1 Conducting Reasonable Progress Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule Kathy Kaufman EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards January 11,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
METAL CAN SURFACE COATING MACT FACILITY INSPECTIONS 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART KKKK June, CFR PART 63, SUBPART KKKK June, 2006.
Advertisements

Key Features of the Clean Water Act (CWA) Goal: The elimination of all discharges of pollutants into the navigable waters of the United States: § 101(a)(1).
Water Quality Trading Claire Schary Water Quality Trading Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA Region 10, Seattle,
REDUCTION OF HIGHLY REACTIVE VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS & VARIABLE EMISSIONS IN HOUSTON/GALVESTON: MONITORING, MODELING, MEASURING, RULEMAKING David Allen.
The Massachusetts Approach to Power Plant Clean-up Policy Making and Standards Setting to Reach Clean Air Sonia Hamel Massachusetts Executive Office of.
EPA PM2.5 Modeling Guidance for Attainment Demonstrations Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS February 20, 2007.
Attribution of Haze Phase 2 and Technical Support System Project Update AoH Meeting – San Francisco, CA September 14/15, 2005 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource.
1 Year in Review: Clean Air Act Presented by: Tom Wood Stoel Rives LLP October 8, 2010 Things Are Getting Really Complicated.
Regional Haze Rule Guidance: Tracking Progress & Natural Levels Overview of the concepts currently envisioned by EPA working groups by Marc Pitchford;
Best available control technology (BACT) requirements
Life Cycle Overview & Resources. Life Cycle Management What is it? Integrated concept for managing goods and services towards more sustainable production.
The Impact of Greenhouse Gas Regulation on Energy Production: Legal Framework for Greenhouse Gases Standards for Fossil-Fuel Fired Electric Generating.
OPTIONS FOR STATES IMPLEMENTING CARBON STANDARDS FOR POWER PLANTS ARKANSAS STAKEHOLDER MEETING MAY 28, 2014 FRANZ LITZ PROGRAM CONSULTANT.
1 WRAP Fire Tracking Systems Draft Intent of WRAP FTS Policy – Assist states/tribes to address emissions inventory and tracking associated with fire in.
EPA’s Final Clean Power Plan: Overview Steve Burr AQD, SIP Section September 1, 2015.
Final Amendments to the Regional Haze Rule: BART Rule Making June 16, 2005.
Regional Haze Rule Best Available Retrofit Technology Government to Government Consultation Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency.
BART Control Analysis WESTAR August 31, 2005 EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Todd Hawes
Air Quality Benefits from Energy Conservation Measures Anna Garcia April 2004.
An Update on the Colorado Regional Haze SIP Process and Outcomes Presented at: WRAP – Implementation Work Group San Francisco, CA March 2005.
Title V: The Big Picture
BART Guideline Overview WESTAR August 31, 2005 EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Todd Hawes
REGIONAL HAZE BART – Key Issues For Consideration Eric Massey, Arizona DEQ Lee Alter, WGA SSJF Meeting June 3, 2004 Denver, Colorado.
1 EPA’s Climate Change Strategy Robert J. Meyers Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation December 3, 2007.
HAP Rule 372 Guidance Permitting Division Maricopa County Air Quality Department.
Regional Haze SIP Development Overview AQCC Presentation July 2005.
Best Available Retrofit Technology Rule - Colorado David R. Ouimette Colorado Air Pollution Control Division.
Presumptive MACT For Municipal Solid Waste Landfills July 1999 Emission Standards Division US Environmental Protection Agency.
WRAP States Four Factor Reasonable Progress Lee Gribovicz WRAP IWG Meeting March 10, 2009.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Permit Training Other Aspects of PSD Title V Permitting.
Draft Final Annex to the GCVTC Report September 25, 2000.
Proposed Reasonable Progress Rule Workshop Brief Background and Procedure Public Workshop June 14, 2007.
Final Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule Briefing for NTAA EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards April 17, 2007.
1 Brian Finneran, Oregon DEQ WRAP IWG Meeting, Santa Fe December 2006 Update on Regional Haze 308 SIP Template.
Air Quality Policy Division D P A Q 1 Regional Haze Update WESTAR September 17-19, 2007 EPA Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards.
EPA – Regional Haze Issues IWG Meeting April 17 th Keith Rose and Laurel Dygowski.
Reproposal of the Regional Haze Rule and BART Guidelines.
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.
NRC Environmental Reviews for Uranium Recovery Applicants and Licensees James Park (301)
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)
Alternatives to BART Rule Discussion with WRAP Nov , 2006.
Summary of June 15, 2005 Revisions to RH BART and BART Guidelines.
THE CLEAN AIR ACT (CAA) By: Cody Able. THE CLEAN AIR ACT (CAA)  Draft year: 1968  Amendment years: 1965, 1970, 1977, 1990  This is an Act in The United.
CEQA and Climate Change Evaluating & Addressing GHG Emissions from Projects Barbara Lee, CAPCOA.
1 Special Information Session on USEPA’s Carbon Rules & Clean Air Act Section 111 North Carolina Division of Air Quality Special Information Session on.
Reasonable Further Progress Policy and Mid-Course Reviews John Summerhays EPA Region 5 June 20, 2007.
Clean Air Act Section 111 WESTAR Meeting Presented by Lisa Conner U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation November 6, 2013.
Proposed Carbon Pollution Standard For New Power Plants Presented by Kevin Culligan Office of Air Quality Planning And Standards Office of Air and Radiation.
Work Items for §309 SIPs WESTAR Fall Technical Conference September 19, 2002 Tom Moore & Brian Finneran.
DRAFT USEPA Office of Compliance Update: 90 CWA Action Plan, State Review Framework, & OECA National Priority Selection Presentation to NACAA Chris Knopes.
308 Outline (a) Purpose (b) When are 1st plans due (c) Options for regional planning (d) Core requirements (e) BART requirements (f) Comprehensive periodic.
Pulp & Paper Sector Strategy & New Source Performance Standards Strategy Peter Tsirigotis, Director Sector Policies & Programs Division National Association.
Proposed EPA Power Plant Cooling System Regulations.
Proposed “BART Trading” Rule Bill Grantham September 1, 2005.
1 Recent MANE-VU Projections of Visibility for 2018 Gary Kleiman MANE-VU Stakeholder Briefing April 4, 2008 BWI.
Developing a Tribal Implementation Plan
Clean Air Act Glossary.
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
Clean Air Act (CAA) Purpose
BART Overview Lee Alter Western Governors’ Association
Major New Source Review (NSR) Part 2
Status of Regional Haze Rule
Western Regional Haze Planning and
EPA Clarification on Regional Haze SIP Issues
WRAP Stationary Sources Forum Meeting November 14-15, 2006
Workshop Technical and Policy Studies to Support the Annex
Summary of RH-LTS Requirements (d)(3)
Market Trading Forum Update
EPA’s Roadmap for the Second Planning Period
Presentation transcript:

1 Conducting Reasonable Progress Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule Kathy Kaufman EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards January 11, 2006

2 What is the Clean Air Act visibility goal? CAA goal of natural visibility conditions at Class I areas RHR establishes 60-year time horizon for attaining the goal

3 How should Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) be set? The first RPG describes the visibility conditions expected to be achieved when the first long term strategy (covering the planning period to 2018) is fully implemented. RPGs for each long term strategy should be selected based on BOTH: 1.The uniform rate of progress for each Class I area, and 2.The control strategies identified through application of the statutory factors.

4 Calculating the the uniform rate of progress The uniform rate of progress is the minimum rate of progress needed to achieve the CAA goal of natural conditions within 60 years (to 2064). The URP for each 10-year long term strategy = the visibility improvement along the glide path for that planning period. Note that the URP does NOT automatically = the reasonable progress goal.

5 Developing and selecting control measures using the statutory factors Steps: a.Identify sources and source categories that contribute significantly to visibility impairment at each Class I area. b.Determine the key pollutant species. c.Identify control measures and associated emission reductions: Expected from existing rules Available beyond current and expected controls d.Apply the statutory factors to all identified control measures.

6 Overview of iterative process for setting RPGs 1. Consider Statutory Factors: Combine the control measures evaluated based on the statutory factors for an overall suite or suites of control strategies. 2. Compare to Uniform Rate of Progress: Compare visibility conditions resulting from each suite of control strategies to the URP for each Class I area. 3.Select RPG Select an RPG for each Class I area based on an overall suite of control strategies that will improve visibility at or beyond the URP.

7 CAA Statutory Factors Clean Air Act section 169A(g)(1) identifies four factors to be “taken into consideration” in determining reasonable progress: a. Cost of compliance b. Time necessary for compliance c.Energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance; and d. Remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such requirements.

8 Applying the statutory factors a.Cost of Compliance Apply to sources or source categories General steps: Identify emission units to be controlled Identify design parameters for controls Develop cost estimates.

9 Applying the statutory factors a. Cost of Compliance, cont’d Specific considerations: Design parameters should be based on typical operation Suggested information sources include EPA documents, engineering and performance test data, vendor information, data in trade publications. All analysis should be well documented Cost estimates should be documented, and based on vendor estimates or reference sources, preferably the EPA Control Cost Manual.

10 Applying the statutory factors b.Time necessary for compliance The RPG may reflect measures for which the compliance period exceeds the planning period; for example where availability of labor is a constraint. The RPG should then reflect the amount of control that will be completed within the planning period.

11 Applying the statutory factors b.Time necessary for compliance, con’t. A long term strategy projecting most of the improvement toward the end of the planning period may need to demonstrate greater relative visibility improvement due to greater uncertainty.

12 Applying the statutory factors c.Energy and non-air impacts Energy Only direct energy impacts should be considered. Indirect energy impacts should be only be considered if unusual or significant, and well-documented and quantified.

13 Applying the statutory factors c.Energy and non-air impacts, cont’d Non-air impacts Should include any significant or unusual environmental impacts associated with controls Analysis should be site-specific Example types of impacts: –Effects on ground or surface water –amount and composition of solid waste produced –Irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources –Benefits to the environment

14 Applying the statutory factors d.Remaining useful life of the source Only applicable to retrofit controls at existing sources. May affect the importance of addressing particular source types. The remaining useful life of a source, if short, may affect the annualized costs of control. Should only affect individual source analysis if documented with an enforceable permit condition. Could apply on a source category basis; use well- documented average retirement rates.

15 Selecting Reasonable Progress Goals To reiterate final step: model suites of controls that meet the statutory factors, and compare to uniform rate of progress. Select an RPG for each Class I area that results in visibility improvement at or beyond the glide path. What if control suites that meet the factors cannot achieve enough improvement ? –Guidance on limits to costs by pollutant or sector –Establish 5-year check of assumptions used to support the goal selected.