PM2.5 Air Quality Modeling Updates

There has been much activity over the past six (6) months that will impact how air quality modeling analyses will be conducted for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit applications with respect to particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5).  As the resident air quality modeling expert at ALL4, I thought it was a good time to walk through each of these changes and discuss the potential challenges and yes, opportunities.  Here is a list of what’s been happening over the last six (6) months:

• December 14, 2012 – U.S. EPA announced revised annual average PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) reduced from 15 mg/m3 to 12 mg/m3,
• December 17, 2012 – U.S. EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) releases regulatory modeling update to AERMET and AERMOD (aka Version 12345),
• January 22, 2013 – DC Circuit Court vacated and remanded PM2.5 Significant Monitoring Concentrations (SMCs) and Significant Impact Levels (SILs),
• March 4, 2013 – U.S. EPA OAQPS issues draft PM2.5 modeling guidance for Regulatory Applications.

Each is briefly discussed below.

Updated Annual PM2.5 NAAQS

There are really only challenges associated with the reduction of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS from 15 mg/m3 to 12 mg/m3.  This is especially true for NAAQS demonstrations for PSD permitting projects which require the inclusion of background PM2.5 concentrations from representative monitoring stations.  I have examined PM2.5 monitoring data across the country, and typically the monitors are showing concentrations at 75% or more of the 24-hour and annual PM2.5 NAAQS.  Recommendations regarding what to do about high PM2.5 monitoring data are presented in the DC Circuit Court decision summary below.  Looking on the bright side, U.S. EPA concluded that the existing 24-hour standard of 35 mg/m3 will remain, and that means per the Clean Air Act Section 112 requirements the PM2.5 NAAQS won’t be evaluated again for five (5) years.  One recommendation I can give around the annual PM2.5 standard related to PSD permit modeling is to be absolutely sure that you are modeling annual emission rates.  This likely means developing both short-term and annual PM2.5 emission rates to model against the respective PM2.5 NAAQS averaging periods.  Also, be aware that any PM2.5 emission rate that is modeled as part of a PSD permitting project has the potential to become a limit in your Title V Operating Permit.

Updated AERMOD Air Dispersion Model and AERMET Meteorological Preprocessor

OAQPS released a new version of the U.S. EPA preferred AERMOD [Version 12345 (it is alleged that OAQPS waited until the 345th day of 2012 just to get that version)] air dispersion model used for near-field (i.e., < 50 kilometers) air quality modeling analyses.  The new version addresses some nagging “bugs” and also has added some BETA (non-default) options to address concerns regarding model performance under low wind speed conditions.  Specifically, the beta options allow modelers to do the following:

• Increase the minimum value of sigma-v from 0.2 to 0.5 meters per second (m/s) and turn off the meander component,
• Increase the minimum value of sigma-v from 0.2 to 0.3 m/s while maintaining the meander component,
• Adjust the minimum sigma-v and minimum wind speed values within certain ranges.

What does this mean for all the non-modelers out there?  Essentially, these options allow modelers to evaluate issues of elevated predicted AERMOD concentration that result from periods of low wind speed events.  This issue has been under the microscope ever since the 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS were introduced.  While these options are non-default,(meaning that approval from the U.S. EPA Region is required for their use), U.S. EPA is taking recommendations on how to update these equations for possible incorporation into a 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix W – Guideline on Air Quality Modeling proposed update scheduled for late 2014 early 2015.

I encourage everyone to keep in mind that the AERMOD air dispersion model is only as good as the data you supply it and onsite meteorological data [versus National Weather Service (NWS)] will always result in more accurate (not necessarily lower) predicted concentrations.  For more information on setting up an on-site meteorological monitoring system, check out ALL4’s capabilities here.

DC Circuit Court vacated and remanded PM2.5 Significant Monitoring Concentrations (SMC) and Significant Impact Levels (SIL)

The DC Circuit Court vacated and remanded the PM2.5 SMC and SILs on January 22, 2012.  For a summary of this Court decision check out All4’s February 7, 2013 blog post.  Before I talk about the implications of this Court decision, let’s explain what SMCs and SILs are.  U.S. EPA established a 24-hour average 4 mg/m3 PM2.5 SMC in the 2008 PM2.5 PSD rule.  This meant that if a PSD permit application could show that predicted PM2.5 concentrations modeled from project related PM2.5 emissions were below 4 mg/m3, no pre-construction monitoring would be required for the project.  The vacatur of the PM2.5 SMC means that if a project exceeds the PM2.5 PSD significant emissions increase threshold(i.e., 10 tons per year), one (1) year of pre-construction ambient monitoring is required.  Let’s not get ahead of ourselves; the reason most people haven’t heard of SMCs is because usually an argument can be made to use representative ambient monitoring data from a State-run ambient monitoring station when SMCs were exceeded in the past.  This is still true; however, be aware that the State and possibly public reviewers (i.e., environmental groups) are going to pay closer attention to whether the State ambient monitoring stations are representative of the conditions at the applicant’s site.  Conversely, preconstruction PM2.5 monitoring might just be beneficial to a project.  As I alluded to during my discussion on the recent PM2.5 NAAQS revision above, PM2.5 ambient monitoring levels are typically very close to the NAAQS, leaving little room for applicants to model their facilities below the PM2.5 NAAQS.  Pre-construction ambient monitoring can be used to develop site specific background levels for your project.  It is important to always site a meteorological monitoring station with an ambient monitor, because onsite background levels for your site will be determine when winds are blowing away from your PM2.5 ambient monitor and not influencing measured concentrations.  The goal is to not double-count in a NAAQS air quality modeling demonstration, and the best way to do that is to have site specific monitoring data.

PM2.5 SILs were also established in the 2008 PM2.5 PSD rule.  The PM2.5 SILs were/are 0.3 mg/m3 and 1.2 mg/m3 for the annual and 24-hour average PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively.  SILs are used to determine if a full multi-source air quality modeling analysis would be required for a PSD permit application.  If predicted concentrations of project-related PM2.5 emissions are below the SILs, no NAAQS or PSD increment analysis is required.  The Court decision for the SILs is slightly different than the SMC as they were remanded and not vacated.  The intent of the remanded SILs is that a permit applicant cannot rely alone on the SILs as the sole reason for not conducting a NAAQS and PSD increment analysis.  The applicant must also show that predicted concentration below the SILs also will not lead to a violation of the PM2.5 NAAQS.  Essentially, the concern is due to elevated PM2.5 monitoring levels because an increase below the SILs could still result in a NAAQS violation when combined with high monitored levels.  Therefore, applicants can still use the SILs but will have to supply further justification to show that no PM2.5 NAAQS violation will occur.  It is important to note that SILs also still exist for the other pollutants modeled as part of a PSD permit applications [i.e., PM10, NO2, SO2, and carbon monoxide (CO)]. However, SILs for these pollutants were never published in a rulemaking. Instead, they were issued in OAQPS guidance memorandums.  While they weren’t addressed in the recent Court decision, you can be sure that the same scrutiny will be applied to them as well.  A question and answer document prepared by OAQPS going into further detail about the Court decision ramifications can be found here.

Draft Guidance for PM2.5 Permit Modeling

On March 4, 2013 OAQPS released a “Draft Guidance for PM2.5 Permit Modeling” memorandum.  The memorandum provides additional clarification on addressing both primary and secondary formed PM2.5 in NAAQS and PSD Increment air quality modeling demonstrations.  I gave a summary of the memorandum in a March 4, 2013 blog post.  Since then the OAQPS has taken comments during the Air and Waste Management Association’s (AWMA) Specialty Modeling Conference that ALL4 attended on March 19-21, 2013 and the Regional, State, and Local (RSL) Modelers’ workshop on April 21-25.  It was announced after the AWMA conference that a 45-day extension has been made to the comment period originally scheduled to end May 31, 2013.  All comments should be e-mailed to George Bridgers at OAQPS.

What Does This All Mean?

Plan Ahead!!  A number of changes and uncertainties have the potential to significantly extend the time needed to obtain a PSD construction permit for a project.  In some cases this time period can be as much as a year to collect monitoring and meteorological data before the application process can even begin.  Know where your facility stands with the PM2.5 NAAQS.  Even if a project is not currently in the works it’s always helpful to see where things stand to determine if undertaking an ambient monitoring or meteorological monitoring program would be beneficial for future projects.  Determine where there are potential decreases in PM2.5 emissions at your facility.  The best case scenario for a project is to not have a significant emission increase in PM2.5 emissions and not have to go down any of these roads.

U.S. EPA’s Revised NESHAP for Stationary RICE Has Opponents on Both Sides of the Table

U.S. EPA promulgated a revised reconsidered version of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines, the so called RICE MACT, on January 30, 2013.  In a previous blog post , Ron Harding discussed the possibility of opposition to the reconsidered rule.  Specifically, Ron discussed potential opposition to the revisions relating to expanded demand response operation of uncontrolled diesel generators.  In addition, opposition also exists around the revisions to operating limits on engines at remote offshore locations because of the potential to impact eastern states’ progress toward attaining and maintaining compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

Since taking effect on April 1, 2013, the revised reconsidered RICE MACT has garnered concerned comments from numerous parties, including, but not limited to, the Conservation Law Federation (CLF), State of Delaware, and National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA).  Such concerns pertain primarily to the revision to the demand response provisions included in the reconsideration and the resulting potential impact on demonstrating and maintaining compliance with the NAAQS.

Regarding demand response, opposition is based on both theoretical and regulatory grounds.  Opponents believe that “true” demand response should lower energy demand, or meet spikes in energy demand, through the use of renewable sources instead of meeting demand through use of small, uncontrolled generators.  There is concern that if demand is not reduced, emission of regulated air pollutants would increase.  Opponents to the reconsidered demand response provisions feel that the rule should ensure that “emergency RICE may only be dispatched during genuine grid emergencies,” and claim that the exemption allowing sources to participate in demand response programs without installing pollution controls is unlawful.

With respect to the NAAQS, opponents maintain that the exemptions for engines operating in remote locations such as the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) could result in emissions of regulated air pollutants to be transported onshore to locations that are striving for attainment with the NAAQS, such as Delaware.  Opponents further maintain that this scenario could expose the public to emissions of air toxics above regulated thresholds.  A situation that opponents attest is avoidable by requiring such engines to be fit with the required control technologies and/or implementation of the required work practices.

A number of additional disputes have presented themselves since the reconsidered RICE MACT took effect.  For example, opponents of the RICE MACT are challenging the RICE MACT reconsideration on the grounds that the revised provisions are in violation of Section 112 since, opponents maintain, Section 112 does not allow the reconsidered exemption provisions.  Opponents also contest that the rule allows for a delay in reporting requirements until 2016, when reporting is an essential feature of the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) program.  Lastly, the provisions within the rule that currently allow use of non-ultra low sulfur diesel fuel obtained prior to January 1, 2015 “until depleted” is being challenged on the grounds that the current rule language could provide for “fuel hoarding.”

If you would like additional information on how these revisions affect your compliance with the RICE MACT, you can contact Ron Harding  at (610) 933-5246 (ext. 119) with any RICE related questions. Ron is our resident expert on the RICE regulations, and the leader of the ALL4 RICE Initiative Team.

NJDEP Cracks Down on Emergency Generators

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has begun to restrict certain specific uses of emergency generators.  NJDEP has learned that some facility owners and operators of these engines have entered into contracts with electric utility companies in order to use their emergency generators for purposes of peak or load shaving, demand response and similar programs.  ‘Demand response,’ as defined by the NJDEP, “is a preemptive action in which the participating facility voluntarily agrees to commence operation of its electrical generating equipment prior to the reduction in voltage or failure of electrical power in return for economic benefit.”  NJDEP would like to make clear that the operation of emergency generators for the purposes of peak shaving or demand response is permitted only if the generator in question includes air pollution control and the facility’s approved air permit contains conditions that allows the emergency generator to be used in this way.  Currently, the emergency generator general permit does not permit the use of a generator for demand response or peak shaving programs.  In order to participate in these programs, a facility would have to obtain a regular air Preconstruction or Operating permit approval from NJDEP.

For purposes of clarification, it should be noted that some stationary internal combustion engines used as emergency generators may be operated in situations without air pollution control devices.  These situations include:

(1) during the performance of normal testing and maintenance procedures, as recommended in writing by the manufacturer and/or as required in writing by a Federal or State law or regulation;

(2) when there is power outage or the primary source of mechanical or thermal energy fails because of an emergency; or,

(3) when there is a voltage reduction issued by PJM and posted on the PJM internet website (www.pjm.com) under the “emergency procedures” menu.

If an emergency generator is not operated in one (1) of the three (3) scenarios listed above, the equipment fails to meet the definition of “emergency” and is therefore subject to air pollution control requirements and a regular air pollution control permit.

If you desire to operate your combustion engine for peaking or demand response programs, please contact the NJDEP’s Air Quality Permitting Program to determine if your engine can qualify for an air permit for non-emergency use.

Additionally, ALL4 can help you through the permitting process as well.  Should you have questions, please contact either Ron Harding (610.933.5246 x119; rharding@all4inc.com), our in-house expert on stationary engines, or me (610.933.5246 x128; bchantz@all4inc.com) to discuss your air permitting needs.

New EGU – MATS and NSPS Revisions Finalized by U.S. EPA

On March 28, 2013, U.S. EPA finalized updates to the mercury and air toxics standards (MATS) for new power plants as well as the Utility New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).  Changes were made to both 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart UUUUU and 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Da as a result of U.S. EPA’s reconsideration of these rules announced in July 2012.  Main highlights of the changes include:

MATS New EGU Emission Limit Revisions

• Updated filterable particulate matter (FPM), Selenium (Se), Hydrogen Chloride (HCl), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) and Mercury (Hg) emission limits for coal-fired units not designed for low rank virgin coal.
• Updated FPM, Se, HCl, and SO2 emission limits for coal-fired units designed for low rank virgin coal.
• Updated FPM emission limit for liquid oil-fired unit – continental (excluding limited-use liquid oil-fired subcategory units).
• Updated FPM and SO2 emission limits for solid oil-derived fuel-fired unit. 

MATS Testing and Monitoring

• Removed the quarterly stack testing option to demonstrate compliance with the new source FPM emission limits.
• Revised approach to establish an operating limit for those new EGUs that choose PM continuous parametric monitoring systems (CPMS).
• Required inspections and retests within 45 days of an exceedance of the operating limit for new EGUs using PM CPMS.
• Finalized the presumption that a violation of the emissions limit occurs if more than four (4) emissions tests are required in a 12 month period (rolling monthly).

NSPS Monitoring

• Finalized the same monitoring procedures for PM as for new EGUs subject to MATS (and is not finalizing the quarterly stack testing option).

Additionally several definitions were updated in the NSPS and MATS, including an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) definition in the NSPS that is broader based than in MATS.  U.S. EPA did not take action on several topics they solicited comments on including startup and shutdown provisions as they need additional time to consider data and comments.   U.S. EPA feels there is sufficient time to address the topic since no sources will have to comply with the existing source MATS standards until April 16, 2015.  (Not sure industry feels the same way.)

What Rich Oil Men Need to Know About Quad O Revisions

No doubt that Jed Clampett and J.R. Ewing would not have been quite as successful with their oil and natural gas operations if they had to meet the Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources listed under 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOOO (Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, Transmission and Distribution).  But they might be encouraged with the recently proposed amendments from U.S. EPA regarding a reconsideration of issues related to storage vessel provisions in Subpart OOOO.

The first issue that U.S. EPA proposed for reconsideration was the definition of a storage vessel and a storage vessel affected facility.  U.S. EPA refined the contents and materials that make up a storage vessel so that only the intended vessels were being regulated, that is, non-mobile storage vessels with crude oil, condensate, intermediate hydrocarbon liquids, and produced water.  The refined definition clarified the applicability of the definition and eliminated the potential for other containers to become regulated.   Although, if a storage vessel is skid mounted or on wheels, and thus could be exempt, records showing that the storage vessel has not been on site for 180 consecutive days must be available. If there is at least one storage vessel at the well site, a natural gas processing segment or a natural gas processing or storage segment and that single vessel has the potential to emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at rates of 6 tons per year (tpy) or more, then the operations qualify as a storage vessel affected facility.  If the individual storage vessels have enforceable requirements limiting VOC emissions to less than 6 tpy and the documentation to support the actual emission levels is maintained, then the storage vessel affected facility definition does not apply. 

In their proposed reconsideration, U.S. EPA also noted that industry’s concern about having sufficient control equipment available to limit VOC emissions from more than 20,000 affected storage vessels was legitimate.  As a result, U.S. EPA is proposing a couple of concessions.  First, U.S. EPA is proposing two categories of storage vessels where both of these regulated storage vessels have 6 tpy of VOC emissions.  Group 1 sources are those sources constructed, modified, or reconstructed between August 23, 2011 and the Federal Register publication date of the proposed reconsideration.  These Group 1 sources will be able to avoid the requirement to install emission control equipment as long as their emissions do not increase from levels present on the Federal Register publication date.  If a Group 1 source does increase its emissions for any reason, then it will become subject to the Group 2 requirement to install a control device.  A Group 2 source is one that was constructed/reconstructed/modified after the Federal Register publication date of the proposed reconsideration.  A Group 2 source must control its VOC emissions by 95% by April 15, 2014 or 60 days after start-up whichever is later (during the 60 day period sources must quantify emissions in the first 30 days and then control emissions within the next 30 days).  Only Group 2 sources must calculate their emission on a monthly basis; however, it would be a good idea for Group 1 sources to determine their emissions monthly so that there is documentation that the Group 1 storage vessel is not experiencing a VOC emission increase.  The only formal Group 1 requirement is to notify U.S. EPA of each storage vessel and its location by October 15^th, 2013. 

Once uncontrolled VOC emissions from a storage vessel drop to less than 4 tpy and stay below this threshold for 12 consecutive months, then emission control equipment can be removed.  However, if uncontrolled emission increase to 4 tpy or more, then the 95% control requirement is reactivated.  For storage vessels that are already equipped with 95% VOC emission control, U.S. EPA proposed streamlined compliance monitoring provisions that will be applicable until the reconsideration of issues concerning initial and continuous compliance provisions of the NSPS are completely vetted.

In addition to rule revisions directly affecting oil and natural gas operators, U.S. EPA proposed a test protocol for manufacturer testing of enclosed combustors that would be used to control storage vessel VOC emissions.  This manufacturer testing of the control device is in lieu of owners and operators conducting site testing of the control device.  Owners or operators could essentially purchase “certified” U.S. EPA combustion control devices that would be equipped with a thermocouple and a recording device and thereby eliminate the need for on-site emission testing.  Finally, U.S. EPA allocated 60 more days (from 30 days to 90 days) for affected facilities to submit the annual report and compliance certification.

In conclusion, it would be an easy bet that if Jed and J.R. were still alive they would be investing in companies associated with the VOC controls on the storage vessels and companies involved with keeping oil and natural gas companies in compliance.  Should you need the services of the latter and need recommendations for the former, we invite you to contact Dan Holland or Roy Rakiewicz.

Compliance Certification Requirements for State and Federal Operating Permits

On March 29, 2013, U.S. EPA proposed to amend the compliance certification requirements for state and federal operating permits programs that were published in the Federal Register on June 27, 2003.  Specifically, U.S. EPA proposes to restore a sentence that was inadvertently removed from the operating permit program rules found in 40 CFR Parts 70 (State Operating Permit Programs) and 71 (Federal Operating Permit Programs) due to what U.S. EPA characterizes as an editing error.  U.S. EPA proposes to restore the sentence to its original location at the end of paragraphs located at 40 CFR 70.6(c)(5)(iii)(B) and 40 CFR 71.6(c)(5)(iii)(B).  Once restored, the sentence will appear as follows: “If necessary, the owner or operator also shall identify any other material information that must be included in the certification to comply with section 113(c)(2) of the [Clean Air Act], which prohibits knowingly making a false certification or omitting material information.” 

The restoration of the sentence plays a part in the larger context of U.S. EPA’s 1997 Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) and Credible Evidence rules, which pertain to how data is treated with regards to compliance certifications.  The CAM rule requires U.S. EPA to promulgate regulations pertaining to the enhanced monitoring and compliance certification of 40 CFR Parts 70 and 71 sources.  Acting in conjunction with the CAM rule, the Credible Evidence rule mandates that non-reference test data may be used in enforcement actions pertaining to compliance certifications under section 114 and Title V of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

Therefore, with respect to both the CAM and Credible Evidence rules, the U.S. EPA proposes that the omission of the sentence from the Part 70 and 71 rules, as it relates to the final CAM Monitoring Rule, was inadvertent, and the restoration of the sentence would add clarity to the use of CAM monitoring data as a required element of meeting the annual compliance certification requirements of both the state and federal operating permit rules.  More specifically, the sentence would clarify that material information (i.e., compliance information beyond required monitoring) known by the owner or operator must be identified and addressed in compliance certifications consistent with section 113(c)(2) of CAA.

The U. S. EPA is requesting comments only on whether the language in question should or should not be restored on the sole basis that the removal of the language in question was inadvertent.  However, the EPA is not requesting comments on any other aspects of these provisions or on any other provisions of the part 70 and 71 rules.  Comments will be accepted until May 28, 2013, and if requested prior to April 19, 2013, a public hearing will be held.