1. May 23, 20061 PM 2.5 Implementation, Proposed Revisions and Haze Air Quality Issues Workshop Allegheny Mountain Section of the Air & Waste Management Association May 23, 2006 Scott R. Dismukes, Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott 600 Grant Street, 44th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 566-1998 sdismukes@eckertseamans.com

2. May 23, 20062 PM 2.5 Implementation PM 2.5 PM 2.5 Proposed Revisions PM 10-2.5 Proposed Inhalable Coarse Particles (“Thoracic Standard”) Haze

3. May 23, 20063

4. 4 NAAQS Implementation The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set two types of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ‘criteria’ air pollutants. Primary standards to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety Secondary standards to protect public welfare and the environment (visibility, wildlife, crops, vegetation, national monuments and buildings) The law requires EPA to review the scientific information and the standards for each pollutant every five years. Cont’d.

5. May 23, 20065 NAAQS Implementation, cont’d. Review NAAQS every 5 years Revise NAAQS Standard PM 2.5, Ozone, Haze Modeling and attainment demonstrations Nonattainment designations (5 years to attainment) Develop Federal Implementation Rule State SIP due (within 3 years of designation) RACT RACM RFP Revised NSR “Part D” Attainment demonstration (within 5 years of designation)

6. May 23, 20066 PM2.5 Designation and Implementation Schedule July 18, 1997 PM NAAQS Revised December 17, 2004: EPA issued final PM2.5 designations (based on 2001-3 data) April 5, 2005: Effective date of PM2.5 designations November 1, 2005: Propose implementation rule Summer/Fall 2006: Finalize implementation rule December 2007: Regional haze implementation plans due April 2008: PM2.5 implementation plans due April 2010: AQCR’s PM2.5 attainment date

7. May 23, 20067 PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas 1)Atlanta, GA 2)Baltimore, MD 3)Birmingham, AL 4)Canton, OH 5)Charleston, WV 6)Chattanooga, TN-GA-AL 7)Chicago, IL-IN-WI 8)Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 9)Cleveland, OH 10)Columbus, OH 11)Dayton, OH 12)Detroit, MI 13)Evansville, IN-KY 14)Greensboro, NC 15) Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV 16) Harrisburg, PA 17) Hickory, NC 18) Huntington-Ashland, OH- WV-KY 19) Indianapolis, IN 20) Johnstown, PA 21) Knoxville, TN 22) Lancaster, PA 23) Libby, MT 24) Louisville, KY-IN 25) Macon, GA 26) New York, NY-NJ-CT 27) Parkersburg, WV-OH 28)Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE 29)Pittsburgh, PA 30)Pittsburgh/ Liberty- Clairton, PA 31)Reading, PA 32)Rome, GA 33)San Joaquin Valley, CA 34)South Coast, CA 35)St. Louis, MO-IL 36)Steubenville, OH-WV 37)Washington, DC-MD-VA 38)Wheeling, WV-OH 39)York, PA Unclassifiable Greenville, SC

8. May 23, 20068 PM2.5 Implementation Rule Issues Attainment dates Classifications PM2.5 precursors (? NOx, SO2, VOC…) Modeling and attainment demonstration Reasonably available control technology (RACT) Reasonably available control measures (RACM) Reasonable further progress (RFP) New source review

9. May 23, 20069 Attainment Dates State attainment demonstrations and SIP revisions are due April 2008 Under CAA, attainment date is no later than five years from date of designation (e.g. Apr. 2010) Extensions of 1-5 years are possible Attainment determination would be based on most recent 3 calendar years (e.g. 2007-2009 for Apr. 2010 attainment date). State must provide thorough analysis of feasible RACM and RACT in the nonattainment area.

10. May 23, 200610 Attainment Date Extension At time of SIP submittal State must provide thorough analysis of feasible RACM and RACT in the nonattainment area Based on this analysis, the State can propose an attainment date extension and EPA can grant such an extension, taking into consideration: The severity of the nonattainment problem The availability and feasibility of control measures The extension can be up to five years beyond April 2010

11. May 23, 200611 Attainment Date Extension, cont’d. For an extension, the State must include a modeling demonstration which: Shows that attainment by April 2010 is not practicable, considering the severity of the problem and availability and feasibility of controls Supports what future date is an appropriate attainment date

12. May 23, 200612 Possibility of Attainment Extensions Example Attainment date for an area is April 2010, to be based on 2007-2009 data If 2007 and 2008 are over 15.05 µg/m 3 but the annual average for the 2009 attainment year is below 15.05 µg/m 3, the area can receive a 1-year extension Attainment then will be based on 2008-2010 If the average of 2009 and 2010 is below 15.05 µg/m 3, the area can receive a second 1-year extension Attainment then will be based on 2009-2011

13. May 23, 200613 Coverage of PM2.5 Precursors Atmospheric chemistry for PM2.5 formation is complex Proposed approach for PM2.5 implementation and new source review PM2.5 direct emissions (includes organic carbon, elemental carbon, and crustal material) and S02 must be addressed NOx must be addressed in all areas, unless the State and EPA provide a demonstration finding that NOx is not a significant contributor in a specific area. VOC and ammonia would not be addressed, unless EPA or the State provides a demonstration that VOC or ammonia is a significant contributor in a particular area.

14. May 23, 200614 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) RACT is the lowest emission limit that a source is capable of meeting with available control technology, considering technological and economic feasibility. So, SIP Option 1. RACT required for all stationary sources with the potential to emit (PTE) more than 100 tpy of direct PM2.5 or any precursor EPA requesting comment on thresholds of 70 and 50 tpy SIP Option 2. RACT required for stationary sources only to the extent it is needed for expeditious attainment or to meet RFP. SIP Option 3. Option 2 for areas with attainment dates within 5 years Option 1 for areas with attainment dates > 5 years

15. May 23, 200615 RACT RACT measures must be implemented by no later than the beginning of the calendar year preceding the attainment date. (Example: If attainment date is April 2010, any necessary RACT measures would need to be implemented by no later than January 2009.)

16. May 23, 200616 RACT, cont’d. Previous RACT determinations: May be acceptable for purposes of PM2.5, if State certifies and supports that previous RACT determinations represent appropriate level of control. EPA may revise control techniques guidelines or alternative control technology documents for selected categories with multipollutant impacts (e.g.: revise presumptive baseline)

17. May 23, 200617 Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) A RACM demonstration must show that the State has adopted all reasonable measures needed to attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable and meet RFP. Demonstrate that no additional measures are available that would advance the attainment date. Preamble includes a list of specific measures that States should consider as part of the RACM analysis. States should assess whether implementing such measures are technically and economically feasible States also must analyze additional measures raised in public comment process.

18. May 23, 200618 Example Control Measures Diesel retrofits (trucks, school buses, stationary engines) Diesel idling (trucks, trains, port equipment, etc.) Programs to reduce emissions from poorly maintained vehicles New or improved direct PM and precursor controls on stationary sources Year-round operation of seasonal stationary source NOx controls Increase use of alternative fuel, hybrid vehicles Buy-back programs for small engines (boats, vehicles, equipment) Year-round measures to reduce VMT (Commuter Choice, carpooling incentives, etc.) Open burning laws and better enforcement Programs to reduced emissions from residential wood combustion and back yard barrel burning Smoke management plans Reducing emissions of volatile aromatic compounds (surface coatings, gasoline, solvents, etc.)

19. May 23, 200619 Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) RFP: annual incremental reductions in emissions for purpose of ensuring timely attainment Baseline emission inventory year is 2002 RFP plan due with attainment demonstration in 2008 For areas with an attainment date extension, the State would establish emission reduction milestones showing generally linear progress from 2002 to January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2013 (if necessary) Areas demonstrating attainment by 2010 will be “deemed” to meet RFP.

20. May 23, 200620 New Source Review Proposed Revisions for PM2.5 Requirements Significant emissions rate for PM2.5 — 10 tpy Precursors SO2 always "in" as a precursor; NOx presumed "in" unless State demonstrates that NOx is a significant contributor to PM2.5 or part of the transport problem VOC and ammonia presumed "out" unless State demonstrates otherwise. Ammonia is not a precursor in PM2.5 attainment areas. PM 2.5: Major source threshold 100 tpy; offset ratio 1:1

21. May 23, 200621 New Source Review Proposed Revisions for PM2.5 (cont.) Current program until PM2.5 rule is promulgated Interim guidance memo for both attainment and nonattainment areas Use PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5 NSR Provisions during SIP development period (from final rule until State implementation plans are approved) PSD program Continue implementing guidance using PM10 as surrogate (include condensables and PM 2.5 modeling analysis); or Update guidance to reflect the PM2.5 rule provisions or revise 40 CFR part 51 appendix S to point to PM 2.5 provisions in 40CFR 52.21; or States can request delegation of only the federal PM2.5 program Nonattainment program Use 40 CFR part 51 appendix S.

22. May 23, 200622 Proposed Revisions for PM2.5 and PM10 On December 20, 2005 the EPA proposed revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter. The proposed revisions address two categories of particles: fine particles (PM 2.5 ), which are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller; and inhalable coarse particles (PM 10-2.5 ), which are smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter but larger than PM2.5 (Thoracic Standard)

23. May 23, 200623 Schedule for Revised PM NAAQS Review Rulemaking on PM NAAQS: Proposal signed on December 20, 2005 Public comment period: 90 days Comment Period Extended to July 10, 2006 Public Hearings Final Rule to be signed by September 27, 2006

24. May 23, 200624 What are EPA’s Current PM Standards? PM 2.5 Annual standard set at 15 µg/m 3 Annual arithmetic mean, averaged over 3 years 24 hr standard set at 65 µg/m 3 Annual 98 th percentile, averaged over 3 years PM 10 50 µg/m 3 annual average 150 µg/m 3 24-hr average (99 th percentile) Under the Proposal, EPA would revise the PM2.5 24-hour standard from the current level of 65 µg/m 3 to 35 µg/m 3. EPA is proposing to retain the current PM2.5 annual standard at 15µg/m 3

25. May 23, 200625 Inhalable Coarse PM – Moving from PM 10 to PM 10-2.5 EPA’s current standards for coarse particles (PM10) were set in 1987. a 24-hour standard of 150 µg/m 3, and an annual standard of 50 µg/m 3 -- apply to particles 10 micrometers in diameter and smaller. The proposed revisions would change the definition to apply to particles between 10 and 2.5 micrometers in diameter also known as PM 10-2.5. The proposed new PM 10-2.5 standard would be a 24-hour standard, at 70 µg/m 3. EPA is not proposing an annual standard for PM 10-2.5.

26. May 23, 200626 Revoking the Current PM10 Standard EPA is proposing to revoke the current 24-hour PM 10 standards, except in areas that have both 1) violating monitors; and 2) a population of 100,000 or more. The Agency is proposing to immediately revoke the current annual PM 10 standards in all areas.

27. May 23, 200627 Timeline if PM2.5 NAAQS Are Revised Milestone1997 PM 2.5 Primary NAAQS2006 PM 2.5 Primary NAAQS Promulgation of Standard July 1997Nov. 2006 State Recommendations to EPA Feb. 2004 (based on 2001-2003 monitoring data) Nov. 2007 (based on 2004-2006 monitoring data) Final Designations Signature Dec. 2004Nov. 2009 Effective Date of Designations April 2005April 2010 SIPs DueApril 2008April 2013 Attainment DateApril 2012 (based on 2007- 2009 monitoring data) April 2015 (based on 2012- 2104 monitoring data) Attainment Date with Extension Up to April 2015April 2020

28. May 23, 200628 Timeline if PM 10-2.5 Standard Is Finalized Milestone2006 PM 10-2.5 NAAQS Effective Date of StandardNov. 2006 State Recommendations to EPA July 2012 (based on 2009-2011 monitoring data) Final DesignationsMay 2013 Effective Date of DesignationsJuly 2013 SIPs are DueJuly 2016 Attainment DateJuly 2018 (based on 2015-2017 monitoring data) Attainment Date with Extension Up to July 2023

29. May 23, 200629 What is Regional Haze? Visibility impairment not directly attributable to one or a few individual emission sources Cumulative impact of general atmospheric pollutant loading Required under CAA (§169A) “Congress hereby declares as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” 40CFR §51 “calls for States to establish goals and emission reduction strategies for improving visibility in all 156 mandatory Class I national parks and wilderness areas.”

30. May 23, 200630 Regional Haze Measurements Visual range and light extinction over distance are two measures of visibility impairment. For regulatory purposes, EPA uses the “deciview.” A deciview is an increment of visibility change that is just perceptible to the human eye. Deciviews are calculated from measured or modeled concentrations of individual pollutants based on their unique light extinction properties, adjusted for relative humidity.

31. May 23, 200631 General Requirements for State Regional Haze Programs For each mandatory class I Federal area: Determine baseline visibility conditions Establish “rate of progress” goals Identify and address all “BART” eligible” sources Develop emission control program if needed Submit approvable State Implementation Plan and supporting technical demonstration to EPA SIP required every 10 years Achieve natural conditions by 2064

32. May 23, 200632 State Responsibilities Under Regional Haze Rule Establish baseline and set goal for improving visibility on 20% haziest days, while protecting visibility on 20% clearest days, in each of its Class I areas. Goal is to reach “natural conditions” in each area by 2064. Develop long-term strategies for reducing emissions that contribute to regional haze in any Class I area. First SIP submittal must show “reasonable progress” towards visibility goals by 2018. Develop process for determining BART control levels (or otherwise exempting sources) on a case-by-case basis. First SIP submittal must include control requirements and compliance schedules for BART.

33. May 23, 200633 4 Core Requirements of SIP 1.Calculate Baseline & Natural Visibility Conditions 2.Reasonable Progress Goals 3.BART (Best Available Retrofit Technology) 4.Long-term Strategy (includes control measures needed to achieve goals)

34. May 23, 200634 Definition of BART-Eligible Source A BART-eligible source is the set of all emissions units at a facility that: Fall into one of 26 prescribed source categories; Source built/reconstructed between 1962 and 1977; and Collectively have the potential to emit 250 tons per year of any visibility-impairing pollutant: (NOx, SOx, PM 10, VOC) A “BART-eligible source” is not “subject to BART” unless it reasonably causes or contributes to visibility impairment. A state may determine that all (or none) of its BART-eligible sources cause or contribute, or it may provide for exemptions.

35. May 23, 200635 What is BART? Basic Steps BART eligibility determination Meets date, type and potential emission criteria Subject to BART determination Fails state exemption test (“reasonably anticipated”) Engineering Analysis BART emission control requirement Resulting visibility impact assessment Compliance options

36. May 23, 200636 Determine Whether Facility Causes/Contributes to Visibility Impairment in Class I Area: 3 Options 1.Perform individual source exemption analysis: Use CALPUFF or other EPA approved model Compare to natural background “Cause” = impact > 1.0 deciview “Contribute” = impact > 0.5 deciview (or lower) 2.Exempt sources with common characteristics. 3.Consider all BACT eligible sources subject based on statewide analysis or demonstrated sources are subject based on modeling

37. May 23, 200637 Conduct A BART Determination for Facilities Subject to BART Facility will conduct a BART determination used by the State to establish emission limits in permits. Analysis considers 5 factors: 1. Available technology 2. Costs of compliance 3. Energy and non-air environmental impacts 4. Remaining useful life of plant 5. Visibility improvement reasonably expected from the control technology.

38. May 23, 200638 Consideration of MACT and BACT Limits Default: Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards represent BART for PM and VOC Recent BACT determinations may also be “BART,” case-by-case Controls installed for other reasons may be BART, case-by-case Query: What is same or similar source?

39. May 23, 200639 Other Items Order for evaluating control options Like BACT determinations, top-down Determining weight of 5 factors Case-by-case Averaging emissions Yes, across BART-eligible units

40. May 23, 200640 The Future of BART By December 2007… All BART eligible sources identified All “appropriate” BART control determined Factored into overall Regional Haze progress goals Modeling demonstration Potential BART market trading system By 2013 sources must either: Install BART controls, retire unit(s), or participate in a BART emissions trading program