DENR Air Quality Update (NCLM)
Erin Wynia, a policy analyst with the League of Municipalities, attended a meeting Tuesday, Feb. 2, with DENR air quality staff where good updates were provided. She has provided this summary.
In short, EPA is embarking upon a slew of new regulations in the air quality arena. Some have the potential to impact local governments. I’ll take each in turn so you can understand the current actions.
1. OZONE STANDARDS: EPA has proposed two standards: one to address human health and one to address effects on plants and environment. EPA is now receiving comments on both proposed standards and intends to set final standard by Aug 31, 2010. Under the Clean Air Act, North Carolina can then suggest areas designated non-attainment for ozone. The anticipated date for these designations is January 2011, with final EPA designations by August 2011. Under the current EPA proposal, many areas of the state would be non-attainment. If the EPA goes for the low end of its proposed standard range (0.60 ppb), DENR expects every air quality monitor in the state to be in violation. If at the upper end of the proposed standard range (0.70 ppb), DENR expects 5-6 monitors in the state to be in violation, which would still result in widespread non-attainment.
2. NO2 STANDARDS: EPA just announced last week a proposal to begin monitoring for NO2, nitrogen oxide. These gases are emitted by industry and motor vehicles, and currently, there is insufficient data on NO2 emissions to justify regulating for this compound; hence, the monitoring proposal. The innovation in this proposal is that the monitors would be required to be located within 140 feet of major highways in areas of the country that have greater than 500,000 people in a given metropolitan statistical area (Raleigh, Triad, Charlotte would have roadside monitors; in addition, Raleigh and Charlotte would have “community monitors”). This sort of monitoring is expensive, and the roadside location is unprecedented in the history of the Clean Air Act. Basically, it is saying that vehicles are the source of NO2, rather than industry.
The issue right now is who is going to pay for the costly monitoring stations. The DENR air quality unit is funded entirely by permit fees and from the federal government – no state funding. DENR could go back to Title V permit holders, but DENR said yesterday that those permit holders are not the source of this pollution. I asked if local governments would be approached, and the staff genuinely looked a bit baffled. They replied that they would simply tell EPA that it had to pay for the monitors and the monitoring staff costs, or EPA can do the monitoring itself if it thinks it’s so important.
A corollary issue has been raised by NC DOT (commenting since these monitoring stations would likely be within DOT right-of-way). DOT is concerned about the safety of workers checking the monitors so close to high-speed traffic areas.
Like the process for ozone, EPA will allow North Carolina to submit its recommendations for attainment/non-attainment boundaries by January 2011. Because the state has scant data for this pollutant, the designations right now are likely to be “attainment” for all areas of the state. But, DENR expects that once monitors are installed (by 2013) and data is collected, there will be some areas that inevitably will be designated “non-attainment” for NO2. Right now, the time frame for this later action is 2013-2016.
3. SO2 STANDARDS: These standards will actually affect stationary sources and not local governments so much, but I raise it because some of the issues bleed over into the pollutant regulations discussed above that will affect local governments. Namely, the “who will pay for the monitors” debate exists in the context of this pollutant as well. Apparently, the cost of these new monitors is already more than DENR has to allocate for such an expense, and it’s more than the President put into his recent budget proposal. These monitors are required now, unlike the NO2 monitors discussed above, which are still in that “theoretical discussion” stage.
4. GHG RULES: The rules regulating greenhouse gases (GHG, which include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and several “fluorinated” GHGs) are proceeding along several different tracks, some of which will affect local government operations. EPA has two rulemakings (mandatory), and North Carolina has one (voluntary). EPA’s rulemakings are requiring North Carolina to rush through its own corresponding rules to implement EPA’s edicts. This N.C. rulemaking process will mean a special meeting of the EMC in April and possibly also in June.
The first EPA rulemaking is the GHG emissions reporting rule, which is already final. Currently, many industries are collecting data on their emissions and they will begin reporting it in March 2011. Significantly, vehicle/engine manufacturers will have to do corporate-level reporting for the GHG emissions of their products. Eventually, the scope of who has to report will widen to include municipal landfills and larger wastewater treatment plants. Both of these types of municipal facilities emit GHGs, primarily methane. The EPA proposal on reporting for these facilities is expected soon. Obviously, our members would have to figure out how to pay for the monitoring equipment and staff to collect data from the monitors and report it. They would also become Title V permit holders and subject to extra regulatory hoops any time they try to expand or significantly change their operations.
The North Carolina rulemaking is virtually identical to EPA’s GHG emissions reporting rule, as described above. Because EPA’s action came along before North Carolina could establish its own rule, DENR has chosen to make its rule voluntary. It does not affect local government operations at this point.
The second EPA rulemaking is called the GHG tailoring rule. This rule is necessary to limit the scope of who would otherwise be required to report GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act. If this rule wasn’t enacted, there would be so many sources required to report their emissions due to existing Clean Air Act standards that EPA would be completely overwhelmed, administratively. So for now, only the big guys will be required to report. As stated above, this could eventually include some of our larger-emitting members. Within five years, EPA will have a better handle on administering this program and at that point, could expand the reporting requirements to capture some smaller emitters. For now, it’s unclear how many landfills and wastewater treatment plants would be brought into the realm of reporting. The main concern is that these types of facilities have not had to comply with past air quality regulations, and so there will be a massive amount of public education needed.
