Are Changes to Major New Source Review Permitting Requirements on the Way?

In November 2013, ALL4 began a series of 4 The Record articles addressing issues that facilities face when contemplating plant improvement projects that have the potential to trigger new source review (NSR) permitting requirements.  While we have published multiple articles since that time that relate to the underlying foundation of the NSR regulations (i.e., national ambient air quality standards or NAAQS) and how certain technical elements of NSR permit applications are changing (e.g.,  modeling revisions), we have not specifically addressed topics related to determining NSR applicability.  The reason for the lack of attention to NSR applicability is that the NSR applicability provisions are relatively static.  The last overall revisions to the NSR applicability provisions were associated with the NSR reform rules of 2002, when the fundamental applicability provisions were overhauled to allow all existing major stationary sources, not just electric generating units, to use projected actual emissions (PAE) to evaluate emissions increases associated with a source’s modification.

Now, there exists a distinct possibility that several pieces of the NSR applicability puzzle could change depending on the outcome of an ongoing NSR enforcement action filed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) against a Michigan utility in August 2010.  This enforcement action involves the determination and use of “excludable” emissions in NSR applicability determinations (among other issues) for existing emission sources.  The enforcement action was taken against an electric utility, but the outcome could impact all existing major stationary sources in fundamental and game changing ways.  The enforcement action is still in the courts and remains unresolved for now.

Background

The NAAQS are the ultimate basis of the NSR programs.  The NSR programs were established to ensure that the NAAQS are attained and maintained as major new emissions sources are constructed and as existing emission sources are modified in a manner that increases their emissions as a part of facility expansion projects.

This U.S. EPA enforcement action involves the potential modification of an existing major stationary source, and more specifically involves the detailed math of determining how much of an emission increase will result from the modification.  Determining whether or not a project at an existing major stationary source will result in a “net significant increase” under the NSR rules at face value does not appear to be a difficult task.  However, it can be a very difficult task to quantify the actual emission increase that will result from the modification being proposed.  First, the modification can be either, or both, a physical change or a change in the method of operation.  The crafters of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) specifically state that increased operation of a source is not an emission increase for NSR purposes as long as the source was capable of that operation prior to the modification.  The intent is to not penalize the company simply because it did not have the demand, or need, to operate the source.  This is sometimes called the “demand growth exclusion.” The NSR regulations prescribe that an emission increase is determined by the calculation of the difference between the baseline actual emissions (BAE) and PAE, and allows for subtracting from this result those potential emission increases that are excludable because the emissions unit could have accommodated (or generated) those emissions prior to the modification except for the lack of demand to operate.  This is a fair practice since almost every emission source does not operate at maximum levels and maximum hours, and to use that difference as proof that the source underwent a major modification would make almost every physical modification of a major source subject to NSR permitting.

A key piece of the equation and apparently the key issue in U.S. EPA’s 2010 enforcement action is how “excludable” emissions are determined and used in an NSR applicability evaluation. The term excludable is not defined within the NSR rules but is used to describe the emissions that an emissions unit “could have accommodated” during the 24-month baseline period used to establish BAE for the unit in an applicability evaluation1.  For existing emissions units at an existing major stationary that are undergoing a change as part of a project, emissions that the unit could have accommodated during the baseline period can be subtracted from (i.e., excluded) from the PAE for that unit in Step 1 of the applicability analysis.

As previously stated, this provision is sometimes referred to as the “demand growth exclusion” in which projected emissions increases that are unrelated to the project are assumed to result from growth in product demand (and are therefore excludable). To prevent facilities from excluding emissions up to their allowable or potential to emit, the rule2 specifies that excluded emissions must be determined using actual operational data that occurred during the two (2)-year baseline period.  There are a number of ways to evaluate and document excludable emissions from an emissions unit that vary in complexity depending upon the nature of the unit.  Typically for an industrial process, the use of a peak month of production during the 24-month baseline period is selected and the production associated with that month is annualized, (i.e., multiplied by 12) and then adjusted to reflect realistic annual operating rates (i.e., accounting for “normal” maintenance downtime and outages).  As an extra measure of applicability, the facility making a physical change that was determined not to trigger NSR permitting must still keep records to show that either no emission increase occurred after the source modification for five (5) years, or in the case of an emission increase that is not large enough to trigger NSR permitting the facility must demonstrate that their PAE level is not exceeded for a period of 10 years.

____________________________________________________________________________________

1 See 40 CFR Part 52.21(b)(41)(c)
2 Ibid.

2010 U.S. EPA Enforcement Action

A Michigan electric utility company initiated “maintenance work” at their facility in March 2010 after providing notice of the project to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) in accordance with Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements.  The notice predicted that a post-project emissions increase would occur, but that the increase in emissions was unrelated to the project and should be excluded as the result of increased demand. The project was completed in June 2010, the units associated with the project restarted shortly thereafter, and the facility initiated post-project recordkeeping in accordance with the Michigan SIP requirements.  The U.S. EPA asserted that the facility was required to obtain a pre-construction permit from MDEQ because the project was a major modification under the Michigan NSR regulations and that the source’s notice to MDEQ was untimely and deficient, stating that the notice included no explanation of why emissions were excluded.  The utility asserted that the enforcement action was premature because less than one (1) year of actual emissions monitoring for the unit was available and the only way to definitely determine if the project was a major modification was to review at least one (1) year of post-project emissions monitoring. Regarding the notice, the utility asserted that it included all required information and explained that the excluded emissions were unrelated to the project and were as a result of market demand. The Court3 agreed with the utility’s analysis citing the function of the 2002 NSR reform rules, the Michigan SIP, and the lessening of the pre-construction burden on facilities as long as certain requirements are met and rejected U.S. EPA’s assertion that the utility’s notice was untimely and deficient. The Court went so far as to say in their decision:

“These rules, while still following the directives and intent of the CAA, provide source operators with greater flexibility by giving them a post-construction opportunity to fulfill their obligations under the CAA. They allow source operators to pursue necessary maintenance work without the expensive, burdensome and potentially unnecessary permitting requirements, while ensuring that Plaintiff will maintain its opportunity to pursue an enforcement action if post construction monitoring detects an increase in emissions of regulated pollutants that are a result of such projects.”

2011 U.S. EPA Appeal to Sixth Circuit Court

On October 20, 2011 the U.S. EPA appealed the Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and in a brief filed in February 2012, laid out a litany of issues regarding the project and stating that the district court rejected U.S. EPA’s suit without reviewing the agency’s substantive claims, stating that the decision disregarded the CAA structure, regulatory text, history, and the Court’s duty to defer to EPA interpretation of CAA regulations.  In the brief, U.S. EPA described how the utility cites 40 CFR §52.21(r)(6) as allowing an operator to choose to make and record a projection of post change emissions before starting construction, make a determination of PSD non-applicability, and not apply for a PSD permit. U.S. EPA also described how the utility could temporarily manage operation of the unit to keep emissions less than significant during the post-project monitoring period. U.S. EPA characterized the Court’s ruling as potentially “eviscerating” CAA enforcement in the Sixth Circuit.

The utility’s brief, filed in May 2012, argued that the district court correctly ruled that the U.S. EPA could not demonstrate that the projects were major modifications because emissions have not increased.  The utility asserts that the U.S. EPA’s position is inconsistent with the plain language of the 2002 NSR reform rule and with the CAA itself. The utility asserts that its actions are in accordance with the 2002 NSR reform rules and states that the U.S. EPA promulgated those rules in 2002 and defended them as consistent with the CAA.  If the U.S. EPA believes the rules to be “insufficiently stringent” it can seek to have the rules amended.

On March 28, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit three (3) judge panel ruled 2-1 that while the 2002 NSR regulations allow operators to undertake projects without U.S. EPA “second guessing” their projections, U.S. EPA is not categorically prevented from challenging violations of its regulations until long after the modifications are made and the district court’s reading of the regulations is at odds with the CAA. The decision was therefore reversed and remanded to district court.  A portion of the opinion addressed U.S. EPA’s concern that sources could manage emission to pre-construction projections for five (5) years and then increase emissions thereafter.  The court stated that the presumption that emissions increases after five (5) years are unrelated to the change could be overcome (e.g., by demonstrating that the pre-construction facility could not handle such an increase) as neither the statute nor the regulation has a time barrier and U.S. EPA could bring enforcement as long as the increase was traceable to the construction.

District Court Remand Decision

On March 3, 2014, the district court ordered that the utility’s motion for summary judgment was granted.  The case was on remand from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals with instructions to evaluate whether the utility followed U.S. EPA regulations regarding preconstruction emission projections prior to beginning renovations to an electric steam generating unit without obtaining an NSR preconstruction permit from MDEQ. The Court concluded that they did.  The Court also agreed that the U.S. EPA is entitled to a review of a source’s preconstruction projections to evaluate whether they comply with the rule and indicated that anything beyond a cursory review would be “second guessing”, contradicting the Sixth Circuit’s opinion.

U.S. EPA Appeal to Sixth Circuit Court

On October 6, 2014, both the Department of Justice (on behalf of U.S. EPA) and the Sierra Club filed appeals with the Sixth Circuit Court.  Both parties (U.S. EPA and the utility) have been submitting briefs in support of their positions and in response to each other.

So What’s at Stake?

There are several very important provisions of NSR applicability at stake pending in the decision of the Sixth Circuit Court as summarized below:

• Can major stationary sources rely, in part, on decisions regarding NSR applicability (or non-applicability) based on post-construction recordkeeping?
• Can major stationary sources use the strategy of managing post-change emissions to avoid triggering NSR applicability?
• How much authority, if any, does U.S. EPA have in evaluating a source’s pre-construction emission estimates?
• Did the 2002 NSR Reform Rules truly change NSR applicability evaluations from a pre-construction determination (with U.S. EPA oversight) to pre-project projection and post project recordkeeping?
• How will the outcome impact air permit requirements in states that have minor NSR construction permitting SIP requirements?
• Most importantly will the outcome of the Courts influence how NSR applicability will be determined with regard to “capable of accommodating” and documentation of excludable emissions at utility and other major air emission sources?

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have been targeting NSR permitting decisions, especially for electric utilities, but will the NSR revisions of 2002 also now become a target of the U.S. EPA to effectively undo those revisions?  The outcome of this important appeal could have serious and wide ranging implications for the existing NSR program, major stationary sources evaluating NSR permitting applicability, the U.S. EPA, and the various state and local regulatory authorities tasked with implementing the NSR program.  We will be tracking the proceeding very closely and will provide updates as they become available.  Please contact Roy Rakiewicz at (610) 933-5246 or at rrakiewicz@all4inc.com if you have any questions.

My Head is Spinning Just Thinking about Boiler MACT Compliance Testing

Do you operate a multi-fuel boiler subject to Major Source Boiler MACT?  Have you given any thought to what your compliance testing will look like?  The January 31, 2016 compliance date is quickly approaching.  Facilities must complete their initial compliance demonstration for emission limits and establish operating limits by July 29, 2016.  The compliance options and considerations when conducting compliance testing start to add up pretty quickly.  It’s important to start planning and strategizing now.  You have to consider…

• I need to collect fuel samples during the test.  Can I collect my fuel samples in a manner consistent with the procedures outlined in Boiler MACT?  Do I have conveyance limitations such as safe access or causing an interruption to the fuel feed and tripping out the boiler?
• What is my worst case fuel firing scenario for a given pollutant?  It may be that fuel mix A is the maximum input loading for one (1) pollutant but fuel mix B is the maximum input loading for another pollutant.
• Will my operating load change depending on what pollutant I am testing for?
• Can I achieve my maximum rated operating load on my worst case fuel?  Do I need to consider adding an additional fuel so as not to limit my operating load on the boiler?
• Can I accurately measure the fuel firing rates during the test?  Is the process repeatable for future tracking requirements?
• What limitations, either permit limitations or physical restrictions, do I have when firing specific fuels?  I can’t forget about short-term permit limits!  I don’t want to conduct testing at a high coal firing rate and then blow past my SO₂ emissions limit.
• Has my coal pile been sitting and exposed to the weather for the last year?  That can have an impact on the testing results.  The last thing I want is to get a new shipment of coal, only to find out that now I have a different fuel composition that results in a compliance issue.
• What operating limitations will I be establishing when I conduct my initial performance testing?  Can I live with the operating load and minimum O₂ levels I am setting?
• Have I conducted engineering testing prior to the compliance test to know whether I will be able to live with the operating parameters that I will be setting?

As you can see, the list of things to consider and keep track of gets pretty complicated rather quickly if you have a multi-fuel boiler.  It is extremely important to have a well-thought out approach to your compliance testing.  At ALL4, we have assisted a number of clients with developing site-specific compliance testing plans, along with the separate, but closely related fuel monitoring plans and parametric monitoring plans, that carefully consider each of the questions above.  This has provided our clients with peace of mind, knowing that they are not backing themselves into a corner for compliance purposes.  The most important thing for facilities trying to comply with Boiler MACT to do is conduct some preliminary engineering testing.  Take your compliance testing plan for a “test drive.”  We are here to help you strategize and develop a compliance testing approach that works for your needs.  Check out our other Boiler MACT resources for additional ways that we can assist with your Boiler MACT compliance, or contact me with any questions.

U.S. EPA Installs Air Monitoring Park Benches in 5 Cities

Throughout 2015, U.S. EPA will be installing solar-powered air quality monitoring systems that are integrated with park benches.  This air quality monitoring/park bench system will monitor air quality in real time in five (5) cities across the United States.  The project, called the Village Green Project, began with a pilot station in Durham, North Carolina installed in June 2013.  The integrated benches monitor temperature, wind speed, wind direction, relative humidity, ozone, and particulate matter less than 25 microns (fine particulate matter or PM_2.5).  The benches are made out of recycled materials and the monitoring system is powered using solar energy (some will be powered with wind energy, too), and transmit the monitored data wirelessly and in near real time.

The stations have already been installed in three (3) cities so far this year, and installation in the other two (2) should be complete by the end of the summer.  The cities include:

• Philadelphia, PA;
• Washington DC;
• Kansas City, KS;
• Oklahoma City, OK (summer 2015); and
• Hartford, CT (summer 2015).

The minute-by-minute data for each site can be viewed in near real time on the air now Village Green website.  The website also includes line graphs and tables displaying the minute, hourly, and daily averages of ozone, PM_2.5, temperature, humidity, and wind speed.

The purpose of the Village Green Project is to provide the public with information about local air quality and to raise awareness of air pollution.  US EPA cautions that these air quality measurements of ozone and PM_2.5 cannot be directly compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).  The instruments are of low cost, and the data will be used for research, like understanding how air pollution trends change with time and weather.

Read US EPA’s press release for more information, or visit the Village Green Project site to see the current weather and air quality monitoring at the active sites.  Since the Philadelphia monitoring site is local to ALL4’s corporate headquarters, and the Washington DC monitoring site (located in the National Zoo) is just a short drive away from ALL4’s new Washington DC office, you can be sure that ALL4 will be watching these monitors and the trends in air quality.

Have you sat on one of these benches in a city?  Be the first person to take a “selfie” at one of these sites and email Sarah (smccall@all4inc.com) or tweet (@ALL4INC) us your picture using the hashtag #ALL4gear – we will send you some ALL4 gear!

Federal Appeals Court Remands 100-hour “Emergency” Generator “Exemption” in NESHAP and NSPS RICE Rules

On May 1, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision partially granting and partially denying multiple petitions for review of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ and 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts IIII and JJJJ as they apply to the operation of emergency Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE).  Specifically, the decision remands the so-called 100-hour “exemption” for RICE providing power to emergency or “back-up” electric generators that take part in a demand response program.  A full text version of the decision is currently available on U.S. EPA’s Technical Info Page that includes, in painful legal detail, the reasons for the decision and the subsequent remand of certain rule provisions.  Calls placed to Research Triangle Park (RTP) since the issuance of the decision indicate that U.S. EPA is currently reviewing the decision in detail and the potential impacts to the three (3) RICE Rules affected.  Updates to the regulation stemming from the decision will be posted on here.

The Decision

Specifically, the decision remands (i.e., effectively vacates) the following rule provisions:

• 40 CFR §63.6640(f)(2) (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ)
• 40 CFR §60.4211(f)(2) (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart IIII)
• 40 CFR §60.4243(d)(2) (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ)

Each of these three (3) rule provisions include language similar to the following:

“You may operate your emergency stationary RICE for any combination of the purposes specified in paragraphs…of this section for a maximum of 100 hours per calendar year.  Any operation for non-emergency situations as allowed by paragraphs…of this section counts as part of the 100 hours per calendar year allowed by this paragraph…

Prior to the decision, one (1) of the purposes allowed under the 100 hours of non-emergency operation “exemption” was operating an emergency RICE providing power to a back-up generator for emergency demand response purposes.  For this discussion, Pennsylvania, Jersey, Maryland (PJM) Interconnection’s Demand Response program can be considered an emergency demand response program.  This allowed owners of emergency RICE to participate in a demand response program, enter into a beneficial financial arrangement with a utility, and still categorize their RICE as emergency under the rule(s); thereby avoiding the more stringent and onerous emission limits, control device requirements, and/or work practice requirements applicable to non-emergency RICE.

However, the decision vacates the portion of the RICE rule(s) that allows owners and operators of emergency RICE providing power to back-up generators to operate for emergency demand response purposes for up to 100 hours per calendar year.  Until U.S. EPA responds to the decision the jury is still out on this officially; however, presumably this means that formerly “emergency” RICE can no longer operate for emergency demand response purposes under the 100 hour per calendar year exemption, since it has been vacated.  This also means (presumably) that such RICE, should they continue to participate in and operate for emergency demand response purposes, would no longer be considered emergency RICE but rather non-emergency RICE subject to the more stringent requirements that apply to such non-emergency RICE.

Behold…

Potential Rule Impact

Below is the pertinent portion of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ impacted by the decision with the vacated provisions appearing in strikethrough text:

“(f) If you own or operate an emergency stationary RICE, you must operate the emergency stationary RICE according to the requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section.  In order for the engine to be considered an emergency stationary RICE under this subpart, any operation other than emergency operation, maintenance and testing, emergency demand response, and operation in non-emergency situations for 50 hours per year, as described in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section, is prohibited.  If you do not operate the engine according to the requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section, the engine will not be considered an emergency engine under this subpart and must meet all requirements for non-emergency engines. 

(1) There is no time limit on the use of emergency stationary RICE in emergency situations.

(2) You may operate your emergency stationary RICE for any combination of the purposes specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section for a maximum of 100 hours per calendar year. Any operation for non-emergency situations as allowed by paragraphs (f)(3) and (4) of this section counts as part of the 100 hours per calendar year allowed by this paragraph (f)(2).

(i) Emergency stationary RICE may be operated for maintenance checks and readiness testing, provided that the tests are recommended by federal, state or local government, the manufacturer, the vendor, the regional transmission organization or equivalent balancing authority and transmission operator, or the insurance company associated with the engine. The owner or operator may petition the Administrator for approval of additional hours to be used for maintenance checks and readiness testing, but a petition is not required if the owner or operator maintains records indicating that federal, state, or local standards require maintenance and testing of emergency RICE beyond 100 hours per calendar year.

(ii) Emergency stationary RICE may be operated for emergency demand response for periods in which the Reliability Coordinator under the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Reliability Standard EOP-002-3, Capacity and Energy Emergencies (incorporated by reference, see §63.14), or other authorized entity as determined by the Reliability Coordinator, has declared an Energy Emergency Alert Level 2 as defined in the NERC Reliability Standard EOP-002-3.

(iii) Emergency stationary RICE may be operated for periods where there is a deviation of voltage or frequency of 5 percent or greater below standard voltage or frequency.

(3) Emergency stationary RICE located at major sources of HAP may be operated for up to 50 hours per calendar year in non-emergency situations. The 50 hours of operation in non-emergency situations are counted as part of the 100 hours per calendar year for maintenance and testing and emergency demand response provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. The 50 hours per year for non-emergency situations cannot be used for peak shaving or non-emergency demand response, or to generate income for a facility to supply power to an electric grid or otherwise supply power as part of a financial arrangement with another entity.

(4) Emergency stationary RICE located at area sources of HAP may be operated for up to 50 hours per calendar year in non-emergency situations. The 50 hours of operation in non-emergency situations are counted as part of the 100 hours per calendar year for maintenance and testing and emergency demand response provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. Except as provided in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section, the 50 hours per year for non-emergency situations cannot be used for peak shaving or non-emergency demand response, or to generate income for a facility to an electric grid or otherwise supply power as part of a financial arrangement with another entity.

(i) Prior to May 3, 2014, the 50 hours per year for non-emergency situations can be used for peak shaving or non-emergency demand response to generate income for a facility, or to otherwise supply power as part of a financial arrangement with another entity if the engine is operated as part of a peak shaving (load management program) with the local distribution system operator and the power is provided only to the facility itself or to support the local distribution system.

(ii) The 50 hours per year for non-emergency situations can be used to supply power as part of a financial arrangement with another entity if all of the following conditions are met:

(A) The engine is dispatched by the local balancing authority or local transmission and distribution system operator.

(B) The dispatch is intended to mitigate local transmission and/or distribution limitations so as to avert potential voltage collapse or line overloads that could lead to the interruption of power supply in a local area or region.

(C) The dispatch follows reliability, emergency operation or similar protocols that follow specific NERC, regional, state, public utility commission or local standards or guidelines.

(D) The power is provided only to the facility itself or to support the local transmission and distribution system.

(E) The owner or operator identifies and records the entity that dispatches the engine and the specific NERC, regional, state, public utility commission or local standards or guidelines that are being followed for dispatching the engine. The local balancing authority or local transmission and distribution system operator may keep these records on behalf of the engine owner or operator.”

As a result of the decision, emergency RICE operated for emergency demand response purposes would no longer be operated according to the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of the above provided section.  Therefore, such RICE would no longer be considered emergency RICE, but non-emergency RICE, required to meet all requirements for non-emergency RICE in the rule(s) (see bold underlined text above).  40 CFR Part 60, Subparts IIII and JJJJ would be similarly impacted.

Remaining Questions

You may be asking yourself, “Okay, but what does that mean for RICE located at major sources versus RICE located at area sources?”  That’s an excellent question that we will explore further in a future post.  However, we won’t know definitively until U.S. EPA provides additional guidance.

Interested in discussing this further?  Feel free to give me a call at (610) 933-5246 ext. 119 or email at rharding@all4inc.com.

Boiler MACT Case Study Success Stories

Since the promulgation of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart DDDDD – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (Major Source Boiler MACT) and 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJJJ – NESHAP for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers Area Sources (Area Source Boiler MACT), ALL4 has been busy helping clients develop strategies for complying with these rules.  Here are two (2) examples of projects we have been working on to help our clients:

1. Re-designation of a facility from a major source of HAPs to an area source of HAPs – A large industrial client that is a major source of HAPs has several existing boilers, including units that burn biomass subject to the emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standard requirements of Major Source Boiler MACT.  The facility was only a major source because emissions of single HAP are over 10 tons per year (tpy).  Total HAP emissions were well below the 25 tpy major source threshold.  ALL4 worked closely with the facility to investigate alternative raw material options in order to reduce the emissions of the problematic HAP to below 10 tpy.  ALL4 then prepared and submitted an air permit application to the state agency requesting a federally enforceable limit restricting HAP emissions at the facility to less than 10 tpy of a single HAP and less than 25 tpy of combined HAPs.  Because the federally enforceable limit will be in place before the effective date of Major Source Boiler MACT (January 31, 2016), the facility will be designated as an area source for Boiler MACT.  As an area source, the existing solid fuel boilers will not be subject to emission limit and operating limit requirements, which will greatly reduce the compliance burden on the facility. 
2. Replacement of coal-fired boilers with gas-fired boilers – ALL4 has assisted several major source clients with the replacement of aging coal-fired boilers with gas-fired boilers.  Bringing these coal-fired boilers into compliance with Major Source Boiler MACT would have been a costly endeavor.  ALL4 worked with the clients on the selection of the new boilers as well as developing strategies for the timing that would be required to have the old boilers out of service and the new boilers in service before the effective date of Major Source Boiler MACT (January 31, 2016).  In one (1) case, ALL4 assisted the client with procuring a one (1)-year extension of effective date, as allowed in the rule.  ALL4 prepared and submitted permit applications for the new boilers allowing the companies not only to meet the Boiler MACT compliance date, but to complete these money-saving projects in the desired timeframes. 

These two (2) case studies are just a few of the examples of how we have helped our clients to comply with these complex regulations.  Our work continues, as we assist clients with notification requirements, compliance reporting, fuel sampling, plan development, and other aspects of these rules.  

Update: U.S. EPA Proposes Overdue Refinery Air Rules

UPDATE (5/11/2015): Affected parties have agreed to and filed an April 24, 2015 Notice of Stipulation to Modify Consent Decree with the DC Circuit Court delaying the signature of the refinery air rules discussed below until September 30, 2015.  Prior consent decree modifications delayed the rule finalization from April 17, 2015 to June 16, 2015. The revised timeline has been agreed to as a result of the significant number of comments that U.S. EPA received and must respond to.  To catch up on the proposal, feel free to visit ALL4’s Oil and Gas Sector Initiative page where you can learn all about the proposed benzene fenceline monitoring requirements, amended flare operational requirements, DCU control requirements, and more related topics. 

UPDATE (8/11/2014): The public comment period regarding the EPA’s revisions to MACT and NSPS Refinery Air Rules has been extended by 60 days.

UPDATE (6/30/2014): U.S. EPA officially published revisions to the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Refinery Air Rules (i.e., 40 CFR Part 60 Subparts J and Ja, and 40 CFR Part 63 Subparts CC and UUU, Refinery MACT 1 and Refinery MACT 2, respectively) today, June 30, 2014.  Today starts the clock for public comments, which are due August 29, 2014.  A copy of comments on the information collection provisions are to be submitted to OMB on or before July 30,2014.  U.S. EPA will hold public hearings, on July 16, 2014, in Wilmington, California and on August 5, 2014, in Galena Park, Texas.

For more information on the proposed rules, please refer to ALL4’s May 2014 and June 2014 4 The Record articles.  In addition, please refer to John Slade‘s recent blog post about Refinery MACT risk assessment.

(5/28/2014): U.S. EPA’s much anticipated revisions to the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Refinery Air Rules (i.e., 40 CFR Part 60 Subparts J and Ja, and 40 CFR Part 63 Subparts CC and UUU, Refinery MACT 1 and Refinery MACT 2, respectively) were unveiled by U.S. EPA on May 15, 2014.  The proposal date was driven by a consent decree resulting from an environmental group lawsuit after U.S. EPA repeatedly missed earlier deadlines to revise Refinery MACT 1 and MACT 2.  The proposal encompasses the risk and technology review (RTR) of Refinery MACT 1 and MACT 2.  Additionally it provides technical corrections and clarifications for the 2008 NSPS.  Highlights of the proposed package of Refinery Air Rules include: 

• Fenceline benzene monitoring.  U.S. EPA is proposing to establish an ambient concentration of benzene at the fenceline that would trigger required corrective action in the event of an exceedance.  The proposal identifies an annual average benzene concentration standard to be measured via 2 week integrated samples at the refinery fenceline perimeter.  Twelve to 24 monitors are required at each facility, dependent on facility size.
• Additional control requirements for storage tanks.  Specifically the proposal identifies control requirements for smaller tanks in part to address residual risk.  The proposal revises the definition of Group 1 storage vessels to include storage vessels with capacities greater than or equal to 20,000 gallons but less than 40,000 gallons if the maximum true vapor pressure is 1.9 pounds per square inch absolute (psia) or greater and to include storage tanks greater than 40,000 gallons if the maximum true vapor pressure is 0.75 psia or greater.
• Amended flare operational requirements.  U.S. EPA proposes the removal of many of the cross-references to the General Provisions.  New provisions require that flares operate with a pilot flame at all times and be continuously monitored using a thermocouple or any other equivalent device in Refinery MACT 1 and 2.  U.S. EPA is also proposing to add a new operational requirement to use automatic relight systems for all flare pilot flames.  For visible emissions, Refinery MACT 1 and 2 will include a limit and in addition, a requirement that a visible emissions test be conducted each day and whenever visible emissions are observed from the flare.  EPA has consolidated the requirement for maximum flare tip velocity into Refinery MACT 1 and 2 as a single equation, regardless of flare type (i.e., steam assisted, air-assisted or non-assisted).  U.S. EPA also proposes flare Operating and Monitoring Requirements and defines “flare vent gas” and “combustion zone gas.”
• Delayed coking unit (DCU) control requirements.  U.S. EPA set a 2 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) pressure limit for both existing and new sources. However, U.S. EPA is soliciting solicits additional comments on the 2 psig MACT floor.  DCU work practice standards exist in the Refinery NSPS Ja; however the revisions to Refinery MACT 1 are more stringent.  As a result, U.S. EPA is soliciting comment on how to harmonize the DCU work practice standards in the rules.
• Elimination of the exemptions of emission limits during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM).  Not surprisingly, U.S. EPA is revising the SSM provisions in order to ensure that the subparts are consistent with the court decision in Sierra Club v. U.S. EPA.  Additionally, the proposal removes the malfunction exemption in Refinery MACT 1 and 2 and identifies that HAP emissions may not be discharged to the atmosphere from relief valves in organic HAP service.  Sources are also required to monitor relief valves using a system that is capable of identifying and recording the time and duration of each pressure release and of notifying operators that a pressure release has occurred. 

Upon “official” publication in the Federal Register, public comments will be accepted for 60 days.  Please note that U.S. EPA has asked for comments over 40 specific items in the proposal.  Two public meetings will also be held, in Houston and Los Angeles. U.S. EPA is due to finalize the rule in April 2015.