Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Overview of Major Environmental Regulations Jenn Klein Director of Energy & Environmental Policy Ohio Chamber of Commerce.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Overview of Major Environmental Regulations Jenn Klein Director of Energy & Environmental Policy Ohio Chamber of Commerce."— Presentation transcript:

1 Overview of Major Environmental Regulations Jenn Klein Director of Energy & Environmental Policy Ohio Chamber of Commerce

2 Regulations are Coming

3 Environmental vs. Tax Code Regulations

4 Upcoming Major Regulations EPAs 309-page Semi-annual Regulatory Agenda was last published December 7, The following items are listed as major rulesthose likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or meets other criteria specified in the CRA (5 U.S.C. 801, et seq.). EPAs 309-page Semi-annual Regulatory Agenda was last published December 7, The following items are listed as major rulesthose likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or meets other criteria specified in the CRA (5 U.S.C. 801, et seq.). Criteria and Standards for Cooling Water Intake Structures Criteria and Standards for Cooling Water Intake Structures National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Radon National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Radon Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration Wells Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration Wells Standards for the Management of Coal Combustion Residuals Generated by Commercial Electric Power Producers Standards for the Management of Coal Combustion Residuals Generated by Commercial Electric Power Producers Revisions to the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule Revisions to the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule NAAQS Review for Carbon Monoxide NAAQS Review for Carbon Monoxide Combined Rulemaking for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters at Major Sources of HAP and Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers at Area Sources Combined Rulemaking for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters at Major Sources of HAP and Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers at Area Sources Implementing Periodic Monitoring in Federal and State Operating Permit Programs Implementing Periodic Monitoring in Federal and State Operating Permit Programs NAAQS Review for Particulate Matter NAAQS Review for Particulate Matter NAAQS Review for Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS Review for Sulfur Dioxide Review of the Secondary NAAQS for Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur Review of the Secondary NAAQS for Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur Clean Air Transport Rule Clean Air Transport Rule PSD/Title V GHG Tailoring Rule PSD/Title V GHG Tailoring Rule Reconsideration of the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Reconsideration of the 2008 Ozone NAAQS NESHAP Portland Cement Notice of Reconsideration NESHAP Portland Cement Notice of Reconsideration NAAQS Review for Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS Review for Nitrogen Dioxide Review of the NSPS – Portland Cement Review of the NSPS – Portland Cement Renewable Fuels Standard Program Renewable Fuels Standard Program NESHAP for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines NESHAP for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines EPA/NHTSA Joint Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty GHG Standards and CAFÉ Standards EPA/NHTSA Joint Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty GHG Standards and CAFÉ Standards NAAQS Review for Ozone NAAQS Review for Ozone NESHAPs for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units NESHAPs for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule Lead: Clearance and Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair and Painting Program Lead: 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 Program Lead: Amendment to the Opt-out and Recordkeeping Provisions in the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program

5 5 Ozone PM 2.5 '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 SO 2 Cap Beginning CAIR Phase II Annual SO 2 & NOx Caps Next PM- 2.5 NAAQS Revision Next Ozone NAAQS Revision SO 2 Primary NAAQS SO 2 /NO 2 Secondary NAAQS NO 2 Primary NAAQS SO 2 /NO 2 New PM-2.5 NAAQS Designations CAMR & Delisting Rule vacated Hg/HAPS Final EPA Nonattainment Designations PM-2.5 SIPs 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) proposed rule expected 316(b) final rule expected 316(b) Compliance 3-4 yrs after final rule Effluent Guidelines proposed rule expected Water Effluent Guidelines Final 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 CO 2 CO 2 Regulation Reconsidered Ozone NAAQS

6 Climate Change REGULATION LEGISLATION LITIGATION Against Government/Industry Clean Air Act Clean Water Act Endangered Species Act NEPA Endangerment Tailpipe Rule / CA Waiver Tailoring Rule CBD Settlement (Acidification) Polar Bear Murkowski CRA and Litigation SEC CEQ Climate Guidance Categorical Exclusions Climate Risk Disclosure Federal torts: CT v. AEP Comer Kivalina State torts? (common law nuisance) NIMBY suits to stop projects International Law Claims Permit challenges (e.g. Deseret) Moran Approps Rider ACES Boxer KGL Murkowski CRA Moran Approp Rider 16 Industry lawsuits vs. Endangerment 17 State challenges to Endangerment Industry challenges to Tailoring Rule

7 Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule December 29, 2009 – US EPAs mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting rule becomes effective December 29, 2009 – US EPAs mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting rule becomes effective Sources required to submit GHG emissions are suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial greenhouse gases, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year (31 industry sectors in total) Sources required to submit GHG emissions are suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial greenhouse gases, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year (31 industry sectors in total) Important deadlines: Important deadlines: January 21, 2010 – Potentially affected entities will need to begin collecting data January 21, 2010 – Potentially affected entities will need to begin collecting data April 1, 2010 – Potentially affected entities must begin following all applicable monitoring and QA/QC requirements established by the rule, unless they request and US EPA approves an extension April 1, 2010 – Potentially affected entities must begin following all applicable monitoring and QA/QC requirements established by the rule, unless they request and US EPA approves an extension January 28, 2010 – Requests for an extension to utilize "best available monitoring methods" after April 1, 2010 must be filed with US EPA January 28, 2010 – Requests for an extension to utilize "best available monitoring methods" after April 1, 2010 must be filed with US EPA

8 But Wait, Theres More… March 23, 2010 – US EPA proposes new rule that expands who must submit GHG emissions March 23, 2010 – US EPA proposes new rule that expands who must submit GHG emissions New rule would apply to the oil and natural gas sector, industries that emit fluorinated gases, and from facilities that inject and store carbon dioxide underground for the purposes of geologic sequestration or enhanced oil and gas recovery New rule would apply to the oil and natural gas sector, industries that emit fluorinated gases, and from facilities that inject and store carbon dioxide underground for the purposes of geologic sequestration or enhanced oil and gas recovery Under these proposals, newly covered sources would begin collecting emissions data on January 1, 2011 with the first annual reports submitted to US EPA on March 31, 2012 Under these proposals, newly covered sources would begin collecting emissions data on January 1, 2011 with the first annual reports submitted to US EPA on March 31, 2012 The proposed rule also requires all facilities in the reporting system to provide information on their corporate ownership The proposed rule also requires all facilities in the reporting system to provide information on their corporate ownership

9 American Clean Energy & Security Act Passed House (U.S. Rep. Waxman (D-CA) and U.S. Rep. Markey (D- MA) Passed House (U.S. Rep. Waxman (D-CA) and U.S. Rep. Markey (D- MA) Cuts GHG emissions 17% from 2005 levels by 2020 and by 83% by 2050 Cuts GHG emissions 17% from 2005 levels by 2020 and by 83% by 2050 Establishes a cap-and-trade program with 85% of the credits allocated and 15% auctioned Establishes a cap-and-trade program with 85% of the credits allocated and 15% auctioned Establishes trade sanctions by imposing tariffs on carbon-intensive imports Establishes trade sanctions by imposing tariffs on carbon-intensive imports Directs US EPA to set emission standards on sources that are not covered by the cap-and-trade system Directs US EPA to set emission standards on sources that are not covered by the cap-and-trade system Creates a Renewable Portfolio Standard that requires retail electricity suppliers to generate 6% of their energy from renewable sources starting in 2012 and ending with 20% in 2020 Creates a Renewable Portfolio Standard that requires retail electricity suppliers to generate 6% of their energy from renewable sources starting in 2012 and ending with 20% in 2020 Reduces electricity demand 15% by 2020 Reduces electricity demand 15% by 2020

10 American 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 2050 Reduces carbon emissions 17% by 2020 and over 80% in 2050 Only those that emit 25,000 tons per year will need to comply with reduction targets Only those that emit 25,000 tons per year will need to comply with reduction targets Includes a hard "price collar," or upper and lower limits, on the price of pollution permits Includes a hard "price collar," or upper and lower limits, on the price of pollution permits The manufacturing industry would not be required to reduce emissions until 2016 The manufacturing industry would not be required to reduce emissions until 2016 Consumers would get rebates and energy discounts to offset any price increases Consumers would get rebates and energy discounts to offset any price increases Sets aside $2 billion for the development of "clean coal" technology Sets aside $2 billion for the development of "clean coal" technology Gives $54 billion in loan guarantees to promote the construction of new nuclear facilities Gives $54 billion in loan guarantees to promote the construction of new nuclear facilities Allows coastal states to opt-out of drilling up to 75 miles from their shores Allows coastal states to opt-out of drilling up to 75 miles from their shores

11 Regulating Under Clean Air Act April 2, U.S. Supreme Court rules in Massachusetts v. EPA that the CAA authorizes US EPA to regulate tailpipe GHG emissions April 2, U.S. Supreme Court rules in Massachusetts v. EPA that the CAA authorizes US EPA to regulate tailpipe GHG emissions September 30, 2009 – US EPA announces proposal requiring large industrial facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of GHGs a year to obtain construction and operating permits covering these emissions September 30, 2009 – US EPA announces proposal requiring large industrial facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of GHGs a year to obtain construction and operating permits covering these emissions May 13, 2010 – US EPA formally announces phased-in approach for regulating GHG emissions from stationary sources May 13, 2010 – US EPA formally announces phased-in approach for regulating GHG emissions from stationary sources January 2011 – sources already permitted under the CAA for other pollutants will need to get a permit regulating their GHG emissions if they increase emissions by at least 75,000 tpy January 2011 – sources already permitted under the CAA for other pollutants will need to get a permit regulating their GHG emissions if they increase emissions by at least 75,000 tpy July 2011 – permitting expands to cover all new facilities with GHG emissions of at least 100,000 tpy and modifications at existing facilities that would increase by at least 75,000 tpy July 2011 – permitting expands to cover all new facilities with GHG emissions of at least 100,000 tpy and modifications at existing facilities that would increase by at least 75,000 tpy

12 So, Whats the Problem? The CAA sets out statutory thresholds for regulations at 100 tons per year (28 specified categories of sources such as power plants and refineries) and 250 tons per year of any regulated pollutant for all other sources The CAA sets out statutory thresholds for regulations at 100 tons per year (28 specified categories of sources such as power plants and refineries) and 250 tons per year of any regulated pollutant for all other sources Point of Reference – Average American household emits approximately tons of CO2 per year and an average commercial building or office emits more than 250 tons per year Point of Reference – Average American household emits approximately tons of CO2 per year and an average commercial building or office emits more than 250 tons per year Ohio has adopted the CAA threshold limits Ohio has adopted the CAA threshold limits US EPA does not have the authority to arbitrarily raise the statutory threshold levels as set forth in the CAA US EPA does not have the authority to arbitrarily raise the statutory threshold levels as set forth in the CAA Even if they did, states who have adopted the CAA threshold levels would need to revise state law before they could exempt smaller sources Even if they did, states who have adopted the CAA threshold levels would need to revise state law before they could exempt smaller sources CAA does not explicitly authorize the use of cap-and-trade and other cost- saving, market-based approaches CAA does not explicitly authorize the use of cap-and-trade and other cost- saving, market-based approaches

13 Permitting Consequences If states were to require permits under the 100/250 ton per year threshold: If states were to require permits under the 100/250 ton per year threshold: Prevention of Significant Deterioration reviews would increase from about 280 per year to over 40,000 Prevention of Significant Deterioration reviews would increase from about 280 per year to over 40,000 Facilities requiring Title V operating permits would increase from less that 15,000 to over 6,000,000 Facilities requiring Title V operating permits would increase from less that 15,000 to over 6,000,000 14,700 existing Title V permits would require addition of greenhouse gas terms 14,700 existing Title V permits would require addition of greenhouse gas terms

14 Who Would be Regulated?

15 GHG Global Emissions

16 Boiler MACT June 4 – US EPA released rules that will impose stricter hazardous air pollutant emission limitations and other requirements on operators of new and existing boilers and process heaters. June 4 – US EPA released rules that will impose stricter hazardous air pollutant emission limitations and other requirements on operators of new and existing boilers and process heaters. These new rules replace the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants that were established in 2004 and subsequently vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court in The court ruling requires US EPA to have new rules in place by December 16, The proposed rules include: These new rules replace the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants that were established in 2004 and subsequently vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court in The court ruling requires US EPA to have new rules in place by December 16, The proposed rules include: Major Source Boiler MACT Major Source Boiler MACT Area Source Boiler MACT Area 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, mining, refining and other industries; stores/malls, laundries, apartments, restaurants, hotels/motels and other commercial facilities; medical centers; educational and religious facilities; and municipal buildings These rules could affect boilers used in manufacturing, processing, mining, refining and other industries; stores/malls, laundries, apartments, restaurants, hotels/motels and other commercial facilities; medical centers; educational and religious facilities; and municipal buildings US EPA estimates cost of compliance around $9.5 billion US EPA estimates cost of compliance around $9.5 billion Industry estimates cost of compliance over $20 billion Industry estimates cost of compliance over $20 billion

17 Utility MACT March 15, 2005 – US EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) which established mercury emission standards for new and existing power plants March 15, 2005 – US EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) which established mercury emission standards for new and existing power plants February 8, 2008 – US Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) vacated US EPAs rule removing power plants from the Clean Air Act list of sources of hazardous air pollutants, thereby effectively destroying the legal basis for CAMR February 8, 2008 – US Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) vacated US EPAs rule removing power plants from the Clean Air Act list of sources of hazardous air pollutants, thereby effectively destroying the legal basis for CAMR April 15, 2010 – Court grants US EPAs motion to enter into a consent decree with a group of environmental plaintiffs April 15, 2010 – Court grants US EPAs motion to enter into a consent decree with a group of environmental plaintiffs 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, 2011 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, 2011 Power plants will then have 36 months to specify and install control equipment to meet a compliance deadline of November 2014 Power plants will then have 36 months to specify and install control equipment to meet a compliance deadline of November 2014 Expect rule to regulate MACT standard for emissions of mercury and HAPs such as arsenic, lead, nickel, chromium and hydrochloric acid Expect rule to regulate MACT standard for emissions of mercury and HAPs such as arsenic, lead, nickel, chromium and hydrochloric acid

18 Clean Air Transport Rule March 10, 2005 – US EPA finalized the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) which placed controls on emissions from nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) March 10, 2005 – US EPA finalized the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) which placed controls on emissions from nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) On December 23, 2008 – D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted US EPA's petition to remand CAIR to the agency to be "fixed On December 23, 2008 – D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted US EPA's petition to remand CAIR to the agency to be "fixed August 2, 2010 – US EPA releases the replacement to CAIR, otherwise known as the Transport Rule, as well as associated proposed Federal Implementation Plans (FIPS) August 2, 2010 – US EPA releases the replacement to CAIR, otherwise known as the Transport Rule, as well as associated proposed Federal 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 under CAIR, by assigning each State a firm emission budget which it may not exceed Virtual elimination of the cap-and-trade mechanism established under CAIR, by assigning each State a firm emission budget which it may not exceed Accelerating the time frame for reductions to coincide with the attainment deadlines faced by the States Accelerating the time frame for reductions to coincide with the attainment deadlines faced by the States

19 Coal Combustion Waste May 4, 2010 – US EPA released proposed rule regulating coal combustion waste May 4, 2010 – US EPA released proposed rule regulating coal combustion waste US EPA is proposing two options for regulating the waste. The two options are: US EPA is proposing two options for regulating the waste. The two options are: RCRA Subtitle C Regulation – Regulate as a hazardous waste (estimated cost for disposal $150/ton) RCRA Subtitle C Regulation – Regulate as a hazardous waste (estimated cost for disposal $150/ton) RCRA Subtitle D Regulation – Regulate as a non-hazardous waste (estimated cost for disposal $10-15/ton) RCRA Subtitle D Regulation – Regulate as a non-hazardous waste (estimated cost for disposal $10-15/ton) Both regulatory options allow for continued "beneficial use" of coal ash, and both options contain first-time provisions requiring protective liners, groundwater monitoring, and enhanced structural integrity for impoundments Both regulatory options allow for continued "beneficial use" of coal ash, and both options contain first-time provisions requiring protective liners, groundwater monitoring, and enhanced structural integrity for impoundments

20 Cooling Water Intake Structures February 16, 2004 – US EPA finalizes the Clean Water Act 316(b) Phase II rule which established location, design, construction and capacity standards for fish protection at cooling water intake structures (CWIS) February 16, 2004 – US EPA finalizes the Clean Water Act 316(b) Phase II rule which established location, design, construction and capacity standards for fish protection at cooling water intake structures (CWIS) March 2007 – US EPA suspends rules based on a decision by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals March 2007 – US EPA suspends rules based on a decision by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals 2010 – US EPA announces preparations to conduct a survey that seeks to quantify the amount that the public would be willing to pay to protect against the losses associated with CWIS 2010 – US EPA announces preparations to conduct a survey that seeks to quantify the amount that the public would be willing to pay to protect against the losses associated with CWIS US EPA is expected to come out with a replacement rule later this year or early next year US EPA is expected to come out with a replacement rule later this year or early next year

21 Clean-up Standards for Dioxin in Soil January 7, 2010 – US EPA released draft recommended interim preliminary remediation goals for dioxin in soil at Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA)sites January 7, 2010 – US EPA released draft recommended interim preliminary remediation goals for dioxin in soil at Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA)sites Would issue new cleanup standards for dioxin in soil, requiring additional and more costly remedial actions at Superfund sites that have already been cleaned to meet current standards. Would issue new cleanup standards for dioxin in soil, requiring additional and more costly remedial actions at Superfund sites that have already been cleaned to meet current standards. It appears there is no new science to justify such action by US EPA. Moreover, the agencys proposals appear to be out of step with the National Academy of Sciences, the Department of Defense, and the World Health Organization. It appears there is no new science to justify such action by US EPA. Moreover, the agencys proposals appear to be out of step with the National Academy of Sciences, the Department of Defense, and the World Health Organization.

22 National Ambient Air Quality Standards

23 NAAQS Information US EPA has developed standards for six specific contaminants US EPA has developed standards for six specific contaminants Sulfur dioxide – primary source; coal fired power plants Sulfur dioxide – primary source; coal fired power plants Carbon monoxide – primary source: cars and trucks Carbon monoxide – primary source: cars and trucks Lead – primary source; individual industrial facilities Lead – primary source; individual industrial facilities Nitrogen oxides – primary source; any type of combustion Nitrogen oxides – primary source; any type of combustion Particulate matter – primary source; coal fired boilers, cement plants, steel making operations Particulate matter – primary source; coal fired boilers, cement plants, steel making operations Ozone – primary source; cars, trucks, utility boilers, painting operations, refineries Ozone – primary source; cars, trucks, utility boilers, painting operations, refineries

24 Ohios Attainment Status The entire state is in attainment for nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead and carbon monoxide The entire state is in attainment for nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead and carbon monoxide Ohio has nonattainment areas for PM2.5 Ohio has nonattainment areas for PM2.5 Currently entire state is designated attainment for ozone, for now… Currently entire state is designated attainment for ozone, for now…

25 Reconsideration of 2008 Ozone Standard March 12, 2008 – US EPA revises the primary NAAQS for ozone from the previous standard set in 1997 at ppm to ppm March 12, 2008 – US EPA revises the primary NAAQS for ozone from the previous standard set in 1997 at ppm to ppm January 7, 2010 – US EPA releases a proposal to lower the standard to a range of ppm January 7, 2010 – US EPA releases a proposal to lower the standard to a range of ppm Under the 2008 standard of ppm 23 out of Ohio EPA's 49 air monitors show nonattainment but under the ppm standard 47 out of 49 monitors show nonattainment Under the 2008 standard of ppm 23 out of Ohio EPA's 49 air monitors show nonattainment but under the ppm standard 47 out of 49 monitors show nonattainment According to US EPA, the costs of reducing ozone to ppm would range from an estimated $19 billion to $25 billion per year in 2020 and for a standard of ppm, the costs would range from $52 billion to $90 billion According to US EPA, the costs of reducing ozone to ppm would range from an estimated $19 billion to $25 billion per year in 2020 and for a standard of ppm, the costs would range from $52 billion to $90 billion

26 Issues with Ozone Redesignation Issues Related to the Reconsideration – US EPA is required to follow a specific process when a reconsideration rulemaking is undertaken and when a NAAQS is 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. As such, US EPAs actions are outside the bounds of its regulatory authority. Issues Related to the Reconsideration – US EPA is required to follow a specific process when a reconsideration rulemaking is undertaken and when a NAAQS is 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. As such, US EPAs actions are outside the bounds of its regulatory authority. The scientific basis for revised standards is insufficient – US EPA concluded in 2008 that the new ozone standard was sufficiently protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety. The standard under consideration is unacceptable because there is no new scientific evidence to justify decreasing the standard from ppm. The scientific basis for revised standards is insufficient – US EPA concluded in 2008 that the new ozone standard was sufficiently protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety. The standard under consideration is unacceptable because there is no new scientific evidence to justify decreasing the standard from ppm. Concerns with Implementation Schedule – Traditionally, states have a year after 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 these recommendations. Concerns with Implementation Schedule – Traditionally, states have a year after 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 these recommendations. States have not yet implemented the current standard so it is premature to lower the standard – States are still in the process of executing implementation plans for both the 1997 and 2008 standards. US EPA should be focused on helping states meet these standards before they arbitrarily change them. States have not yet implemented the current standard so it is premature to lower the standard – States are still in the process of executing implementation plans for both the 1997 and 2008 standards. US EPA should be focused on helping states meet these standards before they arbitrarily change them. Current technology does not exist to meet the proposed standard – US EPAs own draft Regulatory Impact Analysis concluded that current technologies would not 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 standard by Current technology does not exist to meet the proposed standard – US EPAs own draft Regulatory Impact Analysis concluded that current technologies would not 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 standard by 2020.

27 Ozone Not Ohios Only Problem PollutantPromulgation Date Designations Effective SIPS DueAttainment Demonstration Due Attainment Date LeadOctober 2008November 2010/2011 October 2011May 2012/ /2016 PM2.5 (2006)September 2006October 2009September 2009October 2012October 2014/2019 OzoneAugust 2010August 2011August 2013December 2013August 2017 NO2January 2010February 2012January 2013August 2015February 2017 SO2 (primary)June 2010 June 2013January 2014July 2017 PM2.5October 2011November 2013November 2014November 2016November 2018

28 Ohio Specific Issues Water Quality Rules (water quality standards, 401 water certification program, antidegradation and stream mitigation) Water Quality Rules (water quality standards, 401 water certification program, antidegradation and stream mitigation) Industrial Stormwater General Permit Industrial Stormwater General Permit Construction & Demolition Debris Multi-Sector Rules Construction & Demolition Debris Multi-Sector Rules BUSTR Rules (federal Energy Policy Act of 2005) BUSTR Rules (federal Energy Policy Act of 2005) Great Lakes Compact Great Lakes Compact Drilling on State Lands Drilling on State Lands Brownfield Redevelopment Brownfield Redevelopment

29 Okay, Watt Now? Jenn Klein (614)


Download ppt "Overview of Major Environmental Regulations Jenn Klein Director of Energy & Environmental Policy Ohio Chamber of Commerce."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google