RMA enviro.com

Goal: Simplify the process of finding the right type of air permit and to efficiently comply with all requirements

RMAenviro fights unwarranted agency assumptions that can invoke the following cumbersome and sometimes non-applicable programs:

 

1. New Source Review (NSR), which utilizes advances in pollution control to supervise new or modified industrial sources and ensures emissions are not significantly deteriorating air quality ~ NSR is a program instituted by Congress as part of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments.

2. Best Available Control Technology (BACT), an emission limitation based on the maximum degree of emission reduction achievable through application of modern technological advances ~ BACT is a concept allowable on a case-by-case basis for major new or modified emissions sources in attainment areas.

3. National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), emissions standards set for air pollutants specifically designated as “hazardous” in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.

We received word that the owner of a small manufacturing concern was in a panic, concerned because he was about to be issued what he called a “gigantic air permit.” We looked into this matter and discovered that a Federally Enforceable State Operating Permit (FESOP) was about to be issued (the second-highest air permit level in his state). We investigated the basis for this permit and discovered that the state environmental agency had assisted the manufacturer in determining its potential to emit particulate. The state agency in fact determined that this manufacturer would emit 179 tons of particulate into the atmosphere every year if it operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It would almost have been funny had it not been such a ridiculous determination. The state had erred. We requested a hold be put on the FESOP and that it not be issued. In turn, we issued a request that the FESOP be downgraded to a source specific operating agreement, two full permitting levels below the FESOP. The state agency complied, but it was too late for this particular manufacturer. The issue had been advised into enforcement by a local inspector. The agency’s air permitting group, in order to save face, demanded that the manufacturer prove that potential emissions were below 179 tons. After a lengthy telephone and email fight, we finally agreed to perform a mass balance study which demonstrated that the manufacturer’s potential to emit particulate was well below 20 tons per year. It was a hard-fought battle, but in the end, we were victorious on behalf of this small firm.

Several years ago, we were contacted by a manufacturer who reclaimed aluminum and made a product from it. The manufacturer was concerned that it was being incorrectly directed into the secondary aluminum NESHAP (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants).

We read the NESHAP and discovered that it only applied to sources that melted aluminum. We asked the EPA in Region 5 to make a site-specific determination that this manufacturer was not subject to the NESHAP. We requested the same site-specific determination from EPA Region 7. EPA Region 7 declined to issue the determination, saying that this manufacturer would have to participate in the NESHAP, while EPA Region 5 said that the NESHAP didn’t apply. In the second year, we requested that the EPA consolidate its determinations, and they did. Unfortunately, they consolidated with the opinion that the NESHAP applied to this manufacturer. We remained adamant that since this manufacturer did not melt aluminum, the NESHAP did not apply.

Eventually, we were able to get a conference together with the Department of Justice, the EPA, and attorneys for the manufacturer. In this conference, the EPA maintained that if any customer of the manufacturer ever melted the product, the NESHAP would apply, even though emissions would remain unchanged at the source. We accepted this, as it enabled the manufacturer to avoid expensive compliance with a very extensive set of requirements.

We significantly reduced the “Potential to Emit” particulate for one manufacturer by reclassifying dust collectors as literally “integral to the manufacturing process.” This plant’s baghouses were used to exhaust air that had been used to move materials through pipes. The baghouses were actually components of pneumatic conveyors, not pollution control devices. For this manufacturer, the baghouses were capturing valuable materials that were collected and sent on to process operations…not capturing “waste” materials that could only have contributed to air pollution.

Now, the plant’s pneumatic conveyors are permitted, while the processing operations (which generate no waste particulate) are not regulated, correcting the errors of air permits issued over a twenty-year span.

An air permit issued in the mid-1990s listed an “afterburner” (actually, a primary combustion chamber) as a VOC control.  We let this issue lie until the time came for permit renewal. When the state agency got around to it in 2005, we demanded in our renewal application that the primary combustion chamber, which was integral to the process, be removed from the list of pollution control devices, as it was not actually a control but a temperature controlling device.

With the help of an agency inspector, we convinced the permit writers at the state capital to declassify this piece of equipment. This manufacturer was able to subsequently avoid further stack testing for carbon monoxide, NO_x and VOCs.

• RMAenviro designs and conducts tests to disprove agency claims about air emissions when assigning the appropriate permit levels and writing permit conditions.
• RMAenviro routinely demonstrates to state agencies that equipment has been categorized incorrectly, and that the label “emissions control device” has been incorrectly applied to equipment that’s actually part of a manufacturing or material handling process.