Sulfur Dioxide Data Requirements Rule Update: The Bell Signals the End of Round 3

…and the U.S. EPA returns to its corner to prepare for Round 4, the final round, of the Sulfur Dioxide (SO₂) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) Designations & Data Requirements Rule (DRR).

If you haven’t been keeping tabs, a lot has happened since our last update on our SO₂ DRR page way back in January 2016.  Most recently, U.S. EPA made final recommendations for attainment status for facilities in areas where air dispersion modeling was conducted (Round 3).  The U.S. EPA compared the SO₂ DRR rounds of designation to a boxing match, specifically Rocky Balboa boxing to avenge the death of his friend Apollo Creed against Ivan Drago.  However, we will draw the comparison to the more recent bout of Mayweather vs MacGregor.  Here’s a summary of how the rounds played out so far:

ROUND 1

Initial Designation

July 25, 2013 – After substantial comments and concerns over the implementation of the 1-hour SO₂ NAAQS implementation back in 2010, U.S. EPA designates 29 nonattainment areas in 16 states based on design values > 75 parts per billion (ppb) calculated from the 99^th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour concentrations from 3-years of ambient monitoring data.  State Implementation Plans (SIPs) were due April 4, 2015 and attainment date is set for October 4, 2018.  Mayweather looks to walk easily to an undefeated 50-0 boxing record, but MacGregor comes out of the gates hot with countering blows to establish himself in the fight.

ROUND 2

Secondary Designation/Approach for Remaining Areas/Facilities Determination

January 15, 2016 – As required as part of the SO₂ DRR, which was finalized on August 15, 2015, State agencies provided U.S. EPA with a list of affected facilities (i.e., sources with actual SO₂ emissions greater than 2,000 tons/yr) where the SO₂ air quality was set to be characterized.  Facilities on the list had a milestone of July 1, 2016 to decide which approach (ambient monitoring, air dispersion modeling, or the acceptance of an enforceable emissions limit less than 2,000 tons/yr) they elected to use to characterize SO₂ air quality surrounding their facility.  Ambient monitoring stations (if selected) were required to be installed and recording data by January 1, 2017.

June 30, 2016 – Per a consent decree, the U.S. EPA designated an additional 61 areas (for 64 sources) in 24 states with a breakdown of 4 nonattainment, 16 unclassifiable, and 41 unclassifiable/attainment areas.  Mayweather sticks to his fight plan while MacGregor has shown the best he can muster.  Mayweather can see the light at the end of the tunnel, but his fight helped shape what will be the outcome.

ROUND 3

Designations based on Modeled Areas/Facilities

August 2017 – The U.S. EPA is closing in on the end of Round 3 and has released intended designations for facilities or areas that elected the air dispersion modeling approach for characterizing SO₂ air quality surrounding their facility or area.  Most of the areas were proposed for an unclassifiable designation rather than attainment with U.S. EPA citing deficiencies in the modeling submitted as justification for not proposing a full attainment designation.  The information regarding the designations is available to the public.  The U.S. EPA intends to make final designations for Round 3 in December 2017.  Mayweather has taken control of the fight and is poised to end it as early as possible.  MacGregor is looking for any last opportunity to demonstrate his boxing capabilities.

Round 4 will bring with it final designations for facilities or areas that took the ambient monitoring approach to characterizing SO₂ air quality surrounding their facility or area.  Monitoring began for the ambient monitoring facilities and areas on January 1, 2017 and will run through December 31, 2019.  Recommended designations are scheduled to be released by December 31, 2020, ending the 10-year boxing match that is the SO₂ 1-hour NAAQS and subsequent area designations.

With the release of Round 3 intended designations for modeled facilities or areas and the listed reasons for many unclassifiable designations being deficiencies in modeling, ALL4 is here to help.  We would suggest that, if your facility was subject to DRR and elected the dispersion modeling approach, that you review the U.S. EPA cited deficiencies for your evaluation.  At a minimum, it behooves us to understand what U.S. EPA documented as part of this process.  The deficiencies range from minor procedural comments on AERMOD documentation all the way to disagreements (and referenced discrepancies) with modeled emissions rates.  Although it will generally be the responsibility of the state agencies to address these comments, they may be looking for facility support (contact your agency to find out) and U.S. EPA comments about emissions rate inconsistencies are important to fully understand.

We have a team capable of assisting your facility in any impacts of unclassifiable designations.  Our staff can work with your facility and U.S. EPA in remedying any model deficiencies for a proper designation.  Our capabilities also extend to monitoring data, as well.  If you need assistance with reporting, calibrating, auditing, etc. we have staff with the expertise to meet your needs.  For any questions or assistance, please reach out to me (dsnare@all4inc.com, 610.933.5246 x126), Dan Dix (ddix@all4inc.com, 610.933.5246 x118), or the rest of ALL4’s air quality modeling team if you have any questions and want to know more.

What’s the Status of the 2015 Ozone NAAQS and What Regulatory Relief Options Are Available for States Implementing Ozone Standards?

On June 6, 2017 U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt proposed extending the deadline for promulgating the initial area designations for the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) citing “insufficient information.”  The “insufficient information” included: fully understanding the role of background ozone levels, appropriately accounting for international transport, and timely consideration of exceptional events.  On June 28, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) followed up with a formal notification in the Federal Register of a one-year delay for the initial area designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.  Several States petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit citing that over 1,100 ozone ambient monitoring stations were certified and submitted data to the U.S. EPA countering the “insufficient information” claim.  Additionally, the petition citied that background ozone levels, international transport, and exceptional events are all immaterial to the initial designations and are associated with the next phase in the process – the implementation phase.  Avoiding legal ramblings, U.S. EPA withdrew the one-year delay notice on August 2, 2017.

Then on August 14, 2017 the U.S. EPA presented six “regulatory relief” options that could be used by States related to implementing the 2015 ozone NAAQS.  U.S. EPA was required to provide these regulatory relief options as a result of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, which expressed concern about the timing of the 2008 and 2015 ground level ozone NAAQS.  The 2008 standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) was not implemented until February 2015, only eight months before the October 2015 revised standard of 70 ppb.  Thus, states potentially must address the two standards at the same time.  A summary of the regulatory relief approaches with bases in the Clean Air Act (CAA) and in the implementing regulations are discussed below.

Option 1: Air Monitoring Data Exclusion

CAA Section 319

One regulatory relief option in the CAA is the exclusion of air monitoring data that exceeds the ozone NAAQS but is affected by an exceptional event and would cause a nonattainment designation.  Exceptional events are described as a natural event or an event caused by humans that is not preventable.  An example of an exceptional event is a wildfire.  If a state can demonstrate that an exceptional event resulted in monitoring data that exceeded the NAAQS, then a state can request U.S. EPA exclude this data from calculations used to determine compliance with the NAAQS.  Excluding this data could lead to a lower classification and thus, fewer CAA requirements, or designation of an area as “unclassifiable/attainment.”

Option 2: Nonattainment Boundary

CAA Section 107(d)

A second regulatory relief option is the creation of a nonattainment boundary for certain areas.  Nonattainment areas typically include both the area not meeting the NAAQS and nearby areas that contribute to an area exceeding the NAAQS.  In some areas, there are no permanent sources of ozone precursors, and in other locations, sources near the nonattainment area do not significantly contribute to nonattainment.  For these two types of areas, a state may propose to U.S. EPA that a nonattainment area include less of the surrounding area contributing to nonattainment.  This boundary would also be applicable for areas at high elevations with no permanent sources.

Option 3: Rural Transport Area

CAA Section 182(h)

Another approach under the CAA is treating a nonattainment area as a marginally nonattainment area, which is beneficial as the area would have fewer CAA requirements.  To be treated as a marginal nonattainment area, the nonattainment area must not have a significant source of VOC and NO_X, and must not be located near a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).  If approved as a marginal nonattainment area, the area would not require an attainment plan or NAAQS demonstration.

Option 4: International Transport

CAA Section 179B

A fourth approach is the evaluation of nonattainment areas that are affected by international transport of pollutants or precursors.  States, with U.S. EPA’s approval, may have an attainment plan that doesn’t demonstrate attainment in areas affected by international transport.  Additionally, areas affected by international transport will not be reclassified and thus will not be subject to planning and control requirements required under a higher nonattainment classification.

Option 5: Permit Grandfathering

Permit grandfathering is part of U.S. EPA’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program, as well as U.S. EPA-approved state PSD programs, and applies to certain eligible preconstruction permits.  The provision was created so that revised ozone NAAQS designations would not delay the processing of pending permit applications.  Only permits with either a complete application as determined by U.S. EPA, or a public notice for a draft permit or determination had been published by the established date, are eligible for this provision.  The provision does not release projects from complying with PSD requirements, but allows projects to not have to demonstrate that it would not cause or contribute to a violation of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Option 6: Revoking Prior Standards

The final option is for U.S. EPA to revoke the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which is an approach that has been used in the past.  In implementing the 2008 ozone standards, U.S. EPA revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS one year after the effective date of the designations.  For revoking the 2008 ozone NAAQS, there are two options.  The first option is to revoke the NAAQS in all areas one year after the effective date of designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.  This is similar to the approach U.S. EPA took in revoking the 1997 ozone NAAQS.  Anti-backsliding requirements for nonattainment areas that haven’t attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS would be established with this option.  The second option is to revoke the 2008 ozone NAAQS in areas in attainment with the 2015 ozone NAAQS.  Thus, the 2008 ozone NAAQS would still apply in nonattainment areas until the area is designated as attainment.

In addition to the six regulatory relief options summarized above, U.S. EPA plans to evaluate additional options.  We will be watching the development of these options but if you have any questions in the meantime, please contact Dan Dix at (610) 933-5246, extension 118 or me at (610) 933-5246, extension 167.

TCEQ Posts Hurricane Harvey Response/Recovery Guidance

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

We know many of you, including your colleagues, family, and friends, were affected by Hurricane Harvey and you have all been and will continue to be in ALL4’s thoughts.  As the clean-up activities continue and facilities assess damage, begin start-up and return to normal operations, we wanted to share guidance that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has developed.

TCEQ has developed a webpage dedicated to hurricane response.  The hurricane response page includes relevant information related to TCEQ environmental regulations and policies in association with disaster response including the status of TCEQ rules during the disaster, along with guidance on fuel waivers, waste management, drinking water, wastewater treatment, and air quality.  Additional guidance is also provided including agency statements on the Crosby Texas Arkema Plant situation.  While all the guidance is relevant under the circumstances, the available guidance pertaining to air permits, originally dated August 2013, is important for facilities with air permits that are responding to damage to operations inflicted by Harvey.

The air permit guidance addresses outdoor burning, facility repairs, emissions reporting, facility maintenance, startup, or shutdown, allowable temporary modifications, and allowable deadline extensions.  The air permit guidance is very detailed and provides answers to what are likely very common questions facing many facilities that were impacted by Harvey.  As an example, TCEQ addresses questions including but not limited to:

• If I need to make minor repairs to facilities because of hurricane damage, do I need to provide notice to anyone?
• What should I do if I need to temporarily exceed the maximum allowable emission rates or temporarily increase the production, capacity, or throughput stated in my authorization?
• Can compliance test dates be waived or extended?
• Can I get an extension to Title V permit reporting and certification deadlines for a site or a reporting entity impacted by the hurricane?

Based on the guidance, TCEQ will be very accommodating during the recovery process.  However, please note that there are notification and recordkeeping obligations associated with the repairs, temporary sources (e.g., generators, etc.), start-up, and other actions related to the recovery effort.

Please contact ALL4’s Houston Office Director, Kristin Gordon at 281.201.1241 or kgordon@all4inc.com if you need air quality assistance during recovery and start-up activities at your facility.  Should you find your day to day environmental tasks are piling up as you assist with these hurricane response activities, don’t hesitate to reach out to ALL4.  We’re more than happy to help in any way that we can.  For an update on ALL4 Houston, please see Kristin’s statement.

I (Heart) NY…and Its Meteorological Data Network

Facilities in New York enjoy an air permitting advantage that is unavailable to facilities located in many other states: a dense network of meteorological data for use in air quality modeling evaluations.  The Federal Department of Homeland Security worked with the State of New York to place at least one meteorological station in every county in the state.  The resulting network (called New York State’s Mesoscale Weather Network, or Mesonet) consists of 125 meteorological stations measuring the meteorological variables that are necessary for improved weather forecasts but that also provide the necessary information required for air dispersion models.  In addition of the 125 meteorological stations, 17 are classified as “enhanced stations”, which include light detection and ranging (LIDAR) vertical profilers.  (For more information on vertical profilers check out ALL4’s article on ALL4’s sonic detection and ranging (SODAR) vertical profiler).  This wide-ranging coverage of meteorological data means that facilities will not be limited to using National Weather Service (NWS) meteorological data when performing air quality modeling studies that are part of the air permitting process.  Even more importantly, facilities in areas where NWS data are not representative of the meteorological conditions now have an option to use Mesonet data instead of collecting their own site-specific meteorological data.  The collection of site-specific meteorological data requires 12-16 months of monitoring and planning, and data collection costs start at $50,000.  Imagine the benefit to your project timeline if you can expedite your project by 12 months and save at least $50,000!

ALL4 has extensive experience evaluating meteorological data, and we view the Mesonet data as being an extremely unique advantage to all facilities located in New York (and potentially, facilities near the NY border).  We have had numerous conversations with clients about how the unavailability of representative meteorological data adversely affects the project scope.  In many instances facilities are forced to use screening meteorological data that results in significant overestimates of modeled concentrations.

Check out the data for all of the state-wide locations of the Mesonet sites.  Keep in mind, before these datasets can be used for air dispersion modeling, they must be processed, which requires time and effort.  Please reach out to me at ddix@all4inc.com or another member of ALL4’s air quality modeling team to discuss further the New York State Mesonet data and how the data may assist you in meeting your air permitting requirements.

Recent Court Decisions Require Assessment of Greenhouse Emissions from Power Plants

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

President Trump’s March 28, 2017 Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth (Order) directed U.S. EPA to suspend, revise, or rescind various Obama-era regulations intended to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from power plants, including, but not limited to, the Clean Power Plan.  The March 28, 2017 Order also revoked and rescinded numerous Obama-era energy and climate-related Presidential and Regulatory Actions, including, but not limited to, the August 5, 2016 “Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects on Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Reviews.”  However, two recent court rulings have found that Federal agencies could still have an obligation, despite the March 28, 2017 Order, to evaluate the role of GHG emissions in fossil fuel-related construction projects.

On August 14, 2017 the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana (in Montana Environmental Information Center (MEIC) v. U.S. Office of Surface Mining) blocked approval of a coal mine expansion project after finding that the GHG effects of the coal’s transport and use was not adequately considered by the U.S. Department of the Interior in an environmental review for the project.  Similarly, on August 22, 2017 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled (in Sierra Club et al. v. FERC, case number 16-1329) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) should have analyzed downstream GHG emission impacts due to combustion of natural gas at power plants before approving the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a natural gas pipeline project in the Southeastern United States.  These rulings remind me a bit of the historic court decisions that required consideration of the social cost of carbon (SCC) as part of NEPA reviews.  But with social cost of carbon guidance no longer being representative of government policy, the courts appear to be taking a different route.  Time will tell whether these two recent court cases will broaden the future role that Federal agencies play regarding climate change, but it is certainly interesting to speculate, and at a minimum I suspect we will see future challenges by environmental groups based upon these two recent rulings.  For questions regarding either these recent court decisions and/or GHG emissions at your facility, feel free to give me a call at 610.933.5246 x132 (or email muhler@all4inc.com).

TCEQ Air Quality 101 Blog Series – Continuous Monitoring Systems (CMS)

Close your eyes and imagine you are the conductor of a symphony orchestra.  Now open them and come to grips with the fact that your orchestra is a Data Acquisition and Handling System (DAHS)!  So have some fun with it…you are the conductor of an orchestra of probes/analyzers, umbilical lines, condensers, gas dilution equipment, other hardware, all while sending communication responses to software systems.

Now imagine you are a Plant Manager, or Responsible Official.  For all those annual, semiannual, and quarterly reports that rely on Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) data, you must certify the emissions information in each report is complete, accurate and true, beyond your reasonable inquiry.  Do you have the confidence in your quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures, your calibration audits, or general work practice standards to ensure that recorded data is valid, beyond reasonable inquiry?  Can you be assured that your Texas facility is protected from the risk of noncompliance with the cacophony of regulations that govern data reporting?  Managing continuously measured data in increments (i.e., 10-second, 1-minute, 1-hour, etc.) may seem like a lot of pressure–almost bottom of the ninth, bases loaded, type of pressure (for all you Astros fans), but rest assured, if you are informed and understand your CEMS, using CEMS for reporting, recordkeeping, purposes can be an asset instead of a burden.

Whether your facility is subject to the emissions inventory reporting requirements of 30 TAC §101.10, the utility electric generation reporting requirements identified in 30 TAC §117.3045(d)(5), the emissions events reporting and recordkeeping requirements pursuant to 30 TAC §101.201 or even Federal Information Collection Requests (ICRs) or the Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (NSPS) reporting requirements of 40 CFR §60.7(c)-(d), you most likely are relying on the accuracy of your facility’s CEMS to submit data.  You might even be relying on CEMS to demonstrate compliance with emission rates identified in your permit’s maximum allowable emission rates table (MAERT).  Whatever regulation, administrator request, or permit condition it may be, the validity of your CEMS data is critical.

Some of ALL4’s experience with TCEQ CEMS reporting requirements has led us to reporting annual emissions, and qualifying downtime and exceedance events throughout the year to ensure the continuously recorded data is in fact being reported correctly.  It is vital to know how your DAHS works.  It is vital to be transparent and foster a trusting relationship with the regulator who reviews your reports (e.g., emissions inventory or downtime/excess emissions events reports).  It is vital to know how valid averages are calculated (e.g., how valid minute data creates a valid hourly average).

Did you know that according to TCEQ’s 2016 Emissions Inventory Guidelines, published January 2017, “actual measurement with continuous CEMS is the preferred method of calculating emissions from a source” (pg. 6)?  Therefore, TCEQ prefers that reported annual emissions data be quantified using CEMS.  Since CEMS are typically used as a tool for continuously collecting emissions data for air compliance purposes, the data being reported using CEMS must be valid.  Having a CEMS that is not calibrated correctly, or is not certified, exposes your facility to unnecessary risk.  TCEQ reviews annual emissions inventory data and may reach out with questions upon reviewing those reported emissions.  Remember, for emissions reported via CEMS, TCEQ requires sheets that summarize the Relative Accuracy Test Audits (RATA) or other similar audits that were performed during the reporting year.  Make sure routine preventative maintenance activities are conducted on your CEMS, and make sure you have an ample supply of calibration gases on site, just to name a few action items that can support your CEMS in producing valid data.

For any of your facility’s submitted reports, find out how your regulator reviews your data.  For the person reviewing your facility’s reports, transparency in your data is key.  In our conversations with regulatory contacts throughout the state, transparency is one of the most valued criteria when building trust with a facility and its operations staff.  In addition, consistency in reporting your data is also key.  Through our conversations with state staff members and through our own experience, we have found that regulators review historical reports alongside of current reports, looking for trends, inconsistencies, or discrepancies between reporting periods.  Submitting consistent reports allows regulators to more efficiently perform his or her review, which makes your life easier.  For example, from a consistency standpoint, make sure you define any excess emissions event at your facility using exactly the same language on your excess emissions event notifications, excess emissions and monitoring systems performance detailed reports, semiannual deviation reports, etc.  It is important to have the information on these reports quality assured, as eventually the submitted data will become available to the public.

A day in the life of an Environmental Manger can be tricky, especially when it comes to managing CEMS.  As highlighted throughout this blog, there are notification, reporting, recordkeeping and best management practices required to maintain a compliant and healthy CEMS in TX.  Know the rules, and try to understand your regulator’s expectations and what he or she may focus on.  From CMS to COMS all the way to CPMS and PEMS, ALL4 has you covered in TX.  Equipped with extensive experience, ALL4 has a robust CMS team that can alleviate CMS stresses, or even provide company-wide CMS trainings through webinars.  Please reach out to me at fdougherty@all4inc.com, 281-937-7553 x302 if you have any CMS related questions.