EPA National Air Quality Conference Where are we going with PM

1
EPA National Air Quality ConferenceWhere are we
going with PM?

• February 14, 2005
• San Francisco
• Joseph W. Paisie
• OAQPS/AQSSD/RTP

2
Outline of Presentation

• Where were we?
• Where are we?
• Where are we going?
• Conclusion

3
(No Transcript)
4
(No Transcript)
5
Timeline for PM NAAQS Review

• Under a consent agreement for the PM and O3
  Reviews
• PM Criteria Document
• final in October 2004 (done)
• FR notices signed
• proposal - December 20, 2005
• final rule - September 27, 2006
• PM Staff Paper milestones
• August, 2003 - release of first draft Staff Paper
  (done)
• November, 2003 - CASAC meeting on first draft
  Staff Paper (done)
• January 31, 2005 - release of second draft Staff
  Paper (done)
• April, 2005 - CASAC meeting to review second
  draft Staff Paper
• June 30, 2005 - final Staff Paper
• Web address for Staff Papers
• http//www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_c
  r_sp.html

6
Review Process for NAAQS
EPA Staff Paper interprets scientific data and
identifies factors to consider in setting
standards including staff recommendations for
standards
Scientific studies on health and environmental
effects
EPA Criteria Document extensive assessment of
scientific studies
Scientific peer review of published studies
Reviews by CASAC and the public
Reviews by CASAC and the public
Public hearings and comments on proposals
Proposed decision on standards
Final decision on standards
7
Second Draft PM Staff Paper . . .Staff
Recommendations onPrimary Standards

• Consideration should be given to revising the
  current PM2.5 primary standards to provide
  increased public health protection from the
  effects of both long- and short-term exposures to
  fine particles
• Based on newly available epidemiologic,
  toxicologic, dosimetric, and exposure-related
  evidence
• Taking into account evidence of mortality and
  morbidity effects in areas where the current
  standards were met, together with judgments as to
  the public health significance of the estimated
  incidence of effects upon just attaining the
  current standards
• Should revise the current primary PM10 standards
  in part by replacing the PM10 indicator with an
  indicator of thoracic coarse particles that does
  not include fine particles (e.g., PM10-2.5)

8
Second Draft PM Staff Paper . . .Staff
Recommendations onPrimary Standards (cont.)

• PM2.5 primary standards should continue to be
  based on both annual and 24-hour averaging times
• Consideration should be given to an annual PM2.5
  standard at the current level of 15 µg/m3
  together with a revised 24-hour PM2.5 standard in
  the range of 35 to 25 µg/m3
• OR
• Consideration should also be given to a revised
  annual PM2.5 standard, within the range of 14 to
  12 µg/m3, together with a revised 24-hour PM2.5
  standard in the range of 40 to 35 µg/m3, to
  provide supplemental protection against episodic
  localized or seasonal peaks

9
Second Draft PM Staff Paper . . .Staff
Recommendations onPrimary Standards (cont.)

• Consideration should be given to setting a
  24-hour PM10-2.5 standard about as protective as
  the current daily PM10 standard, with a level in
  the range of approximately 65 to 75 µg/m3, 98th
  percentile, or approximately 75 to 85 µg/m3, 99th
  percentile.
• Also some support for consideration of a PM10-2.5
  standard down to approximately 30 µg/m3, 98th
  percentile, or 35 µg/m3, 99th percentile,
  recognizing that a standard set at such a
  relatively low level would place a great deal of
  weight on very limited and uncertain
  epidemiologic associations

10
Second Draft PM Staff Paper . . .Staff
Recommendations onSecondary Standards

• Consideration should be given to revising the
  current secondary PM2.5 standards to provide
  increased and more targeted protection primarily
  in urban areas from visibility impairment related
  to fine particles
• Consideration should be given to a 4- to 8-hour
  PM2.5 standard in the range of 30 to 20 µg/m3 to
  protect visual air quality primarily in urban
  areas (generally resulting in a visual range of
  approximately 25 to 35 km), as well as in
  surrounding non-urban areas
• Consideration should be given to using a
  percentile-based form for such a standard,
  focusing on a range at or somewhat above the 90th
  percentile of the annual distribution of daily
  short-term PM2.5 concentrations, averaged over 3
  years

11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
Second Draft PM Staff Paper . . .Staff
Recommendations onSecondary Standards (cont.)

• Consideration should be given to retaining
  secondary standards for fine and coarse-fraction
  particles that retain the level of protection
  afforded by the current PM2.5 and PM10 standards
  so as to continue control of ambient particles,
  especially long-term deposition of particles such
  as nitrates and sulfates, that contribute to
  adverse impacts on vegetation and ecosystems and
  on materials damage and soiling

14
Potential Challenges for the Future

• Expansion of coverage (Truly national in scope)
• Expansion of effects (Health and Environment)
• Public Message that is comprehensive and
  comprehensible
• Health warnings for an expanded set of
  nontraditional sources

15
Conclusion

• Thanks for your time and attention
• Any questions?
• Email- paisie.joe_at_epa.gov
• Phone/Fax- 919-541-5556/5489