Presidential Executive Order Targets NSPS Subpart OOOOa Regulations

UPDATE (4/4/17): U.S. EPA announced that it is initiating the review of Subpart OOOOa as required by the Presidential Executive Order.  The announcement can be found here.

ORIGINAL: In June 2016, we wrote about the arrival of 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart OOOOa – Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Facilities for which Construction, Modification, or Reconstruction Commenced After September 18, 2015 for the oil and gas industry.  As noted in Roy’s blog, a fundamental change implemented in Subpart OOOOa consisted of the addition of greenhouse gases (GHGs), expressed as methane, as a regulated pollutant in addition to VOC and sulfur dioxide (SO₂), which has been the subject of considerable industry pushback.  In a newly-issued March 28th Presidential Executive Order Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth, U.S. EPA is being required to review Subpart OOOOa to ensure that it is consistent with President Trump’s policy for energy independence and economic growth, as outlined in Section 1 of the Executive Order, and, as appropriate, revise, suspend, or rescind this regulation.

The referenced policy in Section 1 driving the requirement for U.S. EPA’s review of Subpart OOOOa is focused on, as the title of the Executive Order suggests, promoting energy production in relation to economic growth.  The main argument of the policy is that regulations should not prevent energy production from a variety of fuels, cause significant costs for the use of various fuels, or inhibit the creation of jobs in the oil and gas industry.  As such, executive departments and agencies are directed to review regulations deemed to not align with this policy.

Under the Executive Order, U.S. EPA is required to submit a plan for its review Subpart OOOOa within 45 days of the issuance of the Executive Order, and to submit a report detailing whether or not the subpart will be revised, suspended, or rescinded within 120 days of the issuance of the Executive Order.

ALL4 will be closely following the U.S. EPA’s review of Subpart OOOOa, and we will be updating our blog or newsletter as new information becomes available.  Please contact me at 610.933.5246, extension 167, or ahoward@all4inc.com.

Toxics Release Inventory Reporting for Natural Gas Processing Facilities

(Update March 2017): After requests from stakeholders for an extension for comments on the EPA’s proposed addition of natural gas processing facilities to the Toxics Release Inventory, EPA has extended the comment period on the proposal.  An additional 60 days have been added to the comment period for this proposal. The comment period now extends from March 7^th, 2017 until May 6^th, 2017.

(Original 2/2/17): On January 6, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) formally proposed a rulemaking that would add natural gas processing (NGP) facilities to the list of industrial sectors subject to Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting and Section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA).  If you happen to be a member of the oil and gas industry, you’ll likely recall ALL4’s historic blog introducing the possibility of just such a rulemaking.  As ALL4’s Sean Cunningham related in that article, a long-time push by environmentalists caused U.S. EPA to begin a rulemaking to add natural gas facilities to the list of industry sectors subject to TRI reporting.  Now that U.S. EPA has formally proposed the rulemaking, let’s talk about what that actually means.

Many facilities are required under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) to submit an annual TRI report to both the U.S. EPA and appropriate state officials.  The deadline is July 1 of each year.  In order for a facility to be subject to the TRI reporting requirement, a facility must meet all three of the following criteria:

• Have 10 or more full-time employee equivalents (i.e., a total of 20,000 hours per year or greater).
• Have a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code listed in the implementing regulations at 40 CFR §372.23.
• Manufacture, process, or otherwise use any EPCRA Section 313 chemical in quantities greater than the established threshold in the course of the calendar year.

U.S. EPA is estimating that between 282 and 444 NGP facilities will meet all three criteria cited above.  The current TRI chemical list identifies 595 individually listed chemicals and 31 chemical categories.  For perspective, in the proposed rulemaking U.S. EPA estimates that at least 21 of the 595 different TRI-listed chemicals could be present at NGP facilities.  If you qualify as an NGP facility, we encourage you to review your facility data now so that you understand the likelihood of being required to report in the future.  As you can imagine, it doesn’t take much to qualify for the first two criteria.  And if you do qualify under the first two, you will need to do your due diligence on the third criterion to determine if your facility manufactured, processed, or otherwise used an EPCRA Section 313 chemical in quantities greater than the established Section 313 thresholds.  If you do need to submit a TRI report, how confident are you in the quality of your data set, which would be used by the public to potentially identify your facility as posing chemical threats at the community level?

If finalized as proposed, the TRI reporting requirement would result in the first occasion that many types of data specific to the oil and gas industry become available to the public for review.  Because of this, affected NGP facilities would need to have a high level of confidence in the quality of data being submitted.  The implications of the proposed rule cannot be taken lightly.  Although the Federal Register notice does not propose how soon facilities could be required to complete TRI reporting, ALL4 is following this topic closely recognizing the impact it would have on affected facilities.

ALL4 has significant experience reporting to the Toxic Release Inventory and has assisted clients reporting in a variety of industries including (but not limited to) pulp and paper manufacturing, cement manufacturing, marine vessel manufacturing, electricity generation, crude coal tar refining, petroleum distribution, and brick manufacturing.

If you are not sure if you may become subject to TRI reporting, call us.  We can evaluate the extent to which you have manufactured, processed, or otherwise used quantities of Section 313 chemicals during previous years and give our opinion on the likelihood of your facility being subject to reporting in the future.

This article is available as a podcast episode on ALL4’s Air Quality Insider

Goodbye Exemption No. 38, Hello GP-5A: Changes on the Horizon for the Pennsylvania Natural Gas Industry

UPDATE (3/23/17): PADEP has posted drafts of the GP-5 and GP-5A permits for the natural gas industry. In addition, a draft of the revised Air Quality Permit Exemptions list with modifications to the Exemption Category No. 38 requirements has also been posted. The deadline to comment on the draft documents is June 5, 2017.

ORIGINAL (12/20/2016): On January 19, 2016, Governor Tom Wolf announced a four-point plan for reducing methane emissions from natural gas operations.  At the December 8, 2016 Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee (AQTAC) meeting, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) took the first steps towards increased regulation of Pennsylvania’s natural gas industry in publishing a revised draft of General Plan Approval and/or General Operating Permit (GP)-5 and a draft of the new GP-5A.  One of the more significant impacts of this action is that PADEP will revise Exemption Category No. 38 such that it will only apply to unconventional natural gas well sites constructed between August 10, 2013 and the effective date of PADEP’s revised Air Quality Permit Exemption List.  All well sites installed or modified after the effective date will need to be permitted with a GP-5A.

Key revisions to certain general conditions of both permits include, but are not limited to:

• The newly promulgated 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOOOa regulations have been incorporated.
• Administrative amendments to the GP-5/5A permits will be allowed for minor administrative changes.
• A new requirement has been established to minimize noise.
• Some notifications are now required to be submitted through email rather than in writing.
• Emergency shutdowns and unscheduled blowdown or venting events must be reported to PADEP within 24 hours.
• Notification is required 24 hours before a scheduled blowdown or venting event.
• Source test protocols are required to be submitted 60 days before testing (previously they were required 30 days prior to testing).

The new GP-5A, which follows the same general format as GP-5, is applicable to unconventional natural gas well sites and remote pigging stations.  Existing sources should continue to comply with the Exemption Category No. 38 emissions standards and the GP-5A emissions standards will apply only to new or modified sources.  GP-5A includes requirements for the following emissions sources:

• Fugitive Particulate Matter
• Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing Operations
• Well Completion Operations
• Natural Gas-Fired Combustion Units
• Glycol Dehydration Units
• Stationary Natural Gas-Fired Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines
• Reciprocating Compressors
• Storage Vessels
• Tanker Truck Load-Out Operations
• Fugitive Emissions Components
• Controllers
• Pumps
• Enclosed Flares and Other Emission Control Devices
• Pigging Operations
• Wellbore Liquids Unloading Operations

GP-5, which applies to natural gas compression stations, processing plants, and now transmission stations, has been reorganized for clarity and, in addition to expanding requirements for emissions sources included in the current GP-5, includes requirements for additional emissions sources.  Specifically, GP-5 now includes requirements for fugitive particulate matter, natural gas-fired combustion units, tanker truck load-out operations, pumps, enclosed flares and other emissions control devices, and pigging operations.  Existing sources that already operate under a GP-5 will continue to be subject to the requirements of the current GP-5, and the revised GP-5 will apply only to new sources.

ALL4 has been tracking the recent regulatory activity targeting methane emissions and the major takeaway is that change is on the horizon for the oil and gas industry.  If you have questions about how these actions affect your operations or what your next steps should be, please reach out to me at (610) 933-5246, extension 155, or at cspeers@all4inc.com.

Turning 15!

I am the proud father of a 15-year old son at home and the proud “father” of a 15-year old company.  I love observing my son in his life journey as he is figuring himself out through the teen-age years.  He is building on the foundation that my wife, Julie, and I have provided (all credit goes to Julie…) and he is creating his future!  The tangible growth that I see is in the form of complete independence with his schoolwork, handling his own laundry, and maintaining a relatively clean bedroom.  When I asked him about all these changes that we were witnessing, he responded, “I don’t think I am changing, I’m just carrying on with what Mom and you have started.”

That response caused me to think about my other 15-year old… ALL4.  Are we “carrying on what John, Kevin, Dan, and I started?”  To answer that question, it took me back to two of the most impactful videos that I have watched.  First, Simon Sinek introduced me to the question of WHY with his thought provoking TED Talk “How Great Leaders Inspire Action”.  I was then moved to better understand our WHAT and how it connected to our WHY through Michael Jr.’s “Know your Why” Break Time video. 

After watching those two videos, I promise that I am not going to compare ALL4 to Apple, I’m certainly not going to try to connect Martin Luther King, Jr. to any ALL4 Principal, and, lastly, anyone who knows my musical abilities knows that I can’t clap to the beat much less sing like E. Daryl Duff!  But, that doesn’t make ALL4’s WHY any less important.  You see, ALL4’s WHY is to make an impact.

To make an impact together…

• on the environment;
• for our clients;
• in the communities where our clients are located;
• for each other; and
• in the communities where we live and work. 

As Michael Jr. says, “When you know your WHY, your WHAT is more important.”  At ALL4, we seek to help build thriving communities by strengthening the industrial base of our country while concurrently embracing a safe and healthy environment.  We do this by shaping environmental policy, regulations, and permits that benefit both the environment and our clients.  At ALL4, we seek to build a collection of talented people doing amazing things for our clients, for each other, and for the communities that we each call home.  We do this by creating a culture that attracts experienced environmental consultants, and presents an opportunity for new engineers and scientists to connect our country’s technical advancements with improved environmental quality for the benefit of all. 

Are we making an impact?  I think so!  Are we inspiring others?  I hope so!  What I do know is that we are not done, and we remain committed to carrying on the WHY and WHAT of ALL4 that we embraced in 2002 when we started!  

I look forward to tracking the progress of “my two 15-year olds” over the next 15 years.

This article is available as a podcast on ALL4’s Air Quality Insider

Is Your Continuous Monitoring Data Leaving You Vulnerable and Exposed?

The U.S. EPA announced, in a 2013 blog, the terminology “NextGen” (U.S. EPA’s Next Generation of Compliance and Enforcement) and its five interconnected components.  Fast-forward to the Spring of 2017…the U.S. EPA is continuing to implement their NextGen strategic plan.  So what does that mean to you?  I’ve listed a few items below that help frame the discussion of this blog.

NextGen means:

1. A shift toward electronic reporting.
   • U.S. EPA maintains a listing of regulations with electronic reporting requirements.
2. Expanded transparency by making information accessible to the public.
   • If you have not already, check out U.S. EPA’s Webfire site to search and retrieve emissions reports, performance tests, and notifications.
3. The use of innovative enforcement approaches (e.g., data analytics and targeting) to achieve more widespread compliance.
   • U.S. EPA published highlights of their NextGen enforcement settlements in December 2016.

It is clear that continuous monitoring is the direction of the future for the U.S. EPA.  Since the inception of NextGen, we have noted the following:

• Various regulatory agencies are giving greater scrutiny to continuous monitoring system (CMS) data used for compliance.
• Notice of violations, penalties, and settlements associated with electronically reported CMS data has become front-page news and regularly circulated to the public in agency announcements.
• Operators struggle with shared CMS issues.

In other words, continuous monitoring and electronic reporting requirements will continue to grow and become more onerous.  New and updated monitoring and reporting regulations will continue to be difficult to decipher.  Implementation of compliance programs that prevent avoidable errors and violations have proven to be problematic for operators.  U.S. EPA anticipates that state agencies will incorporate NextGen into their requirements.  Due to uncertainty of future U.S. EPA funding, states may be embracing NextGen compliance tools, as additional state resources are needed to evaluate submitted data.

Where do you and your operations fit into this discussion?  Ask yourself the following questions or go ask those with CMS responsibilities.

• Have we documented our approach for data management? Is our approach auditable and defensible or does it leave us vulnerable and exposed?
• Is there consistency in how my data is generated (across time, facility locations, pollutants, monitor type, etc.)?
• Are we aware of changes to rules that may have affected or required CMS?  Do we have a program in place to identify future changes?
• Do we have an over reliance on our internal data management system or third party data acquisition and handling system (DAHS) vendor?  Do we have documentation of the process by which compliance reports are developed and quality assured to provide “reasonable inquiry” for the certifying official?
• What data validation procedures do we use?  Are they consistent with the applicable requirements?  Are historic regulatory decisions and interpretations understood and documented?

The “black box” mentality of your data management system is an article of the past.  U.S. EPA has promulgated regulation in the refinery industry [40 CFR §63.671(b)(4)] that requires facilities to understand what their data management system is doing and have supporting documentation.  Agencies have realized the need to understand how data management systems compute data and have begun requiring compliance average calculations be documented and submitted as part of applications and reports.

ALL4 has been assisting our clients with understanding and addressing these issues.  Many of these projects take the form of one or more of the following:

1. CMS Audit/Review – Evaluation of approach and related systems to verify procedures are consistent with the applicable regulations.
2. Data Management Verification – Document calculations and verify calculation methodologies, data averaging, and data validation is consistent with applicable regulatory requirements.
3. QA/QC Procedures – Development of procedures and plans and program training, including proficiency testing (on-site, web based, and video options).
4. Facilitation of coordination – Identify ways to streamline the data management process between Management, Environmental, Operations, and Instrumentation.
5. Reporting Assistance – ERT, CEDRI, State Specific Reports, NSPS and NESHAP Reporting
6. Strategic planning and general CMS consulting support

Do not be surprised if either I or someone from our CMS focus area gives you call to discuss further and schedule a meeting to highlight the general aspects of demonstrating compliance using CMS data.  I know that you will find value in the conversation we have.  We will send you an agenda prior to the meeting so that you may forward to the appropriate personnel.  We find that this discussion not only benefits the Environmental Department, but also benefits Operations, Maintenance, and even Corporate, Plant Management, or IT.  There’s no need to wait for us to call you, reach out to me first.  My contact information is 610.933.5246, extension 120 or jkleinle@all4inc.com.

This article is available as a podcast episode on ALL4’s Air Quality Insider

Plantwide Applicability Limits A Legitimate Alternative to Major New Source Review Permitting

Current Thoughts Regarding New Source Review

After 50 days of the new administration, it is abundantly clear that U.S. EPA will take several months or more to gain their footing under a profoundly different approach to environmental regulation.  As such, new regulatory development has all but ground to a halt.  In the absence of new activity, this regulatory hiatus represents an opportune time to take a step back and consider three items related to New Source Review (NSR) that we view as important for facilities and environmental managers to consider.  For existing major stationary sources, NSR is an important regulatory consideration when planning facility modifications and expansion projects.  As a pre-construction permitting program, it is often a key consideration in project schedules and can impact project scope and planning.  With the expectation of sustained growth in the U.S. economy, facility expansion projects and modifications can’t be that far behind.  With this backdrop, three key thoughts regarding NSR and air quality management are presented below.

1.      Beware of Regulatory Complacency

ALL4’s John Egan provided his thoughts on the change in administration and possible implications to air quality policy in the January 2017 issue of 4 The Record (4TR).  A common theme associated with the change in the political climate is the anticipated level of environmental regulatory reform and specifically, reforms anticipated to the often misunderstood NSR regulations [i.e., Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR)].  With the confirmation of the new Administrator and the anticipated budget cuts at U.S. EPA, it is easy to envision a less active agency.

The major NSR regulations are based on the statutory requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).  The rules themselves are relatively static with significant rule revisions last occurring in 2002.  The complicating factors of NSR are most associated with determining if NSR even applies to a given project.  Because of this potential uncertainty and the idiosyncrasies associated with NSR applicability determinations, such determinations are often subject to review by U.S. EPA.  In addition, there are volumes of precedent and regulatory guidance regarding NSR applicability that both regulatory agencies and facilities rely upon.  U.S. EPA involvement in NSR applicability reviews often results in construction permit delays and extended project schedules, prompting frustration at facilities and a strong desire for regulatory relief.  While relief may at some point become reality, such relief will most likely be in the form of reduced U.S. EPA funding and manpower and not regulatory or statutory reform.  As a result, U.S. EPA budget, staff, and influence will be diminished with increased independent action by state regulatory agencies.

Why is this important to my facility?

With the current indications of an emerging domestic economic expansion, facility environmental managers must remain diligent in identifying and tracking facility modification and expansion plans to ensure that NSR pre-construction permitting requirements are identified, evaluated, and met.  Reducing U.S. EPA funding and manpower does not change statutory or regulatory requirements.  Because the regulations are not changing, the underlying NSR requirements continue to apply regardless of U.S. EPA cutbacks.  The responsibility for implementing the NSR requirements will continue to be with state regulatory agencies, albeit with much reduced U.S. EPA involvement.  Also note that Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are very well-funded and in an era of perceived lack of regulatory oversight, will likely become more involved in permitting actions as part of the public participation process filling the void left by a less active U.S. EPA.

2.      USA v. DTE Energy Company, et al. – Round 2

In the May 2015 issue of 4TR, we discussed the possible implications of a U.S. EPA enforcement action against a Michigan electric utility company (DTE Energy Company).  Looking back, the utility initiated “maintenance work” at their Monroe, Michigan facility in March 2010 after providing notice of the project to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) in accordance with Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements.  U.S. EPA asserted that the facility was required to obtain a pre-construction permit from MDEQ because the project was a major modification under the Michigan NSR regulations and that the source’s notice to MDEQ was untimely and deficient, stating that the notice included no explanation of why emissions were excluded. The issue has been in District and Sixth Circuit courts ever since.

The latest decision regarding this case came on January 10, 2017 when the Sixth Circuit Court again remanded a prior District Court decision regarding the case.  The Sixth Circuit Court ruled that the utility was not required to secure U.S. EPA’s approval of emissions projections or the project before beginning construction, but that the utility proceeded at its own risk by moving forward without a permit.  The Sixth Circuit Court also ruled that U.S. EPA is not prevented by law or by their March 28, 2013 prior opinion (DTE1) from challenging preconstruction emissions projections.  More importantly, the Sixth Circuit court also ruled, consistent with their March 28, 2013 prior opinion (DTE1) that actual post-construction emissions have no bearing on the question of whether preconstruction projections complied with the regulations and that the District Court was in error initially and on remand when it ruled that post-construction data could be used to show that a construction project was not a major modification.  Finally, the Sixth Circuit Court reiterated that “…the applicability of NSR must be determined before construction commences and that liability can attach if an operator proceeds to construction without complying with the preconstruction requirements in the regulations.”

What does this decision mean?

It basically takes us back to square one: NSR permitting requirements are determined before construction is commenced, which is consistent with our understanding of how NSR applicability has been determined since the inception of the rules themselves.  Prior to the NSR reform rules of 2002, major NSR permitting requirements were routinely triggered for existing major stationary sources because of the use of the “actual to potential” applicability test.  The applicability tests promulgated with NSR reform are more complex and are focused on emissions increases attributed to the project under consideration.  Because the tests are more complex, their use has routinely been scrutinized by U.S. EPA, state regulatory agencies, and NGOs.  When evaluating NSR applicability, it is important for facilities to develop well documented emissions inventories and NSR applicability evaluations in accordance with applicable Federal rules, State rules, pertinent precedence, and regulatory guidance prior to beginning construction.

3.      A Strategic Air Quality Permitting Option

The NSR reform rules of 2002 included provisions for Plantwide Applicability Limits (PAL).  A PAL is a facility-wide limit for a regulated NSR pollutant.  PALs can be established for one or more regulated NSR pollutant(s) at an existing major stationary source.  Each PAL is based on a 12-month rolling total, expressed in tons of pollutant per year. Compliance with PALs must be demonstrated monthly during the term of the PAL permit.  Each limit is generally established based on the average annual (i.e., baseline) emissions rate for a consecutive 24-month period during the prior 10 years of facility operation.  PALs have been addressed in the 4TR articles, “The Secret to Your Environmental Permitting Challenges – A PAL Permit,” “The Window is Closing:  A Case for Plantwide Applicability Limits Now,” “Exploring Plantwide Applicability Limit (PAL) Basics,” and Plantwide Applicability Limits: A Legitimate Alternative to Major New Source Review Permitting.”

A primary benefit of a PAL permit is that as long as the facility demonstrates compliance with the PAL, physical changes and changes in the method of operation are not major modifications and projects do not require approval under applicable NSR programs.  States may still require facilities operating under a PAL to procure construction permits when making a physical change or modification to an emissions unit, but the associated NSR applicability analyses for every project and the complications associated with PSD/NNSR for major modifications are eliminated.  Essentially, the facility manages operations and projects to allow facility growth while maintaining emissions below PAL levels.  When or if emissions reductions are needed, it is the facility that makes the decision regarding how reductions are achieved and what control technology is chosen, not the regulatory agencies.

Why should I consider a PAL permit now?

The PAL regulations allow facilities to retain beneficially high baseline periods for up to 10 additional years allowing for flexibility, permitting certainty, and reduced permitting timelines.  Recall that “The Great Recession” is recognized to have begun in December 2007 and ended in June of 2009.  Domestic economic activity in the years preceding The Great Recession was relatively robust.  Domestic industrial output plummeted during the recession, and in many instances, has not fully recovered to pre-recession levels.  Pertaining to air quality, robust economic activity translates into higher industrial activity, greater production, and most importantly, higher baseline actual emissions rates of regulated NSR pollutants for regulated entities.  PAL levels are established using baseline actual emissions rates and when developing a PAL, non-electric generating units are allowed to “look back” up to 10 years to establish baseline emissions rates.  A 10 year look back allows facilities to potentially establish PALs using production rates and associated baseline actual emissions that have not been achieved since before 2008.  Higher baseline emissions rates equate to higher PAL levels and higher PALs support greater operational flexibility.

Now that regulatory development is at a standstill with the new administration, take a few moments to think about how you will address NSR for a future plant expansion:

• Remember that NSR applicability is an on-going concern and must be accounted for when planning capital projects,
• In a recent decision, the Six Circuit Court re-iterated that NSR applicability is determined pre-construction, and
• This may be your last chance to preserve a historically high baseline period for your facility by strategically considering if a PAL permit will be a good fit for your facility.

Please contact Roy Rakiewicz at 610.933.5246, extension 127 or at rrakiewicz@all4inc.com with any questions.

This article is available as a podcast episode on ALL4’s Air Quality Insider

Appendix W Revision: The New Era of Air Quality Modeling – Long Range Transportation Modeling Updates

Long Range Transportation, we aren’t talking about the Griswold’s driving cross-country to Walley World and those family car trips to far away one-off destinations (like the World’s Largest Ball of Twine).  We’re talking about the atmospheric transport and dispersion of pollutants through the air for distances greater than 50 kilometers (km) from an emissions source!

Long Range Transportation (LRT) is part of the Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Appendix W and this blog is part of the series of blogs about the Appendix W/IWAQM revision introduced in January 2017.

LRT is a New Source Review (NSR) air permitting requirement.  The revisions incorporated into Appendix W affect when LRT modeling analyses are required and how they are completed.  These revisions mean that LRT modeling may need to be done slightly different than if a facility has completed it in the past.  The changes to LRT could impact the amount of time, money and resources required for modeling purposes.  For an extended look into what updates have been made and how they may impact a current or future project, please read on!

What updates have been made for LRT under the Appendix W revision?

In short, two things (we’ll call them Things 1 and 2) which include the removal of a U.S. EPA preferred model and the implementation of a screening approach for demonstrating compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) increments.  A technical support document for American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD)-Based Assessments of Long-Range Transport Impacts for Primary Pollutants was released as part of the Final Rule preamble in December of 2016.  The guidance document outlines the two major updates in the Appendix W revision as it relates to LRT Modeling:

Thing 1: California Puff Model (CALPUFF) has been removed as the U.S. EPA-preferred model for LRT applications.

U.S. EPA did not determine a preferred replacement model for LRT applications.  However, the need for LRT assessments for NAAQS and PSD increment violations for inert pollutants [i.e. Sulfur Dioxide (SO₂), Particulate Matter (PM), etc.] has been limited due to a new screening approach for addressing the NAAQS and PSD increments (see Thing 2).  In cases where LRT assessments are required, the initial thought two years ago was that CALPUFF would be gone completely.  This is not the case.  CALPUFF is still an accepted way to model, however, it requires approval before use, unlike AERMOD, which does not require approval before use.  It is important to note that the use of CALPUFF in the near-field (for distances less than 50 km from a facility) as an alternative model for situations involving complex terrain and complex winds is not changed by removal of CALPUFF as a preferred model in Appendix A.

Thing 2: A screening approach has been implemented for addressing the NAAQS and PSD increment.

The traditional approach for demonstrating compliance with a NAAQS and PSD increment standard is a two-stage approach.  Under the two stage approach permitting authorities have issued PSD permits based on a demonstration that the air quality impacts of a proposed source are below concentration levels considered to be significant with respect to the NAAQS or PSD increment.  The first step of this approach involves an air quality modeling analysis that produces results which are compared to significant impact levels (SILs) to determine the culpability of a new or modified source.  In conjunction with the recent Appendix W updates, a new screening approach intends to eliminate the need for many LRT model applications by analyzing the short-term, near-field results.  The way the screening approach works is that if NAAQS compliance with short-term standards can be demonstrated in near-field application, no LRT evaluation would be necessary because compliance with short-term standards indicates that there are not likely to be significant source impacts at or past 50 km.  An example of a facility that could be a good candidate to avoid the time and money sink of an LRT evaluation would be facilities with shorter stacks which have maximum impacts in close proximity to the source and where the impacts at 50 km are much lower.  Determining whether LRT is applicable for a project gets a little trickier when the stacks are tall (greater than 100 meters) or when terrain surrounding a facility is elevated because the maximum impacts of a plume of emissions occur much farther downwind since the plumes require more distance to contact the surface (example elevated terrain scenario below).

You may be impacted by this update if your facility is required to perform air quality modeling to demonstrate compliance with PSD increment  and your facility is located within 300 km of a Class I area.  ALL4 is here to assist you and provide you the knowledge and expertise that is required for modeling projects such as determining if LRT is required for your facility!

What do you need to do?  Could you use some assistance?

If your facility requires NAAQS or PSD increment compliance demonstrations for any project, you will need to be aware of how emissions from your facility will affect downwind locations both in the near-field and LRT regions.  There are many complexities that go on with modeling emissions from your facility and ALL4 is here to help.  We can help you determine if LRT is required for your project and we have the resources to fulfill any of your modeling requirements.  If you have any questions regarding LRT Modeling Updates or Appendix W in general, give me a call (610.933.5246 x126) or reach out to Dan Dix (ddix@all4inc.com, 610.933.5246 x118).  Other members of ALL4’s air quality modeling team are also available if you have any questions or want to learn more.  And lest we forget to mention it, stay tuned for more blogs about the Appendix W Final Rule updates, and how they could impact your projects!

Appendix W Revision: The New Era of Air Quality Modeling – SO2 Modeling Updates

If you’ve visited ALL4’s website within the past few weeks (c’mon, don’t you visit daily?), you’ve likely seen a wealth of information regarding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) revisions to 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W (also known has the Guideline on Air Quality Models).  The revisions were finally published in the Federal Register (FR) on January 17, 2017 and cover a variety of topics.  For an introductory look at the changes made to Appendix W, visit the blog published on January 17, 2017.  For SO₂, the revisions incorporated many less conservative air quality modeling methodologies that were provided in numerous guidance documents.  With the SO₂ Data Reporting Rule (DRR) and U.S. EPA emphasis on SO₂, improved air quality modeling techniques are important for regulated stakeholders.  These revisions could mean that SO₂ air quality modeling is no longer the fatal flaw when it comes down to evaluating the feasibility of a project.  For a look into what these changes mean to a previous project or future project, read on!

So what exactly changed as it pertains to SO₂ air quality modeling guidelines?

Air quality models for SO₂ are needed to address compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) increments, development of state implementation plans (SIP), and for characterizing current air quality through the use of modeling.  Updates to Appendix W that impact SO₂ air quality modeling include the incorporation of ADJ_U* as a regulatory default option (as opposed to a beta option); the ability to represent emissions from local sources at the level at which the sources actually emitted, rather than at the level the source is permitted to emit; and the incorporation of background concentrations that are reflective of seasonal and diurnal patterns.

Let’s dive into some of the details.

Good news! The revisions to Appendix W are in your favor.

One of the major updates to Appendix W includes the incorporation of ADJ_U* as a regulatory option in AERMOD’s meteorological data processor (AERMET).   To put it simply, when the wind speed is low or calm (think a still summer evening) the dispersion algorithms in AERMOD have a tendency to overstate the modeled concentrations.  The ADJ_U* option adjusts the variables used to calculate the dispersion of a plume to avoid over-predicting SO₂ concentrations under calm conditions.  What could this mean for you?  Utilizing ADJ_U* could lower anticipated impacts of emissions units on overly-conservative 1-hour SO₂ concentration predictions, which in turn provides more wiggle-room for current and future permitting projects.

Another just-as-important update is that local sources will no longer be modeled at their potential-to-emit (PTE) emissions rate.  Instead, local sources will be modeled as average actual emissions over the last two normal years of that source’s operation.  Since sources seldom emit at the permitted levels, the use of actual emissions provides a more representative assessment of actual air quality.  The ability to model local sources at their actual emissions rates will reduce the concentration levels of local sources in NAAQS analyses.  Also remember when a third party includes your facility in an air quality modeling study, your facility will be represented more realistically.  As with ADJ_U*, this change will ultimately provide your facility with more flexibility in current and future air permitting projects.

Lastly, U.S. EPA made revisions to Appendix W to incorporate new language surrounding the selection of background concentrations during short-term modeling.  For short-term standards, the air quality monitoring data may be paired in a temporal manner (e.g., pairing by season and/or hour of day).  This approach may be taken to minimize daily variation of ambient concentrations with season or time of day.  The ability to utilize these methods allows a better representation and less conservative option for accounting for background concentrations.  In short, it helps you.

Have questions, need assistance, or just don’t have the time?  We can help!

ALL4 has your back!  We have plenty of dedicated staff at ALL4 who would love to dive into your facility’s existing, new, or proposed projects and offer a helping hand.  If you have any questions, feel free to contact our ALL4 team members.