U.S. EPA Releases COVID-19 Compliance Policy Document

The U.S. EPA (U.S. EPA) issued a temporary policy as a guidance memorandum on March 26, 2020 that addresses compliance and enforcement related issues that result from the COVID-19 pandemic.   The overall point of the policy is that U.S. EPA will exercise enforcement discretion for noncompliance as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, so long as regulated entities abide by the policy.  The policy is comprehensive and acknowledges that states or other regulatory authorities may take different approaches consistent with their authorities. The policy applies retroactively to March 13, 2020 and U.S. EPA will apply the policy to compliance related issues while the policy is in effect. The policy does not apply to criminal violations and does not apply to Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action enforcement instruments, nor to imports (with an emphasis on pesticide products).

The U.S. EPA explains in a scope statement that “…the consequences of the pandemic may affect facility operations and the availability of key staff and contractors and the ability of laboratories to timely analyze samples and provide results. As a result, there may be constraints on the ability of a facility or laboratory to carry out certain activities required by our federal environmental permits, regulations, and statutes.”  Logically, these consequences can affect reporting obligations specified in settlements, consent decrees, enforceable limitations on air emissions, water discharges, hazardous waste management, and other environmental obligations. U.S. EPA acknowledges that the policy will not cover every possible civil violation that may result from COVID-19 and states that additional guidance may be provided on an ongoing basis.

The policy addresses U.S. EPA enforcement discretion with regards to civil violations, state oversight, U.S. EPA actions, accidental releases, and criminal violations.  The most extensive and arguably the most useful guidance is provided under civil violations as summarized below:

  • General Conditions – The key point made is that regulated entities should take every effort to comply with their environmental obligations. In the event of noncompliance facilities are advised to minimize the effects and duration of the noncompliance, identify the specific noncompliance, document how COVID-19 caused the noncompliance and associated actions, and to document everything.
  • Routine Monitoring and Reporting – U.S. EPA advises that regulated entities should use existing procedures to report noncompliance. If there are no reporting provision or reporting tools, regulated entities are advised to maintain the information and provide it to regulatory authorities upon request. Where U.S. EPA agrees that the noncompliance is caused by COVID-19, they do not intend to seek penalties for events such as violations of routine monitoring, integrity testing, sampling, analysis, training, reporting, or certification obligations. Full compliance is expected following the expiration of the policy (U.S. EPA will provide notice seven days prior to termination of the policy).  U.S. EPA will accept digital or electronic signatures in lieu of “wet” signatures and email submittals in lieu of paper submittals.
  • Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree Reporting Obligations – For settlement agreement reporting obligations, if parties anticipate missing deadlines, they should use reporting mechanisms specified in the agreements including force majeure. U.S. EPA intends to treat routine monitoring, integrity testing, sampling, analysis, training, reporting, or certification obligations as described under routine monitoring and reporting (above) and will not seek penalties. Notifications must include related COVID-19 documentation as the cause. U.S. EPA acknowledges that consent decrees are court orders, and U.S. EPA will coordinate with the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding enforcement discretion regarding stipulated penalties for routine compliance obligations. U.S. EPA also acknowledges that the courts retain jurisdiction over consent decrees and may “exercise their own authority”.  Parties are advised to use the notification procedures of the consent decree and force majeure as applicable with regard to COVID-19.
  • Facility Operations – The key point is that U.S. EPA expects regulated entities to “…manage and operate their facilities in a manner that is safe and that protects the public and the environment.” Facilities are advised to contact regulatory authorities (U.S. EPA, state, or local authority) if operations may create an acute risk or imminent threat to human health or the environment.
    • If contacted directly, U.S. EPA will consult with the state or local authority to discuss actions to minimize the threat and return to compliance. Where U.S. EPA implements the program, they will evaluate the permit and work with the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA).  If not addressed by a permit or regulation, U.S. EPA will work with the facility to minimize the impact and return to compliance.  U.S. EPA will notify the state or local authority and will consider the COVID-19 circumstances in determining an enforcement response.
    • In the event of a failure of an air pollution control device or wastewater treatment system that results in exceedance, the facility should notify the regulatory authority as quickly as possible. The notification should include estimates of the releases, estimates of excess releases, and duration of the event.
    • For hazardous waste generators, if waste cannot be transferred offsite within RCRA timelines due to COVID-19, continue to properly label and store waste onsite and take steps described under general conditions above. U.S. EPA will use discretion and treat such entities as generators and not treatment storage, and disposal facilities. Very small generators will retain their status as an exercise in enforcement discretion.
    • For animal feeding operations unable to transfer animals off-site due to COVID-19 and becomes a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) as a result, U.S. EPA will use discretion and will not treat such sites as CAFOs. Facilitates should abide by the general conditions above.

Additional policy guidance is provided in the document for public water systems and critical infrastructure that is not addressed herein.

Finally, the policy addresses the broader topics of state oversight, expected actions by U.S. EPA, accidental releases, and criminal violations in less detail.  Key points include

  • The expectation of U.S. EPA to focus resources largely on situations that may create an acute risk or imminent threat to public health or the environment.
  • The continued responsibility of entities to prevent, respond to, or report accidental releases of oil, hazardous substances, hazardous chemicals, hazardous waste, and other pollutants, as required by federal law.
  • The acknowledgement by U.S. EPA that they will screen cases in accordance with federal statutes to distinguish unavoidable violations as a result of COVID-19 restrictions from violations that are the result of an intentional disregard for the law.

The content presented herein represents a summary of the key points of the policy guidance. Please read the actual policy guidance to gain a full appreciation and understanding of how it can impact your operations or a possible instance of noncompliance.  Several key points to remember, as highlighted in the policy, include checking with your state or local regulatory authority to ensure consistency with the U.S. EPA policy guidance, documenting your specific noncompliance issue and how it was caused by COVID-19, notifying the U.S. EPA and/or the appropriate regulatory authority of the noncompliant event through normal or alternative means, and continuing to operate your facility in a manner that is safe and that protects the public and the environment.   Please contact me at rrakiewicz@all4inc.com if you have any questions.  Thanks for reading.
Contact Us

Environmental Program Management in our Temporary “New Normal”

To our clients and 4 The Record recipients,

As we all navigate this unprecedented time together, ALL4’s technical focus remains the same as it always has:  to share as much information as possible.  During the course of the past week after our entire social and professional dynamic changed, we have been talking to regulatory agencies and to our clients to learn as much as we can about navigating environmental compliance responsibilities during this unprecedented world event.  The connections that we made with our colleagues at various regulatory agencies have been key to keeping our compliance and permitting tasks moving forward.  In general, the regulators that we spoke to were very forthcoming and understanding of the current predicaments of our clients are facing.  Here are a few key points we discovered during our conversations with 20 or so agencies:

  1. Unsurprisingly, all of the agencies have entered an arrangement with high levels of telework and shifts for those personnel that were normally working in office locations. Some staff have their desk phones forwarded to their mobile phones while some staff were issued work-related mobile phones.
  2. Most of the agencies are committed to meeting all of their typical obligations (other than perhaps onsite inspections and stack test observations), although delays in some form are inevitable as everyone adjusts to the new work arrangements. In certain instances, the extent of the delays will depend upon the ability of staff to access agency file servers from remote locations (e.g., permit databases, network files).  Some agencies are also working on setting up virtual public hearings.
  3. In a few instances we have been directly informed that permitting timelines would be temporarily frozen and in others that formal compliance deadlines would be extended (e.g., annual emissions reporting in Texas).
  4. The general sense from agencies is that enforcement discretion will be exercised when compliance deadlines are not met due to factors outside of the control of a facility (many are taking a fairly broad view of what constitutes “force majeure”). This revelation should not replace direct conversations with your regulatory agency about a specific compliance deadline.

Do some of these challenges for agencies sound familiar?  Like us, the agencies are navigating the reality of a remote workforce and doing their best to be as efficient and effective as possible.  Compliance, permitting, and reporting won’t run smoothly in every instance so we will need to stay closely connected with regulatory contacts.

In addition to the regulatory agency activity, some state governors have mandated the closure of “non-essential” businesses including select manufacturing facilities.  Facilities in these states are facing an entirely different set of challenges as discussed below.

Observations and Takeaways 

We have learned a lot in a week – but what does it mean?  At ALL4 we have compared notes and arrived at several key conclusions and best practices.  I acknowledge that a few of these may sound like something from “Captain Obvious”.  Given the current situation, I hope that what seem like an obvious share is still as helpful for you to read as it is for me to type.

  1. Move up internal timelines! Regulatory agencies have acknowledged inevitable delays in certain spots.  There is uncertainty about where those delays will occur – none of us have those answers.  Moving more quickly with reporting and permitting is the only way to address the uncertainty around agency timing.  It is much easier said than done given the other responsibilities that have arisen for EHS teams as a result of COVID-19 but stating the simple “pick up the pace” goal and planning for different resources (internal and external) to get the work done is necessary.  For our part, we will be in close contact with clients to support where we can.
  2. Call, message, AND email your agency contacts. With the sudden expansion of remote workforces across the board, we are no longer operating in a “one-mode” communication world.  Many of the agencies are encouraging all forms of communication be used to make sure that your contacts see (or hear) a message wherever they may be located.  Scan and email the correspondence you would normally only put in certified mail, for example.
  3. Talk to agencies about your time sensitive permitting projects right now. Capital projects are oftentimes sensitive and are now subject to being delayed.  Work with your permit writer to determine how permit review and public comment timelines may change as a result of COVID-19, if at all, so you can adjust your application preparation timelines if necessary.  If there is a public meeting that’s required to keep a permitting process moving, talk with the agency about alternative forums (we’ve heard about web-based meetings being explored in place of in-person meetings).
  4. Document steps taken to prepare compliance reporting. There may be reporting systems that go down, difficulty getting stack testers and other vendors on-site in a timely fashion, or internal staffing issues (among others) due to COVID-19 outside of a facility’s control that make meeting certain compliance deadlines (or even getting certain certifications renewed) difficult.  Our general message is to hold compliance deadlines in high regard as we always do and, if there is any sense that a deadline won’t be met, clearly and thoroughly document the steps taken to attempt to meet the deadline and the factors outside of your control (and their timing) that impacted the deadline and discuss that documentation with your legal resources.  S. EPA has force majeure provisions that allow for compliance deadline flexibility, and appearances are that states will allow for this flexibility if it is documented (again – this is a general sense and does not replace conversations with your state agency for a specific situation).
  5. Consider all the implications of a facility shutdown. In the unfortunate event that a shutdown is mandated – be the voice for environmental implications during a time that is sure to be chaotic.  This audience knows that many operations are not shut down at the “flip of a switch.”  Oftentimes, shutdowns can have impacts on compliance with emissions and discharge limits and understanding and clearly communicating those impacts both internally and to the agency is critical.

 

We will continue to share what we learn during this period of uncertainty.  We look forward to working with our clients and regulatory agency colleagues to continue to navigate the environmental issues of the day.  I would love to hear from you with different observations or environmental permitting and compliance situations that you’ve encountered that may be helpful for others to hear.  Until then, stay healthy and safe!

Final Risk and Technology Review Rule for Organic Liquids Distribution is Better than Proposal

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) signed several final Risk and Technology Review (RTR) rules on March 11-12, 2020, including the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for organic liquids distribution (OLD) (non-gasoline) operations (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart EEEE).  The U.S. EPA determined that risks are acceptable for the source category and that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety.  No changes were made to the standards based on the results of the risk review and only one change was made as a result of the technology review.  However, additional changes were made to address rule deficiencies identified by U.S. EPA, including the removal of the startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) provisions, and updates to flare monitoring requirements to address a concern that current flare monitoring requirements may not ensure the level of destruction efficiency needed to conform with the standards (98% destruction).   The compliance date for the final revisions is 3 years from the publication date of the final rule in the Federal Register.

What Wasn’t Finalized?

Multiple industry groups submitted comments on the proposal, which included several changes that would have been costly and onerous to implement.  The final RTR Rule does not include several of the proposed changes, such as leak detection and repair (LDAR) for uncontrolled fixed roof storage tanks, LDAR for connectors, ongoing vapor pressure testing, and ongoing hazardous air pollutant (HAP) content testing.  Because U.S. EPA chose not to finalize these proposed requirements, the proposed option to conduct a fenceline monitoring program in lieu of implementing the proposed more stringent control and LDAR requirements was also not finalized.  As a result, the cost of implementing the final rule was greatly reduced.

Storage Tanks

U.S. EPA finalized only one change to the standards based on the results of the technology portion of the RTR:  revising the average true vapor pressure thresholds requiring control for existing storage tanks to align with those in the Refinery RTR and hazardous organic NESHAP (HON) where the thresholds are lower.  A new Table 2a is included in the rule, which lays out the more stringent thresholds for control.

Start-up Shutdown and Malfunction

U.S. EPA has eliminated the SSM exemptions in the OLD NESHAP and referenced subparts and the standards will apply at all times.  As a result of the removal of the SSM provisions, a standard was added for storage tank degassing, which is currently considered a shutdown activity and covered under facility SSM plans.  The tank degassing standard applies to both fixed and floating roof tanks subject to control requirements: route degassing vapors from the storage tank to a control device or back to the process or fuel gas system until the VOC concentration of the vapor is less than 10 percent of the lower explosive limit (LEL).  U.S. EPA added general duty text to the OLD NESHAP and modified the reporting requirements for failures to meet a standard.  U.S. EPA removed the safety device opening allowance at 40 CFR 63.2346(i) beginning 3 years after promulgation of the final rule.  The 240-hour control device maintenance/bypass allowance was removed for transfer racks and storage tank working losses the allowance was retained for tank breathing losses.

Flares

The most significant regulatory revisions are for flares used as control devices.  OLD NESHAP flares will no longer be subject to the Part 60 or 63 general provisions, but will be subject to many of the flare requirements included in the Refinery RTR rule (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CC).  Flares must operate with a flame at all times and be continuously monitored.  Each 15-minute block where there is at least 1 minute where no flare flame or pilot flame is present when regulated material is routed to the flare will be a deviation from the standard.  Flares must operate with visible emissions no more than 5 minutes in a 2-hour period.  Daily visible emissions monitoring is the continuous compliance method (minimum observation period of 5 minutes using Method 22 or camera), and additional observation periods are required if visible emissions are observed.

U.S. EPA incorporated the 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CC requirements for maximum flare tip velocity into the OLD NESHAP as a single equation, irrespective of flare type.   The final OLD RTR rule also includes a cross reference to Subpart CC with a single minimum operating limit for the net heating value in the combustion zone gas of 270 Btu/scf during any 15-minute period.  The work practices for emergency flaring that are currently allowed for refinery flares were not incorporated because U.S. EPA does not believe those situations occur at OLD facilities.  Finally, U.S. EPA added regulatory language to clarify overlap of Subpart EEEE with other regulations for flares.

Other Changes

Other changes in the final rule include addition of electronic reporting requirements, clarification that condensate and crude oil are considered to be the same material with respect to OLD applicability, changes to test methods, and changes to address various typographic, grammar, and reference errors.  However, as mentioned above, the final RTR rule is much less burdensome than the proposed rule.

What Should Facilities Subject to the OLD NESHAP do Now?

ALL4 recommends the following:

  • Read the final rule and preamble and understand the impacts on your business.
  • Identify what additional internal and external resources you need to implement the rule.
  • Identify any capital projects that will required for compliance, including upgrades to data acquisition and handling systems and continuous monitoring systems. Develop a timeline and schedule.  Can you accommodate these projects into an already planned outage such that the compliance deadline (3 years from publication of the final rule in the Federal Register) can be met?
  • Identify what air permitting, if any, will need to be completed to support possible capital projects.
  • Determine what additional information must be monitored and recorded to comply with the revised monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
  • Determine what internal procedures and plans need to be updated as a result of the rule changes.

ALL4 gained valuable learnings when implementing the Refinery RTR flare requirements and can assist OLD facilities with the new flare requirements as needed.  We can also help navigate the new electronic reporting requirements or assist with compliance planning and understanding the new requirements.  Contact Amy Marshall at 984-777-3073 or your ALL4 project manager with questions.

New Jersey Air Quality Updates – Have You Missed Anything?

Within the past couple of years, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has made several updates to its air quality practices and documents that may have flown under the radar on their own.  Read on to make sure you haven’t missed any changes that could affect your facility’s future reporting or permitting obligations.


Annual Emission Statements

Each year, NJDEP requires that facilities in New Jersey that emit above certain air contaminant reporting thresholds submit an Emission Statement for the previous year.  During the implementation of an electronic submittal system, NJDEP implemented an informal policy of granting 30-day extensions for submittal of the Emission Statement.  However, this extension was not expected to be permanently implemented into New Jersey rules and has been deemed no longer necessary with the implementation of the electronic reporting system.  Title V facilities in New Jersey should continue to plan Emission Statement development around the original due dates of May 15 for electronic submittals and April 15 for paper submittals.  For a paper submittal, a formal request must be submitted to NJDEP detailing the reasons an electronic submittal would cause hardship for the facility.  Similarly, if an extension is required, a formal request must be submitted to NJDEP by May 1 for electronic submittals or April 1 for paper submittals, and the request must detail the reasons the original deadline would cause hardship for the facility.

Regarding the contents of Emission Statements, to satisfy U.S. EPA’s requirements for their Emissions Inventory System, NJDEP is requiring additional details.  For example, facilities will be required to include technical information on emission points that may not currently exist in NJDEP RADIUS from previous years.  NJDEP has provided a guidance document to help with complexities associated with atypical, non-combustion, significant sources.

Risk Screening Worksheets

Risk screening worksheets (RSWs) are used for estimating health risks from air toxics during the permit application process.  This is traditionally expected of major source permitting and permit renewal if any changes have been made to the facility.  However, minor sources must also complete a risk assessment under certain circumstances [e.g., emitting new hazardous air pollutants (HAP), increases in existing HAP, changing stack parameters, emitting HAP in excess of the reporting threshold].  NJDEP provides two types of worksheets: The Cancer Risk Screening Worksheet for Nonroad Diesel Engines and the NJDEP Division of Air Quality Risk Screening Worksheet for Long-Term Carcinogenic and Noncarcinogenic Effects and Short-Term Effects.  In August 2018, NJDEP released a revised version of the latter that included changes to unit risk factors, long-term reference concentrations, and short-term reference concentrations.  The nonroad diesel engine RSW is not affected by this update.  The revisions are also incorporated into NJDEP’s “Toxicity Values for Inhalation Exposure” resource.  If you have used this RSW in the past, it is recommended that you download the most recent version dated August 2018.  Download links for RSWs and the associated resources can be found on NJDEP’s website.

NJDEP has proposed a new version of the NJDEP Division of Air Quality Risk Screening Worksheet for Long-Term Carcinogenic and Noncarcinogenic Effects and Short-Term Effects.  Proposed changes include new requirements for use of the RSW, inclusion of several compounds not previously listed in the RSW, and updated toxicity values.  Refer to NJDEP’s fact sheet for a full list of proposed changes and supporting information.  NJDEP has also begun development of an RSW for natural gas combustion sources in order to provide more realistic risk potentials for affected sources than are currently available using the existing RSW.

General Permits and General Operating Permits

Since 2018, NJDEP has updated and revised several of its pre-approved general permits (for non-major facilities) and general operating permits (for major facilities), as listed below.  Facilities may only hold one of each general permit type at any time and must submit a new registration if adding, replacing, or modifying any sources.  Facilities may hold more than one of a general operating permit type, but each general operating permit only permits equipment belonging to one emissions unit.

If your facility possesses one of the following permits and you are making a change that would require registering for a new permit, the revisions may be applicable to your project.

  • GP-004A – Fuel Dispensing Facilities
  • GP-004B – Fuel Dispending Facility Equipped with a Phase I Vapor Recovery Control System
  • GP-005A – Emergency Generator(s) Burning Distillate Fuels
  • GP-005B – Emergency Generator(s) Burning Gaseous Fuels
  • GP-013A – Non-HAP Dry-cleaning
  • GP-015A – Plating, Etching, Pickling and Electropolishing Operations
  • GP-016A – Manufacturing and Materials Handling Equipment
  • GOP-002A – Manufacturing and Materials Handling Equipment
  • GOP-003 – Emergency Generator
  • GOP-004 – Emergency Generator Burning Gaseous Fuels

NJDEP has replaced or has proposed replacing or discontinuing several general permits and general operating permits as well.  If your facility possesses one of the following permits and you are making a change that would require registering for a new permit, these changes may be applicable to your project.

  • GP-008 – Site Remediation Activities for Gasoline Contamination at Vehicle Fueling Stations (SVE)
  • GP-009A – Boiler(s) and Indirect Fired Process Heater(s) Each Greater Than or Equal to 10 MMBTU/hr and Less Than 50 MMBTU/hr Combusting Gaseous Fuel (replaced by GP-009B)
  • GP-019 – Portable Equipment
  • GP-021 – Combined Heat and Power Combustion Turbine(s) less than or equal to 65 MMBTU per hour
  • GP-022 – Combined Heat and Power Stationary Spark Ignition Reciprocating Engine(s) less than or equal to 65 MMBTU per hour
  • GOP-005 – Combined Heat and Power Combustion Turbine(s) less than or equal to 65 MMBTU per hour
  • GOP-006 – Combined Heat and Power Stationary Spark Ignition Engine(s) less than or equal to 65 MMBTU per hour

If you’d like to learn more about these updates and how they affect your New Jersey facility, don’t hesitate to reach out to ALL4.  You can contact me at (610) 933-5246, extension 173, or by email at jmartin@all4inc.com.

Think Green in March: Greenhouse Reporting

There are less than two weeks left until Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reports are due to U.S. EPA on March 31, and we wanted to let you know that we’re here for you – and it’s not too late to reach out if you need support during this challenging time.

ALL4 has been supporting its clients with their 40 CFR Part 98 GHG compliance obligations since the rule was originally promulgated in 2009.  Our services in this area include:

  • Rule applicability evaluation
  • GHG monitoring plan development
  • GHG emissions inventory development
  • 40 CFR Part 98 report development and submittal within U.S. EPA’s web-based electronic GHG Reporting Tool (e-GGRT) platform
  • Carbon dioxide (CO2) Continuous Monitoring System support
  • Decarbonization strategy assessment

We are fluent in a multitude of 40 CFR Part 98 subparts – routinely supporting facilities that report GHGs due to stationary fuel combustion; electricity generation, transmission, and distribution; cement production; natural gas production, processing, gathering and boosting;  petroleum refining; import, export, and supply of petroleum products; pulp and paper manufacturing; industrial and municipal solid waste landfilling; industrial wastewater treatment…the list goes on!

We’d love to help you with your 40 CFR Part 98 compliance needs.  Please contact your ALL4 Project Manager or ALL4’s Climate Change Knowledge Area Lead, Megan Uhler, to learn more.

Updated 4.15.20 – A message from our CEO: COVID-19

April 15,2020 – ALL4 has launched 4 The Record – Quarantine Series, a compilation of articles, videos, and webinars to keep the regulated community up to date during the COVID-19 pandemic.  We developed this publication to share timely technical knowledge in a variety of ways to help environmental personnel navigate challenges that may arise now and in the future.

4 the Record – Quarantine Series


(March 18, 2020) What a difference five days can make!  ALL4’s approach to dealing with COVID-19 has certainly evolved during the past five days.  Just yesterday, we mandated our employees to work from home (WFH) through April 3, 2020.  We will have a single staff member working during normal business hours in the office at our PHL headquarters for the duration of our WFH mandate. Our Regional Offices will have the discretion to allow one staff member to work from the office if they desire, while factoring in any local/state/federal direction.  Bottom line:  we are all working and working together!

If you want to know about the happenings at ALL4 – our all staff routine Monday Morning Meeting (MMM) took a unique twist on Monday when we had 68 video conference participants!  ALL4 Technical Director, Dan Dix, handled the emcee role to perfection and guided us through our routine office updates followed by our technical, HR, Business Development, Recruiting, and IT updates.  We completed the meeting the same way we do every week, with our ALL4 High 5’s and celebrations.  I extend a public High 5 to Chester Ney, ALL4’s IT Director, who has been preparing ALL4 for a completely remote operating scenario since he took over our IT reins several years ago.  Our ability to stay connected to our project teams and to our clients is a credit to his diligence.

As you probably know, our culture is a big part of who we are.  It was cool to see our culture quickly adapt to a full WFH environment and drive our purpose of growing sustainable community.  I couldn’t be prouder of how the organization is pulling together to navigate these unusual times. I see people reaching out to one another and to the company as a whole on our internal employee engagement platform with humor; sharing WFH pictures of workspaces and their children; sharing wonderful binge TV lists; new hires who have switched to WFH full time without missing a beat; parents sharing coping strategies and insightful thinking;  and everyone caring about each other and our clients.  Next week we will celebrate 18 years of ALL4 – I am curious to see how a virtual toast will work!

So what is ALL4 doing differently?  From an internal perspective, we are conducting a daily Business Unit call to ensure alignment, collaboration, and connectivity.  We are coordinating back-up support for each project team in the event that any of our co-workers get sick, and we are lining up technical resources to ensure that ALL4 quality standards are upheld.  Externally, our client managers are reaching out to each ALL4 client to better understand how they are being impacted:

  1. First off, how are they doing?  These are uncertain times for everyone and maintaining our sense of community is critical,
  2. What changes have occurred or what policies are in place at our clients’ locations that could influence how we execute work together? and
  3. What changes to our clients’ operations are occurring that impact the support needed from ALL4?  Our intention is to be connected to our community of clients and to be available to support in any way we can (including if that “support” means call me back next week when I know more!

Lastly, we are looking for ways to be in contribution during a time when businesses and people are functioning differently.  The question I pose to folks reading this is “What could ALL4 do to help me or my business during this time?”  If you have something in mind, please send me an email (wstraub@all4inc.com) as I want to hear from you.  Stay healthy and safe!


Posted March 12, 2020:

To Our Clients and Customers,

The health and safety of our employees and our clients is a top priority. Due to the concern surrounding the Coronavirus (COVID-19), we are continuously monitoring this situation and will continue to follow the guidelines recommended by the U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC), local, and regional government agencies. Currently, ALL4 is operating as usual and we have implemented our Emergency Action Plan regarding a pandemic event in accordance with our standard business continuity practices. ALL4’s plan follows a phased approach that involves mitigating risk of exposure and spread of the virus by leveraging several factors. Proactively, we have implemented the following actions to support the health and well-being of our employees, clients, and community.

  • Enhanced cleaning of our facilities
  • Increased personal hygiene measures
  • Limiting non-essential business travel
  • Monitoring all employee travel and requiring self-quarantining as appropriate
  • Encouraging work from home in the event of illness, Coronavirus exposure, or concern

ALL4’s workforce has a well-established work from home policy that is utilized by nearly all our employees on a regular basis and we expect that this entrenched flexibility will enable people to take the necessary precautions to stay healthy and meet our clients’ needs. Consistent with our culture of the past 18 years and through these unusual times, we will continue to invest in the well-being of our employees, clients and communities. We are prepared to continue to provide the high quality, personal service you have come to expect.

PADEP’s CSMM Rev. 8 Frequently Asked Questions Document Updated! Article 3, Operational Test Period

Welcome to the third blog of our series related to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (PADEP or Department) Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM) Section’s release of an updated Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) document to support Continuous Source Monitoring Manual Revision No. 8 (CSMM Rev. 8) on October 8, 2019.

 

The first two blogs in this series discussed the diluent cap and 3-hour average guidance PADEP has given in the CSMM Rev. 8 FAQs document.  In this blog we will take a look at clarifications to the operational test period (OTP), which is a certification test that is required for new and/or replaced continuous monitoring systems (CMS) pursuant to CSMM Rev. 8.

The OTP is addressed in Question 3.9 of the October 8, 2019 FAQs document.  The question sought clarity on the definition the OTP and how this test period relates to the other certification testing completed on the CMS.  Here is a breakdown of the guidance provided by PADEP, as well as our take on the guidance:

As with other CEMS certification activities under CSMM Rev. 8, presenting your approach to completing the OTP in the required Phase II – CEMS Certification Test Protocol is a must.  PADEP’s CEM Section reviews each protocol and provides feedback.  Use this to your advantage to ensure that you, your contractors, and the CEM Section are on the same page prior to completing the OTP.

If you have any questions about the OTP guidance provided by PADEP for CSMM Rev. 8 certification, or any other general CMS questions, please reach out to me at (610) 933-5246 extension 140, or at mstroup@all4inc.com.

 

U.S. EPA Announces New Guidance Portal

In a February 28, 2020 Federal Register notice, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) announced a new web portal that allows the public to search for agency guidance documents.  The creation of this portal was mandated by the October 9, 2019 Executive Order 13891 “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents.”  The order directed federal agencies, including U.S. EPA, to review their historical guidance documents, determine which documents should be retained, and make them available via an online guidance document portal.  The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued an implementing order on October 31, 2019 that established deadlines for creation of the portal.

Per the OMB implementing order, the new portal indicates that U.S. EPA guidance documents lack the force and effect of law, and that the agency may not cite, use, or rely on any guidance not posted on the website (except to establish historical facts).   The website also contains a link for the public to petition to withdraw or modify a guidance document.  As we have seen with the issuance of several guidance documents by the current administration, the order also requires U.S. EPA to establish a process whereby all guidance documents are subject to a public comment period of at least 30 days.

It will be important to review the guidance documents that have been retained or omitted from the website when making future regulatory applicability arguments.  According to the current list of guidance documents, there are a little over 900 documents that U.S. EPA has chosen to retain as part of the Office of Air and Radiation database.  The other U.S. EPA offices and regions also have their own guidance databases.   Because the OMB implementing memo indicates that agency statements of specific, rather than general, applicability are not considered guidance, U.S. EPA has apparently chosen to retain only general guidance memos and documents on the portal, and not site-specific determinations.  For example, these documents were retained:

  • Seitz memo documenting that potential emissions for emergency generators should be calculated based on 500 hours of operation.
  • Boiler MACT small entity compliance guide.
  • Control techniques guidelines (CTG) documents for several source categories.
  • Definition of regulated pollutant for particulate matter for purposes of Title V.
  • The 2019 guidance on interpreting “adjacent” for new source review and Title V source determinations.
  • The 2017 Scott Pruitt projected actual emissions memo.

Oddly enough, the pollution control projects memo was also included in the database (although related regulatory provisions in the PSD rules were vacated), but the project emissions accounting memo is not currently included (perhaps because U.S. EPA is engaged in finalizing that rulemaking).  The New Source Review (NSR) Policy and Guidance Document Index is still live, as is the Applicability Determination Index (ADI), and these locations contain many memos and documents we refer to often.  U.S. EPA is still working on determining what documents should be retained on the new site and which guidance documents should be formally rescinded.  Utilize the comment feature of the portal if you have suggestions.  Going forward, U.S. EPA will publish a rulemaking that specifies the process for significant guidance and clarifies that any guidance document not on the portal after June 27 is not active and cannot be relied upon.  ALL4 is reviewing the guidance portal and working with industry groups to determine how best to comment.  Contact Amy Marshall at amarshall@all4inc.com or 984-777-3073 for more information.

    4 THE RECORD EMAIL SUBSCRIPTIONS

    Sign up to receive 4 THE RECORD articles here. You'll get timely articles on current environmental, health, and safety regulatory topics as well as updates on webinars and training events.
    First Name: *
    Last Name: *
    Location: *
    Email: *

    Skip to content