ALL4’s: Is That Your Final Answer?

Last Month’s Answer and Winner:

There were four correct answers to last month’s Fourth of July themed question and Steve Smith of LyondellBasell was the first respondent who identified July 4th, 1960 as the official day that our nation’s flag displayed a 50th  star.   According to United States Code, the number of stars on a flag is updated on July 4th following the date that a new state is admitted to the union.  Alaska was admitted on January 3rd, 1959 and so there was, for a few months, a 49 star flag.  On August 21st, 1959 Hawaii was added to the union with the 50th star being added on July 4th, 1960.  Congratulations to Steve and thanks for those who participated in the contest.

Question:

It is close to August vacation time and for me that means an annual trip to Niagara Falls.  Over the years, I have seen the Falls at least 100 times and it is an incredible site combining the awesomeness of nature with an amazing cross section of people from all corners of the globe.  One of the things that you can always count on seeing is a rainbow.  As the mist from the Falls rises, and with the sun to your back, a rainbow will usually be present.  If you look carefully there is more to the rainbow than just its colors.  For example, everyone has their own rainbow, as the rainbow is based on the geometry of you, the sun, and the mist.  Also, inside the rainbow the sky is slightly lighter than the sky outside the rainbow.  On a more rare occurrence you may see a second rainbow.  When this second rainbow appears, there is something unique about it.  Thus our July “Is That Your Final Answer” question asks “What is this unique characteristic about the secondary rainbow?”  Good luck!

Answer: 

Please e-mail your answer to final.answer@all4inc.com.  Include in the e-mail your name, answer, and address (to receive your prize).

ALL4’s Final Answer is a monthly feature of our Blog Digest.  It is designed to test your knowledge across the environmental field, quiz you on the building blocks of air quality rules, stump you on ALL4 general trivia, and challenge you with brain teasers that have perplexed us.  The first correct answer e-mailed to us will qualify the respondent for free ALL4 gear and will enter the winner in our end-of-the year “Final Answer Championship.”  The subsequent month’s Final Answer will identify the winner and the correct answer from the previous month’s question.  You must be an active subscriber of ALL4’s Blog Digest to win a monthly prize and be eligible for the championship prize.  ALL4 employees and family members are not eligible to compete.  Hope you enjoy this feature and good luck!

4 Rules Survey Says?

The results are in!  Last month we asked our readers to vote about when we would see the final Boiler MACT, CISWI, and NHSM* rules from U.S. EPA.  With only two days left in July, it looks like most of our readers were on the right track by selecting August – but only time will tell.  On July 18, 2012, U.S. EPA expanded and extended its March 13, 2012 No Action Assurance (NAA) regarding the Area Source Boiler MACT initial tune-up requirement.  Recall that the Area Source Boiler MACT promulgated on March 21, 2011 required an initial tune-up to be conducted no later than March 21, 2012.  However, the December 23, 2011 proposed reconsideration of this rule extended that date by one year, leading to uncertainty within the regulated community and ultimately to U.S. EPA’s March 13, 2012 NAA. 

The purpose of the July 18, 2012 NAA is to additionally cover the submittal of the Notification of Compliance Status (NOCS) regarding the initial tune-up, which would have been due by July 19, 2012 (i.e., 120 days after the March 21, 2012 compliance date).  After all, how can you certify compliance with a requirement that was not enforced in the first place?  While originally scheduled to remain in effect until the earlier of October 1, 2012 and the effective date of a final rule, the NAA was also extended to the earlier of December 31, 2012 and the effective date of a final rule.  Although the NAA applies only to the Area Source Boiler MACT, could the extension be an indication of further delays for all of the Boiler MACT and CISWI rules?

* Not familiar with those acronyms?  No problem:

MACT = Maximum Achievable Control Technology
CISWI = Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
NHSM = Non-hazardous Secondary Materials

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule – Thresholds, Minors, and PALs, Oh My!

We’re a year and a half into U.S. EPA’s integration of greenhouse gases (GHG) into its Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V permitting programs, and the excitement keeps on coming! The GHG Tailoring Rule, first promulgated on June 3, 2010 at 75 FR 31514, set “Step 1” and “Step 2” permitting thresholds for GHGs at 100,000 tons per year (tpy) carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) for new sources, and 75,000 tpy CO2e for modifications (“100,000/75,000 levels”).   Step 1 became effective on January 2, 2011 and Step 2 became effective on July 1, 2011.  The Tailoring Rule also established a third step, “Step 3”, which would consider a possible lowering of GHG permitting applicability thresholds at a future time.

On March 8, 2012 (77 FR 14226), U.S. EPA published a proposed Step 3, which would keep GHG major source thresholds unchanged from Step 2 levels. Also proposed were streamlined permitting measures which included proposed revisions to New Source Review (NSR) regulations to provide for GHG Plantwide Applicability Limitations (PALs) and to create regulatory authority for U.S. EPA to issue “synthetic minor” permits for GHGs. See ALL4’s 4 The Record article of the proposed rules for more information.

On July 12, 2012 (77 FR 41052), U.S. EPA finalized Step 3 by not lowering “at this time,” the current GHG applicability thresholds from the Step 1 and 2 levels.  Thus, only new sources emitting more than 100,000 tpy CO2e, and modified sources that initiate projects that result in 75,000 tpy CO2e of project-related emission increases, will be subject to PSD and Title V permitting requirements for the foreseeable future. U.S. EPA justified this decision by saying that the states have not had time to develop the necessary infrastructure and to increase their GHG permitting expertise to support the influx of air permitting that would result by lowering the GHG threshold.  Furthermore, neither U.S. EPA nor the state permitting authorities have had the opportunity to develop widespread streamlining measures to improve permit implementation.

In the same July 12 Federal Register notice, U.S. EPA began implementing its initial GHG streamlining measures by finalizing proposed regulations concerning GHG PALs. Please refer to the 4 The Record article on the proposed rule for a detailed discussion of the PAL program.

The finalized amendments to the PSD/PAL regulations allow permitting agencies to do the following:

  • Issue either a mass-based (tpy) or a CO2e-based GHG PAL to a source (without having to mix the two);
  • Allow CO2e-based GHG PALs to include the 75,000 tpy CO2e emission increase threshold;
  • Allow compliance with a GHG PAL (either mass- or CO2e-based) to be used as an alternate applicability approach for determining both whether a project is a major modification and whether GHG emissions are subject to regulation; and
  • Issue PALs to GHG-only sources.

Regarding this last action, U.S. EPA has approved the “Minor Source Approach” to regulating GHG-only sources under a PAL.  This allows a GHG-only source to obtain a GHG PAL (on a mass or CO2e basis) without requiring the source to undertake a permitting action to make GHGs ‘‘subject to regulation’’ and bring the source into major stationary source status under the Tailoring Rule.  Under this approach, non-GHG pollutants would not be eligible to obtain PALs at GHG-only sources.  A second proposed approach, “Major Source Opt-in,” was not finalized. It would have allowed GHG-only sources to become major sources to obtain a PAL for GHG and any other eligible pollutant emitted. The other streamlining proposal put forth by U.S. EPA in the March 8, 2012 rulemaking was to create GHG synthetic minor permit authority within the federal PSD regulations.  In the July 12 Federal Register notice, U.S. EPA states that it has chosen not to finalize the proposed GHG synthetic minor measure at this time.  Please refer to the August 2011 4 The Record article “Mass Confusion:  Are Greenhouse Gases for PSD Permitting Treated the Same Way as Other NSR Regulated Pollutants?” for a review of possible Tailoring Rule applicability outcomes.

What does all of this mean to you? Well, first of all, for non-major sources, (i.e., sources with CO2e emissions less than 100,000 tpy and other NSR-regulated emissions under the 100/250 tpy thresholds) under Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule rollout, it’s welcome news that these facilities will not be phased in to major source permitting for the time being. It’s also good public relations for U.S. EPA in the current economic climate; the press release announcing Step 3’s finalization describes “shielding smaller emitters from permitting requirements” while “maintain[ing] focus on [the] largest emitters.”

For large emitters already subject to GHG permitting, the revised PAL program is now a much more viable option for permitting strategy as GHG PALs can be based on CO2e emissions (and include a 75,000 tpy “cushion”) instead of mass basis (with a 0 tpy significance level).  Selecting a CO2e or mass-based PAL approach is a case-by-case process; however, the effectiveness of the mass-based PAL approach would be limited to those sources that overwhelmingly emit CO2 as the only GHG (i.e., the other five regulated GHG contribute very little to the CO2e total).

Since their inception, PALs have proven to be strategic permitting tools for non-GHG pollutants by preserving beneficial facility baseline emission rates and potentially saving eligible facilities time and money during facility modifications over the long term.  However, the effectiveness of GHG PALs may be limited until U.S. EPA finalizes their thinking regarding biogenic CO2.  Remember that biogenic CO2 is excluded under the federal PSD rule and is excluded from PSD and Title V applicability determinations until July 21, 2014.  Thus a GHG PAL prepared before July 21, 2014 would exclude biogenic CO2 while after July 21, 2014 biogenic CO2 potentially could be included.  Needless to say there could be significant uncertainty concerning compliance with GHG PAL emission limits considering a scenario with biogenic CO2 emissions excluded and a scenario with biogenic CO2 emissions included.

As with any new program, issues will arise along the way that will be “resolved” through regulatory agency policy and guidance.  In the preamble to the July 12 rulemaking, U.S. EPA notes that they are continuing to pursue additional streamlining measures “as expeditiously as possible,” and they encourage state and local authorities to do the same.  Also, note that the PAL changes (along with future streamlining proposals) may serve as a double-edged sword. With every new streamlining measure implemented, it will become easier for U.S. EPA to justify a decision to lower the 100,000/75,000 GHG permitting levels and thereby phase more “facilities” into the GHG major source program.  The June 3, 2010 rule limited the possibility of a lower applicability threshold to 50,000 CO2e tpy.  But rules can be revised and remember that under U.S. EPA’s separate GHG Reporting Rule, facilities emitting 25,000 metric tpy CO2e are considered “the largest GHG emitters”.  That benchmark could easily include your facility.  Hence, it will be important to stay current with PSD GHG applicability and to keep in mind the option for obtaining a GHG PAL.

ALL4 has substantial experience with PALs and Tailoring Rule activities and is ready to help you with your GHG permitting needs. Stay tuned to ALL4’s Blog for future developments!

ALL4 Email and Kimberton Office Phone Lines Temporarily Down

ALL4 Kimberton office phone lines and all ALL4 email is currently down and has been since ~ 1030am (7/25/2012) due to a regional outage.  We apologize for any inconvenience this has caused you.  To reach us, please either call our Southern Regional Office at 706.221.7688, contact us via our individual cell phones or you can email us at all4inc@gmail.com. We’ve been assured that the situation is being worked on however we can not predict when the phone lines and email will be working again.  Thank you.

The View From a Technical Staff Coordinator’s Perspective

In addition to serving as a project manager, I serve as the Technical Staff Coordinator at ALL4’s Kimberton, PA office.  In this role, I have the opportunity to coach our staff of engineers and scientists as they grow in the organization.  ALL4 has a unique philosophy with regards to hiring young engineers and scientists.  As opposed to the typical “fill an open position” philosophy, ALL4’s approach is to always be looking for good people who would be a good fit in our organization.  It is this approach that has helped us to hire some of the best and brightest young engineers and scientists to serve as part of our Technical Staff.  Their roles are critical to the development of the quality deliverables that ALL4 is known for.  Our Technical Staff is made up of a group of dynamic, energetic, motivated and committed engineers and scientists who have a passion for what they do.  Each of them is regularly challenged with new opportunities for growth and each of them is a valuable contributor to ALL4’s continued success.  Their energy is a key component in making ALL4 a fun place to work and is an essential ingredient in continuing to ensure that ALL4 remains totally client-focused.  I thoroughly enjoy the opportunity to work with these talented folks and watch them achieve their goals at ALL4.  I’d like to recognize Tom, Chuck, Meghan S., JP, Ben, Adrian, Christina (our newest addition)…and our Southern Regional Office Technical Staff – Susie, Meghan B., Julie, and Parker for their commitment to making ALL4 a Best in Class Company.  And thanks for occasionally teaching me some cool lingo.  Peace Out…

ADEM Posts New Waste and Water Forms

On July 6, 2012, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) announced that their website (Forms section) has been updated with the following forms concerning National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and waste systems: Form #021 (Termination Request – General Permit Number ALR 100000), Form #022 (NPDES General Permit ALR 100000), Form #023 (NPDES Construction Stormwater Inspection Report and BMP Certification), Form #024 (Notice of Intent – General Permit Number ALR 100000),  Form #018 (Composting Facility Application), Form #025 (NPDES Construction Stormwater Noncompliance Notification Report), and Form #010 (Notification of Medical Waste Generation).  The recently posted forms are newly created that were developed as a result of a late 2011 rulemaking.  The forms can be accessed here.

ISO 14001 Compliance – What Tool Do You Use to Comply With “Legal and Other Requirements”?

In order to be in compliance with ISO 14001 (Environmental Management Systems), facilities must establish, implement, and maintain procedures to identify and have access to applicable legal requirements related to environmental aspects (i.e., Section 4.3.2: legal and other requirements).  The Environmental Management System must further ensure that information maintained with regard to legal requirements is kept up to date.  Did you know that EnviroReview, ALL4’s environmental regulatory consulting service, can easily meet the “legal and other requirements” for you?  EnviroReview includes a monthly consulting call and a facility-specific, multimedia regulatory report. 

CONSULTING CALL:

The purpose of the EnviroReview consulting call is to support environmental professionals with additional high level perspective on recent environmental regulatory activity which compliments their customized EnviroReview report.  The call can involve the main EnviroReview contact only, a subset of your environmental staff, or all of your EnviroReview subscribers.

REPORT:

The EnviroReview report is a customized, tabular monthly report, keeping you up-to-date on the latest environmental regulatory changes (i.e., final rules, proposed rules, notices, amendments, etc.).  The customization of the EnviroReview report is based on the completion of an applicability questionnaire. Our team of environmental consultants reviews monthly environmental regulatory activities and summarizes the actions that may impact your facility(s). The report also includes a hyperlink to the full regulatory text of the action, should the environmental professional be interested in learning more about the regulatory change.  The EnviroReview report is organized by media: water, waste, air, and miscellaneous.  ALL4 truly customizes your EnviroReview reports so that environmental professionals know exactly what regulations will impact their company, at the Federal, state and local level.

Pennsylvania Proposes Amendments to Particulate Matter Testing Requirements

The Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has proposed to amend 25 Pa. Code Chapters 121 and 139 with the purpose of updating and clarifying the sampling and testing methods used to demonstrate compliance with particulate matter (PM) emissions limits.  The proposed revisions include:

  1. Amendments to 25 Pa. Code Chapter 121.1 to the definitions for the terms “condensable particulate matter” and “filterable particulate matter”. 
  2. Clarification that the test procedures listed in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 139, for facilities complying with §123.11 – §123.13 (Standards for Containments), are to determine emissions of filterable PM only, and not condensable PM.  The facilities that this clarification would affect are combustion units, incinerators and ‘processes,’ including paint manufacturing, iron and steel making, lead reduction, roasting, melting, petroleum refining and Portland cement manufacturing.   [A full list of the affected ‘processes’ is located at §123.13(b)(1)]. 
  3. Clarification that facilities subject to PM10 and PM2.5 emission limits or sources demonstrating compliance with 25 Pa. Code Chapter 127, including sources with PM emissions related to construction‚ modification‚ reactivation and operation, are required to demonstrate compliance for both filterable and condensable PM10 and PM2.5 emissions.  This clarification relates to facilities subject to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and new source review (NSR) regulations.
  4. An addition to the rule stating that facilities currently operating under a permit that was issued prior to January 1, 2011 are ‘grandfathered’ with respect to this proposed change, and therefore do not have to comply with the condensable PM requirement, unless a condensable PM measurement is specifically required by the terms of a facility’s operating permit.
  5.  An addition stating that all facilities are required to measure and report condensable PM.  This addition is the most puzzling because it requires facilities to measure and report both filterable and condensable PM even though condensable PM may not be required for compliance purposes.

EQB has indicated that the proposed rulemaking will not create additional requirements or compliance costs for the affected facilities because changes merely update and clarify existing regulations. Personally, I believe that this assumption is incorrect.  As currently proposed, facilities would now be required to measure both filterable and condensable PM and will therefore see an increase in emission testing costs associated with the new requirement.

ALL4 is currently seeking clarification from EQB regarding this proposal.  Public comments will be accepted by EQB through September 10, 2012.  Public hearings will be held in early August in Norristown, Harrisburg, and Pittsburgh, PA.

A New Addition (and a familiar face) at ALL4

As I reflect on my excitement about beginning the next phase of my career with ALL4, I’m reminded of the saying “the more things change, the more things stay the same.” It’s hard to believe that it has been 18 years since my environmental consulting career began as a project meteorologist performing ambient air and meteorological monitoring under Dan Holland, one of the founding four principals of ALL4. As RACT and Title V evolved in the early and mid 1990s, I was challenged with an opportunity to help the air quality permitting group with the onslaught of emissions inventories, regulatory applicability evaluations, and permit applications for clients in various industrial sectors. For the next several years I worked side by side with Kevin Hickey, Bill Straub, David Chetkowski, Kristin Gordon and other engineers and scientists who are now at ALL4. The opportunity to work again with these mentors and colleagues was an integral part of my decision to join ALL4.

My role as a Technical Manager for the ALL4 Southeast Regional Office (SRO) provides an opportunity for me to reconnect with another former colleague, Colin McCall. In my role, I look to provide support to Colin and the SRO staff by expanding our technical expertise and positioning ourselves for new opportunities through my professional air quality experience in ALL4’s service areas, and the potential to expand into other environmental arenas using my multi-media environmental compliance experience. My day-to-day routine will include project management as well as serving as a technical resource to the SRO and the entire firm for ALL4’s various services. To support ALL4’s vision as a nationally recognized consulting company, I will be actively involved in various professional organization committees, conferences, workshops and seminars on a local, regional, and national basis.

The excitement of my position lies in the challenge to provide innovative solutions to clients with their near and long term issues with respect to the ever-changing air quality regulatory landscape, as well as to integrate air quality and other environmental media issues into a client’s overall environmental program management and corporate social responsibility programs. With the talent and resources of ALL4 to support me, I’m ready to embark on this change and have a lot of fun along the way!

U.S. EPA Adds New Exclusion to the Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

On June 22, 2012, a notice was published informing that the U.S. EPA revised its definition of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to exclude 1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene.  This exclusion will officially be effective on July 23, 2012.  What is 1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene?  This compound is also known as HFO-1234ze and may be used as a refrigerant, an aerosol propellant, and a blowing agent for insulating foam.  HFO-1234ze is being excluded from the list of VOCs because it has been deemed negligibly reactive.  A little fact that I found interesting in the course of reading this action is that the U.S. EPA uses the reactivity of ethane as the threshold for determining whether a compound has negligible reactivity.  Any compound that is more reactive than ethane is considered a VOC for regulatory purposes and has control requirements.  Ethane was chosen as the threshold compound based on series of smog chamber experiments.

    4 THE RECORD EMAIL SUBSCRIPTIONS

    Sign up to receive 4 THE RECORD articles here. You'll get timely articles on current environmental, health, and safety regulatory topics as well as updates on webinars and training events.
    First Name: *
    Last Name: *
    Location: *
    Email: *

    Skip to content