So, You Thought You Were Through With RACT 2 – Think Again
On April 23, 2016, the Pennsylvania “RACT 2 Rule” (i.e., Additional RACT Requirements for Major Sources of NOX and VOCs) was published final in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. The rule includes provisions intended to meet Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements under the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The RACT 2 rule is broadly applicable as the entirety of Pennsylvania is classified as an ozone nonattainment area because of its inclusion in the Northeast Ozone Transport Region (OTR). As many affected facilities recall, the RACT 2 rule included tight deadlines that required potentially affected facilities to very quickly evaluate rule applicability, consider avoidance strategies (i.e., accept synthetic minor permit conditions), determine if affected sources met “presumptive” RACT emissions standards, develop compliance strategies, prepare “case-by-case” alternative RACT determinations, prepare Plan Approval and/or Operating Permit modifications, implement monitoring requirements, submit plans and applications by October 22, 2016, and as applicable, “comply” by January 1, 2017. It is fair to say that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) has been occupied with the aftermath of the RACT 2 rule.
Check Out Our Pennsylvania RACT 2 Toolbox
About the Most Recent RACT 2 Update
On May 9, 2019, the U.S. EPA conditionally approved the Pennsylvania RACT 2 rule as a revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP). Final approval of SIP revisions is generally a formality as the implications of such rules are experienced at the State rule level. However, the fact that U.S. EPA only conditionally approved the rule will result in a bit more activity by PADEP, U.S. EPA, and affected facilities over the next 12 months. The conditional approval by U.S. EPA stipulates that by May 10, 2020:
- All facility-wide or system-wide averaging plans approved by PADEP under 25 Pa. Code section 129.98 including, but not limited to, any terms and conditions that ensure the enforceability of the averaging plan as a practical matter (e.g., any monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping, or testing requirements); and
- All source-specific RACT determinations approved by PADEP under 25 Pa. Code section 129.99, including any alternative compliance schedules approved under section 129.97(k) and 129.99(i); the source-specific RACT determinations submitted to EPA for approval into the SIP should include any terms and conditions that ensure the enforceability of the source-specific RACT emissions limitation as a practical matter (e.g., any monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping, or testing requirements).”
You may be asking yourself what this action means for your affected facility. The answer depends on where PADEP stands on their review of your RACT 2 submittal. PADEP has acted on many RACT 2 submittals by issuing permits, as applicable, and incorporating alternative RACT determinations into the SIP as revisions. However, there are apparently many facilities where the associated RACT 2 requirements have not been resolved. For those facilities and for PADEP, the clock is officially running and will stop on May 10, 2020. We expect that PADEP will focus resources on finalizing RACT 2 reviews, issuing permits as applicable, and developing SIP revisions for U.S. EPA and public review that reflect approved facility-wide or system-wide averaging plans, alternative RACT determinations, and alternative compliance schedules.
If your facility has submitted alternative RACT proposals and/or averaging plans and has not yet received approval and associated permits from PADEP, you can expect to hear from your Regional Office in the near future. It may even be in your best interest to reach out to PADEP to assure you will have the time to work through any outstanding RACT 2 items. You can be certain that PADEP does not intend to receive a SIP deficiency letter from U.S. EPA next May.
Please contact me at (610) 933-5246, extension 127 or at rrakiewicz@all4inc.com if you have any questions.
Continuous Monitoring Systems (CMS) in Pennsylvania: The Devil’s in the Details
Does your facility operate a continuous monitoring system (CMS) in Pennsylvania? If so, it’s possible that you, or someone at your facility, is familiar with Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) Continuous Source Monitoring Manual (CSMM) Revision No. 8 (Rev. 8). If you are not familiar – CMS used for compliance demonstrations in Pennsylvania are often required to satisfy the system design, performance, testing, recordkeeping, reporting, and quality assurance (QA) requirements of CSMM Rev. 8. The requirements of CSMM Rev. 8 has many nuances that differ from Federal monitoring programs such as 40 CFR Part 60 or 40 CFR Part 75, and can be thought of as more stringent than Federal monitoring programs. As a facility with CMS in Pennsylvania, it is critical to understand the requirements of CSMM Rev. 8, as they can directly impact your facility’s compliance demonstration.
Continuous Source Monitoring Manual Revision No. 8
One example of a CSMM Rev. 8 nuance is found in the QA requirements – specifically, the data validation criteria detailed in §I(A)(1)(e) on page 62 as it relates to zero/upscale calibration error (CE) checks following process startup. CSMM Rev. 8 necessitates that a successful zero/upscale CE check be completed within 8 process operating hours following startup if the process has been shut down “for at least one complete clock hour during the time from the 19th clock hour through the 26th clock hour following the previous successful zero or upscale CE check”.
Our Continuous Monitoring System Services
The Revisions Impact
This requirement can impact the validity of CMS data following shutdowns. Why is that? §I(A)(1) specifies that data must be considered invalid if a zero/upscale CE check is not successfully completed following the aforementioned shutdown scenario. Thus, CMS data is considered invalid starting with the 9th process operating hour following startup, and until a successful zero/upscale CE check is completed. The details here are important – the requirement specifies that data becomes invalid the 9th process operating hour following startup. During reviews of client CMS data, ALL4 has found examples of data acquisition systems (DAS) incorrectly applying this Pennsylvania-specific validation criteria, or in some cases, not applying it at all. Consequently, manual data review is needed to ensure the truth and accuracy of certain compliance demonstrations.
A specific example we have encountered occurred when a DAS was programmed to incorrectly invalidate data beginning with the 9th clock hour following startup, rather than the 9th process operating hour following startup. During periods of rough startup (i.e., the process goes on and off), this caused process operating hours to be inaccurately tagged as invalid CMS data, which impacted the data availability of the CMS. Manual data reconciliation was needed to accurately report the data for compliance demonstration purposes.
We have successfully worked with our clients and their DAS vendors to both implement, and to correct this Pennsylvania-specific data validation criteria in their facility’s DAS. If you have questions about CSMM Rev. 8, data validation criteria used at your facility, or any other aspects of CMS, please reach out to me. I can be reached at (610) 933-5246 extension 139, or at mcarideo@all4inc.com
Georgia Emissions Statements, and Emissions Inventories, and Fees, Oh My!
While some states have already wrapped up their annual air emissions reporting and fee requirements for the 2018 reporting year, annual reporting deadlines are quickly approaching for facilities in Georgia. The Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GEPD) requires annual emissions statements, emissions inventories, and fee statements to be submitted online through the Georgia Environmental Connections Online (GECO) system. Check out the list below for some of Georgia’s annual reporting requirements that your facility may be subject to.
Emissions Statements – Emissions statements are due by June 15, 2019. Emissions statements are required by facilities that meet the following criteria:
- Actual emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) or volatile organic compounds (VOC) exceed 25 tons per year (tpy); and
- The facility is located in Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding, or Walton counties.
If your facility is located in one of the above-listed counties but did not emit more than 25 tpy of NOX or VOC in 2018, you should still complete the online form for the facility indicating as such.
Emissions/Facility Inventories – Emissions and facility inventories are due by June 30, 2019. Facilities whose potential emissions equal or exceed the following annual thresholds are required to submit an annual inventory:
Facilities required to submit annual inventories will see some changes in the GECO system this year for reporting emissions. Specifically, a built-in comparison column to your facility’s previously reported emissions. The built-in comparison column highlights emissions that have changed by more than 20% from previously reported emissions. For reported emissions that have increased or decreased by more than 20% over the previously reported emissions, supporting documentation must be submitted to the GEPD Air Protection Branch by email. This requirement is new for 2018 to verify the data quality of reported emissions.
In addition, facilities that utilize “Engineering Judgement” as the emissions calculation method will be required to submit supporting documentation to the GEPD Air Protection Branch. GEPD has posted a 2018 Emissions Inventory Training on their website, which provides information on what was updated for 2018 and a step-by-step guide of completing the annual inventory.
Emissions Fees – The annual emissions fee form and payment of annual emissions fees are due at the beginning of September. For facilities that submit quarterly fee payments, the first quarterly fee payment is also due at the beginning of September. Georgia facilities will be happy to know that there were no increases to annual emissions fees, on a dollar-per-ton basis, for reporting year 2018 emissions. GEPD has provided a draft of Procedures for Calculating Air Permit Application & Annual Permit Fees document for fees due between July 1, 2019 and June 30, 2020. The draft manual was adopted on April 23, 2019, and the final manual should be published soon.
While the annual emissions fees on a dollar-per-ton basis did not change for reporting year 2018, GEPD’s permit application fees are now in full affect. GEPD’s permit application fees were proposed and adopted last year with an effective date of March 1, 2019. The list of all permit application fees is provided on GEPD’s website and is important to keep in mind as you complete permitting activities in 2019.
While all of these impending deadlines may have you saying, “Oh My!” ALL4 is here to help you meet your reporting deadlines. If you have any questions about Georgia’s annual reporting requirements or need help meeting these deadlines, please feel free to reach out to me at sarner@all4inc.com or 678.460.0324 x213. As a reminder, the GECO system is up and running for the 2018 reporting year so make sure to get your annual reporting done early!
Upcoming Updates to Texas Nonattainment Reclassification
At this year’s Air and Waste Management Association (AWMA) Gulf Coast Chapter (GCC) Annual Conference, several folks from ALL4’s Houston Office had the opportunity to hear from Donna Huff of the Air Programs Division at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). During her presentations, she discussed the historical changes in Texas attainment areas and how the State Implementation Plan (SIP) has changed as a result. This ties back to an article that Roy Rakiewicz of ALL4 wrote on The Complexities of a Texas SIP Revision last year. The big takeaway from Ms. Huff’s lecture, was that the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) and the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) ozone nonattainment areas did not attain the 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) of 0.075 ppm by the deadline of July 20, 2018. This conclusion leads to the bigger issue: nonattainment area reclassification.
With this announcement, HGB and DFW are poised to transition from a moderate to serious ozone nonattainment classification. That means that the exceptions to triggering the “de minimis threshold test (netting)” provided by Rule 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §116.150(c) will also change, which could be problematic. For projects in a moderate or marginal nonattainment area, if the emissions increases (without considering decreases) of ozone precursors (i.e., NOX and VOC) from a project, are less than 40 tons per year, the de-minimis threshold (netting) test is not required per Rule 30 §116.150(c)(2). However, for projects in serious or severe nonattainment areas, the threshold for project increases, without considering decreases, to avoid the de minimis threshold test, drops to 5 tons per year.
This change is critical in moderate or marginal nonattainment areas that are being reclassified to serious as pending projects that may have avoided netting could now be forced into a netting exercise resulting in an unintended major modification (and the associated consequences, such as longer permitting timelines). This change is slotted to take place this “spring” (2019) and pending permits that are not issued final by the time the attainment redesignation goes into effect will have to take into consideration the significantly lower threshold (i.e., 5 tons vs. 40 tons) specified at Rule §116.150(c)(1). If you are already in the middle of a project that could be impacted by this change, our best advice is to get in contact with the TCEQ and discuss your timeline. Furthermore, this places incredible strain on permitting projects going forward in Texas. If you have planned projects on the horizon in a serious or severe ozone nonattainment area, you may need to reevaluate your air permitting strategy. The change in nonattainment status would be expected to be implemented 30 days after U.S. EPA publishes a final notice in the Federal Register.
While things may look bleak at the moment, there’s one glimmer of hope that could change everything. TCEQ concluded that a number of wildfires burning in the Western U.S. in July and August may have influenced four of the ozone exceedances in 2018. It was determined that events occurring on the days of July 27-28 and August 23-24 could be considered exceptional events because of the plume that covered much of the central U.S. during this time frame. TCEQ has determined the exceptional event demonstrations, if confirmed, would remove flagged data from design values at the Bayland Park and Aldine monitors. If the U.S. EPA agrees, the removal of these values would then show the HGB area as in attainment for 2018 of the 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS, thereby sparing the HGB area from a future serious ozone nonattainment designation.
We have reached out to the TCEQ on this matter to get a status update on the request. TCEQ indicated that they submitted the Initial Notification letter to the U.S. EPA on March 26, 2019 describing the events and the initial conclusions based on preliminary analysis. The TCEQ anticipates preliminary feedback within 60 days, per U.S. EPA Region 6 procedures and processes. If both agencies agree there is sufficient information to proceed with an exceptional event demonstration, an opportunity for public comment would be available as soon as this summer (2019). The designation of exceptional events and the removal of the associated data from the affected site data will not prevent immediate reclassification, but improve the current trajectory of these counties for future designation of HGB.
In the interim, the regulated community would do well to remain in contact with the TCEQ on existing applications and potential threats to the timeline of any permits. If you have a pending permit application in the HGB or DFW areas that could be affected by the designation change, consider the implications this will have on the permitting process, or we can assist you by walking through the additional steps you may need to take. Please contact Roy Rakiewicz (610) 933-5246, extension 127 or rrakiewicz@all4inc.com or contact us if you have any questions.
