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
} 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: [email protected]
Poll
What kind of Bay Area facility do you represent? • Diesel engine-‐only • Manufacturing • Refinery • Other type • I don’t represent a regulated facility
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
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 – Metal Melting Electric Arc Furnace and Cr VI
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
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
[email protected] www.bluescapeinc.com
Keith Casto, Partner Cooper, White & Cooper, LLP
415-433-1900
[email protected] www.cwclaw.com
Top Related