1 / 36

Air Planning Session Lynorae Benjamin U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 May 20, 2009

This session will cover updates on PM2.5 and ozone designations, source apportionment, and SIP processing. It will also discuss the potential nonattainment designations for PM2.5 and the results of the Acid Rain Program. The session will highlight the guiding principles for revised daily standards and 2008 8-hour ozone designations.

jennis
Download Presentation

Air Planning Session Lynorae Benjamin U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 May 20, 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Air PlanningSession Lynorae BenjaminU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 4May 20, 2009

  2. What Will Be Covered Today… • PM2.5 Designations • Ozone Designations/Source Apportionment • Air Planning Agreement Update • SIP Processing

  3. PM2.5 Designation Refresher • Revised dailystandard promulgated September 21, 2006. • Trigger date used for designations was December 17, 2006. • Lower daily standard from 65 µg/m3 to 35 µg/m3. • Final rule with designations based on 2005-2007 data signed December 22, 2008. • Publication is still pending.

  4. PM2.5 Litigation • American Farm Bureau v. EPA, February 24, 2009, Eleventh • Circuit Court of Appeals Decision • The Court remanded to EPA for further consideration (but did not • vacate): • the primaryannual standard for PM2.5 - “EPA failed to explain adequately why an annual level of 15 µg/m3 is requisite to protect the public health, including the health of vulnerable subpopulations, while providing an adequate margin of safety," and • the secondarystandards for PM2.5 - “EPA unreasonably concluded that the NAAQS are adequate to protect the public welfare from adverse effects on visibility."

  5. Region 4’s Potential “Nonattainment” Designations* for 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS(based on 2005-2007 data) *Note: For the Gadsden, Alabama area (Etowah County), the potential designation is unclassifiable.

  6. Timeline for Designation Process * If the EPA Administrator determines that there is insufficient information to make final designations, then the date of final designations may be extended by up to one year but no later than March 12, 2011.

  7. Results of Acid Rain Program: Major Reductions in SO2 Emissions and Acid Rain

  8. State Recommendations for 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard • State Recommendations were due March 12, 2009 – All Region 4 States submitted. • All 8 Region 4 States have counties with violating monitors. • All 8 Region 4 States recommended nonattainment areas in their State. • Approximately 44 total areas under review based on ’06-’08 data.

  9. Factors for Designations • Air quality data • Emissions data (location of sources and contribution to ozone concentrations) • Population density and degree of urbanization (including commercial development) • Traffic and commuting patterns • Growth rate and patterns • Meteorology (weather/transport patterns) • Geography/topography (mountain ranges or other air basin boundaries) • Jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., counties, air districts, existing nonattainment areas, Reservations, metropolitan planning organizations) • Level of control of emission sources

  10. Guiding Principles for Revised Daily Standard PM2.5 Designations • Violating counties designated nonattainment. • Partial counties allowed for violating and contributing counties: • where emissions concentrated in portion of county (out west primarily). • based on topographical considerations. • Strong consideration given to previous/existing nonattainment boundaries. • Timing and level of controls prior to anticipated effective date of designation also considered. • Resulting level of emissions for source also important.

  11. Summary of National Consistency Issues for Region 4 • Attainment for violating and contributing counties. • Partial counties for violating and contributing counties. • Smaller area than previous existing nonattainment boundaries. • Splitting of previous/existing nonattainment boundaries. • Discontinuance or relocation of monitor that previously violated.

  12. Guiding Principles for 2008 8-Hour Ozone Designations • Regions have categorized areas and state recommendations by issue. • Meeting July 22-23, 2009 in Atlanta with EPA HQ and Regions to develop guiding principles based on issues identified. • As was done for previous designations, guiding principles will be briefed to Administrator level to get feedback and buy-in. • Region 4 will use quarterly, monthly and one-on-one calls to keep states abreast of issues as allowed. • We are committed to transparency and no surprises!!!

  13. Ozone Source Apportionment Modeling Supplemental analysis for designationsBrenda JohnsonU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 4May 20, 2009

  14. Photochemical Source Apportionment Modeling • Ozone source apportionment tracks the formation and transport of ozone from emissions sources and allows the calculation of contributions at receptors. • Both CMAQ and CAMx have been instrumented with “source apportionment” for ozone and PM2.5. • Peer review process ongoing; should be complete in early 2009. • Has been used extensively by States and Regional Planning Organizations for SIP development.

  15. Defining Sources and Receptors • Sources to be tracked are “tagged” through emissions modeling • Sources can be specific counties and/or single sources • Sources must be defined before the model simulations • Any county that is part of a CBSA/CSA that contains a county with a monitor violating the new 8-hr ozone NAAQS during the 2005-2007 period • Receptors are defined as any cell with a monitor that violates the 8-hr ozone NAAQS during the 2005-2007 period • Model outputs a concentration (ppb) of ozone at each receptor location from each source tag/county

  16. Photochemical Modeling Platform • Modeling continental U.S. at 12 km grid resolution. • 2005 and 2006 emissions and meteorology to ensure enough “high” ozone days are captured at each nonattainment area. • Receptor locations are monitors in the continental United States with a 2005-2007 design value exceeding the new 8-hr ozone NAAQS.

  17. Source Apportionment Modeling … • Aids in understanding model performance and improving inputs/formulation. • Performs culpability assessments to identify sources that contribute significantly to PM pollution. • Design the most effective and cost-effective ozone or PM control strategies.

  18. Example Avg. Contribution to Modeled O3 > 85 ppb at Milwaukee SOURCE Regions Milwaukee Receptor Location

  19. FY 2010-2011 Air Planning Agreement & Reporting Requirement Updates

  20. Streamlining Goals for Air Planning Issues • Provide specific and relevant commitments/reporting requirements to time period. • Reduce redundancy and remove commitments already met by agencies. • For most Agencies, resulted in: • 5 commitments removed; • 5 commitments added; • 1 commitment updated; and • 1 reporting requirement removed.

  21. Air Planning Commitments Removed … • Only removed commitment if EPA is in receipt of final submission to meet requirement. • This reporting period, commitments removed for some agencies related to: • Regional haze SIP submission; • Early Action Compact SIP requirements; • Transportation conformity SIP submission; • PM2.5 and ozone attainment demonstrations SIP submissions; and • Governor’s recommendations for 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 8-hour ozone standards.

  22. Air Planning Commitments Added … • Focused on commitments and reporting requirements that are upcoming in next few years and mandatory. • This reporting period, commitments added related to: • 110(a)(1) SIP submissions for the 2006 PM2.5 standard, 2008 8-hour ozone standard and 2008 lead standard. • Governor’s recommendations for 2008 lead standard. • QAPPs for emissions inventory; and • QAPPs for photochemical modeling.

  23. SIP ProcessingLynorae Benjamin, Chief Regulatory Development SectionU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 4May 20, 2009

  24. Regulatory Development Section Staff

  25. FY 2010-2011 Priorities for RDS Designations for 2008 8-hour ozone, & 2008 lead standard. SIP processing (backlog & incoming). Technical assistance to the state & locals. Implementation of 1997 8-hour ozone & PM2.5 standards, & 2006 PM2.5 standard. Support for grant processing for American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. General air quality planning support. Participation in review of NAAQS.

  26. NAAQS Review ScheduleProposed and Final Rulesas of 03/24/09 Note: Underlined dates indicate court-ordered or settlement agreement deadlines – for NO2 and SO2 Primary NAAQS reviews, the final dates listed above have been agreed to by the plaintiffs but have not yet been officially entered by the court. 1 A new Ozone review was initiated in Oct 2008 with a kick-off workshop; proposed rule targeted for June 2012 and final rule targeted for March 2013.

  27. Need a better way to communicate with states on in-house SIPs & status. Could provide more proactive support to states by letting them know what SIPs were coming due in advance. Opportunities for enhancement in communication tools & issue resolution internal to EPA Region 4 & with EPA Headquarters. SIP Tracking: What we realized…

  28. SIP Tracking: What We Are Doing… Communication with States Monthly conference calls. SIP status tracking log. SIP deadline watch list. Internal communication Using national calls to alert other regions and engage EPA Headquarters proactively as states present issues for developing SIPs. Routine meetings internally to stay on track with movement of submissions.

  29. SIP Processing: Opportunities for Improved Efficiencies Developing technical competency in new staff. Continuing to enhance technical expertise in seasoned staff. Reducing processing time for Federal Registers in signature chain. Encouraging states to work with us in a more proactive way for SIP development. We Really Appreciate Advance Drafts!!!

  30. Reducing Processing Time What are we doing… Continue to make this a priority even with competing high priority activity of designations. Focus on processing SIPs that can be approved easily. Working with state on prioritization and issue resolution through SIP tracking log and monthly calls.

  31. Summary Many of the backlog SIPs have approvability issues so only recourse for processing is disapproval or state withdrawal. Overall goal is to provide proactive support & resolve technical issues that could impact approvability. Proactive communication efforts: Monthly conference calls to discuss upcoming SIP activity. Encourage the state’s to provide pre-drafts so issues can be addressed informally. Courteousy calls with the state to discuss draft comments on prehearing submissions in effort to try to resolve issues. Raise issues to EPA Headquarters if precedent- setting to avoid late hits.

  32. Quick Adjustments to Things Out of Our Control Litigation can hamper our ability to process submissions as quickly as we would like. E.g., phase I/II & CAIR litigation. Continue to alert upper management and states to issues related to SIP processing that are outside of our control. Utilize SIP tracking logs to note status of technical issues for each submission. Some times states and EPA do not agree on technical issues which can hamper processing time.

  33. CAIR Recent History July 11, 2008 - D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel vacated CAIR September 24, 2008 - EPA petitioned the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for en banc rehearing of vacatur by panel October 17, 2008 - D.C. Circuit Court issued an order directing the petitioners to file a response to EPA's petition for rehearing en banc December 23, 2008 - the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded CAIR without vacatur CAIR remains effective until replaced by the agency with a rule that comports with the Court’s July 11, 2008 opinion The Court did not set any deadline for EPA to promulgate a replacement rule

  34. CAIR Questions • How long will it take to develop new rule? • Will new rule include trading? • Will new state budgets be more stringent? • What about transition issues (CAIR to “new CAIR”)? • How do we deal with other programs that rely on long-term CAIR reductions?

  35. Principles in Approaching SIPs • Lock in reductions achieved or planned by EGUs and measures already adopted by States • Recognize that States may need to address EGU RACT, and adopt EGU and non-EGU measures • Focus on attaining as soon as possible

  36. Thanks for Your Attention!

More Related