Qenvironmental quarterly

Transcription

1 Issue No. 15 Qenvironmental quarterly A Trinity Consultants Publication winter 2013 ERegulatory UPDATE 2 EPA Finalizes Boiler NESHAP (Again) 10 Understanding and Preparing for an Inspection 23 RICE MACT Applicability Broadens technology 14 Leveraging Standard Microsoft Software to Manage EHS Compliance 22 Powerful Planning and Response Tools for Hazardous Releases, Fires, and Explosions sustainability 18 Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) Gains Traction as Prominent Global GHG Database COMPANY NEWS 9 Trinity Aquires Toxicology and Industrial Hygiene Leader, SafeBridge Consultants 13 Truelove to Lead Oil and Gas Sector Services TRAINING 17 On-on-One Tutoring on the Issues that are Important to You

2 EPA Finalizes Boiler NESHAP (Again) By TOM MUSCENTI, PE, Managing Consultant Pittsburgh On December 20, 2012, U.S. EPA signed final amendments and revisions to the reconsidered National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters at both major and area sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions. EPA developed separate rules for units at major sources of HAP emissions (greater than 10 tons per year [tpy] of any single HAP and/or greater than 25 tpy of total HAP) and area sources of HAP emissions (less than 10 tpy/25 tpy). The Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for units at major sources are found in 40 CFR 63 Subpart DDDDD, while the Generally Available Control Technology (GACT)/MACT standards for units at area sources are found in 40 CFR 63 Subpart JJJJJJ. The final changes were made to rules that were promulgated on March 21, 2011 for both source categories. The proposed changes were proposed on December 23, The implementation and enforcement of these rules has been in limbo since EPA proposed reconsideration on the March 2011 rules. With these final rules, EPA has revised compliance dates for units affected by the rules. The final rules were published in the Federal Register on January 31, 2013 (major source rule) and February 1, 2013 (area source rule). 2 Environmental Quarterly Winter 2013

3 This rulemaking, like previous rulemakings, was promulgated along with the Nonhazardous Secondary Material (NHSM) and Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) rules in EPA s latest attempt to finalize rules for various types of combustion units. The CISWI rule was published in the Federal Register on February 7, Major Source Boiler MACT The major source rule, known as the Boiler MACT, affects boilers and process heaters that burn coal, biomass, other non-waste solid fuels, liquid fuels, natural gas, refinery gas, and other gaseous fuels. The affected sources for the rule are the collection of existing and each new and reconstructed industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters that do not burn solid waste at major sources of HAP emissions. The basic framework for the regulation remains the same. Departures from the March 21, 2011 rule are highlighted in the following sections. Compliance Dates The compliance date for new sources is date upon which the final rule was published in the Federal Register January 31, 2013, or upon startup, whichever is later. The compliance date for existing sources is January 31, In the final rule preamble, EPA noted that facilities may request a one-year extension of the compliance date for existing sources if the owner or operator can justify that additional time is needed (e.g., for air pollution control installation, constructing new energy sources). The date after which units are considered new or reconstructed under the rule remains June 4, A boiler or process heater is classified as existing if it is not new or reconstructed. EPA also addressed transition between several related rules for CISWI units and Electric Generating Units (EGUs). For units transitioning from CISWI, compliance is required on the effective date of fuel switch and compliance must be demonstrated within 60 days of the effective date of the waste-to-fuel switch as identified under CISWI regulations. For former EGUs, compliance is required on the effective date of switch and compliance must be demonstrated within 180 days of becoming an affected source. Emission Limits The HAP categories targeted by the rule remain unchanged and include mercury (Hg), non-mercury metal HAP, non-dioxin organic HAP, non-metal inorganic HAP, and dioxin/furans. While hydrogen chloride (HCl), particulate matter (PM), and carbon The HAP categories targeted by [Boiler MACT]... include mercury (Hg), nonmercury metal HAP, non-dioxin organic HAP, non-metal inorganic HAP, and dioxin/furans. monoxide (CO) remain surrogates for non-metal inorganic HAP, metal HAP, and non-dioxin organic HAP, respectively, EPA finalized total selected metals (TSM) as an optional surrogate for metal HAP for solid fuel, liquid fuel, and Gas 2 units. TSM is defined as the combination of arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel and selenium. Emissions averaging is not a compliance option for TSM. In contrast to the March 21, 2011 rule, EPA designated PM as a combustion-based pollutant for liquid and biomass units as a result of comments received from petitioners. For coal and solid fossil fuel units, PM was determined to be a fuel-based pollutant and a single emission limit was finalized for these units. The designations are contained in the final rule and EPA finalized 18 subcategories depending on the fuel fired and the boiler design when establishing emission limits. Major changes from the March 21, 2011 rule subcategories include: > Adding a subcategory for coal/solid fossil fuel-fired fluidized bed units with an integrated heat exchanger > Splitting the biomass stoker subcategory into wet stoker and kiln dried subcategories > Splitting the suspension burner and Dutch oven subcategory into separate subcategories and including pile burners in the Dutch oven subcategory > Splitting the liquid fuel subcategory into light liquid and heavy liquid subcategories Winter 2013 Environmental Quarterly 3

4 Table 1. Major Source NESHAP Emission Limits for New Boilers and Process Heaters (Units with heat input capacity of 10 million Btu per hour or greater) PM lb/mmbtu HCl lb/mmbtu Hg lb/mmbtu CO ppm by volume, dry basis corrected to 3% oxygen Subcategory Final Final TSM Alt. March 2011 Final March 2011 Final March 2011 Final Alternate March Pulverized coal/solid fossil fuel E E E Stokers - coal/solid fossil fuel E E E Fluidized bed units - coal/solid fossil fuel E E E Fluidized bed units w/ heat exch. - coal/ xxsolid fossil fuel E E E Stokers/sloped grate - wet biomass xxfuels E E E Stokers/sloped grate - kiln-dried biomass fuels E E E N/A Fluidized bed units - biomass/bio-based fuels E E E Suspension burners - biomass/bio-based fuels E E E-06 2,400 2, Dutch Ovens/Pile Burners - biomass/ bio-based fuels E E E Fuel cells - biomass/bio-based fuels E E E N/A Hybrid suspension/grate - biomass/ bio-based fuels E E E-06 1, , Heavy liquid fuel E E E E N/A Light liquid fuel E E E E N/A Non-Continental liquid fuel E E E E N/A Gas E E E N/A 3 Table 2. Major Source NESHAP Emission Limits for Existing Boilers and Process Heaters (Units with heat input capacity of 10 million Btu per hour or greater) PM lb/mmbtu HCl lb/mmbtu Hg lb/mmbtu CO ppm by volume, dry basis corrected to 3% oxygen Subcategory Final Final TSM Alt. March 2011 Final March 2011 Final March 2011 Final Alternate March Pulverized coal/solid fossil fuel E E E Stokers - coal/solid fossil fuel E E E Fluidized bed units - coal/solid fossil fuel E E E Fluidized bed units w/ heat exch. - coal/ xxsolid fossil fuel E E E Stokers/sloped grate - wet biomass fuels E E E-06 1, Stokers/sloped grate - kiln-dried biomass xxfuels 7. Fluidized bed units - biomass/bio-based xxfuels 8. Suspension burners - biomass/bio-based xxfuels 9. Dutch Ovens/Pile Burners - biomass/ xxbio-based fuels E E E N/A E E E E E E-06 2,400 2, E E E Fuel cells - biomass/bio-based xxfuels E E E-06 1,100 N/A Hybrid suspension/grate - biomass/ xxbio-based fuels E E E-06 2, , Heavy liquid fuel E Light liquid fuel E Non-Continental liquid fuel E E E E E N/A E N/A E N/A Environmental Quarterly Winter 2013

5 The following revised definitions were finalized based on the new subcategories: > Light liquid includes distillate oil, biodiesel and vegetable oil > Heavy liquid includes residual oil and any other liquid fuel not classified as a light liquid > Hydrogen sulfide concentration limits were removed from the definition of other Gas 1 fuel (mercury concentration limits remain) > A limited-use unit is any boiler or process heater that burns any amount of solid, liquid, or gaseous fuels and has a federally enforceable average annual capacity factor of no more than 10 percent EPA included an alternate emission limit for units subject to a CO emission limit that elect to install and operate a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) for CO. Compliance is demonstrated using a CO CEMS based on a 30-day rolling average for all units except for suspension burner and Dutch oven/pile burner biomass units, for which 10-day averaging periods apply. EPA incorporated additional emission information received during the comment period in developing the revised emission limits. The emission limits in the original March 21, 2011 and current final rules are summarized in Table 1 for new sources and Table 2 for existing sources. For units constructed or reconstructed after June 4, 2010, but before January 31, 2013, EPA included interim emission limits that apply until January 31, These emission limits apply to new and existing boilers and process heaters with heat input greater than or equal to 10 MMBtu/ hr. Unlike the March 21, 2011 rule, there are no numerical emission limits for dioxins/furans in the reconsidered rule for any subcategory. In lieu of numerical limitations, EPA has proposed work practice requirements. Similar to the March 21, 2011 rule, the standards apply at all times (i.e., including periods of start-up, shut-down and malfunction). EPA clarified the affirmative defense language in the final rule to address violations during periods of malfunction and eliminated the 2-day notification and 45-day reporting requirements, instead requiring sources to include information in the next compliance report. In lieu of numerical emission limits, work practice standards apply during periods of startup and shutdown. The work practice standards for startups and shutdowns are identified as the following steps: > Employ good combustion practices and demonstrate that good combustion practices are maintained by monitoring oxygen (O 2 ) concentrations and optimizing those concentrations as specified by the boiler manufacturer > Ensure that boiler operators are trained in startup and shutdown procedures, including maintenance and cleaning, safety, control device startup, and procedures to minimize emissions > Maintain records during periods of startup and shutdown and include in compliance reports the O 2 conditions/data for each event, length of startup/shutdown, and reason for event Startup must occur using one or a combination of listed clean fuels. Once firing solid or Gas 2 fuels commences, emissions must be controlled by air pollution control devices required for normal compliance. Additionally, continuous monitoring systems must be operating during periods of startup and shutdown; however, emissions during startup and shutdown are excluded from 30-day or 10-day averaging periods. EPA provided specific definitions of startup and shutdown in the final rule. Startup is defined as either the first-ever firing of fuel in a boiler or process heater for the purpose of supplying steam or heat for heating and/or producing Winter 2013 Environmental Quarterly 5

6 electricity, or for any other purpose, or the firing of fuel in a boiler after a shutdown event for any purpose. Startup ends when any of the steam or heat from the boiler or process heater is supplied for heating, and/or producing electricity, or for any other purpose. Shutdown is defined as the cessation of operation of a boiler or process heater for any purpose. Shutdown begins either when none of the steam from the boiler is supplied for heating and/or producing electricity, or for any other purpose, or at the point of no fuel being fired in the boiler or process heater, whichever is earlier. Shutdown ends when there is no steam and no heat being supplied and no fuel being fired in the boiler or process heater. EPA has retained the tune-up work practice standard requirements. As noted previously, the work practice standards replace dioxin/furan numerical emission limits. The requirement to optimize CO emissions must be consistent not only with the manufacturer s specifications, but also with any specified NO X emission requirement for the unit. The frequency of tune-ups is summarized as follows: > Every five (5) years for a new or existing boiler or process heater equipped with continuous oxygen trim systems or with heat input capacity of less than 5 MMBtu/hr in any of the following subcategories: unit designed to burn natural gas, refinery gas or other Gas 1 fuels; unit designed to burn Gas 2 (other); or unit designed to burn light liquid > Every other year (biennially) for: a limited use boiler or process heater; a new or existing boiler or process heater with heat input capacity of less than 10 mmbtu/hr in the unit designed to burn heavy liquid solid fuel subcategories; a new or existing boiler or process heater with heat input capacity of less than 10 mmbtu/hr, but equal to or greater than 5 mmbtu/hr, in any of the following subcategories: unit designed to burn natural gas, refinery gas or other Gas 1 fuels; unit designed to burn Gas 2 (other); or unit designed to burn light liquid > Annually for all other units Tune-ups can be delayed for a specified period if it would require a unit shutdown, if scheduled for the next planned outage for units that sell electricity (not to exceed 36 months from last inspection), or can occur during the next planned entry into storage vessels or if they process equipment, if applicable. For units that have not operated between the effective date and the compliance date specified for the source, the initial compliance demonstration must be completed within 180 days of restart and the initial tune-up must be completed within 30 days of restart. However, the one-time energy assessment must be completed by the compliance date. Energy Assessment The final rule maintains the one-time energy assessment requirement for existing units that was included in the March 21, 2011 rule. The rule clarifies the length and scope of the assessment, as well as specifying that the assessment must be completed before the compliance date. Notable scope clarifications include limiting the inventory of major energy systems to affected boilers and process heaters which are under control of the boiler/process heater owner or operator. Energy management systems compatible with ISO and include the affected units also satisfy the energy assessment requirement. 6 Environmental Quarterly Winter 2013

7 Compliance Monitoring In the final rule, EPA included additional monitoring options for several pollutants and modified the averaging periods used to demonstrate continuous compliance. Compliance with operating parameters (e.g., sorbent injection, scrubber flow rate, scrubber ph, etc.) will be demonstrated based on a 30-day rolling average value, compared to the 12-hour block average in the March 21, 2011 rule. An oxygen trim system with the oxygen level set at the lowest level recorded during the performance test was included as an option to the requirement of operating an oxygen analyzer in the March 21, 2011 rule. EPA revised the definitions of 30-day rolling average and daily block average to exclude periods of startup and shutdown or downtime from the arithmetic mean. The March 21, 2011 rule had a PM CEMS requirement for coal, biomass and/or residual oil-fired boilers or process heaters having an average annual heat input greater than 250 MMBtu/ hr. This requirement has been replaced with a PM continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) for boilers and process heaters combusting solid fossil fuel and/or residual oil (a PM CEMS remains an option). The PM CPMS basis must be in-stack or extractive light scatter, light scintillation, beta attenuation, or mass accumulation detection of PM in the exhaust gas or representative exhaust gas sample. The reportable measurement output from the PM CPMS may be expressed as milliamps, stack concentration, or other raw data signal. This revision eliminates the certification requirements of PM CEMS for subject units. EPA has included the option to demonstrate continuous compliance with the HCl emission limits through the use of an SO 2 CEMS. This method of demonstrating continuous compliance will be allowed only on a unit that utilizes a SO 2 CEMS and an acid-gas control technology including wet scrubber, dry scrubbers and duct sorbent injection. Boilers or process heaters subject to an HCl emission limit that demonstrate compliance with an SO 2 CEMS would be required to maintain the 30-day rolling average SO 2 emission rate at or below the highest hourly average SO 2 concentration measured during the most recent HCl performance test. Area Source Boiler NESHAP EPA finalized several changes and technical corrections to the final rule in this rulemaking. The compliance date for existing boilers (process heaters are not subject to this rule) remains March 21, 2014, as the changes do not affect facilities ability to comply with the rule. Like the March 2011 final rule, natural gas fired boilers and hot water heaters are not subject to the amendments to the area source Boiler MACT/GACT rule. Applicability and Subcategory Clarifications In the final rule, EPA included clarifications of rule applicability and subcategory revisions, which include: > A new subcategory for seasonally operated boilers, which are boilers that undergo shutdowns for more than 7 consecutive months (or 210 consecutive days) due to seasonal conditions > An exemption for temporary boilers, defined as any gaseous or liquid fuel boiler designed to, and capable of, being carried or moved from one location to another by means of, for example, wheels, skids, carrying handles, dollies, trailers, or platforms and meeting additional applicability criteria, similar to the major source rule Table 3. Area Source NESHAP Emission Limits for Boilers PM lb/mmbtu Hg lb/mmbtu CO ppm by volume, dry basis corrected to 3% oxygen Subcategory Final March 2011 Final March 2011 Final March Coal - New (> 30 MMBtu/hr) 3.0E E E E Coal - New (between 10 and 30 MMBtu/hr) 4.2E E E E Biomass - New (> 30 MMBtu/hr) 3.0E E Biomass - New (between 10 and 30 MMBtu/hr) 7.0E E Oil - New 3.0E E Coal - Existing (> 10 MMBtu/hr) 2.2E E Winter 2013 Environmental Quarterly 7

8 > A new subcategory for limited use boilers (same definition as the major source Boiler MACT rule) > Clarification in the definition of natural gas curtailment > Specifies that an existing dual-fuel fired boiler that has historically fired Gas I only will be subject to the existing unit solid fuel requirements if the unit chnages to solid biomass, or liquid fuel EPA has exempted boilers subject to the rule from the requirement to obtain a Title V permit. Work Practice Requirements The tune-up requirements, except for the compliance dates, remain the same as the final rule. If an existing affected boiler is subject to a tune-up, the facility must comply with the work practice or management standard no later than March 21, 2014, an extension of the original compliance date. In the March 21, 2011 rule, EPA required biennial tune-ups for all liquid fired boilers. In the amended final rule, liquid fired units less than 5 MMBtu/hr (new and existing), limited use units (new and existing), all seasonally operated units (new and existing), and boilers with oxygen trim systems must perform a tuneup every five years. Initial tune-ups for new units are required within 25 months or 61 months of startup for units subject to biennial and or five-year tune-ups, respectively. Similar to the major source final rule, the area source final rule clarifies the length and scope of energy assessments. Additionally, energy assessments must be completed before the compliance date for existing sources (March 21, 2014). Emission Limits The finalized rule revised mercury and carbon monoxide emissions limits for new and existing coal fired units of all sizes, while the remaining limits are unchanged. Emission limits in the final rule compared to the March 21, 2011 rule are summarized in Table 3. Oil-fired units that combust low sulfur (less than 0.5 weight percent) oil and do not utilize an add-on control device to reduce PM or SO 2 are not subject to the PM emission limits. Similar to the major source Boiler MACT, the standards apply at all times. Similar to the major source rule, EPA clarified the affirmative defense language for malfunctions in the final rule and revised notification and reporting requirements. In lieu of numerical emission limits, work practice standards apply during periods of startup and shutdown. The same definitions of startup and shutdown finalized in the major source rule are included in the area source rule. Compliance Monitoring In the final area source rule, EPA included the option to install and operate a CO CEMS and continuously monitor oxygen content to demonstrate compliance with the CO emission limits. Compliance with the CO emission limits will be based on the 10-day rolling average CO emission rate. Unlike the major source rule, the same emission limit applies regardless of the compliance demonstration option selected. In the final rule, EPA allowed for the use of oxygen trim analyzer systems to monitor oxygen concentration in the boiler. Similar to the major source rule, continuous compliance with operating parameters will be based on a 30-day rolling average. Upcoming Considerations With the January 31 publication in the Federal Register, the countdown to compliance officially begins. The first deadline will be the initial notification requirement, which is required by May 31, 2013 for major sources and January 20, 2014 for area sources, regardless of whether an initial notification under a previous version of the rules was submitted. With a final rule now in place, owners and operators can review how the final rules impact their facilities and evaluate current operations to develop a plan for compliance. Actions can include planning for potential pollution control installation by understanding emissions relative to limits (emissions testing may be required), determining reductions needed and evaluating technically feasible control technology options and continuous monitoring systems, if required. Additionally, review of energy certifications, monitoring plan updates, and necessary permitting will need to be completed to determine if any additional actions are required. Please contact your local Trinity office at (800) for assistance in the evaluation of compliance requirements to your facility. 8 Environmental Quarterly Winter 2013

9 Trinity Acquires Toxicology and Industrial Hygiene Leader, SafeBridge Consultants Trinity recently announced the acquisition of SafeBridge Consultants, Inc., a leader in the toxicology, industrial hygiene, and safety service sector supporting the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and fine chemicals industries. Based in Mountain View, California, and with offices in New York City and Liverpool, England, SafeBridge comprises occupational and environmental toxicologists, industrial hygienists, analytical chemists, and safety and environmental professionals who work primarily with pharmaceutical companies to manage risk and establish safety programs in R&D and manufacturing operations. SafeBridge is led by President & CEO John Farris, a Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) with more than 30 years of experience in the safe handling of potent pharmaceutical compounds. Mr. Farris and his partners will continue to lead the SafeBridge team as Trinity provides the resources to fuel growth. Jay Hofmann, President/CEO of Trinity Consultants welcomed SafeBridge on board, saying, The acquisition of SafeBridge Consultants is an exciting milestone in the evolution of both firms. We are pleased to join forces with a group of EH&S professionals whom, like Trinity, offer specialized expertise that is highly respected in the market. We firmly believe that this alignment will create significant new opportunities for both Trinity and SafeBridge staff as we are able to offer expanded capabilities to clients of both organizations. According to John Farris, The SafeBridge team is pleased to merge with a company of the caliber of Trinity Consultants. Because of our aligned philosophies on how to serve clients and the retention of SafeBridge technical staff members, we expect the merger to provide the additional resources that will allow us to expand our ability to serve clients. The experienced SafeBridge team provides extensive technical and analytical support to the life sciences industries, including: > Environmental health and safety program and project management > Occupational and environmental toxicology > Risk assessment > Industrial hygiene > Laboratory and general safety > Litigation support > Regulatory compliance support > Industrial Hygiene Sampling and Analytical Method Development > IH Sample analysis Like Trinity, SafeBridge also provides professional education courses on topics of concern to its clients and colleagues. Its Boot Camps are widely regarded for training in potent compound safety. Upcoming courses include: Potent Compound Safety (Boot Camp I) San Francisco, CA Mar. 5-6, 2013 Advanced Concepts in Potent Compound Safety (Boot Camp II) San Francisco, CA Mar. 7, 2013 For more information on these courses, visit safebridge.com/ training or contact Susan Custer at (650) x 231 or susan.custer@safebridge.com. A TRINITY CONSULTANTS COMPANY Winter 2013 Environmental Quarterly 9

10 Understanding and Preparing for an Inspection By jose orsini, Managing Consultant Dallas Regardless of the size of your operations, the products manufactured, and the applicable regulations, it is reasonable to expect that at some point your facility will be inspected. Inspections by regulatory agencies are one of the most feared events by environmental managers. These inspections usually happen unexpectedly or with little time to prepare, and carry with them a high level of uncertainty about what will be inspected and the outcome of the process. By understanding the process, facilities will be better prepared to tackle inspection events. An inspection may result due to a myriad of triggers including public complaints, enforcement initiatives, or prior inspections. Public complaints or events that represent public endangerment (i.e., notable and substantial spills or releases of hazardous substances) can raise visibility for the regulatory agency often leading to an extensive inspection at the suspect facility. Inspections can be carried out as single-media or multi-media efforts. Single-media inspections focus on specific aspects of one media (i.e. air, water, solid wastes) and are usually brief. Multi-media inspections encompass all media and may span several days, depending on the size and complexity of the facility. Note that city or county representatives may tag along for a multi-media inspection and request records not directly related to environmental aspects (i.e., building and occupation permits, fire and health inspections). Generally, inspections consist of the following: > Entry rights and presentation of credentials > Site walk-through > Request for records 10 Environmental Quarterly Winter 2013

11 > Inspection results Notice of Violation (NOV) Administrative Order (AO) Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) Each of these elements is described in more detail in this article. Inspection Process: Entry Rights The inspection process usually begins with the arrival of a representative (or representatives) from a regulatory agency. Environmental staff may question whether to grant access to an unannounced inspector. There may be reservations due to staff constraints (i.e., the environmental manager is not on-site or the person who knows where all the records are filed is on vacation), or just general consternation about granting access to the facility to an unknown person. However, it is important to note that agency representatives have rights to access any regulated facility. These rights and access provisions are granted by applicable laws and regulations, and are also commonly found as permit clauses or conditions on most air quality and water quality permits. It is mandatory for any agency representative to show proper identification prior to engaging in the inspection. Agency representatives are accustomed to being asked for proof of identification, so staff should not feel any hesitation to ask. After the appropriate proof of identification has been provided, access should be granted and inspectors should be made aware of any special circumstances, such as availability of responsible personnel. Site Walk-Through The next step of the inspection usually involves a walk-through. Agency representatives should be asked to follow all required health and safety guidelines and be required to wear any personal protective equipment needed to access hazardous areas. Depending on the type of inspection, the agency representatives will ask questions according to the scope of their inspection and may even interview personnel and equipment operators. Proper signage and identification of processes, storage areas, and equipment is critical during this stage. For instance, an area containing scrap metals identified with a sign that reads Materials for Recycling provides a clear indication to the inspector about the nature of the scrap within the area. Also, clearly identifying segregated waste storage areas (hazardous vs. National Enforcement Initiative (NEI) One of the potential triggers leading to an agency inspection is an enforcement initiative. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has indicated that the following activities are a priority of the National Enforcement Initiative (NEI) for fiscal years 2011 through : > Reducing air pollution from large sources > Cutting hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) > Assuring that energy extraction activities comply with environmental laws > Keeping raw sewage and contaminated stormwater from waterways > Preventing animal waste from contaminating sur face and groundwater > Reducing pollution from mineral processing operations non-hazardous) helps to provide indications about the identity of substances stored in the area. A simple sign might prevent a question, which is often followed by additional inquiries. Request for Records The walk-through is usually followed by a request for records. Although some records might be reviewed during the actual walk-though (i.e., CEMS/DAHS records kept in control rooms, copies of permits, etc.), the records review is generally done in an office setting. The key for success during this stage of the inspection is that all records should be readily available. The staff should be able to readily produce copies of permits, results of any permit or regulatory required monitoring, charts, calculations or inventories required for demonstrating compliance, records of inspections required by permits or regulations, results of performance tests, operational parameters, and evidence of compliance with reporting requirements among others. For facilities that have a digital recordkeeping system, the availability of the information becomes a critical issue; more so when the facility is in the midst of the transition from paper-to-digital. 1 National Enforcement Initiatives for Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013, Winter 2013 Environmental Quarterly 11

12 Inspectors will typically allow some time for facilities to provide copies of records not readily available during the inspection. As before, a sound recordkeeping system that allows expedited retrieval of data can reduce additional inquiries. After the Inspection After the inspection is completed, the agency representatives will provide feedback on their findings. Depending on the depth and nature of the inspection, comments will span from everything looks normal up to a formal closing meeting in which preliminary findings are discussed. For cases in which the inspection reveals an imminent threat to human health or the environment, other measures, including injunctive reliefs and orders to cease and desist might be employed. For inspections that result in agency findings of non-compliance, the next step usually involves a Notice of Violation (NOV). The NOV is an official communication from the agency which states that the results of an inspection have revealed violations of one or more statues or regulations. The NOV will include all background information collected by the inspector, as well as the alleged violations. The NOV will also indicate the administrative due process such as the time allowed for a response and where to file the response. It is important to note that an NOV is still part of the data gathering effort. At this stage, it can be valuable to engage technical consultants in order to assure that an adequate response is being prepared to address all aspects of the NOV. Once the response to the NOV has been submitted, the agency will review the information provided and make a final determination of compliance. If the agency determines that violations still exist, it will move forward to the next step in the administrative process. This step usually involves the issuance of an Administrative Order in which all alleged violations are stated and supported by the agency. (In some cases a NOV is not issued prior to the Administrative Order. In some states a Notice of Enforcement might precede or substitute an Administrative Order.) As with the NOV, an explanation of the due process will be provided, including options to seek appeals, alternative resolutions (mediation), and judiciary reviews. At this stage, the organization should consider engaging not only technical consultants but also legal counsel. Particular care should be given while phrasing responses to the AO in order to avoid initial admission to any of the allegations. The AO will also include a penalty assessment related to the alleged violations. The penalties assessed vary depending on many factors such as risk and economic benefit among others. Agencies have published penalty policies that provide specific guidelines on how penalties are calculated and which include aggravating (willful neglect, repeat violators) and mitigating factors (facilities with solid compliance programs in other areas, facilities with established ISO14001 EMS programs, etc.). The next steps will vary depending on the complexity and validity of the allegations. Since the burden to prove compliance falls upon the facility, agencies sometimes include broad based allegations in AO s. Since the AO is drafted by the agency s legal counsel and based upon the inspector s notes and findings, these allegations must be fine-tuned and tailored to the specifics of the facility in order to contest them. For example, the wording of an allegation in an AO about the presence of a hazardous waste might be as follows; 500-ml plastic container with unknown hazardous waste. In this case, the container was not labeled and was found among other containers labeled as hazardous waste. The inspector assumed its contents to be hazardous waste and transferred his assumption to the AO. If some of the allegations persist after the response to the AO, the facility and the agency will enter into negotiations related to the remaining violations and the assessed penalties. These negotiations can be held directly between the parties (agency and facility) and their representatives (inspectors and agency counsel, and consultants and facility counsel). If negotiations stall, agencies offer alternative dispute resolution (mediation) processes to attempt prompt and fair resolution. After a settlement has been reached, the agency will gather all elements of the settlement into a written document. The document issued will depend on the agency, nature of violations and other aspects but will usually have two components a final order and a consent agreement. The settlement might include administrative requirements (i.e., begin recordkeeping as soon as possible, begin recording fuel used, etc.) and will most likely have an economic penalty component. The administrative requirements will be addressed through a compliance schedule (with actions required at different times during a specific time period). Economic penalties might be addressed through direct payment of the penalty (including payment plans if allowed by the agency) or through the execution of a Supplementary Environmental Project (SEP). It is important to note that if a facility decides to prepare a SEP as fulfillment of an assessed penalty, 12 Environmental Quarterly Winter 2013

13 the SEP may only be used to offset only a part of the economic penalty (i.e., the facility will most likely still have to issue a payment and implement the SEP). The purpose behind the SEP is to re-route expenditures, otherwise used to satisfy economic penalties, toward some sort of environmental benefit. In order to be considered, a SEP must demonstrate adequate nexus through adherence to the following guidelines: > The SEP must advance various objectives of the environmental statutes that are the basis of the enforcement action > The SEP is indeed designed to reduce the likelihood that similar violations will occur in the future > The SEP will reduce the overall risk to public health or the environment > The SEP will be implemented within an immediate geographic area and will positively affect a highly sensitive population The geographic component aspects are usually envisioned in terms of watersheds (for water related enforcement actions) and air quality regions (for air related enforcement cases), but can be broader in terms of area coverage for other programmatic areas. Once an SEP is approved, it must be implemented according to the proposed procedures until its completion. Once an SEP is completed, administrative actions are completed, and penalties are fulfilled, the agency will usually close the enforcement action case. Conclusion It seems that more facilities than ever are experiencing agency inspections; from both local inspectors as well as EPA. Whether driven by public interest or by EPA s National Enforcement Initiative, being prepared for an inspection can save time and trouble later on. While the precise steps outlined in this article may vary from state to state and among different regulatory agencies, it is cleary important to be prepared for an inspection by obtaining assurance that your facility s compliance status is solid and that your recordkeeping and reporting requirements are being satisfied in accordance with your permits and any applicable requirements. To learn more about preparing for an inspection, register at trinityconsultants.com/training for Trinity s complimentary webinar, What to Expect When You re Inspected on Feb. 27, 2013 or contact your local Trinity office at (800) Truelove to Lead Oil & Gas Sector Services Trinity announces the selection of Ron Truelove to head up its efforts to support upstream and midstream oil and gas companies. Formerly an EH&S manager for a large exploration and production company for more than a decade, Ron is also an experienced consultant who understands industry processes as well as its environmental challenges. Based in Trinity s Oklahoma City office, Ron and his team will support oil and gas producers of all sizes with new applicable requirements as well as permitting associated with expansion. The new role will allow Trinity to more effectively support industry clients by efficiently developing project teams that bring the technical expertise and local regulatory knowledge needed to complete projects quickly and strategically. Shishir Mohan, Trinity s Managing Director in the Gulf and South regions, commented on the new role. Trinity s ability to support the dynamic needs of oil and gas industry members has been greatly enhanced by the addition of Ron. His deep industry and environmental knowledge, as well as his ability to drive projects to completion, provide real value to our clients. Meet Ron at Trinity s oil and gas related training events (see trinityconsultants.com/training) or contact him at rtruelove@trinityconsultants.com or (405) Winter 2013 Environmental Quarterly 13

14 Leveraging Standard Microsoft Software to Manage EHS Compliance By Hung-ming (Sue) Sung, PhD, PE, Director of EHS Technology, T3 Dallas Joshua Perkins, Consultant, T3 Dallas E environmental compliance requirements at complex industrial facilities involve extensive data collection, review, validation, documentation, communication, and reporting. Environmental staff members are often overwhelmed with daily scheduled and unplanned events. It is not uncommon for a plant to have numerous spreadsheets, each with multiple checklists for various types of tasks in different schedules, all of which must be updated for compliance certification on a regular basis. Since the advent of Title V operating permit compliance certification requirements, many companies have also implemented expensive EMIS software solutions to manage and streamline the daunting compliance management process. Recent technology advances have resulted in the availability of more and more commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software applications developed specifically for EHS compliance, giving EHS compliance managers more options for information technologies (IT) solutions for their specific needs. One readily available but lesser known approach available to EHS is the leveraging of Microsoft s standard software suite on a SharePoint platform. Most companies already own and provide user licenses of these software programs to their employees under companywide Microsoft enterprise license agreements. By leveraging these standard programs, a solution can be developed to address many of the needs of both small and large compliance programs in a way that is customizable, scalable, and cost-effective. Environmental Compliance Needs As organizations begin to evaluate IT solutions for EH&S compliance management, the following are commonly requested characteristics for a system to streamline the compliance demonstration process: > Centralized system (typically via an internal web-based portal) > User friendly interface for collecting compliance data (i.e., data entered by operations personnel) > Clearly defined compliance tasks for the responsible person(s) > Easy reference to permit conditions and regulatory requirements > Centralized compliance documents and records library > Comprehensive compliance tracking calendar for assigned tasks > Compliance reporting functions > Interface with the plant process data historian to retrieve hourly process data required for emission calculations > Data quality validation to avoid bad results > Centralized emission calculation tool(s) > Emission calculations for specified averaging periods and at predefined schedule > Dashboard to display critical compliance limits > notification/warning to operations managers for open action items > notifications to the environmental department for deviations > Reporting results for required emission reports The list may extend further for complicated compliance demonstration requirements. To meet all the requirements with COTS software applications can be costly; however, many of the task tracking processes can be achieved using the workflow system provided in the Microsoft SharePoint system. 14 Environmental Quarterly Winter 2013

15 Figure 1. Example Document Sharing Site Software Technology Overview SharePoint is a set of web-based development and management technologies that drives collaboration between workgroups. SharePoint can be tightly integrated with Microsoft Office (i.e., Word, Excel, Visio, Project, and Access ) so that multiple users can simultaneously work in SharePoint-hosted documents, forms, and databases and handle tasks such as the collection, review, and approval of data, documents, and forms. The features used most often for managing compliance requirements are discussed below. Figure 2. Example List for Compliance Tasks Control and Sharing of Regulatory Documents Document management is the foremost feature provided by SharePoint. Share- Point document management provides life-cycle control of documents including how documents are created, reviewed, and published, and how they are ultimately disposed of or retained. Regulatory documents often require such capability. An effective document management system allows users across the plant site to control documents as follows: > Who can create and upload documents > How to store documents at each stage of its life cycle > How to control access to a document > How to move documents within a team of reviewers through the document creation, review, approval, publication, and disposition process > How to handle documents as corporate records, which must be retained according to legal requirements and corporate guidelines Figure 1 shows a typical document sharing page in SharePoint with folders and controls very similar to Window Explorer. However, user can also easily search and control the document in SharePoint. Managing Compliance Tasks Managing the numerous EHS compliance tasks is a daunting responsibility at most industrial facilities. There is a continuum of tools that have been used to manage these tasks from paper to tables, and lists in Word or Excel to centralized COTS systems. Within this universe of options, SharePoint task lists offer those unfamiliar with formal task management system with a relatively simple and cost-effective solution. The power of SharePoint task lists lie in their simplicity and flexibility to share and edit them via SharePoint or Outlook. This means that all team members involved in compliance tasks, from Environmental and Operations, can monitor task status. SharePoint task lists feature the following capabilities: > Add, edit, or delete tasks through either a web page (SharePoint) or desktop application (Outlook) > Take tasks offline (via Outlook) > Automate notifications of task assignments and updates > Attach documents to any given task > Add specifics and instructions to any task > Create simple, web-based reports > Publish basic Gantt charts > Schedule and monitor tasks in calendar view Winter 2013 Environmental Quarterly 15

16 Figure 2 shows an example compliance task list page using the SharePoint List feature. Under the List tool, users can easily filter tasks such as by task owner, due date, or other criteria. Collecting Operational Activity Data Microsoft publishes InfoPath, a powerful web-based form builder, as a tool for designing and creating forms that can be integrated with all web-based software. InfoPath is included in the professional version of Microsoft Office. This application allows nontechnical users to build and deliver methods to collect and manage data. InfoPath provides greater functionality and better control of the data collection process over other applications such as Word and Excel. In fact, Word and Excel files can be easily converted to InfoPath to create more robust data-collection forms. InfoPath uses an XML-based data format that is extremely useful for additional applications to read and process the form data. The form can easily be published on SharePoint to collect and send data in readable formats via to SharePoint. Most of these tasks can be accomplished with no compiled coding. Two significant features of InfoPath are the rich rules and validation components. The application allows the form designer to view and manage common interface controls. For example, one can design data fields with rules to check the contents, process simple calculations, and compare with limits, to immediately let users know if the data passed or failed predetermined specifications. Figure 3. Example data collection form built with InfoPath tool A designer can also build forms to collapse sections of the forms for repetitive data or conditional review for different users. InfoPath connects natively to SharePoint in multiple ways. It can read data from SharePoint lists quickly and easily, query live SharePoint data, and return results to the form to process a variety of options. InfoPath forms can be stored locally in SharePoint document libraries in the same way as any other type of document. They can also be made the default template for a given content type. Users can start a new form from a list to automatically create a new record using these custom forms to open, complete, and save locally in the library for record processing. Via SharePoint, the EHS department can centralize data collection forms. All the data collected can be stored with databases, typically an SQL database, that can be used for compliance demonstration. Figure 3 presents an example data collection form built with InfoPath and published in SharePoint. The example shows that a company has converted a previous paper form to an InfoPath form that can be accessed via SharePoint to collect incidentrelated data for recordkeeping and reporting purposes. Calculating Emissions and Managing Emissions Sources SharePoint can accommodate all standard calculation tools built in Excel and Access. The web platform is also ideal to host and/ or connect with emission calculation systems that are developed to integrate with the process data historian. A common approach is to publish Excel workbooks to SharePoint so that other users can view its data in a web browser without opening Excel. In addition, by setting some Publish options, users can emphasize specific parts of the workbook in the browser. All Excel calculation functions can be performed as normal when users update input data via the web. This is also a great way to display Excel charts and tables on a SharePoint page. Building the Site Portal and Dashboards SharePoint provides many design templates that can be used by organizations to build and customize their sites without any programming. Within the site portal, companies can add their logo and select among SharePoint options to accommodate their needs and processes. Like COTS solutions, SharePoint enables users to create and use dashboards that provide up-to-date information in a centrally managed, easily accessed location. Dashboards can be customized for an individual (e.g., environmental manager), a user category 16 Environmental Quarterly Winter 2013

17 (e.g., the environmental department), or the entire site. Share- Point offers several tools for users to configure dashboards. Figure 4 shows an example of dashboard elements. Typical functions such as charts, calendars, open action items can all be built on the portal from data collected from lists, library, and Figure 4. Example SharePoint Dashboard Elements other integrated tools. One can also embed Google map functions for an area view of the sources and locations of interest. Conclusion Many companies have already standardized their IT solutions using Microsoft products. Integrating these Microsoft programs offers a customizable, scalable, and cost-effective alternative to large, expensive commercial products. Using SharePoint, EHS managers can build powerful compliance solutions to streamline data collection and reporting. T3 is working with several organizations to leverage Microsoft products for environmental compliance. To learn how this approach may provide value to your organization, contact Tom Grosch at tgrosch@tthree.com. Based on an article presented at the October 2012 AFPM Environmental Conference in Denver, CO. Microsoft, SharePoint, Microsoft Office, Word, Excel, Visio, Project, Access, Outlook and InfoPath are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries. Google is a registered trademarks of Google Inc. One-on-One Tutoring on the Issues Important to You Have you recently been assigned new responsibilities for environmental issues out of your range of expertise? If you need to come up to speed quickly on the key issues affecting your facility, Trinity can help. Consistent with our commitment to providing professional training on the issues affecting our clients, Trinity s senior technical consultants are available to deliver customized, practical content that will prepare you to handle new environmental responsibilities. Drawing from our staff with the geographic, industry, and technical knowledge matched to your needs, you will receive individualized tutoring that is designed to prepare you effectively to manage your facility s important environmental issues. To learn more, contact Laura Redmon at (972) or lredmon@trinityconsultants.com. Winter 2013 Environmental Quarterly 17

18 Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) Gains Traction as Prominent Global GHG Database By Rich pandullo, Director, Sustainability & Environmental Management Raleigh T he Carbon Disclosure Project (more commonly, CDP) continues to gain traction as perhaps the premier global repository for carbon emissions, mitigation strategy, and program disclosure information. The initiative began more than a decade ago as an effort driven by an atypical non-governmental organization (NGO) and has now gained the attention and support of many Global 500 companies along with their supply chain partners. During its 12-year existence, CDP has generally been less visible than other environmental NGOs. However, CDP s emphasis on identifying material risks and capitalizing on opportunities strikes a chord with business leaders in general. So, in many ways, the rising interest by companies in recent years comes as no surprise. This article briefly recounts the impressive evolution of CDP to an increasingly prominent NGO that is exerting a powerful influence on transparency and mitigation related to carbon, energy, water, and other natural capital assets. Background on CDP ( The CDP is an investor sponsored, non-profit organization based in the United Kingdom with offices across Europe, South America, Australia, New Zealand, India, China, Japan and the United States. The organization represents the collective interest of more than 650 institutional investors with over $78 trillion in assets. Given the strong investment community influence, CDP s objectives have always centered on gathering, analyzing and reporting environmental data (initially carbon, then water, and likely additional parameters in the future) as a means for investors to improve the management of long-term risk and opportunity in their portfolios. The CDP system is based on a simple formula: measure, report and manage the key parameters of interest. Through that process, CDP firmly believes that companies will pay appropriately close attention to long-term business sustainability and develop more effective strategies for mitigation while simultaneously leveraging opportunities for improving business performance. In its early stages, CDP sought to establish a framework for carbon disclosure including GHG emissions and energy consumption, with an initial focus on the utility sector. By the mid-2000s, CDP began sending annual questionnaires to the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of Global 500 companies requesting detailed information on carbon emissions, energy consumption, climate change risks and opportunities, and carbon mitigation strategies. As things have evolved, the disclosure program now includes a more detailed questionnaire for Global 500 companies, a separate questionnaire for Global 500 supply chain partners, and new questionnaires on topics beyond carbon (as discussed below). Response rates to the CDP questionnaire have improved dramatically over the past five to seven years. Historically, the percentage of recipients responding to the annual questionnaire was often below 50%. In recent years, the response rate has consistently been at or above 70%. Plus, company responses to the Supply Chain questionnaire have continued to increase. Some statistics from the 2012 CDP summary bear out these points: > Among Standard and Poors (S&P) 500 companies, the response rate was right at 70% > For the Global 500 group of companies, the response rate was 81% 18 Environmental Quarterly Winter 2013

19 > Supplier responses have increased to 1,864 in 2012 versus 1,000 in 2010 and 715 in 2009 The amount of information requested by CDP in its annual survey is significant, covering not only technical data, but strategy and governance topics as well. CDP responders answer questions in the following categories: > Governance Level of responsibility for climate change within the organization and whether incentives are provided for managing issues > Strategy Extent of integration of climate change risk management activity with business planning > Targets and Initiatives Emission reduction targets and initiatives along with emissions forecasting > Communication Extent and magnitude of company s publication of climate change initiatives on platforms other than CDP > Climate Change Risks Articulation of risks driven by regulation, physical climate parameters, or reputation > Climate Change Opportunities - Articulation of opportunities related to regulation, physical climate parameters, or reputation > Emissions Methodology Overview on current year emissions level, underlying emissions calculation methodologies, and uncertainty within the emissions estimates > Emissions Data Organizational boundaries, inventory results, and verification status > Scope 1 Emissions Breakdown Summary of Scope 1 emissions levels by business unit or geographic division within organization > Scope 2 Emissions Breakdown Summary of Scope 2 emissions levels by business unit or geographic division within organization > Energy Consumption and cost as % of operational spend > Emissions Performance Summary of emissions trends and intensity (per revenue/employee) > Emissions Trading Involvement in any trading schemes as well as purchase of project based reductions > Supply Chain/Allocation Estimation of total emissions attributable to supply chain partners > Supply Chain/Collaboration Joint efforts with supply chain partners on carbon reduction projects > Supply Chain/Engagement Interaction with supply chain partners on climate and energy issues > Supply Chain/Product Life Cycle Analysis Assessment of GHG emissions across life cycle and measures implemented to reduce overall carbon footprint Increasing Impact via Leadership Indices and Special Programs To extend efforts to meet its objectives regarding transparency and performance improvement, CDP has established two leadership indices and four topical programs. These include: > Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index > Carbon Performance Leadership Index > Water Disclosure > Supply Chain Program > US Cities Disclosure > Forest Footprint Disclosure (New) The purpose of the Leadership indices is to recognize companies that excel in providing detailed information on carbon data (Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index) and that have achieved notable progress in terms of mitigation (Carbon Performance Leadership Index). Companies can improve their scores on either (or both) leadership index by demonstrating the following actions: > Comprehensive treatment of strategy, risk and opportunity management as well as inventories, GHG inventories, programs and performance > Strong management support > Comprehensive GHG inventory including Scope 3 with verification > Demonstrated performance with respect to achieving GHG reduction targets > Proactive mitigation, adaptation, and transparency > Providing supporting and corroborating information > Consistency across responses > Interpreting and addressing trends The Water Disclosure program was established to catalyze sustainable corporate water management, so that businesses can capitalize on changing global water availability, measure and manage their water use, and manage the risks that water shortages may pose to their supply chains. As with the Carbon Disclosure program, an essential objective is improve performance by providing data that can inform companies, investors, and governmental entities. Winter 2013 Environmental Quarterly 19

20 The Supply Chain program was established to enable companies to improve their understanding of how supply chain carbon emissions impact their overall carbon footprint as well as how to engage with suppliers to address carbon risks and opportunities. Nearly 60 companies have signed on as members of the Supply Chain program, many of whom are requesting that their key suppliers report carbon data via the CDP system. The CDP s Supply Chain program has received significant visibility due to Wal-Mart s adoption of the CDP reporting platform under its Supplier Sustainability Initiative. The US Cities program was established to provide a platform for municipalities to improve transparency regarding carbon emissions data, analysis of climate risks/opportunities, mitigation strategies and adaptation plans. The CDP expects that this repository of information will improve the sharing of best practices across municipalities worldwide. Timing Considerations The CDP reporting schedule is now well established and consistent from year to year. Slight differences exist depending on whether the company is responding to CDP s Investor request or Supply Chain request. Companies should be aware of the deadlines and their relation to other environmental disclosure dates related to regulatory deadlines. As noted on the CDP web site, the deadlines for Carbon and Waste Disclosures are as follows: Investor Carbon Disclosure: CDP sends out its annual information request to company CEOs on February 1st after which the online response system is open for data input from disclosing companies. Companies should submit their CDP response by the May 30th deadline. Information is published on the CDP website during the month of September. Supply Chain Carbon Disclosure: CDP sends out its annual information request to companies worldwide on April 1st after which the on-line response system is open for data input from disclosing companies. Suppliers should submit their CDP response by the July 31st deadline. Information is published on the CDP website during the month of January. Water Disclosure: The timeline depends on the type of request made by CDP. For the Investor survey, companies receive the request in early February and must submit responses by June 27th. For Supply Chain water disclosure, companies receive the request in early April and must submit responses by July 31st. Forest Footprint Disclosure: This new disclosure program will follow the same timelines that exist for the Water Disclosure program. Why Report to CDP & What Lies Ahead? Most large organizations, along with many small/medium enterprises, are now discovering that environmental disclosure requests from key stakeholders have become a business imperative. This fact is especially true with respect to information and strategy on GHG emissions. What in the past might have been infrequent and optional is now regular and becoming mandatory. As noted in this article, CDP has gained traction in the past decade as a significant platform for disclosure regarding carbon, energy, and other natural capital assets. As articulated well by CDP, companies that disclose are able to demonstrate awareness of GHG issues, leadership in understanding climate change and water risks, positioning to capitalize on innovation and revenue generation opportunities, and preparation to avert future risks from climate change and water impacts. As the influence from CDP increases globally, companies of all sizes would benefit from being prepared to respond. 20 Environmental Quarterly Winter 2013

21 Most large organizations... are now discovering that environmental disclosure requests from key stakeholders have become a business imperative. Companies already reporting to either the Investor or Supply Chain CDP surveys should expect to be prompted in the future to provide more detailed responses regarding emissions, risk management plans and strategies for capturing opportunities as related to activity within their own organizational boundaries. Further, questions from the CDP surveys will continue to prompt companies to consider the benefits of establishing programs to address environmental risks related to their supply chains. As companies undertake this evaluation, many will develop life cycle carbon/energy analyses to prioritize mitigation efforts within their supply chains. Moving forward, current CDP respondents should also strive to develop a better understanding of the expectations connected to CDP s newer programs such as the relatively new Water Disclosure and emerging Forest Footprint Disclosure to understand whether and when stakeholder requests for this information might be forthcoming. Companies not currently reporting to CDP may find it prudent to evaluate whether their key customers are CDP respondents or, more significantly, members of the CDP Supply Chain program. With the already noted strong CDP emphasis on supply chain management, companies who do not directly receive CDP questionnaires may be tasked by their customers to provide input to their customers CDP disclosures. In conclusion, the CDP disclosure program is likely to continue its momentum toward a greater level of global influence on companies GHG (and other environmental asset) disclosures. This increased influence will occur either directly via CDP s survey process or indirectly due to CDP respondents asking for similar information from their supply chains. As your organization considers disclosure, there are several considerations to keep in mind. These include: > Gathering accurate information is important because it can be used to determine enterprise value > Verification of the collected information typically increases the level of credibility stakeholders place in your response > Development of automated systems to facilitate data collection and analysis tends to be highly beneficial and cost effective > CDP surveys do force a company to honestly examine long-term risks and opportunities > CDP surveys and other similar disclosure programs are increasingly pointing companies in the direction of assessing impacts beyond their own organizational boundaries that is, toward conducting life cycle analyses For further information on how Trinity can assist with any of your needs related to environmental and carbon disclosure information collection, analysis and reporting, please contact Rich Pandullo, Director of Sustainability & Environmental Management, at (919) or rpandullo@trinityconsultants.com. Note that Trinity is an official partner of CDP in the area of Education and Training. Winter 2013 Environmental Quarterly 21

22 Powerful Planning and Response Tools for Hazardous Releases, Fires, and Explosions Trinity s BREEZE Software team provides two powerful modeling software tools that enable environmental and safety professionals to analyze and prevent a variety of hazards. BREEZE Incident Analyst (BIA) calculates toxic dispersion from dense or neutrally buoyant gases using the EPA-preferred DEGADIS, SLAB, INPUFF, and AFTOX models. The Source Term Wizard guides the user in parameterizing their scenario and can aid in dispersion model selection. BIA can also be used to calculate thermal radiation from pool fires, jet fires, and BLEVEs, and overpressure from explosions using the TNT Equivalency, Baker- Strehlow, and TNO Multi-Energy algorithms. For more refined explosion analyses, BREEZE provides ExDAM 8, a one-of-a-kind, fully interactive, 3D explosion modeling suite. ExDAM 8 incorporates the unique VEXDAM and HEXDAM algorithms to simulate damage to structures and injury to personnel from detonation of vapor clouds and high explosives. This explosion modeling package is unique in that it accounts for shielding effects, contains a database of anatomical people (man, woman, or child), and uses empirical pressure-impulse data to create vulnerability parameters used for damage and injury assessments. As compared to the time- and resourceintensive process required with CFD models, ExDAM 8 streamlines model set-up while still providing stunning graphical displays and advanced analytical capabilities. With both BREEZE Incident Analyst and ExDAM 8, EHS professionals will be well-equipped to perform risk management planning (RMP) and emergency response planning especially where toxic chemical releases, fire, or explosion are of concern. To learn more, please breeze@trinityconsultants.com or visit breeze-software.com. 22 Environmental Quarterly Winter 2013

23 RICE MACT Applicability Broadens While stationary engines may be one of the smaller, less significant pieces of equipment at an industrial facility, they are regulated by federal regulations that are complex and difficult to navigate. EPA s National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) rule for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (commonly referred to as RICE MACT) has undergone numerous changes since its initial promulgation in 2004, including the most recent amendments finalized on January 13, The table below provides a high level overview of how the applicability of this rule has been broadened over the course of several years to include almost all stationary RICE. > The allowance for owners/operators of stationary emergency RICE to operate their engines as part of an emergency demand response program for up to 100 hours per year (including hours spent for maintenance and testing) > A provision for existing emergency engines located at area sources to participate in peak shaving (non-emergency demand response) for up to 50 hours per year prior to May 3, 2014 > The creation of a subcategory for existing spark ignition engines located in sparsely populated areas > Additional miscellaneous clarifications, corrections and provisions. Rule Date Applicability (Affected Units) Federal Register Notice Stationary RICE > 500 HP located at major sources of HAPs 1 69 FR New Stationary RICE 500 HP located at major sources of HAPs New stationary RICE (all sizes) located at area sources of HAPs 2 Existing stationary RICE HP located at major sources of HAPs Existing stationary RICE (all sizes) located at area sources of HAPs 73 FR FR 9648 and 75 FR A major source of HAPs is defined as a site that has the potential to emit 10 tpy single HAP or 25 tpy any combination of HAPs. 2 An area source of HAPs is defined as a site that is not a major source of HAPs. 3 Existing sources covered by 2010 amendments are stationary RICE constructed or reconstructed on or after June 12, It is important to note that for certain new or reconstructed RICE, compliance with RICE MACT is achieved by compliance with New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for stationary internal combustion engines codified in subparts IIII (NSPS for compression ignition [CI] internal combustion engines) and JJJJ (NSPS for spark ignition [SI] internal combustion engines).. The latest round of amendments to the rule address issues raised by various stakeholders and include the following key changes: > The addition of an alternative compliance demonstration method for existing and new stationary 4-stroke rich burn non-emergency engines > 500 HP located at major sources of HAPs and for existing 4SRB non-emergency engines >500 hp located at area sources of HAPs In consideration of the 2013 compliance deadlines for subject stationary RICE, it is critical for owners and operators to assess specific applicability and compliance obligations closely while bearing the following in mind: > HAP Status: Is your site a major source or an area source of HAPs? > Facility Location: Is your engine located in a sparsely populated area remote from human activity? Is your engine located in Alaska? Is your engine located in a state or local district that will require the installation of controls/ upgrades to meet more stringent local standards? > Stationary determination: Is your RICE stationary or does it qualify as a non-road/mobile/portable engine? > Engine dates: Is your stationary RICE new, existing, or reconstructed? When was the stationary RICE installed, built, purchased, reconstructed or modified? > Purpose of RICE: Is your stationary RICE meant to serve emergency or non-emergency use? If you consider your stationary RICE to be for emergency use only, does it meet the regulatory definition for such use? > Fuel type: Is your stationary RICE fueled by diesel, natural gas, gasoline, propane, or landfill gas? > Engine type: What is your stationary RICE s horsepower rating? Is it a 2 stroke (2S), 4 stroke (4S), lean burn (LB) or rich burn (RB) stationary RICE? The RICE MACT is among the most complex and confusing regulations in EPA s entire suite of NSPS and NESHAP regulations and includes a slew of requirements related to testing, notifications, reporting, and recordkeeping. Trinity has tools available to assist in your RICE MACT applicability determinations. To determine whether the RICE MACT has been evaluated accurately at your facility and address its future compliance, contact your local Trinity office at (800) Winter 2013 Environmental Quarterly 23

24 12770 Merit Drive, Suite 900 Dallas, TX Return Service Requested Printed on Utopia Xtra Green. Includes pulp from 100% certified sources and contains 30% post consumer recovered fiber. Paper is acid free, ph neutral, elemental chlorine free. Paper made in the U.S.A. Copyright All rights reserved. Register for two or more classroom courses in February and SAVE 25% on the course fees when you use the discount code Bundle25. Cannot be combined with any other discount. Does not apply to custom training. upcoming Environmental Training Courses NATIONAL COURSES: Fundamentals of Organizational GHG Accounting Feb 26 Houston, TX Introduction to Air Quality Regulations Mar 7-8 Dallas, TX i Developing an EH&S Management System for Improved Performance Mar 12 Atlanta, GA Clean Air Act Workshop for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry Mar 14 Denver, CO Introduction to Environmental Regulations Feb Chicago, IL Clean Water Act Permitting and Compliance i Mar 5 Dallas, TX Introduction to Waste Management/RCRA Mar 6 Dallas, TX i Energy Management/ISO Mar 5 Raleigh, NC Introduction to OSHA Regulations i Mar Atlanta, GA Understanding RMP & PSM Requirements i Mar 14 Atlanta, GA Clean Air Act Workshop for the Petroleum Refining Industry Mar San Francisco, CA Compliance Workshop for Ozone Depleting Substances Mar 13 Online Stack Testing Workshop i Mar Dallas, TX Managing Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems i Mar Dallas, TX Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP Mar 14 San Francisco, CA Overview of TRI Reporting Mar 19 Online Doing Business in China - EHS Regulations Mar 21 Denver, CO STATE-SPECIFIC COURSES: Air Quality Permitting Mar 6 Charlotte, NC i Mar 7 Chattanooga, TN Mar 7 Cheyenne, WY Mar 12 Boston, MA Mar 13 Mar 14 Mar 21 Chicago, IL Fort Lauderdale, FL Seattle, WA Environmental Reporting Requirements Workshop Feb 19 Baltimore, MD Title V Permitting Mar 7 Charlotte, NC i LOOK FOR THE i (PARTNER CLASS) SYMBOL AND SAVE! Register for two or more consecutive partner classes and SAVE 15%! Complete schedule available at trinityconsultants.com/training or call (800) for more information. trinityconsultants.com (800)