# Presentation: 154726

## EPA National Air Quality ConferenceWhere are we going with PM?

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

## Outline of Presentation

- Where were we?
- Where are we?
- Where are we going?
- Conclusion

## Slide 3

**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_cr_sp.html

**Review Process for NAAQS**

- Scientific studies on health and environmental effects

- EPA Criteria Document – extensive assessment of scientific studies

- EPA Staff Paper – interprets scientific data and identifies factors to consider in setting standards including staff recommendations for standards

- 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

***Second Draft PM Staff Paper . . .*****Staff Recommendations on****Primary 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)

***Second Draft PM Staff Paper . . .*****Staff Recommendations on****Primary 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

***Second Draft PM Staff Paper . . .*****Staff Recommendations on****Primary 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

***Second Draft PM Staff Paper . . .*****Staff Recommendations on****Secondary 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

***Second Draft PM Staff Paper . . .*****Staff Recommendations on****Secondary 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_

## 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

## Conclusion

- Thanks for your time and attention
- Any questions?
- Email- _[paisie.joe@epa.gov](mailto:paisie.joe@epa.gov)_
- Phone/Fax- 919-541-5556/5489