Status of 8-hour Ozone and PM 2.5 Standards. Lydia N. Wegman STAPPA / ALAPCO Meeting Stowe, Vermont September 30, 2002

Transcription

1 Status of 8-hour Ozone and PM 2.5 Standards Lydia N. Wegman STAPPA / ALAPCO Meeting Stowe, Vermont September 30, 2002

2 What we will cover. Status of NAAQS Review PM Ozone Status of Implementation 8-hour ozone PM 2.5

3 PM Review delayed approximately 7 months due to a statistical issue Main issue involved the application of a statistical technique to control for variables such as temperature and humidity Affects very few acute short term studies, does not affect any long term exposure studies. Affects more studies in the current review because the new technique was more widely applied in later studies. Reanalysis of studies is underway. Initial results from the 90-city study suggest reduced PM mortality risk, but levels are still statistically significant. Discussed at recent CASAC review. Reanalysis workshop scheduled for October/November. HEI peer review and report January 2003.

4 Current PM Review Timeline Criteria Document 3 rd draft, May 2002 Reviewed by CASAC in July, revisions underway. 4 th draft CD, necessitated by recent statistical issue, expected in March Next CASAC meeting planned for June Staff Paper 1 st external review draft to follow 4 th draft CD Now expected late Spring July 2004 target date for completion of review. Complete CD, Staff Paper in Earliest proposed decision on PM NAAQS end of 2003.

5 The ozone review is not as far along as PM Ozone criteria document development plan released to CASAC and public December 2001 CASAC meeting to review plan Fall st Draft Criteria Document Summer 2003 Staff Paper Mid 2004 CASAC review of staff paper Late 2004 Proposal as early as 2005 Final in 2006

6 There are significant new findings for both PM and ozone Based on hundreds of new health studies PM Linkages to: Lung cancer mortality Infant mortality Ozone Causation of asthma Relationship between ozone concentrations and Hospital admissions of children under 2 Increased school absence rates in elementary school children Contributing factor for premature mortality.

7 We are now moving forward to implement the 8-hour ozone standard hour standard finalized Court Rulings D.C. Court of Appeals ruling U.S. Supreme Court upheld constitutionality D.C. Court of Appeals rejects remaining challenges Implementation Schedule 2001 Designations required under Linder-Collins Amendment End of 2002 Propose Implementation rule End 2003 Finalize Implementation rule 2003 States/Tribes submit recommended designations 2004 Finalize designations 2007 SIPs due Attainment dates

8 Counties Violating the 8-hour Ozone Standard Air Quality Data There Are a Total of 291 Counties Violating the 8-hour Ozone Standard Using Data 155 of Those Counties Are Designated Attainment for the 1-hour Standard 136 of Those Counties Are Designated Nonattainment for the 1-hour Standard file o8h01maptd.prz

9 Designations What boundaries Counties or Metropolitan statistical areas Factors to consider. Local or airshed issue Location and magnitude of emissions within or near the area Traffic and commuting patterns Expected growth of sources, emissions, traffic, population Meteorology (weather and transport patterns) Geography and topography Jurisdictional boundaries Level of emission control on existing sources Any existing enforceable regional reduction strategies

10 Current plans for designations* Summer States submitted designation and boundary recommendations November 2003 States and Tribes submit revised or new recommendations November 2003 July 2004 EPA reviews and discusses recommendations with States/Tribes, then July 2004 EPA publishes modifications to recommendations November 2004 EPA promulgates designation *May be adjusted based on possible litigation concerning designation date.

11 Reconciling Subparts 1 and 2 and Classifications Court said we could not ignore Subpart 2 classification scheme Marginal Moderate Serious Severe Extreme Subpart 2 classifications each have specific requirements with little flexibility in applying them. Classifications are based on 1-hour design values How to apply to 8-hour standard

12 Options for reconciling Subparts 1 and 2 l. Convert 1-hour design values to 8-hour values based on a percentage above the standard All subpart 2 requirements would apply Step approach. Group areas according to whether or not they meet the 1-hour standard. Regulate areas meeting the 1-hour standard, but not the 8-hour under Subpart 1. Regulate areas not meeting the 1-hour or the 8-hour standard under Subpart 2 Results in some inconsistencies/potential inequities.

13 Transition from 1-hour to 8-hour standard When does 1-hour standard no longer apply? How to ensure no backsliding when 1-hour standard is revoked Options 1. Revoke 1-hour standard 1 year after EPA designates areas for the 8-hour standard. 2. Revoke 1-hour standard when EPA finds the motor vehicle budget adequate under the 8-hour standard. Will likely result in revoking 1-hour standard 2-3 years after designation. Antibacksliding CAA Sections 110 and 193 limit States ability to reduce existing control requirements What portions of 1-hour SIP must be retained after the 1-hour standard is revoked?

14 Other ozone implementation issues How to deal with the greater geographic area of nonattainment under the 8-hour standard Role of mandatory measures under Subpart 2 Timing Designations/SIP Submissions/Attainment dates How to factor transport into attainment demonstrations Reasonable further progress Conformity requirements New Source Review offset requirement Early reductions Coordination with PM 2.5 and regional haze programs.

15 PM 2.5 Implementation Timeline States Recommend Areas For Designation (2003-4) EPA Designates Areas (2004-5) States Submit Implementation Plans & Control Strategies Date to Attain Standards EPA Proposes Implem. Rule (2003) EPA Finalizes Implem. Rule (2004) EPA Proposes PM-2.5 Transport Rule (2005) EPA Finalizes PM-2.5 Transport Rule (2006)

16 PM 2.5 Implementation issues Designation issues are similar to ozone Which areas are violating Geographical boundaries How to reduce Regional Transport of pollutants. Clear Skies Act and/or PM 2.5 Transport Rule. How to develop cost effective local approaches to attain standard EGU controls will not bring all areas into attainment.

17 PM2.5 Potentially Violating Counties in Red PM2.5: Status of Monitoring Data from AQS 7/8/02. Counties with sites that operated anytime (1202 sites in 706 counties) Counties with at least 1 complete site w/ d.v. > 15.0 [129] Counties with at least 1 complete site w/ d.v. < 15.0 (and none above) [182]

18 New York CMSA Note: Data are preliminary (from AQS 5/31/02) At CMSA level, New York area violates Standard [CMSA population = 21.2 million] At county level, 4 counties violate standard, 2 meet standard, and 25 have insufficient / no data [Total population of violating counties = 3.5 million]

19 The Designation issues are the same as ozone Nonattainment boundaries: Counties, metropolitan statistical areas, other The process is similar to the ozone process July 2002 Complete data available for Nov/Dec 2002 Guidance on NA boundaries July 2003 Complete data available for States have up to 1 year to recommend designations to EPA EPA has up to 1 year to designate areas All designations must be complete by December 2005 Considering possibility of harmonizing dates with ozone designations November 2004

20 Regional Reductions will reduce sulfates

21 PM 2.5 Transport Rule CAA Section 110 (a)(2)(d) gives the EPA authority to require SIPs to prohibit any source from emitting air pollution in an amount that will contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State An alternative or supplement to the Clear Skies Act

22 Opportunities for local reductions Diesel engine retrofit programs Programs to address Smoking cars Programs to reduce diesel idling Wood Stove retrofit incentives Programs to minimize open burning PM action days

23 Other PM 2.5 Issues Attainment dates Classifications RFP NSR Transportation conformity Regional and local control measures Contingency measures General conformity