The Role of Environmental Justice in Compliance Inspections

As the Knowledge Area Leader for air toxics (both the Clean Air Act hazardous air pollutants, and the broader set of air pollutants regulated under state and local agency programs) in ALL4’s RegTech Knowledge Center, my responsibilities include tracking, managing, and communicating (both internally and externally) regulatory and technical information to support client projects or other ALL4 needs. For the air toxics knowledge area, my realm is primarily associated with National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) and state air toxics programs. However, we have been increasingly involved in projects and prospective opportunities within another facet of air toxics – Environmental Justice (EJ). U.S. EPA defines EJ as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” In years past, my exposure to EJ concerned, for example, the proposed siting of a new facility in a given area, and why alternative locations were either not considered or were considered but eliminated for one (1) or more reasons, on the supposition that a particular area or community and its population were continually (and sometimes purposefully) targeted for industrial expansion.  In other words, some communities often shouldered an unfair burden of relative environmental risk compared to other communities solely due to their socio-economic conditions and the potential project under consideration could further exacerbate the disproportionate risk. 

While the former EJ activities were more planning and pre-construction related, more recent developments indicate that EJ is serving a more decidedly compliance and enforcement-related purpose [recall that air toxics are one (1) of U.S. EPA’s National Enforcement Initiatives]. Specifically, U.S. EPA is using EJ as a component of targeting and conducting air toxics inspections at facilities. U.S. EPA has a screening and mapping tool (EJSCREEN) that combines environmental and demographic data on the Census track or block group level. EJSCREEN contains 12 environmental indicators that are grouped into categories of potential risk, potential exposure, and proximity to pollution sources or environmental concerns. The environmental data may be incomplete or outdated for any one (1) given area; therefore, EJSCREEN is not intended or designed to conduct environmental risk assessment per se. However, despite its historical limitations, updates and enhancements to EJSCREEN will increase its effectiveness for identifying candidates for air toxics inspections.

What does this mean to the regulated community? Now is a good time for facilities to “google” themselves to review and update the publicly available emissions data and compliance information contained in various U.S. EPA and state databases and websites (ECHO, Envirofacts, National Emission Inventory, etc.). These data should be reviewed frequently (annually at a minimum) to avoid errors that could result in your facility becoming an air toxics target. In addition, your facility may have recently performed air dispersion modeling for criteria pollutants, but when was the last time you modeled your air toxics emissions? Unless you are in a state that has a specific air toxics modeling requirement as part of a permit application submittal, the answer to that question is likely never. Regardless, it may be prudent to consider a facility-wide air toxics emissions inventory and dispersion modeling evaluation to evaluate your facility’s impact (or lack thereof) on the surrounding community so that you can be prepared to answer questions from the agency and public, not if, but when they come.

 

What should you be asking your DAHS vendor with respect to the PC MACT?

Right about now you should be working with the vendor of your Data Acquisition and Handling System (DAHS) on providing a compliance solution for the Portland Cement MACT (PC MACT).  What type of questions should you be asking?  How can you ensure that you will get what you need?  Read below as ALL4 continues its series of blog posts concerning the PC MACT.  Hey, we all can’t wait for summer, but we may be anxious about the fall with the September 09, 2015 compliance deadline looming.

The single most important question that you should be asking your DAHS vendor is “What exactly do you need from me?”.  Not to under-value the effort associated with programming your DAHS for compliance with the PC MACT, but, if your DAHS vendor is expecting a “0” or “1” from you, the burden is now yours.  Your DAHS vendor may be expecting a digital status bit for periods when PC MACT regulated sources such as kilns, clinker coolers, raw mills, and slag dryers, are in specific operational states (i.e., “in startup”, “in normal operation”, “in shutdown”, or “not operating”).  Providing the DAHS vendor discrete operational status makes their job a lot easier and requires the plant to develop their own digital status bits.  Don’t get me wrong, I would rather see the plant in control of these definitions.  However, providing operational status requires the plant to interpret the regulatory requirements, develop (and document) the algorithms, and implement signal programming.  Ultimately, operational status impacts calculations that determine compliance averages, so the programming should be tested to verify its accuracy.  Make sure that you find out what your DAHS vendor needs now, so that you can minimize surprises and properly manage your limited resources. 

A DAHS continuously collects data in an automated manner.  Plants may need to simultaneously collect data outside of the DAHS necessary to demonstrate compliance with the PC MACT.  Another item that should be discussed with your DAHS vendor is the capability to input data collected outside of the DAHS.  How will your DAHS allow you to enter data made available today, for a time-frame that occurred in the past?  Two main examples are the use of mercury (Hg) sorbent tubes and clinker production.  Hg sorbent tubes will be collected for a period of time and sent to a laboratory for analysis, and the results will be available several weeks later.  The resulting Hg concentration must be entered into the DAHS for the time-fame during which the Hg sorbent tubes were collected and compliance will have to be recalculated based on the updated data.  In addition, the PC MACT allows for the reconciliation of clinker production based on inventory measurements.  Will your DAHS allow you to input a retroactive clinker production rate based on inventory measurements if you chose this compliance option?  This raises another consideration for plants opting to reconcile clinker production, are you providing a clinker production rate to the DAHS or a kiln feed and a feed-to-clinker ratio?  Is the DAHS vendor expecting that any kiln feed-to-clinker ratio be applied “outside the DAHS”?

We discussed the potential expectations that the DAHS vendor may have of you, but what expectation should you have of them?  Your DAHS vendor should provide you a document describing the data validation and data averaging processes that are being used.  How are they building a 30-day average? How many minutes are needed to establish a valid 180-minute rolling average after the raw mill operational status changes from off to on or vice-versa?  Are calculated averages corrected to 7% O2 on the minute or hourly basis? How many minutes in startup/shutdown are needed in an hour to designate that hour as startup/shutdown (remember that startup/shutdown hours are excluded from compliance averages)?  Why would you need to know this?  The DAHS vendor is part of your team to develop a compliance approach for the PC MACT.  There may be no right or wrong way to interpret the “grey areas” of data validation within the PC MACT.  The plant must understand the advantages and disadvantages to the data validation process when building compliance averages.  We recommend that the data handling be addressed in the site-specific monitoring plan required by the PC MACT.  Don’t worry we’ve got you covered here as well.  Be on the lookout for an upcoming blog post that focuses on the elements and importance of a site-specific monitoring plan.

You may be thinking that this blog post raises a lot of questions and does not provide many answers.  It does, and I am not done yet.  How will the DAHS handle measurements of HCl in excess of the span value and the potential missing data substitution required for those periods?  What about the reports required to be submitted via Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI)?  Is your DAHS vendor tracking any reporting format updates released by U.S. EPA?  We hope that this blog post has got you thinking.  These are all serious questions with serious compliance implications.  Your solution may not be any one answer to the above questions, but may be part of an overall compliance strategy that addresses all of the above questions. 

Stay tuned for upcoming blog posts that will continue to dive further into the PC MACT.  Can’t wait?  We know…that deadline is right around the corner.  Here’s how we are helping other clients prepare for PC MACT right now: reviewing the plant’s proposed compliance approach, identifying operational considerations, identifying gaps, and preparing a site-specific monitoring strategy to resolve outstanding implementation items.  Give me a call or shoot me an email and we’ll get started.  

March Madness – NAAQS Update

You don’t need to work in the air consulting arena for very long to see some big changes.  I’ve been helping clients with air permitting, strategy, and compliance for 11 years, so I’m a relative newcomer.  One of my former colleagues, Marvin Gregory, once told me a story about hand delivering a construction permit application to a state agency on the day before the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program became effective in 1977.  I haven’t been at it for as long as Marvin was, but still long enough to see one very important change:  the importance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).  In my time in the consulting arena, the NAAQS have gone from a general PSD permitting nuisance to a full blown project stopper.  You have seen ALL4 documenting the corresponding evolution of the NAAQS levels since the current U.S. EPA administration started in January 2009, and we will continue to follow them closely and provide you with updates that we think are important to your operations.  The following sections provide updates on the most important NAAQS and how you can plan for them today.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

U.S. EPA has already established 30 nonattainment areas for the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on the basis of existing ambient monitoring data.  The next step in the implementation process is the one that will have the biggest impact on many more facilities:  assessing attainment status in those areas for which ambient monitoring data is not available.  To address these areas U.S. EPA proposed the Data Requirements Rule (DRR) outlining the approach by which state agencies should evaluate the attainment status in yet to be designated areas.  The DRR is still only proposed but is listed for promulgation in September 2015, so stay tuned.  The most important aspect of the DRR is that it applies to individual facilities that will be faced with the burden of a NAAQS compliance demonstration.  The following subsections outline the primary components of the DRR and what they mean.

Who is subject?

U.S. EPA outlined three (3) options for determining which facilities would be specifically assessed based on each facility’s actual annual emissions and the surrounding population.  If your facility falls within Option 1 (U.S. EPA’s preferred option), now is the time to be planning for the DRR.

Summary of Thresholds for Targeted Facilities

What evaluations need to be conducted for subject facilities?

U.S. EPA outlines two (2) primary options to assess NAAQS attainment for the facilities discussed in the previous section:

  1. Conduct an air dispersion modeling evaluation; or
  2. Install an ambient monitor or monitors in the vicinity of the facility to measure ambient concentrations.

The approach selected will depend on the philosophy of each respective state agency.  Several agencies that we have talked with will allow facilities to select the approach.  Others would prefer to use dispersion modeling if it demonstrates NAAQS attainment but will transition to the installation of ambient monitors if the modeling doesn’t demonstrate attainment.  Still others are opposed to any dispersion modeling for NAAQS designations and will focus exclusively on the installation of ambient monitors.  One (mostly) common thread: state agencies do not have the resources or funding to perform these evaluations so the burden will fall on facilities to do so.

How does the air dispersion modeling evaluation work?

The following items highlight the key aspects of a dispersion modeling evaluation as outlined in U.S. EPA’s Technical Assistance Document (TAD) for 1-hour SO2NAAQS dispersion modeling:

  • AERMOD (U.S. EPA’s preferred regulatory dispersion model) will be the model that is used for the evaluation (similar to PSD modeling)
  • Ambient background concentrations must be added to modeled concentrations (similar to PSD modeling)
  • Building downwash and wake affects must be accounted for (similar to PSD modeling)
  • Representative meteorological data must be used.  The meteorological data will typically cover a period of three (3) calendar years to match the form of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
  • Actual stack heights in excess of good engineering practice (GEP) stack heights should be modeled (distinctly different from PSD modeling)
  • Modeling receptors should be placed in any location where an ambient monitor could be installed.  As an example and unlike PSD permit modeling, a receptor would not be placed over a body of water.
  • Actual emission rates that vary by hour over a period of three (3) years matching the modeled meteorological data should be used.  This is designed to simulate “actual” concentrations and is a big departure from PSD modeling where maximum emission rates are considered.  While there are great benefits to using actual emissions, it requires more data intensive modeling evaluation.  Emission rates that vary every hour result in 26,280 hours of emissions data for a single emission point over a three (3) year period.

Modeled concentrations are combined with ambient background concentrations and compared to the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS (75 ppb).  If modeled concentrations are less than the NAAQS level, don’t assume you are done.  The proposed rule has several options for what facilities will be required to do on an ongoing basis.  Two (2) of the options include updating future dispersion modeling with future meteorological data.  If modeled concentrations are close to the NAAQS, future meteorological data could result in concentrations in excess of the NAAQS, so tread carefully when committing to the dispersion modeling compliance option.  When we recommend that facilities start planning ahead, the modeling evaluation described here is a good start.

How does the ambient monitoring evaluation work?

There are several ways to determine where SO2 ambient monitors should be installed.  The most likely used scenario is to use the dispersion modeling described above to determine where the relative maximum concentrations of SO2 occur and install monitors in those locations.  Based on U.S. EPA’s TAD related to 1-hour SO2 NAAQS ambient monitoring, the dispersion modeling used to locate a monitor will look the same as the previously described modeling with the following exceptions:

  • Emission rates can be “normalized” or scaled down so a given emission rate is set to 1 lb/hr and other hourly emission rates are scaled accordingly.
  • Greater emphasis will be placed on where modeled receptors are placed.  They shouldn’t be placed anywhere that an ambient monitor could not be sited.  Monitor access, power and data, and a number of other considerations need to be made to determine where an ambient monitor could realistically be placed.

The dispersion modeling evaluation is used to identify a location or locations of maximum SO2 concentrations per U.S. EPA’s ambient monitoring TAD.  The goal of the evaluation is to minimize the scope of the ambient monitoring network while still providing the state agency assurance that the maximum concentrations are being measured.

What is the timing for these requirements?

We have received feedback that U.S. EPA may not change the milestones proposed in the DRR despite the delay of the DRR promulgation.  Here are some of the key timelines as proposed in the rule:

  • January 15, 2016:  Decision on the approach that each subject facility will use and, for those facilities that will conduct dispersion modeling, the submittal of a dispersion modeling protocol.
  • July 2016:  Ambient monitoring plans submitted to U.S. EPA for those facilities conducting ambient air monitoring.
  • January 2017:  Final dispersion modeling evaluations submitted and new ambient monitors begin operation.

By August 2017 the dispersion modeling based designations will become final.  By December 2020, after three years of ambient monitoring, the monitoring based designations will become final.  Considering the imminent deadlines, the submittal of a modeling protocol in January 2016 means that facilities subject to the rule need to understand their modeled SO2 impacts right now to allow sufficient time for strategic planning prior to submitting a protocol.

Anything else related to SO2 I should be worried about?

There is one significant item that applies to the very largest SO2 emitters.  A consent decree granted in early March 2015 applies to the following facilities:

  1. Any facility that emitted more than 16,000 tpy of SO2 in the 2012 calendar year; or
  2. Any facility that emitted more than 2,600 tpy of SO2 in the 2012 calendar year AND that had an average SO2 emission rate of greater than 0.45 lb/MMBtu in 2012.

These facilities will be subject to an accelerated timeline of 16 months from the finalization of the consent decree to promulgation of a final NAAQS designation.  This consent decree establishes binding deadlines even if the DRR is not adopted.  It appears that this timeline removes a requirement for a new ambient monitor that would need to operate for three years from consideration as an option.  There are still questions to resolve about how the 0.45 lb/MMBtu emission rate in the Consent Decree applies to non-utility sources and process sources.  These are important questions that we will continue to work with state agencies to answer in the near term.

Ozone

The revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS is still scheduled for promulgation in October 2015.  It is expected to fall within a range of 60 to 70 parts per billion (ppb) versus a current NAAQS level of 75 ppb.  The result will be an expansion of existing ozone nonattainment areas and the formation of new ozone nonattainment areas.  Being located in a nonattainment area means the following:

  • Obtaining a construction permit for new projects could become more difficult as a result of lower major modification thresholds for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) along with the requirement to meet  the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) and to purchase emission offsets when triggering major modification requirements.
  • Even facilities not implementing a project could still be hit with more stringent emission limits as a result of the state agencies required plans to achieve NAAQS compliance through the Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) regulatory process.

We will continue to keep you updated on the ozone NAAQS.  For now, if there are major permitting efforts coming up consider expediting those permitting evaluations to avoid possible nonattainment requirements.  In addition, if you have recently made VOC or NOX emission reductions in possible future ozone nonattainment areas consider documenting those reductions and understand what their value as emission offsets could be on the open market.

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

U.S. EPA recently finalized designations for the 2012 PM2.5 annual NAAQS of 12 micrograms per cubic meter.  They also deferred certain designations based on incomplete ambient monitoring data.  Those deferred designations will be finalized after the 2014 calendar year data are validated.  A map of the latest designations and deferred areas can be found here.  Be sure to understand the current attainment status of your area.  The PM2.5 NAAQS continues to be one of the more difficult standards to demonstrate compliance with through PSD air dispersion modeling (largely because background concentrations in and of themselves often approach the NAAQS), so it’s always important to understand where your available emission reduction opportunities exist in order to net out of PSD permitting requirements for upcoming projects.

If you have any questions about the SO2 NAAQS or other NAAQS levels feel free to contact me at (678) 460-0324, extension 206 or at cmccall@all4inc.com. For our prior updates on the SO2 NAAQS visit our DRR webpage.  Continued best wishes to you as we all try to navigate this maze or air regulations (and standards) together.

 

5 Tips for Efficient Reporting

Deadlines. We have all had them and hated them. Unfortunately missing a deadline to a state or federal agency is undoubtedly a much bigger issue than missing your calculus homework deadline in college. January, February, and March are three of the biggest deadline months for ALL4, with Title V compliance certification reports, annual emissions statements, and mandatory greenhouse gas reports due for almost every facility that we work with.

As reporting season comes to a close I asked the Technical Staff members at ALL4 to share tips from their reporting season.

  1. Always make sure that that you have all of your client’s current account and password information in advance.
  2. Discuss reporting schedules, deadlines, and expectations at the start of the reporting process.
  3. Always have a back-up plan when submitting data electronically to account for the occasional computer glitch.
  4. Clearly identify reporting obligations, schedules, and deadlines to all reporting team members.
  5. Double check computer and software compatibility between reporting entity and agency prior to submitting data

What was the most important thing the Technical Staff learned this year that will help ALL4 with next year’s reporting season? Start early. The best practice is to gather information for your facility throughout the year.  By gathering data throughout the year your facility will have all of the information it will need to report with time to spare! Feel free to comment below with your facility’s reporting tips!

40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOOO & TCEQ GOPs | PART II

40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOOO (Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, Transmission and Distribution) regulatory happenings are in abundance!  I posted my blog titled “3 Actions You Need to Know About 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOOO” only days ago.  I now find myself writing a sequel.  At the rate in which developments are occurring, I suspect I will be writing a few more in the not so distant future.  Thus, I decided to shorten the title of this blog and simply put a Roman numeral at the end.  40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOOO Must Know updates are provided below with NO frills, NO fillers, and NO additives.

In the March 23, 2015 Federal Register, the U.S. EPA proposed Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Definitions of Low Pressure Gas Well and Storage Vessel.  The two (2) actions addressed by this proposal concern the definition of “low pressure gas well” and provisions related to storage vessels “installed in parallel” or “connected in parallel”.

Low Pressure Gas Well

The U.S. EPA is re-proposing for notice and comment the same definition of ‘‘low pressure gas well’’ that was finalized in 2012 and also soliciting comment on an alternative definition presented by a petitioner in 2014.  The alternative definition would be “a well where the field pressure is less than 0.433 pounds per square inch per foot (psi/ft) times the vertical depth of the deepest target reservoir and the flow-back period will be less than three days in duration”.  U.S. EPA is soliciting comment on both the EPA definition and the alternative definition of low pressure gas well.  Specifically, U. S. EPA seeks comment on the following:

  • Which reduced emission completions (RECs) are technically infeasible on low pressure gas wells,
  • What are the specific well characteristics or other technical factors that make RECs technically infeasible on low pressure gas wells,
  • Which RECs could be performed on low pressure gas wells, and
  • What specific well parameters or drilling techniques should be considered in determining whether an REC would be technically feasible and how these factors could be used to define ‘‘low pressure gas well.’’

Storage Vessels In Parallel

U.S. EPA is proposing to amend §60.5365(e) by removing the language relative to storage vessels “installed in parallel” or “connected in parallel”.  Furthermore, U.S. EPA is also proposing to amend the definition of “returned to service” and “storage vessel” to remove similar verbiage.  Alternatively, U.S. EPA is seeking comment on other approaches to help avoid or discourage installation or operation of storage vessels that would unnecessarily reduce the potential to emit (PTE) of a single storage vessel.

U.S. EPA has indicated that the basis for the removal of these terms is that they unintentionally incorporated storage vessels beyond their intent.  A recent petition for administrative reconsideration stated that multiple storage vessels situated next to each other, connected in parallel, and sometimes operated in parallel/series is commonplace within the oil and gas industry. Furthermore, the petition affirmed that these types of storage vessel configurations have existed within the industry for decades.  Thus, these storage vessels were not “installed in parallel” or “connected in parallel” decades ago to reduce the PTE of a single storage vessel.

On March 6, 2015, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) announced its Request for Public Comments and Hearing Announcement on Oil and Gas General Operating Permits 511, 512, 513, and 514.

TCEQ Oil and Gas General Operating Permits (GOPs) Numbers 511, 512, 513 and 514

The draft GOPs contain revisions based on recent federal and state rule changes, including updates to requirements and the addition of terms.  The draft GOPs, including cover letters, terms, tables, statement of basis, compliance assurance monitoring and periodic monitoring can be found on the TCEQ permitting website at the hyperlink provided above.

Comments concerning the proposed 40 CFR Subpart OOOO provisions must be received by U.S. EPA on or before April 22, 2015.  The public comment period concerning the TCEQ Oil and Gas GOPs closes April 7, 2015.  Time is ticking…Get moving!  Be sure to stay tuned for 40 CFR Subpart OOOO Must Know | PART III.

Please contact JP Kleinle (610) 933-5246, extension 120 or at jkleinle@all4inc.com to discuss the content of this blog or any other oil and gas related topics.

e-GGRT Inputs Verifier Tool – Helpful or Headache?

This year, U.S. EPA rolled out their new additions to the e-GGRT reporting system for Annual Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reports for those submitting under 40 CFR Part 98.  One of the biggest updates was the addition of the Inputs Verifier Tool (IVT) for a handful (22 to be exact) of Part 98 subparts.  As with any new addition to a process, there can be some bumps to work through during the first time.  I’d like to talk about my experience with IVT this year and some of the things I ran into along the way.

The main purpose of IVT is to give facilities greater confidentiality when reporting.  Essentially, IVT allows you to enter in certain key inputs to equations that you used to calculate your GHG emissions (i.e., emission factors, throughputs, heating values, etc.), then e-GGRT verifies these inputs and calculates an emission rate based on your inputs.  Ideally, the value e-GGRT calculates should match your own, but if it doesn’t then you do have the option to over-write e-GGRT.  The difference here is that those input values will not be saved or submitted to U.S. EPA.  The only piece submitted will be the final calculated emission value.  One thing that is important to remember when using IVT is to save and export your input data every time you log off of e-GGRT.  Since e-GGRT is not allowed to save your input data for you, you must upload your inputs data from the previous session each time you log on to the system.  The e-GGRT system will only accept the most recent exported file.  If you don’t have that file available, you will be forced to re-enter all of your inputs.  It is also important to remember to save this file in an easily accessible location once you are finished because as a requirement, it must be maintained as a record for five (5) years.   

Another caveat that comes along with IVT is for facilities reporting under Subpart C – General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources.  Subpart C is different because the reporter has the option to use IVT or to actually report their inputs.  Facilities who choose to report their inputs must also back-report those inputs for years 2010-2013.  When entering the e-GGRT reporting page for Subpart C, you will be prompted to answer two (2) questions to determine if you are eligible to use IVT:

  1. The source contains at least one combustion unit that is connected to a fuel-fired electric generator owned or operated by an entity that is subject to regulation of customer billing rates by the public utility commission; and
  2. The source is located at a facility for which the sum of the nameplate capacities for all such electric generators is greater than or equal to 1 MW electrical output. 

If the answers to both of these questions are “Yes”, then the facility cannot use IVT and must back-report.  

Now you might be asking yourself, “Why do I have to answer these IVT questions if I operate a source equipped with a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) that will not have any equation inputs?”  It may seem counterintuitive but you still have to answer the IVT questions.  Since the CEMS will already be listed with the source (CEMS option is chosen when adding a source to the report), e-GGRT will automatically send you to the correct reporting sheet that does not include equation input fields once you answer the preliminary questions. 

Overall, I think IVT is a helpful addition to e-GGRT.  It can be a little bit tricky to get used to at first but once you work past the initial kinks it can be a very beneficial tool for facilities and reporters when completing Annual GHG Reports. 

As a friendly reminder, your Annual GHG Reports for reporting year 2014 are due by March 31, 2015. 

Boiler MACT Reconsideration Comments Not Without A Few Clever Responses

There are already too many regulations. This is not necessary.

– Anonymous

This comment, two (2) simple sentences that were submitted during the public comment period for the proposed reconsiderations to the Area Source Boiler MACT rule, may have taken the words right out of the mouth of our blog readers. Boiler MACT (i.e., Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards for both Major Source and Area Source versions of the rule) has been a large part of ALL4’s project work and strategic planning for what seems like forever. As we continue to deal with an ever-evolving rule, it feels like there may never be an end to this journey. But we’re getting closer – the latest step in the journey began late last year, as we discussed in a December 3, 2014 blog post. This blog post provided a sneak preview of the proposed Boiler MACT reconsiderations that eventually were published on January 21, 2015. The public comment period for the proposed reconsiderations ended on March 9, 2015, and ALL4’s 4 Rules Initiative Team has been reviewing the comments posted in the dockets for both Major Source and Area Source Boiler MACT. Through this review, we have gained a sense of which portions of the proposed reconsiderations have generated the most buzz. In no particular order, the following list provides a sampling of the more common comments submitted by industry, regulatory agencies, trade groups, and the public; in other words, what people are talking about. 

  • The applicability of Boiler MACT to natural gas electric utility steam generating units (EGUs) was a hot topic, specifically as it relates to the amount of backup fuel oil that such a unit may fire during the course of a year. Commenters noted an inconsistency between the definitions in Boiler MACT and 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart UUUUU (Utility MATS Rule) that causes confusion with which rule applies.
  • The definitions of startup and shutdown generated comments in favor of, in opposition to, and in favor of but with additional recommendations to the proposed revisions. Those opposed to the revisions continue to push for emission limits to apply during these periods, or elimination of the “startup plus 4 hours” allowance.  These commenters claim previous legal precedents and related legal decisions as the basis for their position. Proponents of the proposed revisions appreciate the consideration of the operational challenges during these periods and believe the rule is largely headed in the right direction with these changes. However, a subset of the proponents recommended additional clean fuel (e.g., dry biomass) and a longer “plus hours” time to accommodate startup and shutdown for certain boiler types.
  • Not surprisingly, the comments regarding the increase of the minimum CO emission standard to 130 parts per million by volume dry basis (ppmvd) corrected to 3% oxygen were aligned with industry (in support of the proposed revision) versus the environmental organizations (against the proposed revision).
  • Affirmative defense, a topic that has been an ALL4 blog staple, generated comments along the lines of the proposed revisions to the CO emission standard. Many industry and trade group commenters are adamant that affirmative defense needs to stay in the rule, while the non-industry environmental commenters continue to show their support of its proposed withdrawal from the rule. Based on everything that is going on with affirmative defense in other MACT standards and with the looming state SIP call action, I believe that affirmative defense will not remain in Boiler MACT.
  • Widespread industry support of the proposed alternative particular matter (PM) standard for new area source oil-fired boilers that combust low sulfur oil was evident in the docket comments.
  • Conversly, industry was strongly opposed to the proposed provisions that specify what constitutes an emissions violation for boilers using PM continuous parametric monitoring systems (CPMS). The focus was on the following proposed provision:
    • For any exceedance of the 30-boiler-operating-day PM CPMS value, the owner or operator must (1) inspect the control device within 48 hours and, if a cause is identified, take corrective action as soon as possible, and (2) conduct a new performance test to verify or reestablish the operating limit within 30 calendar days. Additional exceedances that occur between the original exceedance and the performance test do not trigger another test. Up to four performance tests may be triggered in a 12-month rolling period without additional consequences. However, each additional performance test that is triggered would constitute a separate presumptive violation.

Industry is pushing back that exceedances should not be presumed to be emission violations and the response times should be extended. Industry supports the proposed revision to remove the requirement to certify PM CPMS. 

The next big questions are what does U.S. EPA do with these comments, when will changes to the rule occur, and will the changes result in a new compliance date? Right now we are not finding many answers to these questions but will continue to search. To our readers, we ask that you share information (we even have a comment submittal process of our own at the bottom of this blog post!) on upcoming milestones and other topics of interest that resulted from the comment period. The more we all know, the better we will all be able to deal with the challenges of these rules. 

Must Feel Like Christmas – Portland Cement MACT Compliance

It must feel like Christmas morning with all of those boxes full of monitoring equipment showing up at your facility and all of those elves running around getting the monitoring equipment installed.  Amendments to the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard at 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart LLL, referred to as the Portland Cement (PC) MACT, require the installation of new monitoring systems for particulate matter (PM), total hydrocarbons (THC), hydrogen chloride (HCl), and mercury (Hg).  Let’s not forget as we scramble around to get the monitoring systems installed that we have a lot of other activities that must be completed prior to the September 09, 2015 compliance date.

To assist you with the implementation of PC MACT, ALL4 will be featuring frequent blogs posts over the next several months.  You’ll find insights on PC MACT implementation, and an interactive forum for questions or comments. 

A snapshot of what ALL4 will be talking about is listed below:

  • What should your Data Acquisition and Handling System (DAHS) be able to do?
  • What data validation procedures are you using when building compliance averages?
  • What are the Federal and state-specific certification requirements for PC MACT monitoring systems?
  • What if my kiln is subject to another emission standard (NSPS, EEE, CISWI)?
  • What about the non-kiln/non-clinker cooler equipment?
  • How will clinker production rate be determined?
  • How could my written standard operating procedures (SOPs) be affected by the PC MACT?
  • What should my site-specific monitoring plan include and when is it due?
  • How do I complete a performance evaluation on my monitoring systems?
  • What recordkeeping and reporting requirements do I need to know now so I can ensure that the records are being kept prior to the compliance date?
  • What do I need to conduct an initial performance test program?
  • What training programs should be developed for my operators and instrumentation personnel?

Previous blog posts concerning the PC MACT address the following questions:

Stay tuned for our upcoming blog, which will provide information on what you should be considering with your DAHS vendor as you implement your compliance solution for the PC MACT.  If you have any questions, please feel free to reach me directly.

3 Actions You Need to Know About 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOOO

If you are the owner or operator of one or more 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOOO (Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, Transmission and Distribution) affected facilities, you need to know about the three (3) actions listed below.

Action 1:

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) issued notice of its use of “enforcement discretion” regarding two or more storage vessels connected in parallel. This action was announced via a general email message dated March 10, 2015

The December 31, 2014 amendments to Subpart OOOO added the following language to the definition of storage vessel.

“Two or more storage vessels connected in parallel are considered equivalent to a single storage vessel with throughput equal to the total throughput of the storage vessels connected in parallel.”

TCEQ’s interpretation is that the “applicability, emissions, and control determinations conducted prior to December 31, 2014 for storage vessels connected in parallel may need to be reevaluated” as a result of this language change.

TCEQ stated that it has chosen to exercise its enforcement discretion for storage vessels, which will expire April 15, 2016, allowing operators time to reevaluate emissions and applicability. The enforcement discretion does NOT apply to storage vessels constructed, modified, or reconstructed after December 31, 2014.

Action 2:

U.S. EPA will re-propose the definition of “low pressure gas well”. This action can be found at the following link: U.S. EPA’s Actions Initiated by Month

U.S. EPA acknowledged that they overlooked one public comment concerning the definition of “low pressure gas well” that was received during the July 17, 2014 Proposed Rule comment period. This re-proposal will solicit comment on the commenter’s alternative definition of “low pressure gas well”.

Action 3:

U.S. EPA announced its strategy for reducing methane and ozone-forming pollutants from the oil and natural gas industry. This action can be found at the following link: U.S. EPA’s Methane Strategy

U.S. EPA plans to revise Subpart OOOO to achieve both methane reductions and additional VOC reductions. Furthermore, U.S. EPA plans to develop new standards for methane and VOC for new and modified oil and gas sources at well sites and compressor stations.

Looking Ahead

As G.I. Joe would say “Now you know! And knowing is half the battle.” Here are some action items to consider for the other half of the battle:

• Do you have storage vessels operated in parallel?

o Has your state environmental agency issued similar enforcement discretion for storage vessels already in service?

• What is the current definition of “low pressure gas well” and what was the commenter’s alternative definition of “low pressure gas well”?

o Could the definition change potentially impact (positively/negatively) your operations?

• How do you plan to monitor developments in EPA’s methane strategy, have your voice heard, and evaluate potential impacts of these changes?

Affected facilities should already have a general understanding regarding how these actions will potentially impact their operations and should be actively engaged in monitoring developments and planning for compliance. Please contact JP Kleinle (610) 933-5246, extension 120 or at jkleinle@all4inc.com to discuss the content of this blog or any other oil and gas related topics.

CAIR/CSAPR Update

At the February 12th, 2015 Pennsylvania Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee (AQTAC) meeting, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) discussed the transition from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR).  One (1) of the issues discussed concerned the transition from CAIR allowances to CSAPR allowances as it relates to the use of CAIR allowances as a compliance option as provided for in several PADEP regulations. Certain Pennsylvania regulations allow for alternate compliance demonstrations for select boilers, stationary turbines, reciprocating internal combustion engines, cement kilns, and glass furnaces through the purchase and retirement of CAIR allowances.  Obviously, since CAIR is no longer in effect as of 2015, so are the associated CAIR Allowances.  PADEP intends to revise its regulations that allow the use of CAIR allowances for compliance demonstration to switch this compliance option to CSAPR allowances.  That change is not likely to be final for the 2015 Ozone Season.  Therefore, PADEP is planning to announce its intent to consider the retirement of CSAPR allowances in place of the regulatory option of retiring CAIR allowances.

Will sources that are subject to these rules be required to use CSAPR allowances? The short answer is no.  However, you will need to carefully consider your available options.  Should you exceed an emission limit for which you could have previously demonstrated compliance with through the purchase and retirement of CAIR allowances, not losing the option to purchase CAIR allowances does not protect you from your compliance obligations.  Many companies have never needed to purchase CAIR allowances to demonstrate compliance even though that option was available to them.  If you have relied on CAIR allowances for compliance in the past, it would be wise to look at what purchasing CSAPR allowances will mean for you.

Any questions, email me at jslade@all4inc.com or give me a call at (717) 822-0009.

    4 THE RECORD EMAIL SUBSCRIPTIONS

    Sign up to receive 4 THE RECORD articles here. You'll get timely articles on current environmental, health, and safety regulatory topics as well as updates on webinars and training events.
    First Name: *
    Last Name: *
    Location: *
    Email: *

    Skip to content