NPDES Permitting: Best Practices and Watch Outs

If you participated in the Air and Water Conference co-hosted by ALL4 and EBS in September 2020, you may have attended my presentation on industrial wastewater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting best practices and watch outs.  Since NPDES renewals only come around every five years, we wanted to provide a resource for our clients to refer to during future permitting endeavors.

What is NPDES?

NPDES is a national program with the purpose of reducing pollutants in discharges to water of the U.S. (WOTUS), established by the Clean Water Act (CWA).  If your facility discharges wastewater from an outfall to WOTUS, you very likely have an NPDES discharge permit, which has to be renewed every five years.  You may also have an NPDES permit if your facility discharges to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW).

Best Practices

When should I start working on my NPDES renewal application?

Generally speaking, the sooner the better!  Renewal applications must be submitted 180 days prior to the expiration date of the permit.  Depending on the complexity of the permit, whether changes are being requested, and the required sampling, ALL4 recommends getting started with a renewal application six months to a year prior to the due date.

What changes can I request in my NPDES renewal application?

With sufficient technical justification, changes to permit limits, units of measure (e.g., concentration or mass-based), monitoring frequencies, and pollutants monitored can all be requested in an NPDES renewal application.  Think about changes you would like to make, which permit limits or conditions cause extra burden, and consider how you might justify a change.  If you have technology-based effluent limitations, think strategically about the production plans for your facility – is a production increase on the horizon within the next permit term? Include the projected date of the increase and projected production rates in the renewal application for the agency’s consideration in updating your permit limits.

We have also seen clients request special considerations for heavy rainfall (such as a temporary outfall) or alternative monitoring, such as monitoring E. coli rather than fecal coliform for facilities with large wastewater treatment systems that are home to wildlife.

Other Best Practices

• Understand the technical basis for your permit limitations and requirements – this will arm you with the information needed to request changes and negotiate with the agency issuing your permit.
• Be aware of the receiving water body’s water quality status – Is your receiving water impaired? Is there a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) in the works?  Are there watershed-level regulatory changes or drivers that may impact your facility (e.g., Chesapeake Bay initiatives)?
• Enroll corporate and/or facility management, as appropriate, especially for determining the production values to list in your application for determining technology-based effluent limits.
• If your industry has an environmental trade group, reach out for their input and available resources.
• Set up a pre-application meeting with the agency that will issue your NPDES permit. Review any changes you plan to request as part of the renewal and ask about anything you should expect in your renewed permit.  Take advantage of the opportunity to build a relationship with your regulator and have a collaborative discussion!

Watch Outs

Sampling and Analysis

NPDES renewal applications normally require effluent sampling and analysis beyond the routine requirements of the permit.  Be sure you understand state- or industry-specific requirements for the parameters to analyze, the number of sampling events, and the conditions of sampling events (this is a great topic to discuss during a pre-application meeting).  Thoroughly review the required analyses with your laboratory and discuss sample collection and handling requirements such as hold time, sample volume, sample handling and method detection limits.  Conduct sampling early on so that there is time for repeat sampling in the event of a data quality issue, lost or damaged samples, or unexpected results.  Finding a lab, acquiring sample bottles, collecting samples, shipping samples, and receiving results can take a couple of months, so start this process early!

Cooling Water Intake Structure

Cooling water intake structures are defined as intake structures withdrawing at least 2 million gallons per day (MGD) of flow, 25% of which is used exclusively for cooling purposes.  Facilities with cooling water intake structures are required to provide additional information in the NPDES renewal process and must implement one of seven options to reduce mortality to fish and other aquatic organisms, and facilities withdrawing 125 MGD or more have additional obligations.  Many facilities have intake structures that do not meet the definition of a cooling water intake structure; if your facility falls in that category, be sure to maintain supporting documentation.

Other Watch Outs

• Be sure to use the most current permit application forms and regulatory guidance.
• Some states are transitioning to electronic submittal of NPDES renewal applications, which could require setting up accounts or registering your facility in a new system.
• Allow time for feedback from corporate and/or facility management, as appropriate.

NPDES Permit Issuance Process

Once the agency issuing your NPDES permit has reviewed your permit application, they will issue a draft renewal permit.  You may or may not have the opportunity to review the draft permit and provide comments to the regulatory agency before the draft goes to public comment.  NPDES renewals typically undergo a 30-day public comment period prior to permit issuance.  When you review the draft, look out for: differences from the previous permit, which could include requested changes, changes to standardize permit language across facilities, new reporting requirements, or new limits.  Also review any accompanying documents such as a Fact Sheet, Narrative, or Statement of Basis.

If you do not understand the regulatory basis for a new requirement or if changes you requested were not granted, do not be afraid to submit comments or request a call with the agency to discuss.  You will have to live with your permit conditions for the next five years, so advocate for a permit that works for you, with sound regulatory basis.

If you have questions regarding NPDES permitting, please contact Lizzie Smith at lsmith@all4inc.com or at (770)-999-0269.

Proposed Amendments to Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District Regulation 5.15, Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions

On November 23, 2020, the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (LMAPCD) issued a Preliminary Regulatory Impact Assessment (PRIA) for proposed amendments to LMAPCD Regulation 5.15, Chemical Accident Prevent Provisions.

LMAPCD Regulation 5.15 establishes authority for delegated administration and local implementation of the federal Risk Management Plan (RMP) regulations promulgated at 40 CFR Part 68 per Section 112(r) requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. LMAPCD administers its RMP program through its Industrial Compliance Section and in collaboration with the Louisville Metro Emergency Management Agency (Metro EMA).  It is worth noting that combined, LMAPCD and Metro EMA have less than two individuals working fulltime to implement the RMP program.

LMAPCD Regulation 5.15 has not been revised since 2001; however, in this proposed rulemaking, LMAPCD is proposing to incorporate various minor amendments made to the federal RMP regulations in 2001 and 2004 in order to retain delegated authority for local RMP program administration. More significantly, LMAPCD is proposing to incorporate provisions from U.S. EPA’s 2017 RMP Amendments Rule that have since been rescinded and replaced by the 2019 RMP Reconsideration Rule. In response to comments from its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking period (May 27 to August 25, 2020), LMAPCD stated it did not seek a formal recommendation from Metro EMA for potential rulemaking nor is it proposing to add personnel or resources to implement the new amendments under consideration.  LMAPCD’s basis for these decisions is due to the large number of RMP facilities per capita in the city of Louisville. For counties containing medium to larger cities, Louisville ranks 26^th in the nation; and for chemical manufacturing plants specifically [North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 325], Louisville ranks fourth nationally. LMAPCD also believes these amendments will address Environmental Justice concerns since the majority of these RMP facilities “are clustered within the urban core of the Louisville area and in close proximity to predominantly minority neighborhoods, particularly in west Louisville.”

The most impactful proposed changes to LMAPCD Regulation 5.15 include the following rescinded provisions from the 2017 RMP Amendments Rule:

• Requires a third-party audit following an RMP reportable accident.
• Requires an incident investigation root cause analysis following a catastrophic release or near miss.
• Requires a Safer Technologies and Alternatives Analysis (STAA) for every new process including reevaluation every five years as part of the facilities process hazard analysis (PHA) required under the federal RMP regulations.

The proposed amendments listed above will directly apply to facilities in NAICS codes 322 (paper manufacturing); 324 (petroleum and coal products manufacturing); and 325 (chemical manufacturing). 19 facilities within Jefferson County, KY, fall under these codes, nine of which are chemical manufacturing plants. In its PRIA, LMAPCD estimates additional annual costs for regulated sources of approximately $35,000 per year (per facility subject to proposed amendments).

Drafts of the proposed amendments were reviewed and approved for release by the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control Board Strategy Committee on December 9, 2020. A 60-day formal public comment period was opened on December 11, 2020 and a public hearing will be held at the regularly scheduled monthly Air Pollution Control Board meeting on January 20, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.

Although LMAPCD has explained why they intend to apply more stringent requirements to certain industries, the proposed amendments to Regulation 5.15 do not align with current federal RMP regulations, will increase the regulatory burden on impacted facilities, and will be unique to only facilities located in Jefferson County, KY. If your facility is located in Jefferson County, KY and falls under one of the affected industry types, we recommend following this activity closely and participating in the rulemaking process.

ALL4 will continue to monitor these proposed amendments throughout the rulemaking process.  If you have any questions about the proposed amendments to Regulation 5.15, please contact us.

The End of the CEDRI Webform

For several key 40 CFR Part 60 [Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, also referred to as New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)] and 40 CFR Part 63 [National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), also referred to as Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)] regulations, the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) “optional” bulk upload templates are officially removed.  As of September 24, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Central Data Exchange (CDX) no longer supports the CEDRI webform reporting interface that many facilities have relied on to fulfill their compliance reporting obligations.  Read on to see how this could impact your facility.

Who This Affects

The following regulations are affected by this change:

• 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart IIII (NSPS for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines)
• 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart JJJJ (NSPS for Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines)
• 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart LLL [NESHAP From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry (PC MACT)]
• 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ [NESHAP for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE MACT)]
• 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart DDDDD [NESHAP for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (Boiler MACT)]

ASK HOW ALL4 CAN HELP YOU NAVIGATE THIS NEW REPORTING LANDSCAPE

The Bulk Upload Templates (Excluding Boiler MACT)

With the exception of Boiler MACT, the “bulk upload templates” for the above listed regulations are fairly comprehensive.  ALL4 recommends facilities that have previously utilized the CEDRI webform compare the new templates to their historical CEDRI webform printouts.  This is best practice to ensure consistency and completeness in reporting as facilities transition from the webform to the new templates.  Because each template also allows facilities to upload a separate file with additional information, it is also important for facilities to review the text of the regulation and any supplemental information that has previously been provided.  This is the best way to verify a facility has fulfilled its reporting requirements.

The Boiler MACT Bulk Upload Templates

Unfortunately for facilities who report under the Boiler MACT, the “bulk upload templates” are substantially less intuitive than the templates for other regulations.  To start, each required report for a Boiler MACT subpart has its own “bulk upload template” to be populated.  For instance, a facility that must comply with both the Boiler MACT tune up [40 CFR §63.7550(c)(1)] and fuel analysis [40 CFR §63.7550(c)(2)] reporting requirements must populate the appropriate template for each when submitting the semiannual compliance report.  Previously, both sets of reporting requirements were able to be submitted under a single webform.  Now, two separate reports must be submitted to cover each set of requirements.

For each “template”, the required information is as follows:

• Facility Name
• Facility Address
• Company Name
• The filename for the report itself

That last bullet point might raise a red flag in your brain.  If it feels like there is something missing here, that is because there definitely is.  It may come as a surprise, but the new Boiler MACT templates provide almost no help whatsoever when it comes to populating facility compliance data into a report.

“Do It Yourself” Boiler MACT Reporting

Unlike the CEDRI webform, the Boiler MACT bulk upload templates provide no guidance whatsoever on the specifics of reporting.  They do not walk through the requirements and prompt the user for the necessary information like the webforms did.  Instead, the bulk upload template simply requires the user to attach a file containing required data.  As such, each facility is responsible for formatting and compiling its own reports.  For facilities who have historically relied on the CEDRI webform as a guide for what information is required, this could mean significantly more reporting effort may be necessary to produce and populate new internal reporting templates.

Steps to Developing a Boiler MACT Report

ALL4 recommends the following approach for developing a Boiler MACT reporting template from scratch:

1. 1.  Start with the text of the rule

This is absolutely the best resource for ensuring completeness in reporting what is required.  For each report, lay out the actual text of each requirement in a table, and provide responses to each.

1. 2.  Gather supplemental information

For some reporting requirements, it is either impossible or impractical to include complete information in the main table from Step 1 due to the shear volume of information required (e.g., CEMS summary table for CMS reporting requirement [40 CFR §63.7550(c)(2)]).  In these cases, it may be necessary to develop a supplemental table and provide reference to it in the main reporting template.  U.S. EPA maintains some templates for supplemental information on their main CEDRI page.

1. 3.  Use historical reporting resources

Although the CEDRI webform is no longer supported for future reporting, historical webform submission printouts can provide some guidance on how to format the new report.  However, be careful when using these historical printouts as they may not reflect the current version of the regulation.  The text of the specific rule and associated applicable requirements dictate what is required.

1. 4.  Build in redundancy

Under the new bulk upload requirement, an individual facility may be required to prepare multiple reports for a single emissions unit.  Expect overlap in the requirements for these reports and ensure each one can be viewed by a regulator or the public as a independent documents.

If you have any questions regarding bulk upload template reporting, please contact us.

Meet Bob Kuklentz

Bob Kuklentz // Directing Consultant // Philadelphia Office

You’re an avid outdoorsman…what adventures have you been up to lately?

I recently took a fishing trip with my colleague, Roy Rakiewicz, and a client in Missouri which was a lot of fun. Let’s put it this way, fishing trips are always fun when everyone catches a lot of fish… we each walked away with a ‘big fish story’ to share with our family and friends!

While your official title at ALL4 is Directing Consultant, you’ve served as a mentor to many throughout your tenure and have made quite an impact on employees. Describe what mentorship means to you?

ALL4 has a lot of smart, motivated people on staff and I get a lot of satisfaction, and energy, out of seeing them be successful. As a mentor, my job is to build trust and be there as a sounding board. Trust is key – when that’s in place people feel comfortable, and safe, in seeking guidance from you.

You also have another role that you’re passionate about – being a grandparent! When you’re on ‘Poppy’ duty what will we likely find you doing?

My grandson and I take a lot of tractor rides, play with his toy cars, and always make time to eat a lot of chocolate. Currently, Junior Mints are our favorite go-to-treat!

One of your ‘superpowers’ is developing strong client relationships. When you’re working with clients, or a perspective client, how do you build trust and relatedness?

Having 20+ years of experience in industry enables me to be very relatable when it comes to knowing their ‘pain points’. I’m also a proponent of face-to-face interactions. The more that you can integrate into your client’s team, the more proactive you can be in assisting them in identifying their compliance needs. At ALL4 we call it “becoming one with your client, and an extension of their project team”.

You just mentioned making a career change from industry to consulting after 20+ years, what is sage advice that you’d offer to other senior-level employees who are looking to make a career change?

You have to be open to learning new things and approaching projects from a team perspective. In industry for example, you may be the sole environmental team member making decisions and feel very comfortable in that role because you know the facility inside and out. You’re not out of your comfort zone as often as you will be in consulting. By that I mean that you’re constantly encountering new situations, working with a variety of clients/industries, and having to be open in challenging yourself in keeping current technically. I would also share that working within budgets and timeframes was something that took some time to get acclimated to in the consulting world.

Okay, you’re going to your closet to pick out your favorite sports team’s jersey…who will we find you representing?

I’m picking the Eagles jersey every time – die-hard fan here!

Proposed Changes to Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels Could Save Money, Cut Emissions

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has proposed a revision to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Kb [Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid (VOL) Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After July 23, 1984], that will make inspection procedures less expensive and decrease volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions that result from the current methodology.  The proposed changes to Subpart Kb will apply to external floating roof tanks (EFR) and internal floating roof tanks (IFR) either with a design capacity greater than or equal to 151 m³ containing a VOL with a maximum true vapor pressure equal to or greater than 5.2 kilopascals (kPa) and less than 76.6 kPa, or with a design capacity equal to or greater than 75 m³ and less than 151 m³ containing a VOL that has a true vapor pressure equal to or greater than 27.6 kPa and less than 76.6 kPa.  If finalized, these changes will allow owners of certain storage vessels the choice to comply with the inspection requirements of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart WW [National Emission Standards for Storage Vessels (Tanks) – Control Level 2] to satisfy the requirements of §§60.112b-60.117b in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Kb.  U.S. EPA took comments on the proposed revision until November 30.

Currently, under the requirements of 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Kb, there are inspection procedures for IFR and EFR tanks to check for defects in the floating roof, seal, and deck fittings.  The required inspection involves the draining and degassing of the tank, followed by visual inspection of the primary seal, floating roof, and secondary seal (if one is in service).  For IFR tanks, this inspection must be conducted at least once every ten years.  For EFR tanks, an inspection must be conducted each time the tank is emptied and degassed.  Draining and degassing costs both time and money and causes VOC emissions.  However, the option to comply using procedures in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart WW would eliminate the need to drain and degas the tank prior to a visual inspection.

40 CFR Part 63, Subpart WW was written to be referenced by other regulations to control air emissions from storage vessels and is considered by U.S. EPA as the flagship standard for EFR and IFR requirements under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).  Other regulations that rely on the provisions in Subpart WW include 40 CFR Part 63, Subparts YY, EEEE, and FFFF.  Under the inspection requirements for floating roof tanks codified in Subpart WW, visual inspections are performed to determine that the floating roof is sealed, all components are intact, no stored liquid is above the floating roof, all components that are required to be closed are closed and the floating roof is floating.  This inspection only requires “visual access” to all deck components in order to be performed, meaning there is no requirement to drain the tank.

To summarize, if the proposed changes are finalized, owners and operators of facilities with specific EFR and IFR that are subject to Subpart Kb will be given the choice to comply with the testing requirements of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart WW to satisfy the requirements of §§60.112b-60.117b in Subpart Kb.  A notification would be required prior to conducting the first Subpart WW inspection.  Owners of applicable facilities can save money and reduce VOC emissions if they choose to comply with Subpart WW.  U.S. EPA estimates these provisions will save about $1 million per year across the country and prevent up to 83 tons per year of VOC emissions associated with emptying and degassing tanks at an estimated 385 facilities.

If you have any questions concerning the proposed changes to Subpart Kb, contact us.

Air Quality Permitting of Emergency Generators Located at Northern Virginia Data Centers

Because of the infrastructure put into place decades ago, the Northern Virginia region has developed into a hub for data centers.  Due to the critical nature of data centers remaining operational at all times, their presence naturally brings along with it a sizable influx of emergency generators (EGs).  In fact, it’s not uncommon to see a new data center campus install 50-100 EGs.  Existing facilities may seek to add additional EGs in order to increase the capacity of their facility and serve additional customers.  As these facilities continue to be built and expanded, the Northern Regional Office (NRO) of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) has added some requirements to the air permit application process and created new boilerplate language for permits.  Data centers need to be aware of these changes, as some of these changes can delay obtaining a permit and the installation and operation of EGs if they are not accounted for at the beginning of a project.  The air permitting changes are primarily applicable to EGs at data centers in the Northern Virginia region; however, some of the requirements may be included in new air permits for EGs at non-data center facilities in the Northern Virginia region.  EGs located at facilities outside the Northern Virginia region may see similar changes included in their air permits at some point in the future, but this is not the case at the time of publication.  A more detailed look at what’s included in these changes is provided below.

Guess Who’s BACT

When a project involving the installation of EGs requires air permitting due to the increase in potential to emit (i.e., the maximum amount of emissions from the operation of a facility’s equipment), facilities must use the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to control emissions from new equipment.  In the past, when it came to demonstrating that an EG would be using BACT for the control of NO_X emissions, the “standard procedure” was to do a top-down BACT analysis. This involved identifying available control technologies, evaluating technical and economic feasibility of each technology, and then using that information to determine the highest level of control available that would still be cost-effective to install and operate.  The exception to this was if the maximum NO_X emissions rate for an EG was no greater than 6.0 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr), as this was considered to be presumptive BACT, and a top-down BACT analysis for NO_X would not be required.  Often the top-down BACT analysis would result in add-on control technologies being found technically feasible but economically infeasible.  This would then result in Good Operating Practices (e.g., following manufacturer recommendations and using ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel) being selected as BACT and memorialized as air permit conditions, even if the maximum NO_X emissions rate was greater than 6.0 g/bhp-hr.  However in the last couple of years, VADEQ NRO has determined that, given the number of EGs that can meet the 6.0 g/bhp-hr presumptive BACT limit, approval for a higher hourly limit would be rare and all new data center EGs must not exceed the 6.0 g/bhp-hr NO_X emissions level.  EGs installed at data centers can be quite large, and it may be difficult to find larger EGs where the not-to-exceed data from the manufacturer does not exceed 6.0 g/bhp-hr for NO_X.  This doesn’t necessarily mean there is no way to obtain an air permit for these EGs.  There are ways to meet this BACT limit, but coordination with the engine manufacturer is needed.  These options include:

• Setting the presumptive BACT limit of 6.0 g/bhp-hr as the engine NO_X limit (with assurances that the engine will pass a stack test to minimize risk of non-compliance),
• Programming the engine with a U.S. EPA-approved NO_X optimized fuel curve to reduce emissions to meet the 6.0 g/bhp-hr limit, or
• Accepting an output capacity limit on the engine.

Data centers should be aware of the BACT limitation prior to applying for a permit with VADEQ so that changes do not have to be made to the engine during the permitting process.  It is beneficial to complete an emissions analysis prior to permitting to see if the engine chosen would require a change to meet the presumptive BACT limit.

Don’t Test Your Limits, Limit Your Tests!

Recent permits have included more stringent limits on scheduled maintenance checks and readiness testing activities (MC/RT), including specific emissions limits for these types of activities as a subset of the overall emissions limits for the EGs.  In order to set limits, VADEQ may request an approximate schedule of planned facility maintenance, such as monthly load testing for EGs and annual blackout tests.  This will be requested during the permit application process to ensure the limits will be acceptable to both the facility and to VADEQ.  Because the manufacturer recommendations for MC/RT activities should be used to determine the schedule of planned facility maintenance, VADEQ may also ask for a copy of the recommendations as well.

It’s the Reason for the (Ozone) Season

Because of the impact strong sunlight has on the formation of ground-level ozone, the concentration of ground-level ozone typically peaks during the warmer months of the year.  The emissions produced by EGs also contribute to this process.  Therefore, between May 1 and September 30 each year, the newer EG permits restrict facilities from performing non-emergency activities (such as scheduled maintenance, readiness testing, stack testing, or operator training that involves fuel combustion) between the hours of 7 AM to 5 PM unless a variance is received from the VADEQ Air Compliance Manager.  This includes running the EGs for initial testing and commissioning activities (referred to as the Integrational Operational Period).  However, recent permits have language specific to the Integrational Operational period that allows for daytime operation without petitioning VADEQ, as long as the Air Quality Index (AQI) for that day is less than or equal to 100.  If a facility chooses to perform these activities during the hours of 7 AM to 5 PM between May 1 and September 30, the permit will require them to keep additional records of these activities and measured and forecasted AQI conditions.

If you have questions about air permitting or compliance for EGs at data centers in Northern Virginia, please reach out to our team at info@all4inc.com or 610-933-5246