U.S. EPA’s Game Plan for ELGs Outlined in Preliminary Plan 15

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) released the Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 15 (Preliminary Plan 15) on September 8, 2021. Section 304(m) of the Clean Water Act requires U.S. EPA to publish biennially plans for new and revised Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs), which are national regulatory standards for wastewater discharged to surface waters and publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). Preliminary Plan 15 discusses the status of U.S. EPA’s analyses, studies, and rulemakings related to ELGs since the publication of Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 14 on October 24, 2019 and its finalization on January 11, 2021.

U.S. EPA is continuing to take actions to understand and reduce the risks related to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). In Preliminary Plan 15, U.S. EPA describes its plans for revising ELGs to address PFAS. U.S. EPA’s plans include:

  • Rulemaking to revise the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) ELGs to address PFAS discharges from facilities manufacturing PFAS and the Metal Finishing ELGs to address PFAS discharges from chromium electroplating facilities. Revisions to the OCPSF ELGs means new or upgraded treatment technologies may be required such as granular activated carbon, reverse osmosis filtration, or ion exchange.
  • Conducting detailed studies on PFAS in wastewater discharges from landfills and textile and carpet manufacturers.
  • No significant action was recommended to address PFAS discharges for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard facilities and Commercial Airports.

Other rulemaking priorities described by U.S. EPA in Preliminary Plan 15 include:

  • Supplemental rulemaking to strengthen the Steam Electric Power Generating ELGs. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated portions of the 2020 rule pertaining to “legacy” wastewater and combustion residual leachate and remanded them back to U.S. EPA. U.S. EPA plans to publish a proposed rule in Fall 2022. We expect the revised ELGs may be more restrictive and require upgrades to treatment technologies such as biological treatment systems and membrane treatment systems.
  • Conduct rulemaking to revise the Meat and Poultry Products (MPP) ELGs after finishing a study of the MPP Point Source Category (PSC). The study found that rulemaking may be appropriate to address high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous, wastewater discharged to POTWs, and environmental justice considerations. The MPP ELGs were last updated in 2004. One possibility is that the revised ELGs for nitrogen and phosphorous could be reduced or the MPP PSC could be subject to nitrogen and phosphorous pretreatment standards.

U.S. EPA also provided the initial results of studies on certain PSCs. The preliminary results of the study indicates that further research is only needed in the Landfills Category.

As U.S. EPA begins to implement its plans for further analyses, studies, and rulemakings related to ELGs as described in Preliminary Plan 15, ALL4 will provide updates to regulatory developments for ELGs. If you have any questions on ELGs or other water issues, contact your ALL4 project manager for more information.

Subpart OOOOa and the Congressional Review Act

The U.S. EPA promulgated two separate revisions to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOOOa – Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Facilities for which Construction, Modification or Reconstruction Commenced After September 18, 2015 (NSPS OOOOa) in September of 2020 that were largely viewed as beneficial to the oil and gas industry.

The first revision, promulgated on September 14, 2020, is referred to as the “NSPS OOOOa Policy Rule.” It rescinded all rule requirements that applied to sources in the natural gas transmission and storage sector and rescinded all methane emissions standards for sources in the oil and gas production and processing sectors. The Policy Rule also included a Section 111 interpretation that required a pollutant-specific “significant contribution finding” in order to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from NSPS source categories.

The second revision, promulgated on September 15, 2020, is referred to as the “NSPS OOOOa Technical Rule.”  It amended NSPS OOOOa to address several technical and implementation issues (e.g., fugitive emissions requirements, pneumatic pump standards, engineer certifications, etc.) related to the rule in response to administrative petitions for rule reconsideration.

Upon the change in administration, a January 20, 2021, Executive Order was issued titled “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis,” which directed U.S. EPA to take certain actions to reduce emissions from the oil and gas sector.  As a result of the change in thinking with the new administration, a joint resolution of Congress was adopted to disapprove the September 14, 2020 NSPS OOOOa Policy under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) and was signed into law on June 30, 2021.   The CRA resolution that disapproved the 2020 Policy Rule did not address the 2020 Technical Rule and those amendments remain in effect for now.  Congress created a very confusing scenario by rescinding one set of NSPS OOOOa rule revisions under the CRA while leaving another set of NSPS OOOOa rule revisions intact, which could leave affected oil and gas operators in a precarious compliance position with regard to NSPS OOOOa.

In an attempt to clarify the rule revisions for the regulated community, the U.S EPA published a document titled “Congressional Review Act Resolution to Disapprove EPA’s 2020 Oil and Gas Policy Rule – Questions and Answers”.  An interesting outcome is that under the CRA, a rule that is subject to a joint resolution of disapproval is treated as if the rule had never taken effect.  CRA rule recissions are more typically associated with the elimination of an entire rule, not elimination of a rule that amended another rule.  Several examples from the referenced link are provided below:

  • Sources in the production and processing segments that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification after September 18, 2015, are subject to the NSPS OOOOa methane requirements and the volatile organic compound (VOC) requirements of the NSPS OOOOa Technical Rule.
  • Sources in the transmission and storage segment that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification after September 18, 2015, are subject to the NSPS OOOOa methane and VOC requirements.
  • There are no stated compliance deadlines for now affected sources that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification between September 14, 2020 and June 30, 2021. Such sources should evaluate potentially applicable NSPS OOOOa and NSPS OOOOa Technical Rule requirements and take immediate action to comply with those rule provisions that apply.
  • Existing sources for which applicable requirements were rescinded by the NSPS OOOOa Technical Rule should immediately resume applicable compliance related activities associated with those affected sources if such activities were discontinued upon promulgation of the NSPS OOOOa Policy rule.

If you weren’t confused already, more actions are coming.  A proposed rulemaking is expected from U.S. EPA in the near term as a result of their review of the NSPS OOOOa Policy and Technical Rules and we will also see a proposal to establish emission guidelines that regulate methane and VOC emissions from existing sources not covered by the NSPS.  Please contact me at rrakiewicz@all4inc.com or your ALL4 Project Manager if you have any questions.

U.S. EPA Reverses Reversal of 2015 SSM SIP Policy

On October 9, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) issued a guidance memorandum regarding a change in policy for certain startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) provisions in State Implementation Plans (SIPs) pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA).  This memo signaled a change in policy from a 2015 action.  Just short of one year later, U.S. EPA issued another guidance memorandum on September 30, 2021, withdrawing and reversing the October 9, 2020 guidance memorandum. These guidance memoranda pertain to two SSM policy issues: (1) whether excess emissions can be exempted during periods of SSM, and (2) whether affirmative defense from civil penalties can be claimed for exceeding emissions limits when the exceedance was unavoidable. The September 30, 2021 reversal is of particular interest in three states: Texas, North Carolina, and Iowa; but you’ll have to read on to learn why.

What Exactly Was Reversed?

To explain what was reversed, we must first go back to 2015, when U.S. EPA published a notice in the Federal Register “clarifying, restating and revising” its overall SSM SIP policy (which addressed more than the two particular policy statements at issue here). U.S. EPA’s 2015 SSM SIP Policy was that SIPs could neither contain exemptions for excess emissions during SSM, nor provide for affirmative defense of unavoidable excess emissions. Based on that policy, U.S. EPA determined that the SIPs for 36 states (45 total jurisdictions) contained such provisions and were therefore inconsistent with the CAA, and issued a “SIP call” to those states to remove or satisfactorily address those provisions. More on that later.

I previously wrote about the 2020 SSM SIP Guidance Memo, which superseded those two 2015 policy statements, but which notably did not withdraw the 2015 SIP call (although U.S. EPA paused their reviews of the SIP revisions they had received as a result of the call). U.S. EPA stated in the 2020 SSM SIP Guidance Memo that SIPs could contain exemptions for excess emissions during SSM and provide for affirmative defense of unavoidable excess emissions under certain circumstances. Namely, when the SIP as a whole is protective of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by having various redundant planning provisions. U.S. EPA also stated in the 2020 SSM SIP Guidance Memo that the 2015 SSM SIP Policy incorrectly applied a determination regarding SSM provisions in Federal regulations developed under section 112 of the CAA [pertaining to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs)] to state regulations under section 110 of the CAA (pertaining to SIPs).

The 2021 SSM SIP Guidance Memo withdraws the 2020 SSM SIP Guidance Memo and reinstates the 2015 SSM SIP Policy. Effectively, the 2020 SSM SIP Guidance Memo never existed; the reversal was reversed.

What Does It Mean?

While it may seem inconsequential to go back to how things were only a year earlier, the 2021 SSM SIP Guidance Memo will have additional, but perhaps not immediate impacts. First, the 2020 SSM SIP Guidance Memo stated that U.S. EPA would reinitiate review of the SIP revisions received as a result of the 2015 SIP call, so those states can still expect to hear from U.S. EPA; only now the perspective on the two policy statements will be reversed. U.S. EPA received 32 SIP submissions and will likely issue a finding of failure to submit to the states that did not submit a SIP revision as a result of the 2015 SIP call.

Second, remember that teaser in the introduction about Texas, North Carolina, and Iowa? The U.S. EPA Regional Offices for those three states withdrew the SIP calls for their SIPs containing SSM exemptions (North Carolina and Iowa) or affirmative defense provisions (Texas) before the 2020 SSM SIP Guidance Memo. Those actions were inconsistent with the national 2015 SSM SIP Policy at the time, but ultimately aligned with the 2020 SSM SIP Guidance Memo. Now that the 2015 SSM SIP Policy has been reinstated, U.S. EPA is expected to revisit the prior SIP actions for those three states.

Why the Change?

U.S. EPA states in the 2021 SSM SIP Guidance Memo that “the statutory interpretations extensively discussed in the 2015 Policy are more consistent with the CAA and relevant case law for the reasons explained in the 2015 SSM SIP Action.” U.S. EPA goes on to specify that the 2020 SSM SIP Guidance Memo failed to “adequately address CAA requirements other than NAAQS attainment and maintenance,” one example of which is that section 302(k) of the CAA requires that “all emission limitations apply on a ‘continuous’ basis.” U.S. EPA states that the 2015 SIP call “was intended to ensure that all modes of source operation, including periods of SSM, have emissions limitations in place that can be appropriately enforced.”

U.S. EPA also reminds us in the 2021 SSM SIP Guidance Memo that the 2015 SSM SIP Policy “was intended to ensure that all communities and populations across the affected states, including minority, low-income and indigenous populations overburdened by pollution, receive the full health and environmental protections provided by the CAA.” With the Biden administration’s focus on Environmental Justice, highlighting this connection is no surprise.

What’s Next?

My previous blogpost discussed how SIP revisions take time to be developed and implemented. As I mentioned earlier, many SIP revisions have already been submitted in response to the 2015 SIP call. To address the requirement for emissions standards to apply on a continuous basis, states may choose to remove the affected SSM provisions, resulting in existing emissions standards applying at all times, or to replace them with alternative standards, such as work practices, that apply during periods of SSM. It is important to understand whether your state submitted a SIP revision in response to the 2015 SIP call, how the SIP revision addressed the SSM provisions, and your state’s current position on SSM exemptions. When U.S. EPA takes action on your state’s proposed SIP revision, review the proposed changes, provide comments on U.S. EPA’s proposed approval or disapproval, and evaluate how operations at your facility may need to change based on the revised SIP provisions.

SSM has always been and continues to be a complex and contested topic in air quality. The issuance of the 2021 guidance memorandum is just the latest in what are sure to be many more air regulatory changes in the future. ALL4 will continue to follow developments around SSM closely. Please reach out to me at 610.933.5246 x122 or lkroos@all4inc.com if you have any questions about how SSM provisions affect your facility.

Addition of 1-Bromopropane to Clean Air Act Section 112 HAP List – What does it Mean?

The U.S. EPA published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on June 11, 2021 to address the impacts of adding 1-Bromopropane (n-propyl bromide or NPB) to the hazardous air pollutant (HAP) list in the clean air act (CAA).  The approval of the petition to add NPB as a HAP occurred about one year ago, while the regulatory process began in 2015 with a notice of a complete petition.  The ANPR is to solicit comments which can help U.S. EPA address the impacts of adding NPB as a HAP and comments are not requested about the decision to grant the petition to add NPB to the list of HAP.

What does this action mean to the regulated community?  It’s worth noting the significance of adding NPB as a HAP because once added, it will be the only substance added to the CAA HAP list (which currently has 187 substances) since the initial list was established under the 1990 CAA amendments.  The list has been relatively static (methyl ethyl ketone was removed in 2005), and the regulatory process to add compounds to the CAA HAP list is evolving as part of this action. Several considerations for implementation and how this action could impact your facility if you utilize NPB in a way that results in air emissions are presented below:

  • NPB is a volatile organic compound (VOC). Once classified as a HAP, the potential HAP emissions from your facility will increase to include emissions of NPB.  Will your facility change status from an area source of HAP and become a major source of HAP?
  • With a change from area source to major source of HAP, will additional air regulatory requirements apply, and what is the timing to come into compliance with those regulatory requirements?
  • National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) are promulgated at 40 CFR Part 63 to regulate HAPs or their surrogates. Existing standards may be revised to address NPB.  For example, 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart T – National Emission Standards for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning Solvents regulates solvents that are comprised of or contain specific compounds (e.g., methylene chloride, trichlorethylene, and others).  NPB could be added to the list of compounds regulated by Subpart T via a notice of rulemaking and associated comment process.
  • Existing air permits may allow VOC emissions but preclude the use of HAP or certain quantities of HAP. Could a revision of your air permit be required to allow the use and emissions of HAP due to the classification of NPB as a HAP?
  • Many states have rules or policies to regulate emissions of air toxic compounds that cover emissions of air contaminants that are neither regulated new source review (NSR) pollutants (such as nitrogen oxides or sulfur oxides) nor HAP. Could applicable state air toxics rules or policies require revision due to the classification of NPB as a HAP?  Will you now have to conduct air dispersion modeling of NPB air emissions?

U.S. EPA has indicated that they intend to add NPB to the list of CAA HAP by the end of 2021.  It will be interesting to see the timing and how implementation plays out.  Because HAP have never been added to the list, it will be interesting to see if the addition of NPB spurs any activity to evaluate and possibly add new compounds to the CAA HAP list (perhaps hydrogen sulfide), so even if you do not use or emit NPB, you may want to follow this action since it has implications for future additions to the HAP list.  If you have questions on the regulation of HAP emissions or how this future change could impact your environmental compliance, please reach out to me at nleone@all4inc.com or 610-933-5246 x121.

 

Refrigerant Rules: Still Not the Final Chapter

Earlier this summer, ALL4 mentioned that the first Federal rule under the bipartisan approved American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act of 2020 was to be promulgated this year, which will initiate the U.S.’ domestic approach for a phasedown of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). HFCs are highly potent greenhouse gases (GHGs) that are substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (ODS), which are still being phased out worldwide. The AIM Act has three goals to change U.S dependence upon HFCs: to phasedown HFC production and importation, maximize reclamation and minimize releases of HFCs from equipment, and facilitate the transition to next-generation technologies through sector-based restrictions.

The HFC phasedown goal is being addressed by this first rule (40 CFR Part 84), published in the Federal Register on October 5, 2021, to reduce HFC emissions by 85% below baseline levels over the next 15 years. Beginning January 1, 2022, specific allowances will be needed to produce or import bulk HFCs, with some exceptions. This follows a similar mechanism that was used to implement the ODS phaseout. Beginning in 2021, and by October 1 of each following year, the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will determine the quantity of those allowances of HFCs for the following calendar year.

HFCs Affected by the Phasedown

The AIM Act mandates the phasedown of 18 listed HFCs used in various sectors/applications, such as for air conditioning and refrigeration (HFC-134a), fire suppression (HFC 125), cleaning solvent (HFC 43-10mee), foam blowing agent (HFC-245fa), or propellant in metered dose inhalers (HFC 227ea). This rule focuses on companies that produce and/or import bulk HFCs, as well as companies that use HFCs in the following six applications, who will get application-specific allowances from U.S. EPA:

  • A propellant in metered dose inhalers;
  • Defense sprays (such as bear sprays);
  • Structural composite preformed polyurethane foam for marine use and trailer use;
  • The etching of semiconductor material or wafers and the cleaning of chemical vapor deposition chambers within the semiconductor manufacturing sector;
  •  Mission-critical military end-uses; and
  • Onboard aerospace fire suppression.

Impacts on Facility Owners/Operators

HFCs are used in various applications, as mentioned above, but about 75% of total HFC use is in refrigeration and air conditioning equipment in homes, commercial buildings, and industrial operations. However, this rule does not require consumers to stop using any specific HFC or HFC blend or change out equipment. Future rules will be issued to meet the AIM Act’s other goals. In the same manner that industries reliant on refrigeration and air conditioning have been transitioning from ODS to U.S. EPA-approved substitutes, the same will eventually occur for these GHGs as next generation substitutes are developed to replace HFCs.

If you have any questions about refrigerant management, please reach out to Sally Atkins at satkins@all4inc.com or Mike Kendall at mkendall@all4inc.com.

Significant Changes on the Way for California Emission Reporting

Over thirty years ago the State of California enacted the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act, which was designed to provide direction to facilities reporting emissions data under the Emission Inventory Criteria and Guideline Regulation (EICG).  A need for a better understanding of stationary source emissions has driven the California Air Resources Board to make changes to reporting under EICG.  These recently approved changes, which are expected to phase in over the next decade, are expected to help make the program more consistent across the state, enhance access to emissions data, and require facilities to reduce risk to surrounding communities.

In addition to recently adopted changes to EICG, new requirements under Criteria Pollutant and Toxics Emissions Reporting (CTR) will overlap EICG and require a statewide effort to monitor and reduce emissions within communities classified as disadvantaged through additional pollution control, higher penalties, and enhanced availability of emissions data.

WILL I NEED TO SUBMIT SEPARATE REPORTS UNDER EICG and CTR?

The updates to EICG and new requirements under CTR are designed to have significant overlap.  Both requirements will utilize the same list of toxic substances required for reporting, the same requirements for reporting by industrial sectors, and the same reporting thresholds.  A facility’s applicability to reporting to new CTR requirements is dependent on the air district the facility is situated in, if the facility is expected to have emissions of over 10 tons of criteria pollutants, or whether the facility required to report based on Appendix E of the for the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program.  The two programs are structured so that facilities applicable to both EICG and CTR will need to submit only one report.

WHAT IS NEW?

The most significant updates to EICG and CTR are the addition of upwards of 1,000 new substances to the list of reportable chemicals and inclusion of several reportable sectors including metal shredding, wastewater, landfill, and composting facilities.  Under recent updates, air districts will also look at new risk assessment methods, which has the potential to require facilities previously excluded from reporting to once again be subject to reporting requirements.  Changes also allow air districts to look at cumulative community air exposure as opposed to evaluating only the exposure from facility emissions.  Additionally, facilities subject to CTR requirements will be required to report annually as opposed to every four years and will need to include stack data for each emission source.

NEXT STEPS?

Since reporting under updated EICG and CTR is required starting with 2022 emissions data, it is critical for facilities in California to determine their potential reporting requirements as soon as possible.  ALL4 can assist California facilities in determining their potential recordkeeping, data collection, and reporting requirements to ensure they are ready for reporting of 2022 data.

If you have questions about EICG or CTR requirements, please contact info@all4inc.com.

Updates to Guidance on Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter Permit Modeling Issued by U.S. EPA

U.S. EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) published the “Revised DRAFT Guidance for Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter Permit Modeling” (Revised Draft Guidance) on September 20, 2021.  The Revised Draft Guidance replaces the initial “DRAFT Guidance for Ozone and Fine Particulate Permit Modeling” (Initial Draft Guidance) guidance issued by U.S. EPA on February 10 ,2020.  The Revised Draft Guidance introduces one important change intended to address public comments received on the Initial Draft Guidance, consistent with January 20, 2021 Executive Order 13990 (Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis).  U.S. EPA published the Revised Draft Guidance to make revisions based on their current policy as it relates to which regulated New Source Review (NSR) pollutants should be included in a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) air quality assessment for ozone (O3) and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5).

The Initial Draft Guidance and the Revised Draft Guidance provide recommendations on demonstrating compliance with O3 and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and PSD increments for PM2.5 as part of PSD permit applications.  Both outline a two-tiered approach for assessing primary and secondary PM2.5 precursor pollutants [e.g., nitrogen dioxide (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2)] impacts and secondary O3 precursor pollutants [e.g., NOX and volatile organic compounds (VOC)] impacts.  The Tier 1 approach utilizes Modeled Emissions Rates for Precursors (MERPs) thresholds developed through photochemical air dispersion modeling that represent a precursor pollutant emissions threshold that will result in an impact below the PM2.5 and O3 Significant Impact Level (SIL).  A Tier 2 approach would rely on the use of a photochemical dispersion model to predict secondary impacts from PM2.5 and O3 precursor pollutants.  To date, ALL4 is not aware of any application where it was necessary to utilize the Tier 2 approach because of the ability to refine the MERPS to be site specific.

The Initial Draft Guidance recommended that only NSR precursor pollutants that exceed the PSD Significant Emissions Rates (SERs) be included in the Tier 1 or Tier 2 impact evaluation.  For example, if as part of a PSD permit application you were projecting an increase in NOX emissions greater than the PSD SER, but below the PSD SERs for all remaining NSR pollutants, you would only have been required to evaluate NOX as a precursor to PM2.5 and NOX as a precursor to O3.  You would not have had to consider SO2 as a precursor to PM2.5 or VOC as a precursor to O3.  The Revised Draft Guidance now recommends that if any precursor pollutant exceeds the PSD SER that all precursor pollutants be included in a Tier 1 or Tier 2 impact evaluation.  More importantly, the Revised Draft Guidance also explicitly recommends that direct PM2.5 emissions be cumulatively evaluated along with PM2.5 precursor impacts.  Therefore, if you were to trigger the PSD SER for NOX you would be required to evaluate secondary PM2.5 impacts from NOX and SO2 (PM2.5 precursors) through the Tier 1 or Tier 2 impact evaluation approach and evaluate direct PM2.5 emission impacts through direct PM2.5 air dispersion modeling (such as with AERMOD).  This means that applicants will no longer be able to avoid direct PM2.5 modeling through PM2.5 PSD avoidance if NOX or SO2 PSD permitting is triggered.  The requirement to evaluate the cumulative impacts of precursor emissions and direct PM2.5, along with U.S. EPA’s announcement to reconsider the previous administration’s decision to retain the PM2.5 NAAQS, continues to make PSD permitting projects that include increases in PM2.5 emissions (and now precursor emissions) difficult.  It should also be noted that while the Revised Draft Guidance is still considered a draft, state agencies have historically utilized “draft” guidance for permitting and some draft guidance issued by U.S. EPA has never been finalized, despite being routinely utilized.  Therefore, depending on your state’s policy, this Revised Draft Guidance could be relied on immediately for your next project.

U.S. EPA plans to hold a webinar on October 14, 2021 at 3 pm EDT (which ALL4 plans to attend) to provide an overview of the Revised Draft Guidance and public comments on the Revised Draft Guidance will accepted until November 19, 2021.  If you have any questions about how a potential project that includes PM2.5 emissions will be impacted by the Revised Draft Guidance, or wish to discuss submitting comments on the guidance, please contact Dan Dix at ddix@all4inc.com or at 610.422.1118.

Forest Products Industry Environmental Updates

ALL4 has a long history of working with the forest products industry and participating in various industry associations to stay on top of the latest environmental policy and regulatory activities affecting our clients. We provide some updates on environmental activity affecting the forest products industry below.

Air

The reconsideration of the fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) is a top priority for the Biden Administration. Currently, a rule update is proposed for summer 2022 to be made final in spring 2023. Lowering the annual PM2.5 NAAQS from its current level of 12.0 μg/m3 could have substantial implications for facilities as they perform air dispersion modeling for construction permit applications or air permit renewals. There has been no decision to date on whether the administration will also reconsider the ozone NAAQS.

The Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) remand rule could become final this fall if U.S. EPA keeps to their schedule. Questions remain around the tighter limits that were proposed for new sources and whether they will retroactively be applied to boilers built after 2011. Look for an ALL4 Boiler MACT blog when the final rule is published.

ALL4 is also working with the wood products industry as U.S. EPA is evaluating further changes to the Plywood and Composite Wood Products MACT rule. U.S. EPA’s current rulemaking schedule has them issuing an information request to select facilities in late 2021, proposing rule changes in late 2022, and finalizing a revised rule in late 2023.

We have heard from many state regulators on their thoughts and activities around Environmental Justice (EJ) and New Source Review (NSR) topics such as project aggregation and project emissions accounting (PEA). Many states are addressing EJ within certain permit reviews and are working to make public awareness and accessibility a priority even with the challenges that COVID has brought. If you have questions about what your state is doing around EJ, please reach out.

With President Biden’s executive order to review the regulations finalized by the previous administration —including the October 22, 2020 Project Emissions Accounting Final Rule—states have varying approaches on how they are implementing PEA. Facilities should be sure they understand their state’s approach before submitting any construction permit applications. There also seems to be increased focus on evaluating project aggregation when facilities have submitted more than one air permit application in a multi-year period. Reach out to ALL4 if you need help developing an air permitting strategy.

Wastewater

Waters of the United States (WOTUS) continues to be a hot topic. On July 30, 2021 President Biden reversed the current WOTUS rule enacted under the Trump Administration. For a deeper look at WOTUS Woes, read ALL4’s recent blog post on the topic.

On September 8, 2021 the U.S. EPA released Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 15 (Plan 15). One of the new rulemakings under Plan 15 centers around per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) discharges in wastewater. A review of Pulp, Paper and Paperboard point sources were included in the Plan 15 study. As a result of the information collected and reviewed, no PFAS guidelines were recommended for the pulp and paper or timber products industry as a part of Plan 15.

ESG

Environmental Social Governance (ESG) is simply defined as a mechanism to assess non-financial metrics of a company. This is accomplished via an ESG rating. Investors are becoming more interested in a company’s commitment to having a positive impact in its community instead of solely focusing on financial indicators. However, multiple rating systems exist and incorporate data from varying sources. This means that a single company can have multiple scores and have varying ranks across the different systems.

While corporate-wide policy making and high-level financial decisions are probably outside many job descriptions, there is a real way you can affect your company’s ESG profile. The data contained in so many environmental reports (i.e., Federal Greenhouse Gas Report, Tier II, TRI Form R) is used in ESG ratings to track metrics such as energy and water usage, waste reduction efforts, and heavy metal emissions. Being cautious not to report overly conservative values is becoming more important as the data is becoming more visible to the general public.

ESG and EJ issues are at the forefront of policy making, and companies need to be aware of how this could affect their business operations moving forward. Do you have questions about ESG or EJ? Visit our Services page for more information.

We look forward to continuing to support the forest products industry and are hopeful that we will be able to have more in-person meetings in 2022. If you have any questions about any of the information presented above, please reach out to Anna Richardson at arichardson@all4inc.com or 678.293.9425.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Continuous Emissions Monitoring Advisory

On August 25, 2021, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) issued a Compliance Advisory to facilities in the state that have an air permit that requires a Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) with a 3-hour rolling average based on 1-hour blocks. NJDEP recognized that some facilities may have been reporting emissions in their Excess Emission Monitoring Performance Reports (EEMPRs) incorrectly and published additional guidance on how affected facilities can reprogram their Data Acquisition System (DAS) software to correctly reflect how those averages should be reported. NJDEP issued a grace period until March 22, 2022 for facilities to update their software for more accurate reporting.

What does that mean, exactly?

CEMS are designed to sample the air in a stack and analyze that air for the presence of certain substances, such as concentration of those substances in the units of parts per million (ppm). The measurements are used to quantify emissions. The system can contain multiple parts, but the part mentioned in the advisory, the DAS, is the part that records, computes, and reports the CEMS data. The Compliance Advisory recommends that anyone with a CEMS averaging period consisting of 3-hour rolling averages based on 1-hour blocks review your current DAS and determine if you are calculating and reporting exceedances correctly. A change or upgrade to your DAS software may be needed.

Let’s look at an example:

A facility has a limit of 45 ppm for a substance monitored by a CEMS. Each clock hour, the DAS records the emissions result sampled by the monitor. After 3 clock hours, the DAS outputs the 3-hour average emissions result, and then each clock hour after that the DAS adds the newest hourly block average reading and drops the oldest hourly block average reading, as illustrated below.

Although some of the individual hourly readings are higher than 45 ppm (Hours 5, 6, 8, and 9), an excess emissions incident does not occur unless the other readings in the same 3-hour block result in an average higher than 45 ppm. However, if the 3-hour average is above the threshold, then that must be reported on the facility’s EEMPRs.

Excess Emissions Monitoring and Performance Report

The EEMPR is a quarterly report to NJDEP that details excess emissions, among other information. The report must include the date, start time, stop time, duration, and average concentration of the emissions during the exceedance period. Using the example above, the EEMPR would include two reportable excess emission incidents. One exceedance from Hour 4 to Hour 6 with a 3-hour duration and a concentration of 50 ppm. Then, there was a second exceedance starting at Hour 6 and ending at Hour 10, including 3, 3-hour averaging blocks. The EEMPR would include that the exceedance started at Hour 6 and ended at Hour 10 with a 5-hour duration and a concentration of 50 ppm (average of 50 ppm + 47 ppm + 53 ppm). Several more examples of how NJDEP intends for facilities to file their EEMPRs can be found in their Technical Manual “3-Hour Rolling Average Based on 1-Hour Blocks”.

How do I get assistance complying with this Advisory?

ALL4 has a Continuous Monitoring Systems (CMS) group made up of consultants who are experienced in DAS implementation and optimization as well as all other aspects of CEMS data management including, but not limited to procurement assistance, initial certification and ongoing quality assurance, auditing, and training. If you aren’t sure that your facility’s CEMS is reporting data correctly, ALL4 can help make that determination and work with you to make any necessary changes. Contact Tom Cunningham at tcunningham@all4inc.com or at 610.422.1106 for any questions or help with this advisory.

    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