|
July 27, 2010
To: Brenda Boggs; chloe gentry; Curt Binney; Dan Gorden; Donald R. Taylor; Gary Hammond; Kathleen Farner Thomas, Ph.D.; lindell dorsett; Peter Tarby; Richard Grier; Minkoff, Sandy; Stivender, Jim; Cooper, Jeff; Taylor, Wendy
From: Ronald Ney
Subject: Appeals Court Vacates EPA Rule For Air Monitoring
Hello, this is what I was referring to at the end of today’s meeting.
Ron Ney
Legal/Enforcement News
Appeals Court Vacates EPA Rule For Air Monitoring
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit criticized EPA's revisions of air pollution monitoring requirements, stating that the agency's final rule was not a "logical outgrowth" of the proposed interim rule (Environmental Integrity Project vs. EPA, No. 041083A, October 7, 2005).
The case concerns EPA's Part 70 regulations, as well as the agency's revised interpretation of its "periodic" and "umbrella" monitoring rules. Title V of the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that certain air pollution sources, including every major stationary source of air pollution, each obtain a single, comprehensive operating permit to assure compliance with all emission limitations and other substantive CAA requirements that apply to the source. In addition, all sources with Title V permits must conduct monitoring of their emissions that is sufficient to assure compliance with applicable requirements under the CAA.
To implement these statutory mandates, EPA has promulgated numerous monitoring regulations, which are codified at 40 C.F.R. Parts 70 and 71.1 One of Part 70's rules, the "periodic monitoring" rule, requires that where the applicable requirement does not require periodic testing or instrumental or noninstrumental monitoring (which may consist of recordkeeping designed to serve as monitoring), each Title V permit must contain periodic monitoring sufficient to yield reliable data from the relevant time period that are representative of the source's compliance with the permit. Such monitoring requirements shall assure use of terms, test methods, units, averaging periods, and other statistical conventions consistent with the applicable requirement. Recordkeeping provisions may be sufficient to meet the requirements.
The "umbrella" rule, requires that each Title V permit contain compliance certification, testing, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements sufficient to assure compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. EPA must review and approve all Title V permits, and if a specific permit requires insufficient monitoring, EPA must reject it.
In November and December 2000, EPA rejected two Title V permits (In the Matter of Pacificorp, Petition No. VIII-00-1 (November 16, 2000), and In the Matter of Fort James Camas Mill, Petition No. X-1999-1 (December 22, 2000). In both decisions, EPA held the "umbrella" rule empowers state permitting authorities to review, on a case-by-case basis, the sufficiency of each permittee's monitoring requirements, independent of any other monitoring that might be imposed under the "periodic monitoring" rule.
Thus, EPA concluded that where a permit requires no "periodic" monitoring at all, the "umbrella" rule is satisfied by meeting the more substantive requirements of the "periodic monitoring" rule. On the other hand, where there is some periodic monitoring but it is not sufficient to assure compliance, the umbrella rule's "separate regulatory standard" governs instead and requires case-by-case enhancement of existing monitoring "as necessary to be sufficient to assure compliance."
On Sept. 17, 2002, EPA published a proposed rule to clarify the monitoring required in Title V permits by "codifying" the interpretation of Part 70 that the agency embraced in Pacificorp and Fort James. In its final rule, however, EPA decided not to amend Part 70, based on EPA's "interpretation of the (CAA), the plain language and structure of (the umbrella rule) and the policy considerations discussed in this preamble."
EPA explains its abandonment of the proposed rule (and its adoption of the inverse interpretation of its Part 70 regulations) on the basis of public comments, which insisted that source-specific, case-by-case reviews by permitting authorities would have been unduly time-consuming and wasteful of valuable regulatory resources. A better approach, EPA claims, is to bar all supplemental monitoring and case-by-case sufficiency reviews for permits that already require some periodic monitoring and to address any inadequacies in the current monitoring regime through a four-part nationwide rulemaking process.
The appeals court stated that "there is nothing objectionable in the agency's refusal to adopt its proposed amendments to Part 70's text. However, EPA's final rule in this case did more -- after taking its first bite at the interpretive apple in its Pacificorp and Fort James< public for opportunity and notice adequate by preceded if only APA) -- Act Procedure (Administrative the with complies flip-flop This text. unrevised 70?s Part of ?reinterpretation? a adopted EPA orders,>
The court vacated the rule, concluding that EPA's final rule violated the APA's notice-and-comment requirements.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/internet.nsf
Federal Government Reaches Major Clean Air Act Settlement With Lucite International
On Oct. 17, the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) and EPA announced they reached a major Clean Air Act (CAA) settlement with Lucite International Inc. requiring the chemical manufacturer to install pollution controls on three emission sources at its Memphis, Tennessee plant, which will eliminate 6,500 tons of pollution each year. Under the terms of the settlement, Lucite will install an estimated $16 million worth of new pollution controls, in addition to paying a civil penalty of $1.8 million and performing a supplemental environmental project worth $1.3 million.
The federal government alleged that the company violated CAA provisions of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) and the Protection of Stratospheric Ozone. The settlement resolves allegations that the company violated the CAA at its Memphis facility.
"The settlement announced today demonstrates our commitment to aggressively enforcing the laws that protect our environment and our citizens," said Kelly A. Johnson, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division. "This agreement will significantly improve the air quality for the people of Tennessee."
Lucite will install a $16 million dual absorption control system on its sulfuric acid regeneration unit, which will result in the elimination of approximately 2,500 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions per year, to comply with NSPS standards.
In addition, Lucite will implement a supplemental environmental project to reroute emissions from two other plant emission sources. This will result in a 90 percent reduction of previously permitted emissions from these sources. Implementation of this project will cost Lucite approximately $1.3 million.
"The people of Tennessee and others downwind of this facility will soon benefit from this settlement," said Granta Y. Nakayama, assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. "Reducing harmful emissions from Lucite's Memphis facility is a major step toward achieving cleaner air."
"As a result of the settlement, Lucite will reduce emissions of pollutants that contribute to acid rain, cause severe respiratory problems and exacerbate cases of childhood asthma, which are of great concern to EPA," said Jimmy Palmer, EPA regional administrator in Atlanta.
Lucite is a subsidiary of Lucite International, Ltd. -- a chemical manufacturing company headquartered in Southampton, UK- and is the world's leading supplier of methacrylates. Lucite's Memphis plant produces methyl methacrylate and acrylic sheeting. The pollutants addressed in the settlement are sulfur dioxide, sulfuric acid mist, carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds.
The settlement lodged on Oct. 17 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee is subject to a 30-day public comment period and court approval before becoming final.
The consent decree is available on DOJ Web site at http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/open.html
July 27, 2010
To: Brenda Boggs; chloe gentry; Curt Binney; Dan Gorden; Donald R. Taylor; Gary Hammond; Kathleen Farner Thomas, Ph.D.; lindell dorsett; Peter Tarby; Richard Grier; Minkoff, Sandy; Stivender, Jim; Cooper, Jeff; Taylor, Wendy
From: Ronald Ney
Subject: air emissions proposals by EPA
Here are EPA's incineration proposals.
Ron Ney
On April 29, 2010, EPA proposed a set of regulatory proposals under the Clean Air Act that address emissions from boilers, process heaters, and certain solid waste incinerators. These rules would significantly cut emissions of pollutants that are of particular concern for children. Mercury and lead can cause adverse affects on children's developing brains -- including effects on IQ, learning, and memory. The rules would also reduce emissions of other pollutants including cadmium, dioxin, furans, formaldehyde and hydrochloric acid. These pollutants can cause cancer or other adverse health effects in adults and children. Together, these rules would cut mercury and other air toxics emissions from nearly 200,000 units across the U.S.
Boilers burn natural gas, coal, wood, oil, or other fuel to produce steam. The steam is used to produce electricity or provide heat. Process heaters heat raw or intermediate materials during an industrial process. Boilers and process heaters are used at facilities such as refineries, chemical and manufacturing plants, and paper mills and may stand alone to provide heat for shopping malls and university heating systems.
Incinerators burn waste to dispose of it. Some recover energy.
Boiler and commercial/industrial solid waste incinerator (CISWI) regulations are closely related because similar units may be considered boilers or CISWI units based on whether or not they burn solid waste materials.
As part of this action, EPA is also proposing which non-hazardous secondary materials would be considered solid waste and which would be considered fuel. This distinction would determine whether a material can be burned in a boiler or whether it must be burned in a solid waste incinerator. The agency is also soliciting comment on several other broader approaches that would identify additional non-hazardous secondary materials as solid waste when burned in combustion units.
More information on these proposals.
Published July 13, 2010 09:47 AM
EPA Proposes New Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards for Boilers and Incinerators
RELATED ARTICLES
New EPA Regulations Target Mercury and Other Toxic Emissions from Boilers and Solid Waste Incinerators
May 4, 2010 10:34 AM
EPA withdraws rule excluding certain fuels from RCRA regulations
June 8, 2010 03:57 PM
U.S. States Sue EPA over Mercury Trading Rules
May 19, 2005 12:00 AM
EPA Overlooked Health Impact...
February 4, 2005 12:00 AM
The EPA has published new rules in the Federal Register regarding new Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) for boilers and incinerators. The target of the new rules is to limit toxic emissions and mercury, which is known to be extremely harmful to human health. The Federal Register is available to the public, and the EPA will be accepting public comments on these rules through August 3, 2010.
Boilers burn fuels to produce heat or steam for electricity by burning natural gas, coal, oil, or wood. At industrial facilities like paper mills and refineries, boilers are used for industrial processes. Incinerators primarily burn solid waste as a means of disposal, and some incinerators are equipped with energy recovery technology.
The EPA decided to propose this regulatory action for boilers and incinerators together because smaller incinerator units may be considered boilers depending on the content of the solid waste. They have taken steps to determine if the material going into an incinerator is considered fuel or solid waste. This regulation would be added onto the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) which defines non-hazardous secondary materials. It is the result of pressure applied by a Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) petition which led to 2007 court order for the EPA to review emission standards from boilers and incinerators.
The MACT standards would be applied to sources producing over ten tons of emissions per year or any one hazardous air pollutant (HAP), or for over 25 tons per year of combined HAPs. The standard is set based on average emissions by the best-performing twelve percent of existing sources.
Not all sources are subject to the same set of MACTs. For new and existing coal-fired boilers and process heaters, EPA has proposed new limits on mercury, particulate matter (PM) and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. Similarly, biomass and oil-fired sources would have stricter limits on PM and CO imposed. On the other hand, small sources or sources burning natural or refinery gas would be subject to less stringent standards such as periodic tune-ups instead of emission limitations.
All sources would have to conduct a mandatory one-time energy-saving assessment to determine prudent energy saving strategies. Companies would then determine the most economically sensible strategy based on their own unique situation. The energy saving assessment, while already done by a number of businesses, would become the norm for any facility with boilers or incinerators. In the future, this energy saving assessment may be applied to greenhouse gases as well.
The new standards would apply at all times for all sources, including periods of malfunction, start-up, and shut-down. The EPA would require all sources to come into compliance within three years of the final rule's publication in the Federal Register.
Incinerators would face stricter emissions limits for mercury, lead, cadmium, hydrogen chloride, PM, CO, dioxins/furans, NOx, and sulfur dioxide. They would also be required to perform stack tests and consistent monitoring along with annual inspections of emissions control equipment.
The states would have to submit a revised State Implementation Plan (SIP) within one year upon the rule's promulgation. Incinerators would then have three years to demonstrate compliance with the SIP. If a SIP is not submitted in a given state, the incinerator would have five years.
The EPA's proposed rules are stricter on emissions regulations because they would apply to boilers and incinerators at all times. A downside of the new rules may be the greater cost to operators of boilers and incinerators. The upside may be growth in the industrial sector which creates air pollution control devices. And of course, there are environmental benefits as well for the atmosphere and human health.
July 22, 2010
To: Lake County Commissioners, Sandy Minkoff and Jim Stivender
From: Ronald E. Ney, Jr., Ph.D.
Subject: Solid Waste Alternative Task Force (SWATF)
I have a problem with the protocol for the SWATF meeting and that is the public cannot participate until all presentations and etc. are given and that can be over an hour later.
As the only public person present at the last meeting I feel that comments should be allowed after each presentation and after SWATF has asked and received answers to their questions.
The public may have questions needed for clarification and may have comments pertinent to the presentation that members may be unaware of. At the last meeting I had no idea what was in the presentations or what they were about.
Regards,
Dr. Ron Ney
|
You are here: Home
