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).

Steve Norfleet's Establishing Reasonable BACT/BART Limits presentation and Russell Berry's Field Test Programs to Evaluate EGU MACT Compliance Strategies presentation that were recently given at the EUEC conference are now available under Papers and Presentations.

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.

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

RMB Consulting & Research, Inc.
Last Revised:February 06, 2012