New 8Hour Ozone Standard Nonattainment Designation Implementation

1
New 8-Hour Ozone Standard Nonattainment
Designation Implementation

• Briefing by
• Wisconsin Manufacturers Commerce
• Wisconsin Economic Development Association
• Wisconsin Paper Council
• June 2003

2
Ozone Designation Process Overview

• Supreme Court Affirms 8-hour standard first step
  is designating nonattainment areas for the new
  standard
• Governor is directed by the Clean Air Act to make
  nonattainment designation recommendation
• Final designation decision rests with EPA
• Over past months, DNR outlines both expansive and
  narrow options
• DNR recent recommendation to Inter-Agency Air
  Quality Task Force is to designate only counties
  violating standard

3
Ozone Designation ProcessImportant Dates

• Governor Recommendation July 15, 2003
• EPA Proposal December 2003
• Governor Comment on EPA Proposal DNR projects
  late December 2003
• EPA Final Designation April 15, 2004

4
Ozone Designation ProcessWhats a Violation?

• Violations based on monitored ozone levels
  (compared to modeled projections for attainment
  demonstrations)
• To determine a violation
• Average the 4th highest daily 8-hr ozone value
  for the 3 most recent ozone seasons
• The monitor violates standard if that average
  equals or exceeds 85 ppb
• 2000-02 for Governor recommendation
• 2001-03 for EPA Final Decision (QA/QC in Fall
  2003)

5
Ozone Designation ProcessCurrent Compliance
Status - Brown

• Brown County Monitor Green Bay
• 2000 87/76/72/71
• 2001 99/93/90/88
• 2002 88/88/84/84
• Average 4th Highest 81.0 ppb
• Brown County currently meets standard
• DNR Recommendation - Do not designate
  nonattainment
• 4th highest target for 2003 82 ppb or less

6
Ozone Designation ProcessCurrent Compliance
Status - Outagamie

• Outagamie County Monitor Appleton
• 2000 81/77/67/66
• 2001 90/90/87/85
• 2002 83/82/77/75
• Average 4th Highest 75.3 ppb
• Outagamie County currently meets standard
• DNR Recommendation - Do not designate
  nonattainment
• 4th highest target for 2003 94 ppb or less

7
Ozone Designation ProcessCurrent Compliance
Status - Winnebago

• Winnebago County Monitor Oshkosh
• 2000 84/74/72/68
• 2001 90/88/87/85
• 2002 89/82/82/81
• Average 4th Highest 78.0 ppb
• Winnebago County currently meets standard
• DNR Recommendation - Do not designate
  nonattainment
• 4th highest target for 2003 88 ppb or less

8
Ozone Designation ProcessCurrent Compliance
Status Fond du Lac

• Fond du Lac County Monitor Fond du Lac
• 2000 85/78/73/69
• 2001 90/88/85/84
• 2002 93/87/81/80
• Average 4th Highest 77.7 ppb
• Fond du Lac County currently meets standard
• DNR Recommendation - Do not designate
  nonattainment
• 4th highest target for 2003 90 ppb or less

9
2000-2002 AQ - A Narrow Nonattainment
Designation Perspective
.
10
(No Transcript)
11
Ozone Designation ProcessCurrent Status
Collar Counties
12
Ozone Designation ProcessAddressing Transport -
Overview

• DNR and industry generally agree that transport
  is a large contributor to Wisconsin ozone problem
• DNR and industry generally agree transport must
  be addressed
• The significance of border counties contribution
  is subject to further discussions in context of
  voluntary measures

13
Ozone Designation ProcessClean Air Act on
Transport

• Clean Air Act - Sec 107(A)(i) requires Governors
  to recommend list of areas (or portions of areas)
  that
• Do not meet the ozone standard, or
• Contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby
  area that does not meet the ozone standard
• EPA policies and state law clarify the latter
  criterion
• DNR concludes collar counties contribute

14
Ozone Designation ProcessEPA Boundary Policy

• EPA position in March 28, 2000 Boundary Guidance
• Two general default criteria
• Any county with an ozone monitor showing a
  violation
• Any county within the Metropolitan Statistical
  Area or the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical
  Area (C/MSA) that has a violating monitor
• Washington (81) Waukesha (81) have no
  violations, but in Milwaukee area C/MSA
• State must overcome C/MSA presumption when
  expanding to other counties with no violations
  (not in C/MSA)
• Current C/MSAs
• Milwaukee CMSA (5 counties)
• Chicago/Kenosha CMSA
• Janesville/Beloit MSA
• Madison MSA
• Sheboygan MSA
• Appleton/Neenah/Oshkosh MSA (3 counties)
• Brown County MSA
• C/MSA boundaries under evaluation

15
Ozone Designation ProcessEPA Regional Transport
Efforts

• Current implementation proposal
• Acknowledges importance of transport
• Reaffirms EPA Boundary Policy
• Several efforts will address transport
• NOx SIP Call is a regional (22 states) effort
  that will result in substantial reductions (May
  31, 2004 compliance deadline)
• Bush Clear Skies legislation would further reduce
  NOx emissions from power sector
• For many areas, these regional efforts will
  enable compliance without further local controls
• After 2004 implementation of transport measures,
  EPA will reevaluate extent, severity and sourced
  of interstate ozone transport
• Despite these policies, preliminary designation
  in 2000 included nearby/adjacent counties

16
Ozone Designation ProcessState Policies

• Although EPA policies promote regional,
  multi-state efforts, EPA leaves states to
  determine how to address intrastate transport
• Wisconsin statutes limit DNRs authority to
  address intrastate transport
• The rules or control strategies submitted to
  EPA for control of atmospheric ozone shall
  conform with the federal clean air act . . .
  285.11(6), Wis. Stat.
• Ozone controls not allowed in attainment areas
• Nonattainment area means an area . . . where
  the concentration in the atmosphere of an air
  contaminate exceeds an ambient air quality
  standard. 285.01(30), Wis. Stats.
• Area must have violating monitor

17
Ozone Designation ProcessConclusion

• DNR recommendation is to include only violating
  counties/CMSAs
• Jefferson County status unknown
• EPAs proposal to incorporate 2003 data, but
  after QA/QC in fall 2003
• Brown, Jefferson, Walworth, and Rock all on brink
  2003 must be good year
• Expanding C/MSA Nearby/Adjacent counties
  contributions remains a concern
• Violation for any 3-year period (post-2003)
  possible
• We expect air quality improvements, but weather
  is wild card

18
Ozone Standard ImplementationExisting 1-hour
Approach

• Rigid statutory requirements
• Specified mandates/compliance deadlines based on
  classification
• SE Wisconsin C/MSA Severe
• Sheboygan, Manitowoc, Kewaunee Moderate
• Door Rural Transport-Marginal
• SE Wisconsin still violates 1-hour
• Other areas now under maintenance plans that keep
  most nonattainment requirements in place, but
  removes burdensome New Source Review

19
Ozone Standard ImplementationExisting Point
Source Mandates

• Asphalt Production Plants
• Industrial Adhesives
• Iron and Steel Foundries RACT
• Miscellaneous Wood Product Coating
• Degreasing Controls
• Industrial Solvent Cleanup RACT
• Large Gasoline Storage
• Offset Lithography
• Plastic Parts Coating Tightening
• Wood Furniture Coating RACT
• Screen Printing RACT
• Yeast Manufacturing RACT

20
Ozone Standard ImplementationExisting Area
Source Mandates

• Automobile Refinishing
• Degreasing Controls
• Solid Waste Toxic Substance Disposal Facility
  MACT
• Stage II Vehicle Vapor Recovery
• Reformulated Gasoline in Off Road Vehicles
• Traffic Marking Reformulation or Solvent Control
• Wood Furniture Coating Tightening
• Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings
• Municipal Waste Landfills
• Use of Reformulated Gasoline
• Stage I Refueling Reductions
• Gasoline Tank Truck Leak Reductions
• Underground Tank Breathing Losses and Leak
  Control
• Commercial / Consumer Solvent Reformulation or
  Elimination Off Road Engine Standards
• On Board Vehicle Controls

21
Ozone Standard ImplementationExisting Mobile
Source Mandates

• Tier I Light Duty Vehicle Standards
• Reformulated Gasoline Phase II (Class C)
• Enhance I/M
• Clean Fuels Fleet
• Current Transportation Improvement Program
• Employee Commute Options Program
• Long Range Transportation Plan

22
Ozone Standard ImplementationEPA Proposed
Implementation Rule

• Addresses Courts directive to reconcile CAA
  subparts 1 and 2
• Proposed implementation rule
• June 2 Federal Register
• Key issue degree of flexibility
• Option 1 Existing, rigid approach (subpart 2)
• Option 2 More flexibility (subpart 1)
• EPA prefers Option 2
• Comments due August 1
• Final Rule by end of 2003

23
Ozone Standard ImplementationDesignation Options

• Subpart 1 General, flexibility
• Subpart 2 Specific, little flexibility
• Classifications
• Marginal 85-92 ppb
• Moderate 92-107 ppb
• Serious, Severe, Extreme higher
• NEW counties (Door, Kewaunee, Manitowoc, maybe
  Brown) likely to be marginal, no worse than
  moderate

24
Ozone Standard ImplementationImplementation Rule
Flexibility Issues

• Classification
• Option 1
• Subpart 2 marginal, moderate, etc.
• Option 2
• If 1-hour ozone gt 121 ppb Subpart 2
• If 1-hour ozone lt 121 ppb Subpart 1

25
Ozone Standard ImplementationImplementation Rule
Flexibility Issues

• Attainment Dates
• Subpart 1 5 years
• Subpart 2
• Marginal 3 years
• Moderate 6 years
• Reasonable Further Progress
• Subpart 1 annual incremental reductions
• Subpart 2
• Marginal None
• Moderate 15 VOC reduction

26
Ozone Standard ImplementationImplementation Rule
Flexibility Issues

• Rate of Progress
• Applies only to moderate and above
• Option 2 Prior 15 counts
• Major Source Threshold
• Subpart 1 100 tons
• Subpart 2 100 tons marginal/moderate
• RACT
• Option 2 If compliance demonstration with
  current SIP controls, then RACT met no
  additional measures

27
Ozone Standard ImplementationImplementation Rule
Flexibility Issues

• New Source Review
• Controls
• Non-attainment Options
• Option 1
• Subpart 2 - LAER, offsets
• Option 2
• Flexibility for early SIP
• Option 3
• Clean Air Development Communities

28
Ozone Standard ImplementationImplementation Rule
Flexibility Issues

• Offsets
• Subpart 1 1.11
• Subpart 2
• Marginal 1.11
• Moderate 1.151

29
Ozone Standard ImplementationConclusion

• EPAs preferred approach offers more flexibility
  for nonattainment areas
• Even if more flexible approach adopted,
  significant barriers to economic development
  created by nonattainment