 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
          
|
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 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:
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:
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 CO2e 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 CO2e 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 CO2e 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 CO2e 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 NOX) 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:
Additionally, EPA has deferred finalizing the subparts for:
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:
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.
On September 10, 2009, EPA received another extension of the deadline for the proposed Boiler MACT Rule and CISWI NSPS. Since the Boiler MACT and CISWI Definitions Rule were vacated in 2007, the timetable for development of the new rules has been tied into the rulemaking schedule for the area source MACT program. The latest court order specifies a deadline of April 30, 2010 for the promulgation of emissions standards accounting for 90% of area source HAPS. The order allows an alternative deadline of December 16, 2010 if EPA can propose the new Boiler MACT Rule, Gold Mining and Production MACT Rule, and CISWI NSPS by April 15, 2010. While not explicitly stated, the April 15, 2010 date is generally accepted as the new timetable for the proposed Boiler MACT Rule and CISWI NSPS. This latest action was expected by most stakeholders since the previous extension of September 15, 2009 was prior to the submittal deadline (October 15, 2009) of ICR stack test data for most sources.
The Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) issued a draft Part 75 Emissions Monitoring Policy Manual on July 27, 2009 which addresses previous revisions to 40 CFR Part 75 as well as the new Emission Collection and Monitoring Plan System (ECMPS) reporting requirements. Revisions were not highlighted using a “redline/strikeout” format but a revision summary is provided in Appendix B of the manual. Comments on the draft manual are due by August 31, 2009. Comments should be submitted to the applicable CAMD regional coordinator via e-mail or to Louis Nichols at Nichols.Louis@epa.gov. A copy of the draft Policy Manual is available in our FTP library.
On June 30, 2009, EPA received a two month extension on the deadline for the proposed Boiler and CISWI MACT Rules. The new deadline (September 15, 2009) is an interim measure that will allow EPA and Sierra Club additional time to negotiate a more realistic deadline for the proposed rules. The latest action was expected by most stakeholders since EPA only recently began the stack testing component of the ICR, which is expected to be completed by October 15, 2009.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, EPA announced in the Federal Register (July 2, 2009) that the Agency intends to submit a request for a new Information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Facilities affected by this action are coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units. According to the notice, EPA needs to obtain information necessary to identify and categorize electric utility steam generating units potentially subject to the MACT standards that the Agency intends to develop pursuant to section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Also, to quantify the emission level being achieved by the average of the best performing 12 percent of similar sources, this ICR would mandate a massive stack testing program. EPA believes this program can be accomplished in 6 months, and the Agency’s estimated overall cost burden on the utility industry is approximately $105 million. EPA estimates the stack sampling cost to be $60 million for the selected coal-fired units and $35 million for the selected oil-fired units. For stack testing at coal-fired units, EPA identified four grouping of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The four HAP grouping are (1) acid gases (HCl, HF & HCN); (2) dioxin & furan; (3) non-dioxin/furan organic HAP; and (4) mercury and non-mercury metallic HAP. EPA has identified 217 units to sample for acid gases at an estimated cost of $8.25 million; 149 units to sample for dioxin and furan at an estimated cost of $7.45 million; 184 units to sample for non-dioxin/furan organic HAP at an estimated cost of $19.7 million; and 214 units to sample for mercury and non-mercury metallic HAP at an estimated cost of $24.8 million. The public comment period runs through August 31, 2009. EPA’s supporting documents for this ICR can be found in the rulemaking Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-2009-0234 at www.regulations.gov. In terms of the ICR process, EPA must review comments and revise the ICR as the Agency deems appropriate. A final ICR package will be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will publish another notice in the Federal Register to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB.
On July 2, 2009, EPA released two interim traceability documents that outline the qualification and certification procedures required for elemental and oxidized mercury gas generators. The procedures included in these documents will need to be followed in order to establish "Interim EPA Traceability" for Hg calibration gas generators. Until today, no formal procedures were available to establish an unbroken chain of traceability from NIST to the calibration gas generators in the field. The traceability protocols themselves, along with appropriate companion documents and necessary spreadsheets, are available on EPA's website by following the link below: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/emissions/mercury/hgmonitoring.html With research funding provided by EPRI, RMB, in a collaborative effort with EPA and vendors , contributed heavily to the development of these protocols. As a result, RMB is uniquely qualified to assist industry with the full implementation of these protocols. If you have any questions concerning any aspect of these protocols, please contact Will Roberson at will@rmb-consulting.com.
On June 18, 2009, EPA hosted an online question and answer session to discuss some of the issues raised by stakeholders as a result of the recent Boiler and CISWI MACT information collection request (ICR). There were a significant number of questions regarding the test methods, unit operating requirements, and reporting requirements outlined in EPA’s ICR test procedures guidance document, which was included in the notification letter to affected sources. EPA has issued two supplemental guidance documents that include a summary of responses to many of these issues. These documents along with copies of the original ICR test procedures and reporting templates can be found on EPA’s ICR website or on our FTP library. Any source that is affected by the ICR should review the supplemental guidance documents as soon as possible.
EPA recently issued notification letters to approximately 300 sources requiring additional data for Part II of the EPA’s Information Collection Request (ICR) for the development of the new Boiler MACT and Commercial/Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) MACT Rules. These sources were selected to gather additional information about certain process units and fuel types that was either unavailable or insufficient from EPA’s Part I ICR. The emissions testing and fuel sampling procedures are specific to each unit and depend on fuel type, combustor design, and emissions control device. For most sources, emissions test requirements include CO, HCl and HF, mercury, metals (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel, phosphorus and selenium), particulate matter (total PM, filterable PM2.5, and condensables), dioxins and furans, and SO2. Additional requirements for some boilers and process heaters include formaldehyde, total hydrocarbons, methane, and NOx. Many sources are also required to conduct a 30-day fuel sampling trial to assess variability of chlorine, fluorine, and metals constituents. A limited number of sources are required to conduct a 30-day continuous monitoring trial of CO and total hydrocarbons, which will require some sources to install, certify, and operate temporary analyzers. EPA requires the results of all stack tests, fuel analyses, and/or monitoring data to be submitted by October 15, 2009. Additional guidance on the test procedures, methods, and reporting requirements has been included with each notification letter although our review of these guidelines indicates that a number of clarifications would be helpful. EPA will be hosting a webinar on June 18, 2009 for affected sources and stakeholders to address some of these issues. Based on the ICR collection deadline, it is apparent that EPA will not be able to meet the July 15, 2009 deadline for the proposed Boiler MACT rule. However, at this point, EPA has not announced a new date for the proposed rule. RMB recommends that sources that are affected by the new ICR begin to investigate stack testing options and scheduling as soon as possible. Current work loads for stack test firms and analytical laboratories are pushing test dates into late-August and September 2009. Tests performed after mid-September 2009 may have difficulty meeting the October 15, 2009 deadline. If you do not believe you can meet EPA’s deadline or you do not believe you should have been selected as an ICR recipient, you should contact EPA immediately. Since many of these test methods are complicated and/or relatively new (OTM 27 and OTM 28), RMB recommends hiring a qualified testing contractor that has had sufficient prior experience with each method. Also, the ICR specifies that all test data must be submitted electronically using EPA’s Emissions Reporting Tool (ERT). Many testing firms may not be familiar with this software. Therefore, sources should allow sufficient time to convert and submit the data in the required format.
On April 10, 2009, EPA proposed in the Federal Register a massive rule requiring the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases (GHG). We use the adjective massive because the proposed rule takes up almost 300 pages in the Federal Register and, according to EPA’s estimates, would affect over 30,000 individual facilities across some 40 source categories. The proposed rule was drafted by EPA’s Climate Change Division, which is a sister division to EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division. The public comment period is scheduled to close on June 9, 2009. EPA’s proposed mandatory GHG reporting rule would have significant impact on host of industries. The rule would place additional monitoring and reporting requirements on sources, would produce data likely to influence potential GHG reduction policy decisions and could establish potential precedents for future CO2/GHG reporting requirements. The proposed rule would require reporting of annual emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorochemicals (PFCs), and other fluorinated gases (e.g., nitrogen trifluoride). The proposed rule applies to facilities that emit ≥25,000 tons per year of CO2 equivalent GHG emissions and to suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial GHGs, as well as to manufacturers of vehicles and engines. Annual reporting would generally be required at the facility level except certain vehicle and engine manufacturers would report at the corporate level. In the proposal, EPA wants to rule to be effective January 1, 2010, with the first annual reports due on March 31, 2011. EPA’s goal is to have the final rule published in time for sources to actually begin monitoring and collecting data on January 1, 2010. RMB believes EPA’s goal is unrealistic; a more realistic approach is to start collecting data on January 1, 2011 and submit the first reports to EPA by March 31, 2012. The preamble and proposed rule can be downloaded from the following links. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/RULE_E9-5711.pdf http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/Preamble_E9-5711.pdf
On March 25, 2009, EPA proposed, in the Federal Register, revisions to EPA Methods 201A and Method 202. According to EPA, the proposed revisions to Method 201A would add a particle-sizing device to allow for sampling particulate matter (PM) with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 micrometers (µm). The proposed revisions to Method 202 would revise the sample collection and recovery procedures of the method in effort to reduce the formation of reaction artifacts that lead to inaccurate (biased) measurements of condensable particulate matter (CPM). Comments on EPA’s proposal must be received by the Agency on or before May 26, 2009. RMB applauds EPA for finally acknowledging the flaws in Method 202 and taking action to minimize the inherent biases and imprecision in many of the measurements that have been made with Method 202. RMB is concerned that most if not all of the Agency’s work has been performed in a laboratory on simulated stack gas, and as such, the apparent reduction in method biases may not be fully realized in actual field measurements. RMB hopes that anyone with actual test data collected with the revised Method 202 procedures will provide those data to EPA during the comment period. We believe the Agency would most benefit from studies that compare existing Method 202 data with contemporaneous measurements obtained with the revised Method 202 procedures. (The revised Method 202 procedures have been available and posted on EPA’s web site as OTM 28 for several months.)
On February 25, 2009, the Supreme Court declined to hear the arguments in the appeal petition filed by the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG). This comes a year after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). The Supreme Court's rejection of the petition to hear the case means that D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to remand the case to the EPA stands. The bottom line, CAMR is History, with no further avenues for revival.
On December 19, 2008, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted environmental Petitioner’s challenge to EPA’s startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) provisions and vacated the SSM exemption. The decision was 2 to 1 with Circuit Judge Rodgers writing for the Court, and Senior Circuit Judge Randolph writing a strong dissenting opinion. Below we summarize the way the Circuit Judges Rodgers and Tatel apparently viewed this case. However, Senior Circuit Judge Randolph does not agree that the Court has jurisdiction over the Sierra Club’s petition for judicial review. Judge Randolph reminded his colleagues that the original SSM regulation was issued by EPA in 1994, and the Sierra Club took no legal action. Under the CAA, a petition for judicial review of an EPA regulation must be filed within 60 days of the regulation’s publication in the Federal Register. In the 1970s EPA determined that excess emissions during SSM periods should not be considered violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA) emission standards under section 111 (i.e., new source performance standards). Although sources are exempt from numerical limits during SSM events, EPA requires owners and operators to maintain and operate any affected facility including air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions (i.e., the general duty requirement). In 1994, EPA adopted the SSM exemption for section 112 rules (i.e., maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards). Although sources were exempt from numerical limits, EPA required each source to develop and implement an SSM plan. Each SSM plan must describe in detail procedures for operating and maintaining the source during SSM periods and a program of corrective action for malfunctioning process and air pollution control equipment. Each plan was to be incorporated by reference into the source’s Title V permit. In 2002, EPA removed the requirement that a source’s Title V permit incorporate the SSM plan, and instead determined that a source’s Title V permit must simply require the source to adopt an SSM plan and to comply with it. Additionally, EPA decided that an SSM plan was to be made publicly available only upon request. The Sierra Club sought reconsideration of the 2002 rule. In 2003, EPA decided to require members of the public to make a specific and reasonable request of the permitting authority to request the SSM plan from a source. Both the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) challenged the 2003 rule. In 2006, EPA retracted the requirement that sources implement their SSM plans during SSM periods. EPA’s reasoning was that since the SSM plan was not part of the Title V permit, the Agency could not require it to be followed. Nonetheless, EPA stated the general duty to minimize emissions remains intact and is the applicable and enforceable requirement. Petitioners now argue that the exemption from compliance with emission standards during SSM events is both unlawful and arbitrary, and the 2002, 2003, and 2006 rules unlawfully and arbitrarily fail to assure compliance with applicable requirements under Title V. According to Judge Rodgers’ opinion, EPA’s SSM exemption violates the CAA’s requirement that some section 112 standard apply continuously. Accordingly, the Court granted the petitions and vacated the SSM exemption.
On December 23, 2008, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted EPA's petition to remand the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to the Agency to be "fixed" rather than be vacated, which was the Court's original (July 11, 2008) decision. This means that CAIR is back in effect, but EPA is on notice for replacing the rule consistent with the Court's July 2008 findings. The Court did not impose a schedule on EPA, but was clear in that the Court does not intend its action to be an indefinite stay of the effectiveness of the July 2008 decision.
The Boiler MACT will be back soon. The courts have set a timetable for EPA to have a proposed rule by July 15, 2009 and a final rule by July 15, 2010.
On Friday, July 11, 2008, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and its associated Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) and remanded both to EPA. The Court granted several petitions raised by the plaintiffs and took issue with EPA’s rulemaking on several fronts. The Court stated that “no amount of tinkering with the rule or revising of the explanations will transform CAIR, as written, into an acceptable rule.” The Court notes that the current regional NOx SIP Call trading program will continue because EPA planned to end this program after the 2008 ozone season only because it would be replaced by the CAIR NOx ozone season trading program in 2009. The Court added that the continued implementation of the NOx SIP Call trading “should mitigate any disruption” for NOx as a result of the vacatur of CAIR. EPA must either accept the vacatur of CAIR or seek to have the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision reversed through any of several judicial processes.
On May 20, 2008, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the two petitions that were filed seeking rehearing en banc (all the judges of the Court) of the Court’s February 8th decision to vacate EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). While we may continue to be disappointed by the Court’s decisions, we never cease to be surprised. That is, the en banc rehearing petitions were before the Chief Judge and the nine Circuit Judges. Yet, for reasons we do not understand, the petitions were denied by five judges with five judges “not participating in the matter.” Go figure!
On
March 24, 2008,
two petitions were filed in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals seeking
rehearing
en banc (all the judges of the Court)
of the Court’s February 8th decision to vacate EPA’s Clean
Air
Mercury Rule (CAMR). The U.S. Government
filed on behalf of EPA, and UARG filed on behalf of its electric
utility member
companies. Both petitions pointed out a
series of mistakes made by the original panel in arriving at the
February 8th
decision. While the panel relied heavily
on Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC, both
petitions chastised the panel for misapplying the statutory principles
of
interpretation set forth in Chevron.
In Chevron,
the Supreme Court explained the meaning of a “word” can only be
determined in
the context of the overall statute – not as a single word in isolation. Both petitions are concise, make for
interesting reading, and are posted in our FTP Library.
Keep checking back to our web site; RMB will
try to keep you informed as CAMR twists and turns in the Court.
It is difficult to decide which was worse: (1) the media’s reporting of the Court’s decision or (2) the decision itself. For example, a Washington Post article stated that the Court struck down Bush administration policy allowing some power plants to exceed mercury emission levels, ruling that the government failed to consider the effect on public health and the environment. First, EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) is a regulation – not a “Bush administration policy.” More importantly, the Court did not even consider public health or environmental issues – much less rule on them. A North Carolina paper wrote that the Court said the Bush administration ignored the law three years ago when it imposed less stringent requirements on power plants to reduce mercury pollution. In point of fact, the Court neither mentions the Bush administration nor does it deal with the stringency of CAMR. What did the Court really say? Basically, the Court agreed with the environmental Petitioners’ challenge, which was that EPA could not legally remove electric generating units (EGUs) from the section 112(c) list of source categories of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) without following the delisting procedure described in section 112c(9). Since, in the opinion of this Court, EPA inappropriately removed EGUs from the section 112(c) list, CAMR must be vacated because it was developed under the provisions of section 111(d). The D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling was on a very narrow issue – clearly not the sweeping repudiation that the media has so zealously reported. EPA defended its action by explaining that the Agency reversed its December 2000 “appropriate and necessary” finding. That is, since EPA used the “appropriate and necessary” finding to put EGUs on the section 112 list in 2000, a negative “appropriate and necessary” finding in 2004 required the Agency to remove EGUs from the list. The Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) intervened and supported EPA’s defense. Moreover, UARG argued that the section 112(c) listing was not binding because of lack of notice and comment rulemaking, and thus EPA is not required to comply with the section 112(c)(9) delisting approach. In a most perplexing statement, the Court ruled it need not consider the intervener’s argument because EPA steadfastly refused to join it. The Court’s decision may raise more questions than it answers, especially with respect to what happens next. It is interesting to note how environmental groups have praised the Court’s decision on CAMR. It is interesting because this decision vacates the only nationwide control of mercury emissions from EGUs!
On Friday (02/08/08), the DC Circuit Court stuck down the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) in its entirety. The three judge panel vacated the CAMR regulations for both new and existing units. The decision remands the issue of how to regulate mercury emissions from electric generating units back to EPA for its reconsideration. How did we get here? Several states and environmental groups had sued the EPA over the CAMR regulations, which the court elected to consolidate in a single case. On the other side of the table and adding to the complexity of the case, a number of states and groups, including the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), acted as interveners for the Agency (i.e., supported the defense). However, while the petitioners posed a number of challenges to CAMR, the court’s action hinged simply on the EPA’s decision to delist the electric generating units (EGUs) from Section 112(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Section 112(n) of the CAA required the EPA to conduct a study of hazardous air pollutants from EGUs to determine whether it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate the sources under Section 112, which would require prescriptive Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) limitations. This study was completed in 1998. In December of 2000, EPA Administrator Carol Browner announced that it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate coal- and oil-fired EGUs under Section 112. But, in 2005, EPA reconsidered its decision to list EGUs under Section 112 and determined that its original “finding lacked foundation” and that, for a variety of reasons, it was “not appropriate or necessary” to regulate the units under Section 112. Instead, the Agency decided it had the discretion to regulate mercury under Section 111 of the CAA and finalized the CAMR regulations based on this new approach. In Friday’s opinion, the DC Circuit Court stated that the Agency’s 2005 delisting action was without authority because it did not satisfy the requirements of Section 112 (c)(9), which states that the Agency may delist only after determining that the emissions from the sources do not “exceed a level which is adequate to protect public health with an ample margin of safety and no adverse environmental effect will result...” In the absence of this evidence, the court was highly critical of EPA’s determination, stating that the Agency “deployed the logic of the Queen of Hearts,” suggesting that EPA’s decision was based on nothing more than the whimsy of its desires. (While EPA’s actions regarding mercury have been rife with misstep and error, the author finds the court’s critical tone somewhat excessive.) Since the court found the delisting to be invalid, EGUs should have been regulated under Section 112 not Section 111, so the CAMR regulations “must fall.” Because the delisting was improper, there is no basis for either the CAMR-related NSPS mercury limits for new sources or CAMR established mercury budget/trading program for existing units. [Commentary: The Court’s finding would seem to be predicated on the assumption that the Agency’s December 2000 listing was a final, binding decision. But, some of the interveners argued that listing was not binding because Section 112(n)(1)(A) states that no listing action of the Administrator “shall be a final agency action” until “the Administrator issues the emission standards for such pollutant or category” (and is, thus, subject to notice and comment). In other words, the interveners argued that the listing action was not final since the Agency had not finalized the associated MACT standard. However, the court (which relegated this issue to a footnote) stated that it did not even consider this contention “because EPA has steadfastly refused to join it.” The Court’s decision to ignore the question of whether the listing actually represented a final decision seems disingenuous not only because the opinion cites the portion of the preamble to CAMR rule where the Agency states that “the December 2000 finding and associated listing are, therefore, not final agency actions” (Federal Register March 29, 2005, p. 16033) but because it was the same court that heard the industry’s initial objection to the listing action. In that case, the Agency appears to have stated the exactly what it supposedly was refused to join, indicating that “because the decision to add coal and oil fired electric utility steam generating units to the source category list is not yet final agency action, it will be among the matters subject to further comments in subsequent standards rulemakings” (EPA’s Motion to Dismiss UARG v. EPA, 2001). Is the court itself indulging in the logic of the Queen of Hearts or just in the simplicity of a selective memory?] Where do we go from here? It appears that the court’s decision leaves EPA with three options: 1) It can appeal the decision. 2) It can revisit the delisting by developing justification in accordance with Section 112(c)(9). 3) Or, it can develop a MACT standard for EGUs based on Section 112. While EPA (or the interveners) could appeal, some suggest that this is “a bit of a long shot.” [Quote by Jeffrey R. Holmstead (the former EPA Assistant Administrator for Office of Air and Radiation who is generally credited as the architect of the Section 111-based CAMR approach) cited in a February 9, 2008 article in the Los Angeles Times.] The next step in the judicial process would be a hearing by the full DC Circuit Court, which, given the unanimous nature of the decision by the three judge panel, might be difficult to obtain. This would leave only an appeal to the US Supreme Court, which may also be less disposed to hear the case for the same reason. Beyond an appeal, EPA could choose to salvage CAMR by developing Section 112(C)(9) justification for the delisting. However, baring the aforementioned argument that a listing action is not final until the standard is developed (and subject to notice and comment) that the court elected to ignore, Section 112(C)(9) creates a hole that is much easier to fall into than it is to climb out of. Under the court’s decision, the pages of discussion that EPA included in the preamble to the “Delisting Rule” describing the reasons its initial finding was a mistake count for nothing. The Agency must show that the emissions do not “exceed a level which is adequate to protect public health with an ample margin of safety and no adverse environmental effect will result...” If EPA must fall back to developing a MACT standard, will the Agency simply be able to dust off the MACT standard that it initially proposed in parallel with the cap-and-trade-based CAMR proposal back in 2004, or will it need to go completely through the MACT standard development process based upon new utility control and performance data? In accordance with the CAA, the MACT limit for new sources shall be no less than the “best controlled similar source, as determined by the Administrator.” For existing sources, MACT standards must be no less stringent than the average of the best performing 12% of existing sources. Either way the impact of a MACT standard on industry would be great. All units would need to comply with the mercury limits. There would be no trading and, thus, no chance to balance out one unit by “over-controlling” another. Based on the court’s decision for National Lime Association v. EPA (December 2000), some would also argue that listing EGUs under Section 112 subjects the units not only to mercury limits but potential monitoring and limitation requirements with each of the 189 hazardous air pollutants listed under Section 112. What does this mean for mercury monitoring? While the ruling did not explicitly touch on the subject, it is logical to infer that if CAMR is dead then any monitoring required in conjunction with the program is likewise dead. 40 CFR §75.80(a) states that sources must comply with the mercury monitoring requirements only “to the extent that compliance is required by an applicable State or Federal Hg mass emission reduction program that incorporates by reference, or otherwise adopts the provisions of, this subpart.” Vacating the CAMR program would seem to remove the applicability of the Part 75 mercury requirements for the states that adopted EPA’s model CAMR trading rule although some states may need to revisit their specific regulations. For states that chose to implement mercury regulations that were more stringent than CAMR, those requirements (and any associated monitoring) would still stand. At present, EGUs are in limbo. The court has not issued the mandate for the decision so the monitoring provisions are technically still in effect. Obviously, however, there remains considerable uncertainty around what EPA’s response to this decision will be and whether CAMR is actually down for the count. If an appeal is successful, the court’s action will, presumably, have no impact on the impending Part 75 monitoring deadline. Even if CAMR is out for good, the monitoring hiatus will likely be (excluding some political force majeure) only a temporary one since any mercury MACT standard will presumably include continuous monitoring requirements. While no trading would be involved, the importance such data, in terms of the total cost and scope of the associated emission reduction, would only increase. [Some had suggested that even if the court vacated the CAMR, that the monitoring provisions could still stand. It had been suggested that the Agency would petition (and perhaps it still will) that the CEMS data would be necessary to establish the MACT standard and that the court might specifically stay the mandate on certain CAMR monitoring related provisions. This author, however, finds such a position difficult to justify.] How similar any MACT monitoring requirements would be to the current Part 75 requirements is a serious question since the MACT standard and any associated monitoring requirements would fall under the jurisdiction of EPA’s Office of Air Quality and Planning Standard (OAQPS) rather than the Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD). For example, would OAQPS entertain a periodic testing approach for a mercury MACT standard similar to the Part 75 provision for low mass emission units and how might the QA requirements differ? In general, the OAQPS regulations tend to be more straightforward than Part 75 with fewer monitoring options. Under a MACT standard, the reporting provisions would likely be more similar to Part 60 excess emissions rather than the highly prescriptive, data intensive requirements of Part 75. Enjoy your CAMR “vacation” – things may get interesting. [This article was written by Steve Norfleet who acknowledges that he is not a lawyer and that the opinions expressed in this article are solely his own.]
The final revisions to Part 75 were published in the Federal Register today (page 4312 of the January 24 issue). A copy of the promulgated revisions from the Federal Register including the preamble has been posted on our FTP library.
The final revisions to Part 75 were signed on December 19, 2007. While the revisions have not yet appeared in the Federal Register, EPA has release an unofficial consolidated version of Part 75 incorporating the new changes. A copy of the redline/strikeout version has been posted on our FTP library.
In accordance with §75.63(a)(1), sources that will be certifying mercury (Hg) CEMS equipment in 2008 must submit the certification data no more than 45 days after the tests are completed. Sources must also provide electronic monitoring plan information at least 21 days (proposed) prior to starting the certification tests. Since there is no way to report Hg data using the existing EDR format, which EPA has expressed that it will not revise for Hg, the predicament could potentially force many sources to use the new XML format prior to the anticipated date of 2009 when the Agency has stated that XML will be required for all sources. A similar situation also exists for newly affected SO2 sources under CAIR, which cannot be completely addressed by the existing EDR format. Complicating matters further, CAMD has stated that sources cannot report using both formats during the 2008 transition. So, if a source has to report an Hg monitoring plan and certification data, presumably, it would also have to report all its regular emissions data using the new format too. Furthermore, while 2008 has been slated as a transition year where sources could opt into XML reporting, EPA is somewhat behind its initial schedule so a production version of CAMD’s ECMPS client tool (which will be required to evaluate XML formatted data and facilitate submission of that data to EPA's host database) will not be available for some potential certifications in early 2008. In recognition of this situation, EPA has indicated that it will accept (and grant) petitions to extend the deadline and give sources up to the 90 calendar days following the official release of the ECMPS client tool software to submit their monitoring plan and certification data. The extension would apply to both the electronic records submitted to CAMD as well as the hardcopy portions of the monitoring plan that are submitted to the applicable state and region. Although CAMD first indicated an email request would be sufficient, it has since reversed that decision. To ask for an extension, sources should send a written request in the form of a petition under §75.66. It is recommended that the request should be submitted before certification testing is completed. For more information, including a sample petition, click here.
While it is our understanding that a rulemaking package has been signed by the Administrator to take final action the Part 75 revisions that were proposed last year, EPA has not yet released the final rule revisions. The Agency has, however, released a copy of the associated Response to Comments document, which sheds light on many of the apparent changes in the final version from the original proposal. A copy of the document has been posted to our FTP Library. RMB has also prepared a summary highlighting some of the apparent changes in the final revisions based on the Response to Comments document.
EPA has released the Direct Final Rule including the "official" versions of Methods 30A and 30B as they will appear in the Federal Register. The Direct Final should be published in the Federal Register in about 3 weeks. When published, there will be a 30-day comment period. If no adverse comments are received by EPA, (please do not send in adverse comments) the rule will be effective in an additional 30-days. A copy of the rule has been posted to our FTP Library.
Its final--the IB-MACT Rule was officially vacated on Monday with the issuance of the court's mandate for the June 8, 2007 ruling. It was expected that the court would issue the mandate by July 30th. Court procedures allowed a 45-day period following the original ruling for parties to submit any petition for further review and an additional seven days at the expiration of this period before officially issuing the mandate. Vacature of the IB-MACT Rule activates the case-by-case MACT requirements provided for in Section 112(j) of the Clean Air Act. While the timing of this is less than clear, we believe case-by-case MACT will be implemented in a two-phase approach as described in 40 CFR 63.52.
EPA has released "work-in-progress" versions of a draft mercury instrumental reference method (Method 30A "Determination of Total Vapor Phase Mercury Emissions from Stationary Sources") and a draft mercury sorbent trap reference method (Method 30B "Determination of Total Vapor Phase Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Combustion Sources Using Carbon Sorbent Traps"). The draft methods have been posted to our FTP Library. Later this year, EPA plans to take direct final action to approve the two reference methods. With a direct final action, EPA issues a notice of a final rule that will take effect if there is no adverse public comment. The Agency will also simultaneously publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to facilitate such comment. Ostensibly, EPA has released the draft methods to help sources and testing firms plan for upcoming mercury CEMS RATAs. An additional benefit of the release is that it allows others the opportunity to review the methods prior to their publication in the Federal Register, which is especially valuable given the final direct ruling approach and the need of the industry to have a viable reference method in place shortly. While the methods have not been formally released for public comment, any questions or concerns regarding the draft reference methods should be brought to the EPA's attention so that the issues can be addressed before the methods are finalized.
A On June 8th, the DC Court of Appeals vacated the National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial,
Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (40 CFR 63,
Subpart DDDDD, aka "IB-MACT Rule"). This decision was not all
that unexpected as EPA had already filed a motion on March 26, 2007 to
partially vacate the rule because of issues associated with the
establishment of the MACT emissions floor. However, the rule was
vacated not because of EPA's motion but because of a related decision
pertaining to the New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for
Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
Units (aka "CISWI Definitions Rule"). In NRDC (et al) v. EPA and
the Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration, the court ruled that
EPA's definition of "commerical or industrial waste" was inconsistent
with the language in Section 129 of the Clean Air Act. As a
result, many of the boilers now affected by IB-MACT will be
reclassified as CISWI units, which will substantially reduce the
universe of boilers affected by IB-MACT. Because IB-MACT will
need to be significantly altered to address these changes, the court
decided to vacate the rule in its entirety. The court also
indicated that this decision makes EPA's motion for partial vacatur and
remand irrelevant.
A copy of Steve Norfleet's paper summarizing state mercury regulations and a copy of Richard McRanie's presentation highlighting Mercury CEMS technical issues and recent results that was presented at the EPRI Mercury Measurements Workshop (held after the 2007 Electric Utilities Environmental Conference in Tucson, Arizona) have been posted to RMB's new Technical Papers and Presentations section.
On August 4, 2006, EPA posted to its website proposed revisions to 40 CFR Part 75. EPA posted the proposed revision and also an “unofficial” redline/strikeout version of the Rule as Volumes 1 & 2. The proposed revisions were formally published in the Federal Register on August 22, 2006. Highlights of the proposed revisions are listed below.
Comments on the proposed 40 CFR Part 75 revisions are due no later than October 23, 2006. Copies of the redline/strike version as well as the Federal Register version of the proposed 40 CFR Part 75 revisions are available in our FTP Library. For more information, please contact Ralph Roberson at (919) 791-3121.
On May 15, 2006, EPA published “Updates of Continuous Instrumental Test Methods” in the Federal Register as a final rule. The final rule revises Reference Methods 3A, 6C, 7E, 10 and 20. Highlights of the changes are listed below. These new methods must be used on any RATA or compliance test after August 14, 2006. RMB suggests that you contact your testing company immediately to make sure that it has a plan for implementing these Reference Methods.
A copy of the final instrumental test method rule is available in our FTP Library.
On May 31, 2006, EPA announced its final decision with respect to reconsidering several aspects of the Agency’s March 29, 2005 Electric Utility Delisting Rule (Section 112(n) Revision Rule). EPA also announced its final decision with respect to reconsidering certain issues in the May 18, 2005 Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). After considering petitions for reconsideration, EPA decided not to revise its final Section 112(n) Revision Rule other than explaining, in more detail, what the Agency meant by the effectiveness element in the term “necessary.” EPA made two substantive changes in CAMR: (1) revised some State mercury allocations and (2) revised the new source performance standards (NSPS). Several commenters provided data indicating EPA erred in the mercury allocations for Alaska because it failed to include a coal-fired unit located in that State. EPA agreed, added the heat input for that unit, and made the appropriate adjustment to the Alaska budget. However, because of the relatively small adjustment required coupled with the significant figures in the State budgets, EPA had to revise only six other State mercury budgets. Many commenters expressed concern over the statistical analysis EPA used to develop NSPS mercury emission limits. EPA did not find it necessary to revise its statistical approach, although the Agency did correct some mathematical errors in the original statistical analysis. EPA’s final NSPS mercury emission limits are as follows. (Note that compliance with the NSPS limits is based on continuous monitoring data and determined on a 12-month rolling average basis.)
EPA’s final reconsideration decision somewhat takes on the characteristics of a “good news” and “bad news” story. The good news is that if you have read and comprehended the requirements of CAMR, then you will not need much remedial training. The bad news is that now that EPA has completed its reconsideration process, mountainous litigation can and undoubtedly will begin. Moreover, we probably cannot reasonably expect a decision from the D. C. Court of Appeals before the end of 2007. Generally speaking, electric utilities do not have the luxury of waiting for the Court’s decision and still be able to meet the CAMR monitoring deadlines! | News | CAM | Training | FTP Library | Projects | Links | Services | Contact | Feedback | RMB Consulting &
Research, Inc. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
