Transcript N.C. Toxics Issues

Permitting Updates
NCMA Workshop
March 24 , 2015
Booker Pullen
Supervisor, Permitting Section
North Carolina Division of Air Quality, Raleigh, NC
(919) 707-8469
Compliance with Emissions Standards during
Start-up, Shutdown and Malfunction under
§112
 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i), (f)(1), and (h) (1)
 Sierra Club v. EPA (DC Circuit 2008), Decided December 19, 2008
 Adam Kushner (EPA) Letter, Dated July 22, 2009
 Table 1 Source Category Rules
 DAQ’s Approach for Gap-Filling for Table 1 Affected Sources
 DAQ’s Processing Mechanism for Gap-Filling for Table 1 Affected
Sources
40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i), (f)(1), and (h) (1)
 (e)(1)(i)
“At all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction,
the owner or operator must operate and maintain any affected source,
including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring
equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control
practices for minimizing emissions…”
 (f)(1)
“The non-opacity emission standards set forth in this part shall apply at all
times except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction…”
 (h)(1)
“The opacity and visible emission standards set forth in this part must apply
at all times except during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction…”
Sierra Club v. EPA (DC Circuit 2008),
Decided December 19, 2008
 Court vacated §§63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) [SSM exemptions].
 Court found that requirement to comply with the §112(d)
standard is continuous.
 Court found that the because the “general duty”
[63.6(e)(1)(i)] is the only standard applies during the SSM
(as some 112(d) standards do not include standards for
SSM), any exemption from compliance with 112(d)
standard during SSM is illegal, as the SSM exemptions
violate the CAA requirement that the 112 standard applies
continuously.
Adam Kushner (EPA) Letter, Dated
July 22, 2009
 Identified NESHAPs which explicitly incorporated SSM
provisions in §§63.6 (f)(1) and (h) (1) [Table 1 Source
Category Rules] and NESHAPs which did not incorporate
these provisions [Table 2 Source Category Rules].
 Table 1 Source Category Rules impacted.
Table 1 Source Category Rules
Part 63 Subpart & Source Category
DAQ’s Approach for Gap-Filling for Table 1
Affected Sources
 Use §112(j) in 15A NCAC 2D .1109 to gap-fill the standards to
comply during the SSM. See the example below.
 “During the periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the
Permittee shall operate and maintain the emission source (ID No.
ES-XX), including associated air pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good
air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. During a
period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, this general duty to
minimize emissions requires that the Permittee reduce emissions
from the above emission source to the greatest extent which is
consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices. [15A
NCAC 2D .1109 (§112(j) Case-by-Case MACT)]”
DAQ’s Processing Mechanism for GapFilling for Table 1 Affected Sources
 Use Title V procedures in 15 A NCAC 2Q .0516 (significant
modification) or 2Q .0513 (renewal).
NEW TOPIC
NEW TOPIC
Once-In-Always-In MACT Policy
 The DAQ applies the EPA policy described in the “Seitz
Memo” of May 16, 1995
 Memo provides guidance on
• when a facility must take limits to avoid major source
requirements
• Major for one standard = major for all others?
• Is a facility that is required to comply with a MACT standard
permanently subject to that standard? (i.e. Once-In-Always-In)
Once-In-Always-In MACT Policy
 The policy states:
sources for HAPs on the "first compliance date" are
required to comply permanently with the MACT
standard to ensure that maximum achievable reductions
in toxic emissions are achieved and maintained.
 In practice this means YES, but..
Once-In-Always-In MACT Policy
 The DAQ to date has allowed facilities to remove
MACT requirements from their permit when:
• The affected source was removed
• The affected source reformulated such that the regulated
HAPs were no longer used
Once-In-Always-In MACT Policy
 The EPA in a recent applicability determination (May
18, 2012) addressed once-in always-in for a company
subject to the Pharmaceutical MACT (Subpart GGG).
 The facility ceased manufacturing and removed all
affected equipment in 2008.
 No HAPS used at the facility subsequently.
 The facility wishes to operate new process with a HAP
PTE for HCL of 6.5 tpy ( <10 tpy)
Once-In-Always-In MACT Policy
 The EPA concluded that since the facility did not use or
emit any HAP after 2008 it no longer met the
applicability requirements for the particular MACT
(Subpart GGG)
 The new project would be considered on its own merits
(i.e. new source vs. an existing source and an area
source
Once-In-Always-In MACT Policy
 Take Home Points
• This EPA determination is consistent with DAQs use of the
once-in-always-in policy.
• No significant departures
• There are no changes anticipated with respect to the oncein-always-in policy as implemented by the DAQ.
NEW TOPIC
NEW TOPIC
112(j) Case-by-Case MACT For Boilers
Transition to MACT Subpart DDDDD
 Facilities affected:
a.
Currently have 112(j)-subject boiler, and
b.
Will still be HAP-Major on May 20, 2019
 The 112(j) end date is May 19, 2019. MACT Subpart
DDDDD takes over on May 20.
112(j) Case-by-Case MACT For Boilers
Transition to MACT Subpart DDDDD
 When a permit with a 112(j)-subject boiler is renewed,
DAQ will add an end date for the 112(j) stipulation and
a new stipulation for MACT Subpart DDDDD
 No change in requirements until the end date of 112(j).
 This process is not expected to delay the permit
issuance.
 Other applications not affected.
112(j) Case-by-Case MACT For Boilers
Transition to MACT Subpart DDDDD
 If no relevant application is received by January 1,
2019, DAQ will initiate a “Reopen for Cause”
application.
 No cost to facility
 Minimal effort from facility
112(j) Case-by-Case MACT For Boilers
Transition to MACT Subpart DDDDD
 How will MACT Subpart DDDDD be different from
112(j)?
 Overall requirements should be similar.
 e.g. Boilers with tune-up requirements will still have those
requirements
 Call your DAQ contact to learn about changes specific to
your facility.
NEW TOPIC
NEW TOPIC
N.C. Toxics Implementation
 15A NCAC 02Q .0700 – Toxic rules applicability.
 .0702 (27) (A), (B), and (C): exempt certain sources
from the permit that are subject to various
MACT/GACT/NESHAPS regs..
Examples: internal combustion engines, boilers.
However…
N.C. Toxics Implementation
 North Carolina S.L. 2012-91 requires us (NCDAQ) to
ensure that net emissions increases from the addition
or modification of emission sources will not pose an
unacceptable risk to the public.
N.C. Toxics Implementation
 So, what is NCDAQ’s approach going to be to ensure
that there is not an unacceptable risk?
 The best way to understand NCDAQ’s multifaceted
approach to this requirement is by way of an
example.
 Consider a facility with a chemical process and one
emergency generator.
 These sources have both been modeled previously,
the engine for formaldehyde only.
N.C. Toxics Implementation
 In this case it doesn’t matter if the facility is major for
HAPS or not because the chemical process and the
engine do not share common pollutants and the
engine is subject to a Part 63 emission standard in
either case.
 The facility submits a permit application to add a
second engine emitting all the same pollutants as the
first engine.
N.C. Toxics Implementation
 Step One: For the pollutants whose emissions are
increasing, add the potential emissions from the new
engine to the actual emissions from the existing
engine and compare to the appropriate TPERs.
 For those pollutants below their respective TPERs,
the conclusion is that there is no unacceptable risk to
human health, and the permit is issued.
N.C. Toxics Implementation
 Step Two: For those pollutants above their respective
TPERs (most likely formaldehyde since it was
previously modeled), there are several factors to
consider.
 What is the ratio of the existing unit’s actual to
potential emissions (the ones likely previously
modeled). In all likelihood the answer is a low
number.
 What will the percentage increase in formaldehyde
emissions be from the new unit? Will it be 1%, 15%,
100%?
N.C. Toxics Implementation
 What was the percentage of the AAL impact from the
previously modeled existing unit? Was it 5%, 25%, 95%?
 Step Three: DAQ uses it’s engineering judgment
 If all the aforementioned numbers are relatively low,
DAQ can safely conclude that the addition of the new
emission source will not pose an unacceptable risk to
the public, and the permit is issued.
N.C. Toxics Implementation
 The very unlikely Step Four: If some of the
aforementioned numbers are relatively high, e.g.
original modeling very near the AAL, existing source
operating near its PTE, or the new source adding
considerably to existing emissions, DAQ may consider
remodeling the facility to ensure that no
unacceptable risk exists
 Based on our experience over the past four years, and
a number of new tools in the revised air toxics rules
this step really is very unlikely
N.C. Toxics Implementation
Nuances
 Allows the use of actual emissions from existing
sources
 A new TPER table has been created for sources with
only unobstructed, vertical stacks for affected
sources
 This table typically allows higher emission rates
before an unacceptable health risk might be expected
 Please note that DAQ’s Air Quality Analysis Branch is
available to assist with and, in some cases, perform
modeling for North Carolina facilities.