# EPA Review of

Key Regulatory Updates 29th 

### Annual Regional Phosphate Conference

October 8, 2014 Beverly Banister, Director Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division

U.S. EPA; Atlanta, GA

# • Meeting the Challenges Ahead • Regulatory Updates o Clean Air 

# o Action on Climate Change o Waters of the U.S. Proposed Rule o Executive Order on 

# Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security 

# Outline

### 1. Making a Visible Difference in

Communities Across the Country 

### 2. Addressing Climate Change and Improving Air Quality 3. Taking Action on Toxics and Chemical Safety 

### 4. Protecting Water: A Precious, Limited Resource 5. Launching a New Era of State, Tribal, and Local Partnerships 6. Embracing EPA as a High Performing Organization 7. Working Toward a Sustainable Future 

# EPA: Meeting the Challenges Ahead

Administrator Gina McCarthy4 

## National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
• The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set two types of NAAQS for 

## common air pollutants (“criteria pollutants”): • Primary standards to protect public health, including the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly, with an adequate margin of safety; and 

### • Secondary standards to protect public welfare, including effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, manmade materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate 

## • 6 criteria pollutants: • Ground - level ozone (smog) (O 3 

### ) – Lead ( Pb ) • Particulate matter (PM 2.5 

### and PM 10 

### ) – Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ) • Carbon monoxide (CO) – Nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 

### )5 

## • EPA required to review (and revise 

## if appropriate) each NAAQS on a 5 - year cycle, with input from the Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) • Different considerations apply to setting NAAQS than to achieving them • Setting NAAQS: health and environmental effects • Achieving NAAQS: account for cost, technical feasibility, time needed to attain 

# NAAQS

http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html

## 5-Year NAAQS Review Process

Integrated Review Plan Integrated Science Assessment : Risk/Exposure Assessment Workshop on science-policy issues

Public hearings and comments on proposal FINAL RULE Interagency review Interagency review Agency decision making and draft proposal notice Agency decision making and draft final notice CASAC review and public comment CASAC review and public comment POLICY ASSESSMENT

PROPOSED RULE Peer-reviewed

scientific studies SCIENCE ASSESSMENT

RULEMAKING

# NAAQS Reviews: Status Update (as of September 10, 2014 ) Ozone Lead Primary NO2 Primary

SO2 Secondary NO2 and SO2 PM CO Last Review Completed (final rule signed) Mar 2008 Oct 2008 Jan 2010 Jun 2010 Mar 2012 Dec 2012 Aug 2011 Recent or Upcoming Major Milestone(s) 1 August 2014

Final REAs Final PA Dec 1, 2014 2 Proposed rule Oct 1, 2015 2 Final rule May 2014

Final PA 2014 Proposed rule June 2014

Final IRP Fall 2014 2 nd Draft ISA REA Planning Document Summer

2014 Final IRP Fall 2014

Draft IRP Kickoff

workshop for next review targeted for early 2015 TBD 3

1 IRP – Integrated Review Plan; ISA – Integrated Science Assessment; REA – Risk and Exposure Assessment; PA – Policy Assessment 2 Bold and underlined dates indicate court-ordered or settlement agreement deadlines 3 TBD = to be determined

Additional information regarding current and previous NAAQS reviews is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs 78



### • After a new or revised standard is finalized, EPA embarks on a 

### multi -year process to: • Figure out which areas are not meeting the standard (based on monitoring data) • Designate “nonattainment” areas • Require states to submit plans to show how they will meet the standards via controls on key emissions sources • Require states to come into attainment with the standards within specific timeframe (usually ~5 - 10 years, but sometimes longer if air quality problems are really severe) 

## Implementing the NAAQSs9 

# State Implementation Plans
• States must develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for each nonattainment area • SIP lays out controls that will be applied to sources to reduce emissions and bring area into attainment 

### • EPA must approve each SIP
• States must monitor progress and reach attainment by deadlines • Penalties imposed for failure to attain 

### • Each time new National Ambient Air Quality Standards are set, State must develop new SIP (every 5 - 10 years)10 

# Federal Programs Help

• Federal measures assist states 

## in reaching attainment • Key programs include: • Mobile source emissions/fuel requirements • Regional programs to reduce 

### transported pollution • Emissions control requirements for stationary sources http://epa.gov/oaqps001/urbanair/sipstatus/overview.html

## In Summary -- Air Quality Management Cycle WHAT REDUCTIONS ARE NECESSARY? HOW TO ACHIEVE IMPLEMENT EVALUATE RESULTS ESTABLISH GOALS

-- National Rules

-- State Plans

-- Controls on Sources

-- Limits on new sources

-- Compliance & Enforcement -- Monitoring

-- Modeling

-- Benefits Analysis -- Using science to set standards -- Monitoring

-- Inventories

-- Modeling

# • Ozone

• PM 2.5


# • SO 2

12 

# NAAQS Schedules and Implementation

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/

# 2015 Ozone NAAQS Review
• April 29, 2014 court issued ruling on schedule • Propose December 1, 2014 

### • Final October 1, 2015


## • The EPA staff conclusions for the primary and secondary standards 

## are based on consideration of: • The scientific evidence discussed in the Integrated Science Assessment • Estimates of Ozone exposures and risks estimated in the Health Risk 

### and Exposure Assessment • Advice received from CASAC • Consideration of public comments received as CASAC meetings
13 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_index.html

# 2015 Ozone NAAQS Review • EPA staff conclude available health evidence and exposure/risk information call into question the adequacy of the public health protection provided by 

## the current primary standard • EPA staff concluded it is appropriate to consider revising the level within the range of 70 ppb to 60 ppb 

## • EPA staff conclude available vegetation and ecosystem 

## effects evidence and exposure/risk calls into question the adequacy of the public welfare protection provided by the current secondary standard • EPA staff concluded it is appropriate to consider a range of levels from 17 to 7 ppm - hrs, expressed in terms of the W126 index

14 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_index.html

# • 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS Designations

• 8/19/14: 120-day letters to States and Tribes • 10/29/14: State/Tribal comments due on EPA's intended 

## designations • 12/14: Final area designations for most areas* 

## • 2015 and beyond: Near- road monitors installed and producing data

15 

# PM2.5 NAAQS Implementation

* Designations for some areas are deferred. Final designations for deferred areas expected no later than December 2015.

http ://www.epa.gov/airquality/particlepollution/• 2010 SO2 NAAQS Implementation

• SO2 area designation and implementation strategy , guidance, and assistance documents available (see http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/implement.html ) • SO 2 Strategy provides for three rounds of designations :
• First round of designations • Promulgated on August 5, 2013 (effective October 2013) • Attainment SIPs due April 2015 • Attainment date October 2018 • Second round BASED ON MODELING by December 2017 ( effective by February 2018) • Attainment SIPs due August 2019 • Attainment date February 2023 • Third round BASED ON MONITORING by December 2020 ( effective by February 2021) • Attainment SIPs due August 2022 • Attainment date February 2026 • Proposed consent decree between U.S. and SC/NRDC could result in additional round of designations for source areas 16 

# 2010 SO 2 

# NAAQS Implementation17 

# Comparative Trends since 1980• The “Risk and Technology Review” (RTR) for Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing (40 CFR 63, Subpart AA) and Phosphate Fertilizers Production (Subpart BB) and the technology reviews for 40 CFR 60 Subparts T, U, V, W, and X are expected to be proposed on 10/21/14 and promulgated by 7/21/15 • There will be one package which will cover all of these various subparts • There are a total of 13 facilities nationwide subject to this rulemaking • In 2010, EPA sent out information request letters (CAA Section 114 letters) to all facilities for emissions data and requested additional information from select facilities in 2014 • EPA has worked closely with industry on this effort and options for addressing fugitive emissions from gypsum dewatering stacks • Mercury and hydrogen fluoride emissions from calciners were previously unregulated; those emissions are being evaluated in this current proposal
18 

# Phosphate Industry-Specific Rules

http:// www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html and http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/monitoring/programs/caa/newsource.html

## Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) SIP Call
• 6/30/11: Sierra Club petitioned EPA for rulemaking regarding SSM provisions in State Implementation Plans (SIPs) • Nationally - 39 states & 7 locals noted in the petition - Includes all 8 Southeastern States & 4 locals 

### • 2/12/13 Proposed rule: • 36 states submit their revised state plans to the Agency • EPA ‘s proposed rule would ensure states have plans in place that require industrial facilities across the country to follow air pollution rules during times when the facility is starting up or shutting down, or when a malfunction occurs 

### • 9/5/14 Supplemental Proposal on Affirmative Defense Provisions : • Proposes to revise the 2/12/13 proposal to reflect a recent court opinion regarding affirmative defense provisions • Public hearing held October 7, 2014; comments accepted until November 6, 2014 • Re - negotiated signature deadline for the final notice is May 22, 2015 • States will have 18 months to submit SIPs following effective date of the final rule

www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus

# EPA Actions to Reduce Carbon Pollution

• Building a 21 st 

## century transportation sector • Cutting energy waste in homes, businesses, and factories • Reducing methane and HFCs • Preparing the U.S. for the impacts of climate change • Helping lead international efforts to 

## address global climate change • Reducing carbon pollution from power plants (e.g., EPA’s “Clean Power Plan”)

20

### President’s June 2013 Directive to EPA: 

### Develop carbon pollution standards, regulations or guidelines, as appropriate, for: 1. New power plants • Proposed January 8, 2014 2. Modified and reconstructed power plants • Proposed June 2014 • Final June 2015 3. Existing power plants • Proposed Guidelines June 2014 • Final Guidelines June 2015 • State Plans due June 2016 

## GHG NSPS Requirements for Fossil Fuel - Fired Power Plants

http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan 15

### This proposal will: • Reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants, for which there are currently no national limits • Maintain an affordable, reliable energy system and will help m ove us toward a cleaner, more stable environment for future generations • By 2030, reduce nationwide carbon dioxide emissions, from the power sector by approximately 30% from 2005 levels, with significant reductions to begin by 2020 • Cut hundreds of thousands of tons of harmful particle pollution, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides as a co- benefit • Proposal will avoid an estimated 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in 2030 • Provide important health protections to the most vulnerable, such as children and older Americans • Lead to health and climate benefits worth an estimated $55 billion to $93 billion in 2030 • From soot and smog reductions alone, for every dollar invested through the Clean Power Plan - - American families will see up to $7 in health benefits 22 

## Summary - 111(d) Existing Power Plant Proposal

# Next Steps • The proposed rule, as well as information about how to comment and supporting technical information, are available 

## online at: http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan
• EPA held 4 public hearings the week of July 28th 

## in Denver , Atlanta , Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C. – over 2,700 people 

## attended
• Comments are due December 1, 2014
• Comments on the proposal should be identified by Docket ID Number: EPA- HQ-OAR-2013-0602 23

# 2010 SO 2 

# NAAQS • Clarifying protection for streams and wetlands under the Clean Water Act
• Rulemaking was requested by many stakeholders • Supported by peer- reviewed science • Provides more benefits to the public than costs


### • Input is Important • Outreach is underway across the country • Comment period is open until October 20, 2014 

# Waters of the U.S. Proposed Rule

www.epa.gov/uswaters

# 2010 SO 2 

# NAAQS • On August 1, 2013, the Executive 

### Order on Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security directed the Federal Government to : • I mprove operational coordination with state and local partners • Enhance Federal agency coordination and information sharing • Modernize policies, regulations and standards • Work with stakeholders to identify best practices. 

## EO on Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security

https://www.osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/index.html

# Questions?

26