More PM2.5 NAAQS Related Updates

There have been more guidance updates and rule making in the last month that will impact both air quality modeling and the designation process for the lowered annual particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM_2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) that officially went into effect on May 6, 2024.

On April 30, 2024, the U.S. EPA published a “Supplement to the Guidance on Significant Impact Levels for Ozone and Fine Particles in the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting Program.” As expected, the supplemental guidance reduced the annual Class II Significant Impact Level (SIL) from 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m³) to 0.13 µg/m³. In addition, the Class I annual PM_2.5 SIL was also lowered from 0.05 µg/m³ to 0.03 µg/m³. There were no changes to the 24-hour PM_2.5 Class I or Class II SILs nor to the 8-hour ozone SIL. The annual PM_2.5 SIL was expected to be lowered based on how the original SIL was calculated. In 2018 U.S. EPA established the PM_2.5 SIL based on the 50 percent confidence interval (CI) of observed ambient air data across all U.S. PM_2.5 ambient monitoring data from 2014-2016 to quantify the bounds of change in air quality that can be considered an “insignificant impact”. This same approach was updated utilizing the 2020-2022 PM_2.5 ambient monitoring data. Because the U.S. wide average measured PM_2.5 ambient monitoring data has been decreasing over time it was expected that the updated statistical approach would reduce the annual PM_2.5 SIL. The lowered annual SIL will obviously make it more difficult to “screen out” of multi-source NAAQS air quality modeling demonstration that are also more difficult with the lowered annual PM_2.5 NAAQS and small amount of available headroom.

Because of the changed annual Class I and Class II PM_2.5 SIL, U.S. EPA also had to publish a Clarification on the Development of Modeled Emission Rates for Precursors (MERPs) as a Tier 1 Demonstration Tool for Ozone and PM2.5 under the PSD Permitting Program and update data contained on U.S. EPA MERPs View Qlik webpage. Updates were necessary to remove the published MERP emissions threshold values because the MERPs were tied to the SIL. Instead, U.S. EPA left the hypothetical modeled PM_2.5 concentrations for applicants to calculate site specific PM_2.5 concentrations resulting from PM_2.5 precursor emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) and nitrogen oxide (NO_X). The lowered annual PM_2.5 SIL effectively also rachets down the MERP values.

On April 30, 2024 U.S. EPA also published an “Effective Tools for Fine Particulate Matter under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting Program Fact Sheet” that includes a list of policy and technical guidance, models, and tools to assist stakeholders in evaluating all the currently available options for obtaining a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit with the lowered annual PM_2.5 NAAQS. While the Fact Sheet is a good resource that summarizes all the pertinent information related to PSD permitting policy and guidance it does not include any updated guidance and/or relief from conservative modeling approaches since the lowered annual PM_2.5 NAAQS was finalized.

Finally, on May 16, 2024 U.S. EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register (FR) for the “Update of PM2.5 Data from T640/T640X PM Mass Monitors.” The rulemaking finalizes U.S. EPA’s intent to make a network data alignment correction of PM_2.5 concentrations from Teledyne T640/640X monitor measurements that had been identified in peer-reviewed literature as reporting on average 20 percent high bias relative to Federal Reference Method (FRM) and other Federal Equivalency Method (FEM) PM_2.5 monitors. The Teledyne T640/640X PM_2.5 monitors are used at almost a third of ambient monitoring stations across the U.S. On average the correction will result in a 20 percent reduction in measured PM_2.5 concentrations. However, that number will change from station to station because the correction is based on hourly temperature and relative humidity. This correction is important for both air quality modeling demonstrations that may be relying on Teledyne T640/640X PM_2.5 monitored values for background concentrations and as states begin the process of making their initial annual PM_2.5 designation recommendations which are due to U.S. EPA by March 6, 2025. It should be noted that industry associations have identified other PM_2.5 FEM monitors that have a positive bias when compared to FRM monitors. However, U.S. EPA has indicated that they don’t plan to make any other network data alignment corrections, nor would they approve an adjustment on a case-by-case basis to background concentrations in a PM_2.5 NAAQS modeling demonstration.

The multifaceted aspects of the lowered annual PM_2.5 NAAQS have made it difficult for ALL4 to broadly identify how the change will impact the regulated community. The lowered PM_2.5 NAAQS will impact facilities differently depending on the type of source they are (e.g., major Title V versus minor), where they’re located in the U.S., and what the state regulatory requirements are with respect to air quality modeling demonstrations. In addition, it will be important to evaluate whether the current measured PM_2.5 concentrations were measured by a Teledyne 640/640X monitor and whether those concentrations were impacted by an exceptional event such as a wildfire in order to determine if areas will be designated as attainment or nonattainment and what a potential background concentration would be for a PM_2.5 NAAQS air quality modeling demonstration.

ALL4 is here to help – we can evaluate all aspects of how the lowered annual PM_2.5 NAAQS will impact your operations now and over the next 10 years whether you have an air permitting project or not and concisely summarize it for you and your company’s leadership team. In addition, ALL4 can make recommendations on what can be done now to better position yourself for when the lowered PM_2.5 NAAQS will impact your facility. Please contact Dan Dix at ddix@all4inc.com or (610) 422-1118 to discuss how we can help.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Finalizes Regulations to Incorporate Cumulative Impact Analysis Into Air Quality Permitting

On March 29, 2024, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) finalized regulations that require a cumulative impact analysis (CIA) when a facility is seeking a comprehensive plan approval (CPA) air quality permit. The CIA rulemaking applies to CPA applications submitted on or after July 1st, 2024.

CPA applicability criteria for new facilities are listed in 310 Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) 7.02(5) and include the following:

• Emissions increase greater than 10 tons per year (tpy)
• Combustion units firing natural gas, distillate fuel oil, or propane greater than 40 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr)
• Incinerators
• Non-emergency engines operating more than 100 hours per year

A CIA is also required for any existing facility or emissions unit with a CPA that is proposing a facility-wide potential emissions increase of greater than one ton/year of criteria pollutants, hazardous air pollutants, or air toxics.

As described in 310 CMR 7.02(14)(a), an applicant is required to conduct a CIA when the facility or emissions unit is located within:

• An environmental justice (EJ) population
• One mile of an EJ population if the facility or emissions unit will not be a major source of air pollutants
• Five miles of an EJ population if the facility or emissions unit will be a major source of air pollutants

What must be done to comply with CIA requirements

Once a project is subject to a CIA, the project must:

• Provide advance notice, develop a project fact sheet, and attend a pre-application meeting with MassDEP
• Document measures taken to meaningfully engage the public
• Assess the baseline conditions of the EJ population
• And prepare an evaluation of the Project’s cumulative impacts

Advanced Notice and MassDEP Meetings

A project subject to the MassDEP CIA requirements must provide at least 60-day advance notice to MassDEP, the municipality where the project is located, and representatives of nearby EJ populations. The notice must include a project fact sheet that is translated into languages commonly spoken by the EJ population.

Once MassDEP has been notified, a meeting with the department must be held to discuss the public outreach and involvement measures and details of the CIA. MassDEP encourages a multi-faceted approach to public outreach which could include activities such as: community meetings, use of non-English media outlets, dissemination of the fact sheet, social media engagement, and/or establishment of local information repositories. MassDEP requires translation services to be a part of the public outreach and involvement measures.

During the pre-application meeting with MassDEP, they will request details on the approach used to assess existing community conditions as well as the approach that will be used to evaluate the Project’s cumulative impacts.

Assessing Existing Community Conditions

As part of the CIA, a project is required to assess the existing community conditions to characterize air quality and climate indicators, nearby regulated facilities, health, socioeconomic, and sensitive receptors within a 1-mile (or 5-mile) radius of the project. Thirty-three indicators are required to be reviewed as part of the CIA.

Assessing the Cumulative Impact of a Project

MassDEP’s CIA rule requires a project to conduct air dispersion modeling for criteria pollutants that will be used to compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Massachusetts Ambient Air Quality Standards (MAAQS). An air modeling protocol must be prepared and submitted to MassDEP for review and approval. As part of this analysis, if a project includes significant new vehicle emissions, the vehicle emissions must be accounted for in the air dispersion modeling. Maps that show the modeled concentrations of criteria air pollutants in nearby environmental justice populations must be presented.

In addition, a project is required to characterize the risk of harm to health from air toxics using the Massachusetts Air Toxics Risk Screening Tool (MATRIST) which can be used to estimate cumulative air toxics risks from a project. MATRIST is a spreadsheet-based program that uses default air dispersion factors to assess the cancer and health risk for 237 air toxics at both the fence line and EJ populations. Depending on the proximity to other significant air pollution sources, MassDEP may require these additional sources to be included in MATRIST. As an alternative to using MATRIST, a project may prepare air dispersion modeling. However, this route requires a modeling protocol to be submitted to MassDEP for review and approval.

Cumulative risk from a project cannot exceed an excess lifetime cancer risk of 10 in a million or hazard index greater than one. The results of both the criteria pollutant modeling and air toxics risk screening must be described in the CIA, and maps provided that detail the results of the cancer and hazard index at the fence line and at the nearest EJ census block group.

Lastly, a project is required to evaluate and describe how the criteria pollutant and air toxics emissions could affect the existing environmental and public health conditions in nearby EJ populations. A project also needs to describe any mitigation measures that the project will implement to reduce or minimize the impacts from the project. MassDEP does not, however, mandate mitigation measures for most projects.

Once the CPA and CIA are submitted to MassDEP, a proposed decision is developed, and a formal 60-day public comment begins. Once the formal comment period closes, MassDEP will review the comments received and issue a final decision approving or denying the CPA.

What Does it Mean to You?

Massachusetts becomes the latest state to require consideration of cumulative impacts in air permit applications. The MassDEP CIA process requires an initial public outreach effort, documentation of the public outreach, an assessment of the baseline EJ community conditions and an analysis detailing the impacts both at the fence-line and on EJ populations. While not specifically requiring mitigation of impacts, the CIA report must document any mitigation proposed.

With the addition of CIA requirements the CPA permitting process is expected to take far longer as 60-day advance notice is required prior to submitting a CIA, and MassDEP will allow for a 60-day public comment on the proposed permitting decision which adds a minimum of 120 days to the permitting timeline. Another important note is that any facility with a current CPA that has a project related emissions increase of any air pollutant other than CO₂e of more than one ton will require a CIA.

If you have concerns about the potential implications of the MassDEP CIA rule or need help parsing through it, feel free to contact your ALL4 Project Manager or Joe Sabato. We’ll continue to follow how MassDEP implements the CIA requirements as more information becomes available. We can also help you evaluate permitting risks, from EJ concerns to regulatory issues, and assist in developing a strategy to make the permitting of your project as efficient as possible.

Final Hazard Communication Rule: What Do I Need to Know?

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued a final rule that updates the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) 29 CFR 1910.1200 to align primarily with the seventh revision of the United Nations’ Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). The final rule was published on May 20, 2024, and takes effect on July 19, 2024, over three years after it was proposed.

The HCS, also known as HAZCOM, was last updated in 2012 to align with GHS Revision 3. GHS is an international approach to hazard communication that provides harmonized definitions of hazards, specific criteria for labels, and a 16-section format for safety data sheets (SDS).

Major Changes

The rule also incorporates several letters of interpretation OSHA issued since the Hazard Communication rule was last updated. An overview of the major changes include:

• New definitions for bulk shipment, combustible dust, gas, immediate outer package, liquid, physician or other license health care professional (PLHCP), released for shipment, and solid
• Revised definitions for exposure or exposed, hazardous chemical, and physical hazard, including any combinations and reactions it could have with other chemicals as an end product.
• Labeling requirements for certain very small containers and bulk containers
• Significant changes to the flammable gas hazard class
  • These include the addition of a new hazard class (desensitized explosives) and several new hazard categories (unstable gases and pyrophoric gases in the Flammable Gases class and nonflammable aerosols in the Aerosols class)
• Revised health hazard statements and precautionary statements in some cases
  • Revised health hazard definitions, updated Skin corrosion/irritation and Serious eye damage/eye irritation chapters, general updates to hazard classes

Compliance Deadlines

There are staggered compliance dates for chemical manufacturers, importers, and distributors evaluating substances (January 19, 2026) and mixtures (July 19, 2027). Employers have six months beyond those dates (July 20, 2026, for substances and January 19, 2028, for mixtures) to update any alternative workplace labeling, update their Hazard Communication program, and provide any additional employee training for newly identified physical, health, or other hazards in the workplace.

Until those dates, employers and chemical manufacturers, distributors, and importers can comply with either the old or new standard – or both – during the transition period.

How Can ALL4 Help with Hazard Communication?

ALL4 has a team of experts familiar with all aspects of Hazard Communication, health and safety compliance, and management. ALL4 provides regulatory guidance, training, written procedures, compliance evaluations, and more to help with your regulatory needs. If you have questions on the HCS final rule reach out to Victoria Sparks at vsparks@all4inc.com or 859-447-9156.

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management to Update RIPDES Multi-Sector General Permit RIR500000

The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) proposes to update the Rhode Island Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (RIPDES) Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) for Stormwater with Industrial Activity (Permit No. RIR500000) that expired on May 2, 2024. A draft permit is proposed to be posted in late May with a 30-day public notice period. RIDEM will be making any necessary changes to the proposed permit based on public comment. The planned effective date for the 2024 MSGP is September 1, 2024.

What changes are anticipated?

Substantial changes to the existing permit include, but are not limited to:

• Updating the universal and sector specific benchmark monitoring parameters to align with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 2021 MSGP;
• Creating a new category of monitoring (aluminum, copper, lead, and zinc) for Sector P and transfer station facilities;
• Adding copper benchmark requirements to Sector M,Q,R, and AA;
• Adding Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) to Sector N;
• Removal of magnesium from Sector K;
• Removal of iron from several sectors;
• Adding the requirement for Corrective Action Reports to be submitted electronically;
• Adding pavement wash water as an allowable non stormwater discharge;
• Adding potential requirements for permittees to implement structural improvements or develop strategies for their pollution prevent measures to minimize the impact of a major storm event (hurricane, flood event, etc.);
• Updating the record keeping requirement from three years to five years, and
• Adding the requirement for monitoring to occur even if the qualifying storm event occurs outside of your facility’s normal business hours.

What actions do you need to take?

If your facility currently has coverage under this permit, the facility must continue to comply with the current permit and expect to submit a renewal Notice of Intent (NOI) and an updated storm water management plan (SWMP) electronically via U.S. EPA’s NeT MSGP by the end of the year.

The 2024 MSGP is anticipating the permit to be effective September 1, 2024 with outfall sampling beginning January 1, 2025. Facilities currently covered under the 2019 MSGP should submit a renewal NOI and an updated SWMP via NeT MSGP within 90 days after the official effective date to ensure the facility’s stormwater coverage remains uninterrupted.

As part of the registration process, it is also time to review and update your SWMP. In preparation of the proposed updates to the 2024 MSGP, ALL4 recommends reviewing the benchmark monitoring parameters from the U.S. EPA 2021 MSGP and the proposed monitoring requirements and their applicability to your facility. Facilities with a conditional exclusion for no exposure of the industrial activities at their site must submit an No Exposure Certification (NEC) to RIDEM every five years, independent of the reissuance of the 2024 MSGP.

If you have any questions regarding the proposed updates to the 2019 MSGP or what your next steps should be to prepare for the adoption of the 2024 MSGP, please reach out to me at jfantone@all4inc.com. ALL4 will continue to track updates to the 2019 MSGP, and is here to assist your facility with its SWMP and renewal along with any other stormwater or wastewater issues at your facility.

Coal Power Plant ELGs – U.S. EPA Forces Stricter Limits or Cease Firing Coal

Introduction

Coal fired power plants in their combustion process create waste ash which contains heavy metals and other pollutants. This ash makes its way into discharge wastewater ending up in the environment and impacting the health of humans and wildlife. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has been regulating coal fired power plants wastewater discharge for the better half of a century to mitigate this. These restrictions, called effluent limitation guidelines (ELG), require power plants to use certain treatment technologies and follow numeric discharge limits. On April 25^th, U.S. EPA finalized a new set of ELGs which force coal power plants to abide by new and stricter limits or permanently stop burning coal. The new rule takes effect on July 8, 2024.

More stringent limitations for direct dischargers in the rule do not apply until a date determined by the permitting authority that is as soon as possible on or after July 8, 2024, but no later than December 31, 2029.

For indirect discharges, pretreatment standards are established that are directly enforceable and apply May 9, 2027.

The goal of these regulations is to reduce the introduction of heavy metals and other pollutants into the waters of the U.S (WOTUS). The intention of the regulation is to benefit disadvantaged, low income, and minority communities, which are most adversely impacted by coal power plants.

ELG Limits

The ELG focus on the following waste sources:

• Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater – wastewater from sulfur dioxide scrubbing
• Bottom ash (BA) transport water – water used to transport noncombustible residue
• Combustion residual leachate (CRL) – leachate water collected from coal combustion residual landfills
• Unmanaged CRL – CRL that is 1) determined by permitting authority to be a functional equivalent of direct discharges to waters of the U.S. or 2) CRL that mixed with groundwater before being discharged to waters of the U.S.

The following limits are imposed:

• A zero-discharge limitation for all pollutants in FGD wastewater, BA transport water, and CRL.
• Numeric limitations for mercury and arsenic in unmanaged CRL and for legacy wastewater discharged during the closure process if those surface impoundments have not commenced closure under the Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) regulations as of the effective date of this rule.

To comply with the limits detailed above facilities may have to construct or modify existing treatment and/or process technologies with the following:

• Biological Reduction
• Membrane Filtration
• Spray or Thermal Evaporation
• Zero valent Iron
• Alternative BA transport such as conveyors or pressurized transport systems

Ceasing Coal Combustion

For plants unable or unwilling to meet these new limitations, the alternative the regulation gives is to cease coal combustion by December 31, 2028 or December 31, 2034. A Notice of Planned Participation must be submitted by June 27, 2023 to enroll in the cessation agreement. By opting into this cessation agreement, facilities choose to switch to fuels alternative to coal later in agreement with U.S. EPA that they will be subject to a more lenient category of ELGs as outlined below:

• Coal combustion cessation by December 31, 2028:
  • Surface impoundments are the required technology
  • U.S. EPA determined other technologies would disrupt the coal cessation process

• Coal combustion cessation by December 31, 2034:
  • 2020 rule requirements for FGD wastewater and BA
  • Pre-2015 best available technology requirements for CRL, chemical precipitation for CRL after coal combustion cessation

Conclusion 

The new ELGs are a part of the Biden-Harris administration’s pollution reduction measures and are forcing coal burning power plants to act now. These limits, while strict, have been in line with other recent measures such as the updated National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter, and maximum contamination levels for polyfluorinated substances. The coal power plant ELG rule was published in conjunction with similar rules affecting power plants such as reduced mercury and air toxic standards, and a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act rule which requires management of coal ash at inactive power plants.

If you need help evaluating your compliance options and strategies, please do not hesitate to reach out to an ALL4 consultant. Evan Mia can be reached at emia@all4inc.com. Be sure to keep an eye out for ALL4 articles which give timely updates and notices for regulatory changes.

CERCLA Designation for PFAS Compounds: How does this affect my facility?

On April 19, 2024, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) designated two types of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), as Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) hazardous substances. At the same time, the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance issued a memorandum titled “PFAS Enforcement Discretion and Settlement Policy Under CERCLA” These actions come on the heels of several other key federal rules relating to PFOA and PFOS, including the proposed “hazardous constituents” designation under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the final drinking water standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

The seven broad categories of entities that may potentially be affected by the final CERCLA rule include, but are not limited to:

• PFOA or PFOS manufacturers (including importers and importers of articles that contain these substances)
• PFOA or PFOS processors
• Manufacturers of products containing PFOA or PFOS
• Downstream users of PFOA or PFOS
• Downstream users of PFOA or PFOS products
• Waste management facilities
• Wastewater treatment facilities

While U.S. EPA mentioned these broad categories in regard to potential remediation or CERCLA investigations, other facilities may be impacted through its water intake and industrial water discharge if PFAS concentrations above the reportable quantity (RQ) as discussed below.

What’s in the Rule?

U.S. EPA amended Table 302.4 of 40 CFR Part 302 to include PFOA, PFOS, and their respective salts and structural isomers. The designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances can trigger the applicability of release reporting requirements under CERCLA Sections 103 and 111(g) and Section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). Facilities must report releases of hazardous substances at or above the RQ within a 24-hour period. For PFOA and PFOS, an RQ of one pound has been assigned. If your facility regularly emits (discharges) more than one pound of PFOA or PFOS in any 24-hour period and your facility permits do not address these discharges, you will need to assess reporting under CERLCA for continuous release reporting. Episodic releases, releases that exceed a “statistically significant increase” from a “continuous release” and occur in a quantity equal to or greater than an RQ, must be reported immediately to the NRC, SERC, and LEPC.

Additionally, CERCLA Section 306 provides that the Department of Transportation (DOT) is required to regulate any substance added to the CERCLA list as a “hazardous material” in accordance with the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA).

The final rule also allows for states and U.S. EPA to initiate investigations and clean ups under the “Superfund” law. And, as with other substances listed, PFOA and PFOS are now included when performing an All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) as part of any property transaction.

What Enforcement Discretion is U.S. EPA taking?

According to the April 19^th memorandum, “EPA does not intend to pursue entities where equitable factors do not support seeking response actions or costs under CERCLA, including, but not limited to, community water systems and publicly owned treatment works, municipal separate storm sewer systems, publicly owned/operated municipal solid waste landfills, publicly owned airports and local fire departments, and farms where biosolids are applied to the land. For these same parties, EPA can use CERCLA statutory authorities when appropriate to enter into settlements that provide contribution protection from third party claims for matters addressed in the settlement.”

U.S. EPA has decided to not pursue government-owned utilities and landfills as part of their enforcement discretion. The memorandum also states that U.S. EPA may widen that discretion based on mitigating factors. Remember that while CERCLA liability extends to the following entities, they have always used discretion in determining viable potential responsible parties (PRPs):

• Current owners and operators of a facility where hazardous substances come to be located.
• Owners and operators of a facility at the time that hazardous substances were disposed of at the facility.
• Generators and parties that arranged for the disposal or transport of hazardous substances.
• Transporters of hazardous waste that selected the site where the hazardous substances were brought.

If you are in one of the seven broad categories of entities that may potentially be affected by the final CERCLA rule, you should have a strategy in place for potential current and future liabilities related to historic PFAS releases.

What actions should you take?

Facilities should review their processes and procedures across the board as it relates to PFAS in general. Remember that this rulemaking opens the door for further listings of other PFAS under CERCLA.

• If your facility is in one of the seven broad categories listed above, consider your strategy for quantifying all emissions, discharges, or releases with respect to the RQs.
• Review your sampling program to identify proper procedures and test methods.
• Watch for and update your DOT procedures for shipping, if necessary.
• Evaluate continuous releases to determine if CECRLA reporting is necessary.
• Update spill plans and cleanup procedures to include PFAS as a reportable chemical.
• If you are purchasing, leasing, or divesting property, make sure PFAS is evaluated during the AAI (also known as Phase I Environmental Site Assessment).

ALL4 can assist with your overall PFAS strategy, update current plans and procedures, evaluate applicability, and provide assistance with sampling, as necessary. If you have any questions regarding the CERCLA designation or other PFAS rules, please reach out to Karen Thompson or Kayla Nuschke.

PFAS in Michigan NPDES Applications

The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) has recently added questions around per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Industrial/Commercial Application Form for permitting direct discharges of wastewater. This update comes as a result of the December 6, 2022, United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) memorandum that provides guidance to “state-authorized permitting authorities to leverage the NPDES Program to restrict the discharge of PFAS at their sources.” The update to EGLE’s NPDES application found on MiEnviro, EGLE’s online platform that supports air quality, water quality, and natural resources permitting and compliance programs for Michigan, comes after the publication of an interoffice communication on March 14, 2023. The March publication addressed how EGLE’s Water Resources Division (WRD) would develop and implement permitting strategies to address PFAS discharges from NPDES-permitted facilities in Michigan, citing the December 6, 2022, the U.S. EPA memorandum.

PFAS is a high priority for EGLE due to the health concerns associated with the chemicals, their persistence in the environment, and current lack of regulation of releases to the air, water, and soil. Additional PFAS constituents are anticipated to be regulated as states and U.S. EPA make further classifications for the forever chemicals. For more information on EGLE’s overall regulatory strategy, check out ALL4’s previous summary of EGLE’s plan for regulating PFAS via the NPDES.

Compliance measures will begin to roll out for current permittees discharging to surface waters of the state including, but not limited to, the following:

• Source identification and process evaluation of process flows;
• Additional analytical testing parameters for PFAS;
• Submission of reports and action plans for how the facility is addressing PFAS at the facility;
• Product substitution; and,
• Installation of treatment systems.

As a result, EGLE has added a new section for both new and re-issuance permit applications through its online compliance portal MiEnviro. With the addition of EGLE’s newly added section, applicants should anticipate answering questions pertaining to PFAS at their facility regardless of its industrial activities or history with the chemicals. These questions address how a facility’s activities and discharges may impact waters of the state (WOTS) and potentially release perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), just two of the many constituents which make up PFAS. As part of the MiEnviro submittal process for the NPDES application and renewal, PFAS analytical results will need to be included as part of the submission.

The PFAS questions added to MiEnviro for applicants include the following:

1. Is this facility known to have PFOS and/or PFOA present in wastewater discharged to surface waters of the state?
2. Is this facility a landfill for solid or hazardous waste with a discharge of leachate?
3. Do any of the following activities at the facility discharge wastewater?

• Metal Finishing;
• Pulp & Paper Production;
• Chrome Plating/Chromate Conversion;
• Car Washing;
• Apply Coating;
• Remediation of a contaminated site;
• Commercial Industrial Laundry;
• Leather or Hide Tanning/Finishing Operation;
• Apply a stain-, dirt-, water-, or fire-resistant coating and/or protectant;
• Manufacture, formulate, or mix paints/pigments;
• Carpet and/or Upholstery Cleaning;
• Carpet, Rug, or Textile Manufacturer; and/or
• Centralized Waste Treaters (treat or recover metal-bearing, oily, and organic wastes, wastewater, or used material received from off site, and are regulated under 40 CFR Part 437).

4. Has Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) ever been used at the facility for training or testing, or to respond to a fire emergency? Has AFFF ever been stored at this facility?

What actions do you need to take?

Not only are PFAS a concern to the public, which could impact public and customer relations, but there are significant financial implications in determining and dealing with PFAS at industrial facilities. As additional scrutiny emerges around the topic of PFAS, Michigan will require the 40 PFAS parameters identified in U.S. EPA’s Draft, along with a minimum of 28 additional Michigan-specific analytes, to be sampled and submitted as part of a required annual status report for both direct industrial wastewater dischargers and industrial stormwater discharges alike. For additional information on Method 1633 and other PFAS testing methods refer to ALL4’s  recently published article on New Approved PFAS Testing Methods.

ALL4 continues to monitor updates made to Michigan’s NPDES permitting process, both generally and for PFAS, and can assist in your NPDES renewal application and develop strategies for your compliance needs. To learn more about how ALL4 can address your specific needs or to discuss any NPDES-related queries, please contact Cody Fridley at cfridley@all4inc.com or 269.716.6537, or Colleen Nagel at cnagel@all4inc.com.

ACE has been Repealed – What Does That Mean for New and Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units?

On May 9, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) published final regulations addressing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (EGUs or EGs).

The rulemaking includes changes to the current Standards of Performance [or New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)] for GHG Emissions from EGUs (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart TTTT), a newly issued subpart – Standards of Performance for GHG Emissions for Modified Coal-fired Steam EGUs and New Construction and Reconstruction Stationary Combustion Turbine EGUs (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart TTTTa), and Emissions Guidelines (EG) for GHG Emissions for EGUs (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart UUUUb). Additionally, the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, or Subpart UUUUa, has been repealed. The following includes a brief overview of the changes that U.S. EPA has issued.

Revised NSPS TTTT

Subpart TTTT regulates GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired EGUs and was initially promulgated in October 2015. U.S. EPA has made several editorial amendments and changes to update incorrect or outdated information and to add compliance flexibility. Specifically, they have added a compliance option for EGUs serving a common electric generator to have alternate compliance methods approved by the Administrator. For EGUs using a common stack but subject to different emissions standards, they are allowing for either separate monitoring prior to mixing or using an F-factor to apportion each unit’s contribution to carbon dioxide (CO₂) mass emissions. U.S. EPA also added a requirement to maintain records of electric sales to demonstrate that a stationary combustion turbine meets the conditions for the heat input-based standard, along with maintaining documentation for any system emergencies that may have occurred. Finally, a few definitions listed within the Subpart have also been clarified to align with other Subparts, including annual capacity factor and base load rating. No emissions standards have been revised as a part of this rulemaking.

New NSPS TTTTa

The required 8-year review of Subpart TTTT was completed, and U.S. EPA determined there have been developments in available control measures for stationary combustion turbines. As a result, U.S. EPA promulgated Subpart TTTTa. The Subpart regulates emissions from new and reconstructed stationary combustion turbines and modifications to fossil fuel-fired steam generating units. A modification must result in greater than a 10% increase in hourly emissions of CO₂ to cause an EGU to be subject to this Subpart.

New and reconstructed stationary combustion turbines (defined as constructed or reconstructed after May 23, 2023) have been subcategorized based on the “load” of the turbine and a best system of emissions reduction (BSER) was determined for each subcategory. There are three subcategories that have been identified: (1) low load; (2) intermediate load; and (3) base load. The BSERs identified for the low load and intermediate load subcategories have a single implementation phase, while the BSER identified for the base load subcategory has two implementation phases with an extended timeline for demonstrating compliance. The extended compliance deadline for 90% Carbon capture and storage (CCS) was finalized as January 1, 2032 – three years earlier than originally proposed. The low-GHG hydrogen co-firing as a BSER pathway originally proposed for intermediate and base load units was removed from the final rule, but EGUs can choose to meet the standard by co-firing hydrogen instead of using CCS. The standards are included in the following table.

¹ Must be met on both a 12-operating month and a 3-year rolling average basis.

In addition to regulating new and reconstructed stationary combustion turbines, Subpart TTTTa specifies a standard for fossil fuel-fired steam generating units that undergo a modification. This approach is like the existing Subpart TTTT, which defines a modification that results in greater than a 10% increase in hourly emissions of CO₂ as subject to the standard. For these modified sources, U.S. EPA determined the CO₂ emissions standard as an 88.4% reduction in the unit’s best historical annual CO₂ emissions rate (from 2002 to the date of the modification).

Repeal of UUUUa (ACE) and New UUUUb

When the U.S. EPA establishes an NSPS for new sources within a specific category, it must also specify EG for existing sources, unless the pollutant is regulated under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) program, Clean Air Act (CAA) section 108-110, or the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) program. Individual state and tribal authorities then utilize the EGs to develop a state plan that must be reviewed and approved by U.S. EPA. When the original NSPS for GHG from EGUs was promulgated, the EGs for existing sources were proposed as Subpart UUUU. This Subpart is also referred to as the Clean Power Plan (CPP). Subsequently, the U.S. EPA repealed the CPP and replaced it with the ACE rule (Subpart UUUUa). Although a series of District of Columbia (D.C.) Circuit Court and U.S. Supreme Court decisions impacted both the CPP and ACE rules and their embedded provisions, the result of the litigation was that the CPP remained repealed with the ACE rule in effect. U.S. EPA has since determined that the heat rate improvements required by ACE on their own do not qualify as BSER for existing sources, and additional standards are required. Therefore, with this action, they have repealed the ACE rule and created a new Subpart, Subpart UUUUb.

Although the proposed rule included standards for existing stationary combustion turbines, they have not been finalized as a part of this rulemaking (U.S. EPA will take separate action on those standards at a later date). The final standards in Subpart UUUUb are only for existing fossil fuel-fired steam generating units. For existing fossil fuel-fired steam generating units (those constructed prior to January 8, 2014) that meet the general applicability criteria, U.S. EPA has finalized standards for subcategories of these units based on the fuel type and operating time horizon for coal-fired units and load level for oil- and natural gas-fired units. The proposed rule included four categories for existing coal-fired units; however, the final rule only includes two categories: long-term and medium-term. An applicability exemption that was not included in the proposed rule is provided for units that plan to permanently cease operation by January 1, 2032. These affected steam generating units must comply with the applicable standard by January 1, 2030, with the exception of a January 1, 2032 compliance date for existing coal-fired steam generating units that will meet 90% CCS. A summary of the proposed standards is included below.

U.S. EPA is also requiring that the plans include an annual demonstration of compliance. States may include a mechanism in their plans to extend the compliance date by no more than one year for certain EGUs that cannot meet the date in the rule due to factors outside of the owner’s control. Further, for sources that are medium-term steam generating units that will be shutting down and EGUs that invoke remaining useful life and other factors (RULOF), the EGs require establishment of milestones to hold owners and operators accountable to their shutdown plans. Documentation and reports on state plans and milestones will be made publicly available on websites established by owners and operations of affected EGUs.

Resources for Development of Plans for Existing Sources

State, tribal, and federal authorities are responsible for creating and submitting plans to establish emissions standards that align with the EGs for existing sources in the newly created Subpart UUUUb. The EGs include information that must be included in a plan submission. U.S. EPA has established criteria (presumptive standards) to determine whether plan requirements are equivalent to the proposed standards in the EGs. There are also guidelines for the types of information and evidence states must provide if they would like to apply a less stringent standard to a particular facility or type of facility, based on the RULOF. These include the source’s age or physical limitations on installing emissions control equipment. Additionally, other options for state plans, including emissions averaging and trading, are allowed.

U.S. EPA also has added two optional reliability-related mechanisms that states may choose to incorporate into their plans. One is a short-term reliability mechanism for units responding to declared grid emergencies (this mechanism is also available to new units). The other is a reliability assurance mechanism for units with cease operations dates that may be needed to stay online longer than anticipated due to documented reliability needs. Meaningful engagement with relevant stakeholders is required for plan development, including consideration of potential impacts and benefits to communities most affected by emissions from affected EGUs. The final plans are required within 24 months after the final EGs are published in the Federal Register, with a mandated compliance deadline of January 1, 2030. The compliance deadline is based on consideration of how long U.S. EPA anticipates it would take for operators to assess their affected EGUs and bring them into compliance.

What do I need to do?

There are various applicable compliance deadlines associated with the new rules, depending on whether the affected EGUs are new or existing, and whether they are steam generating units or combustion turbines. Therefore, affected entities should be reviewing their fleet inventories and considering how different compliance timelines will impact their long-term operational plans. In addition, if you recently submitted a permit application for a new stationary combustion turbine, you will need to review the final rule to see how changes from the proposal impact your plans for the new turbines.

As stated earlier, U.S. EPA has not yet finalized the EGs that were proposed in May 2023 for existing combustion turbines. There is a non-regulatory docket open through May 28, 2024 where they are accepting input from stakeholders on that topic.

This article only provides an overview of some of the key changes associated with the final rules and is not a complete inventory of all of the requirements or revisions. If you have additional questions or would like to gain an understanding of how the new rules could affect your facility’s compliance program, please reach out to me at arichardson@all4inc.com. ALL4 is monitoring all updates published by U.S. EPA on this topic, and we are here to answer your questions and assist your facility with any aspects of regulatory compliance.

New PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation Finalized

On April 10, 2024, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) finalized the National Primary Drinking Water Standard (NPDWS) for per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The rule establishes legally enforceable limits, Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), as well as non-enforceable health-based levels, Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs). This rule will protect an estimated 100 million people from PFAS contamination in their drinking water.

What PFAS will have limits?

This rule sets individual numeric MCLs for five PFAS: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid, (PFHxS) and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA, also known as “GenX”). The rule also sets a combined MCL for mixtures of any two or more of following four PFAS: PFNA, PFHxS, GenX, and perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS). In comparison to the draft published in March 2023 this rule does not include an individual MCL for perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS), only a mixture containing PFBS.

PFAS mixtures containing at least two or more of PFHxS, PFNA, GenX Chemicals, and PFBS will use a “Hazard Index” MCL to account for the combined and co-occurring levels of these PFAS in drinking water. The Hazard Index (HI) is made up of a sum of fractions. Each fraction compares the level of each PFAS measured in the water to the highest level determined not to have risk of health effects.

To determine HI compliance, calculate the average HI for all the samples taken in the past year and if the running annual average HI is greater than 1.0, it is a violation of the proposed HI MCLs. The final MCLs are shown in the table below.

Additionally, U.S. EPA is setting MCLGs for these PFAS, which are also shown in the table below. Of note, the MCLGs were set at zero parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS.

Am I subject to the new standard?

Any public water system (PWS) is subject to the newly established NPDWS and must monitor for these PFAS. PWSs will have three years to complete initial monitoring (by 2027). Consequently, small community water systems (CWS) and non-transient, non-community water systems (NTNCWS) that may need to take actions to reduce levels of regulated PFAS will have an additional two years to take any of these necessary actions and comply with all regulated PFAS MCLs (by 2029). If subject, you can expect that your state will send you a monitoring schedule that will tell you when to monitor for PFAS. You must use a lab that is certified in EPA Method 537.1 and 533.

Is there flexibility for small water systems?

The rule provides burden reduction for small systems during the initial monitoring requirements. All CWS and NTNCWS are required to complete initial monitoring within three years after the date of the final rule promulgation. All surface water systems are required to initially monitor quarterly in a 12-month period. However, small groundwater systems serving 10,000 or fewer are only required to monitor twice within a 12-month period. The PFAS drinking water rule also allows water systems to utilize previously collected monitoring data to satisfy the initial monitoring requirements.

What happens if I exceed the MCL for PFAS?

Public water systems have five years (by 2029) to implement solutions that reduce these PFAS if monitoring shows that drinking water levels exceed these MCLs. Beginning in five years (2029), public water systems that have PFAS in drinking water that violates one or more of these MCLs must take action to reduce levels of these PFAS in their drinking water and must provide notification to the public of the violation. Water systems must also provide the public with information on the levels of these PFAS in their drinking water beginning in 2027, even if they do not exceed any MCLs.

How can I limit PFAS in my public water system?

The new limits in this rule are achievable using a range of technologies including granular activated carbon, reverse osmosis, and ion exchange systems.

What can ALL4 do for you?

If the PFAS drinking water limits may affect you, ALL4 can partner with you to develop strategies for initial and long-term compliance. This rule may change in subsequent years based on the results of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 5 (UCMR5) that is occurring during 2023-2025. The UCMR5 measures 29 PFAS and Lithium and the NPDWSR may account for more PFAS in the future. If you would like to know more about the PFAS NPDWR, or how ALL4 can assist you, please reach out to Tia Sova at tsova@all4inc.com

Ensuring Fall Protection: A Crucial Component of Construction Safety

Fall protection in construction sites is a critical aspect of ensuring workers’ safety. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), falls are one of the leading causes of fatalities and injuries in the construction industry. To address this issue, OSHA organized a Safety Standdown, emphasizing the importance of fall protection and providing guidelines for employers and workers to prevent accidents.

In this blog post, we’ll delve into the significance of fall protection measures, key regulations, and best practices for ensuring safety on construction sites.

Understanding Fall Hazards:

Construction sites pose various fall hazards, including unprotected edges, floor openings, scaffolds, ladders, and roofs. Workers can be exposed to these risks during routine activities, including roofing, steel erection, and working on elevated surfaces. Recognizing these hazards is the first step towards implementing effective fall protection measures because the consequence of falls can be severe, leading to serious injuries or fatalities.

OSHA Regulations:

OSHA has established stringent regulations to address fall hazards in the construction industry. Some of the key standards include:

• 29 CFR 1926.501: This standard outlines the requirements for fall protection systems, including guardrail systems, safety nets, and personal fall arrest systems (PFAS).
• 29 CFR 1926.502: It specifies the criteria for the design, performance, and use of fall protection equipment, such as harnesses, lanyards, and anchorage points.
• 29 CFR 1926.503: This standard focuses on training requirements for workers involved in construction activities with fall hazards, ensuring they are competent in identifying risks and using fall protection equipment properly.

Best Practices for Fall Protection:

Implementing robust fall protection measures is essential for mitigating risks and preventing accidents. Here are some best practices to consider:

• Conducting thorough site assessments to identify fall hazards and implementing appropriate controls, such as guardrails, covers, or safety nets.
• Providing adequate training to workers on the use of fall protection equipment, including proper fitting of harnesses, inspection of equipment, and emergency procedures.
• Regularly inspecting and maintaining fall protection systems and equipment to ensure they are in good working condition.
• Utilizing engineering controls, such as guardrails, safety nets, and toe-boards, to prevent falls from elevated surfaces.
• Developing and enforcing comprehensive fall protection policies and procedures, including rescue plans for workers in the event of a fall.

The Importance of Safety Standdowns:

Safety Standdowns organized by OSHA serve as crucial platforms for raising awareness about fall hazards and promoting a culture of safety in the construction industry. These events provide employers and workers with valuable resources, training materials, and guidance to enhance fall protection measures on construction sites.

Conclusion:

Fall protection is paramount in construction safety, and adherence to OSHA regulations and best practices is essential for preventing injuries and fatalities. By understanding fall hazards, implementing robust safety measures, and participating in initiatives like Safety Standdowns, construction industry stakeholders can create safer work environments and protect the well-being of workers. Let’s prioritize fall protection to ensure everyone goes home safely at the end of the day.

The ALL4 team is dedicated to developing site-specific strategies that prioritize accident and injury reduction and risk management. For more information or assistance with this and other regulatory compliance needs, contact Brian Godfrey, Managing Consultant, at bgodfrey@all4inc.com.