Philadelphia’s Air Toxics Regulations in Effect as of January 1, 2024

The City of Philadelphia’s Air Management Services’ (AMS) new Air Management Regulation (AMR) VI Toxics Rule and health risk screening workbook went into effect January 1, 2024. The AMR VI rule had been finalized at an Air Pollution Control Board (APCB) meeting held on April 27, 2023. For every major source in Philadelphia with a Title V Operating Permit (TVOP), this rule will affect the process of installing new equipment or applying for a TVOP renewal. The rule also affects certain non-Tile V facilities as well.

AMR VI contains a list of 217 toxic air contaminants (TAC) which are the subject of the requirements of the rule. This TAC list includes nearly all 187 pollutants currently classified as hazardous air pollutants (HAP) by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) pursuant to Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). An applicant seeking an Installation Permit or Plan Approval from AMS for a new or modified source will be required to conduct risk screening if the source has the potential to emit at least one of the listed TAC in an amount above reporting thresholds, which are listed in the Technical Guidelines to the AMR VI. The reporting threshold is the annual emissions rate level in pounds per year from a source that, when exceeded, would trigger the requirement to conduct a health risk analysis. A source with potential TAC or HAP emissions below this reporting threshold would not require an air toxics risk assessment and would be considered an insignificant source (i.e., would not require a permit or certificate) assuming all other air permit exemption criteria were met.

The program that AMS has developed is nearly identical to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) toxics program, which is a historically difficult process to navigate. The health risk screening workbook remains inconsistent with Technical Guidance as it contains many pollutants that are not covered by the AMR VI Rule, such as diesel particulate matter (DPM), hydrogen sulfide, sulfuric acid, and sodium hydroxide. Other than the AMS workbook, U.S. EPA’s air quality screening model, AERSCREEN, or an alternative air screening model, approved by AMS on a case-by-case basis, are given as options for conducting the health risk assessment.

If your facility has the potential to emit any of the 217 TACs subject to this requirement, do not hesitate to reach out to ALL4 for assistance. ALL4 has extensive experience in Air Toxics Modeling and with the health risk screening workbook, and is capable of working with facilities to navigate this new territory. Please reach out to info@all4inc.com.

Check out our previous articles on Philadelphia’s Air Toxics Regulations:

• https://www.all4inc.com/4-the-record-articles/upcoming-updates-to-philadelphias-air-toxics-regulations/
• https://www.all4inc.com/4-the-record-articles/what-you-need-to-know-about-recently-finalized-updates-to-philadelphias-air-toxics-regulations-effective-january-1-2024/

U.S. EPA Publishes its 2024-2027 Climate Adaptation Plan, Creating a New Roadmap to Resilience

On June 20, 2024, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) unveiled its 2024-2027 Climate Adaptation Plan, marking a significant step forward in addressing the challenges posed by climate change. This comprehensive plan outlines the agency’s strategies to enhance climate resilience across its programs, facilities, workforce, and operations. Building on the foundations of the 2014 and 2021 Climate Adaptation Plans, the 2024-2027 plan integrates climate adaptation into every facet of U.S. EPA’s functions. This iterative process reflects a growing recognition of the need for robust and dynamic responses to climate impacts, furthering U.S. EPA’s ambition to be a global leader in addressing resilience .

Key Objectives of the 2024-2027 Plan

The new Climate Adaptation Plan sets out a roadmap for the next four years, focusing on several key areas:

• Fostering a Climate-Ready Workforce

U.S. EPA is committed to cultivating a climate-literate workforce through continuous education and training. One notable initiative is the agency-wide Climate Conversations webinar series, which helps build a community of practice and encourages peer-to-peer sharing of experiences. This ongoing education ensures that staff are equipped with an understanding of projected climate impacts, the vulnerability of U.S. EPA programs to these impacts, and effective adaptation strategies.

• Building Facility Resilience

Facility resiliency assessments are central to the plan, aimed at identifying and mitigating vulnerabilities to climate impacts. By making informed recommendations, U.S. EPA ensures its facilities can withstand the adverse effects of climate change, safeguarding the agency’s ability to fulfill its mission.

• Developing Climate-Resilient Supply Chains

U.S. EPA is proactively addressing potential disruptions by incorporating climate hazard risk assessments into the Agency Supply Chain Risk Management plan. Upcoming supply chain risk assessments under federal regulations will further strengthen this approach, promoting continuity and resilience in operations.

• Integrating Climate Resilience into External Funding Opportunities

U.S. EPA launched the Climate-Resilient Investments Clearinghouse for financial assistance programs that prioritize climate resilience. This internal resource aids program managers in embedding climate adaptation and resilience considerations into daily investment decisions, supporting communities and Tribes in building adaptive capacity.

• Applying Climate Data and Tools to Decision Making

U.S. EPA is enhancing the accessibility and application of climate data and tools, providing communities with the necessary resources to assess risks and develop tailored resilience solutions. With this approach, decisions are made by the best available science and localized climate information.

• Integrating Climate Adaptation into Rulemaking Processes

U.S. EPA is embedding climate adaptation into its rulemaking processes. For instance, the recent Risk Management Program rule revisions require facilities managing certain hazardous materials in quantities above regulatory thresholds to take certain actions to prepare for extreme weather conditions.

Launch of the Office of Climate Adaptation and Sustainability

In March 2024, U.S. EPA established the Office of Climate Adaptation and Sustainability, dedicated to promoting resilience and sustainability. This new office will coordinate efforts to integrate climate considerations into all aspects of U.S. EPA’s mission, bolstering partnerships and driving innovative solutions.

A Coordinated Federal Response

U.S. EPA’s plan is part of a broader federal initiative, with over 20 agencies releasing climate adaptation plans simultaneously. These coordinated efforts align with executive orders and the National Climate Resilience Framework, highlighting a unified approach to building federal resilience to climate impacts.

The publication of the 2024-2027 Climate Adaptation Plan underscores U.S. EPA’s ongoing commitment to foster a climate-ready workforce, build resilient facilities and supply chains, and integrate climate adaptation into funding and regulatory processes. The goals of this comprehensive strategy are to address immediate challenges related to climate change and also to lay the groundwork for a sustainable, resilient future for communities across the nation.

How ALL4 Can Help Your Company

As climate regulations and expectations evolve, ALL4 provides the expertise and resources your company needs to stay ahead. We specialize in guiding businesses through the complexities of climate adaptation, ensuring compliance with federal guidelines, and enhancing overall resilience. To support businesses in navigating the evolving Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and sustainability landscape, ALL4 offers a range of services, including:

• Materiality Assessments: Identifying key environmental impacts to prioritize your sustainability efforts.
• GHG Accounting Procedures: Ensuring compliance with the Climate Superfund Act, including reporting and third-party verification services.
• ESG Reporting Strategies: Enhancing transparency and accountability through comprehensive environmental, social, and governance reporting.
• Carbon Reduction Targets: Establishing and pursuing net-zero goals to mitigate your carbon footprint.
• Climate Initiatives: Developing and implementing comprehensive strategies for climate adaptation and resilience.
• Supply Chain Risk Assessments: Identifying exposure to disruption across facilities, suppliers, customers and resources. Utilizing ALL4’s Risk Visualization tool to clarify hot spots and plan for resilience.
• Physical and Transition Risk Assessments: Ensuring they are aligned with the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) methodology.

For inquiries about ALL4’s services or questions regarding how climate adaptation strategies might improve your operations, please contact ALL4’s ESG and Sustainability Managing Consultant, James Giannantonio, at jgiannantonio@all4inc.com. ALL4 can help you build a sustainable, resilient future.

ALL4 Workshop on BAAQMD Expectations for Continuous Monitoring Systems (CMS) and Source Testing

ALL4 recently hosted a workshop in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to discuss the regulatory requirements for continuous monitoring systems (CMS) and source testing programs completed within the BAAQMD. CMS operated in the BAAQMD must comply with the Manual of Procedures (MOP), Volume V – Continuous Emission Monitoring Policy and Procedures. Source testing completed in the BAAQMD must be completed according to the requirements of BAAQMD MOP, Volume IV – Source Test Policy and Procedures. The MOPs for CMS and Source Testing were promulgated in January 1982, around the same time that the CMS Performance Specifications in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B were being developed. As you may imagine, because the MOPs are now over 40 years old, there are several regulatory grey areas that have created challenges for facilities operating CMS and complying with emissions limits via source testing in the BAAQMD in 2024.

The purpose of ALL4’s workshop was to bring stakeholders together, including representatives of the BAAQMD, to discuss regulatory grey areas within the MOPs and discuss options for compliance, as well as the mechanisms available to the regulated community to address those grey areas and comply with MOP requirements. Some of the key areas the workshop discussed included:

• Validation of 1-hour CMS averages,
• CMS are out-of-control (OOC) definitions,
• Overlapping Federal and BAAQMD CMS requirements,
• Analyzer over range requirements,
• Missing data substitution methodologies,
• CMS certification (initially and recertification),
• Source test method deviations, and
• Communicating with the BAAQMD.

While the intent was not to leave the workshop with new policy or updated regulations, we were able to gain an understanding of BAAQMD’s expectations for compliance and establish a path forward for stakeholders to better operate and maintain CMS and complete source testing with the BAAQMD. ALL4 is committed to shaping environmental responsibility and fostering collaboration and understanding between industry and regulatory agencies on compliance topics. If there is a regulation or revision to a regulation that you would like to see in a future workshop, you are a facility in the BAAQMD that operates CMS or completes source testing for compliance with emissions limits and want to learn more about what came out of the workshop, or just have questions about your CMS or source testing program, please reach out to me at 610-422-1139 or mcarideo@all4inc.com.

Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation to Update NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit No. 3-9003

The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has proposed to update the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (MSGP 3-9003) that expired on August 4, 2016. The draft 2024 MSGP is available for review on the DEC Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENB) or the DEC Vermont.gov MSGP Landing Page. A public information meeting will be held in person in the Catamount Conference room located in the National Life Building at 1 National Life Drive, Davis 1, Montpelier, VT 05602 and online via Microsoft Teams on June 25, 2024 from 1pm to 3pm. The virtual meeting invite can be found on the ENB.

The DEC will be making any necessary changes to the proposed permit based on public comments submitted via the ENB and received during the live public information meeting. The planned effective date for the 2024 MSGP is not yet known.

Proposed Changes to MSGP 3-9003

Substantial changes to the existing permit include but are not limited to:

• Updates to the notice of intent (NOI) application,
• Requirements for all reports and submittals to be reported electronically via the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) Online Services Portal,
• Updates to the copper, selenium, and aluminum benchmark monitoring parameters to align with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 2021 MSGP,
• Updates to the inspection procedures by consolidating the comprehensive and routine inspection procedures into one set of procedures,
• Added clarification around which conditions for corrective actions require a review of a facility’s stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP),
• Requirements for each facility’s NOI and SWPPP to posted to the ENB by the DEC for a public comment period,
• Updates to the monitoring requirements for facilities discharging to impaired waters,
• Requirement for additional control measures for benchmark monitoring exceedances,
• Sector-specific updates:
  • Adding discharge from uncontaminated spray down or intentional wetting of logs at wet deck storage areas as an allowed non-stormwater discharge for Sector A,
  • Removing coverage for earth disturbing activities for Sector G and H,
  • Adding construction permit requirements for Sector J,
  • Adding requirements for deicing operations for Sector S, and
  • Creation of a new industrial sector (Sector AD-1) for facilities that produce biogas through the anaerobic digesting and processing of organics.

What Actions do you Need to Take?

If your facility has coverage under this permit, expect to submit an electronic NOI (eNOI) and an updated SWPPP via the Vermont ANR Online Services Portal in the coming months.

Facilities currently covered under the 2011 MSGP should submit an eNOI via the ANR Online portal within 180 days after issuance of the 2024 MSGP to ensure the facility’s stormwater coverage is uninterrupted. Facilities with a Conditional Exclusion for No Exposure (NOX) of the industrial activities at their site must submit a No Exposure Certification to VDEC under the 2024 MSGP in the coming months.

If you have any questions regarding the proposed updates to the 2011 MSGP or what your next steps should be to prepare for the adoption of the 2024 MSGP, please reach out to me at jfantone@all4inc.com. ALL4 will continue to track updates to the 2011 MSGP, and we are here to help with any of the above actions your facility may need to take, along with any other aspects of stormwater compliance your facility may need.

Vermont Makes a Move to Ease Climate Change Burden on Taxpayers

The Birth of the Climate Superfund Act

On May 30, 2024, Vermont became the first state to pass legislation allowing it to recover billions of dollars from certain companies to cover the costs of climate change impacts. The Climate Superfund Act (S.259), modeled after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA) Superfund program, mandates that the largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters pay for the costs of recovering from and preparing for extreme weather events linked to climate change. Backed by climate activists led by Vermont’s Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG), the Act will essentially bill these companies for climate damage, dividing the costs based on each company’s market share.

Responding to Climate Disasters

Last July, catastrophic flash flooding and river flooding occurred across much of Vermont. In response, state legislators introduced the Climate Superfund Act to hold certain companies accountable for the damages attributed to the GHG emissions generated by their products. The law aims to address the financial burden that extreme weather events place on taxpayers, shifting some of that responsibility onto those companies responsible. The legislation requires the largest GHG emitting companies to pay for a share of climate change costs proportional to their GHG emissions from 1995-2024. Payments are structured to ensure significant contributions toward Vermont’s climate resilience efforts, with companies starting payments six months after a cost recovery demand is issued, beginning with at least 20% of the total cost, followed by annual payments of up to 10% of the demand. The total cost owed by companies will be determined by January 2026.

The Climate Superfund Act includes specific mechanisms for determining the extent to which extreme weather events are attributable to climate change versus natural weather variations. This process involves:

• Scientific Attribution Studies: The law mandates the use of scientific studies that quantify the influence of climate change on specific weather events. For example, attribution studies would assess the 2023 flooding in Vermont by examining historical weather data, climate models, and the increased frequency and intensity of similar events due to global warming. These studies help determine the likelihood that climate change has exacerbated the flooding.
• Baseline Comparisons: The law distinguishes between the natural occurrence of weather events and their severity as influenced by climate change. For instance, while flooding might occur naturally, the law seeks to identify how much more intense or frequent such flooding has become due to human-induced climate change. This involves comparing current weather patterns with historical baselines and accounting for known natural variations like El Niño and La Niña.
• Incremental Impact Analysis: The approach involves evaluating how climate change has enhanced the event rather than assuming the event would not have happened at all without climate change. In the case of the 2023 flooding, the law would look at factors such as increased rainfall intensity and the frequency of extreme weather events, which are scientifically linked to higher GHG levels, to determine the extent of the event’s amplification by climate change.
• Climate Models and Projections: Advanced climate models are used to simulate the effects of increased GHG concentrations on weather patterns. These models help predict the likelihood and intensity of events under different climate scenarios, providing a basis for attributing specific impacts to climate change.

By employing these methods, the law ensures a rigorous, evidence-based approach to discerning the contributions of climate change to extreme weather events. This helps in accurately attributing costs to specific companies deemed responsible, ensuring that they are held accountable for the portion of damages directly linked to their GHG emissions, while recognizing natural variability in weather patterns.

Allocation of Funds and Anticipated Challenges

Funds collected from large GHG emitting companies will be directed toward modernizing infrastructure, weatherproofing schools and public buildings, cleaning up after storms, and addressing public health costs related to climate change. The Climate Superfund Cost Recovery Program Fund will be administered by the Secretary of Natural Resources and will support climate change adaptation projects outlined in Vermont’s State Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Vermont’s Bold Move

Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act has drawn national attention and may inspire similar legislation in other states, including Massachusetts, Maryland, and New York. Governor Phil Scott’s decision to allow the law to pass without his signature reflects a pragmatic approach, balancing the desire to address climate change with concerns about Vermont’s capacity to lead this effort alone. He emphasized the need for collaboration with other states to share the burden of legal and financial challenges. Despite its progressive aims, the law is expected to face significant legal challenges.

Addressing Immediate and Long-Term Climate Impacts

In addition to the Climate Superfund Act, Governor Phil Scott allowed another significant piece of legislation, the Flood Safety Act (S.213), to become law. This act, which was enacted in early May 2024, establishes a new state permitting system for building in river corridors, sets new standards for wetland protection, and increases dam safety measures. The Flood Safety Act aims to mitigate the impacts of more frequent and intense flooding, which are attributed to climate change.

Broader Implications and Future Outlook

The enactment of the Climate Superfund Act marks a significant shift in environmental policy by emphasizing corporate accountability and proactive adaptation to climate change. This approach sets a precedent that may influence national and global strategies for holding companies with carbon emissions financially responsible. As other states consider adopting similar measures, the success of Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act will be closely watched. Its implementation and the outcomes of anticipated legal challenges will provide valuable insights into the feasibility and effectiveness of such measures nationwide.

How ALL4 Can Help Your Company

Now that Vermont has enacted the Climate Superfund Act, companies may need to actively engage in GHG and co-pollutant mitigation strategies to align with the state’s new requirements. Companies operating in Vermont, and in other states with similar laws, should begin preparing for the financial and regulatory impacts of the law by implementing robust GHG accounting procedures and climate adaptation measures. To support businesses in navigating these new regulations, ALL4 offers a range of services tailored to Vermont’s legislative landscape. These services include:

• Conducting materiality assessments to identify key environmental impacts.
• Implementing GHG accounting procedures to ensure compliance with the Climate Superfund Act, including reporting and third-party verification services.
• Devising environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting strategies to enhance transparency and accountability.
• Establishing carbon reduction targets and pursuing net-zero goals.
• Developing and implementing comprehensive climate initiatives.

For inquiries about ALL4’s services or questions regarding how the Climate Superfund Act might affect your operations in Vermont or other relevant states, please contact ALL4’s ESG and Sustainability Managing Consultant, James Giannantonio, at jgiannantonio@all4inc.com.

Final Amendments to Greenhouse Gas Reporting Regulations

In the last six weeks, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has promulgated two sets of revisions to the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Rule as codified in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 98 (40 CFR 98). The first revisions were published on April 25, 2024, and included revisions to 24 subparts of the rule, with the addition of five new subparts. The second set of revisions was published on May 14, 2024, and included significant revisions to Subpart W, with related changes to Subparts A and C. These amendments finalize the revisions that were proposed in June 2022, May 2023, and July 2023.

April 25^th Amendments for Data Quality Improvements

As part of the April 25^th amendments, U.S. EPA adopted changes to improve the accuracy and completeness of data collected reflecting changes in industry practices, improved calculation and monitoring methods, and expanding to include new source categories or new emissions sources for specific sectors. Specifically, U.S. EPA identified six types of revisions to improve the quality of the data collected under the final rule, including:

• Updates to the Global Warming Potential (GWP) values in Table A-1, to reflect advances in scientific knowledge.
• Revisions to expand source categories or add new source categories to address potential gaps in reporting of data to improve the accuracy and completeness of U.S. GHG emissions.
• Updated emissions factors to incorporate new measurement data that more accurately reflect industry emissions.
• Revisions to refine existing emissions calculation methodologies to reflect improved understanding of emissions sources, or to incorporate more recent research on GHG emissions formation.
• Additions or modifications to reporting requirements to eliminate data gaps and improve verification of emissions estimates.
• Revisions to clarify requirements that were previously found vague, and editorial corrections or harmonizing changes to improve understanding of the rule.

The revisions to Table A–1 update the GWPs to include values agreed to under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and maintain comparability and consistency with the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks and other analyses produced by U.S. EPA. Specifically, the revisions update the chemical-specific GWP values to reflect GWPs from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). For certain GHGs that do not have GWPs listed in AR5, the amendments adopt GWP values from the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). Table A-1 has also been updated to adopt AR6 GWP values for 31 fluorinated GHGs that have GWPs listed in AR6 but not in AR5. The most significant changes in Table A-1 are shown in the table below.

As previously mentioned, the April 25^th rule amended 24 of the 43 existing subparts to the rule to improve clarity and data quality.  The subparts that were amended include:

• A (General Provisions)
• C (Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources)
• G (Ammonia Manufacturing)
• H (Cement Production)
• I (Electronics Manufacturing)
• N (Glass Production)
• P (Hydrogen Production)
• Q (Iron and Steel Production)
• S (Lime Manufacturing)
• U (Miscellaneous Use of Carbonate)
• X (Petrochemical Production)
• Y (Petroleum Refineries)
• AA (Pulp & Paper Manufacturing)
• BB (Silicon Carbide Production)
• DD (Electrical Transmission & Distribution Equipment Use)
• FF (Underground Coal Mines)
• GG (Zinc Production)
• HH (Municipal Solid Waste Landfills)
• OO (Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases)
• PP (Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide)
• QQ (Importers/Exporters of Fluorinated GHGs in Equipment or Foams)
• RR (Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide)
• SS (Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment), and
• UU (Injection of Carbon Dioxide).

The April 25^th amendments added five new subparts, for source categories not previously covered by the rule, including:

• VV (Geologic Sequestration of CO₂ with Enhanced Oil Recovery)
• WW (Coke Calciners)
• XX (Calcium Carbide Production)
• YY (Caprolactam, Glyoxal, and Glyoxylic Acid Production)
• ZZ (Calcium Carbide Production)

The U.S. EPA did not take final action on several subparts and proposed amendments. The subparts that were not finalized include:

• B (Energy Consumption)
• G (Ammonia Production)
• P  (Hydrogen Production)
• S (Lime Production), and
• HH (Municipal Solid Waste Landfills)

The final rules also did not include actions under subpart C (General Stationary Fuel Combustion) to revise the reporting for aggregated units or common pipe configuration that would have required additional information such as the unit type, maximum rated heat input capacity, and fraction of total heat input for each unit in the aggregation or common pipe configuration.

Amendments to Subpart W for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems

The May 14^th amendments are part of the three-part framework of the U.S. EPA Methane Emissions Reduction Program which was authorized as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. These amendments were focused on Subpart W, but also included related changes to the general provisions (subpart A) and the general stationary fuel combustion source category (subpart C). The final amendments include four categories of changes:

• Revisions to address potential gaps in reporting for specific sectors to ensure the reporting under Subpart W reflects total methane emissions from the affected facilities.
• Revisions to add new, or to improve existing emissions calculation methodologies to ensure the reporting under Subpart W is based on empirical data.
• Revisions to reporting requirements to improve verification and transparency of the data collected.
• Technical amendments, clarifications, and corrections to improve the clarity and accuracy of reporting.

The May 14^th rule changes include reporting requirements for sources such as nitrogen removal units, produced water tanks, mud degassing, crankcase venting, “other large release events,” that were previously unreported. These amendments also add reporting requirements for industry segments with emissions sources such as blowdown vent stacks, natural gas pneumatic device venting, dehydrator vents, acid gas removal units that were previously only required to be reported for some, but not all, of the industry segments in which those sources exist.

The “other large release events” category captures abnormal emissions events that are not accurately accounted for using existing methods in Subpart W. These amendments finalize a single release threshold of 100 kg/hr methane, which is simplified from the proposed rule, and specify that the only third-party information required to be considered under other large release events are the notifications sent by U.S. EPA through the Super-Emitter Program.

This final rule also incorporates provisions that allow advanced measurement approaches, such as satellites and remote sensing to help identify and quantify large release events, quantify emissions from completions and workovers with hydraulic fracturing, and determine flare efficiency.

Finally, the May 14^th rule allows facilities to use a consistent method to demonstrate compliance with multiple U.S. EPA programs, reducing the burden for facilities with affected sources under Subpart W that are also required to comply with the NSPS OOOOb or a state or Federal plan in 40 CFR Part 62 implementing EG OOOOc.

Effective Dates

The majority of the final provisions of both the April 25^th and May 14^th amendments will become effective on January 1, 2025, to be incorporated into reports prepared for the 2025 reporting year and submitted March 31, 2026. This applies to both current and newly reporting sources.

The first exception to this schedule is the adoption of the GWP revisions included in Table A-1. The second exception is the reporting under Subpart W for the quantities of natural gas, crude oil, and condensate produced and sold in the calendar year, for each well permanently taken out of production (i.e., plugged and abandoned). These provisions will apply to annual GHG reports prepared for calendar year 2024 and submitted on or before March 31, 2025.

The Subpart W final rule also allows reports to utilize optional new calculation methodologies for facilities that prefer to use them to quantify 2024 emissions earlier than required. This will afford facilities additional empirical data options to demonstrate the extent to which a waste emission charge (WEC) is owed for the first year of the WEC. U.S. EPA finalized these optional calculation methods to become effective July 13, 2024 (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) and provide reporters with the option to use these newly available calculation methods for their reporting year 2024 reports that are submitted on or before March 31, 2025.

Questions?

If you have questions about the revised GHG Reporting Rule, or need assistance understanding and implementing the changes, ALL4 can help. ALL4 has a team of experts in GHG reporting under Part 98 and other frameworks who can assist you with reviewing the impacts of these regulations on your facility or specific processes, identifying gaps, and implementing changes to stay in compliance. Reach out to your ALL4 project manager or Daryl Whitt to find the help you need. Daryl is available at dwhitt@all4inc.com or at (864) 894-1312.

Final Amendments to Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing MACT Standards

The Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) signed the final version of amended 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart FFFFF – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) from Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities (Subpart FFFFF) on March 11, 2024. ALL4’s November 2023 blog post regarding the proposed rule, which provides additional background, can be accessed here. The final rule has not been published in the Federal Register as of June 6, 2024. Subpart FFFFF applies to facilities engaged in producing steel from refined iron ore. There are currently eight operating facilities and one idle facility in this source category.

The final rule amendments:

• Add new requirements to regulate hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions from five unmeasured fugitive and intermittent particulate (UFIP) sources
• Add new requirements for five HAP from sinter plants
• Add new requirements for three HAP from blast furnace (BF) stove and basic oxygen process furnace (BOPFs) control devices
• Add new work practice standards for BOPF shops
• Add new visible emissions monitoring requirements for BOPF shops and BF casthouses
• Revise standards for dioxins/furans (D/F) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) for sinter plants
• Add a new fenceline monitoring requirement for chromium (Cr), an associated “action level,” and requirements for a “root cause analysis” and corrective actions if the action level is exceeded.

The final rule also removes exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), clarifies that emissions standards apply at all times, and includes new electronic reporting requirements for performance test results and compliance reports.

Summary of Changes from the Proposal

The proposed revisions to Subpart FFFFF were originally published in the Federal Register on July 31, 2023. The final amendments are substantial and include multiple revisions to meet EPA’s statutory obligations under CAA section 112(d)(6) to address the Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (LEAN) decision. The final amendments also include a fenceline monitoring requirement that U.S. EPA justifies under CAA section 112(d)(6) that will become effective one year after U.S. EPA promulgates a sampling method, or two years upon the publication date of the rule, whichever is later. Summaries of the changes from the original proposal related to UFIP sources; unregulated HAP from Sinter Plants, BF Stoves and BOPFs; and EPA’s reconsideration of standards for D/F and PAH for sinter plants are provided in Tables 1, 2, and 3 below, respectively. In each table, summaries of the original proposed requirements and final requirements are provided for comparison. Note that the information presented in Tables 1 through 3 are summaries and should not be relied upon for compliance purposes. Please refer to the final rule for exact regulatory references and requirements.

Table 1
Summary of Changes to UFIP Sources

Table 2
Summary Changes to Unregulated HAP from Sinter Plants, BF Stoves and BOPFs, and BFs

Table 3
Summary Changes to Reconsidered Standards for Sinter Plants

Next Steps

Based on the assumption that the final version of the signed rule will be promulgated as-is, the next steps are related to planning for compliance. A summary of compliance dates for the final rule, adopted from the pre-publication version, is provided in Table 4. Several of the compliance timelines for new rule requirements and standards have been extended as noted.

Table 4
Summary of Compliance Dates

The rule revisions are substantial and impact multiple operations at integrated iron and steel facilities. The final rule standards and work practice requirements, along with the fenceline monitoring requirements, Cr action level tracking, and, as applicable, root cause analyses and corrective actions, will pose a heavy compliance burden on affected facilities. ALL4 staff are experienced in planning for and implementing updated air regulatory requirements, including fenceline monitoring. If you have any questions on this rule or would like help preparing for these new requirements, please contact Roy Rakiewicz at rrakiewicz@all4inc.com.

Electronic Reporting Tool Version 7: How Does This Affect My Facility?

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) released an updated version of the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT Version 7) on March 12, 2024. The ERT is a Microsoft Access-based tool that is used to create performance test plans and reports. Various federal air regulations in 40 CFR Parts 52, 60, 62, and 63 require performance tests to be submitted to U.S. EPA’s Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) using the ERT.

ERT Version 7 Additions

The ERT Version 7 has a few notable additions that could affect report submittal processes:

• Miscellaneous Test Methods Table
  • With the development of the Miscellaneous Methods table, all performance test methods are now supported by the ERT (previously, only performance tests using certain methods were required to be submitted via the ERT). Miscellaneous methods test data can be entered manually or using the Miscellaneous Methods Import sheet.
• Wood Heater Application and Certification Module
  • The wood heater module within the ERT is an optional platform that, if facilities choose, may replace the time-intensive preparation of test reports and application packages to the Agency. Performance test data can be entered manually or using the Wood heater method ASTM 2515 import sheetv2. The ERT will create a wood heater certification application, calculate results using the information and data entered by the Facility, and create the test results as an electronic submission package or report for the EPA. The submission data package created using the ERT can be electronically submitted to the EPA via WoodHeaterReports@epa.gov.

How does this affect my facility?

Before ERT Version 7, Facilities that were required to submit emissions test results electronically were often exempt due to the limited test methods on the ERT website. These waivers were outlined in many of the regulatory drivers for electronic reporting submissions, like the following: “Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test, the owner or operator must submit the results of the performance tests, including any associated fuel analyses, required by this subpart to the EPA’s WebFIRE database by using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http://www.epa.gov/cdx). Performance test data must be submitted in the file format generated through use of the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html). Only data collected using test methods on the ERT Web site are subject to this requirement for submitting reports electronically to WebFIRE.” However, with the development of the Miscellaneous Methods table in ERT Version 7, all performance test methods are now supported by the ERT and should be submitted electronically. As a result, Facilities that were previously exempt from electronic submittal will now be required to use the ERT to submit their results electronically via CEDRI. Note that performance testing may include non-air testing, such as evaluation of wastewater treatment system performance.

Good news though! U.S. EPA has developed a few resources to help users interface with the new ERT Version 7 additions.

ERT Version 7 Helpful Resources

• Miscellaneous Test Methods Table
  • Video Recording
  • Power Point Presentation
  • ERT User Manual V7 May 2024
• Wood Heater Application and Certification Module
  • ERT User Manual for Wood Heater Certification for Compliance Application and Test Data

Have Questions?

If you have questions or concerns about the potential implications of the ERT Version 7, have a question about what needs to be submitted through the ERT, or need help with development of ERT submittals, feel free to contact Cheyanne Laux at claux@all4inc.com for more information.

NEPA Changes – Climate Change and EJ evaluations

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published the final rule on May 1, 2024, with Phase 2 revisions to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Changes to NEPA include changing or replacing the word “impact” to “effect” for general clarity. The rule also sets page limits for reports, limits to review timelines for the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), changes to establishing categorical exemptions (CE), and increasing public engagement.  More importantly, the rule requires federal agencies to consider the impacts proposed actions could have on climate change and Environmental Justice (EJ) concerns.

What do you need to know?

While the NEPA process has included consideration of climate effects as part of an agency’s requirement to consider the cumulative impacts of their actions during environmental review, the rule formally codifies this requirement. New projects or actions will need to consider the possible impacts on the climate when considering the “effects” of those actions. Under the rule, “effects” is defined to include “the contribution of a proposed action and its alternatives to climate change, and the reasonably foreseeable effects of climate change on the proposed action and its alternatives.”

Environmental justice concerns have also been given a focus under the new rule. Along with adding “adverse effects on communities with environmental justice concerns” to the expanded definition of “effects,” the rule includes a separate definition of “environmental justice” for the first time. Under the new rule, EJ is defined as:

[T]he just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of income, race, color, national origin, Tribal affiliation. Or disability, in agency decision making and other Federal activities that affect human health and the environment so that people:

(1) Are fully protected from disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects (including risks) and hazards, including those related to climate change, the cumulative impacts of environmental and other burdens, and the legacy of racism or other structural or systemic barriers; and

(2) Have equitable access to a healthy, sustainable, and resilient environment in which to live, play, work learn, grow, worship, and engage in cultural and subsistence practices.

As part of emphasizing EJ and climate change the rule made changes to expand the scope of public engagement in the NEPA process. Agencies will be required to make draft EAs available for public comment and will be required to take the public’s input into consideration when developing the final draft. Agencies will be required to provide public notification of NEPA-related hearings and meetings and will need to make a draft EIS available at least fifteen days in advance if it is the subject of a public meeting. The new rule has changed the title of section 1501.9 from “Scoping” – a process done early on in NEPA review to determine the overall scope of analysis required for a proposed action – to “Public and Government Engagement.” The new rule emphasizes that the public should be included in the scoping phase of the NEPA process and requires agencies to engage the public where possible.

How are Federal Agencies addressing changes?

Each Federal Agency will have a slightly different take on climate change, EJ, and public participation requirements in the NEPA process. As an example, the Department of Energy (DOE) not only includes EJScreen, but also DOE’s Energy Justice Mapping tool, CEQ’s Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) EJ index in an initial document, the Environmental Information Volume or EIV. DOE requires an EIV to evaluate the need for a formal EA or EIS.

• U.S. EPA’s EJScreen is an EJ mapping and screening tool that provides a nationally consistent dataset and approach to identifying EJ and disadvantaged communities (EPA, 2018). The outputs from EJScreen are maps and reports that present three kinds of information: environmental indicators (13), socioeconomic indicators (7), EJ indicators (13), and supplemental indexes (13). The standard unit of analysis in EJScreen is the census block group (CBG), the finest resolution level of detail for U.S. Census Bureau data.
• CEQ’s Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool is a geospatial mapping tool that identifies disadvantaged communities that are facing significant burdens in any of the following eight categories: climate change, energy, health, housing, legacy pollution, transportation, water and wastewater, and workforce development. The screening tool was specifically developed to provide a uniform whole-of-government definition of disadvantaged communities for federal agencies to target Justice40 investment benefits.
• DOE’s Energy Justice Mapping Tool is a tool that identifies census tracts that DOE has categorized as disadvantaged communities pursuant to Executive Order 14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.”
• CDC’s Environmental Justice Index is an index that uses data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. EPA, the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration, and the CDC to rank the cumulative impacts of environmental injustice on health for subdivisions of counties (census tracts) for which the U.S. Census Bureau collects statistical The Environmental Justice Index ranks each tract on 36 environmental, social, and health factors and groups them into three overarching modules and 10 different domains.

DOE also requires assessment of “communities with unique characteristics.” Communities with unique characteristics that should be identified include migrant worker communities, minority or low-income elderly, home-bound communities, or traditional, cultural, or religious communities with specific ties to the lands or waters near the site(s). For example, American Indian tribes may have specific rights or a cultural or spiritual attachment to natural resources at a site(s) (e.g., wild rice, sweet grasses, and other traditional medicines). However, unique EJ community characteristics can also be physical, such as local community access routes that facilitate a community’s ability to function normally. Low-income communities with unique characteristics may be found in areas of low-income housing (private or federally subsidized).

The nature of the unique characteristic of a low-income community may need to be determined by interviews and community visits. The DOE Recipient should remain sensitive to how project-related activities could create pathways for a disproportionately high and adverse impact on such communities.

What’s Next?

The rule is effective July 1, 2024, and federal agencies are still in the process of amending or updating NEPA policies and procedures for projects within their jurisdictions. If you have a pending project that triggers NEPA reviews, start discussions early on how the rule changes are being implemented for your project. ALL4 encourages clients to review project schedules and milestones to evaluate potential impacts from public outreach or additional climate or EJ evaluations.

If you have questions regarding EJ or climate change evaluations, please contact Rich Hamel or Karen Thompson.

UPDATE: California Climate Accountability Package (SB-253 and SB-261) Receives Proposed Budget and Industry Lawsuit

On October 7th, 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the California Climate Accountability Package, comprising Senate Bill 253 (SB-253), the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, and Senate Bill 261 (SB-261), Greenhouse Gases: Climate-related Financial Risk, which aims to bring new reporting requirements to California businesses. Since the signing of the California Climate Accountability Package, there have been new updates, including industry lawsuit developments and proposed funding for the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to write rules for SB-253 and SB-261.

Goals of the Climate Accountability Package (SB-253 and SB-261)

As a refresher, the climate disclosure laws are comprised of:

• SB-253: Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act: This bill requires the disclosure of Scopes 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas emissions by companies, public or private, doing business in California with $1 billion or more in gross annual revenue.
• SB-261 Greenhouse Gases: Climate-related Financial Risk: This bill requires the disclosure of climate-change-associated financial risks by companies, public or private, doing business in California with $500 million or more in gross annual revenue. In addition to the financial risks climate change poses, businesses must also disclose how they plan to address them.

More information on the Climate Accountability Package can be found here.

Lawsuit Against the California Air Resources Board (CARB)

On January 30th, 2024, a lawsuit was filed against CARB in federal court by a number of plaintiffs, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the California Chamber of Commerce, the American Farm Bureau Federation, Central Valley Business Federation, Los Angeles County Business Federation, and Western Growers Association. The lawsuit aims to block and overturn the implementation of SB-253 and SB-261. The lawsuit asks the court to declare 253 & 261 null, void and with no force or effect and asks that California be enjoined from implementing or enforcing the acts based on the following:

First Amendment: The lawsuit claims that SB-253 and SB-261 require companies to make public statements that are speculative, without any commercial purpose, and are politically aligned with California’s climate agenda, which allegedly violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Supremacy Clause: SB-253 and SB-261 cite required reporting for companies with “emissions produced in California or to companies’ expected climate change financial risks in California,” which potentially extends to companies worldwide. The lawsuit mentions that the laws are blocked by the Clean Air Act (CAA) due to the Supremacy Clause, which prevents California from regulating greenhouse gas emissions outside of state borders.

Extraterritorial Regulation/Burdens on Commerce: The lawsuit also alleges that the disclosure laws are invalid due to the U.S. Constitution’s limits on extraterritorial regulation, which prevents states from putting significant burdens on interstate and foreign commerce.

Lawsuit Status

On March 27^th, CARB filed a motion for dismissal of the Supremacy Clause and Extraterritorial Regulation/Burdens, claiming that the Board has not yet implemented any regulations for the climate disclosure laws, claiming that the plaintiffs “have not pled an injury-in-fact.” CARB also argues that the climate disclosure laws do not seek to regulate businesses out-of-state and only require companies to report their emissions.

As of May 1^st, an industry group opposition brief refutes CARB’s claims for the lawsuit dismissal. The groups cite that CARB did not contest the violation of the First Amendment and are seeking to “press their supremacy clause and extraterritoriality arguments because their members will suffer actual injury” from the climate disclosure laws, utilizing Article III standing to address the violations. Article III standing via the U.S. Constitution grants federal courts jurisdiction over cases under federal law; however, plaintiffs need to establish “standing,” meaning that the claim must be based on an existent or imminent injury. A hearing to discuss the industry group’s standing and opposition to the Board’s motion to dismiss is set for June 24^th, 2024.

Governor Newsom’s Proposed Budget for Climate Disclosure Laws

As of May 2024, Governor Newsom has released a revised state budget proposal for the 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 fiscal years. In this revised budget, Newsome plans to shift “$1.7 billion” from California’s General Fund to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) “with a focus on equity programs, priorities to help meet climate goals and programs that support greenhouse gas reductions.” This budget shift will provide CARB with the necessary funding to write the rules and penalties associated with the climate disclosure laws. Additionally, Governor Newsom has called upon his administration to work with the authors of SB-253 and SB-261 to provide “cleanup” legislation. Newsom stated in his October 7^th signing message, “the implementation deadlines in this bill are likely infeasible, and the reporting protocol specified could result in inconsistent reporting across businesses subject to the measure,” calling for the help of lawmakers to take into account the “financial impact” the climate disclosure laws may have on businesses. The deadline for adopting SB-253 and SB-261 climate disclosure rules is January 1^st, 2025.

ALL4 continues to track the progress of SB-253 and SB-261 as their developments relate to emissions and climate-related financial risk reporting for affected California businesses.

For questions on the legislation’s progress or how it will affect your business, for assistance in reporting Scope 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas emissions, or for verification of data, please reach out to Connie Prostko-Bell at cprostko-bell@all4inc.com or Lauren Coca at lcoca@all4inc.com for more information.