Update on EPA

1
Update on EPAs Air Quality Programs

• David B. Conroy
• Chief, Air Programs Branch
• November 4, 2004

2
Presentation RoadmapUpdate on EPAs Current
Activities

• Ozone Implementation
• PM2.5 Implementation
• PM standards review
• Clean Air Interstate Rule
• Clean Air Mercury Rule
• New Source Review Program

3
8-hr Ozone Implementation
4
Ozone Designation and Implementation Schedule

• April 2004 EPA issued final designations
  Final Phase I Implementation rule
• Nov. 2005 Final Phase 2 Implementation Rule
• Sept. 2006 VOC NOx RACT SIPs due
• June 15 2007 Ozone Implementation plans due
• April 2007-2010 Range of attainment dates in East

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 std., attainment dates,
  attainment date extensions, timing of emission
  reductions needed for attainment
• Published in FR on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951)
• Phase 2
• Remainder of rule elements (e.g., RACT, RFP,
  attainment demonstrations 8-hr NSR)
• Final rule signed Nov. 9, 2005 (see
  www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/regs.htm )

6
Areas Designated Nonattainment for Ozone NAAQS in
2004
CATEGORY/CLASSIFICATION
Severe 17 (Los Angeles)
Serious - (Riverside Co -Coachella Valley,
San Joaquin, Sacramento, CA)
Moderate
Marginal
Marginal (EAC Greensboro, NC)
Map includes the nine nonattainment areas
reclassified from moderate to marginal in
September, 2004.
Subpart 1 (Basic)
Subpart 1 EAC (Basic)
7
(No Transcript)
8
Phase 1 Rule Area Attainment Dates
9
Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule

• Major topics of phase 2 rule
• Emission inventory requirements
• Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
• NOx and VOC RACT
• Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)
• Attainment demonstrations/modeling
• Final rule signed Nov. 9, 2005

10
Phase 2 Rule RACT requirements

• Where RACT is required, States must either
  certify that previously required RACT controls
  still represent RACT, or do a new RACT
  determination.
• Sources subject to the NOx SIP Call or CAIR
  trading program meet NOx RACT requirements under
  existing RACT guidance.
• The RACT submittal date is Sept. 2006.
• States must require sources to implement RACT
  before 2009 ozone season.

11
Good News Ozone Air Quality Already Improving

• EPA and the New England states have already
  implemented a wide variety of control strategies
  to reduce volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
  nitrogen oxides (NOx).
• Adopted strategies include
• Tier 2/sulfur gasoline program for new cars and
  light-duty vehicles starting 2004
• 2004 and 2007 NOx limits for heavy-duty diesels
• Federal non-road standards for diesel equipment,
  lawn and garden equipment, marine engines,
  locomotives.
• Power plant emissions reduced significantly
  through the Acid Rain Program and NOx Budget
  Trading Program implemented in 2003/2004
• Clean Air Interstate Rule will reduce power plant
  emissions further

12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
Preliminary
15
PM2.5 Implementation
16
PM2.5 Designation and Implementation Schedule

• April 5, 2005 Effective date of PM2.5
  designations
• Sept. 8, 2005 Proposed implementation rule
  signed by Administrator
• Nov. 1, 2005 Proposed implementation rule
  published (comment period ends Jan. 3, 2006)
• Summer/Fall 2006 Finalize implementation rule
• April 2008 PM2.5 implementation plans due

17
Final PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas
Montana
Eastern U.S.
California
OAQPS,AQSSD April 28, 2005
18
PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas in the Northeast
19
PM2.5 Implementation Rule Proposal

• Attainment Dates
• 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
• PM2.5 Precursors
• PM2.5 direct emissions, SO2, and generally NOx
• VOC and ammonia would not be addressed, unless
  EPA or the State determines so

20
PM2.5 Implementation Rule Proposal (cont.)

• Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
• Option 1. RACT required for all stationary
  sources with the potential to emit more than 100
  tons per year of direct PM2.5 or any precursor
• Option 2. RACT required for stationary sources
  only to the extent it is needed for expeditious
  attainment
• Option 3.
• Option 2 for areas with attainment dates within 5
  years
• Option 1 for areas with attainment dates gt 5
  years
• RACT must be implemented by beginning of the
  calendar year preceding the attainment date
• For example, by Jan. 2009 for areas with April
  2010 attainment date
• RACT for Electric Generating Units
• EGUs in nonattainment areas and complying with
  annual CAIR requirements meet RACT for SO2 and NOx

21
PM2.5 Implementation Rule Proposal (cont.)

• New Source Review proposal
• Major source threshold 100 tpy offset ratio 11
• Significant emissions rate for PM2.5 10 tpy
• SO2 is a precursor, and NOx generally presumed
  in
• VOC and ammonia generally presumed out
• Until federal and state rules are in place for
  PM2.5
• Use PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5

22
Particulate Matter Standards Review
23
PM Standards Review Process
24
PM Standards Review Schedule

• Final PM Air Quality Criteria Document October,
  2004
• Final PM Staff Paper - June 30, 2005
• Rulemaking on PM Standards
• Federal Register proposal to be signed by
  December 20, 2005
• Public comment period 90 days
• Final Federal Register notice to be signed by
  September 27, 2006

25
Current PM standards

• Primary (health-based) PM2.5 standards
• 15 µg/m3, annual average
• 65 µg/m3, 24-hour average
• Primary (health-based) PM10 standards
• 50 µg/m3, annual average
• 150 µg/m3, 24-hour average

26
Final Staff Paper RecommendationsPM2.5 Standards

• Indicator retain PM2.5
• Averaging times retain annual and 24-hr
  averaging times
• Consider alternative suites of standards
• Retain annual standard at current level of 15
  µg/m3 together with a revised 24-hr standard in
  the range of
• 30 to 25 µg/m3, based on a 98th percentile form,
  or
• 35 to 30 µg/m3, based on a 99th percentile form
• Revise annual standard within the range of 14 to
  12 µg/m3, together with a revised 24-hr standard
  in the range of 40 to 30 µg/m3, selected such
  that one of both standards are set at the middle
  to lower end of these ranges

27
Final Staff Paper RecommendationsPM10-2.5
(Coarse) Standards

• Indicator replace PM10 with a more narrowly
  defined indicator
• Establish a qualified PM10-2.5 indicator,
  defined so as to exclude coarse particles from
  rural windblown dust and agricultural and mining
  operations
• Emphasize urban focus through monitoring network
  design
• Averaging time retain 24-hr averaging time, but
  little basis for retaining an annual standard
• Form for 24-hr standard either 98th or 99th
  percentile form
• Consider alternative levels for a 24-hr
  standard
• 50 to 70 µg/m3 (98th percentile form)
• 60 to 85 µg/m3 (99th percentile form)

28
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)
29
Electric Power Generation A Major Source of
Emissions
SO2 Emissions
NOx Emissions
Power Sector
22
Power Sector
10.9 Million Tons
69
4.5 Million Tons
5.0 Million Tons
16.3 Million Tons
Other
Other
31
78
Total 20.8 Million Tons
Total 15.9 Million Tons
Source SO2 and NOx data is from EPAs 2003
National Emissions Inventory. Other sources of
pollutants include transportation and other
mobile sources and industrial sources.
30
(No Transcript)
31
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)

• CAIR significantly cuts emissions of SO2 and NOx
  from power plants
• SO emissions will by cut in 2010 and again in
  2015 for a total reduction of 73 below 2003
  levels
• NOx emissions will be cut in 2009 and again in
  2015 for a total reduction of 61 below 2003
  levels
• CAIR helps States in the East meet ambient air
  quality standards for ozone and fine particles,
  and significantly reduces the number of acidic
  lakes and streams in the eastern U.S.
• CAIR will result in nearly 100 billion in annual
  health benefits and provides one of the largest
  investments in pollution control technology in
  history.

32

National SO2 Power Plant EmissionsHistoric and
Projected with CAIR
Source EPA The caps and emissions reflected
here, beginning in 2010, reflect region-wide CAIR
data. The Title IV cap and emissions (2009 and
prior) reflect nationwide data.
33
National NOx Power Plant EmissionsHistoric and
Projected with CAIR
34
Ozone and Particle Pollution CAIR, together with
other Clean Air Programs, Will Bring Cleaner Air
to Areas in the East - 2010
35
Ozone and Particle Pollution CAIR, together with
other Clean Air Programs, Will Bring Cleaner Air
to Areas in the East - 2015
36
Petitions for Reconsideration and Petitions for
Review of CAIR

• EPA has received 11 petitions for reconsideration
  and 14 petitions for review of CAIR.
• We have already granted the reconsideration of
  the definition of EGU as it relates to solid
  waste incinerators
• No briefing schedule yet for petitions for
  review.
• Several motions to stay CAIR rule pending outcome
  of reconsideration process.
• In testimony to Congress on October 27, 2005,
  Steve Johnson, EPA Administrator says EPA still
  favors Clear Skies legislation and uncertainties
  with litigation part of reason.

37
Petitions for Reconsideration Petitioners

• North Carolina
• FPL Group
• Florida Association of Electric Utilities
• Entergy
• Massachusetts
• Integrated Waste Services Association
• Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
• Northern Indiana Public Service Corporation
• City of Amarillo, Xcel et al.
• Connecticut Business and Industry Association
• Minnesota Power

38
Petitions for Review Petitioners

• North Carolina
• Minnesota Power
• ARIPPA
• South Carolina Public Service Authority and JEA
• Entergy Corp.
• Florida Association of Electric Utilities
• FPL Group
• Northern Indiana Public Service Co.
• South Carolina Electricity Gas Co.
• Integrated Waste Service Association
• AES Corp
• City of Amarillo, Xcel et al.
• Appalachian Mountain Club, GASP, National Parks
  Conservation Ass'n, NRDC
• Duke Energy Corp

39
CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)

• EPA proposed CAIR FIP in Aug. 2005 will finalize
  in March 2006.
• FIP provides backstop to ensure emissions
  reductions required by CAIR are achieved on
  schedule.
• No sanctions or penalties associated with FIP.
• EPA would withdraw FIP for any State once CAIR
  SIP is in place, which are due from states Sept.
  2006.
• To save time and resources, States can choose to
  start with FIP and replace certain elements
  (e.g., state NOx allowance methodology, opt in
  for NOx SIP call non-EGU sources, etc.)
• This abbreviated SIP would be due by March
  2007.

40
Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR)
41
Power Generation Is a Major Source of Hg
Emissions
1999 Mercury
Current emissions from coal-fired power plants
estimated to be 48 tons per year
Utilities (40)
Other stationary combustion includes
residential and commercial sources.
42
(No Transcript)
43
Clean Air Mercury Rule

• The March 2005 Clean Air Mercury Rule establishes
  standards of performance limiting mercury
  emissions from new and existing coal-fired power
  plants that will reduce nationwide utility
  emissions of mercury in two distinct phases.
• The first phase cap is 38 tons and emissions will
  be reduced by taking advantage of co-benefit
  reductions under CAIR
• In the second phase, due in 2018, coal-fired
  power plants will be subject to a second cap,
  which will reduce emissions to 15 tons upon full
  implementation.
• CAMR sets an emission reduction requirement for
  States with existing units, by distributing the
  national emissions cap among the States.
• Provides an optional cap and trade program as a
  method to implement the necessary reductions
• Allows States flexibility on how to achieve the
  required reductions, including whether to join
  the trading program.
• State Hg budgets are binding if a State does not
  choose to participate in the EPA-run cap and
  trade program.

44
Petitions for Reconsideration of CAMR

• EPA received four petitions for reconsideration
  including
• One submitted by 14 States NJ, CA, CT, DE, Il,
  ME, MA, NH, NM, NY, PA, RI, VT, WI.
• One submitted by five environmental groups
• On Oct. 21, 2005, EPA agreed to reconsider seven
  aspects of the final rule
• Comments requested by Dec. 19, 2005

45
New Source Review Rule Changes
46
NSR Rule changes

• Two final rules
• December 31, 2002 - NSR Reform Rules
• October 27, 2003 - Equipment Replacement
  Provision (ERP) Rule
• New rule proposed Oct. 13, 2005 PSD/NSR Emission
  Test for Electric Utility Generators

47
December 2002 Reform Rules

• Included several changes that applied to
  modifications at existing facilities
• Past actual to future actual test
• Exclusion from future actual emission increases
  due to unrelated demand growth
• Ten year look back for selecting a two year
  actual emission baseline
• Plantwide Applicability Limit (PAL)
• Clean Unit Applicability test
• Pollution control project (PCP) exclusion for all
  sources

48
Dec. 2002 NSR Reform (cont.)

• On June 24, 2005, DC Court Of Appeals issued its
  opinion on the numerous petitions filed
• Upheld
• the past actual-to-future actual test
• 10 year look back
• PALs
• Vacated
• Clean unit applicability test
• PCP exclusion
• Remanded provision that allowed sources to not
  keep emission records for a change if no
  reasonable possibility of change resulting in a
  significant emission increase
• EPA continues to require states to submit SIP
  submittals that meet the upheld rule provisions
  by January 2006

49
Oct. 2003 Equipment Replacement Provision Rule

• Clarifies what changes are Routine Maintenance
  Repair or Replacement (RMRR) and exempt from
  major NSR
• Equipment replacements are RMRR if
• Does not change basic design parameters
• Does not result in exceedances of permitted
  emissions
• Fixed capital cost of replacement does not exceed
  20 of cost of new process unit
• DC Court Of Appeals stayed the rule in December
  2003
• Final court decision expected in June 2006

50
Proposed Emission Tests for Electric Generating
Units

• On October 13, 2005, EPA proposed to change the
  existing actual-to-future actual emissions
  applicability test that applies to modifications
  at existing utilities.
• Proposal is to replace the existing annual
  emissions test with a maximum hourly emissions
  test, similar to hourly test in the New Source
  Performance Standard program.
• The proposal also asks for comment on an
  alternative option based on an output-based
  emission test.
• Comments due 60 days after publication