Certifying and Recertifying Your Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS)

Author: Ben Johnson

Continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) are typically required to be certified or recertified in accordance with performance specifications such as Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 75 and the Performance Specifications (PS) of Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 60. Certifying a CEMS may sound straightforward, but it requires careful planning of testing timelines and avoiding unscheduled maintenance. Some state or local agencies have their own requirements or guidance as well, which can either muddy the waters or clear them up.

This article will cover both initial certification and recertification, with the latter being the emphasis, because there is more gray area surrounding recertification procedures. When we say “Initial Certification”, that refers to an entirely new CEMS that has been installed on an emissions unit. Conversely, “Recertification” refers to a replacement of your CEMS or one of its major components.

There are several things to consider in the certification process that will be discussed in the following sections:

• Transparency and Notification
• Monitoring and Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Plans
• Testing
• Data Validation
• Reporting

Transparency and Notification

When certifying your CEMS, one of the best things you can do to avoid any agency scrutiny is to send them a notification regarding the certification. Being proactive is better than being reactive. While some permits and rules will require notification, it’s best practice to submit a notification regardless. This notification should include the changes made, timelines, and/or impacts on data. Transparency with the agency ensures alignment with agency expectations and prevents unexpected downtime that could lead to penalties/enforcement action.

Monitoring and QA/QC Plans

For the benefit of the facility, we recommend updating the monitoring plan associated with the CEMS after any certification process. This plan describes the monitoring system, locations, and the collection of data, effectively documenting the monitoring for compliance purposes. Part 75 requires this update to occur but Part 60 and 63 do not explicitly state this requirement. The same goes for the QA/QC plan. This plan helps to clarify these gray areas, which is especially important during times of change. The opportunity to revisit the QA/QC plan content should be used to check that the certification requirements are addressed and that any gray areas are addressed. It is recommended that the plans be updated regardless of the applicable regulation.

Testing

The testing required to certify a CEMS depends on the regulations that apply to the CEMS. These tests verify both the accuracy of the analyzers and the performance of the entire measurement chain—from the probe and sampling lines to the conditioner, analyzers, and data acquisition and handling system (DAHS). For example, Part 60 typically requires a seven-day drift test and relative accuracy test audit (RATA) for most gaseous pollutants. If these tests are not completed successfully, the CEMS are not certified and monitor downtime will accrue. Careful planning is essential before replacing CEMS components to have a successful certification test period.

Data Validation

Once testing is complete and passed, data can now be considered valid. Avoiding CEMS downtime is one of the goals that you will have to consider during the certification process. The data validation is crucial to determining how compliance averages will be built. In some cases, you can consider your data “conditionally” valid from the time a CGA is passed during the installation. Each regulation is different with respect to when the valid data period will start, whether it is well defined or absent. For example, Part 75 provides guidance that valid data begins with the “probationary calibration error test”, which is essentially the first calibration that occurs after the installation or replacement of the CEMS. Part 60/63, however, does not have any specific guidance on when the certified data begins, so it is suggested to gain approval from the agency on how the facility plans to handle the beginning of certified data.

Reporting

After CEMS certification testing is complete, submit a report to the regulatory agency confirming that certification is finished and that all plans have been updated as needed. This allows the agency to address any issues promptly. Additionally, if reporting expectations are unclear, contact the agency for guidance. At a minimum, we recommend including language in your quarterly or semi-annual CEMS report to let them know that the recertification occurred and the certified start date and time for the new or upgraded CEMS.

Conclusion

Each of these topics must be considered when you are planning to certify your CEMS, whether it is following the initial installation of the equipment or the replacement of a major component of the CEMS. Where there is gray area for your CEMS, we recommend using guidance available from other regulations or state and local agencies. It is always recommended to confirm and document the approach with the agency before moving forward with your plan.

For additional details on this topic, please check out our webinar and request the recording. The ALL4 CMS Tech Team is available to assist and provide recommendations throughout the certification process.

If you have any questions about this topic, please contact me at bjohnson@all4inc.com or (502) 874-4500.

References:

• https://www.all4inc.com/insights-webinars/filling-in-the-gaps-for-replacement-and-recertification-of-continuous-monitoring-systems-CMS/
• https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-75/appendix-Appendix%20B%20to%20Part%2075
• https://www.epa.gov/emc/emc-performance-specifications

CWA Hazardous Substances FRP: Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Potential Rule Amendments

Author: Lizzie Smith

March 2026 Update: On March 5, 2026, U.S. EPA published in the Federal Register a proposal to delay the compliance deadline for this rule by three years (from June 1, 2027 to June 1, 2030). There will be a 30-day public comment period following the publication date (comments are due by April 6, 2026). The delay is proposed in order to “allow the Agency to consider implementation and compliance assistance tools that regulated parties may be able to take advantage of when complying with the new requirements.” The same measure also proposes to remove references to climate change, adverse weather, and environmental justice in order to align with policies of the current administration.

ALL4 has been tracking developments with the Clean Water Act (CWA) Hazardous Substances Facility Response Plan (FRP) Rule since the 2022 draft. Since the rule was finalized in 2024, ALL4 has been digging into the rule requirements, unanticipated differences from the original and proposed rule, guidance (or lack thereof) from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and its announcements around delays and potential changes. Though we have yet to see details about a proposed compliance date delay that completed inter-agency review at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) earlier this year, on Friday, February 13, U.S. EPA gave an to the FRP-regulated community – an announcement of an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to seek feedback on potential changes to the rule “to address implementation challenges and clarify requirements from the 2024 final rule.” This ANPRM quickly hit the Federal Register on February 18, 2026, starting the 30-day clock to submit comments. Read on for highlights from the ANPRM.

The ANPRM is seeking feedback on both applicability determinations and implementation of the FRP rule in two series of questions starting on Pages 17 of 21 and 20 of 21, respectively, of the prepublication version. These questions are summarized below:

Applicability Determination

• How should thresholds be set? Thresholds are currently set at 1,000 times the Reportable Quantity (RQ) at 40 CFR Part 117.3, but U.S. EPA is opening the door to another multiplier, a static value for all CWA Hazardous Substances (rather than being based on the RQ for each substance), or some other method.
• Could a de minimis for container size or concentration be established? The 2024 rule includes neither, requiring all container sizes and all concentrations of CWA Hazardous Substances to be included in applicability evaluations.
• What opportunities are there to simplify the criterion for distance to navigable waters? Should “conveyance” be more clearly defined?
• What changes to the substantial harm criteria or what alternative demonstration approaches should be considered? This is the big one. The substantial harm criteria require complex modeling under a variety of scenarios. To date, U.S. EPA has given minimal guidance on how this modeling is to be conducted and no indication of whether a commercially available model exists to perform it.
• What exemptions should be considered, and how should this rule account for or specifically exempt CWA Hazardous Substances in oils that are already subject to 40 CFR Part 112 FRP requirements? There is already an exemption for wastewater treated by Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) – should that be extended to privately-owned treatment works under NPDES permits?

Program Implementation Issues

• What existing tools or alternative approaches should be considered in determining planning distances? (See previous bullet on substantial harm criteria – the same modeling for determining applicability plays into implementation for subject facilities.)
• How should chemical reaction intermediates and byproducts be handled?
• What requirements of this program overlap with other existing U.S. EPA programs (e.g., 40 CFR Part 68 Risk Management Program)?
• What other external resources would assist with FRP coordination with potentially affected entities (such as public water systems)?
• How else can the FRP requirements be simplified but “retain readiness to protect human health and the environment”?

For more background on the CWA Hazardous Substances FRP Rule, check out our previous blogs and webinar recording. If you have any questions or would like support in providing comments to U.S. EPA in response to this ANPRM, please reach out to Lizzie Smith at lsmith@all4inc.com.

North Carolina Environmental Compliance Conference Summary

Author: Leslie Pearce

On February 4, 2026, the North Carolina Chamber held an environmental compliance conference where attendees heard directly from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) leadership about regulatory priorities for 2026, enforcement trends, and modernization efforts.

Kevin McOmber, U.S. EPA Region 4 Regional Administrator, discussed how U.S. EPA is working towards achieving U.S. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s “Powering the Great American Comeback” Initiative. McOmber highlighted a proposed rule revising what constitutes waters of the United States (WOTUS) under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act, in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. The rulemaking comment period closed January 5^th and a final rule is expected soon. From an air quality perspective, McOmber highlighted U.S. EPA’s recent proposed repeals of the greenhouse gas emissions standards for electric generating units, the 2009 endangerment finding which was subsequently repealed on February 12^th, and the Clean Power Plan as well as the recission of the most recent updates to the mercury and air toxics standards. McOmber noted ongoing efforts to streamline and modernize permitting efforts including the New Source Review Program which is of particular importance given the surge in AI data center development and associated energy permitting. Locally, McOmber discussed continued recovery from Hurricane Helene and U.S. EPA’s partnership with NC DEQ to pursue sampling and regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

Reid Wilson, NC DEQ Secretary, discussed NC DEQ’s priorities for 2026 including:

• Continued recovery efforts for Hurricane Helene;
• Strengthening resilience against natural disasters state-wide. An example of such efforts is the NC DEQ Flood Resiliency Blueprint tool which has been used to award an estimated $35 million to 73 projects (e.g., enlarging culverts or wetlands) and the NC Resilient Coastal Communities Program that has been used to fund 89 projects for $16 million;
• Reducing exposure to forever chemicals (i.e., PFAS), noting that an estimated 3.5 million North Carolinians’ drinking water supply contains forever chemicals, and NC DEQ intends to regulate at the source rather than at the downstream utility; and
• Improving the permitting process, noting that NC DEQ administers 40,000 permits and receives a large number of permit modifications or renewal applications annually. NC DEQ is committed to permit streamlining and modernization including moving to online permit application platforms with hopes to have 60% of applications submitted online by year end. It was noted that 35% of applications received are deficient and this leads to more iterations and longer timelines.

The Secretary noted that the NC Division of Air Quality (DAQ) will lose 11% of its annual revenue or $2.4 million due to a reduction in counties required to perform annual vehicle emissions inspections, further constraining resources at the Agency. Wilson also discussed the NC Energy Policy Task Force, which is slated to produce a report on February 15.

Dan Hirschman, NC DEQ General Counsel, and Sushma Masemore, NC DEQ Deputy Secretary for Environment, discussed enforcement trends. They reported an increase in unpermitted sources due to the inappropriate application of an exemption or general misinformation. They emphasized the importance of engaging the state agency early and often to ensure compliance. Engaging the local community was also noted to be of importance so that large projects were introduced to the public by the owner/operator rather than NC DEQ. NC DEQ will seek to get corrective actions accomplished via injunctions rather than civil penalties as this mechanism has been a more successful mode of action. They noted that inconsistencies in the NC DEQ Inactive Hazardous Waste laws and the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) program have caused compliance issues and they are seeking harmonization moving forward. Finally, they discussed important court cases to watch including:

• Challenges for 401 Pipeline approvals;
• Mid-Currituck Bridge Coastal Area Management Act permit challenge;
• Asheboro wastewater treatment plant permit’s numeric standard for 1,4 dioxane; and
• NC DEQ DWR vs. NC Farm Bureau Federation regarding general permit conditions in the swine industry.

Each of the NC DEQ Division Directors also spoke. Some highlights of those discussions, aside from those discussed previously, include:

Mike Abraczinskas – Division of Air Quality

• Online Title V permit application submittal portal launching soon with minor source platform later;
• S. EPA will not make attainment designations for the recently lowered particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM_2.5) annual National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) by the required deadline and revisions may be forthcoming;
• S. EPA is working on a rule to clarify minor source New Source Review public participation requirements that would require public participation for minor or synthetic minor sources where it has not previously been required (making permit issuance timelines longer);
• Data Center siting concerns are being addressed, a multimedia environmental questionnaire has been developed for new projects, and the Agency is thinking about how to address cumulative impacts of power generation and data center assets.

Richard Rogers – Division of Water Resources

• Seeking to expand laboratory capabilities (including for PFAS) to process more samples in less time;
• State has adopted federal maximum contaminant levels for six PFAS in driving water as well as the hazard indices which will go into effect April 2029;
• Working with the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) to develop plans for PFAS monitoring and minimization.

Michael Scott – Division of Waste Management

• Landfill capacity is an issue;
• Microplastics may be a future issue that they are investigating with local university support;
• $61 million in Resource Conservation and Recovery Act funding from U.S. EPA is being used for recycling and conversion opportunities;
• Unpermitted dumping is an issue; and
• The Pactiv Evergreen paper mill in Canton, NC was sold to Spirtas Worldwide and will be developed into a mixed-use site; NC DEQ is involved with cleanup activities.

Finally, the Chair of the NC Environmental Management Commission (EMC), J.D. Solomon, provided remarks. Solomon stated PFAS will be regulated in NC and encouraged all stakeholders to engage in the public participation process. He also noted that there would be three inter-basin transfer rules occurring this year which he anticipated would be contentious. He also said that the EMC must perform a rules review and adoption of all ~800 NC rules this year.

The Chamber conference provided attendees with information across all media at the state and federal level. Understanding the priorities and changes for North Carolina will help us all respond and partner in moving North Carolina and its businesses forward. ALL4 has an experienced multimedia team that can help your facilities understand NC environmental regulations and maintain environmental compliance. If you need more information or want to connect with a member of the ALL4 team, please contact Leslie Pearce, a managing consultant in our Raleigh, NC office, at lpearce@all4inc.com.

Texas MSGP Renewal: What Texas Facilities Should Expect

Author: Molly Vaziri

Across Texas, facilities obtain industrial stormwater coverage via the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s (TCEQ) Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP). Stormwater issues are often visible to regulators and nearby communities, and non-compliance can create both enforcement and reputational risks. The current MSGP expires on August 14, 2026, which prompted TCEQ to begin the renewal process. The draft 2026 MSGP was released for public notice on November 14, 2025, after which TCEQ received public comments during the statutory 30-day period. The renewal process allows TCEQ an opportunity to clarify expectations and align portions of the permit with recent United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) trends. Once TCEQ processes the public comments received, it will develop the final permit, which is expected to become effective when the current MSGP expires, although the existing permit may be administratively extended until the new MSGP is finalized and issued.

Anticipated Changes

TCEQ is proposing updates that are largely clarifications. However, several updates have compliance implications, such as administrative updates, application/reporting clarifications, and proposed benchmark reductions.

• Administrative Updates
  • TCEQ is proposing several administrative updates intended to improve clarity and modernize the permit. These include updating North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes to reflect 2022 revisions issued through the U.S. Census Bureau-led NAICS process, clarifying allowable non-stormwater discharges such as emergency fire-fighting activities, and modernizing statutory references and electronic reporting language.
  • The renewal also allows facilities to maintain electronic Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and clarifies that permit applications must be submitted to any Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) that receives discharges from the site, even if the MS4 is not regulated by TCEQ.
• Application and Reporting Clarifications
  • The Notice of Intent (NOI) will now require facilities to provide latitude and longitude of the facility, ensuring more precise site identification.
  • The Notice of Change (NOC) form will include clearer guidance for documenting legal or permitted site name changes.
  • In addition, publicly owned facilities such as schools, universities, and military installations that conduct industrial-type activities may be expected to obtain MSGP coverage, reflecting TCEQ’s effort to ensure consistent permitting across similar operations.
• Monitoring and Benchmarks
  • TCEQ also proposes benchmark reductions for several pollutants, including phosphorus, iron, zinc, ammonia-nitrogen, nitrate-nitrite nitrogen, and cyanide across selected sectors. Lower benchmark thresholds may result in new benchmark exceedances at some facilities where none existed before, increasing the risk of future non-compliance and the need to implement corrective actions.

What Should Facilities Do Now?

Now is an appropriate time to take a fresh look at both current and historical stormwater compliance at your facility. Review monitoring data to identify pollutants approaching the lower benchmarks and confirm that NAICS codes and facility classifications are correct. Under the renewed permit, facilities subject to benchmark monitoring will conduct sampling for at least the first two years of the permit term, even if a benchmark monitoring waiver was applied during the final two years of the current permit. When combined with lower benchmark thresholds, this change increases the likelihood of new benchmark exceedances for some facilities. Confirm that the SWPPP is current and evaluate whether maintaining an electronic version aligns with site practices. Confirm whether the facility discharges to impaired receiving waters and identify all associated monitoring and reporting requirements, as this continues to be a frequent source of non-compliance. Facilities should also be prepared to renew permit coverage shortly after the new MSGP is issued, as facilities wishing to continue authorization will need to submit a new NOI and complete any related renewal steps within the required timeframe to maintain uninterrupted coverage.

Early planning helps reduce compliance risk as the renewed permit takes effect. Facilities should review historical stormwater results to evaluate whether the revised benchmarks and renewed monitoring requirements are likely to trigger additional implementation measures or require follow-up corrective actions.

How ALL4 Can Help

At ALL4, our Water Tech Team follows MSGP developments in Texas and nationwide and can help evaluate benchmark risks, update your facility’s SWPPP, review renewal readiness, and support you during the permit review and comment process. If you have questions about how the Texas MSGP renewal may affect your facility, please contact Molly Vaziri at mvaziri@all4inc.com, 281-201-1243 or Cody Fridley at CFridley@all4inc.com, (269) 716-6537.

The Endangerment Finding Repeal: What You Need to Know

Author: Louise Shaffer

On February 12, 2026, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) signed a rule to finalize the recission of the 2009 Endangerment Finding and greenhouse gas (GHG) vehicle standards. The repeal of the 2009 Endangerment Finding removes the legal basis for regulation of GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA). This is one of the most significant changes to U.S. EPA air quality regulations in recent years. The final rule was published in the Federal Register on February 18, 2026, and takes effect April 20, 2026.

What is the Endangerment Finding?

In 2009, following the Massachusetts v. U.S. EPA Supreme Court decision made in response to U.S. EPA’s denial of a petition to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles, U.S. EPA issued a formal determination that six greenhouse gases (i.e., carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons) endanger public health and welfare. U.S. EPA also determined that emissions from new motor vehicles contributed to GHG pollution that threatened public health and welfare. Once U.S. EPA found that GHG from motor vehicles caused harm, the law required them to regulate those emissions from motor vehicles. The Endangerment Finding was also the basis for regulating other sources of GHG emissions.

Why has U.S. EPA Repealed the Endangerment Finding?

U.S. EPA’s justification for the repeal is primarily legal and procedural, based on their review of the following Supreme Court Decisions:

Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (UARG) (2014): The Supreme Court ruled that U.S. EPA cannot use the CAA to regulate sources solely on their GHG emissions under PSD or Title V permitting. The agency can only regulate GHG emissions if a stationary source is already required to obtain a permit due to other air pollutant emissions.

West Virginia v. U.S. EPA (2022): The Supreme Court ruled that agencies have only those powers given them by Congress and that Congress must clearly authorize agencies to take actions that decide major questions of policy. Congress did not clearly grant U.S. EPA authority to address a global issue, like climate change, through the CAA that was originally designed to regulate local and regional air pollutants.

Loper Bright (2024): With the end of “Chevron deference,” U.S. EPA must follow the “best reading” of the statute. U.S. EPA states that the regulation of GHG emissions under the CAA was an improper expansion of the agency’s authority with the potential for adverse effects on the U.S. economy.

In summary, U.S. EPA argues that the CAA only authorizes the regulation of air pollutants that cause domestic harm and that Congress has not explicitly authorized the agency to adopt regulations that address global climate change. They also note that the complete elimination of GHG emissions from all new and existing motor vehicles in the U.S. would have only de minimis effects on global temperature change and sea level rise.

What happens next?

This repeal, if it stands, will significantly change how GHGs are regulated in the U.S. If Federal regulations are no longer authorized, we are likely to see increased activity in certain states that remain concerned about the impacts of GHG emissions from their sources. We expect the following:

• Lawsuits: Environmental groups and a coalition of states have already indicated that they will challenge this repeal. It will likely be years before we have a final decision.
• Further Clean Air Act GHG regulatory repeals: U.S. EPA already proposed to repeal the following regulations, and we assume these actions will be finalized during 2026:
  • 40 CFR Part 98: Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting (although U.S. EPA’s reasoning for this repeal centered around its Clean Air Act Section 114 information gathering authority, there is no reason to gather this information if they are eliminating Federal GHG standards)
  • 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart TTTT: Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Electric Generating Units
  • 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart TTTTa: Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Modified Coal-Fired Steam Electric Generating Units and New Construction and Reconstruction Stationary Combustion Turbine Electric Generating Units
  • 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart UUUUb: Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Electric Utility Generating Units
• Reconsideration of the GHG emissions standards for the oil and gas industry at 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts OOOOb/c and the requirements at 40 CFR Part 98, Subpart W.
• State Regulations: Even though Federal GHG regulations are being repealed, they do not currently affect state-level GHG emissions regulations (other than the fact that some states rely on Part 98 as their reporting mechanism). Companies still need to comply with all state-level GHG regulations. Examples currently include California, New York, Oregon, and Washington, and we expect this list to expand absent federal GHG regulations.

We expect GHG regulatory volatility and uncertainty as a result of the Endangerment Finding repeal. We are seeing that some states and the Federal government have conflicting viewpoints when it comes to GHG and climate change regulation. There is some discomfort as the Part 98 regulatory deadline is approaching, U.S. EPA is not clearly signaling their intentions, and state programs have incorporated the Part 98 reporting mechanism into their requirements. To ensure your company remains resilient amid ongoing regulatory uncertainty, it is critical to implement robust GHG data management systems, stay aligned with applicable state-level GHG requirements, and proactively prepare for potential regulatory changes. It’s possible that the Federal GHG regulatory lull is only temporary. ALL4 can support you with strategy, data management, inventory updates, and regulatory compliance. If you have any questions about GHG regulations or how these Federal regulatory actions will affect you, feel free to contact me at lshaffer@all4inc.com or reach out to your ALL4 project manager.

United States Army Corps of Engineers to Reissue Expiring Nationwide Permits

Authors: Wade Caffrey, Julie Beeman

The 2021 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Nationwide Permit (NWP) Program will expire on March 14, 2026. The NWP is generally reauthorized every five years for categories of activities that are expected to have minimal impacts to Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS). For ALL4 clients, key NWPs are those related to industrial development where work occurs in streams, wetlands, and other WOTUS, including data centers and power plants, as well as public works maintenance and infrastructure, linear transportation crossings, and residential development. ALL4 staff have decades of experience supporting clients with NWP permitting.

Most of the NWPs will remain the same upon reissuance; however, one notable change is NWP 39 for commercial and institutional development, which has been modified to specifically add data centers, pharmaceutical manufacturing, and storage facilities, an indication of the USACE’s recognition of the growth potential for these industries within the U. S. in the coming years.

NWPs have acreage limits for each single and complete project impacting WOTUS. For example, NWP 39 has an acreage limit of 0.5 acre of impacts to WOTUS. The USACE definition of a single and complete linear project is important to understand: A liner project is a project constructed for the purpose of getting people, goods, or services from a point of origin to a terminal point, which often involves multiple crossings of one or more waterbodies at separate and distant locations…each crossing is considered a single and complete project for purposes of NWP authorization. Therefore, for a multiple-mile road, multiple NWPs can typically be stacked. For construction of an industrial facility, off-site roads (or utilities) required to access the facility would be part of the overall project. In that case, the NWP with the lowest acreage limit would define the total impacts to WOTUS that could occur and still qualify for an NWP. If the road/utility will serve multiple end users, the impacts of the facility may be able to be separated, allowing for use of a series of NWPs.

In addition, all projects must be reviewed independently and are subject to regional and general conditions including, but not limited to, those relating to endangered species, cultural resources, and local District Engineer requirements.

For ALL4 clients with existing NWPs, please remember that your project must be under contract or construction by March 14, 2026, to qualify for a one-year extension. Existing NWPs should be reauthorized to ensure coverage after March 14, 2027, if project impacts to WOTUS will not be complete before that date. We suggest documenting contracts and initiating reauthorizations by February 15 to ensure your NWP does not expire.

Please contact Wade Caffrey at wcaffrey@all4inc.com or Ron Harding at rharding@all4inc.com so that we can assist you with your USACE regulatory permitting, delineation, restoration, mitigation, site planning, and/or due diligence needs. ALL4 staff are also available to assist you with endangered species permitting and cultural services.

How Can Subscription Regulatory Content and Audit Content be Used Together to Efficiently Define Applicability in Enablon?

Authors: Nichole Svezeny, Julie Taccino

It is best practice to periodically audit your operations for compliance with applicable requirements. What is the best way to leverage the tools you have licensed to prepare efficiently and make that process more effective? If you are using the Enablon platform and Enhesa licensed regulatory content, you may be looking for ways to use these tools together. One potential area of cross module functionality is between the Audit module (Enhesa question content) and Compliance module (Enhesa requirement content).

If you are looking for a way to create an applicability register in Enablon Compliance module and you are using Enhesa licensed content for Compliance and Audit modules, you can use Enablon product functionality to build these records automatically. Audits can then be launched in the Enablon Audit module using the applicability register to only include audit questions for regulations that apply to each audited location.

The below swim lane diagram and high-level steps describe this process in Enablon version 9 2023.

Enablon has a standard integration for Enhesa that can be configured with some setup. Data requests can be scheduled or done on an ad hoc basis.

Steps to bring Enhesa content into Enablon’s Audit and Compliance Modules

1. Import the Enhesa content for Compliance, which includes the regulations and associated requirements.
2. Import the Enhesa Audit content, which includes audit questions with links to requirements in Compliance.
3. Create an audit for the site that includes the audit questions/areas for the area for which you want to build the compliance register. Complete the audit questionnaires and submit them.
4. Once the audit questionnaires are submitted, you can check the Site Level Applicability (SLA) records in Compliance to see that records have been created for the site automatically. These SLA records will correspond to any cases where questions were answered to indicate the requirement is applicable.
5. Create a new snapshot of the audit questions using Enablon’s Audit Module. Create an audit that has the property: Use Site Level Applicability = Yes.
6. Once the audit is launched, you should only see questions that are tied to requirements that have a Site Level Applicability record for the site.

Benefits for the End User

Using Enablon’s Audit and Compliance module with Enhesa content provides several benefits to the end user. One key benefit is that end users performing routine audits only see the content that applies to them and their site. This makes it easier for the end user to more quickly identify what content applies to their site operations, making the overall audit process more efficient and streamlined. Another key benefit is that end users will be less likely to answer questions that are not applicable to them or their site. End users will have fewer errors, resulting in higher data quality, better compliance reporting, and reduces operational risk.

This process can be very helpful for anyone who has licensed the Enablon Audit and Compliance modules along with Enhesa licensed content. If you would like to discuss this process in more detail, or explore other ways digital tools can make auditing more efficient, please contact Julie Taccino at jtaccino@all4inc.com / 281-201-1247 or Nichole Svezeny at nsvezeny@all4inc.com / 412-314-4995.

How To Develop a Regulatory Compliant QA/QC Program For Your CMS – Part 3

Author: Corey Weiss

Looking back and moving forward

In the previous parts of this 4 The Record series, we explored the specific quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) activities necessary to implement a QC Program for continuous monitoring systems (CMS) along with a discussion about what makes implementation of a QC Program successful. Those previous articles are located here:

• Part 1 Link
• Part 2 Link

The overall theme of this article series is about upping our game; to move from simply having a QA/QC Plan to the implementation of a QC Program. All QC Programs for CMS have a QA/QC Plan, but just because you have a QA/QC Plan does not mean you have a good QC Program. Part 3 of this series covers the nuances in the development of a QC Program. ALL4 has been focusing on 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix F, Procedure 1 (P1) in this series even though you can find similar requirements in other applicable regulations that require monitoring (i.e., 40 CFR Part 63, 40 CFR Part 75, etc.). Appendix F P1 specifies that facilities subject to this procedure “must develop and implement a QC Program” and that “each QC program must include written procedures which should describe in detail, complete, step-by-step procedures and operations” for specified QA and QC activities. Part 3 addresses what is meant by “detail”, “complete”, and “step-by-step”. Part 3 also addresses how the training of facility personnel ties into the upkeep of the QC Program.

How detailed is detailed enough?

As previously discussed, simply having a QA/QC Plan does not satisfy QC Program requirements specified in Appendix F. The QC Program must be developed and implemented, and detailed, complete, step-by-step procedures and operations must be included in “written procedures” (i.e., a QA/QC Plan). What is meant by “detailed”, “complete”, and “step-by-step”? These subtleties and nuances are not specifically addressed and may be up for interpretation. How detailed do the procedures in the QA/QC Plan need to be for completing activities associated with CMS? The regulatory requirement is to “describe in detail, complete, step-by-step procedures and operations”. Does that mean that anyone “off-the-street” would be able to complete the QA and QC activities by following the procedures? Of course not, there is a presumption of minimum level of applicable competency. As an extreme example, the procedures are required to be written such that the user must have a minimum competency to read and understand the procedures. The level of competency directly relates to the training associated with implementing the procedures associated with the CMS.

So far, we have a requirement to implement a QC Program for our CMS and to write procedures with a certain level of detail to be included in our QA/QC Plan. The next step is training for those that implement the QA/QC Plan to establish baseline competency. The better the training, the higher the baseline competency, and the less “step-by-step” the procedures must be. At a minimum, the QA/QC Plan should at least be detailed and complete enough that it can be used as a resource for training facility personnel (discussed in further detail in the next section) and to address questions that arise regarding performance of QA or QC activities. For example, if a daily calibration drift test fails, can the Instrumentation Technician (or whoever is responsible for addressing this) use the QA/QC Plan to determine the procedure for resolving the issue and bring the CMS back into control to provide quality-assured data? Is the QA/QC Plan organized enough for the Instrumentation Technician to quickly find these procedures? If the answer to either of these questions is “no”, then it may be time to consider updating your QA/QC Plan.

Do I have enough training to properly implement a QC Program?

Some regulations require training specific to the operation of the CMS (e.g., 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart EEE) based on the role and responsibility of the employee completing the required activity. Other regulations imply training through establishing a minimum level of competency. Can a successful QC program be implemented with specific training conducted at a routine frequency? The training should not just be a refresher for existing employees, but for new facility personnel to ensure facility personnel are able to implement QA and QC activities and react to issues with the CMS in a timely manner. For example, if an Instrument Technician resigns or retires, can the QA/QC Plan be used to train their replacement? Again, if the answer to this question is “no”, then it may be time to consider updating your QA/QC Plan and adding additional training.

Another indication that it is time to update your QC Program and QA/QC Plan is if the CMS knowledge communicated during the training of facility personnel is not also well documented. The QA/QC Plan should be both detailed and complete enough that it can be a source of CMS knowledge at the facility, and so this knowledge does not reside with a particular person/people. This level of detail will contribute to the longevity of a robust QC Program and help good practices regarding QA and QC activities continue when facility personnel retire or change companies over time.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is important that your QA/QC Plan contains enough detail to support the level of competence of those who implement it. The QA/QC Plan should also serve as a resource to both train facility personnel and be able to answer questions that may arise regarding QA and QC activities quickly and efficiently. Part 4 will conclude the series and contain other topics important to consider while developing and implementing a QC Program. ALL4 has a team of experts dedicated to helping our clients comply with CMS requirements and implement robust programs. If you have any CMS-related questions, need help assessing or updating a CMS QA/QC Program, or want to suggest additional topics, please email Eric Swisher (eswisher@all4inc.com) or Corey Weiss (cweiss@all4inc.com).

Seven Governors Push for Microplastics Monitoring in UCMR 6

Author: Aidan Decker

With concern related to the presence of microplastics in the environment coming to the forefront, a group of seven governors led by New Jersey’s Phil Murphy have signed a petition to monitor the existence of microplastics in drinking water across the United States.

Microplastics – A Brief Summary

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) defines microplastics as plastic particles ranging in diameter from one nanometer to five millimeters. Wind, currents, and other natural factors break down plastic of any size into small, ingestible pieces that meet the definition of microplastics. Some of the largest contributors to microplastic formation are cosmetic microbeads, the wearing of car tires, synthetic clothing, and fertilizers, though almost every source of plastic has the capability to degrade into microplastics.

Microplastics are found across nearly every corner of the earth, accumulating and inadvertently being consumed by most organisms. Trophic effects magnify the amount of plastic ingested by animals in the upper levels of the food chain, including humans. Several materials used in the manufacturing of plastic are known to be carcinogenic and can present a variety of health issues in humans and in nature. Microplastics also have an affinity to bind to other hazardous chemicals and can act as a vector to bring these materials into contact with humans.

Whether it be due to runoff, wastewater effluent, or aerial deposition, most water bodies inevitably contain microplastics. Ground, surface, and desalinated tap water have all been demonstrated to contain microplastic concentrations ranging from 0.0001 to 930 microplastic particles per liter (MP/L). Bottled water has been shown to contain between 1.4 and 6,292 MP/L. Research is currently being undertaken to determine how particle size, concentration, structure, and other properties of microplastics pose health risks to humans. Currently, much remains unknown until more standardized, conclusive studies can be completed. As testing methods improve and the effects of microplastics on human health have become better studied, regulating their presence in drinking water has become an increasing concern worldwide.

Regulations to reduce overall plastic use in the United States have recently become stricter, but, as of January 2026, cohesive and broad regulations for microplastics are scarce. Federal regulations include the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, which banned the manufacturing and use of plastic microbeads five millimeters or less in diameter. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2022, which allocated $50 billion for U.S. EPA to invest in drinking water and wastewater, lists microplastics as an emerging contaminant. Several states including California, Virginia, New Jersey, and Illinois, have laws adopting procedures for testing microplastics in drinking water. Due to the current lack of unified regulations surrounding microplastics, the signing of this petition may have significant long-term ramifications on improving environmental policy and protecting human health.

Implications of the Petition – Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 6 (UCMR 6)

The request of those who signed the petition is for U.S. EPA to include microplastics in the 2027 renewal of U.S. EPA’s Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 6 (UCMR 6), which may act as a first step towards establishing a microplastics drinking standard. Pursuant to 42 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) §300j-4(a)(2)(B)(i), a UCMR is required to be released every five years with up to 30 unregulated contaminants to be monitored by public water systems and to be included in the National Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD). UCMR 6 will be the sixth edition of this list of contaminants and will run from 2027 until 2031. The monitoring will include sample collection from 2028-2030 with reporting concluding in 2031. Data collected from monitoring will then be considered in future U.S. EPA regulatory decisions regarding these contaminants.

The petition was signed by the following seven governors: Phil Murphy (New Jersey), Matt Meyer (Delaware), J.B. Pritzker (Illinois), Wes Moore (Maryland), Tony Evers (Wisconsin), Gretchen Whitmer (Michigan), and Ned Lamont (Connecticut). According to 42 U.S.C. §300j-4(a)(2)(B)(ii), the administrator of U.S. EPA shall include among the list of contaminants in the UCMR each contaminant recommended in a petition signed by the governor of each of seven or more states, unless the administrator determines that the action would prevent the listing of other contaminants of a higher public health concern. This places microplastics into current consideration for addition to UCMR 6.

It is worth noting that of the 30 unregulated contaminants included in UCMR 5, which contains the current contaminants subject to monitoring, 29 are comprised of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). PFAS are a group of compounds that, like microplastics, persist in and pollute the environment heavily and have been shown to negatively affect human and ecosystem health. Because more than 15,000 distinct types of PFAS have been identified, it is currently unclear whether microplastics will qualify as one of the 30 contaminants that command scrutiny in UCMR 6 or if future monitoring will continue to focus on PFAS.

Should microplastics be included in UCMR 6, managers of public water systems (PWS) may be required to monitor microplastics depending on the number of people those systems provide drinking water for. Managers of large PWS (greater than 10,000 people) and of small PWS (between 3,300 and 10,000 people) must follow monitoring plans according to their states’ discretion to assess the occurrence of unregulated contaminants. A nationally representative sample of PWS serving less than 3,300 people will also be selected to monitor. Analytical results will then be made publicly available quarterly in the NCOD. Because UCMR 6 is specific to unregulated contaminants, data gathered is strictly informational and would be used to guide future decision making for how to regulate microplastics. UCMR 6 may lead to the future development of, and therefore enforcement of, Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) like those promulgated for PFAS in 2023. Owners and operators of all PWS should therefore stay posted for updates to the contaminants to be included in UCMR 6 and what testing and monitoring requirements will apply to their facilities.

Final Thoughts

Though the complex issues caused by microplastics will not be fully solved by an elevation to inclusion in UCMR 6, the potential to sample and monitor them over a three-year period is a critical first step in their future regulation. Much of the discourse surrounding microplastics stems from how little is known about their long-term effects on humans and the environment, gaps in data required to create clear regulations, and difficult detection methods obstructing the formation of a robust data set. While UCMR 6 represents a preliminary step towards analyzing and tracking microplastics, regulations related to microplastics and their potential inclusion in future permits and enforcement is likely years away. Collecting as much information as possible and keeping microplastics in the public eye will be key to creating stringent drinking water standards and eventually limiting contact with microplastics in our daily lives.

ALL4 continues to track and keep our readers informed about important environmental regulatory updates. For questions related to the content in this article or about microplastics in drinking water, please reach out to Aidan Decker at adecker@all4inc.com or 571-554-8246. For any regulatory questions related to water or for strategical support on water-related issues, please refer to our Water Tech Team Lead, Lizzie Smith, at lsmith@all4inc.com or 770-999-0269.