RMB Consulting & Research, Inc. (RMB) specializes in providing consulting services to industrial clients and associated organizations. RMB's greatest asset is its technical consultants, which represent a wealth of experience in air pollution control and air pollution consulting that can be applied to meet your corporate environmental needs and regulatory challenges. Present clients include many individual electric utility companies, several major chemical and petroleum industry clients, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG).

On December 30, 2011, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals granted a motion to stay EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR).  The court’s “last minute” order stops the Agency from implementing the rule just days before it was set to take effect on January 1, 2012.  The brief two-page order does not pose an opinion on the merits of the rule but instead holds that the “petitioners have satisfied the standards required for a stay pending court review.” 

On Wednesday, EPA released the final National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) from Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (a.k.a. “EGU MACT”) and final revisions to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) in Subpart Da (as well as some similar changes in Subparts D, Db and DC). The Administrator signed the final Utility MACT Rule and NSPS changes late last week. EPA was subject to a Consent Decree that originally required the standards to be finalized by November 16, 2011. Shortly before the deadline, EPA was granted a one-month extension (December 16, 2011) based on a motion filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of EPA.

The Utility MACT rule affects all coal-fired, coke and oil-fired boilers that generated greater than 25 MW and will impose significant emission reduction requirements and compliance costs for many units. Unlike the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule that affects similar non-Utility sources but which is still being evaluated under “reconsideration,” EPA is treating the Utility MACT Rule as a final rule. Compliance will be required within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register for new units and within three years (and 60 days) after publication for existing units.

• Elimination of Total PM Standard . One of the most significant changes in the final rule is that EPA has dropped total PM as a surrogate for non-mercury metallic hazardous air pollutants (HAPS) in favor of a filterable PM limit. The filterable PM limit for existing coal-fired sources is 0.03 lb/mmBtu. For new units, however, the filterable PM limit is a very stringent 0.007 lb/MWh. The Agency also added a filterable PM option for oil fired-sources.

• Reduced Stack Test Frequency. The frequency of stack testing under some compliance options has been reduced from monthly or bi-monthly to quarterly.

• PM CEMS Options. PM CEMS can be used to demonstrate compliance, but the Agency has added provisions to allow sources treat particulate monitors as continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) rather than CEMS. However, by treating the output as indirect indicator, sources would be subject to more frequent stack testing and could forgo significant compliance margin since the option still requires sources to stay below whatever value happened to be measured during the most recent compliance test.

• Emission Limit Changes. EPA states that it considered many of the comments that it received and corrected various problems in the way that it calculated the proposed emission limit. Nonetheless, while some of the final limits did vary somewhat from the proposed limits, many remain the same or are similar to the originally proposed limits. The new unit limits, in particular, still pose achievability (and measurability) concerns.

• Operating Parameter Monitoring. EPA has eliminated all of the operating parameter monitoring and fuel monitoring requirements with the exception of PM CMPS and some options for oil-fired sources. The Agency also indicates it is applying work practice standards in lieu of requiring compliance the limits during startup and shutdown periods. However, the Agency’s definition of startup and shutdown are rigid and not consistent with the industry’s practice. EPA defines that startup to ends whenever the unit generates any electricity. Likewise, shutdown only ends when no electricity is produced (or there is no heat input). All control equipment must be operated any time when the unit operates with the exception of only dry scrubbers and SCR where some concession is given to “normal operation” (i.e., operating temperature issues). The rule explicitly states that only natural gas or distillate oil may be fired during startup and shutdown periods.  

• New Coal Subcategory Definitions and New Limited Use Subcategory . EPA replaced the coal subcategories in the proposed rule that were based on coal heating value with two similar subcategories based on coal rank. EPA included a new subcategory for limited use liquid oil-fired units with an annual capacity factor less than 8%. These units will be subject to a work practice standard consisting of a periodic boiler tune-up.

Copies of the proposed and rulemaking can be found in our FTP library. For additional information, please contact Ralph Roberson at (919) 510-0376.

On December 2, 2011, EPA proposed changes to both the major source and area source IB-MACT Rules, the CISWI Rule, and the Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) Rule. EPA was expected to issue further revisions of these interrelated rules by October 31, 2011, according to an EPA announcement earlier this year. The rules contain a number of significant revisions based on additional comments and data received following publication and the simultaneous notice of reconsideration on March 3, 2011. EPA intends to finalize this reconsideration by spring 2012 although this self-imposed deadline could change based on further legal action in the pending case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

EPA will take public comment on this rulemaking for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register. EPA intends to hold a public hearing on these proposed rules although further details will be provided by EPA in the near future. Copies of the proposed rulemaking can be found in our FTP library.

On October 7, 2011, the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) filed a motion in the D.C. District Court requesting the Court to modify the Consent Decree by extending the deadline one year from November 16, 2011 to November 16, 2012 for EPA to sign its final rule establishing emission standards for coal- and oil-fired electric generating units (EGUs). On October 10, 2011, twenty-five (25) States and the Territory of Guam filed as amici curiae in support of the UARG petition. The amici curiae States explained that they are responsible for: (1) issuing air permits to coal- and oil-fired EGUs under state laws and the Clean Air Act; (2) regulating and ensuring the availability of sufficient electric power within their borders and (3) ensuring the health, welfare and economic well-being of their citizens, all of which are at least in part dependent on the availability of reliable and affordable electric power.

Neither UARG nor the amici curiae States are asking the Court to make a decision on the proper level of the emission standards, which ultimately will be determined by EPA. Rather, UARG and amici curiae States simply ask the Court to allow EPA to “take a step back” and provide a reasonable period of time for the Agency to respond to the voluminous comments received during the public comment period, to attempt to fix serious technical flaws acknowledged by EPA, and then to more carefully consider the issuance of a major rule with far-reaching consequences.

On October 21, 2011, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion, on behalf of EPA, in opposition to the UARG motion. However, with agreement from Plaintiffs, DOJ stipulated to a 30-day extension to the rulemaking deadline. On October 24, 2011, D.C. District Court Judge Collyer denied the UARG motion without prejudice and approved the parties’ Stipulation, which extends the deadline for EPA to sign its final EGU MACT rule until December 16, 2011.

On June 24, 2011, EPA announced that it intends to sign proposed reconsideration rules for CISWI, IB-MACT, and the industrial boiler area source rule by October 31, 2011 and final rules by April 30, 2012. These rules are currently under administrative reconsideration and, until now, the timeline for issuing the proposed reconsideration rules has been uncertain. Note that EPA’s recent announcement does not change the effective dates for any of the rules. On May 16, 2011, EPA stayed the effective dates of the major source IB-MACT and CISWI rules indefinitely although the effective date for the area source rule remains the same (May 20, 2011).

In a press release today, EPA announced that it will extend the public comment period on the proposed EGU MACT Rule by 30 days, which make August 4, 20011 the new deadline for submitting comments.  EPA explicitly stated, however, that the extension would “not impact the timeline for issuing the final standards.”

An extension of the comment period was certainly warranted, but EPA managed to slight just about everyone in the process of giving it.  By stating that the extension was made “in response to requests from members of Congress,” EPA gave no credence to the many others (states, industry, etc.) that also requested an extension on valid technical grounds.  EPA even slighted members of Congress by granting only a 30-day extension instead of the 60-day extension that was requested.  The most flagrant slight was to the “robust public comment process” to which the Agency gave empty lip service.  The notion that EPA will be able to meaningfully respond to the expected volume of comments and resolve the myriad issues with the proposal within its the originally planned time frame is fantasy.

While we understand that EPA is under a court-ordered deadline of November 16, 2011 to issue the final rules, EPA can and should renegotiate this deadline as they have done previously with the proposed rules.  Failing to even attempt to extend the deadline shows a disregard of the public comment portion of the rulemaking process in favor of an arbitrary deadline negotiated by the Agency with a handful of special interest groups.  The public comment process is not just about people simply “having their say” but, more importantly, is about EPA thoughtfully considering those comments and integrating the input as appropriate to create better rules. The process is definitely not served by the Agency’s obstinate stance or a hastily proposed and finalized rule.

On May 16, 2011, EPA issued administrative stays of the final CISWI Rule and Major Source IB-MACT Rule. This action delays the effective dates of these rules, which were originally May 20, 2011, until the proceedings for judicial review are completed or EPA completes its reconsideration of the rules, whichever is earlier. Note that this action does not alter the effective date of the final Area Source IB-MACT Rule, which is also under reconsideration.

Since promulgation EPA has received a number of petitions for reconsideration of various issues associated with these final rules. EPA is planning to issue a Notice of Reconsideration that identifies the specific issues included in these petitions for which EPA has granted reconsideration. As part of this action, EPA is extending the deadline for submitting comments on the issues they identified in the Notice of Proposed Reconsideration (March 21, 2011) as well as those additional issues in the (as yet unpublished) Notice of Reconsideration until July 15, 2011. Note that this action does not alter the May 20, 2011 deadline for submission of administrative petitions or filings for judicial review.

On May 3, the proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) from Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (“EGU MACT”) were published in the Federal Register.  Within the same rulemaking package, EPA also published proposed revisions to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (NSPS Subpart Da), Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Steam Generating Units (NSPS Subpart Db), and Small Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Steam Generating Units (NSPS Subpart Dc).

Comments on the proposed EGU MACT rule and associated NSPS revisions are due by July 5, 2011.  EPA will also hold public hearings on these proposed rules in Chicago and Philadelphia on May 24, 2011 and in Atlanta on May 26, 2011.  Further details on these hearings can be found in the April 28 Federal Register notice. EPA is subject to a Consent Decree, which requires the Agency to issue the final rule by November 16, 2011.

A copy of the proposed rulemaking can be found in our FTP library.  The EGU MACT rule will have significant impact on the electric utility industry, both for exisiting as well as potential new units.  RMB currently is engaged with several utilities in a project designed to evaluate many technical aspect of the proposed rule and help its clients develop compliance strategies and provide meaningful comments on the proposed rule.  If you are interested in participating in this project, please contact Steve Norfleet at (919) 791-3123.

On March 28, 2011 EPA received approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to carry out a massive information collection request (ICR) for petroleum refineries. According to EPA, the ICR is necessary to reevaluate emission standards for the source category. This is a four component ICR with very rapidly approaching deadlines:

• Component 1 (Questionnaire): due May 31, 2011 for all refineries
• Component 2 (Emission Inventory) due June 30, 2011 for all refineries
• Component 3 (Distillation Feed Sampling) due August 31, 2011 for all refineries
• Component 4 (Testing and ERT reporting) due August 31, 2011 for 88 selected sources.

In 2010, RMB was involved in assisting over 50 facilities respond to the electric generating units (EGU) ICR. The EGU ICR involved similar reporting tools for Components 1-3 and identical testing methods and reporting tools for Component 4. RMB is uniquely qualified to provide technical support for virtually all aspects of the refinery ICR. RMB is familiar with many different data collection systems and is able to reduce the collected data to the format required by the EPA reporting tools, which are not necessarily intuitive to new users. RMB is qualified to prepare site-specific test plans, address sampling and analytical concerns during the testing, communicate necessary modifications to stack test methodology where appropriate, ensure that proper process data is collected, and assist in the ERT submittals of test data. Refineries must be aware that the quality of the data obtained and reported is of upmost importance since it will be used to establish future regulatory limits. Past experience has shown that poor quality, low level emission test data has resulted in proposed regulatory emission limits that are not achievable in practice. For further information and to discuss the specific needs for your source(s), please contact Bethany White at 919-791-3135.

On March 21, the final IB-MACT Rules for Area sources and Major sources, CISWI NSPS, and DSW Rules were published in the Federal Register. Also published was EPA's Notice of Reconsideration of the final rules. EPA is taking comments on specific elements of the final rules including the following issues related to the area and major source IB MACT rules:

• Subcategory revisions
• Fuel specification for the 'Gas-1' subcategory
• Work practice standard for limited use boilers
• Application of GACT for area source biomass- and oil-fired boilers
• Affirmative defense provisions for malfunction events
• Carbon monoxide monitoring requirements
• Dioxin/furan emission limit and testing requirements
• Application of GACT for PM for area source oil-fired boilers

EPA has also invited petitions for reconsideration of other areas of the final rules. The deadline for submission of comments and petitions for reconsideration is May 20, 2011. Please be aware that the reconsideraton process does not change the compliance deadlines of the rules. For sources affected by the IB-MACT rules, the compliance deadline for existing sources is March 21, 2014 and the compliance deadline for new sources is May 20, 2011 or upon startup, whichever is later. Copies of the final rules can be found in our FTP library.

On March 18, 2011, EPA published revisions to 40 CFR Part 98 in the Federal Register to officially extend the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reporting deadline until September 30, 2011. The rule also extends the e-GRRT registration deadline until August 1, 2011 which is 60 days prior to extended reporting deadline.

On March 16, EPA issued the proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) from Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (“EGU MACT”) and proposed revisions to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (NSPS Subpart Da), Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Steam Generating Units (NSPS Subpart Db), and Small Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Steam Generating Units (NSPS Subpart Dc).

The proposed EGU MACT Rule is considered the replacement for the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), which was vacated by the D.C Circuit Court in 2008 on the basis that EPA violated the Clean Air Act by removing EGUs from the list of units required to be regulated under Section 112 of the Act (e.g. NESHAP). CAMR, which was regulated under the NSPS and applied only to mercury emissions, provided for an allowance-based system similar to the one used in the Acid Raid Program. However, the proposed EGU MACT, which is regulated under the NESHAP, applies to all hazardous air pollutants (or surrogates thereof), including mercury. Unlike CAMR, EGU MACT sets emissions standards for the various HAPs (or surrogates) based on the application of “Maximum Achievable Control Technology” (MACT) with no option for allowance trading. EPA was subject to a Consent Decree to issue the proposed rulemaking by March 16, 2011 and a final rule by November 16, 2011.

In conjunction with the proposed EGU MACT rulemaking, EPA is also proposing revisions to the NSPS for EGUs (Subpart Da) including new emissions standards for SO2, NOx, and PM. These revisions are the result of the voluntary remand of the 2006 amendments. EPA indicated that the timing of the NSPS amendments was designed to allow electric utilities to consider both rules simultaneously in evaluating compliance strategies. EPA also modified other parts of the NSPS (Subparts Da, Db, and Dc), including deleting vacated provisions and harmonizing certain monitoring, testing and recordkeeping requirements.

EPA will take public comment on this rulemaking for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register. EPA will also hold public hearings on these proposed rules in Atlanta, GA, Chicago, IL, and Philadelphia, PA. Further details on these hearings will be provided by EPA in the near future. Copies of the proposed rulemaking can be found in our FTP library.

On March 10, 2011, EPA issued revisions to 40 CFR Part 75 and has submitted the rule for publication in the Federal Register. There are three primary revisions to Part 75. First, EPA removed the mercury monitoring, record-keeping and reporting provisions associated with the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) which was vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in February 2008. This will likely cause further confusion for State-specific mercury rules which simply referenced Part 75 for the installation, certification and operation of mercury monitoring systems.

Secondly, Part 75 now includes a requirement that all Part 75 relative accuracy test audits (RATAs), Appendix E NO x correlation testing and low mass emission (LME) unit testing be conducted by an Air Emissions Testing Body (AETB). This requirement will become effective 365 days after the date that the rule is published in the Federal Register. This requirement applies to both test contractors as well as internal testing groups.

Thirdly, Part 75 includes a requirement that Part 75 affected sources purchase EPA Protocol Gases from manufacturers that participate in EPA’s Protocol Gas Verification Program (PGVP) (or from a reseller that sells unaltered gas from a PGVP participant). This requirement will become effective 60 days after the rule is published in the Federal Register. However, the rule does allow “EPA Protocol gas cylinders certified by or ordered from any production site prior to 60 days from publication of the rule in the Federal Register to be used up.”

A copy of the 40 CFR Part revisions is available in our FTP library.

EPA has announced that it is in the process of extending the deadline for reporting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions data under Part 98.  Despite receiving numerous comments that the proposed schedule was too aggressive, EPA had pushed ahead with the requirement to begin collecting GHG data in 2010.  The emissions data from last year were originally to be reported by March 31 but EPA now “plans to have the final uploading tool available this summer, with the data scheduled to be published later this year.”  The Agency hopes that the extension will allow industry the “opportunity to test the tool” prior to reporting.  EPA indicates that more details will be provided shortly and that it “will ensure that this reporting extension is in effect before the original reporting deadline.

On February 23, EPA unveiled the final IB-MACT Rules for area sources and major sources and the final CISWI NSPS and revised definition of solid waste.  At the same time, EPA also issued the final NSPS for sewage sludge incinerators.  As EPA stated in their press release after the January 20 court ruling extending the deadline for the final rules, the final IB-MACT rule contains a number of significant changes from the proposed rule although not all of these changes are good news to many industrial sources.  The following is a summary of several key issues based on our initial review of the new rule:

• Startup/shutdown - Perhaps the most significant change in the final rule is that the numeric standards no longer apply during periods of startup and shutdown.  Instead, the rule imposes a work practice standard for those periods of operation.
• New subcategories - The new rule includes a single solid-fuel subcategory for the fuel-based pollutants (PM, HCl, Hg), which was intended to benefit biomass sources.
• New alternative standards - The rule now includes alternative output based standards for each pollutant (lb/mmBtu of steam).
• Changes in emissions standards for new/existing units -
• New biomass units, while the limits for mercury and CO (for FBCs) increased significantly, the PM, HCl, and CO limits (for stokers/suspension burners) decreased even further.
• For existing biomass units, while the limits for PM, HCl, Hg, and CO (for FBCs) increased significantly, the CO limits decreased slightly for suspension burners and stokers.
• For existing PC-fired coal units, all units showed significant increases.
• For existing liquid-fired units, the PM and CO limits increased and the HCl and mercury limits decreased.
• All D/F limits were about the same or increased significantly. However, the fact that there are numeric standards for D/F instead of a work practice standard suggests that EPA may not have properly handled non-detect values in their analysis.
• Risk-based compliance alternatives - In the final rule, EPA elected not to include health-based compliance alternatives for any of the standards. 
• CEMS - EPA removed the requirement for CO CEMS but retained the PM CEMS requirement for large units > 250 mmBtu/hr.  Compliance is based on a 30-day average instead of a 24-hour average as proposed.
• ERT Reporting - EPA maintained the requirement to use the ERT software for submitting compliance test data.

EPA plans to address a number of unresolved issues with the final rules through the reconsideration process. A copy of the unpublished final rules and information regarding EPA's notice of reconsideration can be found in our FTP library.  For further information, please contact Rob Barton at 919-791-3129.

On January 20, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a one month extension of the deadline for issuing the final CISWI Rule and IB-MACT Rules for area sources and major sources. The new deadline is February 21, 2011. The highly anticipated ruling dismissed EPA’s request to extend the deadline by allowing reproposal of the rules by June 1, 2011 and finalizing the rules by April 13, 2012. In the event the Court did not grant the extension for reproposal, EPA also requested an alternate deadline of June 15, 2011 to address the remaining comments and finalize the rules. In the ruling, the Court tossed aside EPA’s argument for reproposal on the grounds that EPA did not provide sufficient evidence that it would be impossible to promulgate “substantively adequate regulations” by the original deadline. One of EPA’s main arguments for the extension was that the additional time would result in more defensible rules due to significant issues in the proposed rules that were raised during the comment period. However, the Court stated that EPA did not actually assert that the rules were flawed or inadequate but rather that they were concerned that the rules would be challenged. The Court agreed with Sierra Club in that such issues could be addressed through administrative reconsideration rather than reproposal, which would allow the effective date of the final rule to remain in place. The Court also dismissed EPA’s request for an alternative deadline to address the remaining comments, stating that EPA did not provide sufficient evidence that such an extension was warranted. The Court stated that EPA did not provide an indication of how many of the original 4,800 comments were significant and had yet to be addressed nor did EPA provide any details on current or potential resource allocation that might be relevant in considering an alternative deadline. Nonetheless, the Court decided to provide an additional month for EPA to complete their response to comments.

On August 2, 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency published the proposed Transport Rule (in 40 CFR Part 97) as well as associated proposed Federal Implementation Plans (FIPS) in the Federal Register.  The proposed 40 CFR Part 97 rules include:

• Subpart AAAAA – TR NO_x Annual Trading Program
• Subpart BBBBB – TR NO_x Ozone Season Trading Program
• Subpart CCCCC – TR SO₂ Group 1 Trading Program
• Subpart DDDDD – TR SO₂ Group 2 Trading Program

A copy of the proposed rule is available in our FTP library.  Comments on the proposed rule and FIPS are due on or before October 1, 2010.  For more information, please contact Dru Sanders at (919) 791-3128.

After considerable debate and negotiation, the ASTM D-22.03 committee has approved a test method that utilizes digital cameras and associated software to make stack opacity determinations. The method is presently restricted to stacks less than 7 feet in diameter.  The method was developed to mimic EPA Method 9, and does not take full advantage of the technology offered by the digital cameras available today; rather, it uses the same acceptance criteria applied to human observers qualified via “smoke school.”  We believe that the method should be able to stand alone technically as well as be a Method 9 equivalent.

EPRI is currently looking for funders to support a project that will focus on developing data suitable for the precision and bias calculations mandated by ASTM.  The project will use the commercial software with multiple digital cameras compared to a certified transmissometer at a “smoke generator” used for Method 9 training.  The smoke generator testing will be modified from standard Method 9 training.  The data generated will cover the full range required by Method 9 but will concentrate on the low 0-20% and 20-40% opacity ranges more typical of steam generating boilers.  Multiple opacity readings will be made at the lower opacity levels to generate a robust statistical data set.  The smoke generator test program will be followed by field testing on tall large-diameter stacks with certified opacity monitors.  Field studies will cover both wet and dry stack applications.

The project will be conducted with advice and consultation with the ASTM D-22.03 committee working group on data and procedure needs to support future modification of the current ASTM Digital Opacity Method.  The Defense Department is still very interested in developing the ASTM method further to include fugitive opacity measurements.  To provide maximum project efficiency, we will also be consulting with the Defense contractor on its efforts to expand the method to include area/fugitive opacity measurements.

For the full write up on this project, please click this link: Digital Camera Opacity Project

On July 6, 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the Transport Rule which is designed to replace the current Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).  On December 23, 2008, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted EPA's petition to remand CAIR to the Agency to be "fixed" rather than be vacated, which was the Court's original (July 11, 2008) decision.  The CAIR requirements will remain in effect until the Transport Rule becomes final.  The Transport Rule affects electric generating units (EGUs) in 31 states and the District of Columbia.  EGUs in Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma are now affected under the Transport Rule but were not previously affected in CAIR.

RMB notes that the proposed Transport Rule has not been published in the Federal Register.  However, comments on the rule are due no later than sixty (60) days after publication in the Federal Register.  A copy of the proposed Transport Rule is located in our FTP library.  For more information, please contact Dru Sanders at (919) 791-3128.

On June 4, 2010, the IB-MACT, CISWI, and CISWI Definitions (“Definition of Solid Waste”) Rules were published in the Federal Register. In a related action, EPA has also issued a notice of public hearings and an extension of the public comment period for all rules to 60 days. The deadline for written comments is now August 3, 2010. The schedule for public hearings and registration deadlines (for those presenting oral testimony) are as follows:

A copy of the Federal Register versions of the rules and the EPA notice of the comment period extension are available in our FTP library.

On April 29, 2010, EPA issued proposed revisions to 40 CFR Part 75. The proposed rule revisions are expected to be published in the Federal Register in the near future. A preliminary version is included in our FTP library. One primary revision is the removal of all requirements for mercury (Hg) continuous emission monitoring systems, including Appendix K for sorbent trap Hg CEMS. Additionally, EPA has reintroduced requirements for Air Emission Testing Bodies (AETB) for conducting relative accuracy test audits (RATAs). EPA has also proposed changes to the Protocol Gas Verification Program designed to improve the accuracy of EPA protocol gases. There will be a 30-day comment period following the publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register.

On April 29, 2010, EPA proposed the long-awaited IB-MACT Rules for both major and minor sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). In parallel, EPA also proposed the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units (CISWI) and the revised CISWI Definitions Rule. These recent rulemaking developments will have significant implications for many industries (including electric utilities) particularly those with biomass-fired sources.

The proposed IB-MACT Rule includes eleven (11) subcategories for new and existing units based on fuel type and boiler design.  Nine of these subcategories include emissions limits for PM (not including condensables), mercury (Hg), hydrogen chloride (HCl), carbon monoxide (CO), and dioxin/furans (D/F) and two of the subcategories include work practice standards. Work practice standards are included for existing units with heat input capacity < 10 mmBtu/hr and new/existing units firing > 90% natural gas or refinery gas or "Metal Process Furnaces". Emissions limits are included for new and existing units for the following subcategories:  

• Coal: Stoker, Fluidized Bed, and Pulverized Coal
• Biomass: Stoker, Fluidized Bed, Suspension Burner/Dutch oven, Fuel Cell)
• Gas (includes all gases except for natural gas and refinery gas)
• Liquid

As expected, the proposed emissions limits for PM, Hg, and HCl are significantly lower than the vacated rule. While the rule does allow for a fuel-based compliance option, it is unlikely that most sources will meet the proposed limits based on fuel analysis. In fact, many sources will need to install additional controls. In addition, the new rule does not include a risk-based assessment option for HCl and manganese (e.g., “Health Based Compliance Alterative”) that would have allowed many sources to comply with the emissions standards for total selected metals (TSM) and HCl under the vacated rule.

Of note, 40 CFR Part 63.7525 (the IB-MACT Rule) requires the installation of a CO/O2 continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) for boilers and process heaters with a heat input capacity greater than or equal to 100 mmBtu/hr. Additionally, boilers and process heaters with a heat input capacity greater than or equal to 250 mmBtu/hr that combust coal, biomass or residual oil are required to install a PM CEMS.

The rules are expected to be published in the Federal Register within the next few days. EPA is proposing a 45-day comment period for all rules, which begins on the date of publication in the Federal Register. Copies of the proposed rules are available in our FTP library. Additional information can be found on EPA’s website: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/combustion/actions.html. Also, we will post more information on our website regarding these rules as it becomes available. Please contact Rob Barton at 919-791-3129 for more information.

On April 15, 2010, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted EPA’s Motion to enter into a consent decree with a group of environmental plaintiffs (e.g., Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, etc.) regarding the plaintiff’s nondiscretionary duty lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, EPA failed to discharge a nondiscretionary duty by failing to promulgate final maximum achievable control technology emission standards for coal- and oil-fired electric generating units (EGUs), which the plaintiffs contend EPA is required to do under Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The consent decree requires EPA to (1) sign for publication in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking setting forth EPA’s proposed CAA § 112(d) emissions standards for coal- and oil-fired EGUs by March 16, 2011 and (2) sign for publication in the Federal Register a notice of final rulemaking setting forth EPA’s final CAA § 112(d) emissions standards for coal-and oil-fired EGUs by November 16, 2011.

On April 12, 2010, the Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) reissued a draft Part 75 Emissions Monitoring Policy Manual. The Policy Manual now incorporates the proposed revisions that were published on July 7, 2009. One major change is that Section 9, “Bias”, has been removed and subsequent sections renumbered. Comments on the draft manual are due by April 30, 2010. A copy of the draft Policy Manual is available in our FTP library.

On April 13, 2010, EPA received limited extensions of the deadlines for the proposed Industrial Boiler MACT, Area Source MACT, and CISWI Rules.  There was no change in the deadline for the proposed Gold Mining MACT,which is due on April 15, 2010.  All three of these rules were to be proposed on April 15, 2010. 

The revised deadlines are now as follows:

• Industrial Boiler MACT and CISWI Rules - April 29, 2010 (2 weeks)
• Area Source MACT Rule - May 14, 2010 (1 month)
  

On March 30, 2010, EPA proposed several revisions to 40 CFR 63 to address the issue of Section 112(j) (aka "The MACT Hammer") applicability for sources subject to a previously vacated MACT rule. Under Section 112(j), state permitting agencies are required to implement case-by-case MACT determinations for affected units at major sources of HAPs when EPA fails to issue a MACT standard in a timely manner. Section 112(j) was originally designed as a "back stop" to ensure that sources were subject to some form or HAPs regulation in the event that EPA did not develop federal MACT standards in the timeframe provided for in the Clean Air Act.  The applicability and implementation of Section 112(j) has been unclear for many sources because of the recent vacature of several federal MACT rules.

The proposed revisions can be summarized as follows:

• Section 112(j) applies in the event that a promulgated MACT rule is subsequently vacated. In other words, the vacatur is equivalent to EPA never having issued the rule in the first place.
• For sources subject to any of the recently vacated MACT rules (i.e. "Boiler MACT"), sources must submit a permit application for case-by-case MACT determination within 90 days of promulgation of the proposed rule changes OR the date by which a permitting authority has requested in writing a Section 112(j) Part 2 permit application (whichever is earlier).
• In the future, any sources subject to a federal MACT rule that is subsequently vacated must submit a Section 112(j) permit application within 18 months of the vacatur.
• Part 1 and Part 2 of the Section 112(j) permit application are now combined into a single application.  No other content changes have been made.
• If a source has been issued a final permit containing a MACT standard under Section 112(j) and EPA subsequently develops a federal standard that is more stringent than the existing standard, then the permitting agency must incorporate the new federal MACT standard in the next Title V permit renewal.
• If a source has been issued a final permit containing a MACT standard under Section 112(j) and EPA subsequently develops a federal standard that is less stringent than the existing standard, then the permitting agency has the option of retaining the existing standard.  The permitting authority is not required to incorporate any less stringent emissions standard in the Title V permit.
• If EPA promulgates a new MACT standard after a permit application has been approved (but permit is not finalized), then the permitting authority is not required to change the emissions limitation to reflect the new standard if the permitting authority decides the level of control in the permit is "substantially" as effective as the federal standard.

These proposed revisions were expected and will not require any further action if affected sources have already submitted Parts 1 and 2 of the Section 112(j) application.  Many sources have already submitted complete 112(j) applications although most state agencies have not moved ahead with implementation.  If you are an affected source subject to any of the recently vacated MACT rules and have not submitted BOTH parts of the Section 112(j) permit application, please be aware of the above deadlines for Section 112(j) application submittal.

RMB notes that EPA's latest action does not provide any real clarification for sources that may be affected by any of the recently vacated MACT rules since implementation will ultimately be controlled by the state permitting agency.  It is likely that many state agencies will delay implementation as long as possible until EPA finalizes new MACT rules.

Comments must be received on or before April 29, 2010 on the proposed rule changes.  If a public hearing is requested by April 14, 2010, the comment period will be extended until May 14, 2010.  Please our FTP library for a copy of the Federal Register notice.

On December 24, 2009 EPA received approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to carry out a massive information request (ICR).  According to EPA, the ICR is necessary to support the development of  a maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rulemaking for electric generating units (EGUs).  As a result, EPA has sent a slew of Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 114 letters to affected sources.  In addition, EPA has posted the Agency’s response to comments from the November 10, 2009 submission to OMB, along with additional EPA supporting materials in the public docket established by EPA for this ICR.  This docket is available for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov/ under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234.As mentioned in an earlier web post, this is a two-part ICR with the first part being a survey of all coal- and oil-fired EGUs.  EPA plans to allow owner/operators 90 days from the receipt of a Section 114 letter to respond to the survey. 

The second part is a major emission testing program.  This program requires owner/operators to complete the required emission testing and submit specified electronic reports to EPA within 6 to 8 months.  EPA’s final estimated cost for this ICR is approximately $76 million with approximately $67 million estimated to conduct the required emission testing.  RMB is uniquely qualified to provide technical support for virtually all aspects of the ICR, given our familiarity with the rule development process, EPA reference methods, and extensive experience with various EPA reporting requirements.  Since the vacature of the original IB MACT Rule in 2007, RMB has been participating as a stakeholder in the development of the new IB MACT Rule.  Recently, RMB has provided comments on the ICR guidance document that was submitted along with the Section 114 letter to affected sources and was a participant in several EPA webinars to address a number of issues associated with the IB MACT ICR.  RMB was intimately involved, on behalf of the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), with reviewing and preparing technical comments on EPA’s electric utility ICR.  In addition, RMB personnel have years of field and review experience with the proposed test methods, and RMB has been retained by many utility and industrial clients to prepare and review source test protocols and reports for submittal to regulatory agencies. 

RMB’s ICR Services

?        Parts I & II Preparation and Submittal

?        Agency Notifications

?        Test Protocol Development and Review

?        Bid Specifications

?        Bid Evaluation Guidelines

?        Test Coordination and Observation

?        Quality Assurance (QA) of Test Results

?        Data Entry with EPA’s ERT Software

?        Final Report Reviews

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reporting begins in 2010.  The dates listed below are critical to complying with the mandatory reporting rule.  Notwithstanding the approach taken, greenhouse gas monitoring must begin by January 1, 2010.  Each facility should evaluate existing monitoring procedures and documentation to determine if extensions for the installation of monitoring equipment will be necessary.  If a facility will not be able to fully comply with the GHG requirements by April 1, 2010, a request for extension (including documentation of why the monitoring equipment cannot be obtained or installed) must be submitted by January 28, 2010.  Flow meters and other devices that measure data used to calculate GHG emissions should be calibrated to an accuracy of 5 percent by January 1, 2010.  If best available monitoring methods are used for the first quarter of 2010, the source must comply with the GHG calibration requirements by April 1, 2010.  The GHG Monitoring Plan (which is similar to a Quality Assurance Plan) should be completed by January 1, 2010.  If best available monitoring methods are used for the first quarter of 2010, the source must have the Monitoring Plan completed by April 1, 2010.  When developing the Monitoring Plan, a few special considerations are discussed below.

?        Facilities that contain Part 75 sources must also consider monitoring and calculation procedures for sources and processes that aren’t currently covered by existing Part 75 CEMS requirements (i.e., auxiliary boilers, diesel generators that do not meet the definition of an emergency generator, startup fuel for boilers, sorbent dryers use for fluidized bed boilers).

?        Emergency generators may be exempted only if they meet the ?98.6 definition, which will not be the case for all generators that are currently referred to by the utility as “emergency generators”.

?        For Part 75 sources, fuel flow meters and sampling procedures will be needed to quantify startup fuels (e.g., PNG or light oil on a coal-fired unit) for the purposes of calculating methane and nitrous oxide emissions.  (There are not any de-minimis fuel exemptions.)  This may require sources to calibrate and maintain fuel flow meters in addition to the stack CEMS currently being used for Part 75 reporting.

?        Facilities that contain non-Part 75 solid fuel combustion sources may be required to install additional CEMS to comply with Tier 4 reporting.

?        Facilities that contain non-Part 75 combustion sources must include fuel flow monitoring, fuel flow quality assurance, fuel sampling, and fuel analysis procedures for combustion sources.

?        Facilities that contain non-combustion sources must document the quality assurance of flow measurement devices, gas composition monitors, and heating value monitors for sources other than stationary combustion (i.e., flares, catalytic cracking units, sulfur recovery units).

?        Any facility using “company records” to report GHG emissions must document the procedures that are used to ensure the accuracy of “company records” including calibration procedures and the estimated accuracy of the measurements and the technical basis for estimates.  A facility must be aware that “company records” used for GHG reporting are not simply logs of measured values.

Although use of best available monitoring methods is allowed from January 1, 2010 through March 31, 2010, additional documentation and reporting will be required in the 2010 annual GHG report which must be submitted by March 31, 2011.  In particular, the 2010 GHG report will need to include a written explanation of any changes in emission calculation methodologies implemented during the reporting period, a brief description of each “best available monitoring method” used, the parameter(s) measured using the method, and the time period during which the “best available monitoring method” was used.  A copy of the GHG rule is available from our website FTP library.  RMB has extensive experience in the monitoring and sampling procedures and quality assurance activities incorporated in the GHG rule and is available to discuss the monitoring options for your facility.  RMB can assist your facility in ensuring that source documentation (e.g., Monitoring Plans, calibrations, certifications and reports) incorporate the requirements of the GHG rule within the time constraints of the rule.  For further assistance, please contact Russell Berry at (919) 791-3126, Dru Sanders at (919) 791-3128 or Bethany White at (919) 791-3135.

In conformance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, EPA announced in today’s Federal Register that an information collection request (ICR) has been sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.  Approval of this ICR is being sought by EPA to provide the information necessary for the Agency to undertake a maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rulemaking for electric generating units (EGUs).  EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234, which is available online at http://www.regulations.gov/.  The docket should contain comments that EPA received during the July 2009 public comment period, the Agency’s response to those comments, and additional EPA supporting materials.    This is a two-part ICR with the first part being a survey of all coal- and oil-fired EGUs.  EPA plans to allow owner/operators 3 months to respond to the survey.  The second part is a major emission testing program focused on determining the level of performance of the top performing 12 percent of similar EGUs.  According to the Federal Register notice, owner/operators will have 6 to 8 months to accomplish the required emission testing.  EPA’s total estimated cost of this ICR is approximately $96.5 million with about $6 million to complete the survey and $90.5 million to conduct the emission testing.  Today’s Federal Register notice initiates a 30-day comment period; comments must be in to OMB no later than December 10, 2009.

The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Rule was published today (10/30/09) in the Federal Register.  The massive rule will require thousands of industrial sources to start reporting GHG emission data starting in the very near future.  The sources that will shortly need to address the GHG reporting rule include, but are not limited to:

• Stationary Combustion Sources
• Electricity Generation
• Petroleum Refineries 
• Petrochemical Plants
• Cement Production
• Lime and Soda Ash Production
• Pulp and Paper Production
• Ammonia Manufacturing Glass Production
• Fluorocarbon Production
• Hydrogen Production
• Metals Refining/Production
• Acid Production
• Vehicle Manufacturing
• CO₂ Suppliers
• Natural Gas Suppliers
• Waste Landfills

As indicated earlier, EPA is sticking with its irrational decision to require sources to report GHG emissions starting in 2010.  Facilities will need to identify the affected sources to develop monitoring plans, and begin documenting and recording the information required under the rule to monitor GHG emissions.  Once a facility is affected then all sources at that site that are covered by the rule, regardless of size, become affected.  This means that, with a few exceptions, nearly all combustion equipment at the site will require reporting.  In some cases, the rule may allow a source to use existing monitoring equipment for GHG reporting but will require new QA to document the accuracy of the equipment.  In other cases, additional monitoring will be needed, including CEMS for some sources.  Reporting will be required on an annual basis in accordance with a yet to be released format and submission process.  As a minor concession, the rule allows "best available monitoring methods" to be used for the first three months of 2010.  Sources may request an extension to use best available data until the end of 2010 if they can document why the required monitoring equipment cannot be obtained or installed by April 2010.  However, any request for extension must be submitted by January 28, 2010, and the rule requires documentation and description of any changes to the monitoring approach (even "best available").

A copy of the GHG rule is available from our FTP library.   If you have questions regarding the GHG reporting rule, please contact Steve Norfleet at (919) 791-3123 or norfleet@rmb-consulting.com.

On October 22, 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson provided notice that her Agency intends to lodge with the Court a proposed consent decree in the matter of AMERICAN NURSES ASSOCIATION, et al. (Plaintiffs) v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Defendants). To refresh your memory, Plaintiffs filed a compliant in the D.C. District Court on December 18, 2008. The complaint alleged that EPA failed to perform a non-discretionary duty by failing to promulgate final maximum achievable control technology (MACT) emission standards for hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from coal- and oil-fired electric generating units (EGUs). The proposed consent decree would establish the following EPA obligations:

• No later than March 16, 2011, EPA must sign for publication in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking setting forth the Agency’s proposed MACT emission standards for coal- and oil-fired EGUs.
• No later than November 16, 2011, EPA must sign for publication in the Federal Register a notice of final rulemaking setting forth the Agency’s final MACT emission standards for coal- and oil-fired EGUs.

Thankfully, before this Consent Decree can be finalized and entered by the Court, EPA must provide notice in the Federal Register and an opportunity for public comment pursuant to the Clean Air Act §113(g). After the close of the comment period, EPA must consider any written comments in determining whether to withdraw or withhold consent to this Consent Decree. RMB staff have been involved with EPA and EGU rulemakings for 30 plus years. The schedule in the proposed Consent Decree, particularly the 6 months between the proposed rule and the final rule borders on insanity. Over the last three decades, what major rule has EPA finalized in 6 months following proposal? If anyone can provide a correct answer to this question, RMB would appreciate hearing from you, because we surely cannot name one!

EPA has extended the submittal deadline of certain data for sources affected by the latest ICR for the development of the revised Boiler MACT Rule and CISWI NSPS. Most sources are required to submit the results of any requested stack tests, fuel analysis, and/or monitoring data by October 15, 2009. Sources that were included in the ICR after the initial mailing received alternative deadlines as specified in their Section 114 letter. The deadline extension allows two additional weeks from the deadline listed in the source’s Section 114 letter for the submittal of any data requiring the use of EPA’s Emissions Reporting Tool (ERT), provided stack testing is completed and the test reports have been finalized. All other data must be submitted according to the deadline in the Section 114 letter. EPA provided this extension because a number of sources reported that ERT data entry was taking longer than expected, given the relatively short-time frame of the ICR.If you are an affected source that will be unable to meet the ICR submittal deadline, you should contact either Jim Eddinger (eddinger.jim@epa.gov) for Boiler MACT sources or Brian Shrager (shrager.brian@epa.gov) for CISWI sources.

Regardless of whether it is a rational approach, EPA is continuing down the path of regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA).  In what is couched largely as a procedural move, EPA is proposing to add a major source GHG applicability threshold of 25,000 tpy CO_2e under both the Title V and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit programs.  For PSD, the Agency also is proposing a significance level between 10,000 and 25,000 tpy CO_2e and is seeking comments on what that value should be.  (The “significance level” is the amount of emissions increase associated with a modification that would require a source to obtain a PSD permit.)  After five years, the Agency is proposing to complete a study to determine whether it is feasible to administer PSD and Title V permitting programs at lower GHG thresholds.

Under the proposal, new or modified facilities emitting over 25,000 tpy CO_2e of GHGs “would need to apply for a revision to their operating permits to incorporate the best available control technologies (BACT) and energy efficiency measures to minimize GHG emissions.”  BACT would be determined on a case-by-case basis during the PSD process.  Facilities with less than 25,000 tpy CO_2e of GHG would not be required to obtain a permit.  Existing sources would need to include GHG emissions estimates in their permit applications during the five year renewal cycle.

Ostensibly, EPA is proposing the new thresholds to avoid an “absurd result” associated with other GHG related regulations that it has proposed.  The Agency believes that finalizing the GHG rule for light duty vehicles (proposal signed 9/15/09) will trigger CAA permitting requirements since such action would classify GHG emissions as a pollutant under the CAA.  The current thresholds for criteria pollutants (e.g., SO₂ or NO_X) are 100 and 250 tpy.  Without the proposed tailoring, EPA suggests that these lower thresholds would take effect automatically for GHGs if it were to adoption any rule limiting GHG emissions. Without creating the new GHG thresholds, EPA estimates that about 40,000 PSD permit applications would be required each year (currently permit authorities receive about 300 PSD permits per year).  Title V permits would be required for six million sources (in contrast to the current inventory of 15,000 sources).  Under the proposed thresholds, EPA estimates 400 sources would be subject to PSD review each year for GHG emissions and approximately 14,000 sources would need Title V permits for GHG emissions.EPA is apparently relying on the Massachusetts v. EPA decision as legal grounds to proceed with regulating GHG emissions under the CAA.  Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s narrow 5-4 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, the CAA was neither intended nor designed to address GHG emissions.  The constructs that this Administration are trying to read into the CAA are simply not there.  As then-EPA Administrator Johnson stated in July 2008 when the Agency released the Advanced Notice of Public Rulemaking, “the CAA is ill-suited for the task of regulating global greenhouse gases” and regulating GHG emissions through the CAA “could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that would have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy” (not to mention the years of litigation likely to follow).

A copy of the proposed rule is available on our FTP library.  Comments on the proposed rule are due within 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

EPA's final Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Rule was signed by the Administrator on September 22, 2009.  This massive rule will require a large swath of industrial sources to start reporting GHG emission data as a precursor to other potential GHG regulations and limits.

Despite receiving many comments that there was inadequate time to prepare, with many sources indicating that they do not currently have all the monitoring equipment required by the rule, the Agency is plowing ahead with its intention to require sources to report GHG emissions starting with 2010.  EPA has only minor concessions with a provision that allows the use of “best available monitoring methods” in lieu of the required monitoring methods for January - March 2010.  In limited situations, facilities can request an extension to use best available data beyond March 2010.  Requests for extensions must be submitted within 30 days after the rule becomes effective and such extensions can only allow best available data to be used for the remainder 2010.

As a whole, the final rule remains similar to the original proposal (see previous article).  Revisions to the GHG reporting rule include:

• For combustion sources, exemptions have been added for unconventional fuels, flares, hazardous wastes, and emergency equipment.  Options allow aggregate reporting of emissions from smaller units. Monitoring options changed or added and fuel sampling and analysis revised for some subparts. More data reporting requirements for some sources “to allow EPA to verify reported emissions.” Calibration requirements added for various monitoring components including a 5% accuracy specification for flow meters. Provisions added to allow facilities to exit the program if the emissions are < 25,000 tonnes CO_2e/year for five years or < 10,000 tonnes CO_2e/year for three years. Recordkeeping requirements reduced from five to three years.
• Provisions added for revising annual GHG reports to correct errors.

Additionally, EPA has deferred finalizing the subparts for:

• Electronics manufacturing Oil and natural gas systems Ethanol production SF₆ from electrical equipment Fluorinated GHG production Underground coal mines Food processing Wastewater treatment Industrial landfills Coal Suppliers
• Magnesium production

These sources will not be required to report under GHG rule until the respective subparts are promulgated.  EPA has provided no timeline for finalizing these subparts.Electronic reporting will be required for all sources with the first report for 2010 due by March 31, 2011.  EPA has yet to provide information regarding the required format or submission process (anticipated to be similar to the XML reporting requirements recently applied to Part 75 affected sources.  As included in the original GHG reporting rule proposal, facilities with only stationary combustion sources can for 2010 only, submit an “abbreviated GHG report” according to 40 CFR 98.3(d).For electric utilities sources that report emissions under Part 75, there will be no new monitoring but new reporting requirements (and calculation of estimated N₂O and CH₄ emissions using conservative defaults) under the new program.  However, other sources at the facility may require monitoring. Most large combustion sources, particularly those with any existing CEMS (even concentration analyzers required by regulation, e.g., Part 60, for other pollutants), must use a CO₂ and flow monitoring to measure mass emissions.  For combustion units required to install new CEMS equipment, alternative options (i.e., lower tiers) can be used in 2010 if additional time is needed to upgrade. One problematic issue with the rule is that once a facility is determined to be affected under the GHG reporting rule, the CO₂ emissions for all sources and equipment (for which monitoring requirements are established) at the facility, regardless of the size of the individual sources.  In other words, there is no de minimus reporting threshold.

For assistance with GHG reporting rule issues, please contact Steve Norfleet at (919) 791-3123 or norfleet@rmb-consulting.com.

EPA published proposed revisions to Reference Method 2H in the August 25, 2009 Federal Register.  The Agency is revising Method 2H in order to harmonize the method with Conditional Test Method 41 (CTM-041).  The proposed revisions address wall effects for both circular stack and rectangular duct measurement locations and extend the improvements that were included in CTM-041 to all units.

The revisions to Method 2H will increase the accuracy of the method and simplify its application:

• Increased accuracy while eliminating unnecessary tests.  The revisions would significantly reduce the uncertainty of wall effect adjustment factors (WAFs) by requiring that at least three wall effect runs be conducted rather than a single run as is currently allowed.  However, consistent with EPRI and EPA field test results  showing wall effects are independent of load and do not change over time, the revisions allows the WAF to used for any subsequent RATAs, provided that the same number of traverse points are use or changes are made to the duct or stack.  Thus, while the initial effort would be increased, the overall testing requirements would be reduced.  Do it once but do it right.Decoupled from RATA.  The revised method does not need to be coupled with a RATA, allowing sources to avoid the potential difficulties and problems associated with trying to measure wall effects using Methods 2F or 2G.Consistent Application.  By harmonizing Method 2H and CTM-041 into one revised method covering both circular stack and rectangular duct sources, the reporting should be streamlined.  CAMD would no longer have to address petitions for the use of CTM-041 and consistent reporting could be used for both groups of sources. 
• Unit-specific defaults.  The arbitrary default WAFs and cap have been removed under from the revised method.  Instead, the revisions include options to determine conservative default WAF values that are based on viscous shear theory and take into account stack/duct geometry into consideration.

A copy of the proposed revisions to Method 2H is available in our FTP library.  Comments on the proposed rule are due by October 26, 2009.  Given the improvements to the method, RMB encourages positive comments in support of the proposed revisions.  If you have any questions regarding the proposed Method 2H revisions, please contact Steve Norfleet at (919) 791-3123 or norfleet@rmb-consulting.com.

| News | CAM | Training | FTP Library | Projects | Links | Services | Contact | Feedback |

RMB Consulting & Research, Inc.
Last Revised:January 02, 2012