Where Did These New Quality Assurance Requirements For Opacity Monitors Come From?

UPDATED (05/16/14): Welcome back to one of ALL4’s longest running blog posts.  U.S. EPA promulgated the long awaited ‘‘Quality Assurance Requirements for Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources’’ used to demonstrate continuous compliance with opacity standards specified in new source performance standards (NSPS).  This has an effective date of November 12, 2014 and is codified at 40 CFR 60 Appendix F, Procedure 3 (P3).  U.S. EPA “believes that most, if not all, owners/operators are already following procedures similar to those specified in Procedure 3.  Therefore, there are no additional costs, or reporting burden, associated with implementing Procedure 3.”  Procedure 3 establishes requirements for daily instrument zero and upscale drift checks, daily status indicator checks, quarterly performance audits, and annual zero alignments, and requires source owners and operators to have a corrective action in place for malfunctioning COMS. 

Okay…You most likely complete the daily assessments already, many of you are probably doing the quarterly calibration error tests, but how many of you are doing the annual zero alignments?  Zero alignments require the removal of the COMS from the stack to evaluate their operation under clear path conditions. How much fun does that sound?  Procedure 3 is real and in effect soon.  Update your QA/QC plans, coordinate the purchase of any additional attenuators or other equipment and get your instrumentation folks trained on requirements of P3.

UPDATED (03/28/12): As of March 28, 2012, U.S. EPA has withdrawn the direct final rule titled, ‘‘Quality Assurance Requirements for Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources’’ that was published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2012.  A copy of the notice of the withdraw can be found here.

UPDATED (03/08/12): U.S. EPA has extended the comment period for the direct final rule titled, ‘‘Quality Assurance Requirements for Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources,’’ that were published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2012. The original comment period is scheduled to end on March 15, 2012. The extended comment period will close on April 30, 2012. The comment period is extended because of a request received in a timely manner.  A copy of the notice of the extension can be found here.

(02/15/12): Have you noticed the recent sports-related events that have had us all wondering “where is this coming from?” We’re sure you recall the success of Tim Tebow in Denver, the N.Y. Giants winning the Super Bowl, and now “Lin-sanity” taking over the N.Y. Knicks.  Not to be left out of the spotlight, U.S. EPA proposed quality assurance requirements for continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS) at stationary sources on Valentine’s Day 2012.  Where did that come from?  After being initially proposed on May 8, 2003, believe it or not U.S. EPA decided to take direct final action almost 10 years later to establish quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures for COMS used to demonstrate continuous compliance with opacity standards in federally enforceable regulations.  This rule will become effective on April 16, 2012, unless U.S. EPA receives adverse comments by March 15, 2012.  Consistent with the sports theme, odds are that they certainly will receive adverse comments because many of the same comments submitted in 2003 were not adequately addressed in the February 14, 2012 direct final rule. 

Less than two months is not sufficient time to obtain the equipment needed to conduct the QA/QC activities, develop a QA/QC Plan, train instrument technicians, etc.  A logical question at this point is “What the heck do I do now?” The short answer is to figure out how these requirements will impact your operations, determine what resources will be needed, and it wouldn’t hurt to throw a couple adverse comments to U.S. EPA regarding applicability, implementation, timing, etc.  For those of you that may be subject to QA/QC activities for COMS required by state programs, it is likely that the requirements are not the same and that additional actions will be required to meet both state and Federal requirements.  For more information about the new COMS QA/QC requirements, click here.

Boiler MACT Remand Request Granted!

On February 28, 2014, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) requested a remand without vacatur of the set of rules commonly referred to as the Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rules. U.S. EPA has also requested a remand of the Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) rules. On May 15, 2014 the remand request was granted to U.S. EPA by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for both the Boiler MACT and CISWI rules.

So, what does this mean? It means that U.S. EPA has been granted 60 days to provide further explanation to the court on the use of the upper prediction limit (UPL) statistical method to set the emission standards for certain subcategories.  Refer to our previous posting for details on the UPL statistical method and affected categories. This remand only affects those categories where provisions were set using nine (9) or fewer data points.

The court has set a briefing schedule that begins on August 12, 2014 for industry and environmental plaintiffs to file briefs over the major source rule, continuing throughout the year with a final briefing deadline of January 21, 2015. The area source rule was also granted a remand with a briefing schedule beginning August 26, 2014 and ending February 4, 2015. 

The CISWI rules were also affected.  A 60-day remand was granted for more justification for the UPL used in setting the incinerator emissions standards.  The CISWI briefing schedule starts with September 18, 2014 and ends March 3, 2015.

Could this change the compliance schedule for the upcoming major source Boiler MACT rule? Possibly. However, remember that this is a remand without vacatur of the standards.  This remand only affects those categories that were set using the UPL approach.  If your boiler doesn’t fall into one of the categories, then you will want to continue with your Boiler MACT compliance strategy because the January 31, 2016 deadline for major sources will be here before you know it. If your boiler does fall into one of the UPL categories, you may want to take a temporary pause to see how this plays out. Remember though, should there be no change to the standards or the compliance schedule, time not spent on your compliance strategy could be time lost forever.

Countdown to Ozone NAAQS

On April 29, 2014 Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in favor of the Sierra Club’s request to force U.S. EPA to propose revisions to its ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) by December 2014 and issue a final rule by October 1, 2015.  U.S. EPA had requested the six week extension to allow for additional time to create a secondary ozone standard.  The April 29^th ruling states that U.S. EPA must stay on schedule in proposing primary and secondary ozone standards.  U.S. EPA last reviewed the ozone standard in 2008, decreasing the standard to 75 parts per billion (ppb).  

Many believe that the new NAAQS will be within the 60 to 70 ppb range based on previous recommendations from the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and recent U.S. EPA agency staff policy reviews.  Those opposing the standard falling within the more stringent range believe that the cost associated with meeting the standard may be insurmountable given the current background ozone concentrations being measured by ambient monitors, many of which fall within the proposed ozone NAAQS range.  The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), a vocal opponent of lowering the ozone NAAQS, researched the impacts of tightening the standard.  The NAM ozone regulation website illustrates regions of the United States, whose manufacturing growth would be hampered by more stringent ozone limits.  Industries looking to expand in these areas would be faced with more burdensome permitting requirements associated with permitting in NAAQS nonattainment areas, and the potential of installing costly add-on controls. 

Please note that the U.S. EPA’s most recent scientific reviews of the of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) and nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) resulted in short-term NAAQS (i.e., 1-hour) that can limit the ability of industry to expand and to implement projects that promote growth and that are environmentally sound.  ALL4 therefore encourages the preparation and submittal of comments to U.S. EPA objecting to further tightening of the ozone NAAQS. Because the proposed ozone NAAQS will have a similar impact and is not likely to be reversed, it will be critical for U.S. EPA to receive thorough science-based comments in objection to the proposed standard.

NJDEP Announces a New General Permit for Diesel Fired Emergency Engines

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has announced a new general permit (GP-005A) for “emergency generators burning distillate fuels.” This general permit replaces the current general permit (GP-005) for emergency generators. Emergency generators currently registered under GP-005 can continue to operate until the expiration date of GP-005; registration under GP-005A is required prior to the expiration of GP-005, or the facility can apply for a source-specific permit and certificate to operate. Likewise, the same conditions and actions are required if the emergency generator registered under GP-005 is replaced or modified prior to the expiration date under GP-005.

GP-005A applies to a single emergency generator burning distillate fuels with a maximum rated heat input capacity of less than 100 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) or multiple emergency generators burning distillate fuels with a combined maximum rated heat input capacity of less than 100 MMBtu/hr. A facility may have only one (1) GP-005A at a given time. If a facility needs to make a change to a source that has been registered under GP-005A, a new general permit registration is required. The conditions in the compliance plan for GP-005A are very similar to those requirements contained in Federal regulations related to distillate oil-fired internal combustion engines [40 CFR Part 60, Subpart IIII (Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines), and 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines)].

Some of the notable applicability criteria and compliance requirements under GP-005A are described below.

• The definition of “emergency generator” includes fire pumps.
• “Emergency” means any situation that arises from sudden and reasonably unforeseeable events beyond the control of an owner or operator of a facility, such as an unforeseen system capacity shortage caused by an act of God, that requires immediate corrective action to prevent system collapse or to restore normal operations at the facility.
• “Distillate fuels” means No. 2 fuel oil, diesel fuel, and kerosene. No. 2 fuel oil and diesel can be blended with up to 5% by volume biodiesel fuel. GP-005A does not apply to emergency engines using other fuels or combined heat and power system generators.
• Annual hours of normal testing and maintenance under GP-005A cannot exceed 100 hours per year. Monitoring of operating hours by a non-resettable totalizing hour meter is required.
• All model year 2007 and later emergency generators must be certified to the emission standards in Subpart IIII. This requirement also applies to fire pumps during or after a model year listed in Table 3 to Subpart IIII.
• Fuel purchased after obtaining GP-005A cannot exceed 15 ppm by weight (0.0015%) sulfur. Existing distillate fuel contained in the fuel oil storage tank before obtaining GP-005A can be used until it is depleted.
• Engines with a displacement of less than 30 liters per cylinder subject to Subpart IIII that use diesel fuel must use diesel fuel that meets the following requirements of 40 §CFR 80.510(b) (per gallon):
  • 15 ppm (0.0015%) maximum sulfur content and either
  • A minimum cetane index of 40 or
  • A maximum aromatic content of 35 volume percent

Existing diesel fuel purchased (or otherwise obtained) prior to October 1, 2010, may be used until depleted.

• GP-005A contains work practice standards such as oil and filter changes; air cleaner inspections; and hose and belt inspections similar to Subpart ZZZZ.
• GP-005A does not apply to:
  • Engines subject to Subpart IIII that are required to be stack tested.
  • An emergency generator covered by a contract to operate during emergency demand response periods, peak shaving, or any other similar financial agreement.
  • An emergency generator that makes the facility a major source for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)
  • An emergency generator with a displacement greater than 30 liters per cylinder.

A copy of GP-005A and the on-line application can be accessed at: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/aqpp/gp1list.htm.

ALL4 Discusses RACT 2 in PA Chamber’s Catalyst

All4 Inc.’s (ALL4) Roy Rakiewicz recently penned an article in the Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce’s quarterly publication, Catalyst.  In the Spring 2014 edition, Roy discussed the recently proposed RACT 2 regulation.  The RACT 2 regulations will impact all major nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compound (VOC) facilities in Pennsylvania and many of those impacts could be significant. ALL4 recommends that potentially affected facilities review and understand how the rule, as proposed, could impact their operations. Based on that review, facilities should plan on preparing comments in response to the proposal for submittal during the public comment period which ends June 30 and begin to strategically think about compliance strategies for a final RACT 2 rule by the end of 2014.  For more information on RACT 2 and how it will impact your facility, visit ALL4’s RACT 2 Toolbox.  The toolbox includes ALL4’s RACT 2 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs): 20+ questions and answers that ALL4 Sr. Consultants compiled.  Additionally, the toolbox also includes the proposed rule, as well as recent RACT 2 blog posts.  For more information on RACT 2, feel free to reach out to Roy Rakiewicz or your ALL4 Project Manager.

CSAPR’s Triumphant Return

On April 29, 2014 the Supreme Court issued a ruling in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. that has reinstated U.S. EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR).  This is the latest reversal that essentially overturns the August 2012 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacatur ruling, which took CSAPR off the books, finding that U.S. EPA exceeded its authority in how it imposed the program.  CSAPR is a multi-state, cap-and-trade program intended to cut emissions that contribute to ozone and fine particle pollution in other states.   It is a program that will affect 28 states and is designed to curtail sulfur dioxide (SO₂) and nitrogen oxides (NO_x) emissions from “upwind” states that impact the ability of “downwind” states to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).  CSAPR is targeting emission reductions specifically to comply with three NAAQS: (1) 1997 Ozone, (2) 1997 Annual PM_2.5, and (3) 2006 24-hour PM_2.5.  NO_x emissions can react in the atmosphere and are regulated to comply with the ozone NAAQS.  Both NO_x and SO₂ are precursors to the formation of PM_2.5 and are regulated to comply with PM_2.5 NAAQS.  CSAPR was proposed as U.S. EPA’s replacement to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).

CAIR experienced its own regulatory legal hurdles which are summarized below in reverse chronological order.  On December 23, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed its earlier (July 11, 2008) decision to vacate CAIR.  The Federal court decided, after considering comments from the appellants to the rule, to allow CAIR to remain in effect while U.S. EPA “fixes” the rule. In the July 11, 2008 decision, the Court had identified where the rule was not consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA).  In its order for a rehearing the Court stated: “Here, we are convinced that, notwithstanding the relative flaws of CAIR, allowing CAIR to remain in effect until it is replaced by a rule consistent with our opinion would at least temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR.”     

At the heart of the April 29, 2014 CSAPR ruling are the “good neighbor” provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA).  In this case, U.S. EPA appealed EME Homer City Generation, L.P. to the Supreme Court.  At question in the case was that the approach U.S. EPA used to assess each regulated states’ obligations to curb interstate air pollution and how to address a “good neighbor” provision of the air law that requires states to preserve other states’ attainment of air quality standards.  U.S. EPA imposed Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) on states after it quantified the interstate pollution contributions of each state (addressing the “good neighbor” provisions).  This approach was challenged by the argument that U.S. EPA had overstepped its legal authority in imposing FIPs on states to implement the rule after quantifying interstate pollution contributions of each state, rather than allowing states to submit compliance plans to U.S. EPA. 

As the history writes itself, cross-state air pollution is a complex problem that presents both legal and regulatory challenges.  This ruling simply supports the presumption that U.S. EPA had the authority to implement the CSAPR.  Although this ruling is a giant step towards implementing a cross-state air pollution rule, there are significant technical challenges ahead.  For example, due to time that has elapsed (between court rulings), the underlying basis for creating and allocating the NO_x and SO₂ budgets to each of the states will likely need to be revisited.  CSAPR also contains implementation dates and budget allocations for dates which have long passed.  At the same time, there is pressure on lowering the existing NAAQS that CSAPR was originally based upon, potentially creating implementation considerations for states.  For example, the 1997 ozone standard of 80 parts per billion (ppb) versus the 2008 standard of 75 ppb.  From a state’s perspective, implementing a rule designed to cut emissions of ozone precursors considering older NAAQS may not be enough and have states looking for other reductions.  Both the 1997 and 2006 PM_2.5 NAAQS have already been considered by U.S. EPA.  At this point, there is not a specific inadequacy with respect to the PM_2.5 NAAQS analysis; however, if the rule is further challenged, additional consideration could be necessary.  While the exact future of CSAPR is uncertain, let’s hope that the next pair of flip flops that we see is on a sandy beach and not another court ruling.

EnviroReview – “A Change Is Gonna Come”

Bob Dylan said it best, and I’m referring to EnviroReview, of course.  Many of you know us by now, we believe in straight talk.  That’s just who we are and it’s apparent – internally with our team and also with our clients.  So in that spirit, I’ll explain why we are changing EnviroReview and how it’s happening.

When EnviroReview was created, like any other ALL4 project, our main focus was to solve our client’s problem.  The client’s challenge was that they couldn’t keep up with all of the changing environmental regulations.  So we provided the solution; a customized, multimedia regulatory report that we called EnviroReview.  Once we had developed this report, created by our dedicated team of consultants, we recognized that many other clients needed this same support.  So we decided to “Go Big” (well, except for the price).  In order to compete with those automated subscription services, we had to offer EnviroReview at a price that didn’t even cover our developmental costs.  Our reasoning was that we would eventually capitalize on internal efficiencies and develop enough clients in the same jurisdiction to realize a profit.  To explain where we are with realizing that profit, I’ll quote another well-known song, “Slow Boat to China” by Mike Ragogna.  Catch my drift? 

What we have realized through this journey, no pun intended, is that many of our EnviroReview clients need and value the strategic consulting that we have always offered and that is core to ALL4’s vision.  So we will continue to provide that multimedia regulatory support; it’s just not going to be packaged as a subscription service.  As with all of our projects, the multimedia regulatory support will be client-specific, managed and handled by one of our project managers, and the cost will be reflective of our effort.  We’ll continue to help our clients navigate through all of those ever-changing regulations and, most importantly, how those changes impact their facilities.

This shift from a subscription service to client-specific, regulatory support, further attests to our dedication to our clients.  Our focus has always been to understand our clients’ most challenging environmental needs, and to continue to provide strategic solutions.  So farewell to the subscription service formally called EnviroReview.  “It’s been a long time coming,” says Bob Dylan.  Right on Bob, right on.