Changes to the Refrigerant Recycling and Emissions Reduction Rule

On Friday, November 18, 2016, the final revisions to 40 CFR Part 82, Subpart F, Recycling and Emissions Reduction were published in the Federal Register.  As noted in our October 2015 blog, U.S. EPA continues to reassess its Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) regulations, proposing revisions to the rule in both December 2010 and November 2015.  The final rule will be effective on January 1, 2017 and incorporates the November 2015 changes as well as several additional revisions.  Per the November 2015 revisions, the rule updates and extends existing requirements, as appropriate, to non-ozone depleting substitute refrigerants [i.e., hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs)].  The rule also establishes new recordkeeping requirements for the disposal of appliances containing five to 50 pounds of refrigerant. 

There were several notable changes to the final rule compared to the version proposed in November 2015.  The new revisions include (but are not limited to):

  • Revising leak rates [i.e., 30% for industrial process refrigeration (IPR), 20% for commercial refrigeration appliances, and 10% for comfort cooling and other appliances];
  • Reporting requirements for exceeding 125% of the leak limit for systems containing 50 pounds or more of refrigerant;
  • Annual/quarterly leak inspection only if a leak rate has been exceeded in the absence of an automatic leak detection system; and
  • Changes to the leak rate calculation methodology. 

Following these changes and interpreting the new requirements that may apply to your appliance(s) is more difficult compared to the original rule.  Wondering how the final revisions to 40 CFR Part 82, Subpart F will affect your Facility?  Give me a call at (610) 933-5246 (ext. 135) or send an email to cgiannascoli@all4inc.com.

New Emission Guidelines and Standards of Performance for Landfills

New Emission Guidelines (EGs) and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSW LFs) (Guidelines) and new Standards of Performance for MSW LFs (Standards of Performance) were finalized by U.S. EPA on August 29, 2016 under 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts Cf and XXX, respectively.  Both actions were published in the Federal Register with an effective date of October 28, 2016 as part of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan.

Prior to the recent publication of these two new subparts, regulation of MSW LFs under 40 CFR Part 60 was limited to 1) the Subpart Cc EGs that applied, through U.S. EPA-approved state plans or a Federal plan, to existing MSW LFs for which construction, reconstruction, or modification commenced prior to May 30, 1991 and 2) the Subpart WWW Standards of Performance that applied to MSW LFs that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification on or after May 30, 1991.  U.S. EPA’s new Subpart Cf assigns EGs, again through U.S. EPA-approved state plans or a Federal plan, to those existing MSW LFs that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction on or before July 17, 2014 and accepted waste after 1987, while new Subpart XXX assigns Standards of Performance to MSW LFs that commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after July 17, 2014.

For the purpose of this article, since the recently promulgated Subpart Cf EGs apply through U.S. EPA-approved state plans or a Federal plan, we will focus on the impact of the new Subpart XXX Standards of Performance which impact MSW LFs directly.

As compared to the existing Subpart WWW rule format, new Subpart XXX shares overall parallel structure with Subpart WWW, with some distinctions in the details.  Some notable elements of new Subpart XXX are as follows:

  • Thresholds for installing controls, where Subpart XXX reduces the nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC) emissions threshold requiring a Gas Collection and Control System (GCCS) from 50 Mg/year to 34 Mg/year.
  • Emissions threshold determinations, where U.S. EPA has expanded on the Tier 1 through 3 procedures of Subpart WWW by adding a new Tier 4 surface emission monitoring (SEM) demonstration option.
  • Low LFG Producing Areas, where U.S. EPA specifies the criteria for determining when it is appropriate to cap or remove all or a portion of a GCCS.
  • Landfill Gas Treatment, where owners or operators must develop a site-specific LFG treatment system monitoring plan and keep records demonstrating effective monitoring of filtration, de-watering, and compression system performance.
  • Wellhead Operational Standards, where MSW LF owners and operators must monitor and maintain records of monthly nitrogen and oxygen levels.
  • Surface Monitoring, where MSW LFs must conduct quarterly SEM at all cover penetrations and openings within the area where waste has been placed and a GCCS is required.
  • Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM), where standards of performance apply at all times, including periods of SSM.

We’re just scratching the surface.  There is a lot more to digest in the recently finalized and already effective rules.  Reach out to ALL4 or Lindsey Kroos at lkroos@all4inc.com or (610) 933-5246 x 122 to discuss how the recently finalized Standards of Performance (and Emission Guidelines) will affect your landfill.

Next Generation Compliance and Environmental Justice Push U.S. EPA’s Agenda for Transparency

U.S. EPA’s Next Generation Compliance Strategic Plan capitalizes on the efficiencies that can be realized by managing increased amounts of electronic data while also utilizing the efforts of impassioned members of the public.  Central to the concept of Next Generation Compliance are the five interconnected components of electronic reporting, advanced monitoring, regulation and permit design, innovative enforcement, and transparency.  Very simply, the model relies upon gathering increased amounts of electronic data, giving the public access to that data, and educating the public on how to interpret and collect even more data.  Our President-elect historically remarked that U.S. EPA was an area where he would consider cutting spending.  So, the efficiency and effectiveness of the Next Generation Compliance strategy may appeal to President-elect Trump, and we should anticipate it becoming even more prevalent over the course of his coming term.  Conversely, the push towards transparency may be viewed by the next administration as unnecessary government intrusion into business activity, which could easily result in a policy of de-emphasis on transparency.  Time will tell.

Concerns for environmental justice (EJ) fuel the public in helping U.S. EPA act to execute its Next Generation Compliance strategy.  While the resolution of EJ issues may resonate with many of our own personal values, as environmental professionals we also have questions about how our businesses and industries could be impacted.  I think a natural instinct of many of us is to generally expect increased regulation in order to protect EJ communities.  However, as ALL4 recently shared in our webinar Preparing Your Emissions Today for Enforcement Tomorrow, the impacts may also be felt in the form of innovative enforcement, rather than just increased regulation.

What resources and initiatives are underway at the Federal level?

In its EJ 2020 Action Agenda (EJ Agenda), U.S. EPA cites lead disparities, drinking water, air quality, and hazardous waste sites as the four significant national environmental challenges it will address during the period 2016 through 2020.  Within the EJ Agenda, U.S. EPA highlights community-based works as one of its eight priority areas for reconciling these four challenges.  A number of ancillary groups exist in support of U.S. EPA’s overall EJ Agenda.  Let’s touch on a few examples to highlight their alignment with U.S. EPA’s Next Generation Compliance model.

In its Charter, the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (EJ IWG), which facilitates the active involvement of all Federal agencies to implement President Bill Clinton’s Executive Order 12898, specifically relies upon public participation for achieving the goals.

The Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) Urban Air Toxics Workgroup (Workgroup) is a component of the CAAAC, which was established to advise U.S. EPA on issues relating to the Clean Air Act Amendment of 1990 under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.  Composed of 22 members representing industry, government, tribes, and community action groups, the Workgroup was organized to specifically discuss and identify recommendations relating to urban air toxics, recognizing that there remain areas around the country with elevated risks from potential exposure to air toxics emissions as compared to areas of the country with very few or no sources of air toxics emissions.  In January 2016, many of the final recommendations that the Workgroup provided to U.S. EPA were closely aligned with U.S. EPA’s Next Generation Compliance model components of advanced monitoring and transparency, as follows:

What resources are available to the public?

As discussed above, U.S. EPA and their various supporting factions strongly encourage public involvement on issues of EJ, and not just simply in terms of attendance at public meetings.  The public is being encouraged, at an unprecedented level, to participate in the review and collection of data.  Let’s take a look at some examples of what they have access to.

U.S. EPA’s Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJSCREEN)1 is a publicly available online tool that provides demographic and environmental information at the community level, for a chosen geographic area.  All search results are based upon publicly available data from resources such as:

  • The National Air Toxics Assessment.
  • Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) model and monitor data.
  • Risk Management Plan (RMP) database.
  • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) database.
  • Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database.
  • Permit Compliance System/Integrated Compliance Information System (PCS/ICIS).
  • Department of Transportation (DOT) traffic data.
  • Census/American Community Survey (ACS) data.

EJSCREEN, which replaces EJView, was developed to highlight areas in the country that may be candidates for further EJ review,
analysis, or outreach.  Currently, EJSCREEN output takes the form of 11 environmental indicators, 6 demographic indicators, and 11 EJ Indexes, where single EJ Indexes reflect, and are calculated based upon, specific combinations of environmental indicators with demographic indicators.

According to U.S. EPA, EJSCREEN is made available to the public for purposes of transparency but may also be used by the public to “support education programs, grant writing, community awareness efforts, and other
 purposes.”  Given that no guidance exists concerning how EJSCREEN or its underlying data could be used “for other purposes,” the implications to facilities feels risky to me, especially when you consider uncertainties like the quality and age of data, and what conclusions the public could draw if EJSCREEN output is reviewed side-by-side with publicly available tools like Envirofacts or WebFIRE which provide data at the facility level.

By simply entering a zip code into Envirofacts, a user instantly has access, for each individual facility in that zip code, to publicly available data relating to topics such as the following:

  • ICIS-AIR, including compliance and permit data for stationary sources of air pollution used by states to prepare State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and track the Clean Air Act compliance status of point sources.
  • Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reports submitted annually under 40 CFR Part 98.
  • Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reports, which reveal annual release amounts of reportable toxic chemicals to air, water, and land.
  • Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), which provides select toxic substance data from the TSCA database.
  • Extensive other information relating to RCRA permit/closure status, compliance, and cleanup activities; wastewater; hazardous waste cleanup and reporting efforts; and permitted radiation and radioactivity.

Envirofacts offers a comprehensive snapshot of what a facility’s compliance obligations might be, while U.S. EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) website allows users to search for facilities within a community and then view things like facility-specific National Emissions Inventory (NEI) data spanning a 10-year period, enforcement case reports, effluent charts, discharge monitoring reports, and the compliance status of each facility with respect to the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, RCRA, and Safe Drinking Water Act.

Last, but certainly not least, the public has direct access to performance test reports [including performance evaluations and Relative Accuracy Test Audits (RATAs)], Notification of Compliance Status (NOCS) Reports, and Air Emissions Reports (such as Summary Reports and Excess Emission Reports) submitted through its Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI).  As we’ll discuss shortly, data submitted through CEDRI are at a significant risk for misinterpretation and we highly recommend a thorough understanding of what is submitted, how it is measured, and how it is calculated.

We’ve walked through a few prominent examples of resources that U.S. EPA has provided to the public in order for them to access publicly available facility data.  But, remember, part of U.S. EPA’s Next Generation Compliance strategy is to educate the public on how to independently collect even more data– it’s called citizen science.  U.S. EPA shares that “citizen science covers a suite of innovative tools to engage with the public to apply their curiosity and contribute their talents to science and technology.  Citizen scientists can provide information that would not otherwise be available due to time, geographic, or resource constraints.”

How does the public get involved in citizen science?  One option is grants.  In its Fiscal Year 2017 EJ Small Grants Request for Proposals (RFP), U.S. EPA is offering $30,000 each to approximately 40 one-year projects that relate to one or more of the RFP’s listed Federal environmental statutes (where the Clean Air Act is listed first), and where the conducting of research, investigations, experiments, monitoring, and studies is stressed.

Scientists at U.S. EPA are also collaborating with technology developers on the use of new, low-cost citizen science air monitoring equipment.  Examples of such equipment include passive monitors, personal air monitors, grab-samplers, integrated air sampling devices, direct-read monitors, automated monitoring systems, and air deposition monitors.  U.S. EPA is making these emerging technologies affordable, applicable to near-source fenceline monitoring exercises, and available to anyone with an interest.  They are providing community air monitoring training events and adding more and more content to their online air sensor toolbox for citizen scientists, researchers, and developers so that the public can make informed choices when selecting and using these low-cost technologies, and easily apply for funding for their citizen science projects.

How are facilities being impacted by Next Generation Compliance and Citizen Science?

In support of its goals to increase electronic reporting, U.S. EPA is steadily promulgating and amending its New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations to require electronic reporting of test results, monitoring data, compliance reports, and/or emissions reports through its CEDRI, not to mention the reports that are already required to be reported electronically under the likes of the GHG, TRI, and TSCA reporting programs.  However, the electronic reporting being required under the NSPS and NESHAP, as compared to those submitted for GHG, TRI, and TSCA, comes with a level of complexity and investment of time that you have likely not previously encountered or expected.  If you have not done so yet, view a recording of our webinar.  It will give you a sense of things like the intricacies that will be associated with populating U.S. EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) with performance test data before uploading such data to CEDRI, and the criticality of understanding your Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS), internal calculations, and data management systems.  Then, moving forward, plan to do the following:

  • Understand what data will be required for NSPS and NESHAP submittals ahead of time, especially for future stack tests.
  • Thoroughly understand your emissions data – how it was derived, quality-assured, and determined to be representative of your process and what is required under regulation.  If you have a CEMS, consider the implications of calculating emissions data inconsistent with the rules if the resulting data were made publicly available – are you averaging calendar days or 30-day rolling averages, calendar days versus operating days, how is down-time incorporated, etc.?
  • Audit your data collection, data validation, and reporting processes.  With increasing amounts of scrutiny being applied to uploaded data, it’s imperative that your data can withstand scrutiny – so understand what you’re doing and why.
  • Keep on top of Next Generation Compliance electronic reporting obligations and U.S. EPA’s progress in rolling out electronic requirements for the rules that affect you.

We have seen refineries impacted by all components of Next Generation Compliance when consent decrees are used by U.S. EPA as an enforcement opportunity to require things like fenceline ambient monitoring separate from 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CC; the review by the public of the associated monitoring plan; and the posting of all collected data to a publicly available website.  Another refinery example that involves both advanced monitoring and transparency are the benzene fenceline monitoring requirements of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CC, where refineries must upload their collected data to a website for the public to review concentrations and the exact locations of those measured concentrations.

From a citizen science and advanced monitoring standpoint, some facilities are experimenting with citizen science air monitoring equipment so that they can gain an understanding of their own fenceline impacts before their neighbors do.  Citizen scientists and/or environmental groups can easily misinterpret data, submit comment, and slow an active permitting process down.

Conclusion

In summary, U.S. EPA’s Next Generation Compliance model promotes the five interconnected components of electronic reporting, advanced monitoring, regulation and permit design, innovative enforcement, and transparency.  Numerous existing Federal initiatives support the goals of the model and we’re also seeing the public, at an unprecedented level, participate in the review and collection of data.  Due to public databases like EJSCREEN, EnviroFacts, WebFIRE, ECHO, and CEDRI, as well as the availability of new, low-cost citizen science air monitoring equipment, it’s more important than ever to have a thorough understanding of what you submit, how it is measured, and how it is calculated.

Please contact ALL4 to discuss how U.S. EPA’s Next Generation Compliance strategy will impact your facility.  Thanks to U.S. EPA’s new focus on Next Generation Compliance and the ease at which the public will be able to obtain information regarding your facility, effective CMS management is more critical than ever.

1 Screenshots of sample EJSCREEN output developed at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen

Check Your Mailbox: The Final ICR Is Here!

On November 10, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final Information Collection Request (ICR) that will be used to obtain information from affected oil and natural gas operations to help them develop regulations to best reduce emissions from existing sources in the oil and natural gas industry.

How does this affect you?

The ICR requires existing oil and natural gas facilities to provide extensive information regarding facility operations, such as equipment counts and how your equipment is, or could be, controlled and/or configured.  ICR recipients have a legal obligation to respond and attest to the accuracy of the information they provide.

The final ICR is comprised of two parts:

  1. Operator Survey – This survey is designed to obtain general information from onshore petroleum and natural gas production facilities. Information requested by the Operator Survey will include facility-level information (e.g., facility name, location, and contact information), as well as the quantities and types of equipment present at the facility.  This survey will be sent to approximately 15,000 owners/operators.  Recipients will have 60 days to respond to this survey.
  2. Detailed Facility Survey – A statistical approach will be utilized to select approximately 4,650 oil and natural gas facilities to participate in Part 2 of the ICR. If selected, the facility will be required to provide detailed information on its emissions sources and emissions control devices or practices within 180 days.

What should you look out for?

Owners and operators will receive the ICR by registered mail. We urge you to not procrastinate!  Recipients of the ICR letter will only have 60 days to complete the Operator Survey and return it to the U.S. EPA.

Do you need support?

Whether you’re feeling overwhelmed with other facility obligations, or you just can’t handle all the thrills and excitement of managing this ICR, let us assist you!  As always, we are only a phone call or email away.

A Reflection on TCEQ’s Advanced Air Permitting Seminar in Austin, TX

On a relatively cool (in-terms of Houston’s standards) Monday October morning, Abhishek, Kristin, and I ventured to our state’s capital to attend the much anticipated Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Advanced Air Permitting Seminar (Seminar).  After a much needed pit stop at an Austin-staple restaurant, known as Threadgill’s, where we indulged in some good ole’ fashioned home cooking with our fair share of cornbread and hush puppies, we were ready to tackle our favorite TCEQ event of the year.  At the Seminar, not only did TCEQ discuss the usual air quality related topics, such as Best Available Control Technology (BACT), Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER), Federal New Source Review (NSR), Nonattainment NSR, and compliance and enforcement matters, but TCEQ also discussed programs and solutions to Texas-specific permitting.  TCEQ emphasized its commitment to increasing the efficiency of its permitting programs, and discussed the appropriate uses of Permit by Rules (PBRs).  TCEQ also introduced one of its newest permitting additions: Readily Available Permits (RAPs).  Let’s take quick a dive into just some of the topics discussed at the Seminar.

BACT/LAER

Fun fact: Did you know that Air Permits celebrate their 45th anniversary this year?  Can you remember where you were 45 years ago?  Well I digress, fast forward 45 years to the Seminar and two takeaways from BACT/LAER session are listed below:

  • The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) requires a “top-down method” to evaluate BACT while TCEQ uses a three-tiered approach to evaluate BACT.  Yes, the approaches reach the same conclusion, just be sure you articulate to TCEQ what approach you will use in your analysis, to avoid any confusion and possible delays in your permit review.
  • When evaluating the collateral impacts of a technically feasible control technology, TCEQ requires a detailed cost analysis for anticipated annualized capital and operating costs.  Be sure to include actual vendor quotes that provide anticipated annualized capital and operating costs associated with the control technology.  Remember, it may take some time to obtain vendor quotes, so be sure to budget your time and project schedule accordingly.  

Investigations and Enforcement

Did you know that TCEQ Regional offices conduct announced and unannounced investigations?  For other tidbits that TCEQ shared during their investigations and enforcement discussions, check out the bullets below:

  • One of the most common facility violations according to TCEQ is the failure to submit annual and semiannual reports (i.e., permit compliance certifications and semi-annual deviations reports).  Be sure you have someone at your facility tagged to complete these reports before their due dates to avoid TCEQ violations.
  • Other common facility violations include the failure of stack tests, unauthorized emissions events and having unpermitted sources.  Keep in mind that eventually these violations make their way for public viewing on U.S. EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) dashboard.  Remember to be proactive rather than reactive when it comes to potential violations and how you can be in action now to prevent them. 

PBRs

PBRs have been used by TCEQ to increase permit review efficiency.  While the intent of PBRs are to decrease the time and complexity associated with issuing permits, common misconceptions or misunderstandings can delay PBRs from being issued.  Below are some fast facts about PBRs discussed at the Seminar:

  • Communication between the PBR reviewer and a technical contact at your facility is encouraged to answer common questions TCEQ may have regarding the project.  Having open communication with TCEQ will only increase the permitting efficiency of your proposed project.  Some common questions TCEQ may ask while reviewing a PBR include:
    • Will the project impact upstream/downstream emissions sources thereby triggering emissions increases from these emissions sources?  If upstream and downstream emissions sources are affected by the project, TCEQ can likely conclude that the scope of your project is larger than what you have presented.
    • Are the increases in emissions controlled or uncontrolled?
    • Are there any special conditions being proposed?
  • Remember, when applying for a PBR, TCEQ looks at the increase above the actual emissions from the project rather than the increase above the allowable emissions (i.e., permitted limits).  Don’t get caught delaying your PBR because the increase in actual emissions was not presented.  

Oil and Gas Hot Topics

A subject that was on everyone’s minds at the Seminar was oil and gas related.  Below are two of several important takeaways from the Seminar about oil and gas topics:

  • For tanks potentially subject to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (NSPS) Subpart OOOO that have potential uncontrolled emissions less than 6 tons per year (tpy), facilities can use the APD-CERT via the State of Texas Environmental Electronic Reporting System (STEERS) to document that the tank emissions are below the volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions threshold of 6 tpy.  In a review of the applicability of 40 CFR §60.5365, these tanks would not be subject to NSPS OOOO.  Be sure that you know how to navigate STEERS to access this compliance option.
  • For new oil and gas handling and production projects located in the Barnet Shale area, in accordance with 30 TAC 106.352(f), the facility must register the project through STEERS.  Keep in mind that TCEQ is continuing their trend of increasing the amount of permitting through online media (i.e., ePermits).  

RAPs

TCEQ has an overall goal of reducing the processing time required for its staff to issue initial permits and amendments.  Stay tuned for more on this permitting option in ALL4’s next Texas-specific blog.  For now, below are the main takeaways from the RAPs session:

  • The purpose of RAPs is to streamline TCEQ’s permitting process by making the current case-by-case permitting process more efficient.
  • RAPs require an applicant to file all technical information up-front in an effort to eliminate back-and-forth requests for additional information.
  • TCEQ will issue a rigid permit with pre-approved permit conditions if all technical information is provided thereby significantly reducing the time needed to write a site-specific permit.

To cap off our two eventful days, the three amigos (i.e., Abhishek, Kristin, and I) met up with ALL4’s very own Eric Swisher in Gruene, TX to get our fixin’ of Honky Tonkin’, shopping and dining.  Eric, who happened to be in the area on a business trip, joined us for dinner at the Gristmill River Restaurant & Bar.  Needless to say, when we finished dinner, we were all quite tired and passed on showing off our dance moves at Texas’s oldest dance hall, Gruene Hall.  Although I think it was my “I need to work on my two-step before I show off my moves in this sacred dance hall” mindset, not my tired legs that convinced me to pass on dancing that night.  Regardless, ALL4 headed back to Houston and wrapped up its busy and successful trip to the Seminar.  TCEQ, we’ll be back next year.

This is the initial blog of a few Texas specific blogs being developed by ALL4 over the next couple of weeks.  Be on the lookout for blogs providing more detailed information on RAPs and Emissions Inventories.  In the meantime, feel free to reach out and give ALL4 a call and we’d be more than happy to discuss our roles from a Texas air quality consulting perspective, and how we can help make your lives easier when it comes to your facility’s compliance.  Kristin Gordon (kgordon@all4inc.com, 281-937-7553 x301) Abhishek Bhat (abhat@all4inc.com, 281-937-7553 x304), or I (fdougherty@all4inc.com, 281-933-5246 x302) would be happy to help!

Refinery Sector Rule Update: Have You, You, You Been Keeping up with The Refinery Sector Rule Amendments?

Have you, you, you been paying attention to the revisions to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart UUU (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Petroleum Refineries: Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic Reforming Units, and Sulfur Recovery Units), also generically referred to as the Refinery MACT 2 standards?  ALL4 has been providing updates regarding the Petroleum Refinery Sector Rule (RSR) that was published in the Federal Register on December 1, 2015, with subsequent amendments published on February 9, 2016 and July 13, 2016.  In case you have forgotten, Kristin’s blog, and Amanda’s blog have provided updates to the RSR.

Back on February 9, 2016, U.S. EPA proposed amendments to the December 1, 2015 published RSR.  Meghan’s blog has clarified proposed amendments by summarizing the details.  The amendments included requirements extending the compliance date for standards applicable during periods of startup, shutdown, maintenance, or inspection for maintenance vents.  Refiners would be required to follow management of change (MOC) procedures for the startup, shutdown and maintenance events.  The amendments also include descriptions and technical corrections to provide additional clarity on existing requirements.  In a blog update, Meghan informed us that additional proposed amendments were published in the Federal Register on July 13, 2016 can be found here.

Now let’s get back to the Subpart UUU compliance requirements.  The first wave of compliance activities came and went on February 1, 2016.  Below, we’ll take a closer look at the upcoming compliance dates and what your refinery needs to be doing now to prepare.  As a refresher, Subpart UUU regulates process vents on catalytic cracking units (CCUs) (including the fluid catalytic cracking unit [FCCU]), catalytic recovery units (CRUs) and sulfur recovery units (SRUs) located at a major stationary source of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).

What Are the Compliance Dates?

Here we are, and the first major Subpart UUU compliance milestone date of February 1, 2016 has passed.  On this compliance date, certain electronic reporting, additional recordkeeping and alternative startup and shutdown requirements for existing FCCUs and SRUs came into effect.  Hopefully your refinery is complying with these obligations.  If you still have questions on some of your reporting requirements, especially if you’re still navigating through CEDRI or electronic reporting, Kayla is our resident expert.

August 1, 2017 is the second compliance milestone date.  On or before this date, your refinery’s first metal HAP (MHAP) performance emissions test is required.  In addition, a 1-time hydrogen cyanide (HCN) performance emissions test is also required on or before August 1, 2017.  Another rule revision that becomes effective on August 1, 2017 includes the phasing out of the allowable incremental rate of particulate matter (PM) for the catalyst regenerator when firing solid or liquid fuels.  After August 1, 2017, allowable PM emissions for the catalyst regenerator will be reduced to 1 kg coke/1,000 kg  regardless of firing solid or liquid fuel in accordance with Equation 3 of §63.1564(b)(4).

Another revision that takes effect on August 1, 2017 impacts the operating limit averaging periods for the CCU MHAP emissions limits.  For units with a control device that is equipped with more than one continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS), §63.1564(a)(2) allows a facility to select which operating limit parameter it will use to comply, within the applicable operating limit parameters from Table 2 of the rule.  The operating limits in Table 2 are specific for the control device (i.e., electrostatic precipitator, wet scrubber, etc.) being used and include parameters such as opacity, gas flow rate, total power (voltage and current), liquid-to-gas ratio, or pressure drop.  The revision was made to replace daily operating limit parameter averaging periods with 3-hour rolling averages.  Facilities that elect to comply with the applicable Table 2 3-hour rolling average operating limit parameters will establish the value of the operating limit parameter during the performance test, which will be used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the MHAP emissions limits.  Below, we’ll take a closer look at how your refinery can best be prepared for these changes.

January 30, 2019 is the third compliance milestone date.  As Amanda’s blog highlighted, new flare compliance options take effect on January 30, 2019.  For CRUs the exemption for active depressuring and purging at less than 5 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) will be removed.

For purposes of this blog, let’s focus on the actions surrounding the August 1, 2017 compliance date, since it is less than a year away.

So, What Do I Need to Do Before the August 1, 2017 Compliance Date?

In accordance with §63.1571(a)(5), periodic performance tests for both filterable PM or Ni are required at least once every 5 years for each affected CCU.  There are two exceptions to this per §63.1571(a)(5)(i) and (ii).  First, per §63.1571(a)(5)(i) the periodic performance testing requirement does not apply if the CCU monitors PM concentration using a PM CEMs.  Second, per §63.1571(a)(5)(ii) in circumstances where your PM performance test results are greater than 0.8 g/kg of coke burn-off, annual PM testing is required instead of performing one test every 5 years.  A facility must conduct the first periodic performance test for PM or nickel (Ni) no later than August 1, 2017.  So, if your facility is required to perform the PM or Ni performance tests, be sure to start planning for those additional stack test programs (e.g., budgeting, contacting your stack testing company and your state regulatory agency, timing of stack test to correspond with the maximum representative operating capacity, preparation of site-specific performance test plans, performance evaluation, and parametric monitoring plans).  Specifically, as it applies to your PM testing requirement, be sure to review any historic testing and consider additional pre-compliance engineering testing so that you can understand how your current PM emissions compare to the PM limit.  This information will indicate if your facility needs to prepare for the annual testing requirement or if testing for PM every 5 years will suffice.

§63.1571(a)(6) requires a 1-time HCN performance test for each CCU to be conducted no later than August 1, 2017.  However, if your facility conducted an HCN test between March 31, 2011 and February 1, 2016, a request may be submitted to use the results of that test program to fulfill this requirements.  The deadline for submitting this request was March 30, 2016.  Be sure to know if you facility can utilize this compliance option to avoid additional HCN performance testing.  Now is the time to start talking to your stack testing company and start budgeting funds and resources if this HCN performance test is required.

In accordance with Table 7 of Subpart UUU, depending on the control device being used, facilities are required to use 3-hour rolling averages to demonstrate continuous compliance with operating limits for MHAP emissions from affected CCUs established during the performance test.  Because these changes to the operating limit averaging periods will take effect before August 1, 2017, be sure to begin conversations with your continuous emissions monitoring (CEMS) provider so that your systems are configured to measure the required operating parameters on a 3-hour rolling average basis.  Also, be sure to start thinking about updating your compliance tracking tools to reflect the averaging period change.

Give ALL4 a call and we’d be happy to discuss some of the nuances of the RSR, and how we can help make your lives easier when it comes to compliance.  Meghan Barber (mbarber@all4inc.com, 610-933-5246 x130), Kristin Gordon (kgordon@all4inc.com, 281-937-7553 x301), or myself (fdougherty@all4inc.com 281-937-7553 x302) would be happy to help!

    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