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

Air Quality Division Timeline: March 12, 2008: EPA announces the standard March 12, 2009: States are required to propose nonattainment area designations areas March 12, 2010: EPA designates nonattainment areas* EPA will have the data for the 2009 ozone season * EPA will have the data for the 2009 ozone season to use for their designation to use for their designation

Air Quality Division 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 emission reductions 11.Regional emission reductions

Air Quality Division *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 Division Oklahoma’s Current Status: ozone data: Both Oklahoma City and Tulsa are in violation of the new ppm standard using 2006 – 2008 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, 2008

For more information on ozone designations contact: Leon Ashford, DEQ Air Quality, Or visit the DEQ web site atwww.deq.state.ok.us/AQDnew Air Quality Division

Changes in the Alternative Enforcement Policy Air Quality Division

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. Air Quality Division

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). Air Quality Division

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 Air Quality Division

Mercury in Fish – Lakes scheduled for collection in Collected as of September 26 Analysis complete on 19 as of September 26 Collections and analysis will be complete by January 1, 2009 Air Quality Division

Mercury in Fish – 2008 Lakes 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 Air Quality Division

Mercury in Fish – 2008 Lakes 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 Air Quality Division

Mercury in Fish – 2008 Lakes 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 Air Quality Division

GHG ANPR Permitting Issues Clean Air Act Advisory Committee September 17, 2008 Air Quality Division

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 ) – Public comment period open until November 28 Air Quality Division

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 Air Quality Division

PSD ANPR Discussion Applying these thresholds to GHGs would increase the number of PSD permits by at least an order of magnitude – from 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) Air Quality Division

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 Air Quality Division

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 Air Quality Division

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? Air Quality Division

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 CO 2 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. Air Quality Division

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 Air Quality Division

Miscellaneous EPA Activities CAIR CAMR Lead NAAQS Air Quality Division