33 Late Air Toxics Rules… Where Are We Now?

Every eight years, U.S. EPA is required to conduct a Risk and Technology Review (RTR) for individual 40 CFR Part 63 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).  The NESHAP are also commonly referred to as either Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards or simply U.S. EPA’s air toxics rules.

If you are a regular reader of ALL4’s Blog and 4 The Record publications, then you understand U.S. EPA is currently under various court orders to complete RTRs for 33 overdue air toxics rules.  It’s been more than a year since we posted at length on this topic.  Do you recall which rules are specifically overdue?  What decisions were made in the various court cases?  How can those decisions affect your facility?  We’ll answer these questions and more so that you can be proactive throughout U.S. EPA’s RTR process.

The 33 overdue air toxics rules have been the subject of two separate court cases: California Communities Against Toxics, et al, vs. Scott Pruitt (CCAT) and Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, et al, vs. Scott Pruitt (Blue Ridge).  Let’s dig into the status of each of these standards in the context of the two court cases.

The 20 standards that were the subject of the CCAT court case are as follows:

• Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production (GGGG)
• Boat Manufacturing (VVVV)
• Surface Coating of Metal Coil (SSSS)
• Cellulose Products Manufacturing (UUUU)
• Ethylene Production (YY)
• Paper and Other Web Coating (JJJJ)
• Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (AAAA)
• Hydrochloric Acid Production (NNNNN)
• Reinforced Plastic Composites Production (WWWW)
• Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing (LLLLL)
• Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities (FFFFF)
• Engine Test Cells/Stands (PPPPP)
• Site Remediation (GGGGG)
• Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing (FFFF)
• Surface Coating of Metal Cans (KKKK)
• Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (MMMM)
• Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) (EEEE)
• Stationary Combustion Turbines (YYYY)
• Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products (PPPP)
• Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks (IIII)

Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA), the 20 standards listed above had been originally required to be updated via the RTR rulemaking process no later than eight years after prior promulgation (i.e., between 2009 and 2012).  However, in a March 13, 2017 court decision, Judge Tonya Chutkan ordered “completion of all 20 source category RTRs within three years,” or by March 13, 2020.  Since the court decision was issued, we have noted various activity by U.S. EPA concerning 11 of the 20 CCAT source categories.

40 CFR Part 63, Subpart VVVV (Boat Manufacturing)

During November 2017, U.S. EPA released a draft RTR modeling file for Subpart VVVV.  (Note: RTR modeling files contain risk modeling data that U.S. EPA develops during Risk Reviews.  Risk modeling data can be reviewed and commented upon by affected facilities during the RTR process.)

40 CFR Part 63, Subpart WWWW (Reinforced Plastic Composites Production)

During November 2017, U.S. EPA released a draft RTR modeling file for Subpart WWWW.

40 CFR Part 63, Subpart LLLLL (Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing)

During January 2018, U.S. EPA released Subpart LLLLL human exposure model (HEM) input files for Actual and Allowable Emissions, Acute Emissions, HEM user receptors, and HEM Source ID Crosswalk.

40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ (Paper and Other Web Coating)

During February 2018, U.S. EPA released an initial RTR modeling file followed by a May 2018 release of a Part 2 RTR modeling file.

40 CFR Part 63, Subpart YYYY (Stationary Combustion Turbines)

During February 2018, U.S. EPA released a Risk Modeling File.  During March 2018, U.S. EPA released an updated list of the facilities and turbines subject to Subpart YYYY.

40 CFR Part 63, Subparts IIII, KKKK, MMMM, PPPP, and SSSS,  (Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks; Metal Cans; Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products; Plastic Parts and Products; and Metal Coil, respectively)

During April 2018, U.S. EPA presented about the status of the various Surface Coating NESHAP RTRs to the National Coil Coating Association.  During the presentation, U.S. EPA shared that full-scale modeling has been completed using HEM 3 AERMOD modeling software, and that U.S. EPA is currently collaborating with the following associations for the five source categories subject to the March 2020 deadline for purposes of conducting a Risk Analysis:

• Metal Coil – National Coil Coating Association
• Metal Can – Can Manufacturing Institute
• Auto and Light Duty Truck – Auto Industry Forum

During the presentation, U.S. EPA also shared what existing, new, and emerging technologies would be reviewed during their Technology Review.

40 CFR Part 63, Subpart AAAA (Municipal Solid Waste Landfills)

During May 2018, U.S. EPA released a draft RTR modeling file.

Separately, 13 additional overdue air toxics standards were the subject of the Blue Ridge court case, as follows:

• Leather Finishing Operations (TTTT)
• Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production (HHHH)
• Rubber Tire Manufacturing (XXXX)
• Surface Coating of Large Appliances (NNNN)
• Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities (QQQQQ)
• Surface Coating of Metal Furniture (RRRR)
• Surface Coating of Wood Building Products (QQQQ)
• Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles (OOOO)
• Taconite Iron Ore Processing (RRRRR)
• Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (HHHHH)
• Lime Manufacturing Plants (AAAAA)
• Iron and Steel Foundries (EEEEE)
• Plywood and Composite Wood Products (DDDD)

These MACT Standards were last promulgated in the 2002 to 2004 range and were due to be updated via the RTR rulemaking process between 2010 and 2012.

In a March 22, 2017 court decision, Judge Christopher Cooper ordered that seven RTRs from the Blue Ridge case be completed by December 31, 2018 and the remaining six RTRs be completed by June 30, 2020.  According to U.S. EPA’s RTR website, RTRs for the Blue Ridge standards will be grouped and completed by the following dates:

• RTRs to be completed by December 31, 2018
  • Leather Finishing Operations (TTTT)
  • Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production (HHHH)
  • Surface Coating of Wood Building Products (QQQQ)
  • Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities (QQQQQ)
  • Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles (OOOO)
  • Surface Coating of Large Appliances (NNNN)
  • Surface Coating of Metal Furniture (RRRR)

• RTRs to be completed by June 30, 2020
  • Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (HHHHH)
  • Taconite Iron Ore Processing (RRRRR)
  • Iron and Steel Foundries (EEEEE)
  • Plywood and Composite Wood Products (DDDD)
  • Lime Manufacturing Plants (AAAAA)
  • Rubber Tire Manufacturing (XXXX)

Since the March 22, 2017 court decision was issued, we’ve observed various activity by U.S. EPA concerning each of the seven Blue Ridge source categories subject to the December 31, 2018 deadline but no recent activity concerning the remaining six Blue Ridge source categories subject to the later June 30, 2020 deadline.  Recent activity has been as follows:

40 CFR Part 63, Subpart DDDD (Plywood and Composite Wood Products)

On October 5, 2017 U.S. EPA issued an Information Collection Request (ICR) to a long list of facilities in the Plywood and Composite Wood Products (PCWP) industry, requesting facility-level emissions and equipment configuration information, compliance data, control information, and descriptions of technological innovations.  The completed ICRs will support U.S. EPA’s risk modeling, technology review, and estimation of regulatory impacts.  Facility responses were due back to U.S. EPA by February 9, 2018.

40 CFR Part 63, Subpart HHHH (Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production)

On March 19, 2018 U.S. EPA proposed amendments to the rule.  As a result of the RTR, U.S. EPA proposed to revise the startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) requirements, require electronic reporting, change the compliance report submittal requirement to semi-annually, and reduce requirements for binder formulation that does not contain HAP.  On April 6, 2018 the proposed rule was published in the Federal Register.  Comments on the proposed rule were accepted through May 21, 2018.

40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQQ (Surface Coating of Wood Building Products)

During March 2018, U.S. EPA released a Subpart QQQQ Risk Modeling File Review Tool with associated instructions.  On April 23, 2018, U.S. EPA published proposed amendments to the rule.  The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on May 16, 2018.  The May 2018 amendments (if finalized as proposed) would add an alternative compliance demonstration equation, amend provisions addressing periods of SSM, amend provisions regarding electronic reporting, add a new U.S. EPA test method to measure isocyanate compounds in certain surface coatings, and make other technical and editorial changes.   Comments on the proposed rule were accepted through June 15, 2018.

40 CFR Part 63, Subpart TTTT (Leather Finishing Operations)

During March 2018, U.S. EPA released a Subpart TTTT Risk Modeling File Review Tool.  On March 14, 2018, U.S. EPA also published proposed amendments to Subpart TTTT pertaining to emissions during periods of SSM; proposed amendments to add electronic reporting; and proposed amendments to clarify certain rule requirements and provisions.  Comments were initially accepted through April 30, 2018, but later extended through June 14, 2018.

40 CFR Part 63, Subparts NNNN, OOOO, and RRRR (Surface Coating of Large Appliances; Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; and Surface Coating of Metal Furniture, respectively)

During April 2018, U.S. EPA presented about the status of various Surface Coating NESHAP RTRs to the National Coil Coating Association and included the NESHAP for Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles as part of the discussion.  During the presentation, U.S. EPA shared that full-scale modeling has been completed for Subparts NNNN, OOOO, and RRRR using HEM 3 AERMOD modeling software and what existing, new, and emerging technologies would be reviewed during their Technology Review.

40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQQQ (Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities)

On April 23, 2018, U.S. EPA proposed amendments to the rule.  As a result of the RTR, U.S. EPA proposed to remove the SSM exemption and revise the Subpart QQQQQ recordkeeping and reporting requirements.  On May 3, 2018 the proposed rule was published in the Federal Register.  Comments on the proposed rule were accepted through June 18, 2018.

What does all of this activity mean for your facilities operations?  We’ll refer to Kristin’s original list below on what to do while potentially affected entities await final rule issuance.

1. Be Aware. The court decisions focused on RTR completion dates rather than the interim steps (i.e., specific dates for notice of proposed rulemakings, proposed rules, etc.).
   • Review U.S. EPA’s semiannual regulatory agenda for updates.
   • Keep checking in on ALL4’s website for updates, or just email or call us.
   • Understand the status of “your rule(s)” in review process and the projected interim steps, as this information will be valuable and help you plan.
2. Know Your Data. As shared in the RTR rulemaking process (the nine-phase RTR rulemaking process is discussed in Kristin’s April 2017 article), Phase 2 includes reviewing data.
   • What data does U.S. EPA have about your source category(s) and/or your operations? Think emissions factors, emissions rates, pollutants, stack test data, Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data, and continuous monitoring systems (CMS) data from sources such as continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS), continuous parametric monitoring systems (CPMS), and predictive emissions monitoring systems (PEMS).
   • Have you reviewed this source category-specific data?
   • How has your plant data evolved over the last 14-17 years since the prior promulgation?
   • What corrections and updates, if any, should you make to your facility-specific data?
3. Educate. As Peter Tsirigotis, Director of U.S. EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning Standards (OAQPS) shares, U.S. EPA is light on resources and often borrows from within U.S. EPA and/or utilizes contractors. These resources may not be familiar with your industry, operations, etc. They’re in a tough spot. Help them learn.
   • What U.S. EPA does not know could hurt your industry.  What can you do to educate your U.S. EPA rule writers?
   • Should you or your trade organization be sitting down with U.S. EPA?
   • Will you or a few representative industry sites be willing to host U.S. EPA to walk them through your process? (Hint: it might save you some time and pain in the long run.)
4. Anticipate Information Collection Requests. In Phase 3 of the rulemaking process, U.S. EPA will often ask for additional information to aid in the rulemaking should they determine they do not have sufficient information (as authorized by Section 114 of the CAA).
   • Haven’t been through an Information Collection Request (ICR)? Clear your calendar now, prepare for a grueling exercise, and ask for help.
   • It’s not all bad news!  Not all ICRs are created equal, not all companies in a given industry will receive one, and not all RTR processes result in an ICR request.
   • However, if your company does receive an ICR, expect to pull together a lot of data on processes, operating scenarios, pollutants and emissions profiles, and CMS.  Additionally, you can expect to have to perform testing and/or sample select processes and operations. And yes, this is all on your dime.  U.S. EPA will impose deadlines and no, it’s neither optional nor cheap.
   • Because ICR responses can take substantial resources, plan ahead if you know that your rule(s) will include an ICR.  Allocate money in your budget.  Line up internal and external resources.  Educate your internal team (environmental staff, management, etc.) on the ICR process.
5. Review and Comment. Phases 4-6 of the rulemaking process support the ultimate Federal Register publication of the proposed rule (Phase 7).
   • Review the proposed rule, as well as the accompanying preamble and support data that is included in the rulemaking docket (available at regulations.gov using the docket #). Typically, the proposed rule will be issued in an unofficial format followed by publication in the Federal Register a few weeks to a few months later.  When it’s published in the Federal Register, that’s when the clock starts, and additional docket information typically becomes available.
   • Comment on the proposed rule in the allocated time established (and keep an eye out for potential extensions that may be requested and/or granted).  Provide tangible comments and solutions in your response.  Also, tell U.S. EPA what does work for your facility, particularly if it’s a topic where you worked with them.  Environmental groups will also be commenting and U.S. EPA, having support for portions of the rule, will only help them maintain that approach in the final rule.  Finally, coordinate efforts with your trade groups, as applicable.
   • Don’t wait until the rule is proposed to become involved.  As mentioned in Educate above, get involved and influence the rule prior to its proposal.
6. Plan.  It’s time to at least preliminarily plan for the changes you may need to make to comply with a final rule.
   • What additional internal and external resources will you need to implement the rule?
   • Will capital projects be required for compliance?
   • What permitting, if any, will need to be completed to support possible capital projects?
   • What is your schedule for upcoming turnarounds? Can you accommodate these projects into a turnaround?

ALL4 will be on the lookout for further updates, so check back on our site as we get closer to the December 31, 2018 deadline.  Feel free to reach out to us at info@all4inc.com with any questions in the meantime.  We’re happy to discuss and help ensure your facility is in the best position possible.

Mercury and Air Toxics Standard Electronic Reporting Requirement Extension

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has issued a two-year extension for certain reports required by the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) electronic reporting requirement.  The extension applies to coal- or oil-fired electric utility steam generating units that are subject to MATS codified at 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart UUUUU.  The reports included in this extension are listed below:

• Dates of initial and subsequent tune-ups [40 CFR §63.10021(e)(9)];
• Performance test reports required by 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart UUUUU [40 CFR §63.10031(f)];
• Relative accuracy test audit (RATA) data from performance evaluations for sulfur dioxide (SO₂), particulate matter (PM), hydrochloric acid (HCl), hydrofluoric acid (HF), and mercury (Hg) continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) [40 CFR §63.10031(f)(1)];
• Quarterly reports for a PM CEMS, PM continuous parametric monitoring system (CPMS), or approved alternative hazardous air pollutant (HAP) metals CEMS [40 CFR §63.10031(f)(2)]; and
• Compliance reports and notifications of compliance status [40 CFR §63.10031(f)(4)].

The extension went into effect July 1, 2018 and will expire on July 1, 2020.  The extension allows for facilities subject to MATS electronic reporting requirements to continue submitting reports as PDF files using the Emissions Collection and Monitoring Plan System (ECMPS) Client Tool.  After the extension expires on July 1, 2020, facilities subject to MATS electronic reporting requirements must submit MATS reports using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI).

The two-year reporting requirement extension is necessary for MATS reporting because CEDRI is currently unable to accept MATS reports.  The continued use of PDF files for reporting will allow timely submissions of compliance information by facilities and will ensure that compliance information is made available to the public.  The extension does not affect owner or operator responsibilities of MATS sources.  As such, owners and operators of MATS sources must continue to comply with applicable MATS and reporting requirements.

If you have questions about what this extension means for your facility, please reach out to me at 678.460.0324 x213 or sarner@all4inc.com.

New Permitting Options Finalized for the Pennsylvania Natural Gas Industry

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

On June 9, 2018, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) issued the final versions of the modified General Plan Approval and/or General Operating Permit (GP)-5 for Natural Gas Compressor Stations, Processing Plants, and Transmission Stations and the new GP-5A for Unconventional Natural Gas Well Site Operations and Remote Pigging Stations with an effective date of August 8, 2018.  GP-5 has been reorganized for clarity and, in addition to expanding requirements for emissions sources included in the previous version of GP-5, includes new requirements for additional emissions sources (i.e., natural gas-fired combustion units, tanker truck load-out operations, pumps, enclosed flares and other emissions control devices, and pigging operations).  The new GP-5A, which follows the same general format as GP-5, includes requirements for the following emissions sources:

• Glycol Dehydration Units
• Stationary Natural Gas-Fired Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines
• Reciprocating Compressors
• Storage Vessels
• Tanker Truck Load-Out Operations
• Fugitive Emissions Components
• Controllers
• Pumps
• Enclosed Flares and Other Emission Control Devices
• Pigging Operations
• Wellbore Liquids Unloading Operations

Reporting requirements for both GP-5 and GP-5A include the submittal of: (1) an annual Compliance Certification that is due no later than 60 days from the anniversary of the authorization to use the GP, and (2) an annual emissions inventory submitted via AES*Online or AES*XML due to PADEP by March 1^st.

Concurrent with this action, PADEP also finalized revisions to the Air Quality Permit Exemption List that will impact the Pennsylvania natural gas industry.  The Exemption Category No. 38 that facilities are currently following is now re-numbered as Exemption Category No. 38(b) and only applies to unconventional natural gas well sites (i.e., sites that utilize extraction methods such as horizontal drilling and fracking to induce flow from geologic formations that would not normally achieve with conventional methods of drilling) constructed between August 10, 2013 and August 8, 2018.  All unconventional well sites installed or modified (i.e., new equipment installed) after the effective date (i.e., August 8, 2018) will need to be evaluated to determine applicability under new Exemption Category No. 38(c) or otherwise permitted with a GP-5A.  All existing unconventional wells that were “grandfathered in” as permit-exempt and were not subject to Exemption Category No. 38 because they were constructed before August 10, 2013 will remain permit-exempt pursuant to the new Exemption Category No. 38(a) unless they are modified, triggering Exemption Category No. 38(c)/GP-5A requirements.

Conventional well sites, sites that rely on conventional extraction methods using the natural pressure from the wells and pumping operations, are exempt from GP-5A requirements.  However, please note that 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOOOa makes no distinction between unconventional and conventional wells and new conventional wells are subject to Subpart OOOOa if hydraulic fracturing is used to “stimulate” the wells.  In this case, compliance with the federal regulations is still required regardless of the permit-exempt status of the site under the Pennsylvania regulations.

Several major new provisions in Exemption Category No. 38(c) include:

• Methane emissions from each individual source at the facility are limited to 200 tons per year (tpy).
• Leak detection and repair (LDAR) inspections are now required to be conducted semiannually, rather than annually.
• There is no 180-day compliance demonstration requirement to PADEP (i.e., no reporting requirements), but the facility is required to keep applicable records for five years that demonstrate compliance with Exemption Category No. 38(c), including representative fractional analyses of the gas processed.

ALL4 recommends that new wells be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for applicability to Exemption Category No. 38(c) vs. GP-5A.  While drilling, fracking, and completion can occur regardless of a well’s exemption status (as temporary operations), on-going well pad equipment lists will need to be compiled and emissions estimates will need to be developed in advance ofsite development to determine whether the well pad can remain below the Exemption Category No. 38(c) thresholds.  If the thresholds will be exceeded, a GP-5A will be required before construction can begin.  Approval of a GP-5A by PADEP is anticipated to take at least 30 days following submittal, so if you need to prepare and submit a GP-5A application, make sure you plan accordingly to avoid delays.

In addition to the permitting updates, PADEP has also rolled out a new online permitting system.  PADEP’s GP-5/5A e-Permitting system within the DEPGreenport website has gone live and is set up to accept and track GP-5/5A permit applications.  A company’s records of GP-5/5A permits are ultimately controlled by the Electronic Filing Administrator (EFA). However, the EFA can delegate others to access the facility information and build applications on their behalf.  The EFA must first register an account within DEPGreenport and submit the Electronic Filing Administrator Registration Form before access to the system, and the ability to modify access for other users, is granted.  The GP-5/5A application contains various “modules” for each emissions source type (e.g., engines, reciprocating compressors) and the user can custom-build the application by selecting the appropriate module according to the types of sources at the well site.  The user can also include attachments, such as the PADEP General Information Form and supporting emissions, to the submission.  The application is filed online and the fee can be paid via credit card or an online Telecheck.  The e-Permitting system automatically tracks the application status, required revisions or rejections, and assigns permit numbers for approved applications.  This system is used for submitting GP-5/5A applications only; compliance activities (e.g., notifications and annual reporting) related to approved general permits are not managed under the GP-5/5A e-Permitting system.  As of June 9, 2018, PADEP is accepting GP-5/5A applications for any planned construction and/or operation that will take place after August 8, 2018.

ALL4 is here to help you determine your exemption status under Exemption Category No. 38(c), as well as to assist in developing and maintaining GP-5/5A applications and approvals.  If you have questions about how these actions affect your operations or what your next steps should be, please reach out to me at (610) 933-5246, extension 155, or at cchinofsky@all4inc.com.

This article also appears in the July 2018 edition of The PIOGA Press, published by Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association.

Updates to Alabama’s Stack Test Protocol and Report Requirements

The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) published updated guidance, Emissions Test Protocol and Test Report Requirements, dated May 18, 2018.  The document summarizes requirements for stack testing protocols and test reports, but does not supersede any established regulations or United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) test methods.  The guidance document does not apply to testing of emissions units with no applicable emissions limits; however, if the testing of these units shows that the facility may be exceeding underlying facility standards (i.e., facility-wide emissions limits, state regulations, etc.), then this information should be conveyed to ADEM.  The following is a summary of the updates that have been made to the emissions testing requirements.  Please note that changes from previous requirements have been bolded.

Pretest Protocol Submission

ADEM previously required a pretest protocol submission addressing emissions testing designed to formally measure compliance against an emissions limit to be submitted at least 10 days in advance of testing.  With the May 2018 update, the pretest protocol is required to be submitted at least 15 business days in advance of all compliance tests; however, the information that ADEM requires to be included as part of the pretest protocol has not been changed.  The information to be included in the pretest protocol submissions is as follows:

• Name, location, and facility number;
• Description of the source(s) to be tested, associated permit number(s), and a description of the processes to be tested including the feed rate, operating parameters used to control or influence the operations, and the rated capacity;
• Date(s) of the test(s);
• Pollutant(s) being tested, the U.S. EPA test method(s), length of runs, and complete description of the sampling train to be used including the type of probe lining, type of media filter, probe cleaning method, solvent used for sample recovery, instrument spans, sample analysis procedures, and any other relevant information;
• Detailed description of any proposed modifications to the U.S. EPA test method(s) and prior approval documentation if applicable;
• Applicable regulations and pollutant emissions limits;
• Name, telephone number, and email of the testing firm and contact; and
• If audits are required, there must be a statement indicating that audits will be ordered from one of the approved audit providers and will be available for inspection on-site.

Due to the number of protocol submissions received by ADEM, facilities may not always receive a response concerning their submitted pretest protocol.  As such, ADEM has stated that if a facility receives no further information requests from ADEM, then the protocol has been deemed approved.

In addition, all deviations from U.S. EPA test methods and/or regulations must be approved by ADEM’s Emissions Measurement Section (EMS) and permit writer.  Deviations are not automatically approved and must be resubmitted for approval for all future tests; however, for future tests, the deviation can be limited to a statement in the protocol that implies nothing has changed since the previous approval.  Changes that would dictate a new explanation for the test method deviation would be changes regarding the process being tested, reference test methods, etc.

Test Report Submittals

ADEM previously required that all test reports for formal tests used to formally measure compliance against an emissions limit be submitted to the Air Division within 30 days of the actual completion of the test.  The May 2018 update has clarified that the test report submitted to the Air Division must be in unbound, hardcopy form and must be submitted within 30 calendar days.  The May 2018 update provides a sample test report format, which details all the information that must be included in the test report. 

In addition, the results of all tests performed for engineering or compliance purposes must be reported to the Air Division regardless of the compliance status indicated by the results.  This includes all test runs, regardless if they are valid or not.  The summary of results of engineering tests that are completed as “practice runs” for an upcoming formal compliance test must be submitted to ADEM.  Unlike a formal compliance test, ADEM is specifically interested in the results of these tests only and a formal test report or test protocol is not required.  ADEM may request more information from the facility for engineering tests on a case-by-case basis.

If you have questions on the updated protocol or report requirements for stack tests in Alabama, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me at 678.460.0324 x213 or sarner@all4inc.com.  Thanks for reading!