emission standards division activities and priorities n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
EMISSION STANDARDS DIVISION ACTIVITIES AND PRIORITIES PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
EMISSION STANDARDS DIVISION ACTIVITIES AND PRIORITIES

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 29

EMISSION STANDARDS DIVISION ACTIVITIES AND PRIORITIES - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 106 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'EMISSION STANDARDS DIVISION ACTIVITIES AND PRIORITIES' - zarifa


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
esd programs
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
slide3

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

the air toxics program
THE AIR TOXICS PROGRAM
  • Reduce risks to the population and minimize environmental impacts from air toxics
risk in mact
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))
delisting provision
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
health threshold provision
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
neshap for defense land systems and miscellaneous equipment
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
utility mact
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
proposed alternatives to reduce mercury emissions from the power sector
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)]
slide13

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
slide14

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

nsps rules
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
section 129 combustion rules
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
residual risk
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
residual risk continued
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

challenges facing residual risk program
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
residual risk continued1
RESIDUAL RISK (CONTINUED)
  • Develop “total facility low-risk demonstration (TFLRD)” rule
  • Develop comprehensive residual risk rule
  • Considering linking MACT review to this generic approach
urban air toxics area source rules
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)
area source program
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
area source emission reduction initiative
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
slide27
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
slide28
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
slide29
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