Transcript Regional Haze Program Update

Regional Haze Regulatory
Developments
Tim Smith,
USEPA/OAQPS
WESTAR Fall
Conference
September 17, 2002
Discussion Topics

May 24, 2002 American Corn Growers decision

Why Court Case does not affect 309

Status of Annex rulemaking

WRAP questions (1/18/02 letter to EPA)

EPA rulemaking options regarding BART in 308

Status of EPA guidance efforts
–
–
–
–
BART guidelines
Natural conditions
Tracking progress
Reasonable progress factors
May 24 Decision by DC Circuit

4 Issues:
–
BASIC STRUCTURE.


–
Upheld goal of natural conditions.
Found no conflict between “no degradation” on clean
days and PSD.
BART. Vacated. (2 to 1 decision)


Concerns over state authority.
Concerns over cumulative approach to applicability,
impacts assessment.
May 24 Decision by DC circuit

Issues (cont)
–
SCHEDULE.

–
Expressed concerns that “committal SIP” concept
violates plain language of TEA-21. Remanded.
REASONABLE PROGRESS.


Did not rule on contention that rule inadequate.
Noted that EPA may want to reconsider in light of
BART decision.
Current status

Re-hearing
–
–
–


EPA filed petition for re-hearing July 8
We should know soon whether entire 8-judge
panel will re-hear the case
If granted, probably another 4-6 month process.
EPA is actively pursuing options in case rehearing not granted
Your ideas welcome!!
Court decision does not affect
Implementation of 309

EPA letters to WRAP/IOC co-chairs:
–
–

June 7, 2002. General position.
July 22, 2002. Detailed explanation of rationale.
July 31 letter to NM responding to related
questions raised by NM stakeholders.
Rationale for EPA’s position



The Annex program for milestones and
backstop trading program is not a “BART
provision” addressed by the Court case
Nothing in case prevents States from
choosing alternative to BART under
308(e)(2)
Program state-initiated—grew from GCVTC
and WGA
July 31 Letter to NM

Among issues addressed:
–
–
Scope of court’s remand was 308(e)(1) – it did
not, as some have asserted, “remand all of
section 308 and 309.”
Issue of publishing final annex rule and 308
changes at same time.
Status of EPA rulemaking on the Annex




Proposed May 6, 2002 (67 FR 30418)
Public hearing June 4
Comment period closed July 5. (13
comment letters)
Status of final rule:
–
–
–
Approaching WG 1st draft of preamble and rule
Only a few issues remain on how to treat in rule
Hope to finalize by early 2003.
WRAP letter January 18, 2002


19 questions related to implementation of the
haze rule
General topics:10
–
–
–
–
–
Guidance documents (#1)
SIP timing and coordination (# 2-8)
Trans-boundary impacts (# 9-13)
Interpretation of certain provision of 309 (# 14-16)
General haze rule issues (#17-19)
Status of EPA response to WRAP letter



We have formally responded to only a few of
the questions
#15– March 2002 letter to AZ: concurring
with position that transportation conformity
does not apply to haze SIPs
Some tribal issues addressed in May 6 FR
notice
Jan 2002 WRAP questions (cont)


Some of SIP deadline/”committal SIP” issues
may have been overtaken by more recent
events
EPA has indicated desire for legislative
change to 308 schedule, harmonizing PM,
haze and O3 SIPs.
Jan 2002 WRAP questions (cont)

#2. What is EPA’s expectations on PM
monitoring/designations?
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
July 2002: Complete data available for 1999-2001
Fall 2002: Guidance on NA boundaries
July 2003: Complete data available for 2000-2002
States: up to 1 year to recommend designations to EPA
EPA has up to 1 year to designate areas
All designations complete by Dec. 2005
Possible legislative change to Nov. 2004
Jan 2002 WRAP questions (cont)

Some have easy answers:
–
–
–
#10: EPA concurs that SIP deadline is related to
designations for submitting State, rather than
deadline for outside States
#4: EPA agrees with desirability to harmonize
PM2.5 and regional haze base years.
#19: By “enforceable” we mean emission limits
and measures, not modeling/inventory
assumptions, progress goals, etc.
Jan 2002 WRAP questions (cont)

Question #14
–
–
For some programs required under 309 (mobile sources,
fire emissions, renewable energy efficiency, road dust),
states and tribes may not have all statutory and regulatory
authority needed for implementation by December 31, 2003.
WRAP:



needs discussion of mechanisms to address this
binding, enforceable commitments in SIPs to develop
regulations by dates certain, parallel processing of SIP
elements, and other strategies.
Lets discuss specific issues. It would appear that
flexibility exists in 309 language.
Jan 2002 WRAP questions (cont)

Bottom line on response to January letter:
–
–
–
EPA willing to act quickly on issues which remain
high priority.
For some, events may have overtaken.
If some have slipped through cracks, lets work to
get them addressed.
Options for responding to Court issues
on 308(e)(1) BART requirement

Issues:
–
Individualized visibility contribution for:


–
–

Which sources must do a BART review?
Doing the BART analysis
“Reasonable progress” factors
750 MW power plants
Overall thought: this is will likely be more
complicated than what we originally
envisioned
“Reasonable progress” factors



Sierra Club: EPA didn’t provide enough
“criteria for measuring reasonable progress”
DC circuit: EPA may want to reconsider in
light of BART findings
Possible option: more detailed guidance,
such as “reasonable cost” criteria
750 MW power plants



CAA provides authority for more detailed
guidance for >750 (we interpret as sum of
capacity between 62 and 77)
Considering detailed guidelines on control
levels for 750 MW
In West, not many plants in time window
have capacity >750
750 MW power plants

In WRAP region, tentative list: (any
corrections to this?)
–
–
–
–
–
–
CO: Craig
Navajo: Navajo, Four Corners
NV: Mohave
UT: Huntington
WA: Centralia
WY: Jim Bridger
Process for revision of BART
provisions

Assuming DC circuit case stands, EPA needs:
–
–
–
–

Re-proposal of 308(e)(1)
Re-proposal of BART guidelines with more detail on
modeling issues
Proposal would likely include any further guidance/criteria
we develop for reasonable progress
Might be opportunity to amend definitions to streamline
BART applicability per comments on July 01 BART proposal
We envision stakeholder input to this
Schedule for revision of BART
provisions



Re-proposal: June 2003
Final rule:
July 2004
Should still be timely for 308 SIP
development
EPA guidelines documents





"Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
Under the Regional Haze Rule“
"Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional
Haze Rule"
Contact: Neil Frank, OAQPS
Status: Nearing completion by about November.
Comments reviewed and discussed, peer review
complete.
Some comments required technical work. E.g.,
recalculating f(RH) for high-humidity days.
Coordination of SIP reviews among
regional offices

Issues have been raised on EPA SIP
reviews/coordination e.g. WESTAR letter.

EPA recognizes need for coordination.
Internal discussions initiated.
Suggestion: conference call within next
month or two.

