air quality division efo 17 th annual meeting “steering the course for environmental success”...

Air Quality Division

EFO 17th Annual Meeting“Steering the Course for Environmental Success”Crowne Plaza Hotel, Tulsa, Oklahoma October 3, 2008October 3, 2008

Air Quality DivisionAir Quality Division

Timeline:

March 12, 2008: EPA announces the 0.075 standard

March 12, 2009: States are required to propose nonattainment area designations

March 12, 2010: EPA designates nonattainment areasareas*

*EPA will have the data for the 2009 ozone season EPA will have the data for the 2009 ozone season to use for their designationto use for their designation


11 Factors for Setting Boundaries

1. Emissions and air quality in adjacent areas

2. Population density

3. Ozone monitoring data

4. Location of emission sources

5. Traffic patterns

6. Expected population growth

7. Meteorology

8. Topography

9. Jurisdictional boundaries

10. Level of control of emission sources

11. Regional emission reductionsemission reductions


*For nonattainment areas, the EPA default boundaries are the county if no Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) exist, and the MSA if one does exist.

For the state of Oklahoma, the *MSAs are:Fort Smith MSA: Le Flore and Sequoyah counties in Oklahoma and Crawford, Franklin, and Sebastian counties in Arkansas

Lawton MSA: Comanche county

Oklahoma City MSA : Canadian, Cleveland, Grady, Lincoln, Logan, McClain and Oklahoma counties

Tulsa MSA: Creek, Okmulgee, Osage, Pawnee, Rogers, Tulsa, and Wagoner counties

Air Quality DivisionAir Quality Division

Oklahoma’s Current Status:

Both Oklahoma City and Tulsa are in violation of the new 0.075 ppm standard using 2006 – 2008 ozone data:ozone data:

Oklahoma City sites: Edmond (0.079) & Choctaw (0.076)

Tulsa site: Skiatook (0.078)

The presumed default is the MSA

DEQ will hold meetings in Oklahoma City and Tulsa to take comments: Tulsa: Tulsa: November 17 or 19, 2008 Oklahoma City: December 4, 2008Oklahoma City: December 4, 2008

For more information on ozone designations contact:

Leon Ashford, DEQ Air Quality, [email protected]

Or visit the DEQ web site at

www.deq.state.ok.us/AQDnewwww.deq.state.ok.us/AQDnew


Changes in the Alternative Enforcement Policy


What Is It?

• An agreement by the regulated facility to by-pass the NOV process by cooperating with the Department to come into compliance quickly.

• It is not a forum for dispute of the violations or of the interpretation of the rules or statutes.


Changes in the Policy

• The Cover Letter will summarize the noncompliance issues in the evaluation report.

• A company will have 30, instead of 20, days to submit a compliance plan.

• A company will have an opportunity to schedule a meeting to discuss the alternative enforcement policy within 10 days of receiving the evaluation report (before the compliance plan is due).


What Hasn’t Changed• Enforcement will be handled the same as if

an NOV is issued.– AEP just skips the NOV step for on-site

evaluations. – It does not change the enforcement process.– Not a “get out of jail free” card.

• Goal is to foster cooperation between the regulated community and the Department


Mercury in Fish – 2008

• 48 Lakes scheduled for collection in 2008• 28 Collected as of September 26• Analysis complete on 19 as of September 26• Collections and analysis will be complete by

January 1, 2009


Mercury in Fish – 2008Lakes Sampled & Analyzed

• Lake Fuqua• Lake Murray• Lake Texoma• Lake Frederick• Lake Lawtonka• Lake McMurtry• Lake of the Arbuckles• Tom Steed Lake• Atoka Lake • Coalgate City Lake

• Lake Elmer Thomas• Lake Ellsworth• Lake Stanley Draper• McGee Creek Lake• Quanah Parker Lake• Rush Lake• Broken Bow Lake• Hugo Lake• Sardis Lake


Mercury in Fish – 2008Lakes Collected Awaiting Analysis

• Pine Creek Reservoir• Greenleaf Lake• Lake Tenkiller• Lake Wister• Robert S. Kerr Reservoir• Lake Ft. Gibson• Lake Eucha• Lake Hudson• Lake Spavinaw


Mercury in Fish – 2008Lakes Awaiting Collection

• Lake Thunderbird• Shawnee City Lakes• Zoo Lake• Birch Lake• Copan Reservoir• Grand Lake• Lake Oolagah• Skiatook Reservoir• Boomer Lake• Ft Supply Lake

• Kaw Reservoir• Lake Carl Blackwell• Lake Ponca• Sooner Lake• Lake Heyburn• Keystone Reservoir• Lake Eufaula• McAlester City Lake• Wes Watkins Reservoir• Canton Lake


GHG ANPRPermitting Issues

Clean Air Act Advisory CommitteeSeptember 17, 2008


ANPR Basics• An ANPR is used to obtain more information and solicit public input on

possible regulatory approaches before deciding whether/what to propose

• The GHG ANPR– Represents EPA’s next step in responding to Mass v EPA– Reviews and summarizes available science on climate change and its effects– Reviews work to date on potential motor vehicle GHG standards under CAA– Examines interconnections among CAA provisions – regulation of GHGs under one provision

could or would lead to regulation under other provisions– Examines implications of applying particular CAA authorities to GHGs and provides a

comprehensive, in-depth exploration of the opportunities and challenges application of CAA authorities would present

– Asks detailed questions on a wide range of policy, legal and technical issues and approaches– Solicits technical information and data

• Signed by Administrator July 11, 2008– Published on July 30 (Permitting Section is at 73 FR 44497-44514)– Public comment period open until November 28


PSD Implications

• PSD program applies to pollutants regulated under any CAA authority with the exception section 112 or section 211(o)

• PSD requires preconstruction review and permitting for new major emitting facilities and modifications (i.e., significant increases) at existing major emitting facilities

• Major source thresholds for PSD program– 100 tpy for categories listed in the CAA– 250 tpy for other categories

• Significance levels up to 100 tpy for current pollutants


PSD ANPR Discussion

• Applying these thresholds to GHGs would increase the number of PSD permits by at least an order of magnitude – from 200-300 per year to thousands of PSD permits each year

• For GHG, would potentially cover many small sources (e.g., large residential/commercial bldgs.) and many small modifications at traditional major sources.

• Substantial expansion of PSD raises serious concerns (BACT, delay, etc.) and questions (e.g., whether any benefits could be achieved more efficiently through approaches other than case-by case review)


PSD – ANPR Options

• ANPR takes comment on options to restrict the program to larger sources and/or to streamline compliance for GHG sources added to the program, such as:– Set higher major source thresholds for GHGs– Set higher significance levels for GHGs– Phase in the program slowly, starting with large sources– Reduce the number of additional small sources that need PSD permits

through limitations on, or interpretations of, sources’ “potential to emit”– Streamline the permitting of such sources though a range of approaches

(presumptive BACT, general permits)

• Legal theories presented for comment– Administrative Necessity & Absurd Results


Title V Permit Program Discussion

• Title V operating permits also affected by GHG– Title V consolidates air pollution control requirements into one

permit; requires monitoring, reporting, certification, etc.– Required for new and existing sources above 100 tpy (and other

sources as well)– If the 100-ton major source threshold were applied to GHGs, this

would substantially increase the number of sources required to obtain Title V permits

– Could be more than 500,000 permits required• Many smaller sources would be required to obtain a permit for the first time• Initial workload would likely be overwhelming


Title V ANPR Options• As with PSD, ANPR takes comment on a range of ways to

avoid a large increase in the number of sources required to obtain Title V permits– Major source size– PTE limits– Similar legal theories to those for PSD

• Also takes comment on ways to streamline compliance for sources that are covered

• General permits, phase in, etc.• Would the Title V permit fees structure need to be modified if

GHGs were regulated?


Questions for Discussion(sampling from ANPR)

• Is our estimate of the magnitude of the impacts reasonably accurate and complete? Do our estimates make sense?

• Which tailoring options are most promising?– Advice on structuring any of the options?

• Are any tailoring options not worth pursuing? Are there others we should be considering?

• Should we raise the CO2 major source size & significance level?– Can we conclude there will be administrative necessity or absurd results?

Do States have data/estimates to support this?– Would either legal doctrine justify such an action?– If so, what level should we select and what basis?

• Could presumptive BACT work? How?Air Quality Division

Proposed Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule

• In response to the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, EPA is drafting a proposed rule that requires mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from the largest emission sources in the U.S.

• This rule will propose options for collecting accurate and comprehensive emissions data to inform future policy decisions.

• EPA has held more than 100 meetings with different groups since January including trade associations, states, and regional groups, tribes, and NGOs.


Proposed Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule

• Issues to be considered in the context of proposed rule:– Who will submit reports?– How will the data be reported?– What will the thresholds for reporting be?– What reporting methodologies will be used?– How frequently will reports be submitted?– Who will verify the data?

• Timeline on Appropriations Act– September 2008 – Proposed rule published– June 2009 – Final rule published


Miscellaneous EPA Activities

• CAIR• CAMR• Lead NAAQS


air quality division efo 17 th annual meeting “steering the course for environmental success”...

Documents