Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0079-0965
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-11-08T05:00Z

12­
17­
04
draft.
do
not
quote
or
cite
1
O3
Implementation
Attainment
&
Cost
Difference
Analysis
Review
the
Bidding
Number
of
Areas
Initial
Results
Many
Caveats
Next
Steps
12­
17­
04
draft.
do
not
quote
or
cite
2
Summary
°
Most
areas
are
projected
to
attain
the
8­
hour
standard
under
base
case
conditions
°
With
local
control
strategies,
most
of
the
other
areas
(
10
out
of
16)

are
projected
to
attain
the
standard
by
2009/
2010.
Air
quality
improvements
in
the
other
areas.

°
Initial
Scope
of
RFP
difference
analysis:

 
Most
stringent
option:
at
most,
all
of
18
areas
 
Least
stringent
option:
at
most,
all
or
part
of
6
areas
°
Initial
Scope
of
RACT
diff.
analysis­
only
affects
subpart
1
areas
 
Most
stringent
option:
6
areas
 
Least
stringent
option:
0
areas
°
Next
Steps.
Refine
attainment
analysis.
Begin
Difference
Analysis
12­
17­
04
draft.
do
not
quote
or
cite
3
Background
°
Costs
associated
with
the
ambient
standard
were
assessed
in
1997
when
the
8­
hr
O3
NAAQS
was
promulgated.

°
The
implementation
rule
examines
differences
in
alternative
implementation
frameworks
°
The
most
flexible
and
legally
defensible
framework
is
the
regulatory
baseline
°
The
base
case
for
air
quality
modeling
is
what
would
happen
in
the
absence
of
8­
hr
O3
SIPs
and
additional
federal
rules
(
e.
g.
CAIR)
12­
17­
04
draft.
do
not
quote
or
cite
4
Review
the
Bidding
°
Completed:

 
Quantitative
Difference
Analysis
for
Proposed
Rule
 
Qualitative
Analysis
for
Phase
I
Promulgated
Rule
°
In
Process
 
Attainment
Analysis
(
Needed
for
Difference
Analysis)

 
Difference
analysis
for
RFP
and
RACT
options
12­
17­
04
draft.
do
not
quote
or
cite
5
Attainment
Analysis
°
Scope:
CAM­
X
Domain.

 
Excludes
18
areas
°
10
subpart
1
°
8
subpart
2
(
2
marginal,
2
moderate,
3
serious,
1
severe­
17)

 
Located
in
AZ,
CA,
CO,
and
NV
°
Limitations
 
Limited
set
of
control
measures
 
Ignores
scale
effects,
learning
curves,

bottlenecks
12­
17­
04
draft.
do
not
quote
or
cite
6
2004
Designations
versus
2010
Base
Case
Projections:
Areas
with
8­
hr
Design
Values
>

85ppb
11
27
Subpart
2­

Moderate
4
7
Subpart
2­

Marginal
1
72
Subpart
1
Base
Case
2010
CAM­
X
Projections
No.
of
Areas
Designated
in
2004
Non­
Attainment
Area
Type
12­
17­
04
draft.
do
not
quote
or
cite
7
Local
Control
Strategy
Methodology
°
Establish
emission
reduction
targets
for
each
of
the
16
non­
attainment
areas
NAAs
°
Determine
Geographic
Boundaries
up
to
100km
and
200km
of
the
16
NAAs
°
Rank
order
control
measures
 
Within
NAA
 
For
NAA
+
100
to
200km
beyond
°
Assess
cost
using
different
targets,
select
lower
cost
strategy
°
Rerun
CAM­
X
with
emission
reductions
from
lower
cost
strategy
°
Caveat/
qualify
results
12­
17­
04
draft.
do
not
quote
or
cite
8
2010
Base
Case
versus
2010
CAM­
X
Local
Control
Strategy
Run:
Estimated
NAAs
3
areas
too
close
to
call
(
86
vs
85
ppb)

~
6
11
Subpart
2
Moderate
1
area
too
close
to
call
(
86
vs
84
ppb)

~
0
4
Subpart
2
Marginal
1
area
too
close
to
call
(
85
vs
84
ppb)

~
0
1
Subpart
1
Comments
No.
of
NAAs
2010
Local
Control
Strategy
No.
of
NAAs
2010
Base
Case
NAA
Type
12­
17­
04
draft.
do
not
quote
or
cite
9
NAA
Expected
to
Attain:
Targets
&
Costs
$
930
$
600
16%
NOx
$
27
Washington
$
370
$
350
27.3%
NOx
$
2.5
Sheboygan
$
3380
$
1700
13.3%
NOx*

$
1.6
Providence
$
60
$
40
7.2%
NOx
$
0.02
Kent/
Q.
Anne
$
3110
$
1550
19%
NOx
$
51
Dallas
$$
2670
$
1380
11%
VOC
$
28
Detroit
$
740
$
540
18.3%
NOx
$
14
Cleveland
$
120
$
120
4.7%
NOx
$
0.7
Beaumont
$
1990
$
1190
35.9%
NOx
$
21
Buffalo
$
390
$
220
7.6%
NOx
$
3.3
Atlanta
Max
$/
ton
Ave
$/
ton
ER
Target
Cost
(
106)

Area
*
Area
did
not
achieve
target.
Reductions
in
upwind
areas
resulted
in
projected
attainment.
12­
17­
04
draft.
do
not
quote
or
cite
10
Areas
not
simulated
to
attain
the
standard
in
the
local
control
strategy
case
Exceeds
progress
requirements
99%
83%

~
50%
NOx
~
50%
VOC
Philadelphia
Exceeds
progress
requirements
19%
62%

~
50%
NOx
~
50%
VOC
New
York
Exceeds
progress
requirements
72%

~
50%
NOx
Milwaukee
Exceeds
progress
requirements
80%
NOx
24%
VOC
~
50%
NOx
~
50%
VOC
Houston
Exceeds
progress
requirements
100%
100%

~
50%
NOx
25%
VOC
All
Chicago
Except
Cook/
Lake
Exceeds
progress
requirements
Up
to
73%

39.3%
NOx
Baltimore
Comments
Max
Am't
of
Target
Achieved
ER
Target
Area
12­
17­
04
draft.
do
not
quote
or
cite
11
Some
Preliminary
Totals
for
the
16
Areas
°
Emission
Reductions:
Local
Control
Strategy
 
VOC:
359,363
tons
 
NOx:
536,032
tons
(
181,055
tons
from
EGUs
>
25
MW)

°
Connection
to
CAIR:

 
44
facilities
in
common
in
the
16
areas
°
15:
no
further
control
under
CAIR
or
Local
Control
Strategy
°
15:
CAIR
has
>
emission
reductions
°
14:
O3
implementation
>
emission
reductions
 
For
these
44
facilities
in
total,
CAIR
has
159194
additional
tons
of
NOx
reductions
12­
17­
04
draft.
do
not
quote
or
cite
12
Difference
Analysis
°
RFP:
At
most,
18
areas
 
13
of
these
were
in
the
local
control
strategy
analysis:

 
All
will
have
creditable
emission
reductions
because
of
federal
rules
reflected
in
the
base
case
 
Also,
some
of
these
are
expected
to
meet
RFP
in
attempting
to
achieve
the
emission
reduction
targets.

 
Other
areas:
Allentown,
Boston,
Columbus,
Door,

Greater
Conn.
Will
also
have
creditable
emission
reductions
because
of
federal
rules
reflected
in
the
base
case
°
RACT:
At
most,
6
areas.
None
were
in
the
local
control
strategies
analysis