Recap of the CAPCA 2021 Spring Regulatory Update

The Carolinas Air Pollution Control Association (CAPCA) hosted a virtual workshop on April 8, 2021 that included regulatory updates from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC), and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ), and an industry regulatory outlook.  Highlights from the workshop are summarized in this article.

U.S. EPA Update

The U.S. EPA update was provided by Caroline Yvette Freeman, Director of the Region IV Air and Radiation Division.  U.S. EPA has a new Administrator, Michael Regan (formerly the NC DEQ Secretary), and Region IV has a new Acting Administrator, John Blevins. Caroline noted that all areas in NC and SC are designated attainment for all the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), although there are a few non-attainment areas in other Region IV states.

Some of the current focus areas for U.S. EPA include:

  • Reviewing information that will be incorporated into state implementation plans (SIPs) that address reasonable further progress for the second implementation period of the Regional Haze Rule that are due July 31, 2021.
  • Evaluating next steps to prepare a plan to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide from electric generating units (EGUs) following vacatur of the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule that previously replaced the Clean Power Plan (CPP).
  • A proposal to expand the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), Subpart O – Ethylene Oxide Emissions Standards for Sterilization Facilities information collection request (ICR) to all facilities subject to the rule. The new ICR is expected to be issued later in Spring of 2021.
  • Addressing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
  • Piloting and launching of an electronic permits system to standardize U.S. EPA’s air permit review process, addressing recurring permit quality issues, and to assisting agencies issuing permits. Caroline noted that this system will ultimately replace the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse.

SC DHEC Update

The SC DHEC update was provided by Rhonda Thompson, Chief of the Bureau of Air Quality (BAQ). Rhonda welcomed DHEC’s new director, Dr. Edward Simmer, and announced that Denise Hall is the new manager of the Air Toxics Section.  DHEC staff were productive while working at home, and have returned to the office as of April 5, 2021.

Proposed Amendments to the Regulation 61-62, Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards have been released via a Notice of Drafting and the 30-day comment period ended April 26, 2021.  SC DHEC proposes to amend their regulations to incorporate federal amendments that were promulgated in 2020, including U.S. EPA’s clarification of Project Emissions Accounting within the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) standards that was published in the Federal Register on November 24, 2020.

SC DHEC continues to make progress on the ePermitting online platform that currently supports programs such as Asbestos, Stormwater, and Wastewater, with air quality expected to go live in late 2021.  Until then, signed permit applications can still be sent via email to airpermitting@dhec.sc.gov.  Even with more electronic submittal options coming available, SC DHEC requires that hard copy air permit applications with original signatures be submitted at this time.  Additionally, BAQ released the updated Construction Permit Application Forms in March 2021, with use of the updated forms required by May 28, 2021.

The U.S. EPA awarded SC a grant to fund continued work on an air toxics monitoring project in the Charleston, SC area to monitor and characterize concentrations of ethylene oxide.  SC DHEC began collecting samples in October 2019 with objectives of community engagement and education by sharing results and estimated health risks.  With award of the grant, the work is expected to continue through 2022.

NC DEQ Update

The NC DEQ update was provided by Mike Abraczinskas, Director of the Division of Air Quality (DAQ). There have been many staffing updates at DAQ, including new DEQ Secretary Dionne Delli-Gatti, new Acting Assistant Secretary Sushma Masemore, new Raleigh Regional Supervisor Taylor Hartsfield, and Mark Cuilla’s permanent appointment as the DAQ Permitting Section Chief.  These updates impact the DAQ contacts for addressing air permitting and compliance submittals to the Raleigh Region and the Central Office.  With staff working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic, DAQ has increased issuance of Title V Permits and has maintained a steady pace in conducting compliance inspections virtually.  Community engagement and environmental justice has also been a focus at DAQ. To learn more about What’s New from NC DAQ, see Philip Crawford’s related article.

Regulatory Outlook for Industry

Preston Howard with North Carolina Manufacturers Alliance, John Wall with South Carolina Manufacturers Alliance, and Tim Hunt with American Forest & Paper Association provided an industry perspective on the regulatory outlook.  With the change in administration, there has been a refocus on climate-related issues, increased focus on environmental justice, and uncertainty related to the NAAQS and air quality permitting.  The U.S. EPA retained the Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS in late 2020; however, litigation has been held in abeyance while the current administration determines whether it will grant reconsideration of those actions.  Some environmental groups have pushed to lower the NAAQS and there are questions on whether environmental justice or climate considerations will be included by U.S. EPA in their review.  The NSR Project Emissions Accounting Rule and “once-in-always-in” have also been held in abeyance, impacting the direction of permitting decisions and how this may be addressed in SIPs (e.g. SC).  It will be important to track the U.S. EPA’s progress on these rules during capital project planning. Resulting changes to permitting requirements could also influence project timeline and decision making.

I look forward to hearing more on U.S. EPA’s progress and the state agency updates in person (hopefully) at the CAPCA technical workshop in Myrtle Beach in October 2021. If you have questions regarding air permitting and compliance in North or South Carolina, please reach out to Claire Corta at ccorta@all4inc.com or 919-578-4195.

Meet Stewart McCollam

Stewart McCollam // Technical Manager // Louisville, KY Office

The Kentucky team onboarded to ALL4 as part of a 4Q2020 acquisition, what impact has that had on you and your clients?

Being part of an organization that is nationally recognized has provided additional technical resources in supporting our clients, particularly on complex air permitting projects. In general we’ve been able to expand our offerings to clients at the local level, and expand our support and resources to the clients who have facilities outside of our region.

Complete this sentence, “People know Stewart McCollam as someone who…”

K-N-O-W-S the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (LMAPCD) rules and regulations inside and out. I worked for LMAPCD as a Permit Engineer from 2009-2014, so I better know them well!

Understand that you are cohosting an upcoming webinar with Christina Lynch. Can you provide a sneak peek on what the topic will be?

Sure can! We are hosting a webinar in the middle of June focused on the alcoholic beverage industry (large and small) to educate them on the permitting and planning requirements across environmental program areas in air, waste, and water. Our goal is to stock people’s bars with environmental knowledge during the webinar. (I know, cheap joke!) The content we plan to share will have something for everyone. With the continued expansion of bourbon, craft beer, hard cider, and more recently hard seltzer drinks, more and more facilities (including small production facilities) have obligations to obtain air permits prior to construction, financial incentives to minimize wastewater discharges, and emerging challenges to meet corporate sustainability goals. Our goal is to bring awareness to individuals in the alcoholic beverage industry of potential requirements they may need to take a second look at.

What would people be surprised to learn about you? 

I have a passion for music and listen to a lot of music! My vinyl record collection currently consists of more than 1,200 records. Some of my favorite artists include Tom Petty, John Prine, and the Talking Heads.

ALL4’s Kentucky offices are doing some recruiting for Staff Engineer/Scientists positions, what colleges and universities in the area are you targeting?

ALL4 has offices in Lexington and Louisville which puts us in proximity to multiple universities (University of Louisville, University of Kentucky, Eastern Kentucky University, and Murray State University) with strong engineering, occupational health and safety, and industrial hygiene programs. Majors in these programs tend to be a good fit for the technical work that we perform and we will be actively recruiting students this fall.

Kentucky Derby is right around the corner, how do you celebrate?

Traditionally we co-host/host a party with a few of our friends and family. This year we are doing a small, outdoor, and socially distanced event. The celebration includes getting dressed up (hats are a big accessory), betting on the ponies, and barbequing. It’s not your conventional barbeque menu but instead, Derby Day mainstays like smoked Burgoo (hearty soup with beef, lamb, and chicken) and smoked bacon mini hot brown sliders. And we can’t forget the Derby-theme cocktails…. The Oaks Lily, Kentucky Mules, and Derby Day Mint Juleps! You can usually find me serving in the Lead Grill Master role which is something that I enjoy doing in my free time (especially during football season).

Tips to Prepare for Audits, Tests, and Inspections

With the various kinds of field support and audits that may be required by your facility’s operating permit, such as U.S. EPA Method 9 Visible Emissions (VE) testing, stack testing, Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) inspections, and Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) storage container inspections, getting prepared can be a daunting task, especially since this is not an exhaustive list. Here are some tips to help you prepare for your upcoming audit, test, or inspection.

The first thing that will prepare you for your upcoming site visit is making sure the consultant is aware of their environment, keeping safety a top priority. Inform your consultant of any required safety trainings before they come on-site and provide them with a list of required and recommended personal protective equipment (PPE). Consider sending them a detailed site map featuring equipment locations and pedestrian walkways, if possible. This will help them be mindful of the equipment and machinery operated on site and the hazards they present (e.g., hot piping, forklift traffic, combustible dust, and reactors and storage tanks containing hazardous materials), as well as get a general idea of potential blind spots and the direction of pedestrian and equipment traffic at your facility. With regards to hazardous chemicals, it is important to be knowledgeable of the potential hazards of any compounds you will be working with or around. Consider providing your consultant with a list of chemicals produced or used on-site and any available safety data sheets (SDSs) and asking that they read through them before coming on-site. Have them pay special attention to the hazard symbols and inform them of any risk mitigation procedures in place for spills and leaks. Also, be sure to pay attention to the weather conditions around the site on the day of the site visit, and reschedule if inclement weather will present an unnecessary hazard; for example, performing a U.S. EPA Method 9 inspection or stack testing during a thunderstorm would pose a hazard to the inspectors.

Having a technical understanding of the service you are receiving is also crucial to increasing your preparedness. Regulatory agencies will sometimes consider data invalid if the equipment being used during the test or inspection is not properly operated or calibrated. Taking some time beforehand to make sure you and your consultant are familiar with the types of equipment being used, as well as how to properly calibrate, could potentially save you from a massive headache later. Consider providing your consultant with instruction manuals for any relevant equipment before they come on-site. Knowledge of the specific regulations (e.g., Various subparts of 40 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 63, as well as 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A for LDAR, 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A for U.S. EPA Method 9, and 40 CFR Part 112 for SPCC inspections) under which the testing is being conducted is also very important. Your operating permit will define what kinds of testing are required and the test methods that must be followed, so be sure to check the permit to confirm what services you need. This is especially key for emissions tests, where some pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter, have several different test methods defined in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A.

Make sure to take some time to inform your consultant about the specific process they will be working with and how the equipment fits in. Provide your consultant with a list of on-site equipment relevant to the service they will be providing and let them know if there is anything that they will need to supply. Be aware of the differences between similar types of equipment. For example, flame ionization detectors (FIDs) and photo ionization detectors (PIDs) can both produce a volatile organic compound (VOC) reading during an LDAR inspection; however, of these two, only a FID can detect methane, so if your facility is being inspected for natural gas leaks, a PID cannot be used. Providing details on your process is also essential so that the consultant knows when to conduct the test and collect data; for example, you cannot conduct an LDAR test on a nitrogen-purged line because it will interfere with the accuracy of the VOC reading, so being aware of when the line being worked on is typically purged will save you from having to repeat the test. Some inspections and tests require you to have certain qualifications to perform them, such as Smoke School for U.S. EPA Method 9 tests and Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard (HAZWOPER) for anything involving hazardous materials. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure everyone involved is certified to perform the service you need before coming on-site.

In summary, you can make sure you’re prepared for your next audit, test, or inspection by taking the following steps:

  1. Make sure your consultant is aware of and comfortable with their environment by informing them of any required safety trainings, as well as any hazards associated with on-site equipment and chemicals, and by paying attention to weather conditions in your area on the day of the visit.
  2. Have a technical understanding of the support you’re receiving by making sure you and your consultant are familiar with the types of equipment used and any applicable regulations.
  3. Provide your consultant with details surrounding your process and any equipment you have on-site that is relevant to the task they will be performing.
  4. Make sure all personnel coming on-site have obtained any qualifications necessary to be able to perform the service you are needing.

 

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at kwalburn@all4inc.com or at (678) 599-9011.

 

Environmental Justice Policy in the U.S.

Since the Biden administration took office on January 20th, the topic of Environmental Justice (EJ), along with Climate Change, has jumped to the forefront of the U.S. Environmental Agenda. It seems like almost every communication from the administration related to the environment now addresses EJ directly, and appointments to the Biden Cabinet are staff who have expertise in EJ.

Before we get into it, what is Environmental Justice? There are several different definitions used by the states across the US, but the most common is:

“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.”

Along with that definition comes the concept of “overburdened communities”, or communities of minority, low-income, or indigenous populations that experience disproportionate environmental harm or risk. It seems like only a matter of time until formal legislation addressing EJ on a national scale is enacted. While we wait for the rulemaking to begin, let’s look at where the administration appears to be heading.

The Biden Administration, “Justice 40” and the CLEAN Future Act

At the federal level, EJ is to be at the heart the administration’s All-of-Government approach, which means that Environmental Justice must be considered in all government policy and purchase agreements. In the January 27th Executive Order announcing much of the administration’s environmental agenda, what has become known as the Justice 40 plan was announced, which targets clean energy investments with the goal of delivering 40 percent of the benefit to overburdened communities. Also supporting the order from the 27th would be the proposed Environmental Justice Mapping and Data Act, designed to provide a legislative framework and funding to support the Justice 40 plan and other EJ goals. Since the executive order on the 27th, U.S. EPA has also released a new version of the EJSCREEN tool. EJSCREEN is an EJ mapping and screening tool with national coverage that provides demographic and environmental information in the form of indicators that can be used to create EJ indexes to help inform decisions related to whether a community is overburdened.  Amongst other changes, the update adds 2 new indicators related to climate change: flooding and sea rise, again solidifying the administrations linkage between the issues of EJ and climate change. The administration has committed to integrate the tool into the development of EJ regulations in the next 6 months. On March 30th, the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC) held their first virtual public meeting to discuss topics around the Justice 40 plan and the EJ aspects of January 27th executive order, and announced the next two meetings, to be held on April 28th and May 13th. Additionally, the new U.S. EPA Administrator, Michael Regan, has made it clear to all U.S. EPA offices that they should prioritize EJ issues and step up monitoring and enforcement in EJ communities.

The draft legislation developed by House Democrats, the CLEAN Future Act, has significant provisions related to Environmental Justice:

  • Defines an overburdened census tract, which is a census tract that:
    • Has been identified within the National Air Toxics Assessment published by the Administrator as having a greater than 100 in 1,000,000 total cancer risk: or
    • Has been determined to have an annual mean concentration of PM2.5 of greater than 8 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3), as determined over the most recent 3-year period for which data are available.
  • After the date of enactment of the CLEAN Future Act, no permit shall be granted by a permitting authority for a proposed major source that would be in an overburdened census tract.
  • After January 1, 2025, no permit for a major source in an overburdened census tract shall be renewed.

The potential impact of this rule, if enacted, would be enormous: A large percentage of the United States, including most industrial areas, has an annual mean PM2.5 concentration greater that the 8 µg/m3 threshold, meaning that no permitting of major sources in those areas would be allowed, and no permit could be renewed after January 2025. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s environment and climate change subcommittee held a hearing on the CLEAN Future Act, as well as 10 additional bills related to EJ, on April 15th. The purpose of the hearing was to discuss proposals for inclusion in the American Jobs Plan proposed by the Biden administration with “climate justice” at the center of the issue, a further indication of the administration’s linkage between EJ and climate change.

In our view it is unlikely that legislation as stringent as the CLEAN Future Act will be enacted in the near future, however we should pay close attention to the evolution of this Act and the other proposed EJ legislature.

State Activities

While the federal government gets organized around their EJ programs, many states have been beginning development of regulations that integrate EJ into their permitting processes. To date only one, New Jersey, has passed such legislation, but much more is coming. Of the many states that are developing EJ rules or forming commissions to begin the process, California may be the farthest along, having unveiled proposed rule AB1001, which would directly establish additional requirements for permitting for facilities near communities identified as overburdened. Some of the key features include:

  • Mandates the upgrade of CalEnviroScreen, the state’s proprietary EJ screening tool. CalEnviroScreen is a more detailed took than the federal government’s EJSCREEN and it is expected that it will be used as the prototype to significantly upgrade EJSCREEN in the near future as part of the Biden administration’s plans to formally integrate the tool into their EJ policy.
  • Use EJ indicators from CalEnviroScreen during siting and permit applications to identify affected EJ Communities.
  • Require the state to publish and maintain a list of overburdened communities.
  • By July 2022, permit applicants must perform an “environmental justice impact statement (EJIS),” conduct a public hearing in the overburdened community, and submit the EJIS to the permitting agency, which would then deny, or require additional conditions to the permit if it determined that the overburdened community will be impacted more than others.

What’s next, and what can you do?

At ALL4, we believe that we’re only seeing the tip of the iceberg on EJ regulatory actions. We have been tracking activity at both the state and federal level and will continue to do so to be ready to help our clients address any EJ issues that may arise.  The next big related federal deadline is May 27th, when government agencies are required to submit their recommendations for compliance with the Justice 40 plan. We expect to start seeing more formal federal regulatory activities related to EJ after that.  Meanwhile we also expect to see more states proposing formal EJ rules with the support of the Biden Administration, especially those states that implement a progressive environmental regulatory approach.  Our current advice includes:

  • Keep tabs on regulatory and policy developments on the state and federal level. Know how your state or local agency is considering EJ in permitting. Be prepared to comment on proposed rules when the opportunity arises.
  • Know your facility’s EJ footprint: Are your plants close to overburdened communities? What is your company’s relationship with adjacent communities?
  • Plan to factor in time for enhanced outreach and potential permitting delays during expansion projects at facilities near EJ communities.
  • Public awareness is at an all-time high. Stay ahead of the curve by improving your confidence in your emissions inventory and engaging with your community.
  • Keep accurate records of emissions for “hot topic” pollutants such as PM2.5, ethylene oxide, benzene, and PFAS.

If you have concerns about the potential implications of EJ Policies and Regulations and you’d like to discuss them, feel free to contact your ALL4 Project Manager or Rich Hamel. We’d be happy to share what we’ve learned so far and what we’re hearing is just over the horizon and assist you in any way we can.

CAERS Update for Georgia: Fuel Materials and Best Practices

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GEPD) opened the Combined Air Emissions Reporting System (CAERS) for reporting of calendar year (CY) 2020 emissions in Georgia on Monday, March 8th, 2021.  If you are not familiar with CAERS, please check out our other blogs that explain the system, new features for CY2020 reporting, and what U.S. EPA and GEPD have been working on behind the scenes.  If you are already familiar with CAERS, keep on reading to learn what’s new for CY2020 and some of ALL4’s recommended best practices for annual or triennial reporting!

 

New for CY2020: Reporting of Fuel Materials

A new feature for reporting of fuels this year is the incorporation of Fuel Material, Fuel Value (i.e., fuel usage), Heat Content, and unit of measure fields for combustion sources in addition to the existing throughput fields.  Starting in CY2020, combustion sources are required to enter all fuel information, in addition to the emissions unit’s throughput.  However, if your unit’s only throughput is fuel, CAERS has the ability to automatically copy/paste the fuel data as the throughput information and auto-calculate annual emissions.  Two examples of how this feature could or could not be used in your annual reporting are detailed below:

  • If you operate a natural gas-fired package boiler that uses AP-42 emissions factors in terms of million standard cubic feet (MMSCF), you can enter natural gas usage as MMSCF into the fuel fields. Select the “Copy Fuel Data to Throughput Data Fields” button to automatically copy/paste fuel information into the throughput fields and watch as CAERS automatically recalculates your annual emissions based on the new data.
  • If you operate a natural gas-fired wood dryer that uses emissions factors based on the amount of wood dried (i.e., tons of wood), you will enter the natural gas information and usage into the fuel fields. However, you will also enter the annual amount of wood dried into the throughput fields and will not use the “Copy Fuel Data to Throughput Data Fields” button to automatically copy/paste any data.  CAERS will automatically recalculate your annual emissions when you have entered the wood dried throughput into the throughput fields.

Top 3 Best Practices for CAERS Reporting

  1. Immediately perform the CAERS quality assurance check when you start your CY2020 annual emissions reporting.  The errors and warnings displayed by the quality assurance check will be the quickest way to track and make any corrections that are required.
  2. For any errors received during the CAERS quality assurance check, fix errors using the CAERS user interface prior to downloading your facility’s bulk upload template for bulk data entry (i.e., throughputs, emissions factors, annual emissions, etc.).  The CAERS user interface is easier to use for fixing errors because it is better equipped to guide users through fixing errors than the bulk upload template.  Once errors are fixed, the bulk upload template will automatically update to match the current information in CAERS (i.e., errors are corrected) when you generate a bulk upload template for your facility.
  3. You should update the year and operating status in the unit/process description for any new or decommissioned emissions units or processes from CY2020.  If there were no changes from CY2019 reporting, then no updates will be necessary to emissions unit or process status and years.
    • Please note that if an emissions unit or process was decommissioned in CY2020, you must mark the unit as “Permanently Shutdown” for CY2020 and the unit/process can be permanently deleted from CAERS during CY2021 reporting.

As a reminder, annual emissions reports in Georgia are due on June 30th.  However, if you intend to upload your reported air emissions into the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) via CAERS, you should allow yourself ample time to submit the annual emissions report before uploading into TRI, which is due July 1st.

If you have any questions about CAERS or need assistance completing your annual emissions report in CAERS, please reach out to Stacy Arner at sarner@all4inc.com or Andrew Kelley at akelley@all4inc.com.

What’s New from NC DAQ

The North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NC DAQ) recently provided an update on their recent activities to the regulated community.  Although most staff are still working from home, NC DAQ has been busy with air permitting, revising regulations, and ensuring that facilities are meeting their compliance obligations. The following is a brief summary of some of the items discussed that are important to NC facilities on a day-to-day basis.

Permitting Update 

After serving as acting Permitting Section Chief, Mark Cuilla has been named the permanent Permitting Section Chief at NC DAQ following the passing of William Willets.  Like much of NC DAQ, staff in the permitting section continue to work from home as much as possible due to COVID-19.  Although DAQ is accepting electronic submittals of permit applications, signed hard copies still need to be submitted as well.

Facilities submitting major permit applications may have experienced NC DAQ’s new “Enhanced Participation” process, which NC DAQ is using to address environmental justice (EJ).  The process applies to 1) the first time a facility applies for a Part 70 permit; 2) permits for modifications with a significant emissions increase under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program; and 3) permits at the Director’s discretion (e.g., projects in areas with existing public concerns).  If the project meets one of the three criteria, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) will perform an EJ review.  If the project is in an EJ community, NC DEQ will draft an EJ report that is sent to the facility and the public for review and comment.  NC DEQ will then assign and complete action items such as public notices, translations to Spanish, distribution of educational material, frequently asked question documents, and separate public meetings.  If a project that meets the criteria above is not in an EJ area, the Enhanced Participation process consists of a public comment period with a public hearing, if required.  NC DAQ may consider codifying the Enhanced Participation process in the future, but for now, it’s an outreach program that the Division completes within the current permitting timelines.  If you are planning a major project soon, you should consider the impact this process could have on your project timeline.

To learn more about how EJ communities are identified in North Carolina, see Steve Moore’s related article “Environmental Justice and Air Quality Permitting in the Carolinas.

Air Quality Rules Update

NC DAQ also provided updates to rule revisions the Division is working on.  A few highlights:

  • Title V Permit Fee Revision Rule – this rule would increase the annual Title V permit base fee from $7,423 to $8,775, and the tonnage fee from $34.30/ton to $40/ton.  The rule would also add “complexity” fees of $2,500 per year for “moderately complex” facilities and $7,500 per year for “highly complex” facilities [“complexity programs” are PSD, Clean Air Act 112r, Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (NSPS), and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants].  Permit application fees would also increase from $988 to $3,000 for minor modifications, $988 to $7,000 for significant 1-step modifications, and from $1,976 to $7,000 for significant 2-step modifications.  The rule was submitted to the Rules Review Commission in mid-February, but the effective date of the rule is unknown at this time because 10 letters of objection were received. Note the baseline year for the fees presented above is 2020.
  • NC DAQ is amending the existing rules in Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 2D. 1700 for consistency with the updates to 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Cf – the Emission Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills. The biggest change to the rule is that the applicability threshold based on emissions of nonmethane organic compounds has decreased from 50 megagrams per year to 34 megagrams per year (the threshold for closed landfills is still 50 megagrams per year).  The rule text has been published in the NC Register and the 60-day comment period ends April 16, 2021.  A virtual public hearing was held on March 24.  NC DAQ expects the rule to become effective in September 2021.
  • Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) State Implementation Program (SIP) Update – NC DAQ is working to re-establish state-level NOx SIP call ozone season budgets and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for electric utility steam generating units (EGUs) and non-EGUs, and removing vacated Clean Air Interstate Rule provisions.  NC DAQ is also revising rules in response to the U.S. EPA’s March 8, 2019 rule Emissions Monitoring Provisions in State Implementation Plans Required under the NOx SIP Call (84 FR 8422) to allow alternatives to NOx continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) for non-EGUs subject to the SIP call as long as a CEMS isn’t required by another rule.  The rule revisions are expected to be effective in January 2022.

Compliance Update

NC DAQ ended the meeting with a brief compliance update.  Most facilities have likely experienced a “virtual” inspection in the past year.  These virtual inspections help keep NC DAQ and facility employees safe; however, NC DAQ signaled that the Division is transitioning back to full on-site inspections.  Facilities that received a virtual inspection last year should expect to receive a follow-up on-site inspection this year.  For now, NC DAQ is still providing advanced notice for on-site inspections to allow facilities to address any necessary safety protocols, but NC DAQ made it clear that they plan to transition back to unannounced inspections once it’s safe to do so.

One of the final topics covered was incorporation of revised operating parameter limits (e.g., scrubber pressure drop and flow, boiler operating load, etc.) into facilities’ operating permits.  If you’ve received a new permit recently, you likely noticed that NC DAQ is now incorporating numerical operating parameter limits as permit conditions.  When re-establishing operating limits through stack testing, more stringent limits apply immediately and can be incorporated into your permit via an administrative amendment.  If the new operating parameter limit is less stringent than the currently permitted limit, you must apply for a permit revision in order to use the less stringent limit and you must continue to comply with your current permit limit until you obtain a new permit.

ALL4 continues to monitor developments in air quality permitting and compliance specific to North Carolina and NC DAQ.  If you have questions on any of the items above, or want to know more about how developments at NC DAQ could affect your facility, please contact Philip Crawford or your ALL4 project manager for additional information.

New Multi-Sector General Permit For Stormwater – What Does It Mean For Your State’s General Permit For Industrial Stormwater?

U.S. EPA recently issued its Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) for stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity with an effective date of March 1, 2021.  Facilities with coverage under the 2015 MSGP have until May 30, 2021 to submit a new Notice of Intent (NOI).  This new MSGP initially affects those industrial facilities in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and New Mexico whose Standard Industrial Classifications (SIC) are covered by the permit, because U.S. EPA directly manages the NPDES programs in those jurisdictions.  Those affected facilities need to submit their new NOI to the agency and evaluate the new permit for conditions that affect their work practices and the content of their Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.  However, for the rest of the country, the MSGP provides clues to your state’s future industrial stormwater permit(s).

Every five years, U.S. EPA issues a new MSGP that incorporates the “best of” new monitoring, management practices, and trends selected from state programs.  The MSGP becomes the “road map” for the states’ industrial stormwater permit changes over the next five years, when the states re-issue those permits.  Because the state industrial stormwater permits program started in the 1990’s, state industrial stormwater permits have diverged from the MSGP and do not have the same look and feel of the MSGP.  The authorizing laws at the state level allow the state agencies to be creative when it comes to alignment with the new MSGP.  Here are some examples:

  • Some states have a single MSGP (e.g., Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Georgia), while others have sector-specific general industrial stormwater permits (e.g., New Jersey, Alabama, and North Carolina).
  • The names of the permits and the associated plans vary widely – for example, Alabama uses “Best Management Practices” plan instead of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
  • The tiering of benchmark results is a process where benchmark exceedances drive additional monitoring and implementation of more controls to reduce stormwater pollutant concentration. Many states have incorporated benchmarking – but tiering of benchmark results has been limited to a few states (e.g., North Carolina and Oregon).
  • The renewal cycle for the state industrial stormwater permits can be offset from the Federal MSGP by up to five years. Additional delays can occur when industry groups file lawsuits against a proposed permit.  In an interesting twist, Tennessee renewed its previous permit, based on the 2015 federal MSGP, for 2 additional years in 2020.  That 2-year offset will allow TDEC to review and potentially incorporate these 2021 federal MSGP changes.

A number of states will renew their industrial stormwater permits over the next several months – such as South Carolina, Texas, and Pennsylvania – and will consider incorporating these new features of the MSGP:

  • Permit Streamlining by re-sequencing the permit sections (Monitoring, Corrective Actions and “Additional Implementation Measures” (AIM), and then Pollution Prevention Planning requirements) and using active voice permit language: S. EPA believes that sequencing the permit in this order will follow how readers process the requirements.  They also worded the eligibility requirements in affirmative terms versus “assumed ineligibility unless a condition was met.” (e.g., “Samples must be collected…” now reads “You must collect samples…”).  Some states will re-sequence their permit language and will use active voice (sometimes referred to as “plain language”) in their general industrial stormwater permit.  Other states that elect to stay away from benchmark tiering may adopt the “voice” without addressing the “sequence” in their permits.
  • Monitoring changes, including indicator monitoring (report only) for pH, Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) for certain subsectors that do not have benchmark monitoring requirements; indicator monitoring for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) for certain subsectors and operators; updated benchmark monitoring (values and schedule); and impaired waters monitoring:
    • Under the previous MSGP, benchmark monitoring did not apply to 45% of regulated facilities as noted by U.S. EPA in the informational webinar for this MSGP. To gather data, U.S. EPA is requiring facilities from sectors that did not have benchmark requirements to conduct “report-only” indicator monitoring for pH, TSS, and COD on a quarterly basis throughout the permit term.
    • Facilities in certain subsectors that might use or store PAHs must conduct “report-only” indicator monitoring for PAHs.
    • Under the previous MSGP, benchmark monitoring could be discontinued after four quarters with monitoring results below the benchmark threshold. This permit requires monitoring in the first and fourth year of the permit term.
    • Under the previous MSGP, facilities discharging to impaired waters monitored once/year for pollutants causing impairments to the waters and then discontinued monitoring if the pollutant is not detected or not expected in the discharge. This permit requires facilities discharging to impaired waters without a total maximum daily load (TMDL)to monitor for all pollutants causing impairment.
    • These monitoring changes are likely to receive push-back from many state agencies and from the industry groups in those states, due to their increased cost and precedent-setting nature.
  • Additional corrective action measures called AIM for benchmark monitoring exceedances in three tiers: Benchmark tiering in the 2021 MSGP forces the facility to evaluate/implement control measures and conduct on-going monitoring at baseline and higher tiers.  In the 2021 MSGP model, the facility starts with reviewing the Pollution Prevention Plan and its control measures at the first tier, implementing additional measures at the second tier, and permanent structural source and treatment controls at the third tier.  This change may be the most interesting to watch over the 5-year renewal for state industrial stormwater permit, as those states that modify the MSGP approach could actually make benchmark tiering more complicated.
  • Adding a new requirement for signage and making the SWPPP publicly available as an attachment to the NOI electronically filed or on a public website: This signage requirement is parallel to the discharge signage requirement for sites with individual permits.  In an era where the state stormwater enforcement teams are relying more and more on the public to alert them to non-compliance, this new tool for signage – and continuing to make the Pollution Prevention Plan information more publicly available – will likely be incorporated widely.
  • Addition of a new Part 2.1.1.8, which requires consideration of enhanced stormwater control measures for facilities that could be impacted by major storm events, such as hurricanes, storm surge and flood events. Examples of such enhanced stormwater control measures include elevating materials, temporarily reducing outdoor storage prior to storm events, and delaying deliveries in advance of storm events.  Some states may find this “consideration” useful, but it would be difficult to enforce implementation.

ALL4 has summarized key changes in the 2021 MSGP here, with an eye toward how states might incorporate the new MSGP features in their five-year state industrial stormwater permit renewals.  If you need help with tracking developments in stormwater permitting or development of your facility’s Pollution Prevention Plan, please reach out to Paul Hagerty at 610.422.1168 or phagerty@all4inc.com.

U.S. EPA Finalizes CSAPR Update

U.S. EPA finalized updates to their Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) on March 15 to address 22 states’ good neighbor obligations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).  The original CSAPR update was published in 2016 but found to be only a partial remedy for 21 states (Tennessee’s plan was considered to be sufficient) because it did not do enough to address upwind states’ obligations with respect to ozone transport and U.S. EPA’s analysis considered the year 2023, not 2021 (the serious area attainment date for the 2008 NAAQS).  Read our November 2020 blog for some history and a detailed discussion on the analysis performed for the current update rule.

The March 2021 final CSAPR update addresses good neighbor obligations for those 21 states, finding that 9 states’ implementation plans are sufficient (Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin) and finalizing amendments to 12 states’ plans (Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia).  U.S. EPA is issuing new or amended Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) for these 12 states to replace their existing CSAPR NOx Ozone Season Group 2 emissions budgets for electricity generating units (EGUs) with revised budgets via a new CSAPR NOx Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program.

The enhanced control stringency represented by the new EGU NOx ozone season emission budgets for the 12 states will take effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, which corresponds to the effective date of the rule as a whole. U.S. EPA determined that optimization of existing selective catalytic reduction (SCR) controls and existing selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) controls and installation of state-of-the-art NOx combustion controls at EGUs are cost effective means of reducing downwind impacts. Due to timing considerations, requirements for installation of state-of-the-art combustion controls will not take effect until the 2022 ozone season. U.S. EPA is further adjusting the states’ emission budgets for each ozone season from 2022 to 2024 to incentivize ongoing operation of identified NOx emission controls to address significant contribution, until such time that air quality projections demonstrate resolution of the downwind nonattainment and/or maintenance problems for the 2008 ozone NAAQS at the four identified monitors (three in Connecticut and one in Texas).  Table I.B-1 in the preamble lists the 2021-2024 budgets by state.

What’s next?  EPA will look at whether further reductions are necessary to address compliance with the 2015 ozone NAAQS, which could include controls for non-EGUs.  The emissions and controls information available for non-EGUs is based on what states report to the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) and is not as complete as the information available for EGUs.  However, U.S. EPA will likely refine its current analysis of what emissions reductions are available from various industrial sectors and emissions unit types, determine the cost of the reductions, and then determine if the identified cost-effective emissions reductions are needed to make progress toward attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in downwind states.  If you have any questions about the CSAPR update, please reach out to Amy Marshall.

Checking in on New York’s Air Toxics Program: Part 212

The goal of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (NYSDEC’s) air program is to protect the public and the environment from the adverse effects of exposure to air contaminants.  As part of this protection, Title 6 Part 212 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations (NYCRR) includes regulations applicable to process operations at stationary sources of emissions.

Since the last time we looked at Part 212, NYSDEC has proposed some changes to DAR-1 (Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Ambient Contaminants under Part 212), which provides guidance on how to comply with the requirements of the Part 212 regulations. Most importantly, the proposed changes tightened the guideline concentrations on some non-criteria pollutants and added others. NYSDEC took public comments until February 22nd, 2021 and we now await the final rule update. The changes to DAR-1 include:

  • A number of clarifications and revised text to make the requirements clearer.
  • A revision to Subpart 212-1.4(k) related to facilities in the iron and steel industry that removes the exemption for those toxics defined at the highest risk level.
  • A revision to Subpart 212-1.5(e)(2) to include an alternate toxic impact assessment method that does not require modeling. Specifically, process emission sources subject to the Federal National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) under 40 CFR Part 61 or 63 may now demonstrate compliance by meeting a mass emission limit specified in Subpart 212-2.2, Table 2 for the non-criteria pollutant in question.
  • The guideline concentrations for benzyne and ethylene oxide were lowered significantly.
  • Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) has been added as a High Toxicity Air contaminant (HTAC), the first of the Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to be regulated under Part 212.

As a refresher, the Part 212 regulations achieve public and environmental protection via assessments of emissions control technologies and through an assessment of site-specific emissions and resulting ambient air concentration levels.  There are three groups of air contaminants for process sources that include pollutants with a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (i.e., NAAQS or criteria pollutant), High Toxicity Air Contaminant (HTAC), and other non-criteria/HTAC air contaminants The program codified in Title 6 Part 212 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations (NYCRR) requires an analysis to determine how much control is needed to reduce air emissions to concentration levels such that human health is not adversely impacted.  Although the Part 212 regulations have been in place for some time, NYSDEC has become more diligent in making sure facilities are addressing it with permit modifications and renewals.

Part 212 regulates air pollutant and air contaminant emissions from emissions sources associated with any process operations at facilities in the state of New York. For the purposes of the rule, the definition of process operation is:

“Any industrial, institutional, commercial, agricultural or other activity, operation, manufacture or treatment in which chemical, biological and/or physical properties of the material or materials are changed, or in which the material(s) is conveyed or stored without changing the material(s) if the conveyance or storage system is equipped with a vent(s) and is non-mobile, and that emits air contaminants to the outdoor atmosphere. A process operation does not include an open fire, operation of a combustion installation, or incineration of refuse other than by-products or wastes from a process operation(s).”

To assist regulated facilities with understanding Part 212 regulations, the Division of Air Resources developed DAR -1, which provides guidance on how to comply with the requirements of the Part 212 regulations. Prior to the pending update, the last time DAR-1 was updated was in August 2016. DAR-1 outlines the control requirements for the emissions of each air contaminant based on an assigned Environmental Rating and provides guidance for implementing the regulation.

Part 212 applies to all facilities with process operations, whether they have Title V permits, State Facility permits, or have Minor Facility Registrations:

(1) upon issuance of a new or modified permit or registration for a facility containing process emission sources and/or emission points;

(2) upon issuance of a renewal for an existing permit or registration.

Some process operations are exempted from the rule as described in Subpart 212.4 as they are regulated by other rules that take precedence. Additionally, 40 CFR Part 60 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and 40 CFR Part 61 and 63 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) sources may be considered in compliance with Part 212 under certain conditions as described in the Part 212 regulation for those pollutants covered under those rules.

Facilities that are regulated under Part 212 must evaluate the amount of their air contaminant emissions, including criteria, HTAC, and non-criteria/non-HTAC compounds. For those contaminants on the HTAC list, the emissions rate in pound per year (lb/year) is compared to the threshold given in Part 212 Subpart 2.2 Table 2 to determine if the regulations apply. For those air toxics emitted as part of the process operation but not listed in the HTAC table, a threshold of 100 lb/year is used for assessing regulatory applicability.

For those air contaminants for which the emission thresholds are exceeded, the following steps are required to demonstrate compliance:

  1. Perform an air modeling screening analysis for the air contaminant using U.S. EPA’s AERSCREEN air dispersion model.
  2. Should the screening analysis not demonstrate compliance, perform refined air dispersion modeling using U.S. EPA’s AERMOD air dispersion model. When refined modeling is required, an air modeling protocol proposing the methodology to be used in the AERMOD demonstration must be submitted to NYSDEC and approved before the modeling can be executed.
  3. If compliance with Part 212 cannot be demonstrated with air dispersion modeling at the current emissions rates, a more stringent permit limit must be taken to bring concentrations below the applicable Short-term and Annual Guideline Concentrations (SGC/AGC) or the installation of additional controls may be required.

Facilities that are performing a Part 212 analysis during a permit renewal process are also often required to perform 1-hour nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and 24-hour and annual particulate matter with a diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) demonstrations if the facility has not been required to do one since those NAAQS were promulgated, in 2010 and 2012, respectively.

How can ALL4 help?

ALL4 air quality experts are actively involved in helping facilities in New York demonstrate compliance with Part 212. Determining the applicability of the regulation, characterizing the sources and emissions that are affected, and completing the required air dispersion modeling demonstration can be a challenge, especially given the low thresholds of many of the HTACs. If your facility’s permit or registration is nearing time to renew, or you are planning a project that requires a permit modification, ALL4 can help:

  • Determine whether your facility has a process operation that is subject to Part 212.
  • Quantify your toxics emissions and sources to determine which need to be evaluated to show compliance with the rule.
  • Perform an AERSCREEN modeling analysis to assess compliance for each applicable toxic.
  • For those toxics for which the AERSCREEN analysis is unsuccessful, perform refined modeling using the AERMOD dispersion model to show compliance.
  • Work with you to determine control requirements or other ways to reduce emissions to bring the facility into compliance should modeling show concentrations above the thresholds.
  • Perform NO2 and/or PM5 modeling if NSYDEC has also asked for those analyses.

In ALL4’s experience, AERSCREEN often overstates concentration levels because of the screening meteorology it uses that is designed to replicate worst case dispersion conditions. As a result, we find that in most cases facilities that have to demonstrate compliance with Part 212 air dispersion modeling will need to go to AERMOD. Typically, we would suggest skipping the AERSCREEN analysis and straight to AERMOD refined modeling. However, since DAR-1 requires an air modeling protocol be submitted to NYSDEC before AERMOD can be used to satisfy the Part 212 requirements, which requires additional time and effort to gain approval, and because in the course of setting up the AERMOD analysis most of the information required for AERSCREEN is generated as part of that process, we recommend trying AERSCREEN first to confirm that a refined air dispersion modeling analysis is required..

If you’d like to discuss whether your facility is subject to Part 212 as part of an upcoming renewal or modification, feel free to contact your ALL4 Project Manager or Rich Hamel. We’d be happy to share what we’ve learned in our experiences with this regulation and assist you in any way we can.

    4 THE RECORD EMAIL SUBSCRIPTIONS

    Sign up to receive 4 THE RECORD articles here. You'll get timely articles on current environmental, health, and safety regulatory topics as well as updates on webinars and training events.
    First Name: *
    Last Name: *
    Location: *
    Email: *

    Skip to content