Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Introduces OnBase Upload Form for Online Permit Application Submission
On June 22, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) announced the OnBase DEP Upload Form. This form is a way for applicants to transfer permit application data to PADEP electronically. With COVID-19 limiting the accessibility of physical workplaces, PADEP hoped to create a more efficient permit approval process. Online submission means that these permit applications can be moved between PADEP staff more easily. Additionally, PADEP hopes to reduce costs for themselves as well as applicants by limiting the number of printed documents and shipping fees. At this moment, the system does not have the full capability of accepting all Air Permitting Program Permits.
The OnBase DEP Upload Form can be found through PADEP’s website homepage. In the upper right of the page there is a Data and Tools tab which allows access to Application Form Upload.
Within the Upload Form, an applicant can fill in several fields that help identify the application. Once these fields are populated, PDF versions of the permit application can be submitted electronically. As part of the submission process, there is a form that should also be submitted called the OnBase DEP Public Upload Payment Submission Form. However, it is noteworthy that this system does not allow for electronic payment. Fees associated with the permit application still must be submitted via check under separate cover. The Reference Number provided by the OnBase DEP Upload Form should be included on the check.
When a permit application is submitted through the Upload Form, PADEP performs an initial quality assurance (QA) review. If there are issues with the submission package identified during this stage, the applicant will receive a notification detailing the findings. The permit application can then be resubmitted after the corrective changes are made. For resubmittals due to QA Review Rejection, the applicant should select “No” for the resubmittal question within the form. After the QA Review, a more detailed Program Review is conducted. Like the QA Review, if there are any issues with the submission package identified during this stage, the applicant will receive a notification detailing the findings. If an applicant resubmits the permit application because of a Program Review Rejection, the applicant should select “Yes” for the resubmittal question within the form.
There are exceptions to the types of permits that can be submitted through the OnBase DEP Upload Form. For those types of permits that already utilize e-Permitting (i.e., Oil and Gas program ESCGP-3 and Drill and Operate Permits, Bituminous Surface Mining Permits, Chapter 105 General Permits, Air Quality program GP-5 and 5A permits, and PennDOT applications currently submitted through Keystone Environmental ePermitting System) the new online form cannot be used. Also, applicants who currently submit applications to a delegated entity (i.e., Chapter 102 and 105 permits currently submitted to County Conservation Districts) should continue to submit their applications in that manner.
PADEP has included references providing additional detail about the electronic submission process. They can be found with the following links:
OnBase DEP Public Upload Electronic Document Submissions Instructions
OnBase DEP Public Upload Payment Submission Form
Should you have any questions or require additional information please contact our team at info@all4inc.com.
What’s New with AP-42: Updates to the AP-42 Chapter 7.1 Organic Liquid Storage Tank Guidance
Global pandemic or not, the wheels of progress keep turning and along with it, air quality permitting and compliance. We all understand how important it is to keep on top of your facility’s reporting requirements, permitting deadlines, and general compliance obligations. ALL4 understands that industry in general is likely experiencing an anomaly in their operations like never before, including fewer operational hours, a remote staff, or temporarily changing production lines to meet the rapidly changing needs of the world. It’s more important now more than ever to streamline activities that result in leaner operations. ALL4 has developed a tool to do just that. The United Stated Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) emissions factor resource for Organic Liquid Storage Tanks (AP-42 Chapter 7.1), has undergone three updates since November of 2019, and ALL4 is on top of each revision. The ALL4 team has developed a spreadsheet-based tool (Storage Tank Calculation Tool or Tool) that performs storage tank VOC emission calculations in all levels of complexity. The Tool is designed to expedite projects, adhere with the guidance of AP-42 Chapter 7, and provide clients a full understanding of the revised VOC tank emission calculation algorithms.
We understand that this time of uncertainty can mean tighter budgets for many facilities and likely greater reliance on staff resources. We also want to be very clear that ALL4 is operating (although from our homes) in business as usual mode. We can step in and expedite your permitting process by saving hours of regulatory review and spreadsheet development around storage tank emissions. Our team developed has the Storage Tank Calculation Tool to calculate VOC emissions associated with complex storage tank operations, but it can be pared down to perform simple tank calculations as well. We have a team of experts who are knowledgeable about storage tank emissions and regulations that are also intimately familiar with the tank emissions algorithms that are used in the Tool to be sure your deliverable complies with agency requirements. Because of the transparent nature of the Tool, we are able to make real-time updates as new versions of AP-42 are released. The newest being June of this year. Many competitors have created advanced models that can complete these calculations, but their response to updates is slow and cumbersome because of complex background coding.
The Tool is meant to handle complexity, but also meant to share the knowledge. It’s a Microsoft Excel© calculation spreadsheet that is transparent with how the calculations are performed. When you choose ALL4 to help with your needs, we will share a complete picture of how the equations incorporated into the Tool meet regulatory requirements. This includes a PDF version of your calculations with footnoted references to AP-42.
As you begin to plan timelines for permit renewals, RY2020 emissions inventories, and various other 2021 reporting, please keep in mind the tools that ALL4 can offer. If you have any questions or want to get in touch, please reach out to me at 281-937-7553.
Changes to Qualified Facilities in Texas
When it comes to a revision of an existing air permit in Texas, the mechanism is primarily determined by the type of permit. For example, a permit-by-rule (PBR) permit usually goes through a revision, whereas a case-by-case permit undergoes an amendment. However, there are some rules in 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) that provide more flexibility for this process. If these rules are used properly, it can ease the burden of the permitting process and greatly facilitate the implementation of the changes. One of these mechanisms is referred to as “Changes to Qualified Facilities.”
“Changes to Qualified Facilities” was implemented as 30 TAC 116.116(e). If all the conditions of this rule are met, using this rule may simplify changes to PBRs, standard permits, or case-by-case permits including both minor and major sources Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR). Sections below provide highlights of this rule.
Applicability
In order to be considered a qualified facility, the following criteria must be met:
- The facility must be an existing one. No new construction can be permitted using this process.
- There must be no new air contaminants emitted with the project.
- There must be no changes to current monitoring, emissions determinations, or recordkeeping requirements.
- The facility must prepare an impacts analysis to demonstrate that the changes in air contaminants will not have negative off-property effects.
- If the site is an existing major source, a netting analysis is required to demonstrate that the proposed project will not trigger PSD review or NNSR.
- The facility must have received a preconstruction permit or permit amendment, or qualified for a PBR within 120 months (10 years) before the physical or operational change to the facility will occur, or the facility uses an air pollution control method that is at least as effective as the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements in a permit issued to a similar facility 120 months before the change will occur.
Interchange and Intraplant Trading
As mentioned above, changes relating to all air contaminants must not have negative off-property impacts. Usually, a proposed change will increase the emissions rates of certain pollutants. Therefore, it is critical to understand how to achieve “no negative impacts” under this circumstance.
Generally, if an increase in a regulated compound would result in an exceedance of a facility’s allowable emissions, the facility can implement a control device. To provide some flexibility, this rule allows a decrease in emissions of one compound to be interchanged with an increase in emissions of another compound, provided both compounds are within the same air contaminant category. Because the changes are between different compounds, this is defined as an “interchange.” Compounds from different categories may not be interchanged (e.g., volatile organic compounds cannot be used to interchange with carbon monoxide). The interchange is also adjusted by the ratio of the effects screening levels (ESL) of the compounds.
Furthermore, the rule allows the change to happen between different qualified facilities. This is defined as intraplant trading. Depending on the project, a facility or facilities may need to apply both interchange and intraplant trading.
For example, let’s assume compound A has an ESL of 10 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) while compound B has an ESL of 50 mg/m3. If the increase of emissions for compound B is 10 tons per year (tpy), using interchange, the facility would need to reduce the emissions of compound A by 2 tpy. However, since both A and B are under the VOC category, the total VOC will increase by 8 tpy. Because the rule does not allow a net increase for any category, an additional reduction of 8 tpy of VOC must be allocated. Please note this example only presents the long-term (tpy) analysis. A similar study should also be carried out for the applicable short-term emissions in pounds per hour (lbs/hr).
Submission
Besides the PI-E form, the application also needs to include one of the following:
- For NNSR, greenhouse gas PSD (GHGPSD), and PSD permits: a revision to an NSR permit condition and federal applicability netting. (Remember, this type of project must be a “minor” NSR action. If the site is a major source, a detailed netting analysis must be made for each proposed change to determine the applicability of major NSR by demonstrating that any increase in actual emissions is below the threshold for major modifications.)
- For case-by-case minor permits: supporting information such as interchange or intraplant trading should be considered as part of a permit revision request. If a control device is used, a pollution control project (PCP) standard permit with form PI-1S is potentially required.
- For standard permits: supporting information such as interchange or intraplant trading should be considered as part of a permit revision request.
- For PBRs: Form APD-CERT must be attached.
How does it matter?
As mentioned above, this permitting mechanism provides a relatively easier way to authorize a project if all the conditions are met. Especially, because this process is a revision to case-by-case, PSD, NNSR and GHGPSD permits, it is much simpler than requesting an amendment. Each company should carefully evaluate its project and determine if this option is feasible.
This blog has discussed the main features of 30 TAC 116.116(e) – “Changes to qualified facilities.” However, it is only meant to be a summary and does not include every detail of the rule. If you have any further questions regarding this topic or would like assistance reviewing your project to determine the appropriate air permitting mechanism, please contact us.
Pennsylvania is Requiring Minor Facilities to Submit Air Emissions Inventories
In July 2020, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) revised the instructions for completing annual air emissions inventories for regulated facilities with air permits. The Pennsylvania annual air emissions inventories are more commonly referred to as Air Information Management System (AIMS) reports and for affected facilities, are due annually by March 1. While minor updates and clarifications are routine, there is one noteworthy revision in the July 2020 version.
The requirement to annually report emissions through AIMS is addressed in section two of the AIMS instructions. Historically, facilities subject to Title V operating permit requirements were required to submit an annual AIMS report and that has not changed. However, the not so obvious update is that PADEP is now requiring facilities operating under synthetic minor operating permits to report actual annual emissions through the AIMS system. A synthetic minor permit includes enforceable conditions (e.g., annual emissions limit, production cap, operating hours restrictions) that restricts emissions to prevent the facility from exceeding major stationary source emissions rate thresholds. Keep in mind that PADEP also reserves the right, at its discretion, to request that a facility submit emissions inventory reports.
Facilities are being notified, typically by a letter from their regional PADEP office, indicating that their facility will be required to complete and submit an annual air emissions inventory. There are two mechanisms to submit the annual air emissions inventory: the AESonline system or AESxml. If your facility receives such a letter and you are interested in discussing what this could mean for you and/or the many other Pennsylvania environmental regulatory actions that I have been tracking, contact me at nleone@all4inc.com or 610-422-1121.
Federal Waste Management Standards for Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals and P075 Nicotine Listing
History
The U.S. EPA initially proposed to move pharmaceutical wastes – including those regulated as hazardous – into the Universal Waste (UW) program in 2008, but industry concerns over the lack of tracking requirements with the UW program prevented U.S. EPA from finalizing the rule. Similar concerns over UW tracking and retailer pushback prevented a second proposed rule from advancing in 2015.
With additional industry involvement in 2018, U.S. EPA certified and signed an improved pharmaceutical waste rule for publication in the Federal Register (FR), 40 CFR §266.500 – “Management Standards for Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals and Amendment to the P075 Listing for Nicotine” (Subpart P). Subpart P became effective on August 21, 2019. Hazardous waste pharmaceuticals (HWP) are not considered UW, but the new program will help reduce overall regulatory burden.
What is Subpart P?
Subpart P substantially streamlines handling of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulated hazardous waste pharmaceuticals in the healthcare sector, especially for Healthcare Facilities (HF). This new rule allows for the consolidation of many previously RCRA-regulated pharmaceuticals under the umbrella of HWP. Potentially affected entities, other than RCRA transfer, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) include supermarkets, doctors’ offices, hospitals, and assisted living facilities.
This final rule removes the RCRA listed waste code, P075, from FDA-approved over-the-counter nicotine replacement therapies (i.e., patches, gums and lozenges). This benefits many waste generators (e.g., retailers) by allowing the waste to be considered non-hazardous. The removal of these FDA-approved over-the-counter nicotine replacement therapies from the P075 listing is less stringent than current regulation, and authorized states are not required to adopt less stringent regulations. Additionally, if your state originally piloted a Universal Waste program for HWP, such as Michigan, expected to adopt Subpart P in 2021, or Florida, which has already adopted Subpart P, reach out to your state regulators to see what parts of Subpart P are being implemented.
Other facilities with differing North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes that are affected by this new rule are, Small Quantity Generators (SQG) and Large Quantity Generators (LQG) of hazardous waste that have a self-run (non-subcontracted) HF that is co-located within the facility that is not an HF (e.g. a clinic at a military base, school, or manufacturer). The HWP requirements for these self-run HF co-located with SQG or LQG facilities must comply with the new rules, even if the HF is not an SQG or LQG in and of itself – compliance will be required due to their co-location and management. The requirements for Subpart P would apply after the state has adopted Subpart P. Very Small Quantity Generators (VSQG) are not required to, but can choose to operate under the waste management regulations in Subpart P.
What about wastes that are Controlled Substances?
Hazardous wastes that are also Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) controlled substances will be conditionally exempt from all RCRA Subtitle C requirements, including Subpart P, provided that the waste is managed in compliance with the DEA regulations and the waste is combusted at designated waste incinerators.
There were concerns with the cost of disposing HWP which were dually regulated as DEA controlled substances as well as RCRA-regulated hazardous wastes. The potential for non-compliance, by drain disposal, prompted EPA to eliminate dually regulated pharmaceuticals. The rule expands the methods for disposal and the number of combustion facilities which can receive these previously dual-regulated pharmaceuticals, which could be a cost saving measure for facilities which generated these wastes.
Rules which apply to any facility with HWP
However, there are new rules in Subpart P which apply to facilities which generate HWP, regardless of generator status, state adoption status, or whether the facility operates under Subpart P as an HF.
- 40 CFR §266.505 – Prohibition of Sewering Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals – The section prohibits the discharging of HWP to a sewer system that passes through to a publicly-owned treatment works. This prohibition addresses the issue of trace pharmaceuticals present in drinking water sources and aims to increase overall surface water quality.
- 40 CFR §266.507 – Residues of Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals in Empty Containers – In general, this rule considers containers empty and the residues not regulated as hazardous waste provided the pharmaceuticals have been removed using the practices commonly employed to remove materials from that type of container. This improves the management of previously RCRA regulated pharmaceutical containers and packaging since they can now be consolidated under this rule and the packaging mass does not count towards determining the facility’s generator status.
Summary
In Summary, Subpart P is a streamlined method for managing HWP with the goal of decreasing costs and increasing the protection of the environment. While there are more reporting requirements, some specific regulation changes including, waste manifest code changes, generator status determination improvements, and an increased on-site waste accumulation time, many different types of facilities benefit from these improvements. For facilities which generate large amounts of HWP, this decreases the financial drain due to the cost of RCRA-regulated disposal as well as regulatory knowledge burden which is required to handle RCRA-regulated hazardous waste.
If you have any questions or are wondering how this rule impacts your facility, please reach out to Michelle Carter at, mcarter@all4inc.com.
Check to make sure your state has adopted part or all of this rule by visiting, https://www.epa.gov/hwgenerators/where-are-management-standards-hazardous-waste-pharmaceuticals-and-amendment-p075
DC Updates Air Permit Fees and Adds Synthetic Minor Program
On June 5, 2020, the District of Colombia Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE) published a long-awaited update to the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCMR) Title 20, Chapters 1-3, which entails revised Air Quality Permit and Emissions Fees and a new Synthetic Minor Permitting Program. The proposed February 2017 rulemaking and final rule provide for several changes to the existing emissions fee allocation procedures to streamline the permitting process, incorporate application fees, and provides a new synthetic minor permitting program. Ultimately, emissions fees were added to Chapter 2 [General and Nonattainment Area Permits] and fees associated with Chapter 3 [Major Source (Title V) Permits] have been restructured to better cover the costs of the air permitting program and relate to the construction, modification, or operation of a stationary source, or any new air pollution control device installed on a stationary source. Importantly, synthetic minor permits can now be obtained by requesting limits on emissions with a federally enforceable limit on operation with a reasonable method of determining compliance. A more detailed explanation of these changes is provided below.
Ante up… on your emissions
Permit application fees are only charged upon submittal of an initial or renewal permit application and apply to all permits. For a Chapter 3 permit, or a Title V Operating Permit (TVOP), the permit application fee is based on the total tons of potential emissions of criteria pollutants [nitrogen oxides, (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), ozone, lead] and hazardous air pollutants (HAP), but does not include carbon monoxide (CO) or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Permit application fees do not apply to permit amendments and if the term of the permit is less than five years, the fee will be prorated proportionally to the term limit. Once an application is submitted, an invoice will be generated. An application will not be considered complete until the application fee is paid. The fees will be adjusted annually based on the consumer price index (CPI) for that year.
Annual emissions fees only apply to facilities that hold a TVOP and the fees are based on similar emissions criteria as permit application fees, the sum of criteria pollutants and HAP, and does not include CO or GHG emissions. However, the annual emissions fees are determined based on actual emissions under the ranges specified in 305.2. There is also a surcharge of $300 per ton of actual emissions over 100 tons per year under 305.3. If a facility is subject to a TVOP, but has not yet been issued a TVOP, the annual emissions fees will still apply
Synthetic Minor Permitting Program
The purpose of the synthetic minor permitting program is to allow facilities to limit emissions to avoid major source regulatory applicability while also reducing their general and reporting requirements. The emissions limits must be federally enforceable as well as practically enforceable. Practically enforceable means that an emissions limit must be placed on the operation of a specific emissions unit, for a specific period of time (e.g., hourly, daily, monthly and/or annual limits such as rolling annual limits), with an appropriate method of compliance including appropriate monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting and testing. An example of this would be restricting an emissions unit’s runtime hours per year to stay below the major source threshold for a pollutant, as determined by the potential to emit calculations, by keeping a record of the runtime hours of the unit.
Facilities can opt into the synthetic minor program by converting their existing TVOP to a synthetic minor permit by submitting a supplemental synthetic minor application. This process can be started at any time; facilities do not need to wait for their existing TVOP to be up for renewal. Once a facility has converted to a synthetic minor permit, the 5-year permit term restarts, regardless of the existing TVOP term. For a facility adding new equipment that would ordinarily require a TVOP, the facility can instead submit the Chapter 2 permit application and synthetic minor supplemental permit application. The synthetic minor supplemental form would set federally and practically enforceable limits to avoid being subject to a TVOP. The DOEE recommends talking with your permit writer before starting this process.
If you have questions about the new fees or synthetic minor permitting process for DC, please reach out to Michelle Carter at mcarter@all4inc.com.
Specific fee information can be found by looking up notice number: N0093679 in the DC Register website: www.dcregs.dc.gov and clicking “View Text”.
CAO Permitting Process – you’ve heard of it, you’ve submitted info, but where are you now?
By now I’m sure you’ve at least heard of the Cleaner Air Oregon (CAO) state health risk-based air toxics regulatory program if you have a Title V, standard, or simple permitted facility in Oregon. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ORDEQ) developed a prioritization process for identifying the order that existing facilities will be “called in” to the program which starts the 10-step CAO permitting process. The prioritization was based on the 2016 air toxics emissions inventory that you submitted and also considered population and demographic information surrounding your facility.
Facilities were placed into 4 Groups. Group 1 should be well versed with the CAO process since they have been called in or will be called in before the end of 2020. ORDEQ plans to start calling in Group 2 facilities in 2021 and Group 3 facilities in 2022. If you’re particularly proactive, you’ve likely already refined your air toxics emissions inventory (from the one you submitted to ORDEQ to develop your prioritization score) and completed a Level 1 Risk Assessment which is the least involved and most conservative CAO risk assessment. Since a Level 1 Risk Assessment is very conservative, it’s not uncommon that facilities will need to conduct a Level 2 or 3 Risk Assessment which utilizes U.S. EPA’s preferred nearfield air dispersion screening model AERSCREEN (Level 2) or refined air dispersion model AERMOD (Level 3).
Once you’re “called in, the clock starts on the 10-step CAO permitting process; therefore, it’s a good idea to be proactive, so you’ve got time to understand what impacts the CAO permitting process may have on your facility (e.g., the need to spend capital dollars on air pollution control equipment or the need to go engage the public in your CAO permit process).
If you have already performed a Level 1, 2, or 3 risk assessment, you might need to take another closer look. On April 24, 2020 the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) adopted updates to the CAO Risk Action Levels (RALs) which lowered the toxics best available control technology (TBACT) noncancer hazard index from 5 to 3 or 1 depending on the types of noncancer toxic air contaminants your facility emits. Therefore, the conclusions of your preliminary risk assessment may change as a result of the updates to the CAO RALs.
Also, be aware that existing facilities will trigger the CAO permitting requirements when submitting an Air Contaminant Discharge Permit (ACDP) application that triggers Major New Source Review (NSR) or Type A State NSR action so be sure to plan for extra time to complete a CAO permit application and for OR DEQ to review and issue a Major NSR and CAO permit. Additionally, you can choose to start the CAO permitting process at any time. The most logical time for a voluntary submission would be with your Title V Operation Permit (TVOP) renewal.
If you have any questions on the CAO permitting process or want to take the next step in the CAO process, please reach out to Dan Dix at ddix@all4inc.com or by phone at (610) 422-1118.
