U.S. EPA Interpretations on Refinery Rule Alternative Monitoring Plans- Helping Pave a Path to Facilitate Your Facility’s Compliance

Regardless of the political climate, it seems that regulations related to air quality are in a constant state of flux.  There are multiple “tools” available to regulated facilities to keep track of evolving regulations, guidance, and policy.  One such tool is the Applicability Determination Index (ADI), a database compiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) that provides U.S. EPA responses to questions posed by regulated facilities regarding rule applicability, including the use of alternative methods of compliance.  The questions generally relate to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (NSPS) and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).  This database is used to ensure national consistency by providing all issued letters and memoranda in one location.  Decisions made by U.S. EPA in response to specific applicability questions, proposed Alternative Monitoring Plans (AMP), and related interpretations are posted on the ADI as an aid to other facilities that may have the same or similar regulatory based questions.  The ADI is continuously updated and periodically a summary of recent determinations is released via a Federal Register notice.  A recent summary dated August 4, 2017 is available here.

Refinery Sector Rule Regulatory Background

The U.S. EPA is required to periodically perform a risk and technology review (RTR) of 40 CFR Part 63 NESHAP standards, to re-evaluate the maximum achievable technology standard (MACT) floor, as applicable, and to determine if human health risks remain after the application of the MACT standards.  Pending the outcome of the RTR, the MACT standards may be updated to reflect current technology and to mitigate residual risk.

In September of 2012, several environmental groups filed lawsuits alleging that U.S. EPA missed the mandatory deadline to review the refinery MACT rules, specifically 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CC (NESHAP from Petroleum Refineries) and 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart UUU (NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries: Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic Reforming Units, and Sulfur Recovery Units).  These NESHAPs are also referred to as Refinery MACT 1 and MACT 2.  In response to the litigation, U.S. EPA and litigants entered a consent decree that ultimately required the promulgation of updated standards by September 30, 2015 to meet the Clean Air Act (CAA) residual risk requirements.  Following the RTR analysis, Subparts CC and UUU were revised.  The final Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR was published in the Federal Register December 2015 with an effective date of February 1, 2016.  The publication of the RTR included amendments to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart J (Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries) and 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Ja (Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After October 14, 2011).  The December 2015 rule amendments for the refining industry are collectively referred to as the Refinery Sector Rule (RSR).

The RSR included broad new requirements for refiners including:

• New flare compliance requirements
• New emissions controls for storage tanks
• New emissions controls for delayed coking units (DCUs) and catalytic reformer units (CRUs)
• Benzene fenceline monitoring requirements
• New pressure relief device compliance requirements
• Removal of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) emissions limits exemptions

Recent ADIs Relevant to the Refining Industry

The RSR included significant new monitoring requirements for compliance demonstration.  While implementing the new and expanded monitoring provisions, refiners have sought clarification of requirements and have proposed AMPs to the U.S. EPA.  Key U.S. EPA determinations and trends for RSR compliance from recent ADI determinations are provided below.

• Two refiners¹ subject to Subpart Ja were successful in receiving AMP approval to avoid installing hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) for fuel gas combustion devices as required by 40 CFR §60.107a(a)(2) for temporary and portable thermal oxidizer(s).  U.S. EPA recognized the impractical nature of installing an H₂S CEMS on thermal oxidizers used for intermittent operations (e.g., tank degassing).
• A refiner² subject to Subpart J, whom had a previously approved AMP to assert a low-sulfur fuel gas stream in accordance with 40 CFR §60.105(a)(4)(iv)(D) was required to gain approval to revise the parameter monitoring to continue to assert the low-sulfur fuel gas stream.  The refiner will now monitor the naphtha hydrotreater feed surge drum for total sulfur and temperature to maintain the low-sulfur fuel gas stream assertion.
• A refiner³ subject to UUU, successfully received approval for the use of parametric monitoring of opacity for a fluid catalytic cracker unit (FCCU) equipped with a wet gas scrubber (WGS) control device in lieu of the Subpart UUU required continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS).  The AMP was approved after receipt of test data from the refiner demonstrating that proposed operating parameter limits (OPLs) ensured compliance with metal and organic hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) requirements.  Of note in this specific AMP approval was that the refiner was required to incorporate the OPLs into facility permits to ensure Federal enforceability.  While not universally required, incorporation of AMP monitoring requirements is viewed as sound practice to assure compliance with AMP provisions in annual Title V operating permit (TVOP) compliance certifications.
• Several refiners⁴ subject to Subpart Ja received AMP approval for Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) requirements to eliminate the daily use of high sulfur containing calibration gases for flares because of safety concerns.  The approved AMPs include the use of the following:
  • A refiner⁵ requested to eliminate the use of high concentration calibration gases for completing calibrations on their H₂S CEMS.  U.S. EPA approved eliminating the daily calibration for the high range H₂S CEMS and emphasized that compliance demonstration for the Subpart Ja 3-hour 162 ppm limit and the 365-day 60 ppm limit are demonstrated with the low range analyzer.
  • A refiner⁶ proposed to eliminate the use of high concentration calibration gases for the total reduced sulfur (TRS) CEMS. The facility uses the monitor on the refinery flare with a TRS range of 0-150,000 ppm.  U.S. EPA approved the AMP eliminating the completion of daily calibration for the high range portion of the TRS CEMS provided the refiner complete a linearity analysis every three years., The refiner was required to incorporate the AMP requirements into facility permits to ensure Federal enforceability.
  • A refiner⁷ requested to eliminate the use of high concentration calibration gases containing sulfur for completing daily calibrations on the total sulfur (TS) CEMS.   U.S. EPA again approved eliminating the daily calibration for the high range CEMS and emphasized that compliance demonstration for the Subpart Ja 3-hour 162 ppm limit and the 365-day 60 ppm limit are demonstrated with the low range analyzer.  The high range analyzer is used to determine the need to conduct a root cause and corrective action analysis for flaring events that exceed 500 pounds in a 24-hour period.  The high range analyzer will still require completion of the quarterly calibration gas audit (CGA) for QA/QC purposes.
  • A refiner⁸ requested to eliminate the use of high sulfur concentration calibration gases for completing daily calibrations on the TS CEMS. U.S. EPA approved eliminating the completion of daily calibration for the high range (10,000 to 300,000 ppm).  The refiner is still required to conduct a two-point daily calibration and a quarterly CGA for the low range (0 to 10,000 ppm) TS CEMS.  The high range (10,000 to 300,000 ppm) TS CEMS will undergo a single point calibration at 50-60% of span (150,000 to 180,000 ppm) quarterly for QA/QC purposes.
  • A refiner⁹ with three flares subject to Subpart Ja, submitted multiple AMP request options in a single submittal and obtained approval, for all but one, to eliminate the use of high sulfur containing calibration gases.  The AMP request included:
    • A request to use a surrogate calibration gas (carbon dioxide, argon, or nitrogen) for the TRS monitors subject to Subpart Ja.  U.S. EPA denied the request and noted that there are other feasible options to eliminate the use of high sulfur containing daily calibration gases.
    • A request to use the low concentration H₂S monitor calibration to validate the TRS analyzer high range.  U.S. EPA noted this option is approvable upon demonstration that the analyzer operates linearly across the range of pollutant concentrations. This option will require the refiner to complete daily low range calibrations and quarterly high range calibrations.
    • A request to use a sample dilution system at the ratio of 1,000:1 for monitoring TRS concentration in the flare gas.  This would result in the calibration gases needed for analyzer verification to contain a lower amount of sulfur.  U.S. EPA approved this option because the method will provide actual readings of the target compound without relying on extrapolations or linearity to determine the TRS concentration value.  However, this approval is dependent upon the refiner’s ability to certify and challenge the dilution system at the ratio it intends to use (1,000:1) and the capability of the analyzer to detect the lowest expected concentrations of the target(s) compounds during typical operating conditions.
    • A request to use single point daily calibrations for each of the TRS analyzers associated with the three flares to comply with the QA/QC requirements.  U.S. EPA approved the single point daily calibration at a zero and one other target compound concentration within the analyzer span and conducting a multi-point calibration on each TRS analyzer quarterly.  If the daily calibrations indicate excessive drift then the refiner must revert to daily multi-point calibrations until the issue is resolved.
    • Further, this refiner requested reducing the TRS analyzer span for a specific flare, the aromatics flare, to 1,000 ppm from 5,000 ppm because the exhaust gas to this specific flare has inherently lower sulfur concentrations.  U.S. EPA approved the change to the analyzer span based on the process information provided by the refiner for the specific flare operation.

¹ ADI Control Numbers 1600012 and 1600013
² ADI Control Number 1600028
³ ADI Control Number M160019
⁴ ADI Control Numbers 1600009, 1600027, 1600032, and 1600033
⁵ ADI Control Number 1600009
⁶ ADI Control Number 1600027
⁷ ADI Control Number 1600032
⁸ ADI Control Number 1600033
⁹ ADI Control Number 1600038

U.S. EPA Revises NESHAP Requirements for the Pulp and Paper Industry

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

On October 11, 2017, U.S. EPA finalized the long-awaited revisions to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MM (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills).  Publication of the final rule officially completes U.S. EPA’s required Risk and Technology Review (RTR) for the “Pulp and Paper Combustion Sources” source category, which had been under a consent decree to complete by October 1, 2017.

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires U.S. EPA to revisit and review previously promulgated 40 CFR Part 63 emission standards no less often than every eight years, taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that could result in significant additional reductions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP).  For those of you within the pulp and paper industry, you’ll likely recall the great Pulp and Paper Information Collection Request (ICR) of 2011 that informed U.S. EPA during their RTR of this rule; I’m told the survivors here at ALL4 were given commemorative shirts.

The revisions to Subpart MM became effective upon their October 11, 2017 publication within the Federal Register.  The following is a high-level summary of U.S. EPA’s revisions to the rule:

• The opacity monitoring allowance for all recovery furnaces equipped with electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) has been revised from 6% to 2%.
• The opacity monitoring allowance for all lime kilns equipped with ESPs has been revised from 6% to 3%.
• A new requirement for recovery furnaces and lime kilns equipped with ESPs to maintain proper operation of the ESP Automatic Voltage Control (AVC) has been added.
• A new requirement to maintain proper operation of the ESP AVC and wet scrubber parameter monitoring for emissions units equipped with an ESP followed by a wet scrubber has been added.
• Alternative monitoring, specifically, scrubber fan amperage, has been added as an alternative to pressure drop measurement, for smelt dissolving tank dynamic scrubbers operating at ambient pressure and low-pressure entrainment scrubbers on smelt dissolving tanks where the fan speed does not vary.
• The startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) exemption has been eliminated.
• A new requirement for facilities to conduct periodic air emissions performance testing has been added, with the first of the tests to be conducted within three years of the effective date of the revised standards, and thereafter no longer than five years following the previous performance test.
• Procedures for establishing operating limits based on data recorded by Continuous Parametric Monitoring Systems (CPMS), including the frequency for recording parameters and the averaging period for reducing the recorded readings, have been added.
• The frequency for submitting excess emissions reports has been reduced from quarterly to semi-annually in conjunction with requiring electronic reporting of excess emissions (in the future, as reporting forms are tested and become available).
• New requirements have been added for facilities to submit electronic copies of performance test reports.
• New requirements have been added for facilities to submit initial notifications and Notifications of Compliance Status (NOCS) electronically.
• Various other technical and editorial corrections have been made.

New sources are required to comply with the revised standards by October 11, 2017, or upon startup, whichever is later.  Existing sources are obligated to comply with the revised standards within two years (i.e., by October 11, 2019), with the exception of the first periodic performance test, which must be completed by October 13, 2020 and submitted via U.S. EPA’s Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) within 60 days of completing the test. Please be advised that quarterly excess emissions reporting requirements still apply until one year after a Subpart MM excess emissions reporting form appears in CEDRI; CEDRI is not yet equipped to receive Subpart MM reports.

With the clock already ticking, existing sources should take steps now to determine what system adjustments need to be made to demonstrate compliance with the revised requirements by October 11, 2019, including adjustments to data acquisition systems (DAS) to include startup and shutdown periods and the revised opacity monitoring allowances, to transition to electronic excess emissions reporting, and to comply with revised monitoring requirements. At first glance these revisions seem straightforward, but the incorporation of new secondary monitoring parameters into existing reporting systems can in certain instances be complicated and costly business.

Need help determining how the October 11, 2017 Subpart MM amendments will affect your mill?  Please contact your friendly, local ALL4 team for support!