EPA’s Proposed PM NAAQS and Monitoring Regulations

NTAA Perspective for Reg. 8 RTOC Bill Grantham Denver, February 23, 2006

Background CAA requires EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants, and revise every 5 years if necessary based on latest science. NAAQS must be based solely on health effects, not economic

factors. Pollutants: PM, O3, SO2, NOx, CO, Pb

PM NAAQS last revised in 1997 Added PM2.5 to existing PM10 Vast research since ’97 point to serious health affects, need

for more stringent standard. Litigation has delayed implementation. EPA won on major

points, but court said EPA could not double-regulate PM2.5 by including it in the PM10 fraction as well as in a separate standard.

Background On January 17, 2006, EPA proposed revisions to

the PM2.5 standard, and a new standard for coarse but inhalable PM 71 FR 2620

On same day, in a separate but related action, EPA proposed new ambient monitoring regulations for PM as well as other criteria pollutants 71 FR 2710

Comments are due by April 17, 2006 Rule must be finalized by September 27, 2006.

PM2.5 NAAQS Proposal(ug/m3)

Current Proposed24 hr Annual 24 hr Annual

65 15 35(25-65)

15(12-15)

Based on 98th percentile form value for which 98% of days are below

Numbers in parentheses are range on which EPA expressly solicited comments

Secondary same as primary; also propose a separate secondary std of 20-30 ug/m3 on 4 to 8 hour avg, for visibility

PM2.5 Proposal compared to recommendations

Staff paper: 1) Keep annual at 15, 24-hr at 25-35, with 98th

percentile form if at low end, 99th percentile if at high end.

2) Lower annual to 12-14, 24-hr at 30-40; set one or both at low end of range.

CASAC consensus: 24 hr: 30 to 35, 98th percentile, AND Annual: 13 – 14

EPA Proposal: 24-hr: 35 at 98th percentile Annual: 15

PM2.5 Proposal compared to recommendations

At a 24 hr std of 35 ug/m3, going from a 99th percentile to a 98th percentile form decreases percent of population protected from 68% to 48% Source: American Lung Association

Assuming a 24 hr std of 35 ug/m3, 98th percentile, EPA’s proposed annual std of 15 ug/m3, instead of the CASAC recommendation of 14 or 13, decreases the percentage of population protected by 23% or 43%, respectively. Source: NESCAUM

Summary: EPA has improperly mixed and matched recommendations resulting in a proposal that does not provide adequate protection of public health, according to the CASAC.

PM2.5 Proposal: process concern

“After years of vetting the science by CASAC in an open forum, the last minute addition of edits and opinions by OMB and others circumvents the entire peer review process. Many of the statements overstate uncertainty and misrepresent the scientific consensus.”- Bart Ostro, Ph.D., ChiefAir Pollution Epidemiology UnitOffice of Env. Health Hazard AssessmentCalifornia EPA

PM2.5 Proposal – Summary of concerns

EPA has proposed a standard that will leave large portions of the population at risk. Concern compounded by fact that EPA solicits

comments on a range of standards up to almost twice the level recommended (65 vs. 35)

EPA has subverted Congressionally mandated process, ignoring the advice of CASAC and numerous scientists, without offering any justification

PM – coarse NAAQS Proposal(ug/m3)

PM10 annual std revoked everywhere; 24 hr std maintained only in urban areas (pop >100,000) which violate std based on past 3 years data.

Based on 98th percentile form Secondary std same as primary

Current Proposed24 hr Annual 24 hr Annual

PM10 150 50 [150][15 cities only]

none

PM10-2.5 NA NA 70 none

Further defining PM10-2.5 NAAQS

EPA defines PM10-2.5 to focus on those coarse particles that come from sources typically found in urban areas:

high-density traffic on paved roads, industrial sources, and construction activities.

Scientific studies indicate that PM10-2.5 health effects are associated with these kinds of coarse particles found in urban areas.

Agricultural sources, mining sources and other similar sources of crustal material shall not be subject to control in meeting the proposed standard

Concerns with PM10-2.5 proposal

Revocation of PM10 and limited (urban) coverage of PM10-2.5 would leave virtually all of Indian country unprotected against coarse PM.

Is EPA overstating the lack of data on health effects from coarse PM?

Did EPA take into account the sensitivity to coarse PM of portions of rural and tribal populations (e.g., due to asthma and diabetes)?

Concerns with PM10-2.5 proposal

Limitation of standard to certain areas is unprecedented – CAA requires standards to protect all Americans

Exemption of certain source sectors (mining and agriculture) in the setting of the NAAQS is not factually justified and seems contrary to CAA requirement that NAAQS be based only on health effects.

Monitoring Proposal – overview

New PM10-2.5 network PM Federal Reference Methods and

Federal Equivalent Methods Revisions to PM2.5 monitoring

requirements New NCore (multi-pollutant) network Revisions re: quality assurance Changes to requirements for other

pollutants – O3, CO, SO2, NO2, Pb

PM10-2.5 Network: Sizing and Siting

Monitoring only required in MSAs with urbanized areas of 100,000 people or more. Zero to 5 required monitors per MSA based on

population and estimated historical concentrations. Total of about 225-250 monitors required in

approximately 150 MSAs. Focus on urbanized areas so concentrations will be

dominated by coarse particle emissions from high-density traffic, industrial sources, and construction sources, and not be dominated by rural windblown dust and soils and particles generated by agricultural and mining sources.

PM10-2.5 Monitor Site Suitability test

Required sites must meet five part suitability test for comparison to NAAQS and to insure consistency with qualified PM10-2.5 indicator.

– Within boundaries of urbanized area > 100,000. – Must be in census block group of population density > 500 people per

square mile (or within enclave of < 5 square miles area if population density < 500).

– Must be “population-oriented.” – May not be in a source-influenced microenvironment such as a

microscale or localized hot spot location. – PM10-2.5 concentrations at the site must be dominated by re-

suspended dust from high-density traffic on paved roads and PM generated by industrial sources and construction sources, and must not be dominated by rural windblown dust and soils and PM generated by agricultural and mining sources, as determined by the State (and approved by the Regional Administrator) in a site-specific assessment.

PM10-2.5 Network: Additional comments sought

Proposal solicits comment on whether EPA should also allow PM10-2.5 monitoring to count towards nonattainment designations in other areas (small cities and rural areas) that have high emissions of industrial dust or highway road dust. Might bring in more Tribal lands. But “Domination” (type of dust) issue would still

apply.

NCore Multi-pollutant Network ~75 Sites Nationally

~55 Urban Sites at Neighborhood to Urban Scale ~20 Rural Sites at Regional Scale (Tribal sites will be

considered) 1-3 sites per State A State can be excused from operation if nearby State can

reasonably represent them Pollutants

Particles: PM2.5 filter-based and continuous, speciated PM2.5, continuous PM10-2.5

Gases: O3, high-sensitivity CO, SO2, NO/NOy Meteorology: Amb. Temp, WS, WD, RH

Implementation: By January 1, 2011, plans due July 1, 2009

Special Purpose Monitors

SPM = a monitor not required in states network plan. Concept: encourage monitoring w/out

fear of designation Proposal: 2 year cutoff

Data collected for more than 2 years will be used for designations; for less than 2 years will not.

Funding for PM Monitoring – FY07 Budget Proposal

State STAG money cut by $35 M $15.6M from §105 air grants $17.0M from §103 PM monitoring $2.5M from RPOs PM monitoring shifted from 103 to 105

States must match at 40% Tribes must match at 5-10%

Tribal STAG money still at $11M Any money for tribal monitors?

Concerns with Monitoring Proposal

Would apparently eliminate existing and future tribal PM monitors Urban (MSA) focus and suitability

criteria for PM10-2.5 network exclude most if not all tribal areas.

EPA seeks comments on exceptions to 100,000 population requirement, but not on “urban mix” requirement.

Concerns with Monitoring Proposal

Any EPA support for tribal SPMs? If so, will EPA limit support to less than

24 months to avoid designations? Proposed budget cuts and shift to

§105 do not bode well for tribal monitoring programs.

Conclusion

Together, the PM NAAQS and monitoring proposals weaken air quality protection in Indian country and threaten tribes ability to collect ambient monitoring data for their reservations.

NTAA is preparing organizational comments and model letters for tribes and encourages as many tribes as possible to comment.

More Info

http://www.epa.gov/air/particles/actions.html

http://www.ntaatribalair.org/