Status Report: “Significant Impact” from Mobile Sources and Road Dust

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Transportation Conformity and Development of Emission Budgets.
Advertisements

Update: National Ambient Air Quality Standards Association of California Airports September 15, 2010 Phil DeVita.
Clean Air Corridor Section 309 Requirements Presentation to WRAP Board July 24, 2002.
Air Quality 101: Clean Air Act Overview/ Update. 2 Origins of the Clean Air Act Historic air pollution Donora, Pennsylvania, – PSD, tribes.
Technical Review Workshop Report Technical Oversight Committee for the WRAP Board Meeting – July 24, 2002.
WRAP Status Report EPA/RPO Meeting Durham, NC February 6, 2002.
1 WRAP Fire Tracking Systems Draft Intent of WRAP FTS Policy – Assist states/tribes to address emissions inventory and tracking associated with fire in.
1 WRAP Policy Fire Tracking Systems Draft December 9, 2002 FEJF Meeting December 10-11, 2002 Jackson, WY.
The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) WRAP formed in 1997 as the successor organization to Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) –
Fire Emissions Joint Forum –Section 308 Strategies for Fire Coordinating efforts of states changing or developing smoke management strategies for regional.
Economic Analysis Framework Test Application Draft Results Economic Analysis Forum BBC Research & Consulting December 16, 2004.
MS4 Remand Rule Intergovernmental Associations Briefing September 15, 2015.
WRAP Committee and Forum Updates WRAP Board Meeting Salt Lake City, UT October 15, 2003.
1 Update on the STIP-II Project & Draft Model SIP Brian Finneran Oregon Department of Environmental Quality WRAP Meeting Portland, OR April 3, 2003.
Sound solutions delivered uncommonly well Understanding the Permitting Impacts of the Proposed Ozone NAAQS Pine Mountain, GA ♦ August 20, 2015 Courtney.
Projects:/WRAP RMC/309_SIP/progress_sep02/Annex_MTF_Sep20.ppt Preliminary Mobile Source Significance Test Modeling Results WRAP Regional Modeling Center.
Overview of Load Reduction Estimates for Atmospheric Sources of Pollutants Richard Countess Atmospheric Deposition SCG Lead September 10, 2007.
REGIONAL HAZE BART – Key Issues For Consideration Eric Massey, Arizona DEQ Lee Alter, WGA SSJF Meeting June 3, 2004 Denver, Colorado.
WRAP Update WESTAR Meeting San Francisco April 25, 2011.
Rulemaking for Central Florida Coordination Area Coordinated Rulemaking by the South Florida, St. Johns River and Southwest Florida Water Management Districts.
1 Fire Emissions Joint Forum: Section 309 Requirements Continued… -Enhanced Smoke Management Programs -Annual Emission Goals for Fire -Fire Tracking Systems.
Section 309 Mobile Source Significance Test Modeling Results WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC) University of California at Riverside, CE-CERT ENVIRON.
Final Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule Briefing for NTAA EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards April 17, 2007.
Update on the STIP-II Project: Draft Model SIP Brian Finneran Oregon Department of Environmental Quality WRAP Air Manager’s Committee Santa Fe, NM March.
1 MAPS. Counties With Monitors Violating Alternate 8-hour Ozone Standards of and parts per million 398 counties violate.075 ppm 135 additional.
BART SIP Development: Example from Colorado Rocky Mountain National Park WRAP IWG Meeting, Denver, CO August 29, 2007 Presented by: Ray Mohr and Curt Taipale.
PM 2.5 Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #1 South Coast Air Quality Management District June 8, 2006.
Item #11 Alternative Approaches for Linking Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions to Metropolitan Transportation Planning Presentation to the National Capital.
1 Brian Finneran, Oregon DEQ WRAP IWG Meeting, Portland August 2006 Suggested Changes to IWG Section 308 SIP Template.
Recommendations from Regional Haze Workgroup Core Issue 1: 5- Year Progress Reports The RHR requires Comprehensive SIP revision every 10 years (first in.
Overview of WRAP FEJF Work Products WRAP Workshop on Fire, Carbon, and Dust May 23-24, 2006 Sacramento, CA Darla Potter (WDEQ) & Mark Fitch (USFS)
WRAP 2003 Work Plan: Overview and IOC Elements WRAP 2003 Work Plan: Overview and IOC Elements WRAP Board Meeting November 12, 2003 Tempe, AZ Rick Sprott.
Summary of June 15, 2005 Revisions to RH BART and BART Guidelines.
VISIBILITY SIPS The Regional Haze Rule Requirements for Fire The Role of the RPOs Opportunities for Participation US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Dennis Haddow.
The West is different August 14, 2013 OAQPS. Aerosols causing Worst Visibility Days – East vs. West 2.
Regional Haze Rule SIP Template Clean Air Corridors Section (d)(3) Brian Finneran - Oregon DEQ WESTAR 2002 Fall Technical Conference.
Work Items for §309 SIPs WESTAR Fall Technical Conference September 19, 2002 Tom Moore & Brian Finneran.
308 Outline (a) Purpose (b) When are 1st plans due (c) Options for regional planning (d) Core requirements (e) BART requirements (f) Comprehensive periodic.
WRAP WORK PLAN UPDATE NOVEMBER 2001 Submitted to WRAP Board for Approval Andy Ginsburg ODEQ, Co-Chair IOC Forum Mike George ADEQ, Co-Chair TOC Forum.
N EW Y ORK S TATE D EPARTMENT OF E NVIRONMENTAL C ONSERVATION Short Term Ambient Air Quality Standards and The Effect on Permitting Margaret Valis NESCAUM,
Regional Haze SIP Template: Mobile Sources Edie Chang California Air Resources Board WESTAR Fall Technical Conference September 2002.
State Regional Haze SIP Development Critical Path for Western States.
EIAScreening6(Gajaseni, 2007)1 II. Scoping. EIAScreening6(Gajaseni, 2007)2 Scoping Definition: is a process of interaction between the interested public,
Significance of Mobile Source Emissions for the Purposes of Section 309 of the Regional Haze Rule Patrick Cummins Western Governors’ Association WRAP Board.
Clean Air Act Glossary.
Western Ozone Issues WESTAR Fall Business Meeting Salt Lake City, UT
Arizona Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
BART Overview Lee Alter Western Governors’ Association
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
PROVISIONS OF H.R
Annual Emission Goals for Fire
Major New Source Review (NSR) Part 2
Visibility Coordinator’s Report
Western Regional Air Partnership 2003 Technical Workplan Elements
PM2.5 NSR and Designations
TRTR Briefing September 2013
EPA Clarification on Regional Haze SIP Issues
WESTAR Planning Committee Report
308 VS. 309 DECISION PROCESS November 2001 WRAP Meeting
Regional Haze SIP Status Report
WESTAR Planning Committee Report
A Test Application of the WRAP Economic Analysis Framework Lee Alter
Workshop Technical and Policy Studies to Support the Annex
Summary of RH-LTS Requirements (d)(3)
Defining “Significant Impact” from Mobile Sources and Road Dust
Presented to WRAP November 15, 2001 John Kowalczyk & Bob Neufeld
Regional Haze Regulatory Developments
Status of Preliminary Reasonable Progress Analysis
Paved and Unpaved Road Dust
Presentation transcript:

Status Report: “Significant Impact” from Mobile Sources and Road Dust By John F. Kowalczyk Co-Chair WRAP Mobile Source Forum WRAP Board Meeting Nov. 13, 2002

“Significant Impact” Requirements in Section 309 Determine if Mobile Source Emissions or Road Dust “Contribute Significantly” to Visibility Impairment in any of the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau based on Current and Projected Emissions.

If Mobile Sources from an Area of a State are a “Significant Contributor” Requires State to Restrict Emissions to Projected Lowest Levels Implement Measures to Achieve “Emissions Budget” and Demonstrate Compliance Establish Annual Emission Tracking System and Report in Required Periodic SIP Revisions (2008,2013,2018)

If Road Dust (Paved and Unpaved) is a “Significant Contributor” Must Implement “Necessary and Appropriate Emission Management Strategies”

Ambiguities of Rule “Mobile Sources Not Defined “Significant” Not Defined “Areas of State” Not Defined

Mobile Source Forum Recommendations Define “Areas of State” for purposes of Mobile Source Analysis as Urban areas in the 9 -State Transport Region with populations > 250,000 Analyze Road Dust Impacts on a Statewide/Reservation Basis No Consensus on Definition of “Significant” at this Time - Some Alternatives Identified

Remainder of Presentation Emission Trends Visibility Analysis Results Alternative Definitions of Significant Issues with Alternatives Possible Future Actions

Noteworthy Points Onroad, Nonroad and Total Mobile Emissions all Trend Downward in 309 Planning Period Further Reductions in Nonroad Emissions expected because of Imminent Revisions to Emission Model and Expected New Regulations

Cumulative Mobile Impact

Phoenix Area Mobile Impacts

Nonroad Most Significant Nonroad Emissions are Predominant cause of Visibility Impacts from Mobile Sources (about 80% of contribution) Nonroad Sources will continue to be of concern in the future even with revised model .

Agreement on Recommendations for Nonroad Support expeditious adoption/ implementation of new EPA reg. for Engines and Fuels similar to those for Onroad (WRAP LETTER?) WRAP (MSF) Coordinate regional demo projects/retrofit and clean fuel programs to reduce nonroad emissions

Six Alternative “Significance” Determinations Mobile Source Forum Originally Proposed 1 Cumulative and 2 Area approaches Recently 1 Emission Approach, 1 Additional Cumulative and 1 Additional Area Approach Identified

Original MSF Proposals for Defining Significant Impact Cumulative < 10%, Area >5% Cumulative >10%, Area >1% Urban Area > 1% Urban Area > 10%

Alternatives 1,2 & 3 for Phoenix Mobile Sources Cumulative : > 10%: 6 Class I areas > 1% (highest Class 1 area 8%) Area > 1%: 6 Class I areas > 1% Area >10% No Areas >10%

MS Forum Can’t Reach Consensus on 1st 3 Alternatives Alternatives felt to be either to Stringent or not Stringent enough. Finding Phoenix Has Significant Impact prevents 309 because of state legislation and may jeopardize entire 309 process - emission budget would not implemented - nothing accomplished

Cumulative Road Dust Impacts

Road Dust Recommendation Road Dust Impacts from any one state/reservation most likely not significant under any of 3 alternatives (max. cumulative impact ~ 3% Find Road Dust is not significant contributor to Visibility Impairment from any State/Reservation (< 1% impact)

Alternative 4 By MS Forum: Emission Trend Approach Intent of Haze Rule (309) (d) (5) (ii) and GCVTC Emission Budget Provision is to Prevent Future Emission Increases Total Mobile Source Emissions are projected to continually decrease through 2018 in all Urban Areas Conclude Mobile Sources are not Significantly Contributing to Visibility Impairment Per Rule Provision Intent

IOC Issues with Alternative 4 Downward Trend in Emissions does not necessarily mean Mobile Sources are not a Significant Contributor to Visibility Impairment Feel Nonroad component of Mobile Sources has a Major Impact on Visibility even with expected Change in Emission Model. Feel Rule may require an actual Visibility Model Analysis.

Alternative 5 Use total Visibility Impairment Analysis (natural background + human caused) Use Cumulative MS Forum Significance Alternative (Alternative 1) Consider reductions in Nonroad Emissions from imminent change in emission model Find Mobile Source Impacts Insignificant (All urban areas < 5% contribution

Issues with Alternative 5 May conflict with Rule definition which seems to require a Visibility Analysis based only on Human Caused Impairment Some concern about Message and Precedence of approach used in finding Mobile Sources have Insignificant Impact.

Alternative 6 Consider Intent of GCVTC that Emission Budget apply only to Onroad Emissions Consider it unreasonable to apply Emission Budget to Onroad Mobile based on most of Visibility Impact coming from Nonroad Mobile Emissions.

Alternative 6 (Continued) Use Visibility Modeling Analysis based on Human Impact only Use 5% as Significance Threshold (middle ground of MSF 3 alternatives and somewhat consistent with PSD and FLAG) . Conclude Onroad Mobile Sources from any Major Urban area have Insignificant (<5% impact)

Alternative 6 (Continued) Also Conclude Nonroad Visibility Impacts are Large even considering imminent Emission Model Revisions and support new Local,State and Federal Efforts to Control Nonroad Mobile Emissions as previously outlined.

Issues with Alternative 6 EPA must agree that rule intent was to analyze and apply emission budget to onroad mobile only. Not clear whether this would solve Arizona legislative problem with 309 process.

Possible WRAP Action Support one of the Alternatives Give MSF/IOC more time to try and reach consensus Direct MSF to prepare suite of some alternatives for States/Tribes to consider Do not provide any guidance to states/tribes other than emission and modeling results. Support Recommendations on Nonroad