Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Overview of Major Overview of Major Environmental Environmental
RegulationsRegulations
Jenn KleinJenn Klein
Director of Energy & Environmental Director of Energy & Environmental Policy Policy
Ohio Chamber of CommerceOhio Chamber of Commerce
Regulations are Regulations are ComingComing
Environmental vs. Tax Code Environmental vs. Tax Code RegulationsRegulations
Upcoming Major Upcoming Major RegulationsRegulations EPA’s 309-page Semi-annual Regulatory Agenda was last published December 7, 2009. EPA’s 309-page Semi-annual Regulatory Agenda was last published December 7, 2009.
The following items are listed as “major” rules—those likely to result in an annual effect The following items are listed as “major” rules—those likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or meets other criteria specified in the CRA (5 on the economy of $100 million or more or meets other criteria specified in the CRA (5 U.S.C. 801, U.S.C. 801, et seq.et seq.).).
• Criteria and Standards for Cooling Water Intake StructuresCriteria and Standards for Cooling Water Intake Structures• National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: RadonNational Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Radon• Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic
Sequestration WellsSequestration Wells• Standards for the Management of Coal Combustion Residuals Generated by Commercial Electric Power ProducersStandards for the Management of Coal Combustion Residuals Generated by Commercial Electric Power Producers• Revisions to the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) RuleRevisions to the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule• NAAQS Review for Carbon MonoxideNAAQS Review for Carbon Monoxide• Combined Rulemaking for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters at Major Sources of Combined Rulemaking for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters at Major Sources of
HAP and Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers at Area SourcesHAP and Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers at Area Sources• Implementing Periodic Monitoring in Federal and State Operating Permit ProgramsImplementing Periodic Monitoring in Federal and State Operating Permit Programs• NAAQS Review for Particulate MatterNAAQS Review for Particulate Matter• NAAQS Review for Sulfur DioxideNAAQS Review for Sulfur Dioxide• Review of the Secondary NAAQS for Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of SulfurReview of the Secondary NAAQS for Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur• Clean Air Transport RuleClean Air Transport Rule• PSD/Title V GHG Tailoring RulePSD/Title V GHG Tailoring Rule• Reconsideration of the 2008 Ozone NAAQSReconsideration of the 2008 Ozone NAAQS• NESHAP Portland Cement Notice of ReconsiderationNESHAP Portland Cement Notice of Reconsideration• NAAQS Review for Nitrogen DioxideNAAQS Review for Nitrogen Dioxide• Review of the NSPS – Portland CementReview of the NSPS – Portland Cement• Renewable Fuels Standard ProgramRenewable Fuels Standard Program• NESHAP for Reciprocating Internal Combustion EnginesNESHAP for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines• EPA/NHTSA Joint Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty GHG Standards and CAFÉ StandardsEPA/NHTSA Joint Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty GHG Standards and CAFÉ Standards• NAAQS Review for OzoneNAAQS Review for Ozone• NESHAPs for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating UnitsNESHAPs for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units• GHG Mandatory Reporting RuleGHG Mandatory Reporting Rule• Lead: Clearance and Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair and Painting ProgramLead: Clearance and Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair and Painting Program• Lead: Amendment to the Opt-out and Recordkeeping Provisions in the Renovation, Repair, and Painting ProgramLead: Amendment to the Opt-out and Recordkeeping Provisions in the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program
5
Ozone
PM2.5
'08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17
Beginning CAIR Phase I Seasonal NOx Cap
HAPs MACT proposed
rule
Beginning CAIR Phase II Seasonal NOx Cap
Revised Ozone NAAQS
Begin CAIR
Phase I Annual
SO2 Cap
Beginning CAIR Phase II Annual
SO2 & NOx Caps
Next PM-2.5
NAAQS Revision
Next Ozone NAAQS Revision
SO2 Primary NAAQS
SO2/NO2 Secondary
NAAQS
NO2
Primary NAAQS
SO2/NO2
New PM-2.5 NAAQS Designations
CAMR & Delisting Rule vacated
Hg/HAPS
Final EPA Nonattainment Designations
PM-2.5SIPs due (‘06)
Proposed CAIR Replacement
Rule Expected
HAPS MACT final rule expected
CAIR Vacated
HAPS MACT Compliance 3 yrs
after final rule
CAIR Remanded
CAIR
Begin CAIR
Phase I Annual
NOx Cap
PM-2.5 SIPs due (‘97)
316(b) proposedrule expected
316(b) final ruleexpected
316(b) Compliance3-4 yrs after final rule
Effluent Guidelines
proposed ruleexpected
Water
Effluent GuidelinesFinal rule expected Effluent Guidelines
Compliance 3-5 yrs after final rule
Begin Compliance Requirements
under Final CCB Rule (ground water monitoring, double monitors, closure,
dry ash conversion)
Ash
Proposed Rule for CCBs Management
Final Rule for CCBs Mgmt
Final CAIR Replacement
Rule Expected
Compliance with CAIR
Replacement Rule
CO2
CO2 Regulation
Reconsidered Ozone NAAQS
Climate ChangeREGULATION LEGISLATION LITIGATION
Against Government/Industry
Clean Air Act
Clean Water
Act
Endangered
Species Act
NEPA
Endangerment
Tailpipe Rule /
CA Waiver
“Tailoring” Rule
CBDSettlemen
t(Acidificatio
n)
Polar Bear
Murkowski
CRA and
Litigation
SEC
CEQ Climate
Guidance
Categorical
Exclusions
Climate Risk
Disclosure
Federal torts: CT v.
AEPComer
Kivalina
State torts?
(common law
nuisance)
NIMBY suits
to stop projects
International Law Claims
Permit challenge
s(e.g.
Deseret)
Moran Approps
Rider
ACES
Boxer
KGL
Murkowski
CRA
Moran
Approp
Rider
16 Industry lawsuits vs.
Endangerment
17 State challenges to Endangermen
t
Industry challenges to Tailoring Rule
Mandatory GHG Mandatory GHG Reporting RuleReporting Rule
December 29, 2009 – US EPA’s mandatory greenhouse gas December 29, 2009 – US EPA’s mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting rule becomes effective(GHG) reporting rule becomes effective
Sources required to submit GHG emissions are suppliers of Sources required to submit GHG emissions are suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial greenhouse gases, manufacturers of fossil fuels or industrial greenhouse gases, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year (31 industry sectors in total)tons or more per year (31 industry sectors in total)
Important deadlines:Important deadlines:
January 21, 2010 – Potentially affected entities will need to begin January 21, 2010 – Potentially affected entities will need to begin collecting datacollecting data
April 1, 2010 April 1, 2010 –– Potentially affected entities must begin following all Potentially affected entities must begin following all applicable monitoring and QA/QC requirements established by the applicable monitoring and QA/QC requirements established by the rule, unless they request and US EPA approves an extensionrule, unless they request and US EPA approves an extension
January 28, 2010 – Requests for an extension to utilize "best January 28, 2010 – Requests for an extension to utilize "best available monitoring methods" after April 1, 2010 must be filed available monitoring methods" after April 1, 2010 must be filed with US EPAwith US EPA
But Wait, There’s More…But Wait, There’s More… March 23, 2010 – US EPA proposes new rule that expands March 23, 2010 – US EPA proposes new rule that expands
who must submit GHG emissionswho must submit GHG emissions
New rule would apply to the oil and natural gas sector, New rule would apply to the oil and natural gas sector, industries that emit fluorinated gases, and from facilities industries that emit fluorinated gases, and from facilities that inject and store carbon dioxide underground for the that inject and store carbon dioxide underground for the purposes of geologic sequestration or enhanced oil and gas purposes of geologic sequestration or enhanced oil and gas recoveryrecovery
Under these proposals, newly covered sources would begin Under these proposals, newly covered sources would begin collecting emissions data on January 1, 2011 with the first collecting emissions data on January 1, 2011 with the first annual reports submitted to US EPA on March 31, 2012annual reports submitted to US EPA on March 31, 2012
The proposed rule also requires all facilities in the The proposed rule also requires all facilities in the reporting system to provide information on their corporate reporting system to provide information on their corporate ownershipownership
American Clean Energy & Security American Clean Energy & Security ActAct
• Passed House 219-212 (U.S. Rep. Waxman (D-CA) and U.S. Rep. Passed House 219-212 (U.S. Rep. Waxman (D-CA) and U.S. Rep. Markey (D-MA)Markey (D-MA)
• Cuts GHG emissions 17% from 2005 levels by 2020 and by 83% by Cuts GHG emissions 17% from 2005 levels by 2020 and by 83% by 2050 2050
• Establishes a cap-and-trade program with 85% of the credits Establishes a cap-and-trade program with 85% of the credits allocated and 15% auctionedallocated and 15% auctioned
• Establishes trade sanctions by imposing tariffs on carbon-intensive Establishes trade sanctions by imposing tariffs on carbon-intensive imports imports
• Directs US EPA to set emission standards on sources that are not Directs US EPA to set emission standards on sources that are not covered by the cap-and-trade systemcovered by the cap-and-trade system
• Creates a Renewable Portfolio Standard that requires retail Creates a Renewable Portfolio Standard that requires retail electricity suppliers to generate 6% of their energy from electricity suppliers to generate 6% of their energy from renewable sources starting in 2012 and ending with 20% in 2020renewable sources starting in 2012 and ending with 20% in 2020
• Reduces electricity demand 15% by 2020Reduces electricity demand 15% by 2020
American Power ActAmerican Power Act Introduced by U.S. Sen. Kerry (D-MA) and U.S. Sen. Lieberman (I-CT)Introduced by U.S. Sen. Kerry (D-MA) and U.S. Sen. Lieberman (I-CT)
Reduces carbon emissions 17% by 2020 and over 80% in 2050Reduces carbon emissions 17% by 2020 and over 80% in 2050
Only those that emit 25,000 tons per year will need to comply with Only those that emit 25,000 tons per year will need to comply with reduction targetsreduction targets
Includes a hard "price collar," or upper and lower limits, on the price of Includes a hard "price collar," or upper and lower limits, on the price of pollution permitspollution permits
The manufacturing industry would not be required to reduce emissions The manufacturing industry would not be required to reduce emissions until 2016until 2016
Consumers would get rebates and energy discounts to offset any price Consumers would get rebates and energy discounts to offset any price increasesincreases
Sets aside $2 billion for the development of "clean coal" technologySets aside $2 billion for the development of "clean coal" technology
Gives $54 billion in loan guarantees to promote the construction of new Gives $54 billion in loan guarantees to promote the construction of new nuclear facilitiesnuclear facilities
Allows coastal states to opt-out of drilling up to 75 miles from their shoresAllows coastal states to opt-out of drilling up to 75 miles from their shores
Regulating Under Clean Regulating Under Clean Air ActAir Act
April 2, 2007 - U.S. Supreme Court rules in April 2, 2007 - U.S. Supreme Court rules in Massachusetts v. EPAMassachusetts v. EPA that the CAA authorizes US EPA to regulate tailpipe GHG that the CAA authorizes US EPA to regulate tailpipe GHG emissions emissions
September 30, 2009 – US EPA announces proposal requiring September 30, 2009 – US EPA announces proposal requiring large industrial facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of GHGs a large industrial facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of GHGs a year to obtain construction and operating permits covering these year to obtain construction and operating permits covering these emissions emissions
May 13, 2010 – US EPA formally announces phased-in approach May 13, 2010 – US EPA formally announces phased-in approach for regulating GHG emissions from stationary sourcesfor regulating GHG emissions from stationary sources January 2011 – sources already permitted under the CAA for January 2011 – sources already permitted under the CAA for
other pollutants will need to get a permit regulating their GHG other pollutants will need to get a permit regulating their GHG emissions if they increase emissions by at least 75,000 tpyemissions if they increase emissions by at least 75,000 tpy
July 2011 – permitting expands to cover all new facilities with July 2011 – permitting expands to cover all new facilities with GHG emissions of at least 100,000 tpy and modifications at GHG emissions of at least 100,000 tpy and modifications at existing facilities that would increase by at least 75,000 tpyexisting facilities that would increase by at least 75,000 tpy
So, What’s the Problem?So, What’s the Problem? The CAA sets out statutory thresholds for regulations at The CAA sets out statutory thresholds for regulations at 100100 tons per tons per
year (28 specified categories of sources such as power plants and year (28 specified categories of sources such as power plants and refineries) and refineries) and 250250 tons per year of any regulated pollutant for all tons per year of any regulated pollutant for all other sourcesother sources
Point of Reference – Average American household emits Point of Reference – Average American household emits approximately 10-12 tons of CO2 per year and an average approximately 10-12 tons of CO2 per year and an average commercial building or office emits more than 250 tons per yearcommercial building or office emits more than 250 tons per year
Ohio has adopted the CAA threshold limitsOhio has adopted the CAA threshold limits
US EPA does not have the authority to arbitrarily raise the statutory US EPA does not have the authority to arbitrarily raise the statutory threshold levels as set forth in the CAAthreshold levels as set forth in the CAA
Even if they did, states who have adopted the CAA threshold levels Even if they did, states who have adopted the CAA threshold levels would need to revise state law before they could exempt smaller would need to revise state law before they could exempt smaller sourcessources
CAA does not explicitly authorize the use of cap-and-trade and other CAA does not explicitly authorize the use of cap-and-trade and other cost-saving, market-based approachescost-saving, market-based approaches
Permitting Permitting Consequences Consequences
If states were to require permits under the 100/250 If states were to require permits under the 100/250 ton per year threshold:ton per year threshold:
Prevention of Significant Deterioration reviews Prevention of Significant Deterioration reviews would increase from about 280 per year to over would increase from about 280 per year to over 40,00040,000
Facilities requiring Title V operating permits would Facilities requiring Title V operating permits would increase from less that 15,000 to over 6,000,000increase from less that 15,000 to over 6,000,000
14,700 existing Title V permits would require 14,700 existing Title V permits would require addition of greenhouse gas termsaddition of greenhouse gas terms
Who Would be Who Would be Regulated?Regulated?
GHG Global EmissionsGHG Global Emissions
Boiler MACTBoiler MACT June 4 – US EPA released rules that will impose stricter hazardous air June 4 – US EPA released rules that will impose stricter hazardous air
pollutant emission limitations and other requirements on operators of pollutant emission limitations and other requirements on operators of new and existing boilers and process heaters. new and existing boilers and process heaters.
These new rules replace the National Emission Standards for Hazardous These new rules replace the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants that were established in 2004 and subsequently vacated Air Pollutants that were established in 2004 and subsequently vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court in 2007. The court ruling requires US EPA to by the D.C. Circuit Court in 2007. The court ruling requires US EPA to have new rules in place by December 16, 2010. The proposed rules have new rules in place by December 16, 2010. The proposed rules include:include:
Major Source Boiler MACTMajor Source Boiler MACT Area Source Boiler MACTArea Source Boiler MACT Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units (CISWI Rule)Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units (CISWI Rule)
These rules could affect boilers used in manufacturing, processing, These rules could affect boilers used in manufacturing, processing, mining, refining and other industries; stores/malls, laundries, mining, refining and other industries; stores/malls, laundries, apartments, restaurants, hotels/motels and other commercial facilities; apartments, restaurants, hotels/motels and other commercial facilities; medical centers; educational and religious facilities; and municipal medical centers; educational and religious facilities; and municipal buildingsbuildings
US EPA estimates cost of compliance around US EPA estimates cost of compliance around $9.5 billion$9.5 billion
Industry estimates cost of compliance over Industry estimates cost of compliance over $20 billion$20 billion
Utility MACTUtility MACT March 15, 2005 – US EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule March 15, 2005 – US EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule
(CAMR) which established mercury emission standards for new (CAMR) which established mercury emission standards for new and existing power plants and existing power plants
February 8, 2008 – US Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) February 8, 2008 – US Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) vacated US EPA’s rule removing power plants from the Clean Air vacated US EPA’s rule removing power plants from the Clean Air Act list of sources of hazardous air pollutants, thereby effectively Act list of sources of hazardous air pollutants, thereby effectively destroying the legal basis for CAMRdestroying the legal basis for CAMR
April 15 , 2010 – Court grants US EPA’s motion to enter into a April 15 , 2010 – Court grants US EPA’s motion to enter into a consent decree with a group of environmental plaintiffs consent decree with a group of environmental plaintiffs
According to the consent decree US EPA must issue a draft rule by According to the consent decree US EPA must issue a draft rule by March 16, 2011 and the rule must be final by November 16, 2011March 16, 2011 and the rule must be final by November 16, 2011
Power plants will then have 36 months to specify and install control Power plants will then have 36 months to specify and install control equipment to meet a compliance deadline of November 2014equipment to meet a compliance deadline of November 2014
Expect rule to regulate MACT standard for emissions of mercury Expect rule to regulate MACT standard for emissions of mercury and HAPs such as arsenic, lead, nickel, chromium and and HAPs such as arsenic, lead, nickel, chromium and hydrochloric acidhydrochloric acid
Clean Air Transport RuleClean Air Transport Rule March 10, 2005 – US EPA finalized the Clean Air Interstate Rule March 10, 2005 – US EPA finalized the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR) which placed controls on emissions from nitrogen oxide (NOx) (CAIR) which placed controls on emissions from nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2)
On December 23, 2008 – D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted US On December 23, 2008 – D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted US EPA's petition to remand CAIR to the agency to be "fixed“EPA's petition to remand CAIR to the agency to be "fixed“
August 2, 2010 – US EPA releases the replacement to CAIR, otherwise August 2, 2010 – US EPA releases the replacement to CAIR, otherwise known as the Transport Rule, as well as associated proposed Federal known as the Transport Rule, as well as associated proposed Federal Implementation Plans (FIPS)Implementation Plans (FIPS)
Differences between CAIR and the Transport Rule are :Differences between CAIR and the Transport Rule are :
Steeper reductions of NOx and SO2 than proposed under CAIR Steeper reductions of NOx and SO2 than proposed under CAIR Virtual elimination of the cap-and-trade mechanism established Virtual elimination of the cap-and-trade mechanism established
under CAIR, by assigning each State a firm emission budget which under CAIR, by assigning each State a firm emission budget which it may not exceedit may not exceed
Accelerating the time frame for reductions to coincide with the Accelerating the time frame for reductions to coincide with the attainment deadlines faced by the Statesattainment deadlines faced by the States
Coal Combustion WasteCoal Combustion Waste May 4, 2010 – US EPA released proposed rule regulating coal May 4, 2010 – US EPA released proposed rule regulating coal
combustion wastecombustion waste
US EPA is proposing two options for regulating the waste. The US EPA is proposing two options for regulating the waste. The two options are:two options are:
RCRA Subtitle C Regulation – Regulate as a hazardous waste RCRA Subtitle C Regulation – Regulate as a hazardous waste (estimated cost for disposal $150/ton)(estimated cost for disposal $150/ton)
RCRA Subtitle D Regulation – Regulate as a non-hazardous RCRA Subtitle D Regulation – Regulate as a non-hazardous waste (estimated cost for disposal $10-15/ton)waste (estimated cost for disposal $10-15/ton)
Both regulatory options allow for continued "beneficial use" of Both regulatory options allow for continued "beneficial use" of coal ash, and both options contain first-time provisions requiring coal ash, and both options contain first-time provisions requiring protective liners, groundwater monitoring, and enhanced protective liners, groundwater monitoring, and enhanced structural integrity for impoundmentsstructural integrity for impoundments
Cooling Water Intake Cooling Water Intake StructuresStructures
February 16, 2004 – US EPA finalizes the Clean Water Act February 16, 2004 – US EPA finalizes the Clean Water Act 316(b) Phase II rule which established location, design, 316(b) Phase II rule which established location, design, construction and capacity standards for fish protection at construction and capacity standards for fish protection at cooling water intake structures (CWIS)cooling water intake structures (CWIS)
March 2007 – US EPA suspends rules based on a decision by the March 2007 – US EPA suspends rules based on a decision by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
2010 – US EPA announces preparations to conduct a survey that 2010 – US EPA announces preparations to conduct a survey that seeks to quantify the amount that the public would be willing to seeks to quantify the amount that the public would be willing to pay to protect against the losses associated with CWISpay to protect against the losses associated with CWIS
US EPA is expected to come out with a replacement rule later US EPA is expected to come out with a replacement rule later this year or early next yearthis year or early next year
Clean-up Standards for Clean-up Standards for Dioxin in SoilDioxin in Soil
January 7, 2010 – US EPA released draft recommended January 7, 2010 – US EPA released draft recommended interim preliminary remediation goals for dioxin in soil at interim preliminary remediation goals for dioxin in soil at Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Resource Conservation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA)sitesRecovery Act (RCRA)sites
Would issue new cleanup standards for dioxin in soil, Would issue new cleanup standards for dioxin in soil, requiring additional and more costly remedial actions at requiring additional and more costly remedial actions at Superfund sites that have already been cleaned to meet Superfund sites that have already been cleaned to meet current standards. current standards.
It appears there is no new science to justify such action It appears there is no new science to justify such action by US EPA. Moreover, the agency’s proposals appear to by US EPA. Moreover, the agency’s proposals appear to be out of step with the National Academy of Sciences, the be out of step with the National Academy of Sciences, the Department of Defense, and the World Health Department of Defense, and the World Health Organization.Organization.
National Ambient Air Quality National Ambient Air Quality StandardsStandards
NAAQS InformationNAAQS Information US EPA has developed standards for six specific US EPA has developed standards for six specific
contaminantscontaminants
Sulfur dioxide – primary source; coal fired power Sulfur dioxide – primary source; coal fired power plantsplants
Carbon monoxide – primary source: cars and trucksCarbon monoxide – primary source: cars and trucks
Lead – primary source; individual industrial facilitiesLead – primary source; individual industrial facilities
Nitrogen oxides – primary source; any type of Nitrogen oxides – primary source; any type of combustioncombustion
Particulate matter – primary source; coal fired Particulate matter – primary source; coal fired boilers, cement plants, steel making operationsboilers, cement plants, steel making operations
Ozone – primary source; cars, trucks, utility boilers, Ozone – primary source; cars, trucks, utility boilers, painting operations, refineriespainting operations, refineries
Ohio’s Attainment StatusOhio’s Attainment Status
The entire state is in attainment for The entire state is in attainment for nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead and carbon monoxideand carbon monoxide
Ohio has nonattainment areas for Ohio has nonattainment areas for PM2.5PM2.5
Currently entire state is designated Currently entire state is designated attainment for ozone, for now…attainment for ozone, for now…
Reconsideration of 2008 Ozone Reconsideration of 2008 Ozone StandardStandard
March 12, 2008 – US EPA revises the primary NAAQS for ozone March 12, 2008 – US EPA revises the primary NAAQS for ozone from the previous standard set in 1997 at 0.084 ppm to 0.075 from the previous standard set in 1997 at 0.084 ppm to 0.075 ppmppm
January 7, 2010 – US EPA releases a proposal to lower the January 7, 2010 – US EPA releases a proposal to lower the standard to a range of 0.070-0.060 ppmstandard to a range of 0.070-0.060 ppm
Under the 2008 standard of 0.075 ppm 23 out of Ohio EPA's 49 Under the 2008 standard of 0.075 ppm 23 out of Ohio EPA's 49 air monitors show nonattainment but under the 0.070 ppm air monitors show nonattainment but under the 0.070 ppm standard 47 out of 49 monitors show nonattainmentstandard 47 out of 49 monitors show nonattainment
According to US EPA, the costs of reducing ozone to 0.070 ppm According to US EPA, the costs of reducing ozone to 0.070 ppm would range from an estimated $19 billion to $25 billion per would range from an estimated $19 billion to $25 billion per year in 2020 and for a standard of 0.060 ppm, the costs would year in 2020 and for a standard of 0.060 ppm, the costs would range from $52 billion to $90 billionrange from $52 billion to $90 billion
Issues with Ozone Issues with Ozone RedesignationRedesignation
Issues Related to the ReconsiderationIssues Related to the Reconsideration – US EPA is required to follow a specific – US EPA is required to follow a specific process when a reconsideration rulemaking is undertaken and when a NAAQS is process when a reconsideration rulemaking is undertaken and when a NAAQS is revised. In this rulemaking, US EPA admits that it has examined additional revised. In this rulemaking, US EPA admits that it has examined additional information that was not placed in the docket as part of the original rulemaking. information that was not placed in the docket as part of the original rulemaking. As such, US EPA’s actions are outside the bounds of its regulatory authority.As such, US EPA’s actions are outside the bounds of its regulatory authority.
The scientific basis for revised standards is insufficientThe scientific basis for revised standards is insufficient – US EPA concluded in – US EPA concluded in 2008 that the new ozone standard was sufficiently protective of public health 2008 that the new ozone standard was sufficiently protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety. The standard under consideration is with an adequate margin of safety. The standard under consideration is unacceptable because there is no new scientific evidence to justify decreasing unacceptable because there is no new scientific evidence to justify decreasing the standard from 0.075 ppm.the standard from 0.075 ppm.
Concerns with Implementation ScheduleConcerns with Implementation Schedule – Traditionally, states have a year after – Traditionally, states have a year after promulgation of a new NAAQS to recommend areas that should be designated as promulgation of a new NAAQS to recommend areas that should be designated as nonattainment. However, US EPA intends to give states a scant 129 days to make nonattainment. However, US EPA intends to give states a scant 129 days to make these recommendations.these recommendations.
States have not yet implemented the current standard so it is premature to lower States have not yet implemented the current standard so it is premature to lower the standardthe standard – States are still in the process of executing implementation plans – States are still in the process of executing implementation plans for both the 1997 and 2008 standards. US EPA should be focused on helping for both the 1997 and 2008 standards. US EPA should be focused on helping states meet these standards before they arbitrarily change them.states meet these standards before they arbitrarily change them.
Current technology does not exist to meet the proposed standardCurrent technology does not exist to meet the proposed standard – US EPA’s own – US EPA’s own draft Regulatory Impact Analysis concluded that current technologies would not draft Regulatory Impact Analysis concluded that current technologies would not allow for the 2008 standard to be met, but assumed that future innovation and allow for the 2008 standard to be met, but assumed that future innovation and technological advances would become available to enable states to achieve that technological advances would become available to enable states to achieve that standard by 2020. standard by 2020.
Ozone Not Ohio’s Only Ozone Not Ohio’s Only ProblemProblem
Pollutant Promulgation Date
Designations Effective
SIPS Due Attainment Demonstrat
ion Due
Attainment Date
Lead October 2008 November 2010/2011
October 2011
May 2012/2013
2015/2016
PM2.5 (2006)
September 2006
October 2009
September 2009
October 2012
October 2014/2019
Ozone August 2010 August 2011 August 2013 December 2013
August 2017
NO2 January 2010 February 2012
January 2013
August 2015 February 2017
SO2 (primary)
June 2010 June 2010 June 2013 January 2014
July 2017
PM2.5 October 2011 November 2013
November 2014
November 2016
November 2018
Ohio Specific IssuesOhio Specific Issues Water Quality Rules (water Water Quality Rules (water
quality standards, 401 quality standards, 401 water certification water certification program, antidegradation program, antidegradation and stream mitigation)and stream mitigation)
Industrial Stormwater Industrial Stormwater General PermitGeneral Permit
Construction & Demolition Construction & Demolition Debris Multi-Sector RulesDebris Multi-Sector Rules
BUSTR RulesBUSTR Rules (federal Energy (federal Energy Policy Act of 2005)Policy Act of 2005)
Great Lakes CompactGreat Lakes Compact
Drilling on State LandsDrilling on State Lands
Brownfield RedevelopmentBrownfield Redevelopment
