Setting the Stage: The Clean Air Act

1
Setting the Stage The Clean Air Acts
Opportunities and Challenges NASUCA Annual
MeetingNovember 11, 2012Bill Becker, National
Association of Clean Air Agencies
2
What I Will Cover

• Background on Air Quality and Emissions
• EPA Air Rules Affecting the Power Industry
• Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS)
• Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
• CO2 Emissions Standards for New Power Plants
• GHG Permitting
• National Ambient Air Quality Standards

3
The Clean Air Act is Working
4
The Clean Air Act Has Prevented a Huge Number of
Premature Deaths and Other Adverse Health Effects
Health Effects Reduction(PM2.5 Ozone Only) Pollutant (s) Year 2010 Year 2020
PM2.5 Adult Mortality PM 160,000 230,000
PM2.5 Infant Mortality PM 230 280
Ozone Mortality Ozone 4,300 7,100
Chronic Bronchitis PM 54,000 75,000
Acute Bronchitis PM 130,000 180,000
Acute Myocardial Infarction PM 130,000 200,000
Asthma Exacerbation PM 1,700,000 2,400,000
Hospital Admissions PM, Ozone 86,000 135,000
Emergency Room Visits PM, Ozone 86,000 120,000
Restricted Activity Days PM, Ozone 84,000,000 110,000,000
School Loss Days Ozone 3,200,000 5,400,000
Lost Work Days PM 13,000,000 17,000,000
5
Air Quality is Improving at the Same Time Our
Economy Has Expanded
6
However, Millions of People are Still Exposed to
Unhealthful Levels of Air Pollution
7
(No Transcript)
8
Location of Coal- and Oil-Fired Power Plants
MATS covers approximately1,400 coal- and
oil-fired units gt 25 MW at about 600 power plants
nationwide
9
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
10
Fish Advisories for Mercury are Everywhere
11
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards

• On December 16, 2011, EPA issued final standards
  to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic
  air pollutants from new and existing coal- and
  oil-fired power plants greater than 25 megawatts
• These standards will require facilities to
  reduce
• Metals, including mercury, arsenic, chromium and
  nickel
• Acid gases, including hydrogen chloride and
  hydrogen fluoride, and
• Particulate matter
• New sources will have to install state of the art
  technology, while existing sources must achieve
  the average of the top 12 performing facilities
• Currently, 40 of EGUs do not have advanced
  pollution control technology
•  

12
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards

• These sources will need to install technologies
  that are generally proven and widely available
• Expected measures needed to comply include
• Mercury Selective Catalytic Reduction,
  Scrubbers, Activated Carbon Injection
• Non-Hg Metals Fabric Filters (FF),
  Electrostatic Precipitators (ESP)
• Acid Gases Scrubbers, Dry Sorbent Injection,
  DSI with FF or ESP
• Dioxins and Furans Work Practice Standards
• Sulfur Dioxide Scrubbers, Dry Sorbent Injection
• Retirements EPA expects retirements to be less
  than 4.7 GW (out of 1000 GW of total EGU
  capacity) by 2015 less than ½ of 1

13
Compliance Deadlines

• The Clean Air Act provides sources three years to
  comply with the MATS standards
• The Act also provides additional flexibilities
  for sources needing more time
• Allows state and local agencies to issue a permit
  providing one more year, where necessary, for the
  installation of controls
• A source may also be granted an additional (5th)
  year to comply if it qualifies for an
  Administrative Order under Section 113

14
New Source Reconsideration

• In July 2012 EPA announced a reconsideration of
  MATS for new sources and stayed the effectiveness
  of the new source provisions for 3 months
• EPA plans to issue a new rule for new sources by
  March 2013 (the rule has not been proposed but
  was sent to OMB the day after the election)
• New rule will focus on measurement issues related
  to Hg and data set used for variability
  calculations for PM and HCl, which will likely
  have the practical effect of relaxing the
  standards

15
Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
16
Background on CSAPR

• EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)
  on 5/12/05
• In 2008, the D.C. Circuit remanded CAIR to EPA,
  leaving existing programs in place while
  directing the agency to address certain legal
  deficiencies
• EPA proposed CSAPR on 7/6/10 and finalized the
  rule on 7/6/11
• EPA proposed a supplemental rule on 7/6/11 adding
  five additional states to the ozone season NOx
  program this rule was finalized on 12/15/11
• CSAPR was scheduled to replace CAIR on 1/1/2012
  however, on 12/30/2011 the D.C. Circuit stayed
  the CSAPR rule pending judicial review
• On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit vacated and
  remanded CSAPR to EPA and ordered EPA to continue
  to administer CAIR pending the promulgation of a
  valid replacement

17
What CSAPR Did and Did Not Do

• CSAPR
• Required 23 states to reduce annual SO2 and NOx
  emissions to help downwind areas attain the PM2.5
  NAAQS
• Required 25 states to reduce ozone season NOx
  emissions to help downwind areas attain the 1997
  8-hour ozone NAAQS (84 parts per billion)
• Established emissions reductions to take effect
  on 1/1/2012 for SO2 and annual NOx, and 5/1/2012
  for ozone season NOx
• CSAPR did not
• Address the more stringent 2008 ozone standard
  (75 ppb)
• Address a possible tightening of the ozone
  standard in 2014 (CASAC has recommended 60-70
  ppb)
• Address a potentially more stringent PM2.5
  standard, as proposed by EPA in June and on which
  EPA must make a final decision by 12/14/12

18
States That Were Covered By CSAPR
19
Anticipated Emissions Reductions
20
Budgets under CSAPR and CAIR

• Comparison of Combined Emission Budgets for
• States Covered by Both CSAPR and CAIR
• (million tons)
• Initial Phase
•   CAIR Budgets CSAPR Budgets
• Annual SO2 3.25 3.24
• Annual NOX 1.33 1.16
• Ozone Season NOX 0.56 0.49
• CAIR began covering NOX emissions in 2009 and
  SO2 emissions in 2010
• CSAPR would have applied to emissions in 2012
  and beyond
• The initial phase for CSAPR compliance was to
  begin in 2012 for all programs
• Sources
• CAIR preamble pages 25329, 25320, and 25323-25324
  (http//edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/055723.pdf
  )
• CSAPR preamble tables VI.F1, VI.F2, VI.F3
• (http//www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-08/pdf/2
  011-17600.pdf)
• CSAPR SNPR tables I.C1 and I.C2

21
Issues Moving Forward

• Among the Courts findings
• "...the collective burden must be allocated
  among the upwind States in proportion to the size
  of their contributions to the downwind State's
  nonattainment,
• "...once EPA reasonably designates some level of
  contribution as insignificant under the
  statute, it may not force any upwind State to
  reduce more than its own contribution to that
  downwind State minus the insignificant amount
• EPA's authority to force reductions on upwind
  States ends at the point where the affected
  downwind State achieves attainment.
• When EPA quantifies States good neighbor
  obligations, it must give the States a reasonable
  opportunity to implement those obligations.
• Some issues that will need to be resolved
• When will EPA come up with a valid replacement
  for CAIR and what will it require?
• Absent sufficient guidance from EPA, how should
  states proceed with transport SIPs (vis-à-vis
  FIPs)?
• In some situations, sources have excess
  allowances that enable them to avoid any controls
  during high ozone days in the summertime.
• Both CAIR and CSAPR are based on an outdated
  ozone standard (i.e., 84 ppb). What are EPAs
  plans to revise the transport rule to meet the
  75 ppb standard, and possibly an even tighter one
  expected on 2014?

22
CO2 Emissions Standards for New Power
Plants
23
Background on EPAs Proposal

• Power plants are the largest source of GHGs
• In response to a court settlement, EPA proposed
  New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) on
  4/13/2012 pursuant to authority under Section 111
  of the CAA that will cover CO2 emissions from
  Electric Generating Units (EGUs)
• Section 111(b) requires EPA to regulate new and
  modified sources
• Section 111(d) requires EPA to regulate existing
  sources for which standards are promulgated under
  Section 111(b)

24
What EPAs NSPS Proposal Does

• EPAs proposal applies to
• Fossil-fuel-fired boilers
• Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)
  units
• Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) units
• Simple Cycle turbines
• The proposal does not apply to
• Existing sources, including modifications and
  reconstructions
• New units with permits that start construction
  within 12 months of EPAs proposal
• Transitional units New units with permits
  that start construction within 12 months of EPAs
  proposal and DOE demonstration projects that
  start construction within 12 months of the
  proposal

25
What EPAs Proposal Does (cont)

• New fossil-fueled-fired power plants must meet an
  output-based standard of 1,000 pounds of CO2 per
  megawatt-hour
• EPA believes that almost all NGCC units built
  since 1995 will be able to meet the standard
  without add-on controls
• EGUs using coal or petroleum coke that use Carbon
  Capture and Sequestration have the option of
  phasing in compliance
• For the first 10 years, these sources would be
  required to meet an annual rate of 1,800 lbs/MWh
• For the next 20 years, these sources would need
  to meet a rate of
• 600 lbs/MWh

26
A Word About Existing Sources

• EPA has not proposed standards for existing
  sources
• EPA is required to establish emissions guidelines
  for existing sources under Section 111(d) of the
  CAA
• Guidelines include targets based on demonstrated
  controls, emission reductions, costs and expected
  timeframes for installation and compliance
• Guidelines can be less stringent than the
  requirements for new sources
• States use the emission guidelines to develop
  plans for reducing emissions from existing
  sources states can take into account remaining
  useful life of source
• EPA has the authority to prescribe a plan for a
  state in cases where the state fails to submit a
  satisfactory plan and to enforce the provisions
  of a plan in cases where the state fails to
  enforce them
• Several states are seeking a process by which EPA
  would deem their GHG-reduction programs
  equivalent to the EPA emissions guidelines

27
GHG Permitting

• GHG permitting requirements took effect January
  2, 2011 apply only to the largest stationary
  sources of GHG emissions
• Most state and local agencies have authority to
  issue permits covering GHGs for those that do
  not, EPA is issuing the GHG portion of permits
  under temporary federal authority
• EPA estimates that as of September 10, 2012, 50
  construction permits containing GHG requirements
  had been issued and an additional 110
  applications with GHG elements had been received
  (all industrial sectors)
• Energy efficiency has been the standard control
  technology thus far
• Should be expressed using numerical limits for
  carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)
• Other technologies, such as carbon capture and
  storage (CCS), need to be considered and
  evaluated, but may be eliminated as infeasible

28
GHG Permitting

• On June 29, 2012, EPA issued Step 3 of the GHG
  Tailoring Rule
• EPA is retaining the current GHG permitting
  thresholds of 100,000 / 75,000 tons per year CO2e
  for Step 3, rather than lower it to 50,000 tons
  covers only the largest sources of GHG emissions
• EPA is also streamlining approaches for GHG
  permitting
• Clean Air Act Advisory Committee GHG Permit
  Streamlining Workgroup, consisting of
  representatives from EPA, state and local
  permitting authorities, tribes, environmental
  groups, and industry, issued a report on
  September 14, 2012 identifying potential
  streamlining approaches

29
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
30
Health-Based National Ambient Air Quality
Standards Ozone

• EPA proposed to strengthen the 2008 (75 ppb)
  ozone NAAQS in January 2010 decided last fall
  not to finalize a new standard but to wait for
  the next review (proposal expected late 2013,
  final decision late 2014)
• States are currently working to implement the
  2008 ozone NAAQS
• 46 areas were designated nonattainment (including
  2 separate tribal areas), only 3 of which had
  never before been designated nonattainment for
  ozone designations took effect 7/20/12
• States must submit SIPs (state strategies) to EPA
  for approval
• Deadlines by which states are required to meet
  the standard range from 2015 to 2032

31
Anticipated NAAQS Implementation Milestones
(as of September 27, 2012)
Pollutant Final NAAQS Date (or Projection) Infrastructure SIP Due Designations Effective Attainment Demonstration Due Attainment Date
PM2.5 (2006) Oct 2006 Oct 2009 Dec 2009 Dec 2012 Dec 2014/2019
Pb Oct 2008 Oct 2011 Dec 2010/2011 June 2012/2013 Dec 2015/2016
NO2 (primary) Jan 2010 Jan 2013 Feb 2012 none none
SO2 (primary) June 2010 June 2013 TBD TBD TBD
Ozone (2008) Mar 2008 Mar 2011 July 2012 2015 2015/2032
PM (current review) Dec 2012 Dec 2015 Early 2015 2018 2020/2025
Ozone (current review) 2014 2017 2016 2019 2019/2036
Section 110 plans will be needed for multiple
NAAQS in coming years.
32
For Further Information

• Contact
• Bill Becker, Executive Director, NACAA
• 202-624-7864
• becker_at_4cleanair.org