NJDEP Adopts New Rules for CO2 Budget Trading Program

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has adopted new rules at N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.28 and 7:27C and amendments to N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.1 and 22.16, and 7:27A-3.2, 3.5, and 3.10, which establish the New Jersey Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Budget Trading Program.  The CO2 Budget Trading Program is New Jersey’s commitment to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a regional, cooperative program to cap and reduce CO2 emissions from fossil fuel fired units producing 25 or more megawatts of power in the participating states to address the significant challenge of climate change.

The adoption was published in the New Jersey Register on June 17, 2019.  The operative date of the new rules and amendments is June 11, 2019.  A copy of the Department’s adoption is available on the Department’s website at: https://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/adoptions.html and https://www.state.nj.us/dep/aqes/rggi.html as well as LexisNexis free public access to the New Jersey Register,  https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lexisnexis.com_njoal&d=DwIFAg&c=4BTEw-1msHjOY4ITcFLmDM6JB8x6ZgbU2J24IH0HZLU&r=G2jsVVV4jFHeLEjPL09sH5Z1gSxJt54Oz5U9BS0lEidsmUHsZycJoAKJm7vit93B&m=R2uM3LiVNV5tQdBwElNdK6utpm1rEP8k50B5knCMltw&s=qL-wKUpoWVcWce1hThWUs-GilTRiSEJ-SaSqzZsVj7w&e=

Please note that consistent with newly adopted N.J.A.C. 7:27C-3.3, CO2 budget sources must be added to an operating permit by completing an application for a new, renewed, or modified operating permit.  The Department has developed “NJ03-APPLICATION FOR ADDING A CO2 BUDGET SOURCE IN OPERATING PERMIT,” which should be submitted along with the completed application for a new, renewed, or modified operating permit.  The new form may be downloaded from the Department’s website at https://www.state.nj.us/dep/aqes/rggi-who-is-regulated.html

Further information and additional forms related to the CO2 budget trading program compliance certification and compliance plans are also available on the Department’s website at https://www.state.nj.us/dep/aqes/rggi-who-is-regulated.html

The Department has developed two new listservs related to RGGI’s implementation – one specific to the RGGI regulated entities and the other for those interested in the development of the RGGI strategic funding plan.  You can join one or both of those listservs by submitting your email where indicated on the RGGI website at https://www.state.nj.us/dep/aqes/rggi.html.

EPA to Propose Repealing Clean Power Plan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose repealing the Clean Power Plan – the Obama administration’s centerpiece regulation to fight climate change – and plans to solicit input on a rule to replace it, according to an EPA document seen by Reuters.

The decision marks the agency’s first formal step to sweep away the rule intended to cut carbon emissions from power plants, after President Donald Trump signed an executive order in March launching the EPA’s review.

The Republican president has expressed doubts about the science of climate change and has blamed former Democratic President Barack Obama’s efforts to cut carbon emissions for hurting the coal mining and oil drilling industries.

The Clean Power Plan, or CPP, was challenged in court by 27 states after Obama’s administration launched it in 2015. It is currently suspended by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which set a deadline of Friday for a status report from the EPA on how it plans to proceed.

[Read more…]

EPA Guidance on Method 202 and Recovery Blanks for CPM

EPA Guidance on Method 202 and Recovery Blanks for CPMOn April 8th, 2014, in response to feedback from industry owners, operators, and the NCASI Institute, the US EPA released a memorandum providing interim guidance on the treatment of Condensable Particulate Matter (CPM) test results, and expressed the intention to review and potentially revise the EPA Method 202 used to obtain CPM during a stack test.

At issue is the fear of owners and operators of overestimate of CPM emissions, due to the stringent field train recovery blank correction requirements. The method has many chances for contamination, in the chemicals, equipment, and sample containers that are used to sample, collect, and transport the samples to laboratories for weighing and analysis. This contamination can lead to the overestimation of CPM emissions in the stack, which can result in more stringent permit and operating requirements for a facility, particular in regards to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) permitting programs.

A Field Train Recovery Blank is a part of the sampling method that enables the stack testing firm to determine a base-line for contamination of the actual emissions from the stack. During a standard test series, typically consisting of three (3) 60-minute test runs, a sampling train is set up to perform the blank after either run one or run two. The train is set up in exactly the same manner and procedure as the actual test runs, and is run for the same period of time as the actual test runs, with the exception that the train is not placed into the stack, and so is not grabbing an actual emission sample. The collected sample is labeled as a blank, and analyzed along with the other collected samples. The analysis of the blank sample provides the level of contamination in the sampling train, and the stack testing firm corrects the numbers from the actual test runs to account for this contamination.

However, under the existing rules the Testing Firm was only able to correct up to 2.0mg, even if the blank showed level of contamination higher than that upper limit, and that upper limit was the point of contention that NCASI and Industry Representatives requested action on. Upon reviewing the data presented by all parties, the EPA has agreed that a higher upper limit for blank correction is warranted, and has expressed that, in the interim, Stack Testing firms may use values as high as 5.1mg to be used in the corrections for the calculation of CPM. This is, of course, only if the blank shows readings of up to this amount – if the blank readings are lower, then the actual value will be used.

This solution is only for the interim, while EPA researches the issue. Should EPA feel that the research warrants a revision of the entire Method, that will occur, but in the meantime this action will potentially have real impact on facilities controlled and permitted for particulate matter emissions. In order to achieve the best results for you and your facility, a knowledgeable and experienced stack testing partner, up to date on all news and requirements in the federal and state regulatory bodies, is invaluable.

If you require emissions testing for PM, CPM, or any other regulated pollutants, give ESS a call today at (910) 799-1055.

Related Posts:
Overcoming the Stack Testing Challenges of PM and Method 201a
Compliance Stack Testing and Audit Sample Requirements
EPA Proposal – Carbon Pollution Standards for New Power Plants

Compliance Stack Testing and Audit Sample Requirements

Audit Samples for Compliance TestingOn June 16th of 2013, the EPA moved forward with one phase of their Stationary Source Audit Sample Program. The program will require audit samples to be required for specific source tests, if those tests are to be used for the demonstration of compliance with emission limits or federal standards.

An audit sample, the composition of which is unknown to the Stationary Source Tester and Laboratory, is used during a particular test event to evaluate whether the Stationary Source Tester and/or Analytical Laboratory can produce measurement results within specified acceptance criteria. Audit samples are not analyzed on a regular schedule; rather, they are analyzed only during the particular event (e.g., a compliance test) that is being audited. Audit samples are analyzed, or collected and analyzed, as part of the batch of field test samples using the same personnel, procedures, and materials.

At this time, audits are only available for particular pollutants by EPA Methods. The list of current available/required audits is provided in the table below. Other methods that will have audits, but are still unavailable and thus not required, are:

  • Dioxins/Furans by Method 23
  • Non Methane Organic Compounds by Method 25
  • Methylene Chloride by Method 315

The EPA restructured program requires that two accredited providers be available, and audit samples must be available and listed on the provider website for 60 days before audits are required to be utilized with compliance tests.

Table – Currently Required Audit Samples for Compliance Testing

Analyte

EPA Method

NELAC Analyte Code

Inorganics in Impinger Solution

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

Methods 6 and 8

4010

Sulfuric Acid Mist (H2SO4)

Method 8

4020

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)

Method 7

3885

Fluoride (F)

Methods 13a, 13b

1730

Hydrogen Chloride (HCl)

Methods 26, 26a

1770

Hydrogen Fluoride (HF)

Methods 26, 26a

1775

Metals on Glass/Quartz Fiber Filters and in Impinger Solution

Antimony (Sb)

EPA Method 29

1005

Arsenic (As)

EPA Method 29

1010

Barium (Ba)

EPA Method 29

1015

Beryllium (Be)

EPA Method 29

1020

Cadmium (Cd)

EPA Method 29

1030

Chromium (Cr)

EPA Method 29

1040

Cobalt (Co)

EPA Method 29

1050

Copper (Cu)

EPA Method 29

1055

Lead (Pb)

EPA Method 29

1075

Manganese (Mn)

EPA Method 29

1090

Nickel (Ni)

EPA Method 29

1105

Selenium (Se)

EPA Method 29

1140

Silver (Ag)

EPA Method 29

1150

Thallium (Tl)

EPA Method 29

1165

Zinc (Zn)

EPA Method 29

1190

Mercury (Hg)

EPA Method 29

1095

Lead (Alt. Method)

EPA Method 12

1075

 

Note that in the case of the criteria gases NOx and SO2, compliance audits are only necessary for the wet chemistry methods 6, 7, and 8. Testing utilizing continuous emissions monitors (CEMS) by Methods 7e and 6c do not require audit samples.

Audit samples add a variable cost to the sampling activities, depending on how many samples under what methods are required, and take 4 – 6 weeks to prepare. It is advised to begin preparations as much as two months before doing any required testing, in the same period of time that test plans or test protocols are drafted and submitted to state or federal regulators.

An audit sample has to be prepared specific to the source being tested. In order to prepare the audit, the preparatory lab would need the following information for the source.

  • Analyte/pollutant being measured.
  • Emission limit (lb/hr)
  • Estimated in-stack gas concentration (mg/dscm)
  • Stack flow rate (dscfm)
  • The sampling rate (m3/hr)
  • Length of the sampling run (hr)

The audit sample must be present on-site during the conduct of the compliance test, and the sample must be included and analyzed by the analytical laboratory in the same batch and the same manner as the samples collected from the actual compliance testing. Failure to provide for those factors may delay regulatory acceptance of the compliance test, or cause the test report to be rejected.

In all compliance testing, an experienced partner is crucial to ensuring results acceptable to the regulators. A qualified stack testing firm such as ESS can include the organization, procurement, and analysis of audit samples in the scope of the testing project, leading to less headaches, and a compliance test for your facility that is accurate and follows all necessary protocols and procedures.

Environmental Source Samplers, Inc. (ESS) was founded in 1979 and has been conducting point source, ambient and industrial hygiene air quality testing and consulting. ESS utilizes modern and consistently maintained equipment to conduct its testing services world-wide. They are qualified to conduct a wide range of air testing methodologies in almost any environment – and for almost any industry. ESS clients have easy access to the reliable and accurate reporting of test results through a secure online client portal. accessible at their main website, www.essknowsair.com.

If you have a compliance demonstration required for your facility, give ESS a call today: 910-799-1055.

For more information about the EPA required audit samples for source tests, visit the NELAC Stationary Source Audit Sample Program site at the following link: http://www.nelac-institute.org/ssas/.

 

EPA Proposal – Carbon Pollution Standards for New Power Plants

EPA News & UpdatesOn September 20, 2013, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed new Clean Air Act standards to cut carbon pollution from new power plants. The proposed rule is for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for new fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (EGUs), primarily those fired by coal or natural gas. The rule was crafted to limit the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), from these EGU units.

The proposal is part of the EPAs plans to combat climate change and improve public health. Fossil fuel-fired power plants are the nation’s largest sources of carbon pollution and emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs). The rule is designed to require any newly constructed power plants be equipped during the construction phase with the available best technology for controlling carbon and GHG emissions. EPA is accepting and encouraging public comment on the new proposed standards, and will maintain the comment period for 60 days after the original publish date in the Federal Register.

The proposed standards are, in actuality, a revision of standards originally proposed in April of 2012, and this new proposal is an attempt on the part of the EPA to accommodate the feedback and criticisms from the 2.5 million public comments received after the initial proposed rule. The chief criticism of the original rule was a single standard for both coal and natural gas-fired units, based on a single concept of “best system of emissions reductions” (BSER). In response to this, the new rule proposes two separate standards for coal and gas-fired units, based on BSERs specific to each category. The original proposal was rescinded by the EPA in a separate action.

This NSPS proposed rule is specific to plants that will be constructed in the future, typically identified as after the date of the proposal. After the proposed NSPS standards, the EPA has announced plans to communicate with the owners and operators of currently-constructed sources, to develop standards for existing units. These standards are expected to be different from, and less stringent than, the standards proposed now for future sources.

The Proposed NSPS Standards

    • Fossil Fuel-fired utility boilers and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) units
      • BSER – Partial Carbon Capture System
      • Proposed limits, dependent on compliance period that best suits the unit:
        • 1,100 lb CO2/MWh gross over 12-operating month period
        • 1,000 – 1,050 lb CO2/MWh gross over an 84-operating month (7-year) period
    • Natural gas-fired stationary combustion units
      • BSER – Current Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) units
      • Proposed limits, dependent on size of the unit:
        • 1,000 lb CO2/MWh gross for larger units (>850 mmBtu/hr)
        • 1,100 lb CO2/MWh gross for smaller units (?850 mmBtu/hr)

Comment Period and How to Comment

EPA will accept comment on this new proposal for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Comments on the proposed standard should be identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495. All comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:

  • www.regulations.gov – follow the on-line instructions for comment submittal
  • E-mail comments to [email protected]
  • Fax your comments to: 202-566-9744
  • Mail your comments to:
    • Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
    • Environmental Protection Agency
    • Mail Code: 2822 2T
    • 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
    • Washington, DC 20460
  • Deliver your comments to:
    • EPA Docket Center, Room 3334
    • 1301 Constitution Ave. NW
    • Washington, DC 20460

For Fact Sheets, the full proposed rule, and any other information, visit the following link:
www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/2012-proposed-carbon-pollution-standard-new-power-plants

Your One Stop Shop for RICE NESHAP ZZZZ Compliance

Environmental Source Samplers, Inc. (ESS) is pleased to announce a partnership with PowerSecure International, Inc. (PowerSecure) and Governor Control Systems, Inc. (GCS) to provide a one-stop-shop for total compliance with the EPA mandated emission standards for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine (RICE) units. This ruling, which was finalized in May 2010, is part of the larger Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards promulgated by the EPA.

GCS is a provider of control equipment for the affected units, such as DCL’s Diesel Oxidation Catalysts (DOC), Silencers, Diesel Particulate Filters. GCS has also designed and developed the required Continuous Parameter Monitoring Systems (CPMS) Kit necessary to refit existing engines to meet emission requirements. PowerSecure provides products and services in the areas of Energy Efficiency, Interactive Distributed Generation, and Utility Infrastructure. ESS is an air quality consulting firm specializing in project management, emissions sampling and testing for a wide base of industrial, government and municipal clients.

ESS, PowerSecure and GCS have an established history of working together to meet a facility’s compliance requirements. Over the last year our three organizations have worked together on over 100 projects for RICE units demonstrating Subpart ZZZZ compliance. Our project management team provides initial consultation and emission measurements; engineering and design work; an accredited and certified emissions test program; and, guaranteed RICE NESHAP compliance.

Several million stationary reciprocating engines are in use throughout the United States. These engines, in general industry use, provide shaft power to drive process equipment, compressors, pumps, standby generator sets and other machinery. The uses are similar in agriculture, with many engines serving the purpose of driving irrigation pumps. Reciprocating engines also find wide application in municipal water supply, wastewater treatment, and in commercial and institutional emergency power and load-managing stations.

The Subpart ZZZZ RICE rule (see: A Guide to the ZZZZ and JJJJ RICE Rules) includes requirements to regulate emissions from new and reconstructed RICE units located at major sources and area sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP). A HAP major source is a facility with a potential to emit 10 tons per year of a single HAP, or 25 tons per year of a combination of HAPs. An area source is any source that is not a HAP major source. All RICE units >100 hp (at area sources) and >500 hp (at major sources) have Carbon Monoxide emission testing requirements.

If you have any questions concerning your operations and applicability under these rulings, don’t hesitate to contact our office today. Compliance with the rule must be achieved by May 3, 2013!

Environmental Source Samplers – Brian Mellor (910) 799-1055, [email protected]

A Guide To Subpart ZZZZ and JJJJ RICE Rules

United States Environmental Protection AgencyRICE NESHAP – Subparts ZZZZ and JJJJ

Several million stationary reciprocating engines are in use throughout the United States. These engines, in general industry use, provide shaft power to drive process equipment, compressors, pumps, standby generator sets and other machinery. The uses are similar in agriculture, with many engines serving the purpose of driving irrigation pumps. Reciprocating engines also find wide application in municipal water supply, wastewater treatment, and in commercial and institutional emergency power and load-managing stations.

These engines are subject to a number of emissions parameters. Newly constructed engines, in particular, must maintain compliance with two EPA rulings promulgated in the First Quarter of 2008. These are the RICE NESHAP, 40 CFR 63, Subpart ZZZZ, and the New Standards of Performance For Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines (SI ICE NSPS), 40 CFR 63, Subpart JJJJ.

Description of Affected Units

There are two basic types of Stationary Reciprocating engines – spark ignition and compression ignition. Spark ignition engines use a spark, across a spark plug, to ignite a compressed fuel-air mixture. Typically, fuels for these engines are gasoline and natural gas. Compression ignition engines compress air to a high pressure, heating the air to the ignition temperature of the fuel, which is then injected. The high compression ratio used for compression ignition engines results in a higher efficiency than is possible with spark ignition engines. Diesel fuel oil is normally used in compression ignition engines, although there are dual-fueled varieties, where natural gas is compressed with the combustion air, and diesel oil is injected at the top of the compression stroke to initiate combustion.

Summary of Rules and Regulated Pollutants

The JJJJ rule became effective on March 18, 2008, and applies to newly-constructed, modified, or reconstructed Spark units, regardless of size and the fuel that is combusted. This rule does NOT apply to combustion turbines. The emissions are required to be controlled to levels achievable by Best Demonstrated Technology (BDT). The regulated pollutants are Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). There is a sulfur limit, as well, on the gasoline fired.

The ZZZZ rule also became effective on March 18, 2008, and includes requirements to regulate emissions from new and reconstructed units that are less than or equal to 500 hp, and located at major sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP), as well as all new and reconstructed units at area sources. A HAP major source is a facility with a potential to emit 10 tons per year of a single HAP, or 25 tons per year of a combination of HAPs. An area source is any source that is not a HAP major source. Typically, the major regulated pollutant is Carbon Monoxide. This ruling was updated on February 25, 2009.

Sources that meet compliance with the emission limits in JJJJ also meet compliance with ZZZZ.

Meeting and Demonstrating Compliance

Newly-constructed, modified, or reconstructed units have 180 days after achieving maximum operating levels to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in the rules. This can be accomplished in one of two ways. The first is a certificate of compliance from the manufacturer of the unit. For those who do not have the initial certification, compliance must be demonstrated by developing a maintenance plan for the unit, and conducting a performance test for the emission of pollutants from the exhaust of the unit, also known as a stack test.

There are various compliance dates and specific requirements depending on the unit in question, so if you have questions about your applicability and compliance requirements, you can find help using the online tools below from EPA.gov:

RICE Rule Quiz for Determining Requirements Under 40 CFR Section 63, Subpart ZZZZ

Latest EPA News

Visit the News page on our main website for the Latest EPA News and Updates.

Bitnami