Best Practices for RY2020 TRI Reporting + A Lookahead at RY2021 and Beyond

The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reporting deadline on July 1^st is approaching for facilities that meet the reporting criteria set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Here are some best practices to follow to make this reporting season most efficient.

• Use the best readily available information for your calculations and pollutant identification. This information can come in the form of site-specific testing, monitoring data, safety data sheets (SDSs), or published emissions factors from sources such as U.S. EPA AP-42 and from trade groups. Note that “best readily available information” means that if you are not currently required to test or monitor for a pollutant, you do not have to start testing for TRI purposes.

• Carefully document your assumptions and reasoning. Cite your sources for the emissions factors you use in your calculations, as well as assumptions or other important information you may have. When completing your facility’s TRI Form R reports, make use of the comment boxes to document pertinent information about your calculations in case U.S. EPA has questions concerning your submission. Thorough documentation allows U.S. EPA to better understand your conclusions and may prevent further correspondence or a resubmission. Be sure to also document your sources and assumptions in your calculations used as the basis for preparing your TRI Form R reports. It is equally important and a requirement to document reportable substances manufactured, processed, or otherwise used at your facility were evaluated, even if the substance does not exceed the reportable threshold [40 CFR 372.10(a)].

• Double-check your reporting thresholds and range codes. Confirm that you are using the correct reporting thresholds for each chemical to prevent over-reporting and under-reporting. This check is especially important for compounds such as persistent bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs) that have significantly lower thresholds than most compounds. Most compounds have reporting thresholds of 25,000 lbs/yr for manufactured and processed and 10,000 lbs/yr for otherwise used, whereas some chemical categories can have thresholds as low as 0.1 grams per year.

• Double-check the list order of your dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. Each of the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds subject to TRI reporting are labeled with a number from 1-17, which is used to assign the percentage distribution of each member of the category. Be sure to check your sequencing against the U.S. EPA guidance to make sure you’re assigning your distribution of emissions to the correct compounds.

• Refine any conservative estimates. If your facility exceeds the reporting threshold for a compound, but the release quantity is close to the threshold, reconsider any conservative estimates and assumptions you may have made. See if you can refine estimates and assumptions to lower the release quantity below the reporting threshold. An example would be replacing a permit limit used in your calculations with a published emissions factor from a database such as U.S. EPA AP-42.

• Compare your release quantities to historical reports and investigate significant differences. As a rule of thumb, review each reported quantity that is ± 10% different than the previous year to check and correct errors. For documentation purposes, use the comment box on the Form R report to explain the difference.

• Make sure your TRI calculations are consistent with your other reporting obligations. Your facility’s emissions calculations should be consistent with what your facility has reported in other annual reporting obligations, such as Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) Tier II reporting. If your facility’s TRI release quantities aren’t consistent with your other reports, it is important to use the comment boxes on your Form R reports to provide U.S. EPA with an explanation of any differences. Where possible, import validated information from other reporting. If your facility uses the Combined Air Emissions Reporting System (CAERS) and you would like more information about importing Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) emissions from CAERS to TRI-MEweb, check out our article about the new features in CAERS.

New to TRI for the report covering calendar year 2020 is the inclusion of 172 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to the list of chemicals subject to TRI, as announced in section 7321 of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). PFAS are commonly found in food packaging materials, commercial household products, industries such as chrome plating and electronic manufacturing, and cookware, among others. U.S. EPA is concerned about PFAS because exposures have potential to lead to adverse health effects in humans, and the reporting threshold for each of these PFAS compounds is 100 pounds.  If your facility is not currently conducting analytical testing for PFAS, you do not need to start for TRI purposes. However, your facility should check the SDSs and supplier notifications for chemicals purchased that may contain PFAS. Note that if your supplier notifies you that a chemical you purchase contains PFAS, that notification becomes the best readily available information.  Use the SDS for threshold and release calculations associated with that PFAS.

U.S. EPA has also announced the following TRI updates for 2022 and beyond:

• Ethylene oxide (EtO) reporting requirements will be expanded to cover contract sterilization facilities.
• Natural gas processing facilities will be added to the list of industry sectors subject to TRI.
• At least three additional PFAS compounds will be added to the TRI chemical list.
• The chemicals included in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) workplan, as well as other high-priority TSCA substances, will be proposed as additions to the TRI chemical list.

ALL4 will continue monitoring the changes to TRI reporting requirements and provide updates as proposed changes become final.  If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at kwalburn@all4inc.com or at (678) 599-9011.

U.S. EPA Releases Updated Version (21112) of the AERMOD Modeling System

On May 11, 2021, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) released an updated version of the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) Modeling System.  The update, dated 21112, includes documentation, executables, and source code for the modified components of the modeling system, which includes the regulatory AERMOD and AERMET data processors and the non-regulatory AERSCREEN screening tool.  The updated AERMOD modeling system is the current, preferred near-field dispersion modeling system for regulatory applications, as promulgated in the “Guideline on Air Quality Models” (Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51).

AERMOD is a steady-state plume model that incorporates planetary boundary layer characteristics, terrain, building downwash, and source characterization to calculate pollutant concentrations and deposition.   AERMOD contains default modeling options intended for regulatory analyses, BETA options that have been reviewed by the scientific community and intended for future promulgation, but are currently alternative methodologies, and ALPHA options that are considered research or development options that have not been fully evaluated and are not approved for regulatory purposes.

Version 21112 of AERMOD does not introduce any new regulatory options.  In addition to new error messages and multiple bug fixes, version 21112 of AERMOD introduces new modeling options, primarily for research and development purposes, and associated guidance, including:

• Urban options NOTURB and NOTURBST
• Buoyant line groups
• RLINE and RLINEXT algorithm enhancements and dual-barrier capabilities
• NO to NO₂ conversion options GRSM and TTRM
• Low-wind options SWMIN and BIGT

The AERMOD urban modeling option (URBANOPT) applies algorithms to enhance turbulence during nighttime stable conditions for the urban heat-island effect.  For modeling evaluations that incorporate site-specific turbulence measurements in a locale that is subject to the urban heat-island effect, use of the URBANOPT option serves as a duplication of the turbulence enhancement.  Version 21112 adds new NOTURB and NOTURBST options to ignore site-specific turbulence measurements.

The BUOYLINE source type was introduced in a previous AERMOD version (15181) to characterize emissions typically dispersed from buoyant, low-level, parallel line sources, such as in aluminum reduction facilities.  Version 21112 expands the functionality of the BUOYLINE source type, allowing the user to specify multiple groups of individual buoyant lines.  The introduction of multiple buoyant line groups includes the new BLPGrpID keyword that the user must understand for proper characterization.  Version 21112 also adds flagpole receptor and parallel verification capabilities to the BUOYLINE source type.

The RLINE and RLINEXT source types were introduced as non-regulatory options in the previous AERMOD version (19191) to characterize emissions from roadway sources.  The RLINE source type, currently considered a BETA option, and the RLINEXT source type, currently considered an ALPHA option, have additional capabilities in AERMOD version 21112, and have received modifications to improve processing speed and fatal error generation.  Both source types included horizontal meander and numerical integration algorithms previously, with the RLINEXT source type allowing single-barrier and depressed roadway characterization capabilities.  Version 21112 of AERMOD updates the single-barrier algorithm and adds a two-barrier algorithm to the RLINEXT source type to characterize barriers on both sides of a roadway.

Version 21112 of AERMOD introduces two options that have been added to compute the conversion of nitric oxide (NO) to nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) for POINT, VOLUME, or AREA source types.  The Generic Reaction Set Method (GRSM), which requires the user to provide background NO₂ concentrations, calculates the NO to NO₂ conversion based on equilibrium chemistry between NO and NO₂ and the reaction with ozone, whereas the Travel Time Reaction Method (TTRM) calculates the NO to NO₂ conversion with consideration of travel time from source to receptor.  Both options are non-regulatory ALPHA options and, similar to the established regulatory Tier 3 Ozone Limited Method (OLM) and Plume Volume Molar Ratio Method (PVMRM) conversion options, require the user to specify ozone background values as a single value, temporally-varying values, or as hourly values.

Low-wind modeling options were introduced in a previous AERMOD version (18081) for evaluation of model performance in low wind-speed conditions.  Version 21112 incorporates two new ALPHA options to allow the user to modify parameters that may impact low wind-speed model performance.  The SWMIN option allows the user to override the AERMOD default, minimum sigma-w value of 0.02 meters per second (m/s) to a value between 0.0 m/s and 3.0 m/s.  The BIGT option allows the user to override the AERMOD time-scale default value of 24.0 to a value between 0.5 and 48.0 hours.

A notable bug fix removed the calculation of sigma-v from sigma-theta turbulence data when wind speed data is missing.  The code modification only impacts meteorological data generated with site-specific turbulence measurements.

AERMET processes hourly meteorological surface observations, typically from airports, upper-air National Weather Service (NWS) sounding data, and site-specific meteorological measurements to generate meteorological inputs for the AERMOD dispersion model.  Processed meteorological files provide calculated boundary layer parameters, such as surface friction velocity and mixing heights, and observed wind and temperature data at multiple vertical levels.  Version 21112 of AERMET introduces multiple bug fixes, updates information for several airports, and includes refined reporting that does not impact data output.   The updated AERMET version does include changes that impact results when site-specific meteorological data is included, however, including the calculation of mixing heights only when not provided by site-specific meteorological measurements and heat flux interpolation and missing value checks for determination of convective hours.

AERSCREEN is a screening-level version of AERMOD that calculates pollutant concentrations based on the plume centerline from a single source and a matrix of meteorological conditions.  AERSCREEN generally represents a conservative, worst-case approach for estimating concentrations for several averaging periods.  Version 21112 of AERSCREEN introduces three changes; two of which provide additional output information for users to refine desired model options, and one to align inversion fumigation calculations with those used in the SCREEN3 screening model.

Although the release of AERMOD version 21112 primarily provides bug fixes, code enhancements, and new ALPHA options not intended for regulatory modeling applications, understanding of the modified urban and turbulence guidelines and buoyant line source capabilities facilitates accurate source characterization for modeling evaluations.

Contact Ryan Cleary at rcleary@all4inc.com for more information.

CAERS Update for Georgia: HAP Emissions Reporting

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GEPD) hosted a “HAPs Reporting in CAERS Training” webinar on Tuesday, April 20^th to provide Georgia facilities the opportunity to learn more about reporting hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions in the Combined Air Emissions Reporting System (CAERS).  ALL4 attended the training and is here to fill you in on what you may have missed!

First and foremost, facilities are NOT required to report HAP emissions for calendar year (CY) 2020 annual emissions inventories, with the exception of lead (Pb).  However, reporting of HAP emissions is strongly encouraged for a few reasons:

1. Georgia is currently one of few states that does not require some type of HAP emissions reporting as part of their annual emissions inventory reporting requirements.  GEPD is asking facilities to voluntarily report their HAP emissions data so that they don’t have to make this a mandatory requirement in the near future.
2. By reporting HAP emissions in CAERS, users can take full advantage of the platform’s comprehensive reporting abilities.  When users report HAP emissions in CAERS, the user can not only use CAERS data quality check features from year to year, but can also import the CAERS HAP emissions directly into Sections 5.1 and 5.2 (Fugitive or Non-Point Source Emissions and Stack or Point Source Emissions, respectively) of the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Form R’s via TRI-MEweb.  As a result, users can complete an automated data validation check via CAERS and do not have to double-enter HAP emissions data into both systems, which is one of the main goals of the CAERS platform.
3. Without the presence of accurate and recent HAP emissions data from annual emissions inventories, GEPD must use HAP augmentation software to evaluate the state’s HAP emissions profile.  The HAP augmentation software may not be an accurate representation of your facility’s HAP emissions profile in both type of HAPs and quantity of emissions.  In addition, the facility and/or state’s emissions profile can be used in GEPD’s rulemaking process to determine the emissions limits that need to be established.  Inaccurate data during the rulemaking process may result in overly burdensome emissions standards or work practice standards for facilities.

While reporting of HAPs is a facility-to-facility decision unless otherwise required, it may make sense for facilities to report a subset of their HAP emissions.  One consideration for the subset of reported HAP emissions could be any HAP that is also reported in a facility’s annual TRI Form R’s.  Reporting a subset of emissions would allow Georgia to have accurate emissions profiles for your facility’s significant HAP and also allow users to utilize the expanded reporting capabilities of CAERS.  However, the decision to report HAP should be on a facility-specific case-by-case basis.  ALL4 recommends that each facility have the appropriate conversations prior to reporting any HAP emissions in CAERS.

As for how to report HAP emissions in CAERS, the process is similar to other regulated pollutants within the CAERS platform.  Therefore, adding the HAP emissions data into your annual emissions inventory is a simple process to follow.  Users can open an individual emissions unit process, select to add more reportable pollutants, and then use the search box to select a pollutant using the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number or pollutant name.  Depending on how your facility quantifies emissions of the HAP, you can choose the best calculation method for your facility such as, an emissions factor from AP-42, a site-specific or other trade group emissions factor, site-specific stack test data, or continuous monitoring system data.

If you have any questions about reporting HAP emissions in CAERS (or even any type of emissions reporting within CAERS), please reach out to Stacy Arner at sarner@all4inc.com or Andrew Kelley at akelley@all4inc.com with any questions you may have!  In addition, GEPD will be hosting multiple live, virtual help sessions for reporting in CAERS for anyone that is interested or needs additional assistance.

Meet Jenny Brown

What drew you to consulting as a career?

Honestly as I look back on my career, it probably isn’t as much of what drew me to consulting as what has kept me in consulting. Right out of college the initial draw to consulting was being part of the solution for environmental issues. What has kept me in consulting long-term is having the ability to see and experience a process from start to finish….it’s like being on the Science Channel’s “How It’s Made” show. I get an opportunity to be on-site at a manufacturing facility firsthand seeing a production process. In addition, I get an opportunity to strategize and problem solve for clients while working on their behalf to keep them in compliance.

You’ve been at ALL4 <6 months – what has surprised you the most about the organization?

Hands down, the culture. A lot of organizations tout having a great culture, but ALL4 has delivered. What I experienced during the interview process has held true as an employee. I also feel very aligned with ALL4’s entrepreneurial spirit which has allowed me to utilize my creativity, while feeling supported by my colleagues. In my short tenure with the firm, I’m feeling very empowered by the collaborative environment.

What are your areas of expertise?

My areas of expertise predominantly consist of 1) Air Dispersion Modeling; 2) Capital Project Permitting; and 3) Air Compliance Reporting. Over the course of my career, I’ve had the benefit of utilizing these skillsets on both the consulting and industrial side of the aisle.

What technical and regulatory drivers have your attention right now?

The move toward digital transformation of environmental programs through creation of  tools that standardize and automate environmental regulatory obligations. Currently, I’m creating a tool that supports automating emissions inventory reporting, by validating emissions data and generating emissions data files that can be imported into a State’s reporting system, in lieu of manual data entry and tedious QA. I’m in the final phase of a test pilot and actively getting feedback to ensure that this tool not only meets a regulator’s expectations, but exceeds expectations.

It sounds like this reporting tool has the potential to make quite an impact, are you planning to host any events to educate the community on this new tool?

Yes, we have a blog and I’m throwing my name in the hat internally to co-host an upcoming podcast with Colin McCall. The goal is to roll this tool out and educate the community in order to support 2021 reporting requirements.

Learn more about ALL4 Assert

Know that you’re an adventurer at heart and enjoy hiking…what is your most memorable trip?

Well I’m going to have to dust off the hiking cobwebs because more recently you’ll find me taking a ‘hike’ to pick up my daughter at preschool or an “adventure” is letting the kids skip nap time! On a more serious note, one of the most memorable hiking adventures that my husband and I embarked on was exploring the Grand Canyon. We camped while hiking down into the canyon (and back!) and got to be with nature and see some of the most amazing scenery for a week. When our children are older, we hope to recreate this adventure “Griswold family style”.

Federal OSHA – Robust Enforcement and Regulatory Actions are on the Horizon

On April 9, 2021 President Biden announced his intention to nominate Doug Parker as the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Workplace Safety and Health, which is a leadership role of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).  The position has not been filled since January of 2017 and his appointment will eventually have to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.  Doug Parker has been the Chief of California’s Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) since 2019.  A former U.S. President Obama appointee, he previously served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy in the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA).  In his role at Cal/OSHA he is known for prioritizing workplace safety through aggressive enforcement tactics.  This was demonstrated during his tenure at Cal/OSHA by his implementation of a broad COVID-19 enforcement initiative that most agree has outpaced the Federal Government and other States with regard to setting strict pandemic-related safety rules.

OSHA Enforcement

An overall aggressive enforcement policy is expected from OSHA during this administration.  President Biden indicated prior to his election that his administration intended to “double the number of OSHA investigators to enforce the law and existing standards.”  It would likely take a year or more to get that many new inspectors trained and placed in the field conducting inspections.  However, in the recent COVID relief bill approved by the U.S. Congress approximately $110 million was allocated for Federal OSHA, of which State OSHA Programs will likely get anywhere from $15-20 million (there are 28 states currently under Federal jurisdiction and 22 states have federally-approved OSHA programs).  That allocation leaves a lot of money available for OSHA to hire additional Federal inspectors and establish a much more aggressive enforcement initiative over the next few years.  This change won’t necessarily be a function of new regulatory standards, instead a much more aggressive enforcement of current standards.  It typically takes a new regulation 6-8 years, and sometimes more, to go through the rule development process, be proposed, be promulgated, and become effective.  Previous Cal/OSHA initiatives such as Injury and Illness Prevention Plans and tougher standards for workplace exposure to chemical contaminants could also be on the horizon for the Federal program.

Workplaces will be under increased scrutiny regarding increased inspections and more responsiveness from OSHA to complaints and referrals received by Federal or State OSHA offices.  This will likely be through National Emphasis Programs, Targeted Inspection Programs, Enforcement Memos and Compliance Directives.  Specific industries may be targeted for inspections or impacted by compliance directives likely to be issued over the next few years.

Update on the Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19

On April 26, 2021 the Department of Labor announced that OSHA announced it had sent a draft ETS regarding the COVID-19 pandemic to the Office of Management and Budget for review.  President Biden issued an executive order in January 2021 calling on OSHA to issue an ETS by March 15, 2021.  Although the Department of Labor indicated with the press release that “OSHA has been working diligently on its proposal and has taken the appropriate time to work with its science-agency partners, economic agencies, and others in the U.S. government to get this proposed emergency standard right,”  there could be another reason for the delay: ETS’s are typically harder to defend if challenged in court because OSHA must determine that workers are in “grave danger” due to potential exposures or hazards and as such an emergency standard is needed to protect them. With the delay in the process and with vaccinations increasing and COVID-19 case levels dropping in areas within the U.S., it may be more difficult to defend an ETS against the legal challenges and political opposition expected for the temporary standard.   ETS’s also take effect immediately and are in effect until superseded by a permanent standard.  Permanent standards are much more likely to withstand future legal challenges.  With new OSHA leadership in place this very well could be the beginning of a push for a more permanent Infectious Disease Standard as had been previously proposed under the Obama administration.

Summary

Awareness and preparedness are the keys to a successful workplace health and safety program inspection. This is a good time to start planning an assessment of your workplace health and safety policies with an added focus on OSHA compliance issues specific to your facility.  For more information on how ALL4 can assist you with OSHA compliance, please reach out to Kevin Chaplin at 502-254-0670.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Proposes a Non-rule Standard Permit for Marine Loading Operations

In December of 2020, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) proposed a new non-rule Standard Permit (non-rule SP) for Marine Loading Operations (MLOs).  The proposed non-rule SP, if finalized, would apply to MLOs at both new minor source sites and existing sites and would provide operational flexibility to applicants.

TCEQ currently issues Standard Air Permits for specific operations that are well characterized.  Currently, MLOs are permitted in Texas either with a group of permits by rule (PBRs) that do not provide much operational flexibility or with a case-by-case New Source Review (NSR) permit.  By providing the opportunity to use a standard permit, TCEQ is giving facilities an option with greater flexibility than is afforded under PBRs, with an application process that is more efficient than that of a case-by-case permit.  According to TCEQ’s background summary, the proposed non-rule SP could be “used to authorize stationary facilities, or groups of facilities, at a site that conducts MLO activities.”  The non-rule SP can cover activities related to MLOs such as gaseous or liquid loading and unloading, storage tanks, control equipment, fugitive sources and more as listed in the Authorized Facilities and Activities section of the non-rule SP.  This standard permit cannot be applied to any project that constitutes a new major stationary source, nor can it be applied to authorize MLOs for crude petroleum and natural gas.

Specific marine loading requirements contained in the MLO SP were developed from BACT from marine loading, as well as currently existing case-by-case NSR permits for marine loading.  These requirements include routine inspection of all equipment, minimum distance from operations to the property line, equipment minimum discharge parameters, and continuous hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) monitoring.

Operational requirements in the proposed SP can also be specific to certain processes or equipment.  Loading requirements include using submerged or bottom loading, venting when loading materials with a true vapor pressure greater than or equal to 0.5 absolute pounds per square inch (psia), and keeping an emissions record of calculated emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC).  Equipment, including flares, capture systems, and tanks, have requirements specific to the types of equipment authorized.  For example, flares are required to be equipped with a continuous flow monitor and a composition analyzer.  Further, the proposed SP includes extensive fugitive emissions requirements, such as Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) program requirements.

Having a Standard Permit for your MLOs can be advantageous.  General conditions, tabulated concentration limits, and operational requirements provide compliance options with flexibility.  Further, a standard operating permit can be issued more quickly than a minor NSR permit that would cover many MLOs facilities.  However, despite operational flexibility, a standard permit is not tailored to each applicant, which means it may not be applicable for your site.

If you have any questions concerning the proposed MLOs non-rule SP or would like help analyzing whether this option would be the best way to permit your new MLOs, please contact us.

Meet Claire Corta

Claire Corta // Raleigh Office Director // Raleigh, NC Office

As someone growing an office, what technical skillsets are you looking for in potential candidates?

We have had success with Chemical Engineering and Environmental Engineering students in taking what they have learned in school and being able to apply it in the consulting world. With ALL4’s Raleigh office being in close proximity (<20-min) to NC State we will be looking to source Staff Engineer and Staff Scientist candidates from NC State’s engineering and science programs. Whether it be in person or virtual, ALL4 will be attending career fairs to vet candidates from the December’21 graduating class for roles starting in January 2022.

Give an example of something that best represents ALL4’s culture.

Two things come to mind, the people and the opportunities for growth. Since joining ALL4 two years ago, I’ve felt embraced and supported having several mentors who have invested and supported me in reaching my goal to serve in a leadership role. These individuals have been instrumental in my development both personally and professionally. What has differentiated ALL4 from other firms is the structure around the coaching, mentoring, and feedback programs which not only build alignment and trust amongst colleagues, but also accelerate growth. The people are ALL4’s number one asset and this has been demonstrated to me personally through the intentional care and focus others have and still put into shaping my career. I am excited to have the opportunity to invest in other’s career growth as well, both within and outside of the Raleigh Office.

You referenced ALL4’s coaching program in your previous response, how have you benefitted from participating in the coaching program?

In making the transition to the Raleigh Office Director role, ALL4’s coaching program provided me support which allowed me to gain the confidence and direction that I needed to shape my leadership style and voice internal and external to the organization. Personal growth does not stop at ALL4 once you achieve a goal or transition to a desired role. I continue to seek improvement in myself as a leader and a consultant while having support from others in the organization.

If you had to self-identify a professional ‘superpower’, what would it be?

It would be my ability to respond to the fluid consulting environment in being flexible and building teams to be responsive to client needs. This flexibility promotes cross-office collaboration that is necessary in selecting team members with the needed technical skillset and availability. It also enables me internally at ALL4 to show up with an energetic leadership style which keep teams motivated and informed as things change.

How do you keep your region informed on upcoming technical requirements and updates which can impact their business?

We have been keeping our region informed with our quarterly ‘Carolinas Regulatory Updates’ newsletter. Our first quarter newsletter highlighted South Carolina Title V Permit Streamlining; tracking the development of Environmental Justice policies and regulations at both the federal and state levels; and the launch of ALL4 ASSERT. The newsletter also highlights relevant federal updates, upcoming live expert sessions, podcasts, and webinars. We are currently finalizing our second quarter newsletter so be on the lookout for more exciting technical content in June!

What are we most likely to find you doing when you’re not working?

You can find me in a few places…on the soccer field, the golf course, or generally outdoors. I played soccer in grade school and have continued to play in an adult league with my husband. I just recently took up golf and have really enjoyed playing the game with my family. I love hiking, waterfalls, and the outdoors which was sparked from joining my father’s photography adventures when I was growing up and which I still sometimes do as an adult. But keep me away from all things crafts-related…my friends limit me to very simple tasks when preparing hand-made decorations for baby showers and other events.

Changes to the New Hampshire Air Toxics Rule: What Could It Mean for You?

INTRODUCTION

The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) is proposing revisions to Chapter Env-A 1400 (Regulated Toxic Air Pollutants) of the New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules (Env-A 1400).  According to Env-A 1400, facilities using substances containing Regulated Toxic Air Pollutants (RTAP) must demonstrate compliance with Env-A 1400.  This means Env-A 1400 could apply to your facility even if it is not regulated by an air emissions permit from NHDES.

Env-A 1400 is most commonly applicable to manufacturing facilities which use products within their manufacturing process that contain RTAP.  Other examples include facilities burning a non-exempt fuel (e.g., landfill gas, resinated wood products) for heat and/or power, or facilities producing a renewable fuel (e.g., dried wood chips or wood pellets).

NHDES proposed changes to Env-a 1400 on August 8, 2020 and conducted an informational webinar on September 8, 2020 to present those changes to the public.  A public hearing is tentatively scheduled for May 2021 after formal rulemaking has been initiated.  The updated rule is expected to be finalized in Summer 2021.  More information about the rule can be found here: https://www.des.nh.gov/air.

OVERVIEW OF RULE CHANGES

The intent of the changes is to clarify aspects of the rule to make it easier to understand.  As a result, many sections have been reorganized and renumbered, with some new terminology defined and some existing terminology redefined or clarified.  A few noteworthy changes are as follows:

• 18 RTAP compounds were added, 20 RTAP compounds were removed.
• Aspects of 140 RTAP compounds were modified (e.g., compound description, de minimis threshold, ambient air limit (AAL), toxicity class). One notable RTAP change is proposed increases to the de minimis and AAL for formaldehyde, which were initially lowered, but then increased based upon information introduced through public comment.
• Respirable particulate matter (PM) was defined as PM having an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 100 micrometers (µm).
• The definition of the compliance boundary (what is used for evaluating compliance with an AAL using air quality dispersion modeling) was changed to clarify where compliance must be demonstrated with air quality dispersion modeling. In particular, the revised rule clarifies the compliance boundary for leased properties and includes a provision for proposing an alternate compliance boundary other than the boundary in which an emissions source is located.
• 90 days is the standard timeframe for demonstrating compliance after changes to a facility or the rule are implemented. If compliance cannot be achieved within the standard 90-day timeframe, there is a provision for a submitting a compliance plan for bringing a facility into compliance within three years.

WHAT SHOULD I DO?

There is no better time than the present to start planning!  Here are a few things you can do:

• Determine if Env-A 1400 applies to your facility. If your facility is not exempt, start the process of evaluating how you will demonstrate compliance.
• If Env-A 1400 applies to your facility, review the proposed changes and determine what must be done to comply with the rule, which could include expanding your RTAP emissions inventory, initiating a product substitution, installing an emissions control device, requesting an alternative compliance boundary, and performing air quality dispersion modeling.
• Determine if Env-A 1400 will require an air emissions permit. Remember, compliance must be evaluated and demonstrated (e.g., with supporting documentation kept on-site) even if an air emissions permit is not required.
• Set a compliance target date. According to Env-A 1406.02, compliance with the rule must be demonstrated 90 days of the rule change being finalized.  Note there are provisions in the proposed rule allowing facilities to propose a compliance plan describing how compliance will be achieved within three years of the date of the rule change.

If you have questions about Env-A 1400 changes, please don’t hesitate to reach out to David Ross at dross@all4inc.com (610-933-5246, x103) and jhinckley@all4inc.com (802-359-7295).