# 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 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”)
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 o Participated in meetings with over 300 utility, consumer, labor and environmental groups since June 2013 o Held 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 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 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 per MWhBuilding 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 sources Renewable 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 U p 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, CO 2 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 o Interim goal -- meet on average over a 10-year period from 2020- 2029 o Final 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: o Submit initial plan by June 30, 2016 o Individual state plans: a one -year extension (June 30, 2017) o Multi -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: • E mission rate - based goals specific to each area of Indian country and U.S. territory that has affected EGUs • G uidelines 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 13

Comment Period Closes December 19, 2014

# 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 14

Comment Period Closes December 1, 2014

# 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 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 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


# • PM 2.5


# • SO 2

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 )
• 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 24 

# 2010 SO 2 

# NAAQS Implementation25 

# 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

## S upreme 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

# P reliminary 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