February 2016

Technical Staff Representative

What a year 2015 was. But it is in the books and we are on to 2016! 2016 will bring more events, more headlines, and more technological advances than we have ever seen before. 2016 will also be a year of new roles and new responsibilities for some of us. I would like to tell you a little about the new role and responsibility that I will be taking on in 2016 at All4 inc.

ALL4 has shown through the years that it has great leadership. Growing from a company of four people to a company of 50+ people in a 14 year span is no easy feat. Growing the company into a brand that is nationally recognized is no easy feat. Growing a company that is respected by industry and agency alike is no easy feat. Growing a company that people enjoy coming to work for each day is no easy feat.

These accomplishments are attained, not by the decisions of one person, but of a group of people working together who are in alignment with the company’s values. In order for this to work, there needs to be more than one person calling the shots and providing insight into how the company operates and grows in the market place. That is why ALL4 put together a group of people that comprise the “Executive Council” (powerful, yet accurate – I like to imagine thunderous background sounds echoing as “Executive Council” is mightily exclaimed by ~~J. Peterman~~ John O’Hurley when I say it in my head). Feel free to picture this group as being just as ~~badass~~ admirable as the Jedi Council – because it is.

The Executive Council meets once every two weeks to discuss items that are pertinent in the moment as well as items that are more future-oriented. The Executive Council contains members with focuses that are spread out among the company, which when they come together, make one powerful force. The Executive Council has positions that range from, but are not limited to, the owners of the company, the marketing and recruiting leads, the human resources department, and remote office managers, just to name a few. My role in the Executive Council is to be the voice of the younger staff. Let that sink in for a second. … … … The owners of the company value the opinions of the younger staff so much that they provide a position on the Executive Council for someone that is less than 5 years out of college to weigh in on decisions that the company is facing. It makes sense though, right? In order to make the best decision possible, logic would say that more background data should lead to less of the unknown risk, to a certain extent. Then why is this so different than how the majority of other companies operate? Because ALL4 is different than other companies; that’s why.

At ALL4, more than 1/3 of the employees are below the age of 30. That’s a pretty large piece of the pie when you are talking about 50+ employees. Most of this young group, including myself, is part of the “Technical Staff” at ALL4, so my position is entitled “Technical Staff Representative” on the Executive Council, naturally. As the Technical Staff Representative, it is my responsibility to communicate with the Technical Staff and have a pulse on how things are going, what the feelings are around decisions that are being made, and have some foresight into what reactions might arise from hypothetical situations, should they happen.

The Executive Council discusses things before they are announced to the rest of the company. I’m not going to lie; it is pretty fascinating to be part of those conversations. Topics of discussion are looked at through many different lenses and analyzed in detail. This company cares about its future and the future of its employees. Sometimes, an idea will be brought up and feedback is requested in the moment. Other times we are asked to gather more data, or ask people that are not in the executive council for how they would perceive this or that. So my responsibility is to recommunicate that idea to the Technical Staff, listen to the comments in response, and report back what the feelings are in the next meeting. Will the Technical Staff ideas always be the ones that make the final say in a decision? No, not always; but they will be heard and considered. At the end of the day a decision has to be made. After taking part in some of these meetings so far this year, I can assure you that the decisions are made in a manner that is best suited for the company as a whole.

Unlike the U.S. Presidential term, my position will not last multiple years. It is a one year position, and 2016 is my year to make it the best that I can make it. Then the cycle will continue in 2017 for someone else that wants to make a difference at ALL4. Someone else that wants to grow leadership skills in a unique position that is uncommon in Corporate America… Someone else that wants to see how decisions are made in the best interest of the company… But that someone else will have to wait… Because 2016 is still young; and I’m going to make 2016 a marvelous year while enjoying the ride along the way.

RACT 2 Methods of Compliance

The revised Final-Form Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) 2 Rule was approved by the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board (EQB) on November 17, 2015. Although the final form of the RACT 2 rule has not yet been published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, it is already certain that January 1, 2017 is the final compliance deadline if you are a Pennsylvania facility subject to this rule. Given this very short timeline, a facility subject to the RACT 2 rule needs to be engaged right now in making decisions concerning how compliance with RACT 2 will be demonstrated by January 1, 2017. Before a facility can do that, it needs to know what actually constitutes RACT for each of its RACT 2 affected sources. If you have not yet determined this, please refer to our previous blog post, register for ALL4 and PADEP’s March 1 training and Q&A session, and contact your ALL4 Project Manager so that we can support you in determining what limits and requirements apply and what types of submittals may need to be prepared for Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) in order to obtain their concurrence on what constitutes RACT at your facility.

Once RACT is determined for each of your affected sources, the methods by which you will actually comply with RACT must also be determined. Sources that are able to meet applicable presumptive RACT limits of the rule and sources that have identified alternative RACT limits that do not require add-on controls will need to demonstrate compliance with their respective RACT limits by January 1, 2017. If an affected source elects to install a control device to meet a presumptive RACT 2 limit or determines that a control device is required to meet an alternative RACT 2 limit determined through a case-by case review, the source may request and be granted a compliance extension of up to three (3) years.

In general, the methods by which a facility will demonstrate compliance with RACT limits are specified in 25 Pa. Code §129.100 of the proposed rule. If an affected source is equipped with a nitrogen oxides (NO_X) and/or volatile organic compound (VOC) Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS), that source would be required to monitor NO_X and/or VOC (as applicable) using the respective CEMS in accordance with 25 Pa. Code Chapter 139, Subchapter C. Municipal waste combustors will be required to monitor to a daily average, but all other sources would be required to calculate a 30-day rolling average in accordance with the provisions of 25 Pa. Code §129.100(a)(1). Additionally, Portland cement kilns that intend to demonstrate compliance with presumptive RACT must also monitor clinker production. For affected sources that are not equipped with CEMs, emission testing in accordance with 25 Pa. Code Chapter 139, Subchapter A must be conducted prior to January 1, 2017 and once every five (5) years thereafter. Affected sources may request an initial test waiver if PADEP-approved test data are available in the period 12 months prior to the effective date of the RACT 2 rule. In this scenario, the test waiver must be requested within six (6) months after the effective date of the final rule and it must demonstrate that a Department-approved emissions source test was already performed in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 139, Subpart A within 12 months prior to the effective adoption of the final-form rule or within 12 months prior to the date that the source becomes subject to RACT 2. If approved, the waiver would essentially delay the requirement to perform testing for five (5) years. If a waiver cannot, or is not submitted, the January 1, 2017 compliance deadline to perform testing would still apply.

If there is at least one (1) source that cannot meet a presumptive NO_X emissions limit specified in §129.97, the facility may elect to develop a “facility-wide” or “system-wide” NO_X Emissions Averaging Plan (Plan) in accordance with §129.98 as an alternative means to comply with presumptive NO_X RACT limits. The Plan should aggregate NO_X emissions on a facility- or site-wide basis on a 30-day rolling basis. Each source included in the Plan must be subject to a NO_X emissions limit in §129.97, and the Plan must detail how aggregate 30-day rolling average actual and allowable NO_X mass emissions are compiled and compared. Actual NO_X emissions from Plan sources cannot be greater than the NO_X mass emissions by the Plan sources if each source complied with the source-specific NO_X RACT emissions limit in §129.97. Each Plan source may be included in only one (1) Plan.

25 Pa. Code §129.100 also includes recordkeeping requirements. In general, all records must be retained for five (5) years and made available upon written request from either PADEP or your local air pollution control agency. However, there are more specific recordkeeping requirements that vary depending on whether your sources can meet the presumptive RACT limits of the rule; cannot meet the presumptive RACT limits of the rule and will use the NO_X averaging provisions; cannot comply with the presumptive RACT limits of the rule and will be complying through submission of an alternative RACT 2 proposal and associated case-by-case control cost analysis; or are located at major facilities but exempt from the requirements of RACT 2.

Sources that can meet either the presumptive RACT limits of the rule (including NO_X averaging) or alternative case-by-case RACT limits must keep records that include sufficient data and calculations to demonstrate that the requirements of 25 Pa. Code §129.96 through .99 are met. The data or information must be recorded and maintained in a timeframe consistent with the averaging period of the requirement.

Specific recordkeeping requirements exist for 25 Pa. Code §129.97(b) combustion sources performing adjustments. These sources must record specific information as part of each required adjustment including the date of each tuning procedure, the names of those performing the tuning procedure, the final operating rate or load, the final NO_X and carbon monoxide (CO) emission rates, the final excess oxygen rate, and other information required by the applicable operating permit). Portland cement kilns also have unique recordkeeping requirements which are outlined at 25 Pa. Code §129.100(h).

Now, you may think that you are at least off the hook for your exempt sources. However, sources located at major facilities that are exempt from the requirements of RACT 2 based upon the source’s potential to emit NO_X and/or VOC must also keep records demonstrating that the source is not subject to RACT 2 as compared to the triggering emission rate thresholds identified in the rule.

As you can see there are numerous combinations of compliance methods that could apply to a particular facility. We are here to help you weigh your options and put an appropriate plan into place so that you are in compliance with RACT 2 before the upcoming deadline of this fast-moving rule. Contact Ron Harding, Project Manager, at 610.933.5246 extension 119.

Why Facilities Should Be Proactive Rather Than Reactive – Amendments to the Risk Management Program Rule

UPDATE (2/26/2016): As a follow-up to my blog below regarding upcoming changes to the Risk Management Program, U.S. EPA has released a prepublication rule. EPA will hold a public hearing in Washington, D.C. on March 29, 2016. Publication in the Federal Register is expected in the next month or so.

ALL4 is reviewing the proposed rule and is available to answer questions that you have.

ORIGINAL (2/19/2016): The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is scheduled to propose revisions to 40 CFR Part 68 (the Risk Management Program rule) in March 2016. The proposed revisions are part of an effort to strengthen the safety and security of industrial facilities under President Obama’s Executive Order (EO) 13650, which calls for improving coordination and communication between levels of government, and revising policies, rules and standards. The proposed revisions largely are intended to expand existing requirements within 40 CFR Part 68, and are categorized as follows (please refer to a U.S. EPA presentation for specifics):

Third-Party Audits
Incident Root Cause Analysis
Safer Alternatives Analysis
Coordinating Emergency Response Program Requirements with Local Responders
Emergency Response Exercises
Information Sharing

A summary of the proposed revisions is provided below.

Third-Party Audits

Compliance audit requirements currently exist within 40 CFR Part 68 for Program 2 and Program 3 facilities. However, the proposed revisions to the compliance audit requirements specify that a third-party auditor with specific credentials must perform an audit following a reportable incident as defined in 40 CFR Part 68. U.S. EPA states that “[i]t is not expected that a lot of facilities will need to hire an independent auditor since the requirement only applies after a reportable accident occurs.” U.S. EPA stated that the basis for a third-party audit requirement includes research that “shows that without sufficient safeguards to ensure auditor independence, (self) auditors are more likely to provide lenient or biased audit reports that can fail to accurately identify problems and violations by the regulated entity.”

Incident Root Cause Analysis

Owners and operators of Program 2 and Program 3 facilities must conduct incident investigations following an incident that resulted in or could have resulted in a catastrophic release (a “near miss”). U.S. EPA believes it is necessary to strengthen the current incident investigation requirements to identify the underlying reasons for a chemical accident which would lead to preventing future accidents and ensuring compliance. Under the proposed revisions, an owner or operator must identify the fundamental reasons why an incident occurred and the correctable failures in management systems (“root cause analysis”). U.S. EPA proposes to define “root cause” as a fundamental, underlying, system-related reason why an incident occurred that identifies a correctable failure(s) in management systems. The proposed revisions also include the requirement to complete a report within 12 months of the incident.

Safer Alternatives Analysis

Program 3 facilities must develop a process hazard analysis (PHA) to identify, evaluate, and control process hazards involving regulated substances. The proposed revisions apply to the following Program 3 facilities: paper manufacturing, petroleum and coal products manufacturing, and chemical manufacturing. The revisions would require these facilities to consider inherently safer technology or design, passive measures, active measures, and procedural measures as part of its PHA.

Coordinating Emergency Response Program Requirements with Local Responders

Program 2 and Program 3 facilities must develop and implement an emergency response program. The proposed revisions would require affected facilities to coordinate with local responders on an annual basis, and specifically discuss the following items:

Determine resources needed to appropriately respond to regulated substance releases at the facility
Determine resources available from the facility and local responders
Identify capability gaps and develop plans to address the gaps
Decide whether facility or local responders will respond to releases of regulated substances
Assign response action roles and responsibilities

Emergency Response Exercises

Currently there is no requirement for affected facilities to exercise their emergency response plans. The proposed revisions would require Program 2 and Program 3 facilities to test their emergency response program through notification, tabletop, and field exercises. Notification exercises would be required on an annual basis, while responding facilities would be required to conduct a field exercise every five (5) years and a tabletop exercise annually.

Information Sharing

40 CFR Part 68 data are made available to the public and local responders. The proposed revisions would add new disclosure elements to all facilities to adequately explain the contents of a facility’s program (without revealing confidential business information or trade secret information). Public meetings would be required every five (5) years or within 30 days of a reportable incident.

This is a lot of information to absorb in a single blog. And keep in mind these are proposed revisions that are subject to change. We will closely follow the status of the revisions and stay tuned for an upcoming blog when the proposed regulations are published. Until then, start thinking about how the current status of your program and how an external resource like ALL4 can be of assistance.

More “Clarifying” Proposed Amendments to Refinery Sector Rule

On February 9, 2016, U.S. EPA issued proposed amendments to the December 1, 2015 published Refinery Sector Rule [i.e., 40 CFR Part 63, Subparts CC (Refinery MACT 1 ) and UUU (Refinery MACT 2) and, 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts J and Ja]. I know what you’re thinking…more proposed amendments?! But I just finished reading the 700+ pages of the December 1, 2015 published rule! I promise, these amendments are much less daunting.

The proposed amendments can be broken down into the following two (2) sub-categories:

Extension of Compliance Dates:

U.S. EPA is proposing to extend the compliance dates for standards applicable during periods of startup, shutdown, maintenance or inspection for maintenance vents, the operation of sulfur recovery units (SRU) during startup and shutdown, and fluid catalytic cracking units (FCCU) during startup, shutdown and hot standby. The compliance dates would be extended for those units which were constructed or reconstructed on or before June 30, 2014. Please note that the proposal does not affect normal operations.

Upon further review of the December 1, 2015 Refinery Sector Rule (RSR), U.S. EPA determined that in order to comply with the maintenance venting and startup, shutdown and hot standby standards, refineries will be required to follow the management of change (MOC) procedures specified in the Risk Management Program (40 CFR §68.75) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Process Safety Management (PSM) [29 CFR §1910.119(l) and Appendix C of 29 CFR §1910.119]. MOC procedures assess the following for any proposed changes to a process: what new equipment is required; how will this affect health and safety; what new training will be required for staff; and has a pre-startup safety review been conducted? To ease the burden in completing the proper MOC procedures that will be required to comply with the standards for maintenance venting and operation during startup and shutdown for SRUs and during startup, shutdown and hot standby for FCCUs, U.S. EPA is proposing a new compliance date of 18 months after the effective rule date of February 1, 2016 (i.e., August 1, 2017).

So what does this proposed amendment mean for your refinery? Continue planning! Now is the time to take action and move forward with the MOC procedures. Those 18 months will be over before you know it.
Clarifications and Technical Corrections:

In addition to proposing an extension for the compliance dates detailed above, U.S. EPA is proposing several points of clarity and technical corrections to the December 1, 2015 rule. The most notable proposed amendment would update Table 11 of Refinery MACT 1 to clearly outline the compliance dates for each of the standards. All other proposed corrections are minor and are meant to provide technical clarity to existing requirements.

U.S. EPA is accepting comments for 45 days (due March 25, 2016) and will hold a public hearing later in February if a request is made by February 16, 2016.

See, that wasn’t so bad! Have any questions or concerns? Need help with developing your MACT 1 and MACT 2 compliance strategies or evaluating your benzene fenceline monitoring options? If so, please contact me, Meghan Barber, at mbarber@all4inc.com. And stay tuned to ALL4’s blog to see how these proposed amendments fair in the review process.

The Secret to Your Environmental Permitting Challenges – A PAL Permit

As the one in charge of dealing with environmental issues at your facility the following “hypothetical” conversation with your Plant Manager or engineering group may sound familiar.

Plant Manager: “We have a project in the works that with a few ‘minor’ changes is going to allow us to take advantage of some of our unused capacity and get a ‘nice’ increase in production. It could include several equipment upgrades throughout the facility. It’s important for this facility and we need to move fast with ordering and installing equipment. I can’t imagine environmental will hold us up, what do we need to do?”

Environmental Manager: “Well, first we need to define the project from the perspective of how any of our air emissions units will be impacted and see if the increases in production result in significant emissions increases. To do that we have to consider each of our existing emissions units and determine whether they are considered modified or affected, and we also have to take into account any new emissions units. Then we need to evaluate the emissions increases associated with the project. If we trigger the PSD air permitting requirements, we need to look at BACT and possibly conduct air dispersion modeling. Once we nail all that down, we need to package it up and submit a permit application.”

Plant Manager: “So what’s the timing and cost of an effort like that?”

Environmental Manager: “Depending on the scope of the project, it could be $75,000 or more, and we are probably looking at a minimum of three (3) months to prepare an application plus six (6) to eight (8) months for State agency review time if we need to conduct air dispersion modeling.”

Plant Manager: “You are telling me it could take a year to get a permit and cost us over $100,000?!?”

Any takers for an entirely different conversation? If you had a plantwide applicability limit (PAL) permit, the above conversation could look vastly different. If you have been following ALL4 for a while, you have likely heard us discuss the intricacies and benefits of a PAL permit. A PAL is essentially a facility-wide permit limit for a regulated new source review (NSR) pollutants. PALs are an available air permitting strategy for existing major stationary sources of regulated NSR pollutants. A PAL permit based on past actual emissions establishes a single, facility-wide emission limit for designated regulated NSR pollutants. PALs can be established for one (1) or more regulated NSR pollutant at an existing major stationary source. PALs are expressed as ton per year (tpy) mass emissions limits. Each PAL level is based on a consecutive 12-month rolling total and compliance with PALs must be demonstrated monthly during the term of the PAL permit. Each limit is generally established based on the average annual (e.g., baseline) emissions rates for a 24-month consecutive period during the prior 10 years of facility operation. A PAL permit is established for a 10 year period. Check out Roy’s September 2012 4 The Record article for a deeper dive into the intricacies of a PAL permit.

Now let’s try that conversation again, only this time, your facility has a PAL permit for all NSR regulated pollutants.

Environmental Manager: “Well, we need to determine what our facility-wide emissions will be after the project is complete. If our future emissions are less than our PAL permit limits, then we could be good to go. We wouldn’t have to evaluate or even consider PSD applicability. It could be as simple as submitting a notification to the State agency and addressing any newly applicable regulatory requirements that the project may trigger. Worst case, we may need to get a state construction permit.”

Plant Manager: “So what’s the timing and cost of an effort like that?”

Environmental Manager: “Thanks to the PAL tracking spreadsheet that ALL4 built for us, we should be able to make some adjustments and pretty quickly evaluate our future facility-wide emissions post project. As long as we don’t trigger any new regulatory requirements, preparation of the notification letter shouldn’t be much effort. Even if a state construction permit is required the cost will probably be on the order of $10,000 to $15,000 or less and the timing shouldn’t be more than maybe three (3) months to prepare and submit the documentation and get the State agency’s approval.”

Plant Manager: “OK, great! Let’s get moving on this.”

See, that conversation was much easier. At ALL4, we have assisted clients with evaluating the feasibility of having a PAL permit for their facility and we have actually helped a number of them obtain PALs. There are a number of benefits that support obtaining a PAL which could give your facility a competitive edge. These include:

Avoiding the painstaking process of evaluating PSD applicability for each project you wish to implement
Avoiding the air permitting process for every minor change your facility wishes to make
A PAL permit puts the facility in the driver’s seat for managing their emissions profile (rather than the BACT process)
Time! Many projects nowadays have a quick schedule for implementation. A PAL permit would significantly reduce the time associated with gaining approval from the State agency.

One of the major sticking points historically for a PAL permit was the “perceived” extra burden related to monitoring and tracking facility-wide emissions on a monthly basis. We are at a point now where most environmental managers effectively track their facility-wide emissions profile. Management systems, spreadsheets, and processes have been developed to track this information due to the nature of the regulatory landscape. Even the smallest of emissions sources like emergency generators (RICE MACT anyone?) are required to be included in operating permits and annual emissions be reported. So now, the tracking of monthly emissions is part of the day-to-day operations of most facilities.

As is the case with most good things, PAL permits are not for everyone. Facilities where large expansion projects may occur within the next 10 years may not be good candidates for PALs as the PAL rules make expanding PAL levels very onerous (but not impossible). Facilities whose highest historic baseline period occurred within the last few years (i.e., production rates are currently as high as they have ever been historically) may not be the best candidates for a PAL permit because baseline levels last up to ten (10) years and you have time to wait for even higher baseline levels. But if your facility has high historic baseline emission rates that occurred eight years ago, let’s talk about what a PAL permit can do for you before it’s too late and those high historic baseline periods fall out of the 10-year PSD look-back period. Give me a call at 678.460.0324 ext. 204 or email me at cdoyno@all4inc.com to talk more about PAL permits.

RACT 2 – I have less than a year to comply!? What should I be doing now?

Wow! Raise your hand if you can’t believe that you are now less than one (1) year away from the final compliance deadline for the Pennsylvania Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT 2) regulations. That’s right – even though the final form of the rule has not yet been published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, it is already certain that January 1, 2017 is the Federally mandated compliance deadline by which you must meet if you are a Pennsylvania facility subject to this rule.

Given this very short timeline, a facility subject to the rule should be engaged right now in determining what constitutes RACT for each of its affected emissions units and making decisions as to how compliance with RACT 2 will be specifically demonstrated by the January 1, 2017 compliance deadline. In this blog, I’m going to share a little background concerning how one determines what constitutes RACT for each of its affected sources.

The process begins by determining which of your emissions units at the facility are considered affected under RACT 2 and then determining whether those units can meet what is termed “presumptive RACT.” PADEP specifies specific work practice standards, and nitrogen oxides (NO_X) and volatile organic compound (VOC) emission limits, at proposed 25 Pa. Code §129.97 for specific NO_X– and VOC-emitting sources. These requirements are known as “presumptive RACT requirements” and “presumptive RACT limitations.” Very simply, each NO_X and/or VOC-emitting emissions unit at your facility must be reviewed in the context of proposed 25 Pa. Code §129.97. If it is determined that an emissions unit at your facility is subject to, and can comply with, the applicable presumptive RACT provisions identified in the rule, then “presumptive RACT” constitutes RACT for that source and you can proceed to the step of determining how you will demonstrate compliance with those presumptive RACT provisions by January 1, 2017 (a topic that will be discussed in a subsequent blog post). Alternatively, you have the option of voluntarily adding controls to meet a presumptive RACT limit and thus avoiding a case-by-case analysis as described below.

However, should you determine that an emissions unit cannot meet the applicable presumptive RACT provisions and you want to avoid adding controls, things are not so simple because you must still determine what constitutes RACT! This process involves evaluation on your end and ultimate approval by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). If a unit cannot meet presumptive RACT, you have an option to propose an alternative RACT limit based on a case-by-case analysis. Utilization of a case-by-case NO_X and/or VOC alternative emissions limitation approach under proposed 25 Pa. Code §129.99 requires a facility to submit a RACT proposal within six (6) months of publication of the rule. The proposal is in the form of an Operating Permit Modification or a Plan Approval Application (PAA) (if installation of controls will be required). Case-by-case RACT submittals propose alternative emissions limitations and involve top-down technical evaluations specified by 25 Pa. Code §129.92(b). The case-by-case analysis would need to demonstrate that the emissions limitation you propose is equivalent to RACT for the affected source. The case-by-case RACT proposal must also, among many other things, outline your plan for demonstrating compliance as well as your proposed alternative compliance timeline (including dates for ordering equipment, dates for making any physical modifications or changes, and dates for the completion of compliance testing) for achieving the NO_X and/or VOC emissions limit(s) you propose. If you intend to go the route of a case-by-case proposal it is extremely important to keep in mind that you only have six (6) months from final publication of the RACT 2 regulation to submit a plan with a proposed alternative RACT limit, or to submit a PAA to install controls if those are necessary. Because the final form rule will not likely change, facilities that are contemplating alternative RACT limits should already be in action regarding their plans.

Is submitting a case-by-case proposal the only alternative available to facilities that can’t meet a presumptive RACT limit or requirement? Facilities also have the ability to comply with the rule’s NO_X averaging provisions. Under this scenario, a facility may determine whether it would be more advantageous for the entire facility (or a portion of the facility) to take advantage of the rule’s NO_X averaging provisions than to submit a case-by-case RACT proposal. To ascertain the feasibility of utilizing the NO_X averaging provisions, the facility would need to evaluate whether the 30-day rolling average of aggregate NO_X emissions (for the defined units included in the averaging plan) are equal to or less than the NO_X emissions that would be emitted if each affected source included in the plan complied with the applicable NO_X presumptive RACT emissions limitation(s) on a source-specific basis. If it is determined that the NO_X averaging provisions are feasible, then a “facility-wide” or “system-wide” NO_X Emissions Averaging Plan would be prepared consistent with the provisions of 25 Pa. Code §129.98(g) and submitted to PADEP in either an Operating Permit Modification and/or a Plan Approval Application (PAA) if installation of controls is required. One key provision of the averaging plan requirements that changed during the evolution of the RACT 2 rule is the requirement for units included in a plan to use the most stringent NO_X limit that applies to the unit to calculate allowable mass emissions. This provision may dictate how facilites look to structure site-specific averaging plans regarding units to include or exclude from the plan. However, if NO_X averaging does NOT prove to be feasible, alternative NO_X RACT 2 proposals would need to be prepared on a “case-by-case” basis as described above.

Just as there are numerous limits and requirements that could constitute RACT for your affected sources, there are numerous methods you can use to comply with the rule by January 1, 2017. The methods of compliance that exist for RACT 2 sources will be discussed in a subsequent blog. In the meantime, we are here to help you determine what constitutes RACT for each of your affected sources so that you can plan to be in compliance with RACT 2 before the upcoming deadline of this fast-moving rule. Contact Ron Harding, Philadelphia Office Director, at 610.933.5246 extension 119.

Report on Pennsylvania’s Methane Reduction Plan, General Permit for Well Pads, and GP-5 Modifications

The agenda for the Air Quality Technical Advisory (AQTAC) meeting on February 11, 2016 included the following informational items pertaining to the natural gas industry.

1. 1. Pennsylvania’s Methane Reduction Strategy
  2. Concepts for the Proposed General Permit for Well Pads
  3. Concepts for the Proposed GP-5 Modifications

Having several clients operating in Pennsylvania within the natural gas production and midstream segments and also serving as an active member of Pennsylvania’s Independent Oil & Gas Association (PIOGA) Air Quality Subcommittee, I was eager to attend this particular AQTAC meeting. The natural gas topics were scheduled to be the first item of business following the lunch break. I note the timing of the natural gas topics because the audience chairs were sparsely filled throughout the morning session. The room had a completely different vibe after I returned from a quick lunch at the nearby pizza shop. The amount of spectators for the afternoon session (i.e., the natural gas topics) had increased significantly and there was energy not present during the morning.

The afternoon session included the Honorable John Quigley, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) Secretary, presenting Pennsylvania’s Methane Reduction Strategy and Mr. Krishnan Ramamurthy (PADEP) presenting the Concepts for Proposed General Permit of Well Pads and Proposed GP-5 Modifications. There were also several public commenters that spoke during the public comment period.

The AQTAC meeting written presentation concerning natural gas general permits is available on their website here. Several other documents related to Pennsylvania’s methane emission reduction strategy can be found on PADEP’s Methane Reduction Strategy website. In an effort to not rerepeat the Department’s news release and presentations, I decided to provide below a few thought-provoking items that were presented verbally during the meeting.

Reports were cited that predict that Pennsylvania’s climate change (i.e., warming) will result in the loss of the Commonwealth’s ski industry by 2050.
Fugitive methane emissions (i.e., leak rate) estimates ranged from <1 % to >90%.
Voluntary emissions reductions are thought to be ineffective for a nation leading/best in class methane reduction plan.
There were lessons learned during the application of Exemption No. 38 that will be applied to the development of a new general permit.

Pigging operations [and associated emissions] are complex.
PADEP is aiming to issue new and revised GPs in October 2016.

I just effectively reduced 1.75 hour of presentation into six bullet points with approximately 100 words. If you are interested to learn more about this topic, I can talk details at length. I plan to closely follow the development of PADEP’s Methane Reduction Strategy. Give me a call to discuss this meeting or check in for updates. My contact information is (610) 933-5246, extension 120 or jkleinle@all4inc.com. I’d love to hear from you.

Brace Yourself – 2016 Chemical Data Reporting is Coming

2016 is special not only because it is a leap year, but it is also a reporting year in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule cycle. Every four (4) years (the previous report was required in 2012), manufacturers of TSCA regulated chemicals must evaluate if their facility exceeded the reporting threshold of the CDR rule. With certain exceptions, reporting is required in 2016 if a facility’s annual production volume (PV) in 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015 was at least 25,000 pounds. This link will help you evaluate if your facility is in an industrial sector regulated by the CDR rule. How do you know if your facility submitted a CDR report in the past? First, keep in mind that this rule was previously known as the Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule, so check your files for documents with this description, or for a reference to Form U, which is the name of the form that is prepared and submitted. You can also search U.S. EPA’s Chemical Data Access Tool (CDAT) by chemical name or company.

The submission period for the 2016 CDR report begins on June 1, 2016 and ends on September 30, 2016. As is the trend these days, you are required to prepare and submit a Form U for each reportable chemical electronically via U.S. EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). You can access CDX here, and register under the program “Submissions for Chemical Safety and Pesticide Programs (CSPP)”. If you were previously registered on CDX for e-TSCA, e-PMN, or TRI, you are able to add the CDR reporting flow to your current registration. Once you are registered, you can access e-CDRweb to complete and submit a Form U.

Whether you are new to the CDR rule, or because it has been since 2012 when you last thought about it, do not wait until September 29, 2016 to try to submit your report. While you will not be able to submit before June 1, 2016, the CDR reporting period overlaps with TRI, Title V semiannual monitoring reports, emissions inventory and fee reports, Boiler MACT testing (we hope you read Nick’s blog on this!), and most importantly, summer vacation.

Don’t Let Great People Hold You Back

Relax. I’m not trying to convince you that great people (GPs) aren’t that great. I’ll take GPs over crazy or mean any day. Just hear me out…err, read me out.

I’ll start off by saying this is a sore spot for me because I’m responsible for recruiting professional
air quality consultants (GPs of course) at ALL4. Fifteen years of sales experience and a Master’s
in organizational psychology has not completely prepared me for the interesting world of recruiting…which feels more like a 22-year old’s dating game (save that topic for my next blog!)… I digress. Back to my case against GPs – so I’ll start with my story. Just an FYI, I haven’t completed a statistical analysis for this conclusion, but I’m willing to give it a 95% confidence interval that my theory is accurate.

My story is about my own experience with GPs in the workplace. My career began at a finance company where I met tons of GPs! I was convinced that I would stay there for my entire career. Fast forward 5 years, I get married, do the family thing and decide to take some time to raise kids. After a couple years, I tried getting back into the finance company and there were no openings. What to do, where else could I ever find GPs?? Begrudgingly, I started looking elsewhere and was hired as a sales director for a technology company. After a short while, I realized that this company was also filled with GPs. What luck! Unfortunately, my position required way too much traveling, so even in spite of the GPs (which I get it, who leaves GPs??), I had to leave, which is how I found ALL4. To my shock, there are tons of GPs at ALL4 – what were the odds of this?? (wink, wink). I was slowly catching on – GPs are everywhere. Not only are GPs everywhere, but my network of GPs continues to grow. I don’t lose GPs from previous employers, I just keep adding to my pile of awesome GPs who are now mentors and friends. Win-win.

So what does this have to do with GPs holding you back? Stay with me, this is the good part. I talk with so many people at different consulting firms, and I hear a lot of gripes, concerns and problems. (Actually…click here to read their Top 5 Complaints). Naturally, when I hear all of this negative stuff, one question comes to mind. “Why the heck do you stay?” Do you know what the response ALWAYS is? Yep, you guessed it, GPs. If I had a penny for every time I heard someone say,” I stay because I work with a lot of great people,” I would take you out for a burger and fries. So here’s my next question: What’s the cost of those GPs? If your boss stinks, there are limited career growth opportunities, your ideas get shot down, billable hour targets are sky high and there’s no one driving the ship, what gives?

Do you see it now? Great people can hold YOU back but that’s your choice. Not to get all touchy feely, BUT If they’re “real” GPs, they’re going to stick by you no matter… whether you stay right where you are, move to ALL4, or decide to build a rocket ship and fly to the moon.

Here’s my request: if you’re reading this and you are staying at a company only because of the GPs and nothing else… call me. I promise, we have GPs… and we have so much more.

Editor’s note: You may think we eat our young at ALL4 since we are always hiring and looking for more GPs. Or, you may even think we can’t keep people…which is quite the opposite since our retention rate is one of the highest in our industry. The truth is…we are growing…substantially. We grew by almost 20% in 2015 and our goal for 2016 is to grow by another 20%. Yes folks…that means hiring even more GPs at ALL4.

February Ain’t What It Used to Be – Major Source Boiler MACT Compliance is Upon Us

February is exciting enough with Valentine’s Day, the Super Bowl, and particularly for 2016, those leap year birthdays! However, this February brought with it another exciting event – the Major Source Boiler MACT compliance date. Now that it has arrived, there are plans to prepare, testing to perform, and records and reports to develop. ALL4’s experience with Boiler MACT projects has resulted in a wealth of helpful hints, lessons learned, and things to watch out for during the course of preparing to demonstrate initial and ongoing compliance with this complicated rule. Here is a select sample of these topics for you to consider.

First of all, are you aware of the November 2015 reconsideration and its changes to the rule? If not, there are substantial changes to the rule that you need to know about. One such example affects the hybrid suspension grate boiler subcategory. Facilities are now required to demonstrate by monthly fuel analysis that the biomass fired by the boiler contains at least 40 % moisture on an annual heat input basis.
Does your facility have a long and winding fuel delivery system with multiple transfer points, and are you unsure how to select appropriate fuel sampling locations? Do you know how and when to collect the samples during your test? Boiler MACT requires that samples be collected at a location that most accurately represents the fuel type. Performance testing must be conducted under the worst-case pollutant loading levels for both chlorine and mercury. Since this may come from an alternate fuel, facilities must make sure they have enough fuel on site to complete performance testing comprising at least three (3) 1-hour test runs at a minimum – the specified sample volumes in Boiler MACT often required test runs lasting more than one (1) hour.

Do you know how to conduct a performance evaluation on your continuous monitoring systems (CMS)? Boiler MACT contains provisions for boilers to establish operating parameter limits during performance testing. Ongoing compliance is demonstrated using quality assured data generated from CMS such as pH, steam flow, and scrubber flow rate meters. The quality assurance activities conducted on these types of CMS is often not well defined and documented at facilities, which is now a Boiler MACT requirement. Performance evaluations must be completed as part of performance tests and the results must be included in the submittal of test results to U.S. EPA.

If you will be conducting “engineering” testing prior to your initial performance test, but after the January 31, 2016 compliance date, do you understand the potential legal implications of non-passing test results? Even if you do not follow a U.S. EPA reference method [e.g., you do not collect the minimum sample volume, or you only perform one (1) or two (2) test runs instead of three (3)], you are generating creditable evidence related to your boiler’s emissions. You should consider getting legal counsel involved in such “engineering” test programs.

Do you know how you will define periods of “out of control” for your monitoring parameters? Data collected and used to demonstrate compliance with Boiler MACT have collection, reduction, and quality control requirements. Poorly designed and implemented CMS and data handling systems can lead to invalid data and become a liability resulting in non-compliance.

If you have a multi-fuel boiler that can burn natural gas, do you have a handle on how you will comply with monitoring requirements when burning natural gas? Do you know what your options are?

Do you know what startup definition you will follow? Remember that first bullet? This is one of the twists in the reconsideration. Do you know how to establish your parameters for useful thermal energy as part of your startup and shutdown procedures? Are you able to meet the clean fuels requirements in the rule?

Not all of these topics will apply to each and every facility. However, there is a good chance that one or more of these topics will hit home. If you are struggling with one of these topics, or any other for that matter, reach out and contact Nick Leone (610-933-5246, extension 121; nleone@all4inc.com) with questions. Chances are we’ve touched on your issue and we can work together on a sensible solution.