State-Specific Considerations for SPCC Plans in Maryland

Update: As of June 13, 2022, COMAR 26.10 has been updated with additional requirements applicable to ASTs. Please see What to Know About Maryland’s New Storage Tank Regulations for more information.

This blog is part of a series that will cover key state-specific requirements for petroleum containing aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) with respect to Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) compliance with 40 CFR Part 112.7(j). 

In this edition, I will walk through key requirements in Maryland (MD).

The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) has implemented oil pollution and tank management regulations at Code of Maryland (COMAR) 26.10.  The bulk of COMAR 26.10 only applies to underground storage tanks (USTs); however, there are regulations pertaining to aboveground oil storage found at COMAR 26.10.01.

General Requirements

Under COMAR 26.10.01.01, oil, petroleum products, and their by-products are regulated (Notably, edible oils are not regulated under COMAR 26.10).  MDE has a few general requirements that apply to all regulated containers, regardless of the aggregate aboveground oil storage capacity of the facility:

• Tanks from which an overfill of oil is high-risk (i.e., tanks located in close proximity to water and tanks 10,000 gallons or greater) must be equipped with a high liquid level gauge, alarm system, or pump cut-off device. This is more restrictive than the SPCC requirements for overfill protection.
• Sites with a regulated storage capacity of 10,000 gallons or more, or sites with a capacity under 10,000 gallons at MDE’s discretion, must be surrounded by a dike or wall capable of holding the total volume of the largest container within the area enclosed by the dike or wall. This secondary containment must have a permeability of 10^-4 cm/s or less, which is typical of clays and liners.
• Prior to filling a container, measure and record in writing the liquid level of oil and have these records available for MDE inspection for at least 30 days. Again, this requirement is more restrictive than 40 CFR §112.
• MDE must be notified of a discharge or spill within 2 hours of detection of the spill. The person responsible for the spill must remain at the scene of the spill until an official provides clearance to leave the scene.

When are Additional Requirements Triggered?

If your facility has 10,000 gallons or more of aboveground storage, handles used oils and has an aboveground storage capacity of 1,000 gallons or more, or delivers or transports oil, you must obtain an oil operations permit from MDE.  An application to obtain an oil operations permit must be submitted at least 60 days before the facility’s intended operation date of the equipment.

A key point to consider is that MDE will typically conduct a site visit to the facility after the oil operations permit application has been submitted.  Based on the configuration of oil-containing equipment at the facility, MDE may incorporate special (i.e., site-specific) conditions into your oil operations permit that can include more stringent requirements than what SPCC regulations or COMAR 26.10.01 otherwise state.  Examples of special conditions that can be found in oil operations permits include completing:

• Routine testing of automatic tank gauges, interstitial monitoring sensors, and underground piping.

• Additional visual inspections beyond SPCC requirements.

• Modifications to tank appurtenances (e.g., this could include replacement or addition of  vents, valves, piping, gauges, and sensors).

Once issued, oil operations permits are valid for five years.  MDE requires that an oil operations permit be renewed at least 60 days prior to expiration.  An oil operations permit must be amended when there is a change to regulated aboveground oil storage at the facility.  If a facility undergoes a change in ownership, the new owner and MDE must be notified by the current permittee of the existence of the permit and any outstanding violations at least 30 days prior to the change.  The new owner is also responsible for submitting a notification to MDE accepting the terms and conditions of the permit within 30 days of the change in ownership.

Stay tuned for upcoming articles that will continue to cover additional AST requirements in other states.  If you have questions on AST compliance in Maryland or another state, please feel free to reach out to me at sbharucha@all4inc.com or 571-392-2592 x505 or Mark Robinson at mrobinson@all4inc.com or 470-893-2880.

Clean Water Act – NPDES Compliance and Enforcement- What is U.S. EPA’s Focus?

The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a Report Clean Water Act – EPA Needs to Better Assess and Disclose Quality of Compliance and Enforcement Data in July 2021.  The GAO found that since 2015, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has modified its national initiative emphasizing compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA).   The goal of the modified initiative is to reduce significant noncompliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits by half by the end of fiscal year 2022. The GAO reviewed U.S. EPA’s enforcement of the CWA related to (1) changes since 2015 in U.S. EPA’s national initiatives for ensuring compliance with the act, (2) changes in NPDES compliance and enforcement activities since 2015, and (3) the extent to which U.S EPA is measuring progress toward compliance with the NPDES program[1].

The GAO recommends that the Assistant Administrator of U.S. EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance implement the following:

• Revise its guidance to select files for its State Review Framework assessments of state-reported data to incorporate statistically valid probability sampling.
• Ensure that consolidated, complete, and updated information on all data limitations is disclosed on the State Water Dashboard.
• Develop a plan to determine the overall accuracy and completeness of the permit limit and discharge monitoring report data recorded in its national database.
• Develop a performance measure to track the reduction in pollutant discharges resulting from enforcement actions for facilities in significant noncompliance and disclose any limitations.

GAO’s Fast Facts for this report states:

“The EPA uses National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to regulate wastewater discharges. However, nearly 11,000 facilities significantly exceeded their permit limits and illegally discharged pollutants into nearby waters in 2018. EPA has a goal to reduce by half significant noncompliance with individual NPDES permits by the end of FY 2022. But the data that states and facilities report to EPA to help track compliance is incomplete and has errors. We recommended (among other things) assessing the quality of the NPDES data that states and facilities are reporting so EPA can be sure it’s making progress toward its goal.”

What does this mean for facilities with NPDES permits?

This may seem like meaningless paperwork and accounting, but it can also affect your compliance status and bottom line.   Part of the concern from GAO is that the databases and data collected from individual states are incomplete or have significant errors, and as such, the GAO is asking for quality assurance reviews of the information in the system. U.S EPA will be asking state agencies to not only report more reliable data, but also provide it in a timely manner.

One Important data set includes your discharge monitoring data, reported on Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) and uploaded to a central database.  As a facility, be proactive and review your DMRs carefully.  Make sure the permit limits, outfalls, and other pertinent information is accurate and complete.  If it isn’t, reach out to your State agency to have that updated.  Also make sure data entered by your facility representatives are complete and accurate.  Watch for units of measurement to make sure you don’t enter an erroneous data point.  Errors, regardless of origin, will be your noncompliance liability and possibly result in enforcement.

A second concern from GAO is that the significant noncompliance issues identified at facilities during inspections and record reviews are not being fully, accurately, timely and consistently reported to U.S. EPA.  The reporting of significant noncompliance differs based on an individual state’s interpretation of what it considers reportable.  U.S. EPA has conducted federally led compliance audits to ascertain if an individual state is finding and recording significant noncompliance issues.  Keeping in mind an inspection from your state agency with no significant noncompliance may not be the same outcome if U.S. EPA regional inspectors are conducting the inspection, so be proactive.    Pull out your NPDES individual or general permit and review it.  Think about more frequent or more comprehensive inspections.

Here are a few items to keep in mind for compliance:

• Are you sampling at correct frequencies?
• Do you have the required Stormwater Pollution Prevent Plan (SWPPP) or Best Management Practices (BMP) and are they up to date?
• Are you using the correct EPA methodology to analyze for your listed parameters?
• Does your lab meet the correct detection limits?
• If you are showing exceedances, what corrective action are you taking and is it fully documented?
• What equipment or technology should be upgraded or replaced? Are you planning for capital expenditures?

Be ready for more frequent and in-depth visits from your state agency or U.S. EPA and reduce the risk of significant noncompliance issues at your facility.   ALL4 provides water quality compliance services with experienced professionals.  If you have specific wastewater needs, contact one of our water practitioners, Paul Hagerty, Meghan Skemp, William Shane, Bruce Armbruster or Lizzie Smith.

[1] https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-290

Pennsylvania RACT III Update: Draft Rule Published, Comment Period Is Now Open

On August 7, 2021, the draft rule affectionately known as “RACT III” [25 Pa. Code §§ 129.111-129.115, Additional RACT Requirements for Major Sources of NO_X and VOCs for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS] was published in the Pennsylvania bulletin.  This marks the beginning of a 60-day public comment period.  Comments must be submitted on or before October 12, 2021.  The proposed RACT III rule can be viewed, and comments can be submitted through the Pennsylvania eComment website.

For context, Pennsylvania is located in the Northeast Ozone Transport Region (OTR) and Pennsylvania, in its entirety, is managed as a moderate non-attainment area with regards to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone.  Section 182 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.A. §7511a) requires that, for areas that exceed the NAAQS for ozone, states shall develop and administer a program that mandates that certain major stationary sources implement reasonably available control technology (RACT).  The proposed RACT III rule is in response to the October 26, 2015 revisions to the ozone NAAQS.  A re-evaluation of RACT for affected sources must be fulfilled each time the U.S. EPA revises a NAAQS.

So, now what?  First, it is crucial that you get started on your RACT III applicability determination now.  Although the proposed RACT III rule looks very much like the 2016 RACT II rule, looks can be deceiving.  There are several new presumptive requirements and revised (i.e., more stringent) presumptive requirements that may affect your facility and potentially change how compliance is demonstrated.  For existing RACT affected facilities, there is a chance that your RACT II emissions limitations will not change.  However, unlike RACT II, affected facilities (new and existing) will be required to assess RACT III applicability and submit a notification to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP).  One additional key change is that NO_X and VOC sources that were newly installed between July 12, 2012 and August 3, 2018 will now be “RACT affected.”  Below I’ve laid out the main changes that PADEP has proposed to RACT III as compared to RACT II.

Notification Requirements

All major sources of NO_X and/or VOC in Pennsylvania will need to make at least one submission to PADEP, even if the requirements for your facility have not changed from RACT II – an initial notification of RACT III applicability will be due six months after the rule’s promulgation.  The notification will essentially be an applicability determination, identifying your exempt sources (and bases), affected sources, and your intended methods of compliance.

New and Revised Presumptive RACT Requirements

Several presumptive RACT limits are more stringent than the limits imposed by RACT II, including:

• Municipal solid waste combustors
• Certain types of combustion turbines
• Lean burn and rich burn stationary internal combustion engines
• Portland cement kilns

In addition, RACT III adds new presumptive requirements for several source categories that were not included in RACT II:

• Natural gas compression and transmission facility fugitive VOC air contamination sources
• Electric arc furnaces
• Propane-fired combustion units and process heaters
• Glass melting furnaces
• Lime kilns
• Direct-fired heaters, furnaces, or ovens

New Affected Sources

New sources that were installed after the RACT II applicability date in July 2012 and prior to the RACT III applicability date in August 2018 will now be “RACT affected.”  This means that these sources would not have been evaluated previously for RACT and must be evaluated for the first time under RACT III.  Even if the source meets more stringent Best Available Technology (BAT) than the corresponding presumptive RACT requirement, the source must at the very least be identified for the RACT III Notification.  Anything installed post-August 2018 would be a new source exempt from RACT III, and also likely meets more stringent BAT.

Changes to CEMS Averaging Periods

If you’re using a NO_X continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) to comply with RACT II for a combustion unit (boiler) or process heater, this is a big one.  PADEP is proposing to change the averaging period for CEMS data from a 30-operating day average to a daily average.  If you have a source that will be subject to this new daily average, there are still questions on how this new average will be required to be calculated and validated since it is not addressed in the current version of the rule.  Now is the time to evaluate your historic CEMS data, determine if there are any foreseen issues with demonstrating compliance based on how the daily average is defined, and then submit comments if appropriate.  Refer to our previous blog post on this topic for more details on what this could mean for you.

Important Dates

Mark these on your calendar!

• August 7, 2021 – DRAFT RACT III Rule published in the PA Bulletin
• October 12, 2021 – The 60-day public comment period for the draft rule closes
• 4Q2021 – PADEP hopes to address public comments and finalize the rule by the end of the year
• 2Q-3Q 2022 – The due date for all submissions (initial applicability notification, NO_X averaging plans, stack test waiver requests, alternative RACT proposals, and alternative compliance schedule requests) will be due six months from final rule promulgation (start your applicability analyses now!)
• January 1, 2023 – The final compliance date of the rule, as dictated by U.S. EPA

Affected facilities will be facing a similar time crunch with RACT III as experienced with RACT II.  PADEP has provided only six months for all submissions to be in, leaving PADEP only about 3-6 months to review, approve, and update permits before the January 1, 2023 compliance date.  The RACT III rule, as proposed, is not likely to change substantially from the proposed version.  Based on our experience during the implementation of RACT II in 2016, it would be prudent for affected facilities to begin the RACT III planning process now.

Here’s where ALL4 can step in and help you!  Give us a call or drop me an email to discuss the specifics on how this rule will impact your facility.

RACT III Resources

What’s New with New Source Review?

During the previous administration, we saw quite a bit of work by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) around New Source Review (NSR).  As a reminder, the NSR permit program includes the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and the nonattainment new source review (NNSR) regulations.  PSD applies to new major sources and to major modifications at existing major stationary sources located in attainment or unclassifiable areas with regard to the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).  NNSR applies to new major sources and to major modifications at existing major stationary sources located in areas classified as non-attainment with the NAAQS.

There were several actions involving both guidance and the regulations that were initiated under the previous administration that are viewed as beneficial to the regulated community.  However, President Biden signed Executive Order 13990 on January 20, 2021, and directed agencies to review those actions, including regulations, policies, and guidance documents.  With this order, many wondered if the work that had done over the previous four years would be swept away, in particular the December 2017 Projected Actual Emissions memo and the Project Emissions Accounting (PEA) rulemaking.

So – what has happened so far?  The primary rollback that we’ve seen is the recission of the October 2020 guidance rulemaking and removal of the online portal.  The guidance rule defined what constituted guidance, stated that it was non-binding, and established procedures to publish and rescind guidance documents that included a public comment period.  The guidance portal also contained the draft “Begin Actual Construction” guidance that U.S. EPA signed in March 2020 but has not yet finalized.  The guidance would have allowed certain construction activities (those generally not related to the emitting equipment such as constructing a building) prior to the receipt of an air quality construction permit.  The Begin Actual Construction guidance has since been removed from the main U.S. EPA NSR website and may not be finalized if the current U.S. EPA leadership does not support it (note that we are still waiting on a permanent Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation).  U.S. EPA also issued a memo revising a January 19, 2021 letter regarding their views on Chevron’s outer continental shelf decommissioning activities.  No other new or revised memos or policies have been posted on the NSR Policy and Guidance Database this year.  U.S. EPA has also received a petition to reconsider its 2019 Ambient Air Guidance but may not grant it.

With respect to the PEA rulemaking, U.S. EPA received several petitions for review and reconsideration, but no action has been taken to date and the PEA rule was not on the Spring 2021 Regulatory Agenda.  The two NSR-related items that did appear on that agenda are the reconsideration of the fugitive emissions rule and the final Error Corrections Rule.  The 2008 reconsideration of the NSR reform rules treatment of fugitive emissions has been stayed since 2010.  U.S. EPA will take another look at that action to determine if additional rulemaking is required.

The one new NSR regulatory action this year was the promulgation of the Error Corrections Rule, which was signed by both the current and the previous administrator and was published in the Federal Register on July 19, 2021.  The main intent of the NSR Error Corrections Rule was to remove several provisions that were vacated by court decisions, primarily the equipment replacement provisions that were originally meant to provide some clarity on what types of equipment replacements qualified for the routine maintenance, repair, and replacement (RMRR) exclusion.  The rulemaking also clarifies that NSR does not apply to air toxics; the final rule dropped several proposed cross references to Part 63 but added the restriction that Best Available Control Technology (BACT) cannot allow emissions in excess of Part 63 standards.  In addition, EPA corrected several minor reference and grammar errors.  Some industry groups commented that EPA should clarify that although they have removed outdated provisions from the rule, the previous requirements remain valid for permits or projects in earlier time frames.  The following statement was added to the preamble in response to that comment: “If anyone seeks to understand the basis of older NSR permitting decisions, they can consult the version of the Code of Federal Regulations that applied at the time of those decisions.”  A table showing all of the rule changes is on the EPA website.  The final rule was effective on August 18, 2021.

Another upcoming regulatory action that has the potential to affect your next air permitting project is the reconsideration of the PM_2.5 NAAQS, as we described in a recent blog.  The current annual standard of 12 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m³) could be lowered, making it more difficult to conduct a successful air dispersion modeling demonstration for your facility.

What should you do now?  Consider advancing the air permitting timeline for projects that you are currently considering that take advantage of the recent policy and regulatory changes like the ambient air definition, projected actual emissions policy, and PEA, and while the NAAQS remain at current levels.  ALL4 is tracking regulatory developments related to air permitting and NSR and can help you develop a strategy to get your big projects permitted.  If you have recently downsized your facility or made other changes that have significantly reduced emissions, you may also want to consider reclassifying your facility to reduce the regulatory burden.  ALL4 can help you evaluate the pros and cons of becoming a synthetic minor source under NSR or a synthetic area source for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). ALL4 will also keep you informed on the latest air regulatory and policy developments as they happen so you can consider how your facility may be impacted. Contact Amy Marshall at 984-777-3073 for more information or to discuss strategy.

EPA’s Power Plants and Neighboring Communities Tool – It’s Not Just for Power Plants

On July 29^th, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) held a webinar to introduce their Power Plants and Neighboring Communities web resource. The tool is built off the demographic and environmental information available in U.S. EPA’s EJSCREEN Environmental Justice (EJ) Screening and Mapping tool but focuses on power plants (including sites with combined heat and power [CHP] systems) and nearby communities across the United States.  The webpage includes a comprehensive grouping of interactive maps, graphs, and supporting materials. The tool combines the information from EJSCREEN with emissions data from the Clean Air Markets database, health risk data from the Center for Disease Control (CDC)’s National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network, and U.S. EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) data. U.S. EPA states that the tool “advances the Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to environmental justice by empowering the public and policymakers with information and tools to better understand the disproportionate impacts of air pollution in overburdened communities.”

What Facilities Are Included? How Are They Evaluated?

The tool identifies 3,477 sites that U.S. EPA has termed “power plants” across the country. The definition of power plant for the purposes of the tool is any site with a coal, oil, natural gas, or biomass-fired combustion unit that could provide 1 megawatt (MW) to the grid. Because of this definition, many of the facilities included in the tool are not what one would generally think of as a power plant at all, as it includes CHP units at hospitals, universities, pulp and paper mills, and other industrial facilities. There are even some data centers on the list! In short, if you can provide 1 MW of power to the grid, you are on the list.

Every facility on the list is evaluated based on the demographics of the communities within a 3 mile radius of the facility and is assigned a Demographic Index that is based exclusively on the local demographics of the surrounding area, not on the magnitude or nature of environmental releases from the particular facility. Those facilities that score in the 80^th percentile or greater are highlighted as ones that impose excess environmental burden on those neighborhoods, simply due to their location. Facilities that score over 80% are highlighted in yellow or red on the national map. The items that make up the Demographic Index are:

1. Low-income population
2. People of color
3. Population with less than high school education
4. Linguistically isolated population
5. Population under age 5
6. Population over age 64

What Kind of Data are Available?

The tool allows many different options for the user to drill down and find the plants that are characterized as having the greatest impact on overburdened communities. The user can search by state, emissions by criteria pollutant, nameplate capacity, any of the demographics listed above, and other criteria. Clicking on a specific plant provides detailed information about the plant’s emissions, the demographics of the communities around the plant, and the health risk levels in the county the plant is in. The data can be sliced and diced in many ways and plotted on graphs and charts or used to generate lists of plants that appear to cause a heavy burden on nearby EJ communities.

Should You be Concerned?

Yes – If your facility is listed in the tool and is identified with a Demographic Index over the 80^th percentile, this website shows your facility as a red dot on a map and provides your facility’s emissions data, compliance history, capacity, and utilization, along with health risk data for the county where the facility is located. Even if you are not in the business of generating power and none of the sites you own are in this tool, we can easily envision future versions of the tool focused on the chemical industry, oil and gas, and other types of manufacturing.  The tool is focusing attention on sites that burn fuel for power, even if they are in full compliance with environmental regulations.

What’s next, and what can you do?

The Power Plant and Neighboring Communities Tool has demographic, environmental, and health risk data in one central location, supplemented by graphs, lists, and figures that implicate those plants that may be in compliance with all of their environmental requirements but could have an environmental impact on the communities near them. U.S. EPA has said that they will be providing tutorial videos and additional graphics tools to make using and summarizing the data even easier. It is also expected that additional versions of the tool focused on other sectors are not far off. Companies with power generating facilities should review the tool to understand their Demographic Index and:

• Keep tabs on EJ regulatory and policy developments on the state and federal level. Know how your state or local agency is considering EJ in permitting. Be prepared to comment on proposed policies and rules when the opportunity arises.
• Talk to your local regulatory agency about any upticks in comments on permit renewals or construction permit applications. Are there common themes in those comments?  As an applicant, can information be presented such that public comments are anticipated and addressed ahead of time?
• Know your facility’s EJ footprint: Are your plants close to communities that are categorized by the Administration as overburdened? Do they trip the 80% Demographic Index threshold? What is your company’s relationship with adjacent communities?
• Plan to factor in time for enhanced outreach and potential permitting delays during expansion projects at facilities near EJ communities.
• Public awareness and engagement are at an all-time high. Stay ahead of the curve by improving your confidence in your emissions inventory and engaging with your community.
• Keep accurate records of emissions for “hot topic” pollutants such as PM₅, toxics, and PFAS.

ALL4 has been watching the developing rules and regulations around EJ carefully and has contacted all 50 state agencies to better understand the EJ programs in place and under development. We also have experience with both the EJSCREEN tool and the new Power Plant and Neighboring Community tools and can help you identify which of your plants might be subject to EJ policy requirements and develop a strategy to engage and educate the local community.

If you have concerns about the potential implications of EJ Tools, Policies, or Regulations and you’d like to discuss them, feel free to contact your ALL4 Project Manager or Rich Hamel. We’d be happy to share what we’ve learned so far and assist you in any way we can. We can also help you evaluate the potential for future EJ concerns or requirements for each of your facilities and develop a strategy to proactively address those concerns or requirements by performing local monitoring, air dispersion modeling, and public outreach. We’re here to help!

Kentucky’s New Legislation- Modifying Water Discharge KPDES Permits Allowing for Rapid and Complete Mixing

On March 24, 2021, Kentucky House Bill (HB) 386 was enacted into law. The purpose of the legislation was to amend Kentucky’s regulations on water quality standards to recognize the effect of rapid and complete mixing (RCM) on industrial discharges and clarify the reinstatement of mixing zones for bioaccumulative chemicals of concern (BCC) that existed prior to September 8, 2004.  This legislation provides another tool for compliance with water quality standards for facilities using a submerged high-rate multi-port diffuser at the point of discharge into the receiving stream.

Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(ii) (incorporated by reference at 401 Kentucky Administrative Regulation (KAR) 5:065 Section 1(4)) allow permitting authorities, when determining reasonable potential (for a pollutant to be present above the water quality standard) , to account for “dilution of the effluent in the receiving water”. RCM and mixing zones are two distinct tools a permitting authority can use to consider dilution of the receiving water and where water quality criteria are met. RCM is applied in situations where complete mixing occurs, whereas mixing zones are applied in situations where incomplete mixing occurs. Therefore, RCM and mixing zones are independent of each other, but both can be used to determine the appropriate water quality-based effluent limitations.

The codification of HB 386 serves to provide Kentucky dischargers who invest in certain technologies with an additional tool for meeting water quality criteria without any need for additional rulemaking from the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet (EEC). Instead, dischargers who have installed submerged high-rate multi-port diffusers or outfall structures and want to benefit from this provision request EEC to modify their Kentucky Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (KPDES) permit limits and conditions to reflect the effect of RCM when they apply for a permit or have their permit renewed or modified. Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW) is currently reviewing the options for evaluating RCM.

The RCM provisions in Section 2 of HB 386 serve to define RCM and to require that EEC recognize and apply the effects of RCM when establishing the discharge limits and conditions for Kentucky Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (KPDES) discharges whenever the discharge occurs through a submerged high-rate multi-port diffuser or outfall structure.  The legislation recognizes that when discharges occur through a submerged high-rate multi-port diffuser or outfall structure, the resulting effluent is mixed so rapidly and completely upon discharge that water quality criteria are met almost immediately in the limited area surrounding or downstream from the point of discharge.

Because the point of compliance set in permits is end-of-pipe, the effluent limits in permits that use this technology should reflect this effect that occurs immediately after leaving the pipe. HB 386 recognizes this need by mandating that EEC consider the effect of RCM when setting permit limits (i.e., in issuing, renewing or modifying KPDES permits).

RCM is a distinct concept from a mixing zone.  401 KAR 10:001 Section 1(49) state that a mixing zone is an area where the “discharge is in transit and progressively diluted from the source to the receiving system”. Therefore, a mixing zone allows water quality criteria to be exceeded within a larger zone authorized by EEC.

KDOW is currently reviewing permits with diffusers to determine their next course of action based on the new act.  The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Region 4 will also be reviewing KPDES permits with changes based on the new act during the public comment period.

ALL4 will continue to track HB 386 and its impact on KPDES dischargers.  ALL4 will be co-presenting on this topic at the Kentucky Chamber 24th Annual Kentucky Environmental Permitting & Reporting Conference. If you have any questions, please contact Karen Thompson (kthompson@all4inc.com) at 859-281-1664 or William Shane (wshane@all4inc.com) at 859-223-0123.

Ambient Monitoring Networks and Environmental Justice

In May 2021 the Air & Waste Management Association (A&WMA) virtually presented the Air Quality Measurements Conference.  Amongst the many discussions around the advancements in measurements of air quality, the most common themes revolved around the advancement of citizen-science air quality monitoring and environmental justice monitoring efforts.  Below is a summary of how these advancements would impact your Facility, and how ALL4 can support.

Advancements in technology/low cost instrumentation

The scientific community is creating measurement instruments for pollutants we didn’t have the capability to realize even a few decades ago (example: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)).  As measurement capabilities become enhanced, as does the availability of affordable monitoring instrumentation.  Citizen-science air quality monitors – monitors that are priced to purchase by the general public and are widely available with little direction required for setup, use, and data collection – are starting to become a household item and it is projected to continue moving that way.

Citizen-science monitor networks (e.g., PurpleAir)

Networks utilizing citizen-science monitoring equipment are starting to become more and more prevalent (for example, PurpleAir Particulate Matter monitors. Monitoring networks allow for air quality to be evaluated on a smaller resolution and can help pinpoint local impacts or lead to further studies.  As a result of the citizen-science monitoring networks, a tremendous amount of data is being collected.  The public could be evaluating the impacts of your Facility with the data collected and may not be the best suited to understand and interpret the results of monitoring.  Due to the public access of most citizen-science monitoring networks, ALL4 is equipped to evaluate and interpret any data that is collected.

Drivers for monitoring networks

California enacted a statewide program (Assembly Bill 617) in 2017 to reduce air pollution in communities that are disproportionately impacted by air pollution.  The program relies on community partnerships for monitoring air quality.  The objectives of Assembly Bill 617 include: better understanding of emissions sources, establishing a baseline of air pollutants, support development and implementation of emissions reductions strategies, and making the air pollution data accessible to the public.  The community partnerships with the program established in Assembly Bill 617 could pave the way for environmental justice monitoring efforts in the future for California and be a model for the rest of the nation.

Funding monitoring networks

Funding is out there for people and organizations to set up networks of air quality monitors.  Presentations at the Measurements Conference showed multiple examples of non-profit companies forming partnerships with local organizations, agencies, and consultants to establish monitoring of air quality to promote environmental and social well-being along with environmental justice.  The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) issued a $200,000 grant opportunity on July 20, 2021 for all municipalities of Massachusetts to receive PurpleAir sensors at no cost to the communities to measure fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) in an effort to direct monitoring to benefit environmental justice communities and to address environmental inequities.

Are monitoring networks compliant with federal reference methods?

Community led monitoring networks that use lower cost monitors do not meet Federal Reference Method (FRM) standards and therefore cannot be relied upon for compliance type-analyses.  FRM monitors are required for determining attainment status and evaluating potential health impacts.  Community organized low cost monitoring networks are routinely relying on FRM monitors to be located within the monitoring grid to quality assure the low cost monitor data and apply correction factors for any data trends analyzed.  Monitoring networks can be used in conjunction with local air quality modeling to support air quality forecasting efforts and for predicting pollutant concentrations in the monitoring network region or could be used as indicators for where FRM monitoring may need to occur.

How may this impact your facility/How can ALL4 help?

Two California examples of low-cost monitoring networks were presented at the A&WMA Measurements conference (both being a community driven effort, one in southern California, the other in San Francisco).  If it’s happening in California, it’s likely on the way to the rest of the US soon!  In fact, on July 27, 2021, Massachusetts Senator Edward J. Markey, Chair of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clear Air, Climate, and Nuclear Safety, introduced the Environmental Justice Air Quality Monitoring Act that would direct EPA to provide $100 million in annual funding in order to deploy hyperlocal air quality monitoring systems across environmental justice communities starting in 2022.  This will be a catalyst for expediting these programs across the country.  Organizations and communities could be planning and deploying these monitoring networks near your Facility.

ALL4 has experience using the low-cost monitors and can assist facilities with exploratory monitoring efforts in cases where community monitoring is taking place near a facility.  ALL4 has conducting FRM and co-located citizen science monitoring for sites that had small community monitoring networks set up around facilities to compare the representativeness of community monitors and background concentrations to site specific FRM data.

If you are at a facility that requires or is looking to confirm background pollutant concentrations using a monitoring network and/or FRM technologies for any project, you will need to be aware of how to properly site and locate air quality monitors.  There are many complexities to planning, conducting monitoring, and summarizing monitoring results and ALL4 is here to help.  We here at ALL4 can help you determine how monitoring can assist or is required for your project.  If you have any questions regarding air quality monitoring please contact Dustin Snare at 610-933-5246×126 or dsnare@all4inc.com.