EPA Review of

Key Regulatory Updates

Tennessee Association of Manufacturers

Environmental Summit 2014

November 19, 2014

Carol Kemker, Deputy Director

Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division 

U.S. EPA; Atlanta, GA
• Regulatory Updates

o Action on Climate Change

o Waters of the U.S. Proposal

o Coal Ash Residuals Proposal

o Air Quality Issues

o NAAQS

o Air Toxics

o Enforcement

Outline
EPA Actions to Reduce Carbon Pollution

• Building a 21st 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”)

3
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
• EPA conducted a robust pre-proposal stakeholder engagement process

oParticipated in meetings with over 300 utility, consumer, labor 

and environmental groups since June 2013

oHeld 11 public listening sessions around the country

3,300 people attended

More than 1,600 people offered oral statements

• Reached out to all 50 states

o Some states noted their programs to address 

carbon evolved because of:

The need to address carbon pollution

Electric system that is dynamic, and in 

the midst of market changes

Modernizing the power sector is good 

for the economy

• Common themes included reliability, flexibility, affordability, time for 

plans and implementation

5

Early Outreach Informed This Proposal
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 move 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 

6

Summary - 111(d) Existing Power Plant Proposal
• Build on actions states, cities and businesses across the country are already 

taking to address the risks of climate change

• Spur investment in cleaner and more efficient technologies, creating jobs and 

driving innovation

• Electricity bills down 8% in 2030

• Require a reasonable emission reduction glidepath starting in 2020

• Provide a flexible timeline—up to 15 years from guideline issuance—for all 

emission reduction measures to be fully implemented in 2030

o Recognizing that investments in infrastructure can take time to put in place and 

o Avoiding stranded assets

• Provide an array of tools states can use to formulate approvable plans.

Summary - 111(d) Existing Power Plant Proposal

7

http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan
After Proposal, Coal & Natural Gas Remain Leading Sources 

of Electricity Generation

8

Each more than 30% of projected generation in 2030

Coal

31%

Natural Gas

32%

Other Fuel

37%
EPA Establishes a Goal for Every State

• EPA analyzed the practical and affordable strategies that states and utilities are already 

using to lower carbon pollution from the power sector 

• Proposed goals are based on a consistent national formula, calculated with state and 

regional specific information 

• Each state goal is expressed as a rate (pounds of CO2 per MWh) – a statewide number 

for the future carbon intensity of covered existing fossil-fuel-fired power plants in a 

state

• The state rate goal is calculated to account for the mix of power sources in each state 

and the application of four “building blocks” that make up the best system of emission 

reduction

• States will need to meet an interim goal and a final goal

9

Tennessee’s Proposed Final Goal is 1163 lbs of CO2 per MWh
Building Block Strategy EPA Used to 

Calculate the State Goal

Maximum Flexibility:

Examples of State 

Compliance Measures

1. Make fossil fuel-fired

power plants more 

efficient

Efficiency Improvements • Efficiency improvements

• Co-firing or switching to 

natural gas

• Coal retirements

• Retrofit carbon capture and 

sequestration (CCS)

2. Use lower-emitting power 

sources more

Dispatch changes to 

existing natural gas 

combined cycle (CC)

• Dispatch changes to existing 

natural gas CC

3. Build more zero/lowemitting energy sourcesRenewable Energy

Certain Nuclear

• New NGCC

• Renewables

• Nuclear (new and up rate)

• New coal with CCS

4. Use electricity more 

efficiently

Demand-side energy 

efficiency programs

• Demand-side energy 

efficiency programs

• Transmission efficiency 

improvements

• Energy storage

10
Flexibilities Available To States

• Timing

o Up to 15-year window in which to plan for and achieve reductions in carbon pollution 

o Up to two or three years to submit final plans 

• Form of goal

o States can use either a rate-based or mass-based goal

• Single or multi-state plans

o States can collaborate and develop plans on a multi-state basis

• Selection of measures 

o States will choose how to meet the goal through whatever

collection of measures reflects its particular circumstances 

and policy objectives

o State measures may impact and, in fact may be explicitly 

designed to reduce, CO2 emissions from utilities on a regional 

basis

o EPA would support building off existing reduction programs 

11

http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan
Details About State Plans

• The proposal provides a list of the components that will need to be included in 

the plan

• Measures to meet the state’s interim goal and final goal

oInterim goal -- meet on average over a 10-year period from 2020-2029 

oFinal goal -- meet in 2030 and thereafter

• Individual and multi-state plans due June 30, 2016

• Proposed timing of extensions to submit a complete plan, if justified and 

supported:

oSubmit initial plan by June 30, 2016

oIndividual state plans: a one-year extension (June 30, 2017)

oMulti-state plans: a two-year extension (June 30, 2018)

12
Supplemental Proposal

• October 28, 2014 - EPA issued a supplemental proposal to its proposed CPP that 

sets area-specific goals for Indian country and territories

• South Point Energy Center, in Fort Mojave Indian country geographically located within 

Arizona;

• Navajo Generating Station, in Navajo Indian country geographically located within AZ

• Four Corners Power Plant, in Navajo Indian country geographically located within NM

• Bonanza Power Plant, in Ute Indian country geographically located within UT

• Puerto Rico

• Guam

• Two main elements: 

• Emission rate-based goals specific to each area of 

Indian country and U.S. territory that has affected EGUs

• Guidelines for the development, submission, 

and implementation of plans to achieve the goals

• Provides options for meeting those goals in a flexible 

manner that accommodates a diverse range of approaches

Comment Period Closes December 19, 2014 13
Notice of Data Availability (NODA)

• October 28, 2014 - EPA issued a NODA related to the proposed 

CPP

• In this NODA, EPA discusses several issues that have been raised 

by stakeholders, including:

• The trajectory – or glide path – of emission

reductions from 2020 to 2029

• Aspects of the way building blocks

are established

• The way the state goals are calculated

• The NODA is not intended to be a complete summary 

of the wide variety of ideas that have been raised

• The agency has heard many other concepts that are not highlighted in 

this document because they are covered in the June proposal

Comment Period Closes December 1, 2014 14
Rate-to-Mass TSD

• October 28, 2014 – EPA issued a technical support document (TSD) 

that provides two examples of how a state, area of Indian country or 

territory could translate its rate‐based goal to total metric tons of 

carbon dioxide (a mass‐based equivalent)

• A mass‐based equivalent represents the 

total metric tons of CO2 emitted by affected 

sources and that is equivalent to the proposed 

rate‐based goals for each state, area of Indian 

country or territory

• These are only two of many ways to translate from 

a rate‐based goal to a mass‐based equivalent – there are other ways to 

make the rate‐to‐mass translation and EPA wants to hear from 

stakeholders and the public on this important topic

15

Comment Period Closes December 1, 2014
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 on the June 2 Clean Power Plan proposal, the NODA, 

and the rate-to-mass TSD are due December 1, 2014

• Comments on the proposal should be identified by Docket ID 

Number: 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602

16
2010 SO2 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 closed on 

November 14, 2014

Waters of the U.S. Proposed Rule

www.epa.gov/uswaters
• Residuals from the combustion of coal at coal-fired power plants (fly ash, 

bottom ash, flue gas desulfurization material, and boiler slag)

• One of the largest U.S. industrial waste streams (~122 million tons generated 

in 2012) 

• Approximately 60% disposed in landfills and surface impoundments

• 1980 “Bevill Amendment” excluded certain large-volume wastes generated 

primarily from the combustion of coal or other fossil fuels from regulation as 

hazardous wastes under Subtitle C of RCRA

• EPA was required to submit a report to Congress and make a determination either 

to promulgate regulations under RCRA Subtitle C or that such regulations were 

unwarranted

• Currently, CCRs are not subject to any federally enforceable standards for waste 

management

• Concern about risks from structural failures from surface impoundments, 

groundwater contamination, and fugitive dust

18

Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR)

www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/index.htm
June 2010 Rule proposed two (2) alternatives:

1. Treat CCR as RCRA Subtitle C special waste

• Requires “cradle-to-grave” management of CCRs, composite liners, groundwater monitoring, 

structural stability requirements, corrective action, closure/post-closure care, and financial 

assurance

• States must adopt the rule; permitting program; federal enforcement

• Would effectively result in closure of all surface impoundments

2. Treat CCR as RCRA Subtitle D non-hazardous waste

• Regulates disposal units; requires composite liners, GW monitoring, structural stability 

requirements, corrective action, and closure/post-closure care

• Self-implementing; rule effective 6 months after publication

• All unlined surface impoundments would have to retrofit or close; composite-lined surface 

impoundments could continue operation

• Received 450,000 comments on the proposal

• EPA is working to meet a consent decree deadline to finalize the rule by 

December 19, 2014

19

CCR Proposal

www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/index.htm
•Ozone

• PM2.5

• SO2

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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) 

• SO2Strategy 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

24

2010 SO2 NAAQS Implementation
25

Comparative Trends since 1980
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; comment period closed 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
Supreme Court Upholds Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

EPA v. Homer City Generation (S. Ct. April 29, 2014)

• Rule requires 28 states to reduce emissions that contribute to 

ozone or fine particle pollution in other states

• D.C. Circuit had vacated rule on 

basis that it violated the 

Clean Air Act

• On April 29, 2014, the U.S. 

Supreme Court issued an opinion 

reversing a D.C. Circuit decision 

that had vacated CSAPR

• June 26, 2014 - The U.S. government 

filed a motion with the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

D.C. Circuit to lift the stay of CSAPR

• October 23, 2014 - The D.C. Circuit ordered that EPA's motion to lift 

the stay of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule be granted

http://epa.gov/airtransport/
Supreme Court GHG Permitting Decision

• The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) issued its decision on June 23, 2014 

in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v EPA 

• At issue was whether EPA permissibly determined that its regulation of GHGs 

from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the CAA for 

stationary sources that emit GHGs

• Key outcomes of SCOTUS decision: 

• EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a 

source is a major source required to obtain a PSD or title V permit

• EPA could continue to require that PSD permits otherwise required based on emissions 

of non-GHG pollutants, contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application 

of BACT

• On August 25, 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court 

of Appeals issued an order that parties file 

motions to govern future proceedings in 

light of the Supreme Court’s decision on or 

before October 21, 2014 (extension from

original due date of September 30, 2014) 

28

http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgpermitting.html
Preliminary Views of SCOTUS Decision

• EPA memorandum dated July 25, 2014, to Regional Administrators 

provided preliminary information on how to proceed:

• EPA will continue to require carbon pollution limits in permits for the largest 

sources

• EPA will no longer require permits for “step 2” sources (sources that 

triggered permitting requirements based solely on their GHG emissions)

• The memo provided EPA’s preliminary views in response to 

questions regarding ongoing permitting requirements for “anyway 

sources” and some additional issues regarding permitting 

requirements for “step 2” sources

• EPA does anticipate that many SIPs and approved title V programs 

will need to be revised in light of the SCOTUS decision

29

http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgpermitting.html
Air Toxics – Report to Congress

• On August 21, 2014, EPA released the Second (and final) Integrated Urban Air 

Toxics Report to Congress 

• The report highlights some of the results achieved through EPA’s air toxics 

regulations, including:

• 66% reduction in benzene

• Nearly 60% reduction in mercury from man-made sources like coal-fired power plants

• 84% decrease of lead in outdoor air

• Removal of an estimated 1.5 million tons per year of air toxics from stationary sources, and 

approximately 3 million tons per year of criteria pollutants as a co-benefit of air toxics reductions

• The removal of an estimated 1.5 million tons per year of air 

toxics from mobile sources -- a 50% reduction in mobile 

source air toxics emissions

• Even with this progress, additional work remains to 

improve our understanding of air toxics and to 

effectively reduce remaining risks, particularly in 

overburdened communities

http://www2.epa.gov/urban-air-toxics/second-integrated-urban-air-toxics-report-congress
Air Toxics – Upcoming Rulemakings

New Rule or

Re-work

Promulgation

Deadline Status Comments

§112 Major Source Rules

Brick & Struct. Clay Re-work due to 

Vacatur 9/24/15

Propose by

11/20/14

112(j) does apply

Clay Ceramics

Re-work due to 

Vacatur 9/24/15

Propose by

11/20/14

Utilities MACT Partial Reconsideration Direct Final 11/7/14 Proposed on

11/7/14

Amendment finalized 

on 4/24/13

Residual Risk Rules

Ferroalloys Production New RTR Rule 2/27/15 Proposed on

11/23/11

Supp. Proposal on 

5/30/14

Mineral Wool New RTR Rule 6/18/15 Proposed on

11/25/11

Supp. Proposal

10/15/14

Primary Aluminum New RTR Rule 8/14/15 Proposed on

12/6 /11

Supp. Proposal

11/13/14

Wool Fiberglass New RTR Rule 6/18/15 Proposed on

11/25/11

Supp. Proposal

10/15/14

Secondary Aluminum New RTR Rule 8/14/15 Proposed on

2/14/12

Supp. Proposal

11/13/14

Off-Site Waste

Recovery

New RTR Rule 2/27/15 Proposed on

7/2/14

Phospho. Acid

Phosphate Fert.

New RTR Rule 7/21/15 Propose by 

10/21/14
EPA’s National Enforcement Initiatives

Cutting Air Pollution That Affects Communities’ Health: MACT Standards

Clean Water: Keeping raw sewage and contaminated stormwater out of 

waters; Preventing animal waste from contaminating surface and 

groundwater 

Reducing Pollution from Mineral Processing

Assuring Energy Extraction Sector Compliance with Environmental Laws

Reducing Widespread Pollution from Largest Sources : New Source Review 

and Prevention of Significant Deterioration Sector Focus--Utilities, Cement, 

Glass and Acid Sectors

Clean Communities: protect people from exposure to hazardous chemicals 

and require polluters to pay for cleanup of contaminated sites 
Questions?

33