PC NESHAP & Residual Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Updates
Posted: October 16th, 2017Authors: JP K.
The U.S. EPA published proposed amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry (i.e., PC MACT or 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart LLL). The proposed amendments include two primary actions:
- Address the results of the residual risk and technology review (RTR), and
- Propose amendments to correct and clarify rule requirements and provisions.
As I read the publication, I found myself using the highlighter often. Section II (Background) was especially interesting as it described the RTR process in detail. I shared below several of the items I felt were highlight worthy.
Residual Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Highlights
U.S. EPA’s Residual Risk Conclusion: Risks due to emissions of air toxics from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry are acceptable and provide ample margin of safety.
U.S. EPA’s Technology Review Conclusion: No new cost-effective emissions controls were identified under the technology review.
U.S. EPA’s RTR Related Rule Revision(s): None – U.S. EPA proposed that the numerical emission limits remain the same.
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a two-stage regulatory process to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources.
- First stage – Promulgate technology-based NESHAP for source category
- Second stage – Reduce any remaining (i.e., ‘‘residual’’) risk
The Background section (Section II) contains information detailing the RTR process. I found this read to be a good refresher, but I purposely left much of the information out of this blog because ALL4 previously published an article on this topic.
A noteworthy item worth repeating is that the U.S. EPA is required to review the technology-based standards and revise them ‘‘as necessary’’ no less frequently than every eight years. Two items to consider:
- When did the U.S. EPA complete the required review of other NESHAP’s your facility is subject to?
- Mark your calendar for another PC NESHAP RTR on or before 2025.
PC NESHAP Proposed Amendments Highlights
I believe that many will agree with U.S. EPA’s opinion that if the proposed improvements (listed below) are finalized, it will result in improved implementation of the rule.
- Removal of the reference to the dioxin and furan (D/F) temperature monitoring system in 40 CFR §63.1354(b)(9)(vi). U.S. EPA states that there are no 30-day operating rolling average temperature requirements pertaining to D/F in the rule and the proposed removal of the reference is consistent with the EPA’s October 2016 rule guidance.
- Clarification that daily kiln feed rate records are only required if the facility derives their clinker production rates from the measured feed rate.
- Clarification that the submittal dates for semiannual summary reports is 60 days after the end of the reporting period, which is also consistent with the EPA’s October 2016 rule guidance.
- Clarification to resolve conflicting provisions that apply when a sulfur dioxide (SO2) continuous parametric monitoring system (CPMS) is used to monitor hydrochloric acid (HCl) emissions compliance. U.S. EPA is proposing to adopt the requirements of 40 CFR §63.1349(b)(x) and change the requirement of 40 CFR §63.1350(l)(3). Specifically, if the SO2 level exceeds the site-specific SO2 emissions limit by 10 percent or more, a facility must take corrective action as soon as possible, but within 30 days, and conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the HCl limit and verify or re-establish the site-specific SO2 emissions limit within 90 days.
- Clarification that the raw mill on and raw mill off particulate matter (PM) performance testing requirements [40 CFR §63.1349(b)(1)(vi)] only apply to kilns with inline raw mills and do not apply to a kiln that does not have an inline raw mill.
- Clarification that the laboratories calculating the toxic equivalents (TEQs) for D/F compliance should be using the 1989 toxic equivalency factors (TEF). The proposed amendments will incorporate reference to the 1989 TEFs into the rule.
- Clarification that any affected source that was unable to demonstrate compliance before the compliance date due to being idled, or that had demonstrated compliance, but was idled during the normal window for the next compliance test, would need to complete the required testing within 180 days of the date that compliance must be demonstrated.
Feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss anything related to this blog. My contact information is (610) 933-5246, extension 120 or email@example.com.