Trihydro Corporation

Laramie, WY, United States

Trihydro Corporation

Laramie, WY, United States
SEARCH FILTERS
Time filter
Source Type

(PRLEAP.COM) April 20, 2017 - Los Angeles, CA - Corporate Finance Associates (CFA) a leading middle-market mergers and acquisitions firm, announced it acted as the exclusive financial advisor to River City Engineering in the recent acquisition by Trihydro Corporation.River City Engineering (RCE), established in 1990 with offices in New Braunfels and Austin, Texas provides water and wastewater consulting services to municipal and governmental clients in Central Texas. Trihydro is a leading national engineering and environmental consulting firm.The two companies have long-standing track records of delivering successful engineering and environmental consulting services. River City specializes in water and wastewater services, as well as street and drainage design services. These specialties will complement and further strengthen Trihydro's existing civil, infrastructure, water and wastewater engineering, planning, restoration, development, and protection services locally and nationwide.With this acquisition, Trihydro's network of offices grows to 20 nationwide, including the new office locations in Austin and New Braunfels, Texas. Trihydro also recently opened an office in Amarillo, Texas to better serve clients in that region. The company looks forward to continuing to provide quality services, and sharing the dedication of its employees with the local communities and surrounding region.CFA Managing Director Roy Graham said, "It was a pleasure working with both River City Engineering and Trihydro. It is always great to see two companies whose culture and commitment to its employees, clients, and community align so well".On March 31, 2017, River City Engineering was acquired by Trihydro Corporation in a private transaction. The terms were not disclosed. Financial representation was provided by the San Antonio Office of Corporate Finance Associates , led by Roy Graham and Eduardo Berdegué.Corporate Finance Associates is a major investment banking services firm, with offices across North America and partner offices in Europe, Asia and Brazil providing middle-market companies with a wide range of financial advisory services and access to capital resources. From project inception to completion, a senior principal guides clients through every challenge, advocates on their behalf, and leverages CFA's experience and extensive resources. More information is available via the Internet at www.cfaw.com


Dunlap L.E.,Trihydro Corporation | Rinehart T.W.,Chevron
American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, AFPM - Environmental Conference 2016 | Year: 2016

Completing Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action is typically a long and costly process. Three ways are presented to speed up or reduce costs in RCRA Corrective Action. A new program from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is called RCRA FIRST. This program greatly streamlines and optimizes the steps within RCRA Corrective Action. In addition, the USEPA has now included a new environmental indicator (EI) called CA550 OF. CA550 OF outlines a way to defer remedy construction at an operating facility if the remedy is within critical proccss units or manufacturing equipment. A third way to increase efficiency of the RCRA process is to perform a site-specific Strategy Review that evaluates new strategies resulting in the lowest life-cycle costs while achieving regulatory closure or an exit of the liability. RCRA FIRST is a new program from the EPA to expedite RCRA Corrective Action. The USEPA realizes that meeting their goals to have a remedy constructed at 95% of their RCRA baseline sites by the year 2020 will be challenging. RCRA FIRST initiates optimized communication between the regulators and the industry by setting up a Corrective Action Framework (CAP) meeting at the beginning of the RCRA phase. Hard issues are discussed and decided before any fieldwork or report writing is done. Having the critical discussions at the beginning allows for early mutual understanding and agreement of goals and expectations. The USEPA now has a new EI that can allow construction-remedy deferral at operating facilities for RCRA Corrective Action. The "Environmental Indicators Initiative" was started in 1997 to improve the agency's ability to report on the progress of achieving RCRA Corrective Action goals. As a result, the USEPA created Els to track a select list of facilities called the Government Performance and Reports Act (GPRA) Baseline. The USEPA then established specific goals for those facilities to measure performance and progress in RCRA Corrective Action. The USEPA's goal is to have a final remedy constructed by September 30, 2020 at 95% of the RCRA Corrective Action facilities on their GPRA baseline list. Due to the proximity of critical process or manufacturing equipment, along with safety concerns, constructing a remedy is difficult or impossible at portions of many operating or manufacturing facilities. As a result of years of negotiations and meetings, the USEPA now has a new final remedy-construction metric at operating facilities is called CA550-OF. A facility and the USEPA can achieve their 2020 goals for Remedy Construction by deferring remedy construction at critical locations within an operating site if certain conditions are met. Another way to expedite RCRA Corrective Action and CERCLA remediation at high-priority sites is to hold a Strategy Review. A Strategy Review is not simply a peer review of the current strategy or a review of various remedial options. The Strategy Review objective is to develop and evaluate a site- specific strategy, which, when implemented, will result in the lowest life-cycle costs while achieving regulatory closure or an exit of the liability. Attendees at the Review should consist of multiple disciplines so as to offer a wide view of perspectives and site-closure options. With this wide view of perspectives, alternative site-closure options and options to exit the liability at the site, including but not limited to remedial options, are brainstormed and scrutinized.


Walls S.,Trihydro Corporation
American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, AFPM - Environmental Conference 2016 | Year: 2016

The November 11, 2015, compliance date for modified refinery flares subject to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Subpart Ja has come and gone. The primary goal of NSPS Subpart Ja was to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO:) emissions by establishing a H;S concentration limit demonstrating compliance via continuous sulfur compound monitoring. Additionally, NSPS Subpart Ja was geared to reducing emissions of other criteria pollutants by having refineries establish a site specific volumetric flow baseline combined with continuous monitoring of flare gas flow to determine when flows exceed a regulatory trigger requiring a Root Cause Analysis (RCA). Refineries are now faced with another three year compliance period (December 2015 through January 30, 2019) to address the revised requirements of the Refinery Sector Rule, also known as Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Subpart CC. Although some of the MACT Subpart CC requirements for flares overlap with the flare requirements of NSPS Subpart Ja (e.g., continuous flow monitoring), there are several new monitoring requirements under MACT CC that may require refineries to install new continuous monitoring devices. This paper will focus on the requirements of MACT Subpart CC by comparing the rule with similar requirements cited in NSPS Subpart Ja. This paper will address the applicability of the two rules, the specific numeric limitations, and the monitoring strategy for demonstrating compliance. This paper will also explore the subtle differences in the Flare Management Plan (FMP) and RCA requirements for the two rules. This paper will include a comparison table that summarizes the requirements of both NSPS Subpart Ja and MACT Subpart CC in a side-by-side comparison. This paper will incorporate response-To- comments language relevant to rule applicability and compliance. Lastly, the paper will include some specific examples of flare systems subject to the various rule provisions. The ultimate goal of the paper is to provide stakeholders an understanding of the requirements of both rules and how they overlap and where these rules diverge.


Christopher J.,Trihydro Corporation
American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, AFPM - Environmental Conference 2016 | Year: 2016

One June 3, 2016, EPA published NSPS OOOOa affecting the oil and gas sector. This regulation affects new, modified, or reconstructed oil and gas sources from the wellhead to the city gate, including production facilities, natural gas processing plants, and compressor stations. While clearly this particular rule does not directly apply to the refining sector, does EPA's methane regulation agenda have the potential to affect the petroleum refining sector? There are several predominant themes in NSPS OOOOa, but the most significant are the increased focus on methane as a greenhouse gas compound and the heavy emphasis on fugitive emissions. EPA has also clearly signaled a strong preference for optical gas imaging (OGI) using infrared cameras as a means of detecting emissions, highly detailed fugitive emission monitoring plans, and the use of Next Generation approaches to recordkeeping and reporting. EPA also backed away from the concept of "skip period monitoring" and detailed fugitive emissions component counts including data tracking. EPA would have to go through a significant rulemaking effort to modify existing refinery regulations (for example, NSPS GGG/GGGa do not address these topics). EPA's Regulatory Agenda does not list these issues as a potential topic, so it is not likely that the current Administration will propose any changes. However, it may be prudent for the refinery sector to track these developments. In addition, EPA continues to demonstrate the ability to pursue more aggressive approaches through enforcement and use those accomplishments to drive future rulemaking, something the oil & gas sector is seeing clear evidence of at this time.


Bradley B.,Trihydro Corporation | Christopher J.,Trihydro Corporation
American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, AFPM - Environmental Conference 2016 | Year: 2016

EPA published updates to several refinery-specific air regulatory programs on December 1, 2015, including MACT Subparts CC and IJIJU (Refinery MACT 1 and Refinery MACT 2). Collectively, this rulemaking package is known as the Refinery Sector Rule (RSR). Because of this rulemaking, refineries should be developing programs to ensure that they can meet these upcoming new requirements. Various refiner)' departments will be involved in implementing the numerous RSR requirements. An integrated approach to evaluate and establish action plans to manage the numerous evaluations and considerations is critical. Refinery environmental departments cannot be the sole owners of these programs. This paper will present an approach to conducting a "gap analysis" by sub dividing compliance evaluation tasks into components that can be assigned to the best resources. For example, there are many details to verify proper temperature/pressure instrumentation required under the RSR rules. Step 1 may involve evaluating current instrumentation and whether the instrumentation is located properly (often this evaluation can best be done by operations personnel). If instrumentation exists, Step 2 may involve evaluating whether the current instruments meet EPA's accuracy requirements (this evaluation would be done by the Instrument Department). If there arc issues noted with cither of these evaluations, a project may be required to update the instrument. Step 3 looks at whether the instrumentation readings are currently going to the refinery distributed control system (DCS), and whether DCS tags are providing the correct level of detail (DCS engineers are likely involved in this phase). Some of these requirements specify recalibration, if the analyzer is out of range for more than 24 hours, requiring an additional DCS alarm and the generation of a maintenance work order. Finally, data capture of the instrument data should be archived appropriately in the plant data historian to meet the five-year records retention requirements. For these instrumentation requirements, at least six different functions (e.g., environmental, operations, instrumentation, maintenance, DCS, and data historian) at the refinery are involved. Each team needs to "own" its part of the evaluation to establish a compliant program.


Black T.,Trihydro Corporation | Wood-Black F.,Trihydro Corporation
Journal of Chemical Health and Safety | Year: 2013

On March 26, 2012, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued its Final Rule on the new Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910, 1915, and 1926, FR Vol. 77, No. 58, page 17574. This Final Rule modified the existing Hazard Communication Standard to conform the United Nations' Globally Harmonized system (GHS) of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals. Per the Summary provided by OSHA, the modifications outlined in the action would "significantly reduce costs and burdens while also improving the quality and consistency of information provided to employers and employees regarding the chemical hazards and associated protective measures.". While the aims as stated in the Summary and the modifications proposed seem minor there are some major challenges with the changes. As with any regulation or change, the challenges are not necessarily obvious to the common observer nor are they obvious to those charged with the implementation of the Final Rule. © 2013 Division of Chemical Health and Safety of the American Chemical Society.


Christopher J.,Trihydro Corporation
Society of Petroleum Engineers - SPE E and P Health, Safety, Security and Environmental Conference - Americas 2015 | Year: 2015

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and several states have implemented, or propose to implement, new environmental regulations targeting air emission reductions from oil and gas facilities, including, for example, NSPS OOOO. As these programs mature, the industry is tasked with establishing increasingly complex compliance programs, including facilities that have not previously been subject to significant regulatory attention. While most operators have traditionally dealt with requirements established by the state oil and gas commissions, these regulations present a new type of concern for operators. Establishing systematic procedures and protocols can assist operators in meeting their compliance obligations in a consistent and defensible manner. The new air regulations often require testing or other observations, tracking data, and reporting obligations. Colorado's recently finalized Regulation 7 requirements often require the use of infrared cameras to observe hydrocarbon leakage from equipment, as well as audible, visual and olfactory (AVO) observations. While state regulations may not require procedures, training, or recordkeeping formats, it is in the operators' best interest to establish these steps to meet their internal requirements as well as establishing defensible data to demonstrate ongoing compliance. For example, if an infrared camera is used to detect hydrocarbon leaks, establishing a monitoring protocol ensures that the monitoring is conducted consistently, and that leak records will be tracked appropriately. A work practice procedure will establish responsibilities for tracking any discovered leaks, implementing maintenance requirements, and maintaining records to demonstrate compliance. When local operating personnel are responsible for compliance, establishing a training program and appropriate recordkeeping provisions will also help to ensure consistent program implementation. By establishing a systematic compliance effort, oil and gas operators can implement cost-effective strategies to meet these new compliance obligations. The optimal compliance approach will vary between operators based on internal resources and systems, and may require increasing staff resources or using external resources to meet these increasingly complex requirements. It is important for operators to consider these factors now to avoid unnecessary compliance hurdles down the road. Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers.


Knauf M.,Trihydro Corporation
Environmental Conference 2013 | Year: 2013

In July of 2012, refineries, along with other manufacturers, were required to submit chemical production information under the Toxic Substance Control Act's (TSCA) Chemical Data Reporting Rule (CDR). The CDR is the most comprehensive set of information on chemical substances and their proposed uses available to EPA and the public. While supporting several facilities with the CDR, Trihydro Corporation (Trihydro) faced several challenges during the 2012 submission period related to regulatory changes from the previous submission year and general reporting complications. Resolving the issues led Trihydro to develop best practices and recommendations to reduce the CDR burden for future reports. Since the CDR required reporting is every four years, Trihydro also recommends several practices that facilities should be doing in the meantime. Many of Trihydro's recommendations are based on knowledge of the 2012 reporting period and the current regulation, TSCA reform is underway in Congress. While much of the reform is proposed, facilities should be aware of potential changes to the regulation.


McAlexander B.L.,Trihydro Corporation
Environmental Impact Assessment Review | Year: 2014

Petroleum-contaminated site management typically counts destruction of hydrocarbons by either natural or engineered processes as a beneficial component of remediation. While such oxidation of spilled hydrocarbons is often necessary for achieving risk reduction for nearby human and ecological receptors, site assessments tend to neglect that this also means that the pollutants are converted to greenhouse gases and emitted to the atmosphere. This article presents a suggestion that the current and long term greenhouse gas emissions from spilled hydrocarbons be incorporated to petroleum site assessments. This would provide a more complete picture of pollutant effects that could then be incorporated to remedial objectives. At some sites, this additional information may affect remedy selection. Possible examples include a shift in emphasis to remedial technologies that reduce pollutant greenhouse gas effects (e.g., by conversion of methane to carbon dioxide in the subsurface), and a more holistic context for considering remedial technologies with low emission footprints. © 2014 Elsevier Inc.


Wood-Black F.,Trihydro Corporation
Journal of Chemical Health and Safety | Year: 2011

The Toxic Substance Control Act (Act or TSCA) has been in place since 1976 with the primary, goal of reducing risks to the environment or to human health from chemical exposure by implementing, controls at the point of their manufacture, distribution, use, and/or disposal. This Act provides the, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the authority to require reporting, record-keeping and, testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. This work, describes some important changes to the Inventory Update Rule to take effect in 2011. © 2010.

Loading Trihydro Corporation collaborators
Loading Trihydro Corporation collaborators