Portland Cement NESHAP Amendments – What’s Changed?
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) published the finalized amendments for the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards codified at 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart LLL – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry. The Subpart LLL amendments became effective on July 25, 2018 and reflect the results of the most recent risk and technology review (RTR). The revisions were proposed on September 21, 2017. Recall that the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires U.S. EPA to review the 40 CFR Part 63 technology-based standards and evaluate the risk to public health after application of technology-based standards every eight years. If you want to review the RTR process or originally proposed amendments to the Portland Cement NESHAP, check out our blog post for a refresher.
The “good” news is that the U.S. EPA determined that risks due to emissions of air toxics are acceptable, the current standards provide an ample margin of safety, and no new cost-effective controls were identified. Consequently, the amendments do not change the numerical limits or forms of the rule. Instead, the amendments focus on improving monitoring, compliance, and implementation of Subpart LLL requirements. The following list identifies a few key changes made to Subpart LLL as part of the amendments:
- Corrected reporting requirements that previously required affected sources to report their 30-operating day rolling average for dioxins and furans temperature monitoring
- Corrected a provision that previously required facility owners to keep records of both daily clinker production and kiln feed rates [40 CFR 63.1350(d)(3)]
- Clarified that semiannual summary reports are required to be submitted within 60 days of the end of the reporting period [40 CFR 63.1354(b)(9)]
- Resolved conflicting provisions in 40 CFR 63.1349(b)(8)(x) and 30 CFR §63.1350(l)(3) that apply when a sulfur dioxide (SO2) continuous parametric monitoring system (CPMS) is used to monitor hydrochloric acid (HCl) compliance
- Clarified that the particulate matter (PM) performance testing requirements of 40 CFR 63.1349(b)(1)(vi) only apply to kilns with inline raw mills
- Clarified performance test requirements for affected sources that have been idle for one or more periods by requiring affected sources that were idle during the most recent normal compliance testing window to demonstrate compliance within 180 days after coming out of the idle period [40 CFR 63.1348(a)]
Because only technical corrections and clarifications are provided by these amendments, the compliance is required upon the effective date of the rule (i.e., July 25, 2018). If you have any questions on how the 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart LLL amendments affect your Portland cement plant, please reach out to me at 678.460.0324 x213 or sarner@all4inc.com. Thanks for reading!
U.S. EPA Finalizes Wisconsin SIP Revision
On August 31, 2018, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) finalized an approval of a revision to the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) to U.S. EPA on November 28, 2017. The approval of this modification affects the state rule’s Prevention of Signification Deterioration (PSD) language on greenhouse gas applicability. This approval is specific to the analyses of Wisconsin sources and now aligns this state’s rules with the Federal PSD regulations and other state programs. This modification was made to reflect the changes brought about by the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) vs U.S. EPA Supreme Court ruling on June 23, 2014 that were reflected in amendments to the Federal PSD regulations on August 19, 2015.
Historically, a source could be considered major based on both non-greenhouse gas and greenhouse gas regulated pollutants, potentially requiring PSD analysis and permitting for new facilities or changes at existing ones. PSD permitting applies to major sources and major modifications in areas that are designated attainment or unclassifiable for any national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) pollutants. Facilities that triggered PSD applicability for greenhouse gases were also required to install best available control technologies (BACT) for that pollutant on new sources or on modified sources where greenhouse gas emissions would be increasing.
In the UARG vs U.S. EPA Supreme Court case, 134 S. Ct. 2427, the Supreme Court evaluated U.S. EPA’s final decision on two criteria: whether U.S. EPA permissibly determined sources may be subject to PSD and Title V requirements based only on their greenhouse gas PTE, and whether a source already subject to PSD because of other pollutants still required BACT for their greenhouse gas emissions. Following their analysis, the Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act (CAA) does not necessitate U.S. EPA to require a source to obtain a PSD or Title V permit based only on the source’s potential greenhouse gas emissions. The approval of WDNR’s revision is great news for these greenhouse gas regulated only sources in Wisconsin, but this revision still upholds the greenhouse gas tailoring rule for sources considered major based upon non-greenhouse gas regulated pollutants.
What about the other states?
While this final SIP revision approval by U.S. EPA only applies to the WDNR submittal, as previously noted, this change is already reflected in the Federal PSD regulations. For states that directly implement the Federal PSD rules these changes have been in effect for several years, as is the case with most other states with Federally delegated PSD programs.
If you have any questions about what this may mean for your next project, please contact ALL4 at 610-933-5246.
Industrial Cleaning Solvents Rule – Finalized within Pennsylvania
On August 11, 2018, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) finalized the proposed Control of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) from Industrial Cleaning Solvents Rule as 25 Pa. Code 129.63a. This rule is in response to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA’s) 2006 Control Technique Guideline (CTG): Industrial Cleaning Solvents document. States are required to implement reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements for affected sources located in nonattainment areas within two years of publication of a final CTG.
The industrial cleaning solvent rule applies when an industrial cleaning solvent is used or applied in a cleaning activity at a cleaning unit operation, a work production-related work area or a part, product, tool, machinery, equipment, vessel, floor or wall. Per 25 Pa. Code §129.63a, an industrial cleaning solvent is a product formulated with one or more regulated VOCs that is used in a cleaning activity for a cleaning unit operation. A cleaning activity is defined as the use or application of an industrial cleaning solvent to remove a contaminant, such as an adhesive, ink, paint, dirt, soil, oil or grease, by wiping, flushing, brushing, soaking, dipping, spraying or a similar effort.
Per 25 Pa. Code §129.63a(e), facilities with total combined actual VOC emissions from applicable cleaning unit operations equal to or greater than 2.7 tons per 12-month rolling period, before consideration of controls, shall either (1) utilize compliant solvents (i.e., a VOC content less than or equal to 0.42 lb VOC/gal or a VOC composite vapor pressure less than or equal to 8 mm mercury at 68°F) or (2) install a VOC emissions capture system and add-on air pollution control device. Facilities with actual VOC emissions greater than 2.7 tons per 12-month rolling period will also be subject to additional work practice standards per 25 Pa. Code §129.63a(f). Facilities with actual VOC emissions less than 2.7 tons per 12-month rolling period will only be subject to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 25 Pa. Code §129.63a(h)(4).
PADEP anticipates that approximately 576 facilities within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will be subject to 25 Pa. Code §129.63a. 25 Pa. Code §129.63a(c) includes a list of exceptions and exemptions to 25 Pa. Code §129.63a. The list of exemptions includes various manufacturing operations as well as industrial cleaning solvent operations subject to a standard or specification required by the United States Department of Defense, Federal Aviation Administration or other Federal government entity (25 Pa. Code 129.63a(c)(2)(i).
If you are a major source of VOC or nitrogen oxides (NOX) you may be wondering how 25 Pa. Code §129.63a correlates to your new RACT requirements per 25 Pa. Code 129.96. A facility’s compliance with 25 Pa. Code §129.63a is completely separate compared to a facility’s compliance with 25 Pa. Code 129.96. Therefore, you may have performed a case-by-case RACT analysis in accordance with 25 Pa. Code 129.99. Since the industrial solvent rule was published subsequently, it will be interesting to see how this affects previously completed RACT case-by-case analyses.
I recommend taking a comprehensive look into cleaning solvents used at your Facility as soon as possible. Since there was no compliance deadline established within 25 Pa. Code §129.63a, your Facility is expected to be in compliance with the rule today. ALL4 is here to help you develop a strategy to comply with Pennsylvania’s Industrial Solvent Cleaning Rule. If you have questions about how 25 Pa. Code §129.63a affects your Facility or what your next steps should be, please reach out to me at (610) 933-5246, extension 135, or at clynch@all4inc.com.
