EMISSION STANDARDS DIVISION ACTIVITIES AND PRIORITIES

1. EMISSION STANDARDS DIVISION ACTIVITIES AND PRIORITIES SALLY SHAVER, DIRECTOR APRIL 8, 2004

2. ESD PROGRAMS • Toxics • 10-yr MACT standards • Utility MACT • Residual risk rules • Urban Air Toxics • Area Source Rules • Community Assessment Projects • Section 129 rules • Ag • NSPS

3. EMISSION STANDARDS DIVISION OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS Office of the Director (C504-03) Revised 01/2004 *SEEP Intern OGC Staff Detail/Rotation Sally Shaver, Director, x5572 Carolyn Blake, Executive Assistant, x5571 Penny Lassiter, Acting Assoc. Director, x5396 Eloise Shepherd, Secretary, x9451 *Bernell Phillips, x0251 Teresa Clemons, Program Analyst,x0252 Doris Maxwell, Mgt. Analyst, x5312 Robin Dunkins, Ag Coordinator, x5335 Linda Metcalf, Env. Prot. Spec., x2865 Elvis Graves, USDA/Ag Coord., x5436 Bruce Moore, Env. Engineer, x5460 Admin. Officer (Vacant) Rick Vetter, Attorney, x2127 Michele Laur, Env. Engineer, x5256 Carolyn Wigington, Contracts Liaison, x5376 COATINGS & CONSUMER PROD GROUP (C539-03) Elaine Manning, Acting, x5499 Janet Eck, Office Mgr., x7946 *Beverly Wright, x1546 Paul Almodovar, x0283 Lynn Dail, x2363 Rhea Jones, x2940 Dave Salman, x0859 Mohamed Serageldin, x2379 Kim Teal, x5580 Elineth Torres, x4347 Lisa Trembly, x9452 COMBUSTION GROUP (C439-01) Bob Wayland, Leader, x1045 Kelly Hayes, Off. Mgr., x5578 *Betty Kelly, x0505 Cathy Coats, x5349 Jim Eddinger, x5426 Mary Johnson, x5025 Bill Maxwell, x5430 Jaime Pagan, x5340 Fred Porter, x5251 Sims Roy, x5263 Brian Shrager, x7689 Walt Stevenson, x5264 MINERALS & INORGANIC CHEM GROUP (C504-05) Jim Crowder, Leader, x5596 Keith Barnett, Acting, x5605 Pamela Garrett, Off. Mgr., X7966 *Mary Ferrell, x5595 Rick Colyer, x5262 John Schaefer, x0296 Jeff Telander, x5427 Susan Fairchild, x5167 METALS GROUP (C439-02) Steve Fruh, Leader, x2837 Cassie Posey, Off. Mgr., x0069 Kevin Cavender, x2364 Conrad Chin, x1512 Lula Melton, x2910 Phil Mulrine, x5289 Iliam Rosario, x5308 Gail Harris, x1972 Karen Rackley, x0634 RISK & EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT GROUP (C404-01) Dave Guinnup, Leader, x5368 Barbara Miles, Off. Mgr., x5648 *Myrtle Pollard, x3990 George Bollweg, x0881 Neal Fann, X0209 Terri Hollingsworth, x5623 Scott Jenkins, x1167 Mark Morris, x5416 Deidre Murphy, x0729 Dennis Pagano, x0502 Ted Palma, x5470 Maria Pimental, x5280 Kelly Rimer, x2962 Roy Smith, x5362 Amy Vasu, x0107 ORGANIC CHEMICALS GROUP (C504-04) Randy Waite, Acting Leader, x5447 Vickey Epps-Price, Off. Mgr., x3889 *Rachel Clayton, x5673 Christine Davis, x1565 Warren Johnson, x5124 Gail Lacy, x5261 Randy McDonald, x5402 Maria Noell, x5607 Bob Rosensteel, x5608 Bill Schrock, x5032 POLICY, PLANNING & STANDARDS GROUP (C439-04) Chris Stoneman, Acting, x0823 Barbara Driscoll, x1051 Dorothy Apple, Off. Mgr., x4487 *Janis Parker, x1447 Amanda Aldridge, x5368 Yvonne Chandler, x5627 Dave Markwordt, x0837 Peter Murchie, 503-326-6554 Tony Wayne, x5439 Jeff Whitlow, x5523 Ellen Wildermann, x5408 WASTE & CHEM PROCESSES GROUP (C439-03) K.C. Hustvedt, Leader, x5395 Office Manager (Vacant) *Willie Russell, x5034 JoLynn Collins, x5671 Mary Tom Kissell, x4516 Bob Lucas, x0884 Greg Nizich, x3078 Steve Shedd, x5397 Martha Smith, x2421

4. THE AIR TOXICS PROGRAM • Reduce risks to the population and minimize environmental impacts from air toxics

5. MACT

6. RISK IN MACT • General Approach • Risk assessment information has been used to reduce regulatory requirements for low-risk sources • Two CAA provisions have been used: • Delisting authority (112(c)(9)) • Health threshold provision (112(d)(4))

7. DELISTING PROVISION • Section 112(c)(9) allows EPA to remove a subcategory of sources from the regulatory process if we can demonstrate that they pose low risk • In the case of the Plywood MACT, we are creating a “low-risk subcategory,” identifying a few members of it, delisting it, and then allowing additional individual facilities to demonstrate their membership in it via site-specific risk assessments

8. HEALTH THRESHOLD PROVISION • For pollutants with health thresholds, section 112(d)(4) allows EPA to consider them, with an ample margin of safety, when developing standards • In the case of the Boiler MACT, EPA is establishing the ample margin of safety for HCl/Cl2 and Mn and allowing sources which demonstrate that they meet that level to comply with an alternative standard

10. NESHAP FOR DEFENSE LAND SYSTEMS AND MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT • Separate surface coating standard to reduce toxic air emissions at DoD and NASA facilities • Cover all surface coating operations at military installations that are major sources of air toxics emissions • Working with DoD stakeholders to determine whether or not to cover some coating operations at military installations that emit below major source thresholds • Proposal planned for late 2005

11. UTILITY MACT • Utility MACT proposed December 15, 2003; promulgation December 2004 • Interstate Air Quality Rule proposed December 17, 2003 • 3 Public Hearings held February 25-26, 2004 for both rules • Supplemental Proposal for Utility signed February 24, 2004 • Public Hearing held March 31, 2004

12. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES TO REDUCE MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM THE POWER SECTOR • Proposed Section 112 MACT requirements for utility units • Reduces mercury emissions from 48 to 34 tons by 2007 • Proposed rule to address mercury from power sector under Section 111 (revising December 2000 determination to use Section 112 MACT requirements) • Proposed cap-and-trade approach [under Section 112(n)(1)(A)]

13. PROPOSED SECTION 111 ALTERNATIVE • Federal rule for new sources – 111(b) • Includes new utility emission limits for mercury and nickel • Guidelines for State Implementation Plans – 111(d) • Sets emission rates for existing coal-fired utility units under a cap-and-trade program administered by States • Phase 1: 2010 (solicit comment on cap level) • Phase 2: 2018 Capped at 15 tons • Sets a limit for nickel emissions from oil-fired units to ensure adequate control in State plans

14. Mercury Advisories by Type Advisories for specific waterbodies only Statewide freshwater advisory only Statewide freshwater advisory + advisories for specific waterbodies Statewide coastal advisory No mercury advisory Mercury Contamination in Fish • Currently 44 states have issued fish consumption advisories for some or all of their waters due to contamination from mercury.* States with Fish Advisories Due to Mercury *Note: For more information about the relationship between fish advisories and human exposure to mercury, see the EPA Report “America's Children and the Environment: Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses”available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/publications.htm

15. NSPS RULES • In February 2003 sued by Our Children’s Earth Foundation and Sierra Club for failing to revise four NSPS • Negotiated dates for proposal of February 2005 and final of February 2006 • Subpart Da – Utility Boilers • Subpart Db – Large Industrial, Commercial, & Institutional Boilers • Subpart Dc – Small Industrial, Commercial, & Institutional Boilers • Subpart GG – Combustion Turbines

16. SECTION 129 COMBUSTION RULES • Large MWC revision – promulgation April 2006 • Small MWC litigation – remanded February 2004 • Other Solid Waste Incinerators – promulgation by November 2005 • Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators – remanded in September 2001 • Medical Waste Incinerators – remanded in March 1999

17. RESIDUAL RISK • Where we are now • Risk Assessment Library almost complete • All 20 of the two- and four-year MACT residual risk standards have been started • Five of the 24 seven-year MACT projects have been initiated

20. RESIDUAL RISK (CONTINUED) • Complete current standards with court-ordered deadlines • Coke ovens – final 2005 • Dry cleaning – final 2006 • HON – final 2006* • Halogenated Solvents – final 2006* • Complete 4 proposals of no further controls by end of 2005* • Industrial cooling towers • Magnetic tape • Ethylene oxide sterilizers • Gasoline distribution *dates under negotiation

21. CHALLENGES FACING RESIDUAL RISK PROGRAM • Develop rules which target high-risk facilities in categories without impacting low-risk ones • Process should be simple, efficient • Process should be implementable by States • Develop innovative ways to reduce risks where controls are not available • MACT may have been effective, yet risks may still be high

22. RESIDUAL RISK (CONTINUED) • Develop “total facility low-risk demonstration (TFLRD)” rule • Develop comprehensive residual risk rule • Considering linking MACT review to this generic approach

23. URBAN AIR TOXICS – Area Source Rules • Develop strategy for addressing area source categories, including size cut-offs, geographical coverage, and combining multiple source categories into single rulemakings • Looking to see where we would get criteria pollutant co-benefits with our area source rules • Ongoing litigation/mediation • 22 area source rules started (10 are top 20 toxicity weighted) • Plan to start additional 8 (top 20 toxicity weighted)

24. AREA SOURCE PROGRAM • 70 categories listed • 15 standards completed • As part of a consent decree, we committed to propose/promulgate 5 more by • December 2007; • 50 area source standards are the subject of mediation

25. AREA SOURCE EMISSION REDUCTION INITIATIVE • Objective of initiative is to work through trade associations or similar organizations to identify and develop voluntary emission reduction programs for source categories on the area source list • Enforceable, self certifying program • Coordinating with other EPA offices to identify similar programs • Tentatively identified the following source categories to be considered as candidates: • Autobody Refinishing – approximately 50,000-60,000 sources • Welding (part of several metal finishing/fabricating source categories) • Nickel plating (part of plating and polishing) • Paint and Coating Manufacturing • Industrial Boilers

27. AG • Consent agreement and monitoring plan • Background • 2000/2001 → OECA initiates three high profile animal feeding operation (AFO) enforcement actions • 2001 → Administrator Whitman’s letter to Congressman Boehner states “…we do not currently have sound emission estimates to support regulatory determinations for animal agriculture.” • 2001 → • OAQPS funds a study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to evaluate EPA’s approach to animal agriculture • Industry begins discussions with OECA regarding a covenant not to sue in exchange for funding a monitoring study • 2002 → • NAS concludes study and recommends that scientifically credible methods for estimating AFO emissions be developed • Draft industry proposal • 2003 → EPA drafts its proposed Consent Agreement and conducts outreach activities

28. AG • Consent agreement and monitoring plan • Key Provisions • Provides a covenant not to sue for past violations of CERCLA and EPCRA reporting, and CAA permitting requirements • Covers only emissions related to livestock and livestock waste (i.e., barn and lagoon/manure management emissions) • Requires payment of a small civil penalty • Requires funding and participation in a 2 year nationwide emission monitoring program • A monitoring plan was developed for swine, egg layers, meat birds (i.e., broilers and turkeys) and dairy • The plan forms the basis of the detailed test plan that will be developed by industry and submitted to EPA for approval • After a short “cure period” following the monitoring program, the agreement requires compliance with applicable CERCLA and EPCRA reporting, and CAA permitting requirements

29. AG • Fire Coordination • Outreach – partnering w/USDA and DOI to look at the use of fire and the air quality impacts • Fire database – development and population of a database with prescribed burn and wildland fire data for multi-agency uses (e.g., smoke management) • EPA NEI fire data – effort to improve inputs to the emission inventory (e.g., fuel loading) • Continuing need for policy to address issues associated with: • Crop production • Animal agriculture • Fires