1 / 29

8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Implementation

8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Implementation. (This presentation is based on an EPA draft to date that is currently undergoing interagency review. This is not an official Administration proposal at this time.). March 24, 2003. Counties violating the 8-hr ozone NAAQS 1999-2001. 1999-2001 Data.

evadne
Download Presentation

8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Implementation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Implementation (This presentation is based on an EPA draft to date that is currently undergoing interagency review. This is not an official Administration proposal at this time.) March 24, 2003

  2. Counties violating the 8-hr ozone NAAQS 1999-2001 1999-2001 Data

  3. Background • July 1997 – Final NAAQS for O3 & PM published • May 1999 – US Court of Appeals in DC ruled against NAAQS and implementation approach • February 2001 – US Supreme Court • Upheld NAAQS • Ruled against EPA implementation approach • Ruled EPA can’t ignore CAA subpart 2 provisions (more prescriptive than subpart 1) • March 2002 – US Court of Appeals in DC upheld NAAQS

  4. Background (cont.) • Since Supreme Court ruling, EPA– • Developed numerous internal options for how to implement 8-hr O3 NAAQS to meet Supreme Court ruling and still provide some flexibility as we originally desired • Held 3 public meetings on major issues with selected best options at the time • Developed draft proposed rulemaking • Next step: propose rule early 2003

  5. Implementation Principles • Incentives for expeditious attainment of 8-hour standard • Reasonable attainment deadlines • Basic, straightforward structure--communicated easily • Consistent with CAA and Supreme Court decision • Provide flexibility to states • Emphasize national and regional measures; reduce the need for more expensive local controls • Smooth transition from 1-hour to 8-hour O3 NAAQS

  6. Topics Included in Proposal • Area classification approaches …what subpart to use • Attainment dates • Transition from 1-hour to 8-hour NAAQS • Anti-backsliding • Flexibility vs. mandatory controls • Ozone transport issues • Modeling & attainment demonstrations • Reasonable further progress requirements • Reasonably available control measures/technology • Conformity • New source review • Optimizing for ozone and PM • Tribal issues • Timing of designations and classifications

  7. Subpart 1Nonattainment Areas in GeneralCAA Section 172 General Requirements • Attainment date: 5 Yrs / 5-Yr extension • Reasonably Available Control Measures • Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

  8. Subpart 2Additional Provisions for Ozone Nonattainment AreasCAA Sections 181 & 182 • Classification: • Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe or Extreme • Attainment Dates: • 3 – 20 Years • Prescriptive Requirements: • e.g., emission inventories, I/M, RACT, fuels, etc.

  9. Classification & Attainment Dates -Option 1 • Use 8-hour O3 design value • All areas classified under Subpart 2 • Meet Subpart 2 requirements

  10. Classification & Attainment Dates - Option 1 • ClassificationDV ppm Attain-Yrs • Marginal0.085 – 0.092 3 • Moderate 0.092 – 0.107 6 • Serious 0.107 – 0.120 9 • Severe-15 1.120 – 0.127 15 • Severe-17 0.127 – 0.187 17 • Extreme 0.187 - 20

  11. Option 2 – (EPA’s preferred approach) • 2-Step Approach • Step 1 – Establish 2 Groups Use Area‘s 1-Hr Ozone Design Value • Group 1 . . . . . . . < 0.121 ppm • Group 2 . . . . . . . ≥ 0.121 ppm

  12. Option 2 • Step 2 - Establish Requirements for 2 Groups • Group 1 – Subject to Subpart 1 • EPA Preference is for No Classifications • Consider Overwhelming Transport Classification

  13. Option 2 (cont) • Step 2 - Establish Requirements for 2 Groups • Group 2 • Subject to Subpart 2 • Subpart 2 Classifications • Classifications based on 8-Hour O3 Design Values

  14. Subpart 2 Requirements • In General, All Subpart 2 Requirements would Apply • EPA would Consider Case-by-Case Waiver of Specific Requirement IF “Absurd Results” would Occur

  15. How many nonattainment areas will be under subpart 1 vs. subpart 2? 122 hypothetical nonattainment areas • Option 1 – All 122 areas would fall under Subpart 2 (subject to specific CAA provisions) • Option 2 – 76 areas would fall under Subpart 1 (subject to more general provision). Remaining 46 areas subject to Subpart 2 • This analysis was based on 1998-2000 air quality data

  16. Proposed Incentive Feature(Instead of 5% Bump Provision) • Lower Classification if Demonstrate will Meet Attainment Date of Lower Classification • Modeling Required • EPA Regional/National Modeling or • State Modeling

  17. Transition from the 1-Hour to the 8-Hour Standard • Two options being proposed • Under both options, conformity would only apply for one standard

  18. Transition from the 1-Hour to the 8-Hour Standard (continued) • Option 1: Revoke the 1-hour ozone standard 1 year after EPA designates 8-hour areas • Option 2: Retain 1-hour ozone standard, designations, and classifications— • for only those obligations that would provide benefits for attainment of the 8-hour standard and other requirements intended by Congress and not divert resources from planning to attain the 8-hour standard.

  19. Reasonable Further Progress • RFP is the CAA requirement to phase in emissions reductions from SIP development until attainment • Subpart 1 contains a general requirement to get annual incremental emissions reductions to reach attainment • Subpart 2 provides more specificity regarding the base year emission inventory (for planning and implementing RFP), the incremental emissions reductions required, and the process for determining whether the RFP milestones were achieved

  20. Reasonable Further Progress - Proposal Addresses Many Components • Requirement for 15% VOC reductions in first 6 years • Baseline year for starting (2002) • Moderate areas—timing of ROP reductions relative to attainment date • Timing of submission of ROP plan • CAA requirements for creditability of control measures • Subpart 1 RFP • Cases where 8-hr NA area encompasses and is larger than current 1-hour NA area • Use of RFP for addressing transport

  21. Flexibility for Subpart 2 Requirements • Propose that subpart 2 requirements apply to all areas covered under subpart 2 consistent with the area’s classification • Also propose to consider allowing case-by-case waivers of specific subpart 2 requirements when sufficient evidence is presented that absurd results would occur

  22. Modeling & Attainment Demonstration • Proposal taking comment on whether or not ozone attainment demonstrations should include multi-pollutant assessments • Proposing to allow areas with attainment dates within 3 years after designations to rely on existing modeling • Proposal would require areas with later attainment dates to submit a modeled attainment demonstration SIP

  23. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) • Subpart 2 areas – Subpart 2 requirements apply • Subpart 1 areas – • For areas similar to marginal areas, subpart 2 marginal requirements apply • For areas similar to moderate & higher areas, subpart 2 requirements apply • For Ozone Transport Regions, all areas (nonattainment & attainment) required to apply RACT • Planning to add 2nd option proposing 1998 concept.

  24. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) • Previous source-specific RACT determinations – • if originally resulted in no control, RACT determination would have to be revisited • NOx as an ozone precursor – • required for subpart 1 areas (already required under subpart 2) • RACT submission – due 2 years after nonattainment designation

  25. Transportation Conformity • One-hour O3 nonattainment and maintenance areas are subject to conformity • Once the 1-hour standard is revoked, conformity would only apply in maintenance areas; • EPA is proposing that conformity would not apply for 1-hour O3 maintenance areas after standard is revoked • A separate rule will be issued to establish specific conformity tests for the 8-hour standard

  26. New source review • Option 1: Status quo NSR (subpart 1 NSR is different than subpart 2 NSR) • Under subpart 1, less stringent offset ratios and major source thresholds • Under subpart 2, offset ratios and major source thresholds depend on an area’s classification

  27. New source review • Option 2: A more flexible “Transitional” NSR program for areas that submit early SIPs and that attain early (subpart 1 areas) • This option is more flexible than traditional NSR, e.g., best available control technology is required instead of lowest achievable emission rate

  28. New source review • Option 3: A Clean Air Development Community program that would allow a more flexible NSR program • Allows flexibility for areas that plan and develop programs that • result in reduced vehicle miles traveled and • minimize sprawl in new areas • Comments solicited for legal basis

  29. WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ ozonetech/o3imp8hr/o3imp8hr.htm

More Related