So, Your State Might Join RGGI – What Does that Mean?

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a program that aims to reduce power sector carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions in participating states.  The following states are currently part of RGGI:

Pennsylvania is finalizing a rule that would lead to its membership in RGGI and North Carolina is reviewing a petition submitted by the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) that recommends the state adopt a law to limit CO₂ emissions and join RGGI.  Member state senators are recommending that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency adopt and expand RGGI to create a national CO₂ reduction framework in order to meet the Biden Administration’s stated national greenhouse gas reduction and de-carbonization goals.  RGGI could be coming to your state – what does that mean?  Read on for the basics.

What are the Basic Elements of RGGI?

RGGI is made up of individual CO2 regulations and budgeting and trading programs in its member states, but does allow purchase of CO2 allowances at RGGI Regional Auctions or through secondary markets. Each state establishes its own rule, with RGGI’s Model Rule as a starting point, and the existing member states must approve a new state’s entry into RGGI. Each state’s rule describes what types of combustion units are covered. In general, a state’s rule is applicable to fossil-fuel-fired electric generating units (EGU) of size 25 megawatts (MW) or greater. However, a state could choose to include industrial/commercial combined heat and power (CHP) sources and biomass-fired EGUs in its program. Several State RGGI regulations provide for some limited exemptions or allowance set-asides to address certain types of electric generation, including industrial CHP. The RGGI states then set budgets for CO2 emissions and regulated sources must purchase allowances from the states in an auction to cover their emissions over a three-year compliance period. Sources can also purchase allowances in a secondary market that allows trading among emitters. The RGGI cap represents the regional budgets and has been adjusted yearly since 2014. The current cap represents a 30% reduction in 2020 CO2 emissions by 2030. Each state determines how to invest the revenue from the sale of allowances. The RGGI allowance price is currently around $8 per short ton of CO2.

What is SELC Proposing in North Carolina?

The SELC petition that the NC Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the NC Environmental Management Commission (EMC) are reviewing includes proposed rule language that is based on, but differs somewhat from, the RGGI Model Rule.  The basis of the petition is that establishing a regulation that includes participation in RGGI is the least expensive regulatory pathway to achieving CO₂ emissions reductions.  The proposed universe of regulatory sources includes not only the EGUs owned by the utilities in the state but also industrial CHP units such as those located at pulp and paper mills and the University of North Carolina, including units that burn biomass.  SELC has proposed a cap on NC CO₂ emissions that reduces annually and represents a 70% reduction from 2005 emissions by 2030 and then a more gradual decline through 2050.

What are the Impacts of RGGI?

From an emissions standpoint, it is obvious that CO₂ emissions from the power sector have decreased over the past 15 years and are continuing to decrease (transportation is now the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. according to U.S. EPA’s 2019 GHG Inventory, at 29%).  It is less obvious whether the emissions reductions in the RGGI states have occurred because of RGGI or would have happened anyway, due to other air regulatory programs that have tightened emissions limits on EGUs, market forces that have made combustion of natural gas more economically attractive than combustion of coal or oil, a natural transition to cleaner energy sources, or aging coal-fired power plants that reached the ends of their lives.  There is also the phenomenon of “leakage” that refers to a transition to more carbon-intensive electricity generated in non-RGGI states.  In other words, although emissions within a RGGI state might decrease, emissions in neighboring non-RGGI states could increase if they are providing power that can be transmitted into the RGGI state.

From an economic standpoint, because there is a cost associated with being covered by RGGI, the cost of generating electricity and the cost of doing business increase.  If non-EGUs are covered by a state’s program, their regulatory burden increases and their capability to expand their operations is constrained.  The RGGI program could inhibit new investments in energy intensive industries because there is a cost associated with burning fuel and emitting CO₂, which could result in more expensive electric generation projects.  Opponents of RGGI also worry that the program will result in early shutdown of power plants in their state, resulting in job losses.  However, RGGI states have been able to utilize revenue from allowance auctions to fund several different types of programs, including energy efficiency measures, green energy projects and utility bill assistance for low-income households.  It remains to be seen whether utilities will shoulder the burden of a nation-wide federal greenhouse gas regulatory program or carbon tax on top of the cost of RGGI in their states.

What to Watch For

If your state is not currently part of RGGI, you should watch for petitions and rulemaking activity associated with limiting CO₂ emissions and joining the program.  Stay up to date with news from your local industry association or chamber of commerce as they are conducting advocacy around these types of programs.  In Pennsylvania, ALL4 worked with our industrial clients to submit information to the agency and limit the impact of the PA RGGI regulation on qualifying energy efficient  CHP, so preparing comments on proposed rulemakings can and does shape outcomes.  We will be watching the activity on a federal level and also in North Carolina and other states closely.  If you would like more information, please contact Amy Marshall at 984-777-3073.

California’s Stormwater Reporting Deadlines are Quickly Approaching – Are You Ready?

Reporting deadlines associated with the Industrial General Permit (IGP) issued by the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and several other Stormwater Multi-Sector General Permits are quickly approaching.  Specifically, for California, the Annual Report must be submitted to the online Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) by July 15, 2021.

A large component of the Annual Report is the Annual Evaluation.  The State Water Board requires Dischargers to complete an Annual Evaluation based on routine inspections forms and stormwater laboratory reports from the 2020-2021 reporting year.   The deadline to submit stormwater data to SMARTS is June 30, 2021.  If you happen to be responsible for stormwater reporting for a facility in a state other than California, keep in mind that submittal deadlines for annual reports and associated requirements in other states may vary.

The Annual Report requires Dischargers to evaluate Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) associated with the receiving waterbody your facility discharges to.  Since July 1, 2020, Dischargers under the IGP are required to monitor stormwater data for Numeric Action Levels (NALs), TMDL Numeric Action Level (TNALs), and Numeric Effluent Limitations (NELs).  An evaluation of stormwater data is required to determine your standing with NALs, TNALs, and NELs.

If your facility had previously submitted a Level 2 Exceedance Response Action (ERA) Technical Report, you may need the assistance of a Qualified Industrial Stormwater Practitioner (QISP).  The Technical Report may need to be updated by a QISP by July 15, 2021.  Conclusion of the 2020-2021 reporting year may trigger submittal of a Level 1 or Level 2 ERA.  ERAs from the 2020-2021 reporting year are due on 1 January 2022.  ERAs require the assistance and certification of a QISP.

Stormwater reporting in California is unique and can be difficult and time consuming for site personnel.  Compliance errors can be avoided when personnel are equipped with the right tools and assistance.  If you have a facility located in California, ALL4 is able to provide expert assistance to evaluate your facility’s inspection forms and stormwater monitoring data to submit the Annual Report , update your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to include TMDL-related information, and complete those ERAs assigned to your site. If you have any questions reach out to your ALL4 project manager or contact us.

U.S. EPA Development of the CMAQ-PFAS Model and Potential Impacts to PFAS Evaluation

On May 18, 2021, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD) hosted a webinar presenting the current state of research on modeling Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).  The webinar, part of the Air, Climate, and Energy (ACE) Research Webinar Series, was hosted by Dr. Emma D’Ambro and Dr. Ben Murphy, and provided an overview of their research of the characterization of atmospheric transport and deposition of PFAS emissions.

PFAS are manufactured chemicals that have been produced by a wide range of industries throughout the world and are both persistent in the environment and accumulate over time.  PFAS have garnered increased interest as a contaminant of concern in recent years due to their prevalence in consumer goods and its impacts on human health.  PFAS are commonly found in household products, such as stain-repellant fabrics, nonstick cooking products, and in polishes, food packaging, fire-fighting foams, and industrial facilities producing electronics and chrome plating.  Research has linked PFAS exposure to impacts on the human endocrine and reproduction systems and certain types of cancer.  As a result of the awareness of human health impacts, long-chain, or “legacy”, PFAS are no longer manufactured in the United States, although replacement, short-chain PFAS remain in production.

PFAS have been detected in samples of drinking water throughout the United States, with data from the U.S. EPA’s third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR₃) program indicating that over 6 million residents are exposed to drinking water with levels exceeding the U.S. EPA health advisory level of 70 ng/L (70 parts per trillion).  The actual number of residents exposed to PFAS via the water supply is understood to be much higher, as initial data measured a subset of known PFAS, did not sample private water supplies, and did not include public water supplies serving more than 10,000 people.  Increased scrutiny into the origin of drinking water contamination has revealed the contribution from air sources, via wind transport from manufacturing facilities and wet and dry deposition.

In an effort to better understand the physical processes of PFAS transport and deposition, U.S. EPA has applied the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) regional air quality model to PFAS research, using available emissions data from a fluoropolymer manufacturing facility in North Carolina.  CMAQ is typically used to evaluate long-range ozone and particulate matter transport and allows for evaluation of pollutant concentrations from non-source specific contributions such as mobile, agricultural, and industrial categories.  The referenced fluoropolymer facility has been the subject of PFAS air research since 2017, when PFAS were identified in the facility’s neighboring river and in blood samples of local residents.  Subsequent research by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) has been conducted over the years and has confirmed deposition of PFAS originating from the facility through the use of dispersion modeling.  Dr. D’Ambro and Dr. Murphy, in collaboration with the facility, have applied CMAQ to actual emissions data from the facility.  The data included emissions of 53 PFAS contaminants, which, as a subset of VOC are reported to the National Emissions Inventory (NEI), were based on mass-balance calculations and PFAS stack test information.

The combined CMAQ-PFAS model applied 2017 emissions from the facility to a 1 kilometer by 1 kilometer modeling domain over southeastern North Carolina and South Carolina to compare model-predicted PFAS deposition concentrations to NC DEQ measurements in an attempt to quantify ambient air concentrations and deposition in the vicinity of the facility.  Model results indicated PFAS deposition to be elevated in the vicinity of the facility, consistent with prevailing winds and NC DEQ observations.  On a regional scale, deposition decreased with distance from the facility, although small levels of PFAS deposited more than 150 kilometers from the facility.  The large contribution to deposition far from the facility supported the notion that impacts from PFAS transport are not limited to the near field.  The authors indicated that, in sensitivity simulations, there was large variability in deposition based on assumptions related to PFAS speciation and characterization as an aerosol or gas-phase.

PFAS air transport and deposition have also been evaluated using the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) dispersion model.  Previous evaluations of PFAS deposition from facilities in West Virginia and North Carolina, among others, are often based on assumptions of particle mass and size distribution, despite uncertainties in model performance and representative data.  The increased scrutiny of PFAS concerns has prompted U.S. EPA to continue research and evaluation of deposition algorithms in AERMOD.  On May 11, 2021, U.S. EPA released an updated version (21112) of AERMOD, which includes two alpha options for deposition.   Alpha options are considered non-regulatory and are recommended for research purposes only, and U.S. EPA has acknowledged that AERMOD’s deposition algorithms require additional evaluation.  Additional research into these options may prompt future AERMOD changes, including incorporation of deposition algorithms from other models.  The CMAQ-PFAS model represents a potential source of new algorithms, as it represents a new state of the science model, with the authors developing the model to include additional semi-volatile and volatile chemistry considerations that are not captured in current air quality models.  Users of AERMOD should expect future updates to deposition that may be of use for PFAS modeling applications.

The importance of continued development of PFAS evaluation methods takes on additional significance in the context of environmental justice (EJ) considerations.   EJ focuses on the fair treatment of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the implementation and enforcement of environmental laws and policies.  Policies aimed at addressing PFAS contamination equitably will rely on multiple evaluation strategies and data collection.  As part of an effort to collect additional data on PFAS deposition, the recent Great Lakes Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN) project, a monitoring study funded by U.S. EPA, found detectible levels of replacement short-chain PFAS in all collected samples, and that PFAS are a major contaminant to the Great Lakes via deposition.  Citing results of the study as an example of the ubiquitous nature of PFAS in the environment, a June 8 statement from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) reiterated the need to apply the “whole-of-government” approach for addressing PFAS pollution, to include the Department of Defense, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Federal Aviation Administration.  The Biden administration has made addressing PFAS pollution a priority, with U.S. EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan establishing a new U.S. EPA Council on PFAS, charged with the better understanding of, and reduction to, risks associated with the chemicals.  To date, U.S. EPA has only set health advisory levels for two legacy PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), with neither level enforceable.  However, enforceable drinking water limits for both are in development, and both are expected to be designated as Superfund hazardous substances, which would require cleanup actions.  With an interagency “whole-of-government” approach and continued calls for action in motion, additional PFAS considerations and regulations should be expected.

The development of the CMAQ-PFAS model serves as an example of the continued research being performed by the U.S. EPA to better understand, and ultimately address, PFAS contamination due to atmospheric deposition.  Ongoing development, both of air quality models and enforceable regulations, should be expected to impact industry stakeholders as the call for addressing PFAS pollution continues.

Contact Ryan Cleary at rcleary@all4inc.com for more information.

Texas Rule Changes to Incorporate Project Emissions Accounting for Air Permitting

On June 11, 2021, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) approved the long-awaited changes to 30 TAC §116 regarding project emissions accounting (PEA).  The newly approved changes will become effective on July 1, 2021.  Per an interoffice memorandum dated May 21, 2021 from the TCEQ, the purpose of these changes is to “align rules relating to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment NSR (NNSR) applicability with recent guidance and rules issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), comply with congressional intent for the federal PSD and NNSR programs, and encourage emissions decreases that might not otherwise occur or would be delayed.”

This change will have a noticeable impact for air permitting in Texas, especially for those projects that could potentially trigger PSD or NNSR review without PEA.

Background

Before March 2018, when conducting an air permitting evaluation for a PSD or NNSR project, the first step (Step 1) was to evaluate emissions increases associated with the project without considering any emissions decreases.  This increase was compared to certain thresholds depending on the project type (30 TAC §116.150 and §116.160).  If the project did not cause a significant emissions increase in Step 1, no PSD review or NNSR was triggered.  The analysis was complete.  If the project did not pass Step 1, further analysis (Step 2) was required.

On March 13, 2018, the U.S. EPA published a guidance memorandum titled “Project Emissions Accounting under the New Source Review Preconstruction Permitting Program.”  In that memo, the U.S. EPA introduced the PEA concept and allowed emission decreases associated with a project to be considered as part of the Step 1 evaluation together with the project emission increases.

Subsequently, the U.S. EPA proposed rule changes on August 9, 2019 (84 Federal Register 39244).  On November 24, 2020, the final rules were adopted and published (85 Federal Register 74890).

Meanwhile, the TCEQ was closely following the changes and noted the discrepancies between U.S. EPA and 30 TAC regulations.  On March 25, 2020, the TCEQ approved a petition submitted by Baker Botts, L.L.P., which would make changes to 30 TAC §116 so that the regulations would align with the changes made by the U.S. EPA.  As mentioned above, newly changed 30 TAC §116 rules will become effective on July 1, 2021.  To be more specific, the new rules will amend several subchapters and repeal some subchapters of 30 TAC §116.

Impacts

By aligning the 30 TAC §116 rules with the U.S. EPA’s regulations, the air permitting process will be clear and consistent.  At a high level, the regulated community will not be adversely affected.  The single most important impact of the change is that emissions decreases for a project can be used in Step 1 calculations together with emissions increases for both PSD and NNSR applications.  This increased flexibility will improve the probability that a project does not have a significant emissions increase at Step 1 and avoid further analysis that might lead to PSD or NNSR review or a more complicated permit application that involves a detailed netting exercise.  In addition, it provides incentives for an applicant to consider using pollutant abatement devices or pollution prevention approaches in a project in order to pass Step 1.

Complications

Currently, legal challenges have been filed on U.S. EPA’s final rule adopting the changes to the PSD and NNSR program.  Additionally, President Biden’s Executive Order 13990 directs all federal agencies, including U.S. EPA, to immediately review all regulations and other actions taken between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021, to determine if they conflict with federal objectives to protect public health and the environment.  Therefore, there is a possibility that these changes will be reversed in the future.  If this does happen, it could create permitting difficulties such as delays and even financial burden for any sites in Texas that have submitted air permit applications that rely on PEA but have not yet received a permit.

Conclusions

The adoption of the PEA concept in 30 TAC §116 is welcome news for the regulated community.  It will make the air permitting process easier for projects that could otherwise have triggered PSD review or NNSR.  However, these rules may change again depending on actions at the federal level.

This blog has provided a high-level summary of PEA.  If you have any further questions regarding this topic or would like assistance reviewing your project to determine the appropriate air permitting mechanism, please contact us.

Bay Area AQMD Emergency Engine BACT Ruling

On December 22, 2020, the California Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted a new Guideline Document that revised the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) emissions standards found under BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 2 for emergency standby-power diesel-fired engines (emergency engines).  The guideline requires emergency engines larger than 1,000 brake horsepower (bhp) to meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Tier 4 Final (Tier 4) emissions standards as BACT.  The Tier 4 emissions standards are defined in 40 CFR Part 89 (Control of Emissions from New and in-Use Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines).  With this revision to Regulation 2, Rule 2, any new or modified source that results in an increase in emissions of ten or more pounds per day (lb/day) of any district BACT pollutant (as defined in BAAQMD Regulation 2-2-210) is subject to BACT review.  For emergency engines, the district pollutants that most commonly trigger BACT review are nitrogen oxides (NO_X) and particulate matter (PM).  The most common methods for meeting Tier 4 emissions standards for NO_X and PM are the use of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and diesel particulate filter (DPF) control equipment, respectively.

BACT Guideline

Previously, emergency engines in BAAQMD were only required to meet Tier 2 emissions standards, consistent with U.S. EPA requirements.  With this change, facilities that want to install emergency engines larger than 1,000 bhp will need to purchase U.S. EPA Tier 4 emissions certified engines or U.S. EPA Tier 4 emissions compliant engines, which can be done by purchasing Tier 2 engines with aftermarket air pollution control equipment installed.  These changes will apply to any permit application for an emergency engine deemed complete after January 1, 2020.  This means that even if you submitted an application for an air permit (referred to as an Authority to Construct) before this guideline was adopted on December 22, 2020, Tier 4 emissions certified or equivalent engines are required if your application had not been deemed complete prior to the January 1, 2020 adoption date.  Furthermore, BAAQMD will not refund the cost of the initial fee and filing fee if an application is withdrawn.

Impacts to Data Centers (and Other Facilities)

Background

Data centers play a crucial role in the day-to-day operations for thousands of businesses across the United States.  Most businesses rely on the internet, and therefore a data center, for their day to day operations.  Because of the services that data centers provide, they require electricity at all times.  Network and server processes, equipment cooling, and facility operations all require an uninterruptible power supply (UPS).  Normally, this electricity is supplied by electric utilities, but during emergencies (i.e., when electrical service from the servicing utility is interrupted by an unforeseeable event) other sources must provide the electricity.  This is often achieved by the use of emergency engines – and a lot of them.  ALL4 frequently permits as many as 50 emergency engines at individual data centers in one initial application, and although this requirement will affect any facility with an emergency engine larger than 1,000 bhp, the number of engines typically seen at data centers complicates the process of making the necessary changes to comply.  Other types of facilities ALL4 frequently works with when permitting emergency engines include hospitals, universities, distribution centers, and retail stores.  Remember, any emergency engine larger than 1,000 bhp in BAAQMD will now need to meet Tier 4 emissions standards, not just engines located at data centers.

Project Costs and Other Considerations

Purchasing, installing, and maintaining 50 or more emergency engines is expensive, and for someone managing these projects the first question that comes to mind is likely: will the requirement to purchase Tier 4 engines increase project costs?  The short answer is yes.  With the requirement to purchase Tier 4 engines, there are additional costs one must consider when installing emergency engines.  As mentioned previously, the most common method of meeting Tier 4 NO_X and PM emissions standards is through the use of SCR and DPF control equipment, respectively.  The cost of turnkey installations (i.e., packaged, ready to operate upon installation) of Tier 4 emergency engines will vary wildly but is more expensive than installing Tier 2 engines that lack SCR and DPF control equipment.  For aftermarket SCR and DPF control equipment installations on 2-Megawatt (MW) Tier 2 emergency engines one can expect a capital cost of approximately $220,000, but this too can vary.  Additionally, proper operation of SCR control equipment requires diesel exhaust fluid (DEF), a mixture of 32.5% urea and 67.5% water that is injected into the engine exhaust stream to ultimately convert NO_X to gaseous nitrogen (N₂) and oxygen.  DEF needs to be in a storage tank that is cool, dry, well-ventilated, out of direct sunlight, and kept between a temperature of 10 and 77°F.  DEF has a shelf life of approximately two years when stored under these conditions, meaning facilities will need to determine the appropriate storage tank size and the amount of DEF stored on-site at any one time.  Facilities must have enough DEF on-site to ensure proper operation of the control equipment in the case of an emergency, but if the engines are only being run for maintenance checks and readiness testing (MC/RT) then the owner runs the risk of DEF spoiling from being stored too long.

Are other Counties/States likely to follow suit?

As of June 15, 2021, two other agencies have adopted the same rule requiring Tier 4 emissions standards be met as BACT for emergency engines: Sacramento Metro Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) in California and Maricopa County Air Quality Department in Arizona.  However, it is possible that other agencies will adopt the same or similar requirements in the future, so it is important to consider this when planning projects.

If you have questions about air permitting or compliance for emergency engines now subject to Tier 4 emissions standards, please reach out to Graham Brittain at gbrittain@all4inc.com.

Meet Kevin Chaplin

Kevin Chaplin // Senior Managing Consultant // Louisville, KY Office

What are your roles at ALL4?

As a Senior Managing Consultant I am responsible for people and projects in the Occupational Health & Safety and Industrial Hygiene practice areas.  While I’ve dabbled in a number of things on the environmental front over the years, I enjoy the variety of challenges that are presented while working with so many different industries in the occupational setting.  Projects ranging from chemical exposure evaluations to hazard assessments or working on improving a company’s overall approach to safety.  Determining potential routes of exposure or investigating indoor air quality issues that can impact employee productivity; a lot of these projects are like detective work exploring different scenarios to determine causation.  If my day was predictable, I would not enjoy my job as much as I do – the variety of people and projects keeps my work exciting and fresh!

You’ve recently authored a blog on some upcoming Federal OSHA enforcement and regulatory actions taking shape. Any sage advice to pass along to EHS Managers?

With the new Administration’s leadership changes at OSHA and the $27M in funding to Federal OSHA through the COVID relief package, facilities can expect to be more scrutinized than in the past from an enforcement perspective.  My recommendation is to make now a good time to review your Health & Safety policies with an emphasis on OSHA compliance.

Where have you found success when working with clients to decrease their accident and injury behaviors?

The biggest catalyst for change is when you can bring employees and management together to solve the problem.  For example, when you have employees and health and safety professionals work with the process engineering design team prior to implementation of a process, you then become proactive versus reactive in identifying potential hazards.  By getting input and feedback from all parties during the design phase, you can reduce the potential for injuries or accidents.  Simply put, creating that link between management, the engineering team, health and safety personnel, and the workers is the secret sauce.

What are we likely to find you doing when you’re not working?

I love being outdoors whether it’s walking or hiking or relaxing with a book or dining alfresco.  I thoroughly enjoy tennis, so you’ll find me on the court 1-2 times a week if possible. In fact, for several years I served as Team Captain for our USTA adult league team.  We had a lot of fun along the way winning three state championships.  Although the accompanying libations kind of cancelled out the fitness benefits of the journey.

Is it true that you are no longer Mr. Chaplin and have a new moniker, Laird Chaplin?

Why yes I do, and it has a nice ring to it doesn’t it?  It’s a privilege to own land and title in such a beautiful place.  Our family has a passion for travel, and we have been fortunate enough to take a few trips to Ireland, England, and Scotland.  One of my daughters was in Scotland doing archival research as a student and I was lucky enough to be “invited” on that trip.  So, for Christmas my daughters decided to purchase a plot of land for me under a land conservancy program to preserve nature and habitat in the highlands of Scotland.  As such, the Laird of Glencoe has arrived with an estate of 10 square feet!

Texas’ Renewal of Stormwater Multi-Sector General Permit

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) regulates facilities associated with industrial activity that discharge stormwater to surface water under the Stormwater Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP), TXR050000.  This permit authorizes point source discharges associated with industrial activity and certain non-stormwater discharges to surface water.

The active MSGP was issued in August 2016 and is scheduled to expire on August 14, 2021.  The TCEQ began the renewal process of the MSGP in September 2019.  In 2020, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) reviewed and approved TCEQ’s draft MSGP, and the permit is set to be effective on August 14, 2021.

TCEQ made general updates to the 2021 MSGP by revising definitions and various sections throughout the permit to clarify permit requirements and provisions.  The proposed changes can be accessed through the proposed 2021 MSGP and fact sheet that TCEQ published for public review.  Some of the notable changes include:

• Adding North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes and updating the description of a few Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes;
• Clarifying that applications are required to be submitted electronically via State of Texas Environmental Electronic Reporting System (STEERS);
• Updating best management practices (BMPs) for Pre-Production Plastic (e.g., pellets for extrusion) and Sector J (Mineral Mining and Processing Facilities) facilities;
• Requiring facilities to submit a Notice of Change (NOC) to waive Benchmark monitoring in years 3 and 4 if no exceedances in years 1 and 2; and
• Lowering benchmark values for Sector T (Treatment Workers) and Sector U (Food and Kindred Products Facilities).

Facilities that are currently authorized under the previous MSGP can continue to operate for ninety days after the effective date of the renewed permit.  Before the ninetieth day, facilities must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) or a No Exposure Certification (NEC) to TCEQ for coverage under the general permit.  Additionally, the new MSGP requires facilities to develop and implement a new or updated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to submitting a NOI for coverage.

If you are currently authorized under the 2016 MSGP, you will need to apply for a permit renewal.  There are currently about 13,000 MSGP authorizations that will be affected and each of these facilities will need to renew their permit before the ninety-day renewal period ends on November 12, 2021.  If you have any questions concerning TCEQ’s proposed MSGP renewal, how to obtain authorization under MSGP, assistance in renewing your MSGP, or updating your SWPPP please email me at whill@all4inc.com.

NJDEP to Add H2S, 1-BP, and Sulfuryl Fluoride to HAP List, Add 13 Contaminants to Emission Statement Program

On March 1, 2021, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) announced multiple proposed rules and amendments in continuation with their efforts to address air contaminants in New Jersey.  The proposed rulemaking clarifies regulations on fumigants and fumigation operations by determining emissions based on potential to emit (PTE) rather than the historically used weight of raw materials.  The proposed changes add Toxic Air Pollutants (TAP) to the list of compounds that must be reported on annual emissions statements.

Additionally, NJDEP is proposing to regulate three substances that are not currently federally listed as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) (regulated under N.J.A.C. 7:27-17):

• hydrogen sulfide (H₂S),
• 1-Bromopropane (1-BP), otherwise known as n-propyl bromide (nPB), and
• sulfuryl fluoride

Sulfuryl fluoride is a commonly used fumigant that is not considered a HAP (two other common fumigants are methyl bromide and phosphine).  Regulating sulfuryl fluoride, in conjunction with stack venting requirements for fumigation to achieve negligible risk, will result in a much more stringent air permitting process for fumigation operations.

While fumigation operation emissions are the target of some of proposed rules, the addition of H₂S and nPB as TAP could significantly impact operations well outside of the scope of fumigation.  Specifically, the regulation of H₂S would have sweeping impacts on facilities such as landfills, wastewater treatment facilities, and sewage incinerators.  The proposed reporting threshold for H₂S is 90 lb/yr, with a State of the Art (SOTA) threshold of 10,000 lb/yr.  This change would force facilities with existing Title V Operating Permits (TVOP) to calculate the H₂S PTE emissions, and any facilities that exceed the reporting threshold would need to add the H₂S emissions rate to the next permit renewal or modification.  If the facility exceeds the 90 lb/yr threshold, they would be subject to risk screening upon minor or significant modification to the existing permit.  Additionally, these facilities would need to add H₂S to their annual emissions statement.  Any facility exceeding the SOTA thresholds would be required to complete a SOTA analysis to evaluate the available control technologies.  As many landfills and sewage incinerators would likely exceed this number, economically strenuous control measures for the capture and control of H₂S emissions may be required.

The addition of nPB as a TAP presents its own set of challenges that will impact a large range of facilities.  Commonly, nPB is a solvent used in dry cleaning and degreasing, and has often replaced trichloroethylene (TCE), which is currently listed as a federally regulated HAP.  There have been efforts to add nPB to the list of federally regulated HAP, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) granted petitions to add nPB in June 2020.  This is the beginning of the process for establishing regulatory requirements for nPB, likely under 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart T – National Emission Standards for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning.  This process may take several years, but it appears as though NJDEP is getting out ahead by subjecting nPB to its TAP regulations.

The NJDEP proposed revisions pertaining to the Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution by Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and HAP as well as changes to the reporting of emissions statements impact rules in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone.  As such, these revisions will be reviewed by U.S. EPA.

The final major change that facilities can expect from the proposed rules is in regard to emissions statements.  NJDEP has continued their efforts to add air toxics to the required compounds for Annual Emissions Statements, here adding 13 air contaminants to the emission statement program.  This means that all facilities required to submit an emissions statement must evaluate the PTE for those pollutants at the facility level, beginning with reporting year 2021, to be submitted in 2022.  This change does not require any facility to reduce its emissions, but NJDEP hopes this will result in voluntary reduction of these contaminants.

ALL4 will continue to track these regulatory developments and provide updates to help stakeholders prepare and strategize.  If you have questions about how this proposed rule may affect you, please contact your ALL4 Managing Consultant or Morgan Gray at mgray@all4inc.com.

Triennial Review of the Water Quality Standards – What’s Happening in Your State?

Where is your State in the Water Quality Standards Review?

To comply with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) requirements finalized in 2015, states and tribes must develop, maintain, and conduct a review of their Water Quality Standards (WQS) at least once every three years. 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 131.21 establishes procedures for U.S. EPA to approve states’ WQS.

U.S. EPA has established national recommended Water Quality Criteria (WQC) pursuant to Section 304 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).  Those WQC are used to develop recommended WQS at the federal level.  Although each state has its own procedures for adopting new or different WQS, all states begin with a public participation process.  The goal during the Triennial Review is to:

• Adopt the U.S. EPA recommended criteria,
• Adopt criteria to reflect site specific conditions, or
• Use other scientific methods to develop state-specific criteria.

Each state must include key elements in the WQS to meet U.S. EPA approval.

• Designated uses that are consistent with the CWA
• Criteria sufficient to protect designated uses
• Antidegradation requirements
• General procedures or policies affecting the application and implementation of the WQS

While U.S EPA provides recommended criteria and approves state WQS, each state and its stakeholders have the ability to provide meaningful input into the adoption of any standard every three years.  Several states are in the process of providing information and asking for public input this year.  For example, Florida’s public comment period ended May 19, 2021, Vermont published their proposed WQS changes in April 2021, and Kentucky is currently taking public comments in June.

The Kentucky Division of Water will conduct a listening session Tuesday June 22, 2021 via a web meeting.  The Division will accept written comments through August 6, 2021. The Division will consider the latest recommended water quality criteria updates from the U.S. EPA including:

• Updating criteria for aquatic life for ammonia
• Establishing aquatic life criteria for aluminum
• Updating human health criteria for 94 pollutants
• Designating new Outstanding State Resource Waters (OSRW) and Exceptional Waters

Why Participate in the Review Process within your State?

The CWA has three primary parts:

• Water Quality Standards
• Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL)
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit

All three parts represent a state’s Water Quality Policy, but the TMDL and NPDES requirements are derived from the WQS.  The WQS and criteria are used to establish limits in your NPDES Permit, establish TMDLs for impacted water bodies, and restrict use of certain water bodies that show degradation.

WQS are established pursuant to Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA).  Section 303(c) establishes national goals customized state-by-state for designated uses, criteria to protect those uses, antidegradation policy, and TMDLs.

TMDLs are established under Section 303(d) for state-designated water bodies that do not meet WQS.  A water body may have one or several WQS it does not meet.  Each WQS not met may have a TDML developed unique to the water body designed to:

• Rebalance loadings that have created exceedances of the WQS
• Provide waste load allocations for point sources implemented in the NPDES permit
• Provide load allocations to non-point sources

Under the CWA, each state conducts water quality assessments and evaluates its waterbodies against WQS.  The state’s list of impaired waterbodies is published (Section 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report) and submitted to U.S. EPA every two years.  As WQS are changed or incorporated for an individual pollutant, the state will also update the evaluation of its waterbodies using the new WQS.

Understanding the implications of new or revised WQS is important to planning for capital projects, such as expansions and changes to your water treatment.  Small changes can have large impacts.

The time to provide comments and affect changes to the WQS is during the Triennial Review process.  Once established, listing of impaired streams and development of TMDLs, along with changes to permit limits, are harder to object to or change.

To find out where your regulatory agency is in the Triennial Review process, you may have to contact the agency directly if it is not posted on the website since this is a state-by-state endeavor.  Take the time to review standards that affect your facility and your receiving water body.  Understand why the changes are being proposed.  You can provide comments as an individual, company, industry association, or non-profit organization.

If you have any questions or need assistance navigating your state’s review process and determining how changes to the WQS could affect you, you can contact Karen Thompson at kthompson@all4inc.com.  Karen is located in our Kentucky Regional Office and has more than 25 years of experience in tracking WQS developments for industry.

RACT III – Status Update and Compliance Considerations

On Wednesday, May 19, 2021, PADEP’s Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) rule (referred to herein the RACT III Rule) went to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) for review and approval.  The proposed draft version of the rule as well as the executive summary, preamble, regulatory analysis form, and technical support document are all posted on the EQB’s website.  The proposed rulemaking was adopted by EQB on May 19, 2021.

The best way to impact change or request clarification to the RACT III Rule is to go through the official public commenting process.  We encourage our clients to start evaluating the impacts of the new proposed RACT III Rule on their facility and consider preparing comments for submittal during the upcoming public comment period.  Note that the proposed schedule included a recommended 60-day public comment period, an expected date of the final-form regulation of 1^st Quarter 2022, and a compliance date of January 1, 2023.

ALL4’s Continuous Monitoring System (CMS) Tech Team has reviewed the draft version of the proposed RACT III Rule and is currently evaluating the impacts as it relates to our Pennsylvania clients.  As a member of the CMS Tech Team, I am personally interested in changes related to compliance using continuous monitoring.  As such, I wanted to share one of the main monitoring considerations noted in the latest version of the proposed RACT III Rule:

• There are new daily averages proposed for specific combustion units and process heaters with continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). The daily average would replace the current 30-operating day rolling average specified in the RACT II Rule for this set of units.  If you have a unit that would be subject to a daily average, would you be able to maintain continuous compliance under this shorter averaging period?  To answer that question, you’d first have to determine how to calculate and validate the new daily average.
  • Definition?
    • Unlike the 30-operating day rolling average, the daily average is not currently defined in the proposed rule. Is it a calendar day or 24-hour rolling average?
  • Calculation?
    • Since no definition has been proposed at this point, will it be a daily arithmetic average of emissions rates (lb/MMBtu) or will it be the daily sum of NOx mass divided by the daily sum of heat input similar to the current 30-operating day rolling average calculation methodology?
  • Validation?
    • If it is a daily average of emissions rates, is there a certain number of valid hours needed in the day to be able to calculate a valid daily average (e.g., Continuous Source Monitoring Manual (CSMM) Revision 8 currently requires 18 valid hourly averages to calculate a valid daily average)?    –OR-
    • If it is a daily sum of NOx mass divided by a daily sum of heat input, would a day that had only one hour of unit operation (likely containing startup or shutdown emissions) be used for compliance with the daily average limit. This could provide a challenge for facilities to demonstrate compliance.

Based on the above example alone, there are uncertainties that could have impacts on facility compliance using CEMS for RACT III compliance.  The good news is that you already have historical CEMS data.  Our recommendation is to start looking at your data now.  If you anticipate emissions units at your facility are subject to this new daily average, do any considerations listed above have an impact on whether or not you’d be able to demonstrate compliance?  Not only today, but in the future if your facility’s operation changes.  If you’re not sure how to evaluate your data through these various lenses, let us help you!  The goal is to understand the impact on your facility, provide input through the public commenting process, and ultimately gain clarity in the final rule.

Stay tuned for additional updates on the official public comment period as the RACT III rulemaking process moves forward.  Please reach out for assistance with CMS data evaluation needs, applicability analysis, and/or comment preparation.  If you have any questions or want to discuss what RACT III means for your facility, please reach out to me at mstroup@all4inc.com or 610-422-1140.

RACT III Resources