Not all monitoring programs are created equal
Beyond checking the compliance box, facilities need a monitoring program that simplifies the burdensome workflows operators have managed for years. They need a solution that, in real time, identifies when exceedances occur, pinpoints their origin, and equips teams with the tools to respond—while eliminating the hundreds of manual steps that make traditional programs slow and error-prone.
The timeline below illustrates how compliance is achieved using passive monitoring compared to Picarro’s real-time method.
Day 1 — Kickoff
Install FMS. Begin continuous sub-ppb emissions + wind capture (24/7).
Day 1–14 — Always On
Real-time alerts and source attribution via back-trajectory. Issues surfaced as they happen.
Day 5 — Exceedance Detected
Immediate alerts trace the source and trigger fast corrective action.
Day 6 — Rapid Mitigation
Corrective actions deployed, event auto-logged for compliance.
Day 14 — One Click
Generate CEDRI-formatted report with full audit trail and QA/QC applied.
Day 15 — Submit
File to CEDRI. Ongoing monitoring continues. Team shifts to prevention, not paperwork.
Day 16+ — Rinse & Run
Proactive oversight: instant alerts, automated records, trend analytics. No manual cycles.
Day 1 — Kickoff
Hire third party. Schedule site access. Place canisters & sorbents across fenceline.
Day 1–14 — Waiting Window
Sampling period open. No real-time visibility.
Day 14 — Retrieval
Collect sampling devices. Prep chain-of-custody. Package and ship to lab.
Day 15–27 — Transit + Queue
Courier time. Lab intake. Backlog. Method setup. (No insight yet.)
Day 28 — Results Arrive
Lab report shows an exceedance. No timestamp clarity; no source localization.
Day 29 — Coordination Sprint
Internal huddle. Emails. Meetings. Compliance clock is ticking.
Day 30 — Second Round
Deploy more canisters to “hunt” the source. Start another 2-week wait.
Day 31–44 — More Waiting
Wind shifts. Conditions change. The exceedance window has passed.
Day 45 — Call in “Real-Time” Help
Bring in a separate contractor for active spot checks. Scope, PO, mobilize.
Day 48 — Parallel Sampling
New passive round begins while spot checks proceed. Data sets won’t align in time.
Day 50 — Suspected Source Identified
Confidence limited; conditions differ from exceedance day.
Day 51 — Repair Attempt
Fix performed. No immediate feedback that the repair solved it.
Day 52–59 — Verification Lag
Must wait for next passive cycle/lab to confirm. Operations on edge.
Day 60 — Ship Again
Another lab round. Another queue. More reconciliation later.
Day 74+ — Confirmation (Maybe)
If lab confirms, document and compile manually. If not, repeat the hunt.
Day 75+ — Reporting Crunch
Assemble PDFs, spreadsheets, field notes, and lab reports. QA/QC by hand. Prepare regulator-ready packet.
Day 90 — File
Submit reporting set. Begin next cycle—the loop repeats.
Meeting today’s fenceline monitoring requirements under the HON, RSR, and CMAS rules requires more than periodic sampling...
The Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) Rule requires chemical manufacturing facilities to implement fenceline monitoring programs to ensure…
English
简体中文
Deutsch
