Proposed Pennsylvania Storage Tank and Spill Prevention Program Rule Revisions

The Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has proposed amendments to 25 Pa. Code Chapter 245 regarding the Storage Tank and Spill Prevention Program.  The proposed amendments are required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) following the July 15, 2015 revised state program approval requirements for underground storage tanks (USTs).  These changes are intended to add requirements to periodically check the functionality of spill prevention, overfill prevention, and release detection equipment already required to be in place for USTs, aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) in underground vaults, and small ASTs.

What are the main proposed changes to the rule?

• Inspection of spill prevention equipment and release detection every 30 days
• Inspection of containment sumps and handheld release detection devices annually
• Inspection of overfill prevention equipment every three years
• Testing of spill prevention equipment every three years
• Testing of containment sumps used for interstitial monitoring every three years
• Testing of release detection equipment annually
• Release detection requirements for emergency generator USTs (previously deferred)
• Flow restrictors prohibited as an option for overfill prevention in new and replaced UST systems
• Increase in-service inspection frequency for ASTs to once every 3 or 5 years, depending on capacity and type of tank.

OK – These changes are all well and good, but what does this mean for my facility?

In addition to the items listed above, the proposed changes may require facilities to review and update their Preparedness Prevention and Contingency (PPC) Plan and other contingency plans (e.g., integrated contingency plans) to address the revised regulatory requirements.  In addition, facilities that are required to have a Spill Prevention Response (SPR) Plan would be required to submit amendments within 120 days of necessary updates to the plan.

ALL4 will continue to monitor this proposed rulemaking and provide updates as necessary.  If you have any questions, contact me at scunningham@all4inc.com or 610.422.1144.

Georgia Permittees (Major, Minor, and Synthetic Minor): Have You Heard the News?

On March 8, 2018, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GEPD) released a Notice of Public Hearing and Proposed Amendments to the Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control codified by the Georgia Administrative Code (G.A.C.) 391-3-1.  Specifically, G.A.C. 391-3-1-.03(9) is being revised to include a requirement that’s new to Georgia: permit application fees.  The proposed amendments will apply to permit efforts effective March 1, 2019, and will require the permittee to pay an application processing fee for several different permit types, including, but not limited to:

• Minor/synthetic minor source permits or amendments,
• Permit name/ownership changes,
• Title V 502(b)(10) permit amendments,
• Minor and significant Title V modifications, and
• Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit applications.

New permit fee guidance around this topic has been added to GEPD’s Procedures for Calculating Air Permit Application & Annual Permit Fees (formerly known as Procedures for Calculating Air Permit Fees).  Section 2.0 was added to detail permit application fees, which range anywhere from $0 for a Title V renewal application up to $7,500 for a PSD permit application.  The cost is dictated by the type of permit application as detailed in Section 2.1 of the proposed fee manual.  When multiple fees apply, the revised manual states that the applicant should pay the greater of the fees.

A public hearing will be held in the coming weeks to provide an opportunity to comment and/or provide input on the proposed amendments to 391-3-1-.03(9).  Per GEPD’s Notice of Public Hearing, the public hearing time and location are detailed below:

• Date: April 9, 2018
• Time: 1:30 PM
• Location: EPD Training Center | 4244 International Parkway, Suite 116 | Atlanta, GA 30354

Additionally, GEPD is accepting written comments until April 16, 2018.  Written comments should be sent via email or regular mail to:

• Email: EPDComments@dnr.state.ga.us
• Mail: Branch Chief | Air Protection Branch | 4244 International Parkway, Suite 120 | Atlanta, GA 30354

We strive to keep our readers up-to-date on the latest regulatory developments regarding air quality.  If you have any question about this blog or any other air quality regulatory happenings in Georgia, reach out to us.

Are Pennsylvania Air Emissions and Permitting Fees on the Rise? – Update

Last year I penned a blog regarding potential changes to emissions and permitting fees within Pennsylvania.  The blog was based upon information provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to the Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee (AQTAC) on September 6, 2017 and included a description of new and proposed fee increases.  Nearly five months later, a PADEP representative provided a brief update to the AQTAC during the February 8, 2018 meeting.

During the AQTAC meeting, PADEP presented a comparison of the proposed Pennsylvania emissions and permitting fees to the emissions and permitting fees in surrounding states.  Based on the data provided by PADEP, the proposed PADEP emissions and permitting fees were average to slightly above average.  PADEP is still working to finalize the emissions and permitting fees and hopes to implement the revised fees during calendar year 2019.

For additional information provided by PADEP during the AQTAC meeting feel free to give me a call at 610.933.5246 x135 (or email at clynch@all4inc.com).

New Source Review Project Emissions Accounting Guidance Memorandum

On March 13, 2018 the U.S. EPA issued a much-anticipated policy guidance memorandum titled “Project Emissions Accounting Under the New Source Review (NSR) Preconstruction Permitting Program”.  The policy guidance is extremely important because it changes a 2006 U.S. EPA policy of only accounting for emissions increases during “step one” of an NSR applicability evaluation.  The new policy, supported by the “plain language” of the Clean Air Act (CAA), allows facilities to now account for emissions decreases that are associated with a given project during step one of the analysis.  The result of the policy change is that the “real world” emissions impacts of projects will be represented in step one of an NSR applicability evaluation, which can impact the outcome of the analysis and ease the regulatory burden associated with such projects.  This is the third policy guidance memorandum issued by U.S. EPA over the past four months that addresses streamlining of the regulatory process.  ALL4 has summarized the two recent U.S. EPA policy guidance memoranda addressing the “U.S. EPA Clarifies NSR Emissions Projections and its Role in the Review Process” and “Once In, Always In” policies.

Background

The NSR regulations include both the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) regulations and the nonattainment new source review (NNSR) regulations.  PSD applies to new major sources and to major modifications at existing major stationary sources for pollutants where the source is located in an area that is in attainment or unclassifiable with a national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).  NNSR applies to new major sources and to major modifications at existing major stationary sources for a pollutant where the area the source is located is classified as non-attainment with the NAAQS.  NSR applicability analyses are triggered as a result of “any physical change in or change in the method of operation”.  The NSR applicability analysis, required under both PSD and NNSR, is a two-step process that is used to determine whether a project will result in a “significant emissions increase” (step one) and a significant net emissions increase (step two).  Significant levels of pollutant increases in tons per year are defined within the referenced rules.  A project is a “major modification” if it results in both a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase for one or more regulated NSR pollutants.

Previous Policy

Under the previous policy, decreases in emissions associated with a given project (i.e. negative emissions) were “set” to zero during step one of the NSR applicability evaluation thereby discounting such decreases during step one.  The step one emissions increases were compared to the applicable NSR significant emissions increase thresholds to determine whether netting (step two) is required.  In step two, decreases in emissions associated with a project are accounted for, along with other side-wide contemporaneous emissions increases and decreases, and all emissions decreases  must be “creditable or enforceable as a practical matter”, thereby complicating the analysis.  The previous policy prohibited facilities from considering emissions decreases across emissions units within the project during step one and the term “project netting” was coined to reflect the prohibited practice.  By not allowing real emissions reductions to be considered during step one, even projects that reduced actual emissions overall were more likely to trigger the complicated step two netting process, thereby pulling other historic and unrelated projects into the evaluation.

March 13, 2018 Policy

The March 13, 2018 policy clarifies that a facility can consider emissions increases and decreases from the project itself at step one of the NSR applicability process, provided that they are part of a single project.  A common scenario impacted by this is the replacement of an emissions unit (e.g., installation of a new, higher capacity boiler).  Under the new policy, the emissions decreases from the boiler being replaced can be subtracted from the potential to emit (PTE) of the new boiler being installed, thereby increasing the likelihood that the calculated step one emissions changes would not exceed NSR significant emissions increase thresholds.  Under the previous policy, only the PTE of new boiler could be considered under step one, greatly increasing the likelihood that step two netting would be required and allowing for other unrelated emissions increases to be pulled into the evaluation, possibly changing the NSR outcome when compared to the new policy.

Another key aspect of the March 13, 2018 policy is the allowance that emissions decreases that are part of the project and included in the step one evaluation do not need to be federally enforceable.  That is, emissions decreases can now be reflected in the sum of the projected actual emissions associated with a modification project. Only those emissions decreases that are evaluated under step two netting must be enforceable under the new guidance.  This is a significant shift that could change permitting strategies for modification projects that involve modified and affected emissions units, because real emissions decreases that were previously ignored in the evaluation could be utilized to evaluate NSR applicability. There is a lot to unpack with this aspect of the guidance and we plan on providing additional information as we evaluate the implications.

The revised policy is sure to have an impact on how NSR applicability analyses are conducted.  This is a revision in U.S. EPA policy and is not a change to the NSR regulations.  The guidance applies to Federal NSR regulations.  If your state agency has its own NSR regulations, plan to consult with them prior to finalizing air quality permitting approaches that involves U.S. EPA’s new guidance.  If you have any questions or are curious about how the revised policy could impact an upcoming project, please reach out to me at 610.933.5246 x121 or nleone@all4inc.com.

Proposed Revisions to Testing Regulations for Air Emissions Sources

On January 26, 2018 the U.S. EPA published the proposed rule that revises testing regulations for air emissions sources.  The proposed rule is currently open for public comments, which are due by March 27, 2018.  The following discussion highlights some of the general proposed revisions to testing regulations; however, the proposed rule can be found in its entirety on the Federal Register.

The proposed rule includes corrections to previous testing provisions, updates to outdated procedures, and approved alternative testing procedures to provide flexibility.  The revisions apply to various source test methods, performance specifications, quality assurance/quality control procedures, and testing regulations.  The proposed rule revisions will affect industries subject to 40 CFR Parts 51, 60, and 63, but will not impose new requirements on source owners or operators.  As such, the proposed rule focuses on correcting and updating regulations to improve the overall quality of test data. The proposed revisions include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Method 5 of Appendix A-3 of 40 CFR, Part 60: The allowed filter temperature would be revised from 120 ± 14 ^oC to 120 ± 5 ^oC, which results in increased precision of the filterable particulate matter (PM) measurements.

• Method 26A of Appendix A-8 of 40 CFR, Part 60: The method would be revised to allow the use of high-density polyethylene sample storage containers as an alternative to glass containers.

• Performance Specification 1 of Appendix B of 40 CFR, Part 60: All references to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D6216-98 would be replaced with ASTM D6216-12.  However, if the initial certification of the continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) has already occurred using D6216-98, D6216-03, or D6216-07, it will not be necessary to recertify using D6216-12.

• Performance Specification 2 of Appendix B of 40 CFR, Part 60: Section 13.2 would be replaced with a table that indicates the relative accuracy performance specifications.  The relative accuracy performance specifications would not change from the performance specifications currently listed in Section 13.2.

• Procedure 1 of Appendix F of 40 CFR, Part 60: The procedure would be revised to clarify the total number of audit gas injections and audit gas procedures.

The public comment period for the proposed rule will close March 27, 2018.  Although most of the proposed revisions are minor in nature, they may affect your future test methods and/or procedures.  Now is the time to weigh in if you have concerns with the proposed revisions!  If you have any questions about the proposed rule, please reach out to me at 678.460.0324 x213 or sarner@all4inc.com.

40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MM Amendments – What’s the Next Step for Pulp and Paper Mills?

On October 11, 2017, U.S. EPA finalized 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).  The revisions were previously summarized by one of my colleagues in a separate blog and were mentioned once again as part of ALL4’s 2018 Look Ahead article.

In the ALL4 2018 Look Ahead article, the Subpart MM Amendment discussion recommended that facilities subject to Subpart MM determine their state agency’s strategy for incorporating the revised rule requirements into their Title V Operating Permits (TVOP).  Lucky for you, ALL4 has already done some of the legwork around this and has spoken to several state agencies to get a gauge on these strategies.  We still recommend that facilities check in with their respective state agency for state or facility-specific guidance, but the following discussion serves as a general guide for how facilities can incorporate the revisions into their TVOP.
Regardless of how a facility incorporates the Subpart MM revisions, facilities must be in compliance with the standards of Subpart MM by the October 11, 2019 compliance date.  If a facility has less than three years remaining on their existing TVOP (i.e., permit expires on or before October 11, 2020), the facility is not required to incorporate the revisions separately and can incorporate the revisions during the next TVOP renewal.  If a facility has three or more years remaining on their existing TVOP (i.e., permit expires after October 11, 2020), there are a few options for incorporating the Subpart MM revisions into the permit.  The following flowchart summarizes these options, followed by a more detailed discussion below.

Option #1: Incorporate Revisions During Other Projects

The first option, and the option seemingly preferred by state agencies, is incorporating the Subpart MM revisions into a TVOP during other projects at the facility requiring construction air permitting or otherwise reopening the TVOP for amendment.  Because facilities complete projects that require permitting throughout the term of their TVOP, this is the easiest method for state agencies to incorporate the revisions as part of another amendment.  Facilities opting for this method will need to request that the revisions be incorporated into the TVOP as part of the permitting process.

Option #2: Reopen TVOP

Facilities that choose not to incorporate the revisions as part of another project may be required to amend their TVOP pursuant to the reopening for cause provisions of 40 CFR §70.7(f).  Facilities that have three or more years remaining on their TVOP term (i.e., permit expiration date after October 11, 2020) will be required to contact their state agency and reopen their permit within 18 months of the rule’s promulgation (i.e., by April 11, 2019).

If you need assistance with determining if and how your facility needs to incorporate the Subpart MM revisions, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me at 678.460.0324 x213 or sarner@all4inc.com.