Case-by-Case Boiler MACT:How We Ended Up Here and What’s

Next

April 15, 2015

Betty Gatano, P.E.Permitting Section

North Carolina Division of Air Quality, Raleigh, NC(919) 707-8736

2

MACT Development

Boiler MACT History

NC Implementation

Topics

3

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

State Implementation Plans (SIPs)

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs)

Clean Air Act of 1970

4

Health-based standards◦ Set “at the level which …provides an ample margin of

safety to protect the public health from such hazardous air pollutants."

Standards for seven HAPs developed◦ Asbestos◦ Benzene◦ Beryllium◦ Inorganic Arsenic◦ Mercury◦ Radionuclides ◦ Vinyl Chloride

Part 61 NESHAP

5

Increased the number of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) from 7 to 187

Defined major source of HAPs◦ 10 tpy of any one HAP◦ 25 tpy of all HAPs combined

Applied to categories of emission sources rather than to specific pollutants emitted

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990: Title III

6

Required technology-based emission standards◦ Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standards◦ Best performing 12 % of emission sources

Included requirement to establish schedule◦ 40 % of source categories in 2 years◦ 25% of source categories in 4 years◦ 25% of source categories in 7 years◦ Remaining source categories in 10 years

Considers residual risk after implementation

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990: Title III

7

MACT Development

187HAPS

HAPS specifiedIn 1990 CAAA

174 Source Categories

Initially promulgated 07/16/1992

MACT Standards

Best performing

12 %

Per EstablishedSchedule

Initially promulgated12/03/1993

8

The MACT Hammer! 112(j)(2) of the CAA

112(j) triggered 18 months after missed promulgation date

Applicable facilities must apply for “Case-by-Case” MACT

9

Case-by-Case MACT A facility-specific…

MACT standard…

For HAP…

Established by the state permitting authority…

Through a permitting action…

10

History of Boiler MACT January 2003 – Original rule proposed September 2004 – Original rule promulgated June 2007 – Rule vacated by D.C. Court June 2010 – Revised rule proposed March 2011 – Final rule promulgated May 2011 – EPA issues reconsideration notice and

issues stay on final rule December 2011 – EPA issued “reconsidered” rule January 2012 – DC court declares stay illegal and

2011 rule becomes effective January and February 2013 – Final rule issued

(again)

11

2004 Boiler MACT Rule Listed eighteen subcategories of boilers

Set “no controls” as MACT floor for certain boilers types including gas and oil fired units

Established health-based standard as alternative to technology based-standard for HCl and manganese

12

Vacatur of Rule Several groups filed petition challenging rule

◦ No controls◦ Health based standard◦ Treatment of small municipal utilities

DC Circuit Court vacated because of issues with CISWI definition◦ Incinerator rule was deemed inappropriately narrow,

resulting in inappropriate sources in the Boiler MACT◦ June 2007

13

Not clear – differing opinions

NC Attorney General’s Office policy memo February 24, 2009◦ Vacatur of rule equated to EPA’s failure to

promulgated standard.

DAQ’s memorandum on April 9, 2009 regarding 112(j) applicability

Did MACT Hammer Apply?

14

North Carolina’s Approach Issued letter to all Title V facilities

requesting Part 1 permit application.

Part II permit application due 60 days later.

NC DAQ established guidance for facilities.◦ http://daq.state.nc.us/permits/112j/

NC DAQ’s Implementation

DAQ incorporated Case-by-Case Standards into Title V permits◦ 98 facilities◦ 2010 and 2011

Facilities must comply with the Case-by-Case MACT requirements until “switch over date”

15

The “Switch Over” Date

16

Per 40 CFR 63.56(b), the “switch over” date:◦ Must be within a reasonable period of time; and,◦ Cannot exceed 8 years from the promulgation date.

See Lisa Jackson (US EPA Administrator) letter to Sen. Kay Hagan, dated March 8, 2012.◦ “[U]nder the Clean Air Act, existing major source

boilers with [CAA §112(j) standards] in their permits would have until at least 2018 to comply with the federal air toxics standards, unless the State sets an earlier deadline.” [emphasis added]

The “Switch Over” Date

17

Language currently being included in affected Title V permit renewals…

◦ The Permittee shall comply with this CAA §112(j) standard until May 19, 2019.  After May 20, 2019 the Permittee shall  comply with the applicable CAA § 112(d) standard for ‘‘National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters.”

MACT Subpart DDDDD

18

DAQ is also including MACT Subpart DDDDD conditions in permits at renewal…

40 CFR 63.56 (b)(b) If the Administrator promulgates a relevant emission standard under section 112(d) or (h) of the Act that is applicable to a source after the date a permit is issued …, the permitting authority must incorporate requirements of that standard in the title V permit upon its next renewal.

Similar but Different…

19

Case-by-Case MACT MACT Subpart DDDDD

Subcategories by Capacity and Fuel Type Subcategories by Boiler Type and Fuel Type

Emission limits:PM (filterable)Total Suspended MetalsMercuryHydrogen ChlorideCarbon Monoxide

Emission limits: PM (filterable)MercuryHydrogen ChlorideCarbon MonoxideDioxin

Work Practice Standards only:Distillate fuel oilGaseous fuel

Work Practice Standards only:Heat input less than 10 million Btu per hourGas 1 subcategoryMetal process furnace subcategory

Work practice standards also includes one-time energy assessment

Final Thoughts…

20

What if MACT DDDDD is less stringent?◦DAQ does not have to keep the more

stringent regulation.

What if the facility becomes an area source?◦Boiler becomes subject to GACT 6J.