PM2.5 NAAQS Reconsideration Progress Update

As I discussed in my July 2021 blog post and my January 2022 Look Ahead article, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is currently going through the process of reconsidering the previous administration’s decision to retain the particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).  Since the January 2022 look ahead, three public meetings of the Chartered Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and CASAC Particulate Matter (PM) Panel (Panel) were held in late February and early March to discuss the draft CASAC reports on U.S. EPA’s “Supplement to the 2019 Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Particulate Matter” (Draft Supplement) and the draft “PM Policy Assessment.”  During the public meetings oral and written public comments were taken and deliberations among the Panelists were conducted.  During the last public meeting on March 4, 2022, the Chartered CASAC approved U.S. EPA’s draft “PM Policy Assessment.”

The CASAC-approved “PM Policy Assessment” concludes that the current primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS does not adequately protect public health and finds based on epidemiologic studies conducted in the United States that that an annual average standard in the range of 8-10 micrograms PM2.5 per cubic meter (µg/m3) would be appropriate.  All CASAC members agreed that the form and averaging time of the standard should be retained without revision.  A minority of CASAC members found that a range of 10-11 µg/m3 would be appropriate.  This determination almost guarantees that the current PM2.5 annual NAAQS of 12 µg/m3 will be lowered.  In addition, the CASAC-approved “PM Policy Assessment” also concludes that the current primary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35 µg/m3) does not adequately protect public health and should be lowered to a range of 25-30 µg/m3 to be adequately protective.  A minority of CASAC members concurred with U.S. EPA’s preliminary conclusion to retain the current 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS without revision.  Based on this determination the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS will likely be lowered but this is less certain than in the case of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS.  In addition, it should be noted that some CASAC members also recommended that future studies consider shot-term exposure (shorter than 24 hours) in order to account for conditions that exist during wintertime stagnation and/or during heavy use of home woodstove heating, possibly setting the stage for a future 1-hour standard similar to the sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS.  Based on these proceedings U.S. EPA is one step closer to moving forward with lowering the PM2.5 NAAQS.

The next step in the PM2.5 NAAQS reconsideration process is for U.S. EPA to take CASAC and public comments into consideration and develop draft rulemaking for a proposed revised PM2.5 NAAQS.  This rulemaking is expected in Summer of 2022 following up with a final rule by Spring of 2023.  Based on this schedule there is still time to complete air permitting that includes PM2.5 NAAQS air quality modeling under the existing PM2.5 NAAQS or to complete permitting subject to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program and not the nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permitting program which will be required if the area is determined to be in nonattainment with lower PM2.5 NAAQS.  However, time is running out fast and the regulated community should start considering evaluating impacts on future permitting efforts on a new revised PM2.5 annual NAAQS as low as 8 µg/m3 and a 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as low as 25 µg/m3.  In addition, once a draft rule is published the public will be afforded the opportunity to comment on the proposed revised PM2.5 NAAQS as part of the rulemaking process.

If a lower PM2.5 NAAQS is finalized in Spring of 2023 this will begin the process of local agencies assessing the attainment status with the new PM2.5 NAAQS.  The current 2018-2020 annual average PM2.5 NAAQS design value across all PM2.5 ambient monitors is approximately 7.8 µg/m3.  Currently only 21 of 519 PM2.5 ambient monitors 2018-2020 annual design value is greater than the current annual PM2.5 NAAQS (12 µg/m3).  If the PM2.5 annual NAAQS were lowered to 8 µg/m3 the number would jump to 221 of 519 PM2.5 ambient monitors being greater than a new proposed PM2.5 annual NAAQS mostly located around major metropolitan areas and most of the west coast.  This would mean NNSR permitting for these areas and less headroom for PM2.5 air quality modeling analyses.

Looking further ahead we can also expect that the U.S. EPA Office of Air Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Air Quality Modeling Group will likely also assess the adequacy of the PM2.5 Significant Impact Levels (SILs) if the PM2.5 NAAQS be lowered.  In addition, there are established PM2.5 24-hour and annual PSD increment levels; however, it is unlikely that the PM2.5 PSD increments would be changed based on the history of PSD increments and the fact that PSD increments are not health-based standards.

If you have any questions about a potential project that includes PM2.5 emissions or want to know how close your area’s ambient PM2.5 concentration is to the current PM2.5 NAAQS, please contact Dan Dix at ddix@all4inc.com or at 610.422.1118.

Vermont Stormwater Permitting: The 3-Acre Rule

To address the growing concerns of pollutant loading to the state’s waterways, especially Lake Champlain, the state of Vermont passed the Vermont Clean Water Act of 2015. In meeting the goals of the Clean Water Act, the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has implemented several changes to the operational stormwater permitting program, including requiring stormwater management for large areas of impervious surfaces. Recently Vermont made changes to operational permits under general permit 3-9050 (general permit), with initial permitting action required, based on geography, beginning in January of 2022. The most significant change is the requirement that sites with three or more acres of impervious surface obtain coverage under the general permit, often referred to as the 3-Acre Permit. An impervious surface is defined as a manmade surface from which precipitation runs off rather than infiltrates into the ground. Prior to this change, some parcels were grandfathered out of the system by not having an expansion or redevelopment of greater than one acre or by being permitted prior to the publication of the 2002 Stormwater Management Manual.

WHO IS SUBJECT TO THE RULE?

Existing sites that have three or more acres of impervious surface and that do not currently have coverage under previous iterations of the operational general permit will receive (or will already have received) a letter from the Vermont DEC indicating the need to seek coverage within a specified period of time. DEC developed this list based on digital mapping of Vermont communities conducted in 2011 and 2016. Sites that receive a letter will be required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI).

WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO COMPLY?

  • The initial NOI will need to include general site information, including a delineation of the impervious area, a project description, and copies of any permits obtained under Act 250 (Vermont’s land use and development law). The submission of the initial NOI will result in the site receiving 18 months of coverage under the operational permit.
  • The full NOI must be submitted during the 18-month initial coverage and will include a site plan, an engineering feasibility analysis to identify if the site can support stormwater retrofits, a stormwater system design, and any technical supporting documents. Stormwater system design must be based on the Vermont Stormwater Manual and will include systems that range from traditional infiltration systems to the implementation of green infrastructure.
  • Implementation of the approved design must occur within five years of approval of the full NOI. The implementation will include a post-installation certification once the work is completed. Owners/operators of the sites will be required to properly maintain the systems and take necessary corrective actions upon discovery of problems.
  • Each year, an annual inspection report must be submitted to the DEC along with an annual operating fee.

If you have determined your site meets the requirements for coverage under the 3-Acre Rule, but have not received a letter of notification, it may be due to the geographic-based phase in schedule, with initial NOIs due based on the following schedule:

  • January 1, 2022 for stormwater discharged into the Lake Champlain basin with the resulting water flowing into Missisquoi Bay, Main Lake, Burlington Bay, or Shelburne Bay or discharge into stormwater impaired waters.
  • June 1, 2022 for discharges to all other portions of Lake Champlain.
  • January 1, 2023 for discharges into Lake Memphremagog.
  • October 1, 2023 for discharges into all other watersheds. The DEC has indicated that this final date is subject to change.

Vermont operational stormwater permits are just one piece of the Vermont stormwater protection program. Other components, such as construction stormwater, industrial stormwater and some redevelopment nuances of the 3-Acre Permit, will be addressed in subsequent ALL4 articles.

Please reach out to Clayton Queen (cqueen@all4inc.com), John Hinckley (jhinckley@all4inc.com), or Paul Hagerty (phagerty@all4inc.com) for questions on Vermont stormwater permitting.

U.S. EPA Proposes Expanded CSAPR FIP to Include Non-EGU NOX Sources

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has signed a proposed Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for 25 states for which it has not approved an ozone transport State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Ozone transport SIPs are required to address the “good neighbor” provision in the Clean Air Act, which prohibits a state from impacting downwind states’ ability to attain and maintain the NAAQS. With the proposed FIP, U.S. EPA is essentially expanding the previous Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to include more stringent requirements for electric generating units (EGUs) and to include (for the first time) ozone season nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions limits for certain non-EGU combustion sources.

The proposed rule establishes enforceable NOX emissions limitations and compliance requirements (e.g., testing, monitoring, electronic reporting) starting with the 2026 ozone season for the following industrial source types: reciprocating internal combustion engines in Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas sources; kilns in Cement and Cement Product Manufacturing sources; boilers and furnaces in Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing sources; furnaces in Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing sources; and boilers in Basic Chemical Manufacturing, Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing, and Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills. These requirements would apply to all existing emissions units and to any future emissions units constructed in the covered states after promulgation of the final rule. U.S. EPA is also requesting comment on whether to expand the non-EGU requirements to other significant sources of NOx emissions, such as municipal waste combustors. States will have the option to propose their own SIPs to address ozone transport and include a different approach than U.S. EPA has proposed in the FIP, but they would have to successfully demonstrate to U.S. EPA that their alternative approach would satisfy the good neighbor requirements and eliminate the state’s significant contribution to downwind nonattainment. The proposed requirements are summarized below.

Proposed Requirements for EGUs

Beginning in the 2023 ozone season, U.S. EPA is proposing to expand the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program, further limiting NOX emissions from EGUs during the ozone season (May 1 through September 30) within the borders of 25 states (Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming). With the Revised CSAPR Update, U.S. EPA is proposing to implement new features for the allowance-based trading program approach for EGUs, including requiring optimized and operating NOX emissions control technology, establishing backstop daily emissions rate limits for most coal-fired units, and allowing for dynamic adjustments of States’ emissions budgets over time.

U.S. EPA evaluated the possibility of implementing NOX emissions control technologies for existing EGUs for upcoming ozone season control periods. For the 2023 ozone season, U.S. EPA determined that the only feasible controls are fully operating existing selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) controls, including optimizing NOX removal by existing operational SCRs/SNCRs and turning on and optimizing existing idled SCRs/SNCRs. For the 2024 ozone season, U.S. EPA determined that installing state-of-the-art NOX combustion controls is feasible. U.S. EPA determined that the earliest feasible timeframe for the installation of new SCR or SNCR would be for the 2026 ozone season and has proposed emissions reductions in line with the implementation of new control measures.

U.S. EPA is proposing to establish a backstop daily emissions limit of 0.14 lb/MMBtu for coal-fired steam units serving generators with nameplate capacities greater than or equal to 100 MW. The backstop emissions rates will first apply in 2024 for coal-fired steam units with existing SCR controls, and in 2027 for coal-fired steam units currently without SCR controls. Each ton of emissions exceeding a unit’s backstop daily emissions rate would incur a 3-for-1 allowance surrender ratio instead of the usual 1-for-1 allowance surrender ratio. Additional backstop provisions are proposed to prevent EGUs from contributing to an exceedance of the State’s assurance levels. These provisions are intended to incentivize and ensure that, on all days during the ozone season, EGUs with SCR controls are continuously operating and optimizing their controls and EGUs without SCR controls are optimizing their emissions performance. The timeline for implementing the daily average emissions rate provisions is:

  • Provide for 2023 as a preparatory year to allow EGUs to focus on improving the average performance of SCR controls and the day-to-day consistency of performance, and to allow for EGUs that exhaust to common stacks with other units without SCR controls to install additional monitoring systems to determine the individual units’ NOX emissions rates.
  • Emissions limits would apply in 2024 for large coal-fired EGUs with installed SCR controls.
  • Provide for 2023-2026 as an interim period for EGUs without existing SCR controls to complete SCR installations, navigate operations and monitoring, and train plant personnel.
  • Emissions limits would apply in 2027 for large coal-fired EGUs without SCR controls.

U.S. EPA is not proposing to include universal SCR controls at gas-fired EGUs or to apply the daily emissions rate provisions to large gas-fired steam EGUs.

In addition to the preset emissions budgets for the 2023 and 2024 control periods, U.S. EPA is proposing to establish a dynamic budget-setting methodology for each future control period beginning in 2025. In the year before each control period, to accommodate an evolving EGU fleet composition, U.S. EPA will evaluate the latest available information for the composition and utilization of the fleet to incentivize EGUs to implement control optimizations, account for scheduled and unscheduled fleet retirements, include new EGUs, and address fleet operational and dispatch changes.

Proposed Requirements for Large Non-EGU Boilers

U.S. EPA is proposing to establish ozone season NOx emissions limits for industrial boilers 100 MMBtu/hr and greater that are fired by coal, oil, or gas and located at pulp and paper, chemical, petrochemical, and iron and steel facilities (NAICS 3221, 3251, 3241, and 3311) within 23 states (Arkansas, California, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming). U.S. EPA claims that cost-effective emissions reductions are available for these units (e.g., low NOX burners or SCR for less than $7,500/ton). These boilers will not be included in the existing EGU trading program, but beginning on May 1, 2026, these units would be required to demonstrate compliance with the following NOX emissions limits during ozone season using NOX Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) unless their emissions are 70 percent or less of the applicable emissions limit and an alternate monitoring approach has been approved by U.S. EPA:

  • 0.20 lb/MMBtu for coal-fired boilers
  • 0.20 lb/MMBtu for residual oil-fired boilers
  • 0.12 lb/MMBtu for distillate oil-fired boilers
  • 0.08 lb/MMBtu for natural gas-fired boilers

The emissions limits will apply at all times and the proposed averaging time for these emissions limits is 30 days. U.S. EPA does not define industrial boiler in the proposed regulatory language and does not address how multi-fuel boilers or biomass boilers that start up on oil or gas are covered. Comment is requested on whether other types of fuels should be covered and whether limited use units should be treated differently.

The proposed emissions limits are lower than the 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Db emissions limits that would apply to a new or modified industrial boiler. Existing boilers may need emissions reductions of at least 60 percent to comply with the proposed limits. It is not clear whether an emissions control project involving SCR could be accomplished in the proposed amount of time, given current supply chain issues and permitting requirements. Electronic reporting will be required for performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, quarterly and semi-annual reports, and excess emissions reports using the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) and the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI).

Proposed Requirements for Other Types of Emissions Units in Non-EGU Industries

U.S. EPA is also proposing to establish ozone season NOX emissions limits on sources other than boilers in several non-EGU industries that it believes to be significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance in downwind states. The non-EGU industries include engines at pipeline compressor stations, cement plants, iron and steel mills, and glass furnaces. The proposed FIP includes a “direct control” approach for each type of emissions unit and monitoring, testing, recordkeeping, and electronic reporting requirements similar to those for boilers mentioned above. Brief summaries of the proposed emissions limits for the selected process sources at non-EGU industries, excluding boilers, are provided below.

Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas

The FIP proposal includes ozone season NOX emissions limits for stationary, natural gas-fired, spark-ignited reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE) within the Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas industry with a maximum rated capacity of 1,000 horsepower (hp) or greater. The proposed engine NOX limits are:

  • Natural gas fired four stroke rich burn – 1.0 g NOX/hp-hr
  • Natural gas fired four stroke lean burn – 1.5 g NOX/hp-hr
  • Natural gas fired two stroke lean burn – 3.0 g NOX/hp-hr

The proposed limit for natural gas fired four stroke, rich burn engines is based on the use of non-selective catalytic reduction (NSCR), with NOX reductions of greater than 90%. The proposed limit for natural gas fired four stroke, lean burn engines is based on the use of SCR, with NOX reductions of 50%. The proposed limit for natural gas-fired two stroke lean burn engines is based on retrofitting existing two stroke lean burn engines with layered combustion.

Compliance is proposed to be based on semi-annual NOX performance testing in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8, monitoring of engine operation (hours) and fuel consumption, and continuous parametric monitoring systems (CPMS) to record engine operating parameters or control device parameters.

Cement and Concrete Product Manufacturing

The FIP proposal includes NOX emissions limits on individual cement kilns that directly emit or have the potential to emit 100 tpy or more of NOX, with emissions limits based on the configuration of the kiln. The proposed NOX emissions are on a 30-operating day rolling average period production basis (lb NOX/ton clinker). The proposed kiln NOX limits are:

  • Long wet kilns – 4.0 lb NOX/ton clinker
  • Long dry kilns – 3.0 lb NOX/ton clinker
  • Preheater kilns – 3.8 lb NOX/ton clinker
  • Precalciner kilns – 2.3 lb NOX/ton clinker
  • Preheater/Precalciner kilns – 2.8 lb NOX/ton clinker

U.S. EPA is also proposing a cement plant-specific source cap limit in terms of tons of NOX per day, calculated on a rolling 30-day basis. Compliance with kiln specific and plan specific limits would be required. The proposed limits all include post combustion NOX control (e.g., SNCR) except for preheater and preheater/precalciner kilns. Compliance is proposed to be based on semi-annual NOX performance testing in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8.

Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing

The FIP proposal includes ozone season NOX emissions limits for emissions units for “…each new or existing emissions unit at an iron and steel mill or ferroalloy manufacturing facility that directly emits or has the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of NOx, and to each BOF Shop containing two or more such units that collectively emit or have the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of NOx….” The proposed NOX emissions limits are generally expressed on a 30-operating day rolling average production or heat input basis (e.g., lb NOX/ton of steel, lb NOX/MMBtu). The proposed NOX emissions limits and bases for affected non-boiler units within the industry are:

  • Blast furnace – 0.03 lb NOX/MMBtu; reflects 50% control at blast furnace gas stoves achieved by burner replacement and SCR.
  • Basic oxygen furnace – 0.07 lb NOX/ton steel; reflects 50% control achieved by SCR/SNCR.
  • Electric arc furnace – 0.15 lb NOX/ton steel; reflects 25% control achieved by SCR.
  • Ladle/tundish preheaters – 0.06 lb NOX/MMBtu; reflects 40% control achieved by SCR.
  • Reheat furnaces – 0.05 lb NOX/MMBtu; reflects 40% control achieved by SCR.
  • Annealing furnaces – 0.06 lb NOX/MMBtu; reflects 40% control achieved by SCR.
  • Vacuum Degasser – 0.03 lb NOX/MMBtu; reflects 40% control achieved by SCR.
  • Ladle Metallurgy Furnace –0.1 lb NOX/ton steel; reflects 40% control achieved by SCR.
  • Taconite Production Kilns – work practices and low NOX burners; based on Minnesota Taconite FIP.
  • Coke Ovens (charging) – 0.15 lb NOX/ton coal charged; reflects 50% control achieved by SCR/SNCR.
  • Coke Ovens (pushing) – 0.015 lb NOX/ton coal charged; reflects 25% control achieved by SCR.

Compliance is proposed to be based on the installation of NOX CEMS for each affected facility. For taconite production kilns, U.S. EPA proposes to require initial compliance tests to establish unit-specific NOX limits.

Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing

The FIP proposal includes NOX emissions limits for individual furnace units that directly emit or have the potential to emit 100 tpy or more of NOX. The proposed NOX emissions limits are generally expressed on a 30-operating day rolling average production basis (e.g., lb NOX/ton of glass). The proposed NOX emissions limits and bases for affected non-boiler units within the segment are:

  • Container glass manufacturing furnace – 4.0 lb NOX/ton glass; assumes post-combustion NOX control (e.g., SCR, SNCR).
  • Pressed/blown glass manufacturing furnace or fiberglass manufacturing furnace – 4.0 lb NOX/ton glass; assumes post-combustion NOX control (e.g., SCR, SNCR).
  • Flat glass manufacturing furnace – 9.2 lb NOX/ton glass; assumes post-combustion NOX control (e.g., SCR, SNCR).

Compliance is proposed to be based on initial NOX performance tests and the installation and operation of NOX CEMS for each affected facility.

What Happens Now?

The proposed rule was signed on February 28, 2022 and has not yet been published in the Federal Register. A public hearing will be held within 15 days of publication and comments will be due 60 days from publication. The proposed requirements pose several questions and issues to comment on, including multiple items on which U.S. EPA has requested comment. ALL4 recommends that you reach out to your industry association to determine what issues they are including in their comments, and how you might contribute to their analysis. ALL4 is actively evaluating the proposal and the underlying technical information and will be developing technical comments for at least one association. Please reach out to any of the authors for additional information or technical assistance developing comments on the proposal.

Georgia Industrial Stormwater – Change is Coming!

Federal regulation 40 CFR §122.26 requires facilities with industrial stormwater discharges to apply for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit; either an individual permit or a general permit from an authorized state, such as Georgia, that has promulgated NPDES authority. In Georgia, facilities that wish to seek general permit coverage do so through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) NPDES General Permit No. GAR050000 for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities.

Most general permits are issued for a five-year period, and GAEPD’s GAR050000 General Permit is no exception.  The current version of the GAR050000 General Permit was issued on June 1, 2017, and will expire on May 31, 2022. On February 8, 2022, GAEPD posted a public notice for the proposed reissuance of the GAR050000 General Permit along with a draft version of the new GAR050000 General Permit that is expected to go into effect on June 1, 2022.

So, what’s changing?

There are four sizable differences in the new draft permit. Keep in mind that this is still a draft – the permit has not yet been finalized – but the proposed updates are in alignment with EPA’s Multi-sector General Permit.

  • Signage posting requirements,
  • Electronic form submittals,
  • Electronic discharge monitoring reports (DMR), and
  • Indicator monitoring requirements.

GAEPD is requiring that all permittees post signage indicating permit coverage at a publicly accessible location near the activity. This signage must include not only facility and GAEPD contact information, but also stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) access information.

Notifications and reports are going digital. GAPED is requiring all Notice of Intent (NOI), Notice of Termination (NOT), No Exposure Exclusion (NEE), and Annual Reports be completed using the GAEPD Online System (GEOS). Electronic submittal was highly encouraged in the past but will now be required.

All stormwater monitoring data collected under the General Permit is to be submitted to GAEPD using NetDMR, EPA’s electronic DMR system, on a quarterly basis. This will be a significant change for facilities since in the past monitoring data was only reported as a part of the Annual Report. Failure to submit DMRs timely will result in an automatic Notice of Violation (NOV). GAEPD has addressed many comments and concerns regarding this change in their response to stakeholder comments on the GAEPD NPDES Industrial Storm Water General Permits site.

Indicator monitoring has been added, in addition to existing benchmark monitoring requirements, for all permittees. All sectors are now required to sample and analyze stormwater for pH, total suspended solids (TSS), and chemical oxygen demand (COD) on a quarterly basis. Certain industrial sectors and activities will also be required to conduct indicator monitoring for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). There are no proposed limits or thresholds for indicator monitoring.

What do I need to do?

Upon issuance of the new permit, existing GAR050000 permittees will need to re-apply for coverage by electronically submitting a NOI within 30 days of the effective date. The window for submitting a new NOI for sites seeking new coverage will re-open at that time as well. All SWPPP plans should also be updated to demonstrate compliance with the new General Permit.

If you have questions about how the draft GAR050000 General Permit could affect your NPDES stormwater compliance, or what your next steps should be when the GAR050000 General Permit is renewed, please reach out to me at mdabrowski@all4inc.com or Anna Richardson at arichardson@all4inc.com. ALL4 is monitoring all updates published by GAEPD on this topic, and we are here to answer your questions and assist your facility with any aspects of industrial stormwater compliance.

New Pennsylvania PFAS Drinking Water Regulation Comment Period

On February 25, 2022, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) announced a 60-day public comment period beginning on February 26, 2022 and ending on April 27, 2022, regarding a new proposed regulation to limit per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) concentrations in Pennsylvania drinking water.

What is the proposed rule?  The PADEP Environmental Quality Board (EQB) is proposing to amend 25 Pa. Code Chapter 109 relating to safe drinking water.  The proposed rule would impose a maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 18 parts per trillion (ppt) for perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and 14 ppt for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).  Note that MCLs are enforceable standards.  The proposed rule also establishes PFOA and PFOS MCL exceedances as chronic health-based violations requiring Tier 2 public notification.  In addition, the proposed rule includes additional definitions, expanded monitoring, sampling, analytical, consumer confidence report (CCR), construction permits, public comments, acceptable design, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

It is also important to note that these standards are stricter than U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA’s) 70 ppt lifetime Health Advisory Level (HAL) for PFOS and PFOA combined.  U.S. EPA’s HALs are also non-enforceable standards, so establishment of PADEP’s MCLs would make the Pennsylvania requirements more stringent than the current Federal requirements.  It would also make Pennsylvania one of six other states with set MCLs for select PFAS (including the PFOA and PFOS) that would be different from the U.S. EPA’s levels.  The values are consistent with those of the state standards already in place in the six other states, which could lead the way for more states going in the direction of these lower limits in the future.

Who would this apply to?  The proposed rule would apply to all community, non-transient, non-community, bottled, vended, retail, and bulk water systems in Pennsylvania, serving an approximate 11.9 million Pennsylvanians.  PADEP estimates this to include over 3,000 water systems.  The water systems would be required to conduct monitoring and install treatment if results indicate an MCL exceedance.  MCLs also can be used to remediation or cleanup periods.  Therefore, they can indirectly be used to determine discharge or NPDES permit limits, which would affect more than just water systems.  Those with an NPDES, discharge, or groundwater limits might also be indirectly affected from lowered MCL limits.

When would the rule go into effect?  Once published in final form into the Pennsylvania Bulletin, the rule would go into effect.  The initial compliance date would be January 1, 2024 for community and non-transient non-community water systems serving a population of greater than 350 people, as well as all bottled, vended, retail, and bulk systems.  The initial compliance date would be January 1, 2025 for all remaining water systems serving a population of less than or equal to 350 people.

How would this affect industry?  The proposed rule will have additional monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting components.  The monitoring requirements for water systems would initially be 4 quarterly samples, and if at or above the minimum reporting level (MRL), continue for at least 4 more quarters until reliably and consistently (R&C) below the MRL, otherwise, DEP may allow monitoring annually instead.  While this is not a rule for the cleanup or treatment levels, MCLs are also used in other environmental protection programs.

For industrial clients, the MCLs can also affect those NPDES permit and discharge limits, as well as groundwater protection programs by implementing additional limits to abide by.  Exceeding these limits would require remediation and treatment, which would be additional costs.  However, in the short run, no new or additional forms would be required to be submitted specific to the proposed regulation.

How can I comment?  Comments can be submitted to the EQB via PADEP’s eComment system, via email to RegComments@pa.gov including a subject heading of the proposed rulemaking and the name and address of the person submitting the comment, or via mailed as written comments to the Environmental Quality Board, P.O. Box 8477, Harrisburg, PA 1705-8477.  The comment period closes on April 27, 2022.

Additionally, the EQB will be holding five virtual public hearings on the proposed rulemaking during the week of March 21, 2022, held via Webex through Friday, March 25th, 2022 in order to accept public comments.

Where can I find additional information?  The Proposed Preamble, Proposed Annex, and Executive Summary can be found on PADEP’s website.  ALL4 is following this and will continue to provide updates on regulatory development for the MCLs and this proposed rule.  If you have any questions on the MCLs or other water-related topics, and for any additional information, please contact me at cprigent@all4inc.com or contact your ALL4 project manager for more information.

State-Specific Considerations for SPCC Plans in Florida

This blog is the next installment in a series that covers key state-specific requirements for petroleum containing aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) with respect to Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) compliance with 40 CFR Part 112.7(j). This edition will focus on key requirements in Florida (FL).

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has implemented AST regulations at Chapter 62-762, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Similar to the other states covered in this series, the focus of this article will be on the potentially more stringent discharge prevention and containment requirements for oil-containing ASTs. There are other registration, installation, and financial responsibility requirements in Chapter 62-762 F.A.C., however, those are not addressed in this article.

It is important to note that Chapter 62-762.301 F.A.C. provides several exclusions from the AST regulations. For example, the following are not regulated under Chapter 62-762 F.A.C.:

  • ASTs with individual storage capacities less than or equal to 550 gallons.
  • Heating oil ASTs with capacities less than 30,000 gallons used solely for storing heating oil for consumptive use.
  • Day tank systems.
  • Oil-filled operational equipment (OFOE) such as hydraulic systems and transformers.
  • Storage tank systems installed before July 13, 1998, that are in enclosed areas to prevent rainwater from reaching the system and an impervious floor without any openings that would allow a regulated substance to be discharged.

Some notable requirements for shop-fabricated tanks in Chapter 62-762 F.A.C. that go beyond the requirements of 40 CFR Part 112 include:

  • Providing secondary containment that is impervious to the substances stored in the ASTs and also non-corrosive. Impervious is defined in Chapter 62-762.201 F.A.C. as having a permeability 10-7 centimeters per second (cm/s) or less. If the secondary containment system is made of concrete, a professional engineer (P.E.) licensed in Florida must certify that the secondary containment system meets the impervious and non-corrosive requirements. The SPCC regulations simply require providing secondary containment for the entire capacity of the largest single container plus sufficient freeboard for precipitation.
  • Having a P.E. or professional land surveyor (PLS) sign and seal drawings of integral piping in contact with soil when the piping is installed or relocated after January 11, 2017. The certification requirements described above are state-specific and are in addition to the requirement for a P.E. to certify SPCC plans under 40 CFR Part 112.3(d).
  • Conducting testing on the ASTs prior to being placed in service. Required testing includes interstitial integrity testing of (as applicable): double-walled or double-bottomed ASTs, double-walled piping that is in contact with soil or transports a regulated substance over surface waters, and double-walled spill containment systems (i.e., spill bucket around a fill port). The SPCC regulations only specify that integrity and leak testing is required for buried piping at the time of installation, but do not have a similar requirement for interstitial spaces of ASTs or spill containment systems.
  • Providing at least one form of overfill protection to prevent filling ASTs beyond 95% capacity. Options for overfill protection include level gauges visible to transfer operators, high level visual or audible warning alarm that triggers at 90% of tank capacity, high level automatic flow cutoff device that triggers at 95% of tank capacity, or an impervious dike field area. Similar to other states, Florida has specified overfill protection device trigger levels where 40 CFR Part 112 does not.
  • Installing line leak detectors on new (installed after January 11, 2017) pressurized small diameter (less than 3”) integral piping in contact with soil.
  • Completing monthly inspections. Monthly inspections must include a visual inspection of the components of the AST system that contain, transfer, or store a regulated substance. FDEP has published a suggested AST system monthly visual inspection checklist in its Petroleum Storage Tank Facility Inspection Guide. However, it is important to note that other inspection standards that may be referenced in your SPCC Plan, such as the Steel Tank Institute (STI) SP001 Standard for the Inspection of Aboveground Storage Tanks, may also recommend completing annual inspections.
  • Conducting routine testing on the AST system components (note that SPCC regulations do not specify a testing frequency for these items but Chapter 62-762 F.A.C does):
    • Annual test of primary overfill protection device (i.e., if there are multiple overfill protection devices, one must be designated as the primary device to be tested).
    • Annual test of release detection systems (e.g., liquid level monitoring systems, interstitial monitoring sensors).
    • Annual test of line leak detectors on piping.
    • Every three years test piping sumps and dispenser sumps in contact with soil or over surface waters, below grade spill containment systems, and hydrant sumps in contact with soil.

The requirements for field constructed tanks are similar to those for shop-fabricated tanks, although Chapter 62-762 F.A.C. does specify a few differences, such as:

  • Secondary containment, in addition to the requirements for shop-fabricated tanks, must also be of sufficient thickness and strength to withstand hydrostatic forces at maximum capacity to prevent discharges.
  • Having an impervious overfill retention system. The system must contain the volume of product that would be transferred at the maximum flow rate from the pumps used to fill the tank for a period of five minutes.
  • Field constructed ASTs must not be filled beyond 90% capacity (versus 95% for shop-fabricated ASTs).

Stay tuned for upcoming articles that will continue to cover additional AST requirements in other states. If you have questions on AST compliance in Florida or another state, please feel free to reach out to me at sbharucha@all4inc.com or 571-392-2592 x505 or Paul Hagerty at phagerty@all4inc.com or 610-422-1168.

How Will PADEP’s Updated PAG-03 General Permit Affect My Facility?

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) announced on September 18, 2021 that the existing industrial stormwater NPDES general permit (PAG-03), which was due to expire on September 23, 2021, was being administratively extended until September 23, 2022 while PADEP drafted a new permit.  On January 22, 2022, PADEP announced that the proposed draft PAG-03 permit was available for review and public comment until February 22, 2022.  ALL4 is providing a summary of the most significant proposed changes having the potential to impact the regulated community.

New and Revised Benchmark Values

PADEP proposed the following new or revised benchmark values:

  • Add a monitoring and reporting requirement for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus to all appendices without specifying a numeric value.
  • Add a monitoring requirement for Oil & Grease to Appendices B (Primary Metals) and U (Fabricated Metal Products) with a proposed value of 30 mg/L.
  • Add a monitoring requirement for Chemical Oxygen Demand to Appendix O (Automobile Salvage Yards) with a proposed value of 120 mg/L.
  • Increase Total Suspended Solids from 100 mg/L to 150 mg/L for all appendices.

In addition to these proposed modifications, the draft permit would require facilities exceeding benchmark values for four consecutive reporting periods to submit a Stormwater BMP checklist (3800-PM-BCW0083L) in addition to the currently required Corrective Action Plan.  The draft version of this checklist includes appendix-specific best management practices (BMPs) – in some cases up to 21 of them – and requires the permittee to provide a reason why each of these BMPs is either infeasible or not implementable.

Steam Electric Generating Facilities

PADEP proposed to not require industrial stormwater coverage for the following Appendix H facilities:

  • Ancillary facilities (e.g., fleet centers and substations) that are not contiguous to a steam electric generating facility;
  • Gas turbine facilities and combined cycle facilities where no supplemental fuel oil is burned, and where the gas turbine or combined cycle facility is not a dual fuel facility that includes a steam boiler; and
  • Cogeneration facilities (combined heat and power) utilizing a gas turbine.

Changes to Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

PADEP is proposing the following changes or clarifications regarding stormwater monitoring and reporting:

  • PADEP is clarifying that once per year the permit-required semi-annual routine inspections conducted during a stormwater discharge event must be conducted during a qualifying storm event (greater than 0.1-inch rainfall and greater than 72 hours from the previous storm event), not just any precipitation/discharge event.
  • PADEP proposes to clarify that facilities with structural stormwater BMPs in place and that do not discharge during the reporting period may report “no discharge” on their discharge monitoring reports (DMR). These facilities must still provide at least one sample result on their next renewal application Notice of Intent (NOI).
  • PADEP added a note on what would be considered a good practice, in that an NOI should be submitted when a new outfall is identified and/or proposed at the facility.
  • PADEP added provisions relating to storing vehicle and equipment maintenance materials under storm resistant coverings while protecting these materials from spills, ensuring containers are sealed and properly stored after use and when empty, and maintaining the accessibility of all outfall locations for sampling and inspections.
  • Requirements for bypasses have been removed from the updated PAG-03, as they are not applicable to stormwater treatment facilities unless they are constructed and operated as sewage treatment facilities.

Requesting Coverage and Renewals

PADEP intends to notify PAG-03 permittees of the revised mechanism to maintain coverage under a modified or reissued PAG-03, but as of this writing, there are limited details on specifics.  The existing $2,500 NOI fee will remain unchanged but in the new PAG-03 permit will be paid in annual $500 increments due by May 1.

After any public comments and EPA concerns are addressed, PADEP will move forward with finalizing the draft PAG-03. ALL4 is continuing to monitor developments related to PAG-03 and we will be providing timely updates as they become available. For more information regarding this or other topics related to stormwater and wastewater, please contact Michael Burfield of ALL4 at mburfield@all4inc.com.

Governor Cooper Signs Executive Order 246 Confirming North Carolina’s Transition to a Cleaner Energy Economy

On January 7, 2022, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper signed Executive Order No. 246 (EO246), affirming North Carolina’s commitment to a cleaner energy economy and providing the state’s plan to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and generate economic opportunities across the state for underprivileged communities.  In the past, North Carolina has attempted to handle both climate and community equity as individual issues, and EO246 attempts to bridge the gap and handle both of these issues together.  The noteworthy aspects of EO246 are that it aims to update North Carolina’s economy-wide carbon reduction emissions goals to align with climate science, reduce pollution, create good jobs, and protect communities.  Speeding up the process of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, EO246 increases the statewide goal to a 50% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and plans to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions no later than 2050.  Governor Cooper’s administration plans to take initial steps towards these goals by updating a statewide greenhouse gas inventory to measure current levels of greenhouse gas emissions across the state as well as analyze potential pathways to achieve this net-zero reduction.

EO246 has shifted carbon reduction efforts toward the transportation sector.  EO246 directs North Carolina’s Climate Change Interagency Council to perform a “Deep Decarbonization Pathways Analysis” and provide a report to Governor Cooper within twelve months that details next steps for reducing state-wide emissions.  With the transportation industry being one of the pathways targeted for change, EO246 calls for a NC Clean Transportation Plan within 15 months, including an increase in registered zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) to a minimum of 1,250,00 by 2030 and a goal for 50% of sales of new vehicles in North Carolina to be zero-emissions by 2030.  Though the introduction of more ZEVs seems like a logical transition across the United States, this aims to be an even bigger step toward reducing carbon emissions for North Carolina.  A recent Southern Alliance study revealed that though annual CO2 emissions from industrial sectors have declined or remained steady since 1980, North Carolina’s increase in population over the same time period is greater than 4 million people.  This increase alone has led to the transportation sector being the largest single source of CO2 emissions in the state.

Not only does EO246 provide a goal aimed toward the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, but it also emphasizes environmental justice and equity for the state’s transition to a cleaner economy.  EO246 doesn’t stop at directing cabinet agencies to consider environmental justice when taking actions related to climate change, resilience, and clean energy when making decisions, but it also requires all state agencies to appoint an environmental justice advocate.  These individuals have established goals such as developing and implementing environmental justice participation plans across the state, increasing awareness among agency leadership and staff of the history and current impacts of environmental, economic, and racial injustice, and taking additional actions as appropriate to further the directives of EO246.  EO246 gives a more concrete plan for Cabinet agencies to prioritize environmental justice, clean economy and climate priorities in budget decisions and to engage advocates and stakeholders to identify new executive actions to advance an equitable clean economy.

Though EO246 looks to be groundbreaking with respect to progressing North Carolina to a cleaner and more equitable economy, it is not an anomaly for the state.  Since 2018, Governor Cooper has issued multiple executive orders related clean energy, climate change, and environmental justice including:

  • Executive Order No. 80: Affirmed North Carolina’s commitment to addressing climate change;
  • Executive Order No. 143: Established the Andrea Harris Social, Economic, Environmental and Health Equity Task Force to address long-term disparities in environmental justice areas;
  • Executive Order No. 218: Highlighted North Carolina’s commitment to offshore wind.

Policies and actions are not just happening at the Executive level.  In October 2021, North Carolina Legislature passed House Bill 951.  House Bill 951 requires Utilities Commissions to take reasonable steps to achieve a seventy percent reduction in emissions of CO2 from electric generating facilities owned or operated by electric public utilities from 2005 levels by the year 2030 and carbon neutrality by the year 2050.  In conclusion, EO246 provides new ways for North Carolina to reach its already established goal of achieving a cleaner energy economy and to increase environmental justice awareness and participation across the state.  We should expect to see significant progress toward these goals in the coming years.  Please contact Tom Timms for more information about how ALL4 can help you with your climate goals.

What’s New with MATS?

On February 9th, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) published a proposed finding related to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Generating Units (EGUs), commonly known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). U.S. EPA proposes to revoke the May 22, 2020 determination that it is not appropriate or necessary to regulate hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from coal- and oil-fired EGUs. A quick history of MATS and a description of the proposed rule are provided below.

Why Does U.S. EPA Need to Make this Determination?

As part of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, Congress added Section 112, which required U.S. EPA to develop regulations to limit the emissions of 187 HAPs from various source categories.  Because another section of the CAAA, the Acid Rain Program, required criteria pollutant reduction from EGUs, Congress directed the U.S. EPA to regulate HAPs from EGUs only if it deemed it “appropriate and necessary” to do so.

This determination has been a point of contention for many years, and the U.S. EPA has gone back and forth on its determination as administrations have changed. U.S. EPA originally determined in 2000 that it was appropriate and necessary to regulate HAPs from EGUs and reaffirmed its conclusion in 2012 when it finalized the MATS rule, which requires coal and oil- fired EGUs to meet certain HAP emissions standards. Many aspects of the decision were challenged in court and in 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Michigan v. EPA, held that the U.S. EPA did not account for the cost of the emissions standards in its determination to regulate HAPs from coal- and oil-fired EGUs. In response to the Supreme Court ruling, the following year the U. S. EPA issued a supplemental finding that, after considering cost, again concluded that regulating HAPs from coal and oil-fired EGUs through MATS was appropriate and necessary.  However, after petitions for review and a change in administration, the U.S. EPA reversed this decision in 2020, stating that the cost of compliance outweighs the emissions benefits from the regulation, and that it is not appropriate or necessary to regulate HAPs from EGUs. U.S. EPA also performed its required risk and technology review (RTR) and concluded that remaining risks from EGUs were acceptable and that there were no changes in technology that required revisions to the standards. The 2020 final action did not result in any revisions to MATS and the rule remains in place.

Why is U.S. EPA Reviewing MATS Again?

In January 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order 13990 that instructed the U.S. EPA to review the 2020 MATS final action (the appropriate and necessary finding and the RTR) and to propose a rule that revises or revokes the action. The U.S. EPA has reviewed the 2020 final action and concluded that it remains appropriate and necessary to regulate HAP emissions from EGUs. As part of their review, they evaluated HAP risk in the context of environmental justice, as required by various executive orders issues by the administration, particularly in the context of mortality risk for subsistence fishers (i.e., people who obtain a substantial portion of their dietary needs from self-caught fish). They also determined that they overestimated the cost of the rule in 2011 when they were developing it. The U.S. EPA has found that the benefits associated with regulating HAP emissions from EGUs outweigh the costs of complying with MATS. 

What’s Next with MATS?

At this time, the U.S. EPA is not proposing any changes to the existing emissions standards for MATS, and existing EGUs should not expect any impacts from this particular action. However, U.S. EPA is soliciting information to inform its re-evaluation of the 2020 MATS RTR. The agency is requesting information on the actual cost and performance of new, improved, or additional control technologies that may result in cost-effective reductions of HAP emissions from EGUs. Information on technologies and practices for monitoring HAP emissions and for controlling emissions during startup and shutdown is also being sought in an effort to identify whether there are cost-effective operational improvements that could be required as a result of the technology review. The U.S. EPA will evaluate this information and will issue a separate ruling to present the results of its review of the 2020 MATS RTR.

If you are currently subject to MATS, as of today there are no additional requirements or economic impacts resulting from this proposal. However, we will have to wait and see if the Agency proposes revisions to the rule as a result of its review of the 2020 MATS RTR. If you have any additional questions, please reach out to me Wesley Hill at whill@all4inc.com.

U.S. EPA is Lifting the Stay on Formaldehyde Limits for New Gas Turbines at Major Sources

The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Stationary Combustion Turbines was originally promulgated in 2004 at 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart YYYY.  The rule covers stationary combustion turbines located at major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) but currently only limits formaldehyde emissions from new or reconstructed lean premix and diffusion flame oil-fired units.  The formaldehyde emissions limits for new or reconstructed lean premix and diffusion flame gas-fired units were stayed in 2004 after U.S. EPA received a petition to delist gas turbines from regulation under 40 CFR Part 63. U.S. EPA never finalized a decision to delist gas turbines due to a court decision in 2007[1] that addressed limits on their ability to delist subcategories. The stay was later brought into question when U.S. EPA proposed its risk and technology review (RTR) for the source category in 2019, but the 2020 final RTR rule kept the stay in place because U.S. EPA received an updated petition from multiple industry associations to delist the entire source category.  However, as a result of a Sierra Club petition for review of the 2020 rule and because U.S. EPA’s own risk analysis performed for the RTR did not show that the cancer risk from the source category was less than 1 in 1 million, U.S. EPA signed an amendment to the rule on February 28, 2022 that removes the stay of the formaldehyde limit for lean premix and diffusion flame gas-fired units that were constructed or reconstructed after January 14, 2003.

What is the Impact of this Change?

Although U.S. EPA is still reviewing the 2020 delisting petition and could propose to grant the petition at some point, it would have to take public comment and then finalize a rule, which could take years and be the subject of legal action by stakeholders on both sides of the issue.  In the meantime, major HAP sources with lean premix and diffusion flame gas-fired units that were constructed or reconstructed after January 14, 2003 must demonstrate compliance with the 91 parts per billion (ppb) formaldehyde emissions limit in Table 1 of the NESHAP within 180 days of publication of the amended rule in the Federal Register (which could happen this month).  Because this limit applies to new sources and not existing sources, there is no three-year compliance window. U.S. EPA states in the preamble to the rule that turbine owners were “on notice that the stay was at risk” and has ignored requests to extend the compliance window.  U.S. EPA estimates approximately 250 gas-fired stationary combustion turbines will be subject to the 91 ppb formaldehyde limit and that only a few of the affected units are equipped with oxidation catalyst control technology.

What Happens Now?

U.S. EPA will likely receive a petition for review of the rule within 60 days of its publication in the Federal Register.  However, the rule is likely to go into effect with the 180-day deadline for subject facilities to demonstrate compliance.  Facilities with gas turbines subject to the restored standards will need to determine if their current configuration allows them to meet the limit, if they haven’t already.  If stack testing shows emissions are above the limit, it will likely be necessary to design and install an oxidation catalyst to reduce emissions.  If controls are necessary and they have not yet been designed and procured, it will be impossible to install them in the next 180 days. Facilities may have to enter into agreements with their delegated agency and establish a compliance schedule. Even if controls are installed and historical data indicate the unit is in compliance, the 180-day deadline may not provide sufficient time to allow for the hiring and scheduling of a testing contractor and gaining regulatory agency approval of a compliance test protocol.  Another alternative is to re-classify the facility as an area source if facility-wide HAP emissions levels are low enough.  40 CFR Part 63, Subpart YYYY does not cover area sources of HAP.

If you need more information or need assistance with permitting or compliance activities for your gas turbine, please contact Amy Marshall at (984) 777-3073.

[1] NRDC  v.  EPA,  489 F.3d 1364 (D.C.  Cir. 2007)

    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