•RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE
/RTi
EPA/456/R-98/018 .-
STATE EXPERIENCE INTEGRATING POLLUTION
PREVENTION INTO PERMITS
Prepared for: • ;
US Envkonmentai Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Leo Stander, Work Manager
Prepared by:
Research Triangle Institute
Melissa Malkin
Jesse Baskir
AartiSharma
' 3040 Cornwallis Road • Post Office Box .12
12194 • Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709-2194
-------
Disclaimer
, repo o
Planms and Standards. The report consists of a «* ™ °< permitting programs and
to incorporate ollution ™™°^~f such a review. EPA is not
hoped that providing te tafornunon fnU h^°t^r^^mation will provide a starting
—
on pollution control.
as to its usefulness
-------
,.-.....' ............ . I-
Executive Summary :
'
1 Introduction ....-•• ............ - • . •
2 Integration of P2 into Permitting: Different Approaches ." V" v; :;: '•;;;•;.;;; "J.
Permit Flexibility . - .................. .' ' ' ' 8
Pre-Approved Changes ......... ..... ..... : ••••••: • ^ .
Emissions Caps . ...... ''.'''• ............ ; , , 12
P2 Planning Incorporated Into Permit ..•..: ....... ..... ........ 14
Evaluating a P2 Option for Permit Compliance .... ..... • • • • - • • • • • • ^
P2 Conditions as Part of Permit ....... • • "•:•''•'"' ........ 18
. . Providing P2 Information in Permit Application Process ... . - . • • - - • • • l»
• , Multi-Media Permits . . . -. ....... •••••••; ...... ''*....... 20
Permits Fees Structures ..,...-••••••• ......... ...... 21
Accelerated Permit Review ..........-•••••• ' ' : • ' ' ' ' 22
Extended Compliance Time •••/.•••-' ' . ' : ' v ' ' ' ' ...... '-.'.-. 22
Alternative or Reduced Monitoring as Reward for P2 .. ....... -; ^
Use of Inspectors to Promote P2 . . . > ... , - • • ---- . • • • • ...... . • ^
Incorporating P2 into the Underlying Rule ......... ...... ..,..-•
'. : - i t _._. ____ ...... ..... ... 26
3 Conclusions .....-•-•••• ..... • • v ......
. . . . . _ _'_._._. ............. 28
Appendix A ......... ....••••••••••,•;•••
. ..... ....... 29
References . .............. . . . • • ..............
'.;.-..'.;... ...... ...... • 30
Resources .....•••••••••••• ............
-------
Executive Summary
of 1990 (CAAA). the EPA is seeking
In its implementation of the Clean Air '^" CA^A™ Title v creates an Operating Permits
ways to.promote pollution Prev^°v n f lheir federal and state air requirements and
^
to
industry.
To explore how pollution
Office of Air Quality pl
regulations under the Act's
projects. These projects explored how
integrated with permit issued to •
visions, established two pilot
PV ^ flexibility could
ami a semiconductor
ways of
the Title V program,
tasked
the effectiveness of these
• efforts.
eor. ,
promising efforts identified here and elsewhere
RTI found that many states
activities to promote P2 *
issuance to
™V.t part, ,tematio qualitative
available. On the next page,
-------
(Summary of Efforts to Promote P2 in Permits
p examples of two ways ,o provide flexjbinty under aperm*
1* allowing the facility to make changes as long as rt remains wrth.n an
2"nV*e^«o make ^approved changes wi*out applying for a
respond much more quickly to market conditons.
I remain uncontrolled.
fntial ,uec«s of this type ofapproaoh.
-------
further
msight on the viability of P2-based approaches to.compliance.
-------
' coml*iance-
Reduced Fermi, Fees for Firms Using PoUudon
reduced tees or alterna uvernoni oriag »
|l it, and thus are willing to use it.
trough P2 !
B. Uce aU incentives,
°f ii- andersand
noting PoUution PreTention m.ita are cbservmg
Use of permit taspectors , to *£*%£££. 5^51 P» » ««« '-h ™
potential violations and can pomt these .out along ' • (0 avoid poBnnal.
are likely to be able to get the attention of a.fa™'^^';nforcemellt personnel and when
confusion about when inspectors are acting m fl"? « * « should not
Incorporating P2 into Underlying Rules
I incorporation of P2 into underlying rules a
leffective way for EPA to
can be an
facilities affect by
a rule sends a strong
-------
1 Introduction
• f h. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). the EPA is seeking
In its implementation of the Clean Air £^ ,^, Tide v creales an Operating Permits.
ways to promote pollution prevention, inc^ ^^ ^ ^^ ^ requirements and
program that requires facilities to have-ail o ^ ^ operating permit. These permits do
compliance schedules ™^Qne doozmen , ^ ^ federal law^
not contain new ^^^'^^ ^'^^^^ law and
Permits are one ™ tne onmarv venires u^
to industry.
To explore how
,„ Suppon of
the TO. V program. EPA tasta* «"«S-« effectiveness of 4ese
sue and local efforts to mtegrate P2 '»°J^<^e^ti3«wo* for understaMing
^^
To conduct this study, RT! gaUKred ,*---
other individuals who had e^enence w,th« »*«™^ ^ J other ^e^, but did not
tools being used to promote ^^"7 References to farther sources
attempt to idenflfy every midative that addressed P2 m^permBs ^^ ^ UBramre M
-•aff.-sstt
SCȣ^
-------
^
EPA guidance on NSR reform wmcna^punion.snotbroadand
Z^oleSnS iSition of P. that-ay no, ,aH under the
NSR guidance (USEPA, 1994).
approaches to integration were identified:
Providing flexlbilrty to aHow facilities to make P2-orien,ed changes
K^
^
detelop a P2 plan as a condition of the permrt
monitoring a. an incenflve, or P2
characterize and analyze current efforts y sues pj.^-jjao,, ta permits efforts
- - "
characterize and anayze curr pj.^-jjao,, ta permits efforts
to gathering infonnation, Kn-MM*M £ «J«- ^^"SSh^- ^f the effon in
had been followd by qualianveor V**^?"?^ „ ^ irion in the permit, or in
of quantity of pollutants reduced as a resuU of. te K nam
of whetfw removal °'f ^""^
provided in
6
-------
-.. t ?4>c
'.urge sample of experiences."
What is Pollution Prevention?
programs.
pilot project is going:
-------
Some Common Examples of P2
- Through Modification of Process Equipment
P2 Through Good Operating Practices and Preventive Maintenance
sources of potential stormwater contamination. .
P2 Through Materiab Substitution
facilities or the local publicly owned treatment works.
Pollution Prevention Through Planning
^csfti-BpsassrsSS:
md focus on reducing
one
facilitate the P2 planning process (EPA 1992).
-------
2 Integration of P2 into Permitting: Different
Approaches
rrg^ne^^^^
. and SHOW, how
weil^stabHshed the effort is in the state.
2.1 Permit Flexibility
to comply with New Source Review requirements.
m how these limits are met. .
2.1.1 Pre-Apprbved Changea
One way to r.mov. , dWn«n«v. *<* * ^^
a facility i» not r«|Mi~d to go through "«J>'0^>.
-------
possibly because to do so can require substanttal addmonai
10
-------
-------
SgS
-------
Jj
a
II
fl I
111
£» "* !B
ri =
1 —
- .-
'§ 11
JLJL|
"3 "S *
S S •«
.21
oa
's
a
e
e
IS
•-
2 5
i> i* 3
f M §
•9 -a s.w
JI
i,
-------
updating its processes.
alternative operating •eenano. under rating P • ^^ ^ buMmg
net prescribe them are likely to •P^I*11"2^^n%ttoVp.rnilti' because
apply the ^^^S^^X or elensS. by site, and I,
^^5£^S^M.SW "Hfrs to anempt to d,ve,op such
conditions for every permit
Example, of Using Pre-Approv* Permit Changes to Create Flexibility
Oregon
VOCs if:
not changed nor
.
No new applicable requirement is triggered
•14
-------
°f
approving the changes *»«*« *t.;r9qu,wd to file notice of the changes
SK r^rel^ro^a personal con—on,.
Tne,imita,ionthatpreapprov^^^
P2 plan provides <=°herenc8ube~"t bl a oaoer wercise but should be a tool
l^r^^^ effSCt " PrOVidin9
preferential regulatory treatment to P2 changes.
M?^ Jersey
Ne« Jersey ha, incon.0^. igy^'Zg
plants. Existing manual painting <*«**™X£ £^0* efficient and is a P2
robotic spray (which « S^'^'^nWes'n the state, and information
rrhu»t^^^^^^
(New Jersey, 1994).
Pacm«e,partcipa«n8^^^
(S.Anden»on;NJDEP, personal communication).
Minnesota
SMandtnes^ofMinn-.*-.^
reduce the disincentive, for P2 «"!» 3Nipwnn ijw.^ ^ ^ ^ ^^^
Changes to production lines can
-------
nteMs Squired toflle notice of the changes
. Persona, conjunction).
preferential regulatory treatment to P2 changes.
M?v>/ Jersey
(New Jersey, 1994).
(S.Anderson, NJDEP, personal communication).
Minnesota
modification.
15
-------
2.1.2 Emissions Caps
. • • ««raDS are another .way that states have attempted to
Bubbles and emissions caps are ariose ^ y^ ^ ^ by ^.^ y^ Qn
create perm.t flex!^u, po,lutan1» from a whole facility rather than
total em'SSIon«°/t^l°U|rf source of the pollutant in the facility. Th.s enables
be used as a reward for facilities who
lent of emission caps will be
of calculating the total
more amniui* MMW »•«-~— _
emissions from all sources under the cap.
Examples of Bubbles or Emissions Caps
Texas
Minnesota
The M.nn«ot* PoUuUonCon*o. Ag-"^
16
-------
Project' XL is approved (Project XL, 1.995). ,f
22 P2 Planning Incorporated Into Permit
A potion p.ven.ion
rationale behind requiring Pnnm firms wil, become
^X^^™!.
ike those opportunities that are feasible.
component
progress toward the goals of that plan.
however, differ from state planning laws in that
submitted to th« stat».
3. PZpl.nn^ ^rem^^rpora
chlorides. P2 planning i^uireme^n^m^na iwith aj
"^
17
-------
media transfer of pollutants
The
evaluate that avenue. t
Mandatory P2 planning "'""^"^^T^lf*.^"^ rafter
advantage of drawing » fMlll*'"^""caaon that reliei on pollution
than after they have drawn iup a ^^^^Vm creates potential
psrcr^^^^
in such planning (Anderson and Herb, 1994).
Examples off Use off P2 Wans in Permit Context
Qreqon .
The draft Intel pem.it P«v.d~ that «£%™%«t£ rpeT^u^
shall create a pollon P"vntior, ™; rgiven impetus in
to the poHution
^
the permit application process moves » n rtans on on. ,., o,
18
-------
NJDEP personal communication). • ,
Other permits in ™^^2^^^^£Z£
*^^mi"^r" aTd^oToperarg practices. The perminee, are
"-»"•- ~ T~ --« and qood operating practices, me Hwin..»««- -.-
based on mam*enf?clf":i the state quarterly showing that they have taken
communication).
Wisconsin
• wa*«r Pollution Discharge Elimination permits contain
Some Wisconsin Water Po luflon "ISC"«r«*' _ attaraet chloride discharges.
requirements that the facility develop P2 plans ^r|^°f^OTW permits
WONR, personal communication).
23 Evaluating a P2 Option for Petmit Compliance
certain P2 measures fbr compliahco.
«. b. inten»tedn .nfb.m.Son
19
-------
use P2 to qua,ify as a
cannot be prescribed as
through the fuH Title V
question about whether
limits as a precondition to
v. EPA).
where a P2 measure
will
hough there is some
£ federal enforceability of
H ^^ .( may rema|n
~s begin widely incorporating
(Na^na, Mining Association e, ai.
,o emit is
process is complex and can be time
Example* of Evaluation of a P2 Option for Compllanc.
prevention approach. Once they
develop ,
\y??t Virginia
,, Virginia', 8M.
abmanagemen, op«on for air
1994,.
o«
communication).
,n
20
-------
1UC71 I LI 11^« | «-tw« • « i~
approaches (WRITAR, 1994).
_Jej§£¥
New air reflations in New Jersey ^SSSS^
consider pollution control options. The P~°"%°°ugW under the state's pre-
also instituted in the permit j8*"0^; . it naa on|y been in effect since
pilot multimedia permit efforts. I nai Per"!lv_ . ' J8 ]t too eariy to tell if
1Q9A and the4ir regulations since i»»"• ••• u«is«»*«»« that it'
1984'anau! ^_.^5_..-i., KiAwArthAiAs*. the state believes that it
24 P2 Conditions as Part of Permit
~P2 as a permit condition:
measures that a facility is
burners to ensure efficient
combustion).
would b« iricorporatecrrntflr a permit
thi».
often
effort and every company » V „ ade mow flexible-by
21
-------
low costs.3
«r,tions are offered in a regulation, then enforcement of
Where P2 comphanc^^eo^ita[s%Op7rroepriate, si9nce the company has already
remove *e over-reliance on end-of-pipe treatment
Examples of Including P2 Conditions in a Permit
Jersey
for the industry (New Jersey, 1994).
Indiana
manufacturer of electronic circuitry in
ion in the form of a required phase-out of
Minnesota,
;ifa.P2L
investigate these options
Ct\|*il*H \f± * *•? »•• • - w
without incentives or requirements.
'22-
-------
25 providing P2 information in Permit Application Process
effective.
page 25.
Examples of Provision of P2 Information in Permit Application Process
Indiana
23
-------
responders ware referred ,o state ""^^Ito •"* <°
appropriate. Since these "f "^^"'^ Ltion planning. Indiana is
tell whether firms are f '"3 " '" '^ePp2™easures that might provide some
in the process of deve oping* fctewjd e PZ TI ^ ^ ^ difficu,t
insight into how ^effective sue* ^^^^e^, their specific programs
%£££X$^** T.Ne,«ner,,OEM, persona,
communications).
2.6 Multi-Media Permits
current*, most environmen*^^^^^
basis. The use of ™*^*'5SSJ ^ulments «i» a single standard for
^^
"
to leverage P2 in permits.
Fo? insunce, ir, '^•"^£^SS±Z^
writer* can more easily point °"*e""* "JJJ for one m^ia. Including a
media impacts of control ?'f "^^mt. «I^,aehu.etts ha. done) can
pollution P««n«°" '"S^'Sll" S|p «« "al communication). On the
~^
-^— *
particularly for solid waste and air.
Th. multimedia p.rmi« l^t^SSt.^^
new concept, *«• swm. to »»"ri",9^ Ov.r the long term. The
subjecting th.m to . non, or two
and w.,Kne»« o, such an
approach.
24
-------
Examples of Multimedia Permits
New Jersey
H nne facility-wide permit under its pilot multimedia
DEP, personal communication)
MewYbrk
(J.Higgins, NYOEC, personal communication).
nelaware
2.7 Permits Fees Structures
a<*vm« .Fim». ;u™^^j» ; ^ n Utewi... many
pollutants, so th«r» » a Duiit-in mc*""* unH«P the Title V program;
states ar. •xptering th0 use ^fl^^^^"^^^^^
these WQU» allow certain «"«*^^^ ^eir Operations This too
permit appHeatfon process, and *?&'•£*" below tiTe threshold of the
thresholds are relatively inexpensive.
Examples of Use of Permits Fee Structures to Promo^
"',.'. -.'25 . ".
-------
Wisconsin
Mf,,iiv used reduced fees in combination with reduced
Wisconsin has successfully use
-------
Examples of Accelerated Permit Review
California
« in California (Project MERIT) offered expedited review
An EPA-state program mCahforn^
persona! communication).
Illinois
tne S*«e o« HHnoi, ^^n^aU^
informal proeew i. on Prevention Office,
affi»'*£»iwa^ffl«i
and informally request that this permit oe e^_ ^^ from the
communication).
2.9 Extended Compliance Time
P2 rather than pollution control.
27
-------
examples
of Offering Extended Compliance Time for P2 Projects
Wisconsin
Wisconsin water quality permit applicants
schedule to enable them to imptomem J£ — jnto ^ comp|iance
situation in which he was able to build' a£ °™r* *ory ,imits. if the extra time
schedule so that a firm could' "»•£ been jmpossjb,e for that firm to come
lg P2TD Hantz, Wl DNR, personal communication).
Region^
EPA Region 9's small
compliance extension
how successful *is effort was in
a
incentive.
Taxis.
^^
communication). •
2.10 Alternative or Reduced Monitoring as Reward for P2
Th. sutss and *. EPA h* • I.. .
can offer to firms in sxehano. for
compliance or to psrform som.
the flrm th. opportunity *»•
possibility is to offer
PO ^ ^^^
Sresholds, *«,
Where P2 .ffo ar.
28
-------
regulated community understand it.
Examples of Reduced Monitoring :;
Wisconsin
communication).
"?fttl Carolina
communication). . . .
Indiana .
non-Control Technology Guid..in. RACT .landard tor VOCa h»
The Indiana
. ' ' 29
-------
,„ ™.w .ACT
U.S^EPA
been implemented thus far (U.S. EPA,
environmental record (U.S. EPA, 1995e).
211 Use of Inspectors to Promote P2
in other ways.
the improverftents.
30
-------
collecting legal evidence regarding regulatory compliance Use of permit
incorrectly Perce,vec » ™
staff must have industrial process knowledge (Helbrecnt, 1994).
EPA Reaion 1 summarized its positions on regulatory and npnregulatory
Caches to promoting P2 In a 1993 white paper. The Region emphas.zed
Examples of Using Inspectors to Promote P2
SPARaq'on9 "
EPA, personal communication).
Indiana -
d have bee"
.ndiana inspectors ^tatribut. P2 Information during in«P^
communication).
2.12 Ineorporating P2 into the Underlying Rule
y of incorporating P2 into permits is to »«»JP^« toltD'1h0
unr. Thte can be accomplished either by ?™™*W****OT
31
-------
Examples of Incorporating P2 into Rules
Indiana
substitution to reduca tar. 0 Th<> regjon
c dto
these facilities.
personal communication).
communication). . . .
32
-------
approximately ten rules since the program began.
Conclusions
integration efforB i «^ hrt *1^^on ,„£„,„ still at the pilot stage,
^^^^^
efforts are not followed up with •y^nrte ^^^^ rely on anecdotal
context in which it is applied.
permits:
. The mechanism of thsin^^onafforti^
state's underlying P2 mandate and philosophy
. Reaulator* vwrked wfth other stakeholders (e.g., industry, the
E?ARe1ionTto solve potentially contentious issues
, Theregulators worked with regulated facilWes early in the
process
33
-------
Appendix A
Contact Information for P2 Integration Efforts
Deborah Gallagher, former* of Massachusetts Department of Environment^
Protection, . .
(617)933-2800
StBve Anderson, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, (609,
777-0518
Rio* Atkinson, We,t Virginia Air PoHution Cont». Agency, (304) 558-4022
Andrea Farre... Delaware Department o« Natura, Resources and Environment,
Conservation, (302) 739-3822
Doug Fine, Massachusetts Department of Environment Proton, (617)
574-6862
David Hantz, Wisconsin Department of Natura. Resources, (608) 267-7664
John Higgins, New York Department of Environment* Conservation, (518,
457-7688
Susana Hiidebrand, Texa. Natural Re~urce Cor*.rvation Commission, (512)
239-1300
Roger Larson, Wl.con.in Department of Natura. Resources, ,608,267-7664
Peter Lloyd, North Carolina Department of Environment* Management, (919,
733-3340
LeifMagnuson, U.S. EPA Reflipn 9, (415) 744-2153
Janet McC**, Indian. D.p.rtm.nt of Environmanta. Management, (317) 233-
5694 .
RobertMcCarren, Mlnn^ot. Pollution Control Agency, (612) 296-7324
Louis MiRolaicryK, New J.».y D^rtmen, of Environmental Proton. (609,
292-9258
34
-------
Thomas Neltner, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, (317)
232-8172 . : ' ,
Susie Peck, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, (617)
292-5870
Dan Reich, EPA Region 9, (415) 744-1343
Nikki Roy, U.S. EPA, (202) 260-8636
Tom Wallin, Illinois Office of Pollution Prevention, (217) 782-8700
George Yun, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, (503) 229-6093
References
J Herb "Building Pollution Prevention into Facilitywide
^^
Helbrecht, L, "Integrating Pollution Prevention and^ompHance: How Far Can
We Gb?," Pollution Prevention Review, Summer 1994, pp. 331-336.
Inside EPA, "Interview with Mary Nichols," July 7,1995, p.5.
Minn^^^
Region V,St Paul, Minnesota, June 1994.
National Mining Association et al. V.JEPA (9i5-100«).
Neltner, T.G., "Integration of P2 into Environmental R^^f^f1
Approach^wwntod at th« Pollution Prevention Roundtable
Conference, Fall, 1994. '
NovembertDseembw 1994.
Project XU Summaries of Curwnt Application, avaitabl. from Rob Melllnger,
"' '
-------
inistrative Supper, Contractor for Project XL, (703, 934-3941 ,
,CF Administrative
1995.
277-283.
New York, N.Y., April 29, 1993
Durham, N.C., July, 1994.
6,ecWniou.letin Board, Durham, M.C.,
1995b.
36
-------
Resources
U S EPA Office of Research and Deve.opment "^Pollution Prevention
Guld^'EPW600/R-92/088, Washington, D.C., May, 1992.
September, 1993.
(202) 260-4287.
1994.
37
-------
------- |