State Implementation of Risk-Based MACT Exemptions

Region 4 Permit Managers Meeting

Rhonda B. Thompson, P.E., Director

Engineering Services Division

SC DHEC - Bureau of Air Quality

Presentation Overview

Boiler MACT Health-Based Compliance Alternative (HBCA)

Plywood MACT Low-risk Subcategory Ongoing Litigation Other Related Issue

Boiler MACT HBCA

144 facilities subject to Boiler MACT• 42 facilities have solid-fuel fired boiler

16 facilities submitted HBCA demonstrations• 19 wood-fired boilers

• 4 coal-fired boilers

• 28 mixed fuel-fired boilers

17 boiler demonstrations for Mn (TSM) 37 boiler demonstrations for HCl 14 used stack testing, 2 used fuel analysis

Health-based Compliance Alternative (HBCA)

States not required to review HBCA demonstrations (optional)

SC will review HBCA demonstrations before incorporating into TV permit• Uncomfortable incorporating HBCA limits into TV

without some level of review

• TV regulations require states to set forth the “legal and factual basis” for permit conditions (§70.7(a)(5))

• Expecting some challenges of HBCA permit conditions

• EPA only reviewing 1 HBCA – Clemson University

HBCA Preview Procedures

13 facilities used look-up tables 3 facilities submitted a site-specific risk

assessment (EPA’s Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library, Volume 2; AERMOD modeling) • Stack Testing group reviewing test protocols and results

• Air Toxics group reviewing modeling and risk equations

• Permitting group will incorporate HBCA conditions into TV

HBCA Review Procedures

E-mail to facilities February 14, 2007• Complete HBCA reviews by March 30, 2007

• Notify facilities of approvals or problems

• Discuss possible monitoring parameters for TV permit

• Compliance extension requests expected if controls are needed

Most Common Problems Found

Test protocols not submitted prior to testing or fuel analysis – testing not done correctly• Protocol required by state regulations, not by

Appendix A Facilities not testing at maximum worst-case

scenario, as low as 20% capacity• Testing shows emissions not linear with production

Facilities not including all HCl/Cl2 or Mn emitting sources on-site (e.g., oil-fired units, small solid-fired units)

Most Common Problems Found

Facilities waiting to hear from State/EPA before purchasing compliant fuels or ordering control devices – may ask for extensions

Public facilities (universities, etc.) not considering on-site residents (dorms) as most exposed individuals

No soot blowing, grate cleaning done during stack test (part of normal operation)

Facilities needing to retest quickly, before compliance date

Incorporating HBCA in TV Permits

Major modification to TV permit Public notice required Most will be incorporated at permit

renewal

Plywood Low-risk Subcategory

25 facilities subject to Plywood MACT• MDF, OSB, Plywood, Particleboard facilities

more likely to submit demonstrations

1 Preliminary demonstration submitted, used by EPA as the template

Plywood Low-risk Subcategory Review Procedures

EPA will review all low-risk demonstrations SC will also review demonstrations, will

notify EPA of any issues/concerns• SC more familiar with facility processes

Same review procedures as Boiler MACT HBCA

Plywood Low-risk Subcategory Common Questions

Facilities required to maintain test conditions after demonstration approved?• Example: Temporary hoods and stacks

installed to determine concentration and conduct modeling

Can facility request Routine Control Device Maintenance Exemption (RCDME) after they risk-out?

Ongoing Litigation

HBCA and risk-based exemptions being challenged by environmental groups, states• Boiler MACT hearings started

EPA’s petition to DC Circuit to vacate and remand parts of the Boiler and Plywood MACT standards • Response to vacatur of Brick and Clay MACT

• EPA requesting the HBCA and risk-based exemption litigation cases continue separately

Other Plywood MACT Issue

Routine Control Device Maintenance Exemption (RCDME) – §63.2251• Allows processes to run uncontrolled during routine

maintenance (0.5 - 3% of reporting period)

• States have discretion to approve/disapprove

SC disapproved request for a new facility• Can’t meet State VOC LAER rules without control device

Decision was appealed (may go to administrative law court hearing)• Basis: Can State rules be more stringent than Federal??

Questions?

Elizabeth Basil – Air Toxics Manager(803)898-4126basilej@dhec.sc.gov

Rhonda Thompson - Permit Director(803) 898-4391thompsrb@dhec.sc.gov