RACT 2 Update
As part of the October 9, 2014 meeting of the Pennsylvania Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee (AQTAC), Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) senior staff, including Vince Brisini, Deputy Secretary, Waste, Air, Radiation and Remediation; Joyce Epps, Director, Bureau of Air Quality; and Krishnan Ramamurthy, Chief, Division of Permits provided an update on Pennsylvania’s proposed Reasonably Available Control Technology rule (i.e., RACT 2). You’ll recall from a previous blog by ALL4’s Roy Rakiewicz in March 2014, the proposed rule has been winding its way through the rulemaking process. During the October 9, 2014 AQTAQ meeting, PADEP’s update included a summary of comments received, including comments by U.S. EPA. PADEP is anxious to finalize the rule, and a special AQTAC meeting has been scheduled for November 7, 2014 in order to present the final rule to the committee for vote. If approved by AQTAC, the rule would likely be presented for consideration to the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board (EQB) in February 2015. If approved by the EQB, the rule would be sent to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission and the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office for final approval. It is expected that the rule could become effective as early as the spring of 2015. Once effective, the rule would require that all unit specific case-by-case RACT proposals would be due six (6) months after the effective date of the RACT 2 rule, with compliance for all such units required one (1) year after the effective date of the RACT 2 rule. The proposed rule will allow facilities that need to install controls to meet either the presumptive or approved alternative RACT limits to petition PADEP for an extension of compliance for up to 3 years after the effective date of the regulation.
ALL4 encourages interested parties to attend the November 7, 2014 AQTAC meeting starting at 9:15 a.m. in Room 105 of the Rachel Carson State Office Building, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA. Look for future ALL4 blogs on this topic as the rule goes through the final approval process.
Reminder: Area Source Boiler MACT Notifications are Past Due!
It has been quite some time since the Area Source Boiler MACT Notifications of Compliance Status (NOCS) were due on July 19, 2014, and even longer since the initial notifications were due on January 20, 2014. Hopefully your facility’s initial notification and NOCS are already in the hands of your state agency and U.S. EPA regional office. If not, don’t panic, but we recommend that you submit them as soon as possible. We suspect that many facilities out there, such as universities, hotels, medical centers, municipal buildings, processing facilities, or mining facilities, might not know they are subject to the Area Source Boiler MACT rule, not to mention the notification requirements. Recall that most coal-, oil-, or biomass-fired area source boilers were required to have had an initial tune-up and one-time energy assessment conducted by the March 21, 2014 compliance date. On the flip side of the coin, some area source facilities who may have been proactive in completing their boiler tune-ups early may now find that the deadline for their next tune-up has already passed!
Although these regulatory deadlines have passed, you can still get up to speed. Be sure to check out ALL4’s webinar to determine the applicability of the Area Source Boiler MACT to your facility. Still have questions? ALL4 would be happy to assist you in evaluating your facility’s Area Source Boiler MACT applicability. Feel free to contact me at 610.933.5246 x135 (cgiannascoli@all4inc.com) or Lindsey Kroos at 610.933.5246 x122 (lkroos@all4inc.com) for more information.
U.S. EPA Issues Its First Carbon Capture and Sequestration Permit
On September 2, 2014, U.S. EPA Region 5 issued, for the first time, four (4) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) underground injection control (UIC) permits for the operation of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) wells at FutureGen Industrial Alliance’s (FutureGen’s) upgraded power plant in Meredosia, Illinois. CCS has been a polarizing environmental issue over the last several years, largely related to its role in controlling and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from industry.
FutureGen’s permits are the first UIC permits issued under the Class VI rules, which U.S. EPA developed to address CCS’s unique issues. The Class VI rules are more stringent than the other UIC well classes for items such as monitoring and well integrity, to ensure the protection of groundwater drinking supplies. Specifically, FutureGen is permitted to inject CO2 approximately 4,000 feet underground to offset its emissions from the coal-fired power plant. U.S. EPA estimates that CCS at this facility will result in the capture of about 22 million metric tons of CO2 over 20 years. To put that into perspective, 22 million metric tons of CO2 is equivalent to the emissions of approximately 232,000 cars over 20 years.
However, the uncertainty behind the permitting process still has both industry and environmental advocates concerned. Regulators have been hesitant to permit CCS due to the large amount of uncertainty and controversy surrounding the technology. Energy industry groups, such as the Carbon Sequestration Council (CSC), voiced some concern over the language in the draft permits. The CSC suggested that U.S. EPA could impose further requirements for FutureGen in areas such as corrective action, financial assurance, and siting due to an incorporated reference to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The CSC feels that incorporated references to 40 CFR §146.84 are unnecessary and potentially confusing since complying with the area of review and corrective action plans described in the UIC permits is sufficient to meet the regulatory requirements. However, U.S. EPA declined to make changes to the permit language because these permits are intended to help develop the appropriate requirements for CCS as U.S. EPA will regularly review the testing and monitoring plans at the facility. As the review progresses, U.S. EPA feels that the regulations to which the permits reference can be updated in order to effectively address environmental issues.
Environmentalists also had some additional thoughts regarding the new permits, although they generally support the issuance of these permits and believe the Class VI rules for UIC permits are strong. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) thought that additional site-specific data, such as detailed modeling or hydrological data, could have been acquired in order to get a more accurate description of the drilling site and to address potential earthquake risks at the site. However, U.S. EPA felt that the evaluation of the site was sufficient and that site-specific conditions discovered during drilling may require a future permit modification.
In the end, these permits mark the first attempt to capture and store CO2 emissions underground and will be monitored closely by all parties. If successful, this could mean a major change in the feasibility of control of CO2 emissions from power plants nationwide, particularly with respect to Best Available Control Technology (BACT) demonstrations in Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) applications.
