inventory year is 2002
RFP plan due with attainment demonstration in
2008


For areas with an attainment date extension, the State
would establish emission reduction milestones showing
generally linear progress from 2002 to January 1, 2010
and January 1, 2013 (if necessary)
Areas demonstrating attainment by 2010 will be
“deemed” to meet RFP.
19
May 23, 2006
New Source Review
Proposed Revisions for PM2.5
Requirements
 Significant emissions rate for PM2.5 — 10 tpy
 Precursors




SO2 always "in" as a precursor;
NOx presumed "in" unless State demonstrates that NOx
is a significant contributor to PM2.5 or part of the
transport problem
VOC and ammonia presumed "out" unless State
demonstrates otherwise. Ammonia is not a precursor in
PM2.5 attainment areas.
PM 2.5: Major source threshold 100 tpy; offset
ratio 1:1
20
May 23, 2006
New Source Review
Proposed Revisions for PM2.5 (cont.)
Current program until PM2.5 rule is promulgated
 Interim guidance memo for both attainment and
nonattainment areas
 Use PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5
NSR Provisions during SIP development period
(from final rule until State implementation plans are approved)
 PSD program




Continue implementing guidance using PM10 as surrogate
(include condensables and PM 2.5 modeling analysis); or
Update guidance to reflect the PM2.5 rule provisions or revise 40
CFR part 51 appendix S to point to PM 2.5 provisions in 40CFR
52.21; or
States can request delegation of only the federal PM2.5 program
Nonattainment program

Use 40 CFR part 51 appendix S.
21
May 23, 2006
Proposed Revisions for PM2.5 and PM10
On December 20, 2005 the EPA proposed
revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter.
 The proposed revisions address two
categories of particles:


fine particles (PM2.5), which are 2.5 micrometers
in diameter and smaller; and
 inhalable coarse particles (PM10-2.5), which are
smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter but
larger than PM2.5 (Thoracic Standard)
22
May 23, 2006
Schedule for Revised PM NAAQS Review

Rulemaking on PM NAAQS:
 Proposal
signed on December 20, 2005
 Public comment period: 90 days
 Comment
Period Extended to July 10, 2006
 Public
Hearings
 Final Rule to be signed by September 27,
2006
23
May 23, 2006
What are EPA’s Current PM Standards?

PM2.5

Annual standard set at 15 µg/m3


24 hr standard set at 65 µg/m3


50 µg/m3


annual average
150 µg/m3


Annual 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years
• PM10


Annual arithmetic mean, averaged over 3 years
24-hr average (99th percentile)
Under the Proposal, EPA would revise the PM2.5 24-hour
standard from the current level of 65 µg/m3 to 35
µg/m3.
EPA is proposing to retain the current PM2.5 annual
standard at 15µg/m3
24
May 23, 2006
Inhalable Coarse PM –
Moving from PM10 to PM10-2.5

EPA’s current standards for coarse particles (PM10)
were set in 1987.




a 24-hour standard of 150 µg/m3, and an annual standard
of 50 µg/m3 -- apply to particles 10 micrometers in diameter
and smaller.
The proposed revisions would change the definition
to apply to particles between 10 and 2.5 micrometers
in diameter also known as PM10-2.5 .
The proposed new PM10-2.5 standard would be a
24-hour standard, at 70 µg/m3.
EPA is not proposing an annual standard for PM10-2.5.
25
May 23, 2006
Revoking the Current PM10 Standard
EPA is proposing to revoke the current
24-hour PM10 standards, except in
areas that have both
1) violating monitors; and
2) a population of 100,000 or more.
 The Agency is proposing to immediately
revoke the current annual PM10
standards in all areas.

26
May 23, 2006
Timeline if PM2.5 NAAQS Are Revised
Milestone
1997 PM2.5 Primary NAAQS 2006 PM2.5 Primary NAAQS
Promulgation of
Standard
July 1997
Nov. 2006
State
Recommendations
to EPA
Feb. 2004
(based on 2001-2003
monitoring data)
Nov. 2007
(based on 2004-2006
monitoring data)
Final Designations
Signature
Dec. 2004
Nov. 2009
Effective Date of
Designations
April 2005
April 2010
SIPs Due
April 2008
April 2013
Attainment Date
April 2012 (based on 20072009 monitoring data)
April 2015 (based on 20122104 monitoring data)
Attainment Date
with Extension
Up to April 2015
April 2020
27
May 23, 2006
Timeline if PM10-2.5 Standard Is Finalized
Milestone
2006 PM10-2.5 NAAQS
Effective Date of Standard
Nov. 2006
State Recommendations to
EPA
July 2012 (based on 2009-2011
monitoring data)
Final Designations
May 2013
Effective Date of Designations July 2013
SIPs are Due
July 2016
Attainment Date
July 2018 (based on 2015-2017
monitoring data)
Attainment Date with
Extension
Up to July 2023
28
May 23, 2006
What is Regional Haze?



Visibility impairment not directly attributable to one
or a few individual emission sources
Cumulative impact of general atmospheric pollutant
loading
Required under CAA (§169A)


“Congress hereby declares as a national goal the
prevention of any future, and the remedying of any
existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory class I
Federal areas which impairment results from manmade
air pollution.”
40CFR §51

“calls for States to establish goals and emission reduction
strategies for improving visibility in all 156 mandatory
Class I national parks and wilderness areas.”
29
May 23, 2006
Regional Haze

Measurements
Visual range and light extinction over distance
are two measures of visibility impairment. For
regulatory purposes, EPA uses the “deciview.” A
deciview is an increment of visibility change that
is just perceptible to the human eye.
 Deciviews are calculated from measured or
modeled concentrations of individual pollutants
based on their unique light extinction properties,
adjusted for relative humidity.

30
May 23, 2006
General Requirements for
State Regional Haze Programs

For each mandatory class I Federal area:
Determine baseline visibility conditions
 Establish “rate of progress” goals
 Identify and address all “BART” eligible” sources
 Develop emission control program if needed
 Submit approvable State Implementation Plan
and supporting technical demonstration to EPA
 SIP required every 10 years
 Achieve natural conditions by 2064

31
May 23, 2006
State Responsibilities Under
Regional Haze Rule

Establish baseline and set goal for improving visibility
on 20% haziest days, while protecting visibility on 20%
clearest days, in each of its Class I areas. Goal is to
reach “natural conditions” in each area by 2064.

Develop long-term strategies for reducing emissions
that contribute to regional haze in any Class I area.
First SIP submittal must show “reasonable progress”
towards visibility goals by 2018.

Develop process for determining BART control levels
(or otherwise exempting sources) on a case-by-case
basis. First SIP submittal must include control
requirements and compliance schedules for BART.
32
May 23, 2006
4 Core Requirements of SIP
1. Calculate Baseline & Natural Visibility
Conditions
2. Reasonable Progress Goals
3. BART (Best Available Retrofit
Technology)
4. Long-term Strategy (includes control
measures needed to achieve goals)
33
May 23, 2006
Definition of BART-Eligible Source

A BART-eligible source is the set of all emissions
units at a facility that:




Fall into one of 26 prescribed source categories;
Source built/reconstructed between 1962 and 1977; and
Collectively have the potential to emit 250 tons per year
of any visibility-impairing pollutant: (NOx, SOx, PM10,
VOC)
A “BART-eligible source” is not “subject to BART”
unless it reasonably causes or contributes to
visibility impairment. A state may determine that
all (or none) of its BART-eligible sources cause or
contribute, or it may provide for exemptions.
34
May 23, 2006
What is BART?

Basic Steps

BART eligibility determination
 Meets

Subject to BART determination
 Fails

date, type and potential emission criteria
state exemption test (“reasonably anticipated”)
Engineering Analysis
 BART
emission control requirement
 Resulting visibility impact assessment

Compliance options
35
May 23, 2006
Determine Whether Facility Causes/Contributes to
Visibility Impairment in Class I Area:
3 Options
2. Exempt sources with
common
characteristics.
1. Perform individual
source exemption
analysis:




3. Consider all BACT
eligible sources
subject based on
statewide analysis or
demonstrated
sources are subject
based on modeling
Use CALPUFF or
other EPA
approved model
Compare to natural
background
“Cause” = impact >
1.0 deciview
“Contribute” =
impact > 0.5
deciview (or lower)
36
May 23, 2006
Conduct A BART Determination
for Facilities Subject to BART
Facility will conduct a BART determination used
by the State to establish emission limits in
permits.
Analysis considers 5 factors:
1. Available technology
2. Costs of compliance
3. Energy and non-air environmental impacts
4. Remaining useful life of plant
5. Visibility improvement reasonably expected
from the control technology.
37
May 23, 2006
Consideration of MACT and BACT Limits
 Default:
Maximum Achievable Control
Technology Standards represent BART
for PM and VOC
 Recent BACT determinations may also
be “BART,” case-by-case
 Controls installed for other reasons may
be BART, case-by-case
 Query: What is same or similar source?
38
May 23, 2006
Other Items
 Order
 Like
for evaluating control options
BACT determinations, top-down
 Determining
weight of 5 factors
 Case-by-case
 Averaging
 Yes,
emissions
across BART-eligible units
39
May 23, 2006
The Future of BART

By December 2007…
All BART eligible sources identified
 All “appropriate” BART control determined

 Factored



into overall Regional Haze progress goals
Modeling demonstration
Potential BART market trading system
By 2013 sources must either:
 Install
BART controls, retire unit(s), or participate in a
BART emissions trading program
40
May 23, 2006