EEs: A TCEQ Investigator’s View Susan Thompson TCEQ Work Leader, Air Program Amarillo Region

This is NOT a “Read-the-Rules-to-You” Presentation However, the original version of this presentation followed one in which lots of relevant rules were read… So I thought it would be best if I at least covered 3 slides worth of definitions to put things in a bit of context. Then I’ll get down to the real point of this talk.

Not Sure What “EE’s” Are? Short for “emissions events” EE := “Any upset event or unscheduled maintenance, startup, or shutdown activity, from a common cause that results in unauthorized emissions of air contaminants from one or more emissions points at a regulated entity”

Not Sure What an Upset Is? Upset := “An unplanned and unavoidable breakdown or excursion of a process or operation that results in unauthorized emissions”

Reportable vs. Not Reportable ee := “Any emissions event that in any 24-hr period, results in an unauthorized emission from any emissions point equal to or in excess of the reportable quantity as defined in [§101]” EE’s that are not reportable are referred to as “nonreportable” or “recordable.” (These terms are synonyms.)

Any questions so far?

My Goal Focus attention on the most common reasons that ee’s wind up with NOVs and NOEs. Learn from others’ experiences Your company potentially saves “Administrative Penalties” (=$) Compliance history “dings” We investigators don’t have to write as many NOVs and NOEs! Air stays cleaner than it would be

Why Focus on Violations? Ideally, I can share something today that you don’t already know. (Violations can be a good indicator of things many industry folks don’t already know.)

My Experience >600 ee investigations Petroleum Refinery (about half) Natural Gas Processing Plants Carbon Black Plants Compressor Stations, Pipelines, Oil & Gas Petrochemical Plant Other – Copper Refinery, Fertilizer Plant, Ethanol Plants, Meatpacking…

Results from 600 EE’s About 100 NOEs/NOVs Ratio of NOEs/NOVs is 2:1 Yes, NOEs are more likely than NOVs in my experience. NOE is triggered when a violation involves an emission of a pollutant in a quantity greater than 15% of the allowable. (If the allowable is zero, then we take into account whether quantity emitted is tiny.)

“Affirmative Defense” Your opportunity to persuade the TCEQ that: The ee couldn’t have been prevented or avoided. (Not a black-and-white decision.) The consequences of the ee were minimized as much as possible. All reporting requirements were met.

Making Your Case Primarily, this is accomplished by what you write in the STEERS report. Secondarily, it might be accomplished with a *timely* response to a request for additional information from a TCEQ investigator. Burden of proof on industry, not regulator, to make the case for aff. def.

Stats on Why Aff. Def. Lost Reporting reasons ONLY – 36% Cause-related reasons ONLY – 32% Combination of Reporting and Cause-related reasons – 32%

Most Common Reason for Not Meeting Aff. Def. Crit. Reporting Errors That’s actually GREAT news for you, because that’s almost always something it is possible for your company to do correctly.

#1 Reporting Error Late Initial Notification Tip: If STEERS is giving you problems, take a screen shot that shows this, and fax in the form instead. Tip: Understand that the 24 hour clock starts when someone in your company (or a contractor) knows or should have known that something happened that might cause more emissions than usual.

Questions about this?

#2 Reporting Error Not identifying each individual compound That reaches RQ on the initial. That is emitted on the final. (I.e. include ALL compounds emitted on the final.)

Tip for #2 Understand that “VOC” or “PM” is generally not an acceptable way to report emissions for §101 purposes. (Even though your §116 permit may very well refer to “VOC” or “PM” on its maximum allowable emission rates table (Maert).)

Another Tip for #2 Carefully read the definition of RQ to understand which mixtures are acceptable to report (e.g. natural gas excluding methane, ethane, etc.)

Yet Another Tip for #2 Understand when it is acceptable to lump several compounds together as “other”; read 30 TAC §101.201(b)(1)(G). You can lump all compounds as “other” for which BOTH of these things are true: The RQ is 100 lbs or more. Less than 10 lbs was released in a 24-hour period.

And One More Tip for #2 If the trigger for reporting was opacity… Remember to consider what substance caused the opacity, and whether emissions of that substance are authorized. If unauthorized, include the emissions of that substance on the final report!

If the Only Thing You Take Home From This Talk… Is to do what you need to do to always report within 24 hours and to speciate all emissions correctly… Then you have cut your odds at getting an ee-related NOV/NOE by more than half.

#3 Reporting Error Late final report Tip: Understand that the 2 week countdown starts the day the emissions event ENDS. Keep track of time.

#4 Reporting Error Not identifying (in any way, neither by common name nor EPN) the facilities involved in the emissions event on the final report. Tip: Less detailed information may be acceptable on the initial notification, but give the specifics on everything you know on the final report.

Other Reporting Errors Missing or highly erroneous quantities Insufficient detail on final report (e.g. not including the best known cause at the time of reporting) Incorrect authorized emissions limit (Tip: this is NOT the same as RQ!) Failure to respond adequately to a TCEQ request for additional information

Cause-Related Reasons for Losing Aff. Def. Usually fall into these categories: Operator error Sub-standard Maintenance Practices Inadequate design or engineering practices These things are more challenging to solve from the position of an Environmental Manager. Stuff happens.

Some Real World Cause-Related Problems You Might Be Able to Influence Writing “Unknown Cause” on the Final Report Company’s written checklist of things to do during flaring overlooked 1 unit Analyzer operating correctly but everyone assumed it was malfunctioning

More Examples to Consider Listing weather-related cause (too cold, hot, windy, high rate of rainfall, snow drifts) when the weather falls within what can be reasonably anticipated to occur Timing/convergence of several routine maintenance activities can cause an ee Type of valve chosen for design created a “stagnant zone” in horizontal piping which led to corrosion

More Examples to Consider Temporary scaffolding placed in such a way as to interfere with proper bar level gauge operation Graphics display not correctly modified after commissioning of new unit Over-applied steam to flare Contractor worked on wrong breaker box Truck crashed into electrical poles

What If You Realize Early On That Someone Messed Up? Treat this as an opportunity to build trust and credibility with your TCEQ investigator. Part of the investigator’s job is to develop the judgement to know when to ask additional questions/when to be skeptical. If you hold back obviously relevant information until we persist with questions, you have taught us how we need to interact with you next time.

Your Job is Challenging I know many true professionals, and I have seen their integrity, and their deep knowledge firsthand. If I were to accept the sub-par, I would be selling short the true professionals.

Time for Final Questions