1. NCMA Workshop March 24, 2015 Booker Pullen Supervisor, Permitting Section North Carolina Division of Air Quality, Raleigh, NC (919) 707-8469 Permitting Updates

2. 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

3. 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…”

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Table 1 Source Category Rules Part 63 Subpart & Source Category

7. 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)]”

8. DAQ’s Processing Mechanism for Gap- Filling for Table 1 Affected Sources  Use Title V procedures in 15 A NCAC 2Q.0516 (significant modification) or 2Q.0513 (renewal).

9.  NEW TOPIC NEW TOPIC

10.  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

11.  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

12.  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

13.  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

14.  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

15.  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 once- in-always-in policy as implemented by the DAQ. Once-In-Always-In MACT Policy

16.  NEW TOPIC NEW TOPIC

17.  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

18.  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

19.  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

20.  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. 112(j) Case-by-Case MACT For Boilers Transition to MACT Subpart DDDDD

21.  NEW TOPIC NEW TOPIC

22.  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. N.C. Toxics Implementation However…

23.  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

24.  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

25.  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

26.  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

27.  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

28.  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

29.  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

30.  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. N.C. Toxics Implementation Nuances