Energy and Environment Monitorwww.eem.jacksonkelly.com

USEPA’s MACT and CSAPR Rules are Flawed

On January 24, 2012, Gene Trisko, the General Counsel to Unions for Jobs and The Environment, made a presentation to the UJAE Board of Directors, which analyzed the basis and effect of USEPA’s final utility MACT and CSAPR rules.  UJAE is an association of 12 national labor unions, including IBW, Mine Workers, Boilermakers, Utility Workers and most other coal related energy unions.  For a copy of Trisko’s presentation, click here.  

Key points raised by this presentation are:  

(1)        The MACT standards for future plants are supposed to reflect the performance of a group of best performing plants;  however, the final MACT standards for new plants are so stringent that coal is effectively eliminated as a fuel option for future generation.  This portion of the presentation was based on the comments of American Electric Power submitted on August 4, 2001 with respect to the proposed MACT rule, which analyzed new coal units built since 2001 and determined that based on air permit limits for these 40 newest units, none could meet all of the new source standards.  For a copy of AEP’s comments, click here.  

(2)        Relying on air quality monitoring data, prepared for the Midwest Ozone Group, Trisko presented slides that showed that the air quality objectives of the CSAPR rule have already been achieved by the states.  For a copy of the data of the Midwest Ozone Group, click here.  In December 2001, environmental commissioners for the states of West Virginia, Indiana, Ohio, Louisiana and Texas prepared an op ed piece which stated that the CSAPR rule wasn’t needed to address interstate transport.  For a copy of the op ed published in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette on December 22, 2001, click here.  

EPA has published job and plant retirement figures that are subject to significant doubt.  EPA’s regulatory impact statement indicated that the utility MACT rule would create between 31,000 and 40,000 construction jobs and that plant closures would be 4.7 GW.  The most recent estimate by the Edison Electric Institute, however indicates that plant closures related to this rule should be on the order of 50 GW.  

This article was authored by David M. Flannery, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.

EPA Announces Timing for Draft EGU GHG Permit Rule

EPA Assistant Administrator for Air Gina McCarthy, speaking at a briefing on January 19, 2011, hosted by ICF International, announced that EPA is nearing completion of a draft Greenhouse Gas permitting rule for new, modified, or reconstructed power plants. She said that the agency target has been the end of January and that the agency is “close to that timeline,” adding that the proposed GHG permitting rule is now under review at the Office of Management and Budget. She noted that the new rule will not apply to plants that are being modified to install controls as a result of the recently published EGU Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS).  It is not clear whether the GHG permitting rule will apply to units affected by the recently finalized Cross State Air Pollution Rule. 

McCarthy said that the agency is currently focused on the power sector but will follow the EGU GHG rule with a proposed rule for refineries, noting that EPA is required to deal with the issue of GHG permitting as a result of the April 2, 2007, Supreme Court decision in the case of Massachusetts V. EPA. McCarthy characterized that decision as one in which the court “determined that the EPA has the authority, and the duty, to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act because the emissions meet the statute's definition of a ‘pollutant,’…” She added that GHG permitting of existing plants is a much more daunting issue and said that EPA is discussing the schedule with the litigants and hopes to reach an agreement soon. 

McCarthy reportedly closed her briefing with the statement that "[w]e think regulating greenhouse gases from power plants is a reasonable and appropriate thing to do, and one that can help in terms of providing certainty to investments moving forward. I will say that [the power] sector dwarfs all other sectors in terms of the amount of greenhouse gases that they emit on the stationary side." 

This article was authored by Skipp Kropp, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.

Essroc Cement Company to Pay $1.7 Million Penalty to Resolve Clean Air Act Violations

On December 29, 2011, the U.S. EPA and U.S. DOJ announced that Essroc Cement Company has agreed to pay a $1.7 million penalty and invest approximately $33 million in pollution control technology to resolve alleged violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA).  

In January 2009, EPA issued a Notice of Violation to Essroc alleging that Essroc modified its Bessemer plant without first complying with CAA pre-construction obligations that include obtaining pre-construction permits and installing and operating state-of-the-art pollution control technology.  

Essroc agreed to permanently retire two kilns at the Bessemer plant and the following projects estimated to cost the company $33 million will be undertaken: 

• Installation and continuous operation of new Dry Scrubber/Lime Injection systems at seven kilns
• Installation and continuous operation of selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) at five kilns
• Demonstration of selective catalytic reduction system (SCR) at the two long wet kilns 

U.S. EPA estimates the projects will reduce nitrous oxides (NOx) emissions by 5,000 tons and reduce sulfur dioxides (SO2) by 5,600 tons.  

The projects will occur at Essroc’s six cement plants in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and West Virginia. 

In addition, Essroc will spend $745,000 to replace old engines in several off-road vehicles at its plant sites as a mitigation project.  The replacement engines are estimated to achieve approximately 50-80 percent reduction in NOx on each engine. 

This action was a result of the U.S. EPA Cement Manufacturing Enforcement Initiative.  Beginning in 2008, U.S. EPA has pursued a integrated compliance and enforcement strategy to address Clean Air Act New Source Review compliance issues at the nation’s cement manufacturing facilities.   U.S EPA has reached settlements with five other companies.  

This article was excerpted from publically available information, and was authored by Joyce Gentry, Acacia Environmental Group LLC.  For more information on the author see here.

EPA Announces Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Power Plants

On December 21, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its final rule requiring power plants to reduce emissions of mercury and other air toxics. The final rule, which EPA is calling the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), replaces the Clean Air Mercury Rule that was promulgated by the Bush Administration using a cap-and-trade system predicted to reduce mercury emissions by 70% over thirteen years.  The D.C. Circuit, however, vacated the Bush rule, and the new MATS will require coal-fired power plants to reduce mercury emissions by 90% in four years.  Coal-fired power plants, the coal industry, coal states like West Virginia, and others dispute EPA’s claims that the presumed health and economic benefits of MATS outweigh its costs and have raised concerns over the impact of MATS on the supply of electricity.  Unless successfully challenged, MATS will be the first national air standards on power plant mercury emissions. 

Earlier this year, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity released an initial analysis by National Economic Research Associates (NERA) of the combined impacts of EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) that goes into effect in January 2012 and MATS, then known as the Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology or MACT Rule.  NERA used the government’s own data and found that these two proposals would: increase coal unit retirements by about 48 gigawatts (GW); increase electricity sector costs by $17.8 billion per year; decrease coal-fired generation in 2016 by about 13%; decrease electricity sector coal demand in 2016 by about 10%; increase natural gas-fired generation in 2016 by about 26%; increase natural gas prices in 2016 by about 17% which would increase natural gas expenditures by residential, commercial, and industrial sectors by $8.2 billion per year; increase average U.S. retail electricity prices in 2016 by about 12%, with regional increases as much as about 24% in some areas of the United States that rely on coal for electricity; and reduce net employment in the U.S. by more than 1.4 million job-years over the 2013-2020 period, with sector losses outnumbering sector gains by more than 4 to 1.   The NERA estimates are significantly higher than EPA’s numbers.  For more information on the NERA initial analysis, click here. 

The final MATS rule applies to coal- and oil-fired electric generating units (EGUs) with a capacity of 25 megawatts (MW) or greater.  EPA estimates that there are approximately 1,100 existing coal-fired units and 300 oil fired units for a total of 1,400 affected units at about 600 power plants.  According to EPA, about 60% of coal-fired units already comply with the final standards while 40% lack state-of-the-art controls.  The 40% are older plants and will likely be shut down resulting in a loss of utility worker jobs and tax revenue.  EPA projects retirements of 4.7 GW out of more than 1,000 GW that make up the nation’s electric generating capacity or less than one half of one percent of the nation’s generating capacity.    

The final rule sets standards for all hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emitted by coal- and oil-fired EGUs with a capacity of 25 megawatts or greater.  Under the final rule, affected power plants must reduce emissions of mercury and other heavy metals, including arsenic, chromium, and nickel, and acid gases, including hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid.  In addition to reducing emissions of mercury and other air toxics, the final rule will reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide 41% beyond the reductions expected from CSAPR and fine particulate matter that is directly emitted from power plant stacks.  

The final rule will take effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.  EPA states in a Fact Sheet on its website that the final rule will be published in January or early February 2012.  See Fact Sheet: Clean Air and Reliable Electricity.  However, it has been reported that during a stakeholder call conducted on December 21, 2011, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation Gina McCarthy informed participants that EPA anticipates the rule will be published in the Federal Register in late February or early March 2012.  

Existing sources will then generally have up to four years or until early 2016, if they need it, to comply with MATS.  This includes the standard three years provided to all sources by the Clean Air Act, and an additional fourth year that EPA is “encouraging permitting authorities to make…broadly available for technology installations.”  If more time is needed, EPA has issued an enforcement policy document that provides a pathway for units critical to reliability to obtain, on a case-by-case basis, a schedule with up to an additional fifth year to achieve compliance. Further, EPA states that if there are still “other situations where sources cannot come into compliance on a timely basis,…EPA will address individual noncompliance circumstances (if there are any) on a case-by-case basis, at the appropriate time, to determine the appropriate response and resolution.”  See Fact Sheet:  Benefits and Costs of Cleaning Up Toxic Air Pollution from Power Plants and Fact Sheet:  Mercury and Air Toxics for Power Plants.  

For coal-fired EGUs, both new and existing, the rule establishes numerical emission limits for mercury, PM (a surrogate for toxic non-mercury metals), and HCl (a surrogate for all toxic acid gases).  MATS also sets numerical emission limits for oil-fired EGUs.  The standards set work practices, instead of numerical limits, to limit emissions of organic air toxics, including dioxin/furan, from existing and new coal- and oil-fired power plants.  The work practice standards require an annual performance test program for each unit that includes inspection, adjustment, and/or maintenance and repairs to ensure optimal combustion.  When fully implemented, EPA projects MATS will reduce emissions of mercury from coal-fired power plants by 90% and emissions of acid gases from power plants by 88%.  

EPA expects power plants will comply with MATS through a range of strategies including the use of existing emission controls, upgrades to existing emission controls, installation of new pollution controls, and fuel switching.  EPA emphasizes that the final standards are based on “existing, commercially proven technologies” that are “widely available” and “frequently used” in the electric utility industry, including electrostatic precipitators, fabric filters (baghouses), flue gas desulfurization (scrubbers), or dry sorbent injection.  To install and maintain these controls, EPA estimates that MATS will create 46,000 short-term construction jobs and 8,000 long-term utility jobs.  According to EPA, the total national annual cost of the final rule will be $9.6 billion, which is about a billion dollars less than the proposed standards.       

EPA estimates that when fully implements in 2016 MATS will prevent 4,200 to 11,000 premature deaths, 2,800 cases of chronic bronchitis, 4,700 heart attacks, 130,000 asthma attacks, 5,700 hospital and emergency room visits, 6,300 cases of acute bronchitis, 140,000 cases of respiratory symptoms, 3.2 million restricted activity days, and 540,000 missed work or “sick” days per year.  EPA estimates the health benefits associated with meeting the standards for air toxics are $37 billion to $90 billion in 2016 (2007$).     

As for electricity rates, EPA projects they stay within normal historical fluctuations. EPA states its modeling indicates that MATS will result in relatively small changes in the average retail price of electricity (approximately 3 percent).  EPA concludes that the increased demand for natural gas will keep electricity prices below 1990 levels. 

 For EPA’s Fact Sheets that accompanied MATS, see (1) Fact Sheet:  Benefits and Costs of Cleaning Up Toxic Air Pollution from Power Plants; (2) Fact Sheet:  Mercury and Air Toxics for Power Plants; (3) Fact Sheet: Clean Air and Reliable Electricity; and (4) Fact Sheet: Adjustments from Proposal to Final.                                                                                                                             

For a discussion of EPA’s proposed rule, known as the Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology or MACT rule, see articles titled “EPA Proposes 91% National Reduction for Mercury As Well As Reductions of Other Toxics from Power Plants And Claims That Program Will Reduce Future Cost Of Power,” and “EPA Proposed Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants,” posted on March 16, 2011, and May 16, 2011, respectively, on the Jackson Kelly PLLC Energy & Environment Monitor. 

This article was authored by Gale Lea Rubrecht, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author, see here.

EPA Plans to Issue Finalized Regulations Concerning Air Toxics from Power Plants in the Next Few Days

In a December 6, 2011 address at Duke University, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced that final regulations requiring power plants to limit toxic air emissions will be issued in the next few days.  

Jackson noted that more than 40% of the nation’s coal-fired power plants do not currently use pollution controls to limit emissions.  

She stated that the rule would obligate coal-fired power plants to obtain “maximum achievable control technology” in order to reduce emissions of air pollutants such as mercury and/or acid gases.   She also noted that the rule would be the first regulation limiting the amount of mercury and other air pollutants released from power plants. 

The White House is still reviewing the rule, but the EPA is under a court-imposed deadline to issue the final version of the rule by December 16. 

This article was authored by Douglas J. Crouse, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.

Gale Lea Rubrecht authored the EPA Headquarters Report for the November 2011 ABA Air Quality Committee Newsletter

Jackson Kelly’s Gale Lea Rubrecht authored the EPA Headquarters Report for the November 2011 Air Quality Committee Newsletter of the American Bar Association’s Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources.  Gale’s EPA Headquarters Report discusses the following topics: 

• Air Toxics – Utility MACT; Portland Cement Manufacturing; Major Source Boiler MACT and CISWIs; Secondary Lead Smelting; Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production; Plating and Polishing; Petroleum Refineries; and Oil and Natural Gas. 
• GHG Reporting – Confidentiality Determinations; Electronics Manufacturing; and Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems. 
• Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Permitting – Biogenic CO2 Emissions. 
• Mobile Sources – Renewable Fuel Standards; Commercial Aircraft Engines; Stage II Vapor Recovery; and Fuel Efficiency Standards. 
• NAAQS – Lead; NOx and SO2; and Reconsideration of 2008 Ozone NAAQS. 
• Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. 
• New Source Performance Standards – Electric Steam Generating Units and Oil and Natural Gas. 
• New Source Review – Fine Particulate Matter. 
• Federal Implementation Plan in Indian Country. 

For Gale’s EPA Headquarters Report, click here. 

This article was authored by Gale Lea Rubrecht, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author, see here.

SEAB Shale Gas Production Subcommittee Reports

Following President Barack Obama’s declaration that “recent innovations have given us the opportunity to tap large reserves – perhaps a century’s worth” of shale gas on March 31, 2011, he instructed Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, to form a subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisor Board (SEAB) “to make recommendations to address the safety and environmental performance of shale gas production.”  SEAB Shale Gas Production Subcommittee – 90 Day Report (August 18, 2011).  In response to that charge, the SEAB Shale Gas Production Subcommittee has produced two 90 Day Reports, on August 18, 2011 and November 18, 2011.  These reports are available at http://www.shalegas.energy.gov/. 

The first 90 Day Report issued on August 18, 2011 “focused exclusively on production of natural gas (and some liquid hydrocarbons) from shale formations with hydraulic fracturing stimulation in either vertical or horizontal wells.”  SEAB Shale Gas Production Subcommittee – 90 Day Report (August 18, 2011).  

A list of the Subcommittee’s findings and recommendations follows.

1. Improve public information about shale gas operations: Create a portal for access to a wide range of public information on shale gas development, to include current data available from state and federal regulatory agencies. The portal should be open to the public for use to study and analyze shale gas operations and results. 
2. Improve communication among state and federal regulators: Provide continuing annual support to STRONGER (the State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulation) and to the Ground Water Protection Council for expansion of the Risk Based Data Management System and similar projects that can be extended to all phases of shale gas development. 
3. Improve air quality: Measures should be taken to reduce emissions of air pollutants, ozone precursors, and methane as quickly as practicable. The Subcommittee supports adoption of rigorous standards for new and existing sources of methane, air toxics, ozone precursors and other air pollutants from shale gas operations. The Subcommittee recommends:

(1) Enlisting a subset of producers in different basins to design and rapidly implement measurement systems to collect comprehensive methane and other air emissions data from shale gas operations and make these data publically available; (2) Immediately launching a federal interagency planning effort to acquire data and analyze the overall greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas operations throughout the lifecycle of natural gas use in comparison to other fuels; and (3) Encouraging shale-gas production companies and regulators to expand immediately efforts to reduce air emissions using proven technologies and practices. 

1. Protection of water quality: The Subcommittee urges adoption of a systems approach to water management based on consistent measurement and public disclosure of the flow and composition of water at every stage of the shale gas production process. The Subcommittee recommends the following actions by shale gas companies and regulators – to the extent that such actions have not already been undertaken by particular companies and regulatory agencies: (1) Measure and publicly report the composition of water stocks and flow throughout the fracturing and clean-up process. (2) Manifest all transfers of water among different locations. (3) Adopt best practices in well development and construction, especially casing, cementing, and pressure management. Pressure testing of cemented casing and state-of-the-art cement bond logs should be used to confirm formation isolation. Microseismic surveys should be carried out to assure that hydraulic fracture growth is limited to the gas producing formations. Regulations and inspections are needed to confirm that operators have taken prompt action to repair defective cementing jobs. The regulation of shale gas development should include inspections at safety-critical stages of well construction and hydraulic fracturing.  (4) Additional field studies on possible methane leakage from shale gas wells to water reservoirs.  (5) Adopt requirements for background water quality measurements (e.g., existing methane levels in nearby water wells prior to drilling for gas) and report in advance of shale gas production activity. (6) Agencies should review field experience and modernize rules and enforcement practices to ensure protection of drinking and surface waters. 
2. Disclosure of fracturing fluid composition: The Subcommittee shares the prevailing view that the risk of fracturing fluid leakage into drinking water sources through fractures made in deep shale reservoirs is remote. Nevertheless the Subcommittee believes there is no economic or technical reason to prevent public disclosure of all chemicals in fracturing fluids, with an exception for genuinely proprietary information. While companies and regulators are moving in this direction, progress needs to be accelerated in light of public concern. 
3. Reduction in the use of diesel fuel: The Subcommittee believes there is no technical or economic reason to use diesel in shale gas production and recommends reducing the use of diesel engines for surface power in favor of natural gas engines or electricity where available. 
4. Managing short-term and cumulative impacts on communities, land use, wildlife, and ecologies. Each relevant jurisdiction should pay greater attention to the combination of impacts from multiple drilling, production and delivery activities (e.g., impacts on air quality, traffic on roads, noise, visual pollution), and make efforts to plan for shale development impacts on a regional scale. Possible mechanisms include:  (1) Use of multi-well drilling pads to minimize transport traffic and need for new road construction.  (2) Evaluation of water use at the scale of affected watersheds.  (3) Formal notification by regulated entities of anticipated environmental an community impacts.  (4) Preservation of unique and/or sensitive areas as off-limits to drilling and support infrastructure as determined through an appropriate science-based process.  (5) Undertaking science-based characterization of important landscapes, habitats and corridors to inform planning, prevention, mitigation and reclamation of surface impacts.  (6) Establishment of effective field monitoring and enforcement to inform ongoing assessment of cumulative community and land use impacts.  The process for addressing these issues must afford opportunities for affected communities to participate and respect for the rights of surface and mineral rights owners. 
5. Organizing for best practice: The Subcommittee believes the creation of a shale gas industry production organization dedicated to continuous improvement of best practice, defined as improvements in techniques and methods that rely on measurement and field experience, is needed to improve operational and environmental outcomes. The Subcommittee favors a national approach including regional mechanisms that recognize differences in geology, land use, water resources, and regulation. The Subcommittee is aware that several different models for such efforts are under discussion and the Subcommittee will monitor progress during its next ninety days. The Subcommittee has identified several activities that deserve priority attention for developing best practices: 
6. Air: (a) Reduction of pollutants and methane emissions from all shale gas production/delivery activity. (b) Establishment of an emission measurement and reporting system at various points in the production chain.
7. Water: (a) Well completion – casing and cementing including use of cement bond and other completion logging tools. (b) Minimizing water use and limiting vertical fracture growth. 
8. Research and Development needs. The public should expect significant technical advances associated with shale gas production that will significantly improve the efficiency of shale gas production and that will reduce environmental impact. The move from single well to multiple-well pad drilling is one clear example. Given the economic incentive for technical advances, much of the R&D will be performed by the oil and gas industry. Nevertheless the federal government has a role especially in basic R&D, environment protection, and safety. The current level of federal support for unconventional gas R&D is small, and the Subcommittee recommends that the Administration and the Congress set an appropriate mission for R&D and level funding. 

SEAB Shale Gas Production Subcommittee – 90 Day Report (August 18, 2011). 

The Draft SEAB Shale Gas Production Subcommittee – Second 90 Day Report (November 18, 2011) focuses on implementation of the recommendations (listed above) from the initial report.  The Shale Gas Production Subcommittee comments below on the perceived failure to implement its recommendations: 

The Subcommittee has the impression that its initial report stimulated interest in taking action to reduce the environmental impact of shale gas production by the administration, state governments, industry, and public interest groups. However, the progress to date is less than the Subcommittee hoped and it is not clear how to catalyze action at a time when everyone’s attention is focused on economic issues, the press of daily business, and an upcoming election. The Subcommittee cautions that whether its approach is followed or not, some concerted and sustained action is needed to avoid excessive environmental impacts of shale gas production and the consequent risk of public opposition to its continuation and expansion. 

DraftSEAB Shale Gas Production Subcommittee – Second 90 Day Report (November 18, 2011) at p. 10. 

This article was authored by Laura G. Swingle, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.

Cross State Air Pollution Rule Looms Near: Efforts to Challenge the Rule Continue

In July 2011, EPA passed the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR).  Scheduled for implementation in January 2012, the rule proposes to lower sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions in 27 “upwind states.”  Many contend that the rule as written will force the closure of numerous coal-fired power plants, kill jobs and hurt the reliability of the nation’s electrical power system. Indeed, many power companies have already announced proposed plant closures in response to the rule. 

Various legislative and judicial challenges have been launched to stop CSAPR before the looming January 2012 implementation date.  

In September, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2401, the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act (“Train Act”), which would have delayed CSAPR pending further study, but the measure received no traction in the U.S. Senate.  Similarly, in November 2010, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a resolution to repeal CSAPR that was defeated by a vote of 56-41.  Notably, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) has partnered with some Senate Republicans to propose legislation that would delay implementation of CSAPR by three years without nullifying the rule outright.  Other legislation has been introduced to delay the rule by at least one year.  

On the judicial side, 45 plaintiffs – including numerous upwind states and power companies – have brought litigation in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to challenge the rule.  In a small victory, the Court recently rejected a recent request by EPA to extend its December 9, 2011 deadline to respond to motions to stay CSAPR.  Observers believe that this will result in the Court ruling upon plaintiffs’ stay requests before the end of the year. 

As the January 2012 implementation approaches, judicial and legislative developments will likely continue.  As a result, the fate of CSAPR – and the coal-fired power plants that CSAPR will affect – may remain unclear until at least late this year. 

This article was authored by M. Shane Harvey, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.

1-Hr SO2 Modeling Guidance Webinar

EPA is holding a webinar on October 19, 2011 on its modeling guidance concerning the 1-Hr SO2 rule and guidance.  This is of importance because states are being required to conduct extensive modeling, in addition to 1-hr S02 monitoring to make attainment, nonattainment and even unclassifiable designations.  It is apparent from the short deadline (June 2012) that states will need to rely on individual sources to engage in the modeling exercise and to possibly lend resources to get adequate SIP analyses completed timely and correctly. 

Key points made in the draft modeling guidance are:

• AERMOD is the Preferred Model
• Sources should be modeled with a max allowable 1-hour or short-term emission rates based on continuous operations
• Larger emitters are reasonable first targets (100 or more TPY), but smaller sources may be the problem too
• Modeling should be done with five years of NWS met data or one year of site specific
• States should submit a modeling and analysis protocol that details the methodology and model inputs before commencement of modeling.
• Consult with EPA regularly 

EPA Webinar on the Agency's Draft Guidance on 1 -Hr SO2 SIPs Update Your Calendar

Location:   On-line 

Date(s):   10/19/2011

Event Time:   2:30-3:30 pm EDT 

Event Type:   EPA Webinar 

Information:   EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards is conducting a webinar on Wednesday, October 19, 2011 from 2:30pm to 3:30pm EDT on “Draft Guidance for 1–Hour SO2 NAAQS SIP Submissions.” EPA explains that during the webinar "EPA experts will briefly describe this recently issued modeling guidance document and answer relevant questions." EPA notes that this webinar "is intended for industry and private sector permit modelers and related trade associations.

Instructions for participating in the webinar, per EPA, follow:  Space is limited. Reserve your webinar seat now at: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/808494809.  After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. Please plan to join the webinar a few minutes prior to the start time so that we may begin on time.  Note that no phone line is needed for the webinar. You will hear the audio through the speakers on your computer and you can use the “questions” function during the presentation to send in questions and comments. No microphone is needed.

Computer System Requirements for Webinar: If you are using a PC, you will need to have Windows® 7, Vista, XP, 2003 Server or 2000.  If you are using a Mac, you will need to have Mac OS® X 10.4.11 (Tiger®)or newer.

Committees / Working Groups:   Ambient Standards Committee, Atmospheric Modeling Committee, and Nonattainment Committee  

This article was authored by Kathy G. Beckett, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.

House Passes “Train Act”

Bill Would Require EPA to Measure Economic Impact of Regulations 

On September 23, 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2401, the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act (“Train Act”). 

If enacted, the bill would delay the implementation of certain EPA regulations – including those affecting coal burning power plants – until an interagency committee can examine the regulations’ impact on the U.S. economy. 

The bill passed by a vote of 249-169 that was split mainly along party lines, but with some support from coal state Democrats.  

The bill specifically provides that two EPA regulations – the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and the Utility MACT Rule – will be “of no force and effect” until examined by an interagency committee led by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce and including the administrator of the EPA, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors and the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.     

The bill was introduced by Rep. John Sullivan, R-Okla, who stated: “The fact is EPA has no idea how these regulations are impacting global competitiveness, energy and fuel prices, jobs or reliability of the electricity supply – eight of the EPA regulations addressed in this bill will cost a minimum of $1 billion each on the U.S. economy.” 

The bill was immediately criticized by environmental groups and is not expected to pass the Democratic-controlled Senate.  The Obama Administration has announced that it would veto the bill if necessary. 

This article was authored by M. Shane Harvey, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.