The maximum allowable values for each should be established during the initial performance test of each engine, which, for the last classifications of engines regulated by the RICE MACT (< 500 hp Spark Ignited RICE at major sources and all SI RICE at area sources), is required by 17 April 2014 for any subcategories subject to an emission standard.  Note that the deadline has passed for all other applicable categories of engines.  The site-specific monitoring plan for each engine should also be in place no later than the test date.

What this means to you

Many owners of stationary engines that use a catalyst to control

their HAP's emissions are now required to follow a site specific monitoring plan.  Owners of Spark Ignited RICE > 500 hp at major sources and all SI RICE at area sources have until 17 April 2014 to establish maximum allowable values.  

MIRATECH can help

Contact MIRATECH if you need a monitor for your RICE MACT monitoring plan. 

Once in place, the rule will limit all future coal plants to 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions for each megawatt hour of electricity they generate. Today's coal-fired power plants pump an average of about 1,700 pounds of carbon dioxide into the air per megawatt hour.

Natural gas plants will be limited to 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per megawatt hour for larger units (plants that generate 100 megawatts of energy) and 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour for smaller plants.  The electricity industry is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., and coal accounts for about 80 percent of its CO2 emissions each year.

Most coal plants won't meet the new standard without implementing cutting-edge technologies to improve their thermal efficiency or that capture and store their carbon emissions, known as carbon capture and storage (CCS).  Currently, no power plants in the U.S. use the technologies.  However, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies project has compiled a database of all the CCS projects currently planned or already being built around the world, which you can see by clicking the icons in this Google map.

What this means to you

The EPA is establishing CO2 emission targets that encourage fuel efficiency for power plants and the use of  natural gas vs. coal in order to reduce GHG emissions. 

MIRATECH can help

Contact MIRATECH about rich and lean burn engine catalysts, silencers, and controls that minimize your GHG footprint.

On 24 January 2014 the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) published an inter-office memo  to commissioners stating TCEQ has approved its Flexible Permits Program's (FPP) conformity with the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP).  A TCEQ flexible permit "allows an operator more flexibility in managing his operations by staying under an overall emissions cap or individual emission limitation. The applicant is allowed to structure the flexible permit to best serve their needs."

The FPP was a system put in place in Texas in 1994 that was used by about ten percent of industrial facilities in the state to obtain air permits. The rest of the facilities in the state used a standard permit approved by the EPA, according to a 2012 report from NPR.

In June 2010, EPA disapproved the FPP from being part of TCEQ's SIP saying the FPP allows companies to avoid certain federal clean air requirements by lumping emissions from multiple units under a single "cap" rather than setting specific emission limits for individual pollution sources at their plants.  The state Attorney General, Greg Abbott, TCEQ and several industry groups filed suit, saying EPA didn't have the right to reject the permitting program.  

In August of 2012 the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that EPA hadn't properly rejected TCEQ's FPP. The court found "the EPA based its disapproval on demands for language and program features of the EPA's choosing, without basis in the Clean Air Act or its implementing regulations.

The court vacated EPA's disapproval and remanded the matter for EPA's further consideration. EPA did not appeal the decision, and subsequent negotiations between EPA and TCEQ identified revisions to the FPP rules which would be acceptable to both parties and result in an approvable program.

On September 24, 2013, the TCEQ adopted a SIP revision to the minor NSR FPP, consisting of the resubmittal of rules which were adopted in 1994 - 2003, the withdrawal of certain rules that are not required by the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), and the submittal of specific portions of the 2010 amendments adopted by the commission on December 14, 2010. This submittal was transmitted to EPA on October 21, 2013, and EPA has verbally indicated that it will propose a conditional approval of the submittal.

The condition to be satisfied is that TCEQ subsequently submit amended rules that are properly structured according to the rulemaking requirements of the Texas Administrative Procedure Act and the rules for the Texas Administrative Code, including retaining certain specific portions of the 2010 rule amendments. EPA is expected to give TCEQ a deadline of one year from EPA's proposed approval to submit the amended rules as a SIP revision.

Once submitted to EPA, TCEQ says this rulemaking is expected to result in the approval of the FPP as a Texas minor NSR permitting program.

What this means to you

Texas believes it has now met EPA's requirements to allow its Flexible Permit Program to be included in the Texas State Implementation Plan and a conditional EPA approval is anticipated soon.

MIRATECH can help

Contact MIRATECH for catalysts, silencers, and controls for your Texas operation to comply with your flexible permit.

On 17 January 2014 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously ruled that EPA's June 2011 Indian Country New Source Review, or NSR, rule overstepped the agency's Clean Air Act authority, according to a report from Environment and Energy Publishing.

The rule set up permitting requirements for new or modified major and minor sources in so-called Indian Country.

Oklahoma challenged the rule, claiming that the state, not EPA, has the first opportunity to regulate sources on non reservation lands within its geographic borders.  The three-judge panel agreed, ruling that before EPA could move ahead with a federal implementation plan over the areas, it had to show that either the agency or a tribe had jurisdiction over those lands.

"Because the EPA requires a tribe to show it has jurisdiction before regulating Indian country outside a reservation, yet made no demonstration of tribal jurisdiction before itself regulating those areas," wrote Senior Judge Douglas Ginsburg, "we hold the agency was without authority to displace Oklahoma's state implementation plan in non-reservation Indian country."

Oklahoma is no longer home to any Indian reservations, but it contains thousands of American Indian allotments that fall under EPA's rule.  The state claimed that the rule only applies to reservations, not allotments, and that therefore no gap exists because the state has regulatory authority over those areas.

The D.C. Circuit panel held that the rule treats allotments and reservations differently. For reservations, EPA could issue a federal plan. For allotments, it first has to exercise jurisdiction before doing so.

So, the panel said, Oklahoma has authority to implement its state plan over the allotments before EPA takes action.  "It is undisputed that neither a tribe nor the EPA has demonstrated tribal jurisdiction over all non-reservation Indian country in Oklahoma," Ginsburg wrote. "Accordingly, the state retains jurisdiction over non-reservation Indian country and its implementation plan is effective therein."

What this means to you

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. says Oklahoma has the authority to implement its state plan over the state's Indian allotments - not the EPA.

MIRATECH can help

Contact MIRATECH with questions about emission controls for your stationary engines on Indian reservations or Oklahoma Indian allotments.