Decatur, AL – July 9, 2024  – Alliance Technical Group , a leader in on-site testing and monitoring, laboratory testing and analysis, and environmental compliance, is pleased to announce several strategic appointments to bolster client services, accelerate ongoing growth initiatives, and continue the company’s commitment to delivering exceptional value to its clients.   “These new hires mark a significant milestone in our company’s growth, allowing us to not only support every business unit but also expand our service offerings and market presence,” said Chris LeMay, Alliance CEO. “Together, they bring a wealth of expertise to Alliance and enable us to provide best-in-class capabilities to our existing and future clients. We’re excited to welcome each of these professionals to our team.”   These individuals, contributing to the company’s Strategy, Commercial, and Environmental Consulting units, exemplify Alliance’s dedication to expanding its capabilities and positioning its clients to reach their environmental goals by minimizing risk and maximizing results. Strategy Erick Mirabella, Senior Vice President of Strategic Growth  An accomplished operations and business development professional, Erick brings more than two decades of experience in driving strategic growth, including serving as VP of Operations for SGS North America and SVP of Operations at Montrose. With experience across all of Alliance’s key offerings, from stack testing to emissions monitoring to labs, he has proven expertise in growing emerging service offerings into top achievers and spearheading major acquisitions. At Alliance, Erick is responsible for leading the company’s efforts to grow ascending areas of the business, such as OGI, emerging technologies, and ambient air monitoring. Hafsa Munshi, Director of Strategic Initiatives  Hafsa recently joined Alliance as the leader of its post-merger integration program, where she works with the company’s integration teams to identify and resolve integration challenges and support newly onboarded colleagues joining from acquisitions. To guide her in this role, Hafsa leans on her experience working for several well-known management consulting firms, including Alvarez and Marsal and McKinsey & Company, where she spent 10+ years leading successful integrations of public and private equity-backed companies. In addition to integrations, Hafsa contributes to the execution of value creation and other strategic initiatives. Ivan Roslak, Director of Operational Excellence  Ivan recently returned to Alliance to lead operational process improvements in the company’s on-site testing and monitoring businesses. Drawing from a robust background in manufacturing and operations, Ivan excels in leading large teams and driving process improvements. He began his career with Alliance as an engineering co-op student in 2009. Having served in engineering and operations leadership roles in the secondary aluminum, automotive, and biotech industries, Ivan specializes in optimizing internal business processes and building reliable, efficient operational practices, aligning with Alliance’s near- and long-term growth strategies.  Commercial Vickie McCormick, Vice President of Marketing  Joining Alliance as a seasoned marketing leader with a demonstrated track record in communications and brand development, Vickie thrives at developing winning strategies for marketing campaigns. She is dedicated to fostering collaboration among content teams and driving successful go-to-market approaches and messaging for global companies. Vickie’s career includes 21+ years with infrastructure firm AECOM, where she most recently served as an AVP for Strategic Communications. Carly Johnson, Strategic Account Manager, Environmental Labs & Analytical Services  An accomplished strategic account executive with 10 years of business development experience in the environmental laboratory testing industry, Carly flourishes in sales leadership roles, leaning on her in-depth understanding of the sales process and its impact on client experiences. Carly excels at fostering and maintaining meaningful client relationships, enhancing and improving processes, and analyzing and interpreting data. In her role as Alliance’s strategic account manager for labs, Carly is instrumental in driving new business growth and fostering strong relationships with key engineering consultants.  Environmental Consulting Kristine Davies, Project Director, Air Quality Kristine is a seasoned project director with nearly 20 years of expertise in environmental consulting, complemented by a decade of experience in manufacturing and environmental engineering. She excels in air quality permitting and compliance, specializing in Title V, PSD, NNSR, and minor source permitting. Kristine’s proficiencies include NSPS, NESHAPs, RACT regulations, emissions quantification, and emissions inventory submittals, making her a versatile leader in the field and an invaluable asset to Alliance’s environmental consulting services team. Tim Sperfslage, Project Director, Air Quality Tim brings 15 years of expertise in the environmental field. Specializing in air pollution control equipment design and environmental consulting, he is skilled at collaborating with clients across the renewable fuels, petroleum refining, oil and gas, and manufacturing industries. Tim’s role at Alliance is to ensure successful air quality projects for the company’s clients, which includes providing air quality permitting, regulatory applicability, modeling, monitoring, and reporting services at both the state and federal level for new and existing facilities. About Alliance Technical Group:     Alliance Technical Group (Alliance) , headquartered in Decatur, AL, is a premier environmental services and solutions company dedicated to helping our clients achieve their environmental goals and mitigate the risks associated with regulatory changes. With more than 1,600 employees located in 45-plus offices in the U.S. and Canada, Alliance specializes in On-Site Testing & Monitoring, Laboratory Testing & Analysis, and Environmental Compliance. Powered by innovation, focused on service, and committed to our clients’ success, Alliance delivers on the promise of reliability, results, and responsiveness. See how we offer our clients a better way to maximize their environmental opportunities at www.alliancetg.com .

Replacing CEMS analyzers at a Part 75 facility involves more than swapping hardware. It triggers a recertification sequence, requires monitoring plan and QA/QC plan updates, and demands careful scheduling to avoid unnecessary data substitution. This guide covers when replacement is warranted, how recertification works, and what to plan for along the way. When Analyzer Replacement Is Warranted Common drivers include: Obsolescence — manufacturer has discontinued the model or no longer provides technical support Poor performance history — repeated failures, out-of-control periods, or chronic drift Parts unavailability — critical components can no longer be sourced in a reasonable timeframe Technology upgrades — newer analyzers offer better accuracy, lower detection limits, or improved DAS integration Regardless of the reason, replacement should be treated as a project: define scope, budget, and schedule before procurement. Recertification testing, engineering work, and documentation all need to be accounted for upfront. Compliance Testing Procedures for Replacing Analyzers Replacing an analyzer triggers a full recertification sequence under Part 75. The required tests, in order: 1. Probationary CAL (Conditional Data Validation) The first passing online calibration after installation establishes a conditional data validation, marking the start of the recertification clock. Pass/fail criteria apply to SO2, NOx, CO2, O2, and flow depending on your monitoring configuration. Alternative performance specifications may be available under certain conditions. 2. Seven-Day Calibration Drift Test Conducted within 21 consecutive unit operating days of the first CAL. Requires seven consecutive passing calibrations using the same pass/fail criteria as the probationary CAL. Evaluates analyzer stability across normal operating cycles. 3. Cycle Time Test (Step Response) Measures the time for the analyzer to reach 95% of the final reading when transitioning between stack gas and calibration gas. Performed by injecting zero and high-span bottled gases; the step change must be achieved within 15 minutes. Under Part 75, this is a single test — it does not need to be repeated. 4. Linearity Check Conducted after 168 consecutive unit operating hours following the first CAL. Verifies analyzer accuracy across low, mid, and high reference gas concentrations. Pass/fail criteria are based on the absolute difference between reference gas values and actual analyzer readings. 5. RATA (Relative Accuracy Test Audit) Compares CEMS measurements against reference method data collected simultaneously by an independent testing firm. Requires a minimum of nine test runs at each tested load level. Bias testing is performed concurrently. Passing at a stronger relative accuracy level may qualify the facility for annual rather than semi-annual RATA frequency. 6. Certification Test Records Records must be created for each compliance test and submitted quarterly. Required documentation includes start and end dates, conditional data validation details, QA event and test codes, and DAS-generated QA files. Reference Gases and Installation Considerations Reference gases must be NIST-traceable and confirmed available before testing begins. Blended multi-component cylinders reduce the number of cylinders required and simplify technician logistics. Where possible, standardize reference gas concentrations across your analyzer fleet. Installation planning should address engineering and regulatory requirements in parallel. Changes to probe location should be reviewed against your monitoring plan before work begins, as modifications may trigger additional compliance requirements under Part 75 Appendix A. Monitoring Plan and QA/QC Plan Updates Replacing an analyzer requires monitoring plan updates — component IDs, analyzer make and model, span values, and applicable performance specifications all need to reflect the new equipment. These updates must be submitted to EPA prior to or concurrent with recertification testing. Your QA/QC plan should also be reviewed to ensure procedures reflect the new analyzer's operating requirements. An outdated QA/QC plan is a common audit finding that can be avoided with a review before the new unit goes online. Alliance Technical Group can review your monitoring and QA/QC plans before installation to identify gaps and ensure documentation is in order before testing begins. Analyzer Selection Considerations Analyzers from different manufacturers using the same measurement principle perform comparably for Part 75 purposes — the compliance tests don't favor one brand over another. Practical selection criteria: Fleet standardization — running the same model across monitoring locations simplifies spare parts inventory and technician training DAS integration — confirm the new analyzer communicates cleanly with your DAS before finalizing procurement Service support — evaluate parts availability and manufacturer technical support, not just upfront cost Alliance Technical Group works with multiple analyzer manufacturers and can provide guidance on selection based on your specific regulatory requirements, site conditions, and existing equipment. Get Support for Your Analyzer Replacement Project Analyzer replacement under Part 75 involves regulatory documentation, compliance testing, monitoring plan updates, and scheduling — all at once. Alliance Technical Group provides end-to-end support: pre-installation regulatory review, recertification testing coordination, and monitoring plan and QA/QC plan updates.

A 40 CFR Part 75 Overview The Part 75 rule found in Volume 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) was created by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish requirements for monitoring and recordkeeping of air pollutants emitted from electric generating units (EGUs) in support of EPA's Acid Rain Program (ARP). The Part 75 regulations consist of eight subparts based on the regulation's purpose and applicability, requirements relevant to each pollutant, missing data procedures, certification and recertification requirements, and recordkeeping and reporting policies. Part 75 also includes ten appendices that highlight CEMS requirements and data calculation guidelines based on pollutant and fuel type. An in-depth overview of 40 CFR Part 75 can be found in the EPA's Plain English Guide to the Part 75 Rule. What Does 40 CFR Part 75 Do? Part 75 was originally published in 1993 to provide support for the ARP, which was instituted in 1990 under Congress' Title IV of the Clean Air Act. The program regulates EGUs that burn fossil fuels—such as coal, oil, or natural gas—and serve a generator greater than 25 megawatts. Part 75 requires these units to provide continuous emissions monitoring (CEM) and reporting of three pollutants: Sulfur dioxide (SO₂) Carbon dioxide (CO₂) Nitrous oxides (NOₓ) The Acid Rain Program and Part 75 One of the main purposes of Part 75 is to support the ARP in requiring emission reductions of SO₂ and NOₓ, the main precursors of acid rain. Acid rain is created when SO₂ and NO₂ react with water, oxygen, and other chemicals to form sulfuric and nitric acids. These acids combine with water and deposit in the form of acid rain, which is harmful to ecosystems and the environment. Part 75 is referenced in several other core Acid Rain rules and also interfaces with parts of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) in 40 CFR Part 60. There are currently three active programs that require Part 75 monitoring: Acid Rain Program (Federal) Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (Federal) Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (State) The regulations within Part 75 also include requirements for continuous emissions monitoring or opacity monitoring systems to ensure they are working properly. Specifications for these requirements are included in the appendices. What are the 40 CFR Part 75 Subparts and Appendices? The subparts of Part 75 are based on the regulation's purpose and applicability, requirements relevant to each pollutant, missing data procedures, certification and recertification requirements, and recordkeeping and reporting policies. The EPA added Subpart H to Part 75 in 1998. This subpart was adopted due to growing concerns over hazards associated with NOₓ emissions, as NOₓ is a precursor to ozone and fine particulate matter formation. The appendices of Part 75 break down specific requirements for CEMS and guidelines for calculating and estimating emissions data. Appendix D and E specify the methodology and protocol of emissions monitoring depending on the fuel type fired by an EGU (coal, gas, or oil). Why is Continuous Monitoring Necessary? SO₂, NOₓ, and CO₂ are monitored under a cap and trade program in which EPA—or a state regulatory agency in the case of CO₂—limits the total annual/seasonal mass emissions of the pollutant and divides it into emission allowances that are allocated to sources over a period of time. Sources may buy and sell allowances from each other. To measure the total mass of emissions over time, the emissions must be monitored continuously. Part 75 provides a necessary measurement method by: Ensuring that emissions from all sources are consistently and accurately measured and reported Requiring a complete record of emission data to be produced for each unit in the program (i.e., data are obtained for every hour of unit operation) Verifying that emission caps are not exceeded, thereby ensuring that emissions are not underestimated and that emission reduction goals are being met How Alliance Technical Group Supports Part 75 Facilities Alliance partners with power clients to deliver dependable emissions testing, continuous monitoring expertise, and strategic compliance guidance that strengthens reliability, simplifies reporting, and helps facilities meet the highest regulatory standards. Whether you need stack testing to satisfy initial certification requirements, CEMS installation and maintenance to keep continuous monitoring systems performing at spec, compliance software that automates data acquisition and reporting, or expert guidance on missing data procedures and recertification—Alliance has the in-house capability to handle it all. Our teams work across every phase of Part 75 compliance so power facilities can focus on operations while we manage the complexity behind the numbers.

A Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) confirms that your CEMS or DAS equipment and software work correctly before it ever leaves the shop. FATs aren't required by regulation, but skipping one is one of the easiest ways to turn a straightforward installation into a costly field repair. What Is a Factory Acceptance Test (FAT)? A FAT is a structured test of a system's hardware and software, run in a controlled environment before the equipment ships to your site. The goal is simple: catch problems on the shop floor, where they're cheap and fast to fix, instead of in the field, where they're neither. No regulation mandates a FAT. But for CEMS and DAS projects, that testing window is often the last chance to verify configuration, logic, and calculations before installation crews start pulling cable and analyzers go into racks. Skip it, and issues that would have taken an hour to correct in the shop can turn into days of field troubleshooting, change orders, and schedule slips. Why a FAT Is Worth the Time The cost math is straightforward. A configuration error found during a FAT gets fixed by an integrator sitting at a bench with the full system in front of them. The same error found after installation means a technician on-site, a system that may need to come back down, and a customer waiting on a system that isn't fully operational yet. A FAT also gives you a real look at the system before you're depending on it for compliance reporting. You see the dashboards, run through alarms, and confirm the reports before go-live, not after. Types of CEMS and DAS Factory Acceptance Tests The scope of a FAT depends on what's being delivered. Two types come up most often on CEMS and DAS projects: a DAS FAT and a Hardware/Full FAT. DAS FAT (Software and Data Acquisition System) A DAS FAT covers the DAS software (the server) and DAS hardware (the data controller or PLC) — nothing else. It's the right scope when the DAS is being installed against existing or third-party analyzers and sample systems. Typical items covered: • I/O details (analog ranges, digital trigger states, base digital logic) • Calculations (unit conversions, base calculations) • Complex digital logic • Validation methodology • Calibration logic • Alarm methodology • Compliance calculations • Reports • Dashboards Hardware / Full FAT A Hardware or Full FAT covers the complete package: analyzers, DCS connection points, sample systems, CEMS rack equipment, and the DAS and data controller/PLC that tie it all together. This is the right scope for projects where ATG is supplying the full CEMS system alongside the DAS. Typical items covered: • Analyzer readings checked against known reference values • Analyzer faults triggering the correct alarms at the analyzer • Analyzer-to-PLC/data-controller readings matching (no scaling or unit-of-measure mismatches), with alarms matching as well • Sample system valving following the correct logic, sample pump de-energizing on specified faults, and calibrations passing What to Expect During a FAT FATs typically run at the integrator's facility, with the customer's project team, engineers, and often the site operators who'll run the system day to day invited to attend. Plan for a few things going in: A written test plan. You should see the FAT checklist ahead of time, not during the test. It gives you a chance to flag anything specific to your site or permit conditions before the clock starts. Time for questions, not just checkmarks. A good FAT is also a working session. Use it to ask about alarm thresholds, report formats, or anything about the system you're not sure you understand yet. Documented results. Every item tested should be logged, along with any deficiencies found and how they were resolved. That record becomes part of your project file and your reference point if a question comes up after startup. A punch list, if needed. It's normal for a FAT to surface a few items that need correction. What matters is that they're tracked to closure before the system ships, not carried into the field. How Alliance Approaches Every FAT Alliance Technical Group treats the FAT as a checkpoint, not a formality, on every CEMS and DAS project. We show up prepared. Before the client arrives, our integrators run their own internal FAT to verify the system and correct anything they find, so the time you spend with us is spent on your questions, not on catching our mistakes. We test for satisfaction, not just specs. Meeting the functional spec is the baseline. We also use the FAT to walk you through the system so you leave confident in how it operates, not just confident that it passed. We document everything. Our FAT checklist covers every component of the system, and we track results against it so there's a clear record of what was tested and confirmed. A FAT is one of the best opportunities you'll get to review the system with your engineer before it's running your compliance data. Don't skip it. Alliance Technical Group provides CEMS shelters, data acquisition systems, and the full range of stack testing, LDAR, and ambient air services that keep facilities compliant. FAQ Is a Factory Acceptance Test required for a CEMS or DAS project? No. A FAT isn't required by regulation. It's a best practice that catches configuration and equipment issues before installation, when they're far less expensive to fix. What's the difference between a DAS FAT and a Full FAT? A DAS FAT tests only the DAS software and data controller/PLC. A Full FAT (also called a Hardware FAT) tests the entire CEMS package, including analyzers, sample systems, and DCS connection points, in addition to the DAS. Who should attend a factory acceptance test? Your project engineer, and ideally the operators who'll run the system day to day. Attending the FAT gives your team a working knowledge of the system before it's installed, not after. What happens if an issue is found during a FAT? It gets added to a punch list and corrected before the system ships. That's the whole point of testing at the shop instead of the field: problems get fixed while they're still cheap and easy to fix.

The Protocol Gas Verification Program (PGVP) is an EPA initiative established in March 2011 to ensure the accuracy of calibration gases used in continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). Facilities subject to 40 CFR Part 75 emissions monitoring and reporting requirements must procure EPA protocol gases from a production site listed as a PGVP participant on the date of purchase—or from a vendor selling unaltered protocol gases from a PGVP-approved production site. Full requirements are outlined in 40 CFR 75.12(g)(6) and (7). These gases and their associated QA/QC checks are what make emissions data defensible. EPA relies on that data to assess compliance with emission reduction requirements under the Clean Air Act—and the integrity of that data starts with the calibration gas in your CEMS. PGVP Objectives and EPA Requirements The Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) administers the PGVP with four core objectives: Ensure that EPA protocol gases meet the accuracy requirements of 40 CFR Part 75 Help calibration gas consumers make informed purchasing decisions Give well-performing vendors an incentive to maintain good practices Encourage underperforming vendors to make measurable improvements CAMD maintains a current list of approved PGVP participants and vendor IDs on its program website. Verify you're referencing the most current list—vendor approval status changes, and purchasing from a lapsed site has real consequences for your data. How the PGVP Affects Part 75 Facilities EPA conducts blind audits of gas vendors and does not typically notify individual facilities when a vendor loses approved status. That means calibration gas from a lapsed vendor can go undetected—until it shows up as invalid data during a QA/QC event. Facilities should check the approved vendor list at the start of each year and confirm their gas supplier is still on it. The Emissions Collection and Monitoring Plan System (ECMPS) includes a built-in feature that lets sites verify their cylinders were produced at an approved vendor site—use it as part of your routine QA/QC workflow. PGVP Compliance Support from Alliance Technical Group Calibration gas is one piece of a larger compliance picture. Alliance partners with Part 75 facilities to deliver dependable emissions testing, continuous monitoring expertise, and strategic compliance guidance that strengthens data reliability, simplifies reporting, and helps facilities meet the highest regulatory standards—from CEMS shelter construction and system maintenance to DAS software, stack testing, and ongoing QA/QC support.

Calibration drift checks are time-consuming, difficult to perform manually, and in some facility environments, genuinely hazardous. For anyone responsible for maintaining CEMS, COMS, or CPMS, automating daily validations is one of the most straightforward ways to reduce workload, improve data accuracy, and eliminate the human error that comes with manual processes. This guide covers what daily validation automation involves, why it matters for compliance, and how a data acquisition system handles it. What Are Daily Calibration Validations? The EPA defines calibration as comparing a measurement instrument against a standard of higher accuracy to detect, quantify, and where necessary, eliminate inaccuracies through adjustment. That last part is worth noting: because calibration involves adjustment, frequent corrections can actually introduce additional measurement uncertainty. Quality control procedures that include verification checks and multi-point calibration verifications are designed as "checks without correction" — confirming the instrument is operating within tolerance without making unnecessary adjustments each time. Why Daily Validations Matter EPA quality assurance regulations require CEMS operators to challenge and verify the accuracy of their monitors periodically — typically once every 24 hours. These checks use gas cylinders of known concentrations prepared to EPA protocol specifications. Done manually, that process depends on someone remembering to perform it, performing it consistently, and performing it the same way each time. A capable DAS removes those variables. The system is pre-configured to run the same check sequence every time, on a timer set approximately 24 hours after the last check, so the comparison is always apples-to-apples — or more precisely, Granny Smith-to-Granny Smith. If a unit is offline when a scheduled check is due, StackVision queues a startup calibration check automatically. When the unit comes back online, the DAS waits a defined interval and initiates the calibration cycle without operator intervention. Every regulation governing continuous monitoring systems requires that accuracy be verified and proven. Automation ensures that requirement is met consistently, not just when someone has time for it. How StackVision Handles Daily Validation Automation StackVision's DAS architecture addresses daily validations at both the hardware and software level. The 8864 Data Controller handles data collection from monitored sources, performs initial validation, generates compliance averages, and stores data locally before passing values to StackVision. That two-layer structure means validation logic is embedded at the point of data acquisition — not applied after the fact. From there, StackVision manages the full calibration workflow: scheduling, initiation, data reduction, status tracking, and recordkeeping. Automated checks run at consistent intervals, flag anomalies, and produce the documentation your facility needs without requiring manual intervention at each step. For facilities running multiple monitoring systems across different streams or regulatory programs, that consistency matters. Manual validation processes scale poorly. Automated ones don't. Getting Started With Automated Daily Validations If your facility is new to automated calibration validation — or if you're evaluating whether your current DAS is handling it correctly — Alliance Technical Group's CEMS & DAS team can walk through your monitoring configuration and identify where automation can close gaps.