Policy Assessment for the Review of the Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards

357 Pages·2010·11.07 MB·English

Policy Assessment
for the Review of the Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Second External Review Draft
June 2010
DISCLAIMER
This draft document has been prepared by staff from the Ambient Standards Group,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Any
opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the EPA. This document is being circulated to obtain review and
comment from the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the general public.
Comments on this draft document should be addressed to Beth Hassett-Sipple, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, C504-06,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 (email: [email protected]).
EPA-452/P-10-007
June 2010

Policy Assessment
for the Review of the Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Second External Review Draft

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Health and Environmental Impacts Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
This page left intentionally blank.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This second draft Policy Assessment (PA) has been prepared by staff in the
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS) in conjunction with the Agency’s ongoing review of the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM), which include primary (health-
based) and secondary (welfare-based) standards. It presents staff conclusions regarding
the adequacy of the current suite of PM standards as well as potential alternative
standards for consideration in this review, based on the scientific and technical
information assessed in other EPA documents, including the Integrated Science
Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report) (ISA, US EPA, 2009a), the
Quantitative Health Risk Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report) (RA, US
EPA, 2010a) and the Particulate Matter Urban-Focused Visibility Assessment (Final
Report) (UFVA, US EPA, 2010b).
This PA is intended to “bridge the gap” between the relevant scientific evidence
and technical information and the judgments required of the EPA Administrator in
determining whether, and if so how, to revise the PM NAAQS. The current and potential
alternative PM standards are considered in terms of the basic elements of the NAAQS:
indicator, averaging time, form, and level.
Primary standards for fine particles (Chapter 2):
In assessing the adequacy of the current suite of annual and 24-hour PM
2.5
standards meant to protect public health against long- and short-term exposures to fine
particles, staff concludes that the currently available information clearly calls into
question the adequacy of the current standards and that consideration should be given to
revising the suite of standards to provide increased public health protection. In
considering alternative PM standards, staff concludes that protection from both long-
2.5
and short-term PM exposures can most effectively and efficiently be provided by
2.5
relying primarily on the annual standard, with the 24-hour standard providing
supplemental protection for days with high peak concentrations. On this basis, staff
concludes that consideration should be given to alternative annual PM standard levels
2.5
in the range of 13 to 11 µg/m3, in conjunction with retaining the current 24-hour PM
2.5
standard level of 35 µg/m3, and that consideration could also be given to an alternative
24-hour PM standard level of 30 µg/m3 particularly in conjunction with an annual
2.5
standard level of 11 µg/m3.
Primary standard for thoracic coarse particles (Chapter 3):
In assessing the adequacy of the current primary 24-hour PM standard meant to
10
protect public health against short-term exposures to thoracic coarse particles, staff
concludes that consideration should be given to retaining or revising the current standard,
depending on the relative weight placed on the evidence supporting associations with
PM and the uncertainties associated with this evidence. With regard to potential
10-2.5
alternative standards, staff concludes that, to the extent consideration is given to revising
the current standard to increase public health protection, consideration should be given to
retaining the PM indicator and the 24-hour averaging time and revising the form and
10
Draft-Do Not Quote or Cite ES -1 June 2010
level, with consideration of levels from 85 g/m3 down to about 65 g/m3 in conjunction
with a 98th percentile form.
Secondary standards for PM-related visibility impairment (Chapter 4):
In assessing the adequacy of the current suite of secondary annual and 24-hour
PM standards (which are identical to the primary PM standards) meant to protect
2.5 2.5
against PM-related visibility impairment, staff concludes that the currently available
information clearly calls into question the adequacy of the current standards and that
consideration should be given to revising the suite of standards to provide increased
public welfare protection. In considering alternative standards, staff concludes that
consideration should be given to establishing a new indicator based on using speciated
PM mass and relative humidity to calculate PM light extinction. Staff also concludes
2.5 2.5
that consideration should be given to a 1-hour averaging time, considering only daylight
hours with relative humidity no higher than 90 %, and a level, defined in terms of PM
2.5
light extinction, in the range of 191 to 64 Mm-1 to target protection against visibility
impairment related to fine particles.
Secondary standards for non-visibility welfare effects (Chapter 5):
In assessing the adequacy of the current suite of secondary PM standards (which
are identical to the primary PM and PM standards) meant to protect against PM-
2.5 10
related effects other than visibility impairment, staff has considered PM-related effects on
climate, ecological effects, and effects on materials. Staff concludes that the currently
available information supports retaining control of both fine and coarse particles to
address PM-related effects on ecosystems and materials damage and soiling, but that
there insufficient information to assess the adequacy of protection afforded by the current
standards. Staff also concludes that there is insufficient information at this time to base a
national ambient standard on climate impacts associated with current ambient
concentrations of PM or its constituents.
Draft-Do Not Quote or Cite ES -2 June 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1-1
1.1 PURPOSE..................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................1-2
1.2.1 Legislative Requirements.................................................................................1-2
1.2.2 Previous PM NAAQS Reviews.......................................................................1-3
1.2.3 Litigation Related to the 2006 PM Standards..................................................1-9
1.2.4 Current PM NAAQS Review...........................................................................1-9
1.3 GENERAL APPROACH AND ORGANIZATION OF THIS DOCUMENT........1-11
1.4 REFERENCES........................................................................................................1-13
2 REVIEW OF THE PRIMARY STANDARDS FOR FINE PARTICLES...............2-1
2.1 APPROACH..............................................................................................................2-1
2.1.1 Approaches Used in Previous Reviews...........................................................2-2
2.1.1.1 Review Completed in 1997.............................................................2-2
2.1.1.2 Review Completed in 2006.............................................................2-4
2.1.2 Remand of Primary Annual PM Standard....................................................2-6
2.5
2.1.3 Current Approach.............................................................................................2-7
2.2 ADEQUACY OF CURRENT STANDARDS........................................................2-13
2.2.1 Evidence-based Considerations.....................................................................2-13
2.2.2 Risk-based Considerations.............................................................................2-31
2.2.3 Staff Conclusions on Adequacy of Current Standards..................................2-42
2.3 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS.....................................2-43
2.3.1 Indicator.........................................................................................................2-44
2.3.2 Averaging Times............................................................................................2-50
2.3.3 Forms.............................................................................................................2-52
2.3.3.1 Form of the Annual Standard........................................................2-52
2.3.3.2 Form of the 24-Hour Standard......................................................2-54
2.3.4 Alternative Levels..........................................................................................2-56
2.3.4.1 Evidence-based Considerations....................................................2-56
2.3.4.2 Risk-based Considerations............................................................2-76
2.3.4.3 Integration of Evidence-based and Risk-based Considerations....2-82
2.4 STAFF CONCLUSIONS ON ALTERNATIVE FINE PARTICLE STANDARDS
…………..............................................................................................................................2-84
2.5 KEY UNCERTAINTIES AND AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND DATA
COLLECTION........................................................................................................2-86
2.6 REFERENCES........................................................................................................2-91
i

Draft-Do Not Quote or Cite June 2010
3 REVIEW OF THE PRIMARY STANDARD FOR THORACIC COARSE
PARTICLES...................................................................................................................3-1
3.1 APPROACH..............................................................................................................3-1
3.1.1 Reviews Completed in 1987 and 1997............................................................3-2
3.1.2 Review Completed in 2006..............................................................................3-3
3.1.3 Litigation of 2006 Final Rule for Thoracic Coarse Particles...........................3-5
3.1.4 Current Approach.............................................................................................3-6
3.2 ADEQUACY OF THE EXISTING PM10 STANDARD.........................................3-9
3.2.1 Evidence-Based Considerations.......................................................................3-9
3.2.2 Staff Conclusions on Adequacy of Current PM10 Standard.........................3-23
3.3 CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS..............3-26
3.3.1 Indicator.........................................................................................................3-26
3.3.2 Averaging Time.............................................................................................3-29
3.3.3 Form...............................................................................................................3-30
3.3.4 Level..............................................................................................................3-32
3.4 STAFF CONCLUSIONS ON A PRIMARY THORACIC COARSE PARTICLE
STANDARD............................................................................................................3-44
3.5 KEY UNCERTAINTIES AND AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND DATA
COLLECTION........................................................................................................3-45
3.6 REFERENCES........................................................................................................3-47
4 REVIEW OF THE SECONDARY STANDARDS FOR VISIBILITY-RELATED
EFFECTS........................................................................................................................4-1
4.1 APPROACH..............................................................................................................4-1
4.1.1 Approaches Used in Previous Reviews...........................................................4-2
4.1.1.1 Review Completed in 1997............................................................4-2
4.1.1.2 Review Completed in 2006............................................................4-4
4.1.2 Remand of Secondary PM Standards...........................................................4-8
2.5
4.1.3 Current Approach.............................................................................................4-9
4.2 ADEQUACY OF CURRENT STANDARDS........................................................4-11
4.2.1 Evidence-based Considerations.....................................................................4-11
4.2.2 Summary........................................................................................................4-29
4.3 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS.....................................4-30
4.3.1 Nature of the Indicator...................................................................................4-30
4.3.2 Averaging and Applicable Times..................................................................4-37
4.3.3 Alternative Levels/Forms...............................................................................4-38
4.3.4 Performance of Alternative Standards...........................................................4-41
4.4 STAFF CONCLUSIONS ON ALTERNATIVE SECONDARY STANDARDS FOR
VISIBILITY-RELATED EFFECTS.......................................................................4-48
ii

Draft-Do Not Quote or Cite June 2010
4.5 KEY UNCERTAINTIES AND AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND DATA
COLLECTION........................................................................................................4-50
4.6 REFERENCES........................................................................................................4-52
5 REVIEW OF THE SECONDARY STANDARDS FOR OTHER WELFARE
EFFECTS........................................................................................................................5-1
5.1 APPROACH..............................................................................................................5-1
5.1.1 Approaches Used in Previous Reviews...........................................................5-2
5.1.1.1 Review Completed in 1997.............................................................5-2
5.1.1.2 Review Completed in 2006.............................................................5-2
5.1.2 Scope of Current NAAQS Reviews.................................................................5-3
5.1.2.1 Scope of the Current Secondary PM NAAQS Review...................5-3
5.1.2.2 Scope of the Current NOx/SOx Secondary NAAQS Review........5-5
5.1.3 Current Approach.............................................................................................5-5
5.2 CLIMATE..................................................................................................................5-6
5.2.1 Scope................................................................................................................5-6
5.2.2 Adequacy of the Current Standard...................................................................5-7
5.2.3 Staff Conclusions...........................................................................................5-10
5.2.4 Key Uncertainties and Areas for Future Research and Data Collection........5-12
5.3 ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS......................................................................................5-13
5.3.1 Scope..............................................................................................................5-13
5.3.2 Adequacy of the Current Standard.................................................................5-16
5.3.3 Staff Conclusions...........................................................................................5-23
5.3.4 Key Uncertainties and Areas for Future Research and Data Collection........5-24
5.4 MATERIALS...........................................................................................................5-25
5.4.1 Scope..............................................................................................................5-25
5.4.2 Adequacy of the Current Standard.................................................................5-26
5.4.3 Staff Conclusions...........................................................................................5-28
5.4.4 Key Uncertainties and Areas for Future Research and Data Collection........5-28
5.5 REFERENCES........................................................................................................5-29

CHAPTER APPENDICES:

APPENDIX 2A: Table 2A-1. Predicted Percent of Counties with Monitors (and percent of
population in counties with monitors) Not Likely to Meet Alternative Annual and 24-hour PM
2.5
Standards ……………………………………………………………………………………...2A-1

APPENDIX 3A: Table 3A-1. Predicted Percent of Counties with Monitors (and percent of
population in counties with monitors) Not Likely to Meet Alternative 24-hour PM
10
Standard…………………………………………………………………………………….....3A-1

APPENDIX 4A: Information Regarding the 1-hour PM Mass Indicator ………….……...4A-1
2.5
iii

Draft-Do Not Quote or Cite June 2010
APPENDIX 4B: Simplified Approaches to Calculate Hourly PM Light Extinction Values from
Hourly PM Mass and Relative Humidity Data plus 24-hour Mean PM Composition…...…4B-1
2.5

APPENDIX 4C: Assessment of the PM Components Responsible for the Largest Hourly PM
Light Extinction and PM Mass Hours Selected as Maximum Daily and Using All Hours for 14
2.5
Urban Areas ……………………………………………………………………………….. 4C-1

iv

Draft-Do Not Quote or Cite June 2010