Impact of New NAAQS on State AQ Core Programs

WESTAR Spring Business MeetingMarch 30, 2010 Denver, Colorado

Colleen DelaneyUtah Division of Air Quality

• EPA is reviewing and updating NAAQS on a 5-year schedule so there is a lot of activity planned in the near future– States must work on multiple SIPs simultaneously– New NAAQS will be proposed or promulgated before the previous SIP

is due

PM2.5 Ozone LeadRegional

HazeNO2

PrimarySO2

Primary CONO2 and SO2

Secondary

Current Round of NAAQS ReviewProposal Jan-10 Nov-09 Oct-10 Jul-11Final Dec-06 Aug-10 Oct-08 Jan-10 Jun-10 May-11 Mar-12SIP due Dec-12 Dec-13 2012-13 2013-15 2015? 2015? 2016? ?Next Round of NAAQS ReviewProposal Nov-10 Mar-13Final Jul-11 Feb-14SIP due 2016? 2019? 2018

Schedule of Current and Upcoming NAAQS Reviews

Primary Ozone NAAQS

• EPA is reconsidering 2008 NAAQS– Range of 60-70 ppb, 4th high daily

maximum 8-hr avg.

• The proposed level will affect many areas in the west

– Regional transport and background levels become more significant

– New areas, including remote sites may be nonattainment

– There are large gaps in the ozone monitoring network – the extent of the problem is greater than indicated by EPA’s maps

• EPA has proposed a compressed schedule for both designations and SIP development

– Designation recommendations due in Jan 2011 with final designations to occur in Aug 2011

– SIPs due December 2013

Implementation Issues

• Compressed schedule for designations and SIP development will be difficult to meet in some areas

– Air pollution will be a new issue for many rural areas – it will take time to educate local governments and to build a stakeholder process

– Coordination with other states and with tribes is important

• Ozone transport and background levels in the west are not well understood– Eastern US has been modeling regional ozone for many years, but this analysis

is just beginning the west– Ozone is likely due to many sources and may vary from episode to episode

• Power plants, although experience with regional haze indicates that these plants are a much smaller factor in the west than has been found in the east

• Transport from urban areas• International transport• Fire• Oil and gas development

Implementation Issues

• Areas classified under Part D, Subpart 2 of the CAA require mandatory measures

– Many rural areas in the west would not qualify as rural transport areas

– Nonattainment NSR will apply and may be problematic for areas with few local emission sources

– Moderate and above nonattainment areas have many mandatory measures that may not make sense

• I/M programs• 15% VOC reduction • RFG

– Transportation conformity in rural areas will cause big headaches with limited benefits

Implementation Issues

• Monitoring – we need to fill gaps in the network to improve our understanding of ozone formation and transport, but funding is a huge issue

– Public notification of air quality is important, but prediction of ozone levels in a wide area based on a sparse monitoring network may be challenging

– Regulatory consequences of monitoring may also be a factor• Wintertime ozone

– Doesn’t fit into the technical tools and strategies that were designed to address summertime smog in urban areas

• Fire – UDAQ sees a strong correlation between smoke and ozone during certain episodes

– EPA has not accepted any recent exceptional event demonstrations– More research is needed to understand the effects of fire

• Biogenics may be significantly overestimated in some desert areas

Renewable Fuel Standards May Contribute to Ozone Problems

Year County FuelVOC Emissions (tons per peak summer weekday)

FuelVOC Emissions (tons per peak summer weekday)

Increase (vs. Gasoline)

2008 DavisConv. Gasol.

6.87 E10 8.39 22.1%

2011 Davis " 5.86 E10 7.07 20.6%

2014 Davis " 4.82 E10 5.75 19.3%

2017 Davis " 4.13 E10 4.86 17.7%

2008 Salt Lake " 25.26 E10 30.99 22.7%

2011 Salt Lake " 21.77 E10 26.41 21.3%

2014 Salt Lake " 18.24 E10 21.82 19.6%

2017 Salt Lake " 15.88 E10 18.75 18.1%

UT Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality, Mobile Sources and Transportation Section, MOBILE6.1/6.2 modeling performed by staff, May 2008.

Secondary Ozone NAAQS

• Standard is based on a new W126 metric that measures the cumulative impact to vegetation during the growing season

• The implementation issues associated with this standard are still unclear

– Monitoring strategy to address diverse ecosystems (funding is an issue

– High ozone values may not correspond to the growing season in some areas

– In the arid southwest, daytime ozone may have less of an impact than nighttime ozone

– Will PSD analyses change?– States do not have a lot of experience

with implementing secondary standards so the timing and SIP requirements need more definition

• Current focus is on the primary standard but as we learn more about the secondary standard it may become a big issue

PM2.5 NAAQS

• PM2.5 SIPs are due in December 2012

• PM2.5 problems in the west are different than the more pervasive annual issues in the east that are closely related to smog

– Wintertime temperature inversions

– Fire– Dust in some areas

• Technical tools are not available

• Exceptional event backlog is a significant problem

PM2.5 NAAQS

• Permitting issues– Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs), and Signficant Monitoring

Concentrations (SMCs) have not yet been finalized

– Emission factors are still based on PM10 or TSP

– PM10 grandfathering provisions

– Trading ratios– Backhalf

• New NAAQS will be proposed in November– How to manage potentially more stringent standard (pressures to either delay or

use SIP to meet new standard)

NO2 Primary NAAQS

• In January 2010 EPA established a new 1-hour NAAQS for NO2

– 100 ppb, 3-yr average of 98th percentile• Short term there will be few nonattainment

areas based on current monitoring network• Long term the standard will have a significant

impact– Near road monitoring network required by

2013– Funding is a big issue– Shift to address extremely localized pollution

impacts may not mesh with a regulatory structure that was designed to address broader problems

• Nonattainment area boundaries• Conformity• NAA NSR

– Permitting issues• Federal measures may be needed to address

any problems – States have limited options

Lead NAAQS

• In October 2008 EPA strengthened the Lead NAAQS

– 0.15 μg/m3 rolling 3-month average

• Aircraft emissions are one of the biggest sources

– States are not able to regulate aviation fuel

• New monitors are required near significant point sources

– In December 2009 EPA proposed lowering the threshold to 0.5 tons/yr

• Funding this expanded network is a problem

SO2 Primary NAAQS

• In November 2009 EPA proposed to strengthen the SO2 NAAQS– 50-100 ppb, 1-hr avg.

• Not a widespread problem• Unapproved redesignations for

the old standard are an issue for some states

• The proposal would expand the SO2 monitoring network, but it is not clear what effect this will have on western states– Based on state’s contribution

to national SO2 emissions

Overarching Issues

• Funding/Resources - States are affected by the recession and are facing budget cuts

– More requirements, but fewer resources• Monitoring

– NCore– Ozone (proposed 3 non-urban monitors, monitors in smaller urban areas)– Lead (high volume TSP samplers)– NO2 will require a new near-road monitoring network– Other monitors needed to support modeling analysis– Extremely difficult get EPA approval to redeploy monitors from existing network

• Permitting– GHG Tailoring Rule– PM2.5 NSR– NO2 standard– Rules are in flux due to Court rulings– Will PSD analysis change to address secondary ozone and SO2/NO2?

States are Facing Many Other Issues in Addition to New NAAQS

• Logjam of old SIP actions• Court actions change

requirements in mid-stream• Schedules are being driven by the

latest lawsuit rather than what is most important

• EPA’s actions are affected by fear of future lawsuits

• Significant changes to the permitting program

• GHG regulations

• Individual SIPs get bogged down by other issues, slowing progress towards meeting goals

– Director’s discretion– Excess emissions– Backsliding concerns

• Section 110 SIP requirements are increasing

• Exceptional event demonstrations are not being approved

• Future mercury requirements are unknown

TOO MANY THINGS AREHAPPENING AT ONCE

Air Quality Improvement is What is Most Important

• Standards are just numbers – the emission reduction strategies are what lead to health and welfare benefits

• Uncertainty and ever changing requirements are leading to unintended consequences

– Sources delay projects because they are seeking greater certainty– Rather than making incremental improvement we keep starting over

• States are losing credibility because we are not able to reach the end point on our SIPs

Conclusions

• Need to focus resources on the most important issues – we can’t do everything all at once

– Work should be based on States priorities rather than the latest lawsuit

• Endless churning of old SIP actions is a big problem– Starting over is not productive– We need to build on our successes are recognize that this is an on-going

process that does not have to achieve everything at one time

• Regional cooperation and coordination is critical to address many of the air quality issues in the West