1

OAQPS Rule and Program UpdateNational Tribal Forum

Laura McKelveyJune 2

NAAQS and Designations Schedule

NAAQS Pollutant Proposal Final

NO2 Primary* Jun 2009 Jan 2010

SO2 Primary* Nov 2009 Jun 2010

NOX/SOX Secondary* Feb 2010 Oct 2010

CO* Oct 2010 May 2011

PM** Jan 2011 Oct 2011

Ozone** Jun 2012 Mar 2013

Lead Jan 2013 Oct 2013

Looking Forward - National Ambient Air Quality Standards Review Schedule

*Court ordered deadline **Current Schedules do not reflect possible revised schedules reflecting options for reconsideration

EPA Tribal Designations for NAAQS - Update

• Ozone Designations Schedule Overview (subject to change):

– State & Tribal recommendations due March 12, 2009– Send 120-Day Letters to S/T/l November 12, 2009– Publish FRN re: 120-day letters November 2009– End of 60-day comment period for S/T/l January 2010– End of 30-day comment period for public December 2010– Prepare responses to S/T/T,public comments Jan-Feb 2012– Produce final TSDs Jan-Feb 2012– Administrator signs final designations March 12, 2012– Publish designations final rule ~April, 2012

Technology Standards

6

Technology Standards Sector Strategy

Achieves better environmental benefits and public health protection;

•Uses a more holistic, multipollutant approach;

•Minimizes regulatory and administrative burdens; and

•Leverages federal, tribal, state, and local resources more efficiently and effectively

7

Goal of Sector Strategy

• To group activities that are under common control and typically fall within a facility fenceline, and are used to make a product or group of products.‐ Activities comprise various equipment,

control devices and air pollution sources

• To use these groupings to align elements of the federal stationary source emissions standards programs and set priorities– Synchronize rules, assign resources,

maximize environmental benefits, etc.

Types of activities – Boilers– Heaters– Storage tanks– Vents– Wastewater– Engines– Furnaces

Summary of Regulations By Industry Group

Industry Group TotalArea

SourceCTG/

183(e) MACT/129Pre-1990 NESHAP NSPS

Chemical Production 75 14 18 31 1 11

Durable Goods Manufacturing 58 4 23 20   11

Metal Processes 48 16 1 15 3 12

Minerals 36 5 2 12 2 15

Agriculture and Forest Products 15 2 3 7   3

Oil and Gas Production and Distribution 15 2 5 5   3

Petroleum Refining 13   4 2 4 3

Energy and Combustion 12 1   5 1 5

Service Industries 11 2 6 2   1

Transportation Equipment 10   5 4   1

Waste Management 8     8   1

Chemical Usage 5 1 3 1    

Utilities 3     1   2

Institutions 1     1    

Transportation Infrastructure 0          

Total 310 47 70 114 11 68

9

Sector Strategy Example Petroleum RefineriesEmission Point

Current Regs

Boilers NSPS: DbMACT

Process Heaters NSPS: J, Ja

FCCU, Ref, SRP NSPS: J, JaMACT: UUU

Process Vents MACT: CC

Wastewater MACT: CCPart 61: FFNSPS QQQ

Storage NSPS: Ka,KbMACT: CC,EEENESHAP

Loading MACT: CC, EEENESHAP

Equipment Leaks MACT CC, UU, TTNSPS GGG,VVNESHAP

Regulatory Actions

NSPS Db tech reviewNew Boiler MACT(?)

NSPS tech review

UUU Residual Risk Rule and Technology Review

CC Residual Risk Rule and Technology ReviewEEE Residual Risk Rule

NSPS tech reviews

Sector Approach

Sector Action

Sector Action

10

Progress Under Way

• Designing comprehensive sector analysis– Initial scoping sectors:

• Petroleum Refineries, Cement, Iron and Steel, Pulp & Paper

– Prioritize sectors and opportunities – Develop work plans– Refine tools for holistic analysis– Encourage staff buy-in

• Using to inform deadline discussions• Working to identify issues with long-term goals

11

Preliminary Sector Priorities

• Electric Utilities

• Boilers and Process Heaters

• Ferrous Metals

• Pulp and Paper

• Petroleum Refineries

• Cement Manufacturing

• Brick Manufacturing

• Non-Ferrous Metals

• Chemical Manufacturing

• Oil and Gas Production and Distribution

• Waste Incineration

• Metal Foundries

• Formulated Products Manufacturing and Use

• Plywood Manufacturing

Proposed Cement MACT Emission LimitsProposed Emissions Limita

Range of Current

Emissions

Existing Source New Source

Hg12 to 3,300 lb/MM tons clinker

43 lb/MM tons clinker (30 day average)

14 lb/MM tons feed (30 day average)

THC(Surrogate for Organic HAP)

<1 to 173 ppmv7 ppmv for all kilnsb

(30 day average)

6 ppmv for all kilns(30 day average)

PM (Surrogate for nonmercury metal HAP)

0.005 to 0.50 lb/ton clinker

0.085 lb/ton clinker0.080 lb/ton clinker

HCl <1 to 75 ppmv 2 ppmv 0.1 ppmv a For Hg, THC, and PM these limits would apply to major and area sources. For HCl these limits only apply to major sources.

b We believe this value may be biased low due to lack of data.

Other Requirements and Emissions Reductions

• Emissions Monitoring – All sources– Continuous monitors for mercury and THC– Bag Leak detectors for PM (PM CEMS as an alternative)– Continuous monitors for HCl if no wet scrubber

• Test Methods and Performance Specifications– Reproposing PS-12A and Proposing PS12B for Mercury Monitoring– Lowering the detection limit of EPA Method 321

• Emissions Reductions– Mercury: 11,600 to 16,250 pounds, or a reduction of 81 to 93

percent;– Total hydrocarbons: 11,670 to 13,900 tons, or a reduction of 75

percent;– Particulate matter: 10,500 to 10,600 tons, or a reduction of 90 to 96

percent;– Hydrochloric acid: 2,800 to 3,600 tons, or a reduction of 92 to 94

percent; and – Sulfur dioxide: 135,700 to 160,000 a reduction of 77 to 90 percent.

Estimated Costs and Benefits of Proposed Cement NESHAP

Emissions Reductionsa

Total Annualized

Costs (millions of

2005$)

Benefits Rangesb

(millions of 2005$)

~4750 tpy PM2.5

136,000 to 160,000 tpy

SO2

$222 to $350 (engineering

costs)$700c

(social costs)

$4,000 to $11,000

(620 to 1,600 avoided

premature mortalities)a Assumes PM2.5 fraction is 45%. Includes emission reductions from existing kilns and assumes 20 new

kilns by 2013. Includes emission reductions from controls on HCl, THC, and Hg.

b Benefits estimates are for the year 2013.

c Includes compliance costs and costs to consumers due to increases in cement prices.

Rulemaking Update

Area Source MACT Current Status

• A total of 70 area source categories have been listed• Standards have been promulgated for 51 categories• 19 categories remain to be addressed under March 2006

Court Order (Unopposed motion to amend filed 5/7/09)

– 3 source categories by June 15, 2009– 14 source categories by August 17, 2009– 3 source categories by July 15, 2010 (tied to

112(c)(6) deadline & proposal for gold mining by August 15, 2009)

Remaining Categories: BINS 5 and 6

• Bin 5 Final Rules August 2009:– Chemical Manufacturing (450 facilities) covers processes such as vents,

cooling towers, wastewater, equipment leaks, and tanks, (9 categories in one rule)

• Bin 6 Final Rules June 2009:– Copper, Aluminum and Other Nonferrous Foundries (3 categories in one

rule)• Bin 6 Final Rules August 2009:

– Chemical Preparation – Prepared Feeds – Paint and Allied Products– Asphalt Roofing

• Three categories extend into 2010 for promulgation:– Commercial Institutional Boilers– Industrial Boilers– Sewage Sludge Incineration

Current Status of Risk and Technology Rule Projects

• RTR Phase 2 Group 1– Final rule signed December 10, 2008; 8 Categories

• RTR Phase 2 Group 2– Published the Group 2 ANPRM on March 29, 2007; 22 categories– Group 2A – Proposal signed September 29, 2008; proposed 5 MACT

• November 13, 2008, Sierra Club notice of intent to sue on 34 source categories for residual risk and technology review (Answer deadline July 21, 2009)

• Halogenated Solvents (Joint motion filed November 3, 2008 to hold case in abeyance per EPA agreement to issue final rule October 30, 2009).

• Dry Cleaning (April 29, 2009 Court granted unopposed motion for voluntary remand of the record to permit reconsideration).

• Petroleum Refineries (Signed January 16, 2009, but not published)

• New Administration to review current policies

Electric Generating Units (EGUs)

• EPA has outstanding obligations under the Clean Air Act to issue or consider rules affecting power plants. For example, EPA must:– Issue a replacement rule for the Clean Air Interstate Rule

(CAIR), following a court decision that found CAIR legally flawed

– Issue a utility MACT standard, following a court decision that struck down the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR)

– Take action on the boiler NSPS (which includes utility boilers:

• Remand to decide whether the new source performance standard should limit CO2

• Pending litigation on SO2 and NOx limits– PM2.5 rule

Status of Utility MACT

• In February 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated the cap-and-trade program regulation and EPA’s rule removing power plants from the list of sources to be regulated by section 112

• This leaves EPA with a requirement to set a MACT standard for coal and oil-fired power plants

• The new Administration withdrew its petition for certiori for Supreme Court review of the appeals court decision. The Supreme Court denied certiori to the industry petitioners

• Several environmental and health organizations have filed a deadline suit for setting MACT for coal- and oil-fired power plants

• The Parties recently filed a joint motion, asking the Court to extend the answer deadline to June 20, 2009. The Court granted the motion, in part. Specifically, the Court ordered that EPA must file its answer by May 26, 2009

Status of Data to Support Utility MACT

• EPA has limited data, particularly on the non-mercury HAP, and industry-wide data gathering is necessary to develop a good, defensible rule

• EPA’s current mercury data were collected prior to the development of the now vacated CAMR

• The limited data on non-mercury HAP come from the 1998 Report to Congress– We have more data for coal-fired units than oil-fired units

• Facilities have additional HAP emissions data readily available

Case-by-Case MACT under sec. 112(g)

• R. J. Meyers to EPA Regional Administrators, January 7, 2009 – New Jersey v. EPA – court rejection of CAMR:

EGUs remain listed source categories for 112 MACT

– All plants commencing construction after March 2000 must have 112(g)

• Includes those permitted under CAMR

• Ongoing permit issues

EPA’s Tribal School Monitoring Initiative

About the Initiative• On March 31, 2009 EPA announced monitoring

of outdoor air at 62 schools in 22 states.• Measuring the levels of pollutants in the air will

help EPA understand whether outdoor air quality at the schools poses any health concerns.

• We are focusing on schools near– Large industries– In urban areas, where air toxics come from a variety

of sources – In low-income areas, which are sometimes

disproportionately affected by pollution

What We’re Monitoring For• We are monitoring at schools where we

have questions about the air that merit investigation.

• Specifically monitoring for HAPs from industrial facilities and cars, trucks and buses.

Tribal School Effort• Information on Tribal schools and Inventories is

limited preventing EPA from including most tribal schools in the analysis

• BUT EPA wants to ensure that school children in Indian country are equally protected. Gathering air quality data at schools in Indian country will help us accomplish this.

• Worked with the Regional Offices to identify two tribes with nearby sources and potential concerns.

• Additional Tribal schools will be identified later.

Protocal for Additional Tribal Schools• After the monitoring for these first two

schools monitors will be sent to the TAMS center for re-deployment

• Workgroup of tribal staff will determine criteria for re-deployment of monitors

• We will work with the RTOCs and NTOC to identify additional interested tribes

Nez Perce Lapwai Middle/High school and Southern Ute Sunnyside Elementary School• Selected because

– Information raised some questions about outdoor air quality around the schools on the list

– Nez Perce – Paper Mill and agricultural burning

– Southern Ute – Oil and Gas production

• Monitoring will allow us to understand whether the air quality poses any health concerns

What to expect• EPA is purchasing monitors for this project.

Those monitors are being ordered now.• EPA will pay for sample analysis • Tribal air staff will visit the site to determine

where monitors should be set up.• Monitors will take samples of air every six days

for 60 days.– In addition the Tribal agency may take up to three

additional samples, on a random schedule

Examples of Equipment You May See

What About Results?• We will post results on the web as the project is

under way. – There is a lag-time between when monitoring begins and

when results are available. – We will post data after each sample is analyzed and

quality assured.• But we will need all 10 samples before we can

make a rough projection of health effects from chronic exposure to air toxics at a school.– We’ll share complete results about three months after

monitoring begins.

Next Steps Depend on Results• If we find that potential health concerns are:

– Low: We may end monitoring at that school. – High: EPA will take steps to mitigate the pollution causing

the problems, and possibly continue monitoring.

• If EPA cannot estimate potential effects based on the initial phase of monitoring, we may continue monitoring to obtain additional data.

EPA’s Residential Wood Smoke Program

• Great American Wood Stove Changeout

• Burn Wise Education Campaign

• Wood Smoke Control Strategies Document

Great American Wood Stove Changeout

• Changeout Benefits– Reduces fine particles and toxic air pollution by 70%– Reduces indoor PM2.5 emissions by 70% according to U. Montana– Improves energy efficiency by 50%, by using 1/3 less wood

• Funding Opportunities– HUD Indian Housing Block Grants– USDA Rural Development Grants– Low-income Weatherization – Federal Tax Credit: Stimulus Bill provides for a 30% tax credit (up

to $1,500) for the purchase in 2009 and 2010 of a 75%-efficient biomass-burning stove. 

For more information contact your EPA Regional TAC or Larry Brockman at brockman.larry@epa.gov

Burn Wise Education Campaign

•Special focus will be given to individuals who:– burn what's available, (e.g., green wood, trash)– use older appliances– are turning to wood as an alternative fuel source to heat their

homes

•Primary message: – If you burn wood, Burn Wise – burn as cleanly as possible with the right wood, the right way

in the right appliance.

For more information contact: Kristen Bremer at bremer.kristen@epa.gov

Wood Smoke Control Strategies Draft Document

• A comprehensive document that includes options to address wood smoke in a given community

• Specific information includes:– Education and outreach tools– Regulatory options– Wood stove and fireplace changeouts

• Funding options– Hydronic heater and fireplace programs– Partnerships– Emission calculation estimates and air quality benefits– Basic components of a PM2.5 SIP/TIP for wood smoke

dominated nonattainment areas

To review and provide comments: contact Larry Brockman at brockman.larry@epa.gov

Other Upcoming Issues

• Lead in Aviation Fuel– Next NTAA call OTAQ will walk through their

study on lead at small airports

• Exploring NSPS for woodstoves