EPA’s Proposed PM NAAQS and Monitoring Regulations  NTAA Perspective for Reg. 8 RTOC  Bill Grantham  Denver, February 23, 2006.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
PM NAAQS Review Update Joseph Paisie Air Quality Strategies & Standards Division, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, EPA WESTAR Fall Business.
Advertisements

1 PM NAAQS: Update on Coarse Particle Monitoring and Research Efforts Lydia Wegman, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, EPA Presentation at the.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule & 40 CFR Parts 53 and 58 Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations;
Northwest Airquest Annual Meeting NAAQS Update December, 2006 Bruce Louks, Idaho Dept. of Environmental Quality All slides in this presentation are taken.
Doug Solomon, U.S. EPA OAQPS 2014 National Air Quality Conference Durham, NC February 12, 2014.
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards Review Process and Status Tom Moore WESTAR Council Meeting September 29, 2010 Portland, OR.
Update: National Ambient Air Quality Standards Association of California Airports September 15, 2010 Phil DeVita.
11111 Beth M. Hassett-Sipple, US EPA/OAQPS EPA/WESTAR Residential Wood Smoke Workshop March 1, 2011 Salt Lake City, UT National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
1 IRR Program Inventory and Funding Formula Update M.A.S.T. Impact Week Washington, DC March
Solutions: Preventing and Reducing Air Pollution
ADEQ Uses of ICF Modeling Analysis Tony Davis, Branch Manager – Air Planning Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Criteria Pollutant Modeling Analysis.
September 2006 Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter Overview
How Ozone is Regulated under the Clean Air Act Darcy J. Anderson AZ Dept. of Environmental Quality.
NAAQS UPDATE SIP Steering Committee January 13, 2011.
December 4, Utility MACT Air & Waste Management Association/EPA Information Exchange December 4, 2002 William H. Maxwell Combustion Group/ESD.
Air Quality Beyond Ozone and PM2.5 Sheila Holman North Carolina Division of Air Quality 6 th Annual Unifour Air Quality Conference June 15, 2012.
Criteria Pollutants Criteria pollutants selected because they are ubiquitous, have multiple sources, and "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public.
A&WMA Georgia Regulatory Update Conference Current State of the Air in GA Jac Capp, GA EPD, Branch Chief, Air Protection Branch April 16, 2013.
EPA Update- Bob Judge Maine Air Quality Monitoring Committee April 18, ) NAAQS schedule 2) Budget 3) Technical Systems Audit.
Air Quality and Conformity Issues James M. Shrouds, Director Office of Natural and Human Environment Federal Highway Administration AASHTO SCOE Meeting.
Update on EPA Oil and Gas Activities Greg Green, Outreach and Information Division, OAQPS.
Revisions to NAAQS –Data Handling and Interpretation NO 2 /SO 2 Update AQS Conference Colorado Springs June 2010 Rhonda Thompson US EPA, Office of Air.
Ozone Regulation under the Clean Air Act Darcy J. Anderson AZ Dept. of Environmental Quality.
Oil and Gas Workgroup Summary October 21-23, 2009 Denver.
Overview What we’ll cover: Key questions Next steps
Recent Developments in Transportation Conformity Beverly Chenausky Multimodal Planning Division – Air Quality Breakout Session: Transportation Conformity/Air.
Presentation for Air Quality Coalitions The 2015 Proposed Ozone Standard.
Proposed Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations, and Proposed FY2007 Air Monitoring Guidance WESTAR Spring Business Meeting March 28, 2006.
Distinguishing: Clean Air Act, EPA Rules, Regulations and Guidance David Cole U.S. EPA, OAQPS Research Triangle Park, NC.
1 Overview of the National Monitoring Strategy with an Emphasis on NCore Mike Papp Ambient Air Monitoring Group EPA OAQPS Dec. 12, 2006 Las Vegas.
1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and State Implementation Plans North Carolina Division of Air Quality National Ambient Air Quality Standards and.
Clean Air Act and New Source Review Permits EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Research Triangle Park NC March
ANPR: Transition to New or Revised PM NAAQS WESTAR Business Meeting March 2006.
Development of 24-Hour 2006 PM 2.5 Designations Guidance NTAA National Tribal Air Quality Forum Barbara Driscoll EPA, OAQPS April 17, 2007.
Designations for 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS: Overview and Guidance Amy Vasu PM2.5 Workshop June 20-21, 2007.
Indiana Department of Environmental Management 2009 Fine Particles (PM 2.5 ) Summary Report Office of Air Quality.
Ken Cronin National Tribal Environmental Council 2008 NTF Effective Tribal Participation in the EPA Budget Process and Beyond.
Final Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule Briefing for NTAA EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards April 17, 2007.
Current and Future Air Quality Issues Facing the States Bart Sponseller Air Management Bureau Director Joseph Hoch Regional Pollutants Section Chief NASA.
WESTAR National Air Monitoring Steering Committee Update Spring Business Meeting 2010 Denver, CO Bruce Louks, Idaho DEQ.
Lead NAAQS Review: 2 nd Draft Risk Assessment NTAA/EPA Tribal Air Call August 8, 2007 Deirdre Murphy and Zachary Pekar OAQPS.
State Implementation Plans Could Rule Your Life or why NAAQS Are Important Chuck Sams R9 Air Quality Program Manager.
NAAQS and Criteria Pollutant Trends Update US EPA Region 10.
Department of the Environment Near Road NO2 Monitoring Update MWAQC Technical Advisory Committee January 10, 2012.
The Clean Error Act (Title I) National Air Quality Standards ©2002 Dr. B. C. Paul.
Highlights of June 2008 NACAA Ambient Air Monitoring Steering Committee Meeting Westar Fall Business Meeting Seattle, WA October 2, 2008.
CALGRID Modeling Overview A First Look A Modeling Effort by the OTC Modeling Committee Presented by: Jeffrey Underhill, Ph.D. NHDES OTC/MANE-VU Annual.
PM Methods Update and Network Design Presentation for WESTAR San Diego, CA September 2005 Peter Tsirigotis Director Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule January 17, 2006.
OAQPS Update WESTAR April 3,  On March 12, 2008, EPA significantly strengthened the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level.
EPA Proposed Ground-level Ozone (O 3 ) NAAQS Rich McAllister National Tribal Air Association Policy Advisory Committee Hobbs Straus Dean & Walker.
Air Toxics & Public Health Committee Update Heidi Hales Monitoring and Assessment Committee Meeting Troy, NH April 24, 2007.
1 National Monitoring Committee Report Bruce Louks WESTAR Fall Meeting Portland, OR September 28, 2010.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
WESTAR Recommendations Exceptional Events EPA response
Proposed PM NAAQS and Regional Haze
PMcoarse , Monitoring Budgets, and AQI
Designations for Indian Country
Proposal to Revise the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particle Pollution WESTAR Meeting March 2006.
PM2.5 NSR and Designations
Ground-level Ozone (O3)
PM2.5 Annual primary standard currently 15 ug/m3
Sulfur Dioxide 1-Hour NAAQS Implementation
U.S. Perspective on Particulate Matter and Ozone
Status of the PM NAAQS Review
PM 2.5 Designation Process and Timeline
A Regional Response to New Air Monitoring Requirements
Colleen McKaughan, EPA Region 9 December 14, 2005
Air Quality Committee Meeting July 11, 2012 Donnie Redmond
Presentation transcript:

EPA’s Proposed PM NAAQS and Monitoring Regulations  NTAA Perspective for Reg. 8 RTOC  Bill Grantham  Denver, February 23, 2006

Background  CAA requires EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants, and revise every 5 years if necessary based on latest science. NAAQS must be based solely on health effects, not economic factors. Pollutants: PM, O 3, S O2, NO x, CO, Pb  PM NAAQS last revised in 1997 Added PM 2.5 to existing PM 10 Vast research since ’97 point to serious health affects, need for more stringent standard. Litigation has delayed implementation. EPA won on major points, but court said EPA could not double- regulate PM 2.5 by including it in the PM 10 fraction as well as in a separate standard.

Background  On January 17, 2006, EPA proposed revisions to the PM 2.5 standard, and a new standard for coarse but inhalable PM 71 FR 2620  On same day, in a separate but related action, EPA proposed new ambient monitoring regulations for PM as well as other criteria pollutants 71 FR 2710  Comments are due by April 17, 2006  Rule must be finalized by September 27, 2006.

PM 2.5 NAAQS Proposal (ug/m 3 ) CurrentProposed 24 hrAnnual24 hrAnnual (25-65) 15 (12-15)  Based on 98 th percentile form value for which 98% of days are below  Numbers in parentheses are range on which EPA expressly solicited comments  Secondary same as primary; also propose a separate secondary std of ug/m3 on 4 to 8 hour avg, for visibility

PM 2.5 Proposal compared to recommendations  Staff paper: 1) Keep annual at 15, 24-hr at 25-35, with 98 th percentile form if at low end, 99 th percentile if at high end. 2) Lower annual to 12-14, 24-hr at 30-40; set one or both at low end of range.  CASAC consensus: 24 hr: 30 to 35, 98 th percentile, AND Annual: 13 – 14  EPA Proposal: 24-hr: 35 at 98 th percentile Annual: 15

PM 2.5 Proposal compared to recommendations  At a 24 hr std of 35 ug/m 3, going from a 99 th percentile to a 98 th percentile form decreases percent of population protected from 68% to 48% Source: American Lung Association  Assuming a 24 hr std of 35 ug/m 3, 98 th percentile, EPA’s proposed annual std of 15 ug/m3, instead of the CASAC recommendation of 14 or 13, decreases the percentage of population protected by 23% or 43%, respectively. Source: NESCAUM  Summary: EPA has improperly mixed and matched recommendations resulting in a proposal that does not provide adequate protection of public health, according to the CASAC.

PM2.5 Proposal: process concern “ After years of vetting the science by CASAC in an open forum, the last minute addition of edits and opinions by OMB and others circumvents the entire peer review process. Many of the statements overstate uncertainty and misrepresent the scientific consensus.” - Bart Ostro, Ph.D., Chief Air Pollution Epidemiology Unit Office of Env. Health Hazard Assessment California EPA

PM2.5 Proposal – Summary of concerns  EPA has proposed a standard that will leave large portions of the population at risk. Concern compounded by fact that EPA solicits comments on a range of standards up to almost twice the level recommended (65 vs. 35)  EPA has subverted Congressionally mandated process, ignoring the advice of CASAC and numerous scientists, without offering any justification

PM – coarse NAAQS Proposal (ug/m 3 )  PM 10 annual std revoked everywhere; 24 hr std maintained only in urban areas (pop >100,000) which violate std based on past 3 years data.  Based on 98 th percentile form  Secondary std same as primary CurrentProposed 24 hrAnnual24 hrAnnual PM [150] [15 cities only] none PM NA 70none

Further defining PM NAAQS  EPA defines PM to focus on those coarse particles that come from sources typically found in urban areas:  high-density traffic on paved roads,  industrial sources, and  construction activities.  Scientific studies indicate that PM health effects are associated with these kinds of coarse particles found in urban areas.  Agricultural sources, mining sources and other similar sources of crustal material shall not be subject to control in meeting the proposed standard

Concerns with PM proposal  Revocation of PM 10 and limited (urban) coverage of PM would leave virtually all of Indian country unprotected against coarse PM.  Is EPA overstating the lack of data on health effects from coarse PM?  Did EPA take into account the sensitivity to coarse PM of portions of rural and tribal populations (e.g., due to asthma and diabetes)?

Concerns with PM proposal  Limitation of standard to certain areas is unprecedented – CAA requires standards to protect all Americans  Exemption of certain source sectors (mining and agriculture) in the setting of the NAAQS is not factually justified and seems contrary to CAA requirement that NAAQS be based only on health effects.

Monitoring Proposal – overview  New PM network  PM Federal Reference Methods and Federal Equivalent Methods  Revisions to PM2.5 monitoring requirements  New NCore (multi-pollutant) network  Revisions re: quality assurance  Changes to requirements for other pollutants – O 3, CO, S O2, NO 2, Pb

PM Network: Sizing and Siting  Monitoring only required in MSAs with urbanized areas of 100,000 people or more. Zero to 5 required monitors per MSA based on population and estimated historical concentrations. Total of about monitors required in approximately 150 MSAs. Focus on urbanized areas so concentrations will be dominated by coarse particle emissions from high- density traffic, industrial sources, and construction sources, and not be dominated by rural windblown dust and soils and particles generated by agricultural and mining sources.

PM Monitor Site Suitability test  Required sites must meet five part suitability test for comparison to NAAQS and to insure consistency with qualified PM indicator.  – Within boundaries of urbanized area > 100,000.  – Must be in census block group of population density > 500 people per square mile (or within enclave of < 5 square miles area if population density < 500).  – Must be “population-oriented.”  – May not be in a source-influenced microenvironment such as a microscale or localized hot spot location.  – PM concentrations at the site must be dominated by re- suspended dust from high-density traffic on paved roads and PM generated by industrial sources and construction sources, and must not be dominated by rural windblown dust and soils and PM generated by agricultural and mining sources, as determined by the State (and approved by the Regional Administrator) in a site-specific assessment.

PM Network: Additional comments sought  Proposal solicits comment on whether EPA should also allow PM monitoring to count towards nonattainment designations in other areas (small cities and rural areas) that have high emissions of industrial dust or highway road dust. Might bring in more Tribal lands. But “Domination” (type of dust) issue would still apply.

NCore Multi-pollutant Network  ~75 Sites Nationally ~55 Urban Sites at Neighborhood to Urban Scale ~20 Rural Sites at Regional Scale (Tribal sites will be considered) 1-3 sites per State A State can be excused from operation if nearby State can reasonably represent them  Pollutants Particles: PM2.5 filter-based and continuous, speciated PM2.5, continuous PM Gases: O3, high-sensitivity CO, SO2, NO/NOy Meteorology: Amb. Temp, WS, WD, RH  Implementation: By January 1, 2011, plans due July 1, 2009

Special Purpose Monitors  SPM = a monitor not required in states network plan. Concept: encourage monitoring w/out fear of designation  Proposal: 2 year cutoff Data collected for more than 2 years will be used for designations; for less than 2 years will not.

Funding for PM Monitoring – FY07 Budget Proposal  State STAG money cut by $35 M $15.6M from §105 air grants $17.0M from §103 PM monitoring $2.5M from RPOs PM monitoring shifted from 103 to 105  States must match at 40%  Tribes must match at 5-10%  Tribal STAG money still at $11M  Any money for tribal monitors?

Concerns with Monitoring Proposal  Would apparently eliminate existing and future tribal PM monitors Urban (MSA) focus and suitability criteria for PM network exclude most if not all tribal areas. EPA seeks comments on exceptions to 100,000 population requirement, but not on “urban mix” requirement.

Concerns with Monitoring Proposal  Any EPA support for tribal SPMs? If so, will EPA limit support to less than 24 months to avoid designations?  Proposed budget cuts and shift to §105 do not bode well for tribal monitoring programs.

Conclusion  Together, the PM NAAQS and monitoring proposals weaken air quality protection in Indian country and threaten tribes ability to collect ambient monitoring data for their reservations.  NTAA is preparing organizational comments and model letters for tribes and encourages as many tribes as possible to comment.

More Info  tions.html tions.html 