Setting Yourself Up for Success: Air Compliance Inspections
Picture this…. it’s a beautiful April day, and it’s the first warm day of the year. You walk into work feeling refreshed and energized, confident of the great day that lies ahead. You begin your morning routine… maybe you scroll through your email or daily schedule, or perhaps you enjoy a cup of coffee or tea and chat with a coworker. When out of nowhere, your phone rings. It’s security. There’s a state inspector is at your gate for a surprise air audit. Suddenly, you’re a little less confident in the great day that lies ahead and a lot more stressed out.
Sound familiar? Whether you call this an air audit or an air inspection, any EHS manager knows this exact scenario, as we have all been through it before. No matter what you call it, these unexpected visits from any regulatory agency can be a hassle. I worked as an environmental manager in industry for several years; however, prior to that, I worked as a state inspector. By seeing both sides of air inspections, I learned a lot… some of which I would like to pass along to you by offering advice on how to not only make air inspections go quicker, but also give the inspector exactly what they need.
1. Read your permit!
Although this may seem obvious, there are many managers who have either only partially read their permit or haven’t read it at all. Knowing what information an inspector will request and what machines they want to see will ensure a speedy inspection.
2. Ensure you are familiar with past inspection reports and corrective actions.
Before an inspector shows up at your door, review past inspection reports and ensure that corrective action has been taken from previous violations. This shows the inspector that you and your company take environmental compliance seriously. The state typically takes more aggressive action on violations that occur more than once.
3. Make yourself aware of regulations that are not contained in your permit.
Not knowing that you were applicable to regulations is not an excuse for non-compliance. Although most states do a sufficient job of including all applicable federal regulations in their air permits, what about the regulations that are passed between your facility’s permit cycles? The most common federal regulations affecting industrial sources are those concerning boilers and stationary generators. If you need assistance in determining your applicability to federal air regulations, Cornerstone offers a NESHAP and NSPS applicability determination to ensure your facility is in full compliance with all applicable air regulations.
4. Always have a hard copy of your most recent air permit somewhere that is easily accessible.
The inspector will most likely have their own hard copy with them when they request a tour of your facility. They will ask questions related to identifying the emissions units and operations listed in the permit. Having your own copy of the permit in front of you to field questions will make the tour go much more quickly and smoothly.
5. Know the terminology in your permit.
If you call a certain emission unit “Axle Refurbishment Booth” and IDEM calls it “Paint Booth #5” in your permit, it’s going to take both yourself and the inspector several minutes trying to match up emissions units to what is at your facility. Although this problem is easily resolved during permitting activity, it is of no help to you during a surprise inspection.
6. Keep all of your air recordkeeping in one place.
If you prefer to retain hard copies, keep all permit-required records (as well as the permit itself) in a labeled binder or file that is easily accessible. If you retain records digitally, ensure that all records are kept in one file that is easily accessible, regardless of internet availability. Storing all air recordkeeping in one place not only speeds up the inspection itself but also serves as a security blanket if you are on vacation when the inspector shows up and your second-in-command has to conduct the inspection.
7. Use the exact phrasing in your records as the permit.
This allows the inspector to quickly and easily skim your documents for compliance. Ensure that your units of measure match the units of measure in the permit limits and audit your own records to ensure that all permit-required information is reflected in the records. It is a good practice to highlight the “final” data such as tons of pollutants per year to draw the inspector to the most important information.
8. Regularly communicate with other departments about recordkeeping needs.
If the permit-required recordkeeping involves information from other departments in your company such as purchasing, don’t wait until the day of an inspection to request those records. On a monthly basis, send out a request for information (i.e., purchase records, usage information, etc.) to the necessary departments. This will ensure that you can provide an inspector with information in a timely manner.
9. Make note of any non-operational dates.
If you have daily records such as pressure drop readings, it is necessary to note which days your units were not in operation. If an inspector reviews records and sees days with nothing noted, they will assume that this is a missed record. A good rule of thumb to operate under is that it doesn’t count if it’s not written down.
10. It is important to speak with discretion during an audit.
Although it is important to be kind, allow the inspector to ask questions before providing technical answers. Air compliance is full of acronyms and jargon. If you accidentally say the wrong term, the inspector’s interest could pique and open a can of worms you did not mean to open.
During the peak of COVID lockdowns, most state agencies turned to alternative inspection protocols such as requesting records virtually and performing outdoor-only inspections. As we enter 2023, Cornerstone sees a mix of states who have maintained COVID protocols, states which have created hybrid in-person and virtual inspections, and some states that have gone back to full on-site unannounced inspections. It’s important to be prepared for any of these possibilities and respect the timeline that your inspector has provided.
Air inspections can be intimidating, but by setting yourself up for success and following audit best management practices, you can ensure that all future air inspections are quick and hiccup-free.
Recent Posts
Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica: Possible Revisions
There are 2.3 million people in the U.S. alone that are exposed to silica at their workplace. Silica can be found in materials like sand, stone, concrete, and mortar which are in products such as glass, pottery, ceramics, brick, and artificial stone. High exposure to silica can result in diseases like Silicosis, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and kidney disease. The action level OSHA established is 25 µg/m3 and the permissible exposure limit is 50 µg/m3.
On March 25, 2016, OSHA made a final decision regarding occupational exposure to respirable crystalline silica. The standard established much needed action levels and permissible exposure limits which are calculated based on an eight-hour time-weighted average. The standard, however, did not establish a medical removal provision and only established medical surveillance provisions. Medical removal provisions are important for OSHA recordkeeping because if an employee meets or exceeds the limits during their medical surveillance, the employee must be removed from work. When an employee is removed from work for a medical condition or after surveillance, it is considered a recordable injury/illness due to an employee accumulating days away from work or restricted work. As of January 2023, there is not an established medical removal provision for crystalline silica, but there is a strong possibility this may change this year.
In the Spring of 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that OSHA failed to explain why a medical removal provision was not included in the 2016 decision. As a result, a meeting to discuss further consideration was created and deliberation is currently scheduled for May 2023. If the change is made, it would have a major impact on industries across the country.
The importance of adding a medical removal provision, from an OSHA recordkeeping and employee health standpoint, is apparent but this doesn’t include a company’s financial and employee and employer relations point of view. Hypothetically, let’s assume that a company’s grinding operation exposes a dozen associates to a level where they are required to be medically removed from work. The grinding operation would need to be halted completely until certain controls have been made to reduce exposure for associates to continue working. Depending on the severity of the exposure, this could take months or even years to install equipment or create a respiratory protection program that reduces or eliminates exposure. This same company would also have to communicate this information to their employees, who may choose to leave due to unhealthy working conditions.
This potential change is one of many examples of why air sampling monitoring is vital to maintain a safe work environment. Silica monitoring should be completed at least on an annual basis or whenever there are process changes that may affect employees’ level of exposure to silica. In most cases, air sampling monitoring for silica can be completed in a single day with results coming back within the same month. Lastly, whether a medical removal provision is added or not in May 2023, there is a strong likelihood one will be established in the future, so getting a head start on monitoring and, if necessary, creating exposure controls will help long term.
Tyler Sandy is a Health and Safety Specialist and consults with clients in the area of worker safety. Tyler's experience includes industrial hygiene services, safety training, RCRA as well as OSHA and EPA compliance. His experience includes working with the packaging industry, railroad, welding, warehouse, food and medical waste, chemical manufacturing, and casting.
Recent Posts
West Virginia v EPA
On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency was filed. In a 6-3 opinion, the Court ruled that Congress did not grant the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Clean Air Act (CAA) the authority to devise emission caps on carbon emissions. Headlines swept the nation ranging from disappointment to outright misinformation.
How Did We Get Here?
The Clean Air Act was passed in 1970 as a comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources. The CAA covers a wide scope of air topics including the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), State Implementation Plans (SIPs), and lays the groundwork for Major Source thresholds (a.k.a. the Title V Program). The CAA has been used by the EPA for decades to regulate sources of air pollution and create environmental programs, even if the CAA does not expressly mention the pollutant or program.
As society advanced and technology furthered our ability to evaluate sources of air pollution, many environmental leaders and researchers began to address carbon emissions throughout the country. Did you know that coal-fired power plants are the single-largest source of carbon emissions in the United States? In 2015, as a response to the growing need for regulations to curb carbon emissions, the EPA created the Clean Power Plan (CPP) in order to address carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal and natural gas-fired power plants. The EPA cited Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as the basis for the CPP. Although Section 111 promulgates New Source Performance Standards, certain pollutants from existing sources were regulated under Section 111(d). Under this section, individual states set the actual enforceable rules surrounding an environmental program, while the EPA set the emission limit with which the entity must comply. Interestingly, this section of the CAA has only been cited a handful of times since the CAA’s enactment in 1970. The CPP set emission limits based on three different criteria, most of which encouraged a shift in energy production from high-emitting sources to low-emitting sources (i.e., a change from coal to renewable energy).
As a result of both lobbying efforts and administration changes, the CPP was stayed by the Court in 2016 and underwent a cycle of repeals and rebranding for several years. The EPA reevaluated the regulatory authority of the plan (specifically the use of Section 111(d)) and replaced the CPP with the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, based on a different Section 111 citation than before. With the promulgation of ACE, many states and industry leaders petitioned the courts on the legality of the EPA’s regulatory reach.
This issue was finally brought to the Supreme Court in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. In a 6-3 opinion, SCOTUS invoked explicitly for the first time in court history the “major questions doctrine”. The major questions doctrine requires that Congress speak clearly when authorizing agency action in certain extraordinary cases to strike down an agency rule. In summary, the court ruled that because the CAA did not explicitly address carbon emissions, the EPA could not use the CAA to do so. In the future, Congress would have to either amend the CAA to explicitly include carbon emissions or pass an entirely new act.
This leads us to June 30, 2022. The SCOTUS opinion was handed down, and the news took the public by storm. Headlines ranged from “Supreme Court Limits EPA’s Power to Curb Emissions” (Harvard School of Public Health) to “US Supreme Court Deals Blow to Climate Action” (Human Rights Watch). I saw countless posts across social media platforms claiming that SCOTUS had taken away the government’s right to regulate any air pollutants, as well as concern for the future of global warming and carbon emissions. In light of the sensationalism that surrounded this court ruling, it is important to know the facts and how they may impact the future of our legal system, as well as the EHS (Environmental, Health and Safety) industry.
What did the court do?
SCOTUS ruled that Congress must pass explicit legislation giving the EPA authority to regulate carbon emissions from coal and natural gas-fired power plants.
What did the court NOT do?
West Virginia v. EPA did not limit the EPA’s power to regulate and control criteria air pollutants (carbon monoxide, ground-level ozone, lead, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide) and hazardous air pollutants.
What does this mean for me?
If your organization isn't a coal or natural gas-fired power plant, this regulation does not directly affect your operations or current regulatory requirements.
What does this mean for the future of the EPA?
The court’s precedent of the major questions doctrine will put all agency regulations under a microscope of scrutiny. Any agency regulation (whether it be the EPA, DHS, DOT (Department of Transportation), FCC, etc.) that does not derive from an explicit act of Congress will most likely not receive interpretive deference from the courts.
Recent Posts
1-bromoprane: Its Regulatory Evolution from Unregulated to a Hazardous Air Pollutant
Remember 10 to 12 years ago when solvent salesmen were touting a great “alternative” to Trichloroethylene or TCE. The alternative was 1-bromopropane (1-BP). It had several appealing selling points since it worked almost as well, it was unregulated and, thanks to the removal of “once in, always in”, the solvent swap could get sources out of the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning NESHAP (40 CFR 63, Subpart T). As a result, a large number of industrial users flocked to it. Yeah, it was more expensive, but what was the downside? There wasn’t one at the time (at least they thought).
It didn’t take long to figure out that 1-BP wasn’t some inert, benign chemical. In fact, the Department of Health and Human Services classified it as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen”. The US EPA then followed their standard protocol of first throwing it on a petition to add it to the hazardous air pollutant (HAP) list on February 6, 2015.
Later that year, 1-BP was added to the 313 Chemical list as it was to be tracked and potentially reported for sites that qualified for TRI 313 reporting beginning with RY 2016 by sources that clipped the usage of 10,000 pounds per year for Otherwise Used chemicals.
Fast forward almost 7 years later and finally, on December 22, 2021, the EPA signed the final rule adding 1-BP to the HAP list. The ruling was published in the January 5th Federal Register, and went effective February 4, 2022.
So, if your operation uses 1-BP in a vapor degreaser, aerosol solvent, or other form of degreaser, it would behoove you to react as quickly as you can. Depending on your operations, you may find you only require a minor modification to your air permit, or it could result in a change to your permitting level. Either way, jump on it or seek out a professional consultant with knowledge in this area (yes, I can help), whatever makes the most sense for you.
So, what’s going to happen down the line for 1-BP? It could find its way into a NESHAP. That would be kind of ironic since it became famous for getting sources out of a NESHAP. Go figure!!
Further Information
Cornerstone’s air experts follow the state permitting regulations that affect our clients very carefully. Contact us at info@corner-enviro.com to discuss your facility’s situation and how it may affect any new project plans.
Greg Towler is a Senior Air Quality Project Manager whose role is to oversee and perform air permitting and compliance-related projects and work directly with clients to achieve full compliance. He also performs compliance work in wastewater, stormwater, hazardous waste generation, EPCRA reporting and general environmental compliance.
#CleanAirAct #EPA #Sustainability
Recent Posts
Air Quality Modeling: What Is It?
Frequently, a manufacturing plant or industrial operation may have processes that emit air pollutants into the atmosphere. In most cases, the operation will be required to calculate the potential, and sometimes actual, emissions and present the findings to their State’s environmental agency. Then, the type of emission sources and the potential and/or actual emissions rate will be used to determine if an air permit is required. The State will also review the sources and emissions and apply specific regulations to the plant to allow those emissions to be released into the environment. This information will typically be summarized and included in an air permit. Additionally, depending upon the amount or nature of the emissions, the permit may include requirements for controls or limits on emissions.
In some cases, a regulatory agency may ask an operation to present information beyond the amount of calculated air emissions released into the atmosphere. The plant may have to determine what the impact of their emissions is on the surrounding community. When an operation has the potential to release chemicals that, in high concentrations, could cause unhealthy conditions, State regulatory agencies may require an estimate of downwind effects of air pollution emissions. This is accomplished by using air quality modeling.
How do you calculate downwind air pollutant concentration?
Calculating the volume of pollutants being emitted from a stack is relatively straightforward, however, using air quality modeling to determine the concentration of pollutants downwind of the facility is a more complex process. Air quality modeling uses computer programs to calculate the release of a pollutant into the atmosphere and determine how it disperses as it travels downwind. The program will then calculate the eventual concentration of that pollutant at a certain location.
The U.S. EPA has developed many different air quality models to calculate downwind air pollutant concentrations, and these models vary in size and complexity. Simple air quality models, known as Screening Models, can quickly determine concentrations and require limited information about the emissions and the emission points. Screening Models are relatively quick to prepare, do not require a lot of site-specific information, and will provide general estimates of downwind concentrations.
Other more sophisticated models, known as Refined Models, require more detailed information to generate results. These models use site-specific information, such as local weather data, terrain elevation around the site, and other specifics about the emission sources. Due to the complexity and amount of information required, Refined Models require significantly more set-up time and effort to obtain proper results.
You may ask, “If the Screening Model is so easy to use, why would anyone want to use the Refined Model?” The simple answer is that Screening Models are not as accurate as Refined Models. Usually, Screening Models tend to estimate concentrations on the high end to prevent underestimating the downwind impacts. Screening Models are also very general and are not designed to estimate emissions from complex scenarios. Refined Models are able to model complex situations and are site-specific.
Which model should you use — Screening or Refined?
In most cases, Screening Models are used as a “first step” and, since they tend to overestimate emissions, provide a conservative estimate of concentrations from a source. If the calculated concentrations from a Screening Model show no adverse health effects, then one can assume the emission source will not adversely affect the surrounding environment. If, however, a Screening Model shows concentrations higher than allowable values, all is not lost. A Refined Model can be used to provide more accurate and often lower concentrations, possibly showing that the emission source would not have detrimental effects on the downwind area.
Further Information
Cornerstone can help you determine whether air quality modeling is necessary for your facility. Our team of experts has provided clients with both Screening and Refined Modeling analyses to assist them with State agency modeling requirements and other studies. For more information about our air quality services, please visit our website or contact us to discuss your specific needs.
John Nuckels, Sr. Environmental Engineer
John helps clients with the preparation of air permits and supports them in responding to inquiries by State permitting agency personnel. His expertise in air quality monitoring, stack tests, recordkeeping, and reporting assists clients in achieving and maintaining air quality compliance. Industry experience includes aerospace, aluminum, motor vehicle / automotive parts, government, plastics, military, and other manufacturing clients in both public and private sectors.