On June 10th of this year, all portland cement manufacturing facilities are required to be in compliance with the new Portland Cement (PC) MACT rule. As an industry, considerable time and money already have been invested towards ensuring that each regulated entity will comply with the applicable emission standards. However, there are several “hidden” requirements, some lurking outside of the text of the PC MACT rule, that will also be enforceable on June 10th. Of particular relevance to ongoing compliance activities and costs after June 10th are Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan requirements, Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) Plan requirements, and coordination of the Title V permit program with the PC MACT regulations. The intent of this brief overview is not to revisit compliance with the emission standards, but rather to touch on these other requirements. In spite of a facility's efforts to date to meet the new emissions standards, other regulatory obligations resulting from the PC MACT rule, if not scrupulously heeded, can result in potentially unforeseen and serious noncompliance situations.

The other MACT provisions that each facility must implement include requirements contained in the PC MACT rule itself, as well as in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A, General Provisions of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for source categories. If facilities haven't already done so, by June 10th they will need to have developed and implemented (1) an O&M Plan for each affected source and air pollution control device subject to the Subpart LLL emission standards, and (2) an SSM Plan that includes provisions for minimizing emissions during startup, shutdown and malfunction events per Subpart A. Because the list of affected sources regulated under the PC MACT rule includes almost all of the operating systems within a cement plant, and since each affected facility will have to continue to function efficiently while meeting plan requirements, the O&M and SSM Plan development efforts require careful planning and attention to detail.

O&M Plans

The O&M Plan specified under Subpart LLL comprises a written plan that requires Agency review and approval under the Title V air permitting program. The plan must include the following:

• Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of each affected source and air pollution control device in order to meet the rule's emission limits;
• Corrective action procedures for specified sources;
• Periodic monitoring procedures for other specified sources with opacity limits; and,
• Procedures for documenting that O&M Plan requirements have been appropriately followed.

Most facilities may not wish to develop drastically different O&M procedures from those already in place; therefore, the use of existing plans, to whatever extent possible, is advisable. However, for facilities that don't have existing written O&M Plans for some of the equipment and systems regulated under PC MACT, new plans will have to be prepared. Furthermore, the rule states that failure to comply with any provision of the O&M Plan shall, by itself, constitute a violation of the standard.

The level of detail that goes into a written O&M Plan under the PC MACT rule should be carefully evaluated, and any unnecessary, outdated and/or overly detailed procedures contained in existing plans should be eliminated or revised. Caution should be exercised in writing the PC MACT O&M Plan, since a facility, in effect, is thereby writing it's own regulations. Prior to completion of the final document, consideration should be given to a final review by a lawyer experienced in the Clean Air Act.

SSM Plans

Interestingly, the SSM Plan requirements contained in Subpart A, General Provisions of Part 63 are intended for the regulated facility's benefit. Without these provisions, any readings obtained during SSM events that exceed MACT emission standards would automatically constitute a violation. Accordingly, regulatory pitfalls may be avoided by developing an SSM Plan that includes provisions for minimizing emissions during these events and then implementing the provisions of the plan, if and when such SSM events occur. SSM events during which emissions exceed the standards are not considered violations, provided the SSM Plan was correctly implemented. SSM Plan requirements include the following:

• Procedures for operating and maintaining the source during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction;
• A program of corrective action for malfunctioning process and air pollution control equipment used to comply with the relevant standard;
• Identification of all routine or otherwise predictable compliance monitoring system (CMS) malfunctions; and,
• Procedures for documenting plan procedures, reporting SSM events and excess emissions, and updating the plan as necessary.

Under federal rules, SSM Plans are not required to be submitted for Agency review and approval; however, some states are requiring such submittals.

As with O&M Plans, regulated facilities may wish to consider the use of existing procedures to the extent practicable in order to minimize SSM Plan preparation efforts and avoid conflicting procedures. However, an important aspect of the SSM Plan that may go unnoticed is the required specification of procedures to minimize emissions during SSM events. Developing an SSM Plan should involve input from almost every division working within the facility (e.g., management, operations, maintenance, electrical, purchasing, environmental, health and safety etc.), since they are all affected to some extent by SSM events.

Documentation is a major part of SSM Plan provisions, and semi-annual summary reports are required to be submitted to the regulating agency. In order for an event generating excess emissions to be covered by the SSM Plan, procedures in the plan must be implemented and documentation must exist to verify that the plan was followed. If necessary, new or different procedures can be implemented during an event; however, additional reporting is necessary, and the SSM Plan must be updated to include the new procedures.

Title V

One final consideration regarding the PC MACT rule is how these new requirements, including the emission standards, are included in facility Title V operating permits. Most cement plants have received their Title V permits by now, and some have had them in place for several years. If not already included, the applicable new PC MACT requirements will need to be added to the Title V permits. Remember: as specified in the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR §70.6, the applicable requirements in a Title V permit are enforceable by the administrator and by citizens. Therefore, consideration should be given to avoiding broad permit language and/or general conditions in the permit that reference the overall applicability of Subpart LLL. It is highly unlikely that all of the Subpart LLL provisions apply to a particular facility. Accordingly, the permit should be very specific in identifying only the applicable provisions and subsections of the rule.

Another approach would be to have the permit clearly specify which provisions do not apply. If there exists any ambiguity regarding the applicability of a particular subsection, resolving the issue with the permitting authority at the earliest possible opportunity and requesting to be shielded from specific nonapplicable portions of the rule is perhaps the best approach. The Title V permit shield provisions exist primarily for this reason. While the permitting authority may not fully comprehend a facility's desire to sort out the fine points of application, experience — and certainly legal counsel — may advise you otherwise. The value of a careful review of the existing permit and coordination with the permitting authority cannot be overestimated. In some instances, the Title V permit may not be updated to include the new PC MACT requirements until it is due for renewal.

Conclusion

As with any other outside forces that can potentially affect a facility's productivity, environmental performance, and bottom line, the PC MACT provisions requiring O&M Plans and SSM Plans need to be carefully evaluated and properly addressed before they become a detriment. Since both man-hours and funding are required to complete the effort, it should be done carefully and correctly. Ideally, all potentially affected parties within the facility would be included in the effort to develop plans that benefit both the environment and facility operations. Lastly, do not overlook Title V permit coordination and development issues. The compliance aspects of the Title V program are presently a high priority with the enforcement group at USEPA. A proactive approach to dealing with the Title V permitting issues discussed above will ultimately be to the advantage of everyone involved — above all, to the regulated facility.

John P. Egan is the director of Air Quality Services for EarthRes Group, Inc., an environmental consulting firm located in Pipersville, Pa. (jegan@earthres.com).

Stephen P. Holt, P.E. is the director of Environmental Affairs for Giant Cement Holding, Inc., Summerville, S.C. (spholt@aol.com).