How Should it Feel Working with an Air Quality Consultant?

I thought it might be helpful for folks looking for assistance with air quality related issues to provide some insights that I’ve gained over my 40+ years working in this field.  In the early part of my career I spent a number of years with a regulatory agency before becoming a consultant, but since the mid-1980s air quality consulting has been my calling.  I believe that I’ve worked with just about every type of client conceivable in a multitude of industries and occasionally provided support to government agencies.  The bottom line here is that when you hire a consultant to assist with a project, it comes down to people dealing with people.  Therefore, how the client and consultant relate – how we act towards, and treat, each other – can make or break the relationship.  So if you are an Environmental Manager or another environmental professional, let’s address some important questions to consider when you find yourself in a position where you need outside help in dealing with air quality issues:

1. Why am I hiring a consultant?
2. What should I look for in a consultant?
3. How should I treat my consultant?
4. How should I feel at the end of the day?

Why am I hiring a consultant?

Typically consultants provide expertise in areas where internal company experience is limited and/or to supply manpower needs where resources are in short supply.  Air quality consultants are often “half lawyer/half technical expert.”  In the field of air quality it often comes down to looking for experts to help with ensuring compliance with extremely complicated rules and regulations.  For example, major sources looking to expand or modify their facility have to assess the applicability of the Major New Source Review (NSR) air permitting rules.  For attainment area pollutants this means dealing with the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rules and for non-attainment pollutants addressing the non-attainment NSR (NNSR) requirements.

Whether or not a project triggers these rules, the applicability assessment process alone can be complicated, time consuming, and not something easily tackled by the inexperienced.  Requirements for conducting control technology evaluations, emissions testing, stack or ambient monitoring for pollutants, meteorological monitoring, or air quality dispersion modeling, and satisfying other air quality regulatory based needs are usually outside the normal scope of expertise for most facility staff.  It usually makes no sense to keep such skills in-house unless they are available as part of a corporate level staff supporting multiple facilities.  So when situations arise where complex air quality requirements need to be considered or addressed it makes perfect sense to hire an expert.

What should I look for in a consultant?

When an air quality related issue arises at the facility what do you do?  The first step is to clearly understand the issue and the regulatory implications.  If it’s a simple, straight forward issue that falls within your own level of experience and expertise, you review the pertinent information, make decisions, and move on.  Given that we are addressing air quality issues, even the “simplest issues”; for example demonstrating compliance with an air permit condition, may be open to interpretation so you might reach out to a peer internally or even externally to discuss the issue and gain concurrence or perspective.

If the issue is complicated and you don’t have a corporate staff with expertise to support you, then you need to reach outside for direction/perspective/support.  You have choices – there is always the regulatory agency personnel who may be very good and willing to help, but we know there can be a downside with this approach.  That leaves the other air quality professionals – consultants and lawyers.  If you know right away that the issue is a compliance risk and requires counsel, I won’t spend any more time talking about that option – engage with counsel!  However, the clear option for obtaining support with the majority of air quality issues is having a consultant who is an expert in the field (who also knows when counsel should be involved) and there are lots of them out there.

Most facility Environmental Managers have at least one air quality professional that they already work with.  If you are new to this and don’t have one or if you need to consider a change, what should you look for?  Finding an air quality consultant with lots of experience is clearly a plus, as is a good reputation and positive recommendations from previous clients.  However, I mentioned at the outset of this article how important the relatedness between a client and consultant is, and that attribute should be a key determiner in selecting a consultant.  So with that as a starting point, here are some key traits to consider when seeking outside air quality assistance:

• You want a consultant who is responsive and who is a good communicator: willing to listen to you – not just give advice and direction.
• You want a consultant who will put themselves in your position (as a facility and as and Environmental Manager with operations to support) to better understand and assess the situations you face – every situation and process is different.
• You want a consultant who will use their expertise to evaluate and make recommendations that are in your best interest while fully compliant with rules and regulations.
• You want a consultant who will readily admit to what they don’t know or to making errors (we are all human), but will provide a plan of action to address unknowns or remedy mistakes.
• You want a consultant who takes ownership of your issues and who will include creativity in developing solutions.
• You want a consultant who isn’t afraid to deliver difficult news (maybe even be the fall guy) but who is always thinking of ways to solve your dilemmas.
• You want a consultant who is looking at future regulations (or changing regulations) that could impact your facility.
• You want a consultant who can, and will, act decisively when the moment of need arises.

If you’ve worked in the air quality field for any length of time you know that the rules and regulations often aren’t black and white.  Where specificity is lacking, decisions must be made based on previous determinations, limited guidance, court decisions, prior experience, or informed decisions based on the best judgment.  CEOs, Plant Managers, Project Managers, and other individuals responsible for bottom line performance or implementing new projects don’t like to hear this.  However, it is the reality of how the majority of the air rules are written and implemented.  Furthermore, individual regulatory agency personnel with their own agenda can weigh heavily on how a regulated facility operates or how a new project can be brought to fruition.

The ability of your consultant to communicate clearly and develop relatedness with any and all of these individuals can make your life as an Environmental Manager a lot easier and can help bring your project to fruition.  Just knowing that there is someone out there who understands the things that matter to you and who is looking out specifically for your best interests can lead to some peace and contentment you didn’t previously realize was available.  The air quality consultant that provides these kinds of support is the one you’re looking for.

How should I treat my consultant?

You are paying your consultant and, therefore, they are hired help.  However the answer here should be an easy one, right out of the “good book”; treat them like you would want to be treated.  If they are willing to learn about your facility, provide the opportunity to let them get as educated as possible.  Tell them the things that are most important to you so they understand your priorities and can plan accordingly.  If they want to take ownership of your issue, allow them to do so as long as they don’t work in a vacuum and a good consultant won’t.  Don’t hold information back to test them – where is the relatedness here?!

As I said earlier, relatedness is the key to working together successfully and a solid, long relationship with a good air quality consultant can actually add to the facility’s bottom line.  This should be a consideration in the hiring process.  While cost is always an important factor, the value in hiring a good air quality consultant may be hidden in the associated costs that are never incurred, or the additional profits gained as the result of key strategic planning.  Most environmental permitting costs are “a rounding error” in the total cost of a capital project – however the failure to obtain the proper permit(s) can shut down a capital project in a heartbeat!

If the consultant you end up hiring is really good and you develop that important relatedness, you won’t take offense or personalize things when they challenge you in difficult situations.  But the good consultant will also be open to feedback so they can continue to grow and improve the services they provide to you.  Given the opportunity, they should end up being great allies and possibly even better friends.  The most rewarding part of my career is the 25+ year relationships I have with many of ALL4’s clients.

How should I feel at the end of the day?

As an Environmental Manager your job is likely demanding and stressful.  You need to deal with all of the environmental requirements in each media and run interference between the agency and your facility.  Air quality compliance, and everything that goes along with it, can be your greatest fear and your worst nightmare.  Having an air quality consultant that you know and trust continuously looking out for your best interests can be a tremendous relief.  Finding and engaging a consultant that has the qualifications identified above can not only make your life easier, it can help your company be successful and potentially more profitable.  Being a good consultant is our calling at ALL4.  From the careful selection process we go through for hiring new consultants, to our intense internal training and mentoring programs, our staff of air quality consultants can meet your needs and make your life less stressful, more productive, and be treasured relationships.  All are really good feelings at the end of the day…

Comment Period Ticking for Oil and Gas Proposed Actions

As you may recall from recent ALL4 blog posts on 8/27/2015, 9/14/2015, and 9/15/2015, there are several oil and gas industry regulatory actions in the works.  Two proposed rules and a notice of availability affecting the oil and gas industry were published in the Federal Register on 9/18/2015: NSPS Subpart OOOOa, Source Determination Rule, and draft Control Technology Guidelines (CTGs), respectively.  This action starts the 60-day clock to comment with a resulting deadline of 11/17/2015.  If you haven’t already, now is the time to consider how these proposed actions may adversely affect your operations and to prepare comments to voice your concerns on the record.

U.S. EPA is soliciting specific comments on many topics including (but not limited to) applicability thresholds, methods of compliance, and definitions contained in the proposed rules.  Owners/operators are encouraged to evaluate the effects of the proposed requirements and provide information for consideration prior to promulgation of the final rules.  A few of the topics and questions you may want to consider include (page numbers reference NSPS Subpart OOOOa):

• Alternative fugitive compliance approaches [FR Page 56596]

  U.S. EPA is proposing annual, semiannual, and quarterly fugitive emissions surveys for well sites and compressor stations.  The surveys will require the use of optical gas imaging (OGI) technology.

  • How can well sites and other emission sources that operate under corporate or state mandated fugitive monitoring programs demonstrate they are meeting the equivalent of the NSPS standards?
  • What criteria could be used to demonstrate compliance for alternative approaches?
  • Are there other fugitive emission detection technologies (other than OGI) that should be considered for use?

• Fugitive monitoring surveys [FR Page 56612]

  U.S. EPA is proposing initial fugitive emissions surveys for new well sites to be conducted within 30 days of the end of a well completion or upon the date the site begins production, whichever is later. An initial survey would also be required within 30 days of a site modification for modified wells.

  • Is 30 days an appropriate time period to conduct an initial survey of “fugitive emissions components” following startup or modification?
  • Is 15 days an appropriate amount of time to repair sources of fugitive emissions?

• Proposed exclusions:

  • Low production well sites (the average daily production is 15 barrels of oil equivalent or less) are proposed to be excluded from well completion and fugitive emission provisions [FR Page 56612].  Is the 15 barrel equivalents threshold appropriate to define low production well sites, or does it need to be adjusted?  U.S. EPA is specifically requesting information on low production well emissions, characteristics, and how these types of wells can be identified prior to completion.
  • Oil wells that have a gas-to-oil ratio (GOR) of less than 300 scf of gas per barrel of oil produced are proposed to be excluded from the well completion provisions [FR Page 56633].  Is this threshold appropriate?  Can it be demonstrated that the GOR of a new or modified well can be reliably determined based on the GOR of nearby wells?
  • Are there certain types of well sites that have inherently low fugitive emissions of methane or VOC?  If so, descriptions, characteristics, and data that demonstrate the low fugitive emissions of these type(s) of well sites are requested to be provided [FR Page 56633].

• Well completion provisions timeline:

  Can these provisions be implemented by the effective date of the rule, or is a shortage of reduced emissions completion (REC) equipment and/or operators anticipated?  If it is not a reasonable amount of time, how much time would be reasonable?  If a phase in approach is utilized, what factors should determine which wells would need to comply first?

• Pressure-assisted flares:

  According to U.S. EPA, these flares are operated at velocities higher than the maximum exit velocity specified in 40 CFR 60.18(b) for common hydrocarbon gases [FR Page 56646].  U.S. EPA is requesting information on where in the source category, under what conditions, and how frequently pressure-assisted flares are used to control emissions in order to evaluate their use.

• Recordkeeping and reporting:

  U.S. EPA is specifically seeking comment on whether records should be required to be submitted directly to the permitting agency rather than just maintaining the records onsite or at the nearest field office [FR Page 56616].

• Source Aggregation:

  There are two proposed definitions of “adjacent.”  The first definition reflects current policy and is based solely on physical proximity of sources.  The second definition includes a distance criterion as well as consideration of functional interrelatedness (e.g., connected by pipeline or other means) which could lead to more aggregation of sources.

  • If you support the first definition based solely on physical proximity, U.S. EPA is seeking comments regarding what the separation distance should be and what should be used as a starting point when measuring this separation distance.  Is the currently proposed ¼ mile distance appropriate?

Need to get up to speed on these proposed actions quickly?  U.S. EPA provides many useful links on their website including a source applicability table, fact sheets, proposed requirement summaries, and instructions for submitting comments.  Contact JP Kleinle (jkleinle@all4inc.com) at (610) 933-5246 ext. 120 or Megan Stroup (mstroup@all4inc.com) at (610) 933-5246 ext. 140 to discuss content of this blog or any other oil and gas related topics.

Refinery MACT – Final Benzene Fenceline Monitoring Provisions

On September 29, 2015, U.S. EPA issued the long-awaited Petroleum Refinery Rule Package.  U.S. EPA issued the final revisions to the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Refinery Air Rules (i.e., 40 CFR Part 63, Subparts CC and UUU, Refinery MACT 1 and Refinery MACT 2; and, 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts J and Ja, respectively).  While the Petroleum Refinery Rule Package encompassed many changes, today’s blog focuses solely on the benzene fenceline monitoring provisions.

Benzene Fenceline Monitoring

I can’t help but think that many environmental professionals had a few thoughts since the initial proposal that included the benzene fenceline monitoring provisions.

1. I’ve got plenty of time.  The rule is not final and I have three (3) years to comply once it does become final.
2. Implementing benzene fenceline monitoring is an unnecessary burden and it may be removed from the final rule.

While we have a signed Petroleum Refinery Rule Package (pending publication in the Federal Register), I am here to break down the important provisions of benzene fenceline monitoring and what has changed in the final rule.  By this time, we are pretty familiar with benzene fenceline monitoring requirements, so this is not an exhaustive re-hashing of the rule.

As you read this and reality is setting in, it appears as if the benzene fenceline monitoring requirements are here to stay.  We can assist facilities strategically plan how to comply with the burdensome requirements.  Please reach out to me if you would like to discuss the many benefits of a well thought out sampling program and monitoring plan for your facility.

Recipes for Environmental Regulatory Compliance

There is a certain group of people in the world who truly try to make the world a better place.  Those people are sometimes considered teachers, healthcare professionals, politicians, researchers, and public servants.  In addition, there is another group of individuals who truly make my world a better place. Those people brew beer, bake cookies, and fry chips.

Unfortunately making my world a better (and more delicious) place does not exempt you from environmental permitting.  Most food or beverage manufacturing facilities are comprised of engines, boilers, tanks, and several other potential emissions units.  No matter how big or small your food or beverage facility is, your facility may potentially have environmental reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements. 

Some of the most commonly overlooked reporting requirements are RICE MACT and Boiler MACT.

What’s RICE MACT?  RICE MACT refers to the National Emission Standards for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE).  RICE MACT potentially applies to any stationary reciprocating internal combustion engine (i.e., engines/generators, fire pumps, water pumps, compressors, etc.).

What’s Boiler MACT? Boiler MACT refers to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters.  Boiler MACT potentially applies to industrial, commercial, or institutional boilers.

Are you completely confused yet?  Don’t worry, you are not alone.  Feel free to send me an email or comment below with your questions!  We understand every facility is unique in their own way and look forward to hearing from you. 

Ozone NAAQS Update

As of October 1, 2015, the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) revision has been finalized and set at 70 parts per billion (ppb), which is down only 5 ppb from the previous standard of 75 ppb, and represents the smallest change of the originally proposed range of 65-70 ppb. 

Future guidance and actions planned by U.S. EPA regarding this rule include:

• Establishing nonattainment classification thresholds,
• Arranging States to review and update their State Implementation Plans (SIP),
• Rulemaking to revoke the 2008 ozone NAAQS and a plan for transitioning to the 2015 standard,
• Analyzing interstate ozone transport requirements and providing guidance on meeting requirements for areas in nonattainment,
• Revising the Exceptional Events Rule and providing guidance on wildfire events that may influence ozone concentrations,
• Rulemaking on the use of PSD permit screening tools and offsets in attainment areas,
• Publishing a white paper on background ozone, and
• Holding a stakeholder workshop.

There are currently 241 counties measuring ozone above the 70 ppb threshold, as shown in the map below provided by U.S. EPA.   U.S. EPA expects that by 2025, most of the counties outside of California will meet the revised ozone standard.

In other news, U.S. EPA is proposing three (3) separate and independent determinations related to the 36 areas currently classified as ‘‘Marginal’’ for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.  Using complete, quality-assured and certified monitoring data for 2012, 2013, and 2014, U.S. EPA is proposing to determine that 17 areas have successfully attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS, by the deadline of July 20, 2015.

For areas not attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the U.S. EPA is proposing to grant them a one (1)-year extension if the 2014 4^th highest daily maximum eight (8)-hour average of ozone is less than or equal to 75 ppb for that area.  This equates to eight (8) total areas, including Philadelphia, PA; Washington D.C.; and Houston, TX; three (3) of the ALL4 office locations.

For areas that failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and that do not qualify for the proposed extension, the U.S. EPA is proposing to reclassify these areas as “Moderate” for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.  What does this mean for the States with areas in nonattainment?  These States would be required to submit SIP revisions that meet the statutory and regulatory requirements that apply to 2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas classified as “Moderate.”  U.S. EPA is proposing and taking comment on two (2) options for when the SIP revisions would be due to U.S. EPA for review and approval.  ALL4’s 4^th office location, Atlanta, GA, is included in these 11 areas that have failed to meet the attainment deadline.

Check out the table below, which lists areas, 2012-2014 ozone design concentrations, and whether the area is in attainment or not, and it they are eligible for the extension.  Which category does your facility’s location fall into?

Ozone Depleting Substances – They Could Burn a Hole in Your Pocket and the Ozone Layer!

I don’t know what’s in your annual budget, but up to $32,500 a day per violation under the Clean Air Act (CAA) adds up pretty quickly and is a significant amount of money that could be saved by being proactive. Just some quick facts if that dollar amount hasn’t caught your attention yet: In 2013, Safeway paid a $600,000 civil penalty for failing to promptly fix equipment leaks of an ozone-depleting substance (ODS) [hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC-22)], and retain proper service records. The company had to implement a corporate-wide plan to significantly reduce its emissions of ODS from refrigeration equipment at an estimated cost of $4,100,000 for 659 of its stores nationwide. This settlement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the second largest grocery store chain in the nation involved the most facilities ever indicted under the CAA’s regulations governing refrigeration equipment. But wait…then there was 2014’s settlement with Costco Wholesale Corporation, the second largest retailer in the country, for similar violations to Safeway. In its settlement with U.S. EPA, Costco agreed to decrease its emissions of ODS and greenhouse gas chemicals from refrigeration equipment at more than half of its stores nationwide.  Costco was subjected to $335,000 in penalties, on top of the requirement to improve its refrigerant management at 274 stores: an estimated cost of $2,000,000 over three (3) years.  2015 is not over yet, but hopefully facilities are taking heed from others’ past mistakes.

The U.S. EPA continues to reassess its ODS regulations designed to protect the ozone layer under Title VI of the CAA. Most recently (May 23, 2014 and April 10, 2015), new rules were issued that exempted certain refrigerant substitutes in specific end-uses for which they are listed in the rule here and here. Back in 2010, U.S. EPA proposed a rule to amend its Section 608 of the CAA (Leak Repair Requirements; codified in 40 CFR Part 82, Subpart F) to clarify certain requirements and increase recordkeeping, among other changes, for comfort cooling, commercial refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration containing ODS charges greater than 50 pounds.  In my recent conversations with U.S. EPA, that amendment is still on hold.  They’ve decided to take a broader look at Section 608, including the leak repair requirements and other aspects, and may issue a new proposal in the future.

By no means though is it time to sit back and wait for new rules to come down the pipeline. Quite the contrary, especially as we start to head towards cooler weather and the use of comfort cooling equipment becomes less intensive.  Now is a great time to take a facility-wide inventory of the types of equipment (e.g., chiller, air conditioner, refrigerator, freezer) that use refrigerant and document the refrigerant used, the equipment’s full charge, number of circuits and charge per circuit, etc.  As the owner/operator of this equipment, it is your responsibility to verify that all applicable records are in order and retained onsite, even if you rely on a third-party contractor to maintain equipment.  Although the current rule requires recordkeeping for only units that contain 50 or more pounds of ODS (and annualized leak rate calculations for individual circuits containing more than 50 pounds of ODS), the regulatory prohibition of venting is still applicable to those units that use an U.S. EPA-approved substitute under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program (SNAP)( http://www3.epa.gov/ozone/snap/), unless it is one (1) of the substitutes listed in the recent rules mentioned earlier.  On July 20, 2015, U.S. EPA issued a final rule prohibiting certain hydrofluorocarbons (i.e., those with high global warming potentials) in various end-uses in the aerosols, refrigeration and air conditioning (particularly retail food refrigeration and motor vehicles), and foam blowing sectors as alternatives under SNAP.

Perhaps you’ve read Sharon Sadler’s recent blog, Top 5 Preparations for Air Compliance Inspections, that highlights the need to review your refrigerants whether they are an ODS or an EPA-approved substitute. Common violations are the failure to: repair refrigerant leaks in a timely manner, ensure adequate repairs to appliances are performed before resuming operations, use a certified refrigerant recovery device when performing service on applicable appliances, demonstrate onsite technicians are certified, and provide adequate records of repair service.

Whether your facility operates under a Title V Permit and must certify compliance each March with the various subparts of 40 CFR Part 82, or it operates under some other type of permit or no permit at all – the rule is applicable in some way if your facility has equipment containing refrigerants (and/or your facility services motor vehicle air conditioning units). The time is now to become proactive to ensure you have an effective ODS management system in place – keep track of your refrigerants (from purchase to use to reclamation or disposal), bolster your repair recordkeeping system if necessary, increase awareness through training, implement accountability with your staff, provide management oversight, , and conduct internal auditing.

Not sure if your facility is fully in compliance?  Feel free to give me a call to discuss at (571) 392-2594 or email at satkins@all4inc.com.

Top 5 Preparations for Air Compliance Inspections

It happens every few years…it’s as certain as death and taxes and on a frequency somewhere in between…it’s your air compliance inspection by a regulatory agency.  Maybe the last one went almost too easily, a walk in the park, or maybe you got hammered (root canal, anyone?).  Regardless of past experiences, it’s important to be ready and below are my top five recommended preparations:  

1. Review past inspection results – Be sure to appear you took it seriously after last time 

At the conclusion of your last air inspection, you probably received a report; it might have said all was well, contained recommendations, or noted findings and corrective actions.  If you haven’t considered and/or completed the to-dos, now is your chance before the air inspector shows up again!  Think back to comments your inspector made while on-site; perhaps they didn’t want to put it in writing yet but they mumbled under their breath how you should really be tracking the hours each year your boilers burn distillate oil instead of natural gas (if you don’t know why, ask me!).  You’ll look like a rock star if you’ve confirmed your understanding of these comments and satisfied them where appropriate.  

2. Organize air permits and recordkeeping – It doesn’t count if it isn’t written down 

They say the proof is in the pudding and here is where you prove it.  If you installed new equipment or made substantial changes to your existing sources or operations, ensure your air permits reflect your facility’s current status and have them ready to show the inspector.  Hopefully you’ve had a chance to read Sally Atkins’ blog, Facility Management: Top 5 Environmental Compliance Issues for Engineers and Managers.  Although written with property management and healthcare in mind, its contents are applicable in some way to every industry, and she has a nice description of issues that can revolve around air permitting (#1) and permit compliance (#5)!  

In addition to your air permits, compile and organize the records and reports used to comply with them in a quiet room, free of distractions.  The faster and easier the inspector can review what they need and the less traveling they have to do within the facility to find records, the better.  Don’t give them time to think of more questions or to make observations to report back to their counterparts (maybe they’ll see that hazardous waste drum you’ve been meaning to label!).  Review your records against your air permit prior to the inspection to make sure you are in compliance with every condition and that you can prove it, soliciting the assistance of an environmental consultant if you need.  Be detailed – the nuances are important: Do generator records use clock-time or hour meter readings?  Do records go back the necessary number of years, which varies depending upon the origin of the requirement?  Are operational data and emissions calculated properly (e.g., based upon a calendar year versus a 12-month rolling total)?  We can all agree that it is better to find any issues in advance of an inspection and begin resolving them immediately!    

3. Understand regulations not in your air permits – Not knowing is not an excuse for non-compliance 

It’s easy to take for granted that air permits have all applicable requirements, and even then, it can be difficult to comply with them (i.e., Do you really get the required fuel delivery documentation?  Do your maintenance records align with the suggested frequency in the operations and maintenance manual?)  But what about the new regulations that are issued while your air permit remains unchanged?  In advance of your air inspection, it’s important to understand what requirements apply to your facility and confirm you have documentation to demonstrate compliance.  Most common are the Federal regulations applicable to boilers and just about any stationary generator.  These regulations may require recordkeeping and reporting not already captured by your air permit but it doesn’t mean they are any less important!  Don’t volunteer the information unless asked, but you’ll impress the inspector if they ask to see a copy of your initial notification and latest tune-up in accordance with 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJJJ (Area Source Boiler MACT) or the results of your performance test, required by 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart JJJJ, because the 500 kilowatt (kW) natural gas-fired engine you recently installed is not a U.S. EPA-certified unit.       

Sometimes a state inspector won’t ask about a regulation because they don’t have the delegated authority to do so – this may also explain why the requirements are not in the air permit or are just briefly mentioned in an air permit cover letter.  But again, it doesn’t get you off the hook for compliance because the U.S. EPA can still ask about it.  Two of the most commonly-overlooked air quality regulations by facilities are asbestos and ozone depleting substances (also noted in Sally’s blog).  

4. Evaluate your asbestos situation – It can start simple 

Asbestos (addressed in 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M) is often more complicated than other U.S. EPA requirements because it also falls under the jurisdiction of OSHA and the Department of Transportation.  Asbestos is also more common still than most folks think, appearing in mastic, tiles, and piping insulation.  A documentation review is often the best place to start for asbestos.  Find out if the required notification was submitted in accordance with Subpart M (a common compliance issue).  Understand what surveys or abatement activities have already occurred, and confirm if the requirements for surveys (e.g., the number of samples required per floor of a building) have changed since the last effort.  This review will then help guide next steps to ensure compliance, whether they be further surveying or abatement, risk assessment or management plan development, and/or training.  It may also result in additional considerations, such as contract language to protect your facility from asbestos being reintroduced during renovation or construction activities.    

5. Review your refrigerants – Even U.S. EPA-approved substitutes have requirements 

The days of R-12 and R-22 are fading but ozone depleting substances (ODS) like these are still present in a lot of equipment.  See “The Science of Ozone Layer Depletion” to learn which refrigerants are ODS and which are U.S. EPA-approved substitutes.  Keep in mind though that some substitutes still contain ODS as part of the mixture – be sure to check those constituents!  When using ODS, most facilities maintain records of technician certifications and how much refrigerant is evacuated and/or added.  But there is more to do depending upon the total charge of the unit or individual circuits (e.g., do you know how to complete leak rate calculations?), and maintaining copies of recovery equipment registrations and service tickets from the maintenance contractors can be a challenge.  You may be thinking: “I don’t use ODS anymore” but the prohibition of intentional venting also applies to non-ODS refrigerants.  How do you demonstrate that you aren’t intentionally venting?  Although answers may vary, I’d recommend doing so by maintaining records that the technicians are certified and tracking refrigerant evacuated and/or added.  You may never be asked but you may as well be ready!

Air inspections don’t have to be intimidating if you are prepared, and particularly if you are in compliance!  The first three recommendations above are key for any inspection, with asbestos and ODS becoming more relevant if the inspector has authority over the programs.  Regardless, on-going compliance with ALL air quality regulations is important for your facility’s operations and your own peace of mind.  Through our in-house expertise and established partnerships, ALL4 can deliver the high-quality support you need and our team is very interested in talking with you. 

What requirements do you find most challenging for compliance? Leave a comment below or connect via LinkedIn or Twitter.

“Winning by Losing”…or Some Such Thing

As previously discussed here by yours truly, on May 1, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision to remand and vacate the so-called 100-hour “exemption” for RICE providing power to emergency or “back-up” electric generators that take part in a demand response program.  The decision was unanimous and was based on several shortcomings perceived by the D.C. Circuit panel on the part of U.S. EPA in its drafting and finalization of the Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine (RICE) Rules.  One could say that U.S. EPA was on the losing end of that decision.

Presumably hoping to avoid another such loss, in the form of a similar remand and vacatur of the 50-hour exemption for RICE providing power to non-emergency electric generators that take part in a demand response program, U.S. EPA petitioned and won a voluntary remand without vacatur of the 50-hour exemption provision from the D.C. Circuit Court on September 23, 2015.  This voluntary remand without vacatur was won despite heavy opposition from the state of Delaware and regulated industry groups.

Arguing for the U.S. EPA, the Department of Justice (DOJ) stated that “the 50-hour exemption is less flawed than its 100-hour emergency counterpart.”  Summarizing their position with more than a little incredulity, the opposition stated, “In light of the decision in Delaware Department of Natural Resources (DNREC), et al. v. EPA, the 50-Hour Exemption is indefensible and would surely meet the same fate as the 100-Hour Exemption: vacatur.  By preemptively moving for remand without vacatur, U.S. EPA is hoping to win by losing.  Instead of returning to the status quo ante, U.S. EPA seeks to short-circuit the D.C. Circuit Court’s review and leave in place, for an unspecified but likely prolonged period, a Final Rule that it all but acknowledges is deeply flawed.”

What does this mean for your RICE?  It means that U.S. EPA will be going back to the drawing board and retooling those portions of the RICE Rules that pertain to the 50 and 100-hour exemptions.  It also means that the 100-hour exemption does not currently exist (remand with vacatur) and RICE operating as part of an emergency demand response program need to comply with all applicable requirements during such periods.  However, since 50-hour exemption does still technically exist (remand without vacatur), it means that RICE operating in a non-emergency demand response capacity can still do so for 50 hours per year while U.S. EPA retools the RICE Rules.

Have further questions?  Feel free to give me a call to discuss at (610) 933-5246 ext. 119 or email at rharding@all4inc.com.