On April 29, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) announced the proposal of revised Clean Air Act (CAA) rules for commercial and industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) units. Also on April 29, EPA released a proposed RCRA rule that clarifies which nonhazardous secondary materials are, or are not, “solid waste” when burned. Sources burning “solid waste” are subject to the CISWI rules if they are not subject to other incinerator rules such as municipal waste incinerator rules. The CISWI rules include new source performance standards (NSPS) for new sources and emission guidelines (EG) to be adopted by the States to regulate existing CISWI. The CISWI rules would set emission limits for metals (Pb, Hg, Cd), dioxins, 4 criteria pollutants, and HCl and would apply to the 176 existing CISWI units.
For more information, refer to the EPA website or contact EQ’s Kent Berry or Tom Robertson at 800 229-5299.
On April 29, 2010, USEPA announced the proposal of revised National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant (NESHAP) rules for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers, commonly known as the Boiler MACT rules. One set of rules applies to boilers located at plants that are considered major sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) and would affect approximately 13,500 existing boilers nationwide. The other rules affect “area source” facilities (non-major HAP plants) and would affect approximately 183,000 existing boilers at 92,000 plants.
The area source rules apply to boilers that burn coal, oil, and biomass, but not units that burn solid waste. Separate requirements are proposed for large and small boilers (above and below 10 million Btu/h) and for new and existing boilers. For existing large boilers, emission limits are proposed for mercury and CO for coal-fired units and only for CO for biomass- and oil-fired units. Existing small boilers would not be subject to emission limits, but would be required to perform a boiler tune-up every 2 years.
The major source rules would apply to boilers producing steam and to process heaters fired by the above fuels as well as natural gas and refinery gas. Standards and operating practices are proposed for 11 different subcategories based on size, fuel type, design, and age (existing versus new). Gas-fired boilers and units less than 10 million Btu/h would only be required to perform a tune-up every 2 years. All other boilers would be subject to emission limits for mercury, dioxins, particulate matter, hydrogen chloride (HCl), and CO.
The proposals will be published in the Federal Register in the next several weeks. EPA is under court order to finalize these rules by December 16, 2010.
For more information, refer to the EPA website or contact Kent Berry at 800 229-5299 or Jeff Slayback at 800 229-7495.
On 24 March 2010, the USEPA issued a proposed rule [75 FR 15655] to address how states must permit facilities when a National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) has been vacated by the courts and how and when a source would submit a Title V permit application or revision to initiate a case-by-case maximum achievable control technology (MACT) determination. Section 112(j) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), also known as the “permit hammer,” requires states to establish case-by-case permit emission limits for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) when a NESHAP is not in place.
CAA Section 112(j) requires major sources in a listed category or subcategory for which USEPA fails to promulgate MACT standards by established deadlines to submit permit applications beginning 18 months after the deadlines. Federal or state permitting agencies must then determine on a case-by-case basis emission limits equivalent to the limits that would apply if a MACT standard had been issued on time. The Section 112(j) rule, however, does not include the situation when a NESHAP is vacated and does not address the timing or process of permit applications. This proposed rule was developed due to confusion following the recent vacatures of the NESHAPs for the following source categories: Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production; Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; Clay Ceramics Manufacturing; and Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters.
The proposed rule includes minor edits to verbiage, in addition to the following substantive changes:
For more information, contact EQ’s Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
On March 31, 2010, USEPA published an additional stay of a Bush Administration rule published on December 19, 2008 (see January 2009 e-newsletter) regarding inclusion of fugitive emissions in determining the applicability of New Source Review (NSR) rules for major sources being modified. The December 2008 rules changed previous rules under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment NSR (NNSR) program by limiting the inclusion of fugitive emissions only to modified sources in 28 named source categories. The March 31 final rule continued until October 3, 2011, an existing stay that reinstated the previous provisions on a temporary basis pending further rulemaking. During the stay, fugitive emissions must be included, to the extent quantifiable, in determining whether PSD or NNSR applies to modifications for all types of sources, not just the 28 named source categories.
For additional information, see the Federal Register or contact EQ’s Kent Berryat (800) 229-5299.
On April 15, 2010, the USEPA proposed to reconsider a Bush Administration rule published on January 15, 2009, concerning when a source must aggregate emissions from nominally separate projects for determining applicability of major source New Source Review (NSR) programs (see February 2009 e-newsletter). The April 2010 notice proposes to extend the effective date of the NSR Aggregation Amendments until at least November 18, 2010, and requests comments on a range of legal and policy issues presented by environmental petitioners on the Aggregation Rule. USEPA’s preferred option is to revoke the January 2009 NSR Aggregation Amendments.
For additional information, see http://www.epa.gov/nsr/guidance.html, or contact EQ’s Kent Berry at (800) 229-5299.
A Notice from the Department of Environmental Management, Air Pollution Control Board, announced a second comment period for a Dec. 1, 2005, draft proposal that amends regulations under 326 IAC 3-4-1 through 3-7-5 (nonconsecutive) and 7-2-1 and adopts regulations under a new Section 326 IAC 3-6-6 regarding compliance monitoring and sulfur dioxide compliance requirements. The rule corrects deficiencies identified by USEPA in the compliance monitoring requirements to clarify that when the commissioner exercises discretion to modify or remove federally enforceable requirements, the exercise of this discretion is to be accompanied by USEPA approval as a revision to the state implementation plan. The rule also allows peaking units that are subject to the acid rain provisions under 40 CFR 75 to comply with the continuous emission monitoring provisions in 40 CFR 75 instead of those under the new source performance standards under 40 CFR 60. In addition, the rule allows the use of a continuous emission monitoring system for measuring particulate matter rather than a continuous opacity monitoring system, if certain criteria are met and it is approved by the department. Finally, the rule makes technical corrections and clarifications concerning emission monitoring requirements. A hearing is scheduled for Sept. 1, 2010, in Indianapolis. Comments are due April 30, 2010. Contact: Susan Bem, DEM, Office of Air Quality (317-233-5697). --Indiana Register (03/25/2010)
For more information, contact EQ’s Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
On April 26, 2010, Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) plan to release a bipartisan climate bill in the Senate collapsed. Sen. Graham, one of the bill’s three authors, declared he couldn’t support it if Democrats decided to prioritize Immigration Reform. "I want to bring to your attention what appears to be a decision by the Obama Administration and Senate Democratic leadership to move Immigration instead of energy,” Graham said in a letter released Saturday. “Unless their plan substantially changes this weekend, I will be unable to move forward on energy independence legislation at this time. I will not allow our hard work to be rolled out in a manner that has no chance of success."
Graham has been negotiating a bipartisan agreement with John Kerry (D– Mass) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) for months. The trio appeared to be closing in on a deal over the last few weeks—talking with industry groups and hammering out last-minute compromises—and had planned to release the legislation on April 26.
For more information, contact EQ’s Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
On April 9, 2010, USEPA’s Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy said she and her staff are seeking advice on how the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) process can be used to encourage energy efficiency and how a waiver for innovative control technologies can be used to promote the development of new pollution controls. Specifically, she requested the agency’s Clean Air Act Advisory Committee’s climate change work group to consider how an “innovative control technology” waiver can be used or changed to promote the development and application of new pollution controls. She further requested them to finalize their report by the next meeting of USEPA’s clean air advisory committee, which is scheduled for May 26-27.
As USEPA proceeds with climate rules, large new stationary sources and modified facilities will need to install BACT to obtain federal air permits. State regulators will determine what constitutes BACT on a case-by-case basis as they review individual applications. State and local air regulators and industries are anxiously awaiting USEPA’s guidance as they prepare for the agency to begin regulating some large industrial facilities in January 2011.
Some industry representatives have expressed concern that USEPA would issue guidance recommending fuel-switching or nascent technologies such as carbon capture and sequestration, but McCarthy has sought recently to downplay those possibilities. She recently told an audience at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies that the agency has not required switching fuels before, adding “There’s been good reason why we haven’t done it in the past.”
For more information, contact EQ’s Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
On April 16, 2010,The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) published a list of 4,415 substances that it expects to be registered by a deadline of Nov. 30 in compliance with the European Union’s REACH legislation. The list was compiled from information supplied by companies concerning their plans to register substances and will be updated periodically, ECHA said.
The agency added that the list is primarily aimed at companies using chemical substances in the manufacture of their products, because it would enable them to check “whether the critical chemical substances that they need are going to be registered in time.” Companies using substances not on the list should contact their suppliers to determine the suppliers' intentions to register, ECHA said.
Nov. 30 is the first major deadline for substance registrations under the registration, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals legislation, known as REACH. The deadline applies to substances manufactured in, or imported into, the EU in annual volumes of 1,000 metric tons or more and to some toxic substances at lower volumes.
The figure of 4,415 substances on the ECHA “intended registrations” list contrasts with a European Commission figure of 9,000 substances that will need to be registered by the Nov. 30 deadline. The figure also contrasts with a total of 2,448 substances for which Substance Information Exchange Forums (SIEFs) had been formed by April 14.
REACH requires companies to share substance data and make joint registrations through SIEFs, and thus to comply with a principle of “one substance, one registration.” ECHA warned companies that if they miss the Nov. 30 deadline, “it will be illegal to manufacture or sell [nonregistered substances] within the EU.”
For more information, contact EQ’s Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
The Ohio EPA (OEPA) proposed to amend regulations under OAC 3745-50-11 through -62 (nonconsecutive) and -51-02 to update hazardous waste management standards to incorporate amendments to federal RCRA regulations as of March 16, 2009. The rule revises provisions concerning incorporations by reference, exclusions of hazardous wastes, permits, variances, recycling, inspection of public records, and trade secrets. The rule also addresses fees, siting criteria documents, public notification procedures, inclusions and exclusions for permits, and trial burns. A hearing is scheduled for May 20, 2010, in Columbus. Comments are due May 20, 2010. Contact: Kit Arthur, OEPA, Division of Hazardous Waste Management (614-644-2932).
For more information, contact EQ’s Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
On March 30, 2010 EQ and its Team Subcontractor (USES) responded to a plant explosion and fire at the Coco Resouces Facility in Denham Springs, LA. In addition to the obvious hazards, there were residences with backyards right next to the facility.
This project had 3 phases: 1) Safely removing the approx. 3,000 drums (many with unknown contents) and treating any drum waste on site to mitigate the fire/emissions hazard as quickly as possible; 2) Removing contaminated fire-suppression water and contaminated soil from approx. 4 miles of ditches near the site; and 3) Storing and subsequently treating (via carbon filtration) an estimated 1.2 million gallons of contaminated water prior to discharge. The contaminated water is stored in approximately 65 frac tanks and the contaminated soil in about 115 roll-off boxes, all of which are staged about 5 miles from the facility on 10 acres of Livingston Parish property.
The biggest H&S threat was from the mass of burnt drums. Using Level B protection, the EQ work crew completely mitigated this threat in 2-1/2 weeks by HazCatting, marking, identifying, and crushing all of the drums as well as solidifying any drum waste. The crew has thus far worked 7 days a week (including Easter weekend) to complete this task. EQ has removed all of the contaminated ditch water and about 75% of the contaminated soil, and is in the process of removing contaminated soil from about 1 mile of ditches in the Illinois Railroad right-of-way. We have begun to test the first batch of treated water to determine if the LADEQ will approve our discharge plan.
All of the various agencies (EPA, LADEQ, Livingston Parish OEP, the local fire dept., and the sheriff's office) have been impressed with the progress to date.
For more information, contact John Foster at (877)-673-2900
On February 10, 2010, The Royal Society of Chemistry published an advanced on-line article titled “A Model to Predict the Breathing Zone Concentrations of Particles Emitted from Surfaces” prepared by EQ’s John Kominsky in conjunction with Jonathon Thornburg, G. Gordon Brown, Peter Barrett, and Glenn Shaul.
Activity-based sampling is the current standard method for assessing exposure to hazardous particles emitted from surfaces. This research presents a more economical alternative that uses an aerosol physics and fluid dynamics based model to predict the breathing zone concentration. This model is meant to be a screening tool to aid decision making. At one level, the model helps to identify whether the risk of adverse health outcomes is sufficient to justify collection of experimental data to confirm the modeled personal exposure estimates. Also, the model output extrapolates a limited range of experimental data to other exposure scenarios to explain the range of potential breathing zone concentrations.
For more information, see the entire technical paper “Development of Releasable Asbestos Field Sampler” on EQ’s website or contact John Kominsky at 1-800- 229-7495.
By living green you seek to reduce your negative impact on the planet in small, everyday ways. It means treating all resources as precious; living with nature instead of trying to subdue it. It means being energy efficient, lessening your use of petroleum products, and conserving water. Most of all, it’s a mindful way of living, trying to make every choice a green choice.
As defined by The Green Consumer, a green product is one that:
Consult “Green Clean” by Linda Mason Hunter and Mikki Halpin for a comprehensive guide to green cleaning tips and recipes.
To learn more about EQ’s Sustainability Program, visit EQ’s website or contact EQ’s Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
For your engineering needs, please contact EQ Engineers at 219-844-3500, or email Ron Hawks
For questions about EQ's capabilities, please contact
Jerry Day or Laurie Buckman, or call (800) 229-7495.
To subscribe to the EQuation Newsletter, please send an email to subscribe-eq@eqm.com.
To remove your name from the EQuation Newsletter listing, please send an email to unsubscribe-eq@eqm.com.