Clean Water Act 319(g) Petition Kathy G. Beckett Midwest Ozone Group January 22-23, 2009.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
PENNSYLVANIA DRAFT MERCURY RULE Presented by Gail M. Conner, Esquire March 21, 2006.
Advertisements

LEGAL EPHEDRINE IN THE USA.
LOCAL IPP REGULATIONS SEWER USE ORDINANCES Sandra Diorka Director of Public Services Delhi Charter Township.
Presentations May 23 – 25, 2005 Portland, Maine For related information visit:
Mercury Monitoring by States Robert Vollaro U.S. EPA Clean Air Markets Division (May 2009)
EPA’s Clean Power Plan Proposed Rules for Reducing GHG Emissions from Power Plants Presentation to ACPAC June 16,
Clean Water Act SAFE 210. History/Amendments Recent major amendments were enacted in 1972, 1977, and – Established the National Pollutant Discharge.
Bureau of Water Overview Wastewater issues Drinking water issues Wrap up topics.
Reducing Mercury Pollution in the Environment Presentation by : Marc M. Sussman President and CEO Dental Recycling North America, Inc. To the Western.
Legislative Changes Affecting Water Quality at a Local Level October 2011 Robert Kollinger, P.E. Water Resources Manager Polk County Parks and Natural.
TOTAL CASES FILED IN MAINE PER 1,000 POPULATION CALENDAR YEARS FILINGS PER 1,000 POPULATION This chart shows bankruptcy filings relative to.
GREENHOUSE GAS POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR KENTUCKY’S ENERGY FUTURE Presented by John S. Lyons Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet March 13,
Bureau of Water Program Overview Local Government Interest.
The Massachusetts Approach to Power Plant Clean-up Policy Making and Standards Setting to Reach Clean Air Sonia Hamel Massachusetts Executive Office of.
Q Homeowner Confidence Survey Results Feb. 18, 2009.
Using the Clean Water Act to Reduce Mercury in the Northeast Susy King September 8, 2010.
Massachusetts Dental Mercury Amalgam Recycling Program CARROTS AND STICKS.
U.S. Civil War Map On a current map of the U.S. identify and label the Union States, the Confederate States, and U.S. territories. Create a map key and.
Robert L. Burns, Jr., Esq. Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC August 1, 2013 Impact of Environmental Regulation on Coal Combustion for Electrical.
Air Quality Beyond Ozone and PM2.5 Sheila Holman North Carolina Division of Air Quality 6 th Annual Unifour Air Quality Conference June 15, 2012.
Laura Boothe Attainment Planning Branch Supervisor January 11, 2012.
Indiana Energy Association Environmental Issues Impacting Coal Fired Power Plants September 12, 2013 Thomas W. Easterly, P.E., BCEE, Commissioner IN Department.
EPA’s Clean Power Plan David B. Spence University of Texas at Austin Structure of proposed rule Compliance options for states Legal issues/vulnerabilities.
American Legislative Exchange Council America’s Clean Air Success Story and the Implications of Overregulation November 28, 2012 Thomas W. Easterly, P.E.,
Massachusetts’ Power Plant Mercury Regulations Sharon Weber Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection WESTAR Fall Business Meeting - September.
Impaired and TMDL Waterbody Listings Impacts on DoD Facilities Bill Melville, Regional TMDL Coordinator
Clean Water Act (CWA) (1977, 1981, 1987). Description and Affects This Act was put into place in order to regulate the amount of pollutants that were.
North Carolina Division of Air Quality Report on Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Electric Generating Units In response to 15 NCAC 02D.2509(b)
This chart compares the percentage of cases filed in Maine under chapter 13 with the national average between 1999 and As a percent of total filings,
Chesapeake Bay TMDL Background and Litigation Jon A. Mueller, Vice President For Litigation Chesapeake Bay Foundation William and Mary,
Fasten your seatbelts we’re off on a cross country road trip!
Map Review. California Kentucky Alabama.
Use of Multi-Media Monitoring to Develop a Statewide Mercury TMDL Bruce Monson and Howard Markus Environmental Analysis & Outcomes Division Minnesota Pollution.
Let’s See What You Know: Draw the outline of the United States Draw California Identify and label our three major bodies of water Star the location of.
The United States.
MS4 Remand Rule Intergovernmental Associations Briefing September 15, 2015.
Carbon Finance North America Workshop NYC Catherine A. Lee, Esq. Consultant to Maine DEP June 15, 2007 The Nation’s First GHG Cap and Trade Program
Industrial Sources of Mercury in the Atmosphere Jim Orgeron Staff Environmental Scientist, Environmental Planning Division.
Restoring VA Waters the TMDL Way Jeff Corbin Senior Advisor to the Regional Administrator U.S. EPA Region 3.
Assessment of Mercury Rules for Electric Generators in North Carolina September 9, 2015 Presented to the Environmental Management Commission – Air Quality.
Introduction to the Clean Water Act And Water Quality Regulation Tracy Hester Environmental Law Fall 2015 September 15, 2015.
Deliberative, Pre-decisional – Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute 1 Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Trading.
LEGAL ASPECT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT (INTERNATIONAL) NURUL MAISYARAH BINTI SAMSUDIN NORAINI BINTI ABD RAHMAN NOR AINI OTHMAN NUR NAZNIN BINTI ISHAK.
NORTHEAST REGION Connecticut ~ Delaware ~ Maine ~ Maryland ~ Massachusetts ~ New Hampshire ~ New Jersey ~ New York ~ Pennsylvania ~ Rhode Island ~ Vermont.
CHAPTER 7 FILINGS IN MAINE CALENDAR YEARS 1999 – 2009 CALENDAR YEAR CHAPTER 7 FILINGS This chart shows total case filings in Maine for calendar years 1999.
Massachusetts’ 4-Pollutant Power Plant Regulations Sharon Weber Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Air Innovations Conference - August.
Massachusetts Multi-pollutant Power Plant Regulations Sharon Weber Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection EPA Utility MACT Working Group.
IDEM Update Indiana Industrial Operators Association April 9, 2013 Thomas W. Easterly, P.E., BCEE Commissioner Indiana Department of Environmental Management.
The Role of Interstate Transport of Air Pollutants in Achieving Ozone NAAQS Attainment David M. Flannery Steptoe & Johnson PLLC for the Midwest Ozone Group.
Stormwater Management William Taylor New Hampshire Wastewater Control Association June 13, 2013.
US MAP TEST Practice
UNITED STATES HISTORY REGION PROJECT MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 2014.
1 Special Information Session on USEPA’s Carbon Rules & Clean Air Act Section 111 North Carolina Division of Air Quality Special Information Session on.
Is There Need for a 75 ppb Ozone Transport Rule? Gregory Stella Alpine Geophysics, LLC 1 David Flannery Steptoe & Johnson PLLC Prepared For The Midwest.
WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF ENERGY. West Virginia Coal Association Mining Symposium January 28, 2016.
TOTAL CASE FILINGS - MAINE CALENDAR YEARS 1999 – 2009 CALENDAR YEAR Total Filings This chart shows total case filings in Maine for calendar years 1999.
The United States is a system that can be broken into 5 major parts or regions.
Visa Bankruptcy Education Services
Clean Air Act Litigation Update State Air Director Meeting May 2015
Visa Bankruptcy Education Services
Visa Bankruptcy Education Services Bankruptcy Statistics May 19, 2016.
1. Connecticut Delaware Georgia Maryland Massachusetts New Hampshire
The States How many states are in the United States?
Objective: To examine the causes and effects of the conflict that erupted over the proposed statehood of Missouri.
Regions of the United States
Bill Harnett USEPA NACAA Membership Meeting October 21, 2008
Department of Environmental Quality
Eastern United States Geography Quiz
Mercury TMDL Review & Permitting Strategy Update
States During the Civil War
Presentation transcript:

Clean Water Act 319(g) Petition Kathy G. Beckett Midwest Ozone Group January 22-23, 2009

New England States and New York State NEIWPCC – New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission October 28, 2008 – Filed petition with U.S. EPA Request – A management conference to address water bodies impaired by atmospheric deposition of mercury.

List of Petitioning States Connecticut Maine New Hampshire New York Rhode Island Vermont Massachusetts

NEIWPCC Assertions NEIWPCC states have eliminated almost all-in region sources of mercury. U.S. EPA has approved the Northeast Regional Mercury TMDL in December Between 1998 and 2002 the Northeast States have reduced in-region deposition of mercury by over 70 percent. Enforceable controls in place to meet the remaining reduction goals.

Management Conference “The purpose of such Conference shall be to develop an agreement among such States to reduce the level of pollution…resulting from nonpoint sources and to improve the water quality…” Petitioners want to meet designated uses and water quality standards for mercury within the region through the implementation of plant- specific MACT limits (90% reductions) for mercury by EPA under 112 (d) of the Clean Air Act.

Designated Uses Each Petitioning States has CWA designated uses of fishing and fish consumption for most of their waters. Mercury pollution prevents compliance with these designated uses and with water quality criteria implementing these uses. Each state has issued advisories limiting the types and amounts of fish that can be eaten.

Water Quality Criteria Each of the Petitioning States has water quality criteria for mercury in water and/or in fish that, in part, implement water quality standards. States are required under Sec. 303(d) of the CWA to develop TMDLs for impaired waters and has done so through the Northeast Regional Mercury TMDL, approved by EPA on December 20, 2007.

Northeast Regional Mercury TMDL The TMDL identified mercury from atmospheric deposition as the primary cause of impairment. Compliance with the TMDL requires a 74 to 91 percent reduction in fish tissue mercury concentrations. To meet the reduction targets, atmospheric deposition of mercury will have to be reduced by at least 98% relative to 1998 levels. An interim goal of 75% by 2010 has been established.

March 2008 NESCAUM Study U.S. sources contribute approximately 30 percent of the atmospheric mercury deposition in the Northeast region. In-region sources contribute approximately one- half of the atmospheric mercury deposition from U.S. sources within the petitioning states. Approximately 48 percent of the petitioner states’ atmospheric mercury deposition from U.S. sources originates from states outside the region.

Out-of-Region States’ Contribution of Atmospheric Mercury Pennsylvania21.7% New Jersey5.6% Ohio5.5% West Virginia3.9% Maryland3.7% Michigan2.0% Virginia1.5% Indiana1.3% Kentucky1.2% North Carolina1.1% Illinois0.9%

New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers The Conference of the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers (NEG-ECP) is an organization of the governors of six New England states and the premiers of the five Eastern Canadian provinces. In 1998, a regional Mercury Action Plan (MAP) was developed by this conference.

Mercury Action Plan The MAP identifies steps to address those aspects of the mercury problem in the region. Goal – 50 percent reduction of regional mercury emissions by 2003, and 75 percent reduction by –2003 goal was met with 55% reduction. –Results of 87 % reduction from municipal waste combustors and 97% reduction from medical waste incinerators and 100 % reduction from chlor-alkali facilities.

Connecticut Legislation passed in 2003 requires Connecticut’s two coal-fired electric power generating facilities to reduce mercury emissions by 90 percent from the amount of mercury in the coal burned, starting in Connecticut further implemented regulations for these two coal-fired electric power generating facilities effective May 29, 2007, creating a “state mercury mass emissions cap.” This cap limits emissions from existing and any new coal-fired electric generating unit up to 106 pounds of mercury per calendar year for the period beginning January 1, 2010, through December 31, The cap is further lowered Connecticut also has other industry sector (solid waste) and mercury product regulations.

Maine Maine has a mercury reduction and elimination program that addresses air emissions, water discharges, products and waste. Instate facilities are currently limited to 35 lbs of mercury emissions per facility per year and that limit drops to 25 lbs. in Facilities emitting over 10 lbs./year must have submitted a mercury reduction plan by September Wastewater discharges are regulated with effluent limits and mandatory mercury reduction plans. Maine also has other industry sector (wastewater discharge) and mercury product regulations

Massachusetts Massachusetts has taken steps to quantify in-state mercury sources and impost maximum controls on such sources. Massachusetts’ Mercury Management Act requires end-of-life recycling of mercury-containing products, appropriate disposal. Massachusetts also has regulation for coal-fired power plants that required 85% capture of mercury in coal burned by the beginning of 2008 and require 95 percent capture by October 1, Massachusetts also has other industry sector and mercury product regulations

New Hampshire New Hampshire requires 80 percent reduction of mercury emissions from coal- fired power plants using scrubber technology by July 1, New Hampshire also has other industry sector (municipal waste incinerators) and mercury product regulations

New York New York require a 50% decrease in mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants by January 1, 2010 and then will implement a unit-based limit for each power plant facility that will result in an estimated 90 % decrease from current levels. New York has mercury product regulations.

Rhode Island The Rhode Island Mercury Reduction and Education Act requires the phase-out of mercury-added products, labeling, collection plans, bans on certain products, and elimination of mercury from schools.

Vermont Vermont has a mercury labeling and recycling law. Vermont has not coal burning plants, municipal incinerators or medical waste incinerators.

CWA 316(g) Interstate Management Conference Convening of conference; notification; purpose If any portion of the navigable waters in any State which is implementing a management program approved under this section is not meeting applicable water quality standards or the goals and requirements of this chapter as a result, in whole or in part, of pollution from nonpoint sources in another State, such State may petition the Administrator to convene, and the Administrator shall convene, a management conference of all States which contribute significant pollution resulting from nonpoint sources to such portion. If, on the basis of information available, the Administrator determines that a State is not meeting applicable water quality standards or the goals and requirements of this chapter as a result, in whole or in part, of significant pollution from nonpoint sources in another State, the Administrator shall notify such States. The Administrator may convene a management conference under this paragraph not later than 180 days after giving such notification, whether or not the State which is not meeting such standards requests such conference. The purpose of such conference shall be to develop an agreement among such States to reduce the level of pollution in such portion resulting from nonpoint sources and to improve the water quality of such portion. Nothing in such agreement shall supersede or abrogate rights to quantities of water which have been established by interstate water compacts, Supreme Court decrees, or State water laws.