Transcript – Post- Hazardous Air Pollutants MACT vacatur, area sources and residual risk

Hazardous Air Pollutants – PostMACT vacatur, area sources and
residual risk
Eric Ginsburg
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ALI-ABA Program
Clean Air: Law, Policy, and Practice
November 9, 2007
Key Topics



EPA’s plans to respond to Sierra
Club v. EPA, (“Brick and Clay
Ceramics”), NRDC v. EPA,
(“Boilers/CISWI”), and NRDC v. EPA
(“Plywood”)
Applicable interim requirements
EPA actions and plans addressing
area sources and residual risk
Implications of Recent Court Decisions


Disallowed many of our approaches for setting MACT and
narrowed our flexibility in setting these standards
Issues to consider regarding the MACT floor:
 How to determine the “average emissions limitation”
achieved by the best performers (the average of the top
12 percent)?




Standards must reflect what is “achieved,” not what is
“achievable”
How and under what circumstances may EPA
subcategorize?
How do we establish appropriate bases for work practice
standards?
How much data do we need
 To establish subcategories?
 To set numerical limits?
 To account for variability among the best performers?
Addressing the Vacaturs

Scope of the court decisions will require
new information




MACT floors
 Process, feedstock, and controls
 May require testing
Classification of sources as “boilers” or
“incinerators”
Establish bases for subcategories and
variability
Options for getting data are under
discussion
In the meantime . . .

112(j) – Does it apply?


Multiple viewpoints
EPA’s rules


Procedures
Paperwork Reduction Act and
implications for 112(j) permits
Clean Air Act Section 112(j):
“Equivalent emission limit by permit”



Permit applications by source owners or
operators 18 months after EPA failure to
adopt MACT.
Emission limitations equivalent to the
limitation that would apply if MACT had
been adopted in a timely manner.
Rules setting out sec. 112(j) application
procedures adopted at 40 CFR Part
63.50-56
Does 112(j) apply in the case of
vacated standards?

EPA has interpreted 112(j) as applying in
cases of complete vacatur


Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition, et al. v.
EPA 255 F.3d. 855 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (“Joint
Motion of All Parties for Stay of Issuance
of Mandate”)
Information collection request pursuant to
Paperwork Reduction Act must be
renewed prior to implementation of 112(j)
regulations


Proposal published 11/2/07
Comments due 1/2/08
What will States and emission source owners
have to do to comply with 112(j)?

Source owners or operators:



Part 1 applications Within 30 days following
notification by the State that a permit is required.
Part 2 application 60 days following the deadline
for submission of Part 1 application
States:



Determine completeness within 60 days after receipt
of Part 2 application
If found incomplete, provide a reasonable period for
source owner, up to 6 months, to cure deficiencies
Issue Title V permit incorporating sec. 112(j)
requirements within 18 months after receipt of
complete application
Area source standards

Key requirements:

112(c)(3) – List area source categories
to ensure 90% of emissions of 30+
urban toxics are subject to standards


Standards may be either MACT or GACT
112(c)(6) – List major and area source
categories sufficient to ensure 90% of
emissions of 6 specific persistent
bioaccumulative toxics are subject to
MACT standards
Current Status



A total of 70 area source categories
have been listed
Standards have been promulgated for
28 categories
42 categories remain to be addressed


3 under May 2003 Court Order
39 under March 2006 Court Order
Sierra Club v. Johnson
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14923; 62 ERC (BNA) 1847 (D.D.C.
March 31, 2006)

Court ordered schedule for 50 remaining
area source categories under 112(k)






4 source categories promulgated December 11,
2006
6 source categories promulgated June 15, 2007
10 source categories by December 15, 2007
10 source categories by June 15, 2008
10 source categories by December 15, 2008
10 source categories by June 15, 2009
Area Source Program Principles





GACT vs. MACT
Target those HAPs for control for which category was
listed
Consider numerical emissions limitations or percent
reductions, or alternatively, management practices or
equipment, design, or operational emission standards
Consider subcategorization where appropriate
Establish GACT standards on a national basis
Area Source Related Issues



Section 112(c)(6) completion – under
court-ordered deadline for 1/30/08
Section 112(k) – Wrap-up to demonstrate
sufficiency of rules to meet the 90 percent
regulation requirement currently
anticipated 6/15/09
Spill-over from Court decisions:



Boilers area source rule
129 waste incineration rules needed to meet
112(k)
Demonstration of the 75 percent cancer
incidence reduction required under 112(k)
Residual Risk

Separate reviews completed for 8
standards




2 standards found to pose low risks
3 standards now found to pose low
risks, but margin of safety was found
to be met at existing levels of control
3 standards required additional controls
Process cumbersome and timeconsuming
How to improve timeliness and
efficiency?


Combine reviews to raise and
resolve common issues and
streamline administrative process
Increase the use of available data
and use risk-screening approaches
to focus on high risk sources

Greater reliance on the National
Emissions Inventory, with calls for its
improvement
How to address risk findings in
regulatory decisions?

Rely on progressive screening-to-refined
assessments




Low risk and no further reductions needed;
presumptive ample margin of safety met
Not low risk, but no additional risk reduction
needed to meet ample safety margin; no
available controls or not cost-effective
Not low risk and additional risk reduction
needed to achieve ample safety margin; costeffective controls available
Conduct 112(d)(6) technology
assessments in conjunction with margin
of safety determinations
Status and plans




November 2007 – Propose findings
for 4 standards
January 2008 – Propose findings for
5 standards, advance notice for 18
standards
August 2008 – Propose findings for
6 standards
Anticipate final rules roughly 12
months after proposal
For further information:
Eric O. Ginsburg
(919) 541-0877
[email protected]
Sector Policies and Programs Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Appendix:


Pollutants Listed Pursuant to sec.
112(k)
Anticipated schedule for review of
specific source categories for
residual risk
Pollutants Listed Pursuant to sec.
112(k)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3 Butadiene
1,3-Dichloropropene
7-PAH
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic Compounds
Benzene
Beryllium Compounds
Cadmium Compounds
Chloroform
Chromium Compounds
Dioxins
Ethylene Dichloride
Ethylene Oxide
Formaldehyde
Hexachlorobenzene
Hydrazine
Lead Compounds
Manganese Compounds
Mercury Compounds
Methylene Chloride
Nickel Compounds
PCBs
Quinoline
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Residual risk standard reviews
completed – Phase I, Group 1

April 2005


March 2006





Dry cleaning
December 2006


Industrial cooling towers
Magnetic tape
E5thylene oxide sterilizers
Gasoline distribution
July 206


Coke ovens
Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON)
April 2007

Halogenated Solvents
Anticipated schedule for residual risk
reviews – Phase II, Group 2

November 2007 (propose)





January 2008 (propose)






Polymers and resins I (4 source categories)
Polymers and resins II (2 source categories)
Hydrogen fluoride
Acetal resins
Polymers and resins (5 source categories)
Pharmaceuticals production
Marine tank vessel loading operations
Mineral wool production
Printing and publishing industry
August 2008 (propose)






Aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities
Natural gas transmission and storage
Oil and natural gas production
Primary aluminum reduction plants
Polymers and resins (7 source categories)
Shipbuilding coatings
Anticipated schedule for residual risk
reviews – Phase II, Group 3

January 2008 (advance notice of proposed rulemaking)

















Polycarbonates
Acriylic/modacrylic fibers
Phosphate fertilizer
Phosphoric acid
Primary lead smelting
Publicly-owned treatment works
Ferroallows
Steel pickling
Secondary lead
Chrome electroplating (3 source categories)
Flexible polyurethane foam
Secondary aluminum
Pulp and Paper I, II, and III
Wood Furniture
Wool fiberglass
Portland cement
Polyether polyols