Highlights from the 2019 TCEQ Autumn Conference

ALL4 attended the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Autumn Conference, where many updates were discussed in the areas of permitting, legislative decisions, and management structure. Read on to learn more about the conference updates.

The new TCEQ Office of Air Director Sam Short took the mic for the kickoff session of the conference. He provided updates on many different categories of air permitting and alluded to many sessions later in the week. The following were his key updates and some details around them:

1. Air Permitting Division Management

There has been quite a bit of movement among staff members at the TCEQ, but the structure of the agency has held steady. The main changes include Sam’s promotion to Director, Steve Hagood to Technical Advisor and Beryl Thatcher and Kim Strong to Assistant Division Directors.  Additional staff have filled their previous roles as well, so keep in mind that many people are adjusting to and learning new roles. Check the TCEQ website for the latest directory.

2. Legislative Session

There were two major legislative updates that are going to influence the daily life of regulated industry. The first is that the expedited program is fully funded going forward and full time equivalent (FTE) hires were approved! All surcharges from applicants for expedited permitting are funneled to a designated expedited permit team (and modeler!) that work on expedited permits only.

The second reveal was that for minor NSR permit amendments, “at risk” commence construction can begin when the permittee receives their draft permit/second public notice. Note that the house bill (HB2726) supporting commence construction is effective January 1, 2020. However, TCEQ will need to propose and finalize rulemaking in 2020 to support the bill.  TCEQ is currently contemplating several specifics around the rulemaking so stay tuned for the proposed rulemaking in the coming month.  Regardless, the ability to commence construction “at risk” can save facilities 30-60+ days that are typically consumed by the second public notice and any administrative time associated with permit final signatures.

For more details on the legislative session and background on these bills, check out or article, What Happened: Air Quality Bills to Watch in the 86th Texas Legislative Session.

3. ePermitting

ePermitting is a major push for the agency as it has proven to be beneficial for both the TCEQ and industry. The main updates for this year are the automation of permit by rules (PBRs) and the inclusion of case-by-case applications in the ePermitting system. Additionally, permits can now be voided in the system and the system can now accommodate confidential information.  Short stressed that many TCEQ resources are going towards the continued improvement and expansion of this system.

4. Application Tools for Permitting

The conference marked the one-year birthday of the release of the PI-1 General Workbook, previously the (New Source Review (NSR) workbook, and the Electronic Modeling Evaluation Workbook (EMEW). There have been quite a few versions released over the past year that have expanded the reach of the workbooks. We can expect a new EMEW release (Version 2.3) in the near future with updates to the Toxicology Effects Screening Level (ESL) list and the secondary formation of PM_2.5 sheet.

In addition, these workbooks will no longer be accepted incomplete or separate. The modeling and permitting reviews from here on will be done concurrently to speed up the permitting process. It was also announced that Notice of Deficiencies (NODs) will no longer have a standard response time, but one that is tailored to the complexity of the NOD.

5. General Permitting Path Forward

Sam Short’s final notes were around the path forward for the TCEQ. Streamlining is once again a major theme with new efforts going towards new processes for Title V Operating Permits (TVOP), PBR (specifically PBR 261 and 262 workbooks), Readily Available Permits (RAP) and continued improvement of the PI-1 and EMEW.

6. HGB and DFW Reclassification

The biggest topic, which was official on September 23, 2019, is that Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) and Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) nonattainment areas are officially reclassified from “moderate” to “serious” for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). This change has plenty of implications for industry, but one that might be easily overlooked is that many facilities that were previously minor sources might now be major. Therefore, required to apply for, obtain, and operate pursuant to a Title V Operating Permit (TVOP). Facilities in HGB and DFW should review their potential to emit (PTE) for NOx and VOC as the Title V threshold dropped from 100 tpy to 50 tpy.  Title V Operating Permit applications for these sources are due by September 23, 2020.  It’s not quite as simple as written so stay tuned for a future blog from ALL4 on the subject.

The conference provided much more information around each of these topics and many others. The only constant at these conferences is that changes are happening.  If you have any questions around the TCEQ Autumn Conference or any of the topics we covered, don’t hesitate to reach out to us at ALL4. Please reach out to me at 281.937.7553 ext. 304 or rhenn@all4inc.com or Kristin Gordon at 281.937.7553 x301 or kgordon@all4inc.com.

New Source Review: Proposed Project Emissions Accounting Rule

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) proposed a rulemaking on August 9, 2019 that would revise the New Source Review (NSR) regulations to clarify that both emissions increases and decreases should be considered in Step 1 of the NSR major modification applicability test.  The proposed revision reflects findings presented in the March 13, 2018 U.S. EPA memorandum “Project Emissions Accounting Under the New Source Review Preconstruction Permitting Program” (March 2018 Memo).  The 60-day comment period for the proposal ended on October 8, 2019.

Background

The Federal NSR regulations require that stationary sources of air pollution obtain a preconstruction permit prior to beginning construction of a new major source or a major modification of an existing major stationary source.  The NSR regulations include provisions for prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and non-attainment new source review (NNSR).  The implementing requirements of the major NSR regulations are found at 40 CFR §51.166 and §51.165.  States may have U.S. EPA-approved State Implementation Plans (SIPs) in place to implement the PSD and NNSR preconstruction permit programs.

Prior to the 2002 NSR Reform Rule, NSR applicability was based on the “actual to potential” test which compared the baseline actual emissions (BAE) of a project with post-project potential to emit (PTE). The 2002 NSR Reform Rule revised the applicability provisions of the rule to codify the two-step applicability procedure and to allow a comparison of BAE to projected actual emissions (PAE) for projects involving existing emissions units to determine NSR applicability.  Due to regulatory uncertainty regarding whether project emissions decreases could be accounted for during Step 1 when determining NSR applicability, U.S. EPA issued a proposed rule in 2006 titled Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review: Debottlenecking, Aggregation and Project Netting’’ (2006 Project Netting Proposal)  to clarify the regulatory language.  The 2006 Project Netting Proposal included language to clarify that “…both emissions increases and decreases that occur within the scope of a project be counted in Step 1 of the major modification applicability test for all project categories.”  After three years, the U.S. EPA announced in 2009 that it was taking no action on the 2006 Project Netting Proposal. With the publication of the August 9, 2019 proposed rule, U.S. EPA is seeking to clarify the NSR applicability process.

NSR Applicability

Determining NSR applicability involves a two-step test.  The first step requires a source owner or operator to determine whether a project results a “significant emissions increase” of a regulated NSR pollutant (Step 1).  If the proposed project results in a significant emissions increase, a source owner or operation must then perform a contemporaneous netting analysis (Step 2) to determine whether there is a “significant net emissions increase” of that pollutant.  If a project will result both in a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase, the project would trigger PSD requirements (e.g., Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and air quality modeling) and/or NNSR requirements (e.g., Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate (LAER) control technology and emissions offsets).

Project Emissions Accounting

U.S. EPA issued the March 2018 Memo to clarify their EPA interpretation of how to account for emissions decreases during Step 1 of the NSR applicability procedure.  The March 2018 Memo articulated regulatory interpretations reflecting “…a reconsideration of some previous conclusions and an examination of the regulations as a whole…” regarding the two-step NSR applicability process.   The primary issue of interpretation was related to whether project emissions decreases, as well as emissions increases, could be accounted for in Step 1 of the two-step process.   Prior to the March 2018 Memo, Step 1 of the applicability analysis only included emissions increases associated with the project.  Project emissions decreases could not be considered until the Step 2 netting analysis.  The critical difference between Step 1 and Step 2 is that Step 2 includes both emissions decreases and increases during the five-year contemporaneous period.  Therefore, project emissions decreases could be nullified by a previous project that involved emissions increases during Step 2 under the current regulatory language which could result in a major modification triggering major NSR requirements.

In the March 2018 Memorandum, U.S. EPA explained that it interpreted the current NSR regulation to allow for emissions decreases to be considered in Step 1 of NSR applicability analyses.  The August 2019 proposed rule aims to fully clarify the language found at 40 CFR §52.21(a)(2)(iv)(f) to reflect the approach identified in the March 2018 Memorandum.  Specifically, U.S. EPA is proposing to revise the language of 40 CFR §52.21(a)(2)(iv)(f) from “sum of the emissions increase” to “sum of the difference.”  Furthermore, U.S. EPA proposed to add subparagraph §52.21(a)(2)(iv)(g) to define “sum of the difference” as including both increases and decreases in emissions calculated.  U.S EPA is proposing to make the revisions to the PSD regulations noted above in the corresponding NNSR regulations.  The August 2019 proposed rule supersedes the 2006 Project Netting Proposal, which is being withdrawn.

For those who have been working with NSR applicability for more than 20 years, the proposed revisions to the applicability provisions appear to comport with the original intent of the 2002 NSR Reform Rule.  Finally, understand that PSD and NNSR are complex regulatory programs which can be further complicated by nuances in state-specific NSR programs and regulatory language.  Please feel free to reach out to your ALL4 project manager to discuss your facility’s specific needs.  If you have questions, please reach out to me at 610.933.5246 x131 or mmchale@all4inc.com.

What is a P2 Plan??

If you have been in the environmental business for a while, you are likely well-versed in the submission dates for the Federal Programs that occur each year [e.g. Air Emissions Inventory, Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). If you are a Texas native, then you know that we always go above and beyond to make Texas the best place on Earth. One of the ways we, Texans, take care of our home is through pollution prevention measures. The Waste Reduction Policy Act was adopted by the Texas Legislature in 1991, which enacted the requirement for Pollution Prevention Plans (P2 Plan).

Am I Subject to this P2 Plan?

If you are a Texas facility that falls under one of the following categories, you are required to develop and maintain a P2 Plan. This applicability criteria are identified pursuant to 30 TAC §335.473.

• Large Quantity Generator of Hazardous Waste;
• Small Quantity Generator of Hazardous Waste; or
• TRI Form R Reporter

Read on to learn how to comply.

When is the P2 Plan due?

Initial P2 Plan (Base Plan): Within 90 days of the first Annual Waste Summary or TRI Form R submissions

Annual Progress Report (APR): July 1 of each year

Executive Summary: July 1 of each year

Renewal P2 Plan: January 1 of the first year of the new plan (5 years after the Initial Plan).

How do I comply?

The P2 Plan comes in two separate parts: The Initial P2 Plan and the Annual Update. The overall goal of the plan is to identify areas of source reduction and waste minimization. In addition, the plan requires facilities to develop and execute projects to reduce pollution. Outside of developing a plan, submitting it to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), and maintaining an updated copy on-site, there are not many requirements around how to achieve the pollution prevention goals. The method of reducing pollution is facility-specific. The TCEQ has outlined seven steps to guide you through the process and provides examples for their expectations.

1. Identify your processes and wastes
2. Prioritize your wastes
3. Identify your options to reduce waste
4. Prioritize projects and set goals
5. Train employees on P2 awareness
6. Document the P2 Plan
7. Report results annually

The TCEQ developed detailed guidance around each of these steps in “A Guide to Pollution Prevention Planning”.  Although this document offers a great starting point, the process isn’t a walk in the park. It is expected that the facilities will review their individual waste streams in detail and develop ideas to reduce waste in every area of operations from process waste streams to lightbulb disposal. The waste reduction ideas will have to be both a significant reduction and technically and economically feasible to the facility. Although not required, it is expected that the waste reduction projects identified in the plan are executed. The APR is a progress report on each of these projects to reveal how well pollution is being reduced at a facility. Included with the submission of the APR is the Executive Summary, which requires a signature from the facility Responsible Official (RO). Keep in mind, there are no bare-minimums when it comes to these plans. The TCEQ has not provided hard and fast rules, but still has high expectations for these pollution prevention projects.

Why Should I Comply?

The plans are mandatory and failure to develop or maintain the plan results in violations, fines, and enforcement. If that’s not enough, the plans are beneficial to the Texas environment and your facility. When done well, P2 plans can be beneficial to various parties. And if TRI releases are reduced below the TRI reporting thresholds, you can graduate from the P2 program, which is the ultimate goal of the Pollution Prevention staff.

Where Can I Find Help?

The TCEQ has provided online and hardcopy guidance around developing the base P2 Plan and completing Annual Updates. The most useful is “A Guide to Pollution Prevention Planning” developed by the TCEQ. In addition, the Pollution Prevention and Education (PPE) staff is easily reached at the following places:

www.P2Plan.org
Technical Assistance Phone #: 512-239-3143

If none of this seems like your cup of tea, the ALL4’s Texas team is ready to tackle your environmental needs. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to me at 281.937.7553 x304 or rhenn@all4inc.com.

Strategically Navigating Air Permitting Challenges in the Biomass Industry

In a world where time is money, air quality permitting is often the lynchpin in determining when construction can begin on a project.  Depending on the type of air permit you are applying for or the level of public interest, the length of time from submittal of an air permit application to receipt of a final permit can range from three months to over 12 months.

Based on our experience and observations over the last few years, both public and regulatory interest in the biomass industry (specifically the wood pellet industry) is at an all time high.  In many cases, this increased scrutiny has caused significant delays in obtaining requisite air permits.  This added level of scrutiny has led to a reactive permitting approach, where facilities agree to more restrictive operating limits like production or wood mix splits.  While this approach may help to expedite air permit issuance, long-term it hampers operational flexibility and may require a much more involved air permitting process to remove those original restrictions.   A primary goal for plant management is to increase efficiency: make more product with the same or less raw materials.  Agreeing to operating or production limits as part of the permitting process can limit the ability of facilities to take advantage of these increases in efficiency.  And let’s not forget the constant ongoing compliance worries that come along with a facility that continually flirts with exceeding a production limit. It is a sometimes-daily battle to ensure that your facility will not violate the terms of your air permit.

May I suggest an alternative: play the long game and use the air permitting process strategically to position your facility for the future.  Spend a little more time and money on the front-end and save yourself the headache of navigating under a production limitation.  Give your facility more operational freedom and lessen the chance that you will need to revisit air permitting in a few years to alter your production limitation.  In fact, there is an argument to be made that a strategic air permitting approach may  compress the length of time it takes to get an air permit and potentially provide an economic advantage with future facility growth (I’ll explain below).

So, what does strategic air permitting actually mean?  Let’s look at a hypothetical example.  Say I am looking to build a new wood pellet facility, and I want to build this facility as expeditiously as possible in the most economical way possible.  My primary pollutant of concern is likely volatile organic compounds (VOC).  I know from an air permitting perspective, I want to avoid federal and state Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting because it will significantly complicate the air permitting process and schedule.  PSD permitting could involve air quality modeling, require the installation of add-on control technology like a scrubber or thermal oxidizer, and will likely delay my timeline for construction.

To avoid PSD permitting, we need to limit the VOC emissions from our new facility to less than 250 tons per year.  In order to keep the permit process moving, we commit to a production limit of 75,000 tons of pellets per year, an annual average softwood/hardwood mix of 75/25, and an emissions rate (lb/ton) for each source to ensure that our actual emissions remain below 250 tons per year.  Our permit application has a significant amount of interest from the public and environmental groups, which leads to a heavy comment and response period, public hearings, and delays the issuance of our permit by months.

Now if we rewind and approach the permitting strategically, how much production can our local wood basket support? Possibly 200,000 tons of wood pellets per year, the majority of which would be made up of softwood.  How do I need to design my facility to operate at 200,000 tons per year?  I can look at technology improvements on my dryer to reduce VOC emissions or maybe even look at an add-on control technology.  The big difference between add-on control technologies in this scenario and PSD permitting is that the type of control technology will not be mandated by the permitting process.  I have the flexibility to choose an option that works best for my facility from both a financial and technological standpoint.  Now I understand that add-on controls will add to the cost of construction and may add operational challenges, but let’s look at some of the benefits:

1. Increased annual production by 125,000 tons of pellets per year.
2. VOC emissions are below the 250 tons per year threshold to avoid being classified as a major source under PSD permitting regulations.
3. No air quality modeling for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
4. Permit timing could be dramatically reduced.
5. Avoid the complications of future permitting for increased production.
6. Improved public and regulator perception.

The forgotten element with taking a more strategic approach is that it could ultimately result in receiving a permit faster.  As I stated before, the environmental permitting landscape is shifting.  Public access to data is at an all-time high and U.S. EPA is continuing to emphasize their commitment to transparency.  For the regulated community, we can continue to expect increased public involvement in the permitting process, and the timing of permit issuance may continue to increase.  But if you can anticipate the public’s concerns and address them as part of your permit application (e.g., with an add-on control technology), you may be able to significantly reduce the amount of time it takes to receive a permit.

This same thought process can apply to existing facilities too.  How can I use environmental permitting as a strategic advantage rather than a hinderance?  Talk with your plant operators and make sure you have a thorough understanding of your equipment and operations.  Where might there be opportunities to reduce emissions that could ultimately lead to increased production?  Once you have identified environmental opportunities, talk with facility management.  Educate them on the air permitting obligations and encourage a collaborative environment to put your facility in the best long-term strategic position to take advantage of efficiency improvements and operate at a production rate that you want.  Do not wait until your operational limits have already become a problem, instead be proactive.  This type of mindset will allow you to react quickly without potentially needing to modify your air permit in an increasingly competitive market.

Now approaching air permitting strategically is certainly not without its challenges.  As I mentioned previously, add-on controls bring their own challenges to the table.  Add-on control technologies could trade one pollutant of concern for another [nitrogen oxides (NO_X) for VOC as an example for thermal oxidizers], so it will require additional consideration to determine the path forward that best suits your long-term vision for the operation of your facility. Control technologies may increase your costs and the time spent engineering and designing the facility.  But if it allows you the operational freedom to produce more, it may just be worth the extra challenge.

This article was featured in the September/October 2019 issue of Pellet Mill Magazine

Is Your Ambient Monitoring Station Up-To-Date?

What is the current status of your ambient monitoring station?  Have your instruments been audited recently?  Have the instruments been recalibrated and recertified?  Is calibration and re-certification still supported on the instruments you have by the manufacturer or whoever you purchased them from?

The questions asked are to help you make sure you are doing everything necessary with your ambient monitoring station so that you continue to receive quality data.

What are you measuring?

Ambient monitoring stations can ‘span’ from measuring atmospheric pollutants [i.e., particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO₂), nitrogen oxides (NO_X), and volatile organic carbons (VOC)] to meteorological [i.e., wind speed, wind direction, temperature, pressure, etc.] data.  Different systems require different levels of calibration and re-certification criteria.

This blog focuses on the status of meteorological monitoring stations.  However, please keep in mind, many of the same practices and resolutions to ensure quality data can be applied to ambient pollutant monitoring systems.  If you are curious as to how or why a meteorological station may be beneficial to maintain at your facility, please reference Dayna Pelc’s blog “Who Needs Real-time Onsite Meteorological Data?  You Do, and Here’s Why” published in July 2019.

Do you have certifiable instrumentation?

Operating certifiable instrumentation is the first step in ensuring quality data is generated at your facility.  If meteorological data is being collected at your facility, do you have one of those white/gray plastic, backyard ‘all-in-one’ weather stations?  If so, it is likely that the data you are collecting is not up to the U.S. EPA standards and may not be reliable to support defense of your facility’s emissions should an accidental emissions release occur or an odor complaint be filed.  A certifiable instrument, or suite of instruments, allow facilities to utilize actual ambient meteorological data from the site for utilities such as air quality modeling, ambient pollutant monitoring programs (similar to the recent SO₂ DRR Rule), automated stormwater event monitoring, and many more!

If your facility does have certifiable instrumentation, do you have an audit, recalibration, or recertification plan?  The U.S. EPA has set guidelines for auditing (checks to ensure instruments are functioning correctly), recalibration (adjustments made to instrument to adjust for drift or bias), and recertifying (sending instrument away to be tested in a laboratory against stringent standards) instruments.  Audits generally occur twice per year for meteorological instrumentation with recalibrations occurring when audits indicate that a recalibration is required.  Recertification is recommended either annually or biennially based on the type of instrument.  The U.S. EPA Handbook for Meteorological Monitoring Guidance requires specific quality assurance/quality control procedures on a routine basis to ensure the data meets the standards of reliability and accuracy.  The procedures include: calibration of instrumentation, site inspections, data screening, data validation, and preventive maintenance.

Do you have spare instrumentation?

Spare instrumentation is a good thing to have on hand for meteorological monitoring stations.  Meteorological instrumentation is not cost prohibitive to invest in a spare set.  The spare instrumentation can be utilized for cases of recalibration or recertification.  Implementing a simple process of rotating primary and backup instruments assures that the inventory of instrumentation on a meteorological monitoring station are functioning properly and are being recertified on a regular schedule.  Spare instruments can also be utilized to maximize the collection of quality data.  For example, if an analyzer fails (i.e., is unable to collect quality data) such as malfunction due to lightning, power surge, or mishandling or failure of an audit, quality assured data will be unavailable until repair or replacement is made.  If a spare analyzer is on site, it can be put into service and collecting quality assured data more quickly than sending an instrument back to the manufacturer for repair.

Are there like-for-like replacement instrumentations available in case of a failing instrument?

Technology is rapidly advancing the way data is collected, monitored, and displayed.  Times have changed from the analog strip chart recorders (you may have to Google that, I won’t confirm or deny that I did) to digital, real-time cloud-based systems.  The knowledge of what instruments and data management system you have on your ambient monitoring station is important.  In terms of meteorological instrumentation, it is helpful to know ‘are spare instruments available for purchase in case of a failure?’ or ‘is the company the instruments were purchased from still providing services for recalibration or recertification?’.

One of the major suppliers of meteorological instrumentation commonly found on monitoring stations around the world was bought out and, in the process, the instrumentation has been discontinued and replaced with similar instrumentation that requires new or additional electrical communication hardware and software to implement.  What does this mean?  It means that if a facility doesn’t have a spare of a discontinued instrument, it may be very hard to find a replacement when the time is required and may lead to a higher cost to replace instrumentation, connections, and all wiring to get the monitoring station back up and running again.  In addition, services for recalibration or recertification, spare parts, or repairs for widely popular instrumentation that has been discontinued may not be provided by the company that has bought out and discontinued the original instrumentation manufacturer.  A third party may be required to service the instrumentation as necessary.

What can ALL4 do for your ambient monitoring needs?

ALL4 is here to assist you in collecting legally defensible ambient data.  We have staff that are experts in auditing, calibrating, and planning for your monitoring system needs.  We have an expansive knowledge of the technology available and have the resources you may need when your instruments require recalibration or recertification.  There are many different standards to track for each type of ambient monitoring and ALL4 is here to help.  If you have any questions regarding ambient monitoring stations, or are interested in learning more about them, give me an email or call (dsnare@all4inc.com, 610-933-5246 x126) or reach out to Dayna Pelc (dpelc@all4inc.com, 610-933-5246 x169).

Is Your Facility in Compliance with the Updated Refrigerant Rules?

U.S. EPA regulates refrigerant containing equipment, including motor vehicle air conditioners (MVAC), at 40 CFR Part 82 – Protection of Stratospheric Ozone.  This rule is focused on minimizing the release of refrigerants to the atmosphere as they have the potential to negatively affect the earth’s ozone layer.  Some important and impactful updates were made to the refrigerant rules within the past few years and it’s important for facilities to evaluate their applicability, especially with U.S. EPA keeping a closer eye on this rule.

In 2018, U.S. EPA published final updates to 40 CFR Part 82 requirements.  The updates broadened the scope of affected units by:

• Including rules for equipment that contains any amount of refrigerant. The rule previously only regulated units that contained large amounts of refrigerant.
• Expanding the definition of “refrigerant” to include substitute refrigerants.

A general summary of the most recent updates to 40 CFR Part 82 is discussed below.

What refrigerant equipment are now subject to the regulations?

Prior to the 2018 updates, the regulations focused on requirements for equipment that contained greater than 50 pounds of refrigerant.  Requirements included work practice and recordkeeping for service and disposal events performed by certified facility technicians.  The 2018 revisions expanded rule applicability to include requirements for the servicing of equipment that contain refrigerant in amounts as small as 5 pounds.  Affected small capacity equipment are now subject to safe disposal and safe evacuation requirements.  The impact of this revision is important for facilities to integrate into their servicing, disposal, and recordkeeping for equipment with small amounts of refrigerant.  The specific requirements include:

• Equipment that contains less than 5 pounds of refrigerant are subject to safe disposal requirements. Technicians disposing refrigerant appliances must ensure that refrigerant is disposed of properly.
• Equipment that contains between 5 and 50 pounds of refrigerant are subject to safe evacuation requirements. Technicians servicing or disposing these units must ensure that refrigerant is evacuated and/or disposed properly.

What is the definition of a refrigerant as it applies to 40 CFR Part 82?

Historically, U.S. EPA regulated Class I and Class II refrigerants [e.g., chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFC)].  Over time the Class I and Class II refrigerants have been phased out of use and instead, “substitute” refrigerants are in use.  U.S. EPA has determined that these “substitute” refrigerants are also potentially damaging to the ozone layer.  “Substitute” refrigerants include materials such as R-134A and R-407C.  Thus, 40 CFR Part 82 now also regulates the use of substitute refrigerants.  It is important for facilities to consider whether the use of these “substitute” refrigerants now requires your facility to comply with requirements that previously did not apply.

U.S. EPA established a compliance date of January 1, 2019 for the revised requirements.  So, now is a good time to take a closer look at the equipment at your facility that contains refrigerant and confirm that you are complying with the revised regulations.  As always, ALL4 is available to answer any questions you may have.  If you’re interested in having ALL4 conduct a refrigeration training at your Facility, contact Christina Lynch at clynch@all4inc.com.

U.S. EPA Withdrawal of Regulatory Interpretation for Continuous Monitoring System Requirements

As we near the start of the third quarter reporting season for continuous monitoring systems (CMS), ALL4’s CMS Practice Area felt it was timely to recommunicate the ending of two years of compliance demonstration uncertainty involving the regulatory interpretation for reporting CMS downtime and the calculation of a valid hour of emissions.

The uncertainty ended on June 13, 2019 when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 6, withdrew their June 6, 2017 regulatory interpretation (ADI 1700037) provided in response to a request by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ).  U.S. EPA’s June 13, 2019 withdrawal letter to ODEQ mentions U.S. EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) believes new information may lead to some uncertainty when the interpretation is applied across several industry sectors.  Thus, ADI 1700037 was being withdrawn to allow further examination and discussion.

Since the U.S. EPA interpretation was issued in 2017, ALL4 regularly shared updates and learnings about this interpretation as speakers at conferences and while working with our clients.  If you missed us, lots more information about the uncertainty we shared can be found in our past presentations webpage.

This withdrawal is viewed as a relief for most in industry.  However, lessons can be learned from the process.    Such as…

• Document, verify, and understand how your hourly emissions are averaged and calculated for compliance demonstrations.
• Document, verify, and understand how your data is validated.
• Document, verify, and understand how your missing, invalid, or suspect data is managed and reported.
• Knowledge and action are powerful. Don’t be an ostrich.  Keep your head up and be in action.