ALL4’s: Is That Your Final Answer?

Last Month’s Answer and Winner:

The upper Midwest made it 2 for 2 for correct answers to our 2012 series of “Is That Your Final Answer” questions.  Mr. Richard Brown of CMS Energy in Filer City, Michigan correctly and swiftly identified that there was no leap day in years 1700, 1800, and 1900.  As many respondents (including Robin of PCA who provided a very complete answer) stated, years ending in “00” are not leap years unless the year is evenly divisible by 400.  Thanks to everyone for participating and good luck with our March question.

Question:

Earth Day 2012 is on April 22 and looking back there are several events that precipitated the environmental movement.  For example, an oil spill off of the Santa Barbara coast moved Senator Gaylord Nelson to found a day to teach about the environment in 1970, the first Earth Day.  The works of Rachel Carson, specifically “Silent Spring” in 1962, lead to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency.  However, before either of those two milestones, an event in October 1948 that led to the death of more than 20 citizens and stricken half of the local populace, triggered the first federal air quality rules in 1955.  For the March “Is That Your Final Answer” question, name the city and state where this tragic episode occurred.  See the photo to the right for a hint.

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).

ALL4’s Final Answer is a monthly feature of our Blog Digest.  It 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 Final Answer will identify the winner and the correct answer from the previous month’s question.  You must be an active subscriber of ALL4’s Blog Digest 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!

Permitting a New, Cleaner Fuel to Replace a More Polluting Fuel

Within the last few years, the U.S. EPA has made an interesting determination relative to “accommodating” a new fuel; even when that fuel does not alter the maximum firing (heat release) capability of the emission unit on a short-term (hourly) or annual (12-month rolling) basis and emissions for any pollutant do not exceed the existing short-term or annual permitted emission limits.  It is the U.S. EPA’s interpretive decision that the new fuel cannot be “accommodated” and therefore, cannot be fired above baseline actual emissions without showing an emission increase that could quickly lead to expensive and time consuming New Source Review (NSR) permitting.

This interpretive implementation leads to an absurd result in the case of a fuel, such as natural gas, that is typically cleaner emitting than coal and oil fuels.  The new, cleaner fuel could only be fired up to the baseline actual emissions level plus the NSR significance thresholds without triggering NSR permitting.  If use of the emission unit is desired beyond that operational level, it would then be acceptable to switch back to the originally permitted, “dirtier” fuel and operate up to the original permitted emission level.  Use of the proposed cleaner fuel at that same heat release level would result in cleaner emissions, but would trigger NSR permitting.

This “negative-environmental” outcome is not just a hypothetical situation, but has real world significance.  Many utility and industrial sources are presently looking to utilize cheaper, and cleaner, natural gas as their fuel of choice.  This interpretation by the U.S. EPA, if taken at face value, certainly does not promote switching to cleaner burning fuels.

Combined Cycle Gas Turbines: Part of a Balanced BACT Analysis?

What ingredients make for a healthy Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis when you’re looking at greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions? As Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) activities for GHGs build momentum, we’re getting a picture of what new and modified GHG emitters must consider in order to pass muster. Add-on controls for GHG emissions are not nearly as mature as analogous controls for criteria pollutants like NO_x and SO₂. Thus, EPA guidance emphasizes considering inherently lower-emitting processes when planning a GHG emitting project. The tricky aspect of GHGs is that considering lower-emitting processes may require “fundamentally redefining the source,” which regulatory agencies cannot require, per the Clean Air Act (CAA). For example, if you would like to build a new coal fired power plant, the agency (allegedly) couldn’t require that you include an evaluation of a natural gas-fired plant instead in your BACT analysis – that would fundamentally redefine the nature of your project.

So where is the line between a similar but lower-emitting project and a completely redefined project? The line got a little murkier last week, when EPA’s Region V weighed in on a draft permit for a proposed power plant located at a wastewater treatment plant in Wisconsin. The facility proposed to replace existing natural gas-fired turbines with single-cycle landfill gas-fired turbines. In its response, U.S. EPA asked the facility to “revise the BACT analysis to consider both combined-cycle turbines and CHP [combined heat and power] systems, along with simple-cycle turbines, or provide an explanation in the record as to why these were not considered available control options for this particular source.” Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) turbines are more energy efficient but much more expensive than the proposed single-cycle turbines, and some industry sources maintain that it would constitute a source redefinition and/or make the project economically unviable. U.S. EPA and environmental groups, however, were quick to point out that including NGCC in the early stages of BACT analysis does not necessarily mean that using NGCC will be required, especially if it can be proven financially infeasible.

It’s also important to note that no BACT analysis result can be less stringent than the corresponding Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (NSPS). With impeccable timing as usual, on March 27, 2012, U.S. EPA proposed the nation’s first CO₂ NSPS, regulating power plants. The proposed standard is 1,000 pounds of CO₂ per megawatt-hour (MWh). EPA stated in guidance that this is easily attainable for uncontrolled NGCC plants, but others may need to consider control options such as sequestration. Stay tuned to the ALL4 Blog for more coverage of the new power plant carbon pollution standard.

In Memory of Rocco Marinaro

ALL4 recently lost a great client and a wonderful friend.  Rocco P. Marinaro, the Environmental Compliance Manager at Keystone Cement Company’s Bath, Pennsylvania facility passed away tragically on March 12^th.  Rocco had held his position at Keystone since 1997 and was a client of ALL4’s since the day we opened our doors in March 2002.  His role at Keystone was extremely demanding as the facility operates approved, and highly regulated, hazardous waste fuel firing cement kiln systems.  I personally worked with Rocco throughout his entire career at Keystone and I watched him work tirelessly to elevate the compliance aspects of the facility’s waste fuel program and overall operations.  As a result of his commitment and character, he was able to gain a high level of trust with the numerous regulatory personnel that he dealt with and to ultimately achieve a level of environmental performance for the facility that was commended by the responsible environmental agencies.  

Over the years Rocco became a close personal friend and allowed me the privilege to gain insight into his world outside of environmental rules and regulations.  He was an extremely intelligent and gifted individual.  He loved to learn and to travel and was enamored with the mountains in North Carolina where he vacationed each year.  He was also an accomplished musician and photographer and several of his pictures grace our offices at ALL4.  His great sense of humor was perfect for getting us through regulatory issues that often completely mired one’s sense of reality.  We miss you Rocco and trust that you are in a better place far removed from worrying about project netting and global warming and all those other special issues that weighed down many a day.

ALL4’s 10 Year Anniversary

10 Years – WOW!  All the “stuff” that goes along with starting a business on the one hand seems like yesterday and on the other hand feels like it was an eternity ago!  Thinking back to our planning days at Denny’s in late 2001 with “Moons Over My Hammy”®, I still smile at the mere mention of this thing called ALL4.  [Editor’s note: If Kevin had his way we would be called EnviroPlex and if John had his way we would be called NBS Consulting…]

4 the Record?  RegTech?  EnviroReview?  Blogging?  Columbus, GA office? Tweeting?… Little did we ever think that our breakfast brainstorming sessions would evolve into this!  In the beginning we planned, hoped, and prayed that we were doing the right thing – but it came down to the trust and confidence that we had in each other and our unwavering belief that if we took care of our clients, everything else would follow (thanks John – you were right!).  So as we embark on the next 10 years, I say THANK YOU: (1) to our wonderful clients who look to us as their trusted environmental partner, and (2) to our dedicated co-workers who have owned our vision of this thing called ALL4 – the “ALL” is so much better than the “4”!

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule – Step 3 and Beyond

It is hard to believe that the two-year anniversary of the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule will be upon us in just a few months.  You remember, don’t you?  It was on June 3, 2010 when U.S. EPA published the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule (Tailoring Rule) at 75 FR 31514.  In that Tailoring Rule U.S. EPA began the phase-in of the applicability of PSD and Title V to GHG-emitting sources by promulgating two steps.  Under Step 1, which began January 2, 2011, PSD permitting requirements applied to sources’ GHG emissions if the sources were subject to PSD anyway due to their non-GHG regulated air pollutants and emitted or had the potential to emit at least 75,000 tons per year (tpy) carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) as a new source or undertook modifications that increased emissions by this amount.  For Title V, new sources obtaining Title V permits due to non-GHG emission levels, or existing Title V sources, were required to address GHG emissions in those permits as necessary.  Then came Step 2 beginning July 1, 2011, when sources with GHG emissions above those thresholds were required to obtain PSD or Title V permits based on their GHG emissions alone, even if they would not be subject to these programs based on other non-GHG pollutants.

In the June 2010 Tailoring Rule, U.S. EPA also established a commitment for establishing a Step 3 under which the further lowering of the Tailoring Rule thresholds would be considered.  U.S. EPA also committed to explore and implement measures to make GHG permitting programs more efficient.  Making good on these commitments, on February 24, 2012 U.S. EPA proposed to keep the GHG major source thresholds unchanged from the Step 2 level, at this time.  Also proposed as permitting streamlining measures were revisions to PSD regulations to provide for GHG Plantwide Applicability Limitations (PALs) and to create regulatory authority for U.S. EPA to issue “synthetic minor” permits for GHGs in areas where U.S. EPA is the PSD permitting authority.  These proposals were published at 77 FR 14226 (March 8, 2012).

From the outset of the Tailoring Rule there was much concern about the number of new permitting actions that states and local agencies would need to process for GHGs, and the potential for this increase in permitting actions to result in delays that would impede construction or modification of facilities.  Now that Steps 1 and 2 are in effect, U.S. EPA set out to evaluate if further lowering of the Tailoring Rule thresholds would worsen the situation.  U.S. EPA discovered that states and local agencies have actually not been confronted with the influx of GHG applications that were expected in Steps 1 and 2.  To their credit, though, U.S. EPA recognized that the unexpected small amount of applications up to this point largely reflects economic business decisions, and U.S. EPA expects that the pace of permitting will pick up as economic conditions improve.  There is also a stated belief that states and local agencies have not had the opportunity to obtain the necessary resources and develop their infrastructure to accommodate the level of Step 1 and 2 permitting expected to come.  Could any of this be related to the fact that the current administration in Washington D.C. is gearing up for re-election?  Sure, it could be.  Regardless, the Step 3 proposal is for U.S. EPA to let the PSD and Title V GHG thresholds well enough alone.  But there are three key words that are repeated throughout this proposal.  They are: “at this time.”  It can be expected there will come a time, sooner or later, when U.S. EPA determines that the time is right to lower the thresholds, and more GHG sources will be “phased-in” to the GHG major source program.

The first streamlining proposal is for U.S. EPA to amend federal PSD regulations to make it possible for permitting agencies to issue PALs to major and potentially-major GHG stationary sources.

What is a PAL?  Under current U.S. EPA regulations, a PAL permit establishes a single, facility-wide emission limit for designated regulated pollutants.  PALs can be established for one (1) or more regulated PSD pollutants at an existing major stationary source.  Each PAL level is based on a 12-month rolling total, expressed in mass units of tons of pollutant per year.  Each limit is generally established based on the average annual baseline emission rate for a 24-month consecutive period during the prior 10 years of facility operation.  The PSD significant increase threshold for the regulated NSR pollutant that is specified in the rule is then added to the baseline actual emission rate to set the PAL level.  Provisions for PALs are not new and are codified in the Federal regulations at 40 CFR §52.21(aa), §51.165(f), and Appendix S to Part 51.  A number of existing facilities have recognized the advantages of PAL permits and have been operating in compliance with such permits for non-GHG pollutants for many years.

The advantage of a PAL permit is that as long as the facility demonstrates compliance with the PAL, physical changes and changes in the method of operation are not major modifications and projects do not require approval under applicable PSD (or state Nonattainment New Source Review [NNSR]) programs.  State construction permits may still be required for such projects. However, the ability to avoid major New Source Review (NSR) is a significant advantage for any existing major stationary source.  Having a PAL permit in place eliminates the need to consider major NSR applicability for the typical types of facility projects that occur on a regular basis.  Since a significant source of GHG emissions is the combustion of fuel, it is easy to imagine the benefit to certain sources of having the opportunity to obtain a GHG PAL.

Before we go any further we need to review some of the terms we must use when discussing GHG emissions.

• GHG means the sum of the following six well-mixed gasses: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs).  For PSD applicability purposes, GHG is calculated in two (2) different ways (i.e., on a mass basis and expressed as a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)).
• GHG on a mass basis is calculated by summing the mass amount of emissions of the six well-mixed gases.
• GHG expressed as CO2e is calculated by summing the resultant values from multiplying the mass amount of each of the six well-mixed gases by each gas’s associated global warming potential.
• Global warming potential (GWP) is a measure of how much a given mass of each gas is estimated to contribute to global warming.  It is a relative scale which compares the gas in question to CO2.
• “Subject to regulation” means that below a certain threshold, a pollutant is simply not regulated.  For all PSD regulated pollutants other than GHGs, that level is zero.  For GHGs, a stationary source is not subject to regulation unless the GHGs equal or exceed 100,000 tpy CO2e.  For a modification, GHGs are not subject to regulation unless the emissions increase equals or exceeds 75,000 tpy CO2e.

A “GHG-only source” is a stationary source whose CO2e emissions are greater than 100,000 tpy and GHG mass emissions are greater than 100/250 tpy on a mass basis.   All other PSD regulated pollutants have a potential to emit that is less than the major stationary source thresholds.

OK then.  Even though not new, the existing PAL and PSD regulations restrict permitting agencies from issuing certain kinds of GHG PALs that would be most advantageous.  For example, current regulations only allow a PAL to be issued on a mass basis (e.g., tpy) because a PAL is an alternative to NSR, which has traditionally been triggered by mass-based changes in emissions.  However, under the somewhat convoluted Tailoring Rule, GHG sources use CO2e (tpy) to determine whether a change causes GHG emissions to be subject to regulation, but GHG mass emissions (tpy) to determine whether a change results in a major modification.  So, under the current regulations sources seeking a GHG PAL would have two sets of limits and would have to monitor both metrics monthly to demonstrate compliance.

Another problem with the existing regulations is that U.S. EPA did not promulgate a mass-based significant emissions rate for GHG in the Tailoring Rule.  Permitting agencies typically establish a PAL level by adding a pollutant’s significant rate to baseline actual emissions.  Unless a significant emissions rate for GHG is established, the significant rate is effectively zero and there is no margin above the baseline emissions to make a PAL advantageous.  There is also an issue with “GHG-only sources” that were created by the Tailoring Rule.  Under existing regulations, regardless of how much GHG a GHG-only source emits, it is treated as a minor source not subject to PSD unless it proposes a modification that increases GHG emissions by 75,000 tpy or more CO2e, thereby making GHGs subject to regulation.  Thus, a GHG-only source would have to wait to obtain a GHG PAL until it proposed a change that triggers the threshold.  However, since under the Tailoring Rule even minor sources must evaluate whether any project’s GHG emissions are subject to regulation (on a CO2e basis) and will also result in a major modification (on a mass basis), extension of the PAL program to these sources could also provide advantages of not having to perform these cumbersome evaluations for every project.

U.S. EPA’s stated goal in developing GHG permitting streamlining measures is to allow permitting agencies to be more efficient in administering their GHG permit programs by reducing the overall resources needed, both now and in the future.  U.S. EPA seems to believe that one step towards this goal is to extend the opportunity for obtaining a GHG PAL to as many sources as possible.  For this reason, U.S. EPA has proposed to amend the PSD and PAL regulations to allow permitting agencies to do the following:

• Issue PALs to GHG-only sources;
• Issue either a mass-based (tpy) or a CO2e- based PAL to a source (without having to mix the two);
• Allow CO2e-based PALs to include the 75,000 tpy CO2e emission increase threshold; and
• Allow compliance with a GHG PAL (either mass or CO2e-based) to be used as an alternate applicability approach for determining both whether a project is a major modification and whether GHG emissions are subject to regulation.

U.S. EPA is also seeking comment on adopting one of two approaches for regulating GHG-only sources under a PAL.  The first, called “Major Source Opt-in,” would have a GHG-only source agree to become a major source so that it can obtain a PAL for GHG and any other eligible pollutant emitted.  The second, which is called the “Minor Source Approach,” would allow a GHG-only source to obtain a GHG PAL while remaining a minor source, but not being able to obtain a PAL for any other non-GHG pollutant.

The other streamlining proposal put forth by U.S. EPA in this rulemaking is to create synthetic minor permit authority within the federal PSD regulations.  A synthetic minor limitation is a legal and enforceable restriction that a source can voluntarily accept to avoid major source permitting requirements, such as PSD and Title V.  This new GHG synthetic minor authority would only apply in areas where U.S. EPA is the permitting authority.  State and Local permitting agencies that have minor source permitting programs typically have the authority in their programs to do this, and have been using it for many years.  However, since there is generally not a federal minor source permitting program outside of Indian country, U.S. EPA wants to be able to offer the option for synthetic minor permits to GHG sources under its jurisdiction as part of the overall GHG phase-in approach.

Keep in mind that all of these changes are, as yet, only proposed.  Regardless of whether these changes would bring about the permitting streamlining U.S. EPA envisions, there are generally benefits to PALs and Synthetic Minor Permits to certain facilities, and having these extended to GHGs at this early stage in the regulation of this pollutant could be significant.  It is no secret that the goal in the U.S. is to reduce overall GHG emissions.  In the absence of legislative solutions, U.S. EPA will proceed towards that goal by regulating GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA), such as through NSR, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).  Right now they are working on such GHG standards for Electric Utilities and Refineries, but it surely won’t stop there.  Remember that under U.S. EPA’s separate GHG Reporting Rule, facilities that emit 25,000 tpy CO2e are considered by U.S. EPA to be among “the largest GHG emitters.”  That could easily include your facility.  And as stated above, the major source thresholds for GHG are likely to come down at some point.  Hence, a GHG PAL might make good sense for a facility to allow for future flexibility, as a PAL could “preserve” baseline GHG emissions and add a margin up to the current 75,000 tpy CO2e threshold.

U.S. EPA is accepting comments on this proposed rulemaking until April 20, 2012.  As with anything related to PSD and U.S. EPA rules in general, it can be complicated to make an evaluation.  But if your facility operations emit GHGs, it would be a good idea to take a closer look and, if you see potential advantages, submit comments in support of the proposed changes that may be beneficial to you.

U.S. EPA Proposes Revisions to Address Error in New Source Review Regulations

On Friday March 16, 2012, the U.S. EPA proposed to revise the definition of regulated NSR pollutant under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations (40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21), and under the “Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling” (40 CFR Part 51 Appendix S).  The proposed revision will correct an error dating back to 2008 that was included in the final rule implementing the new source review (NSR) program for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM_2.5).  Prior to the 2008 revisions, the NSR regulations did not require the inclusion of condensable particulate matter, consistent with applicable New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for particulate matter (PM).  However, the existing definition of NSR regulated pollutant was changed in 2008 to require that PM emissions, PM₁₀ emissions, and PM_2.5 each include the condensable particulate matter fraction. The proposed revision, if finalized, will establish the pre-2008 interpretation that there is no requirement to include condensable particulate matter when measuring particulate matter emissions in the context of the PSD and NSR regulations (e.g., NSR applicability determinations for particulate matter emissions can exclude condensable particulate matter under the proposed revisions).  Particulate matter emissions will be regulated as a non-criteria pollutant (e.g., [a]ny pollutant that is subject to any standard promulgated under Section 111 of the Act) because there is no longer a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for total suspended particulate (TSP).  While U.S. EPA’s acknowledgement of the error and their proposal to correct it is acknowledged, one has to wonder how many NSR applicability determinations that included particulate matter emissions would have exhibited a different outcome based on the proposed revisions.

10th Conference on Air Quality Modeling

ALL4 attended and presented at U.S. EPA’s 10^th Conference on Air Quality Modeling in Research Triangle Park, NC March 13^th through 15^th.  The purpose of the conference, mandated by Section 320 of the Clean Air Act, is to provide an overview of the latest features of the U.S. EPA’s preferred air quality models and to provide a forum for public review and comment on how the U.S. EPA determines and applies air quality models in the future.  During the conference U.S. EPA summarized all of the model changes and memorandum guidance released since the 9^th Conference on Air Quality Modeling held in October 2008.  In addition U.S. EPA presented on current projects that they are working on.  Much of the conference focused on issues with the new 1-hour nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) and sulfur dioxide (SO₂) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

The biggest “no news”, news from U.S. EPA is that there is still no date set for the final release of the “Guidance for 1-hour SO₂ NAAQS SIP Submissions” that was released in draft on September 22, 2011.  U.S. EPA indicated that there were a large volume of comments received during the comment period from industry, environmental groups, and State agencies and that we should not expect a final version anytime before the end of 2012. This will significantly tighten the time frame for completing SIP maintenance plans that are due to U.S. EPA by June 2013.  Many States don’t believe that they will be able to complete the SIP modeling even if guidance is released today and don’t think U.S. EPA will be able to either if a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) is undertaken.  Therefore, many states are continuing to wait and see how things shake out at this time.

The following are some of the other noteworthy plans outlined by U.S. EPA:

• U.S. EPA intends to release clarification memos on:
• Automated Surface Observation Systems (ASOS) vs. observer based National Weather Service (NWS) meteorological data.
• The EPA formula for calculating Good Engineering Practice (GEP) stack height in AERMOD.
• Pending new version of AERSURFACE that uses 2001 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD).
• Pending new version of AERMET that has changes to convective mixing height calculations and includes a minimum wind speed threshold option in stage 3 for use when incorporating AERMINUTE data.
• Pending guidance for modeling PM_2.5 precursors by the end of April 2012.
• An update to 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix W is currently scheduled to be undertaken before the 11^th Conference on Air Quality Modeling in 2014.  EPA plans to release the updates before the conference so that the regulated community can comment.

The 3^rd day of the conference was open to the public to provide comments to U.S. EPA on the record.  Many of the presentations revolved around AERMOD’s overestimation of 1-hour concentrations especially during low wind speed events.  It seems that the introduction of AERMINUTE to help capture missing data has only introduced more low wind speeds which in turn are leading to overestimations of concentrations.  Due to issues with AERMOD over predicting 1-hour concentrations and in anticipation of air quality modeling for the SO₂ NAAQS SIP process some facilities had begun ambient SO₂ monitoring programs to collect actual SO₂ data to dispute air quality modeling results.  Many States and facilities in the regulated community believe that this is a better option with showing compliance with the 1-hour SO₂ NAAQS.  In addition the general consensus was that more field studies need to be undertaken to evaluate the models.  Currently most field studies used for model evolutions are from the 1970’s.  This is a big issue considering U.S. EPA’s plan to rely on modeling for the SO₂ NAAQS SIP, so expect to see more monitoring data compared to modeling in the near future.

U.S. EPA Issues No Action Assurance Letter for Area Source Boiler Initial Tune-Up Deadline

On Tuesday, March 13, 2012, U.S. EPA issued a No Action Assurance (NAA) Letter for the March 21, 2012 initial tune-up work practice standard deadlines codified in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJJJ – National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers Area Sources (Area Source Boiler MACT).  According to the NAA letter, U.S. EPA will not pursue enforcement actions for violations of the March 21, 2012 initial tune-up deadline.  U.S EPA stated that there was sufficient concern related to the testing necessary to comply with the tune-up requirements in older boilers to prompt the NAA.  Additionally, U.S. EPA cited the confusion and uncertainty related to the recently proposed reconsideration of the Area Source Boiler MACT as further justification for issuing the NAA letter.  On December 23, 2011, U.S. EPA published a proposed reconsideration of the Area Source Boiler MACT that would extend the initial tune-up requirement to March 21, 2013, providing facilities an additional year to achieve compliance.  U.S. EPA has not yet finalized the proposed reconsideration of the Area Source Boiler MACT.  The NAA letter will remain in effect until October 1, 2012 or until the proposed reconsideration is published final, whichever occurs first.

U.S. Senate Votes on Boiler MACT

On Thursday, March 8, 2012, the U.S. Senate voted to defeat an amendment designed to delay the U.S. EPA’s efforts to implement the provisions of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart DDDDD – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, the so-called, Boiler MACT.  The defeated amendment would have delayed implementation of the Boiler MACT provisions by 15 months, but would have also delayed the compliance date of the rules for an additional 5 years.  The measure failed by a vote of 46 to 52.  Sixty votes were required for the measure to be passed.  Therefore, pending any further challenges from the legislature, facilities that are subject to the Boiler MACT rule will need to work toward operating in compliance with the requirements and applicable dates of the rule as promulgated in March 2011 until the December 23, 2011 proposed revisions to the rule are promulgated final in the spring/summer of 2012.