proposed reasonable progress rule workshop
DESCRIPTION
Proposed Reasonable Progress Rule Workshop. Brief Background and Procedure Public Workshop June 14, 2007. Regulatory Requirements. Clean Air Act – Sections 169A and B Federal Rules – Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 126, Thursday, July 1, 1999 – “Regional Haze Rule” - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Proposed Reasonable Progress Rule Workshop
Brief Background and Procedure
Public Workshop
June 14, 2007
Regulatory Requirements
Clean Air Act – Sections 169A and B Federal Rules –
Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 126, Thursday, July 1, 1999 – “Regional Haze Rule”
40 CFR Part 51, Subpart P – Protection of Visibility Federal Guidance on Reasonable Progress
Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program, U.S. EPA, June 1, 2007, rev
National Goal
”Congress hereby declares as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.”
Achieve natural visibility conditions within Class I areas by 2064
Regional Haze Rule - Purpose
Section 51.300 – “. . . require states to develop programs to assure reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution …”
RH Program Requirements
State must submit an implementation plan (SIP) Must establish goals (expressed in deciviews)
that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility conditions
Concept
Four Factors in Determining the Reasonable Progress Goal Cost of compliance Time necessary for compliance Energy and non-air quality environmental
impacts of compliance Remaining useful life of any potentially
affected sources
Three Components to Consider
Evaluation of 2018 visibility considering current or “on the books” requirements for emissions reductions (e.g., CAIR, motor vehicle emissions standards, and many other already commanded reductions). VISTAS has completed this component.
Regional Haze Rule directed BART requirements, section 51.302. Not completed.
Regional Haze Rule directed Reasonable Progress requirement, section 51.308. Subject of this rulemaking.
Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide PathEverglades - 20% Data Days
22.3021.64
19.97
18.30
16.63
14.97
13.3012.30
20.04
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064
Year
Ha
zin
ess
In
de
x (D
eci
vie
ws)
Glide Path Natural Condition (Worst Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction
Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide PathChassahowitzka - 20% Data Days
25.7524.78
22.37
19.96
17.55
15.14
12.7311.29
21.85
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064
Year
Ha
zin
ess
In
de
x (D
eci
vie
ws)
Glide Path Natural Condition (Worst Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction
Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide PathSaint Marks - 20% Data Days
26.3125.33
22.88
20.44
17.99
15.55
13.1011.64
22.89
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064
Year
Ha
zin
ess
In
de
x (D
eci
vie
ws)
Glide Path Natural Condition (Worst Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction
Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide PathOkefenokee - 20% Data Days
27.1326.09
23.49
20.89
18.29
15.69
13.0911.53
23.85
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064
Year
Ha
zin
ess
In
de
x (D
eci
vie
ws)
Glide Path Natural Condition (Worst Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction
Uniform Rate of Reasonable Progress Glide PathBreton - 20% Data Days
26.0025.08
22.80
20.52
18.23
15.95
13.6712.30
23.31
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064
Year
Ha
zin
ess
In
de
x (D
eci
vie
ws)
Glide Path Natural Condition (Worst Days) Observation Method 1 Prediction
IPM Projections
Converts all oil-fired boilers to gas Affects sources throughout the state, but
largely in South Florida. Primary power company (FPL) has indicated
no intention of gas-only operation. Result, projected glidepaths (esp.
Everglades) overly optimistic.
Plant Name Point ID
2002 Actual SO2
Emissions (TPY)
2018 VISTAS Projected
SO2 Emissions
(TPY)
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT (PPE) PORT EVERGLA 1 3,053 0
2 3,284 0
3 6,409 0
4 6,205 0
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT (PTF) TURKEY POINT 1 4,327 0
2 4,610 0
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT (PMT) MANATEE POWE 1 13,930 0
2 15,073 0
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT (PMR) FPL / MARTIN 1 6,886 0
2 7,603 0
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT (PRV) RIVIERA POWE 3 4,630 0
4 4,291 0
PROGRESS ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. ANCLOTE PO 1 13,879 0
2 13,225 0
PROGRESS ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. BARTOW PLA 1 6,149 0
2 6,483 0
3 11,249 0
NORTHSIDE 3 7,146 0
PROGRESS ENERGY FLORIDA, INC. FL POWER S 1 657 0
2 809 0
3 740 0
Applicability of Reasonable Progress
Applies to all sources and all visibility-impairing pollutants.
Purpose of this rule is to use the information derived from VISTAS to target the most relevant sources (i.e., pair-down the number of sources and pollutants needed to evaluate for reasonable progress).
Important Results from VISTAS
Sulfate is the dominate component of regional haze in the Southeast. Implication – focus on SO2 reductions
Nearly all of the SO2 emissions are from coal and oil-fired EGU’s, and industrial plants. Implication – focus on point source EGUs’ and
industrial facilities.
Important Product Produced by VISTAS -- Area of Influence VISTAS developed information based on
wind trajectories that indicate the likelihood that a source at a given location will impact each Class I area.
A value (RTmax) is determined for each source location that is proportional to each sources probability that it would impact a particular Class I area on days of poor visibility.
Proposed Selection Criteria
Selection based on modified Georgia criteria with RTmax*Q/d: VISTAS residence time data (within 5% for
EGU’s and 10% non-EGU’s) 2002 actual emissions (units > 250 tpy) >= 0.5% unit contribution, considering only
Florida units Selection based on each Class I area
potentially affected by Florida sources (EVER,CHAS,SAMA,OKEF,WOLF,BRET)
Explanation of Terms
RTmax -- This term is a metric for the frequency that air flows from the source to the Class I area on days of poor visibility.
Q – Actual 2002 SO2 emissions in tons per year
d – Distance (km), this term is a surrogate for dispersion.
Procedure
For each unit with SO2 emissions >=250 tpy, identify all EGU’s with an RTmax >=5% and all non-EGU’s with an RTmax>=10% for each Class I area.
For each of these units, calculate RTmax*Q/d for each Class I area.
For each Class I area, sum RTmax*Q/d over all units and calculate the relative contribution for each unit.
Select all units that contribute 0.5% or greater.
Proposed Selection (see handouts)
30 Facilities comprising 69 units 17 power plants 4 pulp and paper 9 other (chemical, phosphate,etc.)
