Review of NC Toxic Air Pollutant Rules ( pursuant to Session Law - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Review of NC Toxic Air Pollutant Rules ( pursuant to Session Law 2 0 1 2 -9 1 ) North Carolina Division of Air Quality Stakeholder Meeting September 25, 2012

History:  Environm ental Review Com m ission ( ERC) m eetings ( Sept/ Oct 2 0 1 1 )  W orking group form ed ( Oct 2 0 1 1 )  Bill introduced, HB 9 5 2 ( May 2 0 1 2 )  Becam e law , SL 2 0 1 2 -9 1 ( June 2 8 , 2 0 1 2 )

Air Toxics – Sum m ary Section 1 ◦ Exempts sources subject to certain federal regulations ◦ Codifies “Director’s Call” provision Section 2 ◦ Requires rule amendments Section 3 ◦ Requires review of rules and their implementation Section 4 ◦ Requires reports on implementation of this act

Air Toxics – Section 1  Exem pts from the State air toxics rules sources of toxic air pollutants subject to certain federal regulations, including:  National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), 40 CFR Part 61  Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, 40 CFR Part 63  Generally Available Control Technology (GACT) standards, 40 CFR Part 63  Subject to case-by-case MACT, 112(j) of the Clean Air Act

Air Toxics – Section 1 W hen DAQ receives a perm it application for a new or m odified source or facility that w ould result in a net increase in toxic air pollutants: ◦ Requires DAQ to determine if the toxic air emissions would pose an unacceptable risk to human health… and if it does, the Division Director would make a written finding and require a permit application that eliminates the unacceptable risk… (for all practical purposes this is the existing Director’s Call provision)

Exam ple I llustrating State and Federal Air Toxics Program s ABC Source 2 Com pany Regulated by Federal Air 2 Toxics Rules Source 1 NOT Regulated by Federal Air Toxics Rules 1 3 Source 3 NOT Regulated by Federal Air Toxics Rules Property Line Source: DENR-DAQ

Air Toxics – Section 2  Requires the Environm ental Managem ent Com m ission ( EMC) to am end the State air toxics rules to be consistent w ith Section 1 above.

Air Toxics – Section 3  Requires DAQ to review the State air toxics rules and their im plem entation to determ ine w hether changes could: ◦ Reduce unnecessary regulatory burden ◦ I ncrease the efficient use of DAQ resources w hile m aintain protection of public health  DAQ shall report the results of the review and include recom m endations to the ERC by Decem ber 1 , 2 0 1 2

Air Toxics – Section 4  Requires DAQ report to the ERC on the im plem entation of this Act ◦ Decem ber 1 , 2 0 1 2 , 2 0 1 3 and 2 0 1 4 ◦ The report shall include an analysis of air toxic em ission changes and a sum m ary of results of the Division’s analysis of air quality im pacts.

Link to SL 2 0 1 2 -9 1 http:/ / w w w .ncleg.net/ Sessions/ 2 0 1 1 / Bills/ House/ PDF/ H9 5 2 v4 .pdf 

Section 3 review  The Division of Air Quality of the Departm ent of Environm ent and Natural Resources shall review toxic air pollutant rules adopted pursuant to G.S. 1 4 3 -2 1 5 .1 0 7 ( a) and the im plem entation of those rules to determ ine w hether changes could be m ade to the rules or their im plem entation to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden and increase the efficient use of Division resources w hile m aintaining protection of public health. The Division shall conduct this review in consultation w ith interested parties.  The Division shall report the results of its review , including recom m endations, if any, to the Environm ental Review Com m ission no later than Decem ber 1 , 2 0 1 2 .

Section 3 review  For each of the options w e discuss, consider w hether it: ◦ reduces unnecessary regulatory burden ◦ increases the efficient use of Division resources ◦ m aintains protection of public health

Options to Discuss The follow ing options m ay fit the criteria  laid out in SL 2 0 1 2 -9 1 . Options have evolved from com m ents from  the regulated com m unity and DAQ’s experience im plem enting the air toxics rules. This is not an exhaustive list of options…  it’s intended to stim ulate discussion. Feel free to com m ent on these options or  subm it additional ideas that are consistent w ith SL 2 0 1 2 -9 1 .

Options to Discuss Re-evaluate toxic perm itting em ission 1 . rates ( TPERs) Exem pt natural gas and propane 2 . com bustion units Exem pt em ergency engines 3 . Register rather than perm it sources less 4 . than certain em issions thresholds Do not retain SI C call 5 . Maxim um Feasible Control = Maxim um 6 . Achievable Control Evaluate projected actual em issions 7 .

1 . Re-evaluate toxic perm itting em ission rates ( TPERs) W hat are TPERs? TPERs are established in rule 1 5 A  NCAC 0 2 Q .0 7 1 1 and are back- calculated from the Acceptable Am bient Level ( AAL) guidelines. Conservative assum ptions are used  regarding stack and dispersion characteristics.

1 . Re-evaluate toxic perm itting em ission rates ( TPERs) How are TPERs used in the perm itting process? Tw o step evaluation process:  ◦ Sum all non-exem pt toxics em issions and com pare to TPER.  I f below TPER, done.  I f above TPER, m odeling is necessary to com pare to the Acceptable Am bient Level ( AAL) .

1 . Re-evaluate toxic perm itting em ission rates ( TPERs) W hat could change? An analysis could be done w ith the m ost  recent air dispersion m odel and revised, but yet conservative assum ptions about stack param eters, to see if any TPERs can be increased w hile still providing an am ple m argin of safety. ◦ e.g. - decrease stack diam eter from 1 .0 m eter, or increase stack exist velocity of 0 .0 1 m / s.

2 . Exem pt natural gas and propane com bustion units US EPA has exem pted certain gas-fired  com bustion units from federal air toxics rules. Another federal rule only prescribes w ork practice standards on affected units. Toxic air em issions from these sources are  w ell below the TPERs.

3 . Exem pt em ergency engines US EPA federal air toxics rules apply to all  em ergency engines and only prescribe w ork practice standards. Used tem porarily in em ergency situations.  Sm all.  Few hours of operation.  Peak shaving engines are not considered  em ergency engines.

4 . Register rather than perm it sources less than certain em issions thresholds Considerable tim e and resources spent on  determ ining if sm all em issions sources qualify as exem pt or insignificant. Effort is disproportionate w ith the  environm ental im pact. Sim plify perm it exem ptions rule. 

5 . Do not retain SI C call 1 5 A NCAC 0 2 Q .0 7 0 5 provides a  m echanism for the Director to require all facilities under the sam e four-digit Standard I ndustrial Classification ( SI C) to subm it an application to com ply w ith the NC air toxics rules. The existing Director’s Call rule and SL  2 0 1 2 -9 1 provide adequate authority to address any unacceptable risks to hum an health from any facility.

6 . Maxim um Feasible Control = Maxim um Achievable Control Maxim um feasible control as a com pliance  option. The director can allow m axim um feasible  control in certain situations. This option w ould allow com pliance w ith a  federal Maxim um Achievable Control Technology rule to satisfy m axim um feasible control requirem ents in the state rules.

7 . Evaluate projected actual em issions The option can be clarified in the rule to  ensure that DAQ is im plem enting it consistently. Evaluating projected actual em issions  provides a m ore realistic evaluation of the im pacts of air toxics in am bient air, particularly w hen considering how the TPERs and AALs guidelines are developed.

I deas? Please subm it w ritten com m ents by  October 9 , 2 0 1 2 to: daq.publiccom m ents@ncdenr.gov Rules:  http://www.ncair.org/rules/rules/Sec1100.shtml and http://www.ncair.org/rules/rules/SecQ0700.shtml

North Carolina Division of Air Quality North Carolina Division of Air Quality Sheila Holman Mike Abraczinskas Director Deputy Director Sheila.Holm an@ncdenr.gov Michael.Abraczinskas@ncdenr.gov 9 1 9 -7 0 7 -8 4 3 0 9 1 9 -7 0 7 -8 4 4 7