Home Link

April 4th, 2014

NODA: Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units

February 26, 2014 - Notice of Data Availability (NODA)

SUMMARY: The EPA is issuing this NODA in support of the proposed rule titled “Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units” that was published on January 8, 2014. Through this NODA and the technical support document it references, the EPA solicits comment on its interpretation of the provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, including the federal tax credits contained in that Act, which limit the EPA’s authority to rely on information from facilities that received assistance under that Act. The EPA believes those provisions do not alter the EPA’s determination in the proposed rule that the best system of emission reduction for new fossil fuel-fired boiler and integrated gasification combined cycle electric utility generating units is partial carbon capture and sequestration.

The entities potentially affected by the determination that is at issue in this NODA are shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1–Potentially Affected Entities

Industry – NAICS code 221112,  Fossil fuel electric power generating units.

Federal Government – NAICS code 221112 (a), Fossil fuel electric power generating units owned by the federal government

State/Local Government – NAICS code 221112 (b),  Fossil fuel electric power generating units owned by municipalities.

Tribal Government – NAICS code 921150, Fossil fuel electric power generating units in Indian Country.

*North American Industry Classification System

(a) Includes NAICS categories for source categories that own and operate electric power generating units (including boilers and stationary combined cycle combustion turbines).

(b) Federal, state or local government-owned and operated establishments are classified according to the activity in which they are engaged.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive but to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this NODA. To determine whether this NODA affects your facility, company, business, organization, etc., you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.1. If you have questions regarding applicability, consult either the air permitting authority for the entity in question or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 60.4 or 40 CFR 63.13 (General Provisions).

What are the background and purpose of this NODA?
On January 8, 2014, the EPA published the proposed rule, ‘‘Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units,’’ (79 FR 1430) which was issued pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111. In the proposed rule, the EPA explains its rationale for emission standards for new fossil fuelfired boiler and integrated gasification combined cycle(IGCC) electric utility generating units (EGUs). These standards are based on the determination that the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for those sources is partial carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). The EPA today is providing a technical support document (TSD) that addresses the interaction of the determination of BSER in the proposed rule and several provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05), which are described immediately below. Limitations associated with EPAct05.

In providing assistance to fossil fuelfired electricity generating plants and other facilities that employ advanced technology, EPAct05 included several provisions that limit the EPA’s authority to rely on information from those facilities in conducting rulemaking or taking other action under various provisions of the CAA, including section 111. Section 402(i) of the EPAct05, codified at 42 U.S.C. section 15962(i), provides as follows, insofar as is presently relevant, that no technology, or level of emission reduction, solely by reason of the use of the technology, or the achievement of the emission reduction, by one or more facilities receiving assistance under EPAct05, shall be considered to be adequately demonstrated for purposes of section 111 of the Clean Air Act.1 In addition, internal revenue code (IRC) section 48A(g), codified at 26 USC section 48A(g), provides, insofar as is presently relevant, that no use of technology (or level of emission reduction solely by reason of the use of the technology), and no achievement of any emission reduction by the demonstration of any technology or performance level, by or at one or more facilities with respect to which a credit is allowed under this section, shall be considered to indicate that the technology or performance level is adequately demonstrated for purposes of section 111 of the Clean Air Act.

As explained in the TSD, the EPA’s preliminary interpretation of these provisions is that EPA may not rely on information from facilities that have received assistance under EPAct05, including being allowed tax credits under IRC section 48A, as the sole basis for a determination that a particular technology is the best system of emission reduction adequately demonstrated (BSER), but the EPA may rely on information from those facilities in conjunction from other information to support such a determination, or to corroborate an otherwise supported determination. In the TSD, the EPA also explains and solicits comments on other issues of interpretation that arise from the terms of IRC section 48A(g).  2014 Proposal BSER and EPAct05. In the proposed rule, the EPA determined that implementation of partial capture CCS technology is the BSER for new fossil fuel-fired boilers and IGCC units because it fulfills the criteria established under CAA section 111. The EPA’s rationale, insofar as is relevant for present purposes, is that partial capture is technically feasible and can be implemented at a reasonable cost.

In discussing its rationale, the EPA referenced some facilities that have received financial assistance under the EPAct05, including being allocated tax credits pursuant to IRC section 48A. As explained in the TSD, however, the EPA’s rationale does not depend solely upon those projects, and the determination remains adequately supported without any information from facilities that have been allocated the IRC section 48A tax credit.  Thus, the EPA’s proposed standards, which are based on its determination that partial capture CCS represents the best system of emission reduction adequately demonstrated, are not beyond the scope of its legal authority. As indicated in the TSD, the EPA solicits comment on all aspects of the interpretation of the provisions in EPAct05, including IRC section 48A(g), that limit the EPA’s authority to rely on certain information in rulemaking under CAA section 111.

April 4th, 2014

Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS Review – Revised Particulate Matter Standards for Recovery Furances, Smelt Dissolving Tanks, and Lime Kilns; Opacity Limits for Recovery Furnaces and Lime Kilns Equipped with Electrostatic Precipitators

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action finalizes revisions to the new source performance standards for kraft pulp mills. These revised standards include particulate matter emission limits for recovery furnaces, smelt dissolving tanks and lime kilns, and opacity limits for recovery furnaces and lime kilns equipped with electrostatic precipitators. These revised standards apply to emission units commencing construction, reconstruction or modification after May 23, 2013. This final rule removes the General Provisions exemption for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction resulting in a standard that applies at all times. This final rule also includes additional testing requirements and updated monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for affected sources, including electronic reporting of performance test data. These revisions to the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements are expected to ensure that control systems are properly maintained over time, ensure continuous compliance with standards and improve data accessibility for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), states, tribal governments and communities.

DATES: This final action is effective on April 4, 2014. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 4, 2014.

Summary of Major Provisions
Based on the results of the NSPS review, and following consideration of public comments, the EPA is finalizing the proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart BBa standards for filterable particulate matter (PM), opacity and total reduced sulfur (TRS) compounds and is finalizing the associated proposed monitoring allowances. The final rule specifies that TRS emissions from digester systems, BSW systems, evaporator systems and condensate stripper systems that are controlled by incineration or other means must be collected in a low-volume high  concentration (LVHC) or a high-volume low-concentration (HVLC) closed-vent system meeting the requirements of the provisions of 40 CFR 63.450 of subpart S. Table 1 summarizes the final standards for filterable PM, opacity and TRS contained in subpart BBa.

Continuous monitoring of opacity is required for recovery furnaces and lime kilns that are not using wet scrubbers or combined electrostatic precipitator (ESP)/scrubber systems. Continuous monitoring of TRS emissions is required for recovery furnaces, lime kilns and other affected sources that comply with the TRS concentration limits. Parameter monitoring is required for ESPs, wet scrubbers and combined ESP/scrubber systems. The emission standards are applicable at all times as specified in the monitoring and testing provisions in subpart BBa.

The EPA is including in this final rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of emission limits caused by malfunctions that meet certain criteria (i.e., the exceedance must come from an ‘‘unavoidable failure’’), along with recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Initial and repeat performance testing is required once every 5 years for filterable PM and TRS for new, modified and reconstructed affected sources in subpart BBa. The EPA is also requiring initial and repeat performance testing for condensable PM to gather emissions data that will enable a broader understanding of condensable PM emissions from pulp and paper combustion sources. Mills must submit electronic copies of their performance test reports using the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). The EPA is also making certain technical and editorial changes, clarifying the location of applicable test methods in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), incorporating by reference two non-EPA test methods, and adding definitions pertinent to the requirements in subpart BBa.

Where can I get a copy of this document?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final action is available on the World Wide Web through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site. Following signature, the EPA posted a copy of this final action on the TTN Web site’s policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN Web site provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

March 19th, 2014

NORTH AMERICA’S LARGEST ACID MANUFACTURER AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES AGREE TO SLASH EMISSIONS AND REDUCE AIR POLLUTION

WASHINGTON - LSB Industries Inc. (LSB), the largest merchant manufacturer of concentrated nitric acid in North America, and four of its subsidiaries have agreed to reduce harmful emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) by meeting emission limits that are among the lowest for the industry in the nation at plants in Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Justice announced today.

EPA estimates that the measures required by today’s settlement will reduce NOx emissions by more than 800 tons per year, directly benefiting surrounding communities, which include low-income and minority populations living near the Arkansas and Texas plants. The companies estimate that it will cost between $6.3 and $11.7 million to implement the measures required by the settlement.

“This case is about cleaner air for people living in communities near manufacturing plants,” said Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator of EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “LSB Industries has committed to dramatic cuts in air pollution and ensuring they are in compliance with the law. We expect others in the industry to recognize the imperative to adopt reforms and reduce pollution in communities where they operate.”

“With today’s settlement, LSB and its subsidiaries are further improving the nitric acid manufacturing process and reducing harmful air pollution across four states,” said Robert G. Dreher, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “In response to the Clean Air Act and state law claims, the companies have taken a constructive and cooperative approach by agreeing to implement global operational changes and mitigate past emissions. These actions raise the bar for compliance in this industry sector.”

LSB and its four nitric acid producing subsidiaries will also pay a total penalty of $725,000 to resolve alleged violations of the Clean Air Act and applicable Oklahoma state law. In addition to paying the penalty, the companies must continuously monitor emissions and make any necessary operational improvements such as installing new pollution controls or upgrading current controls to meet the new NOx limits.

Today’s settlement applies to the ten nitric acid manufacturing plants owned or operated by the following Oklahoma City-based LSB subsidiaries: El Dorado Chemical Co., in El Dorado, Ark. (four plants); Cherokee Nitrogen Co. in Cherokee, Ala. (two plants); El Dorado Nitrogen Co. in Pryor, Okla. (three plants); and El Dorado Nitrogen Co. in Baytown, Texas (one plant).

The complaint, filed concurrently with the settlement, alleges that the Cherokee, El Dorado and Pryor subsidiaries constructed or made modifications to their plants that resulted in increased emissions of NOx without first obtaining pre-construction permits and installing pollution controls. The complaint does not allege any violations regarding the Texas facility.

Today’s action is part of EPA’s national enforcement initiative to control harmful air pollution from the largest sources of emissions, including acid manufacturing facilities. High concentrations of NOx in the air can irritate the lungs and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as influenza. Continued or frequent exposure may cause increased incidence of acute respiratory illness in children. Further, airborne NOx can significantly contribute to acid rain and lead to the formation of smog.

The companies have also agreed to spend $150,000 to remediate and reforest ten acres of land with acidified soils located near El Dorado, Ark. NOx emissions, such as those from nitric acid plants, can contribute to soil acidification. The project will help to minimize erosion, reduce stormwater runoff, improve habitat for wildlife and capture carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.

The States of Oklahoma and Alabama are co-plaintiffs in today’s settlement and will receive a portion of the total penalty as follows: $206,250 will be paid to the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and $156,250 will be paid to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management.

LSB, headquartered in Oklahoma City, Okla., is a major producer of nitrogen-based fertilizers, including anhydrous ammonia, urea and ammonium nitrate. The company owns and operates the largest fleet of concentrated nitric acid rail cars in the United States. LSB and its subsidiaries produce nitric acid for use in products that include herbicides, metal treatment, explosives and pharmaceuticals.

March 6th, 2014

Public Comment Period Extended for Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units

Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of extension of public comment period.

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing that the period for providing public comments on the January 8, 2014, proposed ‘‘Standards of  Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units’’ and on the February 26, 2014, notice of data availability soliciting comment on the provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, is being extended by 60 days.

DATES: Comments. The public comment period for the proposed rule published January 8, 2014 (79 FR 1352) and the notice of data availability published on February 26, 2014 (79 FR 10750), is being extended by 60 days to May 9, 2014, in order to provide the public
additional time to submit comments and supporting information.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted to the EPA electronically, by mail, by facsimile or through hand delivery/courier. Please refer to the proposal (79 FR 1352) for the addresses and detailed instructions.

Docket. Publicly available documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. The EPA has established the official public docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0495. Worldwide Web. The EPA Web site containing information for this rulemaking is: http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Nick Hutson, Energy Strategies Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243–01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541–2968, facsimile number (919) 541–5450; email address: hutson.nick@ epa.gov,  or

Mr. Christian Fellner, Energy Strategies Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243–01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541–4003, facsimile number (919) 541–5450; email address: fellner.christian@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comment Period The EPA is extending the public comment period for an additional 60 days. The public comment period will end on May 9, 2014, rather than March 10, 2014. This will ensure that the public has sufficient time to review and comment on all of the information
available, including the proposed rule, the notice of data availability and other materials in the docket.

List of Subjects:

40 CFR Part 60 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 70 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 71 Environmental Protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 98 Environmental protection, Greenhouse gases and monitoring, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

February 25th, 2014

EPA Submits Information Collection Request for NESHAP for Gold Mine Ore Processing (Renewal)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0317; FRL-9907-13-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Gold Mine Ore Processing (Renewal) AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Gold Mine Ore Processing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart EEEEEEE) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2383.03, OMB Control No. 2060-0659) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through April 30, 2014. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (78 FR 35023) on June 11, 2013 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments.

A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ- OECA-2013-0317, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to docket.oeca@epa.gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Learia Williams, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-4113; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: williams.learia@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA’s public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Abstract: The NESHAP for Gold Mine Ore Processing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart EEEEEEE) were proposed on April 28, 2010, and promulgated on December 16, 2010. The owner or operator of either an existing or new affected source is required to prepare and submit an initial notification report of applicability and an initial notification of compliance status. Each owner or operator of either an affected source is required to keep records to document compliance with the mercury emission limits and also maintain records of all monitoring data and specified process throughput data. If a deviation from the rule requirements occurs, an affected source is required to submit a compliance report for that semi-annual reporting period. Form Numbers: None. Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of gold mine ore processing facilities. Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEEEE).

February 7th, 2014

Strictly Organic Coffee Company of Bend, Oregon Penalized for Operating Without an Air Contaminant Permit

January 28, 2014 – DEQ issues $2,100 penalty to Strictly Organic Coffee Company for operating without an air contaminant permit.  Oregon DEQ has issued a $2,100 penalty to Strictly Organic Coffee Company for failing to apply for an air contaminant discharge permit for its coffee roasting facility at 6 SE Bond Street in Bend.  Anyone roasting more than 30 tons of coffee beans per year must apply for the permit. In 2012, Strictly Organic Coffee Company roasted approximately 40 tons of coffee beans, and did not apply for the permit until October 2013.

The permit is important because it ensures the roaster is operating at the proper temperature to control odors and smoke produced during the coffee roasting process.  Smoke contains particulate matter that is an air pollutant and can cause respiratory distress in some people. Smoke can also contain odors that pose a nuisance to nearby businesses and people.

Strictly Organic Coffee Company has until February 11, 2014 to appeal the penalty.

February 7th, 2014

Oregon Door Fined for Clean Air Act Violations

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Justice fined Dillard, Ore-based Oregon Door Company $50,000 for emissions violations.

The company allegedly pumped more than 18,000 lbs per year of toluene—a solvent for stains and paints that can affect the human nervous system, kidneys, liver, and heart if inhaled—into the air during a four-year period from 2005 to 2009.

The EPA said Oregon Door “repeatedly exceeded emissions of toluene as allowed by state and federal air regulations.”  The discharge also exceeded the limit set by the company’s air contaminant discharge permit, according to the EPA.

Toluene emissions are regulated under the Clean Air Act and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act. According to the EPA, Oregon Door also failed to report its 2007 toluene emissions to the EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory, and lacked a Clean Air Act Title V permit, required of major sources of air pollutants.

“Permit limits control what we’re putting in our air,” says Scott Downey, manager of the Air Compliance Unit at the EPA Seattle office, in a press release. “Reporting chemicals is crucial to having accurate numbers about chemical usage.”

The EPA says the company took steps to correct the emissions, and in its own press release, Oregon Door wrote that it “cooperated fully with the EPA,” after the government agency issued a Notice of Violation in 2012. “The necessary steps were taken as quickly as possible and were completed some time ago,” says Brian Bennett, Oregon Door’s vice president and general manager in an email. “These steps consisted primarily of working with suppliers to re-formulate the products used in our process.”

February 5th, 2014

EPA to Hold Public Hearing on Carbon Pollution Standards for New Power Plants

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will hold a public hearing on Thursday, February 6, 2014 on the proposed carbon pollution standards for new power plants. The proposed standards, which only apply to power plants built in the future, are flexible and would help minimize carbon pollution through the deployment of the same types of modern technologies and steps that power companies are already taking to build the next generation of power plants. Currently, there are no uniform national limits on the amount of carbon pollution new power plants can emit.

WHAT:
Public hearing on proposed carbon pollution standards for new power plants

WHEN:
Thursday, February 6, 2014
9:00 a.m. ET – 8:00 p.m. ET

WHERE
:
William Jefferson Clinton East Building
Rooms 1152 and 1153
1201 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004

**Members of the news media should be prepared to present photo credentials and allow additional time to enter the building and go through security.**

The public may register to speak in person on the day of the hearing and will be accommodated as time allows.

EPA also will accept written comments on the proposed standards until March 10, 2014.

More information on the hearings and instructions for submitting written comments: http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards

February 4th, 2014

EPA’s 2012 Toxics Release Inventory Shows Air Pollutants Continue to Decline

February 4, 2014

WASHINGTON - Total releases of toxic chemicals decreased 12 percent from 2011-2012, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) annual Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) report released today. The decrease includes an eight percent decline in total toxic air releases, primarily due to reductions in hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions.


“People deserve to know what toxic chemicals are being used and released in their backyards, and what companies are doing to prevent pollution,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. “By making that information easily accessible through online tools, maps, and reports, TRI is helping protect our health and the environment.”  The 2012 data show that 3.63 billion pounds of toxic chemicals were either disposed or otherwise released into the environment through air, water, and land. There was also a decline in releases of HAPs such as hydrochloric acid and mercury, which continues a long-term trend. Between 2011 and 2012, toxic releases into surface water decreased three percent and toxic releases to land decreased 16 percent.  This is the first year that TRI has collected data on hydrogen sulfide. While it was added to the TRI list of reportable toxic chemicals in a 1993 rulemaking, EPA issued an Administrative Stay in 1994 that deferred reporting while the agency completed further evaluation of the chemical. EPA lifted the stay in 2011. In 2012, 25.8 million pounds of hydrogen sulfide were reported to TRI, mainly in the form of releases to air from paper, petroleum, and chemical manufacturing facilities.  Another new addition to TRI reporting is a requirement for each facility located in Indian country to submit TRI reports to EPA and the appropriate tribe, and not the state where the facility is geographically located. EPA finalized this requirement in a 2012 rule aimed at increasing tribal participation in the TRI Program.

This year’s TRI national analysis report includes new analyses and interactive maps for each U.S. metropolitan and micropolitan area, new information about industry efforts to reduce pollution through green chemistry and other pollution prevention practices, and a new feature about chemical use in consumer products.  The annual TRI report provides citizens with critical information about their communities. The TRI Program collects data on certain toxic chemical releases to the air, water, and land, as well as information on waste management and pollution prevention activities by facilities across the country.  The data are submitted annually to EPA, states, and tribes by facilities in industry sectors such as manufacturing, metal mining, electric utilities, and commercial hazardous waste. Many of the releases from facilities that are subject to TRI reporting are regulated under other EPA program requirements designed to limit harm to human health and the environment.  Also available is the expanded TRI Pollution Prevention (P2) Search Tool, which now allows users to graphically compare facilities within the same industry using a variety of environmental metrics.

Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), facilities must report their toxic chemical releases to EPA by July 1 of each year. The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 also requires facilities to submit information on waste management activities related to TRI chemicals.  More information on the 2012 TRI analysis, including metropolitan and micropolitan areas is available at www.epa.gov/tri/nationalanalysis.  More information on facility efforts to reduce toxic chemical releases, including the new P2 facility comparison report, is available at www.epa.gov/tri/p2.



January 23rd, 2014

Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After May 14, 2007

What are the amendments made by this direct final rule?
Presently, ‘‘delayed coking unit’’ is defined as follows:

Delayed coking unit means a refinery process unit in which high molecular weight petroleum derivatives are thermally cracked and petroleum coke is produced in a series of closed, batch system reactors. A delayed coking unit includes, but is not limited to, all of the coke drums associated with a single fractionator; the fractionator, including the bottoms receiver and the overhead condenser; the coke drum cutting water and quench system, including the jet pump and coker quench water tank; process piping and associated equipment such as pumps, valves and connectors; and the coke drum blowdown recovery compressor system.

40 CFR 60.101a. This direct final rule amends the definition of ‘‘delayed coking unit’’ by removing the phrase ‘‘process piping and associated
equipment such as pumps, valves and connectors.’’ Emissions from process piping and associated equipment (pumps, valves and connectors) are already covered under 40 CFR part 60, subparts GGG or GGGa; the controls required under this rule (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja) do not address the emissions from such equipment. Rather, this rule addresses emissions from the delayed coking unit’s process vent. Although we included process piping and associated equipment in the definition of ‘‘delayed coking unit’’ because it is necessary to operate the delayed coking unit, the inclusion of this equipment within the definition results in very minor changes, such as adding a few valves and connectors for a new sample point or pressure gauge, to be considered a ‘‘modification’’ of the delayed coking unit. This is because, under the definition above, these additional valves would increase emissions from the delayed coking unit even though the increase would not occur at emissions points regulated under this rule. See 40 CFR 60.14. This was an inadvertent result as the EPA did not intend for such small changes to process piping and associated equipment (such as pumps, valves and connectors, which, as noted above, are regulated elsewhere), to constitute a modification of the delayed coking unit under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja. As a result, this modification would require immediate compliance with the coke drum vent control requirements in 40 CFR 60.103a(i). Thus, we are removing this phrase from the definition. This direct final rule also removes a redundant definition of ‘‘delayed coking unit’’ from 40 CFR 60.101a. When 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja, was amended on September 12, 2012 (77 FR 56422), we added new definitions that preceded the old definition of ‘‘delayed coking unit’’ alphabetically, and we amended the then-existing definition of ‘‘delayed coking unit.’’ However, the old definition of ‘‘delayed coking unit’’ was not removed from the CFR when these other changes were made. Therefore, this direct final rule removes the old definition of ‘‘delayed coking unit,’’ as it is no longer accurate and may be confusing to stakeholders. Comments on this direct final rule are to be limited to issues directly associated with the amended definition of ‘‘delayed coking unit.’’