Wait…We Have to Report our Generator Use to U.S. EPA?

Kayla T. introduced you to the terms Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) and Central Data Exchange (CDX) through her recent blog, ERT and CEDRI: What the Heck Is It and How Does It Impact You?  Reports to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) are housed within the hub of CDX (www.epa.gov/cdx), which contains numerous reporting interfaces that span a wide variety of environmental media besides air quality such as toxic releases, pesticides, storm water, and risk management.  CEDRI is the specific interface about which Kayla wrote and is the applicable one to this blog also.

Beginning this year, the Federal stationary engine regulations, affectionately known as “Quad IIII”, “Quad JJJJ”, and “Quad ZZZZ”, require owners/operators of emergency generators used in certain scenarios to report the engine use to U.S. EPA through CEDRI.  This requirement resides towards the end of each regulation, just before the definitions and reference tables, and can be easily missed or forgotten …particularly if it is not included in your air permit or you don’t have an air permit.  As I noted in Top 5 Preparations for Air Compliance Inspections, air permits may not include all applicable Federal regulations, whether by accidental omission, timing of permit issuance, or your state not having delegated authority.  However, not knowing is not an excuse for non-compliance so it’s up to the owner/operator to remain educated on regulations.

The operating scenarios triggering the reporting requirements of 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart IIII for compression-ignition engines [§60.4214(d)], 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart JJJJ for spark-ignition engines [§60.4245(e)], and 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ [§63.6650(h)], are identical for emergency generators.  The two (2) criteria for reporting applicability are:

1. “…maximum engine power more than 100 [horsepower] HP…”, and 
2. “…operates or contractually obligated to be available for more than 15 hours per calendar year for the [following] purposes”:
   a. “…emergency demand response for periods in which the Reliability Coordinator…or other authorized entity as determined by the Reliability Coordinator, has declared an Energy Emergency Alert Level 2…,”
   b. “…periods where there is a deviation of voltage or frequency of 5 percent or greater below standard voltage or frequency,” and/or
   c. “…up to 50 hours per calendar year in non-emergency situations to supply power as part of a financial arrangement with another entity if [several conditions are met]…”

In these cases, an annual report must be submitted no later than March 31^st for the previous year (i.e., no later than March 31, 2016 for calendar year 2015 operations), including information such as:

• Details about the affected engines and their location,
• Number of hours the engines are contractually obligated,
• Number of hours the engines operated in each scenario, and
• Beginning and end dates and times for each subject operation.

If these engines are subject to Subpart ZZZZ only, and not Subpart IIII or Subpart JJJJ, which is dependent upon fuel type and age, then the report must also address whether there were deviations from the fuel requirement (15ppm ultra low sulfur diesel), applicable to such units beginning January 1, 2015.

How do you go about reporting if this requirement applies to you?

First, check with your emergency demand response program provider (e.g., EnerNOC, Constellation Energy) – U.S. EPA has granted at least one (1) of them the ability to report on behalf of their customers, and the company is providing that service for no additional charge.  If your provider is not offering this service, there are some handy resources such as the CDX User Guide that will walk you through set-up, data entry, and submittal.

A friendlier and more efficient way is to contact me directly at ssadler@all4inc.com or (571) 392-2595; I’d be happy to assist you.

Did you already know about this reporting requirement?  Does it apply to you?  Leave a comment below or connect via LinkedIn or Twitter.

Critical Timelines for the SO2 Data Requirements Rule

We are now approaching the “home-stretch” of the SO₂ Data Requirements Rule (DRR).  State agencies were due to provide U.S. EPA with a list of the affected facilities where SO₂ air quality will be characterized on January 15, 2016.  The next critical milestone is on July 1, 2016 where facilities are required to identify which approach (ambient monitoring, air dispersion modeling, or the acceptance of an enforceable emissions limit less than 2,000 tons/yr) they elect to use to characterize SO₂ air quality surrounding their facility.  Check out our SO₂ DRR page for additional information on these approaches.  In addition, U.S. EPA is expecting either of the following documents be submitted for each facility by July 1, 2016:

1. An air dispersion modeling protocol if the facility elects to use the air dispersion modeling approach, or
2. An ambient monitoring plan that includes pertinent information about the proposed ambient monitor(s) if the facility elects to use the ambient monitoring approach.  This information would also be included in the agency’s annual monitoring network plan.

These July 1 deadlines are very misleading as they only indicate the dates that this information must be provided to U.S. EPA.  The truth is that each State agency, in States where the burden is being placed on facilities to prepare information, also needs time to review the facility’s dispersion modeling protocol or ambient monitoring plan.  Many States are requesting that dispersion modeling protocols and ambient monitoring plans be submitted by April 2016.  The reality is that the sooner the better for submittal so that you can start to work through questions or concerns from State agencies, well before any information needs to make its way to U.S. EPA.  Facilities need to start the dialogue with State agencies to make sure they provide all necessary information.  This is especially true if you elect to use the ambient monitoring approach.  We will have a subsequent blog post in the coming weeks to discuss the specifics of the ambient monitoring plan.

If you haven’t yet started your SO₂ DRR evaluation or if you have questions about upcoming deadlines, please contact Colin McCall at 678.460.0324 ext. 206 (cmccall@all4inc.com) or myself at 678.460.0324 ext. 204 (cdoyno@all4inc.com).

Seven Consulting Project Management New Year’s ReSOLUTIONS for 2016

1. Get paid for doing all the work.  Doing the work when writing a proposal can get disguised as “research” needed to distinguish proposals from the competition. If you find yourself spending more than 15 minutes “researching” the project, you should probably be getting paid for that effort.  Since we do air quality consulting work, a good example in our space would be time spent reviewing permits or reviewing past emissions inventories for sufficiency.  Solution:  Describe in the proposal what you are going to do instead of doing it while writing the proposal.

2. Look ahead, not behind.  Getting to the end of the month without making time to check on the project week to week is “managing by invoice” and, before you know it, you’re over budget or about to go over budget. Then the temptation for shenanigans comes knocking, like “moving time” to another task – you know – the shell game. This is NOT Project Management.  Solution:  Make weekly project budget reviews a structured habit for every project and proactively communicate with your client if things are not trending where you expect.

3. Get value from all time that adds value.  I can’t “justify” billing these hours because {insert any # of reasons here}.  Sound familiar?  Granted, there may be situations when consultants “donate our time” for a valid reason.  But if this is happening to you more than a few hours a year, it’s time to look inward, and perhaps consult that Magic 8-Ball.  Solution:  The answers are in the questions.  Ask yourself some pointed questions, like:

a. Did we cost this project correctly?

We’ve been doing this a long time, so Signs point to yes

b. Did we do work that wasn’t in our scope?

If you weren’t following resolution No. 2, You may rely on it

c. Do I need to get a scope/budget change?

Yes, definitely

d. Have I been communicating budget status with the project team regularly?

Very doubtful

e. What can I do differently?

Concentrate and ask again

4. Bother the client.  You need data, you need a scope change, you need SOMETHING to provide service to the client, but you allow yourself not to act because you “don’t want to bother them.” We rarely, if ever, get feedback from our clients that we are “over-communicating” or “bothering them.” We DO get feedback that we are not “bugging them” enough or we do not communicate frequently enough.  Solution:  Unless asked not to, call, email, text, or otherwise communicate with your clients as much as you can, like at least once per week.  Find that “sweet spot” time that works for them and you and make it another structured habit.

5. Stay focused on the scope of work.  I am very proud to say we write GREAT proposals.  We really do.  Maybe because we do No. 1 a little too much. Regardless, these proposals establish a solid work plan. Consultants can easily lose sight of what they agreed to do by not keeping the proposal clear and present during execution of the project.  Solution:  Distribute the proposal to the team at project kickoff, bring it to every project meeting, ask a team member to review it before every meeting.  The few minutes it takes to do these things will pay off in a well-executed on-budget project.

6. Be accountable to the project team. You hold your project teams accountable to interim deadlines, as you should.  They deserve nothing less from you. A quick path to losing the TRUST of the team is to let yourself slide on your own deadlines, then as the end approaches ask the project team to “step up” to long days or late nights to meet the final deadline. Solution:  Be as flexible with your project team as you are with yourself within the execution of projects, be collaborative and cut them some slack from time to time, like you do for yourself.  ACCOUNTABILITY is a two way street.

7. Get the value from Project Management. Time spent scheduling project tasks, following up, focusing on scope, tracking budgets and reviewing invoices for accuracy is necessary to provide well-executed and hassle-free services to the client.  This has the same, if not more, value as technical work and is not free.  But too often these things get missed or diminished when developing project budgets, adding to the challenge of resolution No. 3 above.  This is especially relevant for consultants in the “Seller-Manager-Doer” model.  Solution:  Make project management tasks a discrete line item in your proposal budgets and look at the time you spend on these tasks objectively.  Build this time into the project and bill it, it is valuable.  If your client doesn’t value this effort, it might be time to find another client.

RACT 2 Review – Date Changed

To those who already registered, we commend your proactivity.  To those who wanted to but have been too busy to register given the end of the holiday season and beginning of annual reporting season, you still have time.  To those who were on the bubble, undecided, and fear they may have missed it; fear not…

The date of RACT 2 Review has changed from January 20, 2016 to March 1, 2016.

“But why Ron; why has the date changed?”

I’m glad you asked…As an event that is being given in conjunction with representation from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), the RACT 2 Review has been charged with providing value to the most people and affected facilities possible.  With the RACT 2 Rule not yet published in the PA Bulletin, the recent end of the holiday season, and the commencement of the end-of-year reporting season; feedback from various sources indicates that changing the date to late February 2016 or early March 2016 would be beneficial.  Same venue, same value, different date.

Please register for the event in advance here.  If you are already registered, note that your registration will automatically be carried over to the new date.

Although the date of our training session, RACT 2 Review, has changed, the compliance deadline of January 1, 2017 remains (and will not change) for RACT 2, and we are available to answer your questions or assist with starting the process now.  As such, should you wish to discuss the Final-Form RACT 2 Rule, its impact on your facility, and what you should and can be doing now to prepare; please reach out to me (or your regular All4 Inc. contact) at (610) 933-5246 ext. 119 or rharding@all4inc.com.

Secondary Aluminum NESHAP Amendments Finalized

For those in the Secondary Aluminum Industry, you’ve likely seen and read the recent amendments to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart RRR (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Aluminum Production) which were promulgated on September 18, 2015.  The final rule and preamble can be accessed here.  We have also had some time to digest the amendments and wanted to summarize some of the important updates that will impact facilities [like the requirement to electronically submit performance test reports through U.S. EPA’s electronic reporting tool (ERT)], especially in the near term.

Emissions Standards

The largest update to the rule impacts facilities that use fluorine gas for fluxing.  The amendments to the rule include the addition of hydrogen fluoride (HF) emissions limits for Group 1 furnaces or secondary aluminum processing units (SAPUs).  Luckily, for those emissions units subject to HF limits, facilities have until September 18, 2017 to comply with the rule.

Operating Requirements

The operating requirements for facilities subject to Subpart RRR remain largely unchanged.  The biggest changes include the addition of requirements for facilities that are considered area sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) [i.e., the facility potential to emit (PTE) is less than 25 tons per year for all HAP or less than 10 TPY for any individual HAP].

Monitoring Requirements

Similar to the operating requirements, the specific monitoring obligations for area sources are outlined in 40 CFR §63.1510(a).  Also, facilities whose operations include capture and collection systems, the requirements for the annual inspections now include a more prescriptive and detailed process for what needs to be included in the inspection, including conducting annual flow rate measurements using EPA Methods 1 and 2 in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 60 or verifying permanent total enclosure using EPA Method 204.  If a flow measurement or total enclosure test fails to demonstrate compliance with the applicable operating requirement, facilities are now required to make the necessary repairs and conduct a follow-up inspection within 45 days.  Note that the rule specifies several alternatives to the required flow measurement or permanent total enclosure tests with corresponding additions to recordkeeping requirements.

The amendments also eliminate some of the accuracy and calibration requirements for feed/charge weight and specific bag leak detection requirements for fabric filters that facilities were subject to under the previous version of the rule.  A new addition to Subpart RRR for facilities that are subject to the visible emissions observations for each aluminum scrap shredder is that alternatively, facilities can measure the opacity using ASTM D7520-13, which uses the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT).

For facilities using lime injection fabric filters, the lime injection rate must now be maintained at no less than 90 percent of the lime injection rate used during the most recent performance testing.

Performance Testing Requirements

A number of significant updates have been made to the performance testing requirements including the addition of testing requirements for facilities that use fluorine gas for reactive fluxing.  Some additional clarification as to how the performance testing shall be conducted has also been added to Subpart RRR.  For facilities testing uncontrolled Group 1 furnaces, the owner or operator must meet one of the following during the performance testing:

• Installation of temporary hooding.  The temporary hooding must meet the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Guidelines per 40 CFR §63.14;
• Submit a testing petition 180 days prior to the performance test for facilities that claim hooding is impractical per 40 CFR §63.1512(e)(6).  The petition must include testing procedures that will minimize unmeasured emissions during the performance test per 40 CFR §63.1512(e)(7); or
• Assume the capture efficiency of hooding is 80%, meaning multiply emissions measured at the furnace exhaust outlet by 1.25.  If a source fails to demonstrate compliance using the 80% capture efficiency assumption, the owner or operator must re-test with a temporary hood or petition that a hood is impractical with 180 days.

Round top furnaces constructed prior to February 14, 2012 and reconstructed round top furnaces are exempt from installing hooding or petitioning that temporary hooding is impractical, but the furnaces must be operated to minimize unmeasured emissions per 40 CFR §63.1512(e)(7).  Be sure to review this section carefully prior to conducting your next performance test.

Startup and Shutdown Provisions

Subpart RRR has been updated to remove specific startup and shutdown provisions as we have seen with other recent amendments to NESHAPs.  All emissions limitations in Subpart RRR clearly indicate now that affected facilities are subject to applicable limits during periods of startup and shutdown. Specific compliance demonstration requirements have been added for periods of startup and shutdown per 40 CFR §63.1513(f).  Specific recordkeeping requirements have been added in 40 CFR §63.1517 depending on your specific compliance demonstration.  Also, Subpart RRR no longer requires facilities to maintain a startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) plan.

Other Odds and Ends

Subpart RRR now includes provisions related to changing furnace classification for Group 1 and 2 furnace classifications.  The rule outlines specific testing, work practice standards, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to changing of furnace classifications.

Recordkeeping requirements have also been added if a lime feeder has been repaired or replaced, which includes maintaining records of the new feeder calibration and the feed mechanism set points.

Facilities that are subject to Subpart RRR should keep in mind that many of these updates to the rule will require that facilities update their Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring (OM&M) plan.  The other major change that should not be underestimated is the requirement to submit performance test data electronically through EPA’s ERT.  As we have seen with other NESHAPs, the ERT system is not very user friendly and takes a great deal of patience and time to master.  Luckily, ALL4 is available to assist facilities with EPA’s ERT.

The compliance date of March 16, 2016 for affected sources constructed prior to February 14, 2012 is closing fast.  For affected sources subject to new HF emissions limits, the compliance date is September 18, 2017, but the time to start planning is now.

To discuss how ALL4 can assist with compliance with Subpart RRR, give me a call at 678.460.0324 ext. 204 or send me an email at cdoyno@all4inc.com.

Voluntary Self-Disclosures Become Streamlined With Launch of U.S. EPA’s eDisclosure Portal

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has streamlined the implementation of its self-disclosure policies through the recently released ‘eDisclosure’ portal.  This automated web-based system allows both small and large businesses to quickly and more efficiently resolve routine types of non-compliance disclosures.  Effective December 9, 2015, disclosures under U.S. EPA’s Audit Policy and U.S. EPA’s Small Business Compliance Policy should be submitted through the eDisclosure portal.

The U.S. EPA issued “Incentives for Self-Policing: Discovery, Disclosure, Correction and Prevention of Violations” (65 FR 19618, April 11, 2000), also known as U.S. EPA’s Audit Policy, in order to encourage large businesses to voluntarily disclose, correct, and prevent  violations to Federal environmental regulations.  In return, U.S. EPA has reduced civil penalties to those that voluntarily disclose violations.  U.S. EPA has also issued its Small Business Compliance Policy (65 FR 19618, April 11, 2000) to encourage small businesses (i.e., 100 or fewer employees) to voluntarily disclose violations.

Voluntary auditing has been steadily increasing, with the U.S. EPA receiving hundreds of new disclosures every year.  Recognizing and correcting violations, before their discovery by government inspectors, allows for additional cost saving benefits beyond the incentives provided by the U.S. EPA.

All potential violation disclosures are qualified in the eDisclosure system as one (1) of two (2) categories: Category 1 or Category 2.

Category 1

Category 1 disclosures include:

• Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) violations that meet all Audit Policy conditions.
• EPCRA violations that meet all Small Business Compliance Policy conditions.

Category 1 does not include:

• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 103/EPCRA Section 304 chemical release reporting violations.
• EPCRA violations with significant economic benefit, as defined by U.S. EPA.

When a Category 1 disclosure is submitted, the eDisclosure system will automatically issue an electronic Notice of Determination (eNOD) confirming that the violations are resolved, with no assessment of civil penalties.  U.S. EPA will spot-check Category 1 disclosures to determine compliance with EPCRA, Audit Policy/Small Business Compliance Policy, and eDisclosure requirements.

Category 2

Category 2 disclosures include:

• All non-EPCRA violations.
• EPCRA violations that do not meet Audit Policy Condition 1 (i.e., the violation was not discovered through an environmental audit or a compliance management system).
• EPCRA/CERCLA violations excluded from Category 1.

When a Category 2 disclosure is submitted, the eDisclosure system will automatically issue an Acknowledgement Letter (AL) confirming receipt of the disclosure.  U.S. EPA will screen Category 2 disclosures for significant concerns, such as criminal conduct or imminent hazards, and will determine the eligibility of penalty mitigation if it considers taking enforcement action for the violation.

Use the following 3-step process for disclosing violations through the eDisclosure portal:

1. Register to File with the Centralized Web-Based Portal
   Register with U.S. EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) system.
2. Submit a Violation Disclosure
   Potential violations (i.e., violations which may not be confirmed), may be disclosed in order to provide the opportunity to determine whether the violation actually occurred and to assess the particular violation.  Disclose potential violations online within 21 calendar days of discovering that the violation may have occurred.  Do not submit any Confidential Business Information (CBI) through the eDisclosure system.  Instead, any follow-up CBI should be submitted manually in accordance with U.S. EPA procedures.
3. Certify Compliance
   Submit a Compliance Certification identifying the specific violation(s) and certifying that the violation(s) have been corrected, and that the Audit Policy or Small Business Compliance Policy conditions have been met.  Compliance Certifications for disclosures submitted under the Audit Policy must be submitted within 60 days of submitting the disclosure.  Compliance Certifications for disclosures submitted under the Small Business Compliance Policy must be submitted within 90 days of submitting the disclosure.

Violation Correction Deadlines:

Except with a few instances when extensions are permitted, a violation under the Audit Policy must be corrected within 60 days of discovering the potential violation.  A violation under the Small Business Compliance Policy must be corrected within 90 days of discovering the potential violation.  These violation correction deadlines are subject to limited extensions, depending on the type of disclosure (i.e., Category 1 or Category 2).

U.S. EPA will allow pre-existing unresolved EPCRA disclosures to be resubmitted through the eDisclosure system within 120 days of the system’s December 9, 2015 launch date (i.e., by April 7, 2016).  A Compliance Certification for such re-submitted disclosures must be submitted within 30 days of the resubmittal.  No extensions are available for pre-existing EPCRA disclosures.

The implementation of the eDisclosure System does not modify the conditions of the Audit Policy or the Small Business Compliance Policy.  Any new owner self-disclosures submitted under U.S. EPA’s New Owner Policy, and any potential criminal violations to the Voluntary Disclosure Board (VDB), will continue to be accepted by the U.S. EPA outside of the eDisclosure system.

If you have questions about submitting your disclosure or about the eDisclosure system, or about conducting multi-media compliance auditing in general, feel free to contact me at (610) 933-5246, extension 155, or at cspeers@all4inc.com.