Upcoming Changes to the Turbine MACT With a Short Timeline to Comply
On Friday, April 12, 2019, U.S. EPA proposed changes to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Combustion Turbines [40 CFR 63, Subpart YYYY (Turbine MACT)] as a result of its risk and technology review (RTR). This latest RTR proposal is one in a long list of RTR rules with court-ordered deadlines, so the comment period is only 45 days. Although U.S. EPA is proposing that the health risk from the turbine source category is acceptable and there have been no new technology developments, there are significant changes to the rule being proposed. As a reminder, this rule applies to major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), not area sources.
The major change U.S. EPA proposes to make is the removal of the stay of the 91 parts per billion by volume (ppbv) @ 15% oxygen (O2) formaldehyde limit for new and reconstructed lean premix and diffusion flame gas-fired turbines (those constructed or reconstructed after January 14, 2003). The 91 ppbv new source standard was originally promulgated in 2004 but U.S. EPA later stayed the effectiveness of the emissions standard for lean premix and diffusion flame gas-fired turbines after a subsequent proposal to delist these subcategories from regulation under 40 CFR Part 63. However, a 2007 D.C. Circuit Court decision determined that it is not legal for U.S. EPA to delist a subcategory; U.S. EPA may only delist an entire source category. The current proposal indicates that U.S. EPA does not currently have sufficient information to delist the entire source category. Therefore, U.S. EPA is proposing to remove the stay of the standards, which will reinstate the requirement to implement the 91 ppbv emissions standard. The proposal only provides 180 days from the date of the final published rule for facilities to demonstrate compliance via stack testing. The timeline is problematic for some facilities that installed new gas turbines since 2003 without an oxidation catalyst because it is likely that an oxidation catalyst will be necessary to meet the 91 ppbv limit. U.S. EPA estimates that 182 new lean premix and diffusion flame gas-fired turbines were constructed or reconstructed between 2003 and 2017. 180 days is insufficient time to perform the necessary engineering work and complete a shutdown to install and test a catalyst. Even scheduling, conducting, and verifying results of a performance test in 180 days may be challenging. Facilities that will be affected by the 91 ppbv formaldehyde limit should consider testing now to determine whether any changes are necessary to achieve compliance. The timing required to demonstrate compliance with the new formaldehyde limit will be a focus of industry comments on the rule. Note also that U.S. EPA is only required to finalize the RTR by March 13, 2020; it could defer the lift of the stay until a subsequent regulatory action.
U.S. EPA is also proposing to remove the startup, shutdown, malfunction (SSM) exemption and eliminate the requirement to develop, implement, and follow an SSM plan for all operators of turbines subject to the rule. Language reflecting the general duty to minimize emissions is proposed for addition to the rule. For lean premix and diffusion flame turbines subject to a numerical standard, a work practice requirement is proposed for startup, but there are no separate standards for malfunctions or shutdown periods. U.S. EPA proposes that during startup, operators must minimize the turbine’s time spent at idle or low load levels and minimize the turbine’s startup time to a period needed for appropriate and safe loading of the turbine, not to exceed 1 hour for simple cycle turbines and 3 hours for combined cycle turbines. While it is a good approach to implement a work practice for startup periods to allow a certain amount of time for the oxidation catalyst to reach a temperature at which organic HAP emissions will be controlled, the work practice should not be so inflexible as to prohibit operation at low loads if the numeric standard can be met while operating in a turndown type situation (e.g., a site may wish to reduce turbine load during the day to accommodate an influx of solar-generated energy). Collecting formaldehyde emissions data at low loads is warranted for facilities that want this flexibility. U.S. EPA does not have information to indicate that organic HAP emissions are higher during shutdown than during normal operation and is not proposing a different standard during shutdown.
Proposed changes to recordkeeping and reporting requirements include documenting startup conditions and excess emissions events. Operators will be required to record the date, time, and duration of startup periods. For excess emissions events, operators will be required to record actions taken to minimize excess emissions, an estimate of the amount of emissions over the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the excess emissions. Electronic reporting via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) is proposed for routine compliance reports and for annual emissions test reports. A draft report template is included in the rulemaking docket for comment.
Comments are due by May 28, 2019; contact Amy Marshall at amarshall@all4inc.com or (984) 777-3073 for more information.
Air Quality Related Bills to Watch in the 86th Texas Legislative Session
“Check out Kristin’s updated article What Happened: Air Quality Bills to Watch in the 86th Texas Legislative Session“.
As discussed in The 86th Texas Legislative Session: The Process and Implications for Texas Facilities with Air Permits, every two years, the Texas House and Senate members converge upon Austin for a 140-day legislative session (session). We’re currently in the middle of the 86th Texas Legislative Session which runs from January 8 to May 27, 2019. This article addresses several key air quality related bills to keep an eye on. For perspective, over 7,000 bills have been introduced in the first 60-day period of this session. Typically, a quarter to a third of bills are passed. On the environmental front, 250–300 bills are introduced including 50–60 air quality related bills. In this article, we’ll look at several air quality permitting bills regarding expedited permitting and “commencing” construction.
Commencement of Construction
Air quality permits are typically required “pre-construction”, that is, construction cannot begin until a final permit is issued by TCEQ. Issuance of certain air quality permits in Texas often take many months or a year or more depending upon the location and complexity of the project. With the time it takes to get an air quality permit in Texas, namely new source review (NSR) permits and amendments, “commence construction” is always a hot topic.
Senate Bill 1501 (SB1501) relates to the commencement of construction of a project following the issuance of a draft permit for an amendment to an air quality permit. The bill would amend Section 382.004 of the Health and Safety Code to address at risk commencement of construction for permit amendment applications, where commencement of construction would be allowed for amendments upon issuance of a draft amended permit. While 382.004 currently addresses “commence construction” it was unable to be implemented as written due to an EPA interpretation of the statute.
SB1501 was introduced and filed in the Senate on March 5, 2019, read for the first time on March 14, 2019 and referred to the Senate Natural Resources & Economic Development Committee where it is currently pending.
Similarly, the bill was also filed in the House, as HB2726, on February 28, 2019 and was read on March 11, 2019 and referred to the Environmental Regulation Committee. Numerous events occurred on March 26, 2019 including a public hearing and committee consideration/testimony. On April 4, 2019 the bill was considered in formal meeting and a substitute was made by the committee. The substitute (CSHB2726) added a stipulation that the commission shall adopt rules to implement this section. On April 10 and 11, 2019, respectively, the committee report was filed and distributed. With a 7-2 vote, the bill is currently out of House Committee.
The next step is a vote by the House. Industry will want to keep an eye on this bill as it will certainly provide ‘at risk’ needed flexibility for commencing construction for those amending permits (if adopted). Should the bill be passed, it would be effective January 1, 2020.
Expedited Permitting – Current Fiscal Biennium
For the reasons cited above under commence construction, Texas initiated an expedited permit program in 2014. The program is quite popular with industry and is subject to TCEQ resource availability, a surcharge, and demonstration that the purpose of the application will benefit the Texas or regional economy. SB500, relating to making supplemental appropriations and reductions in appropriations and giving direction, including direction regarding reimbursement, and adjustment authority regarding appropriations, was filed on January 15, 2019 and was referred to the Senate Committee on Finance. The bill (entitled an Act in this case) covers many programs and specific to Expedited Permitting, it provides additional funding above the amounts previously appropriated for the fiscal biennium ending August 31, 2019. There is a current cap for the two-year period that has already been reached and the program needs additional funding to keep the program running through late August. This Act allows for funds that have already been paid by industry to expedite their permit application above the current cap.
On March 11, 2019 it left the Senate Committee (as CSSB500) with a 14-0 vote and passed the Senate on March 13, 2019. The House Appropriations Committee passed the bill 24-0 on March 19, 2019 and the House passed the bill on March 28, 2019. The Act is with the Governor and the Expedited Permitting portion of the Act would be effective immediately.
Expedited Permitting – Future Years
The expedited permitting option has proven to be a popular option for industry to pursue in Texas. However, expedited permitting could be considered “too popular” and issues around the availability of staff and fiscal resources could limit/are limiting the future effectiveness of the program. On February 7, 2019, SB698 was filed and was read/referred to the Senate Natural Resources and Economic Development Committee on March 1, 2019. The bill would amend Section 382.05155. Expedited Processing of Application, of the Health and Safety Code. The bill adds language including:
- Allowing the surcharge to cover costs of full-time equivalent (FTE) commission employees to support the expedited processing of air permit applications as well as allow full-time equivalent commission employees to support the expedited processing of air permit applications.
- Designating that money from the surcharge collected under this section may be used to support the expedited processing of air permit applications under this section.
- Allowing the commission to pay full-time equivalent commission employees supporting the expedited processing of air permit applications as well as set the rate for overtime compensation for the FTEs.
Numerous events occurred on March 20, 2019, including a public hearing and committee consideration/testimony. The bill passed the committee on March 21, 2019, 11-0, and the full Senate on March 26, 2019, 31-0.
The bill is currently with the House. It was referred to the House Environmental Regulation Committee on April 1, 2019. It was considered in public hearing on April 9, 2019 and received favorable response (8-0) without need for amendment. After leaving the House Committee, the bill will be voted on by the House. Should the bill be passed, it would be effective on September 1, 2019.
Also amending Section 382.05155, HB1747 was filed on February 13, 2019 and was read/referred to the House Environmental Regulation Committee on March 4, 2019. The bill adds language that allows the commission to be appropriated any revenue from fee revenues collected and deposited to the account from expedited permit review surcharges assessed in accordance with this section. A public hearing was scheduled for March 13, 2019 and subsequently withdrawn. The bill remains with the House Committee.
Industry should continue to track the progress of these bills (as well as SB698 related bills: identical HB1688 and duplicate HB1708) as the authority for the fees collected to be allocated for the expedited permitting program as well as the addition of FTE staff to the expeditated permitting program should help alleviate current bottlenecks.
These are just a few of the many air quality related bills that the Texas legislature is considering. Check back for updates as these bills make their way through the system over the next month. Have questions? Reach out to Houston Office Director, Kristin Gordon, at kgordon@all4inc.com or 281.937.7553 x301.
6 Months Left to Comply with the Subpart MM Amendments
Six months ago I wrote about what you should be doing to begin preparing for the October 11, 2019 compliance date for amendments 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). How did you do? In this blogpost I’ll share some of the ways we’ve been supporting mills with the rule.
Compliance Strategy Guidance
Understanding how all of the changes to the rule will impact your mill can be overwhelming. That’s why we’ve helped some mills with the development of a compliance strategy guidance document; a “blueprint” that describes each change to the rule, how it impacts your mill, and what needs to be done to address it. We’ve found this to be a great way to systematically and comprehensively identify each change and potential hurdles you may encounter to comply.
Permit Modifications
In my last blogpost I suggested reviewing the Subpart MM requirements in your operating permit and identifying the permit expiration date. If it expires after October 11, 2020, you have an obligation to open the permit to incorporate the amended requirements. Even if it expires before October 11, 2020, it’s advisable to submit a permit modification (or the renewal application) in advance of the October 11, 2019 compliance date. This acknowledges your intent to comply with the amended requirements even though your permit may specify conflicting requirements after the compliance date. For example, your permit may require quarterly reporting whereas the amendments now require semiannual reporting. Ideally, you would obtain a revised permit in advance of the compliance date to avoid conflicting requirements (which would complicate the annual compliance certification).
Continuous Monitoring System Considerations
The amendments to Subpart MM clarify that mills must maintain data quality procedures for continuous monitoring systems (CMS), which include Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems (COMS), Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS), and Continuous Parametric Monitoring Systems (CPMS) (e.g., scrubber flow rate and pressure drop). Prior to the amendments, this requirement existed through a reference to the Part 63 General Provisions [i.e., 40 CFR §63.8(d)]. Now, 40 CFR §63.864(f) presents this requirement directly in addition to referencing the Part 63 General Provisions. While not necessarily new, having the language directly in the rule draws attention to the requirement. We can support mills with the documentation of these CMS data quality procedures, which must include activities like calibrations, preventative maintenance, corrective maintenance, and data handling.
Testing Considerations
The first periodic performance test to demonstrate compliance with the amended rule is not due until October 2020, but there is plenty to think about in advance of that date.
Closing
I hope you’ve found these suggestions helpful and will consider reaching out to us to help you navigate your way to the October 11, 2019 compliance date. Should you have any questions about the amendments, feel free to reach out to me at lkroos@all4inc.com or 610.933.5246 x122.
The 86th Texas Legislative Session: The Process and Implications for Texas Facilities with Air Permits
“Check out Kristin’s updated article What Happened: Air Quality Bills to Watch in the 86th Legislative Session.
Every two years the Texas House and Senate members converge upon Austin for a 140-day legislative session (session). As part of the 86th Texas Legislative Session, 150 house members and 31 senate members (legislators) are considering over 7,000 bills from January 8 to May 27, 2019. This article describes how it all works and a subsequent article addresses the key air quality related bills to keep an eye on.
Texas’s Legislative Process (A High-Level Overview)
Legislators introduce bills, which are the vehicle to get a law enacted, repealed or amended in Texas. Legislators first introduce the bill in their own chamber after appropriate filing (with either the chief clerk of the house or secretary of state) and upon a passing vote, the bill is then heard in the other chamber. Should it be approved there, it proceeds to the governor for approval. In the first 60 days of the session, unrestricted introduction of bills is allowed and after that four fifths consent of voting members is required to introduce a bill.
Committee Role
With the sheer volume of bills introduced, the role of committees is paramount. Bill titles are first read in their respective chamber and then assigned a committee. While the House rules are more stringent than the Senate, committees are based on subject matter jurisdictions. As an example, environmental based bills are referred to the Environmental Regulation Committee in the House and the Natural Resources & Economic Development Committee in the Senate. Committee chairs decide if fiscal notes or other impact statements are required, as appropriate, and if so, the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) is involved.
Committees meet in a variety of ways including public hearing, formal meeting, and work sessions. Many of these meetings are open to the public and each chamber has their own requirements to post notice of these meetings. Committees can take ‘no action’ on a bill or issue a report for their chamber. A favorable report can suggest passage with or without amendments, or an alternative bill, whereas an unfavorable report typically kills the bill. Bills must pass committee prior to them being voted on in their respective chamber.
Opposite Chamber and Governor’s Role
After a bill has passed through the opposite chamber’s committee as well as chamber floor deliberation, the bill is sent back to the originating chamber. If the bill was not amended in the opposite chamber, or if it was amended and the originating chamber concurs with the changes, the bill is enrolled, signed by both presiding officers in the presence of their respective chambers, and sent to the governor. Any bill making an appropriation must be sent to the comptroller of public accounts for certification before going to the governor. If a bill was amended in the opposite chamber and the originating chamber does not concur with the changes, the originating chamber may request the appointment of a conference committee to resolve the differences between the house and senate versions of the bill.
Except in the case of a bill sent to the governor within 10 days of final adjournment, on receiving a bill, the governor has 10 days in which to sign the bill, veto it, or allow it to become law without a signature. If the governor elects to veto the bill and the legislature is still in session, the bill is returned to the chamber in which it originated with an explanation of the governor’s objections. A two-thirds majority in each chamber is required to override the veto. If the governor neither vetoes nor signs the bill within the allotted time, the bill becomes law. If a bill is sent to the governor within 10 days of final adjournment, the governor has until 20 days after final adjournment to sign the bill, veto it, or allow it to become law without a signature.
Effective Date
When do bills become effective? If a bill does not specify an effective date, the bill becomes effective on the 91st day after the date of final adjournment of the session in which it was enacted. However, a bill may specify a different effective date. In order for a bill to take effect before the 91st day after the date of final adjournment, the bill must receive a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each chamber.
Environmental Bills Considered
To provide perspective, over 7,000 bills have been introduced in the first 60-day period of this session. Typically, a quarter to a third of bills are passed. On the environmental front, 250–300 bills are introduced including 50–60 air quality related bills. Now that we’ve covered basics of the legislative process, check out our article Air Quality Related Bills to Watch in the 86th Texas Legislative Session to learn about a few key air quality related bills being considered. Have questions? Reach out to Houston Office Director, Kristin Gordon, at kgordon@all4inc.com or 281.937.7553 x301.
Preparing for Subpart MM 2020 Performance Testing
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) was amended in October 2017. The amendments include a periodic performance testing provision, the first of which is required by October 13, 2020. As with any performance test, preparation well in advance of the test date is the key to success. Here’s what you need to know.
Pollutants
Most mills will conduct a performance test for particulate matter (PM), and specifically filterable PM, as a surrogate for hazardous air pollutant (HAP) metals from the recovery furnace, smelt dissolving tank, and lime kiln. New kraft and soda recovery furnaces and sulfite combustion units will also need to test for gaseous HAP. A summary of the applicable emissions limits is provided below:
Testing Conditions
Pursuant to 40 CFR §63.865, “Performance tests shall be conducted based on representative performance (i.e., performance based on normal operating conditions) of the affected source for the period being tested,” which excludes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. During the test, you’ll need to establish operating parameter limits, as applicable to your mill’s control configuration. If you’ve already established operating parameter limits prior to the amendments, you’ll need to confirm or reestablish the limits during the performance test.
Should you prefer monitoring an alternative parameter pursuant to 40 CFR §63.864(e)(13) or the use of a control device other than an electrostatic precipitator (ESP), wet scrubber, regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO), or fabric filter pursuant to 40 CFR §63.864(e)(14), written approval is required and should be obtained prior to the performance test, since the approval will include the “manner in which the operating limit is to be set.”
Should you wish to comply with an overall PM emissions limit pursuant to 40 CFR §63.862(a)(1)(ii), you’ll need to establish this limit during the performance test as well. If you’ve previously established an overall PM emissions limit, you only need to reestablish the limit if an applicable air pollution control system is modified or replaced (for example, your recovery furnace ESP is upgraded), or if an applicable source is shut down for more than 60 consecutive days.
When is a performance test not just a performance test?
There is more to a performance test than just measuring emissions at the stack. Don’t forget about the performance evaluations for continuous monitoring systems (CMS)! Ongoing compliance with emissions limits after the performance test is based on continuous compliance with the operating parameter limits established during the performance test, such as scrubber pressure drop and liquid flow rate. The purpose of CMS performance evaluations is to demonstrate that the continuous monitoring data used to establish those limits are valid. For example, a performance evaluation may involve independently measuring the scrubber liquid flow rate and comparing it to the values obtained by the inline flowmeter to verify its accuracy.
Depending on your mill’s control configuration, performance evaluations may be required for the following CMS:
To Whom It May Concern
Notification requirements for the performance test and performance evaluation(s) are specified in the General Provisions under 40 CFR §§63.7 and 63.8, respectively. Notification of the performance test is required at least 60 days in advance of the scheduled test date, and notification of the performance evaluation should be submitted simultaneously. The notifications should be sent to the appropriate U.S. EPA Regional Office and your local regulatory agency.
Test Plans
A performance test plan and performance evaluation test plan must be developed in advance of the tests. Although not required to be submitted, U.S. EPA may request to see either plan in advance of the testing, so it’s wise to have them prepared by the time of the 60-day notification. Pursuant to 40 CFR §63.7(c)(2)(i) and (ii) for performance test plans and §63.8(e)(3)(i) and (ii) for performance evaluation test plans, the test plans must include the following components:
- Program objectives
- Program summary
- Schedule
- Data quality objectives (i.e., pre-test/evaluation expectations of precision, accuracy, and completeness of data)
- Internal QA program (i.e., the activities planned by routine operators and analysts to provide an assessment of test data precision for performance tests and CMS performance for performance evaluations)
- External QA program (i.e., for performance evaluations, systems audits that include the opportunity for on-site evaluation by the Administrator of instrument calibration, data validation, sample logging, and documentation of quality control data and field maintenance activities)
Results
As with other recently updated rules, test results will need to be submitted via U.S. EPA’s Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) in a format generated using U.S. EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). The results are due within 60 days of completing the performance test. Plan for a little extra time if you’ve never entered results via CEDRI!
20-20 Hindsight Foresight
With testing due by October 2020, this may not be the first thing on your mind. But, your mill likely has other testing obligations, so don’t forget to consider how this testing deadline aligns with your routine testing schedule. It may make sense for you to test early.
They say hindsight is 20-20, but hopefully this blogpost helps you see 20-20 before 2020 testing! Feel free to contact me at lkroos@all4inc.com or 610.933.5246 x122 with any questions!
