Coming Summer 2019: Benzene Fenceline Monitoring Data Available to the Public

A few weeks ago, U.S. EPA hosted a webinar to discuss the data management system for the Refinery Sector Rule – Benzene Fenceline Monitoring (BFM) Rules.  As part of this system, U.S. EPA will be posting all of the BFM data submitted through the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) by refineries so that the public can easily view, download, and visualize the data.  U.S. EPA presented their plans for the website, but also asked for feedback, questions, and concerns.  If you’re an owner or operator of a refinery, then you will want to know what information will be available to the public and how it will be displayed.

Each refinery is required to upload BFM data to CEDRI within 45 days after the end of each reporting period.  Then, state officials and U.S. EPA will have 30 days to review the data submitted.  Within 30 days after the Administrator’s review, the BFM data will be published to the website, accessible to the public.  The first set of data is planned to go live in summer 2019!  Remember, the first 12-month average BFM data will be submitted in spring 2019, 12 months after the monitoring start date of January 30, 2018.

U.S. EPA is currently working on the CEDRI module for uploading BFM data into the online system.  The proposed report will include a place to input the location of each monitor, the sampling period, and designate if it was below the detection level (BDL).  There will also be options to mark the samplers as outliers or background monitors.  Alternatively, the information can be uploaded via spreadsheet into the CEDRI system.

U.S. EPA has drafted a BFM website, designed for public outreach.  The website is proposed to be divided into four informative sections:

1. Refinery information will be included to explain the basics of refineries and how they are regulated.
2. Health information will discuss the health effects of benzene.
3. Community data will be available to understand the environmental impacts in your community.
4. Accessing data will allow users to view and download the BFM data.

The data access section is proposed to be presented in a “story map” format.  The idea consists of a display of a map of the U.S., with markers at each refinery location.  Users would be able to zoom into the states and specific refineries to look at the BFM data.  Once zoomed in on a refinery, users can review data at each monitor, which could be displayed as dots at various sizes based on their reported BFM average concentration (i.e., larger dot symbolizes a higher concentration).  The monitor information could include a list of deviations reported and a chart showing the trend of 12-month averages at that location.

U.S. EPA requested input by July 31, 2016, on the following questions, but is open to other input as well:

• What information needs to be included on a web page to understand the information?
• What information and data on benzene do you want to see on the web page?
• What other information would be helpful?
• Is there other training or support that might be helpful?

Want help developing comments to submit to U.S. EPA?  Want to discuss the impacts this could have on your refinery?  Want to know more details about the CEDRI system?  Or simply need a refresher on the BFM rule and the new requirements?  Reach out to myself (aessner@all4inc.com, 610-933-5246 x129), or one of the following people at ALL4, and we’d be happy to help!

Meghan Barber, mbarber@all4inc.com (610-933-5246 x130) Refinery Focus Area Lead
Nick Leone, nleone@all4inc.com (610-933-5246 x121) Benzene Fenceline Monitoring Lead
Kayla Turney, kturney@all4inc.com (610-933-5246 x143) CEDRI Lead
Kristin Gordon, kgordon@all4inc.com (281-937-7553 x301) Houston Office Director

Update on the Cross State Air Pollution Rule – Pennsylvania and Beyond

”

Many of you may have forgotten about the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and its status.  CSAPR is one of those “on-again/off-again” rules that U.S. EPA (EPA) has developed.  As a reminder, CSAPR replaced the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which (sort of) replaced the Acid Rain Program (ARP).  Because CSAPR primarily affects  Electric Generating Units (EGUs), it’s not surprising that most folks may have not given it much thought of late, but that  “out of sight, out of mind” mentality is about to change. To brush up on some of the history of the transition from CAIR to CSAPR, please refer in my article “PADEP Transition from CAIR to CSAPR” from last June.  Also, keep in mind that the circumstances discussed within this article pertain specifically to Pennsylvania.  However, the implications of this recent Pennsylvania CSAPR activity could occur in any CSAPR affected state.

Recent History

Many who had been following the evolution of CSAPR may have actually shifted their attention to the Clean Power Plan (CPP), which regulates Greenhouse Gases (GHG), not nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur oxides (SOX).  The CPP would actually result in significant reductions in all of these pollutants, so much so, that even the power industry reduced their focus on CSAPR, providing their undivided attention to the CPP.  There is good reason for this shift in regulatory priority of the power industry because the CPP, quite honestly, would make CSAPR nearly irrelevant.  However, the regulatory situation has recently changed slightly because in February of this year the Supreme Court issued a stay of the CPP, halting implementation of the CPP.

The CPP is currently stayed pending disposition of the petitions that are before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court).  Recently the D.C. Circuit Court decided to delay its review until September 2016, at which time the entire panel of justices (En banc) will hear the arguments for review.  This review almost assures that no decision will be final at the D.C. Circuit level and almost assuredly at the Supreme Court level, before the present Administration leaves Office in January of 2017.   Under these circumstances, the fate of the CPP is precarious at best.  Both sides of the argument are claiming that the collective court activities favor their position, but one thing is clear; uncertainty prevails.

Meanwhile, in the shadows of the legal maneuvering over the CPP, EPA has been quietly working to address the shortcomings of CSAPR.  If you remember, in July of 2015, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that the 2011 CSAPR regulations had a number of “issues” that needed to be addressed and so remanded CSAPR to EPA for revision.  In its review, the D.C. Circuit Court did not vacate the CSAPR emissions budgets that EPA had previously set for states.  As a result of the initial stay of CSAPR, CAIR emission budgets were used for 2015, but EPA placed the CSAPR budgets back into place for the beginning of 2016.

What does this mean?

A very significant development within CSAPR is quietly occurring under the radar which could significantly impact everyone living in Pennsylvania next year.  That is, EPA is proposing to cut the NOX “allowances” to Pennsylvania utilities under CSAPR by approximately 74%.  Does that mean that 74% less electric power will need to be generated? Well no, but it does mean that many more coal-fired power plants may be forced to close in Pennsylvania.  It also means it will be much harder to move the electricity around the grid from fewer power plants and also much more costly to push these electrons around to everyone.  For some residents it will also increase the likelihood of power outages during power demand surges (remember the polar vortex?) due to the closure of existing power plants.  These drastic regulatory steps are being moved forward by EPA in spite of ambient pollutant monitoring data in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions that show improving ozone air quality with projections of continuing improvement. EPA’s regulatory proposals can only be captioned as “game changers”, that will happen virtually overnight by January 2017.  EPA’s regulatory actions rely on air quality modeling (computer predictions) that is being questioned by many, including the State of Pennsylvania.

The proposed CSAPR revisions by EPA are required to address the interstate transport of NOX emissions with respect to the 2008 Ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).  EPA’s proposal also responds to the July 28, 2015 remand by the D.C. Circuit Court, as discussed previously, to reconsider the ozone NOX emissions budgets established under the 2011 CSAPR. In addition, the proposal for emission reductions from the electric generating sector (i.e., reduction in NOX allowances) was also described by EPA as necessary to provide a partial remedy to address the failure of certain states to submit a Good Neighbor State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions under section 11 O(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

Based on the above circumstances, it seems that EPA may not have had a choice in the matter.  This might be the case if the air quality science relied upon by EPA to develop their revised NOX Budgets was not flawed.  The ozone modeling by EPA used old, higher emissions data, which are not reflective of the actual NOX emission reductions that have already been achieved in Pennsylvania and elsewhere in the Northeast.  It also does not consider the significant NOX emission reductions that Pennsylvania will achieve by January 1, 2017 as a result of the Pennsylvania RACT 2 regulations for NOX.  The EPA modeling results appear to have not even triggered a re-assessment of the validity of those results which clearly do not align with the actual ambient pollutant monitoring data. Each of these critiques regarding EPA’s reliance on older, higher emissions data that do not reflect the actual emissions level of today have been filed with them by the State of Pennsylvania and by others. EPA has been asked to conduct new photochemical ozone modeling using representative emissions information.  The photochemical modeling conducted by EPA has also been criticized for  its use of a number of flawed modeling assumptions that further exacerbate the amount of NOX reductions that the model indicates are required.  In its 32-page critique of EPA’s proposed reduction in Pennsylvania CSAPR NOX allowances, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection  (PADEP) stated that the “reduction proposed for Pennsylvania’s ozone season NOx budget in the CSAPR Update Rule is not achievable by the 2017 ozone season”.  This is an unqualified and telling statement by the State of Pennsylvania of the electrical supply chaos that would likely ensue.  To our knowledge, as of today, EPA has not made any public response to comments on the criticisms that have been made over their handling of proposed CSAPR NOX Budgets; or if EPA intends to remodel with the correct emissions information.

Conclusion

This is very serious business with equally serious consequences for Pennsylvania residents and electric power generators.  The potential impacts associated with EPA’s current approach to the Pennsylvania NOX budgets should trigger the need for a complete and thorough review of both the modeling results and the associated consequences.  Taking the time to make sure that impactful decisions are based on sound science and accurate information and that the consequences of such decisions have been carefully vetted is much more important than rushing the process before a change in Administration.

The circumstances described for Pennsylvania EGUs could just as easily occur in other CSAPR affected states, especially in the Northeast U.S.   Mainly, if EPA did not get Pennsylvania’s emission inventory for the CSAPR modeling correct, what are the chances that emissions inventories for other affected states are correct?  If this occurred 20 years ago, it would be safe to assume that emissions inventories were not changing significantly and that 2 year old emissions data would likely still be representative.  However, in today’s ever-changing environmental regulatory arena, emissions from EGUs and other large combustion sources have been on a steep downward incline based on both regulatory and economic pressures.   If you are a CSAPR affected facility, it is in your best interest to keep track of the allocation status in your specific state and to verify that the emissions information being used for your facility for the CSAPR modeling is both representative and correct.

“

Update: More “Clarifying” Proposed Amendments to Refinery Sector Rule

UPDATE (7/13/16): The proposed amendments to the Refinery Sector Rule was published in the Federal Register on July 13, 2016. The amendments are effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register.

On February 9, 2016, U.S. EPA issued proposed amendments to the December 1, 2015 published Refinery Sector Rule [i.e., 40 CFR Part 63, Subparts CC (Refinery MACT 1 ) and UUU (Refinery MACT 2) and, 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts J and Ja]. I know what you’re thinking…more proposed amendments?! But I just finished reading the 700+ pages of the December 1, 2015 published rule! I promise, these amendments are much less daunting.

The proposed amendments can be broken down into the following two (2) sub-categories:

1. Extension of Compliance Dates:

   U.S. EPA is proposing to extend the compliance dates for standards applicable during periods of startup, shutdown, maintenance or inspection for maintenance vents, the operation of sulfur recovery units (SRU) during startup and shutdown, and fluid catalytic cracking units (FCCU) during startup, shutdown and hot standby.  The compliance dates would be extended for those units which were constructed or reconstructed on or before June 30, 2014.  Please note that the proposal does not affect normal operations.

   Upon further review of the December 1, 2015 Refinery Sector Rule (RSR), U.S. EPA determined that in order to comply with the maintenance venting and startup, shutdown and hot standby standards, refineries will be required to follow the management of change (MOC) procedures specified in the Risk Management Program (40 CFR §68.75) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Process Safety Management (PSM) [29 CFR §1910.119(l) and Appendix C of 29 CFR §1910.119].  MOC procedures assess the following for any proposed changes to a process: what new equipment is required; how will this affect health and safety; what new training will be required for staff; and has a pre-startup safety review been conducted?  To ease the burden in completing the proper MOC procedures that will be required to comply with the standards for maintenance venting and operation during startup and shutdown for SRUs and during startup, shutdown and hot standby for FCCUs, U.S. EPA is proposing a new compliance date of 18 months after the effective rule date of February 1, 2016 (i.e., August 1, 2017).

   So what does this proposed amendment mean for your refinery? Continue planning! Now is the time to take action and move forward with the MOC procedures. Those 18 months will be over before you know it.

2. Clarifications and Technical Corrections:
   

   In addition to proposing an extension for the compliance dates detailed above, U.S. EPA is proposing several points of clarity and technical corrections to the December 1, 2015 rule.  The most notable proposed amendment would update Table 11 of Refinery MACT 1 to clearly outline the compliance dates for each of the standards. All other proposed corrections are minor and are meant to provide technical clarity to existing requirements.

U.S. EPA is accepting comments for 45 days (due March 25, 2016) and will hold a public hearing later in February if a request is made by February 16, 2016.

See, that wasn’t so bad! Have any questions or concerns? Need help with developing your MACT 1 and MACT 2 compliance strategies or evaluating your benzene fenceline monitoring options? If so, please contact me, Meghan Barber, at mbarber@all4inc.com. And stay tuned to ALL4’s blog to see how these proposed amendments fair in the review process.