1. Bill Harnett WESTAR Spring Meeting March 30, 2010

2.  Startup, shutdown, malfunction  CAMR/112(g)/112(j)  CAFO  Fire Policy  Oil and Gas  Sector Strategy  Cement NSPS/NESHAP/MACT  PM2.5 Method Development

3.  Immediately and directly affect only the standards that refer to General Provisions SSM Exemptions  About 35 MACT refer only to General Provisions and would be affected immediately  Other MACT include their own SSM provisions  Still must be addressed by EPA  Guidance from EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance—July 22, 2009

4.  We plan to consider separate standards for startup and shutdown, if appropriate, for rules we review and revise as part of risk and technology review (RTR) or those that we must re-issue or revise through remand or vacatur.  In general, EPA anticipates no separate standards for periods of malfunction.

5.  CAMR Vacated March 2008  Court vacated removal of power plants from 112(c)  CAIR also vacated  Vacatur restored utilities to 112(c) list of categories that require MACT standard.

6.  Case-by-case MACT determination  EPA has interpreted CAA 112(j) as applying in cases of complete vacatur ▪ Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition, et al, v. EPA 255 F3d.855 (D.C. Cir. 2001)(“Joint Motion of All Parties for Stay of Issuance of Mandate”)  On March 24, EPA proposed amendments to 112(j) rule ▪ Will clarify that 112(j) applies when a MACT has been vacated in entirety ▪ Streamlines the application process, reducing it from a 2 step process to a single application submitted from sources to states  Anticipate promulgation a year later  Limited impact on boilers since Boiler MACT under consent decree for proposal 4/2010 and promulgation 12/2010.

7.  Overseeing the National Air Emissions Monitoring Study Results feed further policy development  NAEMS should inform OAR in exploring various regulatory options (e.g., NSPS)  Prioritize a research agenda to address the recommendations from National Academy of Sciences  NAEMS Study  Participants determine and certify that they are not subject to ▪ any Clean Air Act requirements ▪ CERCLA ▪ EPCRA notification requirements  If subject, participants must comply with CAA, CERCLA and EPCRA requirements

8.  May 2010: Complete NAEMS Data Collection  Summer 2010 – Summer 2011: Evaluate NAEMS Data – Process for public involvement is being developed  Fall 2011: Publish Emissions Estimating Methodologies  Ongoing efforts:  Coordinate w/ USDA and Other Stakeholders on Control Options  Evaluating the need for further regulation using the various CAA tools in a multi-pollutant strategy framework.

9.  The draft Fire Policy was submitted for a 90 day OMB review in early February 2010.  After OMB review, EPA will make the draft policy available for a 60 day public review and comment period.  EPA will review comments received and, where appropriate, revise and finalize the policy.

10.  WildEarth Guardians and San Juan Citizens Alliance filed deadline suit for failure to conduct required reviews of NSPS (KKK, LLL) and NESHAP (HH,HHH)  Consent Decree entered 02/04/10  Proposal deadline01/31/11  Promulgation deadline11/30/11  2 stakeholder meetings summer 2010 ▪ Dallas ▪ Denver  We intend to use this opportunity to examine the full range of operations from drilling to local distribution

11. 11 Sector Strategy for Certain Stationary Sources

12. 12 What’s a Sector Strategy? Rethink the one-rule-at-a-time treadmill Where it makes sense, combine rulemaking reviews and their promulgations Use a more holistic, multipollutant approach to obtain a “whole picture” of a category Seek opportunities for optimization and efficiency

13. CAA Requirements Results in Numerous Regulations on the Same Industries Industry GroupTotalArea SourceCTG/183(e)MACT/129 Pre-1990 NESHAPNSPS Chemical Production75141831111 Durable Goods Manufacturing5842320 11 Metal Processes4816115312 Minerals365212215 Agriculture and Forest Products15237 3 Oil and Gas Production and Distribution15255 3 Petroleum Refining13 4243 Energy and Combustion121 515 Service Industries11262 1 Transportation Equipment10 54 1 Waste Management8 8 1 Chemical Usage5131 Utilities3 1 2 Institutions1 1 Transportation Infrastructure0 Total31047701141168

14. Benefits of Sector Strategy MANAGEMENT Concentrates efforts on biggest reductions Helps states move toward attainment goals Reduces litigation and addresses backlog Meets Clean Air Act obligations efficiently with synchronized timelines SCIENCE AND ANALYSIS Evaluates whole facility and interaction of pollutants and processes Gathers more comprehensive emissions data Eliminates redundancy Quantifies co-benefits COSTS May lower administrative costs for federal, state and local governments – short run effect may be an increase in costs to States as we transition In the long run, avoids stranded costs in capital equipment for industry and provides regulatory certainty

15. Example of Sector Approach

16.  Concurrently analyzed multiple regulatory requirements to evaluate control options and/or strategies and related benefits  NSPS  NESHAP  Residual Risk  NSR  Regional Haze  PM NAAQS Attainment  Analysis showed opportunities for environmental improvements  Alignment of VOC and CO limits from NSPS with THC limit from NESHAP  Alignment of PM limit from NSPS with PM limit from NESHAP  New PM limit reduces residual risk due to Chrome IV emissions  SO 2 reductions from existing kilns are possible as co-benefits of HCl and Hg limits on NESHAP and can be used for NSR netting or offset purposes

17.  SO 2 and PM fine reductions are possible for new and existing kilns from the control technology used to reduce HCl and/or Hg under the NESHAP.  Estimated annual emissions reductions as a results of the multi-pollutant cement sector strategy:  Mercury: reduction of 81 to 93 percent;  Total hydrocarbons: reduction of 75 percent;  Particulate matter: reduction of 90 to 96 percent;  Hydrochloric acid: reduction of 92 to 94 percent; and  Sulfur dioxide: reduction of 77 to 90 percent.  Estimated benefits range from $4.4 billion to $11 billion annually in 2013.

18.  Filterable PM2.5 - Solid or liquid particles < 2.5 microns - Revising Method 201A to add PM2.5 equipment  Condensable PM - Vaporous materials condense to form sub-micron particles in ambient air - Revising Method 202 to update and standardize method