1. Implications of the 2008 Ozone Standard Changes Deanna L. Duram, P.E., C.M. August 7, 2008 trinityconsultants.com

2. Outline  Overview of Ozone Standard Changes  Timeline for designations and SIP updates  Implications of nonattainment designations  Present prediction of impacts in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee  What should facilities be doing now?

3. March 2008 8-hour Ozone Standard  Primary standard reduced from 0.08 ppm to 0.075 ppm (80 ppb to 75 ppb)  Note increase in significant digits  Secondary standard = primary standard  Retained existing compliance approach  Three-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum per year

6. Timeline  Rule signed March 12, 2008  States required to make recommendations for designations by March 12, 2009  EPA to issue final designations by March 12, 2010  Designations effective 60 days later  SIP updates required no later than 2013  Attainment required between 2013 and 2030 – dependent on severity of nonattainment

7. Why does a nonattainment designation matter? Control Requirements  Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)  Typically applies to existing emission sources of a nonattainment pollutant emitting more than a set threshold  Often source category specific  Can be case-by-case

8. Why does a nonattainment designation matter? Permitting Requirements  Lower major source thresholds (Title V and construction permits)  Major modification thresholds  Lower thresholds  Netting over 5-year period may be required  Major modification requirements  Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER)  Offset requirements (ratio between 1-1.3 per ton of pollutant increase)  Analysis of alternative sites, sizes, and production processes, and environmental control techniques  All major sources in state must be in compliance with all applicable emission limitations and standards

9. CAIR Vacature and Ozone Attainment Implications  DC Circuit Court issued an opinion to vacate the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)  CAIR would have imposed significant NO X reductions from utilities east of the Mississippi  State modeling demonstrations related to ozone have relied upon those reductions  Impact on ability to attain?  State-by-state strategies for CAIR-like limitations likely

10. Alabama  No existing 8-hour nonattainment counties  New counties predicted to exceed new standard  ADEM believes that most areas will rely on nationally-mandated controls to achieve the revised standard  Comment made pre-CAIR vacature  Mobile  Baldwin  Russell  Tuscaloosa  Clay  Madison  Morgan

11. Georgia’s Original Nonattainment Areas for 8-hr Ozone http://www.air.dnr.state.ga.us/airpermit/naa.htm Murray, Bibb, and Monroe redesignated attainment

12. Counties with Ozone Monitors Exceeding 2008 Standard of 0.075 (ppm) (based on 2005-7 monitored data) 0.074 0.074 County with Monitor Meeting Standard County with Monitor Exceeding Standard Slide per EPD presentation, June 25, 2008

13. Mississippi  No existing 8-hour nonattainment counties  Existing Monitors Over Standard  More counties impacted depending on how “metropolitan statistical areas” defined CountyCity2005-2007 (ppb) BolivarCleveland76 DeSotoHernando85 HarrisonGulfport83 JacksonPascagoula79 LauderdaleMeridian76 LeeTupelo75

14. Tennessee  Counties with 2005-2007 Design Value > 75 ppb (similar to existing nonattainment areas/early action compact areas)  2005-2007 DV > 75 ppb, expanded to include MSAs  National measures being relied upon for attainment – pre-CAIR vacature

15. Generalized Impacts  Increase in nonattainment counties and number of impacted sources  Ambient monitoring network sufficient?  Some states showing all monitors exceeding  EPA considering revising requirements to require monitors in more rural areas  Vacature of CAIR making states re-evaluate measures necessary for attainment  CAIR vacature may lead to more sources being faced with emission reduction obligations?  More focus on non-industrial pollution sources  Vehicle emissions testing programs for mobile sources  Other non-traditional options?

16. What can I do now? (Besides shutting down!?)  Become involved in SIP rulemaking process  Understand what measures may be considered for emission reductions  How might they impact your facility? Are they reasonable?  Consider advocating for Early Action Compact approach  Avoids redesignation of county to nonattainment  Requires earlier reductions  Typically viewed positively by stakeholders – more tangible engagement in process?

17. What should I be concerned with as a source in a nonattaiment area?  Planning for capital projects essential to minimize permitting requirements  Data retention of projects essential for netting purposes  Avoidance of major modification permitting generally a preferred pathway  Can you avoid LAER requirements by proposing other controls to reduce emissions?  Avoidance of fees for emission credits  If no credits available, limited options

18. Questions? Deanna L. Duram, P.E., C.M. dduram@trinityconsultants.com