Source: https://www.environmentallawandpolicy.com/2020/04/epa-provides-relief-for-sources-subject-to-part-75-quality-assurance-testing-in-response-to-covid-19/
Timestamp: 2020-06-02 00:39:05
Document Index: 799860667

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 75', 'art 75', 'art 75', 'art 75', '§ 75', 'art 75']

EPA Provides Relief for Sources Subject to Part 75 Quality Assurance Testing in Response to COVID-19 | Environmental Law & Policy Monitor
Home » EPA Provides Relief for Sources Subject to Part 75 Quality Assurance Testing in Response to COVID-19
By Mack McGuffey & Shawn O'Brien on April 22, 2020
Posted in COVID-19, EPA
On April 22, 2020, EPA published an interim final rule providing relief to sources that are subject to the quality assurance testing and reporting under 40 CFR Part 75. The initial summary of the rule indicates the policy applies to sources that monitor and report emissions under the Acid Rain Program, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), and/or the NOX SIP Call. However, the rule itself indicates that relief is available to any source that reports emissions to EPA under 40 CFR part 75. EPA expects the rule will provide relief for hundreds of facilities that would otherwise be required to conduct over a thousand quality assurance tests combined during the next three months in the midst of the ongoing pandemic.
The rule adopts a new provision (40 CFR § 75.68) to address failure to meet a deadline for a required quality-assurance, certification or recertification, Appendix D fuel analysis, Appendix E and low mass emission rate tests (e.g., relative accuracy test audits, linearity checks) due to COVID-19-related travel, plant access, or other safety restrictions. The rule allows the unit’s actual monitored data to remain valid despite the delayed tests (so long as otherwise valid), allowing the unit to temporarily continue to report actual monitored data instead of “substitute” data. Importantly, the rule does not suspend requirements to monitor or report emissions for every operating hour of a control period, or alter any existing emissions limitations and, thus, the rule will not have any effect on actual emissions.
The EPA recognized that under the existing Part 75 regulations, missing a test deadline and using substitute data can be very costly for a source. Avoiding the need to use substitute data is helpful because “substitute data are intentionally conservative (i.e., high-biased), causing the emissions reported for the source to be higher,” up to and including maximum potential to emit values instead of recorded data. Use of substitute data could increase the number of emission allowances that covered facilities may need to hold, even though emissions have not actually changed.
To qualify for relief, sources must maintain documentation, notify the EPA when a test is delayed and later completed, and certify to the EPA that the data are otherwise valid and that the delay was caused by the pandemic. Notifications may not contain confidential business information and must be submitted by email to camdpetitions@epa.gov within 5 days after the deadline, and the EPA will post summaries of the notifications on a publicly accessible website.
The interim final rule is immediately effective, but the EPA seeks comments, due 30 days after publication on May 22, 2020.
State and Environmental Group Opposition to EPA’s COVID-19 Enforcement Discretion Policy Intensifies
EPA Issues Guidance for On-Site Cleanup Activity Suspension, Reduction or Continuation in Response to COVID-19
Topics Select Category Accident Reporting Air Air Quality Air Toxics Army Corps of Engineers CCR Chemicals Clean Air Act (CAA) Clean Water Act Climate Change Coal Ash COVID-19 DOJ Drinking Water Electric Utilities Electricity Industry Emergency Response Emerging Contaminants Endangered Species Environmental Enforcement Environmental Litigation Environmental Site Assessments EPA FERC Greenhouse Gas Guidance Hazardous Waste Hydropower Industries Mining Industry Mobile Sources New Source Review New Source Review News & Knowledge Oil and Gas Exploration PFAS Pharmaceutical Pipelines Proposition 65 RCRA Retail Retail Section 401 Supreme Court Transactions Troutman Sanders TSCA Uncategorized Waste Waste & Land Wastewater Water WOTUS
Archives Select Month May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 September 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013
Ninth Circuit Holds that Federal Courts May Not Consider Climate Change Lawsuits
“Unauthorized Waste” Reporting Under EPA’s Hazardous Pharmaceutical Waste Rule
EPA Issues Fact Sheets in Advance of Decision Regarding Perchlorate in Drinking Water
Montana District Court Limits Its Vacatur of Nationwide Permit 12