# Washington DC

- MD

- VA 1997 PM 2.5 

# Redesignation 

# Request

P r epared by:

M etropolitan Washington Council of Governments

f or the

Distri ct Department of the Environment

M aryland Department of the Environment Virginia D epartment of Environmental Quality

o n behalf of the Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee

May 22, 20 13Was hington, DC

- MD

- VA PM 2.5 NAA Redesignation Request , May 22, 20 13



### Table of Contents

1. Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 1

2. Background

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 1

2.1 Health Effec ts

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 1

2.2 Washington DC

- MD

- VA Nonattainment Designation

................................ .................... 1

3. USEPA Requirements for Redesignation

................................ ................................ ............... 4

3.1 NAAQS Compliance

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 4

3.1.1 USEPA Requirements

................................ ................................ ............................... 4

3.1.2 Washington DC

- MD

- VA Approach

................................ ................................ ......... 4

3.2 Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions

................................ ........................... 9

3.2.1 USEPA Requirements

................................ ................................ ............................... 9

3.2.2 Washington DC

- MD

- VA Approach

................................ ................................ ....... 10

3.3 SIP Completeness

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 13

3.3.1 USEPA Requirements

................................ ................................ ............................. 13

3.3.2 Washington DC

- MD

- VA Approach

................................ ................................ ....... 14

3.4 Maintenance Plan

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 15

3.4.1 USEPA Requirements

................................ ................................ ............................. 15

3.4.2 Washington DC

- MD

- VA Approach

................................ ................................ ....... 15



### List of Figures

Figure 2

- 1: Washington DC

- MD

- VA 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS Nonattainment Area

........................ 3 Figure 3

- 1: Washington DC

- MD

- VA PM 2.5 Monitoring Sites

................................ ...................... 6 Figure 3

- 2: Washington DC

- MD

- VA 24

- Hour PM 2.5 Data Trends

................................ ............... 8 Figure 3

- 3: Washington DC

- MD

- VA Annual PM 2.5 Data Trends

................................ ................ 9



### List of Tables

Table 2

- 1: Washington DC

- MD

- VA Nonattainment Area Jurisdictions With FIPS Codes

......... 2
Table 3

- 1: Washington DC

- MD

- VA 24

- Hour PM 2.5 Design Values

................................ ............ 7
Table 3

- 2: Washington DC

- MD

- VA Annual PM 2.5 Design Values

................................ .............. 7
Table 3

- 3: On

- Road Emission Reductions for the Washington DC

- MD

- VA Area, 2002

- 2007

. 11
Table 3

- 4: Possum Point Power Station Reductions, 2002

- 2007

................................ ................ 12
Table 3

- 5: Washington DC

- MD

- VA Mirant System 2002

- 2007 NO X Reductions

.................... 13


### List of Appendices

Appendix C 1 : Technical support document for the development of onroad mobile emissions inventories for 2002, 2007, 2017, and 2025 (Washington, DC

- MD

- VA PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area)

Appendix C2 : MOVES Input / Output Files (Available on a CD on request)

Appendix E: Notices and Public Comments and ResponsesWas hington, DC

- MD

- VA PM 2.5 NAA Redesignation Request , May 22, 20 13 1

1. Introduction

The District of Columbia , the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia request that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USE PA) redesignate the Washington DC

- MD

- VA 1997 fine particulate ( PM 2.5 ) nonattainment area to attainment for this standard pursuant to the provisions under § 107 of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). Since the designations for the National Ambient Air Quality Standard s (NAAQS) for this pollutant were published ( 70 FR 944, 1/5/ 20 05 ), the area’s PM 2.5 air quality has improved due to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions . Air quality in the area is significantly better than required by
this standard . Du e to th e improvement in PM 2.5 air quality , the Washington DC

- MD

- VA
nonattainment area is currently operating under a clean data determination ( 74 FR 1146,
1/12/2009 ). The District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia are al so requesting that USEPA concurrently approve, as a revision to the state implementation plan (SIP) for each state, the related § 175A maintenance plan. This plan

ensures that good PM 2.5 air quality will be maintained through 2025.

2. Background

2.1 Health Effects

PM 2.5 , also known as f

ine particulate matter or fine particles, is defined as any airborne particle of solid or liquid matter that is less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter. PM 2.5 is

not a single pollutant but a sum of all pollutants that have diameters less than 2.5 micrometers,
which is 1/30 th the diameter of a human hair.

Sources of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors include, most significantly, coal

- fired power plants and other combustion sou rces, fires, emissions from motor vehicles, windblown dust, and natural emissions from trees and the oceans. These sources can be divided up into two types of sources, primary and secondary. Primary sources directly emit fine particulate matter into the

at mosphere without any chemical change occurring to the pollutant. Secondary sources are sources from which precursor chemical species are released into the atmosphere and then react with other chemical species in the atmosphere to create fine particulate ma tter. Some species which comprise fine particulate matter are sulfates

, ammonium nitrate , soot, sea salt, organic
carbon , and metals (crustal metals, transitional metals, and potassium ).

E xposure to high levels of PM 2.5 adversely affects human health. Th e main impacts of

PM 2.5 on human health are on the respiratory system and the cardiovascular system. Children, the elderly, and individuals with pre

- existing pulmonary or cardiac disease are the most susceptible to PM 2.5 pollution. C omplications that can arise from exposure to PM 2.5 include decreased lung function

, chronic bronchitis

, respiratory symptoms such as asthma attacks and difficulty breathing

, nonfatal heart attacks

, irregular heartbeat

, and premature death in individuals with pulmonary or cardiac disease

.

2.2 Washington DC

- MD

- VA Nonattainment Designation

The CAA requires each state with areas failing to meet the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS to develop SIPs to expeditiously attain and maintain the standards. The USEPA revised the NAAQS forWas hington, DC

- MD

- VA PM 2.5 NAA Redesignation Request , May 22, 20 13 2

particulate matt er in July 1997 and established primary (health

- based) annual and 24

- hour
standards for PM 2.5 (62 FR 38652 , 7/18/1997) . The annual standard was set at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ( μg/m 3 ) , based on the 3

- year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations and
the 24

- hour standard was set at 65 μg/m 3 , based on the 3

- year average of the 98 th percentile of
24

- hour concentrations.

On December 17, 2004, the USEPA administrator signed the final rule regarding the initial

PM 2.5 nonattainment areas designations for the PM 2.5 standards across the country . The final rule
became effective on April 5, 2005 ( 70 FR 944 , 1/5/2005)

. The Washington DC

- MD

- VA area was originally designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS based on ai r quality data showing that the area did not meet the 15.0 μg/m 3 annual standard. Unlike Subpart 2 of the CAA that defined five ozone nonattainment classifications for the areas that exceed the NAAQS based on the severity of the ozone levels, PM 2.5 nonatt ainment designations are simply labeled
“nonattainment

. ” W ithin three years of the effective date of the designations (April 5, 2008) , t he CAA required states with PM 2.5 nonattainment areas to submit an attainment plan detailing how
the PM 2.5 standards will be attained by April 5, 2010. States within the Washington DC

- MD

- VA area submitted these attainment plans in a timely manner.

The area designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS is defined in Table 2

- 1 and depicted in Figure 2

- 1.

Table 2

- 1 : Washington DC

- MD

- VA Nonattainment Area Jurisdiction s With FIPS Codes 1

Maryland Jurisdictions Virginia Jurisdictions
Charles County (24

- 017 ) Fairfax County (51

- 059)
Frederick County (24

- 021) Prince William County (51

- 153)
Montgomery County (24

- 031) Arlington County (51

- 013)
Prince Georges County (24

- 033) Loudon County (51

- 107)
City of Fairfax (51

- 600)
City of Falls Church (51

- 610)
City of Manassas (51

- 683)
City of Manassas Park (51

- 685)
Washington D.C. (11

- 001) City of Alexandria (51

- 510)

1 FIPS Code

- Federal Information Processing Standard Cod eWas hington, DC

- MD

- VA PM 2.5 NAA Redesignation Request , May 22, 20 13 3 Figure 2

- 1 : Washington DC

- MD

- VA 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS Nonattainment AreaWas hington, DC

- MD

- VA PM 2.5 NAA Redesignation Request , May 22, 20 13 4

3. USEPA Requirements for Redesignation

The CAA provides a process whereby a state may petition USEPA to redesignate a nonattainment area as attainment. The criteria for redesignating a nonattainment area to
attai nment are as follows:

 The request must contain a determination that the NAAQS ha s been attained.

 The request must contain a showing that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions.

 The applicable implementat ion plan must be fully approved by US EPA under § 110(k) of the CAA, and the redesignation request must contain a determination that the state meets all applicable requirements for the area under § 110 and Part D.

 A maintenance plan, including contingency m easures, for the area under § 175A of the
Act must be fully approved

.

This document addresses each of these requirements and provides additional information to support continued compliance with the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. USEPA has published detailed guidance in a memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
entitled Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment (redesignation guidance), issued September 4, 1992, to Regional Air Directors. 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart Z,
entitled Provisions for Implementation of PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (implementation rule) provides additional information

. The District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia have based this redesignation request and its
associated maintenance plan on the redesignation guidance and the implementation rule, supplemented with additional guidance receiv ed from staff of USEPA Region III

.

3.1 NAAQS Compliance

3.1.1 US EPA Requirements

Th e NAAQS compliance demonstration should rely upon on ambient air quality data. The data that are used to demonstrate attainment should be the product of ambient monitoring that is representative of the area of highest concentration. Ad ditionally, the data should be collected and quality

- assured in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58 and recorded in the Air Quality System (AQS) in order for it to be available to the public for review.

3.1.2 Washington DC

- MD

- VA Approach

To determine whether or not a site is in compliance with the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS,
the three

- year average of annual average PM 2.5 concentration s must be calculated and compared
to the standard of 15.0 μg/m 3

. Compliance with the 1997 24

- hour NAAQS for PM 2.5 , which is

set at 65 μg/m 3

, is determined by the three year average of the 98 th percentile of each individual year’s 24

- hour concentrations. For an area to be in compliance with the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, all sites within that area must be in compliance with the annual and 24

- hour NAAQS. Even if there is only one station that is not in compliance, that one station makes the entire area a
nonattainment area for that standard.Was hington, DC

- MD

- VA PM 2.5 NAA Redesignation Request , May 22, 20 13 5

The Washington DC

- MD

- VA region’s federal reference monitors have demonstrated compliance with the 65 μg/m 3 daily standard since the inception of the PM 2.5 monitoring programs within each state. The federal reference monitors have demonstrated compliance with
the 15.0 μg/m 3 annual standard since 2005. The most recent design value for the 24

- hour standard, bas ed on 200 9

- 201 1 data, is 2 6 μg/m 3 , and the most recent design value for the annual standard, based on 200 9

- 201 1 data, is 1 0

. 8 μg/m 3

.

Figure 3

- 1 shows the location s of the area’s PM 2.5 monitors

. Three PM 2.5 speciation
monitors also operate in this area. Two are located in the District of Columbia at the McMillan
Reservoir and the Hains Point sites . One is located in Maryland at the Howard U niversity

Beltsville site.

All PM 2.5 ambient monitoring data through 201 1 have been quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR 58.10, recorded in USEPA’s AQS, and made available for public revie w. The
2005

- 2007 design value has been chosen as the attainment year for this area, and therefore the attainment year inventory used within this redesignation request and the § 175A maintenance plan is based on year 2007.

The states commit to continuin g the operation of an appropriate PM 2.5 air quality monitoring network to verify the maintenance of the attainment status.

Table 3

- 1 and Table 3

- 2 show the design values for monitoring sites in the Washington
DC

- MD

- VA area.Was hington, DC

- MD

- VA PM 2.5 NAA Redesignation Request , May 22, 20 13 6 Figure 3

- 1 : Washington DC

- MD

- VA PM

2.5 Monitoring SitesWas hington, DC

- MD

- VA PM 2.5 NAA Redesignation Request , May 22, 20 13 7 Table 3

- 1 : Washington DC

- MD

- VA 24

- Hour PM 2.5 Design Values

Site 1999

-

2001 2000

- 2002 2001

- 2003 2002

- 2004 2003

- 2005 2004

- 2006 2005

- 2007 2006

- 2008 2007

- 2009 2008

- 2010 2009

- 2011

11

- 001

- 0041 River Terrace, DC 41 45 44 42 38 37 35 32 29 27 *

11

- 001

- 0042
Hains Point, DC 39 38 37 37 37 35 33 31 28 26 *

11

- 001

- 0043 McMillan Reservoir, DC 40 41 40 37 35 34 34 32 29 26 *

24

- 031

- 3001 Rockville, MD * 37 35 33 32 31 30 28 26 26 26

24

- 033

- 0025 Bladensburg, MD # * * * * * * * * 28 25 23

24

- 033

- 0030
HU

- Beltsville, MD * * * * * * 32 30 25 25 24

24

- 033

- 8003 Equestrian Center, MD * * * 39 * 35 32 31 26 22 20

51

- 013

- 0020 Aurora Hills, VA 36 37 38 37 36 34 32 30 27 * *

51

- 059

- 0030 Franconia, VA * 36 * 35 35 35 34 31 28 25 24

51

- 107

- 1005 Ashburn, VA 36 35 34 34 36 35 33 28 24 21 20

51

- 510

- 0009 Alexandria, VA * * * * * * * * * * *

*Monitor not operating or design value labeled in complete. # Bladensburg monitor stopped operating on December 30, 2011.

Table 3

- 2 : Washington DC

- MD

- VA Annual PM 2.5 Design Values

Site 1999

-

2001 2000

- 2002 2001

- 2003 2002

- 2004 2003

- 2005 2004

- 2006 2005

- 2007 2006

- 2008 2007

- 2009 2008

- 2010 2009

- 2011

11

- 001

- 0041 River Terrace, DC 16.5 16.4 15.8 15.1 14.8 14.4 14.0 13.0 12.0 11.2 10.6

11

- 001

- 0042
Hains Point, DC * 15.3 14.7 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.2 13.1 12.1 11.2 10.5

11

- 001

- 0043 McMillan Reservoir, DC 15.7 15.6 15.2 14.7 14.4 14.0 13.5 12.5 11.6 10.8 10.3

24

- 031

- 3001 Rockville, MD * 13.4 12.6 12.5 12.7 12.5 12.2 11.4 10.7 10.3 10.2

24

- 033

- 0025 Bladensburg, MD # * * * * * * * * 12.4 11.5 10.8

24

- 033

- 0030
HU

- Beltsville, MD * * * * * * 12.2 11.4 10.5 10.0 9.9

24

- 033

- 8003 Equestrian Center, MD * * * * 13.2 13.1 12.8 11.9 10.8 9.9 9.1

51

- 013

- 0020 Aurora Hills, VA * 14.8 14.6 14.5 14.6 14.2 14.0 12.9 11.9 * *

51

- 059

- 0030 Franconia, VA * * * 13.4 13.6 13.4 13.0 12.1 11.1 10.3 9.6

51

- 107

- 1005 Ashburn, VA * 13.8 13.6 13.5 13.9 13.6 13.2 12.2 11.2 10.3 9.5

51

- 510

- 0009 Alexandria, VA * * * * * * * * * * *

*Monitor not operating or design value labeled in complete

. # Bladensburg monitor stopped operating on December 30, 2011.Was hington, DC

- MD

- VA PM 2.5 NAA Redesignation Request , May 22, 20 13 8

Figure 3

- 2 illustrates the steady decrease in the 2 4

- hour PM 2.5 design value. Since 2006,
the PM 2.5 design value for the Washington DC

- MD

- VA nonattainment area has decreased an average of 2. 2 μg/m 3 per year. This equates to a 30 percent drop in the 24

- hour PM 2.5 design
value over the last f

ive years. Looking at the int erval from 200 1 to 201 1 , the 24

- hour PM 2.5 design value decreased 1 5 μg/m 3 over the ten year period, which is a 37 percent decrease in the

PM 2.5 design value since 200 1

.

Figure 3

- 3 shows a decreasing trend in the annual PM 2.5 design value as well. For each

year from 2001 to 201 1 , the annual PM 2.5 design value decreased for the Washington DC

- MD

VA 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS nonattainm ent area. Over this time period, the annual PM 2.5 design value has improved 5. 7 μg/m 3 , a decrease of 35 percent since 2001. Since 200 6 , the annual

PM 2.5 design value has decreased 3 .7 μg/m 3 over five years, an average decrease of 0. 7 μg/m 3 per
year.

Figure 3

- 2 : Washington DC

- MD

- VA 24

- Hour PM 2.5 Data TrendsWas hington, DC

- MD

- VA PM 2.5 NAA Redesignation Request , May 22, 20 13 9 Figure 3

- 3 : Washington DC

- MD

- VA Annual PM 2.5 Data Trend

s

3.2 Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions

3.2.1 USEPA Requirements

As noted in § 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and in the redesignation guidance, state s must be able to reasonably attribute air quality improvements to emission reductions of precursors or direct

PM 2.5 that are permanent and enforceable. Attainment resulting from temporary reductions in emission rates (such as reduced production or shutdown due to temporary adverse economic conditions) or unusually favorable meteorological conditions does not qualify.

In making this showing, the state sho uld estimate the percent reduction (from the year that was used to determine the design value for designation and classification) achieved from
federal and state measures. Estimates should consider factors such as emission rates and production capacities in order to show that the improvements are the result of implemented controls. The analysis should assume that sources are operating at permitted levels (or historic peak levels), unless evidence is presented that such an assumption is unrealistic

.

For t his redesignation request and the associated maintenance plan , a mmonia and volatile organic compounds (VOC) are precursors, however, they are not considered significant overallWas hington, DC

- MD

- VA PM 2.5 NAA Redesignation Request , May 22, 20 13 10

contributors to PM 2.5 air quality issues, as noted in the PM 2.5 implementation rule at 40 CFR 51.1002(c)(3). Therefore, the redesignation request and maintenance demonstration focus on
SO 2 , PM 2.5 , and NO X

.

3.2.2 Washington DC

- MD

- VA Approach

Permanent and enforceable reductions of PM 2.5 , NO X , and SO 2 from a variety of sta te and
federal measures have contributed to the attainment of the standard for fine particles. Measures that have contributed to fine particulate air quality improvement include, but ar e not limited to, a variety of on

- road emissions control programs and f ederal consent decrees for specific power plants within the Washington DC

- MD

- VA area.

3.2.2.1 On

- Road Emission Reduction Requirements

A variety of federal vehicle control programs have contributed to reduced on

- road
emissions of PM 2.5 , NO X , and SO 2 in the Washington DC

- MD

- VA area between 2002 and
2007. 2 These program s include:

 Federal Tier 1 New Vehicle Emission and New Fe d eral Evaporative Emission Standards : Under § 202 , USEPA established fe d eral motor vehicle e m is si on standards (Tier I
stand a r d s ) , whic h were phased in beginning with model year 1994 (40 CFR 86 S ubpart A) . The ben ef

its of this program are re fl e cted in th e 2002 base year inventory and the 2007 attainment year inventory. This federally implemented program affect s light duty

v e hic l es and light duty trucks . T he regulations require more stringent exhaust emission
standa r d s as well as a uniform level of evapor a ti ve emission controls.

 National Low Emission Vehicle Program: Un d er the National Low Emission Vehic l e program, auto mobile manufact urers ag r eed to comply with tailpipe standar d s tha t were more stringent than USEPA could mandate prior to model year 2004 (40 CFR 86 S ubpart R)

. Once manufacture r s commit t ed to the program, the standards became enforceable in

t h e same man n er in which othe r federal motor vehicle e m iss i on control requi r emen t s

were enforceable. The program w as in place nationwide for model year 2001, and the benefits of this program are re fl e cted in the 2002 b ase year inventory and the 2007 attainment year inventory.

 Tier 2 Moto r Vehi c le Emission Regulations : On February 10, 2000 (65 FR 6698)

, USEPA promulgated a rule requiring more stringent tailpipe emissions standards for all passenger vehicles, including sport utility vehicles, minivans, vans, and pick

- up trucks.
These regulations also required lower levels of sulfur in gasoline, which ensured the effectiveness of low emission control technologies in vehicles and reduced harmful air pollution. The tailpipe standards required passenger vehicles to be 77 to 95 percent cl eaner than those built before the rule was promulgated and the sulfur standards reduced the sulfur content of gasoline up to 90 percent by 2006. The benefits of this program are reflected in the 2007 attainment year on

- road mobile inventory.

2 Details of onroad engine and fuel rules are available at

- http://www.epa.gov/otaq/standards/index.htmWas hington, DC

- MD

- VA PM 2.5 NAA Redesignation Request , May 22, 20 13 11

 Heavy Duty Di esel Engine Rule s : Th e s e federal rule s required truck manufacturers to comply with more stringent tailpipe standards by 2004 ( 65 FR 59896, 10/6/2000 ) and
2007 ( 66 FR 5002 , 1/18/2001 ) . The 2007 rule also mandated use of ultra

- low sulfur diesel fuel to enable modern pollution control technology on trucks and buses. Refiners began producing the cleaner

- burning diesel fuel for use in highway vehicles beginning June 1, 2006. The benefits of this pr ogram are reflected in the 2007 attainment year inventory for on

- road mobile sources.

 Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs : E nhanced vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance (enhanced I/M) requirements have been instituted by t he
Di strict of Columbia (64 FR 31498, 06/11/1999), the State of Maryland (64 FR 58340, 10/29/1999), and the Commonwealth of Virginia (64 FR 47670, 09/01/99)

. The requirements involve mandating regional vehicle emission I/M programs that are stricter
than basic programs, as required under §§182 and 202 of the CAA. Before 1994, basic automobile emissions testing checked only tailpipe emissions while idling and sometimes at 2,500 rpm. Enhanced I/M procedures include the use of On Board Diagnostic (OBD)
system ev aluations, a wider range of vehicles tested, and may include a dynamometer (treadmill) test that checks the car’s emissions under driving conditions. The OBD evaluations provide a more complete inspection, checking for excess evaporative
emissions and oth er issues that might affect emissions from the vehicle. The benefits of this program are reflected in the 2002 base year inventory and the 2007 attainment year inventory for on

- road mobile sources.

The reductions in emissions from the on

- road sector bet ween 2002 and 2007 are presented in Table 3

- 3 . These emissions estimates are derived using the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES2010a), Travel Demand Model Version 2.3 , and the most recent planning assumptions as updated in the M etropolitan Washington Council of Governments Cooperative Forecast. To calculate incremental be ne fits from the implementation of the individual control measures listed above is very difficult. Therefore, the information presented
summarize s the combined benefits of these rules. More information on the development of these emissions estimates may be found in the Technical Support Document (Appendix C1)

.

Table 3

- 3 : On

- Road Emission Reductions for the Washing ton DC

- MD

- VA Area, 2002

- 2007

2002 On

- Road Emissions 2007 On

- Road Emissions 2002

- 2007
% On

- Road Reduction,
Metro Wide DC MD VA Metro
Total DC MD VA Metro
Total

SO 2 On

- Road Emissions, tpy

281 1,706 1,622 3,609 68 319 220 607 83%

NO X On

- Road Emissions, tpy

9,963 6 3,392 5 3,598 1 26,953 7,512 47,279 36,848 91,639 28%

PM 2.5 On

- Road Emissions, tpy

302 2,057 1,600 3,959 272 1,757 1,422 3,452 13%Was hington, DC

- MD

- VA PM 2.5 NAA Redesignation Request , May 22, 20 13 12

3.2.2.2 Federal Consent Orders and Permitting Actions

Two federal settlements reduced emissions of NO X and SO 2 significantly at electric generating units (EGUs) located within the Washington DC

- MD

- VA nonattainment area. In the first of these consent decrees, which was signed April 17, 2003, and involved Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO), the Possum Point Power Station (ORIS 3 3804) was required to
switch two coal

- fired bo ilers to natural gas (United States v. Virginia Electric and Power Co.,
Civil Action No. 03

- CV

- 517A, entered 10/1 0/2003) . Since the power station is located in Fairfax, Virginia, this consent decree resulted in significant reductions of emissions for both SO 2 and NO X. Table 3

- 4 provides the percentage reduction of SO 2 and NO X resulting from this
consent decree.

Table 3

- 4 : Possum Point Power Station Reductions, 2002

- 2007

Unit ID 2002 2007 Percent Reduction,
SO 2 Percent

Reduction,
NO X SO 2 T py NO X

tpy SO 2

tpy NOx

tpy

3 6,228 1,582 0 39 99+ % 97.5%

4 10,975 2,349 1 111 99+% 95.3%

5 3,804 2,096 1 ,949 562 48.8% 73.2%

Total: 21,006 5,026 1,9 50 712 90.7% 63.5%

Data taken from USEPA’s CAMD database.

In a joint federal

- state settlement, Mirant Mid

- Atlantic agreed to eliminate nearly 29,000

tons annually of harmful pollution generated by four plants located in the Washington DC

- MD

VA nonattainment area (United States and State of Maryland v. Mirant Mid

- Atlantic, L LC and Mirant Potomac River, LLC, Civil Action No. 1:04CV1136)

. Under the terms of the settlement, Mirant cap ped NO X emissions on a system

- wide basis from its Chalk Point Generating Plant ( ORIS 1571 ) , in Prince George's County, Maryland; Dickerson Generat ing Plant ( ORIS 1572 ) , in Montgomery County, Maryland; Morgantown Generating Plant ( ORIS 1573 ) , in Charles County, Maryland; and Potomac River Generating Station ( ORIS 3788 ) , in Alexandria, V irginia

.

The se consent decrees remain enforceable , and these facilities must continue to meet the pertinent applicable requirements. Tables 3

- 4 and 3

- 5 enumerate emission reductions achieved from these consent decrees by 2007. Additional reductions are required by each consent decree in future years so that regional air quality will continue to benefit from these decrees. These requirements will not change due to the redesignation of the Washington DC

- MD

- VA area to
attainment.

3 EGUs are assigned a 4

- digit ORIS (Office of the Regulatory Information System) identifier by t he Energy Information Agency (EIA) of the US Department of Energy

.Was hington, DC

- MD

- VA PM 2.5 NAA Redesignation Request , May 22, 20 13 13 Table 3

- 5 : Washington DC

- MD

- VA Mirant System 2002

- 2007 NO X Reductions

Facility Unit

ID 2002 NO X Emissions 2007 NO X Emissions %
Reduction

lbs/mmbtu T py lbs/mmbtu tpy

Chalk Point 1 0.562 6,337 0.446 4,885 22.9%

Chalk Point 2 0.560 6,755 0.450 4,835 28.4%

Chalk Point 3 0.156 846 0.136 538 36.4%

Chalk Point 4 0.169 1,169 0.128 426 63.6%

Dickerson 1 0.466 2,121 0.343 1,645 22.5%

Dickerson 2 0.498 2,444 0.334 1,644 32.7%

Dickerson 3 0.471 2,661 0.338 1,658 37.7%

Morgantown 1 0.504 10,014 0.191 3,097 69%

Morgantown 2 0.501 8,605 0.360 6,321 26.5%

Potomac River 1 0.379 759 0.326 483 36.3%

Potomac River 2 0.416 789 0.287 444 43.7%

Potomac River 3 0.418 1,545 0.254 412 73.4%

Potomac River 4 0.415 1,443 0.234 481 66.6%

Potomac River 5 0.398 1,474 0.245 516 65.0%

Washington DC

- MD

- VA Mirant System: 46,962

-- 27,386 42.7%

Source: USEPA ’s CAMD database.

3.3 SIP Completeness

3.3.1 USEPA Requirements

States must provide assurances that the applicable implementation plan has been fully approved by US EPA under § 110(k) and must satisfy all requirements that apply to the area. Approval action on SIP elements and the redesignation request may occur simultaneously. An area cannot be redesignated if a required element of its plan is the subject of a disapproval; a finding of failure to submit or to implement the SIP; or partial, conditional, or limited approval.

For purposes of redesignation, state s must meet all requirements of § 110 and Part D of the CAA that were applicable prior to submittal of the complete redesignation request. Subpart 1 of Part D consists of general requirements applicable to all areas that are designated nonattainment based on a violation of the NAAQS. Subpart 4 of Part D consists of more specific requirements applicable to particulate matter (specifically to address PM 10 ). However, for the purpose of implementing the 1997 PM 2.5 standard, the USEPA’s implementation r ule stated Subpart 1, rather than Subpart 4, is appropriate ( 7 2 FR 20598, 4/25/2007 ).Was hington, DC

- MD

- VA PM 2.5 NAA Redesignation Request , May 22, 20 13 14

3.3.2 Washington DC

- MD

- VA Approach

The Was hington DC

- MD

- VA area has had few SIP submittal requirements in the past since the area has not been a persistent nonattainment area for PM 2.5 . Since the area’s air quality improved so that the area met the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS well prior to the 2010 complian ce date, most requirements, other than those associated with major new sou r ce review permitting and conformity, were limited

.

Section 110(a) of the CAA contains the general requirements for a SIP. As USEPA has stated in previous rulemaking 4 , only the § 110 and P art D requirements that are linked with a particular area’s designation are the relevant measures that should be considered in evaluating a redesignation request. T he other § 110 elements that are not connected with nonattainment plan
submission s and not linked with an area’s attainment status are also not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment.

The requirements of § 110(a)(2) are statewide requirements that are not linked to the

PM 2.5 nonattainment status of the Washington, DC

- MD

- VA area. Therefore these SIP elements are not applicable requirements for purposes of review of the state’s PM 2.5 redesignation request.

In accordance with the ap plicable PM2.5 implementation rule, USEPA’s determination that the Washington DC

- MD

- VA area attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 1146) suspends a number of requirements contained in § 172(c) of the CAA so long as the area continues to
attain the standard. These requirements include (1) attainment plan submission, (2) reasonably available control measures/reasonably available control technology determinations, (3) reasonable further progress determinations, and (4) contingency measures. Therefore, USEPA
do es not consider these mandates under § 172(c) to be SIP requirements for the purposes of redesignation.

The requirement for a base year inventory under § 172(c)(3) of the CAA is not suspended by USEPA’s determination of attainment. The base year invent ory for the Washington DC

- MD

VA area was contained in Chapter 3 and Appendix B of the Plan to Improve Air Quality in the Washington, DC

- MD

- VA Region . This documentation was submitted to USEPA in final form by the District of Columbia on April 2, 2008 (77 FR 61513); by the State of Maryland on March 8, 2008 (77 FR 65630); and by the Commonwealth of Virginia on April 4, 2008 (77 FR 60626).

The SIPs for the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia contain provisions that are consistent with the § 176(c)(4) conformity requirements. In
the District of Columbia ’s SIP

, transportation and general conformity requirements are contained
in 20 DCMR Chapter 15

. In the State of Maryland ’s SIP

, both general conformity requirements and transportation conformity requirements are contained in COMAR 26.11.26. In the Commonwealth of Virginia’s SIP, general conformity requirements are contained in 9VAC5

4 See USEPA ’s proposed approval of Ohio’s redesignation request for the Ohio portion of the Huntington

- Ashland

nona t tainment area for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. (76 FR 79593)Was hington, DC

- MD

- VA PM 2.5 NAA Redesignation Request , May 22, 20 13 15

Chapter 160 (Regulation for General Conformity) and transportation confo rmity requirements are contained in 9VAC5 Chapter 151 (Regulation for Transportation Conformity).

3.4 Maintenance Plan

3.4.1 USEPA Requirements

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA stipulates that for an area to be redesignated, USEPA must fully approve a maintenance pla n that meets the requirements of § 175(A). S tate s may submit both the redesignation request and the maintenance plan at the same time, and rulemaking on both may proceed on a parallel track. All applicable nonattainment area requirements remain in place. The maintenance plan will constitute a SIP revision and must provide for maintenance of the relevant NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years after redesignation. § 175(A) further states that the plan shall contain such additional measures, if any, as may be necessary to ensure
such maintenance. S tate s must also submit a SIP revision eight years after the original redesignation request is approved to provide for maintenance of the NAAQS for an additional 10 years following the first 10

- year period.

US EPA requires the following provisions to ensure maintenance of the NAAQS:

 The state must develop an attainment emissions inventory to identify the level of
emissions in the area that is sufficient to attain the NAAQS.

 A state may generally demonstrate maint enance by showing that future emissions of a pollutant or its precursors will not exceed the level of the attainment inventory over the
10

- year period following redesignation.

 Once an area has been redesignated, the state must continue to operate an appro priate air quality mo nitoring network in order to verify the area's attainment status.

 The state must ensure that it has the legal authority to implement and enforce all measures necessary to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Continued attainment must be

ve rified by the state by indicating how maintenance plan progress will be tracked.

 Contingency measures must be available to promptly correct any NAAQS violation

. At a minimum, the contingency measures must include a requirement that the state will impleme nt all measures contained in the nonattainment SIP prior to redesignation.

3.4.2 Washington DC

- MD

- VA Approach

An appropriate maintenance plan for the area meeting all federal requirements is being submitted along with this redesignation request for each state in the Washington DC

- MD

- VA area. This maintenance plan relies upon a variety of programs , which demonstrate that air quality will be maintained at least 10 years into the future. The plan contains contingency measures to be implemented in case of worsening air quality and mobile vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity purposes.