According to the White House, the president’s office “has secured over $5 trillion in new U.S.-based investments in his first 100 days, which will create more than 451,000 new jobs as he sets the stage for a new era of American prosperity.” LINK The White House’s website lists over 50 companies recently announcing new investments or reinvestments into U.S. manufacturing. New facilities, as well as those resuming operations, will require permitting activities through state and local regulatory agencies, upholding the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
Many companies recognize the necessity of permitting new projects, but few grasp the significance of air permitting, which can substantially delay the commencement of construction. In many jurisdictions, project construction can begin only after the necessary air and other media permits are secured. Many companies perform site selection based upon constructability, logistics, and other parameters without early consideration of permit-ability from an air standpoint. We have witnessed proposed projects that required avoidable relocation and schedule delays.
Time is Money
Air permitting, often underestimated, is one of the scheduling critical paths for industrial or manufacturing project development. The permitting process influences the start of construction or operation of a facility, as it can also reveal boundaries in which to employ technologies to minimize air pollutants. Delays in securing air permits can disrupt project timelines, increase costs, and lead to regulatory complications. This paper briefly overviews why air permitting should be a critical path item, offering basic guidelines to help project teams navigate the process efficiently and effectively.
Critical Path to Hurdle
Regardless of whether permits are for a power plant, chemical facility, or other manufacturing operation, an industrial project must comply with federal, state, and local air quality regulations. Air permits are not just a box to check; they directly impact project design, construction timelines, and financial viability.
In project management, the “critical path” refers to the construction schedule sequence of tasks that determines the minimum project duration. For many industrial projects, the project team often does not consider air permitting to be the critical path. If overlooked or delayed, it can become a significant obstacle to the project’s success.
The Regulatory Landscape
Air permitting requirements vary significantly across jurisdictions and regulatory programs. Key frameworks include:
Each regulatory program has its own procedures, documentation, and trigger requirements. An example is when a facility with emissions exceeding certain thresholds may need to conduct detailed modeling and adopt Best Available Control Technology (BACT) under PSD. Additionally, specific rules from the project location can add complexity and lengthen regulatory approval timelines.
Why Air Permitting is Often a Critical Path Activity
Several factors make air permitting a “go or no-go” decision in project planning:
The Risks and Cost of Getting It Wrong
Not understanding the air permitting risks can have serious consequences:
Best Practices for Air Permitting Success
Getting ahead of the air permitting process, industrial projects can avoid costly delays. Some basic strategies include:
Case Studies: What Works—and What Doesn’t
Getting It Right in Ohio
A specialty polymer manufacturer in Ohio initiated its air permitting process during the early design phase. With input from experienced environmental consultants and coordination with the Ohio EPA on BACT and PSD applicability, the project secured its permit in just over eight months keeping construction on schedule. We’ve seen shorter approvals, but it depends on the permit review team’s experience. Reference: Ohio EPA PTI Application No. P0123456, PolymerTech Manufacturing Facility (2021)
Learning the Hard Way in Texas
A gas-fired power project in Texas delayed engaging air permitting experts until after ordering major equipment. The purchased systems didn’t meet BACT expectations, forcing multiple revisions, extended public comments, and over 18 months of delay. Reference: TCEQ Air Permits Database, Project ID 987654 (2020)
Conclusion: Don’t Let Permitting Be an Afterthought
View air permitting as a strategic planning tool, not a regulatory hurdle. Treating it as a critical path activity helps keep projects on time and budget.
Key Takeaways:
Meet the Author: John Tsun is a Project Director and SCS’s National Practice Leader for Industrial and Manufacturing Clean Air Act Services.
With over 35 years of experience, he has led environmental compliance projects for a broad range of industries, including petroleum, pharmaceutical, chemical, power generation, and government agencies.
Notably, John was a member of the original team at the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) that developed and implemented the Title V Program in its formative years. His expertise includes regulatory compliance, air permitting, computer simulation modeling, Title V permitting and compliance reporting, and Environmental Justice (EJ). He has in-depth knowledge of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Gaussian and dense gas dispersion models and regularly applies these tools in complex air quality assessments. Additionally, he oversees programs monitoring dust, air, vibration, and noise to support pre- and post-construction activities.
You can reach John on LinkedIn or by contacting SCS Engineers. We’re please to share our educational resources with visitors here.
Recently, Donald Trump issued four executive orders extending Clean Air Act – NESHAP compliance deadlines for a number of specific facilities that provide medical equipment sterilization, burn coal to make electricity, manufacture certain synthetic chemicals, or mine taconite. The big headline is the EPA announcing plans to rescind the ‘endangerment finding’ that allows climate regulation. However, at the same time coal combustion residuals rules are being changed. This Regulatory Alert contains language from the four executive orders, which includes a list of the specific facilities that have been granted extensions to comply. In each order, the President finds that the technology required is not available and that it is in the interest of national security to provide the extensions.
Normally there is a notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedures Act to extend deadlines. If the courts allow the President to continue invoking national security we may see more such executive orders modifying regulations. Follow SCS Engineers on social media to read our SCS Technical Bulletins, which summarize regulatory proposals and changes for public and private entities.
As the regulatory landscape continues to evolve, proactive planning is critical to preserving flexibility, value, and mitigating risk. We encourage businesses to consult with environmental engineers and consultants and their legal counsel to navigate these changes for continued sustainable success.
NESHAP – EtO Rule
On April 5, 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency published a final rule, pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412, titled National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ethylene Oxide Emissions Standards for Sterilization Facilities Residual Risk and Technology Review, 89 FR 24090 (EtO Rule). The EtO Rule imposes new emissions-control requirements on commercial sterilization facilities.
Certain stationary sources subject to the EtO Rule, as identified in Annex I of this proclamation, are exempt from compliance with the EtO Rule for a period of 2 years beyond the EtO Rule’s relevant compliance dates (Exemption). This Exemption applies to all compliance deadlines established under the EtO Rule applicable to the stationary sources listed in Annex I, with each such deadline extended by 2 years from the date originally required for such deadline. The effect of this Exemption is that, during each such 2-year period, these stationary sources will remain subject to the emissions and compliance obligations in effect prior to the issuance of the EtO Rule. In support of this Exemption, I (Trump) hereby make the following determinations:
The technology to implement the EtO Rule is not available. Such technology does not exist in a commercially viable form sufficient to allow implementation of and compliance with the EtO Rule by the compliance dates set forth in the EtO Rule. It is in the national security interests of the United States to issue this Exemption for the reasons stated in paragraphs 1 and 3 of this proclamation. Link
ANNEX I
International Sterilization Laboratory
Affected Facility/Source: Groveland Facility, Florida
Becton Dickinson and Company
Affected Facility/Source:
KPR US, LLC d/b/a Kendall Patient Recovery
Affected Facility/Source: Augusta Facility, Georgia
MedXL, LLC
Affected Facility/Source: Ardmore Facility, Oklahoma
Aligned Medical Solutions
Affected Facility/Source:
Professional Contract Sterilization, Inc.
Affected Facility/Source: Taunton Facility, Massachusetts
Sterigenics U.S., LLC
Affected Facility/Source:
Cosmed Group, Inc.
Affected Facility/Source:
Arthrex
Affected Facility/Source: Ave Maria Facilities (2), Florida
Cook Incorporated
Affected Facility/Source: Ellettsville North Facility, Indiana
ALCON Research Ltd.
Affected Facility/Source: ALCON Advance Optic Device Center, North Facility, West Virginia
Affected Facility/Source: Allentown Manufacturing Facility, Pennsylvania
DeRoyal Industries, Inc.
Affected Facility/Source:
Sterilization Services of Georgia, Inc.
Affected Facility/Source: Atlanta Facility, Georgia
Sterilization Services of Virginia, Inc.
Affected Facility/Source: Richmond Facility, Virginia
Trinity Sterile, Inc.
Affected Facility/Source: Trinity Sterile, Inc., Maryland
LivaNova USA, Inc.
Affected Facility/Source: LivaNova Arvada Facility, Colorado
Covidien LP
Affected Facility/Source: Covidien North Haven Facility, Connecticut
Medtronic Xomed LLC
Affected Facility/Source: Jacksonville Facility, Florida
Medtronic Puerto Rico Operations Company, Inc.
Affected Facility/Source:
Advanced Product Solutions
Affected Facility/Source: Columbia Facility, Alabama
Affected Facility/Source: Salinas, Puerto Rico
Steri-Tech, Inc.
NESHAP – MATS Rule
On May 7, 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency published a final rule, pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412, titled National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units Review of the Residual Risk and Technology Review, 89 FR 38508 (Rule), which amended the preexisting Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule to make it more stringent. The Rule’s effective date was July 8, 2024. Id. Its compliance date is July 8, 2027, 3 years after its effective date. See 89 FR 38519.
Certain stationary sources subject to the Rule, as identified in Annex I of this proclamation, are exempt from compliance with the Rule for a period of 2 years beyond the Rule’s compliance date — i.e., for the period beginning July 8, 2027, and concluding July 8, 2029 (Exemption). The effect of this Exemption is that, during this 2-year period, these stationary sources are subject to the compliance obligations that they are currently subject to under the MATS as the MATS existed prior to the Rule. In support of this Exemption, I (Trump) hereby make the following determinations:
a. The technology to implement the Rule is not available. Such technology does not exist in a commercially viable form sufficient to allow implementation of and compliance with the Rule by its compliance date of July 8, 2027.
b. It is in the national security interests of the United States to issue this Exemption for the reasons stated in paragraphs 1 and 3 of this proclamation. Link
ANNEX I
Affected Facility/Source: Cardinal Unit 1, Unit 2, and Unit 3, Ohio
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association
Affected Facility/Source: Craig Generating Station Unit 2 and Unit 3, Colorado
City Water, Light and Power
Affected Facility/Source: Dallman Unit 4, Illinois
Cardinal Operating Company
NESHAP – HON Rule
On May 16, 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency published a final rule titled New Source Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I & II Polymers and Resins Industry, 89 FR 42932 (HON Rule). The HON Rule imposes new emissions-control requirements on certain chemical manufacturing facilities, some of which were promulgated pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412.
Certain stationary sources subject to the HON Rule, as identified in Annex I of this proclamation, are exempt from compliance with those aspects of the HON Rule that were promulgated under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412 for a period of 2 years beyond the HON Rule’s relevant compliance dates (Exemption). This Exemption applies to all compliance deadlines established under the HON Rule applicable to the stationary sources listed in Annex I, with each such deadline extended by 2 years from the date originally required for such deadline. The effect of this Exemption is that, during each such 2-year period, these stationary sources will be subject to the emissions and compliance obligations that they are currently subject to under the applicable standard as that standard existed prior to the HON Rule. In support of this Exemption, I (Trump) hereby make the following determinations:
a. The technology to implement the HON Rule is not available. Such technology does not exist in a commercially viable form sufficient to allow implementation of and compliance with the HON Rule by the compliance dates in the HON Rule.
b. It is in the national security interests of the United States to issue this Exemption for the reasons stated in paragraphs 1 and 3 of this proclamation. Link
ANNEX I
NESHAP – Taconite Rule
On March 6, 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency published a final rule, pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412, titled National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite Iron Ore Processing, 89 FR 16408 (Taconite Rule). The Taconite Rule imposes new emissions-control requirements on taconite iron ore processing facilities.
Certain stationary sources subject to the Taconite Rule, as identified in Annex I of this proclamation, are exempt from compliance with the Taconite Rule for a period of 2 years beyond the Taconite Rule’s relevant compliance dates (Exemption).The technology to implement the Taconite Rule is not currently available, and it is necessary to issue this Exemption now because long design, permitting, and construction lead times mean that regulated entities will not be able to meet the relevant compliance deadlines absent compliance relief. This Exemption applies to all compliance deadlines established under the Taconite Rule, with each such deadline extended by 2 years from the date originally required for such deadline. The effect of this Exemption is that, during each such 2-year period, these stationary sources are subject to the emissions and compliance obligations that they are currently subject to under the applicable standard as that standard existed prior to the Taconite Rule. In support of this Exemption, I (Trump) hereby make the following determinations:
a. The technology to implement the Taconite Rule is not available. Such technology does not exist in a commercially viable form sufficient to allow implementation of and compliance with the Taconite Rule by the compliance dates in the Taconite Rule.
b. It is in the national security interests of the United States to issue this Exemption for the reasons stated in paragraphs 1 and 3 of this proclamation. Link
ANNEX I
SCS Engineers announces Steven Stewart, PE, PMP, is now leading the firm’s Sustainability-CAA-GHG practice. Stewart has twenty-five years of experience within the environmental consulting and manufacturing industry, providing strategic thinking related to project planning, regulatory strategy, and developing sustainability initiatives that achieve goals.
Sustainability plans designed without environmental experts who have designed, built, and operated solutions do not always assure intended goals. SCS’s Sustainability practice combines Clean Air Act (CAA) solution experts and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) experts to create accurate emissions inventories, identify GHG reduction opportunities, and provide third-party verification of GHG emission inventories and reduction credits.
Stewart leads projects related to energy efficiency measures, GHG reduction, carbon sequestration, water reuse and stewardship, and solid waste minimization and recycling and circularity programs. His broad experience also expands into permitting and compliance, environmental management systems, long-term environmental planning, and environmental sustainability capital projects. His manufacturing background in managing large Capital Projects and Environmental programs provides clients additional value when preparing proformas and business cases for sustainability and environmental projects.
Combining Expertise for Excellence
Stewart pulls from a deep bench of expertise at SCS to offer more accurate and targeted plans. The Clean Air Act touches virtually every aspect of economic activity in the United States. It requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for certain pollutants to protect public health and welfare nationwide. The Act provides a comprehensive set of regulations to monitor air toxins and requires major sources of air pollution to obtain detailed operating permits. The CAA also requires states to adopt enforceable plans to achieve and maintain air quality standards and control harmful emissions that might drift across state lines.
SCS has a long history of working with manufacturing, landfills, dairies, and food processing operations to generate and sell GHG credits by voluntarily installing recovery systems and selling methane as fuel. Even greater benefits are available when methane is used as renewable energy to offset natural gas or coal-fired power generation, considering that it is a GHG 28 times more potent than CO2. The firm supports clients with solutions to capture or destroy methane and other emissions, which can have significant environmental benefits. Destroying or isolating methane via combustion, carbon casting, or carbon sequestration can reduce GHG potential by 95 percent.
The firm’s Greenhouse Gas experts perform emissions inventories, estimate GHG reductions, or provide third-party verification of GHG emission inventories and reduction credits. These professionals develop Inventory Management Plans for GHG emissions estimates and offsets and work with the Sustainability team to develop the most effective strategies for reducing GHG emissions, including costs, designing, constructing, and operating projects to reduce emissions.
Value is Client Satisfaction
SCS Engineers serves a broad and diverse base of clients. Each has different needs, from large national accounts to municipalities to local businesses. We know that there are three things that every SCS customer wants: a dedicated partner, insight to help them run their business efficiently, and technical services that deliver quality deliverables that result in the biggest impact possible.
SCS delivers these elements by embracing new proven technology, incorporating circularity, and drawing from a deep bench of professional engineers, scientists, and technologists with field experience into everything we produce. This is why SCS is one of North America’s longest-running environmental engineering firms.
Over the years, SCS has expanded and hired many talented people. Employees guide the firm, maintaining the founders’ focus and culture of adopting their clients’ environmental challenges as their own and fostering a culture of success for clients, employees, and communities.
SCS has won multiple awards for helping clients minimize waste generation and greenhouse gases, effectively managing recycling, collection, and disposal operations, renewable energy, safely cleaning up contaminated properties, treating wastewater, protecting groundwater, and creating technologies used to accurately track, safely operate, design and build systems for longevity.
Additional Information and Resources:
EPA announces final rules intended to reduce pollution from fossil fuel-fired power plants, which the Agency claims will not disrupt reliable electricity delivery. These rules, finalized under separate authorities including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, aim to reduce climate, air, water, and land pollution from the power sector.
The power sector has been investing long-term to transition to a clean energy economy based on rule changes like those recently announced by the EPA. This technical compliance alert summarizes four key rule changes, including:
Clean Air Act – NSPS
40 CFR Part 60
EPA Fact Sheet: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/cps-111-fact-sheet-overview.pdf
Clean Air Act – MATS and TRI
The EPA is updating the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for coal- and oil-fired power plants to reduce hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions, with standards reflecting the latest advancements in pollution control technologies.
The final rule reduces the mercury emissions limit last set in 2020 by 70 percent for lignite-fired units and reduces the filterable particular emissions limit (a surrogate for other toxic metals) by 67 percent for all coal plants—while also requiring the use of continuous emission monitoring systems to provide real-time, accurate data to regulators, facility operators, and the public to ensure that plants are meeting these lower limits and that communities are protected year-round from pollution exposure.
For more information: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/mercury-and-air-toxics-standards
Clean Water Act – Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG)
40 CFR Part 423
Wastewater discharge standards that apply to coal-fired power plants under the Clean Water Act are intended to reduce the possibility of toxic metals and other pollutants in wastewater entering lakes, streams, and other water bodies.
EPA’s final rule establishes technology-based discharge standards—known as Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards (ELGs)—that apply to four types of wastewater:
Recognizing that some coal-fired power plants are in the process of closing or switching to less polluting fuels such as natural gas or renewable natural gas, the regulation includes flexibilities to allow these plants to continue to meet the 2015 and 2020 regulation requirements instead of the requirements contained in this final regulation. The EPA is creating a new subcategory for energy-generating units (EGUs) that permanently cease coal combustion by 2034.
EPA Fact Sheet: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/steam-electric-final-rule-fact-sheet_508.pdf
RCRA – Coal Ash/CCR Disposal and Impoundments
40 CFR Part 257
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, EPA is finalizing a rule for controlling and cleaning up contamination from the disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCR), or coal ash. The Agency is finalizing regulations for managing coal ash at inactive surface impoundments at inactive power plants and historical coal ash disposal areas. Inactive coal ash surface impoundments at inactive facilities are called “legacy CCR surface impoundments.”
This final rule extends a subset of EPA’s existing CCR requirements to these historic disposal units to remediate contamination and prevent further impacts. These requirements apply to all active and inactive facilities with legacy CCR surface impoundments. EPA is strengthening established groundwater monitoring, corrective action, closure, and post-closure care requirements for CCR management units (regardless of how or when that CCR was placed) at regulated facilities.
This rule becomes effective six months after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The compliance deadlines in the final rule provide additional time beyond the effective date for facilities to comply with certain technical criteria based on the amount of time EPA projects that facilities need to complete them, such as installing a groundwater monitoring system or developing a groundwater sampling plan and analysis program.
EPA Fact Sheet: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/legacy_ccrmu_final-_fact_sheet_april2024.pdf
Power Sector Compliance, Operations, and Reporting Resources:
Partial reprint of EPA’s Announcement dated January 11, 2024
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday announced a proposal to strengthen Clean Air Act standards for large facilities that burn municipal solid waste. If finalized, the updated standards would reduce emissions of nine pollutants, including smog- and soot-forming sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, by approximately 14,000 tons per year, improving air quality for overburdened communities living near these facilities. These proposed standards reflect current technologies available to control pollution in a cost-effective fashion.
The proposed standards would apply to 57 facilities with 152 units that have the capacity to combust more than 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste. Nearly 4 million Americans live within 3 miles of these large facilities, which are disproportionately located in low-income communities and communities of color.
The proposed standards are based on emission levels achieved by the best controlled and lower-emitting sources, and limit emissions of nine pollutants: particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, mercury, and dioxins/furans.
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to evaluate these standards every five years in order to take into account developments in pollution control technologies and techniques. EPA last revised these standards in 2006.
After accounting for compliance costs of the rule, EPA estimated the net present value of health benefits from the proposed rule, due to reductions in particulate matter and ozone alone, to be up to $14 billion over 20 years. Reductions of mercury, lead, and other hazardous air pollutants required by the proposal are expected to result in additional unquantified economic and public health benefits.
EPA will accept comment on the proposal for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. EPA will hold an informational webinar and will announce details on its website shortly.
Additional Resources:
Air permitting compliance is a crucial aspect of operating a facility that generates air emissions. The process involves obtaining permits from regulatory agencies that establish requirements to demonstrate that the facility operates within limits set by air quality regulations.
Air permitting is not just for industrial operations but impacts many businesses.
In Miami-Dade County, Florida, the agency responsible for issuing air permits is the Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM). Businesses that emit air pollutants, such as fine particulate matter (dust), volatile organic compounds, and hazardous air pollutants, or which operate combustion equipment such as ovens, furnaces, boilers, and backup power generators must obtain air permits to operate legally. The Florida Department of Environmental Quality provides state guidance here. These permits are required to ensure that the facility’s emissions are within limits set by air quality regulations and that the facility is taking the necessary steps to control and reduce emissions.
Local business example
In the case of one apparel printing facility in Miami-Dade County, SCS Engineers (SCS) was hired to assist with obtaining the necessary air permits from DERM. The scope of services included reviewing current and proposed operations information, calculating air emission estimates, and preparing the narrative and application forms. SCS also prepared a Request for Information (RFI) to confirm the necessary background information, such as equipment specifications, facility layout, projected usage, and operating records. The deliverables included an Air Construction Permit Application and an Air Operating Permit Application. In this case, SCS could prove that the client did not need a permit even though the regulatory agency thought they might.
What are the steps?
The process of obtaining an air permit can be complex and time-consuming, which is why businesses often hire specialized environmental engineering firms to assist them. In this example, SCS provided DERM with a detailed report and application package, including a process flow diagram, equipment specifications, and actual and potential emissions calculations.
It’s important for businesses operating in Miami-Dade, or any county, to understand the air permitting process and the regulations set by local authorities. Environmental engineering firms can provide more accurate and detailed information, so management understands the specific air quality regulations that apply to their business.
The value is in implementing the practices necessary to maintain compliance with air quality regulations and keeps your reputation with workers and the community stellar. Businesses continuing to operate illegally face administrative and civil violations, court actions, and potential environmental insurance challenges. Another consideration is that the same engineering firm can likely advise you on stormwater and groundwater permits and compliance for your facility.
About the Author: Troy Schick, PE, is a Project Manager based in our Miami, Florida, office. He is a Professional Engineer licensed in Florida and a Qualified Stormwater Management Inspector.
Stormwater and Air Permitting Compliance Resources for Businesses:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a proposed rulemaking (Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 198, Friday, October 14, 2022) that would address a 2008 Fugitive Emissions Rule that was subsequently granted reconsideration based upon a petition from the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The key issue is how fugitive emissions are considered under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as related to the definition of modification.
Modification means any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted. 42 U.S. Code § 7411(a)(4).
In 2008, the Bush EPA published its Fugitive Emissions Rule that sought to “reconsider” the inclusion of fugitive emissions under this language. Fugitive emissions are defined as:
Those emissions which could not reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally-equivalent opening.
NRDC’s petition for reconsideration argued that the Bush EPA weakened the standard for determining major modifications by excluding fugitive emissions from major Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and non-attainment New Source Review (NSR) applicability.
The proposed rulemaking would result in a formal reversion to the pre-2008 language. EPA’s Director for its Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards (OAQPS) has indicated that the rule “would require fugitives to be counted in all new and modified major source determinations,” effectively ending the Bush-era limitations on counting of fugitive emissions.
The potential impact of EPA’s planned fugitive emissions rule may prove significant and is expected to affect a wide range of diverse industry sectors being impacted, such as power generation, oil & gas extraction, mining, paper mills, petroleum refining, chemical manufacturing, coatings operations, and solid waste facilities. In particular, both landfills and compost facilities can have significant fugitive emissions.
Based on our current understanding, the proposed rule will effectively eliminate the ability to exempt fugitive emissions under the current exemption in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 52.21(i)(vii). This would mean that if a source is an existing major PSD or non-attainment NSR source for ANY pollutant, and modifies, then both non-fugitive AND fugitive emissions for ALL pollutants must be counted to see if the project is a major modification under PSD/NSR. Triggering a major modification would also mean that fugitive emissions are included in the various compliance elements of PSD or NSR (e.g., best available control technology [BACT], lowest achievable emission rate [LAER], modeling, offsets. etc.).
To add more context for landfills, as an example, if an existing landfill, which is already deemed major due to carbon monoxide (CO) or sulfur dioxide (SOx) emissions from flares (Potential to Emit [PTE] >250 tons per year [tpy]), conducts an expansion that will result in 15 tpy of new particulate matter less than 10 microns(PM10) [and/or 10 tpy of PM2.5] fugitive emissions from windblown dust, this would be a major modification under PSD, requiring BACT and modeling for fugitive PM. This could also include BACT and other requirements for fugitive methane as a regulated greenhouse gas (GHG) or volatile organic compounds (VOCs)/non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs) from the additional fugitive landfill gas (LFG) emitted from the expanded landfill. Compost facilities can also have significant VOC emissions, which could put them at risk from this rule change.
Public comment on the rulemaking ends on February 14, 2023, which is an extension of the previous deadline. The solid waste industry will provide comments through the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) and the National Waste and Recycling Association (NW&RA). This will be the last chance to have any effect on the rulemaking. Otherwise, landfills and possibly compost facilities could face more stringent requirements under the PSD and NSR programs when it comes to fugitive emissions.
Landfill and compost facility owners and operators may direct their questions pertaining to specific facilities to their Project Managers or .
The EPA and, in some cases, states are rolling out new emissions guidelines at least as stringent. The EPA estimates that the plans could cover about 1,600 landfills. These landfills are in 41 states, tribal entities, and the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
MSW landfills without Gas Collection and Control Systems (GCCS) that reach a specific threshold will need to add these systems and have 30 months to install or update control systems to meet new standards. As you’ve noticed by now, we’ve greatly oversimplified what is happening.
The new regulations and timetables are difficult to understand and untangle. SCS Engineers, in concert with SCS Field Services, have prepared resources to help during the transition period and afterward when landfills are likely to need more monitoring and measurement, thus creating millions of more bits of data to store, analyze, and report.
We hope you find these resources useful. We will be publishing more soon.
These resources may help you with future monitoring and maintenance:
Thank you to the many folks attending SCS’s live webinar on July 15th about managing the NESHAP, NSPS/EG transition period. As promised, we’ve created a library of resources for you to use and share with your colleagues.
These resources may help you with future monitoring and maintenance:
We’re here to help. Please find an expert or contact us at .
May 27, 2021, from two separate U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announcements:
EPA intends to reconsider and revise the 2020 CWA Section 401 Certification Rule
Congress provided authority to states and Tribes under CWA Section 401 to protect the quality of their waters from adverse impacts resulting from federally licensed or permitted projects. Under Section 401, a federal agency may not issue a license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in any discharge into navigable waters unless the affected state or Tribe certifies that the discharge is in compliance with the Clean Water Act and state law, or waives certification.
EPA intends to reconsider and revise the 2020 CWA Section 401 Certification Rule to restore the balance of state, Tribal, and federal authorities while retaining elements that support efficient and effective implementation of Section 401. While EPA engages with stakeholders and develops a revised rule, the 2020 rule will remain in place. The agency will continue listening to states and Tribes about their concerns with implementing the 2020 rule to evaluate potential administrative approaches to help address these near-term challenges.
The agency’s process of reconsidering and revising the 2020 CWA Section 401 Certification Rule will provide an opportunity for public and stakeholder input to inform the development of a proposed regulation, and will include sustained dialogue with state and Tribal co-regulator partners and local governments around these issues. EPA will begin a stakeholder engagement process in June to hear perspectives on this topic and how to move forward. More information will be available at: www.epa.gov/cwa-401.
EPA, Region 7, public listening sessions on the RMP Rule
Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act Amendments requires EPA to publish regulations and guidance for chemical accident prevention at facilities that use certain hazardous substances. These regulations and guidance are in the Risk Management Plan (RMP) rule, which requires facilities using extremely hazardous substances to develop a Risk Management Plan that:
These plans provide information to local fire, police, and emergency response personnel to prepare for and respond to chemical emergencies in their community.
The Region 7 EPA announced two upcoming virtual public listening sessions on the Agency’s Risk Management Plan (RMP) rule. The RMP rule has been identified as an action for review under Executive Order 13990: Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis.
The listening sessions will give people the opportunity to present information, and provide comments or views pertaining to revisions made to the RMP rule since 2017. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will also participate in the listening sessions and receive comments on their Process Safety Management (PSM) standard, which contains similar requirements to the RMP rule.
Virtual public listening sessions will be held on:
For more information on the public listening sessions:
https://www.epa.gov/rmp/forms/virtual-public-listening-sessions-risk-management-program-rule.
Submit written comments via the docket at: http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0312 until July 15, 2021.
EPA Region 7 serves Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and Nine Tribal Nations.
Corporate Headquarters
3900 Kilroy Airport Way Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90806
Telephone
1 (800) 767-4727
1 (562) 427-0805 | FAX
Contact Us
