Evolution of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Regulation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Power Sector

The final Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule was promulgated in the Federal Register on July 8, 2019.  The Federal Register notice officially repeals the Clean Power Plan (CPP), replacing it with the ACE Rule, and represents quite a change in thinking by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).  Before providing a summary of the final rule and some thoughts on what’s next, I thought it would be interesting and informative to look back at the evolution of U.S. EPA regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the power sector as a reminder of how we have arrived at the current state of things.  It all started 20 years ago when several groups petitioned U.S. EPA to regulate GHG emissions from motor vehicles.  Many legal actions and 10 years passed before U.S. EPA issued a finding that GHG emissions endanger public health and welfare and motor vehicle emissions were contributing to air pollution (the so-called Endangerment Finding).  The Endangerment Finding paved the way for various GHG regulations affecting several industrial sectors.

New Source Review and Title V

Once U.S. EPA made the Endangerment Finding and CO₂ became a regulated pollutant, it needed to address the impacts on stationary source programs like New Source Review (NSR) and the Title V operating permit program.  U.S. EPA addressed both the timing of GHG regulation under these programs and the thresholds at which a source or modification would be major for GHG.  The April 2010 Timing Rule determined that the earliest GHG emissions could be regulated was January 2, 2011.  The “Tailoring Rule” finalized in May 2010 established a 100,000 ton per year (tpy) major source threshold and a 75,000 tpy significant emissions rate (SER).  GHG Permitting guidance documents and white papers were issued, and litigation ensued.  In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that U.S. EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for the purposes of determining whether a source is required to obtain a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or Title V permit, but if a permit was otherwise required, GHGs could also be regulated if emissions were above the major source threshold or SER.  U.S. EPA proposed changes in 2016 to align their regulations with the court decision but has not finalized these changes yet.  The bottom line is that a project cannot trigger PSD review or the need for a Title V permit based on GHG emissions alone, but if other pollutants trigger PSD review, GHG emissions can undergo PSD review if they are above the SER.

Regulation of GHG Emissions from the Power Industry

The first power sector requirement (and general industry requirement) related to GHG emissions came in the form of the Mandatory Reporting Rule (MRR), finalized in 2009. This rule requires various industrial sectors to report GHG emissions to U.S. EPA electronically but does not include any emissions standards.  Some have commented that U.S. EPA should do away with the MRR now that it has 10 years of data, as part of the current administration’s initiative to reduce regulatory burden on industry.

Because the power sector is a large contributor to overall U.S. GHG emissions, U.S. EPA proceeded to develop regulations for both new and existing fossil fuel-fired power plants.  These regulations were initially proposed and finalized under the Obama administration but have evolved under the current administration.  All of U.S. EPA’s GHG regulatory proposals were controversial and resulted in millions of public comments.  A summary of U.S. EPA’s regulatory actions is provided below.

• U.S. EPA proposed the first GHG standards for new fossil fuel-fired power plants in April 2012. U.S. EPA proposed to apply the standards to coal and natural gas-fired electric generating units (EGU).  Because U.S. EPA believed that no new coal-fired power plants would be built, it based the standards on the best performing natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) units and proposed to require all new fossil fuel EGUs to meet an output-based standard of 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour (lb CO₂/MWh).
• In 2013, President Obama issued his Climate Action Plan and directed U.S. EPA to develop standards not only for new power plants, but also for modified, reconstructed, and existing power plants.
• In response, U.S. EPA withdrew the 2012 proposed standards of performance for new stationary sources (NSPS) and re-proposed standards for new fossil fuel fired EGUs in late 2013 that were published in the Federal Register in January 2014. That proposal included separate limits for new EGUs firing fossil fuels other than natural gas and also included different limits based on the size of each type of unit.  The proposed limits for non-gas fired EGUs were based on partial carbon capture and storage (CCS).  Many stakeholders felt that it was not appropriate to base limits on a technology that was not fully proven.
• Later in 2014, U.S. EPA proposed standards for modified and reconstructed fossil fuel fired EGUs and also proposed the Clean Power Plan (CPP, formally titled “Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Generating Units”), which outlined how states were to develop plans to regulate CO₂ emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs.
• In October 2015, U.S. EPA finalized standards for new, modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel fired EGUs at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart TTTT. Subpart TTTT contains different limits for GHG emissions from steam generating units, integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) units, or stationary combustion turbines that commence construction after January 8, 2014 or commence modification or reconstruction after June 18, 2014.  The limits for coal-fired boilers are higher than those originally proposed and there is more than one limit for gas turbines, depending on fuel fired and mode of operation.  (Note that U.S. EPA proposed to further revise Subpart TTTT in December 2018 but has not finalized that proposal.)
• Also in October 2015, U.S. EPA finalized the CPP requirements for existing fossil fuel fired EGUs at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart UUUU. Subpart UUUU included a multifaceted approach to reducing GHG emissions from existing fossil fuel fired EGUs that many contended was beyond the scope of U.S. EPA’s regulatory authority.  U.S. EPA set goals for states to achieve by not only requiring inside the fenceline improvements in heat rate and efficiency of existing coal-fired power plants, but also by requiring increased use of NGCC units and zero-emitting renewable energy sources, and decreased use of coal-fired power plants (preferential dispatch of lower-carbon power to the electric grid).  Each state had a different goal based on its particular mix of EGUs.
• In 2016, the CPP was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court and did not go into effect.
• In March 2017, President Trump issued the Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth directing U.S. EPA to suspend, revise, or rescind various regulations intended to regulate GHG emissions from power plants, including, but not limited to, the CPP.

So – where are we now?

The Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule

The ACE rule was proposed in August 2018 and finalized in July 2019 to repeal and replace the CPP with a new 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart UUUUa.  U.S. EPA has published a helpful table that summarizes the differences between the CPP and the ACE Rule.  The major differences and components of the ACE Rule are described below.

The ACE rule preamble states that U.S. EPA determined that it should repeal the CPP because the rule exceeded U.S. EPA’s statutory authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA).  The ACE rule has a fairly limited scope when compared to the CPP, in terms of both the affected facility and the applicable requirements.  The affected facility subject to the final ACE rule is any coal-fired electric utility steam generating unit that: (1) is not an IGCC unit (i.e., utility boilers, but not IGCC units); (2) was in operation or had commenced construction on or before January 8, 2014; (3) serves a generator capable of selling greater than 25 megawatts (MW) to a utility power distribution system; and (4) has a base load rating greater than 260 gigajoules per hour (GJ/h) (250 million British thermal units per hour [MMBtu/hr]) heat input of coal fuel (either alone or in combination with any other fuel).  U.S. EPA has determined that the best system of emissions reduction (BSER) for GHG emissions from coal-fired power plants is heat rate improvements¹, in the form of a specific set of technologies and operating and maintenance practices that can be applied at and to certain existing coal-fired EGUs.  Gone are the beyond-the-fenceline requirements to preferentially dispatch low- and zero-carbon power to the grid.  U.S. EPA also states that reduced utilization, co-firing natural gas, co-firing biomass, and CCS are not BSER for coal-fired power plants.

The ACE rule includes the following list of “broadly applicable” candidate technologies that should be evaluated as part of the strategy to improve heat rate at each affected facility, and states will establish unit-specific standards of performance that reflect the emissions limitation that the selected technologies will achieve.

• Neural Network/Intelligent Sootblowers
• Boiler Feed Pumps
• Air Heater and Duct Leakage Control
• Variable Frequency Drives
• Steam Turbine Blade Path Upgrade
• Redesign/Replace Economizer
• Improved Operating and Maintenance Practices

States can consider the remaining useful life of the unit and other source-specific factors in establishing the standards of performance, and will submit plans to U.S. EPA for approval.  The plans are due in 3 years.  If states do not submit plans or if U.S. EPA does not approve a state plan, U.S. EPA will impose a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) within 2 years.

The final ACE rule preamble also sets out U.S. EPA’s current opinion on the roles of U.S. EPA, states, and sources when developing emission guidelines, not only for GHG emissions from power plants, but any future emission guidelines that U.S. EPA develops.  Specifically, U.S. EPA identifies BSER; states establish standards of performance for existing sources within their jurisdiction consistent with that BSER and also with the flexibility to consider source-specific factors, including remaining useful life; and sources then meet those standards using the technologies or techniques they believe are most appropriate.

U.S. EPA also sets out their arguments on why BSER must be applicable to, at, and on the premises of an affected facility.  The ACE rule preamble states that CAA Section 111 does not authorize U.S. EPA to select as BSER a system that is premised on application to the source category as a whole or to entities outside the regulated source category.  BSER cannot be premised on a system of emission reduction that is implementable only through the combined activities of sources or non-sources. U.S. EPA is precluded from basing BSER on strategies like generation shifting and corresponding emissions offsets because these types of systems cannot be put into use at the regulated building, structure, facility, or installation.  Interestingly, part of U.S. EPA’s argument that the scope of BSER is limited to the source itself relates to how best available control technology (BACT) analyses are performed.  It is U.S. EPA’s long-standing interpretation that BACT is limited to control options that can be applied to the source itself and does not include control options that go beyond the source.  Because NSPS is a “floor” to BACT (BACT limits are not to be less stringent than applicable NSPS limits), CAA Section 111 and BSER “cannot be interpreted to offer a broader set of tools” than are available for BACT.  U.S. EPA even goes as far as to state “for nearly 45 years prior to the CPP, this Agency had never understood CAA section 111 to confer upon it the implicit power to restructure the utility industry through generation-shifting measures.”  It remains to be seen if this interpretation will hold up in court and be a permanent guideline for how U.S. EPA moves forward with these types of rules.

One significant item that U.S. EPA proposed but did not finalize involves new source review (NSR) applicability to modifications power plants may make to comply with the ACE rule.  U.S. EPA had proposed that an hourly, not annual, emissions test would apply in this narrow circumstance, but did not finalize the NSR related provisions.  U.S. EPA indicates that they intend to take final action on that proposed change in a separate action on a later date.  If proposed changes are finalized, most ACE rule compliance projects would likely be exempt from NSR, unless accompanied by a capacity increase or a fuel switch that increases maximum hourly emissions.

Petitions for review have already been filed by multiple groups, so we will have to wait and see whether the final ACE rule and U.S. EPA’s interpretation of its authority under CAA Section 111 stands.  Environmental groups are concerned that the final rule is not as stringent as the CPP, is too narrow in its application, and sets no numeric standards.  Some groups believe that the rule will result in increased GHG emissions because coal-fired power plants will run more often and delay retirement, especially if ACE rule compliance projects become exempt from NSR in a future regulatory action.  Industry groups believe that the ACE rule will not result in the increases in cost of electricity that they projected with the CPP.  Lawsuits will likely target U.S. EPA’s basis for repealing the CPP and its selection of BSER.  We never got a determination on whether the CPP was legal, since the litigation was held in abeyance while U.S. EPA reconsidered the CPP and developed the ACE rule, and there is no way to know if the court will determine that the ACE rule is a better approach than the CPP.

U.S. EPA projects that, compared to a no-CPP baseline, the ACE rule will reduce CO₂ emissions in 2030 by about 11 million tons, and that when combined with emissions reductions expected from the power industry’s current trend away from coal-fired generation, CO₂ emissions from the electric power sector will be reduced by as much as 35 percent below 2005 levels in 2030.  This level of emission reduction was the stated goal of the CPP, but it is speculated that much of the reduction is likely to occur in the absence of either CPP or ACE.

What’s Next and What Should I Be Doing?

Owners and operators of coal-fired power plants should be preparing to interact with state agencies as they work on their state plans.  Rather than rely on the state to develop requirements, facilities should determine what units are affected, document what HRI actions have already been taken, and analyze what HRI projects can feasibly be performed on a unit-specific basis.  It is not clear what the actual impact of the rule will be because U.S. EPA declined to mandate specific numeric limits or work practice standards.  It is conceivable that the newest, most efficient units may not have any upgrades to make and the oldest units will not be forced to make any upgrades if they are nearing retirement.  Industry groups have noted that they think the ACE Rule will have much less of an impact on the cost of electricity than the CPP would have.  Facilities implementing projects will need to determine if air permit modifications are required prior to performing the projects, and whether these projects will trigger state control technology analysis or modeling requirements.  The power sector should also keep an eye on the status of the litigation surrounding GHG regulations and the ACE rule to watch for any changes to applicability or requirements.  In addition, the final revisions to NSPS Subpart TTTT and to the permitting rules are still outstanding, and those rules have broader applicability than just the power sector.  Stay tuned for future updates on the continuing evolution of GHG regulations and contact your ALL4 project manager or Amy Marshall (amarshall@all4inc.com or 919.777.3073) with any questions.

¹The heat rate is the amount of energy or fuel heat input (typically measured in British thermal units, Btu) required to generate a unit of electricity (typically measured in kilowatt-hours, kWh). The lower an EGU’s heat rate, the more efficiently it converts heat input to electrical output. As a result, an EGU with a lower heat rate consumes less fuel per kWh of electricity generated and, as a result, emits lower amounts of CO₂ – and other air pollutants – per kWh generated.

Who Needs Real-time Onsite Meteorological Data? You Do, and Here’s Why

Does your facility receive odor or fugitive dust complaints from the neighboring community? Do you rely on a nearby airport for fenceline monitoring obligations, rain data, or wind data? What happens if that nearby station goes out of service?

The WHO

No, I am not referring to Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshend, and the English rock band. I am talking about WHO can benefit from having onsite meteorological data. Since the 1980s, the collection of on-site meteorological monitoring data has supported industrial facilities with addressing:

• Odor complaints
• Fugitive dust emissions
• Accidental emissions releases
• Triangulating onsite or offsite fugitive emissions sources
• Health and safety (e.g., snow removal and lightning)
• Air quality modeling
• Ambient pollutant monitoring programs
• Automated stormwater event monitoring

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) states, “Organizations must ensure that data collected for the characterization of environmental processes and conditions are of the appropriate type and quality for their intended use and which environmental technologies are designed, constructed, and operated according to defined expectations.” Onsite meteorological towers may be advantageous to support certain facility operations by providing data representative of the local microclimate and weather patterns associated with your facility. This ensures that the data a facility uses meets U.S. EPA guidance for the processes and conditions at each facility.

Many industrial facilities can benefit from collecting onsite meteorological data, and ALL4 has experience with several facilities that have realized these benefits. Readily available and site-specific meteorological data can provide benefits relative to regulatory and non-regulatory issues for your facility. Three examples of non-regulatory meteorological monitoring are provided below:

Case Study #1:

A waste-to-energy facility near a major metropolitan area installed a 10 meter (m) meteorological tower to monitor for 1-minute averages of wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and relative humidity. The purpose of the meteorological tower was to dispute community complaints of odor that was assumed to be from the municipal solid waste while using accurate local wind data to determine the true source. By using the 1-minute average wind speed and wind direction, wind roses were developed indicating that the odors were originating from a meat packing facility just a few blocks away from the waste facility. An initial equipment investment of less than $15,000 saved the facility approximately $50,000 in fines and relieved public pressure.

Case Study #2:

An army depot installed an elaborate meteorological monitoring and lightning detection system for the safety of their employees and onsite childcare facility. The proactive monitoring system consisted of an electric field meter sensor for atmospheric electric charge, a strike guard lightning sensor which indicated lightning strikes from up to 20 miles away, and two remote strobe and siren alarms to provide visual and audible signals of alarm or status conditions. When atmospheric conditions are critical, or a lightning strike is detected less than 10 miles from the depot, the remote strobe light changes to red and the system sounds the siren. These alarms provide enough warning for employees and other personnel to seek shelter before dangerous weather arrives.

Case Study #3:

A refinery installed a meteorological monitoring system with wind speed and direction, temperature, relative humidity, and precipitation which was wired into their programmable logic controller (PLC) for their distributed control systems (DCS). Meteorological data was used for monitoring emissions releases at the petrochemical processing stacks and flares. The refinery was located within three miles of a major airport; however, the airport data only updated once per hour and the facility was able to use their monitoring data for real-time 1-minute data. A programmable datalogger provided minute-by-minute data for more accurate measurement resolution

The WHY

While it’s nice to be able to use meteorological data for the reasons above, most facilities will not invest in a meteorological monitoring station unless they are required to. Reasons for a required meteorological monitoring station include:

• Consent decree (e.g., state or Federal obligation following noncompliance)
• Regulatory driver (e.g., 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CC – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Petroleum Refineries, Site Specific Monitoring Plans)
• An upcoming prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) air permitting project that will require modeling with no qualifying local meteorological data available
• Operation of an ambient pollutant monitoring network

Examples of regulatory-driven meteorological monitoring are provided below:

Case Study #4:

Based on the sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) attainment status of the surrounding area, ALL4 worked with the client, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) and U.S. EPA to strategically design and site the ground-up installation of a new meteorological monitoring system consisting of an instrumented (three level) 58-meter tower and a separate Doppler Sound Detection And Ranging (SoDAR) vertical wind profiling system for upper atmospheric conditions. This installation was challenging because of the intricate and tight facility footprint, set in complex terrain. Air dispersion models used the onsite meteorological and upper atmosphere data. Results of the dispersion models were used for determining permit conditions.

Case Study #5:

A petroleum refinery (Refinery) commenced operation of an on-site meteorological monitoring system in December 2016 to support the Refinery Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT; 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CC and Subpart UUU) benzene fenceline monitoring (BFM) requirements which began January 1, 2018. The Refinery has elected to use an on-site meteorological monitoring system for the BFM reporting requirements instead of the local National Weather Service (NWS) data. The meteorological monitoring program consists of a 10-meter tower equipped with meteorological sensors and data recording equipment. On a semiannual basis, a quality assurance performance audit and a system audit are performed on the meteorological monitoring equipment. The system and performance audits are conducted in accordance with the requirements outlined by U.S. EPA which are incorporated by reference in the Refinery MACT (40 CFR Part §63.14). As part of the audit process, U.S. EPA-recommended practices and equipment certified to National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standards are used.

Case Study #6:

A mining facility has been continuously monitoring hourly concentrations of particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10) since 1999. The ambient and meteorological monitoring was part of a settlement agreement in a consent decree. The monitoring program includes three federal reference method PM10 monitors and one 10-meter meteorological tower. Onsite personnel were notified when PM10 concentrations exceeded the 24-hour NAAQS of 150 micrograms per cubic meter (µm/m3). Quarterly reports were included to provide:

• Summary of the sampling events.
• Monthly summaries of hourly meteorological and PM10 data for all measured parameters.
• Wind Roses for the quarter months.
• Summary of the Year to Date (YTD) recoveries for PM10 Sites.

The WHAT

If your facility elects or is required to install a meteorological monitoring station, the accuracy, precision and resolution requirements of U.S. EPA for selecting the type of meteorological instrumentation is critical to the collection of measurement quality objectives. Approved instrumentation needs to have minimal error between real and measured values and demands the smallest resolution of magnitude from the measured value. For example, data quality objectives exist for wind, ambient temperature, relative humidity, barometric pressure, precipitation, and solar radiation depending on the purpose of the data collection. A few meteorological measurements and associated uses for each are listed below.

• Wind Measurements – 1-minute data profile of wind speed and direction create detailed wind roses which provide insight into the transport of emissions in the atmosphere. Triangulation of the wind measurements, in conjunction with ambient pollutant data, can also verify findings when researching an unknown source of fugitive emissions.
• Ambient Temperature – Measured at a height of 2 m and/or 10 m (for delta temperature) with a thermistor. Temperature is used to determine the amount of rise experienced by a buoyant plume in an air quality dispersion modeling evaluation.
• Relative Humidity – Humidity is an important variable in determining impacts from moist sources, such as cooling towers; it is also used in modeling ozone chemistry.
• Barometric Pressure – Atmospheric pressure provides meteorologists with information that is useful in evaluating data trends at the monitoring facility and is also used in conjunction with air quality measurements.
• Precipitation – Rainfall is measured real-time in increments of 0.01 inches (in.). Data can be logged with hourly, daily, and monthly precipitation amounts. Instantaneous alerts can be triggered when stormwater event amounts have been achieved.
• Solar Radiation – Solar radiation, the electromagnetic energy in the solar spectrum, is used for the determination of atmospheric stability. Pyranometers are used for measuring energy fluxes in the solar spectrum.

The meteorological towers used to position the data collection equipment add another layer of complexity. There are many types of meteorological towers and several ways to install them. The proper installation and siting of the tower and equipment determine the effectiveness of a system and the data reliability.

Siting and exposure for meteorological sensors can be complex and challenging when trying to avoid the influence of obstructions, such as buildings and trees. The distance for siting depends on both the variable to be measured and the type of obstruction. Improper siting of instruments can result in wind speed and direction error, inflated ambient temperatures, and/or obstruction of solar and precipitation measurements.

Learn more about ambient pollutant and meteorological monitoring

Daily review and quality assurance checks can identify instrumentation problems and reduce the period of downtime and loss of data. Custom data collection can record 1-minute, 5-minute, and 60-minute data averages. This is significantly more real-time and useful than Automated Weather Observing Stations (AWOS) which are used at airports and only report 1-hour snapshot values. Onsite data telemetry systems use a cellular modem to remotely download to a data management center.

The remote telemetry system can also be designed to alert and notify responsible parties of any weather conditions which are cause for concern. Air pollutant monitoring systems can also be incorporated with the weather station to send emails and text messages with real-time concentrations and meteorological information. The data can also be made available using a web and mobile based software application. Data is then tailored for viewing numeric values or graphs.

The HOW

ALL4 can design and install meteorological monitoring systems to support air pollution monitoring which follow the U.S. EPA guidance in regulatory air quality modeling applications. The meteorological instrumentation is wired and programmed into an onsite datalogger which can provide real-time data and communication to web and mobile based devices for immediate conditions.

ALL4 has meteorologists, scientists, and engineers with extensive knowledge of all siting and instrumentation requirements to produce quality meteorological data, especially to stay in compliance with U.S. EPA guidelines and requirements. Our custom programming, automation, operations and maintenance, and auditing capabilities keep the monitoring station running and provide QA/QC.

The first task of each business day is for the meteorologists, scientists, and engineers at ALL4 to utilize a checklist and table of accepted data ranges to review the previous day’s monitoring data for reasonableness and completeness. ALL4 can also audit and calibrate new or existing meteorological towers according to U.S. EPA guidelines. Most State and Federal quarterly data completeness requirements are greater than 80%; therefore, a routine schedule of daily data validation and checks are necessary.

Whether you have your own tower already, or you desire the benefits of one, there is a fair amount of planning and care involved in setting up and maintaining an onsite meteorological tower, especially to stay within U.S. EPA guidelines and requirements.

With over 30 years of ambient and meteorological experience, ALL4 can “see for miles and miles” all the opportunities and benefits of monitoring real-time at your facility. Contact ALL4 to discuss how we can customize an automated, continuous meteorological monitoring system that is both accurate and reliable and is tailored to your specific needs.

Please reach out to me at dpelc@all4inc.com or 610.933.5246 x169 if you have any meteorological tower comments or concerns, or to talk weather conditions at your facility.

Setting Air Quality EH&S Budgets for 2020

During “Budget Season”, many clients contact ALL4 and ask us to put our thinking caps on and to help them formulate environmental budgeting needs for up to 18 months out.  While it is difficult to anticipate some of the regulatory developments, there are some key initiatives that ALL4 feels strongly about that you may want to consider during this time of planning.  Many times, a new regulation or issue arises for which environmental training would position the facility to effectively respond.  In many instances, ALL4 prepares training (either general or customized) to address these regulations or issues as they arise.  The need for the training is established, the value of the training is established, but there is one holdup…no budget.  Training is just one example of an effort that is often delayed due to budgetary limitations.  While there are not very many regulatory developments on the horizon in the federal arena, there are some drivers (and opportunities) that make sense to plan for in your 2020 budgeting process! For that reason, expect your contacts at ALL4 to be very intentional in July and August about suggesting 2020 budgetary line items so that final budgets (often being finalized in September) account for them.  Here are several examples of overlooked budget items that are worthwhile to propose within the current 2020 budgeting process:

1. Routine Air Emissions Reporting: Even if you have historically self-completed all air quality reporting, it never hurts to allot for external reporting help.  Since we complete reporting for so many facilities, often we can bring ideas for reporting streamlining and consolidation that will increase reporting efficiency down the road (saving time and money).  On a smaller scale, there may be selected reports that need to be addressed if new responsibilities get added to your plate unexpectedly.
2. Strategic Air Permitting Evaluations: As U.S. EPA continues to work on New Source Review (NSR) construction permitting program reforms, we continue to see opportunities for facilities to evaluate those reforms in a way that provides competitive advantages in their marketplaces.  This is a message that we have delivered since after the March 2018 Project Emissions Accounting guidance and that still holds true now.  Although many permitting evaluations are funded by capital budgets, initial and strategic permitting evaluations that assess future growth plans may not be.
3. Environmental Training: ALL4 continues to seek convenient ways to deliver timely content to other air quality professionals – our webinar based Air Quality 101 training series being one current example.  Opportunities will arise throughout the year for training on timely topics being offered by consultants, state agencies, and other stakeholder groups, so consider budgeting to be responsive to these opportunities.
4. Legacy Planning: ALL4 has committed to bringing legacy planning, the transition of knowledge from senior resources to younger staff, into the day to day discussion with our clients.  We are currently doing it at ALL4 and we are using a legacy planning framework that we developed to guide us in our internal and external conversations.  Are there legacy planning tasks specific to your company that should be budgeted for in 2020?

Consider your ALL4 contacts as a resource for your budgeting process.  By asking questions, we can learn more about your facility’s key air quality considerations and help identify factors for next year.  This discussion is consistent with our philosophy of being an extension of our clients’ environmental teams and shaping environmental responsibility.

Reach out to your ALL4 Manager to discuss further, and if you are new to ALL4, contact us to learn more about how we can assist your facility.

2019 CISWI Standards: Technical Amendments (40 CFR Part 60 Subparts CCCC & DDDD)

Following a series of comments from industry stakeholders and implementing agencies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) published the June 2016 proposed amendments Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (typically referred to as the New Source Performance Standards or NSPS). A rule action, which took place on April 16, 2019, finalized the proposed amendments. Of course, affected facilities are those operating CISWI units. There are 10 technical amendments (TA) in the 2019 Final Action. Here are my thoughts regarding each TA:

1. Alternative equivalent emission limit for mercury (Hg) for the waste-burning kiln subcategory;The first TA provides an alternative emissions limit for waste-burning cement kilns which is consistent with the Portland cement (PC) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) limit, on a pound of mercury per million ton of clinker production basis, to facilitate the equivalent production-based emissions limits in recordkeeping and reporting.
2. Timing of initial test and initial performance evaluation;
   The second TA is my favorite because it will give additional time for initial compliance demonstration. The timing of the continuous monitoring system (CMS) initial performance evaluation was adjusted to allow for 180 day period from the installation date to match the schedule which is allowed for conducting the initial performance test instead of just 60 days. Making timelines consistent will streamline compliance demonstrations and prevent possible duplicative testing.
3. Extension of the date by which electronic data reporting requirements must be met;
   The third TA provides an extension for electronic submittal of initial, annual, and deviation reports to two years from publication of the final rule or one year after the reporting form becomes available in the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), whichever is later. It also allows state local and tribal agencies to make permit revisions as needed and allows U.S. EPA time for development of the online reporting tool.
4. Clarification of non-delegated authorities;
   In this TA, U.S. EPA further-defined the final list of states who are delegated (or non-delegated) authorities for implementing the NSPS and NSPS Emissions Guidelines.
5. Demonstration of initial and continuous compliance when using a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS);
   U.S. EPA addressed CEMS initial and continuous compliance demonstration obligations, which were previously inconsistent and unclear. For example, 40 CFR §60.2135 was revised to reflect the use of CEMS data as an initial compliance demonstration alternative to an emissions test, provided that the initial CEMS performance evaluation has been conducted prior to collecting the CEMS data that is used for the initial performance test.
6. Continuous opacity monitoring requirements;
   U.S. EPA clarified the Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS) requirements for energy recovery units between 10 and 250 MMBtu/hr design heat input. “Electrostatic precipitator” and “particulate matter CPMS” were added to the list for energy recovery units (that originally included CO wet scrubbers and fabric filters) found in 40 CFR §60.2165(m) and §60.2730(m) as type of units that do not require COMS.
7. Other CEMS requirements;
   The seventh TA addresses two additional CEMS-related requirements. These are:
   1. CO CEMS for new waste-burning kilns are now not required; and
   2. Outdated notification requirements for when particulate matter CEMS are being used were removed.
   These requirements do not appear on Table 4 to Subpart CCCC, nor Table 4 to Subpart DDDD, nor do they appear in the notification requirements. Therefore, the notification requirements were inconsistent with other parts of the rules and U.S. EPA removed them.
8. Clarification of “skip testing” requirements;
   The eighth TA, which I like very much because it brings the opportunity of less testing, further defines reduced testing requirements which include a window of testing every three years instead of annually if the unit continues to pass the annual tests.
9. Deviation reporting requirements for continuous monitoring data;
   The ninth TA provides clarification of deviation reporting requirements for CMS data. Specifically, requirements for continuously measured parameters or emissions using CEMS were not clearly outlined. The 30-day averages for PM CEMS along with other operating parameters and CEMS that deviated from an emission limit must be included in a deviation report.
10. Clarification of air curtain incinerator (ACI) requirements;
    The tenth and last TA addresses the applicability of CISWI to air curtain incinerators (ACI). An ACI does not need to meet the definition of a CISWI unit to be subject to the CISWI rules. A facility can have a CISWI-affected ACI without having a CISWI unit onsite.

One thing to acknowledge is how the amendments provide consistency among several regulatory mandates for CISWI operators while at the same time, making compliance and reporting as efficient as possible. For more information on how ALL4 can provide support with the 2019 CISWI Standards and TA, please contact us.

Q&A With our Technical Director in Raleigh, NC – Amy Marshall

Amy Marshall recently joined ALL4 as Technical Director, and has also opened an office in the Raleigh, NC* area.  With 25 years of experience, Amy is well known to the regulated community. She started her career as a contractor for the U.S. EPA and has worked as an air quality consultant to industry since 2001. Amy provides air quality technical support to industrial clients and to national organizations such as the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM).  As she completes her first 90 days with ALL4, we thought we would ask Amy some questions related to her experiences and goals.

What makes ALL4 different from other consulting companies?

From a technical standpoint, we are focused primarily on providing strategic, high quality air-related consulting support to clients.  The practice of air quality consulting is not dwarfed by some other business in the company, it is the primary business, and that was important to me when I decided to make a change.  We keep on top of air regulatory drivers and agency activities and share updates both internally and externally.  The officers of the company understand the business and the practice of air quality consulting and are very engaged in not only the technical and the sales aspects of the business, but the coaching and growth of the staff at ALL4.  There is a lot of care for the people that work here, from making sure there are snacks in the office, to coaching and mentoring, to routine acknowledgement of extra effort, to fun activities at each office.  The business and technical aspects are obviously important, but the management understands that people need to be able to relate to one another and we need to balance work with some fun.

What is one thing that surprised you after joining ALL4?

I was pleasantly surprised by a lot of things in the first two weeks.  Everyone is very welcoming and helpful, IT support is awesome, there is a well-laid out training program for new hires, the atmosphere is very collaborative and open, and there are not a lot of internal processes that bog things down.  If I had to pick one thing, it would probably be the amount of information that gets communicated to all staff.  There is a lot of information sharing that happens both weekly and daily.

What are your goals as Technical Director?

ALL4 is very collaborative and externally visible with our participation at various meetings and conferences and our 4 THE RECORD posts.  I would like to build on what we are already doing to improve our effectiveness communicating technical and regulatory information and updates both internally and externally. Having good information and understanding what it means are key to being a great consultant. I want ALL4 to be nationally known as an outstanding air quality consulting firm because we have great people, we have the latest information, and we do high quality work.

What kinds of interesting things are you working on?

Aside from permitting strategy type projects, what I think is most interesting is the work I’m doing with trade associations, such as the AF&PA, American Chemistry Council (ACC), and AFPM.  I really enjoy being involved with these associations in their communication and outreach to U.S. EPA as regulations or guidance documents that impact their members are being developed or revised.  I’m tracking U.S. EPA’s MACT risk and technology review activity and looking at how their conduct of these reviews is evolving and impacting industry.  The Raleigh Office is very close to U.S. EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, and it’s easy for me to attend meetings there, hear what U.S. EPA is working on, and help provide feedback if they need technical input to inform their efforts.  I’ve also been involved in writing technical comments and issue papers, developing impact assessments, and preparing talking points for meetings with the White House Office of Management and Budget as they are reviewing major U.S. EPA rulemakings related to national ambient air quality standards, new source review, or air toxics rules.

You are also managing our newly-opened Raleigh Office, what are your plans for growth?

There are now three of us in the Raleigh Office.  We are currently renting space in a co-working location and are close to signing a lease for permanent space.  I would like to add more staff at different experience levels, continue to build our technical expertise, leverage our relationships with existing clients to grow our business, and expand our brand recognition to bring more new work to the company.  Technical excellence, good customer service, and a best in class workplace will result in growth.

You got some comments on our LinkedIn announcement of your hire on your Red Sox hat.  What’s it like being a Red Sox fan in the South?

Although there are a lot of Braves fans around, there are actually a lot of Red Sox fans in the area as well.  The Yankee fans give me the most grief, of course, but it’s all in good fun.  People ask me why I’m a Red Sox fan, and it’s because my parents are from Massachusetts.  There is actually a local group called the Triangle Red Sox Nation that hosts various activities like game watches and softball.  My husband saved the TRSN Governor’s Mom from being hit by a foul ball at a Durham Bulls/Pawtucket Red Sox game once, so I think that improved our standing with the group!

Learn more about Amy

*Engineering services provided by ALL4 NC, P.C

TCEQ Spring Trade Fair Updates

After visiting Austin for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Trade Fair on May 2019, ALL4 came back with some big takeaways that we wanted to share.  The biggest announcements came in the form of updates regarding TCEQ operations, the New Source Review (NSR) permitting tools, and the Readily Available Permit (RAP) process.  We highlight the biggest topics below, so read on to see if any of the following updates pertain to your environmental compliance!

General TCEQ Updates

Kicking off the Trade Fair in style, TCEQ announced their new focus on customer service.  They intend to reduce response time to calls and emails and went so far as to guarantee returned calls within 24 hours.  To speed along permitting, the TCEQ has removed a layer of signatures in the signature chain.  They have removed the 21 days of review for this step by downgrading the regional review from formal to informal.  Additionally, TCEQ announced NSR permitting will consist of a coordinated concurrent review between air permits and modelling divisions effective June 1^st.  The TCEQ has also developed and implemented interactive checklists to make sure the permitting stays on track.  Lastly, the TCEQ has been working on increasing the number of Permits by Rule (PBR’s) and Standard Permits available through e-Permitting.  This allows for more access to expedited permitting at all stages of interaction with the state regulators. 

NSR Permit Application Workbook Updates

The next order of business was this year’s workbook update presentations.  As many know, TCEQ rolled out new workbooks for NSR permitting and modelling this past October.  Both workbooks became effective permitting requirements as of June 1^st.  The NSR permitting workbook was renamed to the “Form PI-1 General Application Workbook” and updated with revised instructions to improve clarity.  TCEQ further explained the Air Permits Division (APD) prefers to receive all application materials electronically.  That being said, courtesy copies must still be printed and sent to their respective destinations.  The TCEQ clarified the differences between a permit renewal and a permit amendment using the drop downs in the workbook.  Another addition is a column in the Stack Parameters tab indicating the parameters are not required to be filled in if an Electronic Modeling Evaluation Workbook (EMEW) is being submitted with the application.  This also stresses the need for the complete application with required materials, including the EMEW, when submitting a permit application to ensure concurrent review.  Lastly, they mentioned the TCEQ may proceed to issue a permit if no response is received on Standard Conditions (SC) within the allotted time frame.

EMEW Updates

After the updates on air permit application forms, the TCEQ discussed EMEW updates.  Similar to the permitting application forms, the EMEW had formatting, wording, and sample problem updates.  The speciated chemicals sheet was updated to reflect the most recent Toxicology Effects Screening Levels (ESL) List.  TCEQ added a tab to account for Secondary PM_2.5 calculations so modelling teams no longer have to create their own calculations.  Another convenient addition was the added columns for applicant internal comments to assist in the modelling review.  Alongside other various bugfixes in the workbooks, both groups pointed out that they are still receiving feedback, and as always, you should confirm the version number before submitting an application.

RAPs Updates

Last, but not least, TCEQ’s announcement of two upcoming RAPs could significantly help permit applicants.  For those that don’t already know, RAPs are NSR permits with consistent SC, Maximum Allowable Emissions Rate Table (MAERT), and Best Available Control Technology (BACT).  All three are pre-determined and non-negotiable, which can be a little daunting at first.  However, RAPs allow for quick turnaround with around 90 days of review versus the normal 285-365 days a normal NSR application can take.  Additionally, it allows for consolidated Public Notices and a built-in air quality impact analysis to save from the costs of developing models and getting them approved.  The current RAPs available include simple cycle turbines and compressor stations.  The next two RAPs to be released will be an existing tank loading increase RAP and an existing or initial engine powered generators NSR permit.  The engine powered generator NSR permit would allow up to 10 engines to be permitted.  These two RAPs are expected to be released this summer.

Look at Rachel Henn’s most recent blog.  If you’re interested on hearing more about these updates, additional topics covered during the event, or recent activity at the TCEQ, don’t hesitate contact us.

CMS Daily Calibration Tolerances: Could You Be Operating to Double the Allowable Standard?

Within various subparts of 40 CFR Part 63, there are General Provisions applicability tables, detailing which general provisions are applicable to the source category regulated by the corresponding subpart.  The format and location of this table often varies between subparts, but the significance cannot be understated.  For certain continuous monitoring systems (CMS), one applicable reference in this table can drastically affect the out-of-control (OOC) criteria of that CMS.

Specifically, we are referring to §63.8(c)(7)(i)(A), which specifies that a CMS is out of control following calibration drift (CD) checks if the CD exceeds two times (2X) the applicable performance specification (i.e. the pass/fail point for CD tests), as stated in the applicable 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B, Performance Specification.  This standard is more stringent than the four times (4X) the applicable performance specification criteria detailed in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix F, Procedure 1 (Procedure 1).  Essentially, the General Provisions of Part 63 have half the leniency for CD check results as Procedure 1.

We bring this up as a point of emphasis because ALL4 has recently worked for clients whom operate multiple 40 CFR Part 63 CMS under subparts with varying applicability of this section of the General Provisions.  This causes the CMS compliance picture at a facility in this scenario to be a bit greyer than we might like.  While there are many 40 CFR Part 63 CMS operated in accordance with Procedure 1 (and subject to the 4X OOC criteria), other CMS must consider the 2X OOC criteria of §63.8(c)(7)(i)(A) based on the General Provisions applicability table within each respective subpart.

Understanding which CD check standard applicable to a CMS is critical in maximizing the amount of valid CMS data captured and reported by your data acquisition and handling system (DAHS), and for maintaining compliance with your monitoring requirements.  Furthermore, it is important to make sure that your DAHS vendor is aware of the 2X performance specification standard for sources subject to the General Provision of 40 CFR Part 63.  Your DAHS records and evaluates CD checks to determine whether the drift is within the applicable tolerances.  The results of CD check impact the validity of your CMS data and set the status of your data (i.e. valid or OOC) from the time that it is completed until the performance of another CD check.  Having said that, we can see how evaluating the CD check results against the incorrect standard could result in erroneous reporting of data.

So, what 40 CFR Part 63 Subparts (and CMS required by the Subpart) are applicable to both 40 CFR §63.8(c)(7)(i)(A) and Procedure 1?  Quite a few, actually, but we’ll detail those specific subparts in a follow-up blog-post to this in the coming weeks.

In the meantime, if you have questions about your CMS or the OOC criteria used to evaluate CD checks, please reach out to Matt Carideo (610.933.5246 x139 or mcarideo@all4inc.com) or ALL4 staff (all4staff@all4inc.com).  Additionally, to ensure that you do not miss out on future articles, signup below for our 4 The Record for timely updates of current hot issues, plus an in-depth article each month that highlights a regulatory topic.

ePermitting Coming to South Carolina

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) is in the process of implementing an electronic system (i.e., ePermitting) for compliance and permitting actions for regulated facilities in South Carolina. Through this system, regulated facilities will be able to submit and amend various types of permit applications, compliance reports, and incident reports online. Furthermore, facilities will be able to check the status of their applications and reports, correspond with DHEC employees, receive and respond to public notice comments, and pay fees.

The system will be a one stop location for all environmental fields, including air, water and land, and will allow public access to facility information that previously had to be requested through DHEC. Currently, DHEC is in the development phase of the ePermitting system for several environmental programs, which are expected to become available for use in late 2019. These programs include stormwater, agriculture, infectious waste, dam safety, and ocean and coastal resource management (OCRM) fields. DHEC is also currently developing the air quality portion of the ePermitting tool. DHEC expects to begin internal testing of the program in early 2020 and hopes to release it externally in late 2020.

Although there will be a learning curve for facilities, consultants, and DHEC staff alike during the transition to a fully online system, there will be countless benefits that result as well. For instance, using ePermitting will greatly reduce the number of administratively incomplete forms submitted to DHEC. The online forms will ensure that required data is supplied in a valid format, which will reduce delays in permitting and approval from avoidable back and forth communication with the agency. Additionally, because everything will be stored online, it will be easy to view historical documents. There will not be lag time between when a consultant finishes preparing a report or application, and when the facility can view and submit it to DHEC. DHEC is aiming to have the ePermitting system be facilities’ and the public’s one stop for communication and information pertaining to compliance and permitting actions. Although there may be some bumps in the road ahead as we all figure out the new system, this will be a great step forward for consultants and facilities alike. If you have questions about how DHEC ePermitting might affect your facility, please contact us.

Emission Event Investigations: What the TCEQ thinks you need to know

ALL4 attended the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Trade Fair May 14-15, 2019 to stay up to date on changes in permitting and compliance. Although there were only a few updates regarding the minor New Source Review (NSR) application workbook and electronic modeling evaluation workbook (EMEW), there were many interesting sessions with the TCEQ members over a variety of topics. One session involved a brave TCEQ investigator that spoke on the topic of Emissions Events (EE’s). She stepped up on behalf of TCEQ and discussed the gray areas of EE’s and opened herself up to questions from the industry members in the audience. Read on to hear what she thinks we need to know and some clarifications on the gray areas of EE reporting.

She began the session by giving a brief overview of some definitions around EE’s. She didn’t spend much time on the basics, but for a refresher, visit this TCEQ resource for guidance.

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/emission-events/cefoumforms.html

The result of many EE investigations is a Notice of Violation (NOV) or Notice of Enforcement (NOE). A NOE occurs if the EE is greater than 15% over the allowable limit of a pollutant. These can be contested through a process known as affirmative action. She stated that many affirmative action cases are denied for one of two reasons.

1. Reporting Errors
2. Cause Related Errors

She took a deeper dive into each of these to help the audience prevent affirmative action cases from being thrown out. Violations are never fun for the facility, but it’s not any better for the investigator who issues them. It’s best for everyone if we heed the warnings and put some effort into handling EE’s appropriately.

Reporting Errors

The number one thing you need to know about reporting errors in affirmative action is that within 24 hours of the knowledge of an EE, it must be reported to the TCEQ. The interpretation of this rule sparked a lot of discussion in our session. This start time is often misinterpreted to mean 24 hours from when the environmental manager is notified, or 24 hours from when a solution is found for the EE. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The 24-hour clock starts from the moment someone knows or should have known of the incident that could cause an EE. This means the clock has started before the reportable quantity (RQ) is even reached in some cases. The moment that the event is realized, projection calculations for the next 24 hours should be made to determine if it’s likely the RQ will be reached. Some tips were offered for this. It was mentioned that when in doubt, notify the TCEQ. It can always be zeroed out later if it was determined that the RQ was not reached. Keep in mind that the members of TCEQ understand that the anomalies of every industry cannot be written into the rules. Investigators exist to interpret the rules in a case-by case manner.

Cause Related Errors

The best advice around cause related errors in affirmative action is to be completely honest and open with the TCEQ investigators. Often, TCEQ receives reports with the answer “unknown cause.” This doesn’t provide proof of understanding. Without evidence, affirmative defense action isn’t adequately documented. If nothing else, explain your thought process around concluding that the cause was “unknown.” A little effort goes a long way in reporting.

Causes for EEs fall under three categories:

1. Operator error
2. Maintenance issues
3. Engineering design flaw

The TCEQ investigator made it clear that the best practice around describing the event is to be completely transparent regarding the details. The options above are merely categories and require more explanation. This mindset of transparent reporting builds rapport with the TCEQ investigation team. She stressed that by omitting information, there is risk in losing the trust of the investigator. This can result in a longer investigation attributable to additional back and forth.  Being honest and showing candor will go a long way in resolving open items quickly while building a reputation that could carry through for years.

For more information around this topic, feel free to visit TCEQ’s website which contains the slides from this presentation.  If none of this is your cup of tea, then you can always give the folks at ALL4 a call. Feel free to connect with me about this topic or a wide range of other environmental topics at rhenn@all4inc.com or 281-937-7553 x304.