Enforcement Alert: Solid Waste. U.S. EPA Enforcement Initiative for Landfills to Meet Greenhouse Gas Compliance

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) recently issued an Enforcement Alert signaling a critical move toward stricter regulation of municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills to address non-compliance with air quality standards, specifically around monitoring and controlling greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This alert follows an investigation revealing that many landfills are not fully adhering to federal regulations designed to reduce emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that contributes significantly to global warming, as well as other harmful pollutants like volatile organic compounds (VOC) and hazardous air pollutants (HAP). 

Why Landfill Emissions Matter 

Although methane naturally results from the anaerobic decomposition of organic waste, landfill operations are legally required to capture and control these emissions to minimize their environmental and public health impacts. Methane has a global warming potential over 25 times greater than that of carbon dioxide over a 100-year span, making its containment critical for climate mitigation efforts. VOC and HAP emitted along with methane can contribute to smog, respiratory issues, and other health hazards, putting nearby communities at risk. 

U.S. EPA’s alert highlighted several issues related to gas collection and control systems (GCCS), surface emissions monitoring, and the maintenance of landfill covers—all of which are essential in controlling emissions. The alert pointed to inadequate design, maintenance, or operation of GCCS, inconsistent surface emissions monitoring, and poor landfill cover integrity as issues that increase the likelihood of methane leaks. The failure to properly manage these systems has led to emissions that exceed permissible levels, posing both environmental and health risks. 

Key Compliance Requirements 

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), landfills must follow stringent requirements to control emissions. These requirements are designed to limit GHG emissions and protect communities living in close proximity to landfills. U.S. EPA enforces rules covering: 

• Gas Collection and Control System Operation: Proper design, maintenance, and operation of GCCS are essential for capturing and combusting landfill gas, thereby reducing methane emissions. Landfills are required to install GCCS within a specific timeframe and continuously operate and maintain the system. 
• Surface Emissions Monitoring: Landfills must conduct regular surface monitoring to detect and address leaks of landfill gases, particularly methane, from the soil surface. Any detected leaks must be promptly repaired to prevent excess emissions. 
• Landfill Cover Integrity: Effective cover systems are critical for containing emissions. Covers must be maintained to prevent cracks or openings through which methane and other gases could escape. The use of appropriate materials and regular checks are fundamental in ensuring cover integrity. 

U.S. EPA’s Increased Focus on Enforcement 

U.S. EPA is implementing stricter enforcement measures. These may include increased inspections, fines, and requirements for corrective actions for operators who fail to adhere to the standards. U.S. EPA’s goal is not only to mitigate the environmental impact of landfill emissions but also to protect the health of nearby residents who may be exposed to air pollutants from landfill operations. 

The recent enforcement focus reflects a broader commitment to reducing methane emissions under the current administration’s climate goals. This could be subject to change after the new administration takes office. Reducing methane is essential for meeting the U.S. GHG reduction targets. As such, U.S. EPA has placed landfill emissions control as a high priority within its enforcement strategy. This move aligns with both domestic and international efforts to curb short-lived climate pollutants, which have a strong impact on near-term climate change. 

Recommendations for Landfill Operators 

U.S EPA is advising landfill operators to review their GCCS, surface monitoring procedures, and cover maintenance practices to ensure compliance. Operators are encouraged to conduct internal audits, enhance staff training on emissions controls, and proactively monitor equipment to avoid compliance issues.  

The Enforcement Alert is a reminder that non-compliance not only leads to potential penalties but also poses significant environmental and health risks for neighboring communities. U.S. EPA’s call for enhanced compliance signals a shift toward stricter oversight and accountability for MSW landfills as part of the broader effort to reduce GHG emissions in the United States. As landfill operators adjust to these expectations, they play a crucial role in supporting climate action and protecting the communities they serve. 

For a detailed review of the U.S. EPA’s findings and compliance guidance, you can view the full U.S. EPA Enforcement Alert here. 

ALL4 is here to help you understand how U.S EPA landfill emissions enforcement may affect your operations and support you in meeting compliance requirements. For questions or further assistance, please reach out to me, Ashley Brooks, at abrooks@all4inc.com or contact your ALL4 project manager.  

The LCRR Compliance Deadline has Passed-What is Next?

On October 8^th, the Biden Administration finalized the rule for Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI). This came just 8 days before the October 16^th compliance deadline for the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR). Under the LCRR an initial lead service line inventory (LSLI) was required for all community water systems (CWS) and non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWS).

So, what does this mean for water supplies?

Just like the LCRR all CWS and NTNCWS are subject to this new rule. As a reminder from our LCRR blog, a NTNCWS is a public water system that regularly supplies water to at least 25 of the same people for at least six months per year. Some examples are schools, factories, office buildings, and hospitals which have their own water systems. Public Water Systems (PWS) will still be subject to the LCRR until the compliance date of the LCRI.

While there are some things that remain the same between the LCRR and LCRI, there are critical changes to note that may affect your system and facility.

Key differences between the LCRR and LCRI¹

^{1 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/10/30/2024-23549/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations-for-lead-and-copper-improvements-lcri}

Next Steps

Water systems must comply with the LCRI three years after promulgation of this final rule, which is November 1, 2027. In accordance with SDWA section 1412(b)(10), the Administrator, or a State (in the case of an individual system), may allow up to two additional years to comply with a treatment technique if the Administrator or State (in the case of an individual system) determines that additional time is necessary for capital improvements. Starting in November 2027, systems must begin mandatory service line replacement programs that must be completed within 10 years for most systems. Systems must also begin conducting the improved tap sampling and if their tap sampling results show they exceeded the action level, systems may be required to install new or re-optimized corrosion control treatment.

ALL4 can help facilities comply with the current LCRR regulations and prepare you for the upcoming LCRI regulations. If you have any questions, please contact Tia Gross at tsova@all4inc.com or 989.402.3665.

Kentucky Division of Water to Renew KYR10 Stormwater Construction Permit

The Kentucky General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities, otherwise known as the KYR10 Stormwater Construction General Permit or KYR10 Permit, is slated to expire on November 30, 2024. The Kentucky Division of Water (DOW) intends to reissue KYR10 General Permit with several new provisions, with an anticipated effective date of December 1, 2024. The DOW recently issued a draft permit with proposed changes and a notice to the public soliciting comments for the draft permit. The public comment period opened on October 23, 2024, and will remain open until November 22, 2024. Copies of the draft permit and fact sheet are available on the DOW website under Agency ID 35050.

KYR10 General Permit Purpose and Eligibility

The KYR10 General Permit is a type of Kentucky Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (KPDES) permit that is specifically designed to regulate stormwater discharges from construction sites that disturb land, aiming to prevent pollutant entry into Kentucky’s waterways via stormwater runoff.

Coverage under the KYR10 Stormwater Construction Permit encompasses large and small construction sites that discharge stormwater from earth disturbing activities that may also have supporting activities such as concrete truck washouts, fueling stations, chemical storage areas, and municipal solid waste collection. Specific eligibility for coverage under the KYR10 permit applies to sites that have a disturbance of one (1) acre or more of land, including those that are part of a common development plan where cumulative disturbance is 1 acre or more. Construction activities that disturb less than 1 acre of land may require coverage if DOW determines that site activities have potential for violating water quality standards or contributing significant pollutants to waters of the Commonwealth.

Note that due to DOW’s one permit per facility policy, sites with an existing permit such as a KYR00 industrial stormwater general permit or an individual KPDES permit will not require a separate KYR10 permit. Construction activities should be addressed by implementing appropriate construction best management practices (BMP) and modifying the facility’s existing Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or BMP Plan.

Overview of Proposed Changes to KYR10 General Permit

There are several notable changes from the 2019 KYR10 General Permit that existing permittees and prospective facilities seeking coverage should be aware of:

• Uncontaminated air conditioning or compressor condensate has been added as an additional type of authorized non-stormwater waste streams.
• Inspection reports and SWPPPs can be prepared and kept electronically instead of on paper.
• For new projects that do not submit a Notice of Termination, termination will automatically occur after two years instead of one year.
• For discharges to an MS4, applicants are no longer required to provide the number and location of discharge points to regulated MS4 areas.
• The contents of the eNOI application must now include information for common plan of development projects.
• Buffer zone language in the KYR10 permit has been reorganized for clarity and conciseness – this restructuring aims to make the requirements more accessible and understandable, reducing confusion and potential misinterpretation for permit holders.

If you have any questions about stormwater permitting and how ALL4 can help, please contact Josh Jose (jjose@all4inc.com).

U.S. EPA Has Revised its Standards for New and Modified Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Tanks

On October 15, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) published final amendments to the Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, or New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), for Volatile Organic Liquid (VOL) Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After July 23, 1984, and On or Before October 4, 2023 (NSPS Subpart Kb). U.S. EPA also finalized a new NSPS Subpart Kc for VOL Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After October 4, 2023. This article summarizes the changes to NSPS Subpart Kb and the new requirements in NSPS Subpart Kc. Note that applicability of the new Subpart Kc is determined differently than facilities historically determined applicability of Subpart Kb.

Changes to NSPS Subpart Kb

U.S. EPA promulgated two changes to NSPS Subpart Kb. The first change, which coincides with the finalization of the new Subpart Kc, adds a “cut-off” to the applicability dates. Subpart Kb now applies to those VOL storage vessels that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification after July 23, 1984, and on or before October 4, 2023. The second change to Subpart Kb is the addition of electronic reporting requirements. Starting on October 15, 2024, reports required by Subpart Kb must be submitted electronically through U.S. EPA’s Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) in portable document format (PDF).

New NSPS Subpart Kc

As previously stated, Subpart Kc applies to VOL storage vessels that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification after October 4, 2023 (the date the new standards were proposed). While Subpart Kc is similar to Subpart Kb, there are significant differences that tank owners and operators should know about. These differences are found in most aspects of the rule (e.g., applicability, controls, monitoring, etc.) and are highlighted below.

Applicability

U.S. EPA has lowered (as compared to Subpart Kb) both the general rule applicability and control thresholds that are based on the maximum true vapor pressure (MTVP) of the stored VOL. Subpart Kc applies to each storage vessel with a capacity of 20,000 gallons or more storing a VOL with a MTVP of 0.25 pound per square inch absolute (psia) or more. For comparison, Subpart Kb applies to storage vessels with a capacity of 20,000 gallons or more storing a VOL with a MTVP of 2.2 psia or more, and storage vessels with a capacity of 40,000 gallons or more storing a VOL with a MTVP of 0.5 psia or more.

Controls are required under Subpart Kc for vessels with a capacity of at least 20,000 gallons that store a VOL with a MTVP of 1.5 psia or greater, and for storage vessels with a capacity of at least 40,000 gallons that store a VOL with a MTVP of 0.5 psia or greater. These MTVP control thresholds are significantly lower than the values in Subpart Kb (4.0 psia for 20,000-40,000 gallon vessels, and 0.75 psia for vessels of 40,000 gallons or more).

In one of the biggest changes from Subpart Kb to Kc, U.S. EPA also revised their interpretation of modification as it applies to storage vessels under Subpart Kc. Previously, U.S. EPA did not consider a change in service to a VOL with a higher MTVP a modification unless the change required a physical modification of the storage vessel, but in Subpart Kc, U.S. EPA considers storing a VOL that has a higher MTVP than all VOL historically stored or permitted a modification, regardless of whether a physical change is required. Furthermore, the exemption in 40 CFR §60.14(e)(4) regarding alternative fuel or raw material does not apply under Subpart Kc. This is a significant change in how applicability is determined.

Air Emissions Control Requirements

For vessels storing a VOL with a MTVP less than 11.1 psia, Subpart Kc includes three compliance options:

• Use a fixed roof in conjunction with an internal floating roof (IFR) equipped with a liquid-mounted or mechanical shoe primary seal and a continuous rim-mounted secondary seal, either a flexible fabric sleeve or gasketed sliding cover on pipe columns (if any), specific 2000 U.S. EPA Storage Tank Emission Reduction Partnership Program (STERPP) compliant guidepole configurations, and gasketed covers;
• Use an external floating roof (EFR) equipped with a liquid-mounted or mechanical shoe primary seal and a continuous rim-mounted secondary seal, with welded deck seams and both seals meeting certain gap requirements, specific guidepole configurations, and gasketed covers; or
• Use a closed vent system (CVS) routed to a control device that achieves 98 percent control efficiency, a fuel gas system, or a process.

For vessels storing a VOL with a MTVP of 11.1 psia or more, Subpart Kc requires a CVS routed to a 98% effective control device, fuel gas system, or process. Subpart Kc contains additional requirements to those in Subpart Kb for any vessels where emissions are routed to a CVS and controls. The vacuum pressure at which vacuum breaking devices must close is -0.1 inches of water (-0.0036 pounds per square inch gauge, psig). Vessels must be designed to operate at elevated pressures (1 psig above MTVP plus any back pressure from the control device) without venting to the atmosphere, or the vapor recovery system must be designed and operated to prevent venting from the storage vessel. If storage vessels are designed to operate at elevated pressures, the control device may be taken out of service for maintenance provided that the storage vessels are operated with no emissions to the atmosphere. Monitoring systems must be installed to detect pressure releases from each pressure relief device (PRD) or vacuum breaking device on a storage vessel and each PRD on the closed vent system. Open-ended valves or lines that use a cap, blind flange, plug, or second valve are not considered to be bypass lines.

These standards apply at all times; there is no compliance exemption or alternate standard for periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.

Degassing Requirements

New for Subpart Kc, the rule  includes degassing standards for storage vessels equipped with a CVS routed to a control device, fuel gas system, or process, and for IFR and EFR storage vessels that have a capacity of 1 million gallons or more storing a VOL with an MTVP of 1.5 psia or more. When degassing a storage vessel that requires control, facilities must remove liquids as much as possible and control vapors until the vapor space concentration is less than 10% of the lower explosive limit (LEL), or for nonflammable liquids, 5,000 parts per million by volume (ppmv) as methane.

Testing, Monitoring, and Inspection Requirements

Subpart Kc significantly expands upon the testing, monitoring, and inspection requirements included in Subpart Kb. Some of the major testing, monitoring, and inspection requirements in Subpart Kc are:

• Visual or audible alarm systems to monitor when floating roofs approach landing heights and when roofs have landed.
• Quarterly audible, visual, and olfactory (AVO) inspections of closed vent systems (leaks detected using AVO methods are leaks triggering corrective action) and annual Method 21 instrument monitoring.
• Annual monitoring of the vapor space between an IFR and fixed roof to demonstrate that the vapor space concentration is at or below 25% of the LEL. This is a new requirement for Subpart Kc and U.S. EPA acknowledges in the rule language that additional controls beyond those required by the rule might be necessary to achieve compliance.
• Internal inspections of IFRs at least once every 120 calendar months (can be conducted while the vessel is in service) or each time the vessel is emptied and degassed.
• Inspection of EFR fittings during annual seal gap measurement inspections to ensure covers are closed and gasketed with no visible gaps and no tears in sleeves, wipers, or similar controls used for a given fitting.
• For vessels with emissions routed through a CVS to control, monitoring systems must be installed to detect pressure releases from each PRD, conservation vent, or vacuum breaking device on a storage vessel and each PRD on the closed vent system. Additionally, facilities must report when a vacuum breaking device failed to close prior to the storage vessel reaching atmospheric pressure.
• Performance tests on non-flare control devices initially (i.e., within 180 days of becoming subject to the rule) and at least once every 60 months thereafter. Facilities must also use continuous monitoring systems (CMS) to monitor control device operating parameters to continuously demonstrate compliance.
• The MTVP of the VOL must be determined prior to initial filling or refilling the storage vessel with a new VOL. The MTVP can be determined from reference data and physical testing is not required, except for vessels storing a mixture of indeterminate composition or a mixture of unknown variable composition.
• For vessels storing a mixture of indeterminate composition or a mixture of unknown variable composition, physical testing of the MTVP is required initially and once every six months. If testing demonstrates that the storage vessel meets the control requirement applicability thresholds, the vessel must be emptied and taken out of service until appropriate controls are installed.

Recordkeeping and Reporting

Subpart Kc includes various detailed recordkeeping requirements. U.S. EPA finalized a requirement that all notifications and reports must be submitted electronically using CEDRI (semiannual reports are required in CEDRI after the template has been available for one year). Semiannual reports will cover the periods of January 1 to June 30 and July 1 to December 31. These reports must be submitted by August 31 and February 28 or 29, or according to submittal dates in your Part 70 or 71 operating permit.

Conclusion

As described above, Subpart Kc contains several new requirements in comparison to Subpart Kb. Facilities that operate VOL storage vessels should carefully review the new requirements to understand how the changes may impact operation of their storage vessels. Facilities should also begin documenting their VOL storage vessels’ service history to identify future changes in service that might constitute a modification. If you have specific questions on the recent rule changes or need help implementing the new requirements at your facility, please contact me at pcrawford@all4inc.com, or your ALL4 project manager. We encourage you to also check our Chemical Industry Resources page for blogs, webinars, workshops, and other resources with information on changes impacting the chemical industry.

Verifying Software Quality: The Critical Role of Testing in the SDLC

In the complex world of software development and digital solution implementation projects, testing plays a pivotal role in verifying that a product is not only functional but also reliable and user-friendly. For example, if you want to implement a digital solution that helps your company meet environmental compliance obligations, you should not just buy a product, put it on your network, and expect employees to start using it. The Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) is the framework that outlines the stages of creating or configuring software, from initial planning to delivery and maintenance. Within this framework, various types of testing are conducted as part of the quality process to validate the software against requirements. A thorough testing program results in a final product that is robust, reliable, and meets user expectations.

It is essential to understand that testing is not a one-time event but an ongoing, iterative process that spans the entire lifecycle of the software. Multiple test cycles are necessary, so software continues to meet requirements and performs well under various conditions. These test cycles must involve the appropriate stakeholders, including developers, testers, business analysts, and end-users so that all perspectives are considered.

This article discusses three essential types of testing: Unit Testing, Functional Testing, and User Acceptance Testing (UAT). We will explore each of these and its significance in the SDLC.

Unit Testing

Unit testing is a fundamental aspect of the SDLC where individual components or modules of a software application are tested in isolation to verify they function correctly. This type of testing is typically performed by developers during the coding phase, before the integration of the components into the larger system. Unit testing plays a crucial role in the SDLC through identifying and fixing bugs early in the development process, which significantly improves code quality and reliability. In the case of configuring an Incident Management module, let’s assume the following items need to be incorporated as part of a client’s OSHA reporting requirements:

Task 1: An incident form needs to be created so that any employee can fill it out and either save it as a draft or submit it to the Safety Manager.

Task 2: An email should be sent out to the Safety Manager notifying them that an incident has been submitted.

Task 3: The Safety Manager can access the incident record, review the information provided, and mark if it was OSHA recordable.

Task 4: The Safety Manager can generate and print out OSHA Reports 300, 300A, and 301.

While it may seem logical that all items can be done in succession, this may not be feasible if these tasks were assigned to several different team members with several different timelines working in multiple time zones. In these cases, each team member configures their part of the solution and then tests to check what they have done works. In each round of testing, it’s also important that a peer also reviews and confirms the unit test is successful. By catching issues at the unit testing level, developers can prevent defects from propagating to later stages of development, thereby reducing the overall cost and effort required for testing and maintenance.  Early detection and resolution of issues make unit testing an indispensable practice in delivering quality software.

Functional Testing

Functional testing is used to verify that the software performs the functions that it is supposed to do, according to the specifications and requirements. Functional testing covers the features, functionalities, and user interface of the software. It can be done at various levels, such as integration testing, system testing, and regression testing. Once all the individual parts of the development have been completed and tested in the unit testing phase, it is time to take a wider look at the solution and begin testing things as a whole during functional testing. As one might expect, putting together the work of multiple people does not always lead to a seamless and cohesive solution.  There can be unintended interactions between different pieces of configuration that need to be addressed. Functional testing helps identify these gaps so that all the pieces built in isolation can come together in harmony. This testing may be referred to as end-to-end testing. In the earlier example, we unit tested four separate tasks as part of the client’s OSHA reporting requirements. Now that all four parts have been configured and combined, it is time for functional testing. During this round of testing, it was discovered the Safety Manager no longer received email notifications when an incident was submitted. With access to each team’s code, the owners of Task 2 can investigate why their configuration was no longer working, address the issue, and retest. Because full processes are being tested, functional testing helps confirm that the software meets the expectations and needs of the users and stakeholders. Identifying testers familiar with the end- to-end process is recommended for functional testing.

User Acceptance Testing

User Acceptance Testing (UAT) is a critical phase in the SDLC where the software is tested by the end-users to confirm it meets their requirements and expectations. This type of testing is performed by the clients or end-users after the system testing phase and before the software or subset of the software functionality is deployed to production. UAT plays a crucial role in the SDLC by validating that the software functions as intended in real-world scenarios and meets the business needs. It helps identify any issues or discrepancies that may have been missed during earlier testing phases, so the final solution is user friendly and fit for purpose. By involving actual users in the testing process, UAT provides valuable feedback and increases the likelihood of software acceptance, adoption, and satisfaction. This makes UAT an indispensable practice in delivering high-quality software that aligns with user expectations and business goals. In our working example, employees realized that they could un-submit and re-submit their incident records at will. Although not anticipated, the client determined this to be problematic for their business process and it was flagged as an opportunity for improvement. During UAT, opportunities for improvements or enhancements identified are typically captured as backlog. Those that are feasible and determined to provide value may be configured, tested, and deployed during subsequent cycles.

Summary

This article highlights the critical role of testing within the SDLC. We explored the importance of Unit Testing, Functional Testing, and UAT in checking that the software is robust, reliable, and meets user expectations. By understanding that testing is an ongoing, iterative process involving multiple stakeholders, we can appreciate its significance in delivering high-quality software that users will want to implement. Each type of testing plays a unique role in validating the software against requirements and verifying it performs well under various conditions. By implementing these testing practices, we can significantly improve the quality and reliability of the final product, ultimately leading to greater user satisfaction and successful project outcomes.

Stay tuned for follow-up articles in this series that will discuss best practices for developing and executing test cases and avoiding common testing pitfalls.

If you have any questions on what digital solutions might be the best fit for your company or facility, or need assistance with your next software implementation project, please contact Nichole Svezeny at nsvezeny@all4inc.com or Brian Hua at bhua@all4inc.com.