EPAs Information Collection Request (ICR) Programs Lessons learned from a Brick up side the head.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Cathy Beahm Technical Assistance Specialist NH DES, Air Resources
Advertisements

METAL CAN SURFACE COATING MACT COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART KKKK June 2006 June CFR PART 63, SUBPART KKKK June 2006 June 2006.
METAL COIL SURFACE MACT COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART SSSS May 2006 May 2006.
Duke Power Clean Smokestacks & Mercury Efforts April, 2004.
Impacts of the New Boiler MACT Rules Les Oakes King & Spalding.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency April 13, 2011 Final Rules to Reduce Air Toxics from Boilers.
Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Definition: How it Relates to Boiler MACT and CISWI Rules Biloxi, MS ♦ September 13, 2012 Melissa Hillman Justin Fickas.
1 The Credible Evidence Rule and Compliance Certifications Peter Westlin OAQPS, EMAD.
Harmonization of Part 60 and Part 75 CEM Requirements Robert Vollaro
Jan. EPA Final GHG Reporting Guidance (actually Dec ) Mar. 31stAnnual GHG Reporting AprilProposed HAPs or Mercury MACT July 1st Annual Toxic Release.
1 Impact of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Rule 2012 Annual ARIPPA Tech Convention August 22, 2012 Presented by: John Slade, Senior Consultant, All4.
Identification of Non- Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Wastes EPA Proposed Rule April 30, 2010 Osman Environmental Solutions Harrisburg, PA.
Mentoring Session Technical Assistance Committee Method Modifications.
MSW LANDFILL MACT STANDARD DEVELOPMENT SWANA’s 22nd Annual Landfill Gas Symposium March 22-25, 1999 Michele Laur Emission Standards Division US Environmental.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection Mercury from Electric Utilities: Monitoring and Emission Reductions Greg DeAngelo & Tiffany Miesel Florida.
Recent EPA Regulation Development Presented by Bill Luthans to the 56 th Meeting of the Joint Advisory Committee Meeting for the Improvement of Air Quality.
MCIC Workshop 2012 Complying with NC Air Quality Regulations Boiler MACT/GACT and 112j Steve Schliesser Division of Air Quality Environmental Engineer.
Wes Thornhill, Chief Industrial Chemicals Section Air Division
Division of Air Quality Update on EPA Boiler MACT Rules Steve Schliesser Environmental Engineer March 2012.
April 15, 2015 Betty Gatano, P.E. Permitting Section North Carolina Division of Air Quality, Raleigh, NC (919)
1 Year in Review: Clean Air Act Presented by: Tom Wood Stoel Rives LLP October 8, 2010 Things Are Getting Really Complicated.
1 National Association of Clean Air Agencies Spring Membership Meeting 2008 Steve Page, Director Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Office.
A History and Status of CEMS Applications in USEPA Regulations Dale Evarts US EPA December 16, 2002 Better Air Quality in Asian Cities 2002
Texas Lignite Industry. Texas Lignite  Because >95% of lignite mining operations in Texas are in support of electric generation…..whatever impacts the.
HAPs To Be Regulated: Mercury Only Electric utility steam generating units are uniquely regulated by Congress under 112(n)(1)(A) EPA was required to study.
December 4, Utility MACT Air & Waste Management Association/EPA Information Exchange December 4, 2002 William H. Maxwell Combustion Group/ESD.
Air Quality Beyond Ozone and PM2.5 Sheila Holman North Carolina Division of Air Quality 6 th Annual Unifour Air Quality Conference June 15, 2012.
Reducing Toxic Pollution from Power Plants April 13, 2011 EPA’s Proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.
1 Sector–Based Multipollutant Approaches for Stationary Sources Peter Tsirigotis Director, Sector Policies and Programs Division Office of Air Quality.
Air Pollution as a Feedback Control Loop Andrew McCarthy.
Air Toxics in Region 4 A&WMA Annual Conference August 6, 2008 Lee Page Air Toxics Assessment and Implementation Section EPA, Region 4 Atlanta, Georgia.
Actions to Reduce Mercury Air Emissions and Related Exposure Risks in the United States Ben Gibson Office of Air Quality and Planning and Standards U.S.
The Impact of Greenhouse Gas Regulation on Energy Production: Legal Framework for Greenhouse Gases Standards for Fossil-Fuel Fired Electric Generating.
| Philadelphia | Atlanta | Houston | Washington DC Boiler MACT Compliance Plans: Failure to Develop Plans Is Planning to Fail Susie Bowden|
TITLE III UPDATE Joel Leon Air Quality Evaluation Section Bureau of Technical Services 1.
Electronic Reporting Tool Software to Standardize Source Test Planning, Reporting and Assessment and Assessment Measurement Technology Workshop 12/8/2010.
UTILITY MACT WORKING GROUP STATE AND LOCAL STAKEHOLDER RECOMMENDATIONS.
Title V: The Big Picture
1. Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) – Naturally occurring and man- made. 5,505.2 mmts emitted in 2009, GWP = 1 Methane (CH 4 ) - Naturally occurring and man-made.
URBAN AIR TOXICS – AREA SOURCE PROGRAM SALLY SHAVER, DIRECTOR EMISSION STANDARDS DIVISION October 5, 2004.
Presumptive MACT For Municipal Solid Waste Landfills July 1999 Emission Standards Division US Environmental Protection Agency.
Georgia’s 112(g) Experiences Eric Cornwell Acting Manager Permitting Program.
Massachusetts Multi-pollutant Power Plant Regulations Sharon Weber Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection EPA Utility MACT Working Group.
1 Recommendations of the Clean Energy Group on Utility MACT Issues Utility MACT FACA Meeting September 9, 2002 Robert LaCount The Clean Energy Group The.
CAA Program Reporting Clarification Regarding Federally-Reportable Violations for Clean Air Act Stationary Sources (March 2010) (FRV Clarification Memo)
Non-Hg HAPs: A Utility View Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. EPA MACT Working Group July 9, 2002.
1 Special Information Session on USEPA’s Carbon Rules & Clean Air Act Section 111 North Carolina Division of Air Quality Special Information Session on.
Clean Air Act Section 111 WESTAR Meeting Presented by Lisa Conner U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation November 6, 2013.
Air Pollution as a Feedback Control Loop Andrew McCarthy.
Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Senior Research Consultant Southern Company Birmingham, Alabama October 22, 2010 Coal-Fired Power Plants Environmental Control Technology.
Portland Cement NESHAPs & NSPS, and Related Solid Waste Combustion Rules David L. Jones Eastern Kern APCD November 4, 2011 California Desert Air Working.
Balancing the Three R’s: Regulations, Records, and Reports Dallas, TX ♦ May 18, 2016 Arron Heinerikson.
All About Waste Dallas, TX ♦ May 18, 2016 Carrie Yonley, P.E.
APPA Conference Call on EGU MACT Rule January 20, 2011.
Department of Environmental Quality
Lecture (11): Waste Recycling
Regulatory Roadmap: Power sector environmental rules
Complying with Periodic Emissions Monitoring Requirements
Clean Air Act Litigation Update State Air Director Meeting May 2015
Clean Air Act Glossary.
Our Vision – Healthy Kansans living in safe and sustainable environments.
Bill Harnett WESTAR Spring Meeting April 8, 2009
Waste to Energy United States Perpectives
CAIR Replacement Rule and Regional Haze
Department of Environmental Quality
GHG Permitting: Regulatory Update
EMC – Air Quality Committee March 9, 2016
15A NCAC 2D Start-up, Shut-down, Malfunction SSM SIP Call
Best Available Control Technology for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sources
EPA/OAQPS Pollutant Emissions Measurement Update 2019
Presentation transcript:

EPAs Information Collection Request (ICR) Programs Lessons learned from a Brick up side the head

Topics Background about the Brick MACT decision What is EPAs 114 authority? What ICRs were issued in 2009/10? Issues arising form complex and broadly applicable testing program What is in store?

Historic March 13 events Joseph Priestley born (remember chemistry class?) Uranus discovered first public strip tease (Paris, of course) Pluto discovered (odd, that) Neil Sedaka born (The Dreamer) 2007 – Court strikes down Brick MACT

What did EPA try to do with the Brick MACT rule? EPA published final rule for brick and structural clay products in May 2003: Based on control technology considered more broadly achievable (but less stringent) than that used by best controlled sources Allowed leeway for variability among similar sources regardless of performance Included no emissions reductions for some sources in defining the floor Prescribed work practice standards (clean coals) instead of emissions limits

What was not to like? Sierra Club said that Agency had not conformed with the Act and the Court agreed that EPA: Must consider controls achieved by best performing facilities Must look only at range of emissions achieved by the best performers Can not avoid setting limits for HAPs not controlled with technology Can consider work practice standards only if testing technologically and economically impracticable

How does Brick decision affect other rules? Some re-proposals to address Brick issues Medical waste incinerators Stationary engines Portland cement plants Some remands in 2009 Plywood and composite wood products man. Large municipal waste combustors Boilers and CISWI (actually before Brick decision) Sierra Club petition to revise 34 existing MACT rules (more on the list later)

What to do? EPA must collect more emissions data to: Define the MACT floors Set numerical emissions limits EPA must address all HAPs 187 toxic air pollutants on CAA list Look for lowest emissions levels Need data for surrogates, if to be used

How do we do that? Use Clean Air Act section 114 authority: To assist in developing rules, EPA may require sources on a one-time or continuous basis to sample emissions and collect operational data in manner prescribed by the agency and make reports. Thus, we issue Information Collection Requests, ICRs

What do ICRs include? Survey - background information Facility size, location, ownership, permit Operations design, fuel and feed stock, control measures Reported emissions and reductions Testing requirements (for some ICRs) Pollutants and surrogates Stack exhaust, fuel, and raw materials Methods and procedures Reporting requirements (ERT required) Deadline dates

Testing for what? How do we determine which 187 HAPs to measure? Some apply to specific industry (e.g., coke oven emissions, pesticides) Survey information can eliminate some Some can be grouped and represented by manageable number of related components (e.g., select PAHs, POMs, D/Fs)

How low can you go? Emissions levels needed for decision making Act points to lowest emitting 12 percent as MACT, but also points to HAP list in entirety Not easily determined by policy Experiences with industry Most methods are designed for compliance testing, not for measuring last molecule Equipment design (instrumental methods) Sample size related (test run number and duration) Calibration standards

Recently issued ICRs with testing – some examples Electric Utility Steam Generating Units Nitric Acid plants Brick and Tile manufacturing Phosphate fertilizer, phosphoric acid, and elemental phosphorous Primary and Secondary aluminum Other solid waste incinerators

So, how have those ICRs worked out for you, EPA? Had to provide some clarifications to address technical issues in some areas Multiple organic HAPs measurements and analytical issues Handling method detection level reporting issues Short list of approved test methods led to requests for alternatives Produced numerous FAQ documents (e.g., GD 51, 51A-G), and countless s for each ICR issued

What are the major testing issues? VOST and Semi-VOST sampling and analyses Grouping methods for simultaneous testing (often site-specific limitations) PM/PM 2.5, Hg and other metals Organic – PAHs, POMs, THC, CH 4, CO, CH 2 O, D/F Acid gases – HCl, HF, SO 2, NO Using the ERT

How is this work playing out in EPA? OAQPS and ORD resource concerns Stretched staff : 30+ source testing staff and multiple testing contractors Today: <12 source testing staff and practically no testing contractors Sharp learning curve OAQPS staff less familiar with some methods, detection capabilities, alternatives ICRs are coming very quickly each with specific and varied needs

What to expect for next few years?

What big hitters with ICRs should you expect to see? Petroleum refineries Polymers and Resins Iron and steel, ferroalloys Chemical production and distribution Other sources to-be-named-later