Air Toxics Regulatory Update

1. Air Toxics Regulatory Update National Tribal Forum Tulsa, Oklahoma May 2012

2. Overview • NAAQS updates • NAAQS process • Particulate matter status • Ozone status • Ozone designations • SO2 NAAQS implementation – discussion • Other notable regulations 2

3. 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

4. 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

5. Overview of NAAQS Review Process Peer-reviewed scientific studies Integrated Science Assessment: concise evaluation and synthesis of most policy-relevant studies Policy Assessment: staff analysis of policy options based on integration and interpretation of information in the ISA and REA Integrated Review Plan: timeline and key policy-relevant issues and scientific questions Workshop on science-policy issues CASAC review and public comment Risk/Exposure Assessment: concise quantitative assessment focused on key results, observations, and uncertainties CASAC consultation and public comment EPA proposed decision on standards Agency decision making and draft proposal notice Interagency review EPA final decision on standards Public hearings and comments on proposal Agency decision making and draft final notice Interagency review 5

6. Current PM Standards:Identical Primary and Secondary Standards Last Review: completed October 2006 6

7. Primary PM2.5 Standards: Final Policy Assessment Conclusions and CASAC Advice • Staff and CASAC conclude it is appropriate to consider revisingannual standard level within a range of 13 to 11 µg/m3to 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

8. 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 time 7

9. Primary PM10 Standard: Final Policy Assessment Conclusions, CASAC Advice, and Administrator Announcement • Staff concludes scientific evidence and associated uncertainties could provide support for eitherretaining 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; recommendsrevising 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 13

15. 14

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. Reminder: Stakeholder Focus Groups • Schedule for stakeholder discussions • Tribal Focused Discussion at the NTF, May 23, 2012 • Session 1: Environmental and Public Health Organization RepresentativesMay 30, 2012, Washington, DC • Session 2: State and Tribal RepresentativesMay 31, 2012, Research Triangle Park, NC • Session 3: Industry RepresentativesJune 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

20. Appendix 19

21. SO2 Ambient Monitoring Network Current number of monitors nationally: 441 Number of monitors in 1980: 1500 Current 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

22. 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