Are Pennsylvania Air Emissions and Permitting Fees on the Rise?

Unfortunately, the answer is yes…eventually.  Although not yet officially proposed and opened for public comment, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) has expressed interest in collecting informal comments on contemplated revisions (i.e., increases) to emissions and permitting fees.

The U.S. EPA requires that State and local air quality agencies charge sufficient fees to support the required Title V Operating Permit Program requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA).  Fees, along with civil penalties, subsidize the Clean Air Fund, which constitutes approximately 60% of the Pennsylvania Air Quality Program budget.  Within Pennsylvania, the Air Pollution Control Act (APCA) requires the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board (EQB) to establish fees that fund the Pennsylvania Air Quality Program.

The PADEP Bureau of Fiscal Management projects that the Clean Air Fund will have a negative balance during Fiscal Year 2021-2022.  As you can probably predict, the EQB, at the request of PADEP, will seek approval for regulatory changes to increase emissions fees for major sources, increase permitting fees, and institute new fees for several technical program activities.

Based on the Air Quality Program Budget and Proposed Fee Concepts presentation given by PADEP to the Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee (AQTAQ) on September 6^th, PADEP is proposing to increase and create new fees for both major and non-major facilities. New fees have been proposed for several items that were previously “free” including: (1) Request for Determination (RFD) of Changes of Minor Significance and Exemption from Plan Approval/Operating Permit Risk Assessment Review, (2) Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs), (3) Plan Approval Application Ambient Modeling, (4) review of ambient air modeling associated with certain plan approval applications (i.e., $9,000) and (5) Notification of Asbestos Abatement and Demolition/Renovation.  Additionally, existing fees have been re-evaluated with some increasing more than 2,000% (i.e., Proposed Title V Operating Permit to incorporate PAL – Slide 13 of the presentation).

The next AQTAQ Meeting is scheduled for December 2017.  ALL4 will continue to keep you abreast of the latest information pertaining to Pennsylvania emissions and permitting fees presented within the AQTAQ Meeting.

For additional information regarding specific increases that may affect your facility, feel free to review the Air Quality Program Budget and Proposed Fee Concepts presentation.  Questions? Feel free to give me a call at 610.933.5246 x135 (or email CLynch@all4inc.com).

You Want the Tooth?!….You Can’t Handle the Tooth!!…But You Can Handle Good Customer Service

So I had to get a wisdom tooth pulled this past Monday. Yeah, I bet that conjures up some not so fun thoughts in your head. I am not exactly sure why they are called “wisdom” teeth (I know, I could just Google it). However, I think the process of having one taken out may have actually provided me with a ton of wisdom (which I am in short supply) around how to do customer service right. But before I connect the dots (or teeth) to how having my tooth pulled taught me a few things about customer service, let me share a little background first. Having just turned 50 a couple months ago, I saw this as another in a small series of milestones that will mark my inevitable journey into old age; along with getting up to pee in the middle of the night, being nearsighted AND farsighted at the same time, and losing 10+ yards off my driver. I don’t think any of us would go skipping into the oral surgeon’s office without a decent amount of trepidation over such an event. In my case, the mere thought of having a tooth pulled took me back to several near-death experiences having cavities drilled without Novocain as a child in the chair of the “Butcher of West Chester” otherwise known as my Great Uncle Nick, the family dentist/medieval torturer. Needless to say, I was more than a little nervous and scared as I walked into the office. The first thing that I noticed as I walked in was a “Happy Or Not” customer feedback system (www.happy-or-not.com) stationed in the lobby where you could simply tap a button with an emoji and it would register any one of four ratings. I thought to myself, “wow, that is a pretty gutsy move for an oral surgeon, there can’t be too many people raving about customer service while walking out of this place”. Boy was I wrong (again).

The oral surgery center (for anyone that is local to our Kimberton, PA office and cares, it was Brandywine Oral Surgery – I highly recommend them for all of your tooth pulling needs) made this process unbelievably seamless, and dare I say, pleasant? I will spare you the gory details but suffice it to say that I arrived at 1:30 for a 1:45 PM appointment and I was skipping out of there by 2:15. Dr. Chun did the deed and when she arrived she was extremely positive, confident, and pleasant. We chatted very briefly about my medical history, she asked me a few questions, some personal, some about what I expected, and she asked if I had any questions (which I did by the way, the first one being is there any way I could just get knocked out completely instead of local? Uh, that was a no, too late for that). She then proceeded to provide a very clear, direct explanation of what she was about to do, how long it would take, what I should see, hear, and feel or not feel. As she started the procedure she was in constant communication with me (although I don’t know how she could interpret what I was gargling and slobbering back to her) explaining what was happening and getting feedback from me. She removed the tooth in less than 2 minutes and sent me on my way. One would think that the story ends there, what is the big epiphany? Well, the next day, as I was on my way back from a meeting, I noticed that the oral surgery center was calling me. Immediately the mind started….”Why the heck would they be calling? Did I leave something there? Maybe they pulled the wrong tooth? Did I not pay the correct co-pay?” It was Dr. Chun. She was calling to SEE HOW I WAS DOING? Seriously?!? It wasn’t her assistant, it wasn’t the receptionist that handled my insurance it was the Oral Surgeon, herself! Wow, how many surgeries does she do in a day and how many patients does she have? She calls them all back to JUST TO SEE HOW THEY ARE DOING.

So why does any of this matter to you and/or to All4’s clients, partners, and employees? Well I learned several things about customer service through this experience, some things we already do well, some we don’t, and a few that we can incorporate. I think we all might agree that a Doctor who PULLS TEETH FOR LIVING is really swimming upstream when it comes to her ability to garner high marks in “customer service”; so how did they do it and what can we learn?

• Personal follow up. Everybody is busy. Nobody has TIME. We are all IMPORTANT. Yet, somehow she MADE TIME to do a PERSONAL follow up. And she actually CALLED ME. Not an email. Not a survey. Not a text. Not a tweet. A real personal phone call. Now that I think about it, I am kind of surprised she didn’t stop by my house.
• She was RESPONSIVE. Called me the next day.
• There was clearly a culture of service present in their office. First thing I saw as I walked in was a means to provide feedback on their service and it was creative and novel.
• All of their customer service feedback touch points were SIMPLE and DIRECT. I could hit a button and provide feedback. When she called she simply asked how I was feeling and if I had any questions.
• She communicated clear expectations. In fact, she told me the candid truth about how bad it could be. She said this might take 20 minutes, I might hear some gross stuff, there might be tooth chips flying around. She didn’t sugar coat it. I was prepared.
• She kept on communicating as the work was being performed. She asked for REAL TIME FEEDBACK and I slobbered it to her. She was in tune with how her customer was reacting and she adjusted accordingly.
• She treated me with respect and she asked me questions about my concerns and about me personally. She created a connection in a short period of time.
• She was upbeat but firm. She was able to give off a “DON’T WORRY, I’VE GOT THIS” vibe.

Next week stay tuned for my blog about what I learned about accountability from my vasectomy.

Electronic Reporting of the Subpart OOOOa Annual Report Goes Live

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

Beginning this week (the week of October 23, 2017), the U.S. EPA’s Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) will have the capability to collect the 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOOOa annual report required under 40 CFR §60.5420a(b).

The deadline for the initial annual report, October 31, 2017, is right around the corner.  In accordance with 40 CFR §60.5420a(b)(11), U.S. EPA requires all reports to be submitted via CEDRI once the reporting form has been available in CEDRI for at least 90 calendar days.  Because of the late arrival of the electronic annual reporting capability (i.e., less than 90 days before the October 31^st deadline), hard copy reports submitted to the delegated authority (e.g., state agencies) are still acceptable.  Regardless of the method in which the reports are submitted, they must meet the impending deadline.  Owners/operators should take immediate action to decide in what format their annual report will be submitted.

If you intend to submit your annual report electronically, U.S. EPA has included on the CEDRI website a reporting template for Subpart OOOOa that can be used to build your annual reports.  CEDRI can be accessed through the U.S. EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX).  Once the final annual report is uploaded to CEDRI, it must be signed, submitted, and validated using U.S. EPA’s CDX Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR) service.  Reports are stored in the CROMERR archive and are immediately available for review by the applicable regulatory authorities.  After the review period, the reports are available for public access through U.S. EPA’s WebFIRE database.

If you have questions about Subpart OOOOa or about submitting your annual report, please contact me at (610) 933-5246, extension 155, or at cchinofsky@all4inc.com.

Houston Strong

Grateful. Humbled. Thankful. Appreciative. Fortunate. These words, among others, come to mind as I think of the last 10 days in Houston.

On behalf of All4 Inc. and ALL4 Houston, thank you to all those that have checked in on us. The outreach has been incredible and humbling! We’re so blessed with spectacular clients, colleagues, partners, friends, etc. ALL4 Houston, our team and our office, is very fortunate. Our team and families are safe and our homes are dry. Our office remained dry and is open.

Many parts of our city and the Gulf Coast were decimated, and the recovery and rebuilding will take time. Clients, partners, and friends, we realize many of you were/are impacted. ALL4 is here to help in any way we can. Please just ask. Need an office to work from? Our door is open. Need help with your day to day environmental challenges so you can focus on restarting your operations? We’re ready to jump in and help. Need something else? Please just ask.

We continue to keep those that were not as fortunate in our thoughts!
-Kristin Gordon, ALL4 Houston Office Director

How Electronic Reporting is Shaping Our Regulations

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

I recently published a blog about the Portland Cement (PC) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Residual Risk and Technology Review (RTR). Being ALL4’s Continuous Monitoring Systems (CMS) Focus Area Leader, I found a few aspects of U.S. EPA’s publication intriguing from a CMS perspective and wanted to share those aspects in this blog.

U.S. EPA is required to review the technology-based standards (i.e., NESHAPs) and revise them ‘‘as necessary’’ no less frequently than every eight years. The historical completion of these reviews often required the U.S. EPA to submit data collection and emissions testing requests to the regulated industry. The U.S. EPA then used the information provided by the industry to complete their required analysis.

What data collection activities were conducted to support the most recent PC NESHAP RTR?

None. U.S. EPA did not submit data collection requests to the industry nor did they request emissions testing by the industry.

Where did the data used in the RTR come from?

All PC manufacturers are required to report their greenhouse gas emissions to the EPA annually. Consequently, U.S. EPA relied upon a comprehensive list of facilities and kilns compiled from the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP).

The PC NESHAP requires affected facilities to submit performance test results to the U.S. EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which is accessed through U.S. EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). Information concerning operating hours, stack parameters, and stack locations are examples of the data that is recorded and made publicly available through the U.S. EPA’s CDX.

How were the emissions data used in the RTR developed?

Emissions data are electronically reported by the PC industry in units of pounds per hour (lb/hr), allowing U.S. EPA (or any interested party) to easily calculate ton per year (tpy) emissions for sources and facilities. Actual emissions data were developed by the U.S. EPA using facility operating hours, which are also reported by facilities electronically on a semi-annual basis.

Pursuant to U.S. EPA’s Next Generation Compliance, Strategic Plan (2014-2017) “EPA policy now states that e-reporting is the default assumption for new regulations”. With electronic systems being used in modern day for almost every kind of transaction, it only makes sense for U.S. EPA to shift away from the outdated manual collection and evaluation towards more efficient electronic solutions.

Electronic reporting is changing how Environmental Managers customarily operate. New risks and liabilities are sometimes associated with these changes. If you have a role in electronic compliance reporting, take time to ensure that your report provides the information needed to tell the reader the story you intend to tell, because the data may be used for a purpose you did not intend.

Feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss anything related to continuous monitoring (e.g., CEMS, COMS, CPMS). My contact information is (610) 933-5246, extension 120 or jkleinle@all4inc.com.

TCEQ Posts Hurricane Harvey Response/Recovery Guidance

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 (air permits = drop attached file on our network to download), 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 facilites 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?
• 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?

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.

Lessons Learned through the CFATS Security Vulnerability Assessment (SVA) and Site Security Plan (SSP) Process

Background

In 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) introduced CSAT 2.0 that contained enhanced risk tiering methodology to better identify and address “high risk” chemical facilities based on information submitted by these same facilities on Chemicals of Interest (COIs) via Top-Screen surveys.  Top-Screen surveys and subsequent actions are required by the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program, are authorized under the Homeland Security Act, and are codified under 6 CFR Part 27.  DHS has reviewed the Top-Screen survey results and has been notifying facilities of their risk classification via letter: high risk (Tier 1 through Tier 4) or low risk.

If a facility receives a high-risk classification, facilities are then required to perform a Security Vulnerability Assessment (SVA) and develop a Site Security Plan (SSP) within 120 calendar days of receiving their high-risk classification for newly tiered facilities.  ALL4 has been working with high-risk facilities to perform the SVAs and to develop SSPs in support of the CFATS program and we wanted to share our experiences to date.

It should be noted that if a facility comes in possession of an additional listed COI at or above the screening threshold quantity (STQ) or makes a material modification after submitting the Top-Screen, the facility must complete and submit an updated Top-Screen to DHS within 60 calendar days.

The Process

Let’s start with the natural first question – “I received my Tier classification letter from DHS, what do I do now?”  There is no single way to go through this process as much of it depends on the facility, the COI and critical asset, and the organizational structure of the regulated entity.  A couple of tips to make the process efficient, cost-effective, and beneficial:

1. Determine who the appropriate parties are to be involved.  Determine who may need to contribute to the process as security, safety, IT, environmental, Risk Management Program (RMP)/Process Safety Management (PSM) leads, the Fire Chief, the Process Control lead, and operations personnel may be involved.  Also, define who is the person in charge – it may not be clear who the person leading the process should be, so figure it out up-front.  Lastly, engage with your DHS contact right away as their involvement will be helpful.
2. Determine a process for performing the SVA and developing the SSP.  An approach that has worked for ALL4 has been to be on-site (approximately 2-days) and to follow the outline below:
   • Conduct an introductory meeting with the appropriate parties to introduce the rule, the facility Tier classification, the COI, the critical asset, and to present how the SVA/SSP process will proceed.
   • Tour the facility and critical asset area to understand what security systems, procedures, and measures are currently in place – review the security from a facility-wide perspective and an asset-specific perspective, recognize what systems are already in place, how access is (or isn’t) restricted, monitored, reacted to, etc.
   • Utilize the DHS resources, including the Chemical Security Assessment Tool (CSAT) 2.0 Security Vulnerability Assessment (SVA)/Site Security Plan (SSP) Instructions and the Risk-based Performance Standards (RBPS) Guidance, to guide your interview of key parties.  The goal is to understand the processes and systems currently in place to reduce vulnerability and to identify any areas that may require changes/investments (i.e., planned measures) to reduce vulnerabilities at the facility boundary and the critical asset area.
   • Review the SVA and compile notes that will facilitate the completion of the electronic SVA using the information gleaned from the first few steps in this process.  Use the time to identify any missing components or processes/procedures not previously documented.
   • Determine if the facility will be completing the SSP or opting to submit an Alternative Security Program (ASP), pursuant to 6 CFR § 27.235, following DHS guidance and meeting the requirements of 6 CFR § 27.225 and satisfying all applicable RBPS per 6 CFR § 27.230.
   • Follow-up with facility personnel on anything that was not clear or is determined to be incomplete, re-visit the critical asset, and document asset-specific measures so that the SVA and SSP (or ASP) can be completed off-site.
   • Develop draft SVA and SSP (or ASP) for review by key appropriate parties.
   • Finalize SVA and SSP (or ASP) for submittal to DHS.
3. Know what to expect next.  After submitting your SVA/SSP (or ASP) via the CSAT Portal, DHS analysts in Washington D.C. will review these plans and there may be some communication to clarify plan information or answer questions that could arise.  Ultimately, the facility should expect to receive a Letter of Authorization.  Upon receipt of the Letter of Authorization, DHS will schedule an Authorization Inspection in order to make a final determination and issue a Letter of Approval.  In the event that the SVA/SSP does not appear to satisfy the applicable RBPS, DHS will contact the facility to discuss appropriate steps to remedy the possible deficiencies and may issue a Letter of Authorization.  This review process is currently averaging approximately 200-280 days.

If the facility fails to submit an approvable SSP, DHS will attempt to work with the facility to bring it into compliance; however, should the facility fail to come into compliance, DHS is authorized to take enforcement action.  Please note, that the facility should NOT implement any planned measures until receipt of the Letter of Approval; meaning do not spend the money until DHS approves your plan!

Lessons Learned

As outlined above, the process appears straight-forward on the surface.  During ALL4’s experience on-site at multiple facilities and communication/coordination with DHS, we offer up the following lessons learned in the process.

1. Be connected and engaged with your DHS contact.  The more connected, the higher degree of probability that you will receive a Letter of Authorization/Letter of Approval on your first time through.  DHS is willing to be onsite during the SVA/SSP process and collaborating with DHS will help you understand DHS expectations based on activities and lessons learned at other high-risk facilities.
2. Focus on the asset-specific security and control measures.  Most facilities have previously considered security at the site level; however, not always at the critical asset level inside the facility boundary or fenceline.  The majority of measures that we have identified to be implemented as part of the SVA/SSP process have been asset-specific vs. at the facility level.
3. Take advantage of existing controls/processes/measures/systems that support other programs.  Those same controls/processes/measures/systems that are employed to help protect employees, the public, and the environment under RMP/PSM/OSHA can be identified as controls/processes/measures/systems to minimize the vulnerability of critical assets in the CFATS program.  For example, barricades to protect tanks from routine plant traffic, lock-out/tag-out systems, process control room cameras for operational control also have a role in the CFATS program.
4. Recognize the opportunity for an extension.  Does your corporation have multiple facilities across multiple states with a short compliance timeline?  Has your facility been negatively impacted by the recent hurricanes?  Are there other site-specific considerations that may warrant an extension?  DHS will review each extension request and all relevant information to make an extension decision via the CSAT system.  ALL4 is aware of several extensions that DHS has already granted.
5. Utilize external security expertise when and where appropriate.  ALL4 is fortunate to have retired federal agents on our team that bring a unique perspective to this process.  Their past experience with terrorism and their ability to look at facilities and critical assets through those lenses may not be required for everyone; however, when there is a unique scenario, their security expertise is invaluable.

If you are a high-risk facility required to submit an SVA/SSP and are looking for support or have questions, please reach out to ALL4’s Kristin Gordon (kgordon@all4inc.com, 281.201.1241) or Bill Straub (wstraub@all4inc.com, 610.422.1112).

PC NESHAP & Residual Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Updates

The U.S. EPA published proposed amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry (i.e., PC MACT or 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart LLL). The proposed amendments include two primary actions:

1. Address the results of the residual risk and technology review (RTR), and
2. Propose amendments to correct and clarify rule requirements and provisions.

As I read the publication, I found myself using the highlighter often. Section II (Background) was especially interesting as it described the RTR process in detail. I shared below several of the items I felt were highlight worthy.

Residual Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Highlights

U.S. EPA’s Residual Risk Conclusion: Risks due to emissions of air toxics from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry are acceptable and provide ample margin of safety.

U.S. EPA’s Technology Review Conclusion: No new cost-effective emissions controls were identified under the technology review.

U.S. EPA’s RTR Related Rule Revision(s): None – U.S. EPA proposed that the numerical emission limits remain the same.

RTR Background:
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a two-stage regulatory process to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources.

• First stage – Promulgate technology-based NESHAP for source category
• Second stage – Reduce any remaining (i.e., ‘‘residual’’) risk

The Background section (Section II) contains information detailing the RTR process. I found this read to be a good refresher, but I purposely left much of the information out of this blog because ALL4 previously published an article on this topic.

A noteworthy item worth repeating is that the U.S. EPA is required to review the technology-based standards and revise them ‘‘as necessary’’ no less frequently than every eight years. Two items to consider:

1. When did the U.S. EPA complete the required review of other NESHAP’s your facility is subject to?
2. Mark your calendar for another PC NESHAP RTR on or before 2025.

PC NESHAP Proposed Amendments Highlights

I believe that many will agree with U.S. EPA’s opinion that if the proposed improvements (listed below) are finalized, it will result in improved implementation of the rule.

• Removal of the reference to the dioxin and furan (D/F) temperature monitoring system in 40 CFR §63.1354(b)(9)(vi). U.S. EPA states that there are no 30-day operating rolling average temperature requirements pertaining to D/F in the rule and the proposed removal of the reference is consistent with the EPA’s October 2016 rule guidance.
• Clarification that daily kiln feed rate records are only required if the facility derives their clinker production rates from the measured feed rate.
• Clarification that the submittal dates for semiannual summary reports is 60 days after the end of the reporting period, which is also consistent with the EPA’s October 2016 rule guidance.
• Clarification to resolve conflicting provisions that apply when a sulfur dioxide (SO2) continuous parametric monitoring system (CPMS) is used to monitor hydrochloric acid (HCl) emissions compliance. U.S. EPA is proposing to adopt the requirements of 40 CFR §63.1349(b)(x) and change the requirement of 40 CFR §63.1350(l)(3). Specifically, if the SO2 level exceeds the site-specific SO2 emissions limit by 10 percent or more, a facility must take corrective action as soon as possible, but within 30 days, and conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the HCl limit and verify or re-establish the site-specific SO2 emissions limit within 90 days.
• Clarification that the raw mill on and raw mill off particulate matter (PM) performance testing requirements [40 CFR §63.1349(b)(1)(vi)] only apply to kilns with inline raw mills and do not apply to a kiln that does not have an inline raw mill.
• Clarification that the laboratories calculating the toxic equivalents (TEQs) for D/F compliance should be using the 1989 toxic equivalency factors (TEF). The proposed amendments will incorporate reference to the 1989 TEFs into the rule.
• Clarification that any affected source that was unable to demonstrate compliance before the compliance date due to being idled, or that had demonstrated compliance, but was idled during the normal window for the next compliance test, would need to complete the required testing within 180 days of the date that compliance must be demonstrated.

Feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss anything related to this blog. My contact information is (610) 933-5246, extension 120 or jkleinle@all4inc.com.

Adulting, Consulting, and Smoke School

It’s almost 8AM and I’m ringing the bell trying to enter a building that, for all intents and purposes, looks closed. As a former band kid, I strive to be early, and start pushing the button more intensely, as though that might get the door to open and I can still be marginally early to my first ever Method 9 Smoke School.

Spoiler: it works, and soon enough, an exasperated man lets me into the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) and directs me towards a near-empty conference room. It’s 8AM now, and the instructors haven’t arrived yet. As a Northern VA native, I know all about unpredictable traffic, so I brushed off their absence as commuting troubles and pulled out my current read: The Disappearing Spoon by Sam Kean. When they arrive half an hour later, I discover class doesn’t start until 9 or so; the online agenda had, for some reason, not been updated. (This did of course explain why the people at VADEQ were surprised to see someone there before 8AM- they don’t open until 8:30).

And as class begins, we get to the topic on hand: what is “Smoke School” and what does it mean for you, me, and everyone else in-between? Smoke School – more technically, Visible Emissions Observer Training – trains people to become certified visible emissions (VE) observers according to 40 CFR Part 60 (Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, or NSPS). In lecture, we learned about the history and theory behind the Method 9, and how to perform a Method 9 to provide measurements of opacity using our freshly-calibrated eyeballs (thanks for that, Renee!). The following day was the actual certification test, where we learned the opacity standards (25%-50%-75%) for white and black smoke, and then took the test, which consisted of 50 total readings (25 each for white and black smoke).

Opacity, at its simplest, is an indicator of the relative amount of particulate matter (PM) from a stack or flue. More opaque smoke can be indicative of greater PM concentrations. Certified VE observers can ensure source emissions comply with federal, state, and local regulations that specify an opacity or visible emissions limitation by following the Method 9. For example, prior to attending the course, I had the opportunity to observe a Method 9 test at a hospital that was required not to exceed 0% opacity emissions per their state implementation plan (SIP) limit.

Our other shared concern? Under the Clean Air Act, opacity emissions in excess of certain requirements can result in fines from $10,000 to $37,500 per day- and nobody likes fines or breaking the law. With that said, I’m excited to have earned this certification because it expands the kind of project work I can support for our clients as a recent grad and new hire still learning about adulting and consulting. So: if you have any questions regarding smoke school, visible emissions observations, have advice on adulting/consulting, or just want to know what The Disappearing Spoon is, please feel free to contact us.

2015 Ozone NAAQS Implementation Update and Possible NOx Reductions for Portland Cement Kilns

October 1, 2017 marked the date by which U.S. EPA was anticipated to promulgate final area designations (i.e., attainment or nonattainment) for the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).  U.S. EPA reduced the ozone NAAQS from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to 70 ppb on October 1, 2015, initiating a two-year timeline for states and tribes to provide designation recommendations to U.S. EPA and for U.S. EPA to promulgate final designations.  Final designations will result in a multi-year timeline for states and tribes to promulgate rules intended to bring nonattainment areas into attainment.

Let’s dive a little further into what’s happened and what to expect for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, particularly for Portland cement kilns in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR).

BACKGROUND

Ozone (O3), more specifically ground-level ozone, is not directly emitted by stationary or mobile sources; rather, it is created by a chemical reaction caused by solar radiation interacting primarily with oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC).  Therefore, NOX and VOC are referred to as ozone precursors.  Ground-level ozone is commonly referred to as “haze” or “smog” and can be seen by the naked eye, particularly near city skylines or mountain ranges.  According to U.S. EPA, “[b]reathing ozone can trigger a variety of health problems including chest pain, coughing, throat irritation, and airway inflammation. It also can reduce lung function and harm lung tissue.”  The intent of the ozone NAAQS, as with NAAQS for other pollutants, is to establish acceptable levels of ambient ozone and to require reductions in ozone concentrations in areas that are not attaining those levels by reducing emissions of the ozone precursors NOX and VOC.  Ambient ozone concentrations in a given locale can also be influenced by the transport of precursor pollutants from other geographic areas (i.e., upwind states), but that is a subject for a future discussion.  The NAAQS establishes a primary standard to protect public health, and a secondary standard to protect public welfare, which can include environmental impacts such as to vegetation.

On October 1, 2015, U.S. EPA signed the Final Rule for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS; it was published in the Federal Register on October 26, 2015 following the proposed rule signed on November 25, 2014 and published on December 17, 2014.  As described above, the primary and secondary NAAQS were both reduced from 75 ppb to 70 ppb.  The averaging time and form of the standards remained the same (i.e., 8-hour and annual fourth-highest daily maximum, respectively).  October 1, 2015 was a deadline established by court order for U.S. EPA to sign the final NAAQS.  Similarly, the final 2015 secondary standard addressed a court remand of the 2008 secondary standard.

NAAQS IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE

The timeline for implementing a new NAAQS is several years, and begins with initial area designations, which involves “identifying areas of the country that are not meeting the new or revised NAAQS along with the nearby areas that contain emissions sources that contribute to the areas not meeting the NAAQS.”  This step is a combined effort between U.S. EPA, states, tribes, and local agencies, and was scheduled to take place as presented in the following table reproduced from U.S. EPA’s Guidance on Area Designations for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS:

Following final ozone area designations, states with nonattainment areas are to develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to attain the NAAQS.  In this step, “states first take into account projected emission reductions from federal and state rules that have been already adopted at the time of plan submittal. […] States will then evaluate the level of additional emission reductions needed for each nonattainment area to attain the O3 standards ‘as expeditiously as practicable,’ and adopt new state regulations as appropriate.”  U.S. EPA anticipates that many existing or new rules will result in preliminary emissions reductions (e.g., Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), NOX SIP Call, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), etc.).

CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

State and tribe designation recommendations have been submitted to U.S. EPA.  Some submittals commended U.S. EPA on the revised NAAQS, while others referenced petitions for vacating the rule.  On November 17, 2016, U.S. EPA published its Proposed Implementation of the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Nonattainment Area Classifications and State Implementation Plan Requirements, in which it is proposing to retain most of the 2008 ozone NAAQS implementation provisions.  “States with areas designated nonattainment have 2 years from the effective date of nonattainment designation to submit SIP revisions addressing emission inventories (required by [Clean Air Act (CAA)] section 182(a)(1)), [Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)] (CAA section 182(b)(2)) and emissions statement regulations […] (CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)) […]”  Further, “states in the OTR are required to submit SIP revisions addressing the RACT requirements of CAA section 184 no later than 2 years after the effective date of designations for the revised ozone NAAQS.”  That means upon final promulgation of area designations, the clock starts ticking for states, tribes, and local agencies to develop SIPs.

On June 6, 2017, U.S. EPA issued a one-year extension to the October 1, 2017 area designation deadline (i.e., to October 1, 2018).  However, the extension was withdrawn on August 2, 2017, followed by the release of six “regulatory relief” options for states to use for implementing the 2015 ozone NAAQS.  Be sure to read Ashley Howard’s article for more information on these options.

OZONE TRANSPORT COMMISSION ACTIVITY

“The Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) is a multi-state organization created under the Clean Air Act […] responsible for advising [U.S.] EPA on transport issues and for developing and implementing regional solutions to the ground-level ozone problem in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions.”

The OTC advises U.S. EPA regarding the states in the OTR (i.e., Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont), as well as Virginia.  “States in [the OTR] are required to submit a SIP and install a certain level of controls for the pollutants that form ozone, even if they meet the ozone standards.”  As presented above, SIP revisions for OTR states addressing the RACT requirements of CAA sections 182 and 184 will be due no later than two years after final area designations, which, according to U.S. EPA’s anticipated timeline, would be October 1, 2019 (i.e., two years after October 1, 2017 final area designations).

During its September 7, 2017 Stationary Area Source, Modeling, Mobile Source and Technical Support Committee meeting, the OTC released a “Draft White Paper on Control Measures for NOX Emissions from Two Source Categories.”  One of the two source categories is natural gas pipeline compressor prime movers (i.e., compressor engines and turbines), for which OTC has proposed an updated Model Rule for control of NOX emissions, as well as other recommendations for reducing emission of VOC.  The second of the two source categories is cement manufacturing, particularly Portland cement kilns, which represent the second largest source of non-EGU emissions from stationary sources in the OTR, second only to waste treatment and disposal.  Because individual Portland cement kilns represent a concentrated source of NOX emissions (like an EGU), they represent a cost-effective approach towards reducing NOX emissions in the eyes of regulators.  Consequently, the OTC has taken notice with the draft white paper recommending the following NOX control methods:

• Install low NOX burners on all kilns
• Modify each kiln to implement mid-kiln firing
• Install post-combustion SNCR
• Convert and retrofit a wet process cement kiln to the more efficient dry cement manufacturing process

The draft white paper goes on to state that “modifying or replacing all wet kilns to modern technology should be considered feasible.”  The recommendations to install controls and especially modify/convert/retrofit kilns to reduce emissions of NOX is significant and, where technically feasible, would require substantial capital investments by cement manufacturers to implement those changes, particularly this soon after facilities recently complied with the applicable RACT rules intended to implement the 2008 ozone NAAQS.  For example, Pennsylvania’s Additional RACT Requirements for Major Sources of NOX and VOCs codified at 25 Pa. Code 129.96-.100 (commonly referred to as RACT 2) was finalized on April 23, 2016 and established a compliance date of January 1, 2017.  Presumptive emissions limits between 2.36 and 3.88 pounds of NOX per ton of clinker produced, consistent with OTC 2006 recommendations, were established for cement kilns under Pennsylvania’s RACT 2 rule.

Comments on the draft white paper and other draft documents shared during the September 7, 2017 OTC meeting were due by September 29, 2017.  The next OTC meeting is scheduled for November 15, 2017.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

I asked one of my colleagues with extensive cement experience for his thoughts on the proposed OTC recommendations for Portland cement kilns, and he noted that “having to [apply these changes] could have serious impacts on some [cement] plants’ ability to remain profitable.”  He also noted that many of the recommended controls have recently and historically been determined to be technically or economically infeasible based on evaluations to implement other rules such as Pennsylvania Best Available Technology (BAT), Pennsylvania RACT 2, and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART).

Pennsylvania “RACT 3” may only be two years away, but it is already on our radar.  Pennsylvania RACT is of particular interest because, as noted in OTC’s draft white paper (specifically, the Appendix A table entitled “Cement Kilns in CSAPR U and OTR States”), 11 of the 17 Portland cement kilns in OTC states are in Pennsylvania, so OTC’s recommendations could have significant impacts on Pennsylvania Portland cement kiln operations.  It is important to note, however, that OTC’s recommendations are based on emissions data from 2014; if emissions continue to decline due to RACT and other rules, the effectiveness of these recommendations may be impacted by the time RACT 3 arrives.

ALL4 is paying close attention to the final 2015 ozone NAAQS area designations and these OTC recommendations for Portland cement kilns.  Should you have any questions or want to learn more about the information presented here, don’t hesitate to reach out to me at 610.933.5246 x122 or Roy Rakiewicz at 610.933.5246 x127.