Set 2 Why Clear Skies? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation

Set 2 Why Clear Skies?


Title: Set 2 Why Clear Skies? Author: REwhite Last modified by: Pete Catizone Created Date: 3/17/2003 7:15:19 PM Document presentation format: On-screen Show – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:7
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 59
Provided by: REwh1


Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Set 2 Why Clear Skies?

Impact of Recent EPA Actions on New Englands
Air Quality
Michael Kenyon Air Programs Branch Chief EPA
New England April 5, 2005
What Has EPA BeenDoing Lately?
  • Eight-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Designations
  • Announced April 2004
  • Guidance on implementation provided in Phase 1
    Phase 2 Ozone Rules
  • Fine Particles Nonattainment Designations
  • Announced December 2004
  • Guidance on implementation provided in Fine PM
  • Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)
  • Announced on March 9, 2005
  • Caps and reduces SO2 and NOx emissions from power
  • Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR)
  • Announced on March 15, 2005
  • Caps and reduces mercury emissions from
    coal-fired power plants


Health Impacts of Ozone Fine Particles
  • In 1997, EPA set new health-based ambient air
    standards for ozone (averaged over 8-hours) and
    fine particulate matter (PM)
  • Exposure to ground-level ozone causes
  • Changes in lung function and respiratory symptoms
  • Aggravation of asthma and other respiratory
    conditions, and may contribute to premature
  • Exposure to fine particles can lead to
  • Aggravation of heart and lung disease
  • Premature death
  • Irregular heartbeats and heart attacks
  • Work and school absences

Chapter 1Ozone Designations and Control
(No Transcript)
(No Transcript)
Classification of Ozone Nonattainment Areas
  • 2001 US Supreme Court upholding ozone PM
    standards required EPA to use Subpart 2 of CAA
    for classifications
  • EPA approach to Subpart 1 vs. 2 --
  • If 2001-2003 1-hour design values were under
    .0121 ppm, then classified under Subpart 1
  • If 1-hour design values were equal to or above
    .0121 ppm, then classified under Subpart 2
  • EPA converted classification table thresholds for
    1-hour standard in Subpart 2 into thresholds
    using 8-hour design values

Conversion of CAA Classification Thresholds for
Eight-Hour Standard
Area Classification Translated 8-hour ozone design value thresholds (ppm)
Marginal gt0.085
Moderate gt0.092
Serious gt0.107
Severe-15 gt0.120
Severe-17 gt0.127
Extreme gt0.187

Classifications in New England
Eight-Hour Ozone Implementation Rules
  • Phase 1 (published April 2004) covers
  • Classifications, attainment dates
  • Transition from one-hour standard
  • Anti-backsliding
  • Phase 2 (not yet final)
  • RACT
  • RFP and attainment demonstrations
  • Eight-hour NSR

Timelines for 8-Hour Ozone Designations and
Action Date
EPA finalizes phase 1 implementation rule April 15, 2004
EPA finalizes designations April 15, 2004
Effective date of designations June 15, 2004
EPA finalizes phase 2 implementation rule Spring 2005
Revocation of 1-hr ozone standard June 15, 2005
State plans due June 15, 2007
Attainment dates for New England nonattainment areas Marginal - June 15, 2007 Subpart 1 - June 15, 2009 Moderate - June 15, 2010
Revocation of Old 1-Hour Standard and
  • Revocation of 1-hour standard will occur June 15,
  • Existing ozone requirements remain applicable
    after 1-hour standard is revoked
  • Examples I/M programs, stage 2, RACT
  • Exception for NSR Major source applicability
    cut-offs and offset ratios for the areas old
    1-hour classification may not continue to apply
  • Depends on language of state SIP

Downward Trend for Ozone Standards
New Planning Requirements to Address 8-Hour Ozone
  • States required to prepare 2002 inventories for
    VOC and NOx
  • States need to prepare attainment demonstrations
    by June 2007 with modeling showing attainment by
    attainment deadline
  • State plans need to show they are implementing
    all Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)

Programs That Will Help States Address Ozone
  • EPA and state strategies to reduce VOC and NOx
  • VOC and NOx reasonably available control
    technology (RACT)
  • Stage 2 vapor recovery programs
  • Federal reformulated gasoline
  • NOx SIP call reductions from power plants in the
    Eastern US, implemented 2003/2004
  • Cleaner motor vehicles EPAs Tier 2 tailpipe
    standards in 2004 and Californias LEV2 standards
  • Federal NOx limits for heavy duty diesel engine
    controls (2004 2007)
  • Federal non-road standards for diesel equipment,
    lawn and garden equipment, marine engines,
  • Clean Air Interstate Rule

Major Air Pollution Rules Since 1990 NOx
Emission Reductions at Full Implementation
Chapter 2Fine PM Designations and Control
Particulate Matter What is it? A complex
mixture of extremely small particles and liquid
Hair cross section (70 mm)
30 times smaller than an average human hair
Human Hair (70 µm diameter)
M. Lipsett, California Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment
Where does particulate matter come from?
Fine Particle Attainment and Nonattainment
Areas in the East
Fine Particle Nonattainment Areas in the Northeast
What is the timeline for implementing PM2.5

Date Action
Dec. 2004 EPA finalized designations
Spring 2005 EPA proposes implementation rule
Spring 2006 EPA finalizes PM2.5 implementation rule
April 2008 State implementation plans due
2010-15 Attainment dates for nonattainment areas
Strategies that Will Reduce Future PM2.5 Levels
  • Ozone strategies for NOx emissions
  • (NOx SIP call, Tier 2 vehicle standards)
  • Diesel emission improvements
  • Heavy-duty standards for new vehicles and
    ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel
  • (90 less PM per vehicle in 2007)
  • (95 less NOx per vehicle -- 2007/2010 phase in)
  • Similar NOx PM standards for new non-road
  • Retrofit programs for existing vehicles
  • Reductions of power plant emissions
  • Completion of SO2 reductions under acid rain
  • SO2 NOx reductions under Clean Air Interstate

Other Fine Particle Pollution Concerns
  • Although no New England areas outside of
    Connecticut are exceeding the PM2.5 standards,
    some urban areas have elevated levels
  • Addressing PM2.5 in these areas can still produce
    significant public health benefits and reduce
    regional haze
  • Addressing diesel emissions everywhere can also
    produce significant public health benefits

Reducing Fine Particles Will Also Reduce Regional
Diesel Exhaust and Air Toxics
  • EPAs National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA)
    is showing high predicted ambient concentrations
    in New Englands urbanized counties.

Regional Diesel ActivitiesAnti-Idling Urban
  • Anti-idling education and enforcement
  • EPA and states have developed educational
    materials to discourage idling, particularly by
    school bus drivers
  • CT, MA NH have anti-idling rules
  • Anti-idling enforcement by EPA against
  • Eleven bus operators at Logan Airport in Boston
  • The MBTA, the Boston area transit authority
  • Urban transit bus retrofits
  • MBTA -- Entire fleet of 980 buses will either be
    retrofitted with filters and use ULSD or run on
    compressed natural gas
  • Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA) --
    Using ULSD and plans to retrofit 156 buses
  • Connecticut Transit Stamford Division -- 31
    buses equipped with filters and using ULSD

Regional Diesel ActivitiesSchool Buses
  • EPAs Clean School Bus USA Grants
  • Statewide, Maine 450 buses
  • Medford, Massachusetts 70 buses
  • Stamford, Connecticut 35 buses
  • Manchester/Nashua, New Hampshire 45 buses
  • Warwick, Rhode Island 70 buses
  • Funded through EPA or State Enforcement
    Settlement Agreements
  • Boston, Massachusetts 600 buses
  • Norwich, Connecticut 42 buses
  • New Haven, Connecticut 180 buses
  • Hartford, Connecticut 200 buses
  • Bridgeport, Connecticut 200 buses

Regional Diesel ActivitiesConstruction Retrofit
  • Central Artery (Big Dig) Project in Boston
  • 200 construction vehicles
  • Q-Bridge on I-95 in New Haven, CT
  • 64 construction vehicles
  • Massachusetts Highway Department
  • Effective March 2005, all construction contracts
    include requirements for retrofitted equipment
  • In 2003, MassHighway invested 416 million in 475
    road and bridge construction projects
  • MBTA has, since 2001, included requirements for
    retrofits in all construction contracts
  • More than 40 projects in Greater Boston using
    retrofitted equipment

Retrofit and Idle Control Projects in New England
Chapter 3Clean Air Interstate Rule
Electric Power Generation A Major Source of
SO2 Emissions
NOx Emissions
10.9 Million Tons
Power Sector
4.5 Million Tons
5.0 Million Tons
16.3 Million Tons
Total 20.8 Million Tons
Total 15.9 Million Tons
Source SO2 and NOx data is from EPAs 2003
National Emissions Inventory. Other sources of
pollutants include transportation and other
mobile sources and industrial sources.
Three Regulatory Approaches At Play
  • Clear Skies Act -- Pending
  • Congressional bill to reduce NOx, SO2 and mercury
    emissions from power plants by roughly 70 each
  • Congressional action would provide more certainty
    and simplify implementation
  • Northeast states oppose largely due to NSR and
    Section 126 petition provisions and absence of
    CO2 caps
  • Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) -- March 10,
  • EPA finalized rule to reduce NOx and SO2
    emissions in order to reduce interstate
    contributions to ozone and fine particle
  • Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) March 15, 2005
  • As result of deadline in settlement agreement,
    EPA finalized rule setting 2010 and 2018 caps on
    power plant emissions of mercury and allowing
    trading to meet caps
  • Relies heavily on reduction control technologies
    for NOx, SO2 and PM

Long-Range Transport of Air Pollution
  • Emissions contributing to PM2.5 and ozone
    nonattainment often travel across state lines,
    especially in the eastern U.S.
  • SO2 and NOx, and other pollutants, contribute to
    PM2.5 transport
  • NOx and other pollutants contribute to ozone
  • Attaining national ambient air quality standards
    will require some combination of emission
    reductions from
  • Sources located in or near nonattainment areas
    (such as mobile sources) and
  • Sources, such as power plants, located further
    from the nonattainment area.
  • EPA is also addressing ozone and particle
    pollution from mobile sources by implementing
    national fuel and engine standards.

Areas Designated Nonattainment for Ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS in 2004
126 ozone nonattainment areas with 474
counties 47 PM2.5 nonattainment areas with 224
The CAIR Approach
  • EPA analyzed SO2 and NOx emissions from power
    plants to determine whether states will
    significantly contribute to other states
    nonattainment of either ozone or fine PM
  • If significant contribution was projected from
    individual states, those states were included in
  • 25 states and DC were found to significantly
    contribute to other states ozone nonattainment
  • Only New England states were Massachusetts and
  • 23 states were found to significantly contribute
    to other states fine particle nonattainment
  • No New England states

Key Elements of CAIR
  • CAIR sets an emission reduction requirement (or
    budget) for each affected state, based on
    capping power plant emissions collectively at
    levels that EPA believes are highly
    cost-effective to achieve
  • Provides an optional cap and trade program based
    on successful Acid Rain and NOx Budget Trading
    programs as a method to implement the necessary
  • Includes a two-phase program with declining power
    plant emission caps
  • SO2 annual caps 3.6 million tons in 2010 and
    2.5 million in 2015
  • NOx annual caps 1.5 million tons in 2009 and 1.3
    million in 2015
  • NOx ozone season caps 580,000 tons in 2009 and
    480,000 tons in 2015
  • Emission caps are divided into State SO2 and NOx
  • Allows states flexibility on how to achieve the
    required reductions, including which sources to
    control and whether to join the trading program

CAIR Health and Environmental Benefits Benefits
over 25 Times Greater than Costs
  • By 2015, CAIR will result in
  • 85-100 billion in health benefits each year,
  • 17,000 premature deaths
  • 22,000 non-fatal heart attacks
  • 12,300 hospital admissions
  • 1.7 million lost work days
  • 500,000 lost school days.
  • Almost 2 billion in improved visibility benefits
    each year.
  • Other non-monetizable benefits reductions of
    mercury emissions, acid rain, nitrification,
    eutrophication, and more.
  • In 2015, CAIR will cost about 3.6 billion a
    year. Implementation beyond 2015 leads to higher
    annual benefits and costs.

National NOx and SO2 Power Plant
EmissionsHistoric and Projected with CAIR
Projected, w/ CAIR
Source EPA
Ozone and Particle Pollution CAIR, together with
other Clean Air Programs, Will Bring Cleaner Air
to Areas in the East - 2010
Ozone and Fine Particle Nonattainment Areas
(March 2005)
Projected Nonattainment Areas in 2010 after
Reductions from CAIR and Existing Clean Air Act
14 ozone nonattainment areas 20 PM2.5
nonattainment areas
104 ozone nonattainment areas with 408counties 43
PM2.5 nonattainment areas with 211 counties
Projections concerning future levels of air
pollution in specific geographic locations were
estimated using the best scientific models
available. They are estimations, however, and
should be characterized as such in any
description. Actual results may vary
significantly if any of the factors that
influence air quality differ from the assumed
values used in the projections shown here.
With Clean Air Interstate Rule and Other EPA
Clean Air Rules
CAIR Summary
  • CAIR will significantly cut emissions of SO2 and
    NOx from power plants and
  • Helps cities and states in the East meet new,
    more stringent national ambient air quality
    standards (NAAQS) for ozone and fine particles.
  • Guarantees substantial benefits for public health
    and the environment.
  • Achieves the largest reduction in air pollution
    in more than a decade (since the highly
    successful Acid Rain Program).
  • Provides one of the largest investments in
    pollution control technology in history.

Chapter 4Clean Air Mercury Rule
Power Generation Is a Major Source of Mercury
2000 Sulfur Dioxide
1999 Mercury
2000 Nitrogen Oxides
Utilities (22)
Utilities (63)
Utilities (40)
Other stationary combustion includes
residential and commercial sources.
Mercury Emissions from Power Plants Causes Human
Exposure to Mercury
Mercury Contamination in Fish
  • Currently 44 states have issue fish consumption
    advisories for some or all of their waters due to
    contamination from mercury.

States with Fish Advisories Due to Mercury
Note For more information about the
relationship between fish advisories and human
exposure to mercury, see the EPA Report
America's Children and the Environment Measures
of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses
available at http//
Clean Air Mercury Rule
  • US is first country in world to regulate mercury
    emissions from coal-fired power plants
  • Reflects a market-based, cap-and-trade approach
    to address mercury from coal-fired generation
    units, which allows utilities to obtain
    reductions in most cost-effective manner
  • Sets two phased-in caps
  • 2010 cap 38 tons per year
  • 2018 cap 15 tons per year
  • When fully implemented, will reduce utility
    emissions of mercury from 48 tons a year to 15
    tons, a reduction of nearly 70


Use of Section 111 for CAMR
  • Section 111 Provisions
  • Guidelines for State Plans 111(d)
  • Sets emission rates for existing coal-fired
    utility units under a cap-and-trade program
  • Phase 1 2010 Capped at 38 tons
  • Phase 2 2018 Capped at 15 tons
  • States are assigned an emissions budget for
    mercury and each state must submit a State Plan
    on how it will meet budget
  • States can choose to join trading program by
    adopting EPAs model trading rule (or adopt
    regulations that mirror necessary components)
  • Federal rule for new sources 111(b)
  • Includes new utility emission limits for mercury
  • Benefits of 111 Approach
  • Will reduce nationwide mercury emissions by 33
    tons (69 percent) from todays levels when fully
    implemented after 2018
  • Potential for earlier and greater reductions than
    MACT alternative
  • Meshes well with CAIR, creating an integrated
    multipollutant approach to controlling emissions
    from power plants.

Proposed Section 112 MACT Approach
  • History
  • December 2000 EPA announced that it had
    concluded that it was appropriate and necessary
    to regulate mercury from power plants under
    Section 112 Maximum Achievable Control Technology
    (MACT) provisions, which started 4-year clock to
    propose and finalize mercury MACT
  • December 2003 EPA proposed Section 112 MACT
    standards but in alternative proposed to regulate
    pursuant to Section 111
  • March 2005 Chose to regulate pursuant to
    Section 111
  • Reversed 2000 determination that it is
    appropriate and necessary to regulate under
    Section 112
  • Characteristics of Section 112 MACT Approach
  • Limits are based on the average of the top 12 of
  • Three-year compliance deadline
  • Emission standards applicable to each source

Controls to Capture Mercury
  • Removal in PM Controls
  • Mercury can be adsorbed onto fly ash surfaces
    Hg2 is more readily adsorbed than Hg0
  • Mercury can be physically adsorbed at relatively
    lower temperatures (hot-side ESP vs. cold-side
  • Capture in Wet Scrubbers
  • Hg2 capture depends on solubility of each
    compound Hg0 is insoluble and cannot be captured
  • Capture enhanced by SCR
  • Mercury Specific Controls
  • New sorbent injection technologies very promising
  • No mercury-specific controls found to be
    commercially available yet, but are projected to
    soon be

Local and Global Context of EPAs Clean Air
Mercury Rule
  • US and New England are reducing mercury emissions
  • CAMR is first requirement to reduce mercury
    emissions from power plants in world
  • CAMR alone cannot solve health issues associated
    with mercury
  • Mercury cycling through environment
  • US emissions are dwarfed by global emissions
  • Fish consumed by Americans mostly caught overseas

US Mercury Emissions Have Dropped 45
221 Tons
196 Tons
(Gold mines, institutional boilers, chlorine
production, hazardous waste incineration, etc.)
Tons Per Year
112 Tons
Source EPA

60 Reduction in New England Mercury Emissions
1996-2003 from Forthcoming NESCAUM Report
Canada 8.8 TPY
1996 EI NESCAUM 17.6 TPY
NESCAUM Region 60 reduction based on 1996 and
2003 emission inventories
Rest of the US 123.7 TPY
EGU Electric Generating Unit MWC/MWI Municipal
Waste Combustor/Medical Waste Incinerator SSI
Sewage Sludge Incinerator Other Rest of Point
Sources (other than above 3 Classes) Plus Area
and Mobile Sources TPY Short Tons per Year
(Emission Unit)
Mercury Cycling Pathways
Mercury Emissions Are a Global Problem
1999 Global Mercury Emissions
Source Based on Pacyna, J., Munthe J.,
Presentation at Workshop on Mercury, Brussels,
March 29-30, 2004
Mercury Deposition in the U.S.
U.S. Mercury Deposition from U.S. Utilities
U.S. Mercury Deposition from All Global Sources
Tons of Mercury
Tons of Mercury
2020 U.S. Utilities Deposition after CAIR and CAMR
2001 U.S. Utilities Deposition
2001 Total Deposition
Source EPA
Solutions to Mercury Impacts on New England
  • CAMR is one important step
  • Reductions by other countries are needed
  • US active in UNEP discussions
  • EPA NEs and states continued aggressive
    implementation of regional mercury actions are
  • EPA New England has been active participant and
    supporter of New England Governors/Eastern
    Canadian Premiers Mercury Action Plan
  • Since 2001, EPA has provided New England states
    and institutions over 2.17 million in grants for
    implementation of mercury activities or research
  • Just a few of EPA New Englands mercury
    activities are
  • Obtaining commitments from 124 New England
    hospitals to identify and eliminate use of
    mercury products and generation of mercury waste
  • Organizing conferences on how to reduce mercury
    in schools
  • Support of recycling of fluorescent bulbs
  • Support of mercury deposition monitoring and fish
  • Education and outreach about mercury exposures
  • Educate public about EPA/FDA and state fish

For Further Information www.e
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)