click to call click to email

OSHA Hearing Conservation Program: How Noisy is too Noisy?

What are the Standards?

The United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates noise under Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the General Duty Clause. This section is used to address hazards for which there are no specific standards. The General Duty Clause requires employers to “furnish to each of his employees’ employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.”  For general industry, occupational noise exposure is regulated under 29 CFR 1910.95 and 28 states have their own state programs that regulate noise exposures.  In the workplace, noise levels above 85 decibels (dbA) require hearing protection or engineering controls to mitigate the source.

As a comparison, equipment like lawn mowers, activities like vacuuming, or using earbuds or headphones with the volume set around 70%, all average about 85-90 dBA. Noise around 85 dbA which is loud enough that you must raise your voice to be heard by someone three feet away, can damage your hearing after repeated exposures lasting eight hours or more.

What are the health effects for an employee exposed to noisy environments?

Beyond permanent hearing loss, loud noises can cause other physical and mental stress.  The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has published studies that indicate loud noise can induce mental stress with symptoms of tiredness and irritability and also can increase blood pressures in employees.  The U.S. EPA has also published studies showing direct links between noise and health. Problems include stress-related illnesses, high blood pressure, speech interference, hearing loss, sleep disruption, and lost productivity. Noise induced hearing loss (NIHL) is the most common and often discussed health effect, but research has shown that exposure to constant or high levels of noise can cause countless health effects.

What’s in a Hearing Conservation Program?

OSHA requires a hearing conservation program be developed and implemented if employee noise exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dba or a dose level of fifty percent. Your program must include noise monitoring and test results, indicating noise levels have reached the action level. The employer must also establish and maintain an audiometric testing program for employees whose exposure may equal or exceed these values. Audiometric exams must include an initial/baseline exam, followed by an annual exam, and be performed by a licensed or certified audiologist, otolaryngologist, or another physician. Any shifts in hearing that indicate a standard threshold shift must be further evaluated to ensure proper hearing protection is being worn by the employee and/or there is not a medical pathology caused or aggravated by the wearing of hearing protection. Regardless, the employee should be sent for a follow-up otological exam.

Your program must also include an annual employee training program that covers the effects of noise on hearing, the purpose of hearing protectors and attenuation of various types, and instructions on selection, fitting, use, and care, and the purpose of audiometric testing with an explanation of the test procedures.

Last, your hearing conservation program must maintain records of the exposure measurements for a minimum of two years, employee audiometric exams for the duration of employment, and training records.

As the Safety and Health Manager, what can you do to minimize noise at your facility?

Common Engineering Controls

  • Choose low-noise tools and machinery,
  • Maintain and lubricate machinery and equipment (e.g., oil bearings),
  • Place a barrier between the noise source and employee (e.g., sound walls or curtains), or
  • Enclose or isolate the noise source.

Common Administrative Controls

  • Operate noisy machines during shifts when fewer people are exposed,
  • Limit the amount of time a person spends at a noise source,
  • Provide quiet areas where workers can gain relief from hazardous noise sources, or
  • Control noise exposure through distance, which is often an effective yet simple and inexpensive administrative control. Specifically, for every doubling of the distance between the source of noise and the worker, the noise is decreased by 6 dBA.

What Monitoring is Required?

When information indicates that any employee’s exposure may equal or exceed the action level, the employer must develop and implement a monitoring program. Per 1910.95(d)(1)(i), “The sampling strategy shall be designed to identify employees for inclusion in the hearing conservation program and to enable the proper selection of hearing protectors.” This may include area or personal sampling, depending on worker mobility, significant variations in sound level, or a significant component of impulse noise. Dosimeters or noise measuring devices are used in both circumstances. For area sampling, dosimeters are placed in specific locations where continuous, intermittent, and impulsive sound levels range from between 80 dba to 130 dba. In comparison, personal noise dosimeters are attached to the employee’s clothing. The duration of tests must be at least 8-hours and dosimeters must be calibrated prior to each test to ensure accuracy. Following the end of the monitoring period, the noise data is downloaded from the dosimeter and compared to the OSHA permissible exposure levels and evaluated. Employees are then notified if their exposure exceeds the 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 dba. Engineering and/or administrative controls must then be chosen and implemented to protect employees, and audiometric exams and training must also occur.

How can I get Assistance with my Program?

ALL4 provides Safety and Health and Industrial Hygiene services.  If you have questions or need assistance with monitoring or changes to your hearing conservation program, please contact us.

A Summary of Proposed Updates to the Risk Management Program

On August 18, 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) proposed revisions to the Risk Management Program entitled the Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention (SCCAP) Rule. The proposed SCCAP Rule potentially impacts 11,740 facilities currently regulated under the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions in 40 CFR Part 68, as authorized under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The proposed revisions include changes to the prevention and emergency response programs, improving the availability to the public of chemical hazard information, and regulatory language updates intended to provide clarification on how to execute certain aspects of the rule. The significant elements of each of these are summarized below.

Prevention Program Updates

The proposed rule includes the following revisions to the Prevention Program elements of 40 CFR Part 68:

  • Program 2 hazard reviews and Program 3 Process Hazard Analyses (PHA) must consider natural hazards, including those associated with climate change and loss of power.
  • Requiring standby or backup power for air pollution control devices or monitoring equipment associated with prevention and detection of accidental releases from Risk Management Plan (RMP) regulated processes.
  • The stationary source siting analysis for both Program 2 hazard reviews and Program 3 PHAs will need to consider the placement of processes, equipment, buildings, and hazards posed by nearby facilities, and accidental release consequences posed by proximity to the public and public receptors.
  • RMPs will be required to include the following additional information:
    • Identification of recommendations resulting from hazard evaluations that were declined and the justification for why they were declined.
    • Specific information on process area and perimeter monitoring technologies and models used to detect RMP-regulated substances.
  • Program 3 processes at petroleum and coal products (NAICS 324) and chemical manufacturing processes (NAICS 325) that are located within 1 mile (by fenceline) of another RMP-regulated facility with these same NAICS codes are required to complete a Safer Technologies and Alternatives Analysis (STAA) as part of the PHA.
  • Petroleum and coal products manufacturing (NAICS 324) that use hydrofluoric acid (HF) in an alkylation unit, regardless of the location relative to other NAICS 324 and 325 facilities, must conduct a STAA analysis.
  • As part of the STAA analysis, conduct a practicability assessment that identifies, evaluates, and documents the practicability of implementing any inherent safety measures.
  • Completing a root cause analysis for all Program 2 and 3 processes within 12 months of an RMP-reportable incident.
  • Requiring third party compliance audits when: (a) a facility has two RMP reportable releases in a five-year period, or (b) a facility with a Program 3 process under NAICS 324 or 325 that is located within 1 mile of another regulated NAICS 324 or 325 facility has an RMP reportable release.
  • Requiring employee participation in RMP related activities, including hazard evaluations, root cause analyses, and third-party audits at facilities with Program 2 and Program 3 processes. Employees at these facilities will also have stop work authority in limited circumstances and information on how employees can report RMP non-compliance issues.

Emergency Response Program Updates

The following revisions to the Emergency Response Program elements of 40 CFR Part 68 are included in the proposed rule:

  • The emergency response program requirements for both non-responding and responding facilities will now explicitly identify the components of a community emergency response plan to ensure they are included.
  • Requiring facilities to develop a community notification system to warn the public within an area threatened by a release.
  • Requiring facilities with Program 2 and Program 3 processes and subject to the emergency response program requirements to conduct field exercises once every 10 years

Information Availability

U.S. EPA has proposed allowing anyone who resides within 6 miles of a facility with an RMP-regulated process the ability to request specific chemical hazard information. The intent is to make this information more readily available for those that may be most affected by RMP reportable incidents.

Other Changes

The following miscellaneous changes have been proposed:

  • Retention of hot work permits in RMP regulated processes for 5 years.
  • Language has been added clarifying how to determine whether a transportation container is part of the stationary source.
  • PHAs will now need to incorporate the most recently promulgated Recognized and Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices (RAGAGEP).

What do I need to do?

Upon final issuance of the rule, facilities will have three years to comply with the new STAA, root cause analysis, third-party compliance audit, employee participation, emergency response public notification, exercise evaluation reports, and information availability provisions. Risk management plans will need to be updated and resubmitted to reflect new and revised data elements within four years of final issuance of the rule.

The 60-day public comment period for the proposed rule will not begin until it is published in the Federal Register. The estimated date for issuance of the final rule is August 2023.

Three virtual public hearings have been scheduled for the following dates:

  • September 26, 2022, 9:00 AM – 12:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time (EDT)
  • September 27, 2022, 1:00 PM – 4:00 PM EDT
  • September 28, 2022, 5:00 PM – 8:00 PM EDT

If you have questions about how the proposed RMP rule revisions could affect your facility’s program, or what your next steps should be once the rule is finalized, please reach out to me at cward@all4inc.com. ALL4 is monitoring all updates published by the U.S. EPA on this topic, and we are here to answer your questions and assist your facility with any aspects of RMP compliance.

 

North Carolina DEQ Action Strategy for PFAS

On June 7, 2022, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) announced their Action Strategy for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). NC DEQ plans to enact the Action Strategy in conjunction with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) PFAS Strategic Roadmap to address the impacts of PFAS in North Carolina. You can learn more from ALL4 about U.S. EPA PFAS Strategic Roadmap here.

 

Actions to Date

North Carolina has a history of taking action to address the impacts of PFAS, most notably when hexafluoropropylene oxide (HFPO) and its ammonium salt (together referred to as “GenX chemicals”) were discovered in the Cape Fear River in 2017. In response to this discovery, NC DEQ took actions to mitigate GenX chemicals in the area. The North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NC DHHS) also responded by establishing a state provisional drinking water health goal for GenX chemicals of 140 parts per trillion (ppt). This health goal has now been superseded by the U.S. EPA’s Drinking Water Health Advisories for PFAS for GenX chemicals of 10 ppt. You can learn more from ALL4 about U.S. EPA Drinking Water Health Advisories for PFAS here.

Additionally, NC DEQ has conducted several reviews and evaluations of PFAS. Other actions to date include, but are not limited to:

  • Developing analytical methods and toxicology protocols;
  • Establishing an air deposition monitoring network;
  • Surveying PFAS foam occurrence;
  • Monitoring surface water for PFAS; and
  • Promulgating monitoring and disclosure requirements for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.

Future Priorities

The new Action Strategy prioritizes three key action areas:

Protecting Communities

The first action area is focused on increasing NC DEQ’s understanding on how people are exposed to PFAS. In addition to further research and testing, the Action Strategy includes:

  • Promulgating reporting requirements for releases to air, surface water, and groundwater from priority locations (e.g., chemical plants, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and facilities that use firefighting foam); and
  • Developing a list of PFAS most frequently detected in North Carolina (referred to as the “PFAS Priority List”).

These goals are listed as “in progress” and “ongoing” in the Action Strategy.

Protecting Drinking Water

The second action area is focused on proposing regulatory standards. The Action Strategy includes:

  • Proposing groundwater standards for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctyl sulfonate (PFOS), Gen X, perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS), and perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) by Summer/Fall 2022;
  • Proposing surface water standards for PFOA and other compounds by Fall/Winter 2022 or 2023; and
  • Proposing maximum containment levels (MCLs) for priority PFAS in drinking water by Fall/Winter 2022 or 2023.

In addition to proposing regulatory standards, this action area also focuses on how the regulatory standards will be implemented. NC DEQ emphasizes that voluntary actions will be critical to reaching their goals and that it will directly support initiatives to lower the impacts of PFAS through technology and funding starting in Summer/Fall 2022.

Cleaning Up Existing Contamination

The third and final action area focuses on remediation of PFAS contaminated sites. The Action Strategy includes:

  • Setting remediation goals for PFAS contaminated sites; and
  • Promulgating requirements for responsible parties to clean up PFAS contaminated sites.

These goals are listed as “in progress” and “ongoing” in the Action Strategy.

Other Efforts

The Action Strategy acknowledges that other efforts to address the impacts of PFAS are being pursued by other entities, including the NC DHHS, the North Carolina Department of Justice, the North Carolina Collaboratory, and academic institutions.

Next Steps

ALL4 continues to track the regulatory movements of North Carolina and all other states, maintaining a database of current state PFAS activity. If you have any questions about the NC DEQ Action Strategy for PFAS or PFAS more broadly, contact Kayla Turney at 610-422-1143, or your ALL4 project manager for more information.

IDEM Nonrule Policy Document Updates for Waste Management Programs and Plans

The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) has published a series of Nonrule Policy Document (NPD) updates over the period of June 30, 2022, to July 18, 2022. An NPD is intended to clarify for the public IDEM’s interpretation of an environmental statute or rule but is not intended by the agency to have the effect of law. The NPDs being updated are as follows:

 

  • NPD-Waste-0075: Soil Management Plan (SMP)
  • NPD-Waste-0015-R1: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Closure and Corrective Action Guide
  • NPD-Waste-0076: State Cleanup Program Guide
  • NPD-Waste-0077: Voluntary Remediation Guide
  • NPD-Waste-0081: Institutional Controls Program
  • NPD-Waste-0082: Petroleum Remediation Program Guide

IDEM uses NPDs as a way to guide regulated facilities consistent with how IDEM interprets different environmental regulations. The NPDs discussed in this article are currently in public comment period which occurs before the final NPD is published. In order to be published as final, the NPD is then explained by IDEM to the applicable environmental program. After 30 days, the NPD then becomes effective.

NPD-Waste-0075

This is a new NPD that provides guidance on the development of a site-specific SMP for projects in IDEM remediation programs after closing with an Environmental Restrictive Covenant (ERC). Contaminated soil disturbed or excavated during construction activities at a RCRA property closed with an ERC should be addressed using this NPD as guidance for required actions and reporting. The NPD specifies the following sections for development of the SMP:

  • Site Description and Summary of Conditions
  • Soil Management Requirements
  • Contamination Containment
  • Field Screening
  • Legitimate Use
  • Final Restoration
  • Contingency Plan
  • Record Keeping
  • Appendices

In each of the above sections, the NPD provides guidance on what to include based on the level of contaminated soil that is applicable to the regulated facility.

NPD-Waste-0015-R1

The NPD-Waste-0015 became effective on August 11, 1997, and 25 years later we are getting our first revision. The purpose of this NPD is to guide a RCRA Treatment, Storage or Disposal (TSD) facility by defining procedures for closure of the facility once hazardous waste is no longer being generated on-site. This revision is being introduced to update the format and include the level of detail that is included in recently issued NPDs. The NPD now indicates the procedures that all involved parties must perform to close a RCRA TSD facility.

All other NPDs

The other four NPDs listed above cover four of the many waste management programs that are lumped together into two general NPDs, NPD-Waste-0046-R2: Risk-based Closure Guide (RCG)and NPD-Waste-0060: Remediation Program Guide. Now that these four NPDs have been split out, they have more detailed guidelines than before. If any of the four NPDs that have been split out and elaborated apply to your facility, we suggest that you review the guide specific to your facility and contact us with any questions or concerns.

Impact Summary

There are three key points to take note of with this series of proposed NPD updates:

  1. IDEM has developed guidance for building a site-specific SMP,
  2. The NPD for RCRA closure has been updated with more specific details, and
  3. There are now multiple detailed NPDs for specific remediation programs instead of trying to cover it all in two general NPDs.

A recurring theme from all three key points is that detailed information is being expanded upon for many specific programs or facility scenarios. This will hopefully give us a clearer picture going forward on how IDEM plans to regulate RCRA applicable facilities in Indiana.

ALL4 will continue to follow the progress of these proposed NPD updates following the public comment period ending over the next few weeks. Please contact me if you have any waste issues that come up or if you have any questions about the proposed NPD updates at bjohnson@all4inc.com or 502.874.4500.

Links and References

Continuous Monitoring Systems (CMS) in Pennsylvania – Important Reminders and Considerations

If you are new to Pennsylvania and are responsible for continuous monitoring systems (CMS) for your facility, you may be surprised by all the requirements that need to be followed, most of which do not apply in other states. Even if you have experience with CMS in PA, you likely won’t be doing all these activities regularly and may need a refresher on what considerations to keep in mind when changes are being made at the facility (e.g., installation of new CMS due to a new permit or regulation, replacement of existing CMS or components, maintenance activities being conducted on CMS, impacts of new regulations on existing CMS, etc.).

Knowing what activities trigger action on your part is critical for maintaining compliance and understanding the potential impacts on your facility’s operations. The goal of this article is to summarize some important requirements and actions you should be aware of if you deal with CMS in PA.

PADEP CMS Monitoring Manual and Online System

If your PA facility uses CMS for compliance with emissions and/or operating limitations, there may be specific PA Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) CMS requirements that apply. These state-specific requirements are for continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS), continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS), stack flow, and temperature monitoring systems and are contained in the latest Continuous Source Monitoring Manual (CSMM) Revision 8, dated December 2, 2006. CSMM Revision 8 details initial certification/recertification, performance testing, recordkeeping, reporting, and ongoing quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) requirements that must be followed for CMS that are subject to the manual.

There is also a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) document to support CSMM Revision 8 that was last updated on October 8, 2019. This document contains some important supplemental information and clarifies/corrects some information contained in the manual. See our previous article series that details some of the changes to this most recent version of the FAQ document:

PADEP’s CSMM Rev. 8 Frequently Asked Questions Document Updated!
PADEP’s CSMM Rev. 8 Frequently Asked Questions Document Updated! (Part 2)
PADEP’s CSMM Rev. 8 Frequently Asked Questions Document Updated! Article 3, Operational Test Period

Unlike most other states, CMS certification and reporting in PA are completed through an online system rather than through hardcopy submittals. PADEP uses the Continuous Emission Monitoring Data Processing System (CEMDPS) for certification of CEMS, testing notification and reporting (initial certification and RATA), and quarterly data reporting. Access to this system is obtained through PADEP and a facility can designate viewers (can view information only), editors (can add/edit new submittals), and a submitter (designated facility representative that is able to submit items to PADEP). CEMDPS submittals must be approved by PADEP. If the submittal is incorrect or incomplete, PADEP will reject the submittal and note the corrections that are required.

CMS Installation / Replacement

If you are planning to install new CMS or replace existing CMS (full system or just components), you need to be aware of the Phase I – III certification process. This process is detailed in CSMM Revision 8 and must be completed to certify new/replacement CMS prior to any data reporting in CEMDPS. Here is a general breakdown of that process:

Phase I – Monitoring Plan Submittal

A monitoring plan (MP) that details information on the new/replacement CMS must be completed in CEMDPS. This process includes a combination of data entry in the online system and inclusion of supporting information (e.g., QA/QC plan, manufacturer’s specifications, process diagrams, etc.). The MP provides the information that PADEP needs to evaluate whether the planned monitoring systems will meet the CSMM Revision 8 specifications and requirements.

Phase II – Performance Testing

Depending on the type of CMS being installed/replaced, there are specific certification tests that are required to be conducted. A test protocol must be submitted to PADEP via CEMDPS to demonstrate the testing will satisfy all requirements. Testing is then completed pursuant to the test protocol.

Phase III – Test Result and Sample Report Submittal

The final steps for CMS certification are to 1) submit the test results from Phase II via CEMDPS (includes test result data entry and upload of the test report) and 2) to submit a sample quarterly report (if required) via CEMDPS.

The purpose of the sample report is to demonstrate to PADEP that the emissions data files for the affected CMS are formatted consistent with CSMM Revision 8 and contain the required information. The sample report includes a sample electronic data report (EDR) text file and a sample cover letter file.

Note that CEMDPS works in a sequential manner; therefore, each Phase must have PADEP approval before moving forward with the next step (e.g., Phase I MP must be approved prior to submittal of the Phase II test protocol). Depending on the project timeline and timing of approvals, some submittals may need to be submitted outside of CEMDPS (typically via email) to meet due dates and then be submitted in CEMDPS when allowed. ALL4 can support you in preparing a timeline for your project. We can determine the applicable deadlines for your submittals and help you meet each deadline as you work through the Phase I – III submittal process.

Recertification / Diagnostic Tests

When certain maintenance activities are completed on CMS, there may be recertification/diagnostic tests that are required for the data to be considered quality assured. For example, if you replace/repair the sample cell in an analyzer, you are required to do a calibration error test and a linearity test for the data to be considered valid after that activity. If you make a change to the probe length or location, you need to submit a Phase I MP and complete several recertification tests.

The recertification guidance is included in tables at the end of CSMM Revision 8. It is important to ensure the technicians that are responsible for maintenance on the CMS are aware of these requirements so when a change is made during preventative/corrective maintenance, the necessary tests are completed. Missing a test could result in invalid/out-of-control data. This is especially important for PA CMS because there are data availability requirements that must be met; otherwise, a penalty will be assessed based on the amount of monitor downtime accrued in the quarter as mentioned in the next section.

EDR-E / Penalties

PADEP evaluates each quarterly emissions report that is submitted via CEMDPS and assesses penalties for data availability and emissions exceedances. Penalties are calculated using guidance from the PADEP Compliance Assurance Policies (CAPs). Typically, a facility will submit quarterly EDRs via CEMDPS and then wait until they get feedback from PADEP in the quarterly Continuous Source Monitoring Report (CSMR) to know definitively if there are any penalties that will be assessed. We have seen in the past where a facility is surprised by penalties assessed in the CSMR and it is discovered the penalties were due to errors in the EDR file that were not caught before submittal.

As noted on our EDR-E page, ALL4 has developed a customizable tool to evaluate EDRs and estimate data availability and excess emissions penalties in accordance with the applicable CAP(s). This evaluation helps identify errors in the EDR that need to be resolved and can identify periods of data that need to be evaluated further by the facility to ensure data is accurately tagged (e.g., an erroneous exceedance that should have been reported as invalid data due to a QA/QC activity that was not properly tagged in the database). It has been our experience that simple tagging issues can result in erroneous penalties being calculated, which once assessed, can be time-consuming to correct with PADEP.

Once initial evaluation is completed and any issues are resolved in the EDR, our tool provides a penalty estimate that can be communicated to the certifying official and upper management.

Additional Reasonably Available Control Technologies (RACT) Requirements for Major Sources of NOX and VOC (RACT III)

The PADEP RACT III rule has some CMS aspects to it that you may want to evaluate as the compliance deadline (1/1/2023) approaches. The main CMS consideration is a change to the NOX compliance averaging period from a 30-operating day average to a daily average for combustion units and process heaters. PADEP recently defined how a daily average will need to be calculated in the comment response document (i.e., calendar day sum of NOx divided by the calendar day sum of heat input, including all emissions during the calendar day including startup, shutdown, low load, and other circumstances).

If you have a source that will be subject to this shorter averaging period, it is important to start looking at your CMS data and how this new averaging period impacts your compliance strategy, especially during days that the affected unit starts up, shuts down, or both. There may be updates that are needed within your Data Acquisition System, you may need to evaluate the data substitution methodology currently in place, and you may need to consider strategies for a path forward if you cannot meet the presumptive RACT limit with this new daily averaging period. For more general information on the RACT III rule, and how it may impact you, see this article.

Please reach out to me at (610) 933-5246 extension 140, or at mstroup@all4inc.com for more information on PA CMS requirements or any other general CMS questions you may have!

PA’s Environmental Quality Board Approves RACT III

On August 9, 2022, Pennsylvania’s Environmental Quality Board (EQB) voted to approve the final form rule known as “RACT III” [25 Pa. Code §§ 129.111-129.115, Additional RACT Requirements for Major Sources of NOX and VOCs for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS]. Not much has changed since the EQB published the draft-final version of the rule in April 2022. With the exception of some clerical updates and a clarification to the definition of a “combustion source,” the only substantial change made to the rule is that guidance was provided for calculation of CEMS compliance data for certain sources. We recently went into more detail about PA CEMS compliance, including RACT III compliance, in another article.

You won’t find the final rule on the PA Bulletin just yet. Once adopted as final, the regulation is sent to the House and Senate Environmental Resources and Energy standing committees and Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) for action. The next IRRC meeting is scheduled for September 15, 2022, which means that things continue to move forward slowly. Regardless of the timing, all submittals will be due December 31, 2022. We are strongly recommending that affected facilities start now, which will put you in an advantageous spot to respond to the rule and be in compliance by the U.S. EPA-driven compliance deadline of January 1, 2023. Give us a call or drop me an email to discuss the specifics on how this rule will impact your facility.

View RACT III Resources

SCAQMD – Proposed Metal Recycling and Shredding Rule

On July 1, 2022, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD or District) published an Initial Preliminary Draft of Proposed Rule 1460 for the control of particulate matter emissions from metal recycling and shredding operations. If promulgated, Rule 1460 will apply to facilities that accept and process essentially any form of scrap metal including, but not limited to, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, aluminum scrap, auto bodies, and major appliances.

 

Registration

As proposed, both existing and new scrap metal facilities must register with SCAQMD. The registration must be updated if a facility changes locations, ownership, or capacity; installs additional torch cutting equipment; or if an additional Sensitive Receptor(s)[1] is located within 328 feet (100 meters) of the facility boundaries. With the expected adoption of the Proposed Rule in the fall of 2022, initial registrations for existing scrap metal facilities will likely be due by January 1, 2023.

Facilities will also be required to pay a “Plan Filing Fee” at the time of registration and updated registration per SCAQMD Rule 306. The current Plan Filing Fee for non-Title V facilities is $179.52.

Housekeeping

Current draft language also indicates that metal recycling facilities will be required to clean traffic and material processing areas daily using a “Prescribed Cleaning Method,” which, as defined by Proposed Rule 1460, currently include the use of any combination of the following:

  • Wet mops,
  • Damp cloths,
  • Wet wash,
  • Low-pressure spray nozzles,
  • Wet vacuums, and
  • Dry vacuums with dust suppression.

Best Management Practices

In addition, the current draft language includes requirements for metal recycling facilities to implement best management practices (BMPs). Required BMPs currently proposed include, but are not limited to:

  • Applying water to unloading, handling, processing, and storage operations,
  • Limiting vehicle speed,
  • Paving roads,
  • Using wheel shakers or wheel shaking devices,
  • Installing wheel washing systems,
  • Storing waste in covered containers, and
  • Storing metal shredder residue in an enclosure with at least three walls that extend at least two feet above the residue.

Additional BMPs will be required for all facilities located within 328 feet (100 meters) from a Sensitive Receptor. If the instantaneous wind speed exceeds 25 miles per hour (mph), operators must cease metal loading and unloading, sorting, shearing, baling, torch cutting, and shredding activities that are not within a building enclosure.

Signage Requirements

The draft language also includes provisions for metal recycling facilities to install and maintain signage in both English and Spanish with specific warning and contact information language provided by SCAQMD.

Recordkeeping

Based on the current draft language, operators will be required to maintain the following records:

  • Monthly throughput,
  • Daily housekeeping logs, and
  • Complaints received by the facility.

Records will need to be maintained for at least three years and will need to be provided to SCAQMD, if requested.

Exemptions

As currently proposed, Rule 1460 will not apply to the following sources:

  • Auto dismantlers,
  • Metal melting or lead processing facilities subject to SCAQMD Rules 1407, 1407.1, 1420, 1420.1, or 1420.2,
  • Recycling centers that primarily accept and pay for empty beverage containers from consumers, and
  • Material recovery facilities that separate solid waste and recyclable materials for the purpose of recycling or composting, and offsite disposal.

Building Enclosures

One of the more restrictive elements of the proposed rule as currently drafted is the requirement for newly installed or constructed metal shredders to operate within a Building Enclosure that meets very specific design criteria intended to limit the potential for fugitive emissions.

What is next?

Based on information presented by SCAQMD during recent working group meetings related to Proposed Rule 1460, it is expected that the after one more working group meeting to occur sometime during the third quarter or 2022, the District will schedule a public hearing for October 2022 and calendar the proposed rule for adoption by the SCAQMD Governing Board in November 2022.

ALL4 has extensive experience helping industrial facilities comply with regulations in the SCAQMD and is working closely with industry groups tracking the development of this proposed rule. While this rule is still in development, it is never too early to evaluate your compliance obligations and strategy. If you are interested in learning how this rule may affect your Facility, please feel to reach out to me at 610.442.1131 or mmchale@all4inc.com.

[1] Draft language issued for Proposed Rule 1460 currently defines SENSITIVE RECEPTOR as “a residence including private homes, condominiums, apartments, and living quarters, schools, preschools, daycare centers and health facilities such as hospitals or retirement and nursing homes. A sensitive receptor includes long term care hospitals, hospices, prisons, and dormitories or similar live-in housing. School or school grounds means any public or private school, including juvenile detention facilities and schools serving as the students’ place of residence (e.g., boarding schools), used for purposes of the education of more than 12 children in kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, but does not include any private school in which education is primarily conducted in private homes. School or school grounds includes any building or structure, playground, athletic field, or other areas of school property, but does not include unimproved school property.”

Renewable Natural Gas – What Questions Should I Ask to Prepare for the Air Quality Permitting Process?

INTRODUCTION

This is the first of a series of ALL4 articles addressing topics related to Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) projects. This article will focus on what questions project developers can ask to acquire vital information needed to prepare for the air quality permitting process. Asking the questions discussed below can help avoid significant project costs and delays.

RNG is defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) as “biogas that has been upgraded for use in place of fossil natural gas. The biogas used to produce RNG comes from a variety of sources, including municipal solid waste landfills, digesters at water resource recovery facilities (wastewater treatment plants), livestock farms, food production facilities and organic waste management operations.” Also, according to U.S. EPA, the number of new RNG facilities in the U.S. fleet has grown rapidly in the last five years, from 52 facilities operating in 2017 to 174 facilities operating in 2021. ALL4 expects this upward trend to continue.

RNG facilities are often subject to both state and federal air pollution control requirements which can affect the design, operation, and cost of such facilities. These requirements are identified in each state’s regulations and are reflected in permits issued by regulatory agencies, which are legally enforceable documents. It is important to note that permitting requirements can vary significantly from state to state.

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

Not all RNG plants are the same and need to be carefully evaluated on a case-by-case basis. While the underlying principles of creating RNG are generally similar, the way RNG is created (i.e., the recipe for creating RNG) can vary significantly from site to site. Therefore, RNG plant regulatory requirements can vary significantly. Some sources of that variability are:

  • Feedstock – Some examples of feedstock are manure, food waste, landfill waste, and sewage sludge. The type of feedstock can affect the chemistry of the raw biogas and therefore the equipment and processes needed to convert the raw biogas to RNG. For example, control of siloxanes may need to be addressed in the permitting process for certain feedstocks.
  • Fuels burned to provide heat and power – There are several fuels that a given facility may rely on such as raw biogas, pipeline natural gas, propane, and diesel fuel. The regulations for fossil fuels (e.g., diesel and propane) are often different than those from non-fossil fuels (raw biogas). For example, burning raw biogas in lieu of (fossil) pipeline gas can trigger different air toxics regulations in some states.
  • Emissions control equipment – hydrogen sulfide (H2S) control is commonly addressed in the air permitting process as it is often produced in the anaerobic digestion stage of producing RNG. The levels of H2S can vary significantly (i.e., up to several orders of magnitude) from site to site and therefore, the type and level of emissions control can vary accordingly. The level of pollution control is worthy of early consideration as it can affect the type of permit (i.e., minor source versus major source) that will be required for the facility.
  • Power availability – RNG facilities need power. In the event sufficient power from the electric utility grid is not available (i.e., three-phase power), a facility may need equipment to generate its own power, such as a reciprocating engine. Applicable regulations will depend on the type of engine (spark ignition versus compression ignition) and the type of fuel burned in the engine.

WHAT QUESTIONS SHOULD I ASK?

Here are a few questions we consider with our clients that address cost, schedule, and staffing requirements for planned RNG facilities.

  1. Do I need an air quality permit? Permits are typically issued by state regulatory agencies. Permit applicability typically depends on factors such as the desired RNG production level, type of organic matter that will be converted to RNG, type and size of equipment (e.g., boilers, generators, gas cleaning equipment), and the type of fuels to be burned (e.g., raw biogas, pipeline gas, propane, and diesel).
  2. How quickly can I obtain an air quality permit? Many states do not allow construction prior to issuance of a permit. Hence, it is very important to understand the timeframe between an air permit application submittal and permit issuance. Also important is understanding any factors that could delay the permitting process, such as public holidays, public opposition, and the backlog of previously submitted applications the state has in its queue for review.
  3. What fees will the regulatory agency charge? States typically charge a fee to process an air quality permit application (permit fee). Additionally, states require facilities to register their actual emissions annually and charge a fee for those emissions (registration fee). Awareness of these fees can help inform discussions around project design. For example, the installation of pollution control equipment (i.e., equipment that reduces the quantity of emissions released into the air) can reduce a facility’s emissions potentially qualifying it for a simpler air quality permit (with a lower permit fee) and reduce registration fees. These cost savings could potentially help pay for pollution control equipment!
  4. Will the permit allow me to build my project the way I want to build it? Many state permitting programs require air quality modeling to be performed to confirm project design parameters (e.g., effluent stack heights, building height/location, pollution control equipment) will enable the project to meet ambient (i.e., outdoor) air quality standards. Air quality modeling can be performed well in advance of submitting an air quality permit application to evaluate a project’s design and identify early-on if any significant design changes should be considered (e.g., raising/moving a stack, moving a building, changing the control efficiency of a pollution control device).
  5. Will I have to install pollution control equipment? Many state permitting programs require pollution control technology evaluations [e.g., Best Available Control Technology Evaluation (BACT)] which can impact the type of pollution control equipment selected for a project. Pollution control equipment capital and/or operating costs (and benefits) can be identified well in advance of submitting an air quality permit application.
  6. What do I need to do after my air quality permit is issued? Air quality permits typically include monitoring, testing, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. The level of effort and cost to comply with each of these categories can vary based on the size and location (i.e., state) of a project. These requirements apply for the life of a facility (assuming no facility or regulatory changes occur), so it is important to ask questions about them early in the planning process.

WHAT SHOULD I DO?

No better time than the present to start asking questions! If I were in your shoes, I would start by enrolling an air quality permitting expert to get the conversation started. Alternatively, or additionally, I would reach out to the state regulatory agencies that issue air quality permits for the state(s) where you plan to construct RNG facilities.

The next article in this series will address questions that project developers can ask round Climate Change and Sustainability.

If you have any questions about air quality permitting for an RNG project, please reach out to John Hinckley at jhinckley@all4inc.com or by phone at (802) 359-7294.

California Storm Water TMDLs Explained

California is divided into nine regional Water Quality Control Boards (Boards), governed by the State Water Board, that exercise rulemaking and regulatory activities in their respective basins. The Storm Water Program branch of these Boards regulates storm water discharge from industrial facilities, construction sites, and municipal systems. The most recent Statewide Industrial Storm Water General Permit, Order 2014-0057-DWQ (Industrial General Permit) became effective on July 1, 2020 and included updates to the total maximum daily load (TMDL) implementation requirements. If a facility is covered under the Industrial General Permit and discharges to a waterbody with a Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) listed impairment, the facility is subject to a TMDL for the pollutant(s) causing the water quality to be impaired.

TMDL is defined in 40 CFR §130.2(i) as “the sum of the individual wasteload allocations for point sources and load allocations for nonpoint sources and natural background.” The State Water Board develops TMDL requirements and wasteload allocation limits that are specific to each impaired waterbody. The current list of waterbodies with CWA section 303(d) listed impairment can be found in Appendix 3 of the Industrial General Permit. As TMDLs are approved by the State or Regional Water Boards, they are incorporated into the Industrial General Permit via the process detailed in Section VII of the Industrial General Permit. Attachment E of the General Industrial Permit lists the current waterbodies with issued TMDLs.

Facilities or Responsible Dischargers, capable of discharging pollutants of concern into impaired waterbodies must meet the approved TMDL requirements and limits. The waste load allocation limits are categorized into two levels: TMDL-specific Numeric Action Levels (TNALs) and Numeric Effluent Limitations (NELs). Should stormwater discharges from a facility indicate a TNAL exceedance, the Exceedance Response Action (ERA) Process must be initiated. However, if a NEL exceedance is reported, a violation is immediately triggered and may result in the assessment of a mandatory minimum penalty (MMP). MMPs can add up quickly for each occurrence of a TMDL exceedance.

Due to the novelty of these TMDL requirements and the fact that more are being incorporated into the Industrial General Permit, storm water compliance can seem almost unmanageable to facilities. ALL4 is familiar with the Industrial General Permit and is able to assist facilities in understanding storm water quality characteristics at their location, navigating their site-specific TMDL requirements, and determining what action to take should a TMDL limit be exceeded. Contact Anna Richardson or our California office with any questions you may have.

Final Guidance on Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter Permit Modeling Issued by U.S. EPA

The U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) published the “Final Guidance for Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter Permit” (Final Guidance) Modeling on July 29, 2022. The Final Guidance reflects the U.S. EPA’s recommendations for how stationary sources seeking a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit may demonstrate that they will not cause or contribute to a violation of the particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) PSD increment and the PM2.5 and ozone O3 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Final Guidance replaces the February 10, 2020 draft and September 20, 2021 revised guidance discussed in my October 8, 2021 blog post. There were no major changes from the September 20, 2021, revised guidance to this new Final Guidance. As discussed in my October 8, 2021 blog post the most significant impact of this guidance is the requirement to conduct direct PM2.5 modeling if an applicant triggers the PSD significant emissions rates for PM2.5 precursors nitrogen oxide (NOX) or sulfur dioxide (SO2), even if the applicant does not trigger for PM2.5 itself. The U.S. EPA is conducting a release webinar on August 11, 2022, to provide an overview of the Final Guidance and allow for an open exchange on the final version of the guidance that ALL4 will be attending.

In addition to the Final Guidance setting new triggers for conducting PM2.5 modeling, also be aware that U.S. EPA is currently reconsidering the PM2.5 NAAQS and we expect to see a proposed lower annual PM2.5 NAAQS between 8-11 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) by the end of the summer.

If you have any questions about how a potential project that includes PM2.5 emissions will be impacted by the Final Guidance or lowered PM2.5 NAAQS, please contact Dan Dix at ddix@all4inc.com or at 610.422.1118.

Additional PM2.5 Resources

    4 THE RECORD EMAIL SUBSCRIPTIONS

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

    Skip to content