CLEARING THE AIR

We Can See Light

at the End of the
Regulatory Tunnel
BY MITCHELL KRASNOPOLER, MANAGER OF AIR QUALITY, KIEWIT POWER ENGINEERS

n 2011, the timeline chart of expected environmental regulations for

the U.S. utility industry was extensive and complex. The complexity of the
timeline caused many in the industry to
refer to the time line as the Train Wreck
diagram. That diagram showed the upcoming air, water, and waste regulations
from 2008 until about 2014. So where
are we on the diagram now that 2014 is
here? Some recent rulings have reduced
the unknowns and a path to compliance
can be strategized.
The diagram included seven major
regulations:
1. Transport Rule / Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR) / Cross State Air Pollution Rules (CSAPR)
2. Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) /
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
(MATS)
3. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, SO2,
PM2.5
4. Greenhouse Gas Regulations / Carbon Pollution Standards / Clean
Power Plan
5. Cooling Water Intake Regulation
(316b)
6. Electric Generation Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELG)
7. Coal Combustion Residuals / Residues (CCR)
In October 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
lifted the stay on CSAPR from December
30, 2011. In addition, last month the
EPA sent the final CCR rule to the White
House for Office of Management and
Budget review. These two recent actions
and others address most of the seven
8

1412PE_8 8

regulations listed above.

Several of the identified regulations
were challenged in court, vacated, remanded, reinstituted, revised, reissued,
or have a court-imposed deadline for the
proposed or final rule. As of November
2014, the following final rules have been
issued: MATS (Feb. 16, 2012), CSAPR
(final issued Aug. 8, 2011; final revisions
issued Feb. 21, 2012; upheld by Supreme
Court on April 29, 2014; stay lifted Oct.
23, 2014), and 316b (Aug. 15, 2014),
These rules have court-imposed deadlines or other target dates: Ozone NAAQS
(proposal expected by Dec. 1, 2014; final
expected by Oct. 1, 2015), Clean Power
Plan (proposed on June 2, 2014; final expected by June 2015), ELG (proposed on
June 7, 2013; final expected by Sept. 30,
2015), CCR (proposed final rule sent by
EPA and received by White House on Oct.
27, 2014, final is expected to be issued by
Dec. 19, 2014).
Although the CSAPR stay was lifted,
the lawsuit to resolve specific provisions
of the rule, such as revising the original
CSAPR deadlines, will continue. EPA had
requested a three-year compliance delay,
but the stay ignored this. Despite the uncertainty, there are few additional reductions expected for CSAPR compliance
because the requirements for MATS are
well underway.
The January 2014 CCR consent decree
requires the EPA to publish the final CCR
rule by December 19, 2014. The final rule
has been received by the White House
and is under review by the OMB. The
abstract on OMBs Regulatory-Review
website lists the two options from the
June 21, 2010 proposed rule: 1) regulate

CCRs as special wastes under subtitle C

of RCRA; 2) regulate CCRs as non-hazardous waste under subtitle D of RCRA.
Many believe that that the EPA final rule
now under review will classify CCRs as
special wastes, a much more stringent
standard. Industry had expected the subtitle D option to be put forward. The pursuit of special waste characterization
may reflect a growing confidence within
the EPA that rigorous and demanding
rules will be upheld.
Under the special waste option, existing surface impoundments will be
phased out. This will require plants with
wet fly ash, wet bottom ash, or wet flue
gas desulfurization (FGD) waste (e.g.,
gypsum) to convert their plant systems
to produce a dry byproduct that could be
landfilled.
Of the seven major regulations noted
above, all are expected to be final by Oct.
1, 2015. CSAPR, MATS, 316b, and CCR
should have final rules and the others
will have a proposed rule by the end of
2014. Many of these rules have demanding compliance provisions that will require costly capital expenditures. Despite
these complex and challenging regulations, there is at least growing clarity for
the utility industry regarding the rules
under which it will be expected to operate. Compliance strategies will no doubt
continue to evolve. As has clearly been
demonstrated over the last several years,
the low cost of natural gas significantly
influences these compliance decisions.
There seems to be light at the end of the
regulatory tunnel and the industrys ingenuity, flexibility and forward planning
may help avoid a real train wreck.
www.power-eng.com

12/15/14 11:52 AM