U.S. EPA Approves Pennsylvania’s VOC Control SIP Revisions

On June 25, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) approved a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision originally submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) on August 27, 2014. The SIP revision proposed to add regulations to the Pennsylvania SIP which reflect U.S. EPA Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs) for the control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the following source categories:

• Flexible package printing (sources subject to 25 Pa. Code §129.67a)
• Offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing (sources subject to 25 Pa. Code §129.67b)
• Adhesives, sealants, primers, and solvents (sources subject to 25 Pa. Code §§129.77 and 130.703)

The SIP revisions also impact 25 Pa. Code §121.1 – Definitions and 25 Pa. Code §129.51 – General Provisions. The revisions impact the above listed portions of 25 Pa. Code Chapter 129 – Standards for Sources and meet the requirement to adopt Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for sources covered by U.S. EPA’s CTG.  This final rule is effective on July 27, 2015.

Getting Smart with Meteorological Towers

Working at ALL4 and having the opportunity to deploy and maintain meteorological towers is a meteorologist’s dream.  During my first week at ALL4, I was deployed into the field of western Virginia to perform a meteorological audit of instruments on a 30 meter (~100 foot) meteorological tower.  Yes, that’s right, I wasn’t even 5 hours into my first day of work, and I was in a car driving 8 hours to a remote greenfield site, to make sure that the instruments on the tower were operating correctly and within U.S. EPA’s standards.  Not only was this a fantastic opportunity for a recently graduated atmospheric sciences major, but it gave me the chance to test out my new winter coat in the polar vortex that the eastern U.S. experienced last winter.

All kidding aside, working with meteorological towers has been a very interesting experience.  Just as there are no two (2) snowflakes alike, there are no two (2) meteorological towers alike.  In my one (1) year of experience at ALL4, I have performed three (3) instrument audits on existing towers, set up one (1) temporary tower for a pilot study, organized calibrations for our audit instruments, and researched and purchased countless new equipment.  I have contacts at multiple companies that know me by name at this point!  I have quality assured meteorological data remotely for the towers that we maintain as well as post-processed data for use.  Our newer systems even include mobile apps for real-time monitoring of the tower data!

So why would a facility need a meteorological tower?  Surely, not all environmental managers are as intrigued by the weather as I am and would just appreciate knowing the wind speed and direction at their facility.  The most common reason that our clients would need to install and maintain a meteorological tower is to collect representative meteorological data for air dispersion modeling.  When an existing or new facility plans a project that will involve major source Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting, and the estimated potential to emit emissions are greater than the significant emission rate (SER) thresholds, the facility is required to perform air dispersion modeling for those pollutants exceeding the thresholds.  Air dispersion modeling requires meteorological data used in the dispersion equations to determine the movement and extent of emission plumes.  Based on U.S. EPA 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W guidelines, the meteorological data used for modeling requires the use of five (5) years of representative National Weather Service (NWS) meteorological data or one (1) year of site specific data.  Site specific data is preferred for air dispersion modeling, since it provides the exact conditions at a site.  There are many considerations for site specific data that include the representativeness of the monitors, the data completeness, the system accuracy and resolution, as well as quality assurance and quality control (which includes the polar vortex audit that I had the pleasure of completing my first week at ALL4).  There is a fair amount of planning and care involved in setting up and maintaining an onsite meteorological tower, especially to stay in compliance with U.S. EPA guidelines and requirements.

Onsite meteorological towers are also necessary to support a variety of facility operations.  Meteorological data, including wind speed and direction, temperature, pressure, and precipitation are used by facilities as support for fugitive dust issues or odor complaints.  Wastewater treatment plants utilize rainfall, barometric pressure, and solar radiation data.  Temperature and barometric pressure data can be used during stack testing activities for flow calculations.

In addition, the proposed amendments to the 40 CFR Parts 63, Subpart CC and Subpart UUU will require all petroleum refineries to collect onsite meteorological data.  These data include wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and barometric pressure.  The meteorological data will be crucial in determining background concentrations and validating fugitive benzene emissions above and below the corrective action level.  I had the pleasure of setting up a pilot benzene fenceline study at a Pennsylvania refinery last year, where ALL4 deployed a temporary meteorological tower (about 6 meters tall).  This tower was equipped with all of the required meteorological instruments, which were quality assured to be within U.S. EPA’s standards.  ALL4 ran the temporary tower for about two (2) months, while also collecting several passive benzene fenceline samples.  The meteorological data collected in parallel to the timing of the samples proved to be a critical component to understanding and diagnosing the benzene concentration results.  If your refinery is interested in setting up a pilot study to see where your fugitive benzene emissions stand, or would like to get more information about the proposed benzene fenceline monitoring rule and required meteorological tower, contact Nick Leone (nleone@all4inc.com, 610.933.5246 x121).

As the weather heats up, I’m itching to get back in the field and work with meteorological instruments.  Whether it’s a temporary two (2) month tower or permanent 30 meter tower, you can bet that I will be involved!  Plus, anything warmer than the -8⁰F polar vortex that I experienced last year is good with me!

What instruments are on your meteorological tower at your facility?  Are they currently operating?  Are they being properly quality assured following U.S. EPA criteria?  These are important questions to ask before you have an event where you need to rely upon that data.  Leave a comment below, or reach out to myself (adepasquale@all4inc.com) or Dan Dix (ddix@all4inc.com) if you have any meteorological tower-related comments or concerns!

PADEP Transition from CAIR to CSAPR

As of January 1, 2015 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has been implementing the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) through a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that primarily impacts electric generating units (EGUs). The transition from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and its nitrogen oxide (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) Allowances to CSAPR Allowances and rules has been fairly smooth so far.  The state and local air pollution control agencies do have the opportunity to adopt their own regulations to implement CSAPR with the accompanying revisions to their State Implementation Plans (SIPs). However, there has been no indication from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) that they are actively working on such a regulatory revision. For 2015 and 2016 Phase 1 CSAPR Allowance requirements, all indications are that the allowances requirements will easily be met by the EGUs. However, in 2017 the Phase 2 allowance allocations are significantly reduced. For NOX Allowances there is not a dramatic drop in allocations. But for SO2 Allowances, the allocations are cut in half or more in most cases. The present relative surplus of SO2 Allowances will get much tighter with time.

There is another set of facilities that are not EGUs, but are still impacted by the transition from CAIR to CSAPR. They are the facilities that include emission units that will be subject to the requirements of PADEP Pa. Code §§129.201—129.205 (relating to additional NOX requirements), non-EGUs subject to 25 Pa. Code §145.8(d) (relating to transition to CAIR NOX trading programs), stationary internal combustion units subject to 25 Pa. Code §§145.111—145.113 (relating to emissions of NOX from stationary internal combustion engines) and Portland cement kilns subject to 25 Pa. Code §§145.141—145.146 (relating to emissions of NOX from cement manufacturing).  Prior to the 2015 ozone season, the owners and operators of emission units subject to the previously mentioned regulations were able to, for compliance purposes, surrender an annual CAIR NOX allowance and an ozone season CAIR NOX allowance for each ton of NOX their sources emitted in excess of their applicable NOX emission standard at the end of each ozone season as detailed in these regulatory sections.

Beginning January 1, 2015, there were no more CAIR Allowances to be purchased. The state adopted CAIR regulations were replaced by the Federal CSAPR regulation, also known as the Transport Rule (TR), which is codified in 40 CFR Part 97, Subparts AAAAA and BBBBB (relating to TR NOX annual trading program; and TR NOX ozone season trading program).  In light of the fact that CAIR NOX Allowances are no longer be available, PADEP provided notice in the April 4, 2015 Pennsylvania Bulletin that they will accept the surrender of CSAPR NOX allowances as a compliance alternative.  PADEP also provided notice that they intend to pursue regulatory amendments to the existing NOX trading programs in 25 Pa. Code Chapters 129 and 145 to make this change in the regulatory requirements.

Specifically, for each ozone season beginning after January 1, 2015, the Department will accept the surrender of annual and ozone season CSAPR NOX allowances as a compliance alternative to the surrender of annual and ozone season CAIR NOX allowances. Other than the use of CSAPR Allowances in place of CAIR Allowances, everything else is done in exactly the same manner (timing and process) that was previously done for the surrender provisions for CAIR allowances as specified in the applicable regulatory requirements.  While PADEP stopped short of requiring CSAPR Allowances in place of CAIR Allowances, there does not appear to be another alternative that will result in source compliance. So if you are a non-EGU and previously had to provide CAIR allowances to demonstrate compliance with a standard, now is the time to understand how you will demonstrate compliance come next November 1, and if continued purchase of CSAPR Allowances will work for you, especially beginning in 2017 under the CSAPR Phase 2 reduced Allowance allocations.

If you have any questions on CSAPR and its impact on your sources in Pennsylvania, please contact me at jslade@all4inc.com or call me at (717) 822-0009.

Changes to the Georgia Emissions Inventory System

Facilities in Georgia with Title V permits are required to submit emissions inventory data each year. Beginning with this year’s report (which covers calendar year 2014 emissions), the reporting applicability thresholds have changed. Facilities should have received a notice from the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GEPD) regarding the reporting process. The table below provides the reporting thresholds for this year’s report, which is due August 3, 2015. The thresholds to determine if a report is required are in tons per year of potential emissions, except for lead, which is based on tons per year of actual emissions.

The change in reporting thresholds may result in many facilities having to report for the first time. For those not previously required to submit a report, the reports of actual emissions during calendar year 2014 are prepared and submitted using the Georgia Environmental Connections Online (GECO) application. GEPD has documents available on its website to assist first-time reporters with the process. As with most reporting requirements, the first time through a new electronic reporting process always poses challenges so please don’t wait until the end of July 2015 to begin. Start getting familiar with GECO by reading the available documents and reach out to ALL4 with questions about the process, whether they are related to using the software platform or to assist you in calculating your emissions.

Nonhazardous Secondary Materials Rule (NHSM) Update: Court Says No…To Everyone

On June 3, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a per curiam judgment rejecting challenges to U.S. EPA’s Nonhazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) Rule from petitioners representing both environmentalists and industrial stakeholders.  The NHSM Rule defines which NHSMs are considered wastes (thereby potentially subject to the more stringent incinerator rules) and which are not (thereby potentially subject to the less stringent combustion rules).  See previous blogs for more general information pertaining to the NHSM Rule.  The NHSM Rule categorically exempts certain NHSM as non-wastes, including:

• Scrap tires that are not discarded and are managed under the oversight of established tire collection programs [40 CFR §241.4(a)(1)].
• Resinated wood [40 CFR §241.4(a)(2)].
• Coal refuse that has been recovered from legacy piles and processed in the same manner as currently-generated coal refuse [40 CFR §241.4(a)(3)].
• Dewatered pulp and paper sludges that are not discarded and are generated and burned on-site by pulp and paper mills that burn a significant portion of such materials where such dewatered residuals are managed in a manner that preserves the meaningful heating value of the materials [40 CFR §241.4(a)(4)].

Individuals also have the option of petitioning U.S. EPA to add an NHSM to the above list pursuant to 40 CFR §241.4(b) and/or requesting a non-waste determination from U.S. EPA for a particular NHSM pursuant to 40 CFR §241.4(c).

The environmentalist petitioners challenged the portion of the NHSM rule that defines the above listed materials as non-wastes.  The Court flatly rejected the environmentalist’s challenge to categorically exempt NHSMs, holding that no existing statute or legal precedence currently prevents U.S. EPA from defining solid waste as excluding specific NHSM.  The environmentalist petitioners also challenged the portion of the NHSM rule that contains the legitimacy criteria [40 CFR §§241.3(d)].  The Court also rejected this challenge, holding that it is reasonable to treat NHSMs that are indistinguishable from virgin materials as non-wastes.

The environmentalists were not the only petitioners that received a rejection from the Court.  Industrial stakeholders were left unsatisfied also.  They petitioned the Court to extend the categorical exemption to third-party transfers of NHSMs to be used as fuel and more generally to sewage sludge.  The Court also rejected this challenge, holding that U.S. EPA does have the authority to put the burden on the regulated party to show that a particular NHSM should not be regulated.  The Court’s rejection of the industrial petitioners request suggests that their challenge is already addressed by exercising the option of petitioning U.S. EPA to add an NHSM to the list pursuant to 40 CFR §241.4(b) and/or requesting a non-waste determination from U.S. EPA for a particular NHSM pursuant to 40 CFR §241.4(c) as previously mentioned.

If you have any questions, you can contact me at (610) 933-5246 ext. 119 or rharding@all4inc.com.

Upcoming Refinery Flare Requirements for 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Ja

On June 1, 2012, U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson signed a notice issuing final amendments for 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Ja, Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After May 14, 2007.  Specifically, these amendments lift the September 2008 stay of effectiveness of the process heater and flare requirements of the standard. (See Bob Kuklentz’s previous ALL4 blog for more details.)  As a result, flares that are new, have been reconstructed, or have been “modified” after June 24, 2008, are now required to demonstrate compliance, in accordance with several new procedures, by November 11, 2015.  A “modification” to a flare is defined as any physical alteration that increases the flow capacity to a flare and any new piping physically connected to a flare, with the exception of the following:

• Connections made to install monitoring systems to the flare,
• Connections made to install or enhance a flare gas recovery system,
• Certain connections made to replace or upgrade existing pressure or safety valves,
• Connections made for flare gas sulfur removal,
• Connections made to install redundant equipment that does not increase the capacity of the flare,
• Replacement of an existing connection from a refinery process unit to a new location on the same flare, and
• Connections that interconnect two (2) or more flares. 

This detailed definition of a flare “modification” includes actions that are often routine at many refineries, making the tracking of such actions that much more important.

Owners of flares installed, reconstructed, or “modified” after June 24, 2008 must complete the following:

• Develop a Flare Management Plan (FMP) pursuant to §§60.103a(a)(1) through (7).
• Conduct a root cause analysis and corrective action analysis for any occurrence in which sulfur dioxide (SO₂) emissions exceed 500 pounds in any 24-hour period and any discharge to the flare exceeds 500,000 standard cubic feet (scf) in any 24-hour period.
• Install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an instrument for continuously monitoring and recording the concentration by volume (dry basis) of hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) in the fuel gases before being burned in the flare, to demonstrate compliance with the H₂S limit of 162 parts per million by volume (ppmv) determined hourly on a 3-hour rolling average.  If applicable, instrumentation for continuously monitoring and recording of total reduced sulfur (TRS) may be used.  Continuous monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the H₂S limit is not required for fuel gas streams that are inherently low in sulfur.

As stated previously, the effective date of the compliance requirements is fast approaching – November 11, 2015.  Now is the time for owners and operators to begin planning the implementation of the revised Subpart Ja flare requirements. Need help developing and implementing these requirements? Be sure to contact ALL4.

Bees Are Workers Too

Every once in a while an environmental notice comes across the Federal Register listing that makes me smile and re-focus.  Instead of reading about another recordkeeping, testing, or reporting requirement that impacts our industrial clients, I read in May 29th’s Federal Register a notice of U.S. EPA’s proposal to provide some worker protection to that underappreciated category of agricultural worker, Apis mellifera, or the common honey bee.  It has been documented for many years that there have been catastrophic collapses in bee colonies, I first read about it in an August 2007 New Yorker article.  It was originally suspected that the culprit to the colony collapses was a mite that infects the bees; however, research over the past few years has focused on pesticide exposure.  There are conflicting opinions over the process by which pesticides are thought to be a contributing factor to colony collapses.  However the solution to the problem does not necessarily demand banning pesticides, instead a solution might be to prevent exposure to the bees.  So with the recent Federal Register notice, U.S. EPA is proposing to protect the worker bees from pesticide exposure.  U.S. EPA is accepting public comment on a program that would require a labeling program for pesticides that are acutely toxic to bees.  Specifically, the labeling would include restrictions for how some pesticide products are applied during plant bloom where bee colonies are intentionally placed in an area for pollination services.   We all appreciate the efforts of nature’s pollinators over the course of the summer as fruits and vegetable make their way to our grocery stores and roadway stands.  It seems only right that we give our underappreciated workers a break.

Pennsylvania RACT 2 – We Are Not There Yet…

ALL4 attended the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry (PA Chamber) Quarterly Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) Regulatory Update at the Harrisburg University of Science and Technology on May 27, 2015.  During the regulatory update Krishnan Ramamurthy of PADEP gave a brief presentation concerning the status of the (still pending) RACT 2 rule.  The presentation consisted primarily of information that had been previously communicated pertaining to the status of the RACT 2 rule on its path toward final promulgation.  The highlights of this discussion have been represented briefly below:

• Final DRAFT form of RACT 2 was presented to the Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee (AQTAC) on November 7, 2014.
• Final DRAFT form of RACT 2 was presented to the Small Business Compliance Advisory Committee (SBCAC) on January 28, 2015.
• Both AQTAC and SBCAC approved moving the regulation forward for consideration by the Environmental Quality Board (EQB).
• Both AQTAC and SBCAC also noted amendments and/or remaining concerns with the RACT 2 rule as written.
• Sierra Club and certain adjacent States still have concerns with the RACT 2 rule as written.
• Final DRAFT form of the RACT 2 rule is on the docket for EQB consideration in August 2015.
• PADEP is projecting final promulgation of the RACT 2 rule by the end of 2015 or early 2016.

That is to say that not much has changed since April.  If you have any questions, you can contact me at (610) 933-5246 ext. 119 or rharding@all4inc.com or John Slade at (717) 822-0009 or jslade@all4inc.com.

NSPS Transitioning to Electronic Reporting and Online Data Availability of Reports

Update (6/3/15): U.S. EPA has extended the public comment period for the proposed rule titled, “Electronic Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for New Source Performance Standards,” which was published in the Federal Register on March 20, 2015.  The original comment period was scheduled to end on May 19, 2015, but has been extended by 30 days with a new public comment deadline of June 18, 2015.  The comment period has been extended to provide the public additional time to submit comments and supporting information.  A copy of the notice of extension can be found here.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) as well as various state environmental agencies have slowly but surely been making the transition to electronic reporting.  Although there are many benefits to electronic reporting, the transition from traditional paper reporting can be challenging (and sometimes confusing) when learning how to use these new systems.  Now, with a proposed rule that will require electronic reporting for the majority of new source performance standards (NSPS), you will likely need to get ready to learn another new electronic reporting system.

On Friday, March 20, 2015, U.S. EPA proposed to revise the 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60 General Provisions (Subpart A) and various individual NSPS subparts to require the electronic submittal of specific air emissions reports to U.S. EPA and to allow these reports to be maintained electronically.  U.S. EPA suggests that this move towards electronic reporting will “result in less burden on the regulated community” and will allow for “more accurate and timely development” of regulations, emissions factors, emissions inventories, trends analysis, regional and local scale air quality modeling, regulatory impact assessments, and human exposure modeling.

The proposed rule would require that specific air emission reports such as summary reports, excess emission reports, compliance test reports, and performance evaluation reports be submitted to the U.S. EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX), rather than submitted in paper format.  The proposed rule will not increase reporting requirements and will not change the way that the reports are submitted to a facility’s state or local air agency.  However, state and local air agencies may “opt in” to receiving reports electronically using U.S. EPA’s system.

So how will it all work?  The general process for the electronic submittal of reports as proposed is outlined below:

1. Register on the CDX homepage (if a new user) and log in to CDX.
2. Select the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) from the Active Program List.
3. Upload and/or input results:
• Performance tests and performance evaluation reports will need to use U.S. EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) to generate report files that can be uploaded to CEDRI.  It should be noted though, that the ERT is limited in the pollutants and test methods it supports. 
• Summary reports and excess emission reports will be input and/or uploaded into the applicable report forms. 
• In the event that CEDRI does not support electronic submittal of certain required reports, the report(s) shall be submitted as currently required until 90 days after the date the reporting form becomes available. 
• U.S. EPA plans on releasing an extensible markup language (XML) schema, prior to rule promulgation, which would allow third-parties to develop alternative report options in order to upload performance tests/evaluations not supported by the ERT and to upload subpart-specific reports to CEDRI. 
• Electronically certify and submit the report(s).

The reports will be archived in the CDX and will be sent to the WebFIRE database within 60 days of submittal where they will be available to the public.  Currently, these reports are not typically available online and the public would need to obtain copies through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request or through a file inspection at state or local regulatory agencies.  If there are any concerns with the online data availability of the reports, it is suggested that affected facilities submit public comments.  Comments on the proposed rule are due on or before May 19, 2015.  

The effective date of the rule will be 90 days after it is published to allow time for the transition.  Facilities will still need to submit hardcopy reports as currently required in the interim. 

There are sure to be challenges or “growing pains” that come with this change.  Contact us if you have any questions regarding what this transition to electronic reporting may mean for your facility.