And the Changes Keep Coming for Pulp and Paper Mills…Proposed Subpart BBa is Out!

Just when we thought Pulp and Paper Mills could take a regulatory breather, another very important rule comes out in the proposal stage.  We have heard rumblings of a review of New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) Subpart BB since the pulp and paper Information Collection Request (ICR).  Well, it’s out now in pre-publication form.  Kraft mills may be wondering what has triggered these proposed amendments.  The answer is a combination of it being time to complete the eight (8) year review that is required by the Clean Air Act (CAA), and a lawsuit requiring U.S. EPA to complete the review.  I know you are asking yourself “Will we be affected and if so, how?” The short answer is that if you are an existing source, you will not be affected immediately.  The proposed amendments would be a new rule, 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart BBa, which would apply to new, reconstructed, or modified sources after the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register. 

The proposed new Subpart BBa would still only affect the following sources at Kraft pulp mills:

• Digester system
• Brownstock washer system
• Multiple-effect evaporator system
• Recovery furnace
• Smelt dissolving tank
• Lime kiln; and
• Condensate stripper system

No additional Kraft mill sources have been brought into the proposed rule.  The proposed rule focuses on particulate matter (PM) and total reduced sulfur (TRS).  However, U.S. EPA wants to better understand the atmospheric chemistry between nitrogen oxides (NO_X), sulfur dioxide (SO₂), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM_2.5).  Therefore, Subpart BBa proposes requiring condensable PM (CPM) stack testing, using Method 202, to develop data needed to aid in understanding of the chemistry of CPM formation even though there is no proposed limit.  The proposed PM limit is still in terms of filterable PM (FPM) demonstrated by Method 5 testing. 

The proposed limits are:

• FPM limit of 0.015 grains per dry standard cubic feet (gr/dscf) for new and reconstructed recovery furnaces, which is consistent with 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart MM.  Modified recovery furnaces would maintain the current limit of 0.044 gr/dscf.
• Opacity limit for recovery furnaces would be 20% for new, constructed, and modified sources.  U.S. EPA is also proposing to reduce the monitoring allowance from 6% to 2% of the six (6)-minute opacity averages.
• TRS limit for recovery furnaces would remain the same (5 parts per million dry volume, ppmdv, for straight and 25 ppmdv for cross).  A 1% monitoring allowance for TRS emissions to 30 ppmdv or less is proposed. 
• PM limit of 0.12 pounds per ton black liquor solids (lb/ton BLS) for new and reconstructed smelt dissolving tanks that are associated with new or reconstructed recovery furnaces.  Modified, new, or reconstructed smelt dissolving tanks not associated with a new or reconstructed recovery furnace would maintain the current limit of 0.2 lb/ton BLS.
• TRS limit of 0.033 lb/ton BLS for smelt dissolving tanks would remain the same under the proposed rule.
• PM limit of 0.064 gr/dscf (for all fuels fired) for modified lime kilns, which is consistent with 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart MM.  New or reconstructed lime kilns would be subject to a PM limit of 0.010 gr/dscf, which is also consistent with 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart MM.
• TRS limit for lime kilns would remain the same (8 ppmdv).  A 1% monitoring allowance for TRS emissions to 22 ppmdv is proposed. 
• Opacity limit of 20% (consistent with 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart MM) for lime kilns with an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) with a 1% monitoring allowance.
• TRS limit for digester systems, brownstock washer systems, evaporator systems, and condensate stripper systems remain the same as Subpart BB.

U.S. EPA is continuing the trend of removing startup, shutdown, and malfunction exclusions and requiring repeat air emissions testing.  The proposed emission limits would apply at all times (i.e. no separate limits for startup and shutdown periods).  The proposed rule would include the affirmative defense provisions for periods of malfunctions.  The proposed rule would require initial and repeat testing for PM (filterable and condensable) and TRS.  The repeat testing would be required every five (5) years.  The proposed rule would also require specific monitoring for control devices, such as ESPs and wet scrubbers.  As seen in recent rulemakings, U.S. EPA is requiring performance test data be submitted through the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) in the proposed Subpart BBa.

As previously mentioned, the excess emissions during a quarter in the proposed rule would be:

• A 1% allowance for TRS emissions from recovery furnaces, provided that the TRS concentration doesn’t exceed 30 ppm corrected to 8% oxygen.
• A 2% allowance for average opacities from recovery furnaces.
• A 1% allowance for TRS emissions from lime kilns, provided that TRS concentrations doesn’t exceed 22 ppm corrected to 10% oxygen.
• A 1% allowance for average opacities from lime kilns.

Another difference from Subpart BB is the provision to consider TRS concentration uncorrected when determining compliance with excess emissions during periods of startup or shutdown when stack oxygen approaches ambient conditions.  If the measured TRS concentration uncorrected is less than the emission limit (i.e. 5 ppm for recovery furnaces and 8 ppm for lime kilns) during periods of startup or shutdown when the stack oxygen is 15% or greater, then the TRS average would be deemed in compliance.

When planning to construct, reconstruct or modify one of the affected sources at your Kraft mill, you will now add another layer of regulatory review with the need to consider the proposed Subpart BBa requirements.  So, go ahead get your thoughts together so you can provide comments because the new rule will be published any day triggering the 45-day comment period.  Put pen to paper (or in this electronic age, keyboard to computer) and let your thoughts be known to U.S. EPA! 

It’s Time to Submit Your Major Source Boiler MACT Initial Notification

UPDATED (05/20/13): Contrary to previous information, U.S. EPA has now published an initial notification template for major sources, which can be found here.

Back on January 31, 2013, when the final Major Source Boiler MACT rule was published in the Federal Register, the deadline for submitting initial notifications for existing affected sources (i.e., within 120 days of publication) may have felt like months away (well…because it was).  But now, whether you know exactly how your boilers and process heaters are going to comply with the Major Source Boiler MACT, or whether you’re still becoming familiar with the rule, the requirement is the same: submit your initial notifications no later than 120 days after January 31, 2013 (i.e., by May 31, 2013).

What if I submitted an initial notification for the March 2011 version of the rule?  Or even the September 2004 version of the rule?

U.S. EPA has stated in a Q&A document that facilities need not resubmit their initial notifications for the January 2013 final rule “as a result of the amended deadlines” to the March 2011 final rule.  Similarly, facilities need not resubmit their initial notifications if they submitted their initial notifications for an earlier version of the rule (for example, by March 12, 2005 for the September 2004 version of the rule) so long as “nothing substantive has changed in the information already submitted.”

What do I need to include in my initial notification?

Pursuant to 40 CFR §63.9(b)(2), initial notifications must include the following information:

• “The name and address of the owner or operator;
• The address (i.e., physical location) of the affected source;
• An identification of the relevant standard, or other requirement, that is the basis of the notification and the source’s compliance date;
• A brief description of the nature, size, design, and method of operation of the source and an identification of the types of emission points within the affected source subject to the relevant standard and types of hazardous air pollutants emitted; and
• A statement of whether the affected source is a major source or an area source.”

While not required by the Boiler MACT rule or the Part 63 General Provisions, some states appear to be requesting additional information from facilities, either with their initial notifications or separately, such as how each source intends to comply with the rule.  Although facilities do need to be planning for the compliance date of January 31, 2016, the requests from some states for compliance methods may prove problematic for facilities that have not yet finalized their compliance strategies.

Is there a template for the initial notification form available?

Yes and no – U.S. EPA has provided an initial notification template for area sources, but has indicated that a template for major sources will not be provided.  Instead, facilities should edit the area source template to use for the major source notification.

Who do I need to submit the initial notification to?

Initial notifications must be submitted to your U.S. EPA Regional Office, as well as your state agency if they have been delegated authority by U.S. EPA to implement the rule.

What if my facility is an area source of HAP?

If your facility emits less than 10 tons per year of a single HAP, and less than 25 tons per year of total HAPs, your facility is an area source rather than a major source.  Boilers (but not process heaters) at area sources are potentially subject to the Area Source Boiler MACT rather than the Major Source Boiler MACT.  Area sources have some more time to submit their initial notifications, which are due by January 20, 2014, but less time to achieve compliance, which must occur by March 21, 2014.

Want to learn more about the Major Source Boiler MACT?  Attend our webinar on May 22, and contact me with any questions.

Lawsuit Challenges U.S. EPA Refinery Emission Factors

A group of environmental organizations has filed suit against U.S. EPA for failing to review and update volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions factors from refining operations. The federal district court suit, Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. EPA, alleges that the emission factors published in U.S. EPA’s Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (commonly known as “AP-42”) and the Locating and Estimating Air Toxics Emissions (“L&E”) report series underestimate VOC emissions from flares, tanks, and wastewater treatment systems at refineries and petrochemical plants, potentially subjecting surrounding areas to levels of pollution that may exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires U.S. EPA to revisit emission factors every three years; however, the environmental coalition alleges that they last did so more than 20 years ago for flares and wastewater systems, and in 2006 for storage tanks. The suit claims that recent test data at BP, Shell, and Marathon refineries clocked in at 10 to 100 times higher than the emissions factors in question.

Existing air rules and permits using these emissions factors would be affected if the lawsuit is successful. For example, refineries would not be able to use these factors to demonstrate compliance with the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for oil and gas storage tanks (at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOOO) by the October 15, 2013 compliance date. Refineries may want to examine their current permits and reporting practices to determine if these emission factors are used and identify alternative emission factors, including potentially developing site specific emission factors. Stay tuned to ALL4’s blog for further updates.

A Reminder on How to Derate Your Boiler

In a recent determination publicized in the Federal Register, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) further clarified its policy on derating a boiler. Facilities may consider derating their boilers for several reasons, most often to avoid a potential permitting requirement or an applicable regulation such as New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). In this particular case [Control Number 1200051 in U.S. EPA’s Applicability Determination Index], U.S. EPA approved a facility’s derate method, which consisted of replacing the existing burners of its boilers with new lower-rated burners to reduce the heat input capacity below the applicability threshold of 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Dc (Standards of Performance for Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units). This determination is very timely given the suite of compliance strategies that facilities are considering for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for both major and area source boilers (commonly referred to as the Boiler MACT rules).

U.S. EPA approved the facility’s proposed derate method because it “consists of a permanent physical change which prevents the boiler from operating at a capacity greater than the derated value.” U.S. EPA further explained that to approve a proposed derate method, the physical change “cannot be easily undone, and a system shutdown must be required to make the change or to reverse it.” As an example of an unacceptable derate method, U.S. EPA commented in its determination that changes made only to fuel feed systems are not acceptable to derate a boiler. An example of a change to the fuel feed system (and, therefore, not an acceptable method to derate a boiler) would be the installation of a flow restricting orifice to limit the quantity of fuel delivered to the burner. Likewise, a “paper” restriction (i.e., a federally enforceable permit condition) to limit the quantity of fuel delivered to a boiler is not considered a permanent physical change to derate a boiler, either. This position on permit limits as an unacceptable means to derate a boiler has been reiterated by U.S. EPA as part of its questions and answers document related to the major and area source Boiler MACT rules, in which U.S. EPA clearly states that the applicability of the NESHAPs [for example, as it applies to a boiler being categorized as a large (greater than or equal to 10 MMBtu/hr heat input) or small (less than 10 MMBtu/hr heat input) unit] is based on the design heat input capacity of the boiler – a permit limit is not considered an acceptable method to derate your boiler and to avoid classification as a large unit.

It is important for facilities to recognize that the boiler derating “process” described in this most recent U.S. EPA determination is not one size fits all. U.S. EPA has a long history of boiler derate determinations and in this specific example, it reemphasizes that it is a case-by-case determination process. For example, if you enter “derate” in the Word Search field and select “NSPS” as the Category in the Applicability Determination Index query system, it will return 45 records of determinations dating back to 1977. Most often, the derate process begins with contacting your state or local permitting authority with the details of your situation. When necessary, the state or local agency will forward your request the appropriate U.S. EPA Regional Office for assistance in the determination process. 

Check Your Emissions Inventory To Make Sure It Is “Unleaded”

Just like the gradual phase-out of leaded gasoline from the 1970s-1995, there has been a phase-out of lead (Pb) emissions from stationary sources during that time period as well.  But the proper quantification and documentation of Pb emissions from your facility may be as important now as it has ever been.  Why?  Because there is a requirement in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D, Paragraph 4.5(a) that establishes the criteria for siting source-oriented Pb ambient monitors for stationary sources that emit 0.5 or more tons per year of Pb based on either: (1) the most recent National Emission Inventory (NEI), or (2) other scientifically justifiable methods and data (such as improved emissions factors or site-specific data).

When the current Pb national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) was published in November 2008 (73 FR 67062), the non-airport Pb source monitoring threshold was set at 1.0 or more tons per year.  However, the National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) and other non-government organizations (NGOs) submitted a petition for U.S. EPA to reconsider this and U.S. EPA granted the reconsideration, resulting in an amendment published in December 2010 (75 FR 81137) that lowered the monitoring threshold to 0.5 tons or more per year for non-airport stationary sources.

So what should you do to make sure that you don’t receive a surprise request from your state or local regulatory agency asking you to install a Pb monitoring system? Do what the gasoline manufacturers did and make sure that your inventory is “unleaded”!

1. If you have emission units that emit Pb, take a close look at the facility-wide total emissions.  If you are close to the 0.5 tons/year threshold, review the emission factors that you use to develop the annual emission inventory and make sure that the data is the best and most current data that reflects existing operations.
2. Think about developing new data for Pb emissions.  Have you changed the way your process operates?  Have you installed a new air pollution control system?  Have you changed the filters that you use?  Are the Pb emission factors that you rely on more than 10 years old?  If you can answer yes to any of these questions, it may be time to develop some new data or review other available data.
3. “Own” your NEI.  The NEI for your facility is available for everyone to see and is being used in ways that you probably didn’t think of – so recognize this and act accordingly.  Take the time and spend the resources to update your facility’s NEI to reflect the best and most current data for your facility.

ALL4 routinely supports our clients with emission factor selection, inventory development, and NEI review/updates.  Contact Neal Lebo (610.933.5246 x113, nlebo@all4inc.com) or me (610.933.5246 x112, wstraub@all4inc.com) for any Pb monitoring or emission inventory questions.

ALL4’s Employee Spotlight: Adrian Ciacci

Each quarter ALL4 will interview one of its employees highlighting some of their careers and thoughts about ALL4.  This quarter’s employee spotlight is on Staff Scientist Adrian Ciacci.

What one piece of advice would you give to college students looking for a position in the consulting business?

Express to potential employers that you are capable to taking on more than one task at a time with specific examples.  Working in the consulting world often means operating at the threshold of comfort.  Practice juggling not only multiple work or academic tasks but also your personal life.

What are your roles at ALL4?

My primary role at ALL4 is a staff scientist.  I work on a variety of projects for clients mostly in support of our project managers.  I am involved with a number of ancillary roles within the company.   I write entries for and serve as an editor for EnviroReview.  I am a part of the 4 Rules Initiative team which monitors the advancement of the Major and Area Source Boiler MACT, Commercial/Industrial Solid Waste Incineration, and Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials rules.  As an initiative team, we educate ALL4 staff and our clients on the these four rules.  Finally, I write press releases for major events and general happenings at ALL4.

What do you like best about your career?

I like the variety and pace of my career.  I work on very few projects which are exactly as the other.  Additionally, things happen very quickly in the environmental consulting world.  While there are cyclical, busy times during the year, I have yet to run into a period of time in which I did not have something on my plate.  There is always something to do or something to learn.

Keeping it real, what do you not like about your career here?

I have not won a beer club yet.  I want to win a beer club. 

What was your biggest challenge in your first year?

My biggest challenge in my first year was getting used to being on the client’s schedule.  This can go a couple of ways, but in general, it is difficult accepting that sometimes you need to get a deliverable done with minimal input or even information from your client.

What was your biggest surprise since joining ALL4?

My biggest surprise has definitely been being able to go on a run during lunch.  I never envisioned being able to take a step away from work for an hour and enjoy the outdoors.

Why did you decide to join ALL4?

I decided to join ALL4 because of the diversity of work they offer and their commitment to making their employees feel appreciated.  It goes beyond making us feel appreciated though.  ALL4 genuinely cares about who works for them and wants to give them every opportunity to succeed.

Which ALL4 employee is most likely to make you laugh?

Most everyone has a sense of humor at ALL4, but if I had to choose one person it would probably be J.P.  (ask him about his interest in bushes).

Give me an example of an event, system, or person that best represents the ALL4 culture, and why.

ALL4’s dedication to feedback and specifically quarterly reviews best represent the culture at the company.  They want you to know how you are doing and how they can help you get to where you want to be as much as possible.

What are you most looking forward to about the warm summer months?

I am looking forward to opening the windows in the basement; it’s getting a little funky down there and I don’t mean George Clinton.

As a member of the Tech Staff that likes to keep it classy (with respect to your wardrobe), where do you get your fashion sense from?

Bill Nye. 

Aside from yourself, who do you think is the best dresser at ALL4?

I’ve got to go with Ben.  My man is always looking fresh.

Texan Environmentalists Seek Answers on Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction, and Maintenance Events

On April 23, 2013, ten environmental and public interest groups addressed a letter to U.S. EPA’s Inspector General (IG), Arthur Elkins, regarding emissions released from industrial facilities in Texas during startup, shutdown, malfunction, and maintenance events (SSM).  The letter requests a formal IG investigation into what enforcement actions U.S. EPA and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) have taken with respect to facilities reporting the largest and most frequent events, and how affirmative defense has been applied in such cases.

The letter asks Inspector Elkins to investigate several areas of concern regarding these upset emissions:

• What enforcement investigations or actions has U.S. EPA or TCEQ taken to require these facilities to investigate, identify, and remedy the conditions that cause repeated upsets? If those cases did not result in penalties, did U.S. EPA determine that defendants established their eligibility for the affirmative defense?
• Has either U.S. EPA or TCEQ taken enforcement action requiring any of these facilities to take specific actions to prevent these violations from recurring, e.g., by requiring improved emission controls or operating practices? If so, have these requirements proven to be effective?
• Has either U.S. EPA or TCEQ determined that a reported emission event is “part of a recurring pattern indicating improper design or maintenance?” How many emission events does it take to make such a determination?
• TCEQ has established plant-wide emission caps for many facilities. Is pollution released during emission events counted towards determining whether a facility has exceeded its plant-wide cap?
• The affirmative defense does not apply to emissions during scheduled maintenance, or the scheduled startup or shutdown of a unit.  Does TCEQ consider shutdowns or maintenance activities that follow malfunctions to be “scheduled” events?
• Are emissions during emission events promptly and accurately reported as required?
• Many of the facilities reporting chronic emission events fall within the natural gas sector. Do U.S. EPA managers and staff believe that the natural gas industry is “off-limits” to enforcement, and, if so, are those beliefs well founded?

U.S. EPA currently recognizes an affirmative defense to excuse facilities from penalties if they are able to prove that their emissions were unavoidable, minimized, and not recurring.  However, U.S. EPA expects a very high standard of demonstration that such emissions should be excused including a near zero tolerance for the same root cause of the excess emissions.  According to both Table A and Table B provided in the letter from the environmental and public interest groups to IG Elkins, facilities in Texas have released over 21,000 tons of criteria pollutants into the atmosphere during periods of SSM in 2012, and nearly 120,000 tons of criteria pollutants from 2009 through 2012, with over one-third of these pollutants being released by the facilities which report multiple SSM events annually.  The tables also indicate that over 2,000 tons of HAP emissions have been released to the atmosphere during periods of SSM from 2009 through 2012.  The environmental and public interest groups seek to eliminate any Clean Air Act enforcement exemptions for upset emissions during periods of SSM, including the affirmative defense exemption, stating that the SSM exemptions are overly broad and lack penalties which would cause facilities to take specific actions to prevent future violations.

A response to the letter has yet to be issued from the IG.   Stay tuned to ALL4’s blog for more information on this topic as it becomes available.