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 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) – § Allows processes to run uncontrolled during routine maintenance ( % 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) Rhonda Thompson - Permit Director (803)