Musings on Monitoring: The Who, What, When, Why, and How of Atmospheric Measurements

The installation and operation of ambient pollutant and meteorological monitors has never traditionally been a part of the laundry list of environmental tasks at most facilities.  Ambient monitoring installations by facilities have been limited to consent decrees and large Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting projects that required determining what a specific source’s impact on air quality would be or assessing the local background ambient air concentration levels.  In general, all other ambient monitors are operated by state agencies as a way to measure air quality against the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).  This reliance on state run monitoring programs to determine ambient air concentration levels could all change with U.S. EPA’s implementation of the 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS.  Similarly, the installation of ambient meteorological monitoring systems have also been associated with large PSD projects where air quality modeling is required and representative National Weather Service (NWS) data are unavailable; or a facility may have a small scale meteorological monitoring station for facility activities that could range from collecting a couple of meteorological variables to having a simple windsock.   The following sections discuss the basics of ambient air and meteorological monitoring and describe when they may be required and why they may be beneficial to consider right now.

As documented in ALL4’s previous blog posts and articles, U.S. EPA’s approach to implementing the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS has taken a long and winding path.  While historic NAAQS have been evaluated through the installation and operation of a network of ambient pollutant monitors, U.S. EPA reversed course with the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and initially implied that air dispersion modeling would be used for attainment/non-attainment designation purposes in the absence of ambient monitoring data.  U.S. EPA reconsidered the dispersion modeling approach after receiving unfavorable comments, and has since held three (3) stakeholder workgroups to discuss the NAAQS implementation approach with industry representatives, environmental groups, and state and local representatives.  The main takeaways from the stakeholder meeting with industry groups: an enhanced ambient monitoring network for SO2 is likely and the installation and operation of those monitors may ultimately be the responsibility of industrial facilities, not the state agencies as it has been in the past.

A decision to place a monitor in an area (or near a facility) is likely to depend on a facility emissions threshold or population weighted emissions threshold for a given area.  Due to the staffing and budgetary restrictions being faced by state agencies, the possibility exists that monitors will need to be paid for, installed, and operated by facilities or groups of facilities under the supervision of the states.  While this monitoring arrangement is far from being final (and we don’t anticipate final rulemaking from U.S. EPA before mid-2013), it is important enough to warrant increased awareness by facilities of the technical aspects of siting, operating, and maintaining ambient pollutant monitors.  The following questions and answers highlight important aspects to consider in anticipation of future ambient monitoring programs:

• Where should monitors be located?  U.S. EPA should be encouraged to locate ambient pollutant monitors in areas where sensitive populations (e.g., schools) could be exposed to elevated SO2 concentrations, which would generally correspond to where people live and work.  The likelihood of sensitive populations being exposed to elevated concentrations at the fenceline of a major facility is relatively low since these populations are not likely to be located along a facility fenceline during worst case dispersion and worst case emission conditions.  Apart from that debate, dispersion modeling can and has been used to determine where peak ambient concentrations can reasonably be expected to occur and therefore where an ambient monitor should be placed.  Dispersion modeling results, in combination with a common sense approach to account for where sensitive populations may be exposed to elevated concentrations, should serve as a good starting point for considering monitor placement.  However, there is a myriad of factors that will vary by location, including meteorology, topography, power access, monitor security, presence of local obstructions (e.g., trees), and building downwash that can influence the decision of where to locate a monitor, resulting in the likely need for a case by case assessment.  These factors will all need to be evaluated by states and facilities when considering the placement of ambient monitors.
• Should I collocate a meteorological monitor with an ambient pollutant monitor? Yes, yes, and yes. A meteorological monitor should almost always be collocated with ambient pollutant monitors to understand the meteorological conditions that existed during each hour of data collected.  This will assist facilities in determining who and what is impacting an ambient monitor.  The meteorological information can be especially beneficial in areas with multiple facilities located nearby to determine which facilities might be contributing to elevated concentrations at the ambient pollutant monitor.  Obviously it will become more and more difficult to determine which source or facility is contributing to an ambient monitor in areas with a large number of local facilities.  (See additional discussion of meteorological monitoring in the following section.)
• What are the limitations on where I can place an ambient pollutant or meteorological monitor?  You need adequate physical space to install an ambient pollutant monitor and a monitoring shelter (typically the size of a small trailer on the order of 15 by 15 feet), and for a meteorological monitor you need an open space void of major objects that may influence meteorological conditions in order to erect a 10 meter tower (at a minimum).  Options exist to construct smaller enclosures that limit mobility inside the shelter but may be necessary where space limitations are a problem.  You also need availability of power, phone lines (or cell phones), or an internet connection to run the equipment and access the monitoring data.  If there is no infrastructure, there will be no way to install and operate an ambient pollutant monitor that meets U.S. EPA guidelines.
• How much does it cost to install and operate an ambient monitor?  The capital cost of an ambient monitoring station typically ranges from $100,000 to $200,000.  Labor costs to install and maintain an ambient monitor typically range from $50,000 to $75,000 on annual basis.  In order for the ambient monitor to be used for NAAQS designation purposes, it must collect three (3) years of ambient concentration data.  Note that although three (3) years is a typical data collection requirement, nonattainment designations can also be made on the basis of a shorter duration of data collection as soon as a NAAQS violation is observed.
• Are there disadvantages to installing an ambient monitor now in anticipation of the SO2 NAAQS implementation process?  An ambient monitor generates ambient concentration data that could potentially indicate an exceedance of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS design value, so there are always risks in making that discovery, particularly if there is no guarantee that an ambient monitor will eventually be required as part of the NAAQS implementation process.  That being said, it is important to understand your facility’s emissions profile and its potential impacts on measured concentrations prior to deciding to proactively (or by requirement) install an ambient monitor.  Since ambient monitors reflect real concentration levels, a well-controlled facility with emissions well below permitted emission rates could reasonably be expected to result in measured concentrations below the applicable NAAQS level in certain cases, thus reducing the risks (and enhancing the benefits discussed below) of installing an ambient monitor.  Consult with a dispersion modeler to gain a better understanding of how your emissions profile and other facility characteristics (such as building downwash) may impact monitored concentrations and whether there are any discernible risks associated with installing an ambient monitor.
• Should I consider installing an ambient monitor in advance of the NAAQS rulemaking being finalized?  If air dispersion modeling will be required as part of the NAAQS implementation process, and that possibility still exists, then ambient monitoring information could be useful to “calibrate” and/or refute the results of the air dispersion modeling study, which in many cases results in modeled concentrations well in excess of actual measured concentrations.

As mentioned previously, air quality modeling is a requirement for projects that trigger PSD permitting requirements.  Although there is some uncertainty around air dispersion modeling requirements for the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS implementation process, neither the NAAQS level for SO2 of 75 parts per billion (ppb) nor the associated PSD modeling requirement are in question and neither is likely to change in the near future (recent Court decisions have rejected lawsuits seeking to remove the promulgated 1-hour health based standards).  The stringency of the 1-hour SO2 and NO2 NAAQS in the context of air dispersion modeling studies places increased importance on having the best meteorological data available (i.e., site-specific data).

A dispersion model is only as good as the information you supply it with.  In most cases facilities are using NWS data which only has the bare minimum meteorological variables such as one level of wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and solar radiation data.  AERMOD, the approved U.S. EPA dispersion model, is capable of using meteorological data collected from multiple levels.  Such data can be collected from either a tall tower (>10 meters) and supplemented with a Sonic Detection and Ranging (SODAR) system to levels of 200 meters or more.  The collection of multiple levels of meteorological data allows AERMOD to more accurately simulate the atmospheric profile and provide a better estimate of the transport and dispersion of pollutants.  Furthermore, the simple addition of a vertical wind speed instrument can be used to calculate more accurate atmospheric turbulence data.

In addition to the beneficial refinements that can result from using site-specific meteorological data in dispersion modeling, the short-term nature of the NAAQS levels has caused states to place increased importance on having representative meteorological data available for conducting such modeling. As a result, justifying the use of off-site meteorological data will become more difficult in certain cases.  For all of the reasons discussed, it would appear to be in the best interest of facilities considering projects now or as part of a long-term plan, to consider collecting on-site meteorological data in order to have the best data available if and when air quality modeling is required as part the PSD permit program.  Even if there are no current plans for projects, collecting meteorological data now will enable facilities to potentially avoid delaying a future project by as much as a year in order to collect on-site meteorological data if required.

Here are some things you need to know about setting up a meteorological monitoring station for air quality modeling:

• One (1) year of on-site meteorological data that is at least 90% complete per quarter is required for an air quality modeling evaluation.  Once these data are collected they can be used for all future air quality modeling efforts at a facility, including 1-hour SO2 NAAQS implementation modeling, PSD modeling, and air toxics modeling.
• The height of the meteorological tower depends on the geographic setting.  Facilities located in flat terrain may only require a 10 meter tower while facilities in more mountainous terrain may require a tall tower (up to 100 meters) and/or a SODAR.  Again, the more robust the meteorological dataset the more accurate AERMOD predicted concentrations will be.
• Meteorological data collection must be done in accordance with guidance contained in U.S. EPA’s “Meteorological Monitoring Guidance for Regulation Modeling Applications.”
• Semi-annual quality assurance audits must be completed in accordance with Volume II Part 1 of the U.S. EPA “Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems.”

Once a one (1) year period of meteorological data has been collected for air quality modeling purposes, a less intensive meteorological monitoring program can be implemented in order to continue to collect data for other end uses at your facility.  Meteorological monitoring systems can be set up for end users to access the data in a wide range of ways including websites, voice modems, programmable logic controllers (PLC), and even as an app on your smart phone.

Summary

Stay tuned as U.S. EPA works to finalize the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS implementation process.  While no immediate action is required for ambient pollutant monitors, ambient SO2 monitoring is likely to become a much more familiar concept to major sources of SO2 within the next 12 months.  Consider the benefits of meteorological monitoring right now and think about how that data could help your facility in future air permitting efforts.  Also, engage in proactive conversations with your state agency to get their take on the pending ambient monitoring network and how they envision it being implemented.  Contact ALL4’s Colin McCall or Dan Dix with questions related to ambient and meteorological monitoring.

ALL4’s: Is That Your Final Answer?

Last Month’s Answer and Winner:

We had our usual list of suspects providing correct answers to the September “Is That Your Final Answer” question; however, a newcomer to our contest, Alan L. Markle of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, is being credited as this month’s winner.  Alan correctly identified that paper is the appropriate one year anniversary gift.  In addition to his correct answer, Alan provided some recommendations to me on the type of “paper” gift I should consider next year, recommendations which I can only surmise once served him well on his anniversary.  Thank you, Alan, for the tip.  And thanks to all those who continue to participate in our monthly contest.

Question:

Alan’s company affiliation serves as the starting point for our October “Is That Your Final Answer” question.   The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is, as some of us may remember, one of the three tire manufacturers that listed my home town of Akron, Ohio as their corporate headquarters.  In their heyday and when air pollution rules were just beginning to be promulgated, the olfactory evidence of tire manufacturing often competed against the aroma produced by the local Wonder Bread bakery.  With a local bakery, the citizens of Akron always enjoyed a fresh supply of bread for their breakfast toast; however, many of us started our days with another breakfast staple that was originally manufactured in Akron over 160 years ago.  Thus, the October “Is That Your Final Answer” question is to identify the brand of breakfast cereal that originated in Akron, Ohio and is still a popular product today.  Good luck with this month’s question. 

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!

In Case You Forgot: Boiler MACT, CISWI, and NHSM Recap

In anticipation of the Boiler MACT, Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI), and Non-hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) rules being finalized (we suspect after the upcoming elections), it felt like a good time to provide a recap of what’s happened since the rules were finalized in March 2011.  Here’s the timeline:

While we’ve only covered the more recent history here, these rules have been in the works for nearly 10 years, since 2003.  But that doesn’t mean they can be ignored – quite the opposite.  With the elections next week, it’s only a matter of time before we’ll have final rules to comply with.  Will their story end there?  Probably not.  But your facility’s compliance strategy should be in place so that you can take action when the rules are finalized.

Pennsylvania Contemplating “RACT 2” Regulation

On September 12, 2012, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) presented a draft proposed rulemaking, “Additional RACT Requirements for Major Sources of NO_X and VOC” (referred to as “RACT 2”), to the Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee (AQTAC).  A copy of the proposed draft rulemaking can be viewed here.  The draft proposed rulemaking includes the addition of several new definitions to §121.1 and several new sections to Chapter 129 (i.e., §129.96 through §129.100).  The RACT 2 requirements would apply to a major NO_X or VOC emitting facility that was in existence on or before July 20, 2012 and would affect emissions units at such facilities for which no RACT requirement has been established.   RACT 2 requirements would also apply to facilities that become major NO_X or VOC emitting facilities after July 20, 2012 as a result of a modification or the addition of a new source and would affect emissions units at such facilities for which no RACT requirement has been established.  The draft proposed RACT 2 rule differs significantly from its predecessor RACT rule from the mid-1990s as it includes “defined” unit specific RACT limits for most units instead of an overall “case-by-case” approach. The U.S. EPA has also been insistent that PADEP finalize RACT 2 regulations in order to proceed with the redesignation of several ozone nonattainment areas to attainment.

In addition to “presumptive” RACT requirements for certain combustion units, the draft proposal includes defined numerical RACT “standards” for specific sources (e.g., combustion turbines, internal combustion engines, small (< 20 MMBtu/hr) combustion units, etc.). RACT 2 also includes defined RACT standards for municipal waste landfills and municipal waste combustors. Specific RACT 2 standards for various sources are presented in terms that are reflective of the source (e.g., combustion units – lb/MMBtu, combustion turbines – ppmvd, internal combustion engines – grams/bhp-hr).  The draft proposed RACT 2 rule includes an option for facilities to propose alternative RACT emission limitations for units that are subject to specific RACT limitations.  Finally, unit specific RACT emissions limits would be required for NO_X and VOC sources (at major NO_X and VOC emitting facilities) that are not subject to specific RACT emission limitations.   All unit specific RACT proposals would be due six (6) months after the effective date of the RACT 2 rule, with compliance for all units required one (1) year after the effective date of the RACT 2 rule.

During the September 12, 2012 meeting, AQTAC reviewed the draft proposed RACT 2 rule and posed several questions related to the breadth of the rule and the timing associated with rule compliance that the PADEP could not immediately answer.  The draft proposed RACT 2 rule was on the agenda for the scheduled November 13, 2012 AQTAC meeting.  However, the November 13, 2012 meeting has been cancelled and the draft proposed RACT 2 rule will now be on the agenda for the December 13, 2012 AQTAC meeting.  This is a rule that will affect numerous facilities in Pennsylvania and all potentially affected facilities should be prepared to review and understand the rule upon proposal.

PADEP Issues Draft Technical Guidance for the Determination of Significant Figures and Timeliness of Report Submittals

On September 8, 2012, Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) announced the availability of a draft technical guidance document entitled “Air Quality Program Guidance for Determination of Significant Figures and Timeliness of Report Submittal for Evaluation of Air Contaminant Emissions and Concentrations” (Document No. 273-4110-002).  The guidance document establishes conventions for rounding, truncation, and determination of significant figures for determining air contaminant emissions and ambient concentrations for potential to emit (PTE) calculations in air permit applications, source emissions testing, air quality modeling analyses, sampling, continuous source monitoring, periodic compliance reporting, and annual emissions inventories.  The guidance document also specifies the timeline for report submittals for source emissions testing and quarterly source monitoring reports.

Much of the guidance related to source emissions testing refers to other PADEP or U.S. EPA technical guidance, specifically the “Clean Air Act National Stack Testing Guidance” issued by U.S. EPA on September 30, 2005 for the determination of significant figures during source emissions testing.  The draft guidance also refers to PADEP’s Source Testing Manual Guidance Document for the timeline for the submittal of various reports and notifications.

Of particular importance to Facilities is the guidance related to continuous source monitoring and annual emissions inventories.  Relating to Continuous Source Monitoring, PADEP states that rounding and truncation conventions for reported data are established in the Continuous Source Monitoring Manual.  The draft guidance document states that PADEP will not round emissions data submitted by owners or operators in the quarterly source monitoring reports for the purposes of determining compliance with applicable emissions limits.  All emissions limits established to meet the requirements in 40 CFR Part 60 – Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources may be reported to the same number of significant figures as the emission limits.  In the absence of any other conventions, PADEP identifies the number of significant figures that various averaging periods for gaseous emissions should be reported.  Hourly averages and daily, monthly, 365-day, 12-month, or annual sums or averages of reported hourly data should be evaluated to one (1) digit beyond the applicable emission limit contained in the Operating Permit or Plan Approval.  30-day averages of reported hourly data should be evaluated to two (2) digits beyond the applicable emission limit contained in the Operating Permit or Plan Approval.  Relating to annual emissions inventories, the historic standard conventions still apply.  PADEP states that emissions should be reported to the nearest hundredth ton for criteria pollutants.

Overall, the draft guidance document serves as a one-stop shop for all significant figure or rounding standards and conventions.  Upon finalization of this technical guidance document, facilities should adhere to these conventions to ensure consistency with PADEP expectations for all analyses and reports submitted.  Stay tuned to ALL4’s blog for any further updates on this technical guidance document.

Did You Say “Part 70 Source” or “Par 70 Course?”

It was around this time last year when I began playing golf.  Participating in ALL4’s annual golf outing last October was my third time ever swinging clubs.  I’ve been playing regularly ever since (great game, isn’t it?), and I recently caught myself thinking that I had seen “Par 70 course” defined in an air quality regulation.  My mind wandered to thoughts of crisp mornings, that perfect tee shot, an occasional birdie…sigh.  In a moment of clarity, I realized that there is no logical way to connect golf to an air quality regulation (yet here I am trying!).  I quickly verified that the term being defined was “Part 70 source,” not “Par 70 course.”  Oh well, back to reality.

So why am I writing about golf in a blog post supposedly about an air quality regulation?  Well, it was also around this time last year when I learned of a little nuance about Title V (i.e., Part 70) operating permits.  It was a relatively simple concept, yet commonly misunderstood; kind of like how hybrid clubs, despite their appearance, are intended to be hit like irons rather than like a driver.  (I can’t tell you how much that revelation improved my game.)  Ask anyone how long a Title V permit is effective for and his response will likely be “five years.”  That was my understanding, too, until one of my clients received a notification from their permitting agency that their Title V renewal application was due.  That may not sound like anything out of the ordinary, except that at the time they received the notification, the facility’s renewal permit from their last Title V renewal application had not yet been issued.

How is that possible, you ask?  It is not uncommon for renewal permits to be issued long after the renewal application is submitted and the current permit expires, sometimes even years.  That’s why the permit application shield provisions are so important – so that a facility can continue to operate, pursuant to the conditions of the existing permit, even after it expires.  In order to be eligible for a permit application shield, the permitted facility must submit a timely and complete renewal application.  Title V permit renewal applications can be due anywhere from 18 months to six months prior to expiration, depending on state/local regulatory requirements.  For example, another client submitted a timely and complete renewal application in May 2005 for their Title V permit that expired in November 2005.  After the permit expired, the facility operated pursuant to the permit application shield provisions until their renewal permit was issued in January 2010, over four years later.  That permit now expires in January 2015.

Although Title V permits typically last for five years, 40 CFR Part 70 (the underlying Title V operating permit program) states that Title V permits can be effective “for a term not to exceed five years,” leaving the actual permit’s duration up to the permitting agency’s discretion.  Most permitting agencies, like in the example above, issue Title V permits that are effective for five years from the date of issuance, regardless of when that may be.  In the case of the first facility, however, their permitting agency issues Title V permits that expire on the same date every five years, regardless of when they are issued.

So here’s what happened: the facility submitted a timely and complete renewal application in October 2006 for their Title V permit that expired in October 2007 (this agency requires renewal applications to be submitted no more than 12 months prior to expiration).  The facility operated pursuant to the permit application shield provisions until their renewal permit was issued, in this case until September 2011.  But rather than expiring five years from the date of issuance in September 2016, the renewal permit had an expiration date of October 2012 – five years since the previous permit expired, and a mere 27 days before the next renewal application would be due (12 months prior to expiration).

Despite the short timeline, it was extremely important for the facility to qualify for the permit application shield.  Without it, the facility would be at risk for operating without a permit unless a renewal permit was issued before October 2012, which was unlikely given the facility’s permitting history.  With the application shield at stake (remember, it’s only applicable if a timely and complete renewal application is submitted), the race was on to develop and submit a complete renewal application by October 2011.  Through hard work and maintaining a good relationship with the permitting agency, the application was submitted and deemed complete, on time.

A year later now, the renewal permit is about to expire.  Whether or not the “second” renewal permit will be issued before the “first” renewal permit expires this month, we’ve learned by now that the “second” renewal permit will expire in October 2017 and that a renewal application will be due in October 2016 (regardless of whether a permit is ever actually issued).  But when it comes to Part 70 sources or Par 70 courses, there will always be more to learn about both.  ALL4’s annual golf outing is coming up on Friday – maybe I’ll mistake “Par 70 course” for “Part 70 source” – but I doubt it.  Let’s just hope there is a 70 in my team’s score!

Proposed Consent Decree for Review of the Kraft Pulp New Source Performance Standard (NSPS)

On September 14, 2012, U.S. EPA issued a notice regarding a proposed consent decree to resolve a lawsuit seeking to compel U.S. EPA to review the existing Kraft Pulp New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) promulgated as 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart BB.  Filed on December 6, 2011 by the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace, Inc., and Port Townsend Airwatchers, the lawsuit details a complaint alleging the failure of U.S. EPA to review and, if appropriate, revise the NSPS.  Explicitly, the plaintiffs claim that although U.S. EPA is required to review the NSPS every eight (8) years, it has not done so since 1986.  As a result, the plaintiffs claim the Subpart BB requirements, which were originally promulgated in 1978, are not sufficiently stringent and enforce control methods based on outdated emission levels.  The proposed consent decree would establish deadlines for the U.S. EPA to take action. 

Specifically, the proposed consent decree would require U.S. EPA to review Subpart BB no later than May 15, 2013, and sign for publication one or a combination of the following: (1) A proposed rule containing revisions to Subpart BB, (2) a proposed determination not to revise Subpart BB; or (3) sign for publication a determination that review is not appropriate.  In addition, the proposed consent decree mandates that if U.S. EPA signs a proposed rule or a proposed determination, then no later than March 14, 2014, U.S. EPA must sign one or a combination of the following: (1) A final rule containing revisions to Subpart BB; or (2) a final determination not to revise Subpart BB.  Finally, the proposed consent decree requires that, within 10 business days following signature of the proposed or final rules or determinations, U.S. EPA must forward the signed document(s) for publication in the Federal Register.

A thirty (30) day public comment period, originally scheduled to end on October 15, 2012, will be extended to parties not explicitly named in the litigation.  Based on these comments, U.S. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if new information indicating such consent is inappropriate is discovered.  Official copies of the consent decree may be accessed via www.regulations.gov.  In addition, comments may be submitted and viewed using the same website address. 

Subpart BB regulates total reduced sulfur (TRS) emissions from pulp mill sources (e.g., digester system, brown stock washer system, multiple-effect evaporator system, recovery furnaces, etc.) and particulate matter (PM) emissions from recovery furnaces, smelt tanks and lime kilns.  Because Subpart BB has not been reviewed in over 25 years, there is a relatively high probability that if reviewed, the standards for TRS and PM emissions will be tightened and additional pollutants may be regulated (e.g., nitrogen oxides (NO_X) and sulfur dioxide (SO₂)).  A recent precedent was set during the last revisions to 40 CFR part 60 Subpart F for Portland cement plants, which was expanded to include stringent standards for new, reconstructed, or modified facilities.  The progress and ultimate resolution of the consent decree should be monitored closely by potentially affected sources. Stay tuned for details as they develop.

Reforming U.S. EPA’s Science Advisory Process

Science is usually just one component of environmental regulatory decision-making, but the quality and interpretation of that science often becomes the central subject of debate when regulated entities and non-government organizations (NGOs) raise objections over new and amended regulations.

There has long been criticism of U.S. EPA’s science advisory process.  Most recently, that criticism has included the following from a variety of stakeholders:

• Advisory committees and subcommittees seem to exclude private sector scientists who are currently employed by industry, or have been in the past.
• Public participation in advisory committee activities is limited, giving other interested parties almost no opportunity to raise concerns and comment on the scientific issues and literature being considered.
• While advisory committees are supposed to limit their advice to only scientific and technical issues, at times some members will also state their policy opinions on the matters at hand.
• In some cases, advisory committee members are actually reviewing their own research.
• According to the Congressional Research Service, some advisory panel members, or their affiliated research organizations, receive National Center for Environmental Research grants from U.S. EPA, and the research that the advisory panel members are asked to independently review is sometimes related to those grants they received.

Established by Congress in 1978, U.S. EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) is charged with reviewing scientific information and advising U.S. EPA on science and technology-related matters that become the basis for regulatory decisions.  Now four members of the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology are acting to address concerns about the science advisory process.  Committee Chairman Ralph Hall (R-TX) and Committee Members Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), and Rep. Dan Benishek (R-MI) have introduced legislation to reform the SAB and its sub-panels.  H.R. 6564, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2012, seeks to strengthen public participation, reform the process for selecting expert advisors, provide increased and consistent transparency and limit non-scientific policy advice from the SAB.  More information and a copy of the bill can be found on the Congressional Committee’s website here.

Each year U.S. EPA solicits public nominations for new SAB members by publishing a notice in the Federal Register.  So if you have aspired to serve on the SAB but were discouraged because you share in those criticisms of the process, cheer up!  There is new hope.  Keep an eye on H.R. 6564.  And if you subscribe to ALL4’s EnviroReview™ Regulatory Consulting Service, we’ll make sure you don’t miss those nomination notices when they appear in the Federal Register.

Canada Finalizes Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Coal-Fired Generation of Electricity Rule

Environment Canada has published its final rules for the Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Coal-fired Generation of Electricity.  Published in four parts, the regulations establish a regime for the reduction of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions that result from the production of electricity by means of thermal energy using coal as a fuel, whether in conjunction with other fuels or not.  A brief synopsis of each of the four parts is provided below:

Part 1, Regulated Units and Emission Limit, sets out a performance standard for the intensity of CO₂ emissions from regulated units and provides for exceptions based on the substitution of units and for temporary exemptions in relation to emergencies and units integrated with carbon capture and storage systems.  Specifically, a new or old unit must not, on average, emit with an intensity of more than 420 tonnes of CO₂ emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels for each Gigawatt hour (GWh) of electricity produced by the unit during a calendar year.  This includes CO₂ emissions released from the use of sorbent to control the emission of sulfur dioxide from the unit and emissions from a gasification system that produces synthetic gas derived from coal or petroleum coke used to generate electricity by the unit.  CO₂ emissions that are captured in accordance with the laws of Canada, a province thereof, or the United States or one of its states are not to be included.  A registration report for each unit must be sent to the Minister of the Environment by February 1, 2013 for an existing or old unit or on or before 30 days after the commission date of a new unit. 

Part 2, Reporting, Sending, Recording, and Retention of Information, sets out quantification rules for determining the intensity of CO₂ emissions from regulated units.  For each calendar year, a responsible person for a new, old, or substituted unit (a unit which is substituted for an original unit which has reached the end of its useful life) must send an annual report to the Minister of the Environment on or before June 1 of the year that follows the reporting calendar year.  In addition, a responsible person must make a record of any application submitted for each unit and must keep the record, as well as any supporting documents, for at least seven years after submission.

Part 3, Quantification Rules, sets out quantification rules for determining the intensity of CO₂ emissions from regulated units.  The quantity of electricity produced by each unit is to be determined by the equation G_gross-G_aux, where: G_gross is the quantity of electricity that is produced by the unit during the calendar year in GWh and G_aux is the quantity of electricity that is used by the power plant in which the unit is located during the calendar year to operate infrastructure and equipment that is used for electricity generation and for separation of CO₂.  The regulations mandate that once a method of attribution is used to make the determination of G_aux for a calendar year that method must be used to make the determination for every subsequent year hence.  Likewise, the quantity of CO₂ emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels in the unit is to be determined by use of a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMs) or by using a fuel-based method.

Part 4, Coming into Force, provides dates for the effective date of these regulations and, in particular, delays the effective date of the performance standard in respect to standby units, section three of the regulations, until January 1, 2030.  All other sections of the regulations come into force on January 1, 2013. 

Environment Canada’s publication of the final rules for the Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Coal-fired Generation of Electricity may have important implications for the U.S. EPA’s proposed new source performance standards (NSPS) and a House effort aimed to block them.  The proposed NSPS, which were issued in April 2012, would require new coal plants to install carbon capture systems (CCS) so as to meet emissions standards of advanced gas plants without CCS.  Directly opposing the view taken by proponents of H.R. 6172 that would prohibit U.S. EPA from finalizing the proposed NSPS until formal findings are submitted to Congress showing CCS as a technologically and economically viable, Canada’s GHG performance standards demonstrate that CCS is currently a viable control option for coal plants. 

Furthermore, Canada’s GHG rules may impact the proposed schedule to install CCS called for by the U.S. EPA’s NSPS.  Canadian environmental advocates claim the deadlines included in the rules for the Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Coal-fired Generation of Electricity lack urgency and, due to the length of their implementation schedule, are virtually unenforceable.  Clear implications for how these critiques will factor into the House debate are as of now unclear.

More information pertaining to the Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Coal-fired Generation of Electricity Regulations may be found in the Canada Gazette Part II at the following website.

ALL4’s Employee Spotlight: Chuck Doyno

Each quarter ALL4 will interview one of its employees highlighting some of their careers and thoughts about ALL4.  This month’s employee spotlight is on Project Engineer Chuck Doyno.

What one piece of advice would you give to college students looking for a position in the consulting business?

The one thing I tell new hires is you cannot be afraid to put yourself out there and take on new challenges.  The best way to learn in this business is by doing.  If you put yourself out there and ask to take on new challenges and experiences, you can really learn a lot and put yourself in a better position as a consultant.

What are your roles at ALL4?

I have a number of different roles at ALL4.  As a project engineer, I am responsible for developing permit applications, emission inventories, reports, and any other thing that my clients and project managers need.  I am also responsible for coordinating and delegating tasks to our newer Technical Staff members.  Additionally, I have responsibilities with our Marketing Team.  I maintain and update ALL4’s website with new blog posts, pictures, and other day to day up keep. 

What do you like best about your career?

The best part about my career was the opportunity to work for ALL4 upon graduation from Penn State.  I cannot say enough about how great a company ALL4 is.  Whether it’s the benefits package or the overall company culture, ALL4 is hands down a tremendous company to work for.  It’s not often that an individual’s first job out of college is the same one that they want to build a long and lasting career with.  At ALL4, I can say without a doubt, that I have just that opportunity and commitment to the company. 

Keeping it real, what do you not like about your career here?

So far, I have no complaints or regrets. 

What was your biggest challenge in your first year?

I think the hardest thing for me was getting acclimated to the consulting environment as a whole.  Consulting isn’t your regular 9 to 5 job.  It requires you to go the extra mile to get your clients the product or help they require.  I was constantly trying to balance my billable work with my non-billable (Website, Recruiting) responsibilities, all the while I was trying to learn as much about air quality as possible.  Once you find the right balance, you can really take some big steps in your career.

What was your biggest surprise since joining ALL4?

The biggest shock for me was the culture as a whole.  Working at ALL4 is definitely not boring.  We like to have fun and everyone here really enjoys what they do.  You definitely get a sense of that culture as soon as you walk in the door.  It’s a tremendous atmosphere to work in because it makes the job so much more enjoyable.

Why did you decide to join ALL4?

My degree was in chemical engineering and I always knew that working in a plant wasn’t really where I saw my career going.  I looked at the consulting world because of the variety that it offered.  I always had a passion for fuel and energy, so choosing environmental consulting was a natural fit.  As far as ALL4, once I did my research on the company and found out about the culture, the people, the award winning atmosphere, it was easy.  It really becomes apparent very quickly how great a place ALL4 is to work.

Which ALL4 employee is most likely to make you laugh?

That’s a tough question.  We have quite a few unique personalities.  Everyone at the company has a really good sense of humor.  I’ll give you a top three though, in no particular order: Colin (we have had a few pretty comical and memorable business trips that are always good for some laughs), Bob (it makes me laugh that a lot of his jokes usually lead to him feeling old because I do not get the reference), and Ron (this one is a little bit more about me giving him a hard time on occasion).

Give me an example of an event, system, or person that best represents the ALL4 culture, and why.

There are a bunch of events that really embody the ALL4 culture.  One that comes to mind is the annual Christmas party.  It’s a great time where everyone and there significant others can come and enjoy each other’s company.  There are always plenty of laughs (I admit many of them at my own expense). 

What attribute do you feel is most important for someone coming to work here?

I think you just have to be open to new things.  The work we do is so different from anything that I ever did in college.  You really have to be open to take on new challenges to put yourself in position to be successful.  A common saying around here is being comfortable with being uncomfortable.  There will be many challenges and situations that you will be put in that you never thought you could handle, but you just have to be open to it. 

What is the most unique thing about working here?

It’s definitely the people.  Everyone has the same focus and goals.  We all have each others backs and we continue to work towards making ALL4 as successful as possible.  Not to mention we all have fun doing it. 

What most excites you about your pending nuptials?

I think I am just ready for it to be here.  All the planning for the wedding and the reception takes a lot of time.  I would be lying though if I told you that I did a lot of the planning.  I helped where I was able.  But all in all, I am just excited for the day and what the future holds.

Where is your next big musical gig?

Well, the next concert is in November, right around Veterans Day I believe.  It’s going to be quite an epic performance.

What nickname here at ALL4 annoys you the most?

I do get a lot of nicknames around the office.  But I guess that’s not exactly something new.  My name is pretty easy to mess around with.  I wouldn’t say any nicknames really annoy me.  If anything, I would say I get a little disappointed in Kevin’s nicknames for me.  Sometimes Kevin’s nicknames are really a stretch.  Come on Kevin, I know you can do better.

Provide me some thoughts on what next year’s Halloween costume might be.

There will be no Halloween costume this year.  When Halloween rolls around, I will be enjoying my honeymoon in Jamaica.  I think that’s an acceptable alternative.