Project Emissions Accounting (PEA) Final Rule

Overview

On November 24, 2020 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), in an effort to streamline the air permitting process, promulgated a rule that makes changes to the New Source Review (NSR) Preconstruction Permitting Program.  Specifically, the rule codifies a guidance document from March 2018 titled “Project Emissions Accounting Under the New Source Review Preconstruction Permitting Program” and makes changes to the process for assessing NSR major modification applicability under 40 CFR Part 51.166(a)(7) and 52.21(a)(2).  The final rule becomes effective on December 24, 2020.  This rule was initially proposed in the Federal Register on August 9, 2019.

The New Source Review Program

The NSR program is a preconstruction permitting program designed to protect public health and aid states in meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).  The two major facets of the program are Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR).  The applicability of PSD and NNSR are determined based upon the emissions increases that result from a project.  Facilities have historically sought to avoid triggering major NSR requirements largely because of the associated impacts of a longer permitting timeline, more rigorous agency and public review, and the uncertainty that can accompany a major PSD or NNSR permitting project.  More information on the NSR Program in general can be found at the following blog, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) & the Major Modification, written by Roy Rakiewicz.

Changes in Assessing NSR Major Modification Applicability

When an existing major stationary source proposes a project, it must be determined whether that project is a major modification.  40 CFR part 51.166(b)(2) and 52.21(b)(2) define a major modification as “any physical change in or change in the method of operation of a major stationary source that would result in: a significant emissions increase of a regulated NSR pollutant and a significant net emissions increase of that pollutant from the major stationary source.”  That determination is made through completion of an applicability test, where pre-project emissions (baseline actual emissions) are compared to post-project emissions (projected actual emissions or potential emissions) to determine if the increase is significant.  Determining whether emissions from a project are significant is considered “Step 1” in the major modification applicability determination, while assessing “significant net emissions increases” is known as “Step 2.”  For major modification status to apply, both a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase must occur as a result of a project.  The calculation tests for determining Step 1 emissions increases differ depending on the emissions units that are associated with a given project.  There are three possible applicability tests:

1. 1. Actual-to-projected-actual applicability test for projects that only involve existing emissions units;
   2. Actual-to-potential test for projects that only involve construction of a new emissions unit(s); and
   3. Hybrid test for projects that involve multiple types (new and existing) of emissions units.

Prior to this rulemaking, only emissions increases associated with the modification could be counted during Step 1.  Emissions decreases associated with the project could only be counted during the Step 2 netting process, which considers all contemporaneous emissions increases and decreases that may have occurred at the plant over the previous five to seven years when determining NSR applicability.  With this rulemaking, project-related decreases in emissions can now be counted during Step 1 for each type of applicability test.

A simple example is the replacement of an existing coal-fired boiler with a new natural gas-fired boiler at an existing major stationary source.  Previously, only the emissions increases from the installation of the new natural gas fired boiler would be considered in Step 1.  If the Step 1 emissions increases were significant, only then would the emissions decreases associated with the shutdown of the coal fired boiler be counted during Step 2, along with any other contemporaneous increases and decreases at the facility.  With this regulatory change, sources are now able to account for related emissions reductions in Step 1 and thereby potentially avoid a Step 2 netting evaluation.  This makes the analysis simpler to prepare and easier for the agency to review, and it could make it less likely that a project will cause a significant emissions increase.  If there is no Step 1 significant emissions increase, the project is not a major modification.

The preamble to the final rule states that U.S. EPA’s 2018 project aggregation interpretation and policy should be incorporated into Step 1.  The agency believes that this addresses commenters’ concerns that facilities could group unrelated projects together to avoid PSD review.  The 2018 final action on project aggregation required that projects that are “substantially related” (e.g., there is a technical or economic interconnection between the activities) be aggregated.  It also included a rebuttable presumption that activities that occur outside a 3-year period are not related and should not be grouped into one project.  Facilities wishing to take advantage of the new PEA rule (if it is allowed by their state or local agency) will need to justify what projects they are grouping together in their permit application with the 2018 interpretation in mind.

It is important to note that states are not required to implement the project emissions accounting (PEA) rule in their State Implementation Plans (SIPs).  Furthermore, some state laws as they are currently written (e.g., the Pennsylvania NNSR rules) do not allow for consideration of emission decreases in Step 1.  Be advised to check state-specific regulations before using the PEA revisions.

If you have questions regarding how this final rule could impact your projects, please reach out to Graham Brittain at gbrittain@all4inc.com or 571-325-0712.

Meet Heather Horvath

Heather Horvath // HR Director // Philadelphia Office

As HR Director at ALL4, you’re serving at the helm of the ship. 2020 has been an atypical year, what has impressed you the most in how ALL4’s employees have handled the pandemic?

Our employees’ resiliency – they have done a fantastic job in controlling the things they can, while adapting gracefully to the things they cannot control.  What is top of mind for me is that employees are dealing with all of the pandemic uncertainty while continuing to serve our clients, and each other, at a very high level. I’m very grateful for that!

Speaking of which, you are someone who has an “attitude of gratitude”. As we approach the Thanksgiving season what are some of the things, you’re grateful for this year?

An overwhelming number of things this year…personally, for my family’s health, that my husband and I have maintained employment throughout the pandemic, and now more than ever, having personal touchpoints with family, friends, and colleagues. Professionally speaking I’m grateful that ALL4, my employer, gets “it”. By “it” I mean HR – ALL4 is a people-driven business and our leadership team understands, and embraces, the idea that ALL4’s people come first. I think when an organization adopts this stance, it set us up for success. Like any company, sometimes tough decisions need to be made, but I always feel that these decisions are not made in a vacuum. People matter here!

Read Attitude of Gratitude

One of your passions is travel which you and your family have not gotten to partake in this year…what’s on the Horvath family’s travel bucket list?

Too many places to list. I can’t wait to travel again internationally and look forward to taking an ‘active family vacation’ hiking and biking throughout either the Czech Republic, Ireland, or Switzerland. Domestically, I’d like to experience Big Sky Country (Montana) and visit Glacier National Park.

The HR Team is currently leading feedback training sessions for ALL4 employees. Paint a picture of how organizations, and employees, thrive in a culture of feedback.

A culture of feedback empowers a culture of trust. A high trust culture creates an engaged workforce where employees care for one another and don’t want to let their teammates down. If you connect the dots, a culture of authentic feedback provides efficiencies and drives personal and professional growth. I truly see it as a competitive advantage!

What is something people would be surprised to learn about you?

My choice of coffee mug each morning is directly tied to my mood. The two must be in sync. Another fun fact is my husband and I have a standing date that we build our schedule around – every Sunday morning, no matter the weather, we take a 6-7 mile walk.

You’re an avid reader, what books currently have your attention?

I’m a fan of historical fiction so that is a genre that you’ll always find on my bookshelves along with plenty of beach reads. I’ve also been ‘flexing’ my reading muscles in this digital age and taking suggestions from booklists on new authors and genres. Two books currently on my nightstand and that have my attention are “Dear Mr. You” by Mary Louise Parker and “Everyday Bias” by Howard J. Ross.

Attitude of Gratitude

November can sometimes be a gray and rainy month in Pennsylvania, but one bright spot is Thanksgiving. I love the Thanksgiving holiday not just for all the fabulous food and family time, but because of the focus on gratitude. It seems fitting then to share that high on my list of things I appreciate about ALL4 is our Attitude of Gratitude. An organization that strives for excellence may not be unique, but I think the way we do it is. For many, excellence equals internal cutthroat competition. For us, it means investing in each other; sharing knowledge and opportunities so that everyone grows—not just a select few. I love that we are an organization that says thank you a lot. In fact, we say it every single Monday when we take time in our company-wide meeting to publicly give “high fives” to our co-workers for a job well done and for embodying one (or more) of our core values. Our culture encourages everyone to be comfortable saying thank you to the person who reached out with compassion, displayed extra effort, or provided meaningful, authentic feedback. High Fives underscore a “we” instead of “me” mentality. Although this may feel a bit strange for new employees at first, it quickly becomes habit. This type of recognition is free and powerful, and when you take time to appreciate someone’s effort you increase engagement, loyalty, trust, and positivity. The best part of this prevalent attitude of gratitude is that it flows in all directions where you’re just as likely to find the CEO give and receive appreciation as a part-time administrative employee at ALL4. We also take time each week for “celebrations” where any employee can share something great happening in their own life or the life of someone they love. Celebrations have ranged from an employee announcing their engagement to celebrating a big proposal win to announcing that a child rocked an athletic event. For a company that touts the philosophy of one for all and all for one, “Celebrations” provide insight to what is meaningful to employees outside of work which, not surprisingly, winds up increasing connection and caring inside of work. Bottom line, gratitude is a powerful lens that amplifies the good surrounding us.

The other thing I appreciate about Thanksgiving is that there is always room for another seat at the table. You know where I am going with this right? Growth! During this extraordinary year, ALL4 has been able to grow our talent by over 40 percent. I feel so fortunate that even in the midst of COVID-19, ALL4 continues to put out the proverbial welcome mat and make room for new voices, new leaders, new services, and new ideas. I am impressed that ALL4 is open to setting an extra place at the table. Perhaps you will find it manifested in how we transition an employee onto a project team or by our continued investment in additional technical offerings. Regardless, this growth benefits the group at large by providing professional opportunities for our employees, increased technical expertise for our clients, and a dynamic, rather that static, environment in which to work. If there was ever a year to be grateful for things both large and small in the workplace, 2020 is the year. We are so proud of our resilient employees and truly appreciative of their ability to create value and distinction for our clients. We are also grateful for our clients and their continued trust in ALL4 during these trying times. Thank you and Happy Thanksgiving!

Environmental Justice and Air Quality Permitting in the Carolinas

What is Environmental Justice or “EJ”?

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), EJ is defined “as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.”  From a broad practical standpoint, EJ policy can take the form of public notification requirements that are above and beyond typical obligations for proposed permitting projects that impact identified EJ areas.

How is EJ implemented in North Carolina?

The Title VI and Environmental Justice Program manages EJ policies and activities within the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).  The EJ and Equity Advisory Board identifies priority issues, considers public input, and advises DEQ on implementation and direction of new initiatives.  Details are on the following website: https://deq.nc.gov/outreach-education/environmental-justice

How is EJ implemented in South Carolina?

The Office of Environmental Affairs manages EJ policies and activities within the Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC). Details are on the following website: https://scdhec.gov/index.php/environmental-justice-ej
Learn More

How are EJ Communities identified?

There are several mechanisms to identify potential EJ areas of concern. U.S. EPA has developed the Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool EJSCREEN to assess potential EJ areas nationwide. The EJSCREEN Tool displays demographic and environmental information for any geographic area to help identify possible EJ areas of concern by comparing the community of interest to state and national data using percentiles.  For example, if the community is 48% minority and is at the 69th national percentile, this means that 48% of the community’s population is minority, and that is an equal or higher percent minority than where 69% of the US population lives.

In North Carolina, EJ communities can be identified using EJSCREEN or the North Carolina Community Mapping System (NCCMS).  The NCCMS includes additional environmental and health information specific to North Carolina and is used by DEQ to facilitate community outreach and public participation. DEQ uses EJSCREEN to flag community demographic areas 10% or more difference in comparison to the county or state average, 50% or more minority, and 5% or more difference in comparison to the county average for poverty. For example, if 35% of the population in an area is low income but the county population consists of 30% low-income households, the community would exceed the county average by 16.5% and thus be flagged as a potential area of concern.

In South Carolina, EJ Communities generally self-identify and some form non-profit organizations for the primary purpose of obtaining grants for funding of community initiatives. DHEC uses EJSCREEN to identify communities exceeding the 80^th percentile.

What is the role of EJ in the air permitting process?

In North Carolina, the current policy is that EJ reviews are conducted for new Title V facilities, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits, and at the discretion of the Division Director. The outcome of each EJ review is published as an EJ Snapshot, EJ Impact Statement, or part of an Environmental Impact Statement.  The majority of the published EJ reviews examined community impacts within 5 miles of the facility.  DEQ communicates information to the impacted EJ community through local organizations and institutions and uses postcards, flyers, social media, and information packets.  The level of public involvement for a specific project or proposal depends on factors specific to that project and the community involved, and can include organizing information sessions and attending community events.

In South Carolina, Environmental Affairs becomes involved in the air permitting process if an EJ Community raises a concern, or when comments are received during a public comment period from national EJ groups. Environmental Affairs reviews any EJ related comments, utilizes EJSCREEN and other resources, and provides responses which become part of the permanent record. Although there is no ”bright-line,” in most cases EJ Communities located within 5 miles of a permitted facility would be of potential interest or concern.

What does this mean for my next project?

Your next project could be your first project receiving interest or attention from a nearby EJ community.  Review the EJSCREEN tool to learn who is around you and consider community outreach before your next big project. Discuss the project early on with the state regulatory agency to understand what their expectations around EJ policy, if any, would be for the project.  Although EJ is currently policy and not rulemaking, if the EJ community raises concerns it may impact your permitting timeline. We also note that the incoming Biden administration has indicated their intention to establish an Environmental Justice and Climate Division, so look for more activity around EJ at the federal level in 2021 and beyond.  With the increased focus on EJ that we expect, it will also be important to identify members of your environmental team that are well suited to effectively present project and environmental information to public stakeholders.

Contact Steve Moore at 919-234-5981 for more information.
Speak With Us Today

Top Ten SPCC Factoids and Misnomers

We have seen a significant increase in requests for preparing and reviewing Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans, and it prompted ALL4 to share our top ten list of SPCC Plan factoids and misnomers regarding onshore facilities:

1. Five-year reviews need to be conducted by a P.E.

Incorrect.  40 CFR §112.5(b) requires the owner/operator to review and evaluate the SPCC Plan once every five years, but §112.5(c) only requires a P.E. to certify “any technical amendments.”  Technical amendments include adding or removing containers, modifying piping or secondary containment systems, changing products stored or revising SOPs.  If there are no technical amendments, the owner/operator can self-certify the plan per §112.5(b).  Be careful, though, as this assumes the owner/operator is familiar with the SPCC regulations and regulatory changes that may have transpired since the previous review.

2. The SPCC Plan has to follow the regulations sequentially

Incorrect.  40 CFR §112.7 states that if the SPCC Plan does not follow the sequence specified in the regulations, it must include a section cross-referencing the regulation requirements to the applicable section of the plan.  Our experience indicates that most SPCC Plans either follow the regulations sequentially, making for a confusing and non-functional document, or they don’t follow the regulations but also don’t provide a cross-reference, making the document effectively non-compliant.  We prefer to not follow the regulations sequentially and to provide a cross-reference table.  Remember, one of the main reasons for an SPCC Plan is to provide urgent guidance in the event of a release, and who wants to fumble with a clunky plan in an emergency?
Learn More

3. All SPCC Plans have to be certified by a P.E.

Incorrect.  40 CFR §112.3(g) allows the owner/operator of a Tier I or Tier II qualified facility to self-certify their own SPCC Plan.  Generally, Tier I facilities have no individual aboveground oil storage container greater than 5,000 gallons and Tier II facilities have an aggregate aboveground oil storage capacity of 10,000 gallons or less.  To be qualified, regardless of Tier, the facility cannot have had a single discharge exceeding 1,000 gallons or two discharges exceeding 42 gallons within any twelve-month period in the three years prior to the SPCC Plan certification.

4. An out-of-state P.E. can certify an SPCC Plan

Depends on who you ask, so be careful! Although U.S. EPA has confirmed this position in a published FAQ, we believe there are two very important caveats.  First, 40 CFR §112.7(j) requires the SPCC Plan to include a discussion of any applicable more stringent State rules, regulations and guidelines.  Therefore, the certifying P.E. needs to be well versed in the home state regulations.  Second, the state-based engineering board may preclude a P.E. from applying his/her out-of-state seal or may require certain prerequisites.  We have made inquiries to state-based engineering boards in the past and have been notified that such practices are not exempt (i.e., it’s not allowed), but we have also seen instances where state regulations allow short-term exemptions if the entire project is less than a pre-determined period of time (e.g., PA Engineer Registration Law, Section 5b – 30 day exemption).

5. The 1,320 gallon requirement for SPCC Plans only includes ASTs

Incorrect.  40 CFR §112.1(d)(5) exempts any container with an oil storage capacity of less than 55 gallons, so this effectively includes items such as 55-gallon drums, hydraulic elevator reservoirs, oil-filled electrical transformers and mobile refuelers.  See below for more discussion on the latter items.

6. Oil-filled operational equipment does not need secondary containment

Correct, but be careful! Oil-filled operational equipment, by definition (40 CFR §112.2), includes items such as hydraulic systems, lubricating systems, gear boxes, machining coolant systems and transformers.  These units do not require secondary containment if the alternate requirements at 40 CFR §112.7(k)(2) are met and no reportable discharge history has occurred (40 CFR §112.7(k)(1)).  The alternate requirements include an inspection and monitoring program, a written commitment of resources and an Oil Spill Contingency Plan compliant with 40 CFR Part 109 (hmmm…a plan within a plan??).  Our experience indicates that most SPCC Plans for facilities with some oil-filled operational equipment include those items in the oil quantity total, but they do not go so far as to prepare the Part 109 Oil Spill Contingency Plan.

7. Dual-walled ASTs meet the secondary containment SPCC requirements

Correct, but you’re not done! There are three points to address here; the general secondary containment requirements (40 CFR §112.7(c)), the sized secondary containment requirements (40 CFR §112.8(c)(2)) and the testing and inspection requirements (40 CFR §112.8(c)(6)).  U.S. EPA provided clarity on these issues in a memo issued April 29, 1992 (and amended August 9, 2002).  In this memo, U.S. EPA clarified that both the general and sized secondary containment requirements can be met with shop-fabricated, UL-listed, dual-walled ASTs.  Regarding inspection and testing, the owner must inspect the outside of the inner tank (i.e., the interstitial space).  This is typically accomplished via an inspection port (in conjunction with dip stick, camera or visual level indicator) or remote liquid level sensor.  In our experience, most facilities implement good environmental stewardship by using dual-walled ASTs, but they neglect to check the interstitial space on a regular basis (most common reason is that they didn’t know it was required).

8. SPCC regulations don’t apply to Motive Power Containers and Mobile Refuelers

Correct and incorrect, respectively. By definition (40 CFR §112.2), Motive Power Containers are any onboard bulk storage containers used primarily to power the movement of a motor vehicle, not to store or transfer for further distribution.  These containers are exempt from the SPCC requirements via 40 CFR §112.1(d)(7), including not having to include the capacity of such containers when determining overall facility capacity ((40 CFR §112.1(d)(2)(ii)).  Mobile Refuelers, on the other hand, are bulk storage containers onboard a vehicle that are used solely to store and transport fuel for transfer into another vehicle, equipment, vessel or storage container.  These units are subject to the general secondary containment requirements in 40 CFR §112.7(c), but not the sized secondary containment requirements at 40 CFR §112.8(c)(2).  The general secondary containment requirements address the most likely discharge scenario and can include items such as dikes, berms, drip pans, sumps, collection systems, drainage systems, retention ponds, weirs, booms or sorbent materials.  And for the record, self-contained belly tanks on emergency generators (aka “gen-sets”) are not Motive Power Containers or Mobile Refuelers; they are bulk oil storage containers requiring full compliance with applicable secondary containment requirements.

9. Grease traps are exempt from the SPCC regulations

Correct, but be careful! U.S. EPA has clarified that grease traps themselves are eligible for the wastewater treatment exemption at 40 CFR §112.1(d)(6); however, a separate container equal to or greater than 55 gallons storing the removed grease is subject to the SPCC requirements.  Furthermore, the transfer of oily wastewater and sludge from an exempt grease trap, using a vacuum truck, is subject to the general containment requirements of 40 CFR §112.7(c).  And yes, U.S. EPA considers animal fats and vegetable oils to be subject to the SPCC regulations (40 CFR §112.2, 40 CFR §112.12, EPA Fact Sheet 550-F-07-002).

10. The SPCC Plan gets submitted to U.S. EPA

Incorrect, and here’s the clarity. 40 CFR §112.3(e) requires the owner to maintain a copy of the SPCC Plan at the facility and to have the plan available for U.S. EPA’s on-site review during normal working hours.  In accordance with 40 CFR §112.4(a), if the facility has released more than 1,000 gallons of oil in a single discharge or more than 42 gallons of oil in each of two discharges occurring within any twelve month period, the owner must submit numerous details about the discharge event and the facility to U.S. EPA, and although much of this information is likely included in the SPCC Plan, the required details in 40 CFR §112.4(a) don’t include the SPCC Plan itself.  And in accordance with §112.4(c), any information submitted to U.S. EPA must also be submitted to the appropriate state agency in charge of oil pollution control activities.

ALL4 hopes you find these factoids and misnomers helpful to your professional practice and to assisting the regulated community with achieving their environmental compliance goals.  Feel free to share and comment, or contact Paul Hagerty at (610) 422-1168 or phagerty@all4inc.com to discuss further.
Speak With Us Today

Summary of the Recent North Carolina Manufacturers Alliance Air Quality Compliance Workshop (September 1 & 2, 2020)

Workshop (September 1 & 2, 2020)

On September 1^st and 2^nd, the North Carolina Manufacturers Alliance held its annual Air Quality Compliance Workshop, though it was the first time this workshop was held virtually.   The workshop covered a range of topics from reviewing North Carolina’s clean energy plan and its progression, to highlighting recent updates concerning the Risk Management Plan Reconsideration Final Rule.  Multiple topics were presented throughout the two days, but a few of them stood out to us as having potential impacts on facilities in North Carolina that are subject to air quality regulations.

Day one of the workshop consisted of several presentations that gave updates concerning the status of North Carolina’s Department of Air Quality (DAQ) as a whole. A proposed change to Title V permit fees has been discussed by DAQ for 2021.  The Title V fee process will be changed due to a 13% decrease in Title V facilities, new federal regulations or amendments and their implementation, increased public interest, emerging compounds, and an increase in Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) applications occurring in house.  Ultimately, a model for a new Title V permit fee system based on workload and complexity as opposed to tonnage of air emissions was issued to stakeholders for review.  Over the next two years, DAQ plans to include an Accountability Report to analyze their workload and staffing/funding needs.
Learn More

Along with this change in fee structure, DAQ also provided updates concerning the use of emissions factors and the consolidation of the 1998 and 2005 memos into one memo to address an approval process for new emissions factors.  DAQ established that acceptable emissions factors will need to come from DAQ spreadsheets, US EPA AP-42, site-specific testing from the facility itself, or site-specific testing from a similar facility.  Any emissions factors derived from testing will require a submission of test report to DAQ for approval.  Throughout their presentation, DAQ emphasized how all emissions factors and summary tables in a permit application need to include the necessary reference documentation in order to keep the permit on schedule to be issued.  To increase efficiency of the process by which air permits are issued, DAQ has begun a review of all applications for “technical completeness” (e.g., proper forms have been filled out, emissions factors have an explanation of their origin, and sample calculations are provided) upon receipt.

DAQ has seen an increase in public interest in air permit applications.  A new item DAQ released to the public in May of 2019 is their Community Mapping Tool.  This tool maps out facilities with air permits in North Carolina, in addition to the type of permit issued to the facility.  DAQ uses this mapping tool when certain permit applications may lead to significant public concern and may warrant enhanced public engagement including an Environmental Justice Report.  DAQ has identified certain application types that will trigger this process including new major sources of hazardous air pollutants or criteria pollutants, major modification of a PSD facility that results in a significant emissions increase, and other projects that DAQ believes will warrant full review.)  Although this tool is utilized by DAQ for environmental justice reasons, this tool is available to the public for gathering information about surrounding permitted facilities.  DAQ encouraged facilities with planned significant modifications to engage with their communities prior to public notice of an air permit in support of timely permitting.

At the conclusion of day one, DAQ announced changes to their H74 Group 6 Rules (inclusive of Ambient Air Quality Standards, Emission Control Standards, Volatile Organic Compounds, Nitrogen Oxides, Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, and Group 5 Rules).  These changes have been reviewed and implemented as of November 2020. DAQ highlighted the following changes:

• 02D .0530(u) – Removed the term “application” and restored the term “notification” removed the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for a source where projected actual emissions are less than 50% of the significance threshold
• 02D .0536, Particulate Emissions from Electric Utility Boilers – Has been repealed
• 02D .0932, .0960, .2615 – Removal of state-specific leak tightness testing certification requirement and deference to federal requirements
• 02D .1702 – Adjustment of date for existing landfills to be subject to the Emissions Guidelines to July 17, 2014; update of citation to existing regulations for new landfills to 40 CFR 60 Subpart XXX

In addition to these updates, a description of an update to the Nitrogen Oxides (NO_x­) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Call was provided.  This included an update to revise the NO_x Rules in 15A NCAC 02D .1400 in order to:

• Re-establish state-level NO_x SIP Call ozone season budgets for electricity generating units (EGUs) and large industrial boilers.
• Provide large industrial boilers with the option to use methods other than continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) to calculate ozone season NO_x

These changes will enable the removal of the Clean Air Interstate Rules (CAIR) from North Carolina’s Clean Air Act Section 110 SIP and may provide regulatory relief to owners or operators of large industrial boilers subject to the NO_x SIP Call.

Day two of the workshop began with DAQ putting on a “mock air inspection.”  This involved a fun skit that detailed the good, bad, and ugly ways to handle compliance inspections. After this exercise, DAQ detailed explanations about what has been changed due to COVID-19.  Necessary inspections, audits, and stack test observations will still be going on following enhanced safety precautions; however, the number of on-site inspections are only occurring on a per case basis and virtual and partial compliance inspections should be expected to still happen.  DAQ also went on to highlight the following items as the most common compliance violations for facilities with air permits in 2019:

• Violation of specific requirements in federal regulations (i.e., NSPS, NESHAP/MACT/GACT violations)
• Failure to pay annual air quality permit fees
• Late submittal of a report required by permit or regulation
• Failure to conduct permit-required monitoring and/or recordkeeping
• Violation of a synthetic minor or other similar type avoidance condition
• General Duty – Failure to properly operate and maintain plant equipment
• Violation of state air toxics rules

On day two, a member of DAQ delved into reasons the Risk Management Plan (RMP) Amendments Final Rule was reconsidered.  The rule was reconsidered because potential security risks with information disclosure requirements existed in the final Amendments rule, there were concerns over the costs of the Amendments rule, and there were concerns that the EPA did not adequately coordinate with OSHA.  The following modifications occurred as a result of this reconsideration:

• Emergency Response Program/68.93(d) Emergency Coordination – modifications enabled emergency response planners to obtain information “necessary for” planning and implementation of local emergency response plans
• Emergency Response Program/68.96(b)(1) Emergency Exercise – removed minimum frequency requirement for field exercises (owner or operator must still consult with response officials on frequency).
• Emergency Response Program/68.96(b)(3) Emergency Exercise– changed documentation requirements by only recommending items for exercise reports
• RMP Reconsideration FINAL Rule/68.210 Information Availability – rescinded requirement to provide chemical hazard information to public on request
• RMP Reconsideration FINAL Rule/68.210 Information Availability – modified public meeting requirement to require meeting within 90 days only for accidents with off-site impact

Finally, the workshop concluded with a panel of DAQ members discussing topics such as general compliance, and Title V, PSD, and Small/Synthetic Minor permitting in the state of NC with workshop participants.  Overall, the workshop was a great experience that provided important updates about recent regulatory changes and the current status of environmental requirements during COVID-19.

If you have questions about North Carolina air quality regulations, please contact our Raleigh office for support.
Speak With Us Today

Reconsideration of the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production NESHAP

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is proposing amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production at major and area sources (40 CFR Part 63, Subparts DDDDDD and HHHHHHH). The proposed amendments were prompted by petitions for reconsideration from environmental groups and industry groups following promulgation of the 2012 final major and area sources rules. In response to these petitions, the U.S. EPA is proposing to revise the major source emission limits for process vents and process wastewater. The U.S. EPA is also proposing to review definitions for process vents and clarify standards for stripped resin, storage vessels, equipment leaks, and closed vent systems.

The reconsideration was published to the Federal Register on November 9, 2020 and is available here. Comments are due on January 8, 2021.  The proposed amendments are summarized below.

Process Vents

The U.S. EPA is proposing to revise the definitions of “PVC process vent” (previously named “PVC-only process vent”) and “PVC-combined process vent.” The definitions were revised to remove references to other source categories and redefine PVC-combined process vent as any process vent combined with one or more process vents that originate from vinyl chloride monomer or ethylene dichloride production. The U.S. EPA is also proposing to eliminate the PVC-combined process vent limits in the PVC production area source rule (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart DDDDDD) and proposing to require area sources to comply with the PVC-combined process vent limits for major sources. The U.S. EPA determined that any facility that produces vinyl chloride monomer or ethylene dichloride is a major source subject to the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) (40 CFR Part 63, Subparts F, G , and H). In addition, the U.S. EPA is proposing to clarify that process vents with comingled streams from PVC process units and non-PVC process units regulated under any other NESHAP are subject to both standards and, where applicable, are subject to the more stringent of the two standards.
Learn More

EPA is proposing to revise emission limits for vinyl chloride, total organic HAP (TOHAP), hydrogen chloride (HCl), chlorinated dibenzo dioxins and furans (dioxins/furans), and total hydrocarbon (THC) based on data collected via a Clean Air Act (CAA) section 114 Information Collection Request (ICR) for process vents following the 2012 final rule. Several of the proposed limits are significantly more stringent than the current rules.

Process Wastewater

The U.S. EPA is proposing to revise the major source limit for vinyl chloride in process wastewater streams based on data collected via CAA section 114 ICRs for process wastewater following the 2012 final rule. Under the proposed amendments, the vinyl chloride emission limits would decrease from 6.8 to 0.73 parts per million by weight (ppmw) for existing sources and increase from 0.28 to 0.57 ppmw for new sources. EPA is also proposing to remove the current limits for TOHAP and establish vinyl chloride as a surrogate for TOHAP.

Stripped Resin

EPA is not proposing changes to the stripped resin emissions limits in either rule; however, the Agency is proposing alternative mass-based standards similar to the Vinyl Chloride NEHSAP at 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart F.  To comply with the alternative mass-based standards, facilities would be required to enclose process components downstream of the resin stripper (e.g., dryers, centrifuges, filters) and route emissions through a closed vent system to a control device.  Facilities would also be required to comply with prescribed testing and monitoring requirements, instead of the resin sampling requirements.

Storage Vessels

Although the U.S. EPA is granting reconsideration of the pressure vessel standards at 40 CFR 63.11910(c), EPA is not proposing to allow repair of leaks greater than 500 ppm as a method of compliance as requested by petitioners. Along with other clarifications, EPA is proposing that sources must conduct annual monitoring of each potential leak interface and each point of the pressure vessel through which HAP could be emitted according to 40 CFR 63.1023(b) and (c).  The U.S. EPA is also proposing to add vapor balancing and associated requirements as a control method for storage vessels. In addition, the U.S. EPA is proposing to separate the requirements for fixed roof storage vessels from the requirements for storage vessels. The U.S. EPA is proposing that fixed roof storage vessels can either develop control device operating plans, continue to comply with the requirements for storage vessels, or route fixed roof storage vessel emissions back to the process instead of a control device.  These standards apply to both major and area sources.

Other Changes

The U.S. EPA did not propose any revisions to the definitions of affected source in the major or area source rule, but is requesting public comment on the current definitions. The U.S. EPA is also proposing several clarifications to the equipment leak requirements and the requirements for closed vent systems. Additionally, EPA is proposing to remove all of the affirmative defense provisions in light of recent court decisions.  EPA is also proposing several other technical corrections and clarifications.

Next Steps

Affected sources subject to either 40 CFR Part 63, Subparts DDDDDD or HHHHHHH that commenced construction on or before May 20, 2011 (existing sources) must be in compliance with these changes 3 years after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Affected sources subject to these rules that commenced construction after May 20, 2011 (new sources) must be in compliance upon the date of publication of the final rule or at initial startup.  U.S. EPA notes that they are not aware of any new sources that would be impacted by application of the proposed changes.

Facilities with affected sources should start evaluating how the new requirements impact their operations. Facility staff should read the proposed rule language to evaluate rule applicability for their operations and start thinking about permit modifications. Staff should also review stack test and sampling results, compare them to the new emission limits, and identify any additional data that needs to be gathered. This information will help determine if installation of new control devices or upgrades to existing control devices are necessary to achieve and maintain compliance with the new emission limits.  Affected facilities should also consider working with their industry association to provide comments on the proposed rule.

ALL4 has experience analyzing and commenting on previous U.S. EPA PVC NESHAP proposals as well as providing environmental services to PVC production facilities and other facilities in the chemical industry. Contact Philip Crawford at 984-777-3119 or your ALL4 project manager for more information.

Speak With Us Today

Summary of NC, SC, and U.S. EPA Region 4 Air Regulatory Updates from Virtual CAPCA

On October 22, 2020, the Carolinas Air Pollution Control Association (CAPCA) held its 2020 Fall Virtual Conference, presenting over 400 participants with updates from U.S. EPA Region 4, the North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ), and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC).

Caroline Freeman, the newly named Director of Air and Radiation for U.S. EPA Region 4, provided administrative and Air Program updates, including the status of air quality improvements, progress on National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and regional haze rule implementation, Clean Air Act (CAA) regulatory and policy activity, and voluntary organization activities.  Administratively, Region 4 has welcomed Mary S. Walker and John Blevins to senior management positions, and reorganized the regional office to include three branches (Air Analysis and Support, Air Planning and Implementation, and Grants Management and Strategic Planning) under the Air and Radiation Division, itself serving as one of nine divisions of the regional organization.
Learn More

Region 4 is currently working with stakeholders on multiple focus areas to implement CAA requirements on both national and regional levels, including:

• Reduction of non-attainment areas – one U.S. EPA goal is to reduce the number of non-attainment areas from 166 to 101 by September 30, 2022. Note that Region 4 contains only four non-attainment areas.
• Regional haze – U.S. EPA released the Regional Haze Reform Roadmap in 2018, with Second Implementation Planning Period State Implementation Plans (SIPs) due July 31, 2021.
• Start-up, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) Events – U.S. EPA issued guidance on October 9, 2020 outlining whether and when it may be permissible for a state to include certain SSM provisions in a SIP, acknowledging that affirmative defense provisions may be acceptable for malfunction periods and recognizing penalties for sudden and unavoidable malfunctions beyond owner control may be inappropriate.
• Risk and Technology Reviews (RTRs) of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) – several final RTRs were published during the previous quarter, including Iron and Steel Foundries, Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing, Plywood and Composite Wood Products Manufacture, and the Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP (MON).
• Other Solid Waste Incineration (OSWI) units – U.S. EPA proposed New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and emission guidelines (EG) for new and existing OSWI units on August 31, 2020, to amend applicability provisions, increase flexibility for testing and monitoring, and revise standards for small units based on representative data.
• Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE) – Region 4 expects eight states to submit plans by the July 8, 2022 deadline to address the ACE package published in the Federal Register on July 8, 2019, which impacts approximately 125 units in the region.
• Landfills – On March 9, 2020, U.S. EPA issued a notice of failure to submit 111(d) plans that include EG for existing landfills to all eight Region 4 states.
• Ethylene Oxide (EtO) – On August 12, 2020, U.S. EPA finalized RTR amendments to the 2003 MON Rule, adding more stringent requirements for EtO emissions from storage tanks, process vents, and equipment leaks (among other changes). S. EPA estimates that the revised Information Collection Request (ICR) to inform their rulemaking activity related to EtO commercial sterilizers will be issued in December 2020.
• Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) – U.S. EPA continues to investigate PFAS-related concerns, investing in research for air analytical methods, dispersion modeling, and thermal destruction treatments.
• Reclassification of Major Sources to Area Sources – On October 1, 2020, the Final Rule was signed to implement withdrawal of the 1995 Once-In-Always-In policy, allowing sources with HAP emissions lowered below major source thresholds to reclassify as area sources.

Region 4 is also participating in several voluntary programs to promote additional benefits to air quality.  Region 4 has initiated the Advance Program to collaborate with multiple state entities to promote local actions to reduce ozone and fine particulate pollution, supported the Southeastern Team Reducing the Impacts of Diesel Emissions (STRIDE) collaborative, and promoted the Energy Star program with over 750 partner companies.

Michael Abraczinskas, Director of NCDAQ, provided an update on the state of the air, COVID-19 impacts on the Department, and rulemaking in North Carolina.  NCDAQ has observed improvements in visibility in Great Smoky Mountains National Park and monitoring data has shown no ozone exceedances in 2020.  State-wide ozone NAAQS attainment, including in the Charlotte area, an area of initial concern, was assisted by a reduction in late-spring/early-summer NOx emissions primarily attributable to COVID-19 and associated reduced vehicle travel.

In addition to potential impacts on emissions levels, COVID-19 is impacting NCDAQ operations in several arenas.  NCDAQ is successfully navigating the challenges, maintaining ambient monitoring without data gaps, expanding virtual public-participation initiatives, and implementing additional compliance strategies, resulting in increased permitting productivity metrics since the initiation of teleworking.  As part of their enhanced public outreach, NCDAQ has developed guidelines for permits that are subject to Environmental Justice review, including new Title V facilities, major modifications at Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) major sources, and additional facilities at the discretion of the Director.

North Carolina air regulatory updates include:

• Log Fumigation – 15A NCAC 02D .0546, Control of Emissions from Log Fumigation Operations, was adopted, establishing emission control requirements for bulk, chamber, and container log fumigation operations, compliance levels, and quarterly reporting requirements.
• Methyl Bromide – 15A NCAC 02D .1104, Toxic Air Pollutant Guidelines, was amended to add Acceptable Ambient Levels (AAL) for the 24-hour (1.0 µg/m³) and annual (0.005 µg/m³) averaging periods.
• Rule Re-adoption – NCDAQ participated in the decadal requirement to review all air quality rules (353), determining that 322 rules must be re-adopted by December 31, 2020 for SIP-approval.
• Proposed Fee Changes – NCDAQ is currently taking comments on a proposal to modify Title V fees to account for a pending budget shortfall.
• PFAS – NCDAQ continues to monitor background atmospheric deposition of PFAS at seven state monitors, with observations indicating few current detections.

Rhonda Thompson, Chief of the Bureau of Air Quality (BAQ) at SC DHEC, provided administrative, state of air, and rule-making updates in South Carolina.  Similar to Region 4, BAQ has reorganized, consolidating from four divisions to three divisions to balance sizes and realize cost savings.  Similar to NCDAQ, SC DHEC has observed an improvement in ozone levels, with decreased concentrations over the past decade and a reduction in exceedances from 455 in 2002 to four in 2019.  Reductions in fine particulate and SO₂ have also been observed.  SC DHEC is also investigating the potential impact from COVID-19 due to traffic volume changes, with similar initial conclusions as those expressed by NCDAQ.  In response to the latest U.S. EPA National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) identifying North Charleston as a potential EtO hot spot, SC DHEC has implemented a sampling program and expanded community engagement to research and address EtO background levels.

SC DHEC has identified the need to replace and modernize the South Carolina Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network as a high priority.  Aging infrastructure has been associated with data completeness and data quality issues, prompting a 10-year replacement plan and an associated funding request.  Similar to NCDAQ, SC DHEC is experiencing a reduction in fee revenue associated with reduced emissions, has implemented cost-saving efforts to maintain its current level of service, and has formed a stakeholder group to evaluate options, such as increasing or expanding fees for both major and minor sources.

South Carolina regulatory updates include:

• ACE and Risk Management Plans (RMP) – SC DHEC will incorporate the ACE regulations and RMP amendments into the state rules.
• Annual Revisions – SC DHEC will request the incorporation of U.S. EPA NSPS and NESHAP revisions, by reference, into the SIP.

During the business meeting that followed the technical portion of the meeting, our own Amy Marshall was elected to the CAPCA board of directors.  Amy is looking forward to being more involved in CAPCA over the next few years.

CAPCA is currently scheduled to hold its 2021 conferences from April 7-9 in Ashville, North Carolina and from October 13-15 in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. ALL4 looks forward to participating in these events and hopes to see you there!

Contact Ryan Cleary at rcleary@all4inc.com or check out our other posts on our website for more information on any of these topics.
Speak With Us Today

U.S. EPA’s Revised Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update and Why Non-EGUs Should Care About CSAPR

U.S. EPA recently proposed a revised update to CSAPR to address interstate pollution transport obligations for compliance with the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).  This action is being taken in response to a court action that remanded their 2016 CSAPR update rule.  If you’re not familiar with CSAPR, it covers 22 eastern states and includes nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions budgets for each of those states in order to limit the effects of downwind transport of NOx emissions on ozone concentrations.  Currently, those budgets and the associated trading program apply only to electric generating units (EGUs) but several recent court decisions related to interstate transport have stated that non-EGU sources of emissions should also be considered as part of a strategy to eliminate a state’s significant contribution to downwind nonattainment.

U.S EPA is proposing that EGU’s will need to do more starting in 2021 to help downwind states achieve compliance with the 2008 NAAQS. Specifically, EGU’s equipped with selective catalytic reduction (SCR) must operate them throughout the 2021 ozone season,  and in some cases EGU’s may be required to undertake air pollution control projects including the installation of low-NOx burners or overfire air (OFA) to improve their level of NOx control by the start of the 2022 ozone season. While EPA is proposing to find that only EGU’s will need to take these steps, they are requesting comments on what several types of non-EGU sources (think glass furnaces, cement kilns, large internal combustion engines, and industrial boilers) can do to reduce NOx emissions in future years. Additionally, EPA will cover all source types when it addresses the 2015 ozone NAAQS in a future action.

Short History of NOx Transport Rules

Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 110 contains language known as the “good neighbor provision” that requires states to prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state.  In the event that a state does not establish its own approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) to address this provision, the U.S. EPA develops a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), which it has done with CSAPR.  Many studies have established that ozone transport occurs on a regional scale over much of the eastern U.S., so historically, U.S. EPA has established limitations on NOx emissions from large sources (primarily electric utilities) using cap and trade programs in order to reduce interstate transport and improve air quality.

Before CSAPR was an acronym floating around in a regulator’s head, we saw the NOx SIP Call in the late 1990’s/early 2000’s.  This rule required states to establish NOx budgets and trading rules for both EGUs and fossil fuel-fired industrial boilers at least 250 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) in size.  Sources lived under these budgets until those rules were replaced by the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which only covered emissions from EGUs.  CAIR was then replaced by CSAPR effective January 1, 2015.  The October 2016 CSAPR update finalized requirements for 22 states in order to reduce interstate transport and allow for compliance with the 2008 ozone NAAQS.  However, that rule was remanded to U.S. EPA because the rule analyzed 2023 compliance, not 2021 compliance.

What Analysis has EPA Done for This Update and What Action is EPA Proposing to Take for 2021?

U.S. EPA is now proposing to further limit “ozone season” (May 1 through September 30) NOx emissions from EGUs in 12 states (IL, IN, KY, LA, MD, MI, NJ, NY, OH, PA, VA, WV) and to adjust the states’ budgets for each ozone season thereafter until air quality projections demonstrate resolution of downwind attainment or maintenance problems for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.  They found that the existing budgets in 9 states (AL, AR, IA, KS, MS, MO, OK, TX, WI) are sufficient such that they do not significantly contribute to downwind attainment or maintenance under their current programs, and thus do not need to take any further action.
Learn More

The basis of U.S. EPA’s determination is a four-step framework.  First, they identified the downwind receptors that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining the NAAQS.  Second, they determined what states are significantly contributing to the problem and have established that a 1 percent contribution (0.75 ppb) is significant. U.S. EPA justified the use of 1% because that threshold “captures a high percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind receptors”. Third, for the states that were found to significantly contribute to downwind attainment or maintenance problems, they identified the emissions that significantly contribute to the problem.  Fourth, they determined the necessary emissions reductions measures in the significantly contributing states.  Note that U.S. EPA must be careful not to require “over-control” of emissions by a particular state, only what is necessary to reduce its impact to below the level that is significant.

The first step was completed using a combination of modeling and ambient monitoring data to predict ozone concentrations in 2021.  Given the time constraints, U.S. EPA did not completely update their analysis performed for the 2016 rule.   Ultimately, four monitors, two of which were considered nonattainment and two of which were considered maintenance, were identified for review of upwind contributions (3 in CT and 1 in TX).

In performing the modeling, U.S. EPA used the newest modeling platform, but used emissions based around the 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) supplemented by CEMS data for 2016 for those EGU’s that were in the 2014 NEI. The most current version of the NEI is 2017. Three model scenarios were run: 2016, 2023, and 2028. The 2023 and 2028 model runs were based on projected emissions built on the 2016 data set and took into account announced retirements, state and federal regulations scheduled to come into effect between 2023 and 2028, planned air-pollution control projects at existing facilities, etc.

The initial modeling run used the 2016 emissions data and was used to ground truth the accuracy of the data set by comparing the results to actual monitored concentrations. The results found that the data set produced concentrations within the accepted range of accuracy. The projected concentrations in 2021 were produced by running the 2023 scenario and making a linear interpolation between the 2016 results and the 2023 results. The contributions and significance test for each state was calculated by determining the model-predicted concentration in 2023 and adjusting them to represent 2021. Sources were “tagged” by group: Each state was a tag, as were different types of emissions: anthropogenic, biological, fires, EGU, non-EGU, etc. The concentrations from specific sources within a state were not reported.

The results of this modeling determined the 12 states that required further review and aided in the determination of the proposed revised state NOx budgets.

The agency has historically focused on EGUs for emissions reductions because past work indicates that this sector is a large source of NOx emissions and that there are cost-effective means of reducing NOx emissions.  For this proposal, they identified a control strategy for EGUs that reflects optimization of existing controls for 2021 and beyond and installation of new controls in future years.  (Note that although their analysis is based on assuming certain sources will optimize or apply certain controls, the ultimate requirement is to stay below a certain number of tons of NOx emissions during the ozone season.)  U.S. EPA did a cursory evaluation of 150-tpy non-EGU sources to determine if any near-term emissions reductions should be required, but do not generally have the quality or quantity of information for industrial sources available that would make such an evaluation robust.  Their past work generally indicates that emissions reductions are not as cost effective for industrial sources.  However, read on to find out what information U.S. EPA is seeking to improve their analysis (either for this rule or a future rule that addresses compliance with the 2015 ozone NAAQS).

What Comments is EPA Seeking for non-EGU Industrial Sources?

Although they are not proposing to establish requirements for non-EGU sources in the near term, U.S. EPA is seeking comment on its analysis of non-EGU sources and whether there are grounds to find non-EGU emissions reductions necessary.   The agency also analyzed and is specifically requesting comments on the NOx emissions reduction potential for glass furnaces and cement kilns.  Comment is also requested on the feasibility of further controlling NOx from large internal combustion engines (e.g., those at natural gas compressor stations) and large industrial boilers, including combustion optimization and low-NOx burners.  However, don’t think you are out of the woods because you don’t operate any of those sources, because comments are also requested on whether there are other sources or sectors that could achieve cost-effective NOx reductions and what they would be.  The question is also asked whether cost-effective reductions could be achieved by replacing older equipment or fuel switching.  (Several facilities made those changes in order to comply with Boiler MACT.)

Keeping in mind that the old NOx SIP Call regulated large industrial boilers, comment is also requested on whether large non-EGU boilers and combustion turbines that would have been covered by that program should be required to employ controls equivalent to the emissions level achieved by low-NOx burners.  Given that most new gas-fired units employ low-NOx burners, this should only be a concern for older units that may not have upgraded their burners already or are not located in a state that already has this requirement.  Comment is also requested on whether states should be allowed to include former NOx SIP Call industrial units in the revised CSAPR update trading program (just when you thought you were out, they could pull you back in).

What’s Next?

Comments on the proposed rule are due December 14, 2020.  If you own or operate a facility with NOx emissions greater than 150 tpy or one of the source types that U.S. EPA called out specifically as possible candidates for NOx reductions after 2021, you should review the proposal and either work with your corporate environmental group or your industry association to provide comments.  Better information on available controls and the costs of those controls will be critical to the outcome of this and related future actions.  The agency will review comments and must finalize the rule by March 15, 2021 so that the initial required reductions will be achieved during the 2021 ozone season.  However, as mentioned above, this CSAPR update only addresses the 2008 ozone NAAQS, so stay tuned for a future action that addresses the 2015 NAAQS or a state’s petition to U.S. EPA to impose additional controls on upwind sources not covered by CSAPR.  ALL4 is assisting with comment development on the proposal so feel free to reach out to Amy Marshall or Rich Hamel for more information.
Speak With Us Today

U.S. EPA Revisions of Iron and Steel Foundries Air Quality Regulations

The U.S. EPA has completed their periodic residual risk and technology review (RTR) for major source Iron and Steel Foundries and the technology review for the area source Iron and Steel Foundries regulated under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).  The NESHAP specifically are 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart EEEEE and Subpart ZZZZZ, respectively.  Overall, the U.S. EPA felt that the emissions standards for the industrial emissions sources regulated by both regulations had adequate margin of safety in terms of public health and did not revise the numerical emissions limits.  However, startup shutdown and malfunction (SSM) exemptions were removed, as U.S. EPA stated that emissions standards shall apply at all times.  Furthermore, language that treated malfunction events as separate from startup and shutdown was removed.  Changes included in the final rules are as follows:

• Removal and revision of provisions related to SSM except for volatile organic hazardous air pollutants (VOHAP) standards during SSM for cupola melting furnaces.
• Establishment of work practice standards for the existing 20 ppmv VOHAP emissions standard, such that this limit is to only apply during normal production operations (more specifically, what the major source NESHAP refers to as “on blast” conditions).
• Establishment of work practice standards (for “off blast” conditions) that require compliance with the building opacity limit during initial cupola startup procedures (e.g., refractory curing, cupola bed preparation, and beginning stage of cupola coke bed preparation) and final shutdown procedures (e.g., cooling and cupola banking or bottom drop).
• For other idling times, finalization of work practice standards that require owners/operators to:
  • Begin operating cupola afterburners soon after beginning the coke bed preparatory step, but no later than 30 minutes after the blast air is started to begin the coke bed burn-in; and
  • Operate the afterburner or other thermal combustion device with a flame present at all times during other off blast periods.
• Requirement for facilities to minimize emissions and ensure safety as specified in the operation and maintenance (O&M) plan.
• Addition of monitoring and recordkeeping for foundry owners or operators to demonstrate compliance with the new work practice standards.
• Requirement for owners/operators of iron and steel foundries to submit electronic copies of certain performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, and semiannual reports through the Central Data Exchange using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) as applicable to the source. Performance test results and performance evaluation results will be submitted using the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT).
• Written plans and scrap metal supplier specifications may need to be updated or reviewed for compliance depending on the management compliance option and scrap metal source.
• Technical standards will now apply if the Cupola baghouse has a bag leak detection system (BLDS).

U.S. EPA has stated that the SSM revisions would become effective upon promulgation, which occurred on September 10, 2020.  However, they are providing 180 days to finalize new work practice standards specific to cupola startup and shutdown and to transition to electronic reporting requirements.  If you have any questions or want to discuss how this might impact your facility, please reach out to Olivia Pehanick at 1 (610) 422-1141 ext. 141 or Opehanick@all4inc.com or Nicholas Leone at 1 (610) 422-1121 ext. 121 or Nleone@all4inc.com.
Learn More