Additional Requirements for the Next Round of GHG Reporting

In 2011 U.S. EPA deferred the requirement to report certain data elements in annual Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory Reports required by 40 CFR Part 98 (the GHG Reporting Rule).  Because reporters expressed concerns that these data elements were Confidential Business Information (CBI), the requirement to report them was deferred to allow time for U.S. EPA to evaluate the potential impact of releasing this information to the public and make final determinations with regard to CBI status.  The data elements in question are inputs to equations that are required to be used to calculate reportable GHG emissions.  Reporting of some of these data elements was deferred until March 31, 2013, while reporting of others was deferred to March 31, 2015.

The data elements whose reporting deadline was deferred until 2013 (2013 inputs) include data elements used under the following subparts of Part 98:

• C (Stationary Fuel Combustion)
• D (Electricity Generation)
• DD (SF6 from Electrical Equipment Use)
• FF (Underground Coal Mines)
• HH (Municipal Landfills)
• II (Industrial Wastewater Treatment)
• SS (Electric T&D Equipment Manufacturing)
• TT (Industrial Waste Landfills)

U.S. EPA has completed its evaluation of the 2013 inputs and concluded that they were either already publicly available or are not the types of information that would allow competitors to gain competitive advantage if released to the public.  This means that, as far as U.S. EPA is concerned, the 2013 inputs are not CBI.  As a result, U.S. EPA does not plan to take any further action on the 2013 inputs and the deferral of the requirement to report them will expire.  A complete listing of the 2013 inputs and the rationale for the determination that they are not CBI can be found in U.S. EPA’s December 17, 2012 memo.

If you are subject to Part 98 and use any of the 2013 inputs to calculate GHG emissions, you will now be required to report them.  U.S. EPA will add input fields for the 2013 inputs into the Electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (e-GGRT).  The next reporting period will run from mid-February until April 1, 2013.  During this reporting period you will not only be required to report the 2013 inputs for the current reporting year (2012), but will also be required to input this data from the past reporting years of 2010 and 2011, as applicable.  For reporting years 2013 and beyond, inputs whose deadline was deferred until 2013 will continue to be reported as part of annual report submission.

So as you prepare to have your next round of GHG Inventory Report data submitted, be sure to dust off those calculations from previous reporting years 2010 and 2011 and locate any of the equation inputs whose deadline was deferred until 2013.  e-GGRT will now be expecting to receive this information, and may not allow a complete report submission unless it is provided.

ALL4’s: Is That Your Final Answer?

Last Month’s Answer and Winner:

There were two correct answers to our November “Is That Your Final Answer”; however Jeff Leed of Leed Environmental responded ahead of Debra Lane of Rayonier and identified Veterans Day and Inauguration Day as the two (2) post-1870 federal holidays that do not currently have to fall on a Monday.  Congratulations to Jeff, he is the eleventh of twelve “Is That Your Final Answer” winners.

Question:

Our final 2012 “Is That Your Final Answer” question is not a question with a correct answer.  As today is the final day of 2012 for our December question we are asking you to respond with your favorite New Year’s Eve tradition.  We will review all of the submittals and determine which one response is the most unique answer.  Remember, this is our final question and thus this month’s best answer will be eligible along with the other 11 winners of 2012 for a $250 American Express gift card.  We look forward to reading your responses.

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!

Looking Towards 2013 from a Consultant’s Perspective

Here we are again at year’s end, another year older and wiser (hopefully).  We made it through another election, the “fiscal cliff,” Hurricane Sandy, the Mayan end of the world, and the final episode of the Jersey Shore MTV series.  As in past years, we have queried our staff here at ALL4 to gather a few opinions regarding what we have to look forward to in the year ahead in the broad realm of air quality management and compliance.  Based on what we have seen during the last days of 2012, the year ahead looks to be shaping up to be very “active.”  Naturally, most everyone had a slightly different take on what air quality topic was at the top of their list. Note that all of the familiar acronyms (NAAQS, PSD, NSR, MACT, CAIR, GHG, CISWI, CEMs, etc.) make at least one appearance each throughout the article along with a few newer ones (CSAPR, MATS, PAL, CHP, RICE, NHSM, etc.).  So here, in no specific order, are the top air quality issues for 2013, as articulated by ALL4 staff.  Related questions may be posed to the authors – contact information for each is available by clicking on the applicable sub-titles.

Colin McCall – Lower NAAQS Trajectory

One of the few certainties in the air quality permitting and compliance arena is that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) will continue to be the biggest obstacle to the future growth of facilities across the county (and will continue to make this list for as long as we are writing it).  The latest round of U.S. EPA reviews has further tightened the NAAQS to a level of stringency that will directly impact the design and feasibility of many major projects.  It is only a matter of time before a capital project or new NAAQS implementation process introduces direct NAAQS compliance to more and more facilities.  Here are the key NAAQS to follow looking ahead to 2013:

• 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2): We have been keeping you up to date on the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS saga through various blog posts and 4 The Record articles. Our last SO2-specific update pertained to the U.S. EPA stakeholder workgroup meetings that were held to solicit comments on the best way to implement the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS (dispersion modeling, monitoring, or a combination of both?). U.S. EPA heard a range of comments at those meetings and is tasked to release a proposed rulemaking or proposed guidance on the NAAQS implementation process. Given the information that U.S. EPA needs to consider and the logistical considerations around a possible increased ambient monitoring network, we would be surprised to see anything released until mid-2013. Keeping with that trend, U.S. EPA delayed the finalization of 1-hour SO2 designations for areas with ambient monitoring data until June 2013.  Once issued as final, the 1-hour implementation process will impact many facilities that need to mitigate either monitored or modeled SO2 impacts.
• Annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5): As of December 14, 2012, the annual PM2.5 NAAQS has been reduced from 15 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 12 µg/m3. It is already very difficult to demonstrate modeled compliance with the annual NAAQS under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) modeling process for major permitting projects. A tightened standard makes it even more difficult and could expand the list of PM2.5 nonattainment areas since 12 µg/m3 is already being measured as a background concentration at many of the existing ambient monitors. Similar to the SO2 NAAQS implementation process, expect to be involved in discussions with U.S. EPA and state agencies related to the current coverage of ambient monitors and whether an enhanced monitoring network will be required to adequately assess attainment and nonattainment for the new annual standard.  From a permitting perspective, facilities will continue to need to find internal reductions to offset PM2.5 emissions increases so that major source and modification permitting requirements can be avoided for PM2.5.

On a bigger picture note, legal challenges to the 1-hour SO2 and NO2 NAAQS levels were rejected in 2012, so the NAAQS levels are here to stay for the foreseeable future. These recent court cases show that health-based standards, once established, will be difficult or even impossible to scale back (although there is still hope that the implementation process for those standards can be adjusted). Given the permanence of the NAAQS levels, they will continue to be one of the primary areas that dictate a facility’s ability to operate and expand in the future. Also, don’t lose sight of the ozone (O3) NAAQS. The next reconsideration is scheduled for 2013, so the process of evaluating more stringent ozone standards and the nonattainment area permitting implications of a tightened ozone standard will happen again. We will continue to keep track of the latest developments around the NAAQS levels, so stay tuned for updates as they arise.

John Slade – Electric Utility Sector (or the Usual Suspects)

For the electric utility sector, this past year has been the most challenging in its history of regulation under the Clean Air Act (CAA).  No, nothing has changed in the CAA since 1990, but implementation of those provisions and rules promulgated, or proposed under them have significantly accelerated in frequency and complexity over the past several years.  The utility sector, as with other industrial sources, has been challenged with new NAAQS, Boiler MACT for their non-electric generating units (non-EGUs), and reciprocating internal combustion engine (RICE) regulations.  But the big ticket items for them is the flip-flopping uncertainty of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), and a possible new version of rules for nitrogen oxides (NOX)and SO2 emission allowances.  Even more impactful for coal and oil-fired EGUs will be the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rules.  Combine all of this with major shifts in fuel pricing due to unconventional natural gas development, rate-deregulation in some areas, and unprecedented numbers of coal-fired facilities shutting down, we have major uncertainty for an industry that has been one of the backbones for the U.S. economy.  Additionally, with such uncertainty in electricity pricing and reliability, high electrical use industries have begun installing their own electrical generation capability, mostly for captive use and some peak demand response.  All of this adds up to a game changing scenario for which no one quite knows the final rules. Hopefully the mixture of proposals, rules, challenges, remands, and vacaturs will coagulate and we will see a consistent regulatory path emerge from the current chaos.

Dan Dix – Pollutant and Meteorological Monitoring, Yes Really

As was summarized in ALL4’s October 4 The Record article “Musings on Monitoring:  The Who, What, When, Why, and How of Atmospheric Measurements,” it appears as though U.S. EPA has reversed course with their initial air dispersion modeling approach on the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS attainment/non-attainment designations process. U.S. EPA is now heading down a more traditional ambient monitoring path for 1-hour SO2 NAAQS attainment/non-attainment designation process. However, the difference is that U.S. EPA may be placing the burden of operating ambient monitors on industrial facilities and not on state agencies. We are expecting a final rulemaking from U.S. EPA sometime in mid-2013 to outline what the final approach will be. During U.S. EPA stakeholder meetings to discuss potential approaches to the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS attainment/non-attainment designation process, U.S. EPA indicated that monitors will potentially be sited at facilities based on an emissions threshold or population-weighted emissions threshold for a given area. Industrial facilities with high SO2 emissions should consider adding the cost of operating an SO2 ambient monitor to their 2013 budget. In addition, facilities should always co-locate a meteorological monitor with an ambient pollutant monitor in order to understand the meteorological conditions that exist during each hour of data collected. The 1-hour SO2, NO2 and recently lowered 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are extremely tight. Any facility going through the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit process may be required to conduct a NAAQS air quality modeling demonstration. The collection of one (1) year of on-site meteorological data for use in a NAAQS air quality modeling demonstration can be designed to collect more measurements (i.e., turbulence data) than National Weather Service (NWS) meteorological data, enabling facilities to utilize U.S. EPA’s AERMOD air dispersion model to produce a more representative prediction of ambient pollutant concentrations.  This is especially beneficial when dealing with 1-hour standards.

John Egan – Air Permitting and Strategic Planning

For over 35 years now, facilities that meet the “major source” criteria have operated under air quality permitting rules that can potentially result in almost any physical change, or change in the way the source is operated, being classified as a “major modification.”  These federal and state major new source review (NSR) regulations include the PSD rules for major sources located in areas that are considered to be in attainment with, or unclassifiable with respect to, the NAAQS.  For areas that are not in attainment with the NAAQS, the applicable major NSR rules are the non-attainment NSR regulations.  A read of the federal PSD and non-attainment NSR rules, or any of the approved state major NSR regulations makes it clear that these are complex regulations; not necessarily easy to understand and even more difficult to interpret and apply.  We’ve had a number of blogs and 4 The Record articles that touch on these air permitting rules and on related agency interpretations and guidance, so we won’t rehash details here.  What we want to point out is that the other new rules and requirements talked about in this article will likely require equipment or fuel changes, or altering operating procedures for existing sources.  If your source is major there are no special exemptions for any of these projects to avoid major NSR (e.g., there is no “pollution prevention project” exemption).  At a minimum, major NSR rule applicability assessments will be needed and the process for completing these assessments is complicated in and of itself by the nuances of the rules.  If you are strategically planning compliance with Boiler MACT or CISWI or other new requirement, and you aren’t taking the major NSR air permitting requirements into consideration in your plan, there could be a flaw in your strategy.  If you are considering major NSR applicability in your strategic planning, don’t overlook the Plantwide Applicability Limitation (PAL) provisions of these rules. Obtaining a PAL permit could be the most strategically advantageous move your facility makes for years to come.

Dan Holland – A Surprise Question for 2013?

What will you do this year if a nearby facility undertakes an air quality modeling study in support of an air permitting project and the results indicate that your facility is causing a violation of the NAAQS?  Will you have investigated the availability of suitable meteorological data to evaluate your facility?  Will you have examined your source stack and emission information to confirm that it is complete and accurate?  Will you have already completed your own diagnostic air quality modeling study to determine your facility’s status with respect to the NAAQS?  Or will you have initiated the process to understand why your facility is not able to be characterized using the current U.S. EPA-approved air dispersion model?  As a goal for 2013, it would be very worthwhile to understand these air quality modeling issues and how they may impact your facility.  Also, it is important to note that U.S. EPA is now devoting time and resources assessing photo-chemical air quality modeling procedures to allow for an assessment of how a single source’s VOC, NOx and SO2 emissions impact ozone and PM2.5 air quality levels on a regional level.  Such analyses will only increase the scrutiny that facilities receive from an air dispersion modeling perspective.  Are you prepared?

ALL4 Staff– Energy Efficiency, CHP, GHG, and NSR

As companies continue to read and react to ever-changing economic and regulatory drivers, management and environmental staff are faced with increasing, and sometimes opposing, challenges to improve infrastructure, reduce operating expenses, and minimize environmental impacts. At the forefront of these challenges are the trio of energy efficiency, energy independence (self-sufficiency), and carbon management [largely in the form of emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs)]. The implementation of energy efficiency projects, as well as the increasing consideration of combined heat and power (CHP) applications, are examples of industry-proven means to meet such challenges. The concept of energy efficiency projects and CHP systems reduces utility consumption and costs, and often includes the reduction of GHG emissions as an additional benefit. In addition, a movement afoot (whether voluntarily or in response to a regulatory driver) to switch to, or further augment, the use of “inherently cleaner” fuels and process materials has been a large part of the strategic plans for many companies. From a big picture perspective, these approaches and innovations are sure to make a difference for economic, environmental, and social reasons.

However…facilities need to proceed with caution regarding the implementation of energy efficiency, CHP, and GHG-reduction products. With the advent of regulations regarding emissions of GHGs, the regulated community must not lose sight that air permitting requirements in response to such projects are not necessarily less burdensome. Depending on the specific application, the use of cleaner fuels as part of a coal-conversion project, for example, may actually increase the emissions of pollutants like carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). U.S. EPA’s focus on energy efficiency projects through the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) process as the means to control emissions of GHGs remains intact. U.S. EPA has maintained its position that the BACT process does not need to consider technologies that would “re-define the source,” such as whether a natural gas electric generating facility is a control option for a proposed coal-fired electric generating facility. However, the permitting authority (in most cases, the state agency) retains the discretion to conduct a broader BACT analysis and to consider changes in the primary fuel in the BACT analysis. Furthermore, losing the capability to fire multiple fuels may reduce a facility’s operating and permitting flexibility in the long-term.

In summary, the intentions of implementing projects to reduce utility consumption and associated air emissions are true and worthy of praise. However, one must remember that modifications of existing equipment or the installation of new equipment must still be evaluated for air permitting requirements.

ALL4 Staff – Hydrogen Sulfide

Does your facility emit hydrogen sulfide (H2S)?  It certainly might, since H2S is emitted at a variety of industrial sites including, but not limited to, petroleum refineries, pulp and paper mills, animal feeding operations (AFOs), and wastewater treatment plants.  If your plant emits this compound, how ready are you to report your emissions of H2S in the upcoming Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)?  You heard that right – U.S. EPA is requiring reporting of H2S in the TRI for the first time this year, after having administratively stayed reporting of this pollutant for 19 years, almost immediately after having initially added it to the TRI list of reportable compounds in 1993.  So there has certainly been some controversy around this pollutant that has required lengthy deliberation.  Are you aware of all the various options that currently exist for quantifying this toxic compound?  As an example, the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI) offers not just emission factors, but a site-specific pond profile method which requires extensive field data collection and pond sampling, and a mechanistic model with predictive capabilities that relies on wastewater treatment plant inlet sampling.   What are the advantages and disadvantages of using the various available options for your facility?  If your facility emits or has the potential to emit H2S, you should be actively planning the basis for meeting your H2S reporting obligations for the 2012 reporting year.

Eric Swisher – Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems Bonanza

Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) will be on everyone’s mind in 2013 and not just the CEMS that everyone has grown up with (i.e., SO2, NOX, etc.).  With the expected promulgation of new rules, implementation of delayed rules, and roll-out of recently promulgated rules, U.S. EPA has given us all the opportunity design, specify, gain approval, install, certify, and continuously operate cool new toys such as monitoring and data acquisition systems for mercury (Hg), hydrogen chloride (HCl), total hydrocarbon (THC), and PM.  Evaluating compliance options and monitoring technologies, designing and procuring monitoring systems, and orchestrating their certification will be on the minds of state air quality regulators, corporate environmental managers, plant environmental managers, consulting engineers, stack testers, hardware vendors, and software developers over the next year and beyond.  Unfortunately, Santa’s elves are not very helpful in developing a monitoring strategy to meet your compliance needs regarding the monitoring requirements of the Portland Cement (PC) MACT, Utility MATS, Boiler MACT, CISWI, and any other regulatory “gifts” from U.S. EPA.

Ron Harding – Glimmer of Hope No Longer: U.S. EPA Secures Extension for Generator Air Rule Deadline (The Regulated Community is Not Surprised)

On Thursday, December 6, 2012, U.S. EPA sent the latest reconsidered revised version of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ – National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines, the so called RICE MACT, to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  Almost exactly one (1) short week later, U.S. EPA secured an extension for the reconsidered revised rule deadline despite the fact that the original December 14, 2012 deadline was the result of a court ordered mandate.  U.S. EPA receiving an extension for the mandatory promulgation date of a final rule is not new (Boiler MACT anyone?) and the regulated community affected by the reconsidered revised version of the RICE MACT rule, while potentially disappointed, is likely not surprised at U.S. EPA’s end of the year maneuvering.  Not to worry, the extension is not long.  If you operate RICE affected by the reconsidered portions of the revised rule you’ll only have to wait until January 14, 2013 to see the final version of the RICE MACT.  If you operate RICE unaffected by the reconsidered portions of the revised rule, don’t let U.S. EPA’s receipt of a deadline extension idle your compliance efforts.  With compliance dates looming in 2013, the RICE MACT is no longer coming, it’s here.  Compression Ignition (CI) RICE must comply with the requirements of the RICE MACT by May 3, 2013.  Spark Ignition (SI) RICE must comply with the requirements of the RICE MACT by October 19, 2013.  A year ago the RICE MACT was down the road.  Six (6) months ago it loomed around the corner.  Now it’s knocking at your door.  Are you ready?

Lindsey Kroos – Strategic Planning for the 4 Rules Takes Center Stage

On December 20, 2012, U.S. EPA finalized the so called 4 Rules – the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for Major and Area Source Boilers (Boiler MACT), Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI), and Nonhazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) rules.  Seeing as the 4 Rules were finalized just three days shy of a year since they were proposed on December 23, 2011, industry spent nearly all of 2012 waiting for answers to questions such as, “Is the fuel I fire considered a waste?” “When is the compliance date?” and “What happens if the rules are not finalized before the No Action Assurance expires?”  In a word, 2012 was a year of uncertainty when it came to the future of boilers, process heaters, incinerators, and rotary kilns.  With the finalization of the 4 Rules, along with the PC MACT, facilities can start focusing on what they need to do to comply rather than speculating on what they might have needed to do.  At first glance, U.S. EPA appears to have relaxed the rules compared to the March 2011 final versions and the December 2011 proposed versions.  Certain materials were determined to be non-wastes in the NHSM rule, most compliance dates were extended, and certain emission limits were revised.  We also expect that many of the revised rules will be subject to typical court challenges.  Check out a few preliminary takeaways from the final rules here.  2012 was full of uncertainty, but we expect 2013 to be full of strategic planning for compliance with the 4 Rules.

End of the World or Not – U.S. EPA Issues the Final Rule for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources NESHAP

On the heels of Christina Giannascoli’s November 5, 2012 blog, today’s blog provides an update to the status of the reconsidered and stayed Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart VVVVVV, or 6V). To recap how we got here: as with what seems like a never-ending host of regulations under reconsideration, or stayed, or rescinded, Subpart 6V’s reconsideration journey began back in February 2010, just over three (3) months following the issuance of the original version of the rule. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) proposed revisions to Subpart 6V in January 2012, and on October 25, 2012, stayed the final rule altogether.

While the regulated community waited with baited breath for the issuance of the final 4 Rules on December 20, 2012, U.S. EPA added a different direction, and finalized the proposed amendments to Subpart 6V on December 21, 2012. The primary contention with Subpart 6V was the requirement for area sources that installed a federally-enforceable control device on an affected unit to obtain a Title V permit. As part of the reconsideration actions, U.S. EPA stayed the Title V permit requirement in March 2011 for further consideration. In its summary of comments and responses, U.S. EPA stated that the requirement to obtain a Title V permit “is not overly burdensome,” and that “requiring additional public involvement and compliance assurance requirement through Title V is important to ensure that these sources are maintaining their emissions at the area source level.” U.S. EPA further commented that they think “the burden is not significant because these facilities are generally larger and more sophisticated than natural area sources and sources that took operational limits to become area sources.” The requirement for affected facilities to submit a Title V permit application to its permitting authority is December 21, 2013.

The final rule also added an affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of emission standards that are caused by malfunctions. Consistent with recent regulatory proceedings, emissions standards under Subpart 6V apply during periods of startup and shutdown. Lastly, the final rule includes technical corrections that clarify applicability and compliance issues. In the spirit of the holidays, U.S. EPA extended the compliance date for existing sources until March 21, 2013.  A link to the December 21, 2012 Federal Register publication can be found here.

Reading Material for the Holidays: U.S. EPA Finalizes 4 Rules

As rumored, U.S. EPA has released the final versions of the 4 Rules – the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for Major and Area Source Boilers (Boiler MACT), Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI), and Nonhazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) rules.  Finalized just three days shy of a year since they were proposed, the much anticipated final rules will impact thousands of boilers, process heaters, incinerators, and kilns across the country.

Much like last year, we have our work cut out for us to get up to speed on the changes to the rules.  So whip up some hot chocolate (perhaps with some booze), grab a blanket, and get cozy next to the fire – there’s a lot of reading to be done!  Or you can enjoy the holidays and let us do it for you – keep an eye out for updates via our blog, 4 The Record newsletter, and social media (LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook) as we dive into the rules.

Can’t wait to find out what changed?  Here are a few initial takeaways about the final rules:

Major Source Boiler MACT Rule

• The compliance date for existing major source boilers with numerical emission limits will be in early 2016 (3 years after publication of final rule).
• A new subcategory was established for certain coal fluidized bed boilers.
• Emission limits were revised for certain pollutants, including particulate matter (PM) for the coal/solid fossil fuel category, and total selected metals (TSM) for three liquid fuel categories.

Area Source Boiler MACT Rule

• Initial notifications for existing area source boilers will be required by January 20, 2014.
• Initial tune-ups for existing area source boilers will be required by March 21, 2014.
• Various changes were made relating to dual-fired boilers, temporary boilers, seasonal boilers, and limited-used boilers.

CISWI Rule

• The compliance date for existing CISWI units will be no later than early 2018 (within 3 years of U.S. EPA approval of a State Plan or 5 years after publication of the final rule).
• Emission limits were revised for certain pollutants based on additional data.
• Emission limits were established for coal and biomass energy recovery units (ERUs).

NHSM Rule

• The legitimacy criterion for comparing contaminants between NHSM and traditional fuels was revised.
• “Dewatered pulp and paper sludges” and “coal refuse” that meet certain criteria were determined to be non-waste fuels.
• The petition process for non-waste determinations was revised.

If you do find yourself with some free time over the holidays, the pre-publication versions of the final rules can be found below:

• Major Source Boiler MACT
• Area Source Boiler MACT
• CISWI and NHSM

Find something interesting?  Share it in the comments, and feel free to contact me with questions.

RICE MACT Update – ALL4 Partners with step2compliance

Despite the ongoing controversy with the reconsidered revised version of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ – National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines, the so called RICE MACT, the compliance dates for the existing RICE MACT rules of May 3, 2013 for Compression Ignition (CI) RICE and October 19, 2013 for Spark Ignition (SI) still loom.  Facilities that operate RICE subject to the requirements of the RICE MACT now find themselves well within the window where analyzing their specific requirements and implementing the necessary compliance strategies is critical.  In an effort to position ourselves in such a way as to be able to assist our clients with RICE MACT applicability analyses and compliance strategy efforts in an effective and efficient manner, All4 Inc. (ALL4) has recently partnered with step2compliance to provide fast and accurate RICE MACT applicability analyses to existing and potential clients.  Want to know more about step2compliance, their RICE MACT applicability analysis tool, and its potential beneficial impacts to your facility? Give me a call at (610) 933-5246 ext. 19.

Include Changes to OSHA HazCom Standard in Your 2013 Planning

Earlier this year the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a final rule that revised its Hazard Communication (HazCom) Standard codified in OSHA’s General Industry Standards at 29 CFR §1910.1200.  The HazCom standard also applies to businesses that are covered under OSHA Standards for work in the Maritime (29 CFR Parts 1915, 1917 and 1918) and Construction (Part 1926) categories.  OSHA has estimated that over five (5) million workplaces across the United States will be affected by these revised regulations.

The HazCom Standard has been with us for over 25 years and requires that employers have a communication and training program that adequately informs workers about the hazards associated with any chemicals and products that they may be exposed to while on the job, using container labeling and other methods.  The HazCom Standard also requires manufacturers and importers to provide hazard information by developing and making available material safety data sheets (MSDS).  The HazCom regulation had not been significantly amended for many years and, in most workplaces, compliance efforts have become part of the normal course of business.  But now things will change.

OSHA has revised the HazCom Standard to make it conform to the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS).  Major changes to the HazCom Standard include the following:

• Hazard Classifications: There will now be specific criteria for each health and physical hazard and the HazCom Standard will also address mixtures.
• Labels: Every label must now have a Pictogram, signal words such as “danger” for severe hazards and “warning” for less severe hazards, a hazard statement and a precautionary statement.
• Safety Data Sheets: These will no longer be known as MSDS.  They are now Safety Data Sheets (SDS) and must be prepared in a 16-section standardized format.

If you took a quick look at the HazCom Standard revisions when they came out earlier this year, you might be thinking there is no rush.  It is true that compliance with the modified provisions of the rule pertaining to things such as label content and SDS format is not required until June 1, 2015.  However, employers are required to train their employees on the new label requirements and SDS format by no later than December 1, 2013.  Since in many workplaces annual employee training is done early in the calendar year, if the modified content is not included now, the new HazCom Standard training compliance date of December 1^st could easily be overlooked later in the year.  Don’t let that happen to you! 

No Action Assurance Implications for Boiler MACT and CISWI Rules

The presidential election has come and gone, and there is still much uncertainty when it comes to the status of the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for Major and Area Source Boilers (Boiler MACT), Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI), and Nonhazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) rules, collectively referred to as the “4 Rules.”  The 4 Rules were proposed together on June 4, 2010, and promulgated together on March 21, 2011, along with a notice of reconsideration for parts of the Major and Area Source Boiler MACT and CISWI rules.  U.S. EPA issued a notice delaying the effective dates of the Major Source Boiler MACT and CISWI rules on May 18, 2011 in anticipation of proposed amendments to the 4 Rules, which were ultimately published on December 23, 2011, along with the reconsideration of the Major and Area Source Boiler MACT and CISWI rules.  The May 18, 2011 delay of the effective dates was subsequently vacated and remanded on January 9, 2012.  Now nearly a year later, industry and environmental groups alike are anxiously awaiting promulgation of the amended and reconsidered rules.  Please refer to Susie’s recent blog post for a more detailed history of the 4 Rules since March 2011.

Following the January 2012 vacatur and remand of the delay of effective dates, U.S. EPA issued a series of No Action Assurance letters (on February 7, March 13, and July 18, 2012) intended to ease concerns from industry about past and upcoming compliance requirements contained in the March 2011 final rules.  Many facilities found themselves in a unique situation where they would have been required to comply with notification requirements prior to the January 2012 vacatur and remand had the May 2011 delay of effective dates not been issued.  Other facilities found themselves in a different unique situation where they were required to comply with an upcoming boiler tune-up requirement that, according to the December 2011 proposed rules, would be required a year later.  In the No Action Assurance letters, U.S. EPA stated that it would “exercise its enforcement discretion to not pursue enforcement action” for failing to complete the following requirements associated with the Major Source Boiler MACT, Area Source Boiler MACT, and CISWI rules:

Major Source Boiler MACT Rule

• 40 CFR §63.7545(b) – submit an Initial Notification for existing affected sources that started up prior to May 20, 2011 by September 17, 2011.
• 40 CFR §63.7545(c) – submit an Initial Notification for new or reconstructed affected sources that started up on or after May 20, 2011 no later than 15 days after actual startup.

Area Source Boiler MACT Rule

• 40 CFR §63.11196(a)(1) – complete an initial tune-up for existing coal-fired units less than 10 MMBtu/hr and existing biomass- or oil-fired units by March 21, 2012.
• 40 CFR §63.11225(a)(4) – submit a Notification of Compliance Status (NOCS) regarding the March 21, 2012 initial tune-up requirement by July 19, 2012.

CISWI Rule

• 40 CFR §60.2190 – submit a notification prior to construction for new CISWI units that includes a statement of intent to construct, the anticipated date of commencing construction, the requirements of §60.2050 (siting requirements), the requirements of §60.2055 through 60.2065 (waste management plan requirements), and the anticipated date of initial startup.
• 40 CFR §60.2230/60.7(a)(1) – submit a notification of construction for new CISWI units no later than 30 days after construction commences.
• 40 CFR §60.2230/60.7(a)(3) – submit a notification of startup for new CISWI units within 15 days after initial startup.

The No Action Assurance expires on December 31, 2012 for the Major and Area Source Boiler MACT requirements (after an extension for the Area Source Boiler MACT) and on April 30, 2013 for the CISWI rule requirements, or upon promulgation of final rules addressing the proposed reconsiderations, whichever comes first.  All three letters are clear in stating that the No Action Assurance applies “only to the timeliness of [the notification and tune-up] requirements, not to the underlying requirements themselves.”  When the amendments and reconsiderations of the 4 Rules were expected to be finalized earlier this year, the now-looming expiration dates did not pose much of a concern.  But with the end of the year now upon us, the obvious question is “what happens if the rules are not finalized before the No Action Assurance expires?”

Since November, we’ve heard a number of predictions about when the 4 Rules would be promulgated – as early as immediately following the election, no later than December 20, 2012 to coincide with a consent decree deadline for the related Portland Cement MACT rule, and as late as the first or second quarter of 2013.  The latest predictions appear to be favoring the December 20, 2012 possibility.  If we do see new rules by the end of the year, the No Action Assurance letters will have ultimately served their purpose as the requirements they protected industry from violating will have been replaced in the new rules.  If we don’t see new rules by the end of the year, we would expect U.S. EPA to extend the No Action Assurance beyond the current expiration dates; however, they are not obligated to do so, nor have they given any indication of a possible extension.  In the unlikely event that neither final rules nor extensions to the No Action Assurance are issued by December 31, 2012, industry could find itself in a non-compliance scenario.

Facilities concerned about the possibility of non-compliance come January 1, 2013 would be wise to be prepared for completing the notification and tune-up requirements covered by the No Action Assurance before the end of the year.  Completing the Major Source Boiler MACT initial notification may be simple for facilities that are certain of which rule their boiler will be regulated by, but for facilities that are still unsure about whether their boiler will be regulated as a boiler under Boiler MACT or as an energy recovery unit (ERU) under the CISWI rule, that task could be more complicated.  Affected area source facilities should be prepared to comply with the initial tune-up requirement as soon as possible, since if the December 2011 amendments are finalized as proposed, the tune-up will be required by March 21, 2013.  When do you think the final rules will be promulgated?  Let me know in the comments, and stay tuned as we continue to follow the status of the 4 Rules.

Revised RICE MACT Goes to OMB Amid Continued Opposition From a Diverse Group of Rule Detractors

U.S. EPA sent the latest reconsidered revised version of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ – National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines, the so called RICE MACT, to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on Thursday December 6, 2012.  U.S. EPA’s submission of the reconsidered rule is prompted by a looming December 14, 2012 legally binding consent decree deadline by which time U.S. EPA is required to promulgate a final reconsidered RICE MACT rule.  The submission of the rule to the OMB is the last regulatory hurdle that U.S. EPA needs to negotiate prior to promulgating a final reconsidered rule.  While the OMB review can legally take upwards of 90-days, the review can also be performed much quicker leaving a small glimmer of hope that U.S. EPA could meet the December 14, 2012 consent decree deadline.

The reconsidered RICE MACT includes the controversial provisions expanding the period that diesel generators can operate under demand response programs from 15 to 100 hours per year.  Proponents of the provisions tout the electric grid stabilization impacts of the expanded “bank” of demand response operating hours and include demand response providers like EnerNOC and the like.  Demand response providers maintain that the expansion is necessary to maintain grid stability and allow a greater population of engines to participate in such grid stabilization programs. 

Opponents of the provisions point instead to the perceived potential for increased emissions associated with the expanded demand response operation of uncontrolled diesel generators and include a rather strange and diverse group of environmentalists, “traditional” power providers, and eastern/mid-Atlantic state officials.  Opponents of the reconsidered rules maintain that the potential for increased emissions could impact eastern states’ progress toward attaining and maintaining compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

Regardless of whether the OMB can complete their rule review in a timeframe that would allow U.S. EPA to promulgate a final rule prior to their December 14, 2012 deadline or not, there is likely to be additional legal repercussions given the continued controversy of the reconsidered rule.

My Co-op at ALL4

I first came to ALL4 as a co-op in the summer of 2011. Since then I have spent three (3) semesters at ALL4 working on various projects.  A co-op is a partnership between a school and an employer to provide an opportunity for students to learn hands-on.  It is very similar to an internship.  I am currently majoring in Chemical Engineering (ChemE) at Auburn University and had little idea of what environmental consulting consisted of when I applied for this job, but I knew I wanted to interview with a variety of companies to see what type of co-op positions were available.  Most ChemE’s go into the pulp and paper or oil industry so these were the fields in which I was most familiar.  I remember one question that I was asked during my initial interview was “What do you know about ALL4?”  I knew this question was coming; it is the one question the Auburn Co-op Office told students to prepare for when it came to interviewing.  “Research the companies!”  My response to this question was “ALL4 is an environmental consulting company that specializes in air quality.  They have a corporate office in Kimberton, Pennsylvania and a regional office in Columbus, Georgia.  But can you please tell me what a career in environmental consulting entails?”

At the time, I had no idea how much work went into regulating air quality in the variety of industries that exist!  However, I was quickly made aware how in depth consulting is during my first week.  I arrived at ALL4 in the middle of one of the biggest projects the company had experienced, which was U.S. EPA’s Pulp and Paper Information Collection Request (ICR).  U.S. EPA had requested vast amounts of operational and emissions information from all pulp and paper mills across the United States.  Aside from the Pulp and Paper ICR Survey, during my time at ALL4 I have been exposed to many different industries and permits.  I have worked on Title V permit renewals, emission statements, Toxic Release Inventories, greenhouse gas calculations, and Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines Maximum Achievable Control Technology (RICE MACT) applicability analysis.  Other roles I’ve assisted with include marketing, EnviroReview, and recruiting.  Let us just say I have worn many hats during my term(s) at ALL4.  That is one phrase used frequently, “At ALL4 you wear many hats.”  Wearing many hats is something that comes with working for a small company; you get involved in many different functions of the company. 

ALL4 may be a small company, but it contains a wealth of knowledge.  ALL4 is made up of people with various backgrounds and levels of experience, ranging from people right out of college to people with decades of experience.  I thought it would be helpful to share advice and thoughts from people of differing levels of experience.  I first spoke with Julie Maltese, who graduated from Georgia Tech in May of 2011 and came to work for ALL4 that same month.  When asked what her best piece of advice would be for recent graduates that are going into the consulting industry, she said “Make sure you keep a running list of the all the types of projects you work on.  It is important to remember what you have gained experience in, and it can be a surprisingly difficult task if you don’t write it all down.  Especially in the consulting world, there is so much going on and it is easy to lose track of everything you have done before.”

I then spoke with Susie Bowden, who has been working at ALL4 for almost two (2) years.  Susie has 11 years of experience at a pulp and paper mill.  During that time, she spent eight (8) years as a process engineer and three (3) years as an environmental engineer.  When asked what her best piece of advice for a recent graduate looking to go into consulting, she said “Learn Microsoft Excel and Word inside and out!  Be ready to learn quickly and invest a lot of your own time in the beginning.  I know that is two (2) pieces of advice, but I think both are equally important.”

Finally, I spoke with John Egan, one of the Principal Consultants of ALL4 who has almost forty (40) years of experience.  He spent the first 14 years of his career working for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP).  Since his departure from PADEP, he has continuously worked as a consultant and eventually helped to found ALL4 in 2002.  When I asked him what his thoughts were on consulting and what he would tell recent graduates, he said “A career in consulting can ultimately allow you to be your own boss.  For the most part, you are selling your personal knowledge and expertise and, as a result, your ability to succeed and to control your own destiny is only limited by your personal commitment to becoming the expert and your ability to successfully enroll those that support you.”

I have learned a lot during my co-op terms at ALL4.  I will be leaving with a new perspective on environmental consulting.  When I get back to Auburn and hear of a classmate’s interest in the consulting industry, I will make sure to tell them to be prepared to hit the ground running and bill as much time as they can.  I would then probably have to explain the concept of billable time because that is not something we learn in the classroom.