Finalized Refinery Rule – Flare Edition

New requirements for flaring operations have been issued as part of the refinery rule updates. The proposed changes were discussed in detail in Roy’s 4 the Record article last May, and now that the rule is final, I’ll discuss the key changes from the proposed rule that you need to know if you own or operate a refinery flare.

The updates to the requirements for flares were promulgated in 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart J and Ja, 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart CC, and 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart UUU. The bulk of the revisions were proposed and finalized under Subpart CC with cross references as appropriate. The finalization of this rule has set specific regulations for refinery flares, and the cross reference to the general provisions for flares in 40 CFR Part 63 was removed. Also, it is important to recognize that as a result of the final rule, facilities that operate refinery flares are now required to install and maintain continuous monitoring systems (CMS) for the various parameters needed to demonstrate compliance with the operating requirements. Since Roy went into great detail in his article about the proposed changes, this blog will summarize the primary revisions from what was proposed to what were finalized, and any new requirements that were added since the proposed version of the rule. The table below displays only these differences, showing the original flare provisions, followed by the final flare provisions. Also shown is the reference location where the requirement is listed.

The date for compliance with the flare operating requirements is three (3) years from the effective date of the final rule, which will soon be published in the Federal Register.  These new flare requirements, along with the other updates to the refinery rules, are major changes that refineries should begin planning for right away.  If these new requirements look daunting, give us a call (610.933.5246) and we can help you understand the new requirements and help you develop a plan for compliance.

Pennsylvania RACT 2 – We Are Finally There…And Even Though We Just Arrived, You’re Already Behind

I had the opportunity to attend the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Meeting on November 17, 2015. It was the most crowded that I’ve ever seen Room 105 of the Rachel Carson State Office Building. So crowded in fact that a small contingent of latecomers (including me) could not find chairs; standing room only, so to speak. I was somewhat surprised by the size of the crowd for two (2) reasons: (1) the attendees of these types of regulatory committee meetings usually only fill Room 105 to about 25% of capacity in my experience, and (2) the Second Street off-ramp into Harrisburg heading toward Market Street at 8:45AM yesterday was a veritable parking lot (reference aforementioned tardiness). The great wheels of government were turning yesterday morning despite my late arrival.

Anyway, the first thing on the docket for the EQB meeting was PADEP’s presentation and subsequent discussion of the Revised Final-Form RACT 2 Rule. You can find the presentation slides and all associated documentation here. If you recall, the Revised Final-Form RACT 2 Rule has been on EQB’s docket for more than a year. Each time EQB threatened to address RACT 2, the EQB meeting was either cancelled or RACT 2 was removed from the docket. ALL4 has blogged about it multiple times. Despite the fits and starts that RACT 2 has experienced, it was approved by the EQB on November 17th and will be promulgated final in the, one hopes, not too distant future. According to my colleague John Slade, that process involves the rule being sent back to the State Attorney General’s Office, for approval and to clear a couple of other administrative hoops, followed by final promulgation in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. Might happen before the end of the year, might not. If it doesn’t occur by the end of 2015 it will occur shortly thereafter.

So what changed? Changes of note in the Revised Final-Form RACT 2 Rule are as follows (plucked directly from PADEP’s presentation without shame):

• 25 Pa. Code §129.96(c) now includes an exemption for sources at “major” RACT facilities that emit less than one (1) tpy of NO_X or VOC emissions.
• 25 Pa. Code §129.97(b)(1) now includes tune-up requirements consistent with those of 40 CFR §63.11223.
• 25 Pa. Code §129.97(c) now also requires compliance with manufacturing specifications and good operating practices for sources NO_X PTE less than five (5) tpy and potential VOC PTE less than 2.7 tpy.
• NO_X Emissions Averaging provisions have been restricted to sources located within the same geographic ozone nonattainment area within Pennsylvania.
• If you own or operate a facility that needs to install a control device and submit the associated documentation [i.e., Plan Approval Application (PAA)] your compliance date is no more than three (3) years after final issuance of the resulting Plan Approval.

This last one (1) is really important…

• The Revised Final-Form RACT 2 Rule requires compliance with applicable requirements and presumptive emissions limitations by January 1, 2017; instead of one (1) year from the effective date of the final rulemaking.

That’s a major difference from the previous version of the RACT 2 Rule and means that facilities that are planning to comply with presumptive RACT need to compile the necessary documentation to demonstrate compliance (i.e., emissions testing) now so that it is on file and available by January 1, 2017. It also means that facilities that are planning to comply via NO_X emissions averaging or case-by-case alternative RACT proposal should be developing their submittals, including extension request language, now as NO_X averaging plans, extension requests, and/or PAAs proposing the installation of control devices need to be submitted within six (6) months of the final promulgation of the Revised Final-Form RACT 2 Rule in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. Regardless, the compliance date is January 1, 2017 unless an extension request or PAA proposing the installation of a control device and requesting an extension is submitted.

As John Slade said to me on the phone earlier today, “If people have been sleeping on this waiting for it to be finalized, they need to wake up and get moving. They’re already behind.”

So how should you comply? We’ll discuss the three (3) general means of complying in more detail including the timelines associated with each in a subsequent blogpost early next week. In the meantime, give John Slade [(717) 822-0009] or me [(610) 933-5246 ext. 119] a call if you have any questions.

U.S. EPA Finalizes Major Source Boiler MACT Reconsiderations

On November 5, 2015, U.S. EPA finalized the proposed reconsiderations to the Major Source Boiler MACT¹ rule. (As of the date of this article, the proposed reconsiderations to the Area Source Boiler MACT and CISWI rules have not yet been finalized.) The final Major Source Boiler MACT rule comes nearly one year after the reconsiderations were proposed on December 1, 2014, and just under three months before the final January 31, 2016 compliance date. While industry is generally happy with how the final rule addressed certain concerns, the final rule also introduced some new nuances to understand in advance of the compliance date.

While not comprehensive, this post highlights some of the more impactful changes to the rule that you need to know about.

Startup and Shutdown

U.S. EPA finalized a proposed alternate definition of “startup,” which extends startup for an additional 4-hour window after an affected source supplies “useful thermal energy” such as heat or steam for heating, cooling, or process purposes, or, generates electricity, whichever is earlier. Defining when startup ends is important because it determines when an affected source must transition from complying with work practice standards to complying with emissions limits and operating limits. The 4-hour window in the alternate definition of “startup” allows boiler and process heater gases to reach the parameters (e.g., temperature, pressure, flow, etc.) necessary for the safe operation of air pollution control equipment. However, there is a catch – owners and operators who choose to utilize the alternate definition must (1) develop, maintain, and implement a written startup and shutdown plan (SSP), and (2) maintain additional records associated with the 4-hour period (i.e., time that clean fuel combustion begins, time that non-clean fuel feeding begins, time when useful thermal energy is first supplied, time when PM controls are engaged, hourly steam temperature/pressure/flow, and all hourly average CMS data).

Clean Fuels

In the final rule, U.S. EPA added the definition of “clean dry biomass” and designated it as a clean fuel. Once “non-clean” fuels are combusted, certain types of air pollution control equipment must be engaged, even during startup according to its definition. In the final rule, owners and operators who choose to utilize the alternate definition of “startup” must engage all of the applicable control devices within four hours of the start of supplying useful thermal energy. Particulate controls must be engaged and operated within one hour of first feeding non-clean fuels. Owners and operators can request a variance from their permitting authority if they have extenuating circumstances that would impact the ability to engage particulate control devices within one hour of non-clean fuel firing.

Affirmative Defense

As expected, U.S. EPA removed the provisions for affirmative defense for violation of emission standards during malfunction. U.S. EPA explained in the proposed reconsideration that the basis for this removal was the 2014 Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) court decision vacating the affirmative defense provisions in the Portland Cement (PC) MACT.

Reporting

U.S. EPA added language around the initial and ongoing reporting periods and associated deadlines. However, there is still some uncertainty around time period and deadline for the initial report. Fortunately, language was also added to clarify that sources with a Title V permit can submit the required Boiler MACT compliance reports according to the schedule established by the permitting authority. U.S. EPA also made changes to the electronic reporting requirements to clarify how to submit different types of data [e.g., performance test results, relative accuracy test audit (RATA) results, etc.] depending on what is supported by U.S. EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT).

pH Monitoring

U.S. EPA added language to the rule to clarify that wet scrubbers utilized solely for particulate control and not HCl (i.e., water scrubbers vs. alkaline slurry/solution scrubbers) are not subject to pH monitoring as previously implied in certain parts of the rule. The 2-point performance evaluation frequency for pH monitors was reduced from quarterly to annually, and the daily performance evaluation frequency was replaced with a daily requirement to clean the pH probe and to document that the pH monitor calibration frequency is sufficient to maintain its specified accuracy.

Averaging Periods

U.S. EPA updated the definition of “30-day rolling average” to clarify that the 720-hour basis applies to CO CEMS; all other parameters can be calculated either using the 720-hour basis or a new option of using all valid hours of data from 30 consecutive operating days. Additionally, U.S. EPA added the definition of “rolling average” to explain how averages should be calculated for CO CEMS and other parameters.

Hybrid Suspension Grate Subcategory

The definition of “hybrid suspension grate (HSG) boiler” now states that the minimum 40% moisture content of the biomass fired must be demonstrated by monthly fuel analysis. However, the rule does not specify what constitutes monthly fuel analysis. Additionally, the CO emissions limit for HSG boilers was increased from 2,800 to 3,500 ppmvd @ 3% O₂ as demonstrated by stack testing. The 30-day rolling average CO CEMS emission limit of 900 ppmvd @ 3% O₂ did not change. An option to request an alternative test method was also added for use of CO₂ as a diluent correction instead of O₂.

Opacity

U.S. EPA added a provision to the opacity operating limit for boilers and process heaters with a fabric filter and not using a PM continuous parametric monitoring system (CPMS), such that affected sources can comply with either a 10% limit as a daily block average or the highest hourly average opacity reading measured during the most recent performance test.

The November 20, 2015 Federal Register publication of the final rule can be found here.

What provisions of the final rule are you most concerned about? Let me know in the comments or reach out to me directly to discuss at lkroos@all4inc.com or 610.933.5246 x122.

Related content:

• ALL4 Boiler MACT Distinctions
• Five Things to Consider Before the January 31, 2016 Major Source Boiler MACT Compliance Date
• Boiler MACT Reconsideration Comments Not Without A Few Clever Responses

¹40 CFR Part 63, Subpart DDDDD (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters) establishes Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for boilers and process heaters at major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).

U.S. EPA to Add Natural Gas Processing Facilities to TRI Reporting

In response to a long-time push from environmentalists, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has agreed to begin a rulemaking which would add natural gas processing facilities to the list of industry sectors subject to Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reporting.  However, U.S. EPA has partially rejected the environmentalist requests and is not pursuing the addition of other oil and gas facilities, such as the oil and gas extraction sector, to TRI reporting.

On October 22, 2015, U.S. EPA responded to a petition filed by the Environmental Integrity Project and 16 other organizations requesting to add the oil and gas extraction sector to TRI reporting.  U.S. EPA determined that natural gas processing facilities (to be defined in the subsequent rulemaking) are appropriate for addition to TRI reporting because there are enough facilities in the continental U.S. that meet the thresholds for reporting to make it worthwhile to add to the program.

U.S. EPA determined that other types of oil and gas extraction facilities under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 13 do not meet the TRI reporting thresholds in sufficient quantity to make the rulemaking worthwhile.  The TRI thresholds of note in these cases are the number of employees and the volume of TRI chemicals handled.  Even though many activities in SIC 13 may manufacture, process, or release significant quantities of TRI chemicals, these activities are spread over large geographical areas and do not require many employees to effectively operate.  U.S. EPA states that these sources will instead be subject to other activities such as rulemaking, research, guidance, and other outreach as they are developed.

Environmentalists argue that even though the sources may be spread out over large geographical areas, some sources can be connected to each other through proximity and ownership, or aggregated, to pool the sources’ throughputs and employees.  Once the sources are connected, they would potentially be subject to TRI reporting since they could now meet the reporting thresholds with more frequency.  To learn more about the recent discussion and activity around the definition of source aggregation, please read Bob Kuklentz’s blog.

Currently, U.S. EPA does not seem to wholly support the notion of aggregation of these sources as defined in previous litigation.  However, it will be important to monitor the single source definition rulemaking and how it is applied to this future rulemaking.  It is not yet known when affected facilities will be required to complete TRI reporting under this rulemaking, but ALL4 will continue to provide updates regarding this and other oil and gas related topics as more information is released.  Feel free to contact me or JP Kleinle at jkleinle@all4inc.com with any questions.

Breaking News: Comment Period Extended for Proposed Oil & Gas Rules and U.S. EPA Has Issued a Request for Additional Data

ALL4’s Oil and Gas Sector initiative team has posted several blogs recently about the August 18, 2015 proposed oil and gas rules.  This blog provides readers a timely summary of U.S. EPA’s two (2) newest actions related to the proposed oil and gas rules.

The U.S. EPA’s two (2) newest actions are:

1. November 3, 2015 – U.S. EPA Extends comment period for proposed oil and gas rules
2. November 4, 2015 – U.S. EPA requests information on hazardous air pollution (HAP) from the production, transmission, and storage segments

Comment Period Extension

If you found yourself overwhelmed with the task of reviewing and preparing comments for several complex, highly technical, and interrelated proposals, you will be thrilled to learn that U.S. EPA is extending the comment period.  So here is a summary of what you need to know:

To what does the extension apply?

1. Source Determination for Certain Emission Units in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector.
2. Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New and Modified Sources.
3. Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country: Federal Implementation Plan for Managing Air Emissions from True Minor Sources Engaged in Oil and Natural Gas Production in Indian Country.
4. Release of Draft Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry.

How long is the extension? What’s the new deadline?

• The extension provides 17 additional days to submit written comments.
• The new deadline to submit written comments is December 4, 2015.

This extension boils down to eleven (11) business days, excluding the Thanksgiving Day holidays.  I will be the first to say that this extension is far better than no extension.  However, it doesn’t provide much breathing room.  As Megan S. said it in her October 26, 2015 blog, “If you haven’t already, now is the time to consider how these proposed actions may adversely affect your operations and to prepare comments to voice your concerns on the record”.

HAP Data Request

EPA has issued a request for additional data and information on HAP emissions that were not available in 2012 when U.S. EPA revised the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for oil and natural gas production facilities, and natural gas transmission and storage source categories.  Specifically, the U.S. EPA established the 2012 NESHAP emission standards for BTEX based on maximum achievable control technology (MACT) for a subcategory of glycol dehydrators referred to as the “small glycol dehydration units.” This data request is meant to obtain additional information regarding these small glycol dehydration units.  Furthermore, this data request also aims to gather information concerning a recently identified potential compliance demonstration issue with respect to the 2012 BTEX MACT standards for small glycol dehydration units.  The compliance demonstration issue relates to low BTEX inlet concentrations and equations that may result in emission standards that are below the detection limit for the reference test method used to demonstrate compliance.  If you would like more detail than what’s provided here, please give me a call.

Does this data request apply to me?

• This action applies to oil and natural gas production facilities and natural gas transmission and storage source categories.
• The applicable NAICS codes listed by U.S. EPA include the following:

What data is being requested?

• Data on storage vessels without potential flash emissions (PFE).
• Data on HAP emissions from regulated small glycol dehydrators.
  • Particularly data regarding any emissions of HAP other than benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX).
  • Information on available control options for any such HAP emissions.
  • Information regarding a potential compliance demonstration issue with respect to the 2012 standards for small glycol dehydration units, as they apply to units with very low emissions.

What is the deadline for submitting written information/comments?

• The deadline is TBD, but a 60-day comment period will be provided from the date of publication in the Federal Register.

Bonus Item!

• Be sure to consider if any of the information that you are submitting contains CBI.

My contact information is (610) 933-5246, extension 120 or jkleinle@all4inc.com.   I’d love to hear from you.

U.S. EPA Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart IIII: 6.5 Things You Need to Know

On Friday November 6, 2015 U.S. EPA proposed specific amendments to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart IIII – Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition (CI) Internal Combustion Engines (i.e., CI ICE NSPS).  Below are 6.5 key takeaways from the proposed amendments:

1. The proposed amendments would allow manufacturers to design CI ICE such that operators can temporarily override the emissions control systems for stationary emergency CI ICE where the operation of the engine is needed to protect human life.

2. Such instances are known as “qualified emergency situations.”

3. A qualified emergency situation is one in which the condition of a CI ICE emissions controls poses a significant risk to human life; such as an emissions control condition that inhibits the performance of an engine being used to rescue a person from a life-threatening situation (like providing power to a medical facility during an earthquake, tsunami, or alien invasion).

4. During such instances the CI ICE must operate in compliance with the applicable Tier 1 emissions standards promulgated at 40 CFR Part 89.

5. The proposed amendments would align 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart IIII with commensurate requirements included within 40 CFR Part 1039 [i.e., 40 CFR §1039.101(b)(1)(ii)] as amended August 8, 2014.

6. The onus for complying with the majority of these amended requirements falls on the manufacturer, not the owner/operator, as the manufacturer is required to provide instructions to the owner/operator pertaining to operating a CI ICE without emissions controls during qualified emergency situations. However, the owner/operator is required to submit a report to the manufacturer within 60 days of operating the CI ICE without the emissions controls.

6.5 U.S. EPA’s proposal also included amendments pertaining to CI ICE operated in remote areas of Alaska. If you’re reading this blog and live in a remote area of Alaska, please call me at (610) 933-5246 ext. 119. I’d simply like to meet you.

If anyone else has any questions, you can call [(610) 933-5246 ext. 119] or email [rharding@all4inc.com] me too.

Greenhouse Gas Regulations Published in Federal Register

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has finalized both the Clean Power Plan for existing power plants and the Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources (NSPS): Electric Utility Generating Units on August 3, 2015.  Both were published in the Federal Register on October 23, 2015 and petitioners now have until December 22, 2015 to file appeals with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.  Half of the states have already filed appeals, so we will ultimately need to see where litigation takes the Clean Power Plan.  In the meantime, here is an overview of the final actions.

Clean Power Plan

The Clean Power Plan, codified in 40 CFR 60 Subpart UUUU and 40 CFR 62 Subpart MMM, establishes source-level emission performance rates for the source subcategories, while retaining state-level rate- and mass-based targets. It also establishes guidelines for states to follow in developing and implementing their plans to meet their targets. More specifically, the Clean Power Plan:

• Sets targets for each state based on its generation mix taking in account technology feasibility, cost, and emission reduction potentials specific to each state;
• Affords the opportunity to “glide” into the established goals and equivalents starting in 2022;
• Provides incentives for early deployment of carbon dioxide (CO₂) reducing investments, such as renewables and energy efficiency measures benefiting low-income communities (voluntary Clean Energy Incentive Program, CEIP); and
• Contains a Federal Implementation Plan that U.S. EPA would use in states that do not develop adequate implementation plans.

States will have until September 2016 or September 2018 (with an approved extension) to submit their plans for approval. In the interim, States need to decide if they want to submit a plan or otherwise default to the federal plan. Because the Clean Power Plan allows for significant flexibility, States also need to decide how they will achieve their goals — develop individual plans, join in a multiple-state plan, or opt into an interstate cap-and-trade program. States developing individual plans can elect to meet a rate-based goal in pounds per megawatt hour (lb/MWh), a mass-based goal in tons of CO₂, or mass-based goals with a new source compliment in tons of CO₂. If a state opts for an interstate cap-and-trade program, the states involved must have the same plan basis (mass- or rate- goal). This decision making should have already begun for your state, so now is the time, if you have not already, to understand your state’s Clean Power Plan. Many states have posted their intentions on their websites and many are now taking comments. For instance, Pennsylvania is accepting comments until November 12, 2015 and is actively seeking public input.  See PADEP’s website for more details.

GHG NSPS

The GHG NSPS (codified in 40 CFR 60, Subpart TTTT) is applicable, with certain exceptions, to any steam generating unit, integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC), or stationary combustion turbine that commenced construction after January 8, 2014 or commenced reconstruction after June 18, 2014 and who have the following:

•  A base load rating of greater than 250 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) of fossil fuel; and
• Serves a generator capable of selling greater than 25 megawatts (MW) of electricity to a utility power distribution system (grid).

Units subject to the GHG NSPS must comply with the CO₂ emission standard in either Table 1 (steam generating and IGCC units) or Table 2 (combustion turbines) depending on source type.

Table 1 to Subpart TTTT of Part 60

Table 2 to Subpart TTTT of Part 60

Need help figuring the out Clean Power Plan or assistance determining if your facility is subject to the GHG NSPS?  Please reach out to us at info@all4inc.com with your questions.