ALL4’s: Is That Your Final Answer?
Last Month’s Answer and Winner:
We received several responses to our January edition of “Is That Your Final Answer” and Robert Wells was the first to provide the answer for which we were looking. In order to trigger Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR), a source must first be major for the nonattainment pollutant. It does not matter if a source is major for another pollutant; the source must be major for the NNSR pollutant. There where other responses that could also apply to our question, but these responses did not highlight the key applicability test for NNSR. Thanks for everyone’s participation and good luck with this month’s question.
Question: 
On a cold and snowy February morning, a young scientist here at ALL4 came up to an older scientist here at ALL4 with a question concerning New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and greenhouse gases (GHGs). “I don’t quite follow,” our young friend asked, “why and how can electric utility steam generating units (EGUs) be regulated under the NSPS with a performance standard as well as an emission guideline.” The older scientist leaned back in his chair and took a sip of his hot tea. “Performance standards and emission guidelines have for years existed for many other source categories, just check out 40 CFR Part 60. But most people don’t take the time to know the simple difference between the two.” And after 60 seconds the young scientist said, “I understand completely, it makes sense.” What was explained to the younger scientist?
Answer:
Please e-mail your answer to final.answer@all4inc.com. Include in the e-mail your name, answer, and address (to receive your prize).
The final answer feature of 4 The Record is designed to test your knowledge across the environmental field, quiz you on the building blocks of air quality rules, stump you on ALL4 general trivia, and challenge you with brain teasers that have perplexed us. The first correct answer e-mailed to us will qualify the respondent for free ALL4 gear and will enter the winner in our end-of-the year “Final Answer Championship.” The subsequent month’s 4 The Record will identify the winner and the correct answer from the previous month’s question. You must be an active subscriber of 4 The Record to win a monthly prize and be eligible for the championship prize. ALL4 employees and family members are not eligible to compete. Hope you enjoy this feature and good luck!
A Sign of Change?
First, U.S. EPA decides to reverse decades of past practice and experience of using a policy that the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit application date was the cut-off for new applicable requirements for the source. Then they add new, more stringent short-term SO2 and NOX National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). To top things off, new Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are added to the mix. Shake well and what do you get?
Financially viable and good clean construction projects – going nowhere fast.
While faced with a court appeal, Avenal Power LLC v. EPA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, U.S. EPA has decided that maybe, just maybe, they may not have made all the right decisions. Hours before a Federal judge was scheduled to hear the case, U.S. EPA announced that they are planning to adopt a “new” policy that exempts permits that have yet to be “issued” from complying with air quality limits that took effect after the permits were first sought. U.S. EPA declares in the court filing that the new policy will apply to an as “yet unspecified number of other permits in a similar situation.”
U.S. EPA Air Chief Gina McCarthy stated that “EPA has determined that it is appropriate, under certain narrow circumstances, to grandfather certain [permit] applications from the requirements to demonstrate that the proposed facility will not cause or contribute to a violation of the hourly NO2 standard. In addition, EPA believes the factors that justify such an approach for the hourly NO2 standard also provide a basis not to subject these same permit applications to additional permitting requirements that have taken effect during the period of time these permit applications have been pending.”
Even if the lawyers for Avenal Power had to twist U.S. EPA’s arm, we will take this turn to a more practical, real world solution as a good sign. What is not apparent is whether U.S. EPA truly understands how disruptive their changing requirements are to securing the financial support to permit a project, much less to build it. Hopefully we will see more of these realistic decisions by U.S. EPA. One can always hope.
U.S. EPA Says No to CO NAAQS Revision
U.S. EPA has proposed to retain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for carbon monoxide (CO) after a review of the most current scientific data for that pollutant. The current NAAQS levels for CO are 9 parts per million (ppm) on an 8-hour average and 35 ppm on a 1-hour average. In addition to retaining the NAAQS levels, U.S. EPA is also proposing to bolster the current CO ambient monitoring network by installing 77 ambient monitors in 53 urban areas that are located primarily near heavily trafficked roadways. The ambient monitoring network will be used to inform U.S. EPA’s next review of the CO NAAQS. Companies have had to directly demonstrate compliance with the CO NAAQS if they trigger major source permitting for a proposed project. Demonstrating compliance is typically not a difficult demonstration and usually does not impact the design and feasibility of a major air permitting project.
New Pennsylvania Title V Emission Fees
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) has just announced that the Title V emission fee for source emissions reported for calendar year 2010 will be $55 per ton. This fee was expected to be $70 per ton based on PADEP’s proposed Air Program regulatory fee increase package. However, all of the proposed new and increased fees with regard to the Air Program are presently on hold pending review by the new Secretary of PADEP.
Reality Check: BACT for GHG Emissions?
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are now officially addressed by new source permitting rules. The “Tailoring Rule” requires that sources get serious about addressing project-related GHG emissions when preparing Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit applications. When a source is unable to “net out” of PSD for GHG emissions (the “magic bullet” for avoiding PSD for GHG is discussed at the end of this article) a greenhouse gas (GHG) Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis will be required. So what will a GHG BACT analysis entail, how will a GHG BACT analysis be different from a “traditional” BACT analysis, and what guidance has U.S. EPA provided for assisting both the regulated and regulatory community in the GHG BACT process? ALL4 has reviewed U.S. EPA’s guidance information and based on this review has developed the following observations.
As with the traditional BACT analysis, the “top down” five-step process will apply for a GHG BACT analysis. However, instead of addressing the feasibility and cost of control technologies as is the case for most traditional BACT analyses, assessing feasibility and cost or energy efficiency will be the most likely path for the GHG BACT. ALL4 believes that agency review of GHG BACT analyses will be highly scrutinized and focused on energy efficiency which will require a detailed, well documented BACT discussion on the reduction of GHG emissions per unit of production. For new sources (i.e., Greenfield facilities) the energy efficiency evaluation process can include the entire facility. However, for a modified source, only the energy efficiency evaluation for the modified emission unit can be considered. In other words, if a facility installs a process dryer that will dry a raw material thereby requiring less heat (i.e., energy) from a downstream processing emission unit, any energy efficiency at the downstream processor cannot be considered in context of a GHG BACT for the process dryer.
Fortunately, U.S. EPA has provided GHG BACT white papers for a select few industrial sectors, which are available on U.S. EPA’s website. These sector specific white papers evaluate the various emission units inherent to the industrial sector and provide some preliminary energy efficiency benchmarks. For industrial sectors where no guidance is available (e.g., glass manufacturing) it would be worthwhile for a source to generate these energy efficiency benchmarks by reviewing trade association information or facility records involving energy saving projects.
And what of that magic bullet that was alluded to earlier? Well, the magic bullet involves contemporaneous emission decreases and as we all know, contemporaneous emission decreases can offset emission increases (in a netting analysis) and thus help to avoid PSD. For example, with regards to that process dryer mentioned previously, let’s say an energy efficiency project was undertaken on the downstream processing emission unit in 2009. The contemporaneous GHG emission decrease documented from the downstream processing unit could be used in the 2011 project as part of a netting analysis. The contemporaneous reduction could be sufficient to enable the project to net out of the PSD program for GHG emissions. A caveat to the use of this magic bullet is that a facility will require detailed documentation of GHG emission reductions in order for the agency to allow the emission reductions, and any GHG emission reductions will need to be enforceable, identical to the netting requirements associated with NSR-regulated pollutants.
ALL4 is prepared to assist our clients with all phases of GHG PSD permitting. If you have questions about how the GHG BACT analysis will look for your facility or if the idea of documenting the contemporaneous GHG emission reductions that your facility has achieved intrigues you, please contact us.
Boiler MACT: Here We Go Again
Brace yourselves. It’s coming…and as of February 18, 2011, we have no idea what it’s going to look like.
In last month’s 4 The Record, we reported that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) had filed a motion in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking an extension in the current court-ordered schedule for issuing new Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) regulations affecting boilers and industrial heaters (Boiler MACT). The Court responded on January 20, 2011 by giving U.S. EPA a 30-day extension until February 19, 2011. However, since February 19, 2011 falls on a Saturday and the following Monday is a Federal Holiday, it is likely that the final rules will not be issued for public review until Tuesday, February 22, 2011.
With the new date set by the Court, U.S. EPA quickly made an announcement that the new Boiler MACT standards will be significantly different than what they had proposed in April 2010. Although the Court has ordered that U.S. EPA issue the final Boiler MACT rules by February 19, 2011, U.S. EPA intends to solicit further comment through a reconsideration of the rules. Through the reconsideration process, U.S. EPA intends to ensure that the rules will be practical to implement and will protect the health of all Americans. The rules will become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
The Boiler MACT rules are estimated to affect more than 200,000 boilers operating in industrial facilities, commercial buildings, hotels, and universities located across the country.
