4 The record articles

So Many MACT Compliance Plans, Which Ones Do I Need?

Posted: April 15th, 2015

Author: All4 Staff 

If you are subject to one (1) or more National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) [often referred to as Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards], you undoubtedly have heard talk of the various compliance plans required for a given rule. If you have not heard about these required plans, this article may drastically change your “to do” list for tomorrow. Performance test plans, parametric monitoring plans, and operations and maintenance (O&M) plans are just a few examples of the required plans under various NESHAPs. Several NESHAPs that are currently effective, have looming compliance dates, or are in the proposed stage all have some sort of compliance plan requirement. To give you a sense of the variety of plans required under a given NESHAP, we’ve provided a snapshot of the compliance plan requirements specified in the following rules:

  • 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ – NESHAP for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines, “RICE MACT”
  • 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart DDDDD – NESHAP for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, “Boiler MACT”
  • 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart LLL – NESHAP from for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry, “PC MACT”
  • 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart UUU – NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries (Catalytic Cracking, Catalytic Reforming and Sulfur Plant Units), “Refinery MACT II”

In addition to the plan requirements specified in a given NESHAP, the general provisions of Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 63 also contain compliance plan requirements that apply. You will need to review the specific NESHAP you are subject to in order to determine its specific plan requirements.

The table below provides a matrix of the specific plan requirements in the rules noted above. These plans are “site-specific,” meaning you cannot rely on the details in the plan for a sister plant. However, for companies with several facilities across the U.S., these plans have commonalities that align well with developing modular plans that can be modified easily to accommodate specifics of a given facility.

So, what do these plans do, and what must be included? Let’s look at a more in-depth look at some of these plans.

Site-Specific Monitoring Plan

Generally speaking, if you demonstrate compliance through performance (stack) testing and demonstrate ongoing compliance with operating limits through monitoring, a site-specific monitoring plan is required for a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS), continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS), and/or continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) – collectively referred to as a continuous monitoring system (CMS). A site-specific monitoring plan is also required if you petition the U.S. EPA for alternative monitoring parameters under 40 CFR §63.8(f).

The contents of a site-specific monitoring plan are contained within a given subpart, as well as Subpart A. A site-specific monitoring plan typically includes the following:

  • Initial and subsequent calibration of the CMS.
  • Determination and adjustment of the calibration drift of the CMS.
  • Preventive maintenance of the CMS, including spare parts inventory.
  • Accuracy audit procedures, including sampling and analysis methods.
    • Procedures for performance evaluations (performance evaluation test plan) and pass/fail tolerances.
  • Program of corrective action for a malfunctioning CMS.
  • Basis for selection of the CMS measurement location relative to each affected source such that the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions.
  • Equipment and specifications of the CMS (sample interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer, and the data collection and reduction systems).
  • Procedures with data reduction requirements [in accordance with 40 CFR §63.8(g)(2), or as otherwise specified in the specific NESHAP].
  • Procedures for the ongoing O&M, data quality assurance, and ongoing recordkeeping and reporting.

In most NESHAP, a site‐specific monitoring plan is not required if you have existing plans prepared under Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 60 that apply to CEMS and COMS and meet the monitoring, installation, operation, and maintenance requirements of the specific NESHAP.

As with the performance test plan, submit your site-specific monitoring plan upon request, at least 60 days before your initial performance evaluation of your CMS. Note that this submittal timeframe is from Subpart A, and some NESHAPs have different submittal schedules, so please check your applicable NESHAP for details.

Site-Specific Fuel Monitoring Plan

With few exceptions, for facilities with units subject to Boiler MACT, a site-specific fuel monitoring plan must be developed and implemented before conducting a required performance test, or if you will be using fuel analysis in lieu of performance testing to demonstrate compliance. The purpose of this plan is to identify the pollutant input loading to the boiler during the performance test, which will then become an operating limit (or an emission limit if using fuel analysis as the compliance option) until the next performance test is conducted. This plan does not have to be submitted unless the facility intends to use an analytical method other than those required by Table 6 of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart DDDDD. You must, however, keep of copy of the plan as a record. The site-specific fuel monitoring plan must:

  • Identify the fuels that are to be combusted.
  • Determine who will be conducting the fuel analysis (the facility or the fuel supplier).
  • Provide a detailed description of the sample locations and procedures for collecting and preparing the samples.
  • Present the analytical methods, along with minimum detection levels, to be used.
  • Present the calculations and supporting documentation.

Quality Assurance (QA)/Performance Test Plan

The requirement for a performance test plan is found at 40 CFR §63.7(c). Similar to a performance test protocol, this plan provides a summary of the overall test program, and must include a test program summary, the test schedule, data quality objectives (i.e., pretest expectations of precision, accuracy, and completeness of data), and both an internal and external QA program. The following should be considered when developing a performance test plan:

  • Program contacts and responsibilities.
  • Site-specific plan elements.
  • Test program schedule.
  • Testing conditions.
  • Test method performance audit (PA).
  • Unit/process operation and parameter monitoring.
  • Control device operation and monitoring.
  • Stack sampling location.
  • Velocity and volumetric flow rate.
  • Fixed gas composition.
  • Moisture content.
  • Pollutant-specific reference methods.
  • Emission test data reduction.

Typically, the test plan is submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and/or your local permitting authority only upon request. If it is requested, it must be submitted at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to take place, that is, simultaneously with the notification of intention to conduct a performance test required by 40 CFR §63.7(b), or on a mutually agreed upon date.

Emissions Averaging Plan

Boiler MACT is an example of a NESHAP that allows emissions averaging as a compliance option. The emissions averaging provisions are very prescriptive, but may be a viable option for certain facilities. A component of the emissions averaging compliance approach under Boiler MACT is the requirement to develop and implement an emissions averaging plan. If you choose to demonstrate compliance by using emissions averaging, you must submit the plan only upon request (no later than 180 days before the date that the facility intends to demonstrate compliance using the emissions averaging option); otherwise you must maintain a copy of the plan as a record. The plan must include the following:

  • Identification of all existing boilers and process heaters that will be part of the averaging group.
  • Date on which emissions averaging is to commence.
  • Process parameters that will be monitored for each averaging group.
  • The control technology or pollution prevention measure for each boiler or process heater in the averaging group.
  • The test plan for measurement of emissions.

Energy Efficiency Implementation Plan

Energy efficiency credits are another option for existing boilers according to 40 CFR §63.7533 of the Boiler MACT. A facility may meet certain criteria to take credit for implementing energy conservation measures identified in the energy assessment.  However, part of this option is the requirement for an implementation plan. The plan must identify all the boilers where the efficiency credits will be applied, include a description of the energy conservation measures implemented along with the energy savings from each energy conservation measure, and contain an explanation of the criteria utilized for determining the energy savings. If you choose to use efficiency credits from energy conservation measures to demonstrate compliance, you must keep a copy of the implementation plan and copies of all data and calculations used to establish credits. If requested, a facility must submit the implementation plan for efficiency credits for review and approval no later than 180 days before the date on which the facility intends to demonstrate compliance using the efficiency credit approach.

Startup and Shutdown Plan

As part of the proposed Boiler MACT reconsiderations, U.S. EPA will require a written startup and shutdown plan (SSP). If this requirement remains in the final version of the rule, the plan must be developed and written according to the requirements in Table 3 of the Boiler MACT rule. The focus of the SSP will be the facility’s definition of what constitutes startup and shutdown for its affected boilers, and how the facility will demonstrate compliance with the startup and shutdown work practice standards.  As proposed, the SSP must be maintained onsite and available upon request for inspection.

Operation and Maintenance Plan

Certain NESHAP require a site-specific O&M plan to be developed and implemented. For example, the PC MACT specifies in 40 CFR §63.1343(c) and 40 CFR §63.1347 that the site-specific O&M plan include:

  • Fugitive dust emissions control measures for open clinker storage piles.
  • Location of current and future clinker storage piles.
  • Basis for selection of site-specific fugitive dust emissions control measures.
  • Procedure for proper O&M of the affected sources and air pollution control devices.
  • Procedure for addressing periods of startup and shutdown, corrective actions, and annual inspections of the components of the combustion system.

Failure to comply with any provision of the PC MACT O&M plan developed is a violation of the standard. Under PC MACT, the O&M plan must be submitted for review and approval as part of the application for a Part 70 permit.

The RICE MACT requires a similar type of O&M plan if a RICE manufacturer does not have specific emissions-related written instructions.

Visible Emission & Opacity Monitoring Plan

Under the PC MACT, an affected facility is required to comply with opacity standards for non-kiln/clinker cooler equipment such as the raw material, clinker, or finished product storage bins, conveying system transfer points, bagging systems, bulk loading or unloading systems, raw and finish mills, and raw material dryers. Compliance with the opacity standards can be demonstrated by a COMS or by U.S. EPA Reference Method 22 (RM22) and U.S. EPA RM9.  RM22 describes the procedures for identifying visible emissions and RM9 quantifies the percent opacity for comparison with the emission standard. RM9 is only required if visible emissions are observed when performing a RM22. A Visible Emission & Opacity Monitoring Plan is required for facilities utilizing the RM22/RM9 approach to comply with opacity standards for non-kiln/clinker cooler equipment. The Visible Emission & Opacity Monitoring Plan must include the procedures for completing the RM22/RM9 consistent with 40 CFR §63.1350(f)(1)(i)-(vii).

Corrective Action Plan

The proposed corrective action plan for the Refinery MACT stems from the Petroleum Refinery sector risk and technology review (RTR) completed in 2014. The comment period on the proposed rule ended on October 28, 2014, and the petroleum refinery sector is anxiously awaiting the final rule. The proposed rule contains benzene fenceline monitoring requirements, using two (2)-week time-integrated passive diffusive sampling. The results of the passive sampling would need to be compared to a regulatory benzene concentration action level. U.S. EPA modeled fenceline benzene emissions from the 2011 refinery information collection request (ICR) to determine an appropriate benzene concentration action level – the concentration that, if exceeded, a refinery would need to take corrective action. Based on U.S EPA’s air dispersion modeling study, the maximum post-MACT control benzene concentration modeled at the fenceline was determined to be 9 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) of benzene.  This concentration reflects refinery fugitive emission sources only and excludes a background concentration. A facility would exceed the concentration action level when the highest of the rolling annual average fenceline concentrations corrected for background is greater than 9 µg/m3.

If a facility determines that the benzene fenceline monitoring data action level has been exceeded for any 12-month rolling average, it must initiate a root cause analysis and determine an appropriate corrective action. If the action level is exceeded again for the next sampling episode, the facility must develop a corrective action plan. The plan must describe all of the corrective actions completed to date and additional measures that the facility proposes to employ to reduce fenceline concentrations below the action level. The corrective action plan must also include a schedule for completion of the proposed measures to be taken to reduce fenceline concentrations. This plan, as proposed, must be submitted to U.S. EPA within 60 days after determining that the action level was exceeded.

Some of the compliance plans that have been discussed are required now or in the near future. The plans generally need to be in place at least 60 days prior to the initial performance test in the event that U.S. EPA requests to review your plan (i.e., U.S. EPA will request you to submit the plan for review upon its receipt of the intent to test notification, which is required 60 days prior to the test date). The work towards compliance with these rules isn’t done with just passing the initial performance test. It begins with the development of well-crafted plans that are a balance between your facility’s operations and compliance obligations. You need to make sure that you meet the specified compliance plan requirements while also making sure that your facility can live with the commitments set forth in plan.  This article doesn’t cover every scenario, but we can help you determine which compliance plans are required and how potential compliance options may be of use. Contact us today to let us help you navigate the compliance plan labyrinth.  In particular, don’t hesitate to reach out to the individuals below depending on what rule(s) your facility is subject to:


    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: *