Avogadro Environmental - Air Monitoring Testing CEMS Services

PA DEP Source Testing Update

Josh Wagner — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:37:17 +0000

PA DEP Recent Update to Source Testing Requirements in PA

As many of you know, the Source Testing Manual 3.3 (Nov 2000) has been in effect and is still the main guidance document for conducting stationary source sampling in PA. However, there have been several unwritten updates, just in the last 6 months, of which you should be aware of if you manage one of these sources. A relevant concern that we carry for our customers is that other testing firms may not take such care and precision to cater to the testing intricacies and demands of the specific emissions compliance authorities, such as the PA DEP. This is why we elect to continuously provide them with beneficial information regardless of whether we currently service their source(s) or not.

One of our basic underlying goals, or ideals, is a smooth compliance experience for all of our potential customers. This may not always be possible, especially with those that we don’t currently relate with, but we maintain that striving for perfect is the enemy of better. Earl Nightingale said it best with his definition of ‘success’ as “the progressive realization of a worthy goal or ideal.” Success is not at the end, but in the process. Every day we are working to improve our knowledge and service in order to better accomplish this goal, one measurement at a time. Every little thing we do may ultimately affect all of our potential customers, so we act as if that is the case, starting right here on this page.

If you choose to be an informed source compliance manager, below are the recent updates that we have found amidst our most recent testing experience and communication with the PA DEP (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection). Of course, if you have already chosen Avogadro as your source testing firm, you need do nothing more than rely on our technical experts to take care of these changes for you.

Oxidizer Testing:

First and foremost, whether your oxidizer is catalytic, RTO, or straight thermal, the most recent push in the Department is to run the process and the oxidizer under normal conditions, not maximum conditions. This is particularly true when the oxidizer is being tested solely for the purposes of VOC destruction efficiency. Secondly, the Department wants the facility (client) to pay attention to details when writing the source test protocol with respect to how to run the process and oxidizer on test day.

Of particular importance is a new guidance or rule being developed in the Division of Source Testing and Monitoring. The guidance requires that the actual measured temperature not exceed 5% of the set point temperature (the so-called 5% rule). Therefore, based on what the Department is asking, it behooves the facility to look at historical temperature data, and select an appropriate product to run on test day, such that temperatures are maintained within this 5% limit. Often, the DEP protocol reviewer will write in the protocol response letter that if the temperatures are not maintained under 5%, a new permit condition may be written based upon the actual conditions established during the stack test. The point is that there’s great risk in not paying attention to the details, especially temperature, when preparing for a stack test.

Printing, Surface Coating, or Chemical Process Industries:

The Department has placed great emphasis on paying attention to the process data collection. For protocol preparation, the Department will expect the facility to expound on “minimum “, “expected”, and “maximum” operating conditions. They will expect you to review hard data to come up with a plan on how to run your source on test day. For example, for a printing press, things to define in the protocol are number of presses, press speed, web width, VOC content, and # of colors.

Engine Testing:

VOC:

The traditional pathway for sampling for VOCs(non-methane hydrocarbons) has been the use of EPA methods 25A and 18. We’ve often seen excellent reproducible results with these methods, but there’s a general consensus in the industry that method 25A biases total hydrocarbons low, and the overall difference of the two values sometimes produces non-detectable levels for VOC. Most recently, the department has stated in protocol response letters that if the EPA Method 18 sample analysis provides a result in excess of the EPA Method 25A measurements, the results will be unacceptable. (That’s right, unacceptable!) In other words, one is potentially doing this testing at risk! To alleviate this problem, Avogadro is using a GC-based approach, utilizing a Thermo-Fisher Model 55I Non-Methane Hydrocarbon Analyzer. This tool is powerful and provides precise non-methane hydrocarbon measurement while also seeing methane concentrations plotted in real-time.

Particulate Sampling for Bio-Gas, Landfill Gas, or Natural Gas-Fired Internal Combustion Engines:

Total particulate matter is often a test parameter specified in a Plan Approval, or a State-Only Operating Permit. The PA Department has recently discussed with USEPA the contribution from the EPA Method 5 fraction to total particulate. It is thought that the EPA Method 5 fraction (i.e. particulate captured on the filter) is small. In an effort to improve the quality of results for total particulate, the tester is given the option-even the suggestion-to sample without the Method 5 portion of the train. We recently tried this on one program (total particulate minus Method 5), and testing went smoothly and recovery was not hindered in any way.

To consult the PA DEP’s site, a quick link to their main air page is here: http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/air/6000

To speak further with an Avogadro Testing Professional, call 610-559-8776, or contact us.

For further reading, be sure to

Check Out Avogadro’s Blog

and Register for Our Free Educational Content!

We have lots of free information regarding source testing available in our Downloads section.

If there is something in particular you’d like us to address, please

submit a request for information.

The post PA DEP Source Testing Update appeared first on Avogadro Environmental - Air Monitoring Testing CEMS Services.

US EPA Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT)

Josh Wagner — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:06:52 +0000

The US EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) and the related Central Data Exchange (CDX) is designed to allow for the aggregation of emissions test data generated in different states and by different testing companies.

Why do we need the ERT?
Because the US EPA does not directly enforce environmental laws; instead, this power has been delegated to the individual states, and the data generated has historically been maintained at this level. Furthermore, differences between state systems make it impossible to take advantage of advanced data analysis techniques in order to make better decisions on environmental policy. The ERT is designed to accomplish a trans-state reporting norm, standardizing the way emissions calculations are done and facilitating their aggregation in the Central Data Exchange (CDX).

ERT’s Bad Reputation and Avogadro’s ERT Expertise
Avogadro has been very successful in assisting clients with tests requiring data submittal via the US EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool System (ERT) for nearly 3 years now. Our experience began in 2010, working with a more primitive version of ERT, called 3.1, after a short upgrade from 3.0. The ERT earned a poor reputation when it was required for certain tests in 2010 under ERT revision 3.1. Speaking of revisions, the ERT program has undergone and continues to undergo regular updating and fixes, which is both good and bad news. It’s good because it theoretically means that the program is constantly being made better. The bad news is that the unceasing myriad of updates, as well as substantial and widespread user frustration, is in itself a sign (particularly in the programming world) that the basic ERT platform is handicapped in some central, structural way. This suggests that no matter what changes are made, it all still stands on a potentially flawed platform. To see the entire history of ERT’s revisions, click here.

Armed with this understanding, all along the way Avogadro Team Members have been diligent and dedicated in keeping up with these modifications, and remain knowledgeable in ERT’s core functioning mechanisms. Supporting this claim, we recently volunteered for and succeeded in Beta Testing the newest version of ERT, 4.0. We did this for two reasons: the first reason was to maintain our familiarity and skill with the program, but the second was also to do our part in helping the software developers find and work out any new kinks certainly expected to occur in an updated program, especially one like the ERT, which has had a history of challenges.

Now, we are of course utilizing the latest updated version in all of our ERT data submittal services. The lessons learned from 3.1 led to the major update to ERT, revision 4.0. While this version of the program is far better than its predecessor, for reasons including the cleanup of some glitches and the addition of supporting more methods, still, the ERT is far from perfect. And as veteran users at Avogadro, we are among the first to acknowledge that challenges with the ERT still exist. We are all too aware of the many nuances and quirks of the system, such as data element glitches, including associations, operations, and nominal malfunctions. However, this consciousness is exactly what makes us adept and competent in maneuvering through ERT’s mechanistic interface in an accurate manner. We know how to properly link data elements manually, how to correctly associate and maintain that associated data, and finally how to manifest accurate results using the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT).

What could be worse than being fined by the environmental agencies, despite having your compliance testing done on time, for not being able to submit the data correctly because your elected testers were unable to solve a problem with the Electronic Data Reporting Tool (ERT)? Here at Avogadro, our considerable experience and noteworthy familiarity in testing and reporting by means of the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) enables us to apply a more thorough approach in your ERT test data remittance. It allows us to efficiently and capably handle any challenge that may arise during the course of testing to data dispatch involving the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT).

ERT in New Jersey
The state of New Jersey is leading the charge in adoption of the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) by pressing for it to be used for all emissions reports. In some cases, use of the ERT is even required in the facility permit (for certain subparts). Use of the ERT in NJ (when not required by the permit) is encouraged by NJDEP, as they eventually want all reports in this format. As a result, New Jersey facilities above all need to consider the ERT when they select an emissions test company. During this obvious long-term transition, NJ facilities without ERT requirements have an opportunity to earn some brownie points with the state agency by getting ahead of the curve and requesting that their test programs be documented in ERT format. Avogadro is happy to serve its customers in this way.

The ERT Experience
The decision to use the ERT is best made before the test program begins. The test plan (test protocol) is an integral part of the ERT and constitutes much of the effort required. Starting a test program off in the ERT format is more efficient than trying to do it after the test is complete because the ERT Test Plan must be complete before any test data can be entered.

A digital test plan also can facilitate review by the regulatory agencies. Since the critical data will be presented in a consistent format, differences between test company document formats become less important. The ERT also allows for digital tracking of the review and approval process, which of course implies a number of benefits, including the most valuable: time. Once the test plan is approved, the test can be scheduled, conducted and data entered into the ERT.

The final step of the process is report submittal, which should be done directly by the facility. Submitting test data to USEPA requires registration with the Central Data Exchange (CDX) and uploading a data package that is created via the ERT program. The uploading of this file constitutes the facility certification and approval of the data. Avogadro has a proven track record with guiding clients through this process, and will only continue to improve in its ERT expertise and application through more experience and in-field problem solving.

For further reading about the ERT, check out the US EPA’s Official ERT Information Page.

The post US EPA Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) appeared first on Avogadro Environmental - Air Monitoring Testing CEMS Services.

RICE Engine Regulations May 3rd Deadline Is Here!

Josh Wagner — Mon, 20 May 2013 22:37:37 +0000

The May 3, 2013 Existing CI RICE (except emergency CI >500 HP at major sources) Deadline is Here! Find Out Below How To Maintain Compliance With Your (RICE) Engines!

If you are an owner and/or operator of one or more of the several million stationary reciprocating internal combustion engine (RICE) currently in use in the United States,the operation of your engine is subject to US EPA air pollution regulations promulgated in several stages beginning in 2004. These engines provide shaft power for a wide variety of industrial, commercial, institutional, agriculture and municipal applications. Federal rules applicable to stationary engines have been set forth in three sub-parts of the EPA’s Code of Federal Regulations(CFR). Rules,set forth in two sub-parts under the New Source Performance Standards(NSPS), are applicable to an engine defined as a new,modified or reconstructed engine while the third sub-part, under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants(NESHAP), applies to new, modified, reconstructed OR existing engines:

40 CFR Part 60, Sub-part IIII: New, Modified or Reconstructed Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines(CI ICE).

NSPS 40 CFR Part 60, Sub-part JJJJ: New, Modified or Reconstructed Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines(SI ICE).

RICE NESHAP – 40 CFR Part 63, Sub-part ZZZZ: Existing and New SI and CI ICE.

Specific federal standards applicable to stationary RICE depends on the engine’s design, e.g. spark ignited (SI) or compression ignited (CI); fuel, e.g., diesel, natural gas, landfill gas or digester gas;the engine power rating; its manufacturing and/or construction date; and the engine location; e.g., area or major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). A major source of hazardous air pollutants is defined as a facility with a potential to emit more than 10 tons per year of any single HAP or more than 25 tons per year of any combination of HAPs. An area source is any source that is not a major source. Please keep in mind that stationary engines can be, and often are, subject to local or state air quality and operating permit standards as well as federal standards. New and existing stationary RICE, by definitions contained in the rules, are classified into one of the following categories:

Existing Source

Stationary RICE > 500 horsepower at a major source of HAP and installed or built on‐site before 12/19/02; or
Stationary RICE < 500 horsepower at a major source of HAP and installed or built on‐site before 6/12/06; or
Stationary RICE at an area source of HAP and installed or built on‐site before 6/12/06.

New Source

Stationary RICE installed, built on‐site, or reconstructed on or after the above dates.
A change in ownership of an existing engine doesn’t make it new.

This paper, divided into sections by RICE rule sub-part, of which you have just read the introduction to, seeks to provide a brief overview of EPA air quality rules applicable to stationary engines with a focus toward key compliance dates, emission standards and emission testing requirements. To continue reading this white paper, navigate to our Downloads page, and log-in for free access on our sidebar after registering for a free subscriber account!

To speak with someone further about this compliance regulation rule set, or for help with your engine(s), call us at 610-559-8776. Ask for Ed Burgher.

For further reading, also check out our basic RICE Testing page.

The post RICE Engine Regulations May 3rd Deadline Is Here! appeared first on Avogadro Environmental - Air Monitoring Testing CEMS Services.

New Jersey DEP SSTA Program 60 Clock AASP

Josh Wagner — Fri, 03 May 2013 22:27:34 +0000

New Jersey DEP Stationary Source Testing Audit Program 60 Clock has started with the posting of another Accredited Audit Sample Provider (AASP) on the EPA website on April 16, 2013.

Facilities conducting compliance tests on and after June 16, 2013 will be required to comply and should plan accordingly. For details on the methods that are affected, please visit the EPA website. (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/email.html#audit)

Background Information:
In September 2010, EPA took final action to promulgate amendments to the General Provisions to allow Accredited Audit Sample Providers (AASPs) to supply Stationary Source Audit Samples (SSAS) and to require sources to obtain and use these samples from the accredited providers instead of from EPA (through NJDEP in NJ), as was the prior practice. In addition to allowing private AASPs to provide audit samples for the stationary source audit program, this action shifted the burden of obtaining an audit sample from the compliance authority (ie: NJDEP) to the source. In the past, the EPA provided the samples to the compliance authorities at no cost, but this action required the source to purchase the samples from an accredited provider. The requirement to use an audit sample during a compliance test applies to all test methods for which a commercially available audit exists; effective 60-days after two providers are accredited for a particular method.

For additional resources or questions about this may affect your next test, please contact us at cs@avogadro.net, or call 610-559-8776.

The post New Jersey DEP SSTA Program 60 Clock AASP appeared first on Avogadro Environmental - Air Monitoring Testing CEMS Services.

Utility MATS Rule Update (Mercury and Air Toxics Standards)

Josh Wagner — Fri, 03 May 2013 22:01:07 +0000

The USEPA issued a revision to the final Utility Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS rule) on March 28, 2013. This update revised certain emission limits for new power plants subject to the (MATS). This includes emission limits for mercury, particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), acid gases and certain individual metals. Additionally, certain monitoring and testing requirements that apply to new sources were adjusted. The new standards affect only new coal‐ and oil‐fired power plants built in the future.

The update does not change the final emission limits or other requirements for existing power plants per the final MATS rule published in the February 16, 2012 Federal Register. The February 16 rule included numerical emission limits for mercury, PM (as a surrogate for toxic, non-mercury metals) and HCl for all existing and new coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs). Existing and new oil fired EGU are also subject to emission limits for mercury, PM (as a surrogate for toxic, non-mercury metals) and HCl as well as HF.

This rule also establishes alternative compliance options for HCl using SO2 and for some power plants, individual and total non-mercury metals as an alternative to PM. This rule also provides options for determining compliance using frequent periodic testing as an alternative to operating continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) and for reducing the monitoring requirements for EGUs that qualify as low EGU emitters (LEE).

In a nutshell, the alternative compliance options require emissions testing and more emissions testing. LEE qualification will require three years of quarterly emission test data or continuous emissions monitoring data for the applicable parameters. Importantly, for facilities considering complying as a LEE, testing resources should be retained well in advance of the first testing event to ensure that your desired testing team will be available.

For more detail on the LEE option, please download our free LEE Qualifications presentation.

The post Utility MATS Rule Update (Mercury and Air Toxics Standards) appeared first on Avogadro Environmental - Air Monitoring Testing CEMS Services.

NJDEP Air Compliance Enforcement Alert

Josh Wagner — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:56:25 +0000

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) issued a Compliance Advisory Enforcement Alert on April 8, 2013 that affects owners and operators of a stationary engine that generates electricity permitted as an emergency generator under an Air General Permit (GP) 005, Air Construction Permit, or Title V Operating Permit.

This Enforcement Alert was prompted by the NJDEP discovery that some owners/operators of emergency generators were entering into electric supply agreements for peak shaving, demand response and similar programs. Using an emergency generator for peak shaving or demand response is only permissible if the air permit conditions specify allowable non-emergency use and the stationary engine includes air pollution control. To participate in a demand response program, the facility is required to obtain a regular Air Pre-construction or Operating Permit. The permit would require the engine to comply with all applicable requirements including NOx RACT, State of the Art and risk screening analysis, which is where Avogadro would come in to be your air compliance partnership experts.

It is important that owners/operators of emergency generators do not participate in peak shaving or demand response programs without obtaining the required approvals. The NJDEP will be pursuing enforcement action against violators of these requirements.

More information is available in the Compliance Advisory, http://www.nj.gov/dep/enforcement/advisories/2013-05.pdf.

Questions? Contact Ed Burgher at 610-559-8776×207[Office], 518-857-3096[Mobile] or schedule a free consultation today!

The post NJDEP Air Compliance Enforcement Alert appeared first on Avogadro Environmental - Air Monitoring Testing CEMS Services.

News Release: EPA Updates Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for New Power Plants

Josh Wagner — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 21:34:00 +0000

What follows is not only good news for the public domain of health and safety, but crucial news relevant especially to environmental managers or those persons in charge of compliance at new power plants. You need to be aware of these updated regulations so that your plant makes the transition to compliance in a smooth and hassle-free way. Avogadro Environmental, a premier stack and emissions testing company, is willing to be your expert partner in compliance, no matter what your unique situation dictates. Linked below is our avenue to help you and your company understand the cost and methodology difference between the two options of quarterly testing versus monitoring. It is our purpose to help educate our clients to help them make the best, most informed decisions about their unique compliance success strategy.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 29, 2013

EPA Updates Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for New Power Plants

Agency also proposes updates to oil and gas storage tank standards

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued updates to pollution limits for new power plants under the mercury and air toxics standards, based on new information and analysis that became available to the agency after the rule was finalized.

The updates are largely technical in nature and will have no impact on the sensible, achievable and cost-effective standards already set for existing power plants. The public health benefits and costs of the rule remain unchanged. EPA estimates that the standards, which will protect the health of millions of families, especially children, will prevent as many as 11,000 premature deaths and 4,700 heart attacks every year. The standards will also help America’s children grow up healthier– preventing 130,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms and about 6,300 fewer cases of acute bronchitis among children each year.

The updated standards only apply to future power plants and do not change the types of pollution control technology that plants would install. The updates ensure that emissions limits are achievable and that pollution levels can be measured continuously.

EPA’s mercury and air toxics standards are the first national standards to protect American families from power plant emissions of mercury and toxic air pollution like arsenic, acid gas, nickel, selenium and cyanide. EPA considered dozens of public comments from a range of stakeholders, including industry and environmental groups, as part of the public process to update the new source standards.

Also on March 28, 2013, EPA proposed updates to the agency’s 2012 performance standards for storage tanks used in oil and natural gas production. The proposed changes reflect recent information showing that more higher-volume storage tanks will be coming on line than the agency originally estimated and would provide storage tank owners and operators additional time to comply with a requirement to reduce volatile organic compound emissions while equipment to reduce those emissions is being manufactured. EPA will take comment on today’s proposal for 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register and will hold a public hearing if requested.

Questions? Contact Ed Burgher at 610-559-8776×207[Office], 518-857-3096[Mobile] or schedule a free consultation today!

We are also willing to provide you and your company with a presentation to help you understand the cost and method differences of quarterly testing versus monitoring.

More information on MATS: http://epa.gov/mats/actions.html

More information on the proposed updates to the oil and gas regulations: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/actions.html

The post News Release: EPA Updates Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for New Power Plants appeared first on Avogadro Environmental - Air Monitoring Testing CEMS Services.

MATS Proposed Reconsideration Rule

Ed Burgher — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 16:39:24 +0000

On November 16, 2012, EPA issued its proposed reconsideration rule to update emission limits for new power plants under the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). EPA is proposing to raise emission limits for new power plants under MATS. This includes limits for mercury, particulate matter, acid gases, and certain individual metals. New power plants will use the same types of state‐of‐the‐art control technologies to meet these proposed standards as they would have used under the previously finalized standards. EPA is also proposing to relax the requirements for certain emissions monitoring techniques. The proposal does not change the final emission limits for existing power plants. EPA plans to publish the rule under an expedited schedule in the Federal Register. Publication in the Federal Register will trigger a 30-day public comment period.

EPA says it remains on track to finalize the reconsideration rule in March 2013. April 13, 2013 is the effective date of the greenhouse gas (GHG) new source performance standards (NSPS) for the so-called “transitional” units impacted by the MATS new unit standards and the GHG NSPS.

Attached are EPA’s Proposed Rule and related Fact Sheet.

The post MATS Proposed Reconsideration Rule appeared first on Avogadro Environmental - Air Monitoring Testing CEMS Services.

E.P.A. Sets a Lower Limit for Soot Particles in the Air

Ed Burgher — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:01:30 +0000

By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: December 14, 2012
New York Times – Online Edition http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/science/earth/epa-proposes-tighter-soot-rule.html?ref=earth&_r=0

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency announced a new standard for soot pollution on Friday that will force industry, utilities and local governments to find ways to reduce emissions of particles that are linked to thousands of cases of disease and death each year.

The agency, acting under a court deadline, set an annual standard of 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air, a significant tightening from the previous standard of 15 micrograms, set in 1997, which a federal court found too weak to adequately protect public health. The new standard is in the middle of the range of 11 to 13 micrograms per cubic meter that the E.P.A.’s science advisory panel recommended.

Communities must meet the new standard by 2020 or face possible penalties, including loss of federal transportation financing.

The E.P.A. based its action on health studies that found that exposure to fine particles — in this case measuring 2.5 micrometers in diameter — brought a marked increase in heart and lung disease, acute asthma attacks and early death. Older people, adults with heart and lung ailments and children are particularly susceptible to the ill effects.

The agency estimates the benefit of the new rule at $4 billion to $9 billion a year, and the annual costs of putting it into effect at $53 million to $350 million.

“These fine particles penetrate deep into the lungs, causing serious and costly health effects,” said Lisa P. Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator. “As the mother of two sons who have battled asthma, the benefits are not just numbers or abstract concepts.”

Today 66 counties in eight states do not meet the new standard, including the metropolitan areas of Los Angeles, Houston, St. Louis, Chicago, Cleveland and Pittsburgh. The E.P.A. estimates that by 2020, when the rule is fully in force, only seven counties, all of them in California, will still be out of compliance. Other current rules on mercury, sulfur and other pollution from vehicles, factories and power plants will cause that reduction.

“We know clearly that particle pollution is harmful at levels well below those previously deemed to be safe,” Dr. Norman H. Edelman, chief medical officer for the American Lung Association, said in a statement. “It will save lives,” he said.

Utility industry officials pleaded with the E.P.A. on Thursday to delay the release of the new rule, arguing that the standard is based on incomplete science and would impose costly new burdens on states and cities.

Utilities, joined by trade associations representing manufacturers, chemical companies and the oil and gas industry, said the new rule would push many communities into noncompliance, making it harder to obtain permits for new businesses that create jobs.

Scott H. Segal, representing a coalition of coal companies and utilities, wrote to Ms. Jackson, pointing to a 2011 study saying that citing counties for noncompliance “increases energy prices, reduces manufacturing productivity and causes local manufacturing companies to exit the areas that are designated as being in nonattainment.”

Six senators, led by Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, wrote Ms. Jackson on Friday expressing concern about the new rule. “E.P.A. should not rush at this time toward imposing more regulatory burdens on struggling areas,” the lawmakers wrote.

Advocates of the new rule said these complaints were overblown. “While the health benefits are extensive, opponents of common-sense pollution standards are repeating false time-worn claims that clean air is too costly,” said Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund.

Jeffrey R. Holmstead, who led the E.P.A.’s air quality office in President George W. Bush’s administration and who now represents business clients, took a more sanguine view of the agency’s action than many other industry spokesmen.

He said the impact of the new rule would depend on how the E.P.A. chooses to enforce it. “Normally, a new standard means a rash of new regulations, but E.P.A. claims that virtually every area of the country will meet the new standard without the need for new regulatory requirements,” he said in an e-mail. “If so, then maybe the new standard won’t cause the type of economic disruption that we’ve seen in the past.”

A version of this article appeared in print on December 15, 2012, on page A11 of the New York edition with the headline: E.P.A. Sets a Lower Limit For Soot Particles in the Air.

The post E.P.A. Sets a Lower Limit for Soot Particles in the Air appeared first on Avogadro Environmental - Air Monitoring Testing CEMS Services.

New Jersey Proposed SIP Revision for PM2.5 Redesignation to Attainment Request

Ed Burgher — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:26:29 +0000

Take notice that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (Department) is proposing a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Attainment and Maintenance of the Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). A copy of the proposed SIP revision was forwarded to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) on July 19, 2012.

The Department of Environmental Protection (Department) is proposing a revision to the SIP to request that the USEPA redesignate both of the multi-state fine particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment areas associated with New Jersey to attainment in accordance with the Clean Air Act. This SIP revision presents the data and information that the USEPA requires in order to redesignate the areas to attainment. Specifically, the document contains: (1) air quality monitoring data that shows compliance with the NAAQS and a decreasing trend in PM2.5 concentrations over time; (2) a summary of control measures that New Jersey has implemented to bring the State into attainment; (3) a maintenance plan that demonstrates a projected continuing downward trend in emissions through 2025; (4) a contingency plan that would be implemented should the air quality violate NAAQS in the future; (5) transportation conformity budgets; and (6) other information that supports the request for redesignation.

Copies of the Department’s proposed SIP revision are available from the Department’s web site at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/baqp/sip/siprevs.htm and the Department’s Public Information Center at 401 E. State Street in Trenton.

A public hearing concerning the proposed SIP revision will be conducted during the written comment period. The public hearing is scheduled as
follows:

Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.
The NJDEP Building, Large Conference Room (6th Floor)
401 East State Street
Trenton, New Jersey

Comments may be submitted by close of business, Thursday, September 12, 2012. Please email comment(s) as a document attachment to: NJDEP-BAQP@dep.state.nj.us. Please include a subject line as follows: “PM2.5 SIP Comments.”

The Department encourages electronic submittal of comments. In the alternative, comments may be submitted on paper to:

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Attn: PM2.5 SIP Comments
Air Quality Planning
401 East State Street, 7th Floor
Mail Code 401-07H
P.O. Box 420
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0420

Written comments may also be submitted at the public hearing. It is requested (but not required) that anyone providing oral testimony at the public hearing provide a copy of any prepared text to the stenographer at the hearing.

For more information about the Department’s SIP proposal, please call the Bureau of Air Quality Planning at (609) 292-6722 or you can email your questions to NJDEP-BAQP@dep.state.nj.us.

The post New Jersey Proposed SIP Revision for PM2.5 Redesignation to Attainment Request appeared first on Avogadro Environmental - Air Monitoring Testing CEMS Services.