Source: https://www.bhklawpgh.com/News-Articles/2003-Eastern-Gas-Compression-Roundtable.shtml
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 12:32:43
Document Index: 768346353

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 98', '§129', '§145', '§129', '§ 63', '§ 63', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2']

2. Internal Combustion Engines ("ICE")
Pennsylvania's "Chapter 145" rule implements the NOX SIP call, and Pennsylvania maintains these rules will be enforced in May, 2003, due to a Philadelphia attainment deadline in 2004. Ohio made its version of the NOX SIP Call rule available for public comment in November, 2001, and EPA approved it in January, 2003.
2. Federal Large Engine Rule. As part of the NOX SIP Call and Section 126 Proceeding, in October, 1998, EPA proposed rules on large compressor station engines in "Part 98" rules setting strict emission limits and requiring CEM on large reciprocating engines (more than 2400 hp). EPA did not publish a final rule with the NOX Allowance System due to an adverse court decision on the large engine part of the rule Michigan v. EPA, (3rd Cir. 3/31/00).
a. EPA does not require emission limits on each exhaust stack: "Where States choose to regulate large IC engines, EPA encourages the States to allow owners and operators of large IC engines the flexibility to achieve the NOx tons/season reductions by selecting from among a variety of technologies or a combination of technologies applied to various sizes and types of IC engines. Flexibility would be helpful as companies take into account that individual engines or engine models may respond differently to control equipment. That is, while certain controls are known to have a specific average control effectiveness for an engine population, some individual engines that install the controls would be expected to be above and some below that average control level, simply because it is an average."
b. CEMs are not required: "Acceptable monitoring is not limited to those monitoring methods such as continuous or predictive emissions measurement system that rely on automated data collection from instruments. Non-automated monitoring may provide a reasonable assurance of compliance for IC engines provided such periodic monitoring is sufficient to yield reliable data for the relevant time periods determined by the emission standard."
c. Installation of LEC should be exempt from construction permit requirements: "Unless information regarding a specific case indicates otherwise, installation of combustion modification technology for the purpose of reducing NOx emissions at natural gas-fired lean-burn IC engines can be presumed, by its nature, to be environmentally beneficial. This presumption arises from EPA's experience that combustion modification technology is an effective pollution control technology when applied to new and modified natural gas-fired lean-burn IC engines. Therefore, under EPA's PCP exclusion policy, the combustion modification controls may be exempted from NSR provided that the safeguards and procedural steps contained in the exclusion policy memorandum are met."
d. Early reductions such as RACT controls should be accounted for: "Because this methodology uses the uncontrolled value, any emission reduction from a large IC engine may be considered for credit toward meeting the NOx SIP Call requirements. Credible reductions may include emission controls in place during or prior to 1995 as well as after 1995 for the large engines. The applicable control requirements must be adopted as part of the SIP and must yield enforceable and demonstrable reductions."
Proposed 25 Pa. Code §129 reduces NOx emissions from small industrial boilers, turbines and internal combustion engines ("ICE") in the counties of Bucks, Chester , Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia. Proposed §145 reduces NOx emissions for large stationary internal combustion engines and cement kilns throughout Pennsylvania. Both sections apply through the Ozone Season, from May 1 through September 30.
Under proposed §129, no later than May 1, 2005, owners of boilers, stationary combustion turbines and stationary internal combustion engines ("ICE") in the five Philadelphia area counties must ensure that NOx emissions do not exceed the lower of their permit limits or the following each year:
The Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee ("AQTAC") agreed to send this rule to the EQB for consideration and public comment only if DEP specifically asked for comments on:
This rule reflects a desire to push NOx controls down to smaller sources without consideration of cost or a realistic evaluation of the results. The proposed rule and supplemental information is available on DEP's website.
The gas transmission industry filed Comments on December 26, 2002. The industry's comments were:
3. Revisions to Chapter 145 are not needed to meet EPA's regulations under the NOx SIP Call because Pennsylvania has already reduced NOx emissions from IC engines to meet the NOx SIP Call budget.
7. The proposals offer no flexibility such as emission trading which is allowed in Pennsylvania's regulations for facilities included in Phase I of the NOx SIP Call and which is recommended in the Ozone Transport Commission's model rule.
1997 era permits probably contain far more monitoring provisions than current Title V permits, in part due to the decision in Appalachian Power v. EPA (D.C. Cir. 4/14/2000). The court held EPA's "Periodic Monitoring Guidance" released in 1998 (requiring, among other things, monitoring of every emissions point) was invalid because it had not been promulgated as a rule. In permits that the author has negotiated, twice a year testing of small natural gas combustion sources was deleted from the permit when appealed after this decision, and twice a year testing for large sources was reduced to once a year. Now that there is monitoring data from these sources it may be possible to reduce monitoring frequency in the renewal permit. Some state agencies allow for seasonal use, for example, by requiring quarterly testing in any quarter the engine runs more than 750 hours.
Finally, EPA has taken the position that sources must report twice a year, whether or not there are any deviations to report. States that want CEMs on new engines could justify it under MACT, but EPA's August 8, 2002, memo indicates CEMs are not required on existing engines.
The time to process construction permit applications has increased in most states over the last few years. One result is the increase in "General Permit" rules that create permits that do not require much agency action, discussed below. Federal NSR rules remain mired in a morass of case by case factual evaluations rather than published objective criteria. The Bush Administration has begun to release part of its air pollution initiative.
1. NSR Trigger or "Applicability": EPA proposed two changes to the existing major NSR regulations that affect calculations of emissions increases to determine whether physical or operational method changes trigger the major NSR requirements. The five areas are:
a. Baseline Actual Emissions: Under the proposed rule, the relevant terminology for calculating pre-change emissions for most applications is "baseline actual emissions" as opposed to "actual emissions." Any consecutive 24-month period within the preceding 10 years may be used to determine the baseline actual emissions.
For electric utility steam generating units, ("EUSGU"s), the baseline actual emissions is the average rate in tpy that the unit actually emitted the pollutant during a 2 year (consecutive 24-month) period within the 5 yeas immediately preceding actual construction. The option to allow use of an alternative time period that is more representative of normal source operation, as determined by the reviewing authority, remains available.
The Actual-to-Potential method remains available, at the owner's option, under the new Actual-to-Projected-Actual applicability test. Where the owner elects to utilize the former Actual-to-Potential applicability test, an owner is not subject to record-keeping requirements.
c. Plantwide Applicability Limitations ("PAL"): A PAL is a voluntary option that affords owners the ability to manage facility-wide emissions without triggering major NSR review. The PAL is based upon actual, plantwide emissions. If all emissions from a facility are below a plantwide actual emissions cap, the owner may avoid the major NSR permitting process when altering the facility or individual emissions units.
The final rule includes a section that outlines how a major modification is determined under the major NSR applicability provisions and clarifies where the provisions are located in the revised rules (Sections 51.165(a)(2), 51.166(a)(7), and 52.21(a)(2)). The final rule provides a variety of revised definitions such as that of "major modification," meaning any physical or other change in the method of operation of a major stationary source that would result in: (1) a significant emissions increase of a regulated NSR pollutant; and (2) a significant net emissions increase of that pollutant from the major stationary source.
Two of the rules were published on June 17, 1999, at 64 FR 32609. They are the "Part HH" rule for oil and natural gas production activities, 40 CRF § 63.760 and the "Part HHH" rule for Natural Gas Transmission and Storage, 40 CFR § 63.1270. A correction was published on June 29, 2001 at 66 Fed. Reg. 34548, as a direct final rule and an appeal was filed by the American Gas Association in the District of Columbia Circuit in August, 2001. This lawsuit was withdrawn when EPA published a correction on 09/27/01 at 66 Fed. Reg. 49279. The EPA changes pertain to calculation of PTE, Custody Transfer, Throughput Formula, Exemption of Performance Testing of flares, Calculation of uncontrolled emissions and Reporting and Inspection requirements.
The two remaining rules were published recently. They are the Subpart ZZZZ rule for reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines ("ICE"), published on December 19, 2002 at 67 FR 77829 and the Subpart YYYY rule for combustion turbines, published on January 14, 2003 at 68 FR 1887. Each of these rules is discussed below.
Because the ICE and CT MACT Standards were not published in time to meet a Congressional deadline, the "MACT Hammer" will apply to these rules.
1. MACT Hammer. On April 5, 2002, EPA published final amendments to the MACT "Hammer" Provisions. Part I applications were due from all affected sources for which EPA had failed to issue MACT by May 15, 2002. The more involved Part II applications were to be due within 24 months or by May 15, 2004. On June 4, 2002, the Sierra Club filed suit challenging the final rule. EPA and the Sierra Club reached as settlement agreement as announced in the Federal Register on August 26, 2002, at 67 FR 54804. As part of the settlement, EPA agreed to propose reducing the time period for Part II applications from May 2004 to May 2003.
On December 9, 2002, EPA published a second version of final amendments to the MACT "Hammer" provisions in the Federal Register at 67 FR 72875. These new amendments are the result of EPA's new "final" settlement with the Sierra Club, filed with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on November 26, 2002. The new proposal links submission of the Part 2 MACT permit application to the EPA's schedule for promulgation of MACT standards. They establish specific deadlines for submission of Part 2 applications for all affected sources in a given category or subcategory. The Part 2 application for standards scheduled to be issued before May 15, 2003 must be submitted on or before May 15, 2003. The Part 2 applications for standards scheduled to be issued after May 15, 2003 must be submitted 60 days after the respective scheduled promulgation date.
For new and existing spark ignition 4-stroke rich-burn engines ("4SRB"), facilities may install non-selective catalytic reduction systems (NSCR) to reduce formaldehyde and other air toxic emissions. Formaldehyde emissions must be reduced by 75% or more. Alternatively, facilities may use other systems to reduce emissions. In this case, formaldehyde emissions must be reduced to 350 ppbvd or less.
For new spark ignition 2-stroke ("2SLB") and 4-stroke lean-burn ("4SLB") engines and for compression ignition engines, facilities may reduce CO emissions via a control device known as a carbon monoxide catalytic oxidation system. Facilities choosing this method must reduce 2SLB emissions by 60%, 4SLB emissions by 93% and compression ignition emissions by 70%. Alternatively, facilities may choose other means to reduce emissions, but must reduce formaldehyde emissions in 2SLB engines to 17ppmvd, in 4SLB to 14ppmvd and in compression ignition to 580 ppb.