MIDWEST OZONE GROUP ASSESSMENT OF 176A PETITION

Transcription

1 MIDWEST OZONE GROUP ASSESSMENT OF 176A PETITION Prepared by: David M. Flannery Steptoe & Johnson PLLC Gregory Stella Alpine Geophysics LLC February 2014

2 1990 Amendments to CAA The 1990 Amendments specifically establish the Northeast Ozone Transport Region, stretching from Washington, D.C. to Maine. In addition, the 1990 Amendments set forth a mechanism through which other transport regions can be created. 2

3 Current OTC Members Connecticut Delaware The District of Columbia Maine Maryland, Massachusetts New Hampshire New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Rhode Island Vermont Virginia* 3

4 176A PETITION Submitted on December 9, 2013 Requested Action: add [9 target states] to the OTR established pursuant to Section 184 of the Act and provide an opportunity for public participation, including public notice and comment 4

5 STATES INVOLVED PETITIONERS Connecticut Delaware Maryland Massachusetts New Hampshire New York Pennsylvania Rhode Island Vermont TARGETS Illinois Indiana Kentucky Michigan North Carolina Ohio Tennessee Virginia West Virginia 5

6 SUBSTANTIVE CRITERIA UNDER 176A The USEPA may add any state or portion of a state to any interstate transport region if: the interstate transport of air pollutants from such State significantly contributes to a violation of the standard in the transport region 6

7 ALLEGATIONS: Leveling Economic Playing Field Expansion of OTR will result in: 1. more emission reductions, 2. fairer distribution of burdens of controlling air pollution, and 3. a level economic playing field. (See cover letter.) 7

8 ALLEGATIONS: Significant Contribution EPA s 2005 modeling data is cited to show that in many cases, over 50 percent of OTR nonattainment is due to emissions in other states (TSD, p. 7). No distinction is made in this analysis between OTR and target states. EPAs 2005 modeling platform identified 15 upwind states as significant contributors (TSD, p. 15). Petitioners used its own criteria to select the 9 target states: 1. 1% contribution to nonattainment on 5 current OTR states, 2. 1% contribution to 25 or more nonattainment OTR monitors; and 3. 1% contribution to Baltimore or New York. (TSD, p. 15). 8

9 ALLEGATIONS: Continuing Nonattainment Petitioning states continue to struggle to attain NAAQS (Petition, p. 1). EPA modeling published in 2005 shows that 69 monitors will be in nonattainment in 2015; (TSD, p. 5). EPA 2005 modeling projects Maryland and much of NE to be in nonattainment in 2015 (TSD, p. 39). NY modeling results cited for need for new emission reductions inside and outside OTR to attain NAAQS. (TSD, p. 19), Petitioners do not assess actual monitoring or design values. 9

10 ALLEGATIONS: Emission Reductions Petitioners state that emission rates in NY and most OTC states show reducing emissions but not for many of the upwind states (TSD, p.27). Petitioners do not however offer any comparison of the overall tonnage of emission reductions that has occurred in the target states in comparison with the OTR states. Emissions per capita in many states are greater than in Maryland. (TSD, p. 38). 10

11 ALLEGATIONS: Back Trajectory Back trajectory analysis show 5 categories of transport: Recirculation (local), Stagnation (local), Westerly, Northwest, and Southwest. (TSD, p. 41). Significantly, two out five of these categories involve high ozone reading occurring when only local sources are contributors. 11

12 MOG S POSITION ON ELEMENTS TO BE ESTABLISHED To provide a basis for concluding that a state significantly contributes to nonattainment in the OTR, the petitioners must show at a minimum that: 1. Residual nonattainment exists in the OTR, 2. OTR states are responsible for reducing NAAQS violations not attributable to upwind states, 3. Target states are significant contributors to any remaining nonattainment; and 4. Target states are not subjected to requirements that would require them to over-control or to eliminate more their own significant contribution. (Homer v. EPA) 12

13 MOG TECHNICAL ANALYSIS Select highest OTR state monitors Map highest monitors relative to OTR sources Assess each monitor for Attainment OTR regional contribution Contribution by OTR mobile and area sources Review historical emission reduction by region Note that emissions assumed in significance analysis are much higher than actual emissions Assess prospect for continuing emission reductions with OTB controls 13

14 HIGH DV OTR MONITORS 3yr DV (ppm) Number of Exceedances Fourth Highest O 3 (ppm) State County Monitor Connecticut Fairfield New Hampshire Rockingham New York Suffolk Rhode Island Washington Delaware Sussex Maryland Harford Massachusetts Dukes Pennsylvania Philadelphia Vermont Bennington

15 MONITOR LOCATIONS / 4 TH HIGH O 3 TRENDS Red/orange circles indicate increasing trend Yellow circles indicate relatively flat trend Blue/green circles indicate decreasing trend 15

16 Modeled Concentration Contribution (ppb) th High O 3 Concentration (ppm) Fairfield, CT Other 34% Target States 20% OTR States 46% 2010 MOG Ozone Source Apportionment Modeling OTR States Target States Other

17 Modeled Concentration Contribution (ppb) Rockingham, NH Other 33% Target States 23% OTR States 44% 2010 MOG Ozone Source Apportionment Modeling th High O 3 Concentration (ppm) OTR States Target States Other

18 Modeled Concentration Contribution (ppb) Suffolk, NY Other 34% Target States 19% OTR States 47% 2010 MOG Ozone Source Apportionment Modeling th High O 3 Concentration (ppm) OTR States Target States Other

19 Modeled Concentration Contribution (ppb) th High O 3 Concentration (ppm) Washington, RI Other 38% Target States 19% OTR States 43% 2010 MOG Ozone Source Apportionment Modeling OTR States Target States Other

20 Modeled Concentration Contribution (ppb) Sussex, DE Other 36% Target States 34% OTR States 30% 2010 MOG Ozone Source Apportionment Modeling th High O 3 Concentration (ppm) OTR States Target States Other

21 Modeled Concentration Contribution (ppb) Harford, MD Other 34% Target States 30% OTR States 36% 2010 MOG Ozone Source Apportionment Modeling th High O 3 Concentration (ppm) OTR States Target States Other

22 Modeled Concentration Contribution (ppb) Dukes, MA Other 38% Target States 20% OTR States 42% 2010 MOG Ozone Source Apportionment Modeling th High O 3 Concentration (ppm) OTR States Target States Other

23 Modeled Concentration Contribution (ppb) Philadelphia, PA Other 38% Target States 25% OTR States 37% 2010 MOG Ozone Source Apportionment Modeling th High O 3 Concentration (ppm) OTR States Target States Other

24 Modeled Concentration Contribution (ppb) Bennington, VT Other 43% OTR States 23% Target States 34% 2010 MOG Ozone Source Apportionment Modeling th High O 3 Concentration (ppm) OTR States Target States Other

25 4 TH HIGH DV SLOPE - OBSERVATIONS Upward 4 th Highest 8-hr O 3 Concentration Majority are downwind of NYC corridor Consistently higher in OTR motor vehicle, nonroad mobile, and area source contribution Downward 4 th Highest 8-hr O 3 Concentration Typically outside of NYC downwind flow 25

26 NOX EMISSION REDUCTION OBSERVATIONS Emission reduction data show that the nine states targeted for inclusion within the OTR have achieved substantially larger reductions of all emissions examined, over both the and time periods, than the northeastern states within the OTR EPA s own modeling platform and associated projections indicate continued reduction in NOx emissions as a result of promulgated regulations Actual EGU NOx emissions reported to CAMD in 2012 are already significantly lower in targeted states (and marginally lower in petitioning states) than the estimates used in EPA source apportionment modeling to determine significant contribution and compared to CAIR Phase I or II caps 26

27 Thousands (Tons) NORTHEAST EMISSION TRENDS (NOX) 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, Electric Utility Coal Fuel Combustion Mobile Sources Industrial Fuel Combustion & Processes All Others Northeastern Coal-Fired EGUs with 57% reduction from 1999 through

28 Thousands (Tons) MIDWESTERN EMISSION TRENDS (NOX) 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, Electric Utility Coal Fuel Combustion Mobile Sources Industrial Fuel Combustion & Processes All Others Midwestern Coal-Fired EGUs with 71% reduction from 1999 through

29 Thousands (Tons) SOUTHEAST EMISSION TRENDS (NOX) 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1, Electric Utility Coal Fuel Combustion Mobile Sources Industrial Fuel Combustion & Processes All Others Southeastern Coal-Fired EGUs with 75% reduction from 1999 through

30 EPA NOX EMISSION PROJECTIONS All Source NOx Emissions (Tons/Yr)* EGU NOx Emissions (Tons/Yr) State % Difference 2012 Base (IPM)** 2012 CAMD Difference Connecticut 77,962 48, % 2,603 1,332-1,271 Delaware 32,612 19, % 2,639 2, District of Columbia 9,622 5, % Maine 62,495 47, % 4, ,353 Maryland 166, , % 16,706 18,334 1,628 Massachusetts 143,234 93, % 4,954 3,238-1,716 New Hampshire 35,307 21, % 4,068 2,480-1,588 New Jersey 162, , % 7,534 2,480-5,054 New York 425, , % 20,909 24,954 4,045 Pennsylvania 569, , % 130, ,094 1,356 Rhode Island 21,309 15, % Vermont 19,221 12, % OTR State Total 1,725,015 1,189, % 195, ,543-7,299 Illinois 502, , % 52,481 57,684 5,203 Indiana 421, , % 120, ,713-14,880 Kentucky 313, , % 88,195 80,299-7,896 Michigan 459, , % 63,266 66,804 3,539 North Carolina 391, , % 54,463 51,057-3,405 Ohio 579, , % 103,192 84,280-18,912 Tennessee 295, , % 37,694 26,182-11,511 Virginia 321, , % 38,820 26,219-12,601 West Virginia 176, , % 62,434 52,771-9,663 Target State Total 3,460,404 2,358, % 621, ,009-70,127 * Source: EPA 2011v6 Modeling Platform ** Source: CSAPR Base Case Modeling 30

31 Annual NOx Emissions (Tons) CAIR PHASE I & II CAP COMPARISON Targeted states 2012 EGU NOx emissions were 23% below CAIR Phase I cap 700, , , , ,000 7% below Phase II cap (2015) 200, ,000 Source: EPA CAMD and CAIR Technical Support Document (March 2005). Includes 8 targeted states plus Virginia Actual CAIR Phase I Cap ( ) CAIR Phase II Cap (2015) 31

32 OTR UNIT UPSET EVENTS Data indicate that it is not EGU emissions from outside of OTR that appear to contribute to high episode ozone concentrations within the OTR On multiple high ozone days in 2013 EGUs located in OTR states had NOx emissions that were more than double their normal monthly emission rate 32

33 STATE LEVEL EGU NOX EMISSION RATE RATIOS DAILY VS. AVERAGE MONTHLY RATE May 30 th Episode June 24/25 th Episode July 18 th /19 th Episode September 11 th Episode 33

34 STATE LEVEL EGU NOX EMISSION RATE RATIOS DAILY VS. AVERAGE MONTHLY RATE May 30 th Episode June 24/25 th Episode July 18 th /19 th Episode September 11 th Episode 34

35 MOG CONCLUSIONS Petitioner offer no analysis of air quality measurements in the OTR and instead rely on outdated computer modeling published in 2005 to assert the nonattainment status of the region Air quality is significantly improving in much of the OTR making it unnecessary to impose additional controls The significant reduction in emissions projected by EPA to occur over the next several years will result in continued improvement in air quality throughout the OTR 35

36 MOG CONCLUSIONS (cont.) For other monitors in the OTR, source apportionment analysis indicates that any additional controls should be local in nature. As confirmed by the analysis of the State of Maryland, NAAQS violations in OTR occur during periods of stagnation and recirculation when no interstate transport occurs. High ozone readings in OTR in 2013 occurred at the same time as the peaking of emission rates of sources in the OTR (and not in the target states. 36

37 MOG CONCLUSIONS (cont.) Emission reductions by EGUs in the Midwest and Southeast greater than reductions that have occurred in the Northeast. are Petitioners offer no evidence of significant contribution other than EPA s 2005 modeling that was based on what turned out to be an incorrect premise that emissions from EGUs in the target states would be 13% higher than they actually were in the year of the analysis (2012). Target state EGU NOx emissions in 2012 are 23% below EPA CAIR Phase I cap levels ( ) and 7% below Phase II (2015). Petitioner criteria for selecting new members of the OTR have no support in Clean Air Act. 37

38 MOG CONCLUSIONS (cont.) Petitioners seeks to impose responsibility on target states beyond their significant contribution, i.e.: 1. to achieve attainment; 2. to assume responsibility for the contribution of other states, including OTR states; and 3. to impose technology-based controls not related to significant contribution. Petitioners are seeking to use the 176A process to achieve a level economic playing field that is not authorized in the CAA 38

39 CONTACT INFORMATION David M. Flannery` Gregory Stella Member Managing Partner Steptoe & Johnson PLLC Alpine Geophysics, LLC