Preparing for the Regional Haze Rule s 2 nd Implementation Period

Transcription

1 Preparing for the Regional Haze Rule s 2 nd Implementation Period Air Quality Policy Division, US EPA 2016 WESTAR and WRAP Fall Business Meeting September 13-14,

2 Outline History and status of EPA s process. Some of the major issues and stakeholder comments on the proposed rule and draft guidance. Appendix: Background on regional haze history and concepts. 2

3 Pre-Rulemaking External Discussions on Needs for the Second Implementation Period WESTAR and other recommendations to EPA; discussions at multi-state meetings. March 2015 meetings in RTP, NC to discuss potential topics to address in future rule and guidance. Followed-up with focused conference calls with state and tribal air agencies on various topics. Major topical areas that were discussed: Due date for next SIP. Progress report requirements. Impact of fires and dust storms on the worst 20% of days tracking metric. International impacts. The uniform rate of progress (glide path) as a safe harbor. Achievability of natural visibility conditions by Consideration of visibility impacts and benefits of additional controls. Resource challenges for the states. 3

4 Other Rule Areas of Concern Relationship between the four statutory factors, long-term strategies, and reasonable progress goals (RPGs). Difficult construction of the rule text with respect to requirements for the 2 nd and subsequent SIPs. 40 CFR (f) cross-references (d) for some SIP requirements and notes some differences, instead of clearly listing the requirements for subsequent SIPs. Interstate impacts and responsibilities. Documentation of analyses supporting the SIP. Requirements for FLM consultation. 4

5 2016 Proposed Revisions to the Regional Haze Rule Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed Rule published on May 4, 2016: Two public hearings: Washington, DC and Denver, CO. Comment period closed on August 10, Working to consider hundreds of comment letters and to finalize the revisions later this year. 5

6 2016 Draft Guidance for the 2 nd Implementation Period EPA invited comment on the Draft Guidance on Progress Tracking Metrics, Long-term Strategies, Reasonable Progress Goals and Other Requirements for Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period on July 8, 2016: Comment period closed on August 22, Working to consider about 50 comment letters and to finalize the guidance document later this year. 6

7 Issue: Due Date for Next SIP Revision EPA proposed to shift the due date for the next SIPs to July 2021; will not prevent states from submitting SIPs earlier. End date for second planning period would remain Comments States and industry support this change. Environmental groups oppose this change, but they also commented based on the assumption that it would be finalized. 7

8 Issue: Progress Reports EPA proposed to change various aspects of the 5-year Progress Reports. Adjust the schedule for progress reports so that they fall mid-way between due dates for comprehensive SIPs. Remove the requirement that progress reports be submitted as SIP revisions. Clarify and revise content requirements: current visibility conditions, emissions inventories, etc. Comments General support for the schedule change. States support removal of the requirement that progress reports be SIP revisions. Environmental groups want progress reports to be SIP revisions, explicitly noting that this provides a path to a FIP in the case of state failure to submit or EPA disapproval of a progress report. 8

9 Issue: Four Factors, Long-Term Strategies, and RPGs EPA proposed to provide certain clarifications to reflect the Agency s long-standing interpretation of the relationship between long-term strategies (LTS) and reasonable progress goals (RPGs). Reordered the requirements in the regulatory text for 2 nd and subsequent SIP revisions to make it clear that the four statutory factors are considered when developing the LTS, and then the state projects the RPG. Clarify all states must consider the four statutory factors when developing their LTSs, not just the state with the Class I area. Clarify obligations of states during interstate consultation. Comments Environmental groups generally in favor of the changes. EPA is still studying the comments from states. Industry generally says that EPA must give states high deference. 9

10 Issue: Consideration of Visibility Impacts and Benefits The rulemaking did not propose any revisions to directly address this issue. Recommendation in the draft guidance document: States should consider visibility impacts when screening sources and source categories. States should not consider visibility benefits after the screening step. The most effective measure with a cost of compliance that is not unreasonable should be selected. Two alternative approaches are described but not recommended. 1. Like the recommended approach, but without a screening step. No further discussion. 2. After screening, a state would consider visibility benefits along with the four statutory factors. The draft guidance document offers some advice for states choosing this approach. Comments States want flexibility to consider visibility benefits. Environmental groups think the CAA prohibits consideration of visibility benefits, and EPA should not say it is an available alternative approach. 10

11 Issue: Progress Tracking Metric EPA proposed in the alternative to require all states to base the 20% worst days only on anthropogenic impairment rather than on overall visibility, or to let each state decide which to use. Comments States generally want to be able to choose which approach to use. Environmental groups are concerned about possible implications for how states will decide what additional measures are needed, both for anthropogenic sources and for fire sources. Some concerns about the specific recommended steps for determining which days are the 20% that have the most anthropogenic impairment. How to apportion PM concentrations and thus light extinction. Is impairment the delta deciview from anthropogenic sources or the anthropogenic light extinction itself? 11

12 Impacts of International Sources and Fires on the Glide Path EPA proposed to allow adjustments for these impacts. EPA indicated that current estimates of these impacts may not be good enough to use. Increase the 2064 end point of the glide path. Leave the 2064 end point unchanged, but subtract the impacts from conditions, most recent conditions, and the RPGs. Comments EPA should provide guidance and/or specific values, now. EPA should not require pre-approval of state approaches. Instead, approve the approach when approving the SIP. EPA should allow adjustments for all prescribed fires, not just some. 12

13 Issue: The Glide Path as a Safe Harbor EPA proposed to retain the approach of the 1999 Regional Haze Rule, that the glide path is an analytical framework and not a requirement or a safe harbor. Comments Many comments say that the glide path should be a safe harbor. Environmental groups oppose a safe harbor. Comments were mixed on the related issue of whether the glide path should always be tied to the starting point, or be updated each cycle to use most recent conditions as the starting point. 13

14 Issue: Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI) EPA proposed to revise aspects of RAVI provisions that allow a Federal Land Manager to certify that RAVI is occurring at a Class I area due a specific source or small number of sources. Clarify and streamline confusing language and seemingly overlapping requirements. Continue to say that appropriate techniques must be used to assess RAVI, but remove a statement that the state determines what techniques are appropriate. Extend the possibility of a RAVI certification to states that do not have Class I areas of their own. Three alternatives for the due date for a SIP to respond to the certification. Comments States oppose retention of RAVI in any form, oppose the change regarding appropriate techniques, want an opportunity to rebut the certification without a SIP revision, and favor states having more time to prepare a formal SIP submission if required. Environmental groups favor the proposal, and want a SIP to be due sooner. 14

15 Summary and Next Steps We ve recently proposed rule revisions and draft guidance for the second implementation period based on experiences with the first round of SIPs. We received a wide range of comments on both the rule and guidance document. Stakeholder recommendations often conflict. Current plan is to finalize both later this year 15

16 Background on Regional Haze Concepts and History 16

17 Visibility Protection by the Clean Air Act The 1977 CAA Amendments declared 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. (CAA 169A) 17

18 Science Background Fine and coarse particular matter (PM) cause visibility impairment; PM concentrations and chemical composition are systematically measured in the IMPROVE monitoring program, not actual visibility 24-hour average light extinction (with units of inverse mega meters ) on a given day is estimated from 24-hour average concentrations of PM Deciviews (unit-less) and visual range (miles or kilometers) are two ways to express light extinction on scales that are more easily understood. The three approaches are connected by fixed formulas. 18

19 Rulemakings and Guidance Documents on Visibility Protection EPA has issued three major rulemakings on visibility protection, codified in 40 CFR rule on Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI) Regional Haze Rule Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART), BART Guidelines, and CAIR Better-than-BART Rule (updated in 2012 to replace CAIR with CSAPR). EPA has previously issued four guidance documents on regional haze Natural conditions guidance Progress tracking guidance Additional Questions and Answers, revised guidance on setting reasonable progress goals. 19

20 1999 Regional Haze Rule The Regional Haze program is based on Clean Air Act sections 169A and 169B Regional haze is visibility impairment that is caused by the emission of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area. Visibility impairment means any humanly perceptible change in visibility (light extinction, visual range, contrast, coloration) from that which would have existed under natural conditions. Required SIPs every 10 years (2007, 2018, 2028, etc.) from all 50 states plus DC and the Virgin Islands: Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for certain sources (first SIP only) Long-term Strategy with enforceable limits Reasonable Progress Goals for each Class I area that provide for reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions 20% most impaired days and 20% least impaired days Uniform Rate of Progress between baseline and natural visibility conditions in 2064 Required Progress Reports to be submitted as SIP Revisions every 5 years, beginning 5 years after submission of the first comprehensive SIP. 20

21 Statutory and Rule Factors Cost of Compliance BART Energy and Non-Air Quality Environmental Impacts Any Existing Pollution Control Technology in Use at the Source Remaining Useful Life Visibility Benefits Long-Term Strategy for Reasonable Progress Cost of Compliance Energy and Non-Air Quality Environmental Impacts Remaining Useful Life Time Necessary for Compliance 21

22