In recent years there has been growth in the development and availability of small, hand-held air quality monitoring devices or air sensors; even some that can be drone-mounted. The US EPA already has standards for bigger, traditional monitors. But such smaller devices can determine air quality in indoor space or the contributions of different sources to small areas of outdoor space. One area holding back this technology from even greater use and growth is the lack acceptable standards by the US EPA for using such equipment and the handling of its data. Companies, groups, etc. are reluctant to purchase and use such units if the data from them may not be accepted or trusted.

When will the US EPA develop such standards? The US EPA has had a number of in-house meetings and workshops with manufacturers and potential users to understand the use of indoor and outdoor air sensors. The US EPA needs to establish uniform standards to address issues for small air monitors for equipment design, usage, and maintenance and for data quality, interpretation, and management. The US EPA has been asked by facilities, public groups, and state agencies to develop policy on the use of air sensor data, such as for compliance with the federal government’s own NAAQS.

The US EPA is considering development of a certification program for air sensors. The agency recently produced a report evaluating peer-reviewed literature and other sources of information on a variety of sensors to identify criteria needed to make these policy decisions about appropriate techniques for operation and treatment of data collected See peer_review_and_supporting_literature_review_of_air_sensor_technology_performance_targets.pdf are appropriate for the intended application. The American Society for Testing and Material International (ASTM), which has done much work on establishing stack testing standards is involved with small air quality monitoring units, too.

We are in the midst of an information revolution. Nearly everybody has their own mobile phone, which does much more than call somebody, but is a repository of much information. It is easy to imagine a time – maybe relatively soon – when most offices, homes, retailers, gyms, etc. will have their own air sensors and be able to know the air quality of their spaces. With this data, people can change conditions to improve worker productivity, comfort of shoppers, and the health of residents or patients. Sensors can produce actual data that determine the air quality impacts of behaviors like cooking, barbequing, smoking, cleaning, and burning candles.

But first we need to have standards on how to use and maintain the equipment and manage and analyze the data. And for this, we are awaiting US EPA guidelines or rules.

CCES can help your entity evaluate your air quality and perform the technical tasks to determine whether emissions comply with current federal and state laws and to improve the quality. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

When writing virtually any environmental rule, the USEPA performs and publishes its calculations of the financial cost of implementing the rule vs. the gains in terms of extending human life, improving public health, and prevention of environmental degradation. While one can quibble about the approach or formulas, the USEPA is transparent about why it believes a proposed rule or rule change is beneficial to society.

This article is not intended to be political in any way, but a warning that the USEPA is in the process of changing this approach and this will affect future rulesmaking. The current USEPA is looking to de-emphasize the life and health benefits of a proposed rule and emphasize compliance costs instead. The recent proposed change in the Clean Power Plan (CPP) (discussed in another article in this newsletter) openly states that it will decrease the number of prolonged lives compared to CPP and that the increase in greenhouse gases it will cause will have adverse economic effects. But the agency is pushing for this replacement because it will reduce the upfront costs of affected facilities to comply.

It was thought initially that the new approach of the USEPA is to de-emphasize protection of public health benefits to favor an overall evaluation of monetary benefits. But even this does not seem to be the case in the CPP replacement bill, as it would reduce some of the monetary benefits to the nation.

Another irony is that a number of affected industries of Obama-era environmental rules have come out against revising them. Duke Energy, for example, came out against revising CPP because of money already invested in required controls. Since money has already been spent to comply, the rule might as well stay in effect and benefits acrue.

In addition, research into environmental rule effectiveness shows that many rules are achieving public health goals at reasonable costs. The 2011 Clean Air Mercury rule cost utilities – by their estimation – about $18 billion to install compliant technology. Mercury emissions dropped by nearly 70%, resulting in direct health benefits of $4 to $6 billion. The USEPA went on to state that savings of an additional $80 billion per year was achieved due to the indirect benefits of reducing mercury emissions, such as reduction in lung and heart disease, resulting in 11,000 premature deaths delayed per year.

USEPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler stated that the agency is looking into an overhaul of how to calculate the cost and benefits of environmental regulations. His predecessor, Scott Pruitt, stated that he felt that the agency did not properly perform cost-benefit analyses, artificially inflating benefits and underestimating costs. They stated that the agency has been guilty of picking winners and losers and tainting their analyses to encourage the changes it wishes. The formulas in USEPA cost-benefit calculations must be modified, they and their supporters say.

Others complain that the formulas used by the USEPA do not go far enough to show the benefits of a healthier population by not taking into consideration the cost to the US economy of job loss due to layoffs and sick time.

CCES can help your firm keep up with changing environmental rules at the federal, state, and local level and provide you with the information to make the best determination of compliance options. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

In late January 2018, the USEPA issued an internal memorandum and in early February USEPA Administrator Scott Pruitt testified to Congress of his desire to rescind its “Once In Always In” (OIAI) policy for major sources under the federal National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) program. Under OIAI, major sources subject to Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards are prohibited from reclassification that would excuse them from these standards even if the facility reduced air toxic emissions sufficiently to become a minor source. The memo reverses this position. This action is being done to reward major emission sources who have invested resources to significantly reduce hazardous air pollutant emissions to fall below the major source threshold. The USEPA plans to amend NESHAP text to codify this new policy beginning with a Federal Register posting. Legal challenges are expected.

Background

The federal NESHAP program provides emission limits based on “maximum achievable control technology”, defined in the rule as fairly stringent requirements. MACT apples to sources that emit any of 187 listed hazardous air pollutants (“HAPs”) in over 100 source categories. NESHAP covers two categories of sources: “major” and “area” sources. Major sources have the potential to emit at least 10 tons per year (tpy) of any listed HAP or 25 tpy of all HAPs. Any source that is not “major” is treated as an “area” source. Most MACT standards only apply to major sources; area sources are exempt. However, MACT standards for some source categories apply to both major and areas sources.

Given this, it is possible for a facility to accept federally-enforceable emission limits to become an area source (“synthetic minor”) to get out of installing expensive MACT-compliant technology (and avoid significant recordkeeping and reporting requirements). This can be achieved potentially with air pollution control strategies that are less stringent than MACT or by reducing hours of operation. Given the sensitivity of HAP emissions which could result in adverse public health effects on those near a plant, the USEPA in the early 1990’s established a policy that a facility can become a synthetic minor, but only by doing so before a MACT standard became effective. One cannot avoid the standard after the MACT standard went into effect, leading to the OIAI policy.

USEPA Justification

The USEPA justified the new policy on the grounds that Congress in the Clean Air Act provided no language pertaining to the reclassification of major sources to area ones. Their new guidance memo wishes to inject “plain language” that a facility would switch from a major source of HAPs to an area source when an enforceable limit on potential to emit HAPs below the “10/25” thresholds is achieved and approved.

Intended Outcomes

The USEPA believes its new policy ending OIAI will have several outcomes. It would:

• result in “meaningful incentives” for facilities to undertake projects that will reduce HAP emissions below major source thresholds.

• eliminate a “punishment” for facilities whose HAP emissions have dropped not because of conscious emission reductions, but because of changes in processes or business shifts for remaining “major”. For example, facilities who have permanently substituted less toxic compounds for HAPs for any of a variety of reasons (cost, availability, worker safety concerns) and is no longer major would no longer be required to comply with MACT and robust recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Also, this would apply to whose business has changed and no longer produce products or produce less product that require use of HAP compounds. They would no longer be burdened given this policy change.

• remove the burden for facilities whose potential to emit (based on unrestricted operation) is above the major source threshold, but whose actual emissions are significantly below it. Facilities who were unsure how to limit their operation to have federally-enforceable limits were careful and went into a given MACT program. But for those whose subsequent operation confirmed that actual HAP emissions were truly well below the major threshold, it was too late for relief.

A Compromise Solution?

While this is an article of facts and background, I do wish to provide a compromise position that I think would achieve the goals of both sides of this debate. New York State has a policy that any facility wishing to permit itself just below any applicable threshold (even for non-HAP compounds) must be limited to 10% below the threshold to account for any unexpected or accidental release (the facility would likely still be below the threshold. Applied to this situation, if a facility can commit and abide by permit limits of 9 tpy for any HAP and 22.5 tpy of all HAPs, and maintain this for a set time, say, 2 years, then it can be changed to an area source and all MACT requirements removed.

What Facilities Should Do

While there are likely to be legal battles concerning the elimination of OIAI, facilities who are regulated as major HAP sources should review their current emission inventories to see if they have fallen below the major source thresholds or are close enough to make the reduction to below the threshold technically and economically feasible. It may be to the facility’s advantage to catalog that its actual emissions are below the major threshold or implement the changes that will ensure this. To codify this, one would need to modify one’s Title V Air Permit to remove that MACT standard as an applicable rule and in so doing, remove or lessen control, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. Some states, which may be resistant to this change, may not implement any such changes until all court proceedings are completed. Also, some have “anti-backsliding” provisions that may prevent the loosening of existing restrictions. Such facilities should retain the proper technical and legal experts as they are proceeding.

Please note that this is a technical, not a legal, assessment of the change in federal OIAI policy. Speak to appropriate legal counsel before making any decisions on this or related matters. CCES has the technical experts to help you assess whether your current emissions exceed or are below any major applicability threshold and can provide advice on the most cost-effective ways to reduce HAP (and non-HAP) emissions for a variety of processes. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.