The New Bay Area AQMD Air Toxics Risk Reduction Rule 11-18

Will Your Facility Be One of Hundreds Impacted?

December 7, 2017

Keith Casto, Cooper, White & Cooper, LLP James Westbrook, BlueScape

Webinar  Topics  

•  Introduction to Rule 11-18 requirements

•  Working through the Compliance Process

•  Reducing emissions and health risk impacts

•  TBARCT •  Summary & Next Steps

About  the  Presenters  

Keith Casto, Partner, Cooper White Cooper, LLP -  Mr. Casto’s practice focuses on energy and environmental

regulatory and transactional consultation, environmental and toxic tort litigation, white-collar environmental criminal defense, and electronic data and cybersecurity. His expertise stems from 10 years of practice with EPA (Atlanta, GA) and over 25 years in private practice energy and environmental law.

James Westbrook, President, BlueScape Environmental -  Mr. Westbrook has over 30 years’ experience managing air

quality and environmental issues for industrial clients. He has completed more than 50 AB2588 emission inventory and HRA projects for California petroleum refineries, manufacturers, metal processing facilities, power plants, rock and gravel facilities, and aerospace companies.

On November 15, 2017, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted a new rule, designed to reduce air toxic emissions from facilities located in the San Francisco Bay Area, using a health risk assessment process.

}  Rule 11-18 is an extension of the California

AB2588 Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program in the Bay Area.

}  Applies only to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs): 200 compounds.

}  Purpose to reduce hazards to human health: cancer, non-cancer and chronic health impacts, and acute health impacts.

}  Major reductions in TACs since 1990.

}  Of 6000 potential sources, primarily directed at refineries, data centers, cement manufacturing, chemical plants, crematoria, landfills, foundries/ metal smelting, sewage treatment facilities, power plants, military facilities, manufacturing facilities, and hospitals/medical facilities.

}  Total: about 400 facilities.

}  Emergency-use Stationary Diesel Engines }  Retail Gasoline Dispensing Facilities }  (CARB and CAPCOA developing industry-wide

risk management guidelines for these industrial sectors)

}  Significantly More Stringent Risk Action Thresholds (especially cancer burden- from 100 to 25 to 10 in one million cancer deaths)

}  Overburdened communities

}  Use of Health Risk Assessments (HRAs) based on 2015 OEHHA HRA Guidelines and CARB/CAPCOA Risk Management Guidelines

}  Risk Reduction Plans

}  Accelerated Schedule/Request for Extension of time

}  TBARCT

}  District prepares preliminary HRAs (except for smaller facilities) based on existing emissions inventory

}  Facilities above risk action thresholds must either: (1) develop risk reduction plans and implement plan according to plan schedule if timeline feasible; (2) ask for extension of time (5 years or additional 5 years thereafter) if timeline infeasible; or (3) implement TBARCT because of technical infeasibility or to avoid unreasonable economic burden.

}  Public participation in both review and implementation of risk reduction plans.

}  Annual reporting.

}  District must review and approve risk reduction plans.

}  Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (TBARCT) }  Exposed Individual (EI) }  Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI) }  Priority Community }  Risk Action Levels (e.g., 10 cancer deaths per

million) }  Risk Reduction Plan }  Significant Risk Threshold }  Source }  Toxic Risk Facility }  Unreasonable Economic Burden (for extension

beyond 5 years

}  Section 11-18-301- Compliance with Risk Reduction Plan

}  Section 11-18-401- HRA information Requirement

}  Section 11-18-402-Early Application of Risk Action Levels

}  Section 11-18-403-Notification of HRA Results and Submission of Plans

}  Section 11-18-404-Risk Reduction Plan Contents Requirements

}  Section 11-18-405- Review and Approval of Risk Reduction Plans

}  Section 11-18-406-Updated Risk Reduction Plans

}  Section 11-18-501- Annual Progress Reports

}  Install control technology }  Operating time restrictions }  Limit Throughput }  Use alternative fuels/materials }  Increase stack height }  Change stack orientation }  Relocate source }  Install TBARCT

}  Most stringent retrofit controls: (1) successfully utilized by same equipment; (2) achieved by same type of equipment; or (3) determined to be technologically feasible by APCO.

}  The definition was modified before the last hearing to clarify that all TBARCT determinations would consider the cost of achieving health risk reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements

}  Annualized cost of compliance (sum of annual operating cost and annualized capital costs) exceeds 10 % of annual profits of facility or one % of annual operational budget of non-profit facility.

}  Technical Dispute Resolution Committee-technical representatives of District and facility meet jointly to address technical issues regarding emissions inventory, HRAs and risk reduction plans (who finally decides?)

}  Implementation Workgroup (includes industry, affected communities) to ensure transparency

}  Direct Board Oversight

Keith Casto is a Partner with Cooper White & Cooper, LLP. His practice focuses on energy and environmental regulatory and transactional consultation, environmental and toxic tort litigation, white-collar environmental criminal defense, electronic data and cybersecurity. His energy and environmental law expertise stems from his 10 years of practice at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at the Atlanta Regional Office and over 25 years in private practice in Northern California and Atlanta, Georgia. He is an expert in conventional and renewable energy projects, greenhouse gas emissions credit trading, green technology financing and renewable energy project development, and is an international speaker on these issues.

James A. Westbrook is the President of BlueScape Environmental. Since 1987, Mr. Westbrook has managed or completed more than 50 AB2588 ATIR and HRA projects for California petroleum refineries, rock and gravel facilities, power plants, foundries, building material manufacturers, coating manufacturers, aerospace companies and many others. He has worked closely with BAAQMD staff to complete and refine numerous emission inventories and HRAs under District air permitting and AB2588 regulations. Mr. Westbrook is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist, and holds a B.S. in Atmospheric Sciences from UCLA and M.S. in Environmental Science from Indiana University.

Keith M. Casto, Partner Cooper White & Cooper LLP 201 California Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: 415.433.1900 Direct: 415.765.6272 Mobile: 408.221.1304 Fax: 415.433.5530 E-mail: kcasto@cwclaw.com

Rule 11-18: Working Through the Compliance Process

Poll

What  kind  of  Bay  Area  facility  do  you  represent?  •  Diesel  engine-­‐only  •  Manufacturing  •  Refinery  •  Other  type  •  I  don’t  represent  a  regulated  facility  

Impacted Facility Types & Costs

Ref:  Rule  11-­‐18  Staff  Report,  p.42,    Oct.  2017  

Control Equipment by Facility Type & Costs

Ref:  Rule  11-­‐18  Staff  Report,  p.40,    Oct.  2017  

Agenda: Rule 11-18 Compliance Process  •  PerspecNve:  

– Air  Toxics  RegulaNon  in  the  Bay  Area  – Working  through  the  Rule  11-­‐18  process  

•  BAAQMD  Rule  11-­‐18  process  steps  – TAC  emission  inventory,  prioriNzaNon,  health  risk  assessment  

•  Risk  ReducNon  Plan  details  •  How  to  avoid  a  Risk  ReducNon  Plan  •  Standard  &  Case-­‐by-­‐Case  TBARCT  

Air Toxics Regulation in the Bay Area

•  1987  –  CA  Air  Toxics  “Hot  Spots”  InformaNon  and  Assessment  Act  (AB2588)  –  IniNated  Toxics  New  Source  Review  Program  

•  1999  –  SB  25  –  Childrens’  Env.  Health  Prot.  Act  •  2004  –  Community  Air  Risk  EvaluaNon  (CARE)  •  2010  –  Included  Age  SensiNvity  Factors  •  March  2015  –  Revised  OEHHA  Health  Risk  Assessment  (HRA)  Guidelines  

•  Dec.  2016  -­‐  Rule  2-­‐5  update  for  OEHHA  Guidelines  •  Nov.  15,  2017,  Rule  11-­‐18  •  Future  –  AB  617  Community  Monitoring  

State AB2588 Process

Perspective on the 11-18 Process

•  Goals:  –  Protect  community  health  –  Present  accurate  informaNon  –  Minimize  business  impacts,  avoid  excessive  costs  

•  BAAQMD  Engineering  Group  is  driving  the  work  –  Running  risk  prioriNzaNon  scores  –  CompleNng  health  risk  assessments  –  Guiding  the  risk  reducNon  outcome  

•  Approval  of  the  Risk  ReducNon  Plan  and  Emission  Controls  –  Charging  fees  for  review  

•  Who  has  control  over  the  process?  You  Do!  –  You  know  your  facility  processes  best  –  Provide  accurate  source  and  process  informaNon  to  BAAQMD  –  Agree/disagree  with  basis  of  all  technical  assumpNons  –  Know  outcome  of  informaNon  before  supplied  –  Right  to  review,  comment,  and  request  updates  on  BAAQMD’s  

technical  analyses  –  Make  proposals  for  risk  reducNon  that  make  sense,  feasible  and  cost  

effecNve  

Air Toxics Emissions Inventory

•  You  want  accurate  emissions  and  source  inputs  –  FaciliNes  report  annually  with  permit  fee  statements  

•  Most  recent  statements  for  calendar  Year  2016  

•  Quadrennial  AB2588  reports  may  be  “old”  •  What  is  included?  “Inputs”  

–  Emission  sources,  permiied  and  non-­‐permiied  –  Fuel  consumpNon  data  and  process  rates  –  Emission  point  informaNon,  stack  parameters  

•  What  about  TAC  emission  rates?  •  Your  consultant  should  review  previous  emission  statements  and  reports  –  Revise  as  appropriate  –  Request  BAAQMD  use  updates  in  risk  scoring      

Risk Prioritization Scores

 

•  BAAQMD  runs  site-­‐specific  cancer  and  non-­‐cancer  (chronic  and  acute)  prioriNzaNon  scores  -  Score  >=  10,  high  risk  (HRA  will  be  required)  -  1  <  score  <  10,  medium  risk  -  <=  1  low  risk  

•  PrioriNzaNon  scoring  follows  updated  guidelines  (BAAQMD,  March  2017)  

•  BAAQMD  will  use:  -  Total  facility  emissions  and  toxicity  data  -  Nearest  distance  to  receptors,  from  property  line  -  Other  factors  as  required  

•  Receptor  types  require  verificaNon  •  Your  consultant  can:  

-  Run  the  prioriNzaNon  scores  and  refine  emissions  -  Review  and  comment  on  BAAQMD’s  analysis  

Expect  the  scoring  to  be  highly  conserva4ve,  meaning  opportunity  for  refinement!!  

Health Risk Assessment (HRA)

•  Site-­‐specific  computer  modeling  •  TAC  emission  rates,  max.  hourly  and  annual  

average  -  Process  or  fuel  rate  x  emission  factor  

•  Latest  technical  protocols  and  health  risk  data  •  Stack  locaNons  and  emission  release  

parameters  •  Meteorology  and  terrain  data  •  Receptor  grids  including  nearest  residents,  

schools,  off-­‐site  workers  •  Latest  models  include  AERMOD  and  HARP2  •  Provide  technical  review  and  comment  on  

BAAQMD’s  HRA  

Risk Reduction Plan Triggers & Rule 11-18 Implementation Schedule

Ref: Rule 11-18 Staff Report, pp.32 & 38, Oct. 2017

Risk Reduction Plan Contents

 

•  Discuss  toxic  emission  sources  and  points  that  contribute  to  max.  risks  

•  Evaluate  risk  reducNon  measures  to  be  implemented  

•  Provide  a  schedule  for  implementaNon  – Permit  applicaNons,  installaNon  dates,  demonstraNon  dates  

•  EsNmate  remaining  risk  aner  reducNon  •  Cannot  reduce  below  AcNon  Level:  

– Demonstrate  using  analysis  •  Risk  ReducNon  Plan  is  an  enforceable  commitment!  

Risk Reduction Strategies to get below the Action Levels

•  Update  Air  Toxic  Emission  Factors  -  “Beier”  published  data,  or  source  tesNng  

• Make  emissions  source  refinements,  refine  dispersion  and  risk  modeling  

•  OperaNonal  changes:  -  Reduce  air  toxic  emissions  

•  Material  or  fuel  process  limits  •  OperaNng  Nme  restricNons,  min/hour  or  hours/year  

-  AlternaNve  fuels  and  materials  •  Add-­‐on  emission  controls  –  not  TBARCT  

 

Health Risk Modeling Refinements

Parameter   Technique   Effect  

FugiNve  Source  Type   Volume  or  Area  Dimensions  

Refine  for  iniNal  diluNon  

Source  Height   Increase   Reduce  impacts  

Emissions   Decrease   Decreases  impacts  linearly  

Gas  Velocity   Increase   Decrease  impacts  

Source  LocaNon   Relocate   Move  further  from  receptors  

Time  of  OperaNon   Change   Dispersion  beier  during  day  

Max.  Receptors   SpaNal  Averaging   Can  either  increase  or  decrease  impacts  

Chemical  Potency   Refine  exposure  and  potency  data  

Lower  health  risks  

Requirements of Toxics Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (TBARCT)

•  Similar  to  TBACT  for  new  permits,  only:  – Retrofits  – Cost  effecNveness  considered  

•  In  the  approved  Risk  ReducNon  Plan  •  Not  feasible  to  get  below  AcNon  Levels  •  Standard  TBARCT  –  BAAQMD  Workbook  •  Case-­‐by-­‐case  TBARCT  determinaNons    

Standard TBARCT Example – Engines and Diesel PM

BAAQMD  Dran  TBARCT  Workbook,  Oct.  2017  

Standard TBARCT Example – Metal Melting Electric Arc Furnace and Cr VI

Ref:  BAAQMD  Dran  TBARCT  Workbook,  Oct.  2017  

Standard TBARCT Example – Refinery All Component Types

Ref:  BAAQMD  Dran  TBARCT  Workbook,  Oct.  2017  

Standard TBARCT Example – Refinery Connectors

Ref:  BAAQMD  Dran  TBARCT  Workbook,  Oct.  2017  

Detailed Case-by-Case TBARCT Determinations

 

•  No  standard  TBARCT,  standard  TBARCT  not  feasible,  or  unreasonable  costs    

•  Feasibility  ConsideraNon    –  IdenNfy  all  controls,  emission  limits,  and  risk  reducNon  in  their  11-­‐18  TBARCT  plans  

–  IdenNfy  potenNally  feasible  and  more  stringent  controls  or  emission  limits  implemented  or  under  evaluaNon  

•  BAAQMD,  state  ATCMs,  federal  NSPS  and  NESHAP,  BACT  clearinghouses,  applicable  rules,  permits,  other  TBARCT  plans,  CEQA  plans,  etc.  

–  Site-­‐specific  factors  –  All  feasible  and  agreed  upon  shall  be  implemented  

•  Cost  ConsideraNon  –  If  TBARCT  not  agreed  upon  due  to  cost,  cost-­‐effecNveness  analysis  

 

Cost-Effectiveness - Example TBARCT Emission Reductions

–  Benzene: 50 pounds/year of emission reductions –  Formaldehyde: 200 pounds/year of emission reductions

CP Weighing Factor from Column 6 of Table 2-5-1 –  Benzene: 1.0 E-1 –  Formaldehyde: 2.1 E-2

Toxicity Weighted Emission Reductions –  Benzene: (50 lbs/yr)*(1.0E-1) = 5.0 lbs/yr –  Formaldehyde: (200 lbs/yr)*(2.1E-2) = 4.2 lbs/yr –  Total: = 9.2 lbs/yr

Calculate the cost effectiveness of the TBARCT abatement project by dividing the Total Annualized Project Cost by the Total Toxicity Weighted Emission Resolutions.

For a Total Annualized Project of $10,000/year and the toxicity weight emissions reductions above, the TBARCT cost effectiveness would be: •  $10,000 year/9.2 pounds/year = •  $1,087/pound of toxicity weighted emission reductions

Ref: BAAQMD Draft TBARCT Workbook, Oct. 2017

Summary & Next Steps

Webinar Summary & Next Steps

•  BAAQMD  to  review  6,000  faciliNes,  more  than  400  impacted,  but:  -  Heavy  focus  on  diesel  PM,  landfills,  refineries  -  Many  faciliNes  should  “drop  out”  at  the  risk  

prioriNzaNon  or  the  HRA  step  •  Compliance,  your  goal  should  be:  

-  Submit  accurate  data,  work  with  BAAQMD  early  and  onen  

-  Avoid  the  Risk  ReducNon  Plan  -  Risk  ReducNon  Plan  -­‐  Know  process/legal  and  

technical  opNons  •  Get  help  from  your  aiorney  and  TAC/HRA  expert!  

QuesNons?  Contact  InformaNon  

The webinar presentation will be posted on Slideshare and YouTube

James A. Westbrook, President BlueScape Environmental

877-486-9257

jwestbrook@bluescapeinc.com www.bluescapeinc.com

 

Keith Casto, Partner Cooper, White & Cooper, LLP

415-433-1900

KCasto@cwclaw.com www.cwclaw.com