Master of Science

Environmental Policy and Management

Cover Letter

Rhetorically I decided to provide the reader with an overview of the regulations pertaining to the EPA audits. Specifically I decided to highlight the areas of these regulations that the EPA will focus on during audits, either because these aspects are more prone for violations or can lead to severe cases of emissions. I wanted to make it very clear that there is much more information provided in the actual regulations, either on the EPA’s website or in the CFR. If I were to discuss every aspect of these regulations my paper would easily be 50 pages long. “The report will start with a brief overview of Method 21 monitoring, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) organic air emissions standards, and Leak Detection and Monitoring (LDAR) requirements; highlighting the aspects in these regulations the EPA will focus on during audits. It is the responsibility of the TSDF to fully understand and perform the requirements, procedures, and methods described in these sections.” I made it very clear here that hazardous waste facilities need to fully understand these regulations beyond what I discuss in the report.

Stylistically I am assuming the readers have the basic knowledge of the equipment in a hazardous waste facility. I did not discuss different types of valves, with the assumption that the readers will either research what types of valves they use at their facilities or that they already know this information. “The equipment regulated under Subpart BB are pumps, compressors, pressure-relief devices, sampling connections, valves, open-ended valves or lines, and flanges. Each piece of equipment must be marked with a unique identification marking or number in order to distinguish whether they are regulated by Subpart BB (EPA 1998).” This line contains information I pulled from the CFR. I did not go into further detail on the different types of valves or flanges for example, I assume the readers do not need this information and it would be take away from the main points I wanted to discuss.

Throughout this process the course focuses on style, rhetoric, and intended audience. I believe the intended audience aspect of my writing was lacking before this course. I paid much more attention to how I was presenting information in this paper and why I made that stylistic or rhetorical choice based on my intended audience. I hope my paper exemplifies my improvements in this area.

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide Veolia and other treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs), incineration facilities, and generators that are subject to federal equipment leak regulations the necessary strategies to successfully navigate an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) audit of their facilities. The report will start with a brief overview of Method 21 monitoring, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) organic air emissions standards, and Leak Detection and Monitoring (LDAR) requirements; highlighting the aspects in these regulations the EPA will focus on during audits. It is the responsibility of the TSDF to fully understand and perform the requirements, procedures, and methods described in these sections. This report will also discuss preparation and steps needed to take before the audit, during, and after. Knowing what to prepare and expect during each stage of the audit is crucial to making it a smooth and successful process. 

The requirements and regulations discussed in this report can be found separately online through EPA documents and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), but the goal of this report is to provide a comprehensive guide for EPA air emissions requirements and facility audits; containing the critical information needed to prepare a TSDF. This report will provide the reader with the resources needed to expand on this knowledge and further improve compliance. This guide will serve as a valuable resource for hazardous waste management facilities with the ultimate goal of reducing fines and violations found by the EPA for Veolia facilities and preserving the environment by minimizing pollution from hazardous waste operations.

Problem Definition

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) contribute to the formation of ozone and pollution. Ozone can cause significant health complications and respiratory diseases (EPA 2007). Hazardous waste facilities, TSDFs, generators, and transporters run the risk of contributing to the ozone emission problem through leaking equipment. This emphasizes the importance of EPA audits of these facilities to ensure equipment that comes into contact with VOCs are not leaking and are properly maintained. 

Through the business operations perspective, facilities mismanaging their equipment run the risk of paying hefty fines through EPA audits. Veolia hazardous waste facilities are routinely audited and inspected by the EPA. The audits and inspections focus on RCRA regulations. RCRA violations can run a tab of $76,764 a day and per violation (Federal Register 2020). Section 3004(n) of RCRA describes the requirements hazardous waste management facilities must comply with to avoid these large fines and violations. Veolia Environmental Services treats and recycles an estimated 6 million tons of hazardous waste with more than 140 facilities spanning across five continents (Veolia 2020). The Veolia facility in Henderson, Colorado was audited by the EPA in 2018. This audit resulted in a $71,838 fine from RCRA air emissions violations. This information was found in the detailed facility report from EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO). ECHO provides information on the cost of the fines, when they were found, and how the violation was found. For this specific audit in 2018, the violations were found on-site during the physical inspection (ECHO 2021). 

The types of violations were identified through 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 – Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities along with Standards for Interim Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities. In the ECHO database, the Henderson facility received two violations for equipment leaks, one violation for process vents, two violations for tanks/container standards, and two violations for non-compliance with the facility RCRA part B permit (ECHO 2021). This fine is only specific to the Veolia facility in Henderson, CO. There are other Veolia facilities that have been fined through the EPA for air emissions violations as well. In 2018, the Veolia facility in Middlesex, New Jersey was fined $57,000 for failing to maintain documentation requirements Subpart BB. In 2017 the Veolia facility in Azusa, California was fined $43,606 for failing to conduct LDAR monitoring, recordkeeping, and inspections (ECHO 2021).

Each of these violations could have been prevented with proper preparation, documentation, and establishment of an adequate compliance program. These numbers do not include the fines handed out by the EPA to the other Veolia hazardous waste facilities across the United States and across the globe. This is a significant problem when considering business continuity, human health, and environmental welfare. Looking at the full scope of this probe warrants discussion and analysis of potential solutions. 

Specifically, for this report, the focus will be RCRA organic air emission standards for TSDFs and generators. The regulations are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 Subparts AA, BB, and CC. Subpart AA outlines the requirements for process vents associated with distillation, thin-film evaporation, solvent extraction, and air/steam stripping operations. Subpart BB applies to equipment in contact or containing hazardous waste. Subpart CC applies to tanks, containers, and surface impoundments. Each of these subparts are relevant to a facility if they involve hazardous waste operations. Specifically 

if they contain or have been in contact with hazardous waste with a concentration of at least 10 percent by weight (EPA 2020). This report will provide an overview of these regulations, highlighting the areas the EPA tend to focus on during audits. The next section of this report will be an analysis of the EPA inspection process with an emphasis on how to prepare for each aspect of the inspection process. The EPA does provide lengthy and detailed requirements for RCRA organic air emissions requirements. These documents are a useful resource for hazardous waste facilities but there is a lack of continuity among each regulation and important requirements can be missed. This report will cross-analyze these guides and regulations to further understand the EPA inspection process and adequately prepare for these site inspections.

Solution Descriptions

40 CFR Parts 264/265 Subpart CC

These two sections discuss the standards for TSDFs to control air emissions from hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal operations that involve process vents, containers, tanks, equipment leaks. There are three subparts of the CFR relevant to this report and to organic air emissions (EPA 1998). Subparts AA, BB, and CC are the main focus of the EPA VOC air emission audits and will be briefly discussed in this report. The EPA uses these requirements to determine violations and compliance. It is critical that TSDFs and other hazardous waste facilities are compliant with these regulations. This section of the report will discuss the specifics of these regulations in order to provide a basic overview for facilities to begin establishing an adequate compliance program.

Subpart CC standards outline the air emissions requirements for tanks in 40 CFR 264.1084 and 265.1085. Depending on the hazardous waste contents of a tank, there are specific requirements for emission controls for tanks. The controls are broken up into two levels, Level 1 and Level 2 controls. Tank controls are determined by multiple factors. Level 1 and 2 controls are based on the maximum organic vapor pressure of the hazardous waste in the tank, if a waste stabilization process occurs in the tank, and tank design capacity. These requirements are referenced by the EPA in the CFR. A tank requiring level 1 controls must have a fixed roof equipped with closure devices that provide a continuous barrier covering the hazardous waste in the tank. The fixed roof must not have any cracks, holes, gaps, or any other open spaces allowing hazardous waste vapors to come into contact with the atmosphere. Lastly, each opening on the roof of the tank must be equipped with either a closure device or connected to a closed vent system or control device (40 CFR 264.1084). A control device is defined as any equipment used to recover, remove, or oxidize organic hazardous air pollutants (40 CFR 63.641). Tank level 2 controls consist of fixed roof equipped with an internal floating roof, a tank vented through a closed vent system, a pressure tank with specific requirements outlined in the CFR, or a tank inside an enclosure that is vented through a closed vent system to an enclosed combustion control device (40 CFR 264.1084). The owner and operator of the facility is responsible for determining what level of tank controls they need. 

RCRA and the CFR have requirements for inspections, which vary depending on the types of tanks being inspected. Records of inspections must be maintained by the owner for at least three years after the date of the inspection (EPA 1998). When the EPA audits facilities they will be looking at tank level controls and if they are appropriate for the type of tank and the hazardous waste they store. They will be looking at the general condition of the tank. If a tank is worn and has visible damage, the EPA may consider it a violation. The same damage criteria applies to all closure devices, vents, fixed roofs, and control devices. 

Surface impoundments also fall under Subpart CC, 40 CFR 164.1085 and 164.1086. Impoundments with hazardous waste with a VO concentration of >500 ppmw must install a floating membrane cover or a cover that is connected to a closed vent system to a control device. Similar to the requirements of tanks in the previous section. There are specific design requirements for the membranes. It must be made with high-density polyethylene at least 2.5 mm thick (EPA 1998). An equivalent material can be used, and that must be determined by the owner and operator of the facility. Impoundments also have inspection requirements as well.  The impoundment cover needs to be inspected for defects on or before the impoundment is subjected to Subpart CC regulations and once a year later. The regulations also specify maintenance and repair requirements. If a defect to the cover or any closure devices is detected, the owner and operator has five days to make a first repair attempt and overall, the repairs need to be completed at least 45 days after the initial detection (EPA 1998). The EPA will audit maintenance records to ensure compliance with these requirements along with inspection records. 

Containers are also subject to Subpart CC standards through 40 CFR 264.1086 and 265.1087. Containers are routinely used to store smaller quantities of hazardous wastes. TSDFs manage large numbers of containers throughout each operation. Containers have three levels of air emission controls based on container size, organic contents, and if the containers are used in a waste stabilization process (EPA 1998). There are RCRA requirements for containers and containers are also subject to Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations as well. Types of controls are broken up into three levels. Level 1 controls for containers require that containers be up to DOT standards, have a cover, and a closure device for any openings. An open top container with an organic vapor-suppressing barrier (EPA 1998). Level 2 controls consist of the same DOT requirements, but the main difference is that the container must operate with no detectable organic emissions or be a vapor tight container (EPA 1998). Level 3 controls require the containers be routed to a control device or inside an enclosure that is also routed to a control device. There are specific design criteria outlined in the CFR, and it is the responsibility of the owner and operator to ensure these requirements are met. The EPA will inspect containers in hazardous waste service to ensure these requirements are being met as well. Any deviations or missed requirements will be considered a violation by the EPA.

40 CFR 264/265 Subpart AA/BB

Subpart AA describes the standards for process vents. Process vents are defined as an open-ended pipe or stack that are vented to the atmosphere directly or through a vacuum system or through a tank or vessel. These requirements are specific to hazardous waste material distillation, fractionation, thin-film evaporation, solvent extraction, or any steam stripping operations (40 CFR 261.1031). These requirements also apply to closed vent systems and control devices (EPA 1998). 

Subpart BB describes the requirements for equipment that comes into contact with or contains hazardous waste with a concentration of at least 10% by weight. The equipment regulated under Subpart BB are pumps, compressors, pressure-relief devices, sampling connections, valves, open-ended valves or lines, and flanges. Each piece of equipment must be marked with a unique identification marking or number in order to distinguish whether they are regulated by Subpart BB (EPA 1998).

When a piece of equipment needs repairs, needs to be replaced, or when a leak is identified, repairs need to be made within 15 days and pressure relief devices must be repaired within five days (EPA 1998). EPA auditors will review maintenance records and check that the equipment is identified, a description and location is provided, and LDAR monitoring records are included (EPA 1998). 

Method 21

A critical aspect of the EPA audit is understanding and performing the procedures described Method 21. Many countries and regions, including Canada and the European Union refer to Method 21. Which was developed in the United States. This is the basis for any LDAR program implementation (Chen, Yang, and Lu 2018, 447). During the audit, the EPA RCRA inspectors will use this method to inspect process equipment at the facility. EPA Method 21 is the procedure used to locate and measure volatile organic compound leaks in process equipment. Equipment includes valves, flanges, pumps, compressors, pressure relief devices, process drains, open-ended valves, pump and compressor seal systems, vents, and other connections (EPA 2017). This process must be conducted using a portable instrument that detects VOC leaks. The types of instruments used can use detector types with catalytic oxidation, flame ionization, infrared absorption, and photoionization. The EPA mainly uses flame ionization detectors to check for equipment leaks during audits (EPA 2017). There are other requirements for the instruments specific to the components of the pump, particularly flow rates, leak definition concentrations, probe length and diameter, and is required to be intrinsically safe for operation in explosive atmospheres (EPA 2017). 

The instruments used to monitor facility components and equipment are required to be calibrated using the Method 21 requirements. Calibration gases are used to calibrate the instruments and Method 21 outlines which kind of calibration gases are acceptable. The cylinders must contain two gas mixtures and there must be a calibration of a zero gas with less than 10 parts per million (ppm) VOC (EPA 2017). The EPA also requires that manufacturer certifications and expiration dates records are maintained. Depending on the type of instrument used, manufacturer guidelines are to be used for assembly and start up procedures. One aspect of sample collection is response factors, which need to be determined for each compound that is going to be measured. The response factor needs to be calculated before each use (EPA 2017).  Method 21 provides specific procedures to calculate response factors if needed. Response factors may not need to be calculated before each use since the EPA provides published response factors for flame ionization and catalytic oxidation detectors (EPA 2017). Precision calibration tests must be completed before use, and the specific procedures for this method of calibration are provided in the Method 21 regulations. There are more requirements and definitions in the Method 21 regulation, and it would be too discursive for this report. It is recommended that each facility subject to audits knows the full details and requirements for Method 21 and ensure appropriate and designated employees completely understand the regulations. This section has discussed areas of Method 21 that are emphasized by the EPA during audits and where facilities tend to have violations.

A significant aspect of Method 21 is what the EPA RCRA inspectors will check and look for during an audit. The report so far has provided a more concise overview of the calibration procedures, instrument types, and types of equipment that fall under the regulation. This next section of the report will discuss how each of these equipment types should be inspected by the facility personnel and during audits by the EPA. 

The first point of discussion is how to properly monitor equipment using the appropriate portable instruments in Method 21. Type I leak definition based on concentration is the use of the portable instrument with a probe. While the instrument is running, move the probe along the interface periphery while monitoring the instrument readout. If the meter reading starts to increase, slow down the movement of the probe. This is where response times come into play. If a meter reading is detected, leave the probe at the location of the potential leak for two times the response time (EPA 2017). Another aspect of monitoring for leaks is ensuring monitoring occurs at leakage points. Leakage points can include improper switches, rust, aging equipment, damaged/worn gasket, packing, or belt, rusty threads, and insufficient tightening during installation (Chen, Yang, and Lu 2018, 451). Use of this method varies depending on the type of equipment being monitored. Starting with valves, the most common area for valves to leak is along the seal between the stem and housing. To properly monitor a valve, the probe should be surveyed across the housing, between the seal and stem, and also run along any additional parts of the housing assembly (EPA 2017). This process varies depending on the type of valve being monitored. Areas with high temperature above 100 C and with high pressure are more prone to leaks as well (Chen, Yang, Lu 2018, 452). The EPA will follow this procedure strictly when auditing a facility and may ask the personnel who conduct the monitoring at the facility to demonstrate how they monitor to further prove compliance with the standard.

Flanges and other connections are monitored along any non-permanent joints like threaded, bolted, or compressed connections. The probe will be surveyed across any gaskets used to connect each piece of connection and along the non-permanent joints (EPA 2017). These areas on equipment are most prone to leaks either through poor maintenance or deterioration. Pumps and compressors will be monitored along the outside surface of the shaft and seal. If there are rotating shafts used with either piece of equipment, place the probe within 1 cm of the shaft-seal interface. The housing will also be monitored all along the exterior and as much area covered as possible; depending on the location of the equipment the monitoring may not cover the entire housing (EPA 2017). For pressure relief devices, process drains, seal system degassing vents, and open-ended lines monitor for VOCs at the center of the opening to the atmosphere and center of the exhaust. If the process drain has a cap or cover, monitor the entire circumference of the covering (EPA 2017). Monitoring access door seals should occur along the seal of the door, covering the entire perimeter (EPA 2017). 

The above methods follow Type I – Leak Definition based on concentration standards. The following methods will be used for Type II – No detectable emissions. This method is used to determine the ambient VOC concentration around a piece of equipment. This is done by moving the probe upwind and downwind at a distance of one to two meters from the source (EPA 2017). Next, the probe should be moved to the surface of the equipment and then determine the concentration. The difference between these concentrations if there is detectable emissions. If the equipment being monitored is connected to a control device, visual confirmation is required to ensure all connections are secure and in operation (EPA 2017). 

The EPA provides alternative methods for leak detection and monitoring with the use of a soap solution. The soap solution is sprayed on the equipment with the potential leak. If the solution creates soaps bubbles, a leak has been identified (EPA 2017). The drawback of this method is that the VOC concentration cannot be determined and leak definitions for specific equipment cannot be used.

There is plenty more to Method 21, and it is highly recommended that hazardous waste facilities know the full standard to ensure compliance is achieved and maintained. This guide serves as a condensed description of these methods The EPA will use this method to ensure compliance with air emission standards at the facilities they audit. 

Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR)

In 1999 the EPA estimated that 40,000 tons of VOCs are emitted annually, singling out petroleum refineries only. The EPA claims these emissions come from noncompliance with LDAR and Method 21 regulations (EPA 2007). Since the 1980s, the EPA has required the implementation of LDAR programs to control fugitive emissions, which has been adopted by many states to attain the national ambient air quality standards (Epperson et. al 2007, 1050).  Emissions from leaks are greatly reduced by the implementation of an LDAR program and by improving equipment by making them “leakless” (EPA 2007). Basic goals of LDAR programs and systems are cost savings, worker and community safety, and environmental protection (NASDAQ OMX News Release 2021). LDAR relies on EPA’s Method 21 to locate leaking  components. The readings found during LDAR surveys are compared to the EPA’s established levels and/or state requirements to determine if the component is a true leak (Epperson et. al 2007, 1050).

The types of equipment that need to be incorporated into an LDAR program are described in 40 CFR 264 and 265 which was covered in the previous section of this report. An LDAR program consists of five parts.

1. Identifying Components
2. Leak Definition
3. Monitoring Components
4. Repairing Components
5. Recordkeeping

The first part has specific requirements to ensure compliance. Each piece of equipment needs to have a unique identification number. This requirement ensures each regulated component can be documented in a log. The log needs to contain the physical location of the component out in the facility. Depending on the state requirements, each component may need a tag to help identify it out in the field (EPA 2007). 

Method 21 becomes relevant with the second part of LDAR. Method 21 outlines monitoring requirements that are used in an LDAR program to monitor equipment for VOC emissions. Each piece of equipment and component have different leak definitions. Leak definition is defined as the measured concentration of the leak, and each different component and piece of equipment has a threshold standard based on the CFR (EPA 2007). Visual leaks can also be identified visually either through drips, spraying, or misting. Smell and sound can also be used to identify leaks. Method 21 is the primary method to monitor regulated components. The procedures in Method 21 are described in the previous section of this report. 

LDAR programs actively involve repairing the regulated components. Maintenance requirements involve adequate documentation of repairs made. Per LDAR, repairs for leaks need to strictly follow a specific number of days for the repairs to be made. If a component cannot be repaired within the required time, the component needs to be logged on a Delay of Repair list with documentation as to why it cannot be repaired within the specified time (EPA 2007). Component repairs are officially completed when it has been monitored and a leak is no longer detected.

The final part of LDAR is recordkeeping, which is heavily involved with all aspects of LDAR. Hazardous waste facilities are required to maintain a list of all identification numbers for regulated components at their facilities. Valves can be designated “unsafe to monitor”, these valves need to be identified in the list and also have an explanation as to why they have this designation. Detailed and accurate schematics or facility maps have to be maintained. Finally, the results of all monitoring events need to be documented. This includes routine monitoring and monitoring based on leak frequency and repairs (EPA 2007). 

When a leak is identified the component needs to be tagged to identify a leak was detected. Specific information needs to be notated when a leak is identified. The facility is required to document the identification number of the component, the instrument used for monitoring, who conducted the monitoring, and the date the leak was detected. Repair attempts need to be documented along with the dates of successful repairs. The results of the monitoring events are required to be documented to ensure a leak has been officially resolved (EPA 2007). 

Subparts AA, BB, CC, Method 21, and LDAR are all briefly discussed in this report. Hazardous waste facilities need to master these requirements to achieve and maintain compliance with RCRA air emission standards. The next sections will discuss how the EPA will evaluate and audit a hazardous waste facility’s effectiveness at managing their facility and the air emissions regulations imposed on them.

Evaluation

EPA Audits (LDAR and Method 21)

There are common aspects of LDAR that tend to be the focus of EPA audits. When the EPA audits an LDAR program they will look at the regulated component list. They will check to ensure all regulated components have a unique identification number. It is recommended that hazardous waste facilities physically tag each regulated component and piece of equipment, ensuring each one has a unique identification number. It is also recommended that the schematics and facility drawings include the identification numbers. Another recommendation would be to use an electronic database or software to manage the ongoing list of equipment, the monitoring events, and repairs (EPA 2007). Using an electronic database can also help make sure each component is monitored and maintained with the appropriate leak definition. One potential strategy to ensure all components are classified with the lowest leak definition (EPA 2007). This conservative approach would guarantee all components are within the required leak definitions and make it easier to manage.

The EPA will also audit how the facility conducts their own monitoring. Method 21 compliance is a critical aspect of the EPA audit. An EPA auditor will ask facility personnel who monitor components to demonstrate compliance with Method 21. This will involve the auditor observing if the employee monitors the areas of components and equipment where they are most prone to leak, which is part of Method 21 regulations. It would nullify any monitoring events if the employee failed to monitor these high-risk areas. Depending on the response factors of the instrument used for LDAR monitoring, the EPA auditor will check if the employee monitors the component for a long enough duration. This is to make sure the employee is providing enough time to detect a leak (EPA 2007). Calibration procedures will be subject to the audit. The EPA auditor will audit how the facility personnel calibrate the instrument used for monitoring. This involves the use of proper procedures and checking if the calibration gases used are not expired (EPA 2007). It is recommended that facilities use a tablet or smartphone to track monitoring data. Combining the smartphone or tablet with an online database can significantly help the employees conducting the monitoring. Using either of these would increase efficiency, improve accuracy, and automatically add to the monitoring data to the database (EPA 2007). 

Regarding repairs and maintenance, the EPA auditor will look through documents to ensure leaking equipment has been repaired within the required timeframe and also make sure all leaks detected were followed up with the required repairs, repair deadlines, and monitoring requirements (EPA 2007).  Not properly documenting these aspects of LDAR and Method 21 can result in significant violations. Documentation does not stop with the current list of components and equipment. Part of compliance with LDAR involves updating records and logs for new equipment additions and for equipment that has been placed out of service. Having up to date documentation is critical in successfully completing an EPA audit.

The Veolia facility in Henderson, CO has implemented a designated LDAR employee who manages the LDAR program and also ensures compliance with all regulations. This example is the direct result of the RCRA violation they received, and part of the corrective action was designating full time employees to LDAR and Method 21. Corrective action procedures will be discussed further in the following sections.

The Audit Process

Inspections are a necessary tool used to monitor compliance. The EPA uses inspections to gather information about the facility and to assess compliance with environmental regulations and requirements. This process begins with a pre-inspection which is focused on gathering general facility information. This process may occur before the EPA even sets foot in the facility (EPA 2020). Inspections typically start with an opening conference with the owner/operator of the facility. This conference focuses on the specifics of the inspection and what data and samples are going to be gathered. The EPA may ask for general facility information, what are the personal protective equipment (PPE), requirements, and also formally request documents and records (EPA 2014, III-127).

The EPA may also complete a thorough review of all records and reports. From what has been discussed so far, this can include maintenance records, monitoring data, calibration records, and identification number logs. While the EPA is on-site, they may conduct employee interviews. These can be compared to pop quizzes to general questions about the facility, it is recommended for management to prepare all facility personnel for this to happen. The EPA may take photographs of any violations or questionable findings. Depending on the scope of the investigation, the EPA may collect samples throughout the facility. Finally, the EPA will use the time on-site to observe general facility operations. They will look for any potential safety or regulatory violations (EPA 2020). Based on this information, it is critical for facilities to have all hands on deck to assist the EPA with the audit and to make sure any potential violations are taken care of before the EPA auditors visit the facility.

As a hazardous waste facility operator or owner, it is required to provide any and all information the EPA requests. This is why it is critical to ensure all documentation is well maintained and current. Information requests are enforceable and are meant to verify compliance with specific regulations (EPA 2020). Information requests can occur before or after the audit. The EPA will often provide a reasonable amount of time to gather and provide the information. Depending on the size of the facility and the extent of the operations, the information request can be a laborious process for hazardous waste facilities.

The EPA audit concludes with a closing conference. This allows the owner/operator to respond to any questions the inspectors may have and also respond to any of the audit findings. The EPA inspectors will typically summarize the observations made during the audit. The facility should then expect a comprehensive report of the inspection. This report will include a summary of the records that were reviewed, sampling results and overall, the facility’s compliance status regarding RCRA air emissions standards (EPA 2014, III-127). 

Enforcement

If violations are found the EPA will issue enforcement actions. Enforcement options through the EPA include administrative, civil judicial, and criminal actions. Depending on the severity and details with the problem, one of these actions will be pursued. An administrative action falls under EPA authority. Corrective action measured are implemented through administrative orders. Depending on the severity of the problem, informal or formal actions are implemented. Informal actions are typically in letter form, describing the violation and notifying the facility that they are not in compliance with RCRA regulations. An authorized state may also issue the notice of violations as well (EPA 2014, III-128). Formal actions are pursued by the EPA when a significant violation is found or if the facility has not responded to an informal action. Formal actions are issued directly under RCRA authority (EPA 2014, III-128). There is much more information on EPA and RCRA enforcement actions provided on the EPA website, it is recommended that facilities fully understand the consequences of non-compliance and also not responding to informal actions. 

Facility Preparation

RCRA has requirements for storage, transport, treatment, and disposal for hazardous waste. Facilities need to construct, operate, and maintain the storage, treatment, and disposal systems to comply with RCRA regulations (Stafford 2005, 5). The specific requirements outlined in the beginning of this report need to be implemented per these basic RCRA requirements. Preparation begins with ensuring the basic structural and operational requirements are currently being met. If they are not, ensuring these improvements are made before the on-site inspection. 

Preparation also includes gathering all documentation and records. Depending on how thorough and accurate the recordkeeping has been to this point, this task can be relatively painless or incredibly tedious and challenging. Being proactive is another key step to

preparation. Conducting site walks and increasing monitoring frequency can help identify potential violations before the EPA does. Actively managing and maintaining the required documentation and records from the beginning is another aspect of preparing for an audit. Already having the information the EPA will request prepared and organized makes documentation requests a much smoother process.

Before the EPA visits the facility, ensure all housekeeping is maintained and all safety procedures are up to date. All facility personnel need to be updated on the details of the audit and what the EPA will be looking for. Efficiency is key for the physical inspection, ask all facility personnel to assist the EPA by answering questions and pointing them in the right direction. This helps them be more efficient and speeds up the inspection process. The EPA will potentially spend less time at the facility further reducing the chance to find any violations or reduce operating hours.

Solutions/Strategies

Maintaining an effective and thorough LDAR program can be costly and labor intensive. For facilities that cannot maintain an LDAR program the option for contracting out LDAR monitoring is available and can possibly be the more cost effective option. This can be beneficial to the hazardous waste facility since they can keep their focus on business operations and safety. The EPA does provide insight into this option and discusses some of the risks associated with it. If a facility were to contract out their Method 21 and LDAR compliance, they should not blindly trust the quality of the work is up to standard (EPA 2007, 22). The facility should implement oversight procedures to ensure Method 21 is being completed properly, this includes procedures involving calibrations, response times, monitoring distance, and many other requirements that need to be accounted for. Oversight procedures should include creating written contracts emphasizing quality over quantity of components being monitored. The EPA does discuss how some third party LDAR monitoring companies are paid based on the quantity of components monitored which can lead to lapses in Method 21 requirements mentioned above (EPA 2007, 22). It is recommended that facilities develop written contracts emphasizing the need for quality Method 21 monitoring. Another aspect of LDAR worth noting is the need for trained personnel to conduct the monitoring, this goes for both contractors and facility personnel. Facility oversight must oversee the training qualifications of all third-party monitors before they start working. Further oversight would include reviewing the monitoring completed each day, this would ensure the number of components being monitored each day is realistic (EPA 2007, 22). Depending on the response factors and minimum time needed to monitor components at the facility, too many components monitored during a short period of time can be suspect and be considered a violation.

Although using a third party for LDAR monitoring would save time and allow facilities to focus on more routine business operations, oversight is recommended to ensure no violations are found during an EPA audit. This would still require significant time and commitment to ensure Method 21 and LDAR monitoring are completed properly. The decision to monitor using a third party or in-house is entirely up to the facility, as long as compliance is maintained the EPA will not issue violations and fines. 

Another potential solution to this problem will be conduct internal or third part LDAR audits to ensure compliance. These audits can mimic the EPA audits and serve as a useful benchmark for facility to identify weaknesses with their current LDAR programs. If any potential

violations are found an appropriate and effective corrective action plan needs to be used to resolve the issue (EPA 2007, 21). Additional useful information would be to document the audit reports, which would include the deficiencies and steps taken to correct them (EPA 2007, 21).

Discussion

VOC air emissions from hazardous waste facilities is a significant problem and can cause adverse effects to human health and the environment. This is why the EPA has established strict and comprehensive regulations to reduce and prevent VOC emissions. From the hazardous waste facility perspective, it is a safety concern to not manage these emissions from equipment and components at the facility and inadequately managing these emissions can result in significant fines and possible legal action from the EPA through RCRA. Veolia has been issued multiple fines from violations found in air emission requirements being missed. These fines do not include the costs and labor associated with corrective actions imposed by the EPA as well. Depending on the violation, the facility may have to make significant repairs or replacements to equipment or components, hire more employees, and use a third party for audits or LDAR. There are costs associated with purchasing new equipment along with the labor associated with the maintenance can be costly. Specifically looking at the Veolia facility in Henderson, CO; their corrective action process involved hiring more employees to manage the LDAR program and conduct all monitoring; another cost that was not part of the initial fine. Most of the tanks at the Henderson Veolia facility also needed major improvements to reach the requirements in Subpart CC. Another aspect that needs to be accounted for is if the corrective actions require system or operation shutdowns, another costly consequence of non-compliance. What makes these violations, fines, and extra costs frustrating is that they can be mostly preventable. 

In this report we discussed 40 CFR 264 and 265 regulations, and how the details of Subparts AA, BB, and CC need to be completely understood and followed by facility personnel. Under the umbrella of the CFR, the EPA and RCRA have established Method 21 and LDAR as requirements and procedures used to ensure CFR requirements are met by hazardous waste facilities. CFR provides information on what types of equipment are regulated and their definitions, LDAR is the program used to maintain records and ensure compliance, and Method 21 provides requirements for monitoring the components and describes the procedures. It is critical for hazardous waste facilities to be completely knowledgeable with these regulations. 

Next this report discussed the EPA audit process and what they will look for while conducting a RCRA air emissions audit. Knowing what to expect and how to adequately prepare is key to completing the audit successfully. The layout of this report is important to discuss. The overview of Subparts AA, BB, CC, LDAR, Method 21, and the audit process focus on what the EPA looks for during audits. Although this report provides a brief overview of these regulations and processes, these key aspects are critical to EPA audits.

The final section of this report discussed a few alternative solutions to assist hazardous waste facilities to achieve and maintain compliance. Conducting internal audits either in-house or through a third party can be eye opening and provide valuable data on areas needed to be improved on. Also, the use of a third part for LDAR monitoring is an option but this does come with extra responsibility and inherent risks with lack of oversight.

After reviewing the sections of this report, it is clear that building a strong knowledge base with 40 CFR 264 and 265 is essential. Ensuring the personnel who are in charge of LDAR are both knowledgeable and trained is necessary as well. This report provides a brief overview of these regulations with the goal of fostering a base level knowledge of RCRA air emissions regulations in order to assist hazardous waste facilities with EPA audits; minimizing fines and protecting the environment in the process. 

References

Chen, Liang-Chao., Yang, Jian-Feng., and Lu, Xin-Yuan. 2018. “Research and Applications of VOCs Treatment in Petroleum Refinery Industry Based on LDAR.” Advances in Engineering Research 174. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Code of Federal Regulations. 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart AA – Air Emission Standards for Process Vents.” Accessed May 6^th, 2021. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/part-264/subpart-AA

Code of Federal Regulations. 40 CFR Part 261.1031 Subpart AA – Air Emission Standards for Process Vents Definitions.” Accessed May 6^th, 2021. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/part-261/subpart-AA

Code of Federal Regulations. 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart BB – Air Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks.” Accessed May 6^th, 2021. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/part-264/subpart-BB

Code of Federal Regulations. 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart CC – Air Emission Standards for Tanks, Surface Impoundments, and Containers” Accessed May 6^th, 2021. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/part-264/subpart-CC

Enforcement and Compliance History Online. 2021. “Detailed Facility Report.” Accessed May 5^th, 2021. https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110010751230

Epperson, David., Lev-On, Miriam., Taback, Hal., Siegell, Jeffrey., and Ritter, Karen. 2007. “Equivalent Leak Detections for SMART LDAR (Leak Detection and Repair) When Using Optical Imaging Technology.” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 57. no. 9 1050-1060. DOI: 10.3155/1047-3289.57.9.

Federal Register. 2020. “Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment.” Environmental Protection Agency. Vol. 85. no. 247. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-12-23/pdf/2020-26997.pdf

“Leak Detection And Repair Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Product, By Technology And Segment Forecasts, 2021-2028.” NASDAQ OMX’s News Release Distribution Channel (New York), 2021.

Stafford, Sarah L. 2005. “Does Self-Policing Help the Environment? EPA’s Audit Policy and Hazardous Waste Compliance.” Vermont Journal of Environment and Law 6. 1-22. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=economicspub

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. “RCRA Organic Air Emission Standards for TSDFs and Generators.” Washington D.C. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/subcc.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. “Leak Detection and Repair A Best Practices Guide.” Washington D.C. Accessed May 8^th, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-02/documents/ldarguide.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. “RCRA Orientation Manual, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.” Washington D.C. Accessed May 9^th, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/rom.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. “Method 21 – Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks.” Washington D.C. Accessed May 7^th, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/method_21.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2020. “How We Monitor Compliance.” Accessed May 9^th, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/compliance/how-we-monitor-complianceVeolia. 2020. “Veolia Steps up Hazardous Waste Business in North America.” Accessed May 4^th, 2021. https://www.veolianorthamerica.com/media/press-releases/veolia-steps-hazardous-waste-business-north-america#:~:text=Today%2C%20Veolia%20treats%20and%20recycles,140%20facilities%20on%20five%20continents.