Demonstrating Compliance and the Importance of Permit Language (Sweat the Details)

On the air quality side of the world of environmental compliance, ALL4 is seeing an increased emphasis on monitoring and recordkeeping, more specifically, electronic data and electronic reporting, as related to demonstrating compliance with permit requirements.  Such data may be developed by continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS), continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS), continuous parametric monitoring systems (CPMS), a “manually” observed record documented by a real person, or by documenting a work practice standard.  One way or another, each little piece of data can take on a life of its own with potential negative repercussions as it makes its way into a compliance report or compliance certification, where it likely will be directly compared to a limit or standard, or become an important parameter used in a compliance calculation.

We have previously discussed the importance of all the of the systems, checks, and verifications that need to be considered and carefully assessed that can impact the validity of compliance related data.  The use of CEMS, COMS, CPMS, data acquisition systems (DAS), and all the associated hardware, software, and “systems” that generate, compile, and report electronic compliance data have been discussed in multiple ALL4 blogs and 4 the Record e-newsletters.  Equally important are the origins of the requirements to generate and collect the data in the first place and secondarily, the true derivation of the emissions limit or standard that the collected data are compared against to determine compliance.

How important are the associated requirements that specify how the collected data are developed, managed and reported?  In most cases, the “keys” to the origin, interpretation, and derivations of requirements to generate, collect, quality assure, interpret, and report compliance related data can be found within the associated construction permit, operating permit or underlying regulation.  When the origin of such limits and requirements are clearly spelled out in a Federal or state rule, there is an added level of clarity that instills a degree of confidence to the effort associated with generating and collecting data for reporting compliance.  But what about limits and requirements that originate in air construction permits or that have been historically embedded in air operating permits where the origin isn’t so clear?  In such cases, the permittee is left to complete the data puzzle by relying on habit, experience, guidance, and precedence.  If regulatory “vague” limits and requirements in operating permits have not been revisited and carefully assessed, a facility could be in for some surprises, some good, some maybe not so good.  Let’s consider a couple of relatively simple examples.

Example 1:

A facility is subject to an emission limit that is incorporated into their operating permit.  The operating permit specifies an averaging period for compliance demonstration as “a 30-day rolling average”.  Historically, the facility complied with the 30-day rolling average emission limit by simply calculating the average of the data collected over each 30-calendar day period.  The origin of this permit condition was identified in a previous construction permit as 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Db.  In this instance, the original construction permit condition was not completely included in the operating permit.  40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Db specifies that compliance must be demonstrated on a “30-operating day average”.  The key term “operating” was inadvertently omitted from the operating permit that incorporated the terms of the construction permit and was never caught by the facility or the regulatory agency.  Compliance demonstrations that are based on a 30-day rolling average using “calendar days” rather than “operating days” will, understandably, be vastly different (during intermittent operations).  In this instance, the facility is obligated to look past the literal language of the operating permit to fully understand the underlying requirements in the applicable standard to properly generate and report compliance data.

To expand on Example 1, some regulatory agencies will do you a favor by “streamlining” multiple permit conditions that, at first glance, may appear to be similar, even redundant.  In many instances, permit language is written stating that compliance with one applicable standard or requirement assures compliance with other applicable standards or requirements, thereby “simplifying” permits and compliance demonstrations.  While this concept works in certain instances, streamlining applicable standards or requirements can easily be mis-used by regulatory agencies.  If emission standards were solely numerical, then streamlining conditions would be relatively easy and demonstrating compliance with a lower numerical limit specified in one standard would assure compliance with higher emission limits specified other standards.  As we know full well, emission limitations are much more than just numerical values and include a suite of associated requirements including emission averaging periods, data validation requirements, definitions, and exclusions among other provisions.  All the components of an emission limitation must be considered when permit conditions are streamlined.  For example, consider data exclusions for periods of emissions unit startup or shutdown.  Certain regulations may have specific provisions for startup or shutdown periods, while other rules may not even mention startup or shutdown.  All things considered, even with permit streamlining, facilities are still obligated to demonstrate compliance with each individual applicable standard.

Example 2:

Like Example 1, a facility located in a state with state-specific CEMS regulations, is subject to an operating limit (i.e., minimum secondary combustion chamber temperature limit) that was established in accordance with 40 CFR Part §60, Subpart Ce and that is incorporated into their operating permit as a “3-hour rolling average”.  With no further guidance or interpretation in the actual permit language, and because temperature data is measured continuously and recorded at 1-minute intervals, the facility conservatively interpreted the term “3-hour rolling average” to mean calculation of a new rolling 3-hour average every 180 minutes.  Consequently, the facility repeatedly recorded and reported deviations of the minimum secondary combustion chamber temperature limit for the regulated unit.  Upon further evaluation and research into the origin of the operating limit, it was determined that the continuous parametric monitoring system (CPMS) used to monitor compliance with the operating limit was not recording the data in accordance with the regulation.  Consistent with the definition of one-hour period in 40 CFR Part §60.2, hourly averages should have been calculated on a “clock hour” basis.  In this instance, the facility intended to report conservatively, which resulted in monitoring an operating parameter in a manner inconsistent with the regulation and resulting in the unnecessary and incorrect reporting of deviations to the state regulatory agency.

So, message one – make sure that the provisions in your air permit are clearly stated and include their basis and derivation, and specify associated provisions for emission averaging periods, data validation requirements, definitions, and exclusions. They need to be accurate and leave no room for ambiguity or misinterpretation.  This leads to the second important consideration; message two – when you are in the process of obtaining a construction permit, the opportunity exists to ensure that requirements for monitoring and reporting compliance are grounded in applicable requirements and leave no room for misinterpretation.

If you’ve been at this a while you’ve seen how the air construction permitting process can get tangled in technicalities.  If you are new to this, it is something you will very quickly learn.  Regulated facilities are most often under pressure to obtain a construction permit as quickly as possible and may not have the final technical project details commensurate with air permitting timelines. Project specifications are prone to change during the permit review period.  Standards and limits can also change during the process, as can the underlying rules themselves or agency guidance or interpretations.  Anything is possible from the time the environmental team starts the air permitting process until the time the air permit is issued.

The greater the level of pressure imposed on the air permitting team – and by team, I mean everybody involved including facility engineering and environmental staff, facility operations staff, management, consultants, and agency staff – the greater the chance that uninformed decisions will influence the final permit.  The unintentional result may be that the permit specifies limits and compliance requirements that are difficult or problematic to comply with, as evidenced by the previous examples.

What does this tell us?  In the heat of the moment you cannot just agree to requirements where the actual process for demonstrating compliance has not been carefully vetted and laid out in clear detail.  Failure to consider this can lead to overly complicated requirements for determining and demonstrating compliance, requiring extra time and manpower, and potentially setting up the facility for failure (i.e., non-compliance).  Don’t let the pressure to get that permit as soon as possible be the cause of potential compliance issues once you are up and running.

In closing, please keep the following in mind related to air permits, emissions limits, and compliance monitoring:

1. Ensure that construction permit applications properly cite and characterize emissions limits to include the appropriate numerical value(s) and all associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements and conventions.
2. Fully understand the bases of numerical and parametric operating permit limits and ensure that the operating permit specifies all the provisions that comprise the standards.  In the same vein, ensure that the required CEMS, CPMS, and related systems used to demonstrate compliance comport with all the components of the standards.
3. Beware of “streamlined” conditions where a permit condition is structured in a manner where compliance with one numerical limit assures compliance with another numerical limit for the same pollutant.
4. Resist the temptation to compromise on permit conditions in a construction permit in exchange for a promise of an expedited issuance of said permit.

ALL4 regularly assists our clients with all aspects of air permitting and compliance.  We can support you with planning new projects to ensure that permit conditions are properly established, provide resources to audit your existing compliance tracking and reporting, and help you fix situations were historic reporting issues might be identified.  Please reach out to Roy Rakiewicz at rrakiewicz@all4inc.com or Eric Swisher at eswisher@all4inc.com if you have any question on the topics discussed here, or if you would like to talk about any upcoming projects at your facility.

2018 ALL4’s Recruiting Horizon: ‘The Hook’

ho͝ok/ : noun; a thing designed to catch people’s attention.

If you’d ask “What ‘Top4’ things come to mind when the word ‘hook’ is mentioned?”, my list would include:

1. Fishing hook – The one used for the BIG catch!
2. Wall hook – To hang jackets and bookbags.
3. Christmas carol song hooks – That seem to randomly get stuck in my head …in July.
4. Left hook – Joe Frazier’s infamous punch.

In taking on the role of Professional Recruiting at ALL4 this year, finding a hook – ‘The Hook’ – to attract qualified candidates in a niche industry such as air quality consulting is where I’m currently fishing. Gearing up to cast my line far and wide into the candidate waters to catch three Air Quality Project (Marlins) Managers for three of ALL4’s offices – Atlanta, Houston, and Philadelphia.

So…what exactly does being an Air Quality Project Manager at ALL4 entail? These individuals are technical experts who share our vision and passion for helping our clients be successful! They are self-motivated, coachable, growth-oriented individuals who can build client relationships, successfully manage complex projects and teams, and identify business opportunities with existing and new clients. They will be joining a team of air quality professionals that are well-versed in complex permitting, compliance, and modeling projects, and who are committed to furthering our mission of being a nationally recognized consulting company shaping environmental responsibility and creating distinction for clients, employees, and partners.

Attributes for candidates will include, but not be limited to, having a minimum of 5 years of air quality permitting and compliance experience, having acted as a technical resource for large industrial facilities with Title V or prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permits, and having demonstrated experience in managing projects as both the client’s and project team’s main point of contact.

What ‘bait’ is ALL4 using to ‘catch’ candidates? ALL4 offers a highly desirable Total Compensation package. Benefits include competitive salary, 100% employer paid medical, dental, vision, short-term and long-term disability insurance coverage, a generous paid time off (PTO) allotment, paid holidays, and 401K. In addition, ALL4 offers candidates a flexible and casual work environment with a compelling company culture that includes a robust list of honors and awards as a “Best Places to Work” and many on-site and off-site activities such as chair massages, car washes, complimentary food/drinks, corn hole, employee garden, and happy hours, just to name a few!

ALL4 is an Equal Opportunity Employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or national origin, or protected veteran status and will not be discriminated against on the basis of a disability.

If you’d like to find out more information about the Air Quality Project Manager roles currently open at ALL4, please click here for the “Featured Positions” on our website or contact me directly at avitale@all4inc.com.

Are You Submitting Your Diluent or Ancillary Monitor RATA Results Through CEDRI?

Assisting clients with electronic reporting is a major part of my job responsibilities at ALL4. Consequently, I routinely communicate with specialists in U.S. EPA’s Policy and Program Division Sectors concerning electronic reporting matters. I am sharing knowledge in this blog that I gained from one of my many U.S. EPA communications regarding electronic reporting.

Key Takeaway: Diluent and ancillary monitor (e.g., oxygen) relative accuracy test audit (RATA) results must be submitted through U.S. EPA’s Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) regardless if the primary pollutant monitor is currently supported by the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) software.

A reasonable interpretation regarding the applicability for electronic reporting of a diluent or ancillary monitor RATA could be that it is only required if the primary pollutant monitor is supported by the ERT software. This interpretation means that if you are using continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) for compliance with a National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) or New Stationary Source or New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) [e.g., hydrogen chloride (HCl) CEMS or mercury (Hg) CEMS] you wouldn’t have to submit your diluent or ancillary monitor RATA through CEDRI because the ERT software does not currently support HCl and/or Hg. WAIT, NOT SO FAST! Based on my communications with U.S. EPA, if your NESHAP or NSPS requires the submittal of RATAs electronically, you must submit your diluent and ancillary monitor (e.g., oxygen) RATA results electronically through CEDRI even if you aren’t submitting your main pollutant CEMS RATA electronically.

The ERT software is only set up to handle the entry of certain test methods, pollutants, and performance specifications. The list of currently supported methods can be found here. The RATA pollutants that can be documented include:

• Carbon monoxide
• Carbon dioxide
• Nitrogen oxides
• Sulfur dioxide
• Oxygen
• TOC (Total Organic Compounds)

Many facilities that are subject to emissions or operating limits under NSPS or NESHAP regulations (40 CFR Parts 60 and 63, respectively) elect or are required to demonstrate ongoing compliance with applicable limits using CEMS. Electronic reporting requirements have been rolled into various NSPS and NESHAP regulations, many of which require the submittal of RATA results through U.S. EPA’s CEDRI. Don’t overlook the requirement to submit your diluent or ancillary monitor RATA even if the primary pollutant monitor is not currently supported by the ERT software.

If you have any questions, contact me at kturney@all4inc.com or 610.422.1143.

House New Source Review Reform Hearing: Can We Make Progress?

Yesterday I attended the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee hearing titled “New Source Review Permitting Challenges for Manufacturing and Infrastructure.”  With the current administration and legislative balance in place, now is widely viewed as a good time to further reform, simplify, and provide clarity on what is still a very complicated New Source Review (NSR) regulatory program.  The overall purpose of the hearing was to discuss ideas on how to do just that.  Six witnesses representing the following organizations provided for a wide range of stakeholder perspectives:

• The George Washington University Law School
• Bracewell LLP
• American Forest and Paper Associated (AF&PA) and American Wood Council (AWC)
• Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (Arkansas DEQ)
• Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry (PA Chamber)
• Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

Thoughts on Questions and Testimony

Republican (Majority) and Democratic (Minority) members of the Committee focused their energy and questioning on very different things that corresponded to the positions held by the Majority and Minority witnesses in attendance.  The Majority member questions and interest focused on items that followed from the opening testimony of several of the witnesses:

• The extremely long time that it currently takes to receive an NSR construction permit (on average over a year across the country).
• The manner in which the current NSR application and permitting process can discourage projects that are both economically and environmentally beneficial (discouraging innovation).
• The extensive overlap between the NSR program and other air regulatory programs that address the same criteria pollutants (e.g., BART, CSAPR, Regional Haze, State SIPs, etc.).

Recognizing these issues and the impediment they represent to growth, the Majority members questioned the witnesses on possible common sense solutions and reforms.  The witnesses from Bracewell LLP, AF&PA/AWC, Arkansas DEQ, and the PA Chamber all agreed that reform is necessary to streamline the program and to reduce regulatory uncertainty that stifles industrial facilities and that makes it difficult for regulatory agencies to provide the appropriate direction and guidance to regulated entities.  The testimony of the representative from Arkansas DEQ was particularly compelling since it made very clear the impacts not just on the regulated community, but on regulators as well.

The Minority member questions did not generally address ideas for NSR reform.  Rather, there was an extensive focus on a December 7, 2017 NSR policy memorandum issued by U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt that addressed U.S. EPA’s interpretation of projected actual emissions (PAE) estimates for projects at major sources.  The U.S. EPA policy memorandum was inaccurately portrayed as providing facilities with a shield from U.S. EPA NSR enforcement (the actual purpose of the memorandum was for U.S. EPA to provide much needed clarity on estimating PAE through plain readings of the current NSR rules).  This general thread of discussion was common in the Minority Committee members and witness discussions.

The NSR Reform Ideas

If we look through some of the bluster in the hearing, there were distinct ideas represented in witness testimony, witness statements, and in Majority member questions.  The following is a summary….if you haven’t been living and breathing NSR permitting since December 31, 2002 (NSR Reform rule date) prepare to glaze over:

• Allow Project Netting.  The current NSR review process includes two steps.  The first step accounts for the emissions increases only from the project being proposed.  The emissions increases are compared to NSR significant thresholds, and if they exceed those thresholds a second step (netting) is required.  The netting step accounts for emissions increases and decreases during a defined lookback period.  The key point here is that emissions decreases resulting directly from the current project cannot be represented in the first step, making triggering the netting step more likely and therefore making triggering NSR obligations by capturing other historic projects more likely.  The arrangement of this math is how we end up with projects that replace coal fired boilers with lower emitting natural gas fired boilers yet still trigger NSR obligations.  Allowing project netting would address this issue.
• Define Project Aggregation Criteria.  Projects that occur far apart and that are implemented for different economic and operational reasons should not be considered as a single project for evaluating NSR applicability.  Since only policy guidance is in place with no defined rulemaking on project aggregation criteria, the presumption of unrelated projects being connected can take hold in certain circumstances.  Eliminating any doubt through defined criteria will greatly reduce uncertainty that causes apprehension about the implementation of new projects.  Note that the George W. Bush Administration U.S. EPA proposed rulemaking addressing this issue that was never finalized.
• Develop more realistic ambient modeling approaches.  Current dispersion modeling procedures for comparison against the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are based on layers of conservativism.  One such example is the requirement to place modeled receptors where the general public would never be or would never have routine access (e.g., a road running through a facility).  Adding more realistic approaches will streamline the NAAQS modeling process and still be protective of the environment.
• Transition NSR to a short-term emissions test.  Other regulations such as New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) are triggered when maximum short-term emissions increase.  Moving the NSR program to the same basis, rather than the current long-term basis, was discussed during the hearing.
• Allow for the clean unit and pollution control project exemptions.  If an emissions unit has already gone through NSR review historically, it would stand to reason that NSR levels of emissions control are already being utilized and NSR should not be addressed again for that equipment.  Likewise, facilities should be able to upgrade control technologies or install emissions controls to comply with regulatory obligations without having the delays that could arise from NSR for these types of projects.
• Codify U.S. EPA’s recent PAE guidance memorandum.  Arkansas DEQ encouraged U.S. EPA to codify the policy outlined in the December 7, 2017 memorandum into a final rule.

This list is not all inclusive but represents a cross section of the ideas discussed.  One, all, or a combination of them being implemented would be in the step in the right direction for streamlining the NSR process.

What will get done?

I apologize for the misleading headline that implies that we have an answer.  At this point, nobody knows exactly what will happen next with NSR reform.  As we’ve described in other recent articles, U.S. EPA is likely to prioritize reform that can be accomplished through policy guidance.  Any form of rulemaking will be an extensive, time-consuming, and likely litigated process.  In the meantime, we are encouraged that Congress is devoting time and attention to NSR reform as evidenced by the hearing.  Since Congress developed the laws that serve as the backbone of the Clean Air Act, they can pass legislation that can help to streamline the NSR process.  There are already two proposed amendments introduced by Congressman Morgan Griffith (VA) addressing routine maintenance and the pollution control project exemption that are still pending.  Whether other legislation will occur or, if it does – when it will occur, is a guess at this point.  Since it’s already February, the eventual legislative outcomes for NSR reform could hinge on the outcome of mid-term elections in November.  Stay tuned for details as they become available, and feel free to contact me at 908.328.9429 or at cmccall@all4inc.com with questions or comments.

U.S. EPA Clarifies NSR Emissions Projections and its Role in the Review Process

U.S. EPA published a policy memo on ‘New Source Review Preconstruction Permitting Requirements:  Enforceability and Use of the Actual-to-Projected-Actual Applicability Test in Determining Major Modification Applicability’ on December 7, 2017.  This is a hefty title, but it aptly describes the intention of the memo, which is to clarify what current U.S. EPA policy is with respect to new source review (NSR) applicability for the actual-to-projected-actual applicability test.

The actual-to-projected-actual applicability test is one of the options for major stationary sources to evaluate modifications for NSR applicability. This option allows source operators to calculate the expected emissions increases in actual emissions from a proposed modification to existing emissions units to determine whether the proposed project is a major modification, and therefore whether NSR permitting applies.  The policy memo addresses situations where the actual-to-projected-actual emissions test is applied, and does not cover potential to emit (PTE) emissions that would apply to new emissions units.

The Actual-to-Projected-Actual Applicability Test

The actual-to-projected-actual applicability test requires a source operator that wishes to make a modification to existing emissions units to calculate whether the emissions increase associated with the project is major or not under the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) or the non-attainment NSR permitting rules (the emissions evaluation would also apply to emissions units that are not physically modified but that are “affected” by the proposed project).

The pre-project actual emissions are determined from the “Baseline Actual Emissions” (BAE).  U.S. EPA’s policy memo does not address BAE, rather it focuses on post-project emissions estimates.  The post-project emissions are calculated as Projected Actual Emissions (PAE) rates and are calculated based on the expected emissions during the five-year (or sometimes a 10-year) period following completion of the project and should include emissions that the equipment could have accommodated during the selected baseline emissions period.  The PAE rates may be calculated based on an expected increase to production or throughput for a given emissions unit.  The regulation expects the owner or operator to consider all relevant information when making their projection, and the projection should involve business projections relevant to the project and the facility.

PSD applicability is evaluated based on subtracting the BAE rates from the PAE rates, and excluding the emissions that the source could have accommodated during the baseline period that are unrelated to any emissions increase that would result from the proposed project.  The resulting emissions increases are compared to the significant threshold for each NSR pollutant as listed at 40 CFR §52.21(b)(23).  Projects with calculated emissions increases that do not exceed the significant threshold for any NSR pollutant are not considered major.

Emissions Reporting and Recordkeeping

Although the projected emissions increase from a project may not be major, it may be considered to have a ‘reasonable possibility’ of resulting in a significant emissions increase of an NSR pollutant.  What constitutes a reasonable possibility may vary according to the relevant State Implementation Plan, and so it’s important to know where your Facility might stand with respect to this threshold.  Where there is a reasonable possibility of a significant emissions increase, the source owner or operator is expected to keep a pre-project record of NSR applicability, then calculate and record actual emissions versus PAE and in certain instances report those actual emissions in the future.  If a project is subject to a 5-year tracking requirement, then after five years it is assumed that any emissions increases after the 5-year period would be unrelated to the project.

Highlights from the Memo

The policy memo stresses that U.S. EPA will not review or “second guess” PAE rates provided by an applicant.  The memo states “the EPA intends to focus on the fact that it is the obligation of source owners or operators to perform pre-project NSR applicability analyses and document and maintain records of such analyses as required by the regulations.”  Given this, U.S. EPA will not review or question the pre-construction emissions calculations, as the onus is on the owner/operator to properly determine their own actual and projected actual emissions such that they will not exceed the significant thresholds, assuming that the project does not trigger NSR requirements.  U.S. EPA will only get involved if actual emissions that are related to the project exceed PAE rates from the original application submittal such that an NSR avoidance project is shown to trigger NSR obligations after completion and implementation of the project.

It’s important to note that the policy memo does not represent any new legislation or regulatory requirements.  It serves as a clarification of current U.S. EPA policy with respect to NSR applicability evaluations.  The memo was prompted by an important need to communicate current policy considering recent court decisions that might raise concerns or confusion with how U.S. EPA might approach NSR permitting going forward.

The other important aspect of the policy memo addresses information that can be used to develop PAE.  The current definition of PAE contains a provision that “all relevant information” be used to develop PAE estimates.  U.S. EPA states their position that developing PAE emissions rates that are in part designed to avoid NSR applicability is an acceptable approach in that NSR avoidance is part of “all relevant information” that must be considered.  The previous administration interpreted the rule to read that NSR avoidance could not factor into PAE estimates, only future PTE estimates when the actual-to-PTE application test was being used.

The takeaway:  facilities should continue to develop PAE estimates as they always have considering as much relevant information as they can.  If nothing else, this policy memo allows facilities to develop PAE estimates with the confidence that the decisions reached through the local regulatory agency review process will not be called into question by U.S. EPA during the permit application and review process.

If you have any questions about NSR permitting, PSD applicability, non-attainment NSR permitting, or really any aspect of the NSR program, don’t hesitate to contact our team of air quality professionals here at ALL4.  We have many years of experience with obtaining permits under the NSR program, and can provide strategic guidance as a you may be considering a major modification.  If you have any questions, please contact me at rbowlds@all4inc.com or at 678.460.0324 extension 214, and I would be happy to help!

Using ALL4’s EDR-E to Avoid Surprises with Continuous Monitoring System (CMS) Data in Pennsylvania

Surprises are Fun…Or Are They?

My Dad celebrated his 60^th birthday this past December.  Milestone events are a great reason for celebration, and this milestone birthday caused me to consider a surprise party.  On one hand, surprises are fun, exciting, and thrilling.  Yet, from another vantage point, surprises can be upsetting and unwelcome.  Using the latter, I imagined my dad coming home from walking the family’s Boston Terrier on a cold winter night, entering his house, only to be shocked to find some of his friends and our Pottsville, Pennsylvania family members all staring at him, as he reaches for a needed tissue and removes his winter cap that would expose his “hat hair.”  It’s a not-so-flattering image that I’m sure he would like to avoid.  After this image crossed my mind, I revised my idea of a surprise party to eliminate this potential embarrassment.

Don’t Get Caught Off-Guard

While life is full of surprises, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (PADEP’s) Facility Summary Report for quarterly CMS reports shouldn’t be one of them.  When CMS data is uploaded into PADEP’s GreenPort website with incomplete or inadequate quality assurance (QA) / quality control (QC), the unknown can be worrisome.  Does submitting data that does not result in penalties (e.g., due to excess emissions or due to low data availability) mean it is accurate data?  Regardless, surprise report penalties can be embarrassing for the company and the personnel responsible for managing and reporting CMS data.  ALL4 has been called upon by facilities that got caught off-guard.  In response to these calls for support, ALL4 has developed an EDR-E to evaluate electronic data reports (EDR) for data collected by CMS.  Check out our website for the EDR-E details.

What is the Value of ALL4’s EDR-E to You?

The EDR-E is a customized tool built for each facility, addressing items such as facility-specific emissions limits and averaging periods, data availability requirements, and periods exempt from monitoring, such as startup and shutdown (as applicable).  Below are three main ways that the EDR-E service and support can be beneficial for a facility:

• Forecasting and Assessing Penalties

At it’s very core, in accordance with PADEP’s compliance assurance policies (CAPs), ALL4’s EDR-E provides the actual penalty amount that could be assessed on your data once it’s submitted to PADEP.  The EDR-E is custom-built for each facility, addressing items such as facility-specific emissions limits and averaging periods, data availability requirements, and periods exempt from monitoring (as applicable, such as periods of startup and shutdown).  It even considers source-specific penalty factors and truncation levels, which can dramatically impact penalties.  ALL4 has helped numerous facilities forecast their CMS penalties in the past so that funds for fee liabilities can be allocated.  Our clients value the “heads-up” this service provides well before PADEP assesses these penalties.

Imagine this: you are an Environmental Manager responsible for CMS data at your facility.  Your operations experienced some 1-hour parts per million (ppm) exceedances that occurred during startups.  While these exceedances seemed innocuous at the time, you also know that they could result in excess emissions penalties.  Management expects to be made fully aware of any penalties prior to submittal.  The uncertainty of both penalties and the fee amount can be distressing for those managing budgets.  ALL4’s EDR-E will evaluate a report, determine if there are report penalties, and provide the actual fee that can be expected.

• Data Review and QA

Prior to EDR submittal, ALL4’s EDR-E is used to review the CMS data, process codes, and monitoring codes to identify data anomalies and potentially problematic periods.  The EDR-E emulates PADEP’s report, which supplements facilities’ QA/QC programs.  ALL4’s CMS team has been providing this service to various industrial clients for years, which has been an effective tool to detect data that requires a closer look.  As an added service, ALL4 can take those next steps and work with the facility to dig into the CMS data in more detail, such as reviewing log books, calibration and testing reports, minute data, startup and shutdown data, and subsequently reconcile the CMS data to ensure that the submitted EDR is accurate and representative of facility operations and emissions during the reporting period.

• Mitigate and Eliminate Future Penalties

When used simultaneously with the data reconciliation effort, the EDR-E can be a useful tool to identify periods where action can be taken by the facility to avoid future penalties.  This includes providing guidance to source operators and technicians on how to flag data in the data acquisition and handling system (DAHS), when to run daily calibrations, and how to mitigate CMS downtime.  Using these tools, ALL4 has worked with facilities and even trained operators to reduce quarterly CMS penalties over time.  ALL4 has helped clients reduce or eliminate their yearly penalties from what began as several thousand dollars.

With ALL4’s help, there won’t be surprises that come your way regarding PADEP-assessed CMS penalties.  You won’t be like my dad walking into a room getting caught off guard on his 60^th birthday.  Eliminating surprises in your CMS data submittals is another way ALL4 can provide value to your ever-increasing laundry list of facility tasks.  To find out more about ALL4’s EDR-E service, visit our website, or contact JP Kleinle at 610.422.1120 and jkleinle@all4inc.com.

Top of the Year Reporting Lookouts

This article is available as a podcast episode on ALL4’s Air Quality Insider

As many of our clients and other environmental professionals are finishing up the first month of 2018 reporting, it’s only the start of the reporting season. The following list contains some environmental reports and associated deadlines that your facility may be subject to during the year. While not a comprehensive list of all environmental reports that are required by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and state and local regulatory agencies, the list serves as a reminder of what’s ahead. It is important to also check your individual facility operating permits and federal, state, and local regulations (which may have been revised) to determine specific reporting requirements and deadlines.

• Pennsylvania Chemical Analysis of Residual Waste Annual Report (Form 26R) –
  by March 1^st

  • This report is required for persons or municipalities in Pennsylvania that generate more than an average of 2,200 pounds of residual waster per month.

• Tier II Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Form – by March 1^st

  • The Tier II form is required by local and/or state agencies for facilities with hazardous chemicals above specified thresholds. Facilities are required to report the quantity and location of hazardous chemicals in order to help agencies plan for and respond to chemical emergencies.
  • Reports are submitted to the local and/or state agency that manages Tier II Forms as dictated by a state’s Tier II reporting requirements and procedures.

• Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting – by March 31^st

  • GHG Reporting is required for sources that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year.
  • Reports are submitted electronically to the U.S. EPA using the electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (e-GGRT).

• Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Form R – by July 1^st

  • TRI Form R reporting is required for facilities that meet three specific criteria: (1) The facility employs 10 or more full-time employees, (2) The facility manufactures, processes, and/or uses a TRI-listed chemical in quantities above threshold levels, (3) The facility is in a specified industry sector.
  • Reports are submitted using the U.S. EPA’s online TRI reporting application, TRI-MEweb.

• Annual Compliance Certification – Varies by state and permit requirements

  • Compliance certification is required for all facilities operating under a Title V Operating Permit (TVOP).
  • Some states have a hard deadline for annual compliance certifications to be completed and submitted to the state agency; however, other states require certifications to be submitted no later than 30 days following the end of the facility’s previous certification period.

• Annual Air Emissions Inventory and Annual Air Emissions Statements – Varies by state

  • The Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) requires all state and local agencies to collect and submit emissions data to the U.S. EPA by the end of the year.
  • Individual states have specific rules for who is required to submit emissions inventories/statements, how inventories/statements are submitted, and submittal deadlines.

• Semi-Annual reports are due twice a year – January 31^st and July 31^st, or as otherwise stated in a facility’s operating permit

  • The January report is for July 1^st through December 31^st of the preceding calendar year, and the July report is for January 1^st through June 30^th.
  • Facilities may be required to submit different semi-annual reports depending on the reporting requirements specified in a facility’s operating permit.
  • Examples of semi-annual reports may include: excess emissions and monitoring system summary reports, Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart DDDDD (Boiler MACT), etc.

• Quarterly reports are typically due within 30 days following the end of the quarter.

  • Facilities may be required to submit different quarterly reports depending on the reporting requirements specified in a facility’s operating permit.
  • Examples of quarterly reports may include: excess emissions and monitoring system summary reports, Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR), etc.

If you have any questions about your facility’s reporting requirements or need an extra hand with preparing reports, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me at 678.460.0324 x213 or sarner@all4inc.com.