Air Toxics Regulatory Update

National Tribal ForumTulsa, Oklahoma

May 2012

Overview

► NAAQS updates NAAQS processParticulate matter statusOzone status

► Ozone designations► SO2 NAAQS implementation – discussion► Other notable regulations

2

NAAQS - Statutory Requirements

► Primary (health-based) standards . . . in the “judgment of the

Administrator” are “requisite” to protect public health with an

“adequate margin of safety” “Requisite” – sufficient but not more than necessary “Adequate margin of safety” – intended to address uncertainties

associated with inconclusive evidence, and to provide a reasonable

degree of protection against hazards that research has not yet

identified

► Secondary (welfare-based) standards . . . in the “judgment of the

Administrator” are “requisite to protect the public welfare from

“any known or anticipated adverse effects” Welfare effects include . . . “effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation,

man-made materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and

climate . . .”3

NAAQS - Statutory Requirements (cont’d)

► NAAQS, and the scientific information upon which they are based, are to be reviewed every five years

► An independent scientific review committee. . . shall complete a review of the science and standards . . . and “shall recommend to the Administrator any new . . . standards and revisions of existing . . . standards as may be appropriate” This function performed by Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee

(CASAC)

► In setting NAAQS EPA is required to engage in “reasoned decision making” to translate

scientific evidence into standards

In so doing, EPA may not consider cost in setting standards . . . rather, cost is considered in developing control strategies to meet the standards

4

Integrated Review Plan: timeline and key policy-

relevant issues and scientific questions

Integrated Science Assessment: concise evaluation and synthesis of most

policy-relevant studies

Risk/Exposure Assessment: concise quantitative assessment

focused on key results, observations, and uncertainties

Workshop on science-policy

issues

Public hearings and comments

on proposal

EPA final decision on standards

Interagency review

Interagency review

Agency decision making and draft proposal notice

Agency decision making and draft final

notice

CASAC consultation and public comment

CASAC review and public comment

Policy Assessment: staff analysis of policy

options based on integration and interpretation of

information in the ISA and REA

EPA proposed

decision on standards

Peer-reviewed scientific studies

Overview of NAAQS Review Process

5

Current PM Standards:Identical Primary and Secondary Standards

Indicator

Averaging Time

Annual 24-hour

PM2.5(Fine Particles)

15.0 µg/m3

Annual arithmetic mean, averaged over 3 years

35 µg/m3

98th percentile, averaged over 3 years

PM10(Coarse Particles)

------150 µg/m3

not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over a three year

period

6

Last Review: completed October 2006

7

Primary PM2.5 Standards: Final Policy Assessment Conclusions and CASAC Advice

► Staff and CASAC conclude it is appropriate to consider revising annual standard level within a range of 13 to 11 µg/m3 to provide increased public health protection (current standard is 15.0 µg/m3)

– Staff concludes that evidence most strongly supports range of 12 to 11 µg/m3

• Staff and CASAC conclude it is appropriate to consider retaining or revising 24-hour standard level within a range of 35-30 µg/m3 (current standard is 35 µg/m3)

• No decisions have been made at this time

Secondary PM Standards: Final Policy Assessment Conclusions and CASAC Advice

► Staff and CASAC agree that it is appropriate to consider setting a distinct secondary PM standard to address visibility impairment primarily in urban areas Recognize that visibility in Class I areas is addressed by the Regional

Haze Program

► Consider setting this standard based on: Calculated PM2.5-related light extinction indicator

Alternative averaging times (24-hour, 4-hour)

90th percentile form, averaged over 3 years; and

Level within a range of 25 to 30 deciviews

► Staff and CASAC agree that it is appropriate to consider retaining the current secondary PM standards (PM2.5 and PM10) to address non-visibility welfare effects

► No decisions have been made at this time7

Primary PM10 Standard: Final Policy Assessment Conclusions, CASAC Advice, and Administrator Announcement

► Staff concludes scientific evidence and associated uncertainties could provide support for either retaining or revising the current primary 24-hour PM10

standard To the extent consideration is given to revising the standard, policy assessment

concludes it would be appropriate to consider a 98th percentile form in conjunction with a level within a range of 85 to 65 µg/m3

► CASAC does not support retaining the current PM10 standard; recommends

revising form and level in order to increase public health protection CASAC recommends a 98th percentile form in conjunction with a level within a range of

75 to 65 µg/m3

► Administrator announced her intent to propose to retain the current primary PM10 standard in Oct. 14, 2011 letters to Senators Klobuchar and Stabenow

“Based on my consideration of the scientific record, analysis provided by EPA scientists, and advice from the Clean Air Science Advisory Council, I am prepared to propose the retention - with no revision - of the current PM10 standard and form

when it is sent to OMB for interagency review.”

8

PM NAAQS Review Process to Date

► Initiated in 2007► Integrated Science Assessment (ISA): December 2009

Synthesis and assessment of most policy-relevant science

► Risk/Exposure Assessments (REAs): June/July 2010 Focus on fine particles; no assessment of risks associated with coarse

particles Quantitative health risk assessment and urban-focused visibility assessment

► Policy Assessment: April 2011 Staff conclusions of broadest range of policy options supported by the

available scientific evidence, quantitative assessments, and air quality analyses

Staff conclusions address adequacy of current standards and potential alternative standards appropriate to consider

► Drafts of each document have been reviewed by CASAC and the public Final documents take into consideration CASAC and public comments

9

Ozone NAAQS – Update on Current Review

► Second draft reviewed by CASAC – January 2012 Requested 3rd draft ISA for review emphasized the need for better integration of the scientific

evidence and how it informs our understanding of exposure to ozone and potential impacts on at-risk populations

► Upcoming milestones 3rd draft ISA – June 2012 1st draft REAs – July 2012 1st draft Policy Assessment – August 2012 CASAC review of these draft documents – September 11-

13, 2012

► Current rulemaking schedule Proposed rule – 2013 Final rule – 2014

10

Ozone Designations Outcome in Indian Country

► 49 tribes designated nonattainment as part of the surrounding counties 44 in California 2 in Arizona 2 in Connecticut 1 in New York 1 in Massachusetts

► 2 tribes designated as separate nonattainment areas from surrounding nonattainment areas Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Morongo Band of Mission Indians

► Southern Ute – designated as a separate unclassifiable/attainment area from the surrounding unclassifiable/attainment area

► Catawba Indian Nation – designated unclassifiable/attainment from the surrounding nonattainment area

11

SO2 NAAQS Implementation

► Past SO2 implementation approaches have relied on a mix of ambient monitoring and modeling

► June 2010: new primary SO2 1-hr standard issued – designation recommendations were submitted June 2011

► September 2011: draft implementation guidance issued – many of you commented on it

► In April 2012, we announced that we are Continuing to designate areas with monitors showing violations of the

standard as nonattainment Organizing a series of stakeholder meetings to obtain input on refining

our approach for establishing whether areas are meeting the SO2 standard

► Since we expect to make changes to our proposed approach for determining attainment, states will not be expected to submit a modeling demonstration for areas designated unclassifiable – generally those areas without SO2 monitors - as part of their upcoming SIP submittals

12

13

14

SO2 Implementation:Key Questions – Monitoring► Are the monitoring network approaches sufficient to protect public health without the need

for additional modeling If not, then what enhancements should be made to the existing network In what situations should meteorological data collection also be required

► What is an appropriate number of monitors around a source to assess air quality► Is it reasonable for states to consider relocating monitors within their states

What are potential barriers to relocation (e.g. , cost, agreement with local community) Is it reasonable for states to consider transferring their monitors to other states

► What kind of modeling (or other analyses) are necessary to identify the location of maximum impact

What information and resources are necessary to complete such modeling What is a reasonable schedule for completing this modeling

►  What options exist to pay for the expanded SO2 monitoring network Would stakeholders be willing to conduct monitoring at new locations, or provide funding to assist states in

conducting such monitoring If so, what type of agreement would be needed between states and stakeholders to insure the monitoring

would be done

► For potential stakeholder operated monitors, what kind of oversight would the states need to perform

Would EPA perform additional oversight Would someone audit these facility monitoring programs and associated monitors What type of agreement would be needed between the states and stakeholders to insure the monitoring

was carried out

15

SO2 Implementation:Key Questions – Modeling

► Should some criteria (e.g., the PWEI concept) be used to identify priority sources for modeling in an area without a nearby monitor

►  How should the modeling be performed i.e., what changes should be made to the March 24, 2011 guidance, such as

the use of size cut-offs and use of actual emissions

►  Are there situations where modeling is preferable to monitoring (and vice-versa)

If so, then in what situations

Are there situations where it is appropriate for a state to only model SO2

emissions and not operate any monitors

►  What options exist for paying for the new modeling analyses Would stakeholders be willing to conduct, or provide funding to assist states in

conducting, any new modeling If so, what type of agreement would be needed between states and

stakeholders to insure modeling would be done

16

SO2 Implementation:Key Questions► In what form should EPA set forth the revised approach

Would rules need to be revised? Which ones? How should states adopt the new approach, and how much time is needed for this

► What can be done to initiate monitoring as quickly as possible to collect sufficient data to make attainment/nonattainment determinations? What is a reasonable schedule for

designing a sufficient monitoring network; and

deploying a new monitor or moving a monitor from an existing location

► By what date should the modeling be completed and submitted to EPA

► Once modeling/monitoring data are in, how should states and EPA use these data to address violations in unclassifiable areas

Is redesignating the most workable approach

What should be the timing for these redesignations

Is the timing of the next SO2 NAAQS revision a consideration

► Is it possible to develop an attainment determination approach that provides reasonable assurance that sources of concern causing violations will be identified and addressed

► How should EPA address unclassifiable areas with no emissions or shown to have no monitored or modeled violations

What requirements, if any, are appropriate to support designating these areas as attainment

17

Reminder: Stakeholder Focus Groups

► Schedule for stakeholder discussions Tribal Focused Discussion at the NTF, May 23, 2012 Session 1: Environmental and Public Health Organization Representatives

May 30, 2012, Washington, DC Session 2: State and Tribal Representatives

May 31, 2012, Research Triangle Park, NC Session 3: Industry Representatives

June 1, 2012, Research Triangle Park, NC

► Discussions will be structured around White Paper EPA is seeking tribal feedback New version will be posted at least a week before Session 1

► For more information about these meetings, please contact Carolyn Childers at (919) 541-5604

► A summary of key comments from the stakeholder meetings will provided on EPA’s website following the conclusion of all three meetings

http://www.epa.gov/air/sulfurdioxide/implement.html

18

Appendix

Number of Sources Total Emissions Percent

All SO2 Sources in 2008 NEI emitting 1 ton or more

8740 10,733,126 100%

SO2 sources > 100 tons 1685 9,371,000 99%

SO2 sources > 1000 tons 780 9,040,000 96%

SO2 sources > 2000 tons 585 8,766,000 93%

SO2 sources > ~2750 tons ~500 8,545,000 90%

19

PollutantNumber of Monitored Sites

(as of end of 2011)

Carbon Monoxide 330

Lead 198 (for TSP in local conditions)

Nitrogen Dioxide 397

Ozone 1291

PM2.5 868

PM10 684

SO2 441

SO2 Ambient Monitoring NetworkCurrent number of monitors nationally: 441Number of monitors in 1980: 1500Current minimum monitoring requirements: 129 monitors required in 104 CBSAs

SO2 Ambient Monitoring Data

 Based on ambient monitoring data from 2008-2010, there were about 70 monitors located in 60

areas with 1-hour SO2 concentrations exceeding the level of the standard.

20

Other Notable Regulatory Efforts

► May 2012: Stationary Combustion Turbine NSPS Amendments to address UARG Reconsideration Petition – will set up informational calls in early June

► May 2012: Reconsideration of Final NESHAP for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) – (confirmed)

► August 2012: Portland Cement Manufacturing NESHAP and NSPS – Amendments resulting from Reconsideration

► Fall 2012: Risk and Technology Review for Mineral Wool► November 2012: Risk and Technology Review Amendments to the

Phosphoric Acid and Phosphate Fertilizer Production NESHAP – will be discussing on the June 6 policy call

21