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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. PM 2.5 NAAQS Proposal (ug/m 3 ) CurrentProposed 24 hrAnnual24 hrAnnual 651535 (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 20-30 ug/m3 on 4 to 8 hour avg, for visibility

5. 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

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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 10 15050[150] [15 cities only] none PM 10-2.5 NA 70none

10. Further defining PM 10-2.5 NAAQS  EPA defines PM 10-2.5 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 10-2.5 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

11. Concerns with PM 10-2.5 proposal  Revocation of PM 10 and limited (urban) coverage of PM 10-2.5 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)?

12. Concerns with PM 10-2.5 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.

13. Monitoring Proposal – overview  New PM 10-2.5 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

14. PM 10-2.5 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 225-250 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.

15. PM 10-2.5 Monitor Site Suitability test  Required sites must meet five part suitability test for comparison to NAAQS and to insure consistency with qualified PM 10-2.5 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.  – PM10-2.5 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.

17. PM 10-2.5 Network: Additional comments sought  Proposal solicits comment on whether EPA should also allow PM 10-2.5 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.

18. 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 PM10-2.5 Gases: O3, high-sensitivity CO, SO2, NO/NOy Meteorology: Amb. Temp, WS, WD, RH  Implementation: By January 1, 2011, plans due July 1, 2009

19. 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.

20. 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?

21. Concerns with Monitoring Proposal  Would apparently eliminate existing and future tribal PM monitors Urban (MSA) focus and suitability criteria for PM 10-2.5 network exclude most if not all tribal areas. EPA seeks comments on exceptions to 100,000 population requirement, but not on “urban mix” requirement.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. More Info  http://www.epa.gov/air/particles/ac tions.html http://www.epa.gov/air/particles/ac tions.html  http://www.ntaatribalair.org/ http://www.ntaatribalair.org/