United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
MD-12
EPA-456/R-96-004 (/"
August 1996
&EPA
Federal Operating Permits Program
Under Title V of the Clean Air Act
-------
FEDERAL OPERATING PERMITS PROGRAM UNDER
TITLE V OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
FINAL REPORT
Work Assignment No. 11-20
EPA Contract No. 68-D3-0031
MRI Project No. 4202-20
Prepared for:
Ms. Helen Eng and Ms. Maria Stanco
Work Assignment Managers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
290 Broadway, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
Prepared by:
Midwest Research Institute
August 1, 1996
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
CWcago, IL 606Q4-3590
-------
PREFACE
The purpose of this notebook is to supplement the information presented and
discussed in the EPA-sponsored workshop entitled, "The Federal Operating Permits
Program (Part 71)." This workshop was developed to inform industry in affected States
of the requirements for complying with the Federal Operating Permits Program under
Part 71 of Volume 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The notebook was prepared by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) under EPA
Contract No. 68-D3-0031, WA No. 11-20, with EPA's Information Transfer and
Program Integration Division in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The EPA
Work Assignment Managers were Ms. Helen Eng and Ms. Maria Stanco of the EPA
Region II Office in New York City.
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of several individuals. Ms. Chris
Fazio of the EPA Region II Office provided overall technical guidance for the entire
notebook. Messrs. Donald Dahl of the EPA Region I Office in Boston, Massachusetts,
and Mr. Ray Chalmers of the Region III Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, assisted
Ms. Fazio in guiding and reviewing the notebook. Valuable assistance was also provided
by Ms. Candace Carraway, Mr. Kirt Cox, Mr. Jeff Herring, Mr. Michael Ling,
Mr. Barrett Parker, Ms. Joanna Swanson, and Mr. Scott Voorhees of EPA's Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards.
We also wish to acknowledge the support of TRC Environmental Corporation;
Goldman, Antonetti, and Cordova; and the Puerto Rico Manufacturers Association for
allowing the text from several sections of their May 15, 1995, reports entitled "Guidance
Document for the Preparation of Title V Emissions Inventories" and "Guidance
Document for Developing Alternative Operating Scenarios and Operational Flexibility
for Title V Permits" to be incorporated into Sections 5.1.3 through 5.1.6, 6.1.3, 6.6.1,
and 6.9.1 through 6.9.3 of the notebook.
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 TRANSITION BETWEEN PARTS 70 AND 71 2-1
2.1 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN Part 70 AND Part 71 2-1
2.1.1 Early Application Due Date 2-2
2.1.2 Insignificant Activities and Emission Levels 2-2
2.1.3 Permit Fees 2-2
2.1.4 Enforcement 2-3
2.2 PROGRAM TRANSITION AND IMPLEMENTATION 2-3
2.2.1 Public Notice of Part 71 Program 2-4
2.2.2 Transition Plan for Initial Permit Issuance 2-4
2.2.3 Delegation of Part 71 Programs to State or Local Agencies ... 2-5
2.2.4 Transition to Approved Part 70 Program 2-5
3.0 TITLE V OBLIGATIONS AND APPLICABILITY 3-1
3.1 OBLIGATIONS UNDER TITLE V 3-1
3.1.1 Reporting Requirements 3-1
3.1.2 Fees 3-2
3.1.3 Enforcement and Penalty Issues 3-4
3.2 APPLICABILITY OF TITLE V 3-4
3.2.1 Definitions 3-5
3.2.2 Who Needs an Operating Permit? 3-6
3.2.3 Which Pollutants are Regulated? 3-8
3.2.4 When Should Fugitive Emissions be Counted? 3-8
3.2.5 Insignificant Activities 3-10
4.0 SYNTHETIC MINORS, POTENTIAL TO EMIT, AND TRANSITION
POLICY 4-1
4.1 SYNTHETIC MINORS 4-1
4.2 MECHANISMS TO LIMIT PTE 4-2
4.2.1 FESOP's 4-2
4.2.2 SIP General Permits 4-3
4.2.3 Prohibitory Rule 4-3
4.2.4 Preconstruction Permit 4-4
4.2.5 Source Specific SIP Revisions 4-4
4.3 EPA TRANSITIONAL GUIDANCE FOR SYNTHETIC MINORS . . 4-5
4.4 PRACTICAL ENFORCEABnJTY 4-6
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
5.0 PERMIT APPLICATION STEPS AND CONTENT 5-1
5.1 PERMIT APPLICATION ELEMENTS 5-1
5.1.1 Permit Application Streamlining 5-2
5.1.2 Minimum Permit Application Elements 5-3
5.1.3 Emissions Reporting Categories 5-5
5.1.4 Source Identification System 5-6
5.1.5 Emission Estimation Principles 5-8
5.1.6 Applicable Requirements 5-17
5.1.7 Preparing Compliance Plans, Schedules, and Certification .... 5-18
5.1.8 Preparing Insignificant Activities and Emission Levels Lists . . . 5-29
5.2 THE PERMIT APPROVAL PROCESS 5-32
5.2.1 Public and "Affected State" Notice and Opportunity for
Comment 5-32
5.2.2 Public Petitions and Judicial Review 5-34
5.3 PERMIT CONTENT 5-34
5.4 PERMIT REVISIONS 5-37
5.4.1 Administrative Permit Amendments 5-37
5.4.2 Minor Permit Modifications 5-37
5.4.3 Significant Permit Modifications 5-38
5.5 PERIODIC MONITORING, RECORDKEEPING, AND REPORTING 5-39
6.0 FLEXIBLE PERMIT APPROACHES 6-1
6.1 EMISSIONS TRADING UNDER EMISSION CAPS ESTABLISHED
BY THE PERMIT 6-1
6.1.1 Impacts of Establishing Emissions Caps 6-2
6.1.2 Developing Emissions Caps 6-2
6.1.3 Implementing Emissions Caps 6-3
6.2 EMISSIONS TRADING BASED ON THE SIP RULES 6-3
6.3 OFF-PERMIT CHANGES 6-4
6.4 EMISSIONS TRADING BASED ON APPLICABLE
REQUIREMENTS 6-4
6.5 EMISSIONS TRADING BASED ON ECONOMIC INCENTIVES ... 6-5
6.6 ALTERNATIVE OPERATING SCENARIOS 6-5
6.7 ADVANCE NSR APPROVAL 6-6
6.8 GENERAL PERMITS 6-7
6.9 MAXIMIZING POTENTIAL TO EMIT 6-7
6.9.1 Impacts - Benefits and Limitations 6-7
6.9.2 Guidelines to Maximizing PTE 6-8
6.9.3 Examples of Maximizing PTE . 6-8
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
7.0 HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTION PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS FOR
TITLE V 7-1
7.1 SECTION 112(g) 7-1
7.1.1 Components of the Draft Final Rule 7-2
7.1.2 Case-by-Case MACT Determination 7-2
7.1.3 Determining MACT-Equivalent Limitations 7-5
7.1.4 MACT Hammer - Section 112(j) 7-5
7.1.5 MACT Approval 7-6
7.2 SECTION 112(r) REQUIREMENTS 7-6
8.0 INFORMATION SOURCES 8-1
APPENDIX A. EPA MEMORANDA
APPENDIX B. SEMINAR OVERHEAD TRANSPARENCIES
Vll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 5-1 Applicable requirements ,
Figure 5-2. Draft Form CP ~ Compliance Plan
Figure 5-3. Draft Form CC-1 - Compliance Certification (Method of
Compliance)
Figure 5-4. Draft Form CC-2 ~ Compliance Certification
Figure 5-5. Compliance Plan and Schedule Requirements
Figure 5-6. Draft Application Form IE — Insignificant Emissions . . .
Figure 5-7. Application Submittal/Permit Issuance Process
Figure 6-1. Maximizing PTE example for health products
Figure 6-2. Maximizing PTE example for electronics production . . .
Figure 7-1. Schematic of Section 112(g) process
Page
5-19
5-25
5-26
5-27
5-28
5-31
5-33
6-9
6-10
7-3
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 3-1. MAJOR SOURCE THRESHOLDS UNDER THE PART 71 PERMIT
PROGRAM
TABLE 3-2. SOURCE CATEGORIES FOR WHICH FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
MUST BE CONSIDERED
TABLE 5-1. MINIMUM PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
TABLE 5-2. "INSIGNIFICANT" ACTIVITIES UNDER THE PART 71 PERMIT
PROGRAM
TABLE 5-3. CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRING PERMIT REOPENINGS ....
TABLE 6-1. TYPICAL FACTORS USED FOR MAXIMIZING POTENTIAL
TO EMIT
3-7
3-9
5-4
5-29
5-36
6-8
Vlll
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
With the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Congress created the Title V operating
permits program, which required EPA to establish national standards for an operating permits
program for stationary sources of air pollution. Based on these standards, States were
required to devise their own permit programs under Title V. On July 21, 1992, the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the final rulemaking for the Title V
program as Part 70 of Chapter I of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR
Part 70). This regulation outlined the specific minimum requirements that States must meet
in their operating permit programs.
The basic premise behind Title V is fundamentally simple: all Federal requirements
from a number of air pollution regulatory programs are integrated into a single document.
By consolidating facilities' permit requirements, the public and permitting authorities can
better determine if sources are in compliance with their Clean Air Act requirements. Other
program objectives include providing a consistent framework for incorporating new
requirements, providing programs for emissions trading, and establishing independently
funded operating permits programs. Title V also includes requirements for public
participation, provisions for permit and application shields, and a mechanism for permit
reopenings and revisions. Finally, timeframes in which State permitting authorities and EPA
must act to review and rule on permitting applications are specified.
State agencies are responsible for developing and implementing operating permits
programs under Title V. Therefore, States must develop their own operating permit
programs to review, issue, administer, and enforce operating permits. States are also
required to collect the fees necessary to carry out these responsibilities. State agencies are
free to develop and implement Part 70 as they wish so long as they meet minimum
1-1
-------
EPA-established requirements. For example, States may elect to establish requirements
more stringent that those set forth under Part 70.
Under the Clean Air Act Amendments, EPA is required to implement a Federal
Title V permits program (to be issued under 40 CFR Part 71) in any State or jurisdiction that
did not have an approved Part 70 permit program in place by November 15, 1995. Because
several State and authorized local agencies do not have EPA-approved Part 70 programs in
place, EPA is in the process of preparing to implement Part 71 programs in these areas.
Part 71 will apply not only to major stationary sources of air pollution in States and
authorized local agencies that have failed to obtain EPA approval of their operating permits,
but also to sources located in areas over which Indian Tribes have jurisdiction (if the Tribes
have not developed their own permit programs) and to certain sources on the Outer
Continental Shelf.
The requirements in the Part 71 rule are similar to those mandated in Part 70 because
Part 71 is modeled on the Part 70 regulations. For example, the definitions, permit content,
and application requirements are quite similar. In addition, Part 71 provides some flexibility
by allowing EPA to delegate administration of the operating permits program, in whole or in
part, to State, local, or Tribal agencies, where appropriate. Therefore, EPA anticipates a
smooth transition between the Part 71 and Part 70 programs if the permitting authorities
should change in the future (e.g., if certain States ultimately receive EPA approval of their
operating permits programs).
The primary difference between the Part 70 and 71 rules is that Part 70 programs are
implemented by State or local authorities, whereas Part 71 programs are administered by
EPA, except in those cases where authority is delegated elsewhere. Other differences
include the following: (1) under Part 70, many implementing agencies have developed very
extensive lists of insignificant activities and emission level thresholds that have been
approved by EPA; the insignificant activity list in Part 71 is much less extensive; and
(2) under Part 70, the initial fee for sources is adjusted upward from a 1989 base fee of $25
1-2
-------
per ton per year of regulated pollutant emissions plus the Consumer Price Index, under
Part 71, the fee is proposed to be $32 per ton per year in Phase I if the program is
administered by EPA and $24 per ton per year if administered by the State under a fully
delegated program (to be increased in Phase n to reflect the additional cost of permit
revisions). Additionally, Part 71's definition of "affected State" has been modified to include
Indian tribal lands for cases where EPA determines that an Indian Tribe is eligible for
treatment as an affected State. Also, Part 71 requires that any federally recognized Indian
Tribe be notified of the issuance of any draft permits to sources that could impact tribal air
quality, including all draft permits issued by EPA for the tribal area and all draft permits for
sources that are within 50 miles of the reservation boundary.
Although EPA originally intended to incorporate proposed revisions to the Part 70
rule into the final Part 71 rule, industry commenters unanimously argued that the permit
revisions in the proposed Part 70 rule were too complex and would hinder a source's ability
to make rapid changes in response to market conditions. EPA agreed with these concerns
and with concerns over impeding transitions to Part 70 approval. For EPA to fulfill its
mandate as the Title V permitting authority for States that have not obtained Part 70
approval, and to do so by establishing a complete Part 71 program, it was necessary for EPA
to promulgate the Part 71 rule on an interim basis (hereafter called "Phase I Part 71 rule"),
based upon the current Part 70 regulation. Many issues in Part 70 are still outstanding
following the August 1994 and August 1995 proposed changes. Once the Agency has
resolved the outstanding issues with the relevant stakeholders, EPA intends to issue a second
round of final rulemaking for Part 71 (hereafter "Phase n rulemaking") to conform Part 71
to the revised Part 70 rule.
example, the minimum Part 70 fee in 1996 is $31 per ton per year of regulated
pollutant, although some States have established levels significantly higher than this, while
other States have prepared detailed fee demonstrations showing that lesser fees would be
sufficient to run the program.
1-3
-------
2.0 TRANSITION BETWEEN PARTS 70 AND 71
EPA has tailored the Federal Part 71 operating permits regulations after the Part 70
regulations. This consistency should ease the anticipated transition from Part 71 to Part 70
programs when States obtain EPA approval of their own permit programs. This section will
present the differences between the requirements of Part 70 and Part 71 and discuss some
practical transition issues that may be of interest to industry.
2.1 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN Part 70 AND Part 71
EPA initially finalized the Part 70 regulation on July 21, 1992 (57 FR 32250). After
much controversy related to the permit revision procedures, EPA published proposed changes
to these procedures on August 29, 1994 (59 FR 44460). Part 71, as proposed on April 27,
1995 (60 FR 20804), incorporates EPA's revised permit revision procedures. Because of the
extensive comments received on these revised procedures from both industry and the States,
EPA has streamlined the permit revision procedures in a supplemental notice (60 FR 45529,
August 31, 1995). Due to delays in finalizing the Part 70 rules, EPA has decided to finalize
the Part 71 rule based on the original July 21, 1992 Part 70 rule and not the Part 71 proposal
which hi large part was based on the August 29, 1994 proposed revisions to Part 70.
Because States may have up to two years to revise their existing Part 70 programs to meet
the Part 70 revisions once promulgated, EPA believes that tailoring the Part 71 rule to the
existing Part 70 rule will enhance the transition between the Part 71 and Part 70 programs.
In a Phase JJ promulgation of Part 71, EPA plans to incorporate any additional changes to
Part 70 into the Part 71 regulations so that the two programs remain consistent.
Although EPA has attempted to make these programs as consistent as possible, some
inherent differences exist. These differences arise because the Part 71 program is a national
program implemented by EPA, while Part 70 is a program implemented by the States or
2-1
-------
local agencies incorporating unique State/local preferences and precedents. The more
significant variations are discussed below.
2.1.1 Early Application Due Date
Under Part 70, EPA allowed State and local agencies to set individual schedules for
submittal of permit applications by industry that meet the needs of their specific programs.
The only stipulation was that all applications must be submitted within 1 year of program
approval. Many States used 4 or 6 month schedules and many required application even
prior to EPA approval of the program.
Sources subject to Part 71 must also generally submit a permit application within
1 year of becoming subject to the program. However, EPA may choose to require
application submission before the 1-year deadline, provided that advance notice and
reasonable submission time is given. At least 6-months notice must be given to sources prior
to the early application deadline.
2.1.2 Insignificant Activities and Emission Levels
Under Part 70, State and local agencies must obtain EPA approval of activities and
emissions that are considered insignificant, and therefore, not to be included in the permit
application. State and local agencies have proposed a wide variety of insignificant activities
and emissions provisions in their Part 70 programs.
In Part 71, EPA's criteria for insignificant emission levels are as follows:
1. For non-HAP regulated air pollutants: no more than 2 tons per year (tpy), based
on the unit's potential to emit.
2. For HAP's: no more than 1,000 Ib/yr of any HAP from a single emission unit.
While units or activities qualifying for insignificant treatment due to emission levels
must be reported in the permit application, only a listing is required that generally describes
the unit and its emissions. Detailed information (e.g., emission estimates, work practices,
and monitoring) is not required in the permit application.
2.1.3 Permit Fees
Under Part 70, State and local agencies developed fee schedules to cover the costs of
administering and implementing their operating permit programs. EPA suggested a
2-2
-------
presumptive norm of $25 per ton of regulated pollutant emissions per year, which is adjusted
upward each year after 1989 according to increases in the Consumer Price Index.
Under Phase I of Part 71, EPA will charge an initial fee of $32 per ton of regulated
pollutant emissions (including fugitives) per year. If EPA finds it necessary to use contractor
assistance to administer the Part 71 program, the per ton fee will vary depending on the
extent of contractor involvement. The fee could exceed $70 per ton per year; although as in
Part 70, EPA will not charge for emissions of each regulated pollutant that the source emits
in excess of 4,000 tpy. In Phase n of Part 71, an additional fee will be determined to cover
the cost of permit revisions when EPA finalizes a new streamlined permit revision process.
Part 71 sources are required to submit an initial fee calculation worksheet and fees to EPA.
However, EPA may suspend its fee collection where a State receives full delegation and
collects adequate fees under State law to administer the delegated Part 71 program. For fully
delegated programs in which EPA has not suspended its fee collection, the fee will be $24.
2.1.4 Enforcement
Under Part 70, State and local agencies are required to obtain enforcement authority
to assess civil penalties of $10,000 per day per violation. Under Part 71, civil penalties are
significantly higher - $25,000 per day per violation. Fines could be assessed for violation of
any applicable requirement; any permit condition; any fee or filing requirement; and any
duty to allow or carry out inspection, entry, or monitoring activities of any regulation or
orders issued by the permitting authority.
2.2 PROGRAM TRANSITION AND IMPLEMENTATION
If an approved Part 70 program is not in place by November 15, 1995, EPA is
required by the Act to implement a Federal Part 71 program for that area. Although the lack
of an approved Part 70 program is the most likely reason that a Federal permit program
would be needed, several other situations could cause EPA to impose a Part 71 program,
including the following:
1. EPA may find that a State or local agency is not adequately administering or
enforcing its approved Part 70 program. In this case, EPA must impose a Part 71 program
2-3
-------
within 2 years after informing the permitting authority of the deficiency, if the deficiency is
not corrected.
2. A State or local agency that has received interim approval for its Part 70 program
may fail to obtain the required full program approval before the intermim approval expires.
In such a case, EPA is required to impose a Part 71 program.
3. If a permitting authority fails to act properly on an individual Part 70 permit (e.g.,
fails to respond to a timely permit objection or to reopen the permit for cause), EPA may
impose a Part 70 permit action or issue the source a Part 71 permit.
4. A Tribal area where a Part 70 operating permits program has not been granted full
or interim approval would be subject to Part 71. The effective date of a Part 71 program for
a Tribal area is November 15, 1997.
5. Selected major sources which are classified as outer continental shelf (OCS)
sources would be subject to Part 71. If the source is located beyond 25 miles of a State's
seaward boundaries, the source becomes subject to Part 71 30 days after promulgation. If
the source is located within 25 miles of the seaward boundaries, the Part 71 program applies
if the program is being administered and enforced by EPA for the corresponding onshore
area.
The following paragraphs discuss some transition issues that will arise when EPA
implements Part 71.
2.2.1 Public Notice of Part 71 Program
If a Part 71 program is needed for a State (or area within the State), EPA will publish
a notice in the Federal Register informing the public of EPA's decision to administer and
enforce the Part 71 program in the State (or area) and the effective date of the program. In
addition to the Federal Register notice, EPA may publish notice in a newspaper of general
circulation within the area and will send a letter to the Governor informing him or her of the
effective date of the program.
2.2.2 Transition Plan for Initial Permit Issuance
Once the effective date of the Part 71 program is established, Part 71 allows from
6 months to 1 year from that effective date for sources to submit permit applications to EPA,
although sources could always submit applications earlier. States and industry have
2-4
-------
complained about the unnecessary detail that is required from sources in these application
forms, and EPA has consented to allow States to develop supplemental guidance for filling
out the Part 71 application, based on the "White Paper" in Appendix A. In general, this
guidance clarifies the amount and level of information needed in permit applications and
provides considerable options for streamlining the application process. EPA or delegate
agencies will follow the streamlining guidelines in the White Paper when implementing the
Part 71 program. Part 71 requires that EPA issue permits for at least one-third of all
applications annually over a period of 3 years after the effective date of the Part 71 program.
If an application contains an early reduction demonstration under Section 112(i)(5) of the
Act, the permit will be issued within 12 months of receipt of a complete application.
2.2.3 Delegation of Part 71 Programs to State or Local Agencies
The EPA recognizes that in some cases States may fail to receive Part 70 program
approval due to program flaws that are not related to their practicable ability to implement a
permitting program. In the preamble to the proposed Part 71 regulation, EPA cites the
example of a Part 70 program that contains elements in it's enabling legislation or regulations
that prevent EPA from granting program approval, even though EPA may be confident that
the State could adequately administer and enforce the program. For this and similar cases,
the State or local agency may be delegated authority for the entire program or only a portion
of the program. If EPA chooses to delegate all or part of the program, EPA will define, as
part of the delegation agreement, the respective roles in administering and enforcing the
Part 71 program. Note that delegation of a Part 71 program, in part or whole, to the State
or local agency does not constitute EPA approval of their Part 70 program.
2.2.4 Transition to Approved Part 70 Program
For a State that submits a late Part 70 submittal to EPA such that EPA has not
approved or disapproved the submittal by the effective date of the final Part 71 rule, Part 71
becomes automatically effective until the State's Part 70 program is approved by EPA.
However, sources are not obligated to submit applications to EPA until 12 months after the
effective date of the Part 71 program. Therefore, if the State's Part 70 program is approved
shortly after Part 71 is effective, it is likely that sources will submit applications to the State
or local permitting authority rather than to EPA. Upon approval of the Part 70 program,
2-5
-------
EPA will suspend further action on applications for Part 71 permits. Where appropriate,
applications received by EPA prior to approval of the Part 70 program will be forwarded to
the permitting authority after approval of the Part 70 program.
If Part 71 permits have already been issued to a source when a Part 70 program is
approved by EPA, EPA will continue to administer and enforce the Part 71 permit until it is
replaced by a Part 70 permit. If a Part 71 permit expires prior to the issuance of a Part 70
permit, the Part 71 permit will remain in effect until the Part 70 permit is issued or denied,
provided that a timely and complete application for permit renewal was submitted to the
permitting authority.
The permitting authority may issue Part 70 permits for all sources with Part 71
permits in accordance with a permit issuance schedule approved as part of their Part 70
program or may issue Part 70 permits at the expiration of the Part 71 permit. Part 71
permits will contain a permit condition that states that the permit will automatically expire
upon issuance by the State of a Part 70 permit.
2-6
-------
3.0 TITLE V OBLIGATIONS AND APPLICABILITY
3.1 OBLIGATIONS UNDER TITLE V
Under most circumstances, sources subject to Title V permitting requirements must
submit a permit application within 1 year of becoming subject to Part 71. In some instances,
EPA will require an early application, in which case the agency will give a minimum
6 months notice prior to the early application deadline. Under Section 71.5(a), the owner or
operator of a source subject to a Federal operating permit program is required to submit a
timely and complete permit application. Also, Section 71.5(e) states that the applicant has a
duty to promptly supplement or correct information in the permit application upon becoming
aware of any failures, incorrect submittals, or new requirements.
3.1.1 Reporting Requirements
Title V requires adherence to certain reporting requirements which relate primarily to:
(1) monitoring data, (2) compliance certification, and (3) a schedule of compliance. The
permit application must describe how the reporting will be prepared and identify a
responsible party. The reporting requirements are summarized below:
• Sources must submit reports of any required monitoring at least every 6 months.
All emissions exceedances must be clearly identified in the reports.
• Whenever a source deviates from permit requirements, including deviations
attributable to upset conditions, the source must promptly report the deviations,
the probable cause of such deviations, and any corrective actions or preventive
measures taken. The final operating permit rule states, "[t]he permitting authority
shall define 'prompt' in relation to the degree and type of deviation likely to occur
and the applicable requirements" [Section 70.6 (a)(3)(iii)(B)]. Part 71 and many
State rules require that deviations which result in an emissions increase must be
3-1
-------
reported within 1 to 2 days. All other deviations must be reported in semi-annual
monitoring reports, unless more frequent reporting is required in the permit.
• If the source is required to submit a schedule of compliance as part of its permit
application, the source must submit progress reports at least semiannually. These
progress reports must contain an updated schedule indicating when milestones
were met. The reports must also explain why any dates in the original schedule
of compliance were not or will not be met, as well as any additional corrective or
preventive measures adopted.
• Sources must submit compliance certifications at least annually. These
certifications must state the source's current compliance status with all applicable
requirements and the methods used to determine compliance. All compliance
certifications must be signed by a "responsible" company official and verified for
"truth, accuracy, and completeness."
All records must be available for a period of at least 5 years from the date of
monitoring event, measurement, report, or application. Upon request, the facility must
submit any of these records to the permitting authority.
3.1.2 Fees
Title V allows EPA to charge sources annual fees whenever EPA is required to
administer a Part 71 program. The annual fees are based on information that the facility
submits regarding actual emissions of each regulated pollutant. Each Part 71 source must
complete and submit an initial fee calculation worksheet. The work sheets will be provided
by EPA. Fee payment of the full amount must accompany each initial fee calculation work
sheet. The fees are based on the source's actual emissions for the preceding calendar year
multiplied by the cost per ton factor. When determining the fee, emissions in excess of
4,000 tons per year of any regulated pollutant and insignificant sources should be excluded
from the fee calculation. Fees are charged on regulated pollutants only once so care should
be taken not to double count pollutants in more than one pollutant category.
Due dates for the initial fee calculation work sheets and fees are as follows:
1. If EPA implements a Part 71 program that does not replace an approved Part 70
program, the due dates are as follows:
3-2
-------
Type of Part 71 permit Due date from Part 71 effective date
Early deadline permits
Phase n acid rain permits
SO2
NOX
All other permits
By date specified in notice (specified
date will be within 12 months)
By January 1, 1996
By January 1, 1998
Within 12 months
2. If EPA withdraws approval of a Part 70 program and implements a Part 71
program, the due dates are as follows:
SIC code
0100 - 2499
2500 - 2999
3000 - 3999
>3999
Due date from Part 71 effective date
Within 6 months
Within 7 months
Within 8 months
Within 9 months
3. If a Part 71 permit is issued following an EPA objection to a Part 70 permit, the
due date is 3 months after the date the Part 71 permit is issued.
If the permitting authority determines that a source has completed the fee calculation
worksheet incorrectly, the permitting authority will bill the applicant for the corrected fee or
credit overpayments to the source's account. If additional amounts are due, full payment
must be remitted within 30 days of the receipt of an invoice. (Penalties of 50 percent of the
fee amount are assessed if the fee is not paid within 30 days of the payment due date and are
also assesssed for certain underpayments.) Note, that the permit application is considered
incomplete until all required fees are paid. If an owner or operator believes that the assessed
fee is in error, a written explanation of the alleged error must be provided to the permitting
authority along with the assessed fee. The permitting authority has 90 days to determine
whether the assessed fee was in error and make appropriate adjustments.
3-3
-------
3.1.3 Enforcement and Penalty Issues
A source must comply with all conditions of the Part 71 permit. Any permit
noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Act and may result in enforcement action,
including permit termination, revocation, or modification. Permitting authorities have great
latitude to enforce any Title V violations, including those involving compliance certification.
Authorities may enter a facility at any time to inspect a source's permit documents, reports,
and other recordkeeping. If violations are discovered, the permitting authority may
immediately assign fines and/or other penalties.
Facilities are also subject to civil and criminal penalties if a violation of a permit's
terms are discovered. Civil penalties may be levied against a facility even if the infractions
are made unintentionally. For example, a facility may be penalized if a discrepancy with a
fee or filing requirement is discovered, if a source fails to adequately accommodate or assist
the permitting agency during an inspection, or for any action that fails to comply with a
specific regulation or order issued by the permitting authority.
Criminal sanctions are levied against a facility if it knowingly violates permit-related
mandates. Criminal activities include deliberately falsifying permit records and documents,
making false material statements in a permit application, and falsely representing a facility in
a certification, permit form, notice, or report. Criminal penalties can also be issued against
person who knowingly tampers with or renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method
required in a permit.
3.2 APPLICABILITY OF TITLE V
One of the first steps towards meeting the Title V compliance requirements is
determining which sources are subject to the regulations. Most nonmajor sources are not
currently subject to Title V permit requirements. EPA has proposed a rulemaking to address
the nonmajor Section 112 sources subject to standards promulgated after July 21, 1992 (see
60 FR 64002), but has not yet addressed nonmajor Section 111 sources with standards
promulgated after July 21, 1992. As a result, these Section 111 sources are subject to the
requirement of obtaining a Title V operating permit. Nonmajor sources subject to
Section 111 or 112 standards promulgated prior to July 21, 1992 are currently not required
3-4
-------
to obtain a Title V operating permit. The EPA has yet to determine whether such nonmajor
sources will be required to apply for a Title V operating permit. Lastly, solid waste
incineration units are required to obtain a permit (Section 129(e) of the Act and
Section 71.3(b)(l) of the Part 71 rule). EPA will decide whether to incorporate other
nonmajor sources into the Title V program before the year 2000.
3.2.1 Definitions
Before discussing Title V applicability further, it is helpful to define several terms.
3.2.1.1 Ozone Transport Regions. An ozone transport region (OTR) is a geographic
region comprised of States and metropolitan areas that "share" responsibilities for controlling
ozone formation. The following is a list of States and areas that currently comprise the
ozone transport region:
• Connecticut • New Jersey
• Delaware • New York
• Maine • Pennsylvania
• Maryland • Rhode Island
• Massachusetts • Vermont
• New Hampshire • Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (includes
the District of Columbia)
3.2.1.2 Stationary Source. A stationary source is "any building, structure, facility,
or installation that emits or may emit any regulated air pollutant or any pollutant listed under
Section 112(b) or the Act." The word "source" can also be used to define a piece of
equipment or machinery within a facility that emits pollution.
3.2.1.3 Potential to Emit (PTE). The size of a source is determined by its "potential
to emit" an air pollutant. PTE is the maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit any
air pollutant under its physical and operational design. Any physical or operational limitation
on the capacity of a source to emit an air pollutant, including air pollution control equipment
and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount of material combusted,
stored, or processed, is treated as part of its design if the limitation is enforceable by the
Administrator. PTE is not explicitly defined in the Part 71 regulation, but the term is
discussed in the preamble of this regulation. PTE is explicitly defined in Part 70 and in most
State rules.
3-5
-------
3.2.1.4 Affected Source. Affected sources are defined as stationary sources subject
to the acid rain provisions of Title IV (essentially fossil fuel-fired power plants).
Applicability regulations for affected sources are found in 40 CFR Section 72.6.
3.2.2 Who Needs an Operating Permit?
Initially, Part 71 regulations will primarily apply to major and affected stationary
sources. Major source thresholds under the Part 71 permit program are provided in
Table 3-1. The types of sources that fit the definition of major source are summarized
below:
• For hazardous air pollutants other than radionuclides, if the source emits (or has
the potential to emit) 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any single HAP, or 25 tpy
or more of aggregate HAP's (including fugitive emissions), it is a "major" facility
and requires a permit. These pollutants are regulated under the NESHAP program
established pursuant to Section 112 of the Act. (Note that EPA plans to develop
different major source thresholds for certain highly toxic HAP's.)
• For sources in NAAQS nonattainment areas, the "major source" emission rate
threshold varies by pollutant and area classification (e.g., moderate, serious, and
severe). Sources having the potential to emit pollutants at rates equal to or greater
than the values given in Table 3-1 must obtain an operating permit.
• Finally, any source having the potential to emit 100 tpy of any "air pollutant"
qualifies as a major source. In Section 302(g) of the Act, this term is defined as
follows:
The term "air pollutant" means any air pollution agent or combination of
such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive
(including source material, special nuclear material, and by-product
material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the
ambient air. Such term includes any precursors to the formation of any air
pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such precursor or
precursors for the particular purpose for which the term "air pollutant" is
used.
3-6
-------
TABLE 3-1. MAJOR SOURCE THRESHOLDS UNDER
PART 71 OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAM
THE
ATTAINMENT DESIGNATION AND POLLUTANT
Criteria Pollutants (Including Elemental Lead) in Attainment Areas
Criteria Pollutants (Including Elemental Lead) in Nonattainment
Areas:
Carbon Monoxide
Moderate
Serious
PM1Q
Moderate
Serious
Ozone (VOC, NO/)
Marginal and Moderate
Serious
Severe
Extreme
Ozone Transport Regions (VOC^
Severe
Extreme
All Other Areas
Sulfur Dioxide
Air Toxics (Including Lead Compounds, But Excluding Elemental
Leadc) in All Areas:
One Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP)
Two or more HAP's
All Other Air Pollutants Not Listed Above
MAJOR
SOURCE
THRESHOLD
(tons/yr)
100
100
50
100
70
100
50
25
10
25
10
50
100
10
25
100
Exemptions from NOX requirements can be obtained pursuant to Section 182(f) of the
Act.
^As stated in 57 FR 55622, November 25, 1992, the major stationary source threshold
is specifically limited to VOC.
cSection 112 of the Act indicates that elemental lead is not a HAP. Lead and lead
compounds should be inventoried separately.
3-7
-------
3.2.3 Which Pollutants are Regulated?
Regulated air pollutants include:
• Nitrogen oxides (NOX).
• Volatile organic compounds (VOC's).
• Criteria pollutants regulated under the NAAQS program, including ozone, carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NOj), sulfur dioxides (SO2), PMjg (paniculate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 /tin), and lead.
• Any pollutant subject to a standard under the NSPS program.
• HAP's subject to standards promulgated under Section 112 of the Act or other
requirements established under Section 112, including Sections 112(g), (j), and (r)
of the Act.
• Class I or n ozone-depleting substances or substitute substances regulated under
the stratospheric ozone protection program.
The April 26, 1993 guidance memorandum from EPA's Lydia Wegman is currently
the best source of information on regulated air pollutants for the purposes of Title V. (A
copy of this memorandum is provided in Appendix A). Since this memorandum was issued,
acetone and perchloroethylene have been added to the list of organic compounds that are
excluded from the definition of VOC.
3.2.4 When Should Fugitive Emissions be Counted?
Fugitive emissions are those emissions which could not reasonably pass through a
stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent opening. If the source falls within one
of the source categories given in Table 3-2, its fugitive emissions would be considered in
determining if it is a major source. Fugitives must also be included in calculating HAP
emissions.
The March 8, 1994 memorandum from EPA's Lydia Wegman is currently the best
source of information on the consideration of fugitive emissions for major source
determinations. A copy of this memorandum is provided in Appendix A.
3-8
-------
TABLE 3-2. SOURCE CATEGORIES FOR WHICH FUGITIVE EMISSIONS MUST
BE CONSIDERED
Carbon black plants (furnace process)
Charcoal production plants
Chemical process plants
Coal cleaning plants (with thermal dryers)
Coke oven batteries
Fossil fuel boilers (or combinations thereof) totaling more than 250 MMBtu/hr heat input
Fossil fuel-fired steam electric plants of more than 250 MMBtu/hr heat input
Fuel conversion plants
Glass fiber processing plants
Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, or nitric acid plants
Iron and steel mills
Kraft pulp mills
Lime plants
Municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons of refuse per day
Petroleum refineries
Petroleum storage and transfer units with a total storage capacity exceeding
300,000 barrels
Phosphate rock processing plants
Portland cement plants
Primary aluminum ore reduction plants
Primary copper smelters
Primary lead smelters
Primary zinc smelters
Secondary metal production plants
Sintering plants
Sulfur recovery plants
Taconite ore processing plants
Any other stationary source category which, as of August 7, 1980, is being regulated
under Section 111 or 112 of the Act3
Sections 111 and 112 are the NSPS and NESHAP programs, respectively.
Source: 40 CFR Section 71.2.
3-9
-------
3.2.5 Insignificant Activities
Insignificant activities must be included in the Title V applicability determination.
Applicability is based on all emission units regardless of whether the units emit insignificant
levels of air pollutants. A detailed discussion on insignificant activities is provided in
Section 5.1.8 of this notebook.
3-10
-------
4.0 SYNTHETIC MINORS, POTENTIAL TO EMIT, AND TRANSITION POLICY
4.1 SYNTHETIC MINORS
The "potential to emit" (PTE) is a useful term when defining "major sources and
synthetic minors." The current Part 70 definition of PTE provides that physical or
operational limits on a source's capacity to emit an air pollutant be considered part of the
source's design if the limitation is enforceable by the Administrator. Many sources, for
instance, have a PTE above major source thresholds, but historically their actual emissions
have been below major source thresholds. These sources, many of which are small
businesses, do not believe they should be affected by Title V. Many States have developed
methods to create enforceable limits for these sources so that they will not be subject to
Title V. Such sources are known as "synthetic minors."
A definition of PTE for the purposes of the Phase I Part 71 rule was not included in
the rule in light of two recent court decisions (National Mining Association v. EPA, 59 F.3d
1351, D.C. Cir., July 21, 1995; and Chemical Manufacturers Ass'n v. EPA, No. 89-1514,
D.C. Cir., Sept. 15, 1995). In the former case, the court implicitly accepted EPA's
argument that only "effective" state-issued controls should be cognizable in limiting PTE.
However, the court found that EPA had not adequately explained why only federally
enforceable measures should be considered in assessing the effectiveness of state-issued
controls. While the court rulings will require EPA to conduct additional rulemaking to
define what is legally and practicably enforceable, the court did not question the validity of
current mechanisms for limiting the PTE. For this reason, the following discussion on
mechanisms for limiting the PTE is still applicable in light of the recent court decisions.
After stakeholder meetings take place, EPA will conduct rulemaking to finalize the
enforceability requirements of the Part 71 rule.
4-1
-------
4.2 MECHANISMS TO LIMIT PTE
The EPA has issued guidance on available methods to create Federally enforceable
limitations on PTE. One such guidance memo was signed by EPA's John Seitz on
January 25, 1995, and is available on the TTN bulletin board under Title V policies. (See
Section 8.0 for a description of EPA's TTN bulletin board system.) The January 1996 "EPA
Interim Policy on Federal Enfbrceability Requirement for Limitations on Potential to Emit"
supplements this guidance based on the recent court decisions. Federally-enforceable limits
can be specified within the following five programs, permits, or rules:
1. Federally-enforceable State operating permit programs (FESOP's);
2. SIP general permits;
3. Prohibitory rules;
4. Preconstruction permits; and
5. Source specific SIP revisions.
Limits established under these programs, permits, or rules must be incorporated into the SIP,
and in some instances through Section 112(1), before being deemed Federally enforceable.
Limitations in Title V permits are also Federally enforceable. Each of the approaches for
limiting PTE is described further below.
Traditionally, EPA has not considered State operating permits to be Federally
enforceable. Although this issue is debatable since many State operating permit programs
have been approved for incorporation into the SIP, EPA has generally enforced SIP limits
and new source review (NSR) permits, but not State operating permits. The preamble to the
June 28, 1989, Federal Register notice for 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 provides criteria for an
operating permits program under which permits would be considered Federally enforceable.
First, the State operating permits program must be approved into the SIP. Second, the rule
must impose a legal obligation that permittees adhere to the terms and limits of the permit;
permits which do not conform to all of the operating permit program criteria would be
deemed not Federally enforceable by EPA. Third, the rule must require that all emission
limitations, controls, and other requirements be at least as stringent as any other applicable
requirement contained in the SIP or enforceable under the SIP (e.g., NSPS and NESHAP
4-2
-------
requirements). Fourth, the limitations, controls, and requirements in the permits must be
permanent, quantifiable, and practically enforceable. Finally, the permit applications must
be subject to public review before the issuance of the final permit. The State must also
provide EPA with a copy of the draft and final permit. States may choose to subject only
certain types or classes of permits to these requirements (e.g., only synthetic minors).
Permits not subject to all of the above requirements would be State enforceable only.
4.2.2 SIP General Permits
There are two ways States can use general permits through the SIP process. One
method is to develop a general permit for a specific source category and request approval by
EPA of the general permit into the SIP. While the SIP process itself would require public
participation, sources would then apply for coverage under the general permit without further
public participation or EPA review. A second method is for the State to develop a general
permitting program and have the program approved into the SIP. A State could develop a
general permit rule using language similar to that found at 40 CFR 70.6(d), General
Permitting. Once the public process has been completed and the general permit rule is
finalized, the State could draft general permits, but would be required to subject the general
permits to public review. When the public review process has been completed and a general
permit is finalized, the State could grant or deny source coverage under the general permit
without further public participation. General permits would usually be used for less complex
sources such as dry cleaners, wood finishers, asphalt plants, and electroplaters.
4.2.3 Prohibitory Rule
A prohibitory or "exclusionary" rule limits the emissions and/or operations of a large
category of sources. For instance, the rule may state that all sources whose actual emissions
are 50 percent of the major source threshold may be covered by the rule. The rule, which
would provide a range of recordkeeping, monitoring, and reporting requirements for a broad
range of sources, provides a convenient way to remove a large number of sources from
Title V coverage. For instance, while California has predicted that perhaps 50,000 sources
would potentially be subject to Title V, their prohibitory rule will probably bring the number
of actual Title V sources down to around 4,000.
4-3
-------
Some regulators believe that the upper threshold for coverage under prohibitory rules
should be around 50 percent of the major source threshold. However, a State may elect to
use higher thresholds, depending on each State's circumstances and how actual emissions are
to be calculated.
4.2.4 Preconstruction Permit
Major and minor NSR permits are Federally enforceable if the program is approved
in the SIP. The criteria that a State new source review permitting program must meet to be
approved into the SIP is found at 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart I.
4.2.5 Source Specific SIP Revisions
Source specific limits or permits approved into the SIP can also be used to limit the
PTE. This has also has been referred to as "permit by rule." This method, which is very
similar to a SIP general permit, involves the adoption of a source specific rule that is
approved into the SIP. The rule would provide emission and operational limits as well as
specific monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for that specific category.
4.2.6 Limiting HAP Emissions
For controlling HAP emissions, Federally-enforceable limits on criteria pollutants
could be used to create Federally-enforceable limits on HAP's under certain circumstances.
Examples include limits on hours of operation, amount of material used, or production limits
in Federally enforceable operating permits or NSR permits. Additionally, if the VOC limit
in a permit addresses a particular HAP, or a permit has a HAP limit as a means to limit
VOC emissions, both would be Federally-enforceable mechanisms. However, a limit on
VOC emissions alone may not be a Federally-enforceable limit for a particular HAP. For
cases where a HAP is not defined as a VOC (e.g., methylene chloride), the State may need
to seek approval of the operating permit or NSR program through Section 112(1) of the Act.
Therefore, as States submit FESOP programs to EPA, EPA could approve the programs
under Sections 110 and 112 of the Act to ensure that permits issued under these programs
would limit both criteria pollutants as well as HAP's.
4-4
-------
4.3 EPA TRANSITIONAL GUIDANCE FOR SYNTHETIC MINORS
The January 25, 1995 EPA guidance memo referenced earlier in this section provides
a transitional period to allow States time to develop appropriate mechanisms to create
synthetic minors. For a 2-year period beginning January 25, 1994, the following provisions
apply:
1. Sources whose actual emissions are below 50 percent of major source thresholds
must maintain actual emissions for every consecutive 12-month period (beginning in
January 1994) at levels that do not exceed 50 percent of threshold for every regulated
pollutant. A 12-month period is defined as a period of 12 consecutive months determined on
a rolling basis with a new 12-month period beginning on the first day of each calendar
month. Sources must maintain records onsite for the entire transitional period. No other
recordkeeping or reporting is required.
2. Sources whose actual emissions exceed the 50 percent threshold could use
restrictions contained in State permits, if practically enforceable, to limit PTE.
Providing such a transitional period is optional to the States. A State should work
with its EPA Regional Office to determine how to proceed during the transitional period.
EPA's transitional guidance basically represents an enforcement discretional policy in which
the State and EPA would not enforce against sources for not having applied for a Title V
permit during the 2-year period if the source meets the above criteria. During the 2-year
period, the State would either have to issue Federally-enforceable permits or general permits
to sources to limit their PTE on a permanent basis or have sources covered under an EPA
approved prohibitory rule. In recognition of the absence in some States of suitable Federally
enforceable mechanisms to limit PTE applicable to sources that might otherwise be subject to
Section 112 or Title V, EPA's interim PTE policy provides for the consideration of State-
enforceable limits as a gap-filling measure during a transition period that extends until
January 1997. In addition, the policy provides that sources which maintain their emissions at
levels that do not exceed 50 percent of any applicable major source threshold are not treated
as major sources and do not need a permit to limit PTE, so long as they maintain adequate
records to demonstrate that the 50 percent level is not exceeded.
4-5
-------
4.4 PRACTICAL ENFORCEABILITY
To be practically enforceable, the permit term must be a technically accurate
limitation and identify the portion of the source subject to the limit. In addition, the term
must include a time period for the limit, preferably as short-term as appropriate. Also, there
must be a method to determine compliance, including appropriate monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting methods. In addition, if the State is using a prohibitory rule or general permit
that applies to a category of sources or a broad range of sources, the rule must identify the
types and categories of sources covered. Where coverage is optional, the rule must require
that sources provide notice of election to be covered under the rule or general permit.
Additionally, the rule must specify the enforcement consequences of violations to the rule
(including the consequences of not meeting the coverage criteria).
4-6
-------
5.0 PERMIT APPLICATION STEPS AND CONTENT
This section is divided into three major subsections. The first subsection provides
information that will be helpful during the preparation of permit applications. The next
subsection explains the permit application process from initial contact with the regulatory
authority to the final permit issuance. The final subsection discusses the Title V permit
content.
5.1 PERMIT APPLICATION ELEMENTS
The overall permit development process can be seen as having 11 basic steps, as
proposed in 11 Suggested Steps to Prepare for a Successful Operating Permit (Gale F.
Hoffnagle, Stephen Walata, and John L. Hanisch, Hydrocarbon Processing, April 1993).
These steps are listed below.
1. Identify each source of emissions.
2. Determine actual and potential emissions.
3. Determine whether the Federal operating permit requirement applies to your
facility.
4. Determine applicable emission limits and identify all Federally applicable
limitations.
5. Determine whether emissions comply with all applicable limitations.
6. If necessary, propose a compliance program.
7. Propose measurement, recordkeeping, and reporting methods.
8. Combine each source in to a permit or permits.
9. Select flexible operating scenarios.
10. Prepare a draft operating permit.
11. Calculate fees, then sign and file the application.
5-1
-------
The importance of the emission inventory process is emphasized by the fact that this
entire process begins with and depends heavily on preparation of a clear and detailed
emission inventory for the entire facility. The data prepared in Steps 1 and 2 are critical in
determining the need for a Title V permit (Step 3), assessment of compliance with applicable
regulations (Step 5), development of operating scenarios (Step 9), preparation of the permit
itself (Step 10), and calculation of emissions-based annual permit fees (Step 11).
5.1.1 Permit Application Streamlining
Due to concerns raised within the regulatory community about the potential burdens
imposed with collecting, documenting, and verifying the information required under the
Title V program, EPA has issued further guidance on streamlining Title V. The July 10,
1995 memorandum from EPA's Lydia N. Wegman (see Appendix A) states that industry is
allowed to:
• Provide emissions descriptions, and not emissions estimates, for emissions not
regulated at the source, unless such estimates are needed for other purposes such
as calculating permit fees;
• Submit checklists, rather than emission descriptions, for insignificant activities
based on size/production rate and for risk management plans potentially owed
under Section 112(r);
• Provide citations for applicable requirements, with qualitative descriptions for each
emissions unit, and for prior new source review (NSR) permits;
• Exclude certain trivial and short-term activities from permit applications;
• Provide group treatment for activities subject to certain generally-applicable
requirements;
• Certify compliance status without requiring reconsideration of previous
applicability decisions;
• Use the Part 70 permit process to identify environmentally significant terms of
NSR permits, which should be incorporated into the Part 70 permit as Federally-
enforceable terms; and
5-2
-------
• Submit tons per year estimates only where meaningful to do so and not, for
example, for Section 112(r)-only pollutants; such estimates should be based on
generally-available information rather than on new studies or testing.
The remainder of this section is developed with these guidelines in mind. The next
group of sections elaborate on some of the elements one will encounter during the Part 71
permit application process. Detailed instructions for completing forms can be found in
EPA's Instruction Manual for Permit Application Forms - 40 CFR Pan 71 Federal Operating
Permits Program (March 1995) or in the instruction forms provided by the EPA-delegated
authority.
5.1.2 Minimum Permit Application Elements
The minimum requirements for information submitted in the permit application are
detailed in Table 5-1. To be deemed complete, an application must provide sufficient
information to allow the permitting authority to begin processing the application. In other
words, "complete" means administratively (not technically) complete. This was the original
intent of regulations. Based on the preamble discussion concerning the proposed revisions to
Section 70.5(a)(2), an application is complete if it contains:
• A statement acknowledging the applicability of the requirements, and
• An acceptable schedule for submitting the more detailed information necessary to
define compliance.
Based on this same preamble discussion, a two-phase application process is possible
for certain sources. More specifically,
• Sources scheduled for permitting in years two and three of the transition period
could submit less detailed applications than sources scheduled for permitting in the
first year.
• Information submitted in the first phase must meet the minimum requirements of
Section 70.5(c).
• Information submitted by the second phase must be sufficient to allow permit
issuance consistent with Sections 70.7 and 70.8.
5-3
-------
TABLE 5-1. MINIMUM PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
• General Company Information (including facility's name and
address, owner's name and agent, and the facility contact person)
• Description of the Facility's Process and Products (including
the facility's SIC code)
• Description of All Emission Points
• Inventory of Emissions (including fugitive emissions from all
sources and for all regulated air pollutants; pollutants for which
the facility is classified as a major source; and all emissions of
regulated pollutants, whether or not those emissions caused the
source to be major)
• Emission Rates and Limits (in some cases, permit may establish
alternative or equivalent emissions limits to those in the SIP)
• Description of Fuels (including how they are used and a
description of raw materials)
• Description of All Air Pollution Control and Compliance
Monitoring Devices or Activities (including requirements and
methods for emissions testing, and a brief description of
operation, maintenance, and quality assurance procedures)
List of All Applicable State and Federal Air Pollution Control
Requirements (including those promulgated at the time of
application that will become effective during the term of the
permit)
Compliance Plan for All Sources Within the Facility
Regulated Under the Permit Program
Description of Production Rates, Operating Schedules, and
Any Operating Limitation or Restrictions on Work Practices
That Affect Emissions of Regulated Air Pollutants
Certification of Compliance with All Applicable Requirements
(including a schedule for submission of at least annual
compliance certifications during the permit term)
Description of Methods Used to Determine Compliance
(including monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and testing
methods)
Information on Alternative Operating Scenarios Defined
Under "Operational Flexibility" Provisions (see Section 6.0 for
a detailed explanation of Operational Flexibility)
Supporting Calculations for Submitted Information
NOTE: If the source is not in compliance, the application must provide a plan and schedule for future compliance. A progress report must
be submitted at least every 6 months detailing the progress towards compliance. Sources that are in compliance also must submit a plan;
however, this plan need only contain a statement that the source will continue to comply.
-------
While the Part 70 revisions have not yet been finalized, this two-phase application submittal
is addressed in the White Paper, and the process may be acceptable to an EPA Regional
Office or a delegated authority.
5.1.3 Emissions Reporting Categories
When preparing an emission estimate, it is necessary to classify not only the type of
pollutant emitted, but also the means of release to the atmosphere. Release mechanisms are
usually classified into three categories: process emissions, fugitive emissions, and process
fugitive emissions. Process emissions are emissions from sources where an enclosure,
collection system, ducting system and/or stack (with or without an emission control device)
are hi place for a process. Process emissions represent emissions from process equipment
(other than leaks) where the emissions can be captured and directed through a controlled or
uncontrolled stack for release into the atmosphere. Fugitive emissions are emissions from
other sources that are technically infeasible to collect and control (e.g., storage piles, waste
water retention ponds, etc.). Process fugitive emissions occur as leaks from process
equipment such as compressors, pump seals, valves, flanges, product sampling systems,
pressure relief devices, and open-ended lines. Emissions from the process that are not
caught by the capture system are also classified as process fugitive emissions. These
definitions are important because emission factors and other estimation methods are often
specific to the type of release.
The emissions estimate reporting system used by most State and local air pollution
control agencies groups emission sources into one of three categories and maintains emission-
related data in a different format for each. The plant level category is used to consolidate
data for an entire plant or facility. A plant may contain one or many pollutant-emitting
sources. The point level category is used to maintain emission-related information for single
stacks or vents individually large enough to be considered point sources under the Title V
Note that EPA does not require that sources perform an emissions inventory for Title V
purposes. However, the following discussion is provided as a useful tool for sources in
determining emissions and applicability to various federal requirements and may be useful to
sources in determining their fees.
5-5
-------
cutoffs described. The emission unit level category typically contains data for a single
process or unit of operation.
The plant level reporting used by most air pollution control agencies generally
requires that the facility provide certain data which apply to the facility as a whole. Such
data include number of employees and the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code
designation for the plant. A plant usually has only one SIC denoting the principal economic
activity of the facility. For the purpose of clearly identifying and tracking emissions data,
each plant is generally assigned a plant (or "facility") name and number. The plant is also
identified by geographic or jurisdictional descriptors such as air quality control region,
county, address, and UTM grid coordinates (or latitude/longitude) that identify coterminous
locations. An owner or operator engaged in one or more related activities is also identified.
Regulatory agencies generally maintain individual emission-related records at the point
level. Point level reporting occurs with specific data for emissions points (typically stacks)
which require more detailed information than possible at the plant level. Such data include
emission-related and modeling information such as stack height of the emission point,
diameter of the stack, emission rate and method of determination, gas exit velocity from the
stack, gas temperature, and operating schedule. For fugitive sources, stack parameters are
not relevant, but basic parameters such as dimensions, height, and concentration apply.
For emission unit level reporting, each process within a plant is identified by an EPA
source classification code (SCC). For point sources, reporting guidelines may require that a
plant identify, for each process or operation (designated by SCC code), the periods of
process operation (daily, weekly, monthly, and annually); operating rate data, including
actual, maximum, and design operating rate or capacity; fuel use and property data (ash,
sulfur, trace elements, heat content, etc.); all pollution control equipment and associated
control efficiencies (measured or design); and emissions rates.
5.1.4 Source Identification System
The first stage of the data collection process is the development of a comprehensive
and logical source identification system which will allow the collected data, process
descriptions, and other information to be properly referenced and interrelated, reflecting the
plant/point/process distinctions and source types previously outlined. A plant-wide emission
5-6
-------
source summary table based on these identifiers and their relationships can be used to initiate
and organize the data collection process, enabling the preparers to establish a plant- or
facility-specific identification system for all of the emission sources and release points before
much effort is spent on collecting data. A typical hierarchy for source data identifiers would
include a process group identification name (PGN), process identification names (PINs),
process component identification names (PCNs), emission point identification names (EPNs),
and control equipment identification names (CINs). These source data identifiers are
described below.
The Process Group Name (PGN) should be a common name which will help a facility
track production information or can be used to represent a group of processes for which
emissions will be aggregated.
The Process Identification Name (PIN) is a unique identifier (unique to the entire
facility) which should remain with the process throughout the inventory process; a typical
PIN system uses a three digit building number followed by a three-digit process identifier.
For example, Ink Press 2 in Building 10 could have PIN No. 010-002. The Process
Common Name for PIN can be the common name associated with a process. This will be
used to help search the inventory database for the process of interest.
The Process Component Identification Name (PCN) should be the common name
associated with a process component. A component can be defined as any part of a process
for which emissions will be quantified separately from other parts of the process, such as the
vented emissions and fugitive emissions from a single process.
The Emission Point Identification Name (EPN) is a unique identifier for each
emission point within the facility. A typically EPN system uses the building number, a one-
digit "vent type" (V = exhaust vent; F = fugitive; I = intake vent), and a three-digit
emission point. For example, exhaust vent 44 on Building 10 would be EPN 010V-044.
The Control Equipment Identification Name fCIN) is a unique alphanumeric code
name used to identify pollution control equipment.
It is important that the identifiers used for these items correlate exactly to the relevant
parts of the Title V application. Therefore, the inventory preparer should consult the current
5-7
-------
Title V application form to verify the length and format of the required identifiers and adjust
any of these definitions accordingly.
5.1.5 Emission Estimation Principles
This section provides basic information on the common methods for estimating
emissions from sources found at industrial facilities, including estimation and speciation
procedures as well as a number of computerized emission estimation tools.
5.1.5.1 Emission Estimation Methods. The primary emission estimation methods
typically used in point source inventories are described below.
Continuous emissions monitoring (CENT) involves any monitoring effort which
"continuously" measures (i.e., measures with very short averaging times) and records
emissions. In addition to measuring and recording actual emissions during the time of
monitor operation, CEM data can be used to estimate emissions for different operating
periods and longer averaging times.
Source tests are short-term tests used to collect emissions data which can then be
extrapolated to estimate long-term emissions from the same or similar sources. Uncertainties
arise when source test results are used to estimate emissions under process conditions which
differ from those under which the test was performed.
Material balance or mass balance is a method for estimating emissions which attempts
to account for all of the inputs and outputs of a given pollutant. If inputs of a material to a
given process are known, and all outputs except for air emissions can be reasonably well
quantified, then the remainder can be assumed to be an estimate of the amount lost to the
atmosphere for the process.
Emission factors are ratios which relate emissions of a pollutant to an activity level at
a plant that can be easily measured, such as an amount of material processed or an amount of
fuel used. Given an emission factor and a known activity level, a simple multiplication
yields an estimate of the emissions. Emission factors are developed from separate facilities
within an industry category; they represent "typical" values for an industry, but do not
necessarily represent a specific source. Published emission factors are available in numerous
sources, but the primary source is EPA's A Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors
(AP-42).
5-8
-------
Process-specific empirical relationships are similar to emission factors in that they
relate emissions to easily identifiable process parameters. However, these relationships are
more detailed equations which relate emissions to several variables at once, rather than to a
simple ratio. An example is the estimate for VOC emissions from storage tanks, which is
based on tank size, air temperature, and vapor pressure. AP-42 contains several of these
empirical relationships.
Engineering estimate is a term commonly applied to the best approximation which can
be made when the methods previously described are not possible. This estimation is usually
made by an engineer familiar with the specific process and is based on whatever knowledge
may be available.
Theoretically, plants needing emissions estimates could use CEM to make actual
emissions measurements at very short time intervals. Some plants currently do this. CEMS
concentration data can be easily converted to mass emission rate estimates provided that air
volume through the monitor is also known. However, in cases where CEMS data are
unavailable, another method must be used to estimate emissions. The three principal
methods for estimating emissions are sources tests, material balances, and emission factors.
The most reliable estimation of emissions is determined using source test data; but, because
of the time and expense involved in source testing, material balances and/or the use of
emission factors to estimate process emissions are more often employed. EPA assigns
emission factor ratings based on the criteria for determining data quality and emission factor
ratings as required in the document Technical Procedures for Developing AP-42 Emission
Factors and Preparing AP-42 Sections. If none of these methods can be employed for a
specific process, an approximation or engineering estimate based on available process,
physical, chemical, and emission knowledge may be used.
The following hierarchy should typically be considered for deciding on an appropriate
estimation method for an emission source:
• Measured Emissions Data are the preferred source of information for developing
emissions estimates. They provide the most accurate estimation of emissions
under actual operating conditions at the facility; however, care must be taken when
5-9
-------
extrapolating measured emissions at normal operating conditions to maximum
operating conditions.
• Emission Factors (e.g., AP-42 emission factors) are used when actual
measurement data are not available. Care must be taken to ensure that the
emission factor selected is appropriate for the source being evaluated.
• Mass Balances can often be used when an appropriate emission factor cannot be
identified or developed from process data. The mass balance calculation assumes
that any material present at the beginning of the process which is not accounted for
at the end of the process is emitted as an air pollutant.
• Engineering Calculations are used when emissions cannot be quantified directly.
These calculations are based on the principles of chemistry and physics, such as
the Ideal Gas Law.
Computer models which incorporate one or more of the above methods may also be
considered where appropriate. The advantage to using computer modeling techniques is that
they can handle very complex algorithms and make the calculations manageable in a
cost-effective manner. However, care must be taken that the appropriate model and input
parameters are selected for the source being evaluated.
5.1.5.2 Available Emission Estimation Tools. This section identifies some of the
principal technical resources for obtaining emission factors, calculating emissions, and
evaluating plant processes. Any emission estimating tools should be used with discretion.
Actual emissions from individual sources may vary considerably from values estimated using
emission and speciation factors.
5.1.5.2.1 Access to EPA emission estimation documents, systems, and databases.
Most of the EPA materials described in this section are available through the EPA
Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emission Factors Bulletin Board System (CHIEF BBS) or
on Air CHIEF CD-ROM. Any user accessing the CHIEF BBS can download AP-42
chapters, Locating and Estimating documents, XATEF, SPECIATE, TANKS, SIMS, the
AIRS Facility Subsystem Emission Factors (AFSEF) database, and many more tools for
estimating emissions. The CHIEF BBS is a subpart of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS) technology transfer network (TTN). Access to the CHIEF BBS
5-10
-------
requires a personal computer with communications software and hardware to connect to the
EPA system (see Section 8.0 for more information).
The Air CHIEF CD-ROM can also be used to access many of EPA's documents and
databases. Users need an IBM™ compatible personal computer with an EGA or VGA
monitor, MS-DOS version 3.0 or later, 640 KB of free RAM, 2 MB of expanded memory, a
CD-ROM drive and interface card, and MS-DOS CD-ROM extensions. The Air CHIEF
CD-ROM is updated annually.
Fax CHIEF offers AP-42 sections for immediate delivery by facsimile (fax) machine.
A fax machine with a phone headset is required equipment for using FAX CHIEF. This
ensures that your fax phone line can transmit the signal indicating that it is ready to receive
the CHIEF fax. To connect with Fax CHIEF, dial (919) 541-5626 or (919) 541-0548 and
follow the directions. Only two documents may be requested per call. Many of the
documents are quite lengthy.
5.1.5.2.2 EPA documents containing emission estimation methods and data. There
are a number of existing sets of emission estimation methods, data, and examples contained
in EPA documents related to industrial regulations and control technologies. Three of these
documents are described briefly below. It is recommended that inventory preparers for these
particular industries obtain the EPA documents which contain the full text of these examples
and additional information which would be required to apply these methods in a specific
case. These are current EPA documents which can be obtained from the EPA library/
document distribution center at (919) 541-2777, through the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS) at 1-800-555-6847, or by downloading from the EPA Chief Bulletin Board
System (BBS). For other source categories of interest, the EPA library can perform
keyword searches for all EPA publications to locate any relevant documents.
Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates. EPA-453/R-93-026. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park. NC. June 1993. This document
includes methods and data for estimating emissions and control efficiencies for leak detection
programs for leaking valves, flanges, pumps, and other pieces of process equipment hi
synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry plants, refineries, and natural gas plants.
Alternative methods include an average emission factor approach, screening ranges approach,
5-11
-------
and two correlation approaches (EPA and unit-specific). Appendix A of the protocol
document includes full examples of the implementation of each of these approaches. These
methods are documented in three files available via the CHIEF BBS.
Control Techniques Guidelines for Batch Processes. EPA-450/2-78-029. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park. NC. February 1978: and Control of
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions for Batch Processes - Alternative control Techniques
Information Document. EPA-453/R-93-017. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Research Triangle Park. NC. February 1994. These documents include methods and data for
estimating emissions and control efficiencies for batch processes in all industries, but focuses
on the following six industries: plastic materials and resins, Pharmaceuticals, gum and wood
chemicals, cyclic crudes and intermediates, industrial organic chemicals, and agricultural
chemicals. It should be noted that there are differences between these two documents, and
discussions are continuing on developing a workable transition plan. Specific examples of
emission estimation for various unit operations in typical batch processes are given,
including:
• Vapor displacement of a single component liquid
• Vapor displacement of a homogenous mixture
• Tank/reactor heatup losses
• Empty tank and reactor purging
• Filled tank and reactor purging
• Sparging volatilization
• Vacuum dryer emissions
• Atmospheric dryer emissions
• Vessel depressurization
• Emissions from a steam ejector
• Emissions from equipment leaks
5.1.5.2.3 EPA emission estimation systems. EPA's computerized emission
estimation tools include several software packages that calculate emission estimates from
process inputs provided by the user: TANKS for volatile organic liquid storage tanks, the
Surface Impoundment Modeling System (SIMS), and LANDFILL, which estimates air
5-12
-------
emissions of criteria pollutants and HAPs from landfills. These are all available for
download from the CHIEF BBS.
TANKS contains the newly revised storage tank equations contained in the new
AP-42. The system calculates monthly and annual VOC and toxic air emissions for
horizontal and vertical fixed roof tanks, internal and external floating roof tanks, and
underground storage tanks, incorporating the latest American Petroleum Institute (API)
equations. The TANKS User's Manual is also available on the CHIEF BBS.
For VOC emissions from wastewater treatment, SIMS is available. The SIMS system
is based on treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF) models and VOC emission
models and uses the CHEMDAT7 database for calculations. CHEMDAT7 is a spreadsheet
program, with a 700-compound database, that can be run independently from SIMS.
CHEMDAT7 has models for disposal impoundments, closed landfills, land treatment
facilities, and aeration and non-aeration impoundment processes.
LANDFILL estimates air emissions of criteria pollutants and HAPs from landfills.
With a menu-driven database and worksheet, it can calculate emissions up to 50 years
beyond landfill closure. Models for estimating VOC emissions from storage tanks and PMjQ
fugitive dust emissions are also available and may be accessed via the CHIEF BBS.
5.1.5.2.4 EPA emission estimation databases. The Factor Information and Retrieval
Data System (FIRE) is a personal computer program containing EPA's recommended criteria
and HAP emission estimation factors. FIRE includes information about industries and their
emitting processes, the chemicals emitted, and the emission factors themselves. FIRE is a
user-friendly, menu-driven system with an interface patterned after Microsoft Windows.
Users can browse through records in the database or select specific emission factors. FIRE
is distributed on a 3.5" diskette, free to government agencies. Other requesters must
purchase FIRE or download it from the CHIEF BBS. Users will need an IBM-compatible
PC that runs MS-DOS version 3.3 or later, with fixed disk having at least 10 MB of
available storage, 512 KB of free RAM, and a VGA color monitor. MS DOS 5.0 or later is
recommended. Contact Info CHIEF at (919) 541-5285 for more information.
The VOC/PM Speciation Database Management System (SPECIATE) is a
clearinghouse for speciation factors for both VOCs and PM. Speciation factors are used to
5-13
-------
derive emission estimates of air species from factors or estimates of total VOC or PM. Each
profile, as defined by SCC, lists the elements or compounds identified as being emitted by a
source category or process according to the weight percent of each compound as a function
of total VOC or PM emissions. Each individual pollutant speciation factor within a profile
can be multiplied by a VOC or PM emission factor (or emission rate) to produce an
estimated compound-specific emission factor. However, the lists of compounds attributed to
a source category provided in SPECIATE will not necessarily be complete. Because this
system represents a compilation from available literature for use in EPA's photochemical
modeling efforts, it will not address toxic compounds with any degree of completeness or
accuracy.
SPECIATE is designed to search for speciation factors based on a user-provided SCC,
pollutant name, or a source category description. The SPECIATE PM profiles include three
particle size range distributions and total measured PM data for each species. The
SPECIATE database is updated annually and is accompanied by a user's manual. The
SPECIATE database is not published in paper due to the size of the database, but is available
on 5.25" high density diskette.
5.1.5.3 Emission Estimation Examples. To illustrate the approach taken to estimate
emissions from industrial processes, the following two examples are presented, both
involving batch processes. These examples are derived from Appendix C of Control of
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions for Batch Processes - Alternative Control Techniques
Information Document, EPA-453/R-93-017, February 1994.
5-14
-------
Example 1. Vapor displacement of a homogenous
(miscible) mixture in a batch process
A 50-50 volume percent solvent mixture of heptane and toluene is charged to a
surge tank at the rate of 300 gal/min. A total of 1,500 gal is charged. The mixture
temperature is 20°C. Calculate emission rates for both mixture components.
STEP 1. Define conditions of the displaced gas:
1. Temperature of displaced gas: 20°C;
2. Pressure = 1 atm (14.7 psia, 760 mmHg); and
3. Rate of displacement = 300 gal/min.
STEP 2. Calculate vapor phase mole fraction:
voc
Heptane
Toluene
Molecular
weight,
Ib/lbmole
100
92
Density,
Ib/gal
5.7
7.3
Gallons
charged
750
750
Pounds
4,275
5,475
TOTAL
Ibmoles
42.8
59.5
102.3
*i
0.42
0.58
1.0
P* heptane @ 20°C (68°F) = 0.7 psia
P* toluene @ 20°C (68°F) = 0.4 psia
Heptane: P-42**7 Psk> = 0.020 = y
(14.7 psia) heptane
Toluene: (0^X0.4 psia) = OQ16 =
(14.7 psia) toluene
5-15
-------
STEP 3. Calculate emission rate:
ER
heptane
RT
ER
toluene
(0.020) (300 gal/min) (1 atm) (100 Ib/lbmol)
ft3
7.48 gal
1.3144 atm ftj/lbmol K) (293K)
ER. * = 0.21 Ib/min
Kheptane
ER
toluene
ER
toluene
(0.016) (300 gal/min) (1 atm) (92 Ib/lbmol)
1.3144 atm ft3
Ibmol K
ft3
7.48 gal
(293K)
, =0.15 Ib/min
toluene
Therefore, total emissions for the event are:
Heptane: (0.21 lb/min)(5 min) = 1 Ib
Toluene: (0.15 lb/min)(5 min) = 0.75 Ib
5-16
-------
Example 2. Batch process tank/reactor heatup losses
A 2,000 gal reactor, 75 percent full of a solution of a raw material in toluene,
is heated from 20 to 70°C. The reactor is vented to the atmosphere during the
heatup. How much toluene will be emitted?
Since the liquid is mostly toluene, a simplifying assumption is that the partial
pressure of toluene in the headspace is equal to the vapor pressure. At 20°C, the
vapor pressure of toluene is 22 mmHg; at 70°C it is 200 mmHg. The headspace of
the reactor is 500 gal or 66.8 ft. The temperatures must be expressed in absolute
units K. The gas constant, R^, in appropriate units is 998.9 mmHg-ftVlbmol-°K.
The weight of toluene emitted is then directly calculated:
Aij =
66.8 ft-
760-22 mmHgl _ [760-200 mmHgll
(273+20)K j [ (273+70)K JJ
, mmHg ft"
Ibmol K
Ay = 0.0592 Ibmoles non-VOC gas displaced
22 mmHg ) , \ 200 mmHg ]
760-22 mmHg 760-200 mmHG /n
r}s = J - sJ — — 1 - L (0.
„ , N
Ibmoles gas)
i/s = 0.01195 Ibmoles toluene (92.13 Ib toluene/lbmole) = 1.06 Ib toluene
5.1.6 Applicable Requirements
Because the Title V monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are
directly linked to applicable requirements, an understanding of the definition of applicable
requirements is essential to understanding the Title V monitoring provisions. Applicable
requirements include existing emission standards, limitations, permit conditions, and other
requirements to which a source is subject. Title V requires that operating permits assure
compliance with each applicable standard, regulation, or requirement under the Act. Thus,
part of the process of preparing a Title V permit application is assessing what requirements
5-17
-------
under the Act apply to a particular source. Applicable requirements are presented in
Figure 5-1.
An important aspect of performing a rule applicability analysis is to distinguish
between Federally-applicable requirements (i.e., those that are enforceable by the Federal
government) and State-only applicable requirements (i.e., those that are enforceable by the
State but not the Federal government). State-only applicable requirements include limitations
that have been adopted by the State or local agency, but have not been federally approved.
This distinction is important because Title V permits contain monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting provisions for Federally-applicable requirements only. Effectively, this means that
the State or local agency will have a significant amount of discretion in deciding what type of
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting can be accepted for State-only applicable
requirements.
5.1.7 Preparing Compliance Plans. Schedules, and Certification
The information for compliance plans, schedules, and certifications is collected on
FJ>A forms CP, CC-1 and CC-2 (Figures 5-2 through 5-4, respectively). Similar forms are
available in areas where EPA has delegated the authority to administer the Title V program.
A summary of the compliance plan and schedule requirements is illustrated in Figure 5-5.
The plan information in Figure 5-5 should be summarized on Forms CP and CC-1. Form
CP contains the compliance plan for the whole facility. Detailed compliance information for
each applicable requirement is summarized on Form CC-1 for each generic requirement (e.g.
facility-wide opacity limits) or for each emissions unit.
1. Compliance certifications include:
• A certification of compliance with all applicable requirements by a
responsible official.
• A statement of methods used for determining compliance (e.g., monitoring,
recordkeeping, and testing).
• A schedule for compliance certifications over the duration of the permit (no
less frequently than annually).
5-18
-------
State Implementation Plan (SIP), Federal Implementation Plan (FD>),
or Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP)
Requirements of Title I of the Act that apply in the State or areas under Tribal
jurisdiction where a facility is located. In designated nonattainment areas where a SIP or
TIP has not been adopted or approved, a FIP may apply. A brief description of each State's
approved SIP can be found in 40 CFR Part 52. Implementation plans regulate the criteria
pollutants: PM, SC^, CO, NOX, VOC, and lead. Implementation plans typically include
limitations on allowable emissions and procedural requirements for preconstruction review
and other permitting programs, including PSD, nonattainment NSR, and minor source NSR.
In ozone nonattainment areas, there are VOC and NOX RACT (reasonable achievable control
technology) requirements for sources in certain industrial categories. Facilities may also be
subject to requirements such as the employee commute option if States choose to include it in
their SIP.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
A program contained in an EPA-approved or promulgated implementation plan for
the preconstruction review of changes which are subject to review as new major stationary
sources or major modifications under EPA regulations implementing Part C or Title I of the
Act. Where there are no EPA-approved State PSD rules, Federal rules at 40 CFR Part 52
apply and are typically implemented by delegation of authority. These requirements apply to
sources located in attainment or unclassified areas. Under PSD, sources are limited from
increasing the ambient concentration of pollutants above existing baseline concentrations and
are required to install stringent controls, known as best available control technology (BACT).
More stringent limitations on increases in air pollution concentrations and air quality related
values (AQRV), such as visibility, apply near certain national parks and wilderness areas
(Class I areas).
Nonattainment NSR (Nonattainment New Source Review)
A program contained in an EPA-approved or promulgated implementation plan for
the preconstruction review of a new major stationary sources or major modifications of
existing sources in nonattainment areas under EPA regulations implementing Part D of Title
I of the Act. This program typically imposes stringent controls, lowest achievable emissions
rate (LAER), and requires emissions offsets to assure progress toward attainment.
Figure 5-1. Applicable requirements.
5-19
-------
Minor Source NSR
A Title I program approved by EPA into a State's implementation plan under EPA
regulations implementing Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the Act for the preconstruction
review of changes which are subject to review as new or modified sources and which do not
qualify as new major stationary sources or major modifications under EPA regulations
implementing Parts C or D of Title I of the Act.
Section 111 Requirements
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) are standards or requirements that
regulate criteria and other pollutants for specific types of source categories. A new or
modified source is subject to NSPS if standards have been proposed for that source category
before the facility commenced construction. The NSPS are promulgated at 40 CFR Part 60.
These regulations implement the statutory requirements of Section 11 l(b) of the Act.
Section lll(d) qf the Act requires the Administrator to develop emissions guidelines
documents and the States to implement regulations addressing the control of non-criteria
pollutants from existing sources in several source categories that also have Section 112(b)
standards. These pollutants are called "designated pollutants" and the sources for which the
standards are set are called "designated facilities." Regulations controlling the adoption and
submittal of the State plans for regulating these sources are promulgated at 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart B. The emissions guidelines and compliance tunes are promulgated at 40 CFR
Part 60, Subpart C, and the State regulations addressing these sources are approved by EPA
and promulgated at 40 CFR Part 62. Designated pollutants include certain emissions from
municipal waste combustors, sulfuric acid mist, total reduced sulfur, and fluorides.
Phase I Acid Rain
These standards or requirements apply to 110 mostly coal-burning electric utility
plants. Acid rain permits, issued by EPA under 40 CFR part 72, became effective on
January 1, 1995 and expire on January 1, 2000.
Phase II Acid Rain
These standards or requirements generally apply to all existing utility units with an
output capacity greater than 25 megawatts (MW) and all new utility units. Phase JJ acid rain
permit applications must be received from sources no later than January 31, 1996. States
with approved Part 70 operating permit programs will be responsible for issuing these
permits by December 31, 1997. In the event that a Part 71 program is in effect, the EPA or
a delegated agency will issue the Phase II permit.
Figure 5-1. (continued)
5-20
-------
Compliance Assurance Monitoring
EPA is required to promulgate a rule concerning requirements for enhanced
monitoring and compliance certification at 40 CFR Part 64. These requirements will
implement Section 114(a)(3) of the Act. The proposed rule was published on October 22,
1993 at 50 FR 54648 and is currently being revised under the compliance assurance
monitoring program.
The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Program
These are requirements of standards for certain sources located on the Outer
Continental Shelf pursuant to 40 CFR Part 55, as authorized by Section 328 of the Act.
Facilities located beyond 25 miles from a States' seaward boundaries, or within 25 miles if
the State does not have an approvable Part 70 program, may have requirements under this
regulation.
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
These are emissions standards that apply to specific sources of noncriteria air
pollutants. These standards apply to new, modified, and existing sources. The regulations
implementing this program are promulgated at 40 CFR Part 61 and are based on Section 112
of the Act, as promulgated before the 1990 Act Amendments.
Municipal Waste Combustor (MWC) Requirements Under Section 129
Section 129 of the Act requires that MACT-based standards be promulgated under
Section 111 for existing and new solid waste incineration units, including units combusting
municipal waste, hospital waste, medical waste, infectious waste, and commercial or
industrial waste. On December 19, 1995 (60 FR 65387-65436), new source performance
standards (NSPS) were promulgated under Part 60, Subpart Eb, for new MWC, and
emission guidelines were promulgated under Part 60, Subpart Cb for existing MWC's. Also
within this notice, the old emission guidelines for MWC's in Part 60, Subpart Ca, were
withdrawn. Emission guidelines for sulfuric acid production plants were moved from
Subpart Cb to Subpart Cd to make room for the new guidelines that now occupy Subpart
Cb.
Figure 5-1. (continued)
5-21
-------
Consumer and Commercial Product Requirements
Section 183(e) of the Act requires EPA to study the potential of consumer and
commercial products to contribute to ozone levels hi ozone nonattainment areas and to
establish criteria for regulating them. The study will identify categories of consumer and
commercial products for regulation and divide die categories into four groups to be regulated
over 8 years. These regulations, when promulgated, will only apply to manufacturers,
processors, wholesale distributors, or importers of these products.
Increment or Visibility Requirements for Temporary Sources
Temporary sources must meet any national ambient air quality standard or PSD
increment or visibility analyses requirements of Part C of Title I of the Act and must include
appropriate studies or analyses meeting these requirements in the permit application.
Temporary sources are sources that apply for a permit that allows them to operate in more
than one location during the term of the permit.
Stratospheric Ozone Protection
For permitting purposes all Title VI requirements must be listed hi the Title V
permit application, including Sections 608 and 609 that apply to capture and recycling of
ozone-depleting substances during service and disposal of refrigerator equipment and air
conditioners. Although a proposal has been made to require only Sections 608 and 609 as
the only applicable requirements in Title V permit applications, mis proposal has not been
adopted at this time. On May 14, 1993, EPA promulgated final regulations pursuant to
Section 608 of me Act (40 CFR 82, Subpart F, 58 FR 28660). These regulations require
recycling of ozone-depleting refrigerants which are recovered during servicing of non-motor
vehicle air conditioning or refrigeration equipment. The rules also require recycling during
disposal of all air conditioning and refrigeration equipment. On July 14, 1992, EPA
promulgated final regulations pursuant to Section 609 of the Act (40 CFR 82, Subpart B, 57
FR 31241). These regulations prescribe standards and requirements for servicing motor
vehicle air conditioners.
Emissions-Limiting Requirements
This category of applicable requirements includes any emissions-limiting requirement
that is enforceable by EPA and by citizens under the Act (Federally enforceable) and that is
imposed on a source for purposes of creating an emissions or offset credit or avoiding the
applicability of other applicable requirements.
Figure 5-1. (continued)
5-22
-------
Standards and Requirements under Section 112, as Amended in 1990
These statutes establish a framework for controlling hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
by establishing certain requirements and control technology standards for specific categories
of sources. These standards include maximum achievable control technology (MACT) and
generally achievable control technology (GACT). Note that MACT standards may replace
previously published NESHAP. Sources subject to Section 112 will, in many cases, have to
submit substantial information in the application to address these requirements. Many
regulations implementing the Section 112 requirements will be promulgated on March 16,
1994 at 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A (50 FR 12408). The general provisions address general
procedures and criteria that apply to all subsequent subparts of Part 63, except when
otherwise specified in a particular subpart. The remaining boxes in this section summarize
some of the different types of requirements and control standards that are being established
under Section 112 of the Act.
Section 112(d) Requirements
These are emissions standards and other requirements for categories or subcategories
of new and existing major and area (nonmajor) sources listed for regulation pursuant to
Sections 112(c) and 112(e) of the Act. These requirements will be promulgated on a
schedule extending until November 15, 2000. For a final list of the categories and
subcategories of sources to be regulated and the schedule for their release, see 58 FR 63941
published on December 3, 1993.
Section 112(g) MACT
After the effective date of a Title V permit program, no person may construct a new
major source or reconstruct an existing major source of HAP unless MACT will be met. If
MACT has not been established under Sections 112(d) or (f) of the Act, a case-by-case
review must be undertaken for that source to determine MACT. Part 63, Subpart B, was
reproposed on March 26, 1996 (61 FR 13125).
Early Reductions of HAP
Existing sources that will be subject to Section 112(d) emissions control requirements
are allowed to submit early reduction demonstrations under Section 112(i)(5) of the Act,
demonstrating an alternative emissions limitation in order to receive a compliance extension
from meeting the Section 112(d) standard for a period of 6 years from the compliance date
of the 112(d) standard. On December 29, 1992, final regulations were published at 40 CFR
Part 63, Subpart D (57 FR 61970).
Figure 5-1. (continued)
5-23
-------
Section 112(j) MACT Standards
If the Administrator fails to promulgate a Section 112(d) MACT standard by the
Section 112(e) deadline, the owner or operator of an existing major source in a category or
subcategory that would have been subject to the standard and that does not already have a
permit that would meet the requirements of Section 112(j), must submit an application to
establish a MACT standard under Section 112(j). Section 112(j) standards are established on
a case-by case basis and must be equivalent to the MACT standard that would have been
established by EPA under Section 112(d). These requirements are not applicable until after
the Title V program is effective and not until 18 months after the date for which a relevant
standard is scheduled to be promulgated. Final rules were promulgated at 40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart B, on May 20, 1994 (59 FR 26429).
Risk Management Plan
Sources required to submit risk management plans under Section 112(r), which
addresses the prevention of the accidental release of certain extremely hazardous substances,
must indicate their compliance with the submittal requirements. Regulations were proposed
on October 20, 1993 to require development and implementation of risk management
programs at facilities that manufacture, store, or otherwise handle regulated substances above
specified thresholds. A final list of regulated substances and thresholds were published on
January 31, 1994 at 40 CFR Part 68 (59 FR 4478). Once the final rule is issued, sources
not in compliance with this requirement must propose in the permit application a schedule of
remedial measures leading to compliance.
Tank Vessel Requirements
The EPA proposed standards implementing two provisions of the Act on May 13,
1994 (59 FR 25004). One set of standards implementing Section 183(f) would require the
application of RACT to control emissions of VOC and HAP from new and existing marine
tank vessel loading and unloading operations. An additional set of standards proposed under
Part 63 implementing Section 112(d) of the Act would limit emissions of HAP from new and
existing marine tank vessel loading and unloading operations through the application of
MACT.
Figure 5-1. (continued)
5-24
-------
DRAFT, February 1996
OMB Control No. 2060-0336. Approval Expires 07-31-88.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APPLICATION FOP. FEDERAL OPERATING PERMIT. 40 CFR PART 71
FOP.MCP • COMPLIANCE PLAN
INSTRUCTIONS.- Comptoto iNa form ones for the facKty.
A. Deecriptton a* Compilers Statue el tt» Source with Reapaa to at Applicable Requirements
Enaapl aa Indicated ki aactlon B. «M facKty wM ba In oompllanea whh al appieaMa requirement*
M the dma of parmH laauanca and thle fadhy wM continue to eompty whh thaaa raqiiiramanu
•Nat McHty wM RieMt •! i
I that taka effect during *a tann of tha permit on a timaly baate
O YES D NO
D YES DNO
B. Oaaerlptton for Api>l«MbWrtaqu«»manu lor which th.Fac«tywl not bafctCo^
Unit 10
Apoieabla Baqolramant
NMTMIw DACcnpoon of How Ooropiwno^ VAR DC AcnwvAd
C Scnatfula of CompUanca
Inatniniont: ComplMa this Motion If tha aourca ia not in compKanca with an applicabla raqukamant at parmtt laauanca or M a detaUcd tchadula
la raquirad by an appScabk raquirament, judicitl contant dacraa or admMctrativa ordar. For aotwo** not in compNanca, the
achadula muit contain a acnadula of remedial measure*, including an enforceable eequance of action* whh milestones, leading to
compliance. You must Include the date of final compliance in tha schedule.
Unit ID
Applicable Requirement
Remedial Measure or Action
Date Milestone or Action
Will be Achieved
D. Progress Reporu
Instruction*: Compkt* this (action if the fac«ity la raquirad to hsva a achadula of oomplianca to ramady a violation. Progress reports muit be
aubmltted at least every 6 months during the term of the permit.
Frequency for aubmittal of progress reports
Starting date for aubmittal of progress reports I I
Figure 5-2. Draft Form CP -- Compliance Plan.
5-25
-------
DRAFT. February 1 996
U*. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APPLICATION FO« FEDERAL OPERATMQ PERMIT. 40 CFR PART 71
POAMCC-1
CATION IMETHOO O> COMPUAMCO
INSTRUCTIONS: Comptow tN» tarn far Mod i
nqjtnmn* w« be oampfcd with In tt» «m» w«y ft th« unto.
lunhOTferi
A* UAfNinCflVOft •• EflMnloit Utw MW AppKccHv AvQwrcnMiiC
Emlwlon unK KM*)
Acotickil* iMukMMnt h*» and dMcrib* In itouill
B* Ooooripflofi of MvtnOOv for cwiipf^flnp wfltfi vM^^ppvcflDM nCQulroMont
. «4blMtlOfWv felVMMO OAOn IHVOIOQ^POP OMOnHQ OOtnpvOAOO Wlvl tnV flpPOOODW fOQM*OIBMK OMOTTOOd
h >«i«d on *»• ippfc«bl« nqulr^mm y tf» potedk:
I MI • iiyirm In* Mew.
lefttbV.
Method of Compfenc*
(monHonno, tMting*
r«eordka»pin0. or
DMcrlption of Method of Comptianc*
Rcquiranwnt
' ^^^^^^^^^^^^^HB^HHIBBI^l^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^VHBHi^^^^^^^^^^^^^^lHBH^^^^^^^^^^^^
Figure 5-3. Draft Form CC-1 ~ Compliance Certification (Method of Compliance)
5-26
-------
DRAFT, February 1996 OMB Control No. 2060-0336. Approval Expire* 07-3J-SB.
US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL OPERATING PERMI7740 CFR PART 71
FORM CC-2 . COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION
INSTRUCTIONS: Tni* form muct be oompM*d one* for th* facKty whh raapect to a* applicable raqulremanu at tha facility and mu«< be
algned by a reipenafcte official.
A. Sch»di*»
-------
List all currant and
anticipated requirements
Is the
requirement
currently
applicable?
Yes
No
Describe requirement and
compliance status in
permit application
Wilthe
requirement
become
appicable during
the permit
term?
No action required
No
Certify in permit
appypation that the
emissions source will
continue to comply
Is this a
current
requirement?
Certify that wtwn
the requirement
becomes applidDM,
the emissions source
wil meet the requirement
on a timely baM
Describe how source will
achieve compliance in
permit application
i
Include with permit
appication a schedule of
remedial measures, enforceable
sequence of actions, miestones,
and schedule for certified
progress reports (at least
semi-amually)
Figure 5-5. Compliance Plan and Schedule Requirements.
5-28
-------
• Statements indicating a source's compliance status with the compliance
certification requirements of the Act.
The above information is collected on EPA Form CC-2.
5.1.8 Preparing Insignificant Activities and Emission Levels Lists
EPA has established several ways to streamline applications for activities (or
equipment) that do not contribute significantly to the decision to obtain a permit or that do
not need to be specified in the permit. EPA has designated some activities as "insignificant
activities." Insignificant activities that are listed in the Part 71 rule do not generally need to
be identified or described in the application (see Table 5-2). EPA has also established
"insignificant emissions levels" that may be used, at the discretion of the source, to designate
other activities as insignificant activities:
• For HAP's:
— No more than 1,000 Ib/year of any HAP from a single emission unit.
• For non-HAP regulated air pollutants:
— No more than 2 tons/yr from a single emission unit.
Because these activities may be unique to the source and have not undergone prior EPA
review, the application must identify them in a list.
TABLE 5-2. INSIGNIFICANT ACTTVTnES UNDER
THE PART 71 PERMIT PROGRAM
• Air-conditioning units for human comfort, provided that no ozone-depleting substances or substitute
substances are used and air pollutants are not exhausted into ambient air
• Ventilation units used for human comfort, provided that no air pollutants are exhausted into ambient
air
• Heating units used solely for human comfort (i.e., not used for manufacturing or industrial
purposes)
• Noncommercial food preparation
• Consumer use of office products or equipment
• Janitorial services and consumer use of janitorial products
• Internal combustion engines used for landscaping purposes
• Mobile sources
Source: Elsevier Science Inc.; compiled from proposed 40 CFR Section 71.5(c)(ll)(i).
5-29
-------
In some cases, more information than described above for insignificant activities
(whether listed in the rule or qualifying based on emission levels) would be needed in the
application. For example, when insignificant activities are subject to applicable
requirements, the application may need to include information concerning the insignificant
activities for the permit to properly include those applicable requirements. In cases where
the PTE from activities that are insignificant would tip a source over from being a minor
source to being a major source, the PTE from the activities must be included in the total for
the facility, the source must be considered a major source, and the application must include
those emissions.
The Part 70 White Paper, also being implemented in Part 71, allows "trivial
activities" to be completely omitted from applications. The white paper defines trivial
activities as activities without specific applicable requirements (although they may have
"generic" applicable requirements) and with extremely small emissions. The list of examples
included in Appendix A of the White Paper may be used by all Part 71 sources. In addition,
EPA may expand the list of trivial activities for a particular State to include trivial activities
or certain insignificant activities of the State's operating permits program without the need
for Federal rulemaking.
Form IE is provided (Figure 5-6) to list emissions units or activities that have
insignificant emissions levels. In addition, information concerning equipment, activities, or
emissions units that are exempted from an otherwise applicable requirement (e.g., emissions
units grandfathered from requirements of a NSPS should be attached to the form). Such
exemptions are only valid if they are authorized under a Federally-approved implementation
plan (SIP, FIP, or TIP) or other applicable requirement. On the attachment, describe the
exempted equipment, emissions unit, or activity and the basis for the exemption (you may
cite the State administrative code or Federal regulation). In some cases, the listing in the
application may need to specify capacity; throughput; material being processed, combusted,
or stored; or other pertinent information, but try to keep this information to one line. The
"number" column is provided to indicate the total number of units or activities grouped
together under one description. For example, a complex facility may have hundreds of
valves and flanges and there are no applicable requirements that apply. However, units or
5-30
-------
DRAFT. February 1996
OMB Control No. 2O6»0336. Approve fjpfcM O7-31-98.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AQENCY
APPUCATION FOR FEDERAL OPERATING PERMIT, 40 CfR PART 71
APPLICATION FORM IE - WSIQMFICANT EMISSIONS
INSTRUCTIONS: U
•»
u
•I
t>
MMch«aurM«llgM*ferln*lgnMe«mirMtnwMundwl714(eM11Hl>. *» *• 'nun*** column. In
nIHying inter Mch dMCripdon. Ewh dMCriptlen mud b. *p*cMc (neugh to tfworib. itw MUTM ef
Dduttntt «xc»pt hnmlout * pofciunt «RAP. wnpt MAPI, tnd tor HAP. CMpKthMlv.
Aem th« number ef unh«
•fiMMionv* Urt •intwion
cion. PlMuehKkttw
A) «nd (Bl for ragubud iir
NumlMr
DMcription ef ActMtiM w EmiHlen Unto
RAP.
•MMpt
HAP
HAP
Figure 5-6. Draft Application Form IE - Insignificant Emissions.
5-31
-------
activities that have dissimilar descriptions, including dissimilar capacities or sizes, should be
listed separately in the application. Two columns are provided for applicants to indicate the
type of pollutants for the insignificant emissions.
5.2 THE PERMIT APPROVAL PROCESS
After it receives a Part 71 permit application, EPA (or the delegated permitting
authority) would have a limited time to determine whether the application is complete and to
request additional information, if needed. The application is automatically deemed complete
if a determination of incompleteness is not made within 60 days following submittal.
Although EPA could still request additional information (if needed), the Agency would have
only 18 months from receipt of the complete application to issue or deny the permit (except
during the initial three years of the program in which the permitting authority must issue
one-third of the permits each year; EPA or the delegate agency would have 6 months or less
to process the first one-third of the applications received). The 18-month period applies to
the date the completed application is received, regardless of whether the application has been
determined to be complete or deemed complete by default. In cases where a permit
application contains a HAP early reduction demonstration, EPA must take final action on the
permit within 12 months. Figure 5-7 summarizes the generic permit review/issuance
process.
5.2.1 Public and "Affected State" Notice and Opportunity for Comment
Draft Part 71 permits would be made available to both the general public and
"affected States" for review and comment. The public notice must include the opportunity
for submission of written comments and the opportunity to request a public hearing. The
public will have access to copies of the applications and the compliance plan.
In addition, States affected by source emissions and that are contiguous to the State
where the source is located or States located within 50 miles of source must be notified of
each draft permit. The affected States may submit comments during 30-day public comment
periods as well.
5-32
-------
18 Months
Program Approval
Complete Application Submittal
Draft Proposed Permit
Neighboring State Review
and
Public Comments
Proposed Permit to
EPA for Comments
(If a delegated agency is the
permitting authority)
Final Permit Issuance
Appeal to Environmental
Appeals Board
Opportunity for Judicial
Review in Federal Court
12 Months
30 Days
45 Days
30 Days
60 Days
Figure 5-7. Application Submittal/Permit Issuance Process.
5-33
-------
5.2.2 Public Petitions and Judicial Review
After the close of the public comment period on a draft permit, the permitting
authority will issue a final permit decision. Within 30 days of the final permit decision,
anyone who filed comments on the draft permit or participated in the public hearing may
petition the EPA Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) to review any condition of the permit
that was changed between the draft and final permit stage or other new grounds not
reasonably foreseeable during the comment period. The EAB will issue an order either
granting or denying the petition for review. To the extent review is denied, the conditions of
the final permit decision become the final Agency action and are subject to judicial review in
the United States Court of Appeals. The decision of the EAB to issue or deny the permit is
also subject to judicial review. Petitions for judicial review must be filed within 60 days of
the EAB's final decision. A petition can also be made to reopen an already issued permit for
cause. Petitions would be required in writing and to contain facts or reasons supporting the
request.
5.3 PERMIT CONTENT
Because operating permits are the primary tool for implementing and enforcing Act
provisions, EPA has specified a number of items that will be included in each permit. These
items are summarized below:
• Fixed Term. The permit will generally include a fixed term of 5 years or less.
However, Acid Rain permits will be issued for a 5-year term and solid waste
incinerator permits may have up to a 12-year term.
• Emissions Limitations and Standards. The purpose of emissions limitations is to
ensure that the source will comply with all "applicable requirements." These
limits cannot be exceeded without a revision to the permit, which must be
approved by the permitting authority. The permit may establish alternative or
equivalent emissions limits to those in the SIP. A regulatory citation or origin will
be provided for each requirement. Requirements that are more stringent than
required will be incorporated into the permit as such and will be enforceable.
• Applicable Requirements. For all major sources subject to Part 71, the permit
will include all applicable requirements for relevant emissions units. For
5-34
-------
nonmajor sources subject to Part 71, the permit will include all applicable
requirements pertaining to the emissions units that caused the source to be subject
to Part 71.
Compliance Certification Requirements. The permit will contain information
regarding the frequency of compliance certifications submissions. The permit will
specify the means used to monitor compliance and the elements that must be
reported in the compliance certification (e.g., permit provisions, compliance
status, and duration of compliance/noncompliance). The permit will require the
source to submit the above information.
Operational Flexibility. The permit will include terms and conditions for the
anticipated alternative operating scenarios and emissions trading. Permit revisions
will not be needed for these changes. The permit will require recordkeeping to
establish compliance with the terms of the permit.
Fee Schedule. The permit will include a provision to ensure that a permitted
source pays its annual dues according to schedule.
Monitoring. Recordkeeping. and Reporting. Monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements will be included in the permit. In addition, all emissions
monitoring and procedures or test methods will be included. The frequency of
report submittals will also be included.
Permit Reopenings. The permit will contain an option for permit reopening. The
old permit terms remain in effect until the reopening process is completed.
Permits may be reopened under the circumstances shown in Table 5-3.
Compliance Schedule. A compliance schedule that sets specific timeframes for
achieving all provisions in the Act for which a source is not in compliance will be
included in the permit.
Progress Reports. The permit will include a requirement that the source submit
progress reports at least semiannually and perhaps more frequently if required by
the applicable requirement or by the permitting authority.
Enforcement Issues. Provisions will be included in the permit that explain the
nature of the permit and the grounds for enforcement.
5-35
-------
TABLE 5-3. CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRING PERMIT REOPENINGS
• Additional applicable requirements are promulgated after the permit is issued and
the requirements become applicable when more than 3 years remain during the
permit term.
• Additional requirements become applicable to an affected source under the acid
rain program.
• The permit contains a material mistake.
• Inaccurate statements were made in establishing emission standards or other permit
terms.
• EPA or the permitting authority determines that the permit must be revised or
revoked to assure compliance with the applicable requirements.
Source: 40 CFR, Section 70.7(f).
• Inspection and Entry Requirements. A provision allowing proper access by
permitting officials to inspect facility operations, permit documents, and other
pertinent information will be included in the permit.
• Permit Shield. A permit shield will be provided in the permit to protect the
source from enforcement actions as a result of unintentional releases or deviations,
provided that the reporting requirements for these deviations have been met. The
shield also protects the source from enforcement actions if the source has met the
requirements for trading emissions increases and decreases in the facility. A
permit shield does not protect a facility from requirements promulgated after the
permit is issued, minor permit modifications, "off permit" actions, violations
existing at the time the permit is issued, acid rain requirements, and Section 114
information requests.
• Emergency Provisions. An emergency provision will be included in the permit.
An emergency is defined as a sudden and unforeseeable event that occurs beyond
the control of the source, including acts of God. An emergency does not include
noncompliance due to improperly designed equipment, careless operation, or
insufficient maintenance. A provision will be included in the permit to require
notifying the permitting agency within 2 working days should an emergency occur.
5-36
-------
5.4 PERMIT REVISIONS
The Part 71 permit revision program is modelled on the current Part 70 program.
Permit revisions will be processed in one of three ways:
1. Administrative permit amendments;
2. Minor permit modifications; and
3. Significant permit modifications.
Each of these are discussed further below.
5.4.1 Administrative Permit Amendments
Administrative permit amendments are changes such as:
1. Correction of typographical errors;
2. Change of address or ownership;
3. Change of contact person or responsible parties; and
4. Incorporation of State preconstruction requirements.
The permittee may make these changes to the permit after submitting a notice to the
permitting agency. The permit will be revised at renewal.
5.4.2 Minor Permit Modifications
Minor permit modification procedures may be used only for those permit
modifications that:
1. Do not violate any applicable requirement;
2. Do not involve significant changes to existing monitoring, reporting, or
recordkeeping requirements in the permit;
3. Do not require or change a case-by-case determination of an emission limitation or
other standard, or a source-specific determination for temporary sources of ambient impacts,
or a visibility or increment analysis;
4. Do not seek to establish or change a permit term or condition for which there is
no corresponding underlying applicable requirement and that the source has assumed to avoid
an applicable requirement to which the source would otherwise be subject;
5. Are not modifications under Title I of the Act; and
6. Are not required to be processed as a significant modification.
5-37
-------
Although "Title I modifications" are not specifically defined under the current Part 71
rule, a definition is under development, and EPA will add the definition in the Phase n
rulemaking, consistent with how EPA ultimately defines the term under Part 70. Until this
term is formally defined, EPA is applying the interpretation of Title I modifications that
States are using under the current Part 70 rule. Consequently, changes subject to State minor
NSR programs will not be considered Title I modifications.
Under this permit revision track, the source may make a change immediately upon
filing an application for a minor permit modification. Eligible changes could be processed
individually or in groups, but the permit shield may not extend to these changes. If the
change is made before approval is granted by the permitting authority, the source does so at
its own risk. The source is only afforded a temporary exemption from the formal
requirement that it operate in accordance with the permit terms that it seeks to change in its
modification application. Should the proposed permit modification be rejected, the source
would be subject to enforcement proceedings.
The application requesting the minor permit modification should include the
following:
1. A description of the change, the emissions resulting from the change, and any new
applicable requirements that will apply if the change occurs;
2. The source's suggested draft permit;
3. Certification by a responsible official that the proposed modification meets the
criteria for minor permit modifications; and
4. Completed forms for the permitting authority to use to notify affected States.
The permitting authority has 90 days to issue or deny the permit modification.
5.4.3 Significant Permit Modifications
Significant permit modifications are changes that do not qualify as minor permit
modifications or as administrative amendments. In this permit revision track, the public,
permitting authority, affected States, and EPA will review the modification permit application
in the same manner as a review during a permit issuance. The permit shield may extend to
changes processed under this track. Permitting authorities will initiate review of the
proposed changes after receipt of an application. The permitting authority has 9 months to
5-38
-------
complete action on the significant permit modification application after the application is
deemed complete.
5.5 PERIODIC MONITORING, RECORDKEEPING, AND REPORTING
EPA is developing a program for implementing the Act's enhanced monitoring
provisions. This new program, referred to as compliance assurance monitoring (CAM), will
incorporate periodic monitoring requirements. However, until the CAM rule becomes final,
if an emissions unit subject to Part 71 lacks periodic testing or monitoring requirements, the
source owner or operator must propose in the initial permit application periodic monitoring
requirements. As described in 71.6(a)(3), the proposed periodic monitoring requirements
must use terms, test methods, units, averaging periods, and other statistical conventions
consistent with those found in the applicable requirements. It is possible that simple
recordkeeping will suffice for the periodic monitoring of some emission units.
Should permit applicants or permitting authorities seek additional information on
developing periodic monitoring, a review of the draft Technical Guidance Document for the
CAM rule could provide some insight. In this document, EPA has developed several
illustrations of acceptable CAM plans. An electronic version of this document is available
on the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standard's (OAQPS) Technology Transfer
Network (TTN) in the Emission Measurement Technical Information Center's (EMTIC)
Bulletin Board, as filename TECHDOC.914. The following example draft CAM plans are 2
of 18 available examples provided in the guidance document.
5-39
-------
EXAMPLE 1
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE MONITORING (CAM) ILLUSTRATION
NO. la., FABRIC FILTER FOR PM CONTROL
1. APPLICABILITY
1.1 Control Technology: Fabric filter (Baghouse)
1.2 Pollutants:
Primary: PM,
Other: Toxic heavy metals
1.3 Process/Emissions Units: Industrial process vents and fuel combustion units
2. MONITORING SYSTEM/PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
2.1 Parameter to be Monitored: Visible emissions (VE).
2.2 Rationale for Monitoring Approach/Measurements: Changes in VE observations
indicate process changes, changes in baghouse efficiency, or leaks.
2.3 Monitoring Location: Per RM 9 or RM 22 requirements.
2.4 Analytical Devices: Trained observer using RM 9 or RM 22.
2.5 Description of Data Acquisition and Measurement System Operation:
• Frequency of measurement: Daily or as weather permits.
• Reporting units: Percent opacity or visible/no visible emissions.
• Recording process: Observers complete VE observation forms and log into
binder or electronic database, as appropriate.
2.6 Corrective Action Trigger Levels:
• Basis for setting levels: Baseline percent opacity; typical appearance, RM 9 or
RM22.
• Data needs: Baseline VE observations concurrent with emission test or historical
plant records of opacity observations. (No data are needed if "any visible
emissions" type corrective action trigger is chosen.)
5-40
-------
2.7 Corrective Action Period:
• Time to take initial action: Inspection to isolate problem and define solution
within 4 to 24 hours of indication of problem, depending on severity. If opacity
is above permit limit, immediate corrective action should be taken.
• Time to rectify problem: 1 to 14 days from indication of problem, depending on
severity.
2.8 Specific QA/QC Procedures: Initial training of observer per RM 9 or RM 22;
semi-annual refresher training per RM 9, if applicable.
2.9 References: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
EXAMPLE!
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE MONITORING (CAM) ILLUSTRATION
No. 38, THERMAL INCINERATOR FOR VOC CONTROL
1. APPLICABILITY
1.1 Control Technology: Thermal incineration
1.2 Pollutants:
Primary: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
Other: Higher molecular weight organic compounds
1.3 Process/Emissions Units: Coating, spraying, printing, polymer manufacturing,
distillation units, wastewater treatment units, air oxidation units, petroleum refining,
miscellaneous SOCMI units
2. MONITORING SYSTEM/PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
2.1 Parameter to be Monitored: Incineration temperature.
2.2 Rationale for Monitoring Approach/Measurements: Proper temperature range can
be related to good performance.
2.3 Monitoring Location: Outlet of combustion chamber.
2.4 Analytical Devices: Thermocouples, or alternative methods/instrumentation as
appropriate for specific gas stream. See CAM guidance for specifications.
5-41
-------
2.5 Description of Data Acquisition and Measurement System Operation:
• Frequency of measurement: Hourly, or recorded continuously on strip chart or
digital data acquisition system.
• Reporting units: Degrees Fahrenheit or Celsius (°F, °C).
• Recording process: Operators take readings and manually log data, or recorded
automatically on strip chart or digital data acquisition system.
2.6 Corrective Action Trigger Levels:
• Basis for setting levels: Regulatory standards for VOC emissions.
• Data needs:
Baseline incineration temperature measurements and outlet VOC concentration
measurements concurrent with emission test.
Historical plant records on incineration temperature measurements and outlet
VOC concentration measurements.
2.7 Corrective Action Period:
• Time to take initial action: Inspection to isolate problem and define solution
within 15 minutes to 24 hours of indication of problem, depending on severity.
If temperature is near ambient, immediate corrective action should be taken.
• Time to rectify problem: 1 day.
2.8 Specific QA/QC Procedures:
• Calibrate, maintain, and operate instrumentation according to manufacturer's
recommendations.
2.9 References: 1,2,3, 4.
5-42
-------
REFERENCES FOR COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE MONITORING (CAM)
ILLUSTRATIONS
1. Air Pollution Engineering Manual, A&WMA, Buonicore and Davis, ed. 1992.
2. Ohio EPA's Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Guidelines for Air Pollution Control
Equipment, for Ohio EPA, Columbus, OH, by Environmental Quality Management,
Inc., Cincinnati, OH, February 1993.
3. Generic Permit Conditions Pertaining to Monitoring, Georgia State Pollution Control
Agency, GDNR.
4. Combustion Emissions Technical Resource Document (CTRED), USEPA Solid Waste
and Emergency Response (5305), EPA 530-R-94-014, May 1994.
5. APTI Course SI:412, Baghouse Plan Review, USEPA, 1982.
5-43
-------
-------
6.0 FLEXIBLE PERMIT APPROACHES
The operational flexibility provisions as provided for under the Federal operating
permits program (40 CFR Part 71) allow a source to respond quickly to changing business
opportunities. Many changes made in normal operating procedures, such as a change in
product formulations or hours of operation, can be provided for under the operational
flexibility provisions without requiring a permit modification.
The two major aspects of operational flexibility that may be helpful to applicants are:
(1) emissions trading under emissions caps established by the permit, and (2) emissions
trading based on the State implementation plan (SIP) rules. Additional provisions, which are
generally considered to offer operational flexibility, are: (1) off-permit changes,
(2) emissions trading based on applicable requirements, (3) emissions trading based on
economic incentives, (4) alternative operating scenarios, (5) advance NSR approval, and
(6) general permits. Maximizing potential to emit (PTE) can also be an option under certain
circumstances for increasing operational flexibility. All of the above mentioned operational
flexibility approaches are described below.
6.1 EMISSIONS TRADING UNDER EMISSION CAPS ESTABLISHED BY THE
PERMIT
According to Section 71.6 of Part 71, the permitting authority must allow for
emissions trading provisions that are used to meet an independent emissions cap. The
emissions cap when placed into the permit is a Federally-enforceable, pollutant-specific limit
that restricts the emissions of any regulated air pollutant. The cap is considered
"independent" because it is independent of any applicable requirements and does not displace
the obligation to comply with applicable requirements. Caps may be established at the plant
level or at the process level. Once the emissions cap is set, the source may operate an
internal emissions trading program, thereby providing some latitude with its own operations.
6-1
-------
The permit must describe how the source plans to track its operations relative to the cap and
ensure that trades are quantifiable and enforceable.
The permitting authority must put the cap into the permit if a source's proposal meets
the criteria for enforceable trading. Additionally, the permit must establish compliance
requirements for trading. The required 7-day advance notice of trading does not establish
permit terms for trading, but just notifies the authority and EPA that the source is using
already established permit terms to trade.
6.1.1 Impacts of Establishing Emissions Caps
For a source that does not maximize its potential to emit and that produces a wide
variety of products using a fixed group of raw materials, the emissions cap can grant
considerable flexibility. Since the cap is normally established at greater than current levels
but less than the cumulative potential to emit, the facility may operate with great flexibility
provided that it complies with the restrictions of the emissions cap and any other State or
Federal requirements. The emissions cap may provide for peak operation of individual units
within a group of equipment at higher levels than would be allowed if all the units were
permitted at average rates. Additionally, the permit shield is available for equipment covered
under the emissions caps.
Conversely, some drawbacks may be seen with the emissions cap: (1) the facility
must operate at or below the levels determined by the cap, and (2) the facility must perform
the necessary recordkeeping required to ensure compliance with the cap. The applicant must
implement recordkeeping practices and permit terms that ensure the trades are both
quantifiable and enforceable. Also, the facility must give the permitting authority 7 days
notice before trading under the cap. Care must be taken to trade only emissions that are
similar, especially in the case of hazardous air pollutants (HAP's), because Section 112(g) of
the Act prohibits offsets of less hazardous materials to compensate for increased emissions of
more hazardous compounds.
6.1.2 Developing Emissions Caps
Emissions caps should represent the worst-case scenarios for a facility or a particular
group of processes. The facility operator should ensure that the emissions cap does not
interfere with future plant operations. In determining worst-case scenarios, the applicant
6-2
-------
should consider the quantity of emissions, and in the case of HAP's, the hazard ranking
assigned in Section 112(g) of the Act.
6.1.3 Implementing Emissions Caps
To illustrate the implementation of emission caps, the following is an example of how
a permitting authority might determine emissions caps for a batch chemical production plant.
Because of product variability and unpredictability of manufacturing
demands, [the permitting authority] recognizes that the construction of
alternative operating scenarios for batch chemical manufacturing facilities
presents unique challenges for the industry. These scenarios must be
constructed and described in the application and resulting Title V permit in a
manner where emissions are quantifiable and compliance determinations at any
time are verifiable. To achieve this end, [the permitting authority]
recommends that industry identify and develop measurable parametric
relationships between production rates and emissions from the full array of
products that may be produced. Critical parameters that may be considered in
this relationship may include, but not be limited to, factors such as product
formulation, production cycle times, temperature of unit operations, reaction
pressures, flow rates, batch size, air cleaning efficiency, and water/solvent
temperatures, as applicable. Development of these relationships will permit
the creation of an emission factor (weight of air emissions per weight of
product produced) for the particular batch formulation. Thus, knowing
historical and planned future production levels, an emissions cap may be
developed for which compliance can readily be demonstrated.
6.2 EMISSIONS TRADING BASED ON THE SIP RULES
Emissions trading is an approved method of limiting a source's emissions under the
SIP. If a State adopts this option into its SIP, sources within the State may trade increases
and decreases in emissions, provided that no net increase occurs. Consequently, a company
that has several plants could be afforded some degree of operational flexibility within this
program by trading emissions among sites. Under the provisions of Section 71.6, the
permittee may use a 7-day notice to comply with applicable requirements using a SIP's
trading provisions rather than the permit terms addressing those applicable requirements.
The permit must identify which permit terms may be replaced with SIP trading provisions.
Additionally, the SIP trading provisions must be practically enforceable (virtually general
permits within the SIP). EPA believes that the SIP review process will ensure the quality of
the trading provisions.
6-3
-------
6.3 OFF-PERMIT CHANGES
Section 71.6 of Part 71 provides that States may allow a source to delay applying for
a permit revision when the proposed changes "do not result in the source being in violation
of any permit term or condition but render the source subject to an applicable requirement"
that previously did not apply to the source. However, the change may not result in a net
increase in allowable emissions of any regulated pollutant at the source. Additionally, off-
permit changes require that notice be given to the permitting authority at the time the change
takes place. Off-permit changes may not be used for Title I modifications or for
requirements subject to Title IV (the acid rain provisions) of the Act, and the permit shield is
not available for off-permit changes. (A permit revision for purposes of the acid rain portion
of the permit is governed by 40 CFR Part 72.) The source is responsible for: (1) keeping a
record describing the changes that result in emissions of a regulated air pollutant subject to
an applicable requirement but not otherwise regulated by the permit, and the emissions
resulting from these changes; and (2) revising the information when application is made for a
permit renewal.
One possible downside to using the off-permit change mechanism is that if the change
is later shown to be ineligible for the off-permit, the source is liable for failing to have
applied for a permit revision from the time of the change.
6.4 EMISSIONS TRADING BASED ON APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS
Sources may also request to trade emissions based on applicable requirements. The
trading written into a permit must have all of the compliance terms necessary to make it
enforceable, just like any other compliance scenario. All Part 71 permits must contain
"testing, recordkeeping, and compliance certification requirements sufficient to assure
compliance." Additionally, where an underlying rule gives the State discretion to implement
trading, the Title V permitting process would require the State to provide for trading,
provided that the trade can be made enforceable, consistent with Title V compliance
requirements.
6-4
-------
6.5 EMISSIONS TRADING BASED ON ECONOMIC INCENTIVES
Sources may also trade emissions based on economic incentives. In cases where
trading is not already provided for in the permit, no permit revision will be required under
"any economic incentives, marketable permits, emissions trading or other similar programs
or processes approved in an implementation plan" when the plan provides for such trading on
7 days notice. Emissions trading is also allowed for the purpose of complying with the
Federally-enforceable emissions cap that is established in the permit independent of otherwise
applicable requirements.
6.6 ALTERNATIVE OPERATING SCENARIOS
A permittee may want to be permitted for alternative operating scenarios from which
it may choose processes and operations. Although this procedure is technically not
considered part of the operational flexibility provisions, alternative operating scenarios do
provide a form of "operational flexibility," and for that reason, are discussed here.
Sources that wish to be permitted under the alternative operating scenario scheme
must identify their reasonably anticipated operating scenarios in their permit applications.
The permitting authority will then review the scenarios and approve the ones that meet all
applicable requirements. Thereafter, no permit revision is needed to switch from one
scenario to the other, thereby simplifying the permitting process for the source and the
permitting authority. However, the source must contemporaneously record the change in
operating scenario in a log at the facility. Additionally, the permitting authority may extend
the permit shield to cover the terms and conditions of each permitted scenario.
When using the alternative scenario program, an on-site log must be kept and the
source must record in the log contemporaneously with making a change from one operating
scenario to another.
Finally, alternative operating scenarios may include emissions trading within the
facility as allowed under the applicable requirements. Moreover, the source may ask that the
permitting authority include emissions trading provisions in its permit.
To illustrate the use of alternative operating scenarios, the following example is
provided for batch chemical production.
6-5
-------
A pharmaceutical manufacturer produces a number of products. Many
of these products can be manufactured using different pieces of equipment
within the facility. For example, product X can be manufactured in reactor A
or B. To describe how alternative operating scenarios may be used to permit
this operation:
• Determine potential emissions for each product/equipment
combination.
• Determine all applicable regulations for each product/equipment
combination.
• Define an operating scenario for each product/equipment
combination.
Potential emissions should be based on source testing data, AP-42
emission factors, or other data such as the EPA document "Control Techniques
Guidelines for Batch Processes" (EPA-450/2-78-029). Other emission factors
should not be used prior to obtaining approval from the local permitting
authority or the appropriate EPA Regional Office. The permit application
should include scenarios for each product/equipment combination. The
alternative operating scenario should clearly identify the applicable
requirements that apply for each product/equipment combination. There is no
need to include alternative operating scenarios for product/equipment
combinations that do not change the applicable requirements. A system should
be implemented to keep contemporaneous records of when products were
produced in specific pieces of equipment.
6.7 ADVANCE NSR APPROVAL
Advance New Source Review (NSR) approval is actually a form of alternative
operating scenario that may be available to some permittees in some States. Advance NSR
approval would allow the operating permit to contain the construction permit; the operating
permit could then authorize a future modification at the facility. A time-limited authorization
could be updated with ^application. However, advance NSR may not be an option if the
Part 71 agency and the NSR agency are not the same.
6-6
-------
6.8 GENERAL PERMITS
To an extent, general permits [as provided for in Part 71.6(d)] allow some form of
operational flexibility. General permits cover numerous similar sources, such as gas stations,
dry cleaners, or small printing operations. The drafting and issuance of the provisions to be
included in the general permits for certain source categories are subject to normal public
review and comment. However, EPA may allow a specific facility or source to operate
under an approved general permit without requiring that public notice procedures be
followed. Finally, citizens have the right to legally challenge the issuance of individual
general permits. General permits will not be authorized for affected sources under the acid
rain program unless otherwise provided for in regulations promulgated under Title IV of the
Act.
6.9 MAXIMIZING POTENTIAL TO EMIT
A facility may develop operational flexibility within the Title V permit by maximizing
its PTE. Under this approach, the facility uses the products and operating parameters that
lead to highest emissions in its permit application. The process would only be bounded by
Federal or State emission rate limitations where applicable or limits which would have
required new source review. This option does not establish new limits if the facility
currently has none; however, it does establish PTE to be used as a basis for future
modifications.
6.9.1 Impacts - Benefits and Limitations
Maximizing PTE has advantages from both a compliance and productivity viewpoint.
From a compliance viewpoint, the fact that all processes are permitted to operate at physical
and operational limits minimizes the opportunity for failing to comply with the permit. From
a productivity viewpoint, the permit will not impede business managers from operating the
equipment at the most profitable and productive levels. The permit is written anticipating
that the equipment will be operated at maximum production levels; thus, the company is free
to operate the equipment at any desirable level.
The main limitation to maximizing PTE is that the facility may exceed trigger levels
for additional permitting or reporting requirements. For example, while increases in the rate
6-7
-------
or hours of production for existing equipment are exempt from the prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) program in Title I, Part C, of the Act, introduction of new raw materials
or products, or modification of equipment, could be considered modifications under the PSD
rule, and could result in requiring the company to obtain a PSD permit before the
modifications may be undertaken. Care must also be taken to describe the maximum
emission rate on a time basis (usually hourly or annually), consistent with agency
requirements. For processes with broad fluctuations in instantaneous emissions rates (e.g., a
batch process where emissions reach a peak for part of the production cycle), sources may
report maximum emission rates rather than actual emission rates. The averaging period (i.e.,
length of time of emissions testing) for determining the emissions rates may be negotiated
with the permitting authority.
6.9.2 Guidelines to Maximizing PTE
The methods for maximizing PTE are the same at those used for estimating PTE.
The focus of the PTE maximization effort is on identifying the variables that will increase
the facility PTE. Typical methods of maximizing emissions are summarized in Table 6-1.
TABLE 6-1. TYPICAL FACTORS USED FOR MAXIMIZING
POTENTIAL TO EMIT
Factor
Production level
Hours of operation
Efficiency of control equipment
Product mix (for equipment processing more than
one end product)
Chemical selection
Activities mat the equipment is designed to
accommodate
Change Required to Maximize PTE
Maximize
Maximize (8,760 hr/yr)
Minimize (No credit is given for presence of
control device if facility has no enforceable limits)
Select product resulting in highest emission rate
Consider chemical with highest hazard, as listed in
Section 112(g)
Use most expansive design and process description
that may be logically defended
6.9.3 Examples of Maximizing PTE
Two examples of maximizing PTE are provided below in Figures 6-1 and 6-2.
6-8
-------
MAXIMIZING PTE FOR HEALTH PRODUCTS
Scenario Description
A manufacturer of packaged intravenous fluid bags produces the product in a
batch mixer. The batch process, which has a 10 hour cycle time, results in a
maximum emission rate of 100 pounds volatile organic compounds (VOC) per batch
produced. Determine the maximum annual PTE for this process.
Approach
1. Determine the maximum number of batches that the equipment may
process in one year.
2. Calculate the emissions from the maximum annual number of batches.
Calculation
1 . Determine the maximum number of batches per year:
876 batch^yr
10 his/batch
2. Determine maximum emissions from this process:
876 batches 100 Ibs VOC ton 43.8 tons VOC
year batch 2,000 Ibs year
Source: TRC Environmental Corporation (see acknowledgements in Preface)
Figure 6-1. Maximizing PTE example for health products.
6-9
-------
MAXIMIZING PTE FOR ELECTRONICS PRODUCTIONS
Scenario Description
A manufacturer of printed circuit boards applies a screen-printed surface
coating as an integral part of the production process. The solvent-based surface
coating is cured in a vented infrared tunnel oven with the emissions controlled by a
thermal oxidation unit with a control efficiency of 99.2%. For purposes of this
example, the control equipment is not considered Federally enforceable, and therefore,
is not factored into the calculation of PTE. The coated substrates are 12 inches
square, and the coatings vary from 40 to 60 weight percent VOC and are applied no
more than 7 mils (0.007 inches) thick (wet measure). The operating capacity of the
screen printers is 800 cycles per hour. The coating has a material density of 10
pounds per gallon. Calculate the maximum annual PTE from this process.
Approach
1.
2.
Calculation
Calculate the maximum VOC content of each print cycle.
Calculate the emissions from the maximum annual number of print
cycles.
1. Determine the maximum VOC content of each print cycle.
60% x
x 0.007 in x
»L
0.0262 Ibs
gal cycle 231 in3 cycle
2. Determine maximum emissions from this process:
0.0262 Ibs VOC x ton x 8.760 hts 800 cycles _ 91.7 tons VOC
cycle 2,000 Ibs year hr year
Source: TRC Environmental Corporation (see acknowledgements in Preface)
Figure 6-2. Maximizing PTE example for electronics production.
6-10
-------
7.0 HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTION PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS FOR TITLE V
Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, EPA is required to regulate large or
"major" industrial facilities that emit one or more of 189 listed hazardous air pollutants
(HAP's). Major sources are those that have the potential to emit 10 tons/year or more of a
listed pollutant or 25 tons/yr or more of a combination of pollutants. On July 16, 1992,
EPA published a list of industrial source categories that emit one or more of these hazardous
air pollutants. For listed industrial categories of "major" sources, EPA is required to
develop standards for these sources that will require the application of stringent controls,
known as maximum achievable control technology (MACT). Development of these standards
began shortly after the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, and the regulatory development
process is scheduled to continue through the year 2000.
Title V operating permit applications must address requirements for substances that
are considered to be hazardous under Title m of the Act. Sections 112(g), (j), and (r) of the
Clean Air Act Amendments impose new requirements on sources applying for operating
permits. These programs are discussed below.
7.1 SECTION 112(g) REQUIREMENTS
Section 112(g) establishes requirements for owners or operators who intend to
construct, reconstruct, or modify a major source of HAP's. The section 112(g) provision is
designed to ensure that emissions of toxic air pollutants do not increase if a facility is
constructed or reconstructed before EPA issues a MACT regulation for that particular
category of sources or facilities. In effect, the 112(g) provision is a transitional measure to
ensure that facilities adequately protect the public from toxic air pollutants until EPA issues a
MACT standard that applies to the facility in question.
7-1
-------
7.1.1 Components of the Draft Final Rule
A schematic diagram of the proposed Section 112(g) process is provided in
Figure 7-1. EPA's draft final rule substantially streamlines the 112(g) process it proposed in
March 1994 by limiting the 112(g) requirements to the construction of new facilities and the
reconstruction (rebuilding) of large sources of toxic air pollutants at existing facilities.
Newly constructed facilities or reconstructed units or sources at existing facilities would be
subject to 112(g) requirements if they have the potential to emit HAP's above the major
source thresholds. "Reconstruction" is defined as a change that costs 50 percent of the cost
of constructing a new unit or source like the one being rebuilt. Sources or facilities subject
to 112(g) would be subject to stringent air pollution control requirements, referred to as
"new source MACT." Under the Clean Air Act, new source MACT control is required to
be no less stringent than the best controlled similar source or facility. EPA anticipates that
the new source MACT requirements will be equally or more stringent than the requirements
in the MACT standard that EPA will later issue for the industrial source category in
question. However, should the new source MACT requirements prove to be less stringent
than the air toxics regulation that EPA later issues, the source or facility would be provided
additional time to comply with the MACT standard. The draft final rule provides a
transition period for States that have a preconstruction review process already in place to
make adjustments in their programs to comply with 112(g) requirements. This transition
period would prevent project delays for sources that were about to commence construction at
the time this rule is issued.
7.1.2 Case-by-Case MACT Determination
When no emission standard has been promulgated under Section 112(d) of the Act,
MACT determinations concerning such sources must be made on a case-by-case basis. The
permitting authority has discretion to prescribe those procedures to be used in making a case-
by-case MACT determination for constructed or reconstructed major sources (except that the
owner or operator of the source may elect to use the Title V permitting process). If a
permitting authority establishes, or has already established, preconstruction review
procedures for sources to follow, then these procedures may be used in lieu of the
procedures described in the 112(g) rule, so long as they provide for public participation in
7-2
-------
Yes
Major emitting
greenfield
construction?
No
Will new stationary sources
be integrated upon startup
into existing controls that the
permitting authority considers
to be one of the best controls
for HAPs
Section 112(g)
applies
Yes
No
Is the new stationary source
an integral component of a
process or production unit?
Yes
Section 112(g)
does not apply
No
No
Is the PTE increase of the
new stationary source at or
below the major source
threshold?
Yes
Figure 7-1. Schematic of Section 112(g) process.
7-3
-------
the case-by-case MACT determination and to ensure that a final MACT determination will be
made prior to construction or reconstruction.
As promulgated, 40 CFR Section 63.53 requires that owners/operators submit the
following types of information in applications for case-by-case MACT determinations:
1. A description of the major source and source category;
2. Descriptions of the emission units requiring MACT determinations, and an
explanation of whether new-source and/or existing-source MACT is required (including
construction and start-up dates for new sources);
3. Lists of HAP's emitted by each emission unit and corresponding emission rates, as
well as estimates of uncontrolled and controlled emission rates for the entire source; and
4. Any existing federally enforceable emission limitations applicable to the source.
If EPA or the permitting authority has issued guidance or distributed information
establishing the MACT "floor" for the source category by the statutory deadline, the
application must also include the following information:
1. Recommended emission limitations for the source and a description of the selected
MACT candidate (including technical information such as control efficiency, operational
parameters, and size);
2. Supporting technical documentation on alternative control technologies also
believed capable of satisfying the emission limitation; and
3. A list of parameters to be monitored (and monitoring frequency) to demonstrate
continuous compliance with the selected emission limitation.
If the information on the MACT floor is not publicly available, the source may omit
the above information. In this case, the permitting authority must make a case-by-case
determination based on the facility description provided by the source. EPA strongly
encourages applicants to recommend MACT for their facility, even though a requirement to
do so is not included in the Part 63, Subpart B regulations. Finally, facility
owners/operators must submit a copy of the application to a national database for MACT
determinations.
7-4
-------
7.1.3 Determining MACT-Equivalent Limitations
Determining case-by-case MACT will be simplest in cases where: (1) EPA has
already proposed a standard, or (2) a "blanket" MACT determination has been issued. For
example, when a MACT standard has been proposed but not finalized within 18 months of
the applicable deadline, the standard as proposed would represent the appropriate level of
control for the source category subject to case-by-case MACT determination. Establishing
MACT for categories not affected by the previous two scenarios will involve an application,
public comment, and agency approval process. Note that if the applicable MACT standard
has not been issued and EPA has missed the statutory deadline, a case-by-case determination
must be conducted under the "MACT hammer" provisions mandated by Clean Air Act
Section 112(j).
7.1.4 MACT Hammer - Section 112(ft
Section 112(j) of the Act provides for a "MACT hammer" if EPA fails to issue a
MACT standard by the statutory deadline. This provision has the effect of requiring affected
sources to install MACT equivalent limitations even when MACT standards for the particular
source category have not yet been promulgated. Essentially, the MACT hammer
requirements apply in a given State only if EPA is required to issue a MACT standard for a
particular source category, but does not do so within 18 months of its deadline. In this case,
the permitting authority must make a case-by-case MACT determination, requiring the HAP
source to comply with emission limits at least as stringent as the MACT standard would have
been had it been promulgated on time.
Facilities must apply for Section 112(j) case-by-case MACT determinations 18 months
after EPA misses the applicable source category MACT deadline. The mechanism for
MACT review depends in part on whether the affected emission unit is new or existing; new
sources are subject to more stringent MACT levels than existing ones. In most cases,
Section 112(j) MACT approval will be secured through the operating permit program.
However, other approval venues are possible. State agencies may issue a blanket MACT
determination for an entire source category for which Section 112(j) has been triggered.
7-5
-------
7.1.5 MACT Approval
If MACT is approved by the permitting authority, the "Notice of MACT Approval"
(or a new or revised operating permit) would include the following information:
1. A HAP emission standard or limitation found to be equivalent to the MACT
standard that would have been promulgated if EPA had met the required schedule;
2. Appropriate notification, operation and maintenance, performance testing,
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements;
3. Additional emission limits, production limits, operational limits, or other terms
and conditions necessary to ensure Federal enforceability;
4. Requirements for the facility to comply with specified provisions of the general
NESHAP regulations codified in Subpart A of Part 63 (discussed below); and
5. The applicable compliance deadline.
What happens when EPA eventually issues the required MACT? Two scenarios are
possible. First, if the standard is issued before a permit reflecting the case-by-case MACT
determination has been approved, then the permit must contain the MACT requirements as
defined by the State's transition process. Second, if the standard is issued after the operating
permit is approved, the permit must be revised to reflect the new standard upon its next
renewal.
7.2 SECTION 112(r) REQUIREMENTS
Section 112(r) of the Act requires that facilities prepare a risk management plan to
prevent and mitigate the consequences of accidental releases. The Act indicates that
regulations under Section 112(r) are to be enforced in the same manner as MACT standards
established under Section 112(d). Section 112(r)(7)(E) states that "[a]fter the effective date
of any regulations or requirement imposed under this subsection, it shall be unlawful for any
person to operate any stationary source subject to such regulation or requirement in violation
of such regulation or requirement. Each regulation or requirement under this subsection
shall for the purposes of Sections 113, 114, 116, 120, 304, and 307 and other enforcement
provisions of this Act, be treated as a standard in effect under Subsection (d)." Thus, States
7-6
-------
should consider the Section 112(r) regulations as they would emission standards established
under Section 112(d).
The requirements of the Section 112(r) program have been partially promulgated in 40
CFR Part 68, Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions. This regulation, when complete,
will contain three subparts consisting of the general requirements of the program
(Subpart A), the risk management plan requirements (Subpart B), and the regulated
substances for accidental release prevention (Subpart C). Subparts A and C of 40 CFR
Part 68 were promulgated on January 31, 1994. Subpart B was proposed on October 20,
1993, but has not been finalized.
A list of regulated substances and threshold quantities that will identify facilities
subject to chemical accident prevention regulations can be found in 59 FR 4478 (January 31,
1994). The list is composed of three categories: 77 toxic substances, 63 flammable
substances, and explosive substances with a mass explosion hazard as listed by the U.S.
Department of Transportation. Threshold quantities are established for toxic substances
ranging from 500 to 20,000 Ib. For all listed flammable substances, the threshold quantity is
established at 10,000 Ib. For explosive substances, the threshold quantity is 5,000 Ib.
The threshold quantities apply to the maximum total quantity of a substance in a
process (i.e., the maximum total quantity, at any one time, in a single vessel, in a group of
interconnected vessels, or in several vessels that could potentially be involved at one time in
an accidental release). Substances in mixtures would be exempted from the threshold
determination if they represent less than one percent of the mixture by weight. EPA also
proposed to exempt substances if: (1) they are part of articles; (2) they are used as structural
components; (3) they are used for janitorial maintenance; or (4) they are found in consumer
products, process water, or in water or air from the environment or municipal sources.
Also, if the concentration of the regulated substance in the mixture is one percent or greater
by weight, but the owner or operator can demonstrate that the partial pressure of the
regulated substances in the mixture (solution) under handling or storage conditions in any
portion of the process is less than 10 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg), the amount of the
substance in the mixture in that portion of the process need not be considered when
determining whether more than a threshold quantity is present at the stationary source.
7-7
-------
Sources that expect to use, store, or otherwise handle some of the regulated
substances (e.g., fuel constituents) in quantities that exceed the specified thresholds will be
required to develop and implement a risk management program that meets the new
requirements of Subpart B. Although the requirements for this program are not final, the
proposed rule requires affected sources to register a risk management plan within 3 years
after the date of the final rule publication. The risk management plan needs to be registered
with EPA; provided to the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, State
governments, and local planning authorities; and made available to the public.
The Part 71 permit application only requires the source to indicate whether it is
subject to Section 112(r) and, if it is subject, to agree to submit the plan. (Note: detailed
information is not required, as discussed in the "White Paper" in Appendix A.) Current
Part 71 guidance indicates that the source must agree to permit conditions that assure:
(1) development and submittal of any required risk management plan (RMP) to the
appropriate authority, and (2) annual certification by the responsible official as to whether the
RMP is being properly implemented. Sources are also required to submit compliance
schedules when compliance with all Section 112(r) requirements has not been achieved prior
to permit issuance.
7-8
-------
8.0 INFORMATION SOURCES
Various EPA hotlines, bulletin boards, and information sources are listed below.
Acid Rain Hotline — Records questions and disseminates EPA documents related to the Acid
Rain program. Phone: (617) 674-7377.
Air Risk Information — Assists state and local air pollution control agencies and EPA
Regional Offices with technical matters pertaining to health, exposure, and risk assessment
of air pollutants. Phone: (919)541-0888.
Control Technology Center — Provides technical support and guidance on air pollution
emissions and control technology, as well as information on the Federal Small Business
Assistance Program. The CTC operates a hotline and supports the RACT/BACT/LAER
Clearinghouse. Phone: (919) 541-0900.
Emission Factor Assistance Hotline (INFOCHIEF) — Provides information on various
emissions data bases and reference documents, such as SPECIATE, FIRE, AIR CHIEF,
Locating and Estimating documents, and EPA's compilation of emission factors (AP-42).
Phone: (919)541-5285.
Emission Factor Clearinghouse — Provides a means of exchanging information on air
pollution control matters; addresses the criteria pollutants and toxic substances from
stationary and area sources as well as mobile sources. Phone: (919) 541-5477.
EPA Library — Provides copies of some EPA documents and other reference materials.
Phone: (919) 541-2777.
Internet Access — A wide variety of information regarding EPA programs and publications
is accessible through the Internet. Two fact sheets on EPA access through the Internet are
presented at the end of this section.
National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse — Emphasizes air toxics (noncriteria
pollutants) and the development of air toxics control programs. Phone: (919) 541-0850.
8-1
-------
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAOPS) Technology Transfer Network (TTN)
Bulletin Board System — A network of electronic bulletin boards providing information
and technology exchange on pollution control matters. The seven bulletin boards are: (1)
OAQPS, (2) emission Measurement Technical Information Center (EMTIC), (3) Support
Center for Regulatory Air Models (SCRAM), (4) Clearinghouse for Inventories/Emission
Factors (CHIEF), (5) Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), (6) Air Pollution Training
Institute (APTI), and (7) Control Technology Center (CTC). Phone (via modem): (919)
541-5742. Help Line: (919) 541-5384. (Two summary pages from EPA's TTN brochure
are presented at the end of this section.)
Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse — Provides access to information in EPA's
pollution prevention information exchange system (PIES). Phone: (703) 821-4800.
Reasonably Available Control Technology. Best Available Control TechnologyT and Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate (RACT/BACT/LAER) Clearinghouse — Emphasizes air
pollution control technology related to new source review permitting requirements. Phone:
(919) 541-0800.
Stratospheric Ozone Information Hotline — Offers consultation on ozone protection
regulations and requirements under Title VI of the Clean Air Act.
Phone: (800)296-1996.
8-2
-------
Environmental Information at Your Fingertips:
EPA Offerings on the Internet
Below is a sampling of some of the publications, resources, and services available on EPA's public access server.
INFORMATION RESOURCES
• Directories and guides
• EPA National Online Library System (OLS) catalog
• Publications catalog
• Bulletin boards
DATA SYSTEMS
• ENVIROFACTS
• STORET
• AIRS
ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION
• EPA initiatives; policy and strategy documents
• Handbooks and manuals
LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS
• Federal Register notices, including environmental impact statements and
general/meeting information.
PROGRAM INFORMATION
• World Wide Web access to the following:
- Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP)
- Gulf of Mexico Program
- National Estuaries Program
- Great Lakes Information Network
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
• Scientific, research, and technical reports
NEWS AND CURRENT EVENTS
• Press releases
• Speeches
• Journals and newsletters
CONTRACTS, GRANTS, AND FINANCING
• Grants and fellowships
• Requests for proposals (RFPs)
• Commerce Business Daily announcements
CONSUMER INFORMATION
• Guides and handbooks
• UV index document
• Energy Star Compliant Product Database
8-3
-------
Connecting to EPA on the Internet
EPA has established an access server with connectivity available via the Internet. One's method of connecting to the
EPA Public Access Server may be determined by the type of Internet access available. This document describes the
various routes. If you are unsure about how to access the Internet, please contact a local Internet provider.
GOPHER [gopher.epa.gov]
This is a hierarchical menu system devised by the University of Minnesota. The local
provider must have gopher client software. The host name is gopher.epa.gov. The port
number, if needed, is 70.
WORLD WIDE WEB. WWW [http://www.epa. gov/\
WWW provides hypertext access to EPA information, including information found on the
EPA gopher. There are a number of WWW clients, such as Lynx (no graphics) or
Mosaic and Netscape (both with graphics) that one can use to access this server.
WIDE AREA INFORMATION SERVER [wais.epa.gov]
EPA also provides keyword search capability through the WAIS client on the public
access server.
FILE TRANSFER PROTOCOL [ftp.epa.gov]
The files that physically reside on the EPA Public Access Server are also available via
anonymous file transfer protocol from the systemftp.epa.gov in the directory pub/gopher.
The file INDEX in that directory will assist in locating the appropriate subdirectory to
obtain the data required.
MAILING LISTS (Listserver)
EPA maintains a number of mailing lists via listserver. Some of the mailing lists
supported by listserver are private and subscription access may be limited. For a full
listing of lists available to the public, send a message to:
listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov
and include in the body of the message the single word list. One can subscribe to a list
by sending a message to the address provided above, including in the body of the message
a line:
subscribe < listname >
where is the name of the mailing list, and and
are the user's respective names.
For assistance with EPA's Public Access Server, please contact EPA via e-mail at internetjsupport®
unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov. For assistance with finding EPA information, please contact EPA via e-mail at
public-access@epamail. epa.gov.
8-4
-------
How do I access it?
Set up your computer, call the network, and register
on-line. Then you're free to use the network when-
ever you need to. Follow the steps below.
STEP 1 Install a modem and communications software
on your computer, if you don't already have them.
There are a wide variety to choose from.
STEP 2 Set the following parameters on your communi-
cations software:
Data Bits: 8
Parity: N
Stop Bits: 1
Terminal Emulation: VT100 or VT/ANSI
Duplex: FULL
STEP 3 Call the network using your communications
software:
(919) 541-5742 for modems up to 14,400 bps
STEP 4 Log on to the system and select from the
Unregistered Users main menu and answer the questions
on the screen.
Why use it?
It's easy! You log on, answer questions, and select
menu options. It's useful! You'll discover all kinds
of information and tools that you can use in your job.
// saves time! It saves money! It saves paper! It
saves headaches! Say goodbye to phone tag. Leave
and receive messages anytime the network is up.
Exchange information over long distances and at high
speed without waiting for the mail to arrive. It's
worldwide! You can communicate with people all
over the world—people you know and people you
don't know—who are involved in air pollution control.
It's always available! It's got it all! Eighteen
different bulletin boards are up and running; more are
on the way. It's readily accessible! Access the latest
information whenever you need it.
(919)541-5742
for modems up to 14,400 bps
Internet Access
TELNET ttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov
Office of
Air
Quality
Planning &
Standards
Technology
Transfer
Network
OAQPS TIN = UNREGISTERED USERS = MAIN MENU
This menu provides DESCRIPTIONS of the TTN Bulletin Boards, access
to SYSTEM UTILITIES and the option to REGISTER
Descriptions of OAQPS TTN Bulletin Board Systems
ystem Utilities
egistration <=Register for OAQPS TTN
oodbye
When can I use it?
24 hours a day, 7 days a week except Monday morning
8-12 EST, when the system is down for maintenance
and backup.
Who do I call?
If you need help accessing the system, call the help
desk at (919) 541-5384 in Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina during business hours, 1-5 EST.
After this information is accepted, you will see the
Registered Users menu. From here you can access
any of the bulletin board systems.
This project has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency under Assistance Agreement CT-901889 to North Carolina
State University The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views
and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does any mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation of use
Printed on recycled paper
&EPA
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC I/94
-------
What is OAQPS TTN?
OAQPS, the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, provides information and technical support
on air pollution control. Its four divisions—Air Quality
Management, Emission Standards, Technical Support,
and Stationary Source Compliance—provide services
to EPA regional offices, state and local agencies,
consultants, industry, and the general public. These
services include clearinghouses, conferences, reports,
manuals, newsletters, support centers, workshops,
classroom training, self-instructional courses, and
TTN.
TTN, Technology Transfer Network, is a network of
electronic bulletin boards developed and operated by
OAQPS. The network provides information and
technology exchange in different areas of air pollution
control, ranging from emission test methods to
regulatory air pollution models. The service is free,
except for the cost of using the phone.
How does it work?
You access the network from your own computer
through the use of a modem and communications
software. Your computer connects with a computer at
EPA through the phone lines. Once you're on the
network, you've got all the tools, technology, and
information in any of the bulletin boards available at
your fingertips. You can find tools to estimate air
pollutant emissions, download computer code for
regulatory air models, read a Title summary of the
1990 Clean Air Act, find a course offered by the Air
Pollution Training Institute, or request technical
support in implementing an air pollution control
program. You can transfer files, communicate with
other users, leave a question for others to answer, or
upload a file for others to use.
Who can use it?
Anyone in the world wanting to exchange information
about air pollution, including personnel in EPA, state
and local agencies, the private sector, and foreign
countries.
What's on the network?
Eighteen bulletin boards are currently available or planned on the network.
EMTIC - Emission Measurement Technical Infor-
mation Center provides access to emission test
methods and testing information for the develop-
ment and enforcement of national, state, and local
emission prevention and control programs.
AMTIC - Ambient Monitoring Technology Infor-
mation Center provides information and all federal
regulations pertaining to ambient monitoring.
Information on monitoring methodology, field and
laboratory studies are also included.
AIRS - Aerometric Information Retrieval System
provides information and documentation on the use
and acquisition of air quality and emissions data
from the AIRS mainframe computer.
BLIS - RACT/BACT/LAER Information Systems is
a compilation of air permits from local, state, and
regional air pollution control agencies.
NATICH - National Air Toxics Information Clear-
inghouse contains information submitted by EPA,
and state and local agencies regarding their air
toxics programs to facilitate the exchange of
information among government agencies.
COMPLI - Stationary Source Compliance provides
stationary source and asbestos compliance policy
and guidance information.
NSR - New Source Review offers guidance and
technical information within the NSR permitting
community.
SCRAM - Support Center for Regulatory Air
Models provides regulatory air quality model
computer code, meteorological data, documenta-
tion, as well'as modeling guidance.
CHIEF - Clearinghouse for Inventories/Emission
Factors contains the latest information on air
emission inventories and emission factors. It
provides access to tools for estimating emissions of
air pollutants and performing air emission invento-
ries for both criteria and toxic pollutants.
CAAA - Clean Air Act Amendments has information
on the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, regulatory
requirements, implementation programs, criteria
pollutants, and technical analyses.
APTI - Air Pollution Training Institute describes
current course offerings on air pollution, including
curriculum, schedules, locations, costs, and
up-to-date changes.
CTC - Control Technology Center offers free engi-
neering assistance, a hotline, and technical guidance
to state and local air pollution control agencies in
implementing air pollution control programs.
USC - User Support Center provides support for users
by offering information on modems, downloading,
communication software and other communications
issues. It also provides a public message area for
users to share information related to the use of the
TTN.
ORIA - Office of Radiation and Indoor Air dissemi-
nates information to state and local governments,
industry, professional groups, and citizens to promote
actions to reduce exposure to harmful levels of
radiation and indoor air pollutants.
USCAN - US/Canada Air Quality Agreement
provides for the exchange of permitting information
between the states bordering the U.S. and Canada.
OMS - Office of Mobile Sources provides information
pertaining to mobile source emissions, including
regulations, test results, models, and guidance.
AIRISC - Air RISC provides technical assistance and
information primarily to state and local air pollution
control agencies in areas of health, risk, and exposure
assessment for toxic and criteria pollutants.
SBAP - Small Business Assistance Program provides
support to state and local small business assistance
programs by serving as a communications network to
share materials as well as new federal rules that have
been developed related to small business issues.
-------
APPENDIX A.
EPA MEMORANDA
-------
-------
APPENDIX A CONTENTS
Subject
White Paper for Streamlined Development of Part 70 Permit
Applications
White Paper Number 2 for Improved Implementation of the Part 70
Operating Permits Program
Definition of Regulated Air Pollutant for Purposes of Title V
CAA Section 112(r) Final Rule on List & Thresholds
Definition of Regulated Pollutant for Particulate Matter for
Purposes of Tide V
Consideration of Fugitive Emissions in Major Source
Determinations
Date
July 10, 1995
March 5, 1996
April 26, 1993
January 26, 1994
October 16, 1995
March 8, 1994
Options for Limiting the Potential to Emit (PTE) of a Stationary
Source Under Section 112 and Title V of the Clean Air Act (Act)
January 25, 1995
-------
-------
July 10, 1995
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: White Paper for Streamlined Development of Part 70
Permit Applications
FROM: Lydia N. Wegman, Deputy Director /s/
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
. Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
Please find attached a White Paper on Part 70 permit
applications. The paper is designed to streamline and simplify
the development of part 70 permit applications. The guidance was
developed to respond to the concerns of industry and permitting
authorities that preparation of initial permit applications was
proving more costly and burdensome than necessary to achieve the
goals of the Title V permit program.
The White Paper provides several streamlining improvements.
Among them, it allows industry to:
Provide emissions descriptions, and not emissions
estimates, for emissions not regulated at the source,
unless such estimates are needed for other purposes such
as calculating permit fees;
Submit checklists, rather than emission descriptions, for
insignificant activities based on size/production rate
and for risk management plans potentially owed under
section 112(r);
Provide citations for applicable requirements, with
qualitative descriptions for each emissions unit, and for
prior new source review (NSR) permits;
-------
Exclude certain trivial and short-term activities from
permit applications;
Provide group treatment for activities subject to certain
generally-applicable requirements;
Certify compliance status without requiring re-
consideration of previous applicability decisions;
Use the Part 70 permit process to identify
environmentally significant terms of NSR permits, which
should be incorporated into the part 70 permit as
federally-enforceable terms; and
Submit tons per year estimates only where meaningful to
do so and not, for example, for section 112(r)-only
pollutants; such estimates should be based on generally-
available information rather than new studies or testing.
There is an immediate need for the implementation of this
guidance. Increasing numbers of sources are becoming subject to
the requirement to file a complete part 70 application as more
State part 70 programs are approved. I strongly encourage you to
work with your States to effect near-term use of the White Paper
guidance to streamline the application process.
I want to thank you and your staff for your support in
developing this guidance and invite your suggestions on what
additional guidance is needed to improve further the initial
implementation of title V. If you should have any questions
regarding the attached guidance, please contact Michael Trutna at
(919) 541-5345 or Jeff Herring at (919) 541-3195.
Attachment
cc: M. Trutna (MD-12)
J. Herring (MD-12)
A. Eckert (2344)
J. Domike (2242A)
A. Schwartz (2344)
-------
WHITE PAPER FOR
STREAMLINED DEVELOPMENT OF PART 70 PERMIT APPLICATIONS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
July 10, 1995'
Contacts: Michael Trutna (919) 541-5345
Jeff Herring (919) 541-3195
-------
-------
EPA WHITE PAPER FOR
STREAMLINED DEVELOPMENT OF PART 70 PERMIT APPLICATIONS
July 10, 1995
I. INTRODUCTION
The EPA is issuing this guidance to enable States to take
immediate steps to reduce the costs of preparing and reviewing
initial part 70 permit applications. A perceived lack of clarity
in these requirements has led to an unintended escalation in
permit application costs. Too often, sources have felt compelled
to make conservative assumptions to assure themselves of
receiving the "application shield" and avoiding enforcement
actions.
Title V of the Clean Air Act (the Act) and its implementing
regulations in part 70 set forth minimum requirements for State
operating permit programs. .In general, this program was not
intended by Congress to be the source of new substantive
requirements. Rather, operating permits required by title V are
meant to accomplish the largely procedural task of identifying
and recording existing substantive requirements applicable to
regulated sources and to assure compliance with these existing
requirements. Accordingly, operating permits and their
accompanying applications should be vehicles for defining
existing compliance obligations rather than for imposing new
requirements or accomplishing other objectives.
There is an immediate need for this guidance. Most States
and those local air pollution control agencies participating in
the program (hereinafter referred to as "States") are expected to
receive approval by the fall of 1995 of their part 70 operating
permit programs to implement title V of the Act. As a result,
most sources are in the process of preparing their initial
applications, a number of sources have already submitted their
initial applications, and a few part 70 permits have already been
issued. As programs start to be implemented, concerns are being
raised by States and sources as to the expectations for complete
permit applications and permit content, the intended scope of the
program, and the respective responsibilities of sources,
permitting authorities, and the Environmental. Protection Agency
(EPA) in making implementation decisions in accomplishing permit
issuance.
The EPA recognizes that the burden for filing a complete
application may vary significantly among States as does the
nature of their applicable requirements, status of source
compliance, air quality conditions, the type of permit fee
schedule, and the size and complexity of their industry.
However, EPA believes that the mentioned problems, if
unaddressed, would threaten implementation of the title V
program, and thus warrant a timely response. The clarifications
contained in this policy statement are made under the current
part 70 regulations and should typically not require State
-------
rulemaking. The EPA strongly urges States to allow sources to
take near term advantage of the flexibility provided by this
paper, particularly during the initial implementation phase of
the program. It is imperative that the provisions and
clarifications of this paper are implemented by States as quickly
as possible. Most States need not wait for EPA approval before
implementing this guidance, however they are encouraged to
consult with the appropriate EPA Regional Office as they adjust
implementation of their programs.
Section II of this paper articulates how part 70 allows
permitting authorities considerable flexibility to make decisions
regarding the completeness of applications and their adequacy to
support initial permit issuance. This guidance makes clear that
the part 70 rules do not impose unreasonable permit application
preparation burdens. In particular, it accomplishes application
streamlining by enabling and encouraging the use of:
Tons per year (tpy) estimates-for emissions units and
pollutant combinations subject to applicable
requirements, and only where meaningful to do so (e.g.,
not for section 112(r)-only pollutants); such estimates
can be based on generally-available information rather
than new studies or testing;
Emissions descriptions, not estimates, for emissions
not regulated at the source (unless needed for permit
fee calculation, for purposes of establishing a permit
shield or a plantwide applicability limit (PAL), or for
resolution of applicable requirement coverage or major
source status);
Checklists rather than emission descriptions for
insignificant activities based on size/production rate
and risk management plans potentially owed under
section 112(r);
Exclusions for certain trivial and short-term
activities from permit applications (see Attachment A);
Group treatment for activities subject to certain
generally-applicable requirements;
Part 70 permit process to reconcile which terms of
existing new source review (NSR) permits should be
incorporated into the part 70 permit as federally-
enforceable terms;
Citations for applicable requirements with qualitative
descriptions for each emissions unit, and for prior NSR
permits as they may be revised; and
Certifications of compliance status which do not
require re-evaluation of previous applicability
decisions.
-------
This paper affirms EPA's strong commitment to successful
program implementation. It is the first in a series of policy
statements intended to alleviate known implementation concerns
within the framework of the existing part 70 regulations. At the
same time, the Agency is developing rulemaking which will afford
a new streamlined approach to part 70 permit revisions and
provide other relief not possible under the current rule. The
policies set out in this paper are intended solely as guidance,
do not represent final Agency action, and cannot be relied upon
to create any rights enforceable by any party.
II. STREAMLINED DEVELOPMENT OF COMPLETE Part 70 APPLICATIONS
A. Current Requirements for Complete Applications (§ 70.5)
Within 12 months of the effective date of a part 70 program,
all sources subject to the program must submit complete permit
applications. The State may establish, and many have
established, a phased schedule for application submittals.
Section 70.5 (c) (3) requires a permit application to describe
all emissions of pollutants for which a source is major and all
emissions of regulated air pollutants. It also authorizes the
permitting authority to obtain additional information as needed
to verify which requirements are applicable to the source.
Applications are also sometimes relied upon to evaluate the fee
amount required under the approved permit fee schedule.
Emissions information for these purposes does not always need to
be detailed or precise. Information for applicability purposes
need only be detailed enough to resolve any open questions about
which requirements apply. Information for fee purposes only has
to be consistent with what is required in applications by the
permitting authority to implement its fee schedule. No
information is needed when this activity is done outside the
part 70 permit application process. Finally, in cases where the
applicable requirement will be established or defined in the
part 70 permit (e.g., PAL), the part 70 permit application must
contain additional information as needed to verify emissions
levels and the basis for measuring changes from them.
Section 70.5(c) further requires the application to contain
a compliance plan describing the compliance status of the source
with respect to all applicable requirements. For sources that
will not be in compliance at the time of permit issuance, the
application must contain a narrative description of how the
source will achieve compliance and a detailed schedule of
remedial measures leading to compliance. If the source is in
compliance, the application need only contain a statement that
the source will continue to comply. For applicable requirements
that will take effect during the permit term, the compliance plan
may be a statement that the source will meet them. Each
application must also include a certification of the source's
compliance status with respect to each applicable requirement and
a statement of the methods used for determining compliance.
Finally, the responsible official must also certify that the
-------
application form and the compliance certification are true,
accurate, and complete based on information and belief formed
after reasonable inquiry.
Each part 70 program must contain criteria and streamlined
procedures for determining when permit applications are complete.
Applications for an initial part 70 permit may be considered
complete if they have information sufficient to allow the
permitting authority to begin processing the application. Unless
the permitting authority determines that an application is not
complete within 60 days, it will be considered complete by
default. If the source submits a timely and complete application
the source is shielded against penalties for operating without a
permit until its part 70 permit is issued (i.e., the source is
granted the "application shield").
Even after applications have been initially determined to be
complete, the source must submit any additional information
requested by the permitting authority to determine, or evaluate
compliance with applicable requirements, within the reasonable
timeframe allowed by the permitting authority, to maintain the
effect of the application shield. In addition, until release of
the draft permit, sources have an on-going responsibility to
correct information or submit supplemental information needed to
prepare the permit. The timeframe for updates will depend on the
permitting authority's schedule for performing the technical
review for a given application. The application shield once
granted remains in effect until permit issuance even where the
source augments its original application submittal in response to
requests for more information by the permitting authority.
As mentioned, considerable confusion exists as to what
constitutes a complete application under the requirements of part
70. Due to the significant new penalties for knowing violations
and the extremely visible forum for processing permit
applications, in the absence of clear guidance many sources have
made or are making very conservative assumptions regarding their
obligations. For example, many in the regulated community feel
that a part 70 application can be complete only if it
exhaustively catalogues every past and present emitting activity
with great precision. Others fear that an application can never
be complete since many Act requirements are still evolving,
confusion exists as to which requirements are applicable to the
source (e.g., what constitutes the State Implementation Plan
(SIP)), or no monitoring data exists upon which to base the
initial certification of compliance. Other concerns have been
raised regarding the choice of emissions estimation techniques
and the amount of information needed to support decisions of
applicability or exemption, especially those involving the
appropriate NSR for previous construction activities.
There is also a general apprehension that EPA will second
guess any or all of these judgments during its review period and
thereby impede the permit issuance process. Others are concerned
that even if complete applications could be filed, they soon
-------
would grow obsolete and require updates before a draft permit
could be prepared. In addition, there are concerns that EPA will
issue guidance in the future which would establish extensive new
requirements concerning the content of a complete application.
As a result, worst-case assumptions for various determinations
are being made effecting a level of rigidity and rigor as well as
cost unintended by the current regulations.
This guidance is intended to correct these
misunderstandings. It is intended to give States and sources
direction on how States can reduce these burdens while achieving
the requirements of title V. As previously stated, EPA believes
that these streamlining ideas can and should be implemented under
the current part 70 rule for most States. To the extent State
forms reflect the current confusion, the Agency wishes to clarify
the issues sufficiently for States to revise the portion of their
forms implementing title V to be consistent with this guidance.
B. Content of Part 70 Permit Applications
1. Overview
This section describes the level of information which must
be contained in a part 70 permit application for it to be
considered complete. This guidance clarifies the minimum
requirements under the Federal regulations for acceptable part 70
permit applications. It grants a substantial degree of
discretion to State permitting agencies. The EPA recognizes that
different States may adopt different approaches to these minimum
requirements depending on their local needs and circumstances,
and that others may elect to go beyond those minimum
requirements. However, at least in the initial program phase,
EPA urges States to keep part 70 application requirements to the
minimum needed to identify applicable requirements. In many
instances, a qualitative description of emissions, or sometimes
no description at all, will satisfy this standard.
This section specifically clarifies that there are different
expectations for information from emissions units depending on
whether and how applicable requirements apply. In addition, this
section provides several policy clarifications aimed at lowering
current application burdens associated with addressing
insignificant activities, generic grouping of emissions units and
activities, short-term activities, incorporation of current NSR
permit conditions, section 112(r) requirements, and Research and
Development (R&D) activities.
2. Required Emissions Information And Source Descriptions
Applications should contain information to the extent needed
to determine major source status, to verify the applicability of
part 70 or applicable requirements, to verify compliance with
applicable requirements, and to compute a permit fee (as
necessary). Section 70.5 (c) requires the application to describe
emissions of all regulated air pollutants for each emissions
-------
unit. This would require at least a qualitative description of
all significant5 emissions units, including those not regulated
by applicable requirements.
While part 70 does not require detailed emissions inventory
building, it does require limited emissions-related information
for each pollutant and emissions unit combination which is
regulated at the source. Section 70.5(c)(3)(iii) requires for
such units emissions rate descriptions in tpy and in such terms
as are necessary to establish compliance consistent with the
applicable standard reference test method. The EPA interprets
the tpy estimates to not be required at all where they would
serve no useful purpose, where a quantifiable emissions rate is
not applicable (e.g., section 112(r) requirements or a work
practice standard), or where emissions units are subject to a
generic requirement (see Section 4. Generic Grouping of
Emissions Units and Activities).
On the other hand, more emissions information would
presumptively be required to verify emissions levels and
monitoring approaches where PALs or other plantwide emissions
limits would be established or defined in part 70 permits.
Another situation where additional emissions information might be
needed is where the permitting authority would be granting the
shield relative to a decision of non-applicability where a source
is claiming an exemption based on an emissions level cutoff in a
standard that has been issued for the category to which the
emissions unit potentially belongs. In such cases additional
information to support a determination that a requirement is not
applicable may well be required. In addition, for the minority
of States that use the part 70 application to determine the first
year's permit fee, the application and its description of all
regulated air pollutants for presumptive fee calculation must
also be adequate for that purpose. Finally, additional emissions
information might also be necessary in some cases to resolve a
dispute over whether a particular requirement is applicable, or
whether a source is major for a particular pollutant (additional
information would not be necessary where a source would stipulate
to the applicablity of the requirement and/or its major status).
Wherever emissions estimates are needed (unless the source
independently decides to more accurately estimate emissions), use
of available information should suffice. Any information that is
sufficient to support a reasonable belief as to compliance or the
applicability or non-applicability of requirements will be
acceptable for these purposes. That could include AP-42 emission
factors, emissions factors in other EPA documents, or reasonable
5The term "significant" as used in this policy statement
does not have the meaning as used in § 52.21 (e.g., 15 tpy PM-10,
40 tpy VOC) but rather means that the emissions unit does not
qualify for treatment in the application as an insignificant
emissions unit.
-------
engineering projections, as well as test data (see Section C.
Quality of Required Information).
Any required tpy estimates are not to be included as
federally-enforceable part 70 permit terms, unless otherwise
required by an applicable requirement or requested by the source
to avoid one. In addition, where tpy descriptions are needed,
EPA does not believe that part 70 requires multiple forms of
emissions estimates (i.e., actual allowable, and potential
emissions). Also, where an emissions estimate is needed for
part 70 purposes but is otherwise available (e.g., recent
submittal of emissions inventory), then the permitting authority
can allow the source to cross-reference this information for
part 70 purposes.
Even if tpy estimates are not necessary, part 70
applications must describe all significant emissions units,
including any which are not subject to any applicable requirement
at any given emissions unit. Such unregulated emissions can
include hazardous air pollutants (HAP) listed under section
112(b) of the Act and criteria pollutants that are unregulated
for a particular emissions unit. A general description of
emissions (i.e., simple identification of the significant
pollutant or family of pollutants believed to be emitted by the
emissions unit) should suffice. For part 70 purposes, the
descriptions of emissions units themselves also can be quite
general (i.e., descriptions need not contain information such as
UTM coordinates or model and serial numbers for equipment, unless
such information is needed to determine the applicability of, or
to implement, an applicable requirement). Negative declarations
are not required for pollutants that are not emitted by the
emissions unit.
Some examples may help to illustrate where only source
descriptions of regulated and unregulated emissions are necessary
for title V purposes:
An application for a de-greaser subject to a
requirement to have a certain type of lid could
describe the relevant applicable requirement and simply
identify that it emits volatile organic compounds (VOC)
and falls within the scope of the regulation.
Quantification of the VOC emissions would not be
necessary since the level of emissions is not relevant
to the standard.
An application for a storage tank subject to a
requirement to have a certain type of seal, in addition
to describing this requirement, would only need to
generally identify the types of pollutants emitted,
such as VOC and HAP generally.
An application for a boiler that is grandfathered under
the SIP could just identify that PM, S02, NOx, VOC,
-------
lead, and HAP are emitted and that no applicable
requirement is relevant.
3. Insignificant Activities
Section 70.5(c) allows the Administrator to approve as part
of a State program a list of insignificant activities which need
not be included in permit applications. For activities on the
list, applicants may exclude from part 70 permit applications
information that is not needed to determine (1) which applicable
requirements apply, (2) whether the source is in compliance with
applicable requirements, or (3) whether the source is major. If
insignificant activities are excluded because they fall below a
certain size or production rate, the application must describe
any such activities at the source which are included on the list.
Even for such insignificant activities, the process for listing
them in the application can be fairly simple. The permitting
authority could allow the source merely to list in the
application the kinds of insignificant activities that are
present at the source or check them off from a list of
insignificant activities approved in the program.
In addition to the insignificant activity provisions of
§ 70.5(c), there is flexibility inherent in § 70.5 to tailor the
level of information required in the application to be
commensurate with the need to determine applicable requirements.
The EPA believes this inherent flexibility encompasses the idea
that certain activities are clearly trivial (i.e., emissions
units and activities without specific applicable requirements and
with extremely small emissions) and can be omitted from the
application even if they are not included on a list of
insignificant activities approved in a State's part 70 program
pursuant to § 70.5 (c). Attachment A lists examples of activities
which EPA believes should normally qualify as trivial in this
sense. This list is intended only as a starting point for States
to consider. The determination of whether any particular item
should be on the State's trivial list may depend on State-
specific factors (e.g., whether the activity is subject to the
requirements of the SIP). Permitting authorities can also allow,
on a case-by-case basis without EPA approval, exemptions similar
to those activities identified in Attachment A. Additional
exemptions, to the extent that the activities they cover are not
clearly trivial, still need to be approved by EPA before being
added to State lists of insignificant activities.
4. Generic Grouping of Emissions Units and Activities
Questions have arisen regarding whether emissions units and
activities may be treated generically in the application and
permit for certain broadly applicable requirements often found in
the SIP. Examples of such requirements brought to EPA's
attention include requirements that apply identically to all
emissions units at a facility (e.g., source-wide opacity limits),
general housekeeping requirements, and requirements that apply
identical emissions limits to small units (e.g., process weight
-------
requirements). These requirements are sometimes referred to as
"generic," because they apply and are enforced in the same manner
for all subject units or activities.
These requirements can normally be adequately addressed in
the permit application with minimal or no reference to any
specific emissions unit or activity, provided that the scope of
the requirement and the manner of its enforcement are clear.
Even where such generic requirements attach to individual small
emissions units or activities, requiring a unit-by-unit or
activity-by-activity description of numerous units or activities
would generally impose a paperwork burden that would not be
compensated by any gain in the practical enforceability of such
relatively simple requirements. Therefore, provided the
applicant documents the applicability of these requirements and
describes the compliance status as required by § 70.5 (c), the
individual emissions units or activities may be excluded from the
application, provided no other requirement applies which would
mandate a different result. Similarly, the part 70 permit which
must assure compliance with the generic applicable requirement
would be written without specificity to applicable emissions
units or activities.
In EPA's view, the validity of this approach stems from the
nature of these applicable requirements. Accordingly, EPA
believes application of this principle for grouping subject
activities together generically should not depend on whether
those activities qualify as trivial or insignificant. Where the
applicable requirement is amenable to this approach, that is,
where (1) the class of activities or emissions units subject to
the requirement can be unambiguously defined in a generic manner
and where (2) effective enforceability of that requirement does
not require a specific listing of subject units or activities,
permitting authorities may follow this approach regardless of
whether subject activities have been listed as trivial or
insignificant.
A lengthy list of the types of requirements suitable for
this treatment is not possible here because, among other reasons,
the examples of which EPA is aware are SIP requirements, and so
vary from State to State. Permitting authorities are in the best
position to decide which SIP requirements can be treated in this
generic fashion. However, permitting authorities may wish to
consult with the EPA Regional office in advance to clarify any
uncertainties.
5. Short-term Activities
States can treat many short-term activities (e.g.,
activities occurring infrequently and for a short duration at a
part 70 source) subject to an applicable requirement in the same
fashion as activities subject to a generic requirement (see
previous discussion). Since these activities are not present at
the source during preparation of the permit, the most that can be
expected is generic treatment in the application. For such
-------
10
activities, the application and permit would not include
emissions unit specificity but instead would contain a general
duty to meet all applicable requirements that would apply to any
qualifying short-term activity. Short-term activities which are
not subject to an applicable requirement should be classified as
insignificant activities or would qualify as trivial, and so
would not be included in either the part 70 application or
permit.
For example, a contractor-run sandblasting operation that is
subject to a SIP limit for particulate matter might be operated
on an infrequent but recurring basis might qualify for the
general duty approach. However, where such activities re-occur
with considerable frequency, the permitting authority could
require them to be included in the permit. The source would also
be obligated to revise the permit if operation of any short-term
activity would be in conflict with the permit. If short-term
construction activities occur, the part 70 permit application
would need to address them only if they-are subject to the
State's NSR program or are otherwise in conflict with the
envisioned part 70 permit.
6. Determination of Applicable SIP Requirements
One of the undisputed challenges facing both State and the
regulated community in their efforts to develop complete
applications is the determination of the applicable SIP
requirements for a part 70 source. In some situations, it may be
difficult to identify all the requirements in the SIP which are
applicable to a particular source. Applicants, after
consultation with the permitting authority, should-include in
permit applications the State rules which, to the best of their
knowledge, are in the SIP. A good faith estimate will be enough
to support both a valid compliance certification and a
"completeness" determination. Review by the permitting
authority, EPA, and the public may provide additional insight
into whether any other applicable requirements exist. Any
additions should not affect the validity of the original permit
application and its eligibility for the application shield or of
the accompanying compliance certification. However, the source
would have to update its certification to account for any
subsequently identified SIP requirements.
At least one State has developed a checklist of its air
rules and required the applicant to check off which ones apply
and select appropriate codes for rationalizing which ones do not
apply. This type of approach should aid the source in providing
in the part 70 application its understanding of what applicable
requirements apply. Sources in such a State may rely on the
checklist. The EPA has also provided a contractor to document
the approved SIP for each State. Where an EPA compilation
exists, sources may rely on it as well. This process is well
underway for most States and permitting authorities and, in many
cases, EPA Regional Offices can provide the rule citation of the
State rules that have been approved as part of the SIP.
-------
11
Where a State has adopted a rule that is pending approval by
EPA into the SIP, sources (if advised by the permitting
authority) could in their applications note that the
corresponding State-only requirements will become federally
enforceable upon SIP approval. The permitting authority during
review of the application would be responsible for determining if
the SIP had been approved. If so, then the permitting authority
would incorporate the requirements into the federally-enforceable
portion of the permit. If the requirements had not been approved
into the SIP, the permitting authority could incorporate the
pending requirements into the State-only enforceable portion of
the permit and note that the requirements would become federally
enforceable upon SIP approval. The federally-enforceable portion
of the permit would include the existing SIP requirements and
condition them to expire upon EPA approval of the SIP revision.
Once the SIP revision is approved, the pending permit terms would
become federally-enforceable and the permit terms based on the
superseded SIP rule would become void.
7. Incorporation of Prior NSR Permit Terms and Conditions
This paper provides guidance to States and sources in
devising a means to revise NSR permit terms as appropriate
(including classification as a State-only enforceable term) in
conjunction with the part 70 permit issuance process. As used
here, "new source review" refers to all forms of preconstruction
permitting under programs approved into the SIP, including minor
and major NSR (e.g., prevention of significant deterioration).
Section 70.2 defines any term or condition of a NSR permit issued
under a Federal or SIP-approved NSR program as being an
applicable requirement. The Agency has concluded, however, that
only environmentally significant terms need to be included in
part 70 permits. The EPA recognizes that NSR permits contain
terms that are obsolete, extraneous, environmentally
insignificant, or otherwise not required as part of the SIP or a
federally-enforceable NSR program. Such terms, as subsequently
explained, need not be incorporated into the part 70 permit to
fulfill the purposes of the NSR and title V programs required
under the Act.
Minor NSR, in particular, is a program which the State has
discretion to mold as necessary to be consistent with the goals
of the SIP. Therefore, the permitting authority has very broad
discretion in determining the terms of minor NSR. This
discretion also exists to a much lesser extent in crafting major
NSR permits, since the Act and EPA regulations contain several
express requirements for review of major subject sources. Many
NSR permit terms written in the past for both minor and major
NSR, however, were understandably not written with a view toward
careful segregation of terms implementing the Act from State-only
requirements.
The EPA believes that the part 70 permit issuance process,
involving as it does review by the permitting authority, public,
and EPA, presents an excellent opportunity for the permitting
-------
12
authority to make appropriate revisions to a NSR permit^
contemporaneously with the issuance of the part 70 permit. The
public participation procedures for issuance of a part 70 permit
satisfy any procedural requirements of Federal law associated
with any NSR permit revision. This parallel processing approach
is also an excellent opportunity to minimize the administrative
burden associated with such an exercise. By conducting a
simultaneous revision to the NSR permit, the permitting authority
would be revising the "applicable NSR requirement" for purposes
of determining what must be included in the part 70 permit.
There are several factors which bound the available
discretion of the permitting authority in deciding whether an
NSR permit term is necessary and must be incorporated into the
part 70 permit as a federally-enforceable condition. Certainly
all NSR terms must be incorporated which are mandatory under
EPA's governing regulations (e.g., best available control
technology, lowest achievable emissions rate, and other
applicable NSR emission limits), or are-not mandatory under EPA
regulations but are expressly required under the terms of the
State's NSR program (e.g., new source performance standards
(NSPS) and SIP emission limits, reporting and recordkeeping
requirements7), or are voluntarily taken by the source to avoid
an otherwise applicable requirement (e.g., emission limits used
to create a "synthetic minor" source, to "net out" of major NSR,
or to create tradeable offsets or other emission reduction
credits).
On the other hand, other NSR permit terms and conditions may
be patently obsolete and no longer relevant to the operation of ,
the source, such as terms regulating construction activity during
the building or modification of the source, where the
construction is long completed and the statute of limitations on
construction-phase activities has run out. These terms no longer
serve a Federal purpose and need not be included as terms of the
part 70 permit. Likewise, the State will also need to identify
provisions from NSR permits that are not required under Federal
law because they are unrelated to the purposes of the NSR
program. Examples typically include odor limitations, and
limitations on emissions of hazardous air pollutants where such
limitations do not reflect a section 112 standard or a SIP
6In many States, an NSR permit is subsequently converted to
an operating permit leaving the preconstruction permit void. In
other States, there is not a separate construction permit (i.e.,
single permit system). In either case the phrase "NSR permit"
means the current permit in which the NSR applicable requirements
reside.
7This does not preclude the possibility that certain
federally-enforceable limits incorporated into the NSR permit may
qualify for generic treatment in the application and the permit
as described in Section 4. Generic Grouping of Emissions Units
and Activities.
-------
13
criteria pollutant requirement. Where the State retains such
conditions, it would draft the part 70 permit to specify that
they are State-only conditions and incorporate them into the
part 70 permit as such.
New source review permits are also likely to contain other
terms that are not patently obsolete or irrelevant, but that the
source and permitting authority agree are nevertheless
extraneous, out-dated, or otherwise environmentally insignificant
and inappropriate for inclusion in a federally-enforceable
permit. Candidates for this exclusion include: (1) information
incorporated by reference from an application for a
preconstruction permit (to the extent this information is needed
to enforce NSR permit terms it should be converted to terms in
the part 70 permit), or (2) original terms of a preconstruction
permit that has been superseded by other terms related to
operation. The propriety of excluding other types of NSR permit
terms will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
The EPA believes that the above parallel processing approach
should be effective in most situations to incorporate the
federally significant NSR permit terms into the part 70 permit in
an efficient and workable way. However, the Agency recognizes
that sources and permitting authorities may experience serious
burden and timing concerns in accomplishing this process.
Therefore, the Agency recommends the following approach, which
EPA believes is consistent with the current part 70 rule. Under
this approach, sources may in their part 70 permit applications,
propose candidate terms from their current NSR permits which they
reasonably believe should be considered for revision, deletion,
or designation as being enforceable only by the State. Upon
submittal of the application, the source would, as a Federal
matter, only need to certify compliance status for those
remaining NSR terms that it had earmarked for incorporation into
the part 70 permit as federally-enforceable terms. The
permitting authority, as part of the collaborative part 70 permit
issuance process, would review the list of terms recommended in
good faith by the source for deletion, revision, or State-only
status and would ultimately agree or disagree with the source's
proposal. Where the permitting authority decided that terms
beyond those proposed as federally enforceable by the source
should be retained to implement NSR, the source would be required
to re-certify its application with respect to those NSR terms.
Failure to do so within the timeframe required by the permitting
authority would result in an inaccurate certification and the
loss of the application shield.
The resolution of which NSR terms are to be incorporated
should ideally be completed by the time of initial part 70 permit
issuance. However, the resources available for timely issuance
of thousands of part 70 permits may not be sufficient to achieve
final resolution of NSR permit terms by permit issuance. Serious
concerns have been raised by industry that they should not be
subject to premature incorporation of these remaining permit
terms into the part 70 permit. They believe that this could
-------
14
trigger, in many cases, inappropriate part 70 responsibilities
(e.g., monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping) for these terms.
The EPA believes that the current part 70 rule allows
permitting authorities to address these concerns as well. Where
States wish to extend the time in which to decide whether to
revise, delete, or designate as State-only certain terms of
current NSR permits, permitting authorities may stipulate in
initial part 70 permits that any of those NSR terms so listed in
the permit will be reviewed and be deleted, revised, or
incorporated as federally-enforceable terms of the part 70 permit
on or before a specified deadline (not later than the renewal of
the permit). Prior to the deadline, the permitting authority
would delete, revise, or make federally enforceable any terms
that the State determined warranted such treatment. In the
meantime, all other terms would continue to be enforceable under
State law as terms of the NSR permit. The permitting authority
would incorporate any NSR permit terms that were not deleted or
designated as State-only into the federally enforceable portion
of the part 70 permit consistent with its approved part 70 permit
revision procedures.
Finally the permitting authority may be required to add new
terms to the part 70 permit to make any incorporated NSR permit
terms enforceable from a practical standpoint, to reflect
operation rather than construction, or to meet other part 70
requirements regarding the content of permits. Where a
permitting authority has already converted the NSR permit into an
existing State operating permit before incorporation into the
part 70 permit, the terms of the current permit to operate will
presumptively define how NSR permit terms should be incorporated
into part 70 permits.
8. Section 112(r) Requirements
For sources otherwise required to obtain a part 70 permit,
complete applications merely need to acknowledge (where
appropriate) that the on-site storage and processing of section
112(r) chemicals may require the source to submit a section
112(r) risk management plan (RMP) when that requirement becomes
applicable. This acknowledgment should be based on the "List of
Regulated Substances and Their Thresholds" rule [59 FR 4478
(January 14, 1994)] . Sources are not required to quantify
emissions of these substances (unless they are also pollutants
listed under section 112(b), and such quantification is needed
for fee collection purposes). To resolve issues of
applicability, permitting authorities may ask for additional
information from certain sources regarding materials stored and
transferred and the amounts of chemicals used in certain
processes if the source does not indicate its potential
applicability with respect to the section 112(r) requirement to
file an RMP.
-------
15
9. Research and Development Activities
The EPA expects that R&D activities will generally be exempt
from part 70 and not be involved in the part 70 application
process since they are typically independent, non-major sources.
The July 1992 part 70 preamble provided general guidance
explaining that R&D activities could often be regarded as
separate "sources" from any operation with which it were co-
located (57 FR 32264 and 32269) . The Agency is clarifying and
confirming their substantial flexibility under the ongoing
rulemaking action to revise part 70.
Some R&D activities can still be subject to part 70 because
they are either individually major or a support facility making
significant contributions to the product of a collocated major
manufacturing facility. In addition, laboratory activities which
involve environmental and quality assurance/quality control
sample analysis, as well as R&D, present similar permitting
problems. Such activities should be eligible for classification
as an insignificant activity if there are no applicable SIP
requirements. Where applicable SIP requirements do apply, they
typically consist of "work practice" (e.g., good laboratory
practice) requirements. In this situation, permit applications
would need to contain only statements acknowledging the
applicability of, and certifying compliance with, these work
practice requirements. There is no need for an extensive
inventory of chemicals and activities or a detailed description
of emissions from the R&D or laboratory activity. Similarly,
there would be no need to monitor emissions as .a part 70 permit
responsibility.
10. Applications from Non-major Sources
Applications for non-major sources subject to part 70 can be
less comprehensive than those for major sources. (Note that
virtually all States have deferred the applicability of these
sources as provided by part 70.) While permits for major sources
must include all applicable requirements for all emissions units
at the source, § 70.3(c)(2) stipulates that permits for non-major
sources have to address only the requirements applicable to
emissions units that cause the source to be subject to part 70
(e.g., requirements of sections 111 or 112 of the Act applicable
to non-major sources). Other emissions units at non-major
sources that do not trigger part 70 applicability, even if they
are subject to applicable requirements, do not have to be
included in the permit. Since permits for non-major sources do
not have to include applicable requirements for emissions units
that do not cause the source to be subject to part 70, no
information on those units is needed in the permit application.
11. Supporting Information
The great majority of the detailed background information
relied upon by the source to prepare the application need not be
included in the application for it to be found complete. Even
-------
16
though certain emissions-related calculations [see
§ 70.5(c)(3)(viii)] are required, the application size can still
be significantly reduced if the permitting authority allows the
source to submit examples of calculations performed that
illustrate the methodology used. Cost savings can be realized,
even though the calculations are still performed, in that the
efforts to exhaustively record them in the application can be
omitted.
The permitting authority can request additional, more
detailed information needed to justify any questionable
information or statement contained in the initial application or
to write a comprehensive part 70 draft permit. Applications for
permits which will establish a requirement uniquely found in the
part 70 permit (such as an alternative reasonably available
control technology (RACT) limit) would require more supporting
information, including any required demonstration.
C. Quality of Required Information
The quality of emissions estimates where they are needed in
the part 70 permit application depends on the reasonable
availability of the necessary information and on the extent to
which they are relied upon by the permitting authority to resolve
disputed questions of major source status, applicability of
requirements, and/or compliance with applicable requirements. In
general, where estimates of emissions are necessary, reasonably-
available information may be used.
Generally, the emissions factors contained in EPA's
publication AP-42 and other EPA documents may be used to make any
necessary calculation of emissions. When an acceptable range of
values is defined for a general type of source situation,
permitting authorities have considerable discretion to define the
appropriate emissions factor value within that range. States are
most often better able to make such decisions given their closer
proximity to the particular source and its operation.
For purposes of certifying the truth and accuracy of the
application, part 70 requires that emissions estimates be
expressed in terms consistent with the applicable requirement.
This does not mean that only test data is acceptable. Rather,
the source may rely on any data using the same units and
averaging times as in the test method. New testing is not
required and emission factors are presumed to be acceptable for
emissions calculations, but more accurate data are preferred if
they are readily available. Emissions factors provided by
permitting authorities are also allowed where EPA emission
factors are missing or State or industry values provide greater
accuracy. The applicant may also use other estimation methods
(materials balance, source test, or continuous emissions
monitoring (CEM) data) when emission estimates produced through
the use of emission factors are not appropriate.
-------
17
In disputed cases, the source may propose the least costly
alternative estimation method as long as it will produce
acceptable data. Owners and operators may propose use of
emissions estimation methods of their choosing to the permitting
authority when the resulting data is more accurate than that
obtained through the use of emissions factors. Sources are
encouraged to contact the permitting authority to discuss the
appropriate estimation techniques for a particular circumstance.
Emissions estimates when they are necessary for HAPs often
become less precise below certain thresholds. The need for
quantification or even estimation should therefore decrease the
lower the levels are that are present. For example, VOC
estimates based on manufacturer's safety data sheets may indicate
that trace amounts of certain HAPs may be present. It is
reasonable for the source to report these HAPs as present in
trace amounts and not quantify them further or perform expensive
testing procedures to collect more accurate data, unless the
permitting authority requires otherwise. On the other hand, more
precise estimates might be required to defend a position that a
VOC source was below emissions cutoffs which subject it to a RACT
requirement if the source appeared close to that threshold and it
exact emissions level was in doubt.
D. Phase-In of Details for Completeness Determinations
Permitting authorities have considerable flexibility in
processing the expected huge volume of permit applications so as
to issue initial permits by the required deadline of 3 years
after program approval. The § 70.5 (c) requirement that a permit
application will be complete only if it addresses all the
information required in this section must be interpreted in light
of the July 1992 preamble (which clarifies the § 70.5(c)
requirement for completeness in terms of information needed by
the permitting authority to begin processing of an application).
Accordingly, the permitting authority may balance the need for
information to support timely permit issuance pursuant to the
schedule approved in the program against the workload associated
with managing and updating as necessary the initially submitted
information.
Sources must submit complete applications within 12 months
of the effective date (i.e., 30 days after the Federal Register
date where EPA approves the program) of a State part 70 program
or on whatever schedule for application submittal the State
establishes in its approved program for its sources. Permitting
authorities may also require application submittals prior to
part 70 program approval under State authority, however, a
failure to comply with any application deadline earlier than the
effective date for the program cannot be considered a violation
of the Act.
The current rule allows permitting authorities to implement
a two-step process for application completeness, first
determining an application to be administratively complete, then
-------
18
requiring application updates as needed to support draft permit
preparation. For example, permitting authorities can initially
find an application complete if it defines the applicable
requirements, and major/minor source status; certifies compliance
status with respect to all applicable requirements (subject to
the limitation on this action provided for in Section H.
Compliance Certification Issues); and allows the permitting
authority to determine the approved permit issuance schedule.
The application must also include a certification as to its
truth, accuracy, and completeness. In any event, permitting
authorities must award the application shield if the source
submits a timely application which meets the criteria for
completeness in § 70.5(c).
Under this approach, if the source has supplied at least
initial information in all the areas required by the permit
application form and has certified it appropriately, the
permitting authority generally has flexibility to judge the
application to be complete enough to begin processing.
Accordingly, there should normally be no need for an applicant to
submit an application many days in advance in order to build in
extra time for an iterative process before the relevant submittal
deadline. Sources scheduled for permitting during the first year
of the transition schedule must submit any additional information
as needed to meet fully the requirements of § 70.5(c) for
completeness on a more immediate schedule so that their permit
can be issued within that first year.
E. Updates to Initially Complete Applications Due to Change
Sources, to maintain their application's status as complete
and therefore preserve the application shield, must respond to
requests from the permitting authority for additional information
to determine or evaluate compliance with applicable requirements
within the reasonable timeframe established by the permitting
authority. Where more information is needed in the permit
application to continue its processing, permitting authorities
may opt to add the additional information to the application
themselves or require additional submittals from the source.
Sources must promptly certify any additional information
submitted by them and certify or revise any relevant information
furnished by the permitting authority.
1. Changing Emissions Information
Updates to the initially complete application may be
required if emissions information, such as revised emissions
factors, changes or additional NSR projects are approved after an
application is submitted. The exact response required will
depend in part on whether the change affects a source's
applicable requirements or its compliance status and when it is
discovered. If, after consultation with the permitting
authority, it is determined that the applicability status of the
source is affected by new emissions information (e.g., the change
causes the source to become newly subject to applicable
-------
19
requirements or may affect its ability to comply with a current
NSR permit condition), then the source must promptly submit the
.new information to the permitting authority, identify any new
requirements that apply, and certify any change in the source's
compliance status. The issuance of an NSR permit may also add a
new applicable requirement that would need to be addressed by the
part 70 permit.
If the new information is discovered before the draft permit
has been issued, it should be submitted as an addendum to the
application, and the draft permit should reflect the new
information. The permitting authority and a source can agree on
set intervals at which such updating is required in order to
structure the process and make it more efficient. If new
information is discovered after the draft permit has completed
public review but before the proposed permit has been issued, the
information should still be submitted, and it is the
responsibility of the permitting authority to revise the permit
accordingly.
If new information is discovered after the permit has been
issued, the resulting change could, at the discretion of the
permitting authority, be addressed as a permit revision or as a
reopening. If the change would not allow a source to comply with
its current permit, the source should initiate a permit revision.
If the information does not affect applicability of, or
compliance with, any applicable requirement (e.g., only alters
the tpy emissions estimates of regulated pollutants), the
information need not be submitted until permit renewal. If the
permitting authority requires submittal of new information
earlier, however, then it must be submitted according to
reasonable deadlines established by the permitting authority.
2. Other Changes
Other changes can also occur that would require the source,
even absent a specific request from the permitting authority, to
propose an update to an initially complete application. One
example is where a new regulatory requirement becomes applicable
to the source before the permit is issued.
F. Content Streamlining
1. Cross Referencing
The permitting authority may allow the application to cross-
reference previously issued preconstruction and part 70 permits,
State or local rules and regulations, State laws, Federal rules
and regulations, and other documents that affect the applicable
requirements to which the source is subject, provided the
referenced materials are currently applicable and available to
the public. The accuracy of any description of such cross-
referenced documents is subject to the certification requirements
of part 70. Such documents must be made available as part of the
-------
20
public docket on the permit action, unless they are published
and/or are readily available (e.g., regulations printed in the
Code of Federal Regulations or its State equivalent). In
addition, materials that are available elsewhere within the same
application can be cross referenced to another section of the
application.
In many cases, incorporation of prior information from
previously issued permits would be useful. Examples are where a
source is updating a part 70 permit by referencing the
appropriate terms of a NSR permit or renewing a part 70 permit by
referencing the current permit and certifying that no change in
source operation or in the applicable requirements has occurred.
Even where existing permit conditions are expressed in
terminology other than that used in the part 70 permit, cross-
referencing can still be possible. Such citations, however,
would have to provide sufficient translations of terms to ensure
the same effect.
As discussed previously, the permitting authority may
determine that certain terms and conditions of existing NSR
permits are obsolete, environmentally insignificant, or not
germane with respect to their incorporation into part 70 permits.
Even when a NSR permit contain such terms, citation can still be
used to the extent that the NSR permit provisions appropriate for
part 70 permit incorporation are clearly identified through the
cross-reference. Also, the NSR permit terms not cited for
part 70 incorporation are still in effect as a matter of State
law unless and until expressly deleted by the permitting
authority. Wherever this citation approach is used, the
permitting authority should review all referenced terms to ensure
they meet part 70 requirements for enforceability.
The EPA believes that one reason for the excessive length
and cost of some permit applications is that sources believe they
are required to paraphrase or re-state in their entirety the
provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) or other
repositories of applicable requirements. Citations can be used
to streamline how applicable requirements are described in an
application and will also facilitate compliance by eliminating
the possibility that part 70 permit terms will conflict with
underlying substantive requirements. Indeed, many States have
taken a citation-based approach as a way of streamlining
applications and permits. Thus, a source could cite, rather than
repeat in its application, the often extensive details of a
particular applicable requirement (including current NSR permit
terms), provided that the requirement is readily available and
its manner of application to the source is not subject to
interpretation. The citation must be clear with respect to
limits and other requirements that apply to each subject
emissions unit or activity. For example, a storage tank subject
to subpart Kb of the NSPS would cite that requirement in its
application rather than re-typing the provisions of the CFR.
-------
21
2. Incorporation of Part 70 Applications by Reference into
Permits
The EPA discourages the incorporation of entire applications
by reference into permits. The concern with incorporation of the
application by reference into the permit on a wholesale basis is
the confusion created as to the requirements that apply to the
source and the unnecessary limits to operational flexibility that
such an incorporation might cause.
If States do incorporate part 70 applications by reference
in their entirety into part 70 permits, EPA will consider
information in the application to be federally enforceable only
to the extent it is needed to make other necessary terms and
conditions enforceable from a practical standpoint. Moreover,
EPA does not interpret part 70 to require permit revisions for
changes in the other aspects of the application.
3. Changing Application Forms
The EPA urges States to re-examine their permit application
forms in light of their experience to date and the contents of
this guidance. Although the revision of an application form
requires a program revision when it impacts any portion of the
form which was relied upon by EPA in approving the part 70
program for the State, such a revision can, in most cases, be
accomplished through an exchange of letters with the appropriate
EPA Regional Office. Changes made to implement this guidance
can be effected immediately with implementing documents sent to
the appropriate EPA Regional Office. Similarly, a State could
notify the Regional Office in writing that the State intends to
make completeness determinations based on completion of parts of
the existing forms to avoid costly changes in computerized form
systems that have already been developed. This is another way
that a State can act quickly to streamline application
requirements while minimizing its own administrative burdens.
G. Responsible Official
Part 70 provides that a "responsible official" must perform
certain important functions. In general, responsible officials
must certify the truth, accuracy, and completeness of all
applications, forms, reports, and compliance certifications
required to be submitted by the operating permits program
[§ 70.5(d)]. As an example, a responsible official must certify
the truth, accuracy, and completeness of all information
submitted as part of a permit application [§ 70.5(a)(2)] and that
the source is in compliance "with all applicable requirements"
under the Act [§ 70.5(c) (9) (i)]. In addition, part 70 requires
responsible officials to certify monitoring reports, which must
be submitted every 6 months, and "prompt" reports of any
deviations from permit requirements whenever they occur.
The definition of responsible official in § 70.2 identifies
specific categories of officials that have the requisite
-------
22
authority to carry out the duties associated with that role. The
definition provides in part that the following corporate
officials may be a responsible official:
... a president, secretary, treasurer, or vice president
or any other person who performs similar policy or decision-
making functions for the corporation, or a duly authorized
representative of such person if the representative is
responsible for the overall operation of one or more
manufacturing, production, or operating facilities applying
for or subject to a permit .... [emphasis added]
Similarly, for public agencies, the definition indicates the
following persons may be responsible officials:
... a principal executive officer or ranking elected
official. For purposes of this part, a principal executive
officer of a Federal agency includes the chief executive
officer having responsibility for the overall operations of
a principal geographic unit of the agency .... [emphasis
added]
Concerns have been raised over the apparent narrowness of
the current definition of responsible official. In the August
1994 Federal Register notice, EPA responded to those concerns
related to acid rain by proposing a revision to the definition of
responsible official to allow a person other than the designated
representative to be the responsible official for activities not
related to acid rain control at affected sources [59 FR 44527].
To respond to further concerns over the definition of
responsible official as it applies to partnerships formed by
corporations, or partnerships, or a combination of both, EPA
confirms that the same categories of officials who can act as
responsible officials for corporations can also act in that
capacity for partnerships where they carry out responsibilities
substantially similar to those in the same categories in
corporations. Partnerships that are essentially unions of
corporations and/or partnerships will normally have the same
management needs as corporations and so will establish a
management structure with categories of officials similar to
those of most corporations. In these partnerships, the persons
with the knowledge and authority to assure regulatory compliance
are the officials of the partnership.
Interpreting the definition of responsible official as
limiting the class of persons in partnerships that may be
responsible officials to general partners would frustrate the
intent of the definition because it would in many instances
actually result in designating a person that is not in a position
to adequately fulfill the role of a responsible official. For
this reason, EPA believes it is reasonable for permitting
authorities, in the case of partnerships composed of corporations
and/or partnerships, to allow for the same flexibility in
-------
23
designating a responsible official as would be the case for
corporations.
H. Compliance Certification Issues
To make the required compliance certification to accompany
the initial part 70 permit applications, sources are required to
review current major and minor NSR permits and other permits
containing Federal requirements, SIP's and other documents, and
other Federal requirements in order to determine applicable
requirements for emission units. The EPA and/or the State
permitting authority may request additional information
concerning a source's emissions as part of the part 70
application process.
Companies are not federally required to reconsider previous
applicability determinations as part of their inquiry in
preparing part 70 permit applications. However, EPA expects
companies to rectify past noncompliance as it is discovered.
Companies remain subject to enforcement actions for any past
noncompliance with requirements to obtain a permit or meet air
pollution control obligations. In addition, the part 70 permit
shield is not available for noncompliance with applicable
requirements that occurred prior to or continues after submission
of the application.
-------
-------
ATTACHMENT A
LIST OF ACTIVITIES THAT MAY BE TREATED AS "TRIVIAL"
The following types of activities and emissions units may be
presumptively omitted from part 70 permit applications. Certain
of these listed activities include qualifying statements intended
to exclude many similar activities.
Combustion emissions from propulsion of mobile sources,
except for vessel emissions from Outer Continental Shelf
sources.
Air-conditioning units used for human comfort that do not
have applicable requirements under title VI of the Act.
Ventilating units used for human comfort that do not exhaust
air pollutants into the ambient air from any
manufacturing/industrial or commercial process.
Non-commercial food preparation.
Consumer use of office equipment and products, not including
printers or businesses primarily involved in photographic
reproduction.
Janitorial services and consumer use of janitorial products.
Internal combustion engines used for landscaping purposes.
Laundry activities, except for dry-cleaning and steam
boilers.
Bathroom/toilet vent emissions.
Emergency (backup) electrical generators at residential
locations.
Tobacco smoking rooms and areas.
Blacksmith forges.
Plant maintenance and upkeep activities (e.g., grounds-
keeping, general repairs, cleaning, painting, welding,
plumbing, re-tarring roofs, installing insulation, and
paving parking lots) provided these activities are not
conducted as part of a manufacturing process, are not
related to the source's primary business activity, and not
otherwise triggering a permit modification.1
^-Cleaning and painting activities qualify if they are not
subject to VOC or HAP control requirements. Asphalt batch plant
owners/operators must still get a permit if otherwise required.
-------
Repair or maintenance shop activities not related to the
source's primary business activity, not including emissions
from surface coating or de-greasing (solvent metal cleaning)
activities, and not otherwise triggering a permit
modification.
Portable electrical generators that can be moved by hand
from one location to another2.
Hand-held equipment for buffing, polishing, cutting,
drilling, sawing, grinding, turning or machining wood, metal
or plastic.
Brazing, soldering and welding equipment, and cutting
torches related to manufacturing and construction activities
that do not result in emission of HAP metals.
Air compressors and pneumatically operated equipment,
including hand tools.
Batteries and battery charging stations, except at battery
manufacturing plants.
Storage tanks, vessels, and containers holding or storing
liquid substances that will not emit any VOC or HAP.4
Storage tanks, reservoirs, and pumping and handling
equipment of any size containing soaps, vegetable oil,
grease, animal fat, and nonvolatile aqueous salt solutions,
provided appropriate lids and covers are utilized.
Equipment used to mix and package, soaps, vegetable oil,
grease, animal fat, and nonvolatile aqueous salt solutions,
provided appropriate lids and covers are utilized.
2"Moved by hand" means that it can be moved without the
assistance of any motorized or non-motorized vehicle, conveyance,
or device.
3Brazing, soldering and welding equipment, and cutting
torches related to manufacturing and construction activities that
emit HAP metals are more appropriate for treatment as
insignificant activities based on size or production level
thresholds. Brazing, soldering, welding and cutting torches
directly related to plant maintenance and upkeep and repair or
maintenance shop activities that emit HAP metals are treated as
trivial and listed separately in this appendix.
Exemptions for storage tanks containing petroleum liquids
or other volatile organic liquids should be based on size limits
such as storage tank capacity and vapor pressure of liquids
stored and are not appropriate for this list.
-------
Drop hammers or hydraulic presses for forging or
metalworking.
Equipment used exclusively to slaughter animals, but not
including other equipment at slaughterhouses, such as
rendering cookers, boilers, heating plants, incinerators,
and electrical power generating equipment.
Vents from continuous emissions monitors and other
analyzers.
Natural gas pressure regulator vents, excluding venting at
oil and gas production facilities.
Hand-held applicator equipment for hot melt adhesives with
no VOC in the adhesive formulation.
Equipment used for surface coating, painting, dipping or
spraying operations, except those that will emit VOC or HAP.
C02 lasers, used only on metals and other materials which do
not emit HAP in the process.
Consumer use of paper trimmers/binders.
Electric or steam-heated drying ovens and autoclaves, but
not the emissions from the articles or substances being
processed in the ovens or autoclaves or the boilers
delivering the steam.
Salt baths using nonvolatile salts that do not result in
emissions of any regulated air pollutants.
Laser trimmers using dust collection to prevent fugitive
emissions.
Bench-scale laboratory equipment used for physical or
chemical analysis, but not lab fume hoods or vents.
Routine calibration and maintenance of laboratory equipment
or other analytical instruments.
Equipment used for quality control/assurance or inspection
purposes, including sampling equipment used to withdraw
materials for analysis.
Hydraulic and hydrostatic testing equipment.
Environmental chambers not using hazardous air pollutant
(HAP) gasses.
5Many lab fume hoods or vents might qualify for treatment as
insignificant (depending on the applicable SIP) or be grouped
together for purposes of description.
-------
Shock chambers.
Humidity chambers.
Solar simulators.
Fugitive emission related to movement of passenger vehicles,
provided the emissions are not counted for applicability
purposes and any required fugitive dust control plan or its
equivalent is submitted.
Process water filtration systems and demineralizes.
Demineralized water tanks and demineralizer vents.
Boiler water treatment operations, not including cooling
towers.
Oxygen scavenging (de-aeration) of water.
Ozone generators.
Fire suppression systems.
Emergency road flares.
Steam vents and safety relief valves.
Steam leaks.
Steam cleaning operations.
Steam sterilizers.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. NC 27711
5fi96
OFFICE OF
AIR QUALITY PLANNING
AND STANDARDS
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
White Paper Number 2 for Improved Implementation of the
Part 70 Operating Permits Program
Lydia N. Wegman, Deputy Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-^10)
Director, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Region I
Director, Environmental Planning and Protection
Division, Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, Region IV
Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region V
Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division,
Region VI
Director, Air, RCRA and TSCA Division, Region VII
Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Pollution
Prevention, State and Tribal Assistance, Region VIII
Director, Air and Toxics Division, Region IX
Director, Office of Air, Region X
Please find attached White Paper Number 2 for improved
implementation of the part 70 operating permits programs. This
guidance is intended to enable State and local agencies to take
further steps to reduce the complexity and preparation costs of
part 70 permit applications and of the part 70 permits
themselves. It is intended to supplement, not obviate, the
guidance provided in EPA's "White Paper for Streamlined
Development of Part 70 Permit Applications" (July 10, 1995).
This guidance is consistent with, and furthers the goals of, the
presidential initiatives to streamline and reinvent government.
The attached guidance is divided into five sections as
follows:
II. A. Streamlining Multiple Applicable Requirements On The
Same Emissions Unit(s).
II..B. Development Of Applications And Permits For Outdated
SIP Requirements.
-------
II. C. Treatment Of Insignificant Emissions Units.
II. D. Use Of Major Source And Applicable Requirement
Stipulation.
II. E. Referencing Of Existing Information In Part 70
Permit Applications And Permits.
Streamlining will lead to substantial reductions in
permitting burdens and improved part 70 implementation by
allowing for the first time multiple applicable emissions limits
and work practices expressed in different forms and averaging
times to be reduced to a single set of requirements (which can be
an alternative to all those requirements being subsumed). It
will also allow various monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements that are not critical to assuring compliance with
the streamlined (most stringent) limit to be subsumed in the
permit. Any such streamlining must provide that compliance with
the streamlined limit would assure compliance with all applicable
requirements. In addition, substantial reductions in burden are
expected to result from the reduced confusion and cost where
locally adopted rules differ from the EPA-approved State
implementation plan, the streamlined treatment of insignificant
emissions units, the use of stipulations by sources as to which
regulations apply, and the cross referencing rather than
repetition of certain existing information.
There is an immediate need for the implementation of this
guidance. A large number of sources have filed complete part 70
applications, and increasing numbers of these submittals are
being processed for permit issuance. I strongly encourage you to
work with your States to effect near-term use of this guidance.
Substantial contributions to this White Paper have come from
the California Title V Implementation Working Group_. I want to
thank you and your staff for your support and Region IX in
particular for their leadership and considerable efforts in
developing and completing this paper. I invite your suggestions
on what additional guidance is needed to improve further the
initial implementation of title V. If you should have any
questions regarding the attached guidance, please contact Michael
Trutna at (919) 541-5345, Ginger Vagenas of Region IX at (415)
744-1252, or Roger Powell at (919) 541-5331.
Attachment
cc: M. Trutna (MD-12)
G. Vagenas (Region IX)
R. Powell (MD-12)
A. Schwartz (2344)
-------
WHITE PAPER NUMBER 2 FOR IMPROVED IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE PART 70 OPERATING PERMITS PROGRAM
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
March 5, 1996
Contacts: Michael A. Trutna (919) 541-5345
Ginger Vagenas (415) 744-1252
Roger Powell (919) 541-5331
-------
-------
WHITE PAPER NUMBER 2 FOR IMPROVED IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE PART 70 OPERATING PERMITS PROGRAM
March 5, 1996
I. OVERVIEW.
This guidance is intended to enable State and local agencies
to take further steps to reduce the complexity and preparation
costs of part 70 permit applications and of the part 70 permits
themselves and to remove unintended barriers and administrative
costs. It is also intended to build on and expand the guidance
provided in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) "White
Paper for Streamlined Development of Part 70 Permit Applications"
(July 10, 1995). White Paper Number 2 supplements, not obviates,
the first White Paper. Both papers should be consulted for
guidance in improving the implementation of title V of the Clean
Air Act (Act) (i.e., part 70 operating permits programs). In
particular, White Paper Number 2 is designed to simplify the
treatment of overlapping regulatory requirements and
insignificant emissions units and to clarify the use of citations
and incorporation by reference in the part 70 permitting process.
This effort is consistent with and furthers the goals of the
Presidential initiatives to streamline and reinvent government.
Substantial contributions to this White Paper have come
from the California Title V Implementation Working Group (Working
Group). The California Air Resources Board and several
California air districts and industries which (together with EPA)
make up the Working Group have decades of experience with
operating permits. These operating permits programs are
generally just one component of air programs that, in many
districts, also include local emissions standards (often with
associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements), monitoring
requirements, inspections, source testing, and new source review
(NSR). The EPA has found the insights and recommendations of the
Working Group extremely useful in integrating these various
requirements using the part 70 permitting process. While much of
the guidance contained herein addresses situations arising in
California, it is available for use nationwide.
This guidance is divided into five sections and two
attachments which are generally summarized as follows (the reader
is, however, referred to the applicable main sections of the
guidance for more detailed information):
Section II. A. Streamlining Multiple Applicable
Requirements On The Same Emissions Unit(s).
The EPA and States have developed different and often
overlapping applicable requirements governing the same
emissions units to serve the purposes of different air
programs. As a result, emissions units at a stationary
-------
source may be subject to several parallel sets of
requirements. This can result in some of the requirements
being redundant and unnecessary as a practical matter, even
though the requirements still legally apply to the source.
In cases where compliance with a single set of requirements
effectively assures compliance with all requirements/
compliance with all elements of each of the overlapping
requirements may be unnecessary and could needlessly consume
resources. For example, a source could be subject to
overlapping standards that result in two or more different
emissions limits for the same pollutant and two or more
source monitoring requirements for instrumentation,
recordkeeping, and reporting.
Today's guidance describes how a source may propose
streamlining to distill or "streamline" multiple overlapping
requirements into one set that will assure compliance with
all requirements. According to the guidance, multiple
emissions limits may be streamlined into one limit if that
limit is at least as stringent as the most stringent limit.
(Limitations that apply to the streamlining of acid rain
requirements are described in the main section of this
guidance.) If no one requirement is unambiguously more
stringent than the others, the applicant may synthesize the
conditions of all the applicable requirements into a single
new permit term that will assure compliance with all
requirements. The streamlined monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements would generally be those
associated with the most stringent emissions limit,
providing they would assure compliance to the same extent as
any subsumed monitoring. Thus, monitoring, recordkeeping,
or reporting to determine compliance with subsumed limits
would not be required where the source implements the
streamlined approach.
It is important to emphasize that while streamlining
may be initiated by either the applicant or the permitting
authority, it can only be implemented where the permit
applicant consents to its use.
Section II. B. Development Of Applications And Permits For
Outdated SIP Requirements.
Historically, long periods of time have been required •
to review and approve (or disapprove) SIP revisions. The
EPA has undertaken a number of reforms to its SIP approval
process and is continuing to make significant progress in
reducing the amount of time required for taking action on
SIP revisions. Despite the progress we have made to date,
there are many local rules now pending EPA review and
approval for inclusion in the SIP. The gap between the
approved SIP and the State rules is of concern because
States and local agencies enforce their current rules (which
-------
are usually more stringent than the approved SIP rules) and
often, as a practical matter/ no longer enforce the
superseded and outdated rules in the SIP. On the other
hand, EPA only recognizes and can only enforce the SIP-
approved rules. This situation can cause confusion and
uncertainty because some sources are effectively subject to
two different versions of the same rules. Part 70's
application, certification, and permit content requirements
highlight this longstanding concern.
The most problematic situation arising from the gap
between the approved SIP and the State rules is where a
technology-forcing rule that has been approved into the SIP
is found by the State to be impossible to meet. Under these
circumstances, the State would generally adopt a relaxation
of this rule and submit it to EPA as a SIP revision. Until
EPA is able to take action on the submitted relaxation,
sources remain subject to a rule that is impossible to meet.
This section of the guidance largely addresses the
problem by authorizing permitting authorities and their
sources to base permit applications on State and local rules
that have been submitted for SIP approval, rather than on
the potentially obsolete approved SIP provisions that they
would replace. Such reliance on pending State and local
rules is proper when the permitting authority has concluded
that the pending rule will probably be approved, or when the
source believes it can show that the pending rule is more
stringent than the rule it would replace. However, if the
pending rule is not more stringent than the rule it would
replace, the permit cannot be issued until the pending rule
is approved.
Section II. C. Treatment Of Insignificant Emissions Units.
This section provides for the streamlined treatment of
generally applicable requirements that apply to
."insignificant" emissions units (lEU's). It is intended to
address current concerns that resources will be
unnecessarily consumed by matters of trivial environmental
importance.
The guidance clarifies that the permitting authority
has broad discretion to tailor the permit application and
permit for small equipment and activities as long as
compliance with Federal requirements is assured. For both
the permit application and the permit, information on lEU's
may be generically grouped and listed without emissions
-estimates, unless emissions estimates are needed for another
purpose such as determining the amount of permit fees that
are calculated using total source emissions. This approach
would utilize standard permit conditions with minimal or no
reference to any specific emissions unit or activity,
-------
provided that the scope of the requirement and its
enforcement are clear.
The EPA also believes that for lEU's/ a responsible
official's initial compliance certification may be based on
available information and the latest cycle of required
information.
The guidance further provides that the permitting
authority can use broad discretion in determining the nature
of any required periodic monitoring. The EPA's policy on
lEU's is based on the belief that these emissions points are
typically associated with inconsequential environmental
impacts.
Section II. D. Use Of Major Source And Applicable
Requirement Stipulation.
There have been concerns expressed that extensive new
emissions data would be needed to verify major source status
or the applicability of Federal requirements. White Paper
Number 2 clarifies that for applicability purposes, a source
familiar to the permitting authority may simply stipulate in
its application that it is major or that Federal
requirements apply as specified in the application. The
paper clarifies that there is no need to prepare and submit
extensive information about the source that "proves" it is
subject to any requirements that it stipulates are
applicable. This does not affect the requirement to provide
information that is otherwise required by part 70.
Section II. E. Referencing Of Existing Information In
Part 70 Permit Applications And Permits.
Concerns have been raised that a source must re-prepare
and resubmit information that is readily available, or that
the permitting authority already has, to complete part 70
permit applications. In addition, similar concerns have
been voiced regarding the large and potentially unnecessary
burden of developing permits which repeat rather than
reference certain types of regulatory requirements that
apply to the source (e.g., monitoring and testing
protocols). The guidance clarifies that, in general, the
permitting authority may allow information to be cited or •
cross-referenced in both permits and applications if the
information is current and readily available to the
permitting agency and to the public. The citations and
references must be clear and unambiguous and be enforceable
from a practical standpoint. After permits specify which
emissions limits apply to identified emissions units, cross-
referencing can be authorized for other requirements (e.g.,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting).
-------
Attachment A provides guidance on using the part 70 permit
process to establish alternative test methods, while Attachment B
provides example SIP language that could be used by both part 70
and non-part 70 sources to establish alternative requirements
without the need for a prior source-specific SIP revision. This
guidance should be particularly useful to those seeking greater
certainty or to establish alternative test methods to those now
approved by EPA, [Note that Sections III. and beyond in
Attachment B are currently in draft form.]
Streamlining will lead to substantial reductions in
permitting burdens by allowing for the first time multiple
applicable emissions limits and work practices expressed in
different forms and averaging times to be reduced to a single set
of requirements. It will also lower current burden levels by
allowing various monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements that are not critical to assuring compliance with
the streamlined (most stringent) limit to be subsumed in the
permit. In addition, substantial reductions in burden are
expected to result from the reduced confusion and cost where
locally adopted rules differ from the EPA-approved SIP, the
streamlined treatment of insignificant emissions units, and the
use of stipulations and the cross-referencing rather than
repetition of certain existing information in part 70
applications and permits.
The EPA believes that the guidance contained herein may be
implemented by permitting authorities and sources without
revisions to part 70 programs, unless a provision is specifically
prohibited by State regulations. In some situations, EPA will be
proceeding in parallel to issue clarifying rules. The EPA
strongly encourages' States to allow sources to take advantage of
the streamlining opportunities provided in this guidance. The
Agency also suggests the permitting authority develop information
about permits issued with successful streamlining and make it
available to other similar sources to help avoid repetitive
costs.
Sources are advised to consult with their permitting
authority to understand how the policies of. this White Paper will
be implemented. In several situations (particularly those where
sources have already filed complete applications), permitting
authorities may choose to propose streamlining options and, if
mutually agreeable, work with the source to support a draft
permit containing a streamlined limit. Where EPA is the
permitting authority pursuant to part 71 regulations, the Agency
will implement both White Papers to the extent possible and
promote similar implementation where EPA delegates responsibility
for the part 71 program to a State.
The policies set out in this paper are intended solely as
guidance, do not represent final Agency action, and cannot be
relied upon to create any rights enforceable by any party.
-------
II. ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE ON STREAMLINED DEVELOPMENT OF PART 70
PERMITS AND APPLICATIONS.
A. Streamlining Multiple Applicable Requirements1 On The Same
Emissions Unit(s).2
1. Issue.
Can multiple redundant or conflicting requirements
(emissions limits, monitoring/ recordkeeping/ reporting
requirements) on the same emissions unit(s) be streamlined into a
single set of understandable and enforceable permit conditions?
May an applicant propose to minimize or consolidate applicable
requirements? May a permitting authority develop such a
proposal? How would a permit application with a streamlining
proposal satisfy compliance certification requirements?
2. Guidance.
A source, at its option/ may propose in its application to
streamline multiple applicable requirements into a single set of
permit terms and conditions3. The overall objective would be to
*Title IV applicable requirements are an exception to this
general rule. As set out in S 72.70(b)/ to the extent that any
requirements of part 72 and part 78 are inconsistent with the
requirements of part 70, part 72 and part 78 will take precedence
and will govern the issuance, denial/ revision, reopening/ renewal/
and appeal of the acid rain portion of an operating permit. The
subsequent descriptions of streamlining therefore apply to
requirements under parts 72 and 78 only to the extent that such
requirements are, at the option of the applicant/ used as
streamlining requirements because they are the most stringent
applicable requirements.
'Emissions unit(s) means any part or activity of a stationary
source that emits or has the potential to emit any regulated air
pollutant (as defined in section 70.2) or any pollutant listed
under section 112(b) of the Act. It is used in this paper to
include specifically a grouping of emissions units at a stationary
source that shares the same applicable requirement and compliance
demonstration method for a given pollutant.
*The EPA recognizes that the described streamlining process
may not be allowed by all State regulations or be warranted or
desired for all applicable requirements. Similarly/ partial
streamlining (i.e./ the streamlining of some/ but not all/
applicable requirements that apply to the same emissions units) may.
be most cost effective where difficult comparisons or correlations
are needed for streamlining the other remaining applicable
requirements. In addition, there is no barrier to more extensive
-------
determine the set of permit terms and conditions that will assure
compliance with all applicable requirements for an emissions
point or group of emissions points so as to eliminate redundant
or conflicting requirements. Otherwise applicable requirements
that are subsumed in the streamlined requirements could then be
identified in a permit shield. The process would be carried out
in conjunction with the submittal and review of a part 70 permit
application, as an addendum to an application, or as an
application for a significant revision to the part 70 permit
(unless EPA in its revisions to part 70 authorizes permitting
authorities to use a less extensive permit revision process).
The EPA plans to revise part 70 to provide that the compliance
certification required with initial application submittals may be
based on the proposed streamlined applicable requirement where
there is sufficient source compliance information on which to
base such a certification.
The permitting authority, at its option, may evaluate
multiple applicable requirements for a source category and
predetermine an acceptable streamlining approach. Such
evaluations should be made readily available to applicants. It
is up to the applicant, however, to request in its application
that such streamlined requirements be contained in the part 70
permit. Where streamlining would be of mutual interest, the
permitting authority and the source could work together during
the permit development stage to establish a basis for a
streamlined limit prior to the issuance of a draft permit. This
cooperative activity must result in a record consistent with this
guidance which supports the draft permit containing the
streamlined requirement. The approach might be particularly
useful where a source has already submitted a complete part 70
permit application and the permitting authority does not want to
require the source to submit a formal amendment to its
application. Any streamlining demonstration must be promptly
submitted to EPA upon its availability and in advance of draft
permit issuance unless EPA has previously agreed with the
permitting authority not to require it (e.g., the proposed
streamlining is of a simple and/or familiar type with no new
concerns).
In addition, general permits could be useful to allow the
transfer of streamlined requirements from the first source to be
covered by them to other similar sources or emissions units. The
information development and review conducted as part of
streamlining for an individual source can be used by the
permitting authority to generate a general permit for similar
sources or portions of sources. If a general permit were used,
EPA and public review beyond that needed to issue the general
permit would not be necessary when sources subsequently applied
for the streamlined permit conditions established under the
streamlining occurring in the future.
7
-------
general permit. Even where a general permit is not issued, the
availability of information obtained from the streamlining of one
source may be useful as a model for future streamlining actions
involving other similar sources.
Streamlined permit terms should be covered by a permit
shield. The permit shield will result in an essential degree of
certainty by providing that when the source complies with the
streamlined requirement, the source will be considered to be in
compliance with all of the applicable requirements subsumed under
the streamlined requirement. Where the program does not now
provide for a permit shield, the permit containing streamlined
requirements should clarify this understanding (See section
II.A.3. discussion). Permitting authorities without provisions
for permit shields are encouraged to add a permit shield
provision at the first opportunity, if they wish to realize fully
the benefits of streamlining.
Sources that opt for the streamlining of applicable
requirements must demonstrate the adequacy of their proposed
streamlined requirements. The following principles should govern
their streamlining demonstrations:
a. The most stringent of multiple applicable emissions
limitations for a specific regulated air pollutant on a
particular emissions unit must be determined taking into
account*'5:
o Emissions limitation formats (emissions limits in
different forms must be converted to a common format
and/or units of measure or a correlation established
among different formats prior to comparisons);
o Effective dates of compliance (to the extent
different);
o Transfer or collection efficiencies (to the extent
Applicable requirements mean those requirements recognized by
EPA, as defined in S 70.2. State and local permitting authorities
may modify, eliminate, or streamline "State-only" requirements
based on existing State or local law and procedures.
'Sources may, in the interest of greater uniformity, opt to
expand the scope of an applicable requirement to more emissions
units so that the same requirements would apply over a larger
section of the plant or its entirety, provided compliance with all
applicable requirements is assured. Though a permit may through
streamlining expand the scope of applicable requirements to include
new emissions units, it may not change the basis on which
compliance is determined (e.g., emissions unit by emissions unit,
if that is the intent of the applicable requirement).
8
-------
relevant);
o Averaging times6; and
o Test methods prescribed in the applicable
regu i rement s7.
Limitations for specific pollutants can be subsumed by
limitations on classes of pollutants providing the applicant can
show that the streamlined limit will regulate the same set of
pollutants to the same extent as the underlying applicable
requirements. For example, a volatile organic compound (VOC)
limitation could effectively subsume an organic hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) limitation for a constituent such as hexane,
provided the VOC limit is at least as stringent as the hexane
limitation. Where a single VOC limit subsumes multiple HAP
limits, the permit must be written to assure that each of the
subsumed limits will not be exceeded. However, a limit for a
single or limited number of compounds cannot be used to subsume a
limit for a broader class (e.g., a hexane limit for a VOC limit)
because this would effectively deregulate any of the class that
are not covered by the more limited group.
b. Work practice requirements must be treated as follows:
o Supporting An Emissions Limit. A work practice
requirement directly supporting an emissions limit
(i.e., applying to the same emissions point(s) covered
the streamlining of requirements with varying averaging
times is viable under this policy, in no event can requirements
which are specifically designed to address a particular health
concern (including those with short term averaging times) be
subsumed into a requirement which is any less protective.
7The predominant case is expected to involve test methods
which have been EPA approved either as part of the SIP or as part
of a Federal section 111 or 112 standard. If a permitting
authority is seeking to base a streamlined limit on an alternative
or new test method relative to the ones already approved by EPA for
the SIP or a section 111, or section 112 standard, some additional
steps are needed to complete the proposed streamlining. As
described in more detail in Attachment A, permitting authorities
may only implement streamlining which involves alternative or new
test methods within the flexibility granted by the SIP and any
delegation of authority from EPA (where section 111/112 standards
are involved). With respect to SIP requirements, the ability for
a permitting authority to authorize use of a different test method
depends on the governing language contained in the SIP, Attachment
B contains example SIP language which provides a mechanism that can
establish an alternative applicable requirement in such cases
without the need for source specific SIP revisions.
-------
by the emissions limit) is considered inseparable from
the emissions limit for the purposes of streamlining
emissions limits. The proposed streamlined emissions
limit must include its directly supporting work
practices, but need not include any work practice
standards that are associated with and directly support
the subsumed limit(s);
o Not Supporting An Emissions Limit. Similar work
practice requirements which apply to the same emissions
or emissions point but which do not directly support an
emissions limit may be streamlined (e.g., different
leak detection and repair (LDAR8) programs). The
streamlined work practice requirement may be composed
of provisions/elements (e.g., frequency of inspection,
recordkeeping) from one or more of the similar work
practice requirements, provided that the resulting
composite work practice requirement has the same base
elements/provisions as the subsumed work practice
requirements (e.g. has a frequency of Inspection or has
recordkeeping if the subsumed work practice
requirements have these elements/provisions).
Multiple work practice requirements which apply to
different emissions or emissions points cannot be
streamlined.
c. Monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements
should not be used to determine the relative stringency of
the applicable requirements to which they are applicable.
d. Where the preceding guidance does not allow sufficient
streamlining or where it is difficult to determine a single
most stringent applicable emissions limit by comparing all
6For LDAR programs, stringency comparisons likely will be
based on the aggregate requirements of each LDAR program (screening
levels, frequency of inspection, repair periods, etc,) and the
resultant overall actual emissions reduction expected from the
affected equipment. In cases where a convincing demonstration
cannot be made based on existing information or the regulations
themselves have not clearly defined the expected emissions
reduction, verifying test data may be required. Alternatively, the
applicant, the permitting authority, and EPA can work together to
devise a method consistent with the principles of EPA's "Protocol
For Equipment Leak Emissions Estimation" (EPA-453/R-95-017,
November 1995) for determining relative stringency. Where a
demonstration of the relative stringency of LDAR programs as
applied to the affected equipment is not feasible, sources may
modify elements of a particular LDAR program to produce a program
that clearly (i.e., without further analysis) assures compliance
with the other applicable LDAR programs.
10
-------
the applicable emissions limits with each other, sources may
perform any or all the following activities to justify
additional or different streamlining:
o Construct an alternative or hybrid emissions limit9
that is at least as stringent as any applicable
requirement;
o Use a previously "State-only" requirement as the
streamlined requirement when it is at least as
stringent as any applicable Federal requirement it
would subsume (this requirement would then become a
federally-enforceable condition in the part 70 permit);
o Use a more accurate and precise test method than the
one applicable (see footnote number 7) to eliminate
doubt in the stringency determination; or
o Conduct detailed correlations to prove the relative
stringency of each applicable requirement.
e. The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements associated with the most stringent emissions
requirement are presumed appropriate for use with the
streamlined emissions limit, unless reliance on that
monitoring would diminish the ability to assure compliance
with the streamlined requirements.10 To evaluate this
presumption, compare whether the monitoring proposed would
assure compliance with the streamlined limit to the same
extent as would the monitoring applicable to each subsumed
limit. If not, and if the monitoring associated with the
subsumed limit is also relevant to and technically feasible
for the streamlined limit, then monitoring associated with a
subsumed limit (or other qualifying monitoring11) would be
*Title V allows for the establishment of -a streamlined
requirement, provided that it assures compliance with all
applicable requirements it subsumes. However, EPA recognizes that
construction of such hybrid or alternative limits can be more
complicated than the situation where the streamlined limit is one
of the applicable emissions limits. Accordingly, sources and
States may need more time to agree on acceptable demonstrations and
may wish to defer such streamlining until after issuance of the
initial part 70 permit.
"Quality assurance requirements pertaining to continuous
monitoring systems should be evaluated using the same approach.
"The applicant may propose alternative monitoring of equal
rigor. Permitting authorities may only implement streamlining
which involves alternative or new monitoring methods within the
flexibility granted by the SIP and any delegation of authority from
11
-------
included in the permit.12 The recordkeeping and reporting
associated with the selected monitoring approach may be
presumed to be appropriate for use with the streamlined
limit13'1*'15.
f. Permitting authorities must include citations to any
subsumed requirements in the permit's specification of the
origin and authority of permit conditions. In addition/ the
part 70 permit must Include any additional terms and
conditions as necessary to assure compliance with the
streamlined requirement. In all instances, the proposed
permit terms and conditions must be enforceable as a
practical matter.
3. Process.
Streamlining may be accomplished through an applicant
EPA (where section 111/112 standards are involved).
"Permitting authorities and sources should presume that
existing monitoring equipment [such as continuous emissions
monitors (CEMs)] required and/or currently employed at the source
should be retained. A permitting authority or applicant would have
the opportunity to demonstrate that retention of such monitoring
equipment is inappropriate, such as when the monitoring equipment
is no longer relevant or is technically infeasible (e.g., the
source has switched to a closed loop process without emissions or
the streamlined limit corresponds to levels too low for a monitor
to measure, such as S02 emissions from a boiler firing pipeline
quality natural gas.)
"Where recordkeeping is the means of determining compliance
(e.g., in the miscellaneous metal parts and products coating rules,
the typical role of monitoring is fulfilled by recordkeeping), the
appropriate recordkeeping would be determined in the same manner
described for monitoring.
"Where a standard includes recordkeeping associated with a
limit in addition to recordkeeping linked to a monitoring device
(e.g., a coating facility that has recordkeeping requirements
pertaining to coating usage, as well as recordkeeping for
monitoring associated with an add-on control), both types of
recordkeeping must be incorporated into the permit.
"The result offers considerable potential to reduce the
different reporting burdens associated with different applicable
requirements well beyond what was previously available (e.g.,
synchronizing the required reporting cycles from different
applicable requirements to coincide with the most stringent one
beginning at the earliest required date). (See also Final General
Provisions, S 63.10(a)(5), March 16, 1994.)
12
-------
proposing to streamline multiple requirements applicable to a
source, the permitting authority developing streamlining options
for sources or source categories that would be subsequently
accepted at the election of permittees, or the applicant working
in agreement with the permitting authority after filing an
initial complete application. The first six of the following
actions wuld be taken by the source or/ as appropriate, by the
permitting authority. The level of effort to complete these
actions will depend on the relative complexity of the
streamlining situation. The permitting authority would then
perform steps seven and eight.
Step One - Provide a side-by-side comparison of all
requirements included in the streamlining proposal that are
currently applicable and effective for the specific
emissions units of a source16. Distinguish between
requirements which are emissions and/or work practice
standards, and monitoring'and compliance demonstration
provisions.
Step Two - Determine the most stringent emissions and/or
performance standard (or any hybrid or alternative limits as
appropriate) consistent with the above streamlining
principles and provide the documentation relied upon to make
this determination. This process should be repeated for
each emissions unit pollutant combination for which the
applicant is proposing a streamlined requirement.
Step Three - Propose one set of permit terms and conditions
(i.e., the streamlined requirements) to include the most
stringent emissions limitations and/or standards,
appropriate monitoring and its associated recordkeeping and
reporting (see section II.A.2.e.), and such other conditions
as are necessary to assure compliance with all applicable
requirements.
16A future applicable requirement (e.g., MACT standard newly
promulgated under section 112 with a compliance date 3 years in the
future) may be determined to be the most stringent applicable
requirement if compliance with it would assure compliance with less
stringent but currently applicable requirements. In such a case.,
the source may propose either a streamlined requirement based on
immediate compliance with the future applicable requirement or it
may opt for a phased approach where the permit would contain two
separate time-sensitive requirements. Under the latter approach,
one streamlined requirement addressing all currently applicable
requirements would be defined to be effective until the future
applicable requirement became effective. The permit would also
contain a second streamlined requirement which also addressed the
future applicable requirement and would become the new streamlined
requirement after expiration of the first streamlined requirement.
13
-------
Step Four - Certify compliance (applicant only) with
applicable requirements. The EPA is planning to revise its
part 70 regulations to provide that a source may certify
compliance with only the proposed streamlined limit. Until
this is accomplished/ EPA recommends that a source
certifying compliance only with the streamlined limit
indicate this in an attachment to the certification, so that
it is clear that the certification is being made with
respect to a set of terms and conditions that the source
believes "assure compliance" with all applicable
requirements. In any event, a source may only certify
compliance with a streamlined limit if there is source
compliance data on which to base such a certification.
(Such data should be available where the streamlined
requirement is itself an applicable requirement and may be
available if the streamlined limit is an alternative limit,
e.g., a previously State-only emissions limitation). If
there is not, then certifications must instead be made
relative to each of the applicable requirements judged to be
less stringent and must be based on data otherwise required
under them to make this point clear.
Step Five - Develop a compliance schedule to implement any
new monitoring/compliance approach relevant to the
streamlined limit if the source is unable to comply with it
upon permit issuance. The recordkeeping, monitoring, and
reporting requirements of the applicable requirements being
subsumed would continue to apply in the permit (as would the
requirement for the source to operate in compliance with
each of its emissions limits) until the new streamlined
compliance approach becomes operative.
Step Six - Indicate in the application submittal that
streamlining of the listed applicable requirements under a
permit shield (where available) is being proposed and
propose the establishment of a permit shield which would
state that compliance with the streamlined limit assures
compliance with the listed applicable requirements. All
emission and/or performance standards not subsumed by the
streamlined requirements must be separately addressed in the
part 70 permit application.
Step Seven - Evaluate the adequacy of the proposal and its
supporting documentation. The EPA recommends that the
permitting authority communicate its findings to the
applicant and provide reasonable opportunity for the
applicant to accept the findings or propose a resolution of
the differences before issuance of a draft permit for public
review. Where the permitting authority -determines that the
streamlining proposal is inadequate, the source, to retain
its application shield, must expeditiously resolve any
problems identified by the permitting authority or update
its prior application based on the individual applicable
14
-------
requirements previously proposed for streamlining.
Step Eight - Note the use of this process in any required
transmittal of a part 70 application, application summary,
or revised application to EPA and include the streamlining
demonstration and supporting documentation in the public
record. When the source is required to provide a copy of
the application (or summary) directly to EPA, it must note
the proposed use of streamlining. A copy of the
streamlining demonstration must be submitted promptly to EPA
along with the required copy of the application or
application summary (where a summary may be submitted to EPA
in lieu of the entire part 70 permit application) unless EPA
has previously agreed with the permitting authority not to.
require it (e.g., the proposed streamlining is of a simple
and/or familiar type with no new concerns).
4. Enforcement.
All terms and conditions of a part 70 permit are enforceable
by EPA and citizens, unless certain terms are designated as being
only State (or locally) enforceable. In addition, a source
violating a streamlined emissions limitation in the part 70
permit may be subject to enforcement action for violation of one
(or more) of the subsumed applicable emissions limits to the
extent that a violation of the subsumed emissions limit(s) is
documented.
Upon receiving a part 70 permit, a source implementing the
streamlined approach would not be subject to an EPA enforcement
action for any failure to meet monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements that are subsumed within the streamlined
requirement and specified under the permit shield. These
requirements would no longer be independently enforceable once
the permit has been issued, provided that the source attempts in
good faith to implement the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements specified in the permit.
If subsequently the permitting authority or EPA determines
that the permit does not assure compliance with applicable
requirements, the permit will be reopened and revised.
5. Discussion.
As sources subject to title V identify all applicable
requirements for inclusion in part 70 permit applications, they
may find that multiple applicable requirements affect the same
pollutant or performance parameter for a particular emissions
unit. Likewise, the requirements of federally-enforceable terms
and conditions in preconstruction or operating permits may
overlap with the requirements of other federally-enforceable
rules and regulations.
15
-------
In these instances/ a source may be in compliance with the
overall emissions limit of each of the applicable requirements/
but be required to comply with a multitude of redundant or
conflicting monitoring, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements.
For example/ a source owner faced with two emissions limits for
the same pollutant at a specific emissions point may be required
to Install separate monitoring instrumentation and submit
separate monitoring reports for each, even though one monitor can
effectively assure compliance with both emissions limits.
Furthermore/ the recordkeeping and reporting associated with the
unnecessary Instrumentation may create an administrative burden
for both the facility and the implementing agency without an
associated gain in compliance assurance. Prior to title V there
has been no federally-enforceable means to resolve this
situation.
The EPA encourages permitting authorities to allow use by
the permit applicant of the part 70 permit Issuance process to
streamline multiple applicable requirements to the extent the
conditions of this policy can be met. In this way, the part 70
process with its procedural safeguards can be used to focus all
concerned parties on providing for compliance with a single set
of permit terms that assure compliance with multiple applicable
requirements instead of maintaining the costs of multiple sets of
controls, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting approaches.
The legal basis for streamlining multiple applicable
requirements relies on section 504(a), which requires that
title V permits contain emissions limits/standards and other
terms as needed to assure compliance with applicable
requirements. This section notably does not require repetition
of all terms and conditions of an applicable requirement when
another applicable requirement or part 70 permit condition (i.e.,
streamlined requirement) could be fashioned to otherwise assure
compliance with that applicable requirement.
Section 504(f) lends additional certainty to permit
streamlining. It specifically provides that the permitting
authority may authorize that compliance with the permit may be
deemed to be compliance with the Act provided that the permit
includes all applicable requirements. Thus, this section allows
the permitting authority to issue a permit containing a shield
which protects a source against a claim that it is violating any
applicable requirements listed in the permit shield as being
subsumed under the streamlined requirement, provided that the
source meets the permit terms and conditions that Implement the
streamlined requirement.
Part 70 is also receptive to the issuance of streamlined
permits. It contains parallel language to the statute for
emissions limits and for permit shields in SS 70.6(a)(l) and (f).
Although language in S 70.6(a)(3) may appear to restrict
streamlining by requiring that all "applicable" monitoring,
16
-------
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements be placed in the
permit, EPA did not intend for these provisions to preclude
streamlining. Instead, the Agency believes that the provisions
should be consistent with the flexibility for streamlining
provided in section 504(a) of the Act and in S 70.6(a)(l). To
require otherwise would be anomalous and could frustrate
legitimate streamlining efforts. The EPA intends to revise
part 70 to reflect this understanding in a future rulemaking.
Streamlining may be limited in cases where an applicable
requirement defines specific monitoring requirements as the
exclusive means of compliance with an applicable emissions limit.
Some interpret these cases to require that only one set of
monitoring requirements may be used to determine compliance and
that only these requirements may appear in the part 70 permit.
The EPA believes instead that section 504(a) supersedes any need
for such exclusive monitoring, but nonetheless recommends that
States address any potential concerns by adopting certain SIP
language in the future. States that choose to revise their
existing SIP's to contain authorizing language to overcome any
SIP exclusivity problems may use the example language in
Attachment B. The EPA believes that similar flexibility should
be provided to non-part 70 sources as well. To that end,
Attachment B also provides a SIP process (currently in draft
form) which would allow similar flexibility for non-part 70
sources.
With respect to NSR, States can process, in parallel with
the part 70 permit issuance process, a revision to an existing
NSR permit as necessary to resolve any exclusivity concerns
within existing NSR permits (See first White Paper).
Currently the implementing regulations for section 112(1) at
40 CFR part 63, subpart E represent an additional constraint on
the streamlining of applicable requirements in part 70 permits
but only where a State or local agency has accepted a delegation
of authority for a particular maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) standard by virtue of its commitment to replace
the Federal section 112 emissions standard with the State's own
standard or program during the part 70 permit issuance process
and using the procedures established in the Subpart E rule at
S 63.94.. In S 63.94, EPA has specified the criteria for
approving such alternative limits and controls to meet an
otherwise applicable section 112 requirement. These criteria
must be satisfied to ensure that, after a State accepts
delegation under 5 63.94, any change to the Federal rule results
in permit requirements that, .among other things:
o Reflect applicability criteria no less stringent than
those in the otherwise applicable Federal standards or
requirements;
o Require levels of emissions control for each affected
17
-------
source and emissions point no less stringent than those
contained in the Federal standards or requirements;
o Require compliance and enforcement measures for each
affected source and emissions point no less stringent than
those in the Federal standards or requirements;
o Express levels of control and compliance and enforcement
measures in the same form and units of measure as the
Federal standard or requirement for S 63.94 program
substitutions;
o Assure compliance by each affected source no later than
would be required by the Federal standard or requirement.
Thus, when a State or local agency, after receiving S 63.94
delegation, seeks to replace a Federal section 112 emissions
standard with requirements arising from its own air toxics
standard or program (such as a toxics NSR program) during the
part 70 permit issuance process, streamlining must take place by
meeting both the criteria of S 63.94 and, except where
contradictory, the criteria of this guidance. However, because
most States are planning to take straight delegation of Federal
emissions standards through subpart E procedures that do not rely
on the part 70 permit issuance process, the EPA believes that the
subpart E criteria for streamlining applicable requirements will
be necessary only in a minority of instances. In the majority of
cases, where a State takes delegation of a Federal standard
(e.g., through straight delegation), the applicable section 112
requirements could be streamlined by following only the criteria
outlined in section A.2., above. Where there are a large number
of sources in the same category subject to a MACT standard for
which the State has a regulation with equivalent requirements,
EPA recommends that the State explore delegation options under
S 63.93 to best utilize available resources.
It should be noted that the current subpart E rule may be
subject to change as a result of pending litigation". Currently,
EPA intends to revise the rule within the parameters of the
Court's decision to allow greater flexibility for approving State
air toxics standards and programs and to minimize or remove (as
appropriate) any constraint that subpart E might Impose on the
streamlining of applicable requirements in part 70 permits.
Finally, States are strongly encouraged to adopt regulatory
provisions allowing permitting authorities to grant the permit
shield where they cannot now do so. The permit shield is an
effective means to clarify that for.applicable requirements
listed as .subsumed under the streamlined requirements, .compliance
with the streamlined requirements is deemed to also be compliance
with the subsumed requirements. Such an understanding is
essential to support and defend the issuance of any permit which
provides for the streamlined treatment of multiple applicable
18
-------
requirements.
If a permit shield is not available, a permittee can still
be afforded significant enforcement protection by an explicit
agency finding that in its judgment the streamlined permit term
indeed provides for full compliance with all the permit limits
that is subsumes. In such a case/ it is imperative that the
permit contain language that lists the applicable requirements
being subsumed into the streamlined requirement and states that
compliance with the streamlined requirement will be deemed
compliance with the listed requirements.
B. Development Of Applications And Permits For Outdated SIP
Requirements.
1. Issue.
Can sources file part 70 permit applications on the basis of
locally adopted rules pending EPA SIP approval rather than the
current SIP requirements? Can sources certify their compliance
status on the same basis? Under what circumstances can
permitting authorities issue and/or later revise part 70 permits
based on such locally adopted rules?
2. Guidance.
a. General. In the first White Paper (section II.B.6.),
EPA described a mechanism for simplifying permits where a source
is subject to both a State adopted rule that is pending SIP
approval and the approved SIP version of that rule. Under that
approach, the pending SIP requirements would be incorporated into
the State-only portion of the permit and would become federally
enforceable upon EPA approval of the SIP. The EPA believes that
in most instances, the approach described in the first White
Paper adequately addresses the described problem. In some areas
(most notably California), however, a sizable backlog of pending
SIP revisions exists, and a more far-reaching solution is needed.
In today's guidance, therefore, another approach that may be used
by EPA and permitting authorities to address this situation is
described.
Under this new alternative, the permitting authority may
allow that application completeness initially be based on locally
adopted rules including those which would relax current (i.e.,
federally-approved) SIP requirements, provided that (1) the local
rule has been submitted to EPA as a SIP revision, and (2) the
permitting authority reasonably believes that the local rule (not
the current SIP rule) will be the basis for the part 70 permit.
Where the permitting authority or the source has
19
-------
demonstrated to EPA's satisfaction17 that the local rule is more
stringent and therefore assures compliance with the current SIP
for all subject sources, a permit application relying on the
local rule may be deemed to be complete and a permit containing
the requirements of the local rule rather than the current SIP
could be issued for part 70 purposes. That is, consistent with
section 504(a) of the Act, the part 70 permit need only contain
emissions limits and other terms and conditions (i.e., the more
stringent local rule) as needed to assure compliance with the
applicable requirement (i.e., the current SIP regulation).
An EPA finding that a submitted -rule assures compliance with
the approved SIP rule would be a preliminary indication of EPA's
belief that a part 70 permit incorporating the terms of the
submitted rule would also assure compliance with the approved
SIP. Such a finding would not equate to rulemaking, and so would
not constitute a revision of the SIP. Therefore, a preliminary
finding would not necessarily ensure that the proposed revision
would ultimately be approved by EPA, nor would it protect a
source from enforcement of the approved SIP.18 Further, such a
finding would not predetermine the outcome of the part 70 permit
proceeding. Reviewers would have the ability to evaluate any
proposed permit terms or conditions based on pending SIP
revisions to determine whether the permit assures compliance with
applicable requirements, i.e., the approved SIP. However, EPA
believes that a finding of this nature should provide the source
and the permitting authority sufficient assurance to proceed with
the issuance of a permit that reflects the terms of the submitted
local rule rather than the approved SIP. Note that a part 70
permit can be based on a local rule even if the local rule is
subsequently disapproved by EPA for SIP purposes (e.g., measure
is more stringent than the current SIP but fails to meet SIP
requirements for reasonably available control technology and/or
to make reasonable further progress), provided: (1) a permit
based on the local rule would assure compliance with all
applicable requirements (including the approved SIP); and (2) the
permit meets all part 70 requirements.
Where the local rule submitted to EPA as a SIP revision
"Where resources allow and the situation calls for it, EPA
will go on record with a letter to the permitting authority with a
list of rules that it has preliminarily determined will assure
compliance with the corresponding SIP approved rule.
"If a part 70 permit is Issued based upon a pending SIP
revision and a permit shield is incorporated in the permit,
compliance with the permit would be deemed to be compliance with
all applicable requirements. If EPA or the permitting authority
later discovers that the permit terms do not assure compliance with
all applicable requirements, including the applicable SIP, the
permit would have to be reopened and revised.
20
-------
represents a relaxation of the current SIP requirement (e.g., the
local rule would replace an existing technology forcing rule that
has been determined to be unachievable in practice), a part 70
source may propose in its permit application to base its permit
on the local rule in anticipation of EPA approval. However, a
permit based on the local rule could not be issued prior to EPA
approval of the rule. This is because a permit based on the
relaxed requirements of the local rule could not assure
compliance with the more stringent applicable requirement (the
approved SIP)/ as required by section 504 of the Act. Similarly,
a part 70 source may be subject to pending SIP revisions that may
tighten certain current SIP obligations and relax others for
sources in that source category. Here again the permitting
authority could allow initial application completeness to be
determined relying on the locally adopted rule, but the permit
could not be issued without the current SIP requirements unless a
source opted to demonstrate that the submitted rule represents/
for that specific source, a more stringent requirement than the
current SIP. In such a case, the part 70 permit could
subsequently be issued for that source on the basis of the local
rule, since the permit terms would assure compliance with the
approved SIP.
b. Initial actions by EPA and permitting authorities. The
EPA is committed to working with States within available
resources to assure that the timetable for overall permit
issuance is not adversely affected by pending SIP revisions that
are not straightforward tightenings. The extent of the problem,
however, will vary greatly and, in some cases, may require a
specific plan of action between EPA and certain States to
expedite SIP processing where the problem is substantial.
In California, where this problem is believed to be most
extensive, EPA, the districts, and the California Air Resources
Board are in the process of identifying rules in the SIP backlog
that are not straightforward tightenings or are relaxations of
the currently approved SIP, and will target them for expeditious
processing. These rules will be identified within a specified
timeframe, generally within 1 year of the effective date of a
district's part 70 program. The EPA's Region IX will enter into
formal agreements with affected districts and will commit to take
action on this "targeted" portion of the SIP backlog before
comprehensive permit issuance for sources affected by the backlog
would be required, provided this is consistent with the
transition plan19 (as it may be revised). Other EPA Regional
Offices will determine the need and resources available for this
type of exercise on a case-by-case basis. Region IX will also
commit to process expeditiously any similar rules submitted or
identified after the period of the formal agreement, although
"Transition plan refers to the 3-year transition strategy for
initial part 70 permit issuance described in S 70.4(b)(ll).
21
-------
such processing would not necessarily occur before permits must
be issued to sources affected by these rules.
Under Region IX's formal agreements, permitting authorities
in the districts need not issue the portion of the part 70 permit
covering emissions units affected by the targeted backlog until
the rule adoption or change identified in the formal agreement
has been acted on by EPA, consistent with the flexibility allowed
in the permit issuance transition plan in the permitting
authority's program. This should in most cases allow permitting
authorities to delay issuing permits to sources to the extent
they are affected by the targeted SIP backlog until EPA completes
its review action on the pending SIP revisions. Where a
transition plan contains a permit Issuance schedule that would .
not allow postponing permit issuance until EPA has acted on the
proposed SIP revisions/ appropriate changes to the plan can still
be made to defer permit issuance until EPA action on the targeted
SIP backlog. Such changes would be made following the same
approach described for changing application forms In EPA's first
White Paper. Within these constraints, a permitting authority
may allow for issuance of part 70 permits to the facility in
phases such that permits covering those emissions units of the
facility affected by the targeted SIP revision are Issued later.
This result is also consistent with the flexibility contained in
S 70.2 (see definition of "Part 70 permit") for the permitting
authority to. issue multiple permits to one part 70 source if .it
makes sense to do so. Alternatively, the permitting authority
could issue the permit in its entirety based on the current SIP.
The EPA agrees that delays in permit Issuance described
above will not be cause for an EPA finding of failure by the
permitting authority to adequately administer or enforce its
part 70 program. Any Initial permit issued under a phased
approach (i.e., the first phase involves all emissions units
unaffected by the SIP backlog targeted by EPA), however, does not
shield the source from the enforceability of the requirements
excluded in the first phase permit and the obligation to obtain
permit conditions covering the excluded emissions units after EPA
has acted on the relevant SIP rule backlog.
c. Ongoing actions. The preceding guidance should address
the most significant problems associated with the development of
part 70 permit applications and the subsequent Issuance of
part 70 permits that result from the existence of a SIP backlog.
The EPA recognizes, however, that areas experiencing the most
significant start-up problems with respect to pending SIP rules '
may well require an ongoing program to manage the potential SIP
-backlog so as to prevent significant problems of this nature from
occurring in the future. In some situations It may be
appropriate on a continuing basis for EPA to determine
preliminarily whether a submitted rule can be listed as one which
would assure compliance with the SIP rule it seeks to replace.
This would enable the permitting authority to adjust its
22
-------
priorities for requiring application updates and for
accomplishing permit issuance and revision.
For post application submittal, a source that has filed a
complete application may opt to, or be required to, update its
current application as a result of changes or pending changes to
the SIP. The likelihood of these changes occurring will vary
from area to area, and are most likely to affect sources
scheduled later in the transition period for initial permit
issuance. For example:
o A local rule previously relied upon may be amended by the
State or district.
o Where a local rule that was previously listed in the
formal agreement for expeditious SIP processing (because the
rule is not a straightforward strengthening) is disapproved
by EPA and the source has relied on that rule in preparing
its application, the applicant must file an application
update that either demonstrates that compliance with the
local rule would assure compliance with the current SIP or
demonstrates direct compliance with the current SIP.
o The adoption and submission to EPA of a more stringent
local rule after an applicant has filed its application may
present a new and desired opportunity for streamlining. If
so, the applicant could opt to file an application update to
shift the compliance focus of its current application to the
newly adopted local rule, which is pending SIP approval,
provided it meets the streamlining criteria described in
section II.A. above.
For post permit issuance, sources may also encounter changes
to rule situations after initial permit issuance that could lead
them to request a permit revision. For example, sources may
propose a revision to an issued part 70 permit where a newly
adopted local rule would present a desirable streamlining
opportunity. The significant permit revision process would be
required under the current part 70 to accomplish this change.
Note that EPA in its revisions to part 70 may authorize
permitting authorities to use a less extensive permit revision
process.
To initiate the permit revision, the source must file an
application to revise the permit to contain the requirements of
local rule instead of the current SIP. This application must
meet the previously defined and applicable streamlining criteria.
In response, the permitting•authority may subsequently
revise the permit based on the local rule in lieu of the current
SIP where (1) the rule is listed by the EPA as one where
compliance with it would assure compliance with the relevant
portions of the current SIP, or (2) the applicant has provided a
23
-------
source specific demonstration consistent with the streamlining
criteria in section II.A.2. that assures this result. A permit
shield or similar permit condition should be issued for purposes
of certainty. In the absence of a shield or similar permit
condition, all aspects of the approved SIP remain enforceable,
regardless of the source's compliance status with respect to the
permit. The EPA encourages permitting authorities currently
without provisions for incorporating permit shields to add them
at their first opportunity.
3. Process.
a. Initial Applications. An applicant proposing to submit
its part 70 permit application based on a local rule that has
been submitted for EPA approval rather than the current SIP would
take one of two courses of actions depending on the status 'of the
local rule with EPA and/or the permitting authority:
The first course of action would be appropriate for local
rules that (1) have been previously demonstrated to EPA's
satisfaction to be at least as stringent as the approved SIP rule
so as to assure compliance with it for all subject sources/ (2)
are otherwise authorized by the permitting authority based on its
judgement that such rules will likely be the basis for the
part 70 permit (e.g. EPA approval of the rule is Imminent), or
(3) have been specifically identified in a formal agreement .
between the permitting authority and EPA for expeditious SIP
processing, i.e., the "targeted backlog." Rules listed in a
formal agreement will typically involve local rules pending SIP
approval which do or could represent full or partial relaxations
of the current SIP. Where they choose to use this approach, the
permitting authority and EPA will maintain an up-to-date list of
local rules which meet any of these criteria.
In preparing initial part 70 permit applications with
respect to such local rules the applicant:
Step One - Will indicate in its application that it has
opted for this approach, list or cross-reference all
requirements from applicable local rules that are eligible
for this approach, and refer to the list maintained for this
purpose by the permitting authority.
Step Two - Will identify in the permit application the
current SIP requirements that the pending SIP revision would
replace.
Step Three - May choose to certify compliance with the
requirement(s) of the pending local rule in lieu of the
current SIP if there is sufficient source compliance data on
which to base such a certification. (The EPA is proposing
to revise its part 70 regulations to provide that such a
certification would meet the requirements of S 70.5(c)(10).)
24
-------
Step Four - May propose that a permit shield would be in
effect upon permit issuance. For those listed local rules
which are recognized by EPA as being able to assure
compliance with the current SIP rule, the applicant would
indicate in the application that a permit shield (or
alternatively, other similar language where authority for a
permit shield is not available) is being proposed to be
incorporated into the permit to confirm this understanding.
The second course of action would be appropriate where the
criteria specified above have not been met for a particular rule
and an applicant still wants to base its initial part 70
application on such local rules pending SIP approval. In this
instance, the process would be essentially the same but the
source would have to demonstrate that compliance with the local
rule would assure compliance with the current SIP (i.e., make an
adequate demonstration consistent with the streamlining criteria
described in section II.A.2. above.) and submit it with the
permit application in step one. Again, if a part 70 permit
application has already been submitted without streamlining but
the source agrees to subsequently pursue this option, the
permitting authority may work with the source to support
streamlining requirements during the permit development process.
b. Initial Permit Issuance Process. After receiving a
complete application, the permitting authority must note where
the applicant has proposed use of the approaches described above
in section II.B.3.a. The note would be placed in the application
summary, the application, or the revised application. Copies of
the application summary, the application, or the revised
application containing such proposals must be submitted promptly
to EPA (unless EPA has agreed that the demonstration is of a type
not required for advance submittal to EPA).
Where the rule is listed by EPA as one where compliance with
it would assure compliance with the relevant portions of the
current SIP, or the applicant has provided a source specific
demonstration consistent with the streamlining outlined in
section II.A.2., the permitting authority may proceed to issue
the permit based on the local rule in lieu -of the current SIP. A
permit shield or similar permit condition which confirms this
understanding should be issued for purposes of certainty.
If an applicant chooses to demonstrate that a local rule
assures compliance with the applicable SIP for all affected
emissions units, the permitting authority will evaluate this
proposal and any supporting documentation. Upon completion of
this evaluation and prior to releasing a draft permit public
notice, the permitting authority is advised to communicate any
concerns to the applicant and provide reasonable opportunity for
the applicant to accept the findings or propose a resolution of
the differences. This may cause some revisions to the
application as originally filed.
25
-------
If the permitting authority or EPA are not satisfied that
the local rule (as it applies to the applicant's facility)
assures compliance with the applicable SIP rule, the applicant
must revise its application to rely on the SIP rule. All
required application updates must be submitted on or before the
reasonable deadline required by the permitting authority for the
source to maintain its application shield.
Consistent with the flexibility allowed in the permit
issuance transition plan (as it may be revised), the permitting
authority may delay issuance of those portions of a source's
permit that are covered by a rule identified in a Region IX type
formal agreement, which targets certain SIP rules for expeditious
processing, until EPA has acted on the relevant rule(s).
Alternatively, comprehensive permits may be issued to such a
source prior to the time that EPA has acted on the rule provided
that they are based on the current SIP (unless the source has
provided an adequate streamlining demonstration).
4. Enforcement.
All terms and conditions of the part 70 permit are
enforceable by EPA and by citizens. In addition, a source
violating the emissions limitation in the part 70 permit is also
subject to enforcement action for violation of the current SIP
emissions limits if a violation of this limit can be documented.
Upon issuance of a part 70 permit based on the local rule,
the permit terms and conditions implementing the local rule would
become federally enforceable. A source would not be subject to
an EPA enforcement action for any failure to meet monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that are -required under
the currently approved SIP, if such an understanding has. been
specified in the permit. These requirements would no longer be
independently enforceable, provided the source attempts in good
faith to implement the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
approach required under the local rule.
If subsequently the permitting authority or EPA determines
that the permit does not assure compliance-with applicable
requirements, the permit must be reopened and revised.
5. Discussion.
Sources in California districts currently are subject to
several locally adopted rules which are pending before EPA as
proposed SIP revisions. The majority of these local rules have
been determined by the districts to be more stringent than the
SIP rules that they seek to replace, although some of these rules
would relax the current SIP requirements for certain affected
sources. In some cases, technology-forcing SIP rules have been
found to be infeasible to achieve and, instead of seeking to
enforce them, districts have adopted achievable local rules.
26
-------
Until the local rules are approved into the SIP, sources are
subject to both the local rule and the federally-approved version
of the rule.
The resulting "outdated SIP" presents special problems to
sources which must file a part 70 permit application. In
particular, questions arise as to whether sources must complete
their applications and certify compliance based on SIP rules
which have been superseded by more stringent local rules or by
rules that have been relaxed where, for example/ the permitting
authority has found the current SIP rules to be unachievable.
Those problems, while most apparent in their effect on the start-
up of a part 70 program, are also ongoing in nature and may
create a need to update initially complete permit applications.
and to revise issued permits. The EPA believes that these
problems with outdated SIP rules are most extensive in California
but are not unique to that State.
The EPA strongly believes that implementation of title V to
the extent possible should complement, not complicate, the
implementation of other titles, including title I, the purpose of
which is to assure adoption of programs that will attain and
maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).20
Accordingly, the Agency is providing this guidance which will
allow sources and permitting authorities to rely on more
stringent local rules for permit issuance. The overall strategy
for sensitizing the SIP revision process to part 70 concerns
presented in this guidance will allow sources to focus more on
current air quality requirements in all aspects of part 70 permit
application development and update, permit issuance, and permit
revision.
The legal basis for recognizing a local rule pending SIP
approval in lieu of the current, but less stringent, SIP
requirement or for streamlining multiple applicable requirements
is identical to the basis for adopting a streamlined emissions
limit to replace multiple applicable requirements (see discussion
in section II.A,5.). The opportunities for shifting to the more
stringent local rule are correspondingly affected by the
limitations previously described for. the streamlining of
applicable requirements.
C. Treatment Of Insignificant Emissions Units.
1. Issue.
"This guidance is designed primarily to alleviate situations
where the SIP backlog is both large and longstanding. It is not to
be used as a means of anticipating the outcome of pending
attainment status redesignations.
27
-------
How must sources address insignificant emissions units
(lEU's) subject to at least one applicable requirement?21
(Insignificant emissions units are in most cases not directly
regulated, and therefore could be left off the permit entirely,
were it not for the presence of certain generic or facility-wide
requirements that apply to all emissions units.) Must the
application and the subsequent permit address each IEU
individually and require periodic monitoring where it is not
otherwise provided by a generically applicable requirement? On
what basis can the initial and future compliance certifications
be made for lEU's with generally applicable requirements?
2. Guidance.
The EPA interprets part 70 to allow considerable discretion
to the permitting authority in tailoring the amount and quality
of information required in permit applications and permits as
they relate to lEU's. In general, permit applications must
contain sufficient information to support the drafting of the
part 70 permit (including certain information for lEU's subject
to only generally applicable requirements) and to determine
compliance status with all applicable requirements. The EPA,
however, interprets part 70 to allow permitting authorities
considerable discretion as to the format and content of permits,
provided that compliance with all applicable requirements,
including those for lEU's, is assured. The Agency believes that
the clarifications contained herein afford permitting authorities
sufficient flexibility to treat lEU's in a manner commensurate
with the environmental benefits that may be gained from their
inclusion in the permit.
a.' Permit Applications - Information. With regard to
part 70 requirements to describe and list lEU's in applications
and permits, the permitting authority can use the generic
grouping approach for emissions units and activities as discussed
in the first White Paper. In addition, the requirement to
identify all applicable requirements, as it related to lEU's
subject to generally applicable requirements, can normally be
addressed by standard or generic permit conditions with minimal
or no reference to any specific emissions unit or activity. The
EPA has reviewed and acquiesced in the issuance of permits
wherein generally applicable requirements are incorporated
through the use of tables describing a tiered compliance regime
21An emissions unit can be an IEU for one applicable
requirement and not for another. However, such a unit may be
eligible for treatment as an IEU only with respect to those
pollutants not emitted in significant amounts. The term
"significant" as used in this policy statement does not have the.
meaning as used in S 52.21 (e.g., 15 tpy PM-10, 40 tpy VOC) but
rather means that the emissions unit does not qualify for treatment
in the application as an insignificant emissions unit.
28
-------
for these requirements as they affect different sizes of
emissions units, including a distinct and more streamlined
compliance regime for lEU's. Different generic permit tables may
be necessary to cover the situation for a particular type of IEU
which is governed by different applicable requirements.
Similarly, the first White Paper provides that no emissions
estimates need be provided for even regulated emissions streams
where it would serve no useful purpose to do so. This should be
the case for lEU's where the amount of emissions from a unit is
not relevant to determining applicability of, or compliance with,
the requirement. Except where the contributions of lEU's would
need to be more precisely known to resolve issues of
applicability or major source status would the permitting
authority need to request emissions estimates for part 70
purposes.
b. Permit Applications - Initial Compliance Certifications.
Section 70.5(c)(9) requires complete part 70 applications to
contain a certification of compliance with all applicable
requirements by a responsible official and a statement of the
methods used for determining compliance. This certification must
be based on a "reasonable inquiry" by the responsible official.
The EPA believes that, for the generally applicable or facility-
wide requirements applying to an IEU, reasonable inquiry for
initial certifications need only be based on available
information, which would include any information required to be
generated by the applicable requirement. Regarding the latter,
and as is true for any applicable requirement, the initial
certification can be based on only the latest cycle of required
information (e.g., a source could generally rely on a
demonstration of compliance resulting from the most recent
required monitoring, notwithstanding the existence of prior
monitoring indicating non-compliance at a previous point in
time). Where an applicable requirement (generally applicable or
otherwise) does not require monitoring, the S 70.5(c)(9)
requirement to certify compliance does not itself require that
monitoring be done to support a certification. Similarly, there
is no need to perform an emissions test to support this
compliance certification if none is required by the applicable
requirement itself. The EPA interprets S 70.5(c)(9) to allow for
a certification of compliance where there is no required
monitoring and, despite a "reasonable inquiry" to uncover other
existing information, the responsible official has no information
to the contrary.
c. Permit Content - Applicable Requirements. With regard
to part 70 obligations to include all applicable requirements in
the permit, the permitting authority can also use the generic
grouping approach for emissions units and activities as discussed
in the first White Paper. That is, generally applicable
requirements can normally be adequately addressed in the part 70
permit by standard permit conditions with minimal or no reference
to any specific emissions unit or activity, provided that the
29
-------
scope of the requirement and the manner of its enforcement are
clear. As noted above, different generic permit provisions may
be necessary to cover the situation for which different types of
lEU's are governed by different applicable requirements.
d. Permit Content - Monitoring/ Recordkeepinq, and
Reporting. Section 70.6(a)(3)(i) requires all applicable
requirements for monitoring and analysis procedures or test
methods to be contained in part 70 permits. In addition, where
the applicable requirement does not require periodic testing or
monitoring (which may consist of recordkeeping designed to serve
as monitoring), the permitting authority must prescribe periodic
monitoring sufficient to yield reliable data from the relevant
time period that are representative of the source's compliance
with the permit. Many of the generically applicable requirements
for lEU's have a related test method, but relatively few have a
specific regimen of required periodic testing or monitoring.
The EPA believes that the permitting authority In general
has broad discretion in determining the nature of any required
periodic monitoring. The need for this discretion is
particularly evident in the case of generally applicable
requirements, which tend to cover lEU's as well as significant
emissions units. The requirement to Include in a permit testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance
certification sufficient to assure compliance does not require
the permit to impose the same level of rigor with respect to all
emissions units and applicable requirement situations. It does
not require extensive testing or monitoring to assure compliance
with the applicable requirements for emissions units that do not
have significant potential to violate emissions limitations or
other requirements under normal operating conditions. In
particular, where the establishment of a regular program of
monitoring would not significantly enhance the ability of the
permit to assure compliance with the applicable requirement, the
permitting authority can provide that the status quo (i.e., no
monitoring) will meet S 70.6(a)(3)(1). For lEU's subject to a
generally applicable requirement for which the permitting
authority believes monitoring is needed, a streamlined approach
to periodic monitoring, such as an inspection program to assure
the proper operation and maintenance of emissions activities
(e.g., valves and flanges), should presumptively be appropriate.
The EPA's policy on IEU monitoring needs is based on its
belief that lEU's typically are associated with inconsequential
environmental impacts and present little potential for violations
of generically applicable requirements, and so may be good
candidates for a very streamlined approach to periodic
monitoring. As EPA noted in the first White Paper, generally
applicable requirements typically reside in the SIP. Permitting
authorities therefore not only have the best sense of which
requirements qualify as generally applicable, but also where it
is appropriate to conclude that periodic monitoring is not
30
-------
necessary for lEU's subject to these requirements. Where the
source ascertains that the permitting authority will not require
periodic monitoring for lEU's, it can of course omit a periodic
monitoring proposal from the application.
e. Permit Content - Compliance Certifications. Section
70.6(c)(5) requires in part that each permitted source submit no
less frequently than annually a certification of its compliance
status with all the terms and conditions of the permit. This
certification will be based on available information, including
monitoring and/or other compliance terms required in the permit.
Where a particular emissions unit presents little or no potential
for violation of a certain applicable requirement, the
"reasonable inquiry" required by title V can be abbreviated.
Since it can be determined in the abstract that violation of the
requirement by these emissions units is highly improbable, it is
reasonable in that instance to limit the search for information
to what is readily available. As noted above, EPA believes that
an IEU subject to a generally applicable requirement typically
presents little or no potential for violation of those
requirements. It follows that where, for instance, a permit does
not require monitoring for lEU's subject to a generally
applicable requirement, and there were no observed, documented,
or known instances of non-compliance, an annual certification of
compliance is presumptively appropriate. Similarly, where
monitoring is required, an annual certification of compliance is
also appropriate when no violations are monitored and there were
no observed, documented, or known instances of non-compliance.
3. Discussion.
Many of the concerns expressed to EPA regarding the
treatment of lEU's in the application and permit arise because
lEU's are in most cases not directly regulated, and therefore
could be left off the permit entirely, were it not for the
presence of certain generic requirements that apply to all
emissions units. Though the focus of concern is the
applicability of the generic requirements to lEU's, response to
these concerns derive primarily from the flexibility that exists
in part 70 for dealing with generically applicable requirements.
In implementing this flexibility, it may be appropriate for the
permitting authority to further distinguish between units that
have been designated as insignificant and those that have not.
This is so because the relative size of a unit can be an
important factor in deciding how to fashion permit terms even for
a generically applicable requirement, and State-established lEU's
normally define the smallest emissions points. However, EPA
notes that, as a matter of part 70 interpretation, whether a unit
has been designated as insignificant is not necessarily critical
to its treatment in the part 70 permit.
Concerns have been expressed that addressing in part 70
permits the relatively trivial portion of emissions attributable
31
-------
to lEU's will consume a disproportionate share of the total
resources available to issue part 70 permits. That is, according
to their understanding of part 70, applicants and permitting
authorities will expend greater resources than warranted to
determine the specific applicability of requirements to lEU's,
how compliance with them will be assured, and the basis on which
the certification of compliance status of the source with respect
to these lEU's would be made.
The EPA believes that the policy described for addressing
generically applicable requirements in applications and permits
as they apply to lEU's allows permitting authorities sufficient
flexibility to streamline the required administrative effort
commensurate to the environmental significance of the varying
types of IEU situations. This should prevent the potentially
high but unintended level of costs identified by certain sources
and permitting authorities from occurring in the future with
respect to lEU's.
D. Use Of Major Source And Applicable Requirement Stipulation.
1. Issue.
When an applicant stipulates that it is a major source and
subject to specific applicable requirements, how much, if any,
additional information related to applicability is necessary .in
the part 70 permit application?
2. Guidance.
If an applicant stipulates that it is a major source" and
subject to specific applicable requirements, it need not provide
additional information in its application to demonstrate
applicability with respect to those requirements, provided that
(1) the permitting authority has had previous review experience
with a particular source (e.g., issued it a permit), or (2)
otherwise has an adequate level of familiarity with, the source's
operation (e.g., current emissions inventory information). This
does not affect the requirement to provide information for other
purposes under part 70, such as to support -a compliance
certification or a request for a permit shield or to describe the
emissions activities of its site (see first White Paper).
Accordingly, permitting authorities may allow the applicant'
to stipulate that:
o Its facility is a major source and subject to part 70
permitting, without providing any additional information for
the applicability determination;
"if an applicant stipulates it is a major source, it must list
all pollutants for which it is major.
32
-------
o It is subject to specific applicable'requirements, to be
included in its part 70 permit, without providing additional
information to establish applicability for stipulated
requirements; or
o It is subject to only portions of an applicable
requirement and state that it is not subject to other
portions. Such a stipulation must explicitly state which
portion of the rule applies and which does not and an
explanation must be provided for this conclusion.
Stipulation by a source to major source status or specific
applicable requirements in a part 70 application does not
preclude the permitting authority from requesting additional
information from the applicant for establishing the applicability
of non-stipulated requirements or for verifying a stipulation
that certain requirements are not applicable.
3. Discussion.
In general, part 70 requires that applications contain
information to the extent needed to determine major source
status, to verify the applicability of part 70 or applicable
requirements, and to compute a permit fee (as necessary).
Section 70.5(c) requires the application to describe emissions of
all regulated air pollutants for each emissions unit.
In the first White Paper, EPA indicated a substantial degree
of discretion for permitting authorities in this area. It
indicates that States may adopt different approaches to meet the
minimum program requirements established by the part 70
regulations depending on local needs. In many instances, a
qualitative description of emissions will satisfy this standard.
However, the applicant may need to provide more detailed
information for purposes other than determining applicability and
to foster efficiency in the permitting program.
For the purpose of determining the applicability of part 70
or other specific requirements, the information required in an
application should be streamlined for the mutual benefit of the
applicant and the permitting authority. An applicant that
stipulates it is a major source subject to part 70 and to other
applicable requirements should not be required to provide any
additional information to verify those facts in its part 70
application. However, the applicant must provide sufficient
information to allow the permitting authority to impose the
applicable requirement. In addition, the resulting application
streamlining would not relieve the applicant from submitting, or
'the permitting authority from reviewing, emissions or other data
for part 70 purposes other than determining applicability.
In the case where there is no dispute that a stationary
source is subject to part 70, and the applicant stipulates that
33
-------
the source is a part 70 source in the application, no further
information would be required for applicability determination.
An example would be a source which is currently operating under a
prevention of significant deterioration permit because it is
major for PM-10. Both the source and the permitting authority
agree that the source is subject to the State's part 70 program.
A source may also streamline the part 70 permit process by
stipulating that specific applicable requirements apply. This
does not relieve the source of its obligation to Identify all
applicable requirements or preclude the permitting authority from
requesting additional information, Including information
pertaining to the applicability of requirements not covered in
the stipulation. For example, a stationary source may stipulate
it is subject to a SIP rule. However, the permitting authority
may suspect that the source is also subject to a New Source
Performance Standard (NSPS), but may need more information for
confirmation. In this case, the permitting authority would
request additional information related to the applicability of
the NSPS.
Similarly, an applicant may stipulate that it is subject to
only portions of an applicable requirement and state that it is
not subject to other portions. In such case, the permitting
authority may request the applicant to provide additional
information to demonstrate that it is not subject to requirements
in question. However, if a source requests a permit shield,
additional information to demonstrate the non-applicability of
these requirements must be submitted.
£. Referencing Of Existing Information In Part 70 Permit
Applications And Permits.
1. Issue.
Can an applicant in its permit application, and can the
permit itself, reference existing information that .is available
at the permitting authority? Also, can the permit application
and the permit reference applicable requirements through citation
rather than by a complete reprinting of the.requirements
themselves in the part 70 permit application or permit?
2. Guidance.
a. General. Information that would be cited or cross
referenced in the permit application and Incorporated by
reference into the issued permit must first be currently
applicable and available to the permitting -authority and
34
-------
public23. The information need not be restated in-the part 70
application. Standardized citation formats should be established
by the permitting authority to facilitate appropriate use of this
mechanism.
Referenced documents must also be specifically identified.
Descriptive information such as the title or number of the
document and the date of the document must be included so that
there is no ambiguity as to which version of which document is
being referenced. Citations/ cross references, and
incorporations by reference must be detailed enough that the
manner in which any referenced material applies to a facility is
clear and is not reasonably subject to misinterpretation. Where
only a portion of the referenced document applies, applications
and permits must specify the relevant section of the document.
Any information cited, cross referenced, or incorporated by
reference must be accompanied by a description or identification
of the current activities, requirements, or equipment for which
the information is referenced.
b. Permit Applications. The applicant and the permitting
authority should work together to determine the extent to which
part 70 permit applications may cross reference agency-issued
rules, regulations, permits, and published protocols, and
existing information generated by the applicant. To facilitate
referencing existing information, permitting authorities should
identify the general types of information available for this
purpose. To the extent that such information exists and is
readily available to the public, the following types of
information may be cited or cross referenced (as allowed by the
permitting authority)24:
o Rules, regulations, and published protocols.
o Criteria pollutant and HAP emission inventories and
supporting calculations.
o Emission monitoring reports, compliance reports, and
source tests.
o Annual emissions statements.
"Referenced documents must be made available (1) as part of
the public docket on the permit action or (2) as information
available in publicly accessible files located at the permitting
authority, unless they are published or are readily available
(e.g., regulations printed in the Code of Federal Regulations or
its State equivalent).
"Use of cross-referencing does not shift any burden of
reproducing or otherwise acquiring information to the permitting
authority.
35
-------
o Process and abatement equipment lists and descriptions.
o Current operating and preconstruction permit terms.
o Permit application materials previously submitted.
. o other materials with the approval of the permitting
authority.
Applicants are obligated to correct and supplement
inaccurate or incomplete permitting authority records relied upon
for the purposes of part 70 permit applications. The responsible
official must certify, consistent with S 70.5(d), to the truth,
accuracy, and completeness of all information referenced.
c. Permits. Incorporation by reference in permits may be
appropriate and useful under several circumstances. Appropriate
use of incorporation by reference in permits includes referencing
of test method procedures, inspection and maintenance plans, and
calculation methods for determining compliance. One of the key
objectives Congress hoped to achieve in creating title V,
however, was the issuance of comprehensive permits that clarify
how sources must comply with applicable requirements. Permitting
authorities should therefore balance the streamlining benefits
achieved through use of incorporation by reference with the need
to issue comprehensive, unambiguous permits useful to all
affected parties, including those engaged in field inspections.
Permitting authorities may, after listing all applicable
emissions limits for all applicable emissions units in the
part 70 permit, provide for referencing the details of those
limits, rather than reprinting them in permits to the extent that
(1) applicability issues and compliance obligations are clear,
and (2) the permit includes any additional terms and conditions
sufficient to assure compliance with all applicable
requirements25.
Where the cited applicable requirement provides for
different and independent compliance options (e.g., boilers
subject to an NSPS promulgated under, sectipn 111 may comply by
use of low sulfur fuel or through add-on of a control device),
the permitting authority generally should require that the
part 70 permit contain (or incorporate by reference) the specific
option(s) selected by the source. Alternatively, the permit
could incorporate by reference the entire applicable requirement
25In the case of a merged permit program, i.e., where a State
has merged its NSR and operating permits programs, previous NSR
permits expire. This leaves the part 70 permit as the sole
repository of the relevant prior terms and conditions of the NSR
permit. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to
incorporate by reference the expired NSR permits.
36
-------
provided that (1) such reference Is unambiguous in its
applicability and requirements, (2) the permit contains
obligations to certify compliance and report compliance
monitoring data reflecting the chosen control approach, and (3)
the permitting authority determines that the relevant purposes of
title V would be met through such referencing. The alternative
approach would not be allowable if changing from one compliance
option to another would trigger the need for a prior review by
the permitting authority or EPA (e.g. NSR), unless prior approval
is incorporated into the part 70 permit (i.e., advance NSR).
The EPA does not recommend that permitting authorities
incorporate into part 70 permits certain other types of
information such as the part 70 permit application (see first
White Paper).
3. Discussion.
Title V and part 70 do not define when citation or cross-
referencing in permit applications would be appropriate, although
it obviously would not be allowed where such citations or cross-
references would not support subsequent development of the
part 70 permit. The EPA's first White Paper states that a
permitting authority may streamline part 70 applications by
allowing the applicant to cross-reference a variety of documents
including permits and Federal, State, and local rules. This
guidance further provides that where an emissions estimate is
needed for part 70 purposes but is otherwise available (e.g.,
recent submittal of emissions inventory) the permitting authority
can allow the source to cross-reference this information for
part 70.purposes.
Permitting authorities' files and databases often include
information submitted by the applicant which can also be required
by part 70. Development and review of part 70 permit
applications could be streamlined if information already held by
the permitting authority and the public is referenced or cited in
part 70 permit applications rather than restated in its entirety.
Similarly, specific citations to regulations that are unambiguous
in their applicability and requirements as.they apply to a
particular source will reduce the burden associated with
application development.
Incorporation by reference can be similarly effective in
streamlining the content of part 70 permits. The potential
benefits of permit development based on an incorporation by
reference approach include reduced cost and administrative
complexity, ^nd continued compliance flexibility as enforceably
allowed by the underlying applicable requirements.
Expectations for referencing with respect to permit content
are somewhat better defined than for permit applications.
Section 50.4 (a) states that each permit "shall include enforceable
37
-------
emissions limitations and standards" and "such other conditions
as are necessary to assure compliance with the applicable
requirements." In addition, section 504(c) requires each permit
to "set forth inspection, entry, monitoring, compliance
certification, and reporting requirements to assure compliance
with the permit terms and conditions." Analogous provisions are
contained in SS 70.6(a)(l) and (3). The EPA interprets these
provisions to place limits on the type of information that may be
referenced in permits. Although this material may be
incorporated into the permit by reference, that may only be done
to the extent that its manner of application is clear.
Accordingly, after all applicable emissions limits are
placed in the part 70 permit and attached to the emissions unit
to which they apply, the permitting authority may allow
referencing where it is specific enough to define how the
applicable requirement applies and where using this approach
assures compliance with all applicable requirements. This
approach is a desirable option where the referenced material is
unambiguous in how it applies to the permitted facility, and it
provides for enforceability from a practical standpoint. On the
other hand, it is generally not acceptable to use a combination
of referencing certain provisions of an applicable requirement
while paraphrasing other provisions of that same applicable
requirement. Such a practice, particularly if coupled with a
permit shield, could create dual requirements and potential .
confusion.
Even where the referenced requirement allows for compliance
options, the permitting authority may issue the permit with
incorporation of the applicable requirement provided that the
compliance options of the source are enforceably defined under
available control options, appropriate records are kept and
reports made, and any required revisions to update the permit
with respect to specific performance levels are made. This
treatment would be analogous to the flexibility provided to
sources through the use of alternative scenarios.
38
-------
Attachment A
Approval of Alternative Test Methods
The part 63 general provisions/ as well as other EPA air
regulations implementing sections 111 and 112 of the Act, allow
only EPA-approved test methods to implement emissions standards
that are established by States to meet Federal requirements.
Accordingly/ streamlining cannot result in any requirement
relying on a State-only test method unless and until EPA/ or the __
permitting authority acting as EPA's delegated agency, approves
it as an appropriate method for purposes of complying with that
streamlined standard. Currently/ all States may be delegated
authority to make decisions regarding minor revisions to EPA
approved test methods (i.e./ minor changes are those that have
isolated consequences/ affect a single source/ and do not affect
the stringency of the emissions limitation or standard). The EPA
is exploring options for defining where delegation to States is
appropriate for reviewing major revisions or new test methods/
and for expediting the approval process where the Agency retains
final sign-off authority. The EPA recognizes that its approval
must generally occur in a timeframe consistent with the time
constraints of the part 70 permit issuance process. Until
further guidance on this subject is issued/ States must obtain
EPA approval for all State-only test methods which represent
major changes or alternatives to EPA-approved test methods prior
to or within the 45-day EPA review period of the proposed permit
seeking to streamline requirements.
With respect to SIP requirements/ the ability for a
permitting authority to authorize use of a different test method
depends on the governing language contained in the SIP. For
example, some SIP's expressly connect a test method with a
particular emissions limit but allow for the use of an equally
stringent method. Other SIP's contain a more exclusive linkage
between an emissions limit and its required test method (i.e./
limit A as measured by test method B). The SIP-approved test
method can be changed only through a SIP revision unless the SIP
contains provisions for establishing alternative test methods.
Attachment B contains example SIP language, which provides a
mechanism that can establish an alternative applicable
requirement in such cases without the need for a source-specific
SIP revision.
Permitting authorities may implement streamlining which
involves alternative or new test methods within the flexibility
granted by the SIP and any delegation of authority granted by EPA
(where section 111/112 standards are involved). Permit
applications containing a request for a .streamlined requirement
based on an alternative or new test method must/ to be complete/
demonstrate that the alternative or new test method would
determine compliance at the same or higher stringency as the
otherwise applicable method. The EPA expects to receive
-------
expeditiously (I.e., well in advance of any draft permit
issuance) those portions of an application dealing with a
proposal for streamlining, Including any demonstration of test
method adequacy. Any required EPA approval of an alternative or
new test method need not be obtained as a precondition for filing
a complete application, but it must be secured before the final
part 70 permit can be issued. As mentioned previously, EPA
Intends to structure its approval process to comport reasonably
with the timelines for part 70 permit issuance.
-------
Attachment B
SIP Provisions For Establishing
Alternative Requirements
I. Overview.
States may revise their SIP's to provide for establishing
equally stringent alternatives to specific requirements set forth
in the SIP without the need for additional source-specific SIP
revisions. To allow alternatives to the otherwise-applicable SIP
requirements (i.e., emissions limitations/ test methods,
monitoring, and recordkeeping) the State would include language
in SIP's to provide substantive criteria governing the State's
exercise of the alternative requirement authority.
II. Example Language For Part 70 Sources To Establish
Alternative SIP Requirements.
The following is an example of enabling language that could
be used to provide flexibility in the SIP for allowing
alternative requirements to be established for part 70 sources.
In lieu of the requirements imposed pursuant to
(reference specific applicable sections(s) or range of
sections to be covered), a facility owner may comply with
alternative requirements, provided the requirements are
established pursuant to the part 70 permit issuance,
renewal, or significant permit revision process and are
consistent with the streamlining procedures and guidelines
set forth in section II.A. of White Paper Number 2.
For sources subject to an approved part 70 program, an
alternative requirement is approved for the source by EPA if
it is incorporated in an issued part 70 permit to which EPA
has not objected. Where the public comment period precedes
the EPA review period, any public comments concerning the
alternative shall be transmitted to EPA with the proposed
permit. If the EPA and public comment periods run
concurrently, public comments shall be- transmitted to EPA no
later than 5 working days after the end of the public
comment period. The Director's [permitting authority's]
determination of approval is not binding on EPA.
Noncompliance with any provision established by this
rule constitutes a violation of this rule.
III. Example Language For Non-Part 70 Sources To Establish
Alternative SIP Requirements.
[NOTE: This section is a draft that EPA expects to finalize
after appropriate revisions in the near future.]
For sources not subject to an approved part 70 program, the
following is an example of enabling language that States may use
-------
to revise/submit SIP rules which would provide flexibility in the
SIP for allowing alternative requirements to be established.
A. Procedures.
1. General. In lieu of the requirements Imposed pursuant
to [reference applicable sections] of this plan, a source
owner may comply with an alternative requirement, provided
that the Director approves it consistent with the procedures
of this paragraph and the criteria of paragraph B.
2. State Review Procedure. The Director may establish an
alternative requirement in [a review process defined by the
State], provided that the requirements of this paragraph are
met for EPA and public review and for notification and
access are met. The Director's determination of approval is
not binding on EPA.
3. Public Review. The Director shall subject any proposed
alternative to adequate public review but may vary the
procedures for, and the timing of, public review in light of
the environmental significance of the action. For the
following types of changes [add list of de minimis actions
subject to EPA review], no public review shall be necessary
for the approval of the alternative.
4. EPA Review. The Director shall submit any proposed
alternative to the Administrator through the appropriate
Regional Office, except for the following types of changes
[add list of de minimis actions subject to EPA review] no
EPA review shall be necessary for the approval of the
alternative. Until the specific alternative SIP requirement
has completed EPA review, the otherwise applicable SIP
provisions will continue to apply.
5. Periodic Notification And Public Access. For all
actions taken by the State to establish an alternative
requirement, the Director shall provide in a general manner
for periodic notification to the public on at least a
quarterly basis and for public access.to the records
regarding established alternatives and relevant supporting
documentation.
6. Enforcement. Noncompliance with any alternative
established by this provision constitutes a violation of
this rule. The EPA and the public may challenge such an
alternative limit on the basis that it does not meet the
criteria contained in the SIP for establishing such an
alternative. In addition, EPA and the public can take
enforcement action against a source that fails to comply
with an applicable alternative requirement.
B. General Criteria for Evaluating Alternatives.
-------
1. Applicability. The unit(s) to which the requirements
apply must be specified in the underlying SIP and in the
permit/alternative. If percentage reductions are required
from the source/ the baseline must be clearly set. The SIP
must require the submission of all the information necessary
to establish the baseline, and the alternative requirement
must achieve the reduction called for in the SIP.
2. Time. The alternative must specify the effective date
of the alternative requirement. The underlying requirement
of the SIP shall remain in effect until the effective date
of the alternative. The alternative must clearly specify
any future-effective dates or any compliance schedules that
apply to the source under regulations in effect at the time
of issuance. For instance, a source may be due to comply
with requirements promulgated before the permit/alternative
was issued, but which are effective prior to the expiration
of the permit/alternative.
3. Effect of changed conditions. If alternative emissions
limitations or other requirements are allowed in the
underlying SIP, the associated documentation with the
changed conditions must clearly demonstrate the alternative
requirement is no less stringent than the original SIP
requirement.
4. Standard of conduct. The alternative proposal must
clearly state what requirements the source must meet. For
example, the SIP must specify the emissions limit and what
alternatives are acceptable. The alternative proposal must
contain limits, averaging times, test methods, etc., that
are no less stringent and must address how they are no less
stringent than the underlying SIP requirements. The
alternative proposal must also show whether it applies on a
per-source or per-line basis or is facility-wide.
5. Transfer Efficiency. Any SIP allowing alternative
emissions limits and using transfer efficiency in
determining compliance must explicitly state the
circumstances under which a source may use improved transfer
efficiency as a substitute for meeting the SIP limit. The
improvement should be demonstrated through testing and an
appropriate baseline and test method should be specified.1
See draft "Guidelines for determining capture efficiencies"
for criteria for evaluating alternative capture efficiency
requirements.
6. Averaging Time. Both the SIP and the alternative
proposal must explicitly contain -the averaging time
1Implied improvements noted by the NSPS auto coating transfer
efficiency table cannot be accepted at face value.
-------
associated with each emissions limit (e.g., instantaneous,
three hour average, daily, monthly, or longer). The time
must be sufficient to protect the applicable NAAQS. The
alternative proposal must demonstrate that the averaging
time and the emissions limit in the alternative are as
stringent as those in the original SIP requirements.
7. Monitoring and Recordkeepinq. The alternative proposal
must state how the source will monitor compliance with the
emissions requirement, and detail how the proposed method
compares in accuracy, precision, and timeliness to the SIP-
approved method. Records and monitoring data must be
retained for at least the same period of time as required by
the SIP. The method must enable compliance determinations
consistent with the averaging time of the emissions
standard.
8. Test Methods. The alternative proposal must detail how
the proposed test method in association with its particular
emissions requirement (or rule) is at least as stringent as
the approved method in association with its emissions limit
(or rule) considering the accuracy, reliability,
reproducibility, and timeliness of each test method taken in
combination with its emissions limit. The application or
proposal must also address how the change affects
measurement sensitivity and representativeness, describe the
need for the change, and indicate if the change is needed
for unique conditions related only to the source in
question. The method must enable a compliance determination
consistent with the averaging time of the emissions standard
associated with it.
9. Act Requirements. The alternative must meet the all
applicable Act requirements (e.g., for reasonably available
control technology, 15% VOC reduction, etc.) and must not
interfere with any requirements of the Act, including any
regarding the SIP's attainment demonstration and
requirements for reasonable further progress.
10. Production Level. The emissions .are no greater than
the SIP allowable emissions at the same production level.
Pre-1990 production/operation scenarios cannot be used as
part of any demonstration that the alternative requirements
are as stringent as those in the SIP. Also, the
demonstration must be performed using an EPA-approved test
methods.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 -.•- • -•- _,,
3RA.NCH
APR 26 1993
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Definition of Regulated Air Pollutant for
Purposes of Title V
FROM: Lydia N. Wegman, Deputy Director ^4^~^C^^V_A^-£J^-\Av.—
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)
TO: Air Division Director, Regions I-X
In response to requests for guidance on the definition of
regulated air pollutant, this memorandum clarifies the approach
set forth by the definition in the 40 CFR part 70 regulations and
indicates the ways in which the class of regulated air pollutants
can change. The attachment provides a compilation of the lists
of pollutants which are considered regulated air pollutants for
purposes of the operating permits programs under title V of the
Clean Air Act (Act). This memorandum also provides guidance on
the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) definition of air
pollutant, as that term is used in determining major source
status pursuant to section 302 of the Act. Finally, this
memorandum emphasizes the ability of permitting authorities to
designate certain quantities of emissions of regulated air
pollutants as "insignificant" with respect to the obligation to
report emissions of those pollutants in permit applications. The
policies set out in this memorandum and attachment are intended
solely as guidance, not final Agency action, and cannot be relied
upon to create any rights enforceable by any party.
I. Regulated Air Pollutants
The definition of regulated air pollutant, found at
40 CFR 70.2, is important because it determines which pollutants
and emissions units must be addressed in a source's title v •
permit application. In addition, this definition can affect
whether a State's fee revenue is presumed adequate to fund its
title V program and, in some cases, the amount of permit fees a
source must pay. Each of these roles is discussed below.
Once a source is subject to a title V permitting program,
its emissions of all regulated air pollutants (except those which
meet the permitting authority's criteria for "insignificant"
-------
emissions) must be described in the permit application along with
all emissions of pollutants for which the source is considered
major. Similarly, applications must describe all emissions units
which emit regulated air pollutants (except those deemed
insignificant).
IT addition, the concept of regulated air pollutant plays a
significant role in the area of permit fees. Most importantly,
the definition of regulated air pollutant is the starting point
for determining which pollutants must be included when relying on
the $25 ton per year (as adjusted by the Consumer Price Index)
presumptive minimum program cost as a basis for demonstrating the
adequacy of a State's projected fee revenue. As part of this
demonstration, the State projects its revenue using a subset of
regulated air pollutants [i.e., regulated pollutant (for
presumptive fee calculation)].
The population of regulated air pollutants is composed of
the following categories of pollutants:
(1) Nitrogen oxides (NO,) and volatile organic compounds
(VOC). The definition of regulated air pollutant specifically
includes these two significant precursors to ozone (O3)
formation. This approach is consistent with the Act's treatment
of VOC and NO, pursuant to part D of 'title I of the Act [these O3 .
precursors are combined with the criteria pollutants for purposes
of the attached list of regulated pollutants).
(2) Any pollutant for which a national ambient air quality
standard has been promulgated [i.e., particulate matter (measured
as PM-10: particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or
equal to a nominal 10 micrometers), sulfur dioxide, O3, nitrogen
dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead].
(3) Any pollutant that is subject to a new source
performance standard promulgated under section 111 of the Act
[including section lll(d)], which requires new and modified
sources to satisfy emissions standards, work practice standards,
and other requirements.
(4) Any of the O3-depleting substances specified as a
Class I (primarily chlorofluorocarbons) or Class II substance
(hydrochlorofluorocarbons) under title VI of the Act (all of
which became regulated pollutants when they became subject to
standards and requirements for servicing of motor vehicle air
conditioners, and restrictions on the sale of O3-depleting
substances promulgated into 40 CFR part 82 (57 FR 31242, July 14,
1992) 1 .
-------
(5) Any pollutant subject to a standard promulgated under
section 112 or other requirements established under section 112
of the Act, including section 112(g)(2), (j), and (r) of the Act.
It is important to note that it is EPA's interpretation that
if a pollutant is regulated for one source category by a standard
or other requirement, then the pollutant is considered a
regulated air pollutant for all source categories. This concept
is relevant to all the pollutants listed under items (3), (4),
and (5) above, with one exception: those which are the subject
of case-by-case maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
determinations under section 112(g)(2).
The issue of when a substance regulated under section 112
becomes a regulated air pollutant merits further discussion.
• When a permitting authority makes a case-by-case MACT
determination under section 112(g)(2), then the pollutant
• for which the determination is made is regulated even though
EPA has not issued a standard for that pollutant. However,
the pollutant is considered regulated only with respect to
the individual source for which the MACT determination was
made.
• A pollutant will become regulated under section 112 (j) of
the Act (the MACT hammer] if the Administrator fails to
promulgate'a standard by the date established pursuant to
section ll-2(e) of the Act. Pursuant to section I12(j),
permitting authorities will be required to make case-by-case
KACT equivalent determinations. The pollutants become.
regulated nationwide upon the date this provision takes
effect for the pollutant (i.e., 18 months after the missed
deadline for the standard, but not prior to 42 months after
the enactment of the Act Amendments of 1990 (1990
Amendments) ) . Pollutants so regulated are considered
regulated air pollutants for all sources that emit the
pollutant because the hammer provision is a broadly-
applicable surrogate for the promulgation of a MACT
standard. This is in contrast to the section 112(g)(2)
determinations which are triggered only for the single
source subject to the requirement, rather than nationwide.
• The EPA's proposed rule (required by section 112(r)(3))
listing substances which could cause, or may reasonably be
anticipated to cause, death, injury, or serious adverse
effects to human health or the environment, if accidentally
released, was published in the Federal Register on
January-19, 1993 (58 FR 5102). All of the listed pollutants
will become regulated air pollutants upon promulgation of
the list.
-------
The attachment to this memorandum contains a list of
pollutants which are regulated, as well as a list of pollutants
which are subject to regulation under section 112 in the future,
as discussed above. It is also important to note that the
attached lists are dynamic and subject to change. For example,
the EPA is required to review periodically the statutory list of
pollutants in section 112 (b) and is authorized to delete and add
substances if the scientific data demonstrate that such a change
is appropriate.
We have attempted to note the likely near-term changes in
the regulations that determine which pollutants are regulated air
pollutants, and we will provide updates to this guidance
periodically.
The definition of regulated air pollutant does not limit the
air pollutants which a State may choose to regulate, nor does it
limit the information (such as for permit applications) which a
State may require of a source. States are free to adopt more
expansive approaches to the regulation of toxic air pollutants
than is required by part 70.
II. Definition of Air Pollutant Pursuant to Section 302
Considerable interest has been expressed in a related but
distinct area: the definition of air pollutant contained in
section 302(g) of the Act. This definition governs which
pollutants are to be considered in determining whether a source
is "major" pursuant to section 302(j) of the Act. This is
important to the operating permits programs because all major
sources must obtain a title V permit. Although section 302(g)
cap. be read quite broadly, so as to encompass virtually arty
substance emitted into the atmosphere, EPA believes that it is
more consistent with the intent of Congress to interpret this
provision more narrowly. Were this not done, a variety of .
sources that have no known prospect for"future regulation under
the Act would nonetheless be classified as major sources and be
required to apply for title V permits. Of particular concern
would be sources of carbon dioxide or methane.
As a result, EPA is interpreting "air pollutant" for
section 302(g) purposes as limited to all pollutants subject to
regulation under the Act. This would include, of course, all
regulated air pollutants plus others specified by the Act or by
EPA rulemaking. This approach results in the inclusion of the
pollutants on the list of hazardous air pollutants in section
112(b) that are not otherwise regulated. It should be noted that
the 1990 Amendments did include provisions with respect to carbon
djoxide (section 821) and methane (section 603), but these
requirements involve actions such as reporting and study, not
-------
actual control of emissions. Therefore, these provisions do not
preempt EPA's discretion to exclude these pollutants in
determining whether a source is major. If the results of the
studies required by the 1990 Amendments suggest the need for
regulation, these pollutants could be reconsidered at that time
for classification as pollutants subject to regulation under the
\ct.
This approach to interpreting section 302(g) is similar to
the traditional practice of the prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) program under part C of title I of the Act
[e.g., Implementation of North County Resource Recovery PSD
Remand, Gerald Emison, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, dated September 22, 1987].
III. De Minimis Thresholds
With the 1990 Amendments, the Act expressly addresses a
significantly broader range of pollutants. The EPA believes that
this will confer real benefits to air guality management, and
that the title V permits program offers the flexibility for
efficient implementation of these requirements. This function
includes providing information about emissions of these
pollutants, through the permit application process, even if the
particular pollutant is not currently required to .be controlled
at the individual source. The EPA also realizes that in many
cases these pollutants are emitted in amounts of no significance
to air quality management. It would be unduly burdensome to
require permit applicants to quantify all emissions of these
pollutants, especially given their considerable number and, in
sorr.e cases, difficulty in quantification.
The part 70 promulgation recognized this fact but gave only
very general guidance as to the approvable options for States in
developing their part 70 programs. Section 70.5(c) provides that
"(T]he Administrator may approve as part of a State program a
list of insignificant activities and emissions levels which need
not be included in permit applications." The regulation further
provides that "[T)he permitting authority shall require
additional information related to the emissions of air pollutants
sufficient to verify which requirements are applicable to the
source, and other information needed to collect any permit fees
owed under the fee schedule approved pursuant to section 70.9(b)
of this part" [section 70.5(c)(3)(i)].
In order to aid States in establishing their approaches to
insignificant activities and emissions levels, EPA intends to
review various approaches to setting de minimis thresholds for
reporting of emissions of air pollutants and provide advice and
guidance as needed on what constitutes acceptable approaches for
setting de minimis levels. This effort will include evaluation
of data compiled by EPA's national toxics program as well as
-------
review of current practices among some States that have been
regulating these pollutants. The EPA recognizes that the
particular thresholds selected by individual States can vary
based on their air quality management needs and professional
judgement. The EPA's further efforts in this area will be
offered as technical support and guidance to State and local
programs in addressing these challenging issues, not as mandatory
program minima. The EPA will work with States to develop part 70
programs that will best meet their program needs.
For further information, please contact Kirt Cox or
Candace Carraway of my staff at (919) 541-5399 and
(919) 541-3189, respectively.
Attachments
cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
Operating Permits Program Contacts, Regions I-X
OAQPS Division Directors
-------
Attachment 1
LIST OF REGULATED AIR POLLUTANTS
(As of April 1993)
I. Pollutants for Which National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) Have Been Established
lead
sulfur dioxide
nitrogen dioxide
carbon monoxide
particulate matter (PM-10)
ozone, including precursors:.
nitrogen oxides (NO, NO2, N03, N2O, N2O3, N2OX, NjOj)
volatile organic compounds (VOC)
As defined in 40 CFR 51.100(s), the term VOC includes any
compound of carbon (excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide,
carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium
carbonate) which participates in atmospheric photochemical
reactions. The EPA has developed a list of substances (which is
subject to change) which are excluded from the VOC definition
because of their negligible reactivity. The EPA's proposal to
exclude perchloroethylene from the definition was published in
57 FR 48490 (October 26, 1992).
The following organic compounds are excluded from the
definition of VOC because they have been determined to have
negligible photochemical reactivity:
methane
ethane
methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform)
l,l,l-trichloro-2,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC-113)
trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11)
dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12)
chlorodifluoromethane (CFC-22)
trifluoromethane (FC-23)
1,2-dichloro 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (CFC-114)
chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-115)
1,1,1-trifluoro 2,2-dichloroethane (HCFC-123)
1,1,1, 2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a)
1,1-dichloro 1-fluoroethane (HCFC-141b)
1-chloro 1,1-difluoroethane (HCFC-142b)
2-chloro-l,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HCFC-124)
pentafluoroethane (HFC-125)
1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134)
1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a)
1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-l52a)
-------
perfluorocarbon compounds which fall into -these classes:
(i) Cyclic, branched, or linear, completely
fluorinated alkanes;
(ii) Cyclic, branched, or linear, completely
fluorinated ethers with no unsatuzations;
(iii) Cyclic, branched, or linear, completely
fluorinated tertiary amines with no
unsaturations; and
(iv) Sulfur containing perfluorocarbons with no
unsaturations and with sulfur bonds only to
carbon and fluorine.
II. Pollutants Regulated Under New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS)
Criteria pollutants (including VOC and NOJ plus:
dioxin/furan (defined in 40 CFR 60.53a to mean total tetra
through octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans)"
fluorides
hydrogen chloride"
hydrogen sulfide (H,S)
sulfuric acid mist
total reduced sulfur
reduced sulfur compounds
total suspended particulate
The NSPS for municipal waste combustors (MVJC) controls
emissions of dioxin/furans and hydrogen chloride gas (40 CFR
60.53a and 60.54a) as surrogates for controlling emissions of
organic compounds and acid gases which are emitted in the exhaust
gases from MWC units. Thus, the indicated dioxin/furan compounds
and hydrogen chloride are regulated pollutants.
Note that the EPA has drafted a proposed revision to the
NSPS for MWC's which will regulate substances like cadmium which
are not currently regulated air pollutants. As this revised NSPS
and other standards are developed, there may be additions to the
list of regulated pollutants.
-------
III.
Class I and Class II Substances Under Title VI
Class I Substances:
carbon tetrachloride
chlorofluorocarbon-11
chlorof orocarbon-12
chlorofluorocarbon-13
chlorofluorocarbon-111
chlorofluorocarbon-112
chlorofluorocarbon-113
chlorofluorocarbon-114
chlorofluorocarbon-115
chlorofluorocarbon-211
chlorofluorocarbon-212
chlorofluorocarbon-213
chlorofluorocarbon-214
chlorofluorocarbon-215
chlorofluorocarbon-216
chlorofluorocarbon-217
halon-1211
halon-1301
halon-2402
methyl chloroform
Class II Substances:
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-
hydrochlorof luorocarbon-
hydrochlorof luor ocar bon-
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-
hydrochlorof luorocarbon-
hydrochlorof luor ocar bon-
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-
hydrochlorof luorocarbon-
hydrochlorof luor ocar bon-
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-
hydrochlorof luorocarbon-
hydrochlorof luor oca rbon-
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-
hydrochlorof luorocarbon-
hydrochlorof luorocarbon-
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-
hydrochlorof luorocarbon-
hydrochlorof luorocarbon-
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-
hydrochlorof luorocarbon-
hydrochlorof luor ocar bon-
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-
hydrochlorof luorocarbon-
hydrochlorof luorocarbon-
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-
(CFC-11)
(CFC-12)
(CFC-13)
(CFC-111)
(CFC-112)
(CFC-113)
(CFC-114)
(CFC-115)
(CFC-211)
(CFC-212)
(CFC-213)
(CFC-214)
(CFC-215)
(CFC-216)
(CFC-217)
•21 (HCFC-21)
•22 (HCFC-22)
•31 (HCFC-31)
•121 (HCFC-121)
•122 (KCFC-122)
•123 (HCFC-123)
•124 (HCFC-124)
•131 (HCFC-131)
•132 (HCFC-132)
•133 (HCFC-133)
•141 (HCFC-141)
•142 (HCFC-142)
•221 (HCFC-221)
•222 (HCFC-222)
•223 (HCFC-223)
224 (HCFC-224)
•225 (HCFC-225)
•226 (HCFC-226)
231 (HCFC-231)
232 (HCFC-232)
•233 (HCFC-233)
234 (HCFC-234)
235 (HCFC-235)
241 (HCFC-241)
242 (HCFC-242)
-------
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-243, (HCFC-243)
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-244 (HCFC-244)
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-251 (HCFC-251)
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-252 (HCFC-252)
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-253 (HCFC-253)
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-261 (HCFC-261)
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-262 (HCFC-262)
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-271 (HCFC-271)
IV. Pollutants Regulated Under § 112
Pollutants for which national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) have been established:
arsenic
asbestos
beryllium
benzene
mercury
radionuclides
vinyl chloride
-------
Attachment 2
POLLUTANTS SUBJECT TO REGULATION UNDER § 112
I. Pollutants listed in § 112(b):
The 189 pollutants listed in S 112 (b) are not considered-
regulated air pollutants until addressed in a requirement that
the pollutant be controlled by a source. None of the listed
pollutants meets the definition except asbest •• s, benzene, and
vinyl chloride (for which NESHAP have been established); and
hydrogen chloride (gas), dibenzofurans, and 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (regulated under the municipal waste
combustor NSPS). Most of the listed pollutants will become
regulated when EPA promulgates the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON)
which is discussed below. The remaining pollutants will become
regulated: (1) when EPA promulgates a maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) standard for the pollutant under § 112(d);
(2) for a particular source, when case-by-case MACT
determinations are made under § H2(g) for the source; or
(3) the later of June 15, 1994 or 18 months after EPA fails to
issue emissions standards for categories of sources in compliance
with the timetable promulgated pursuant to § 112(e) as mandated
by § 112(j).
The § 112(b) list contains some technical errors which will
be corrected in subsequent ruicraaking. The majority of the
technical corrections likely to be made are noted below. Also,
the pollutants from the § 112(b) list which are addressed in the
proposed HON are followed by an asterisk.
Cherr.ical
Abstract
Service
(CAS)
Number Chemical Name
75070 .. Acetaldehyde*
60355 Acetamide'
75058 Acetonitrile"
98862 Acetophenone"
53963 2-Acetylaminofluorene'
107028 Acrolein"
79061 Acrylamide"
79107 Acrylic acid'
107131 Acrylonitrile"
107051 Allyl chloride"
92671 4-Aminobiphenyl"
62533 Aniline*
90040 o-Anisidine"
1332214 Asbestos
-------
71432
92875
98077
100447
92524
117817
542881
75252
106990
156627
105602
133062
63252
75150
56235
463581
120809
133904
57749
7782505
79118
532274
108907
510156
67663
107302
126998
1319773
95487
108394
106-445
98828
94757
334883
132649
96128
84742
106467
91941
111444
542756
62737
111422
Benzene (including benzene from gasoline)"
Benzidine"
Benzotrichloride"
Benzyl chloride"
Biphenyl"
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP)*
Bis(chloromethyl)ether"
Bromoform"
1,3-Bu_adiene"
Calcium cyanamide
Caprolactam"
Captan
Carbaryl
Carbon disulfide"
Carbon tetrachloride*
Carbonyl sulfide"
Catechol"
Chloramben'
Chlordane
Chlorine
Chloroacetic acid"
2-Chloroacetophenone"
Chlorobenzene"
Chlorobenzilate
Chloroform*
Chloromethyl methyl ether"
Chloroprene*
Cresols/Cresylic acid (isomers and mixture)"
o-Cresol"
iTi-Cresol"
p-Cresol"
Cumene"
2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, including
salts and esters)"
DDE" (recommended technical correction: CAS number
72559] (1,l-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)
ethylene)
"Diazomethane
Dibenzofurans" (recommended technical correction:
Dibenzofuran]
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane"
Dibutylphthalate'
l,4-Dichlorobenzene(p)* (recommended technical
correction: 1,4-Dichlorobenzene]
3t3-Dichlorobenzidene" (recommended technical
correction: 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine]
Dichloroethyl ether (Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether)"
1,3-Dichloropropene"
Dichlorvos
Diethanolamine'
-------
121697
64675
119904
60117
119937
79447
68122
57147
131113
77781
51285
121142
123911
122667
106898
106887
140885
100414
51796
75003
106934
107062
107211
151564
technical
, and salts" [recommended
to remove CAS number]
(1
75218
96457
75343
,1-Dichloroethane)
N,N-Diethyl aniline (N,N-Dimethylaniline)*
[recommended technical correction:
N,N-Dimethylaniline]
Diethyl sulfate"
3, 3-Dimethoxybenzidine* [recommended technical
correction: 3,3' -Dimethoxybenzidine ]
Dimethyl aminoazobenzene"
3 , 3',-Dimethyl benzidine" [recommended technical
correction: 3,3',-Dimethylbenzidine]
Dimethyl carbamoyl chloride" [recommended
technical correction: Dimethylcarbamoyl chloride]
Dimethyl formamide" [recommended technical
correction: N,N-DimethyIformamide]
1,1-Dimethyl hydrazine" [recommended technical
correction: 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine]
Dimethyl phthalate"
Dimethyl sulfate"
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol,
technical correction
2,4-Dinitrophenol"
2,4-Dinitrotoluene"
1, 4-Dioxane (1,4-Diethyleneoxide)*
1, 2-Diphenylhydrazine*
Epichlorohydrin (l-Chloro-2 , 3-epoxypropane)'
1,2-Epoxybutane" —
Ethyl acrylate"
Ethyl benzene" [recommended technical correction:
Ethylbenzene]
Ethyl carbamate (Urethane)"
Ethyl chloride (Chloroethane)"
Ethylene dibromide (Dibromoethane)"
Ethylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloroethane)'
Ethylene glycol"
Ethylene imine (Aziridine) [recommended
correction: Ethyleneimine (Aziridine)]
Ethylene oxide"
Ethylene thiourea"
Ethylidene dichloride
50000
76448
118741
87683
77474
Kexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane"
H-examethylene-1, 6-diisocyanate*
Hexamethylphosphoramide"
Hexane*
Hydrazine"
Formaldehyde"
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene"
Hexachlorobutadiene"
67721
822060
680319
110543
302012
-------
7647010
7664393
123319
78591
108316
67561
72435
74839
74873
71556
78933
60344
74884
108101
624839
80626
1634044
101144
75092
101688
101779
91203
98953
92933
100027
79469
684935
62759
59892
56382
82688
87865
108952
106503
75445
7803512
7723140
85449
Hydrochloric acid [recommended technical
correction: Hydrochloric acid (hydrogen
chloride)(gas only)]
Hydrogen fluoride (Hydrofluoric acid)
Hydroquinone"
Isophorone"
Lindane (all isomers) [Recommended technical.
correction: 1,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclohexane (all
stereo isomers, including lindane)]
Maleic anhydride"
Methanol*
Methoxychlor
Methyl bromide (Broraomethane)*
Methyl chloride (Chloromethane)"
Methyl chloroform (1,1,1-Trichloroethane)"
Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone)" .
Methyl hydrazine* [recommended technical
correction: Methylhydrazine]
Methyl iodide (lodomethane)"
Methyl isobutyl ketone (Hexone)"
Methyl isocyanate"
Methyl methacrylate"
Methyl tert butyl ether" [recommended technical
correction: Methyl tert-butyl ether]
4 , 4-Methylene bis (2-chloroaniline) *~~( recommended
technical correction: 4,4'-Methylenebis(2-
chloroaniline]
Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane)"
Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI)"
(recommended technical correction:
4-4' Methylenediphenyl di.isocyanate (MDI)]
4,4, -Methylenedianiline'
Naphthalene"
Nitrobenzene"
4-Nitrobiphenyl"
4-Nitrophenol"
2-Nitropropane"
N-Nitroso-N-methylurea"
N-Nitrosodimethylamine"
N-Nitrosomorpholine"
Parathion
Pentachloronitrobenzene (Quintobenzene)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol"
p-Phenylenediamine"
Phosgene"
Phosphine
Phosphorus
Phthalic anhydride"
-------
1336363
1120714
57578
123386
114261
78875
75569
75558
91225
106514
100425
96093
1746016
79345
127184
7550450
10S883
95807
584849
95534
8001352
120821
79005
79016
95954
88062 '
121448
15S2098
540841
108054
5S3602
75014
75354
1330207
95476
10S3S3
106423
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
1,3-Propane sultone"
beta-Propiolactone*
Propionaldehyde"
Propoxur (Baygon)"
Propylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloropropane)
Propylene oxide"
1,2-Propyleniraine (2-Methyl aziridine)
Quinoline
Quinone"
Styrene"
Styrene oxide"
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin"
1,1, 2,2-Tetrachloroethane"
Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)"
Titanium tetrachloride
Toluene*
2,4-Toluene diamine" [recommended technical
correction: 2,4-Toluenediamine]
2,4-Toluene diisocyanate"
o-Toluidine"
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphene)
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene"
1,1,2-Trichloroethane"
Trichloroethylene"
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol'
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol'
Triethylamine"
Trifluralin'
2,2, 4-Trimethylpentane"
Vinyl acetate"
Vinyl bromide"
Vinyl chloride"
Vinylidene chloride (1,1-Dichloroethylene)"
Xylenes (isomers and mixture)"
o-Xylenes" (recommended technical correction:
o-Xylene
m-Xylenes"
m-Xylene]
p-Xylenes*
p-Xylene]
Antimony Compounds
Arsenic Compounds (inorganic including arsine)
Beryllium Compounds
Cadmium Compounds
Chromium Compounds
Cobalt Compounds
Coke Oven Emissions
Cyanide Compounds [1]
Glycol ethers" [2]
(recommended technical correction:
[recommended technical correction:
-------
0 Lead Compounds
0 Manganese Compounds
0 Mercury Compounds
0 Fine mineral fibers '[3]
0 Nickel Compounds
0 Polycylic Organic Matter [4]" [recommended
technical correction: Polycyclic Organic Matter]
0 Radionuclides (including radon) [5]
0 Selenium Compounds
NOTE: For all listings above which contain the word "compounds"
and for glycol ethers, the following applies: Unless otherwise
specified, these listings are defined as including any unique
chemical substance that contains the named chemical (i.e.,
antimony, arsenic, etc.) as part of that chemical's
infrastructure.
1 X'CN where X = H' or any other group where a formal
dissociation may occur.
For example KCN or Ca(CN)2
2 Includes mono- and di- ethers of ethylene glycol, diethylene
glycol, and triethylene glycol R-(OCH2CH2)n-OR' where
.n = 1, 2, or 3
R = alkyl or aryl groups
R1 = R, H, or groups which, when removed, yield glycol ethers
with the structure: R-(OCH2CH)B-OH [recommended technical
correction: R-(OCH2CH2) n-OH] . Polymers, are excluded from the
glycol category.
3 Includes mineral fiber emissions from facilities
manufacturing or processing glass, rock, or slag fibers (or other
mineral-derived fibers) of average diameter 1 micrometer or less.
4 Includes organic compounds with more than one benzene ring,
and which have a boiling point greater than or equal to 100°C.
[Recommended technical correction: limited to, or refers to,
products from incomplete combustion of organic compounds (or
material) and pyrolysis processes having more than one benzene
ring, and which have a boiling point greater than or equal to
100°C.]
5 A type of atom which spontaneously undergoes radioactive
decay.
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
? WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
'/
OfFCEOF
SQ^HJ WASTE ANO EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CAA Section 112(r) Final Rule on List & Thresholds
FROM: Jim Makris, Director O^O^'^^Xft^ ^
Chemical Emergency Preparedness *
and Prevention Office
TO: Addressees
I am pleased to announce the publication of the final rule on
the list of substances and threshold quantities for chemical
accident prevention, as required under section 112(r) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990. The final rule was
signed by the Administrator on January 14, 1994.
This rule constitutes one of the responsibilities of the
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office (CEPPO)
under the provisions for chemical accident prevention in the
CAA. The purpose of these provisions is to ensure that
facilities reduce the likelihood and severity of accidental
chemical releases that could harm the public and the
environment. These provisions will also ensure that the
public and state and local governments receive facility-
specific information on potential hazards and the steps
facilities are taking to reduce those hazards. This
complements earlier requirements under the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act. The section 112(r)
regulations systematize and build on the.approach to
preventing chemical accidents that has existed in earlier
industry codes and standards.
The substances identified in this rule are those that have
the greatest potential to pose a hazard to public health and
the environment in the event of an accidental release.
Facilities that handle these substances in more than a
threshold quantity in a process must develop and implement a
risk management plan. That plan must include offsite
consequence analyses, a 5-year accident history, a prevention
program, and an emergency response program. The risk
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with SoyrC*nol< Ink on paper IMI
cotntlm K Ion 50% nrftt»4 fiber
-------
2/
management plans will be submitted to the implementing agency
(state or E&A) , Local Emergency Planning Committee, State
Emergency Response Commission^ the Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board, and will be made available to the
public. The elements of the risk management planning
requirements were published in a proposed rule in the Federal
Register on October 20, 1993.
The final list includes 77 acutely toxic substances, 63
flammable gases and volatile flammable liquids, and the
category of explosive substances with a mass explosion hazard
known as Division 1.1 high explosives, as listed by DOT in 49
CFR 172.101. The threshold quantities for toxics range from
500 to 20,000 pounds, while flammables have a threshold of
10,000 pounds and explosives of 5,000 pounds. The rule also
describes the procedures 'for determining whether a threshold
quantity of a regulated substance is present at a stationary
source. It specifies exemptions for mixtures, articles, and
'certain uses and activities. In addition, it specifies the
requirements for petitions to the Agency to add substances to
or delete substances from the list. The Agency is deferring
action on the way to determine threshold quantities for
listed flammable substances when used solely for facility
consumption as a fuel. A supplemental notice (attached) is
requesting additional public comments on this issue.
Enclosed with this memo are copies of the final
list/thresholds rule and the companion supplemental notice,
along with additional explanatory materials that set the
context for this rule within the CAA accidental release
prevention provisions and EPA's chemical accident prevention
program. The rule will be published in the Federal Register
on January 31, 1994. If .you have any questions or need
additional information about this rule, please contact
Vanessa Rodriguez at 202-260-7913.
Attachments
-------
S 68.130 List of substances.
(a) Explosives listed by DOT as Division 1.1 in 49 CFR Part
172.101 are. covered under section 112 (r) of the Clean Air Act. The
threshold quantity for explosives is 5,000 pounds.
(b) Regulated toxic and flammable substances u"ier section
112 (r) of the Clean Air Act are the substances listed in Tables l,
2, 3, and 4. Threshold quantities for listed toxic and flammable
substances are specified in the tables.
(c) The basis for placing toxic and flammable substances on
the list of regulated substances are explained in the notes to the
list.
-83-
-------
TAjBLE 1 TO $68.130 - LIST OF REGULATED TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD
QUANTITIES FOR ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVENTION
(ALPHABETICAL ORDER - 77 SUBSTANCES]
Chemical Name
Acrolein (2-Propenal)
Acrylonitrile [2-Propenenitrile}
Acrylyl chloride (2-Propenoyl
chloride]
Allyl alcohol [2-Propen-l-ol]
Allylamine [2-Propen-l-amine]
Ammonia (anhydrous)
Ammonia (cone 202 or greater)
Arsenous trichloride
Arsine
Boron trichloride [Borane, trichloro-]
Boron trifluoride [Borane, trifluoro-]
Boron trifluoride compound with methyl
ether (1:1) (Boron,
trifluoro[oxybis(metane]]-, T-4-
Bromine
Carbon disulfide
Chlorine
Chlorine dioxide (Chlorine oxide
(C102)]
Chloroform (Methane, trichloro-]
Chloromethyl ether [Methane,
oxybis[chloro-]
Chloromethyl methyl ether [Methane,
chloromethoxy-]
Crotonaldehyde [2-Butenal]
Crotonaldehyde, (E)- [2-Butenal. (E)-]
Cyanogen chloride
Cyclohexylamine [Cyclohexanamine]
Diborane
CAS No
Threshold Basis -
Quantity for
fibs) Listing
107-02-8
107-13-1
814-68-6
107-18-6
107-11-9
7664-41-7
7664-41-7
7784-34-1
7784-42-1
10294-34-5
7637-07-2
353-42-4
5,000
20,000
5,000
15,000
10,000
10,000
20,000
15,000
1,000
5,000
5,000
15,000
b
b
b
b
b
a, b
a, b
b
b
b
b
b
7726-95-6 10,000 a, b
75-15-0 20,000 b
7782-50-5 2,500 a. b
10049-04-4 1,000 c
67-66-3 20,000 b
542-88-1 1,000 b
107-30-2 5,000 b
4170-30-3 20,000 b
123-73-9 20.000 b
506-77-4 10,000 c
108-91-8 15,000 b
19287-45-7 2,500 b
-84-
-------
Chemical, N^ae
Dimethyldichlorosilane [Silane,
dichlorodimethyl- ]
1 , 1 - D ime thy Ihydr az i ne [ Hydraz ine ,
1,1-dimethyl-j
Epichlorohydrin [Oxirane,
(chloromethyl)- ]
Ethylenediamine [ 1 , 2 -Ethanediamine ]
Ethyleneimine [Aziridine]
Ethylene oxide [Oxirane]
Fluorine
Formaldehyde (solution)
Fur an
Hydraz ine
Hydrochloric acid (cone 30Z or greater)
Hydrocyanic acid
Hydrogen chloride (anhydrous)
[Hydrochloric acid]
Hydrogen fluoride/Hydrofluoric acid
(cone 501 or greater) [Hydrofluoric
acid]
Hydrogen selenide
Hydrogen sulfide
Ir'on, pentacarbonyl- [Iron carbonyl
(Fe(CO)S). (TB-5-11)-]
Isobutyronitrile [Propanenitrile ,
2 -methyl-]
Isopropyl chloroformate
[Carbonochloridic acid, 1-methylethyl
ester]
Methacrylonitrile { 2-Propenenitrile ,
2 -methyl-]
Methyl chloride [Methane, chloro-]
Methyl chloroformate [Carbonochloridic
CAS No
75-78-5
57-14-7
106-89-8
107-15-3
151-56-4
75-21-8
7782-41-4
50-00-0
110-00-9
302-01-2
7647-01-0
74-90-8
7647-01-0
7664-39-3
7783-07-5
7783-06-4
13463-40-6
78-82-0
108-23-6
126-98-7
74-87-3
79-22-1
Thresholi
Quantity
Clbs)
5,000
15,000
20,000
20,000
10 . 000
10,000
1,000
15,000
5.000
15,000
15,000
2.500
5,000
1,000
500
10,000
2.500
20,000
15,000
10,000
10,000
5,000
i Basis
for
Listing
b
b
b
b
b
a,
b
b
b
b
d
a.
a
a,
b
a,
b
b
b
b
a
b
b
b
b
b
acid, methylester]
-85-
-------
Chemical,
Methyl hydrazine [Hydrazine, methyl-]
Methyl isocyanate i fethane,
isocyanato-}
Methyl mereaptan [Methanethiol]
Methyl thiocyanate (Thiocyanic acid,
methyl ester]
Methyltrichlorosilane [Silane,
trichloromethyl-]
Nickel carbonyl
Nitric acid (cone 802 or greater)
Nitric oxide [Nitrogen oxide (NO)]
Oleum (Fuming Sulfuric acid) (Sulfuric
acid, mixture with sulfur trioxide]1
Peracetic acid [Ethaneperoxoic acid]
Perchloromethylmercaptan
[Methanesulfenyl chloride, trichloro-]
Phosgene [Carbonic dichloride]
Phosphine
Phosphorus oxychloride [Phosphoryl
chloride]
Phosphorus trichloride [Phosphorous
trichloride]
Piperidine
Propionitrile [Propanenitrile]
Propyl chlorofornate [Carbonochloridic
acid, propylester]
Propyleneimine [Aziridine, 2-methyl-]
Propylene oxide [Oxirane, methyl-]
Sulfur dioxide (anhydrous)
Sulfur tetrafluoride [Sulfur fluoride
(SF4). (T-4)-]
Sulfur trioxide
CAS No
60-34-4
624-83-9
74-93-1
556-64-9
75-79-6
13463-39-3
7697-37-2
10102-43-9
8014-95-7
79-21-0
594-42-3
75-44-5
7803-51-2
10025-87-3
7719-12-2
110-89-4
107-12-0
109-61-5
75-55-8
75-56-9
'7446-09-5
7783-60-0
Threshold
Quantity
abs)
15,000
10,000
10,000
20,000
5,000
1,000
15,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10.000
500
5,000
5,000
15,000
15,000
10,000
15,000
10,000
10,000
5,000
2,500
Basis
for
Listing
b
a, b
b
b
b
b
b
b
e
b
b
a. b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
a, b
b
7446-11-9 10,000
a, b
-86-
-------
Chemical Nai
CAS No
Threshold Basis
Quantity for
fibs') Listing
Tetramethyllead [Plumbane,
tetramethyl-]
Tetranitromethane [Methane,
tetranitro-]
Titaniua tetrachloride [Titanium
chloride (TiCU) (T-4)-]
Toluene 2,4-diisocyanate [Benzene,
2,4-diisocyanato-l-methyl-]1
Toluene 2,6-diisocyanate (Benzene,
1,3-diisocyanato-2-methyl-]l
Toluene diisocyanate (unspecified
isomer) [Benzene,
1,3-diisocyanatomethyl-]x
Trimethylchlorosilane [Silane,
chlorotrimethyl-]
Vinyl acetate monomer [Acetic acid
ethenyl ester]
75-74-1 10,000
509-14-8 10,000
7550-45-0 2,500
584-84-9 10,000
91-08-7 10,000
26471-62-5 10,000
75-77-4 10,000
108-05-4 15,000 ' b
mixture exemption in §68.115(b) (1) does not apply to the substance.
Basis for Listing:
•Mandated for listing by Congress.
bOn EHS list, vapor pressure 10 mmHg or greater.
eToxic gas.
*Toxicity of hydrogen chloride, potential to release hydrogen chloride, and
history of accidents.
Toxicity of sulfur trioxide and sulfuric acid, potential to release sulfur
trioxide, and history of accidents.
-87-
-------
TABLE 2 TO $68.130 - LIST OF REGULATED TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD
QUANTITIES FOR ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVENTION
[CAS NUMBER ORDER - 77 SUBSTANCES)
CAS No.
50-00-0
57-14-7
60-34-4
67-66-3
74-87-3
74-90-8
74-93-1
75-15-0
75-21-8
75-44-5
75-55-8
75-56-9
75-74-1
75-77-4
75-78-5
75-79-6
78-82-0
79-21-0
79-22-1
91-08-7
106-89-8
107-02-8
Chemical Name
7T"
Formaldehyde (solution)
1, 1-Dimethylhydrazine [Hydrazine,
1,1 -dimethyl-]
Methyl hydrazine [Hydrazine, methyl-]
Chloroform [Methane, trichloro-]
Methyl chloride [Methane, chloro-]
Hydrocyanic acid
Methyl mercaptan . [Methanethiol] ,
Carbon disulfide
Ethylene oxide [Oxirane]
Phosgene [Carbonic dichloride]
Propyleneimine [Aziridine, 2-methyl-]
Propylene oxide [Oxirane, methyl-]
Tetramethyllead (Plumbane,
tetramethyl- ]
Trimethylchlorosilane (Silane,
chlorotrimethyl- ]
Dimethyldichlorosilane [Silane,
dichlorodimethyl- ]
Methyltrichlorosilane [Silane,
trichloromethyl- ]
Isobutyronitrile [ Propanenitrile ,
2-methyl-]
Peracetic acid [Ethaneperoxoic acid]
Methyl chloroformate [Carbonochloridic
acid, methylester]
Toluene 2 , 6-diisocyanate [Benzene,
1 . 3-diisocyanato-2-methyl- j l
Epichlorohydrin (Oxirane,
(chloromethyl)-]
Acrolein [2-Propenal]
Threshold
Quantity
dbs}
15,000
15,000
15,000
20,000
10,000
2,500
10,000
20,000
10,000
500
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
5.000
5,000
20,000
10,000
5,000
10,000
20,000
5,000
Basis-
for
Listing
b '
b
b
b
a
a, b
b
b
a, b
a, b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
a
b
b
-88-
-------
CAS No.
107-11-9
107-12-0
107-13-1
107-15-3
107-18-6
107-30-2
108-05-4
108-23-6
108-91-8
109-61-5
110-00-9
110-89-4
123-73-9
126-98-7
151-56-4
302-01-2
353-42-4
506-77-4
509-14-8
Chemical Name
Allylamine [2-Propen-l-*aoine]
Proplonitrile [Propanenitrile]
Acrylonitrile [2-Properie-nitrile]
Ethy lenediamine [1,2- Ethanediamine ]
Allyl alcohol [2-Propen-l-ol]
Chloromethyl methyl echer [Methane,
chloromethoxy- ]
Vinyl acetate monomer [Acetic acid
ethenyl ester]
Isopropyl chloroformate
[Carbonochloridic acid, 1-methylethyl
ester]
Cyclohexylamine [Cyclohexanamine]
Propyl chloroformate [Carbonochloridic
acid, propylester]
Furan
Piperidine
Crotonaldehyde, (E)- [2-Butenal, (E)-)
Hethacrylonitrile [2-Propenenitrile ,
2 -methyl-]
Ethyleneimine [Aziridine]
Hydrazine
Boron trifluoride compound with methyl
ether (1:1) [Boron,
trifluoro[oxybis[metane] ] - , T-4-
Cyanogen chloride
Tetranitrome thane [Methane,
Threshold
Quantity
ribs) '
10,000
10,000
20,000
20,000
15,000
5,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
5,000
15,000
20,000
10,000
10,000
15,000
15.000
10,000
10,000
Basis
for
Listing
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
c
b
tetranitro-]
542-88-1 Chloromethyl ether [Methane. 1,000 b
oxybis[chloro-]
556-64-9 Methyl thiocyanate [Thiocyanic acid, 20,000 b
methyl ester]
584-84-9 Toluene 2,4-diisocyanate [Benzene, 10.-000 a
2,4-diisocyanato-1-methyl-]1
-89-
-------
Threshold Basis
Quantity for
CAS No.
594-42-3
.24-83-9
814-68-6
4170-30-3
7446-09-5
7446-11-9
7550-45-0
7637-07-2
7647-01-0
7647-01-0
'7664-39-3
7664-41-7
7664-41-7
7697-37-2
7719-12-2
7726-95-6
7782-41-4
7782-50-5
7783-06-4
7783-07-5
7783-60-0
7784-34-1
7784-42-1
7803-51-2
Chemical Name
. Perchloromethylmercaptan
(Methanesulfenyl chloride, trichloro-]
Methyl isocyanate [Methane,
isocyanato- ]
Acrylyl chloride (2-Propenoyl
chloride]
Crotonaldehyde [2-Butenal]
Sulfur dioxide (anhydrous)
Sulfur trioxide
Titanium tetrachloride [Titanium
chloride (TiC14) (T-4)-]
Boron trifluoride [Borane, trifluoro-]
Hydrochloric acid (cone 302 or greater)
Hydrogen chloride (anhydrous)
(Hydrochloric acid]
Hydrogen fluoride/Hydrofluoric acid
(cone 502 or greater) (Hydrofluoric
acid]
Ammonia (anhydrous)
Ammonia (cone 202 or greater)
Nitric acid (cone 802 or greater)
Phosphorus trichloride [Phosphorous
trichloride]
Bromine
Fluorine
Chlorine
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen selenide
Sulfur tetrafluoride (Sulfur fluoride
(SF4), (T-4)-]
Arsenous trichloride
Arsine
Phosphine
(Ibs)
10,000
10,000
5,000
20,000
5,000
10,000
2,500
5,000
15,000
5,000
1,000
10.000
20 , 0'OO
15,000
15,000
10,000
1,000
2,500
10,000
500.
2,500
15,000
1 ,-000
5,00.0
Listing
b
a,
b
b
a,
a,
b
b
d
a
a,
a.
a,
b
b
a,
b
a,
a,
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
-90-
-------
CAS No.
Threshold Basis
Quantity for
8014-95-7
10025-87-3
10049-04-4
Oleum (Fuming Sulfuric acid) {Sulfuric
acid, mixture with sulfur trioxide]1
Phosphorus oxychloride [Phosphoryl
chloride]
Chlorine dioxide [Chlorine oxide
10 , 000
5,000
1,000
e
b
c
(C102)]
10102-43-9 Nitric oxid« [Nitrogen oxide (NO)]
10294-34-5 Boron trichloride [Borane, trichloro-]
13463:39-3 Nickel carbonyl
•13463-40-6 Iron, pentacarbonyl- [Iron carbonyl
(Fe(CO)5), (TB-5-11)-]
19287-45-7 Diborane
26471-62-5 Toluene diisocyanate (unspecified
isomer) [Benzene,
1,3-diisocyanatomethyl-J1
10,000
5,000
1,000
2,500
2,500
10,000
b
b
b
b
b
a
1The mixture exemption in §68.115(b)(1) does not apply to the substance.
Basis for Listing:
•Mandated for listing by Congress.
bOn EHS list, vapor pressure 10 mmHg or greater.
'Toxic gas.
dToxicity of hydrogen chloride, potential to release hydrogen chloride, and
history of accidents.
Toxicity of sulfur trioxide and sulfuric acid, potential to release sulfur
trioxide, and history of accidents.
-91-
-------
TABLE 3 TO $68.130 - LIST OF REGULATED FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD
QUANTITIES FOR ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVENTION
(ALPHABETICAL ORDER - 63 SUBSTANCES]
Chemical N*»m<» •
Acetaldehyde
Ace ty lene [ Ethyne ]
Bromotrif luorethy lene [ Ethene ,
bromotrifluoro- ]
1,3 -Butadiene
Butane
1-Butene
2-Butene
Butene
2- Butene -cis
2 -Butene -trans (2 -Butene, (E)]
Carbon oxysulfide [Carbon oxide
sulfide (COS)]
Chlorine monoxide [Chlorine oxide]
2-Chloropropylene [1-Propene,
2-chloro-]
1-Chloropropylene [1-Propene,
1-chloro- ]
Cyanogen [Ethanedinitrile]
Cydlopropane
Dichlorosilane [Silane, dichloro-]
Difluoroethane [Ethane, 1,1-difluoro- ]
Dime thy lanin« [Methanamine , N-methyl-]
2 , 2-Dimethylpropane [Propane,
2,2-dimethyl-]
Ethane
Ethyl acetylene [1-Butyne]
Ethylamine [Ethanamine]
Ethyl chloride [Ethane, chloro-J
CAS No.
75-07-0
74-86-2
598-73-2
106-99-0
106-97-8
106-98-9
107-01-7
25167-67-3
590-18-1
624-64-6
463-58-1
7791-21-1
557-98-2
590-21-6
460-19-5
75-19-4
4109-96-0
75-37-6
124-40-3
463-82-1
74-84-0
107-00-6
75-04-7
75-00-3
Threshold
Quantity
fibs}
10,000
10,000
10 , 000
10,000
. 10,000
10,000
10 , 000
10,000
10 , 000
10 , 000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10.000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10 ; ooo
10.000
Basis
for
Listing
g
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
g
g
f '
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
-92-
-------
Chemical ^MM
Ethylene [Ethene]
Ei-nyl ether (Ethane, 1,1' -oxybis- ]
Ethyl mercaptan [ Ethane thiol]
Ethyl nitrite [Nitrous acid, ethyl
ester]
Hydrogen
Isobutane [Propane, 2-methyl]
Isopentane [Butane, 2-methyl-]
Isoprene [1,3 -Butadiene, 2-methyl-]
Isopropylamine [2-Propanamine]
Isopropyl chloride [Propane,
2-chloro-]
.Methane
Methylamine [Methanaaine]
3 -Methyl - 1 -butene
2-Methyl-l-butene
Methyl ether [Methane, oxybis-]
Methyl formate [Formic acid, methyl
ester]
2-Methylpropene [1-Propene, 2-methyl-]
1,3-Pentadiene
Pehtane
1-Pentene
2-Pentene, .
-------
Chemical Name
Tetrafluoroethylene [Ethene,
tetrafluoro-]
Tetramethylsilane [Silane,
tetramethyl-]
Trichlorosilane [Silane, crichloro-)
Trifluorochloroethylene [Ethene,
chlorotrifluoro-]
Trinethylanine [Methanamine,
N.N-dimethyl-]
Vinyl acetylene [l-Buten-3-yne]
Vinyl chloride (Ethene, chloro-]
Vinyl ethyl ether [Ethene, ethoxy-]
Vinyl fluoride [Ethene, fluoro-]
Vinylidene chloride [Ethene,
1,1-dichloro-]
Vinylidene fluoride [Ethene,
1,1-difluoro-]
Vinyl methyl ether (Ethene, methoxy-]
CAS No.
Threshold
Quantity
fibs)
' 116-14-3 10,000
75-76-3 10,000
10025-78-2 10,000
79-38-9 10,000
75-50-3 10,000
Basis
for
Listing
g
f
689-97-4
75:01-4
109-92-2
75-02-5
75-35-4
75-38-7
107-25-5
10,000
10 , 000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
f
a, f
g
f
g
f
f
Basis for Listing:
•Mandated for listing by Congress.
fFlammable gas.
'Volatile flammable liquid.
-94-
-------
TABLE 4 TO 568.130 - LIST OF REGULATED FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD
QUANTITIES FOR ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVENTION
[CAS NUMBER ORDER - 63 SUBSTANCES]
CAS No.
60-29-7
74-82-8
74-84-0
74-85-1
74-86-2
74-89-5
74-98-6
74-99-7
75-00-3
75-01-4
75-02-5
75-04-7
75-07-0
75-08-1
75-19-4
75-28-5
75-29-6
75-31-0
75-35-4
75-37-6
75-38-7
Chemlra| Name
Ethyl ether [Ethane,
l.l'-oxybis-]
Methane
Ethane
Ethylene [ Ethene ]
Acetylene [Ethyne]
Methylamine [Methanamine]
Propane
Propyne [1-Propyne]
Ethyl chloride [Ethane,
chloro- ]
Vinyl chloride [Ethene.
chloro- ]
Vinyl fluoride [Ethene.
fluoro- ]
Ethylamine [Ethanamine]
Acetaldehyde
Ethyl mercaptan
[ Ethane thiol]
Cyclopropane
Isobutane [ Propane ,
2 -methyl]
Isopropyl chloride
[Propane, 2 -chloro-]
laopropylamine
[ 2 - Propanamine ]
Vinylidene chloride
[Ethene, 1 , 1-dichloro- ]
Difluoroethane [Ethane,
1,1-difluoro-]
Vinylidene fluoride
CAS No.
60-29-7
74-82-8
74-84-0
74-85-1
74-86-2
74-89-5
74-98-6
74-99-7
75-00-3
75-01-4
75-02-5
75-04-7
75-07-0
75-08-1
75-19-4
75-28-5
75-29-6
75-31-0
75-35-4
75-37-6
75-38-7
Threshold
Quantity
Qbs^
. ,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10.000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
•10,000
10,000
10,000
10 , 000
Basis
for
Listing
g
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
a. f
f
f
g
g
f
f
g
g
g
f
f
[Ethene, 1,1-difluoro-]
-95-
-------
CAS No.
75-50-3
75-76-3
78-78-4
78-79-5
79-38-9
106-97-8
106-98-9
106-99-0
107-00-6
107-01-7
107-25-5
107-31-3
109-66-0
109-67-1
109-92-2
109-95-5
115-07-1
115-10-6
115-11-7
116-14-3
124-40-3
460-19-5
Chemical Name
Trinethylamine
[Methanamine, N,N-dimethyl- ]
Tetramethylsilai. > (Silane.,
tetramethyl-]
Isopentane [Butane,
2-methyl-]
Isoprene [1,3-Butadiene,
2-m«thyl-]
Trifluorochloroethylene
[Ethene, chlorotrifluoro-]
Butane
1-Butene
1,3-Butadiene
Ethyl acetylene [1-Butyne]
2-Butene
Vinyl methyl ether [Ethene,
methoxy-]
Methyl formate [Formic
acid, methyl ester]
Pentane
1-Pentene
Vinyl ethyl ether [Ethene,
ethoxy-]
Ethyl nitrite [Nitrous
acid, ethyl ester]
Propylene [1-Propene]
Methyl ether [Methane,
oxybis-"]
2-Methylpropene [1-Propene.
2-methyl-]
Tetrafluoroethylene
[Ethene, tetrafluoro-]
Dimethylamine (Methanamine.
N-methyl-]
Cyanogen [Ethanedinitrile)
CAS No.
Threshold Basis
Quantity for
fibs) ListinE
75-50-3 10,000 f
75-76-3 10,000 g
78-78-4 10,000 g
78-79-5 10,000 g
79-38-9 10,000 f
106-97-8 10,000 f
106-98-9 10,000 f
106-99-0 10,000 f
107-00-6 10,000 f
107-01-7 10,000 f
107-25-5 10,000 f
107-31-3 10,000 g
109-66-0 10,000 g
109-67-1 10,000 g
109-92-2 10,000 g
109-95-5 10,000
115-07-1 10,000
115-10-6 10,000
115-11-7 10,000
116-14-3 10,000
124-40-3 10,000
460-19-5 10,000
f
f
-96-
-------
CAS No.
463-49-0
463-58-1
463-82-1
504-60-9
557-98-2
563-45-1
563-46-2
590-18-1
590-21-6
598-73-2
624-64-6
627-20-3
646-04-8
689-97-4
Chemical Name
Propadiene [i, 2-Propadiene]
Carbon oxysulfide {Carbon.
oxide sulfide (COS)]
2 , 2-Dimethylpropane
[Propane, 2, 2 -dimethyl-)
1,3-Pentadiene
2 - Chloropropylene
[1-Propene, 2-chloro-]
3 -Methyl - 1 -butene
2 -Methyl - 1 -butene
2-Butene-cis
1- Chloropropylene
[1-Propene, 1-chloro-]
Bromotrifluorethylene
[Ethene, bromotrifluoro- ]
2 -Butene -trans [2 -Butene,
CAS No.
Threshold Basis
Quantity for
fibs') Listing
2-Pentene, (Z)-
2-Pentene, (E)-
Vinyl acetylene
[l-Buten-3-yne]
1333-74-0 Hydrogen
4109-96-0 Dichlorosilane (Silane,
dichloro-]
7791-21-1 Chlorine monoxide [Chlorine
oxide]
7803-62-5 Silane
10025-78-2 Trichlorosilane [Silane.
trichloro-]
25167-67-3 Butene
Basis for Listing:
•Mandated for listing by Congress.
£Flammable gas.
'Volatile flammable liquid.
463-49-0 10,000 f
463-.8-1 10,000 f
463-82-1 10,000 f
504-60-9 10,000 f
557-98-2 10,000 g
563-45-1 10,000 f
563-46-2 10.000 g
590-18-1 10,000 f
590-21-6 10,000 g
598-73-2 10,000 f
624-64-6 10,000 f
627-20-3 10,000 g
646-04-8 10.000 g
689-97-4 10,000 f
1333-74-0 10,000 f
4109-96-0 10,000 f
7791-21-1 10,000 f
7803-62-5 '10,000 f
10025-78-2 10.000 g
25167-67-3 10,000 f
-97-
-------
October 16, 1995
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Definition of Regulated Pollutant for Particulate
Matter for Purposes of Title V
FROM: Lydia N. Wegman, Deputy Director /s/
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)
TO: See Addressees
In a guidance memorandum dated April 26, 1993, the Agency
clarified its interpretation of the term "regulated air
pollutant" as defined in the operating permit rule (see 40 CFR
70.2). Recently, many discussions have been held concerning the
application of this definition to sources of particulate matter
under the title V operating permit program. Today's memorandum
provides additional guidance to assist permitting authorities in
determining which sources of particulate matter are subject to
the requirements of title V.
There are different forms of particulate matter for which
controls are required by various regulations. The April 26, 1993
memorandum listed PM-lO and total suspended particulates as
regulated forms of particulate matter and, consequently,
regulated air pollutants. The EPA has recently reevaluated this
finding and has concluded that its definition of regulated air
pollutant under title V applies only to emissions of PM-10. A
detailed discussion of the basis for this conclusion is attached.
Today's guidance should be used to determine which sources
of particulate matter are subject to minimum title V requirements
and fee calculations. The Federal minimum for applicability of
title V to sources of particulate matter should be based on the
amount of emissions of PM-10, not particulate matter, that the
source has the potential to emit. Some sources [such as country
grain elevators, aggregate (rock, gravel, and sand) handling
operations, and some mining operations] may not be major sources
of PM-10 even though they would have been considered major
sources of particulate matter.
This guidance does not change any requirements for sources
to comply with emission limitations or work practice standards as
described in State implementation plans (SIPs) and new source
performance standards (NSPS). For example, the required
procedures for determining compliance with NSPS continue to be
based on in-stack measurements of particulate emissions or
visible emissions observations (i.e., Test Methods 5, 9, 17, and
-------
22, and Performance Specification 1). The Federal minimum is
that if sources are major, then they must obtain title V
operating permits which include all applicable requirements.
Therefore, if a source is major for particulate matter, but not
for PM-10, the Federal minimum would be that a title V operating
permit would not be required if the only pollutant that would
make the source major is particulate matter. Any requirements to
comply with NSPS or SIPs would remain in effect, however.
This clarification of PM-10's status as the regulated
pollutant will cause some difficulties in estimating emissions;
however, tools are available for many source categories. For
example, although some 1900 particulate matter emission factors
can be found in the document referred to as "AP-42," there are
also over 1200 PM-10 factors. In addition, category specific
particle-size distributions are available for a number of other
categories on EPA's data bases.
This revision of previous guidance constitutes a change only
with regard to the title V operating permit program. It does not
change any other interpretations or requirements that have been
previously provided for implementing the Clean Air Act.
The policies set forth in this memorandum are intended
solely as guidance and not final Agency action. This guidance
cannot be relied upon to create any rights enforceable by any
party. For further information on the title V aspects of this
guidance, please contact Leo Stander at 919-541-2402, and for
further information on emissions estimation techniques, please
contact David Mobley at 919-541-4676.
Attachment
-------
Addressees:
Director, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Region I
Director, Air &. Waste Management Division, Region II
Director, Air, Radiation & Toxics Division, Region III
Director, Air, Pesticide & Toxics Management Division, Region IV
Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region V
Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, Region VI
Director, Air, RCRA and TSCA Division, Region VII
Director, Office of Pollution Prevention, State and Tribal,
Region VIII
Director, Air & Toxics Division, Region IX
Director, Office of Air, Region X
cc: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
Operating Permits Program Contact, Regions I-X
OAQPS Division Directors
-------
REGULATED AIR POLLUTANT: PARTICULATE MATTER
This document explains the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) policy that, at this time, PM-10 is considered to be the
only regulated form of particulate matter. Today's policy
supersedes prior EPA statements which indicated that a second
regulated form of particulate matter existed. As explained
further below, such prior statements were based on the fact that
EPA had established specific compliance methods for sources of
particulate matter under the new source performance standards
(NSPS). The immediate consequence of this policy is that under
the title V operating permits program only PM-10 is considered by
EPA to be the regulated form of particulate matter for
applicability and fee purposes. This policy does not affect (1)
existing requirements under the NSPS that a source comply with
applicable performance standards for particulate matter emissions
or (2) provisions contained in State implementation plans for
particulate matter, including existing particulate emissions
limitations, which have been approved by EPA and are relied upon
to attain or maintain the national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for particulate matter.
Background
The part 70 regulations for State title V operating permit
programs define "regulated air pollutant" at 40 CFR 70.2. This
definition is intended to ensure that permitting authorities
receive appropriate information on all pollutants which are
"regulated" under the Clean Air Act (Act) and emitted by a
source. The term "regulated air pollutant" is intended to
reflect all pollutants subject to a standard, regulation, or
requirement by including in the definition five specific
categories of pollutants which would be considered regulated air
pollutants. Questions have arisen, based on an EPA-issued
memorandum on April 26, 1993, entitled "Definition of Regulated
Air Pollutant for Purposes of Title V," concerning how many
regulated forms of particulate matter the definition includes.
The memorandum identified two regulated indicators--PM-10 and
total suspended particulate (TSP). The PM-10 was considered
regulated because it was a pollutant for which a NAAQS had been
The five categories of pollutants included (1) nitrogen
oxides and volatile organic compounds, (2) any pollutant for
which NAAQS have been established, (3) any pollutant that is
subject to an NSPS under section 111, (4) certain ozone depleting
substances, and (5) any pollutant subject to national emission
standard for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) under section 112.
-------
promulgated. The TSP was listed as a pollutant regulated under
the NSPS.7
Implied in the April 1993 memorandum (though not explicitly
stated therein) was the interpretation that the NSPS for
particulate matter--which measures a different form of
particulate than PM-10--automatically constituted a separate
regulated indicator for particulate matter. The EPA has
reevaluated this interpretation and has concluded that it is no
longer appropriate. It is EPA's current position that different
indicators for particulate matter may be used as surrogate
measures where appropriate for controlling ambient concentrations
of PM-10 without specifically requiring such surrogates
themselves to be regarded as regulated pollutants. The EPA
further believes that the basis for determining what the
regulated pollutant or indicator is for particulate matter should
focus on EPA's intent as evidenced primarily by the underlying
statutory authority used by EPA to subject the relevant air
pollutant to a standard, regulation or requirement, and by
statements made by EPA in connection with its promulgation. This
interpretation does not preclude EPA from specifically choosing
to regulate a different indicator for particulate matter under
the authority of section 111 of the Act. However, as explained
below, it was not EPA's intent to do so for any of the NSPS
promulgated to date for particulate matter.
Section 109 authority
To date, EPA's efforts to regulate particulate matter have
relied primarily upon the joint authorities of sections 108 and
109 of the Act. Section 108 directs the Administrator to
identify pollutants which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare and to issue air quality
criteria for those pollutants. Section 109 of the "Act then
governs the establishment and revision of NAAQS for criteria
pollutants. On April 30, 1971, EPA promulgated the original
NAAQS for particulate matter. The NAAQS defined ambient
concentrations of particulate matter measured as TSP (ambient
compliance sampling achieved by "high volume" samplers which
collect particulate matter up to a nominal size of 25 to 45
micrometers). On July 1, 1987, EPA revised the NAAQS for
particulate matter, replacing the TSP indicator with the new
PM-10 indicator.
The EPA subsequently acknowledged that the correct
description of the indicator considered to be regulated under the
NSPS was "particulate emissions" as measured by in-stack test
methods, e.g., Federal Reference Method 5.
-------
Section 111 authority
The control of particulate matter is also required by
various NSPS under section 111 of the Act. Section 111 generally
requires EPA to promulgate NSPS for any category of stationary
sources that "...causes, or contributes significantly to, air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare." The EPA promulgated numerous NSPS
specifically to address the criteria pollutant, particulate
matter, during the period of time when the NAAQS for particulate
matter were measured as TSP. While EPA indicated that
particulate matter was a criteria pollutant for which NAAQS had
been promulgated, EPA compliance tests used to meet the specific
NSPS for particulate matter did not use the same indicator as the
indicator for the NAAQS for particulate matter. Instead, such
compliance tests typically involved measures of particulate
matter in the stack using emissions testing procedures (e.g.,
Method 5) that do not take into account particle size.
Nevertheless, preamble discussions to certain of these NSPS show
that EPA regarded the pollutant of concern to be the criteria
pollutant for which NAAQS had been promulgated. See e.g.. NSPS
for Phosphate Rock Plants (9/21/79), Nonmetallic Mineral
Processing Plants (8/1/85), and Calciners and Dryers in Mineral
Industries (9/28/92).
With the promulgation of PM-10 NAAQS in 1987, EPA considered
the issue of whether to revise the NSPS with respect to
particulate matter. In a July 1, 1987 Federal Register notice,
EPA acknowledged that the indicator for particulate matter used
to measure compliance with the NSPS was different from both TSP
and PM-10 (52 FR 24710). The EPA stated, therein, that the
existing NSPS "that reflect the best demonstrated control
technology for particulate matter have the effect of controlling
PM-10." The EPA later decided that, at least \ntil further
studies could be accomplished, the existing NSPS for particulate
matter would serve as adequate surrogates for limiting ambient
amounts of PM-10, the intended "regulated air pollutant." The
NSPS promulgated after 1987 have continued to base compliance on
in-stack emissions test methods which measure particulate
emissions. Based on this regulatory history, it is EPA's
position that the use of particulate matter emissions as the
measure of compliance under various NSPS for particulate matter
does not, in itself, constitute a new regulated air pollutant,
but is simply designed as a surrogate measure of particulate
matter to establish effective performance standards which limit
the emissions of the regulated indicator, PM-10.
While the EPA contends that the control of a pollutant under
an NSPS does not automatically result in that pollutant being
-------
considered regulated if the intended pollutant is already being
regulated under separate legal authority, the EPA does
specifically rely upon the NSPS to regulate certain pollutants.
A case in point is the NSPS for kraft pulp mills at 40 CFR 60
subpart BB, which includes limitations for emissions of total
reduced sulfur compounds. This and other specific non-criteria
pollutants are considered "regulated air pollutants" by virtue of
the fact that EPA intended for them to be regulated by the NSPS,
since they are not regulated elsewhere.
Other examples of surrogate measures
The EPA has used the measurement of particulate matter
emissions for compliance purposes as the surrogate for
controlling the pollutant intended to be regulated in the
section 112 context as well. Examples of such situations are the
NESHAP for arsenic and asbestos at 40 CFR 61.140 and 61.170,
respectively. The EPA listed asbestos and arsenic as hazardous
pollutants under section 112 of the Act. Subsequently, the EPA
promulgated standards for several sources of asbestos and for
inorganic arsenic emissions from primary copper smelters which
require compliance with a particulate matter emissions limit
using Method 5 and opacity monitoring (51 FR 27956, August 4,
1986 at 27981.) Nevertheless, the EPA considers arsenic and
asbestos, as listed in accordance with section 112 of the Act, to
be regulated pollutants in these instances.
Other implications
Nothing stated in this current policy is intended to negate,
void or otherwise affect limits expressed as particulate matter
emissions under any NSPS, or the enforceability of existing
standards contained in State control strategies for PM-10 which
may actually require compliance with other indicators for
particulate matter. The EPA historically has allowed States to
rely upon their original SIPs based on the control of particulate
matter emissions to demonstrate attainment with the PM-10 NAAQS.
The EPA continues to consider these plans to be adequate so as to
remain in effect and be enforceable as long as they continue to
be used to demonstrate attainment of the regulated indicator for
particulate matter, PM-10.
-------
March 8, 1994
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Consideration of Fugitive Emissions in Major Source
Determinations
FROM: Lydia Wegman, Deputy Director /s/
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VII, IX, and X
This memorandum summarizes the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) policy regarding the consideration of fugitive
emissions for the purpose of determining whether a source is
major under the Clean Air Act (Act). As explained below, EPA
will revisit, in a future revision to the part 70 regulations
("Operating Permit Programs"), the requirement to consider
fugitives from sources subject to national emission standard for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) and new source performance
standards (NSPS) promulgated after August 7, 1980, when
determining whether a source is major under section 302 (j) of the
Act. For the present time, State operating permits programs that
do not require consideration of fugitives for these sources will
be eligible for interim approval. States must require
consideration of fugitives for purposes of determining whether a
source is major under section 112, but need not require
consideration of fugitives for purposes of the new major source
definitions in part D of title I of the Act.
-------
I. Background: Statutory and Regulatory Provisions Affected
A. Section 302 (j) and Section 169(1)
The Act's primary definition of "major stationary source"
and "major emitting facility" is found in section 302 (j) in the
general definitions portion of the Act. It reads:
Except as otherwise provided, the terms "major
stationary source" and "major emitting facility"
mean any stationary facility or source of air
pollutants which directly emits, or has the
potential to emit, 100 tons per year (tpy) or
more of any air pollutant (including any major
emitting facility or source of fugitive emissions
of any such pollutant, as determined by rule by
the Administrator).
The section 302 (j) definition was added to the Act in 1977.
Another definition of "major emitting facility" was added in 1977
in section 169(1). It sets a higher 250 tpy threshold for
certain source categories for purposes of part C preconstruction
review.
B. Lower Threshold Definitions Added by the
1990 Amendments to the Act
The 1990 Amendments added nine new definitions of "major
source" or "major stationary source." Seven of these definitions
appear in part D of title I and expand the set of "major
stationary sources" of volatile organic compounds, -particles with
an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10
micrometers (PM-10), and CO for nonattainment areas by lowering
the tonnage threshold below the 100 tpy specified in
section 302 (j) .
2These are, specifically: §182(c), "Serious Areas" for
ozone nonattainment; §182(d), "Severe Areas" for ozone
nonattainment; §182(e), "Extreme Areas" for ozone nonattainment;
§182(b)(1)(A)(ii)(I), new source review in "moderate areas" for
ozone nonattainment; §187 (c), "Serious Areas" for carbon monoxide
nonattainment; §184(b)(2), interstate ozone control; §189(b)(3),
"Serious Areas" for PM-10 nonattainment.
-------
The other two new definitions are found in section 112(a)(1)
and title V. Section 112 provides a definition of "major
source" similar to the definition of "major stationary source"
and "major emitting facility" in part D of title I only tailored
to the new hazardous air pollutants (HAP) provisions. The
title V definition incorporates by reference all of the other
"major source" and "major stationary source" definitions.
C. "Major Source" Definitions in Part 70
The definition of "major source" in section 70.2 of the
permits rule divides into three parts, corresponding to the
section 112 definition, the section 302 (j) definition, and the
lower tpy thresholds in the title I nonattainment provisions,
respectively. The second definition, corresponding to section
302 (j), requires the counting of fugitive emissions only for
certain listed source categories. The other two part 70
definitions are silent on the issue of when fugitive emissions
must be considered.
The section 302 (j) definition lists 27 categories of sources
for which fugitive emissions must be considered in determining
whether a source is major for purposes of section 302 (j). The
twenty-seventh category requires that fugitive emissions be
considered for:
All other stationary source categories regulated by a
standard promulgated under section 111 or 112 of the
Act, but only with respect to those air pollutants that
have been regulated for that category.
For present purposes, this should be contrasted with the
corresponding provisions in the prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) and new source review (NSR) regulations
(see, e.g., 40 CFR §51.165(a)(1)(iv)(C)), which refer to:
Any other stationary source category which, as of
August 7, 1980, is being regulated under section 111 or
112 of the Act.
Regarding the first and third parts of the part 70 "major
source" definition, the question of when fugitive emissions must
be considered for applicability purposes was addressed directly
3Section 501(a) (1) provides: The term "major source" means
any stationary source (or any group of stationary sources located
within a contiguous area and under common control) that is either
of the following: (a) a major source as defined in section 112,
and (b) a major stationary source as defined in section 302 or
part D of title I.
-------
in the response to comments document for the part 70 rulemaking.
Section 3.5 of the response document states that the Act requires
fugitives to be considered for purposes of determining whether a
source is major under any of the part D or the section 112
definitions.
II. Summary of EPA Policy
In response to questions raised following promulgation of
part 70, EPA has reconsidered the treatment of fugitives for
purposes of making major source determinations. The EPA's
decisions regarding the relevant provisions is summarized below
in three parts.
A. Sources Subject to NSPS or NESHAP Standards Promulgated
after August 7, 1980
The designation in the part 70 rules of sources subject to
NSPS and NESHAP promulgated after August- 7, 1980 as sources for
which fugitives must be counted for purposes of major source
determinations did not follow the procedural steps necessary for
a proper rulemaking under section 302 (j). As a result, EPA
believes it would be inappropriate for the Agency to require
States to count fugitives from these sources in making section
302 (j) major source determinations. In the absence of a legally-
sound Federal requirement, a State may choose to exercise its own
legal authority to require that fugitives from sources subject to
the post-1980 standards be considered in determining major source
status under section 302 (j). However, a State need not require
that fugitives from these sources be so counted in order to
obtain interim approval of its title V program.
The EPA intends to revisit this aspect of the rule in a
revision to part 70 to occur sometime in 1994. The EPA believes
that it may, in the mean time, grant interim approval to programs
that do not require fugitives to be considered in determining the
status of sources subject to post-1980 NSPS and NESHAP standards.
However, until the rule is revised with respect to sources
subject to the post-1980 standards, EPA may not grant full
approval to a State program that does not include the post-1980
standards. Programs adhering to the language in the current rule
will be eligible for full approval provided, as is the case for
any element of part 70, the State has provided adequate legal
authority for that element of its program.
Note that the policy articulated in section C below
regarding the section 112 major source definition operates
independently of a State's decision to list the post-1980 NESHAP
standards for purposes of determining whether a source is major
under the section 302 (j) definition. Therefore, in determining
whether a source is major for section 112 purposes, a source must
-------
consider fugitive emissions of HAP listed pursuant to section
112(b) regardless of whether the source is in a category
designated through rulemaking under section 302(j).
B. Definitions of "Major Stationary Source" in Part D
of Title I
The EPA has revised its interpretation of the Act from that
stated in the response to comments document. The EPA now
believes the Act does not require fugitives to be considered for
purposes of determining major source status in these
nonattainment areas, except as provided pursuant to rulemaking
under section 302 (j). State programs that follow this revised
interpretation will be eligible for full approval, as will
programs that follow the more inclusive policy articulated in the
response to comments document, provided the more inclusive
program is supported by adequate State law authority.
The legal rationale for this position is that nothing in the
statute or the legislative history of the Part D definitions
indicates an intent to depart from the section 302 (j) requirement
that rulemaking be done before fugitives are included for
applicability purposes in nonattainment areas. To the contrary,
the explicit reference in most of these Part D definitions back
to section 302 (j), and the fact that these provisions address a
broad universe of sources emitting a particular pollutant or
class of pollutants, suggests that the section 302 (j) rulemaking
requirement carries over to these definitions. It is therefore
permissible to read the Act not to require the consideration of
fugitive emissions for these purposes.
C. Definition of "Major Source" in Section 111
The EPA continues to believe the Act requires that fugitive
emissions, to the extent quantifiable, must be considered in
determining major source status for all section 112 purposes.
This policy applies to a source of any of the section 112(b)
listed pollutants whether or not the source in question is in a
category listed pursuant to section 112 (c). The EPA expects
States to comply with this policy in their operating permits
program submittals.
The section 112 "major source" definition is distinguishable
legally from the Part D definitions in some important respects.
Section 112 uses the term "major source" as opposed to "major
stationary source," and legislative history indicates an intent
to treat this definition as distinct from the section 302(j)
"major stationary source" definition. Moreover, section 112
establishes a new regulatory program wherein Congress has
narrowed the regulatory concern to specific pollutants at
-------
specific source categories to be determined by EPA. All of this
suggests that the section 302 (j) rulemaking requirement does not
apply in the context of section 112, and that fugitive emissions
must therefore be included for purposes of determining whether a
source is major under section 112.
D. Collocation of Sources
Questions have also been raised regarding the treatment of
fugitive emissions where sources in categories listed pursuant to
section 302 (j) are collocated with sources that are not in any of
the listed categories. The EPA intends to follow the policies
established in implementation of the PSD and NSR programs. Only
the fugitive emissions from the listed source are required to be
counted for purposes of determining major source status. Where
there is a collocated source that is not on the source category
list and where the nonlisted source is the primary activity at
the site, fugitive emissions would not need to be counted from
the collocated, nonlisted source. The EPA will issue case
examples to help clarify application of this principle in the
near future.
For further information, please contact Kirt Cox, Operating
Permits Policy Section, at (919) 541-5399, or Adan Schwartz,
Office of General Counsel, at (202) 260-7632.
cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
Regional Counsel, Regions I-X
M. Winer
M. Miller
K. Stein
-------
January 25, 1995
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Options for Limiting the Potential to Emit (PTE) of a
Stationary Source Under Section 112 and Title V of the
Clean Air Act (Act)
FROM: John S. Seitz, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)
Robert I. Van Heuvelen, Director
Office of Regulatory Enforcement (2241)
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
Many stationary source requirements of the Act apply only to
"major" sources. Major sources are those sources whose emissions
of air pollutants exceed threshold emissions levels specified in
the Act. For instance, section 112 requirements such as MACT and
section 112(g) and title V operating permit requirements largely
apply only to sources with emissions that exceed specified levels
and are thus major. To determine whether a source is major, the
Act focuses not only on a source's actual emissions, but also on
its potential emissions. Thus, a source that has maintained
actual emissions at levels below the major source threshold could
still be subject to major source requirements if it has the
potential to emit major amounts of air pollutants. However, in
situations where unrestricted operation of a source would result
in a potential to emit above major-source levels, such sources
may legally avoid program requirements by taking federally-
enforceable permit conditions which limit emissions to levels
below the applicable major source threshold. Federally-
enforceable permit conditions, if violated, are subject to
enforcement by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or by
citizens in addition to the State or Local agency.
-------
As the deadlines for complying with MACT standards and
title V operating permits approach, industry and State and local
air pollution agencies have become increasingly focused on the
need to adopt and implement federally-enforceable mechanisms to
limit emissions from sources that desire to limit potential
emissions to below major source levels. In fact, there are
numerous options available which can be tailored by the States to
provide such sources with simple and effective ways to qualify as
minor sources. Because there appears to be some confusion and
questions regarding how potential to emit limits may be
established, EPA has decided to: (1) outline the available
approaches to establishing potential to emit limitations,
(2) describe developments related to the implementation of these
various approaches, and (3) implement a transition policy that
will allow certain sources to be treated as minor for a period of
time sufficient for these sources to obtain a federally-
enforceable limit.
Federal enforceability is an essential element of
establishing limitations on a source's potential to emit.
Federal enforceability ensures the conditions placed on emissions
to limit a source's potential to emit are enforceable by EPA and
citizens as a legal and practical matter, thereby providing the
public with credible assurances that otherwise major sources are
not avoiding applicable requirements of the Act. In order to
ensure compliance with the Act, any approaches developed to allow
sources to avoid the major source requirements must be supported
by the Federal authorities granted to citizens and EPA. In
addition, Federal enforceability provides source owners and
operators with assurances that limitations they have obtained
from a State or local agency will be recognized by EPA.
The concept of federal enforceability incorporates two
separate fundamental elements that must be present in all
limitations on a source's potential to emit. First, EPA must
have a direct right to enforce restrictions and limitations
imposed on a source to limit its exposure to Act programs. This
requirement is based both on EPA's general interest in having the
power to enforce "all relevant features of SIP's that are
necessary for attainment and maintenance of NAAQS and PSD
increments" (see 54 FR 27275, citing 48 FR 38748, August 25,
1983) as well as the specific goal of using national enforcement
to ensure that the requirements of the Act are uniformly
implemented throughout the nation (see 54 FR 27277). Second,
limitations must be enforceable as a practical matter.
It is important to recognize that there are shared
responsibilities on the part of EPA, State, and local agencies,
and on source owners to create and implement approaches to
creating acceptable limitations on potential emissions. The lead
responsibility for developing limitations on potential emissions
rests primarily with source owners and State and local agencies.
At the same time, EPA must work together with interested parties,
including industry and States to ensure that clear guidance is
established and that timely Federal input, including Federal
-------
approval actions, is provided where appropriate. The guidance in
this memorandum is aimed towards continuing and improving this
partnership.
Available Approaches for Creating Federally-enforceable
Limitations on the Potential to Emit
There is no single "one size fits all" mechanism that would
be appropriate for creating federally-enforceable limitations on
potential emissions for all sources in all situations. The
spectrum of available mechanisms should, however, ensure that
State and local agencies can create federally-enforceable
limitations without undue administrative burden to sources or the
agency. With this in mind, EPA views the following types of
programs, if submitted to and approved by EPA, as available to
agencies seeking to establish federally-enforceable potential to
emit limits:4
1. Federally-enforceable State operating permit programs
(FESOPs) (non-title V). For complex sources with numerous and
varying emission points, case-by-case permitting is generally
needed for the establishment of limitations on the source's
potential to emit. Such case-by-case permitting is often
accomplished through a non-title V federally-enforceable State
operating permit program. This type of permit program, and its
basic elements, are described in guidance published in the
Federal Register on June 28, 1989 (54 FR 27274). In short, the
program must: (a) be approved into the SIP, (b) impose legal
obligations to conform to the permit limitations, (c) provide for
limits that are enforceable as a practical matter, (d) be issued
in a process that provides for review and an opportunity for
comment by the public and by EPA, and (e) ensure that there is no
relaxation of otherwise applicable Federal requirements. The EPA
believes that these type of programs can be used for both
criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants, as described in
the memorandum, "Approaches to Creating Federally-Enforceable
Emissions Limits," November 3, 1993. This memorandum (referred
to below as the November 1993 memorandum) is included for your
information as Attachment 1. There are a number of important
clarifications with respect to hazardous air pollutants
subsequent to the November 1993 memorandum which are discussed
below (see section entitled "Limitations on Hazardous Air
Pollutants").
2. Limitations established by rules. For less complex
plant sites, and for source categories involving relatively few
operations that are relatively similar in nature, case-by-case
permitting may not be the most administratively efficient
approach to establishing federally-enforceable restrictions. One
4This is not an exhaustive list of considerations affecting
potential to emit. Other federally-enforceable limits can be
used, for example, source-specific SIP revisions. For brevity,
we have included those which have the widest applicability.
-------
approach that has been used is to establish a general rule which
creates federally-enforceable restrictions at one time for many
sources (these rules have been referred to as "exclusionary"
rules and by some permitting agencies as "prohibitory" rules). A
specific suggested approach for volatile organic compounds (VOC)
limits by rule was described in EPA's memorandum dated October
15, 1993 entitled "Guidance for State Rules for Optional
Federally-Enforceable Emissions Limits Based Upon Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) Use." An example of such an exclusionary
rule is a model rule developed for use in California. (The
California model rule is attached, along with a discussion of its
applicability to other situations--see Attachment 2).
Exclusionary rules are included in a State's SIP and generally
become effective upon approval by EPA.
3. General permits. A concept similar to the exclusionary
rule is the establishment of a general permit for a given source
type. A general permit is a single permit that establishes terms
and conditions that must be complied with by all sources subject
to that permit. The establishment of a general permit provides
for conditions limiting potential to emit in a one-time
permitting process, and thus avoids the need to issue separate
permits for each source within the covered source type or
category. Although this concept is generally thought of as an
element of a title V permit program, there is no reason that a
State or local agency could not submit a general permit program
as a SIP submittal aimed at creating potential to emit limits for
groups of sources. Additionally, general permits can be issued
under the auspices of a SIP-approved FESOP. The advantage of a
general permit, when compared to an exclusionary rule, is that
upon approval by EPA of the State's permit program,- a
general permit could be written for one or more additional source
types without triggering the need for the formal SIP revision
process.
4. Construction permits. Another type of case-by-case
permit is a construction permit. These permits generally cover
new and modified sources, and States have developed such permit
programs as an element of their SIP's. As described in the
November 1993 memorandum, these State major and minor new source
review (NSR) construction permits can provide for federally-
enforceable limitations on a source's potential to emit. Further
discussion of the use of minor source NSR programs is contained
in EPA's letter to Jason Grumet, NESCAUM, dated November 2, 1994,
which is contained in Attachment 3. As noted in this letter, the
usefulness of minor NSR programs for the creation of potential to
emit limitations can vary from State to State, and is somewhat
dependent on the scope of a State's program.
5. Title V permits. Operating permits issued under the
Federal title V operating permits program can, in some cases,
provide a convenient and readily available mechanism to create
federally-enforceable limits. Although the applicability date
for part 70 permit programs is generally the driving force for
most of the current concerns with respect to potential to emit,
-------
there are other programs, such as the section 112 air toxics
program, for which title V permits may themselves be a useful
mechanism for creating potential to emit limits. For example,
many sources will be considered to be major by virtue of
combustion emissions of nitrogen oxides or sulfur dioxide, and
will be required to obtain part 70 permits. Such permits could
be used to establish federally-enforceable limitations that could
ensure that the source is not considered a major source of
hazardous air pollutants.
Practicable Enforceability
If limitations--whether imposed by SIP rules or through
individual or general permits--are incomplete or vague or
unsupported by appropriate compliance records, enforcement by the
States, citizens and EPA would not be effective. Consequently,
in all cases, limitations and restrictions must be of sufficient
quality and quantity to ensure accountability (see 54 FR 27283).
The EPA has issued several guidance documents explaining the
requirements of practicable enforceability (e.g., "Guidance on
Limiting Potential to Emit in New Source Permitting," June 13,
1989; memorandum from John Rasnic entitled "Policy Determination
on Limiting Potential to Emit for Koch Refining Company's Clean
Fuels Project," March 13, 1992). In general, practicable
enforceability for a source-specific permit means that the
permit's provisions must specify: (1) A technically-accurate
limitation and the portions of the source subject to the
limitation; (2) the time period for the limitation (hourly,
daily, monthly, and annual limits such as rolling annual limits);
and (3) the method to determine compliance including appropriate
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. For rules and general
permits that apply to categories of sources, practicable
enforceability additionally requires that the provisions:
(1) identify the types or categories of sources that are covered
by the rule; (2) where coverage is optional, provide for notice
to the permitting authority of the source's election to be
covered by the rule; and (3) specify the enforcement consequences
relevant to the rule. More specific guidance on these
enforceability principles as they apply to rules and general
permits is provided in Attachment 4.
Limitations on Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP)
There are a number of important points to recognize with
respect to the ability of existing State and local programs to
create limitations for the 189 HAP listed in (or pursuant to)
section 112(b) of the Act, consistent with the definitions of
"potential to emit" and "federally-enforceable" in 40 CFR 63.2
(promulgated March 16, 1994, 59 FR 12408 in the part 63 General
Provisions). The EPA believes that most State and local programs
should have broad capabilities to handle the great majority of
situations for which a potential to emit limitation on HAP is
needed.
-------
First, it is useful to note that the definition of potential
to emit for the Federal air toxics program (see the subpart A
"general provisions," section 63.2) considers, for purposes of
controlling HAP emissions, federally-enforceable limitations on
criteria pollutant emissions if "the effect such limitations
would have on "[hazardous air pollutant] . . . emissions" is
federally-enforceable (emphasis added). There are many examples
of such criteria pollutant emission limits that are present in
federally-enforceable State and local permits and rules.
Examples would include a limitation constraining an operation to
one (time limit specified) shift per day or limitations that
effectively limit operations to 2000 hours per year. Other
examples would include limitations on the amount of material
used, for example a permit limitation constraining an operation
to using no more than 100 gallons of paint per month.
Additionally, federally-enforceable permit terms that, for
example, required an incinerator to be operated and maintained at
no less than 1600 degrees would have an obvious "effect" on the
HAP present in the inlet stream.
Another federally-enforceable way criteria pollutant
limitations affect HAP can be described as a "nested" HAP limit
within a permit containing conditions limiting criteria
pollutants. For example, the particular VOC's within a given
operation may include toluene and xylene, which are also HAP. If
the VOC-limiting permit has established limitations on the amount
of toluene and xylene used as the means to reduce VOC, those
limitations would have an obvious "effect" on HAP as well.
In cases as described above, the "ef-fect" of criteria
pollutant limits will be straightforward. In other cases,
information may be needed on the nature of the HAP stream
present. For example, a limit on VOC that ensured total VOC's of
20 tons per year may not ensure that each HAP present is less
than 10 tons per year without further investigation. While the
EPA intends to develop further technical guidance on situations
for which additional permit terms and conditions may be needed to
ensure that the "effect" is enforceable as a practical matter,
the EPA intends to rely on State and local agencies to employ
care in drafting enforceable requirements which recognize obvious
environmental and health concerns.
There are, of course, a few important pollutants which are
HAP but are not criteria pollutants. Example of these would
include methylene chloride and other pollutants which are
considered nonreactive and therefore exempt from coverage as
VOC's. Especially in cases where such pollutants are the only
pollutants present, criteria pollutant emission limitations may
not be sufficient to limit HAP. For such cases, the State or
local agency will need to seek program approval under section
112 (1) of the Act.
Section 112(1) provides a clear mechanism for approval of
State and local air toxics programs for purposes of establishing
HAP-specific PTE limits. The EPA intends, where appropriate,
-------
that in approving permitting programs into the SIP, to add
appropriate language citing approval pursuant to section 112(1)
as well. An example illustrating section 112(1) approval is the
approval of the State of Ohio's program for limiting potential to
emit (see 59 FR 53587, October 25, 1994). In this notice, EPA
granted approval under section 112(1) for hazardous air
pollutants aspects of a State program for limiting potential to
emit. Such language can be added to any federally-enforceable
State operating permit program, exclusionary rule, or NSR program
update SIP approval notice so long as the State or local program
has the authority to regulate HAP and meets other section 112(1)
approval criteria. Transition issues related to such
section 112(1) approvals are discussed below.
Determination of Maximum Capacity
While EPA and States have been calculating potential to emit
for a number of years, EPA believes that it is important at this
time to provide some clarification on what is meant in the
definition of potential to emit by the "maximum capacity of a
stationary source to emit under its physical and operational
design." Clearly, there are sources for which inherent physical
limitations for the operation restrict the potential emissions of
individual emission units. Where such inherent limitations can
be documented by a source and confirmed by the permitting agency,
EPA believes that States have the authority to make such
judgements and factor them into estimates of a stationary
source's potential to emit.
The EPA believes that the most straightforward examples of
such inherent limitations is for single-emission unit type
operations. For example, EPA does not believe that the "maximum
capacity" language requires that owner of a paint spray booth at
a small auto body shop must assume that (even if the source could
be in operation year-round) spray equipment is operated 8760
hours per year in cases where there are inherent physical
limitations on the number of cars that can be painted within any
given period of time. For larger sources involving multiple
emissions units and complex operations, EPA believes it can be
more problematic to identify the inherent limitations that may
exist.
The EPA intends, within its resource constraints, to issue
technical assistance in this area by providing information on the
type of operational limits that may be considered acceptable to
limit the potential to emit for certain individual small source
categories.
Transition Guidance for Section 112 and Title V Applicability
Most, if not all, States have recognized the need to develop
options for limiting the potential emissions of sources and are
moving forward with one or more of the strategies described in
the preceding sections in conjunction with the submission and
implementation of their part 70 permit programs. However, EPA is
-------
8
aware of the concern of States and sources that title V or
section 112 implementation will move ahead of the development and
implementation of these options, leaving sources with actual
emissions clearly below the major source thresholds potentially
subject to part 70 and other major source requirements. Gaps
could theoretically occur during the time period it takes for a
State program to be designed and administratively adopted by the
State, approved into the SIP by EPA, and implemented as needed to
cover individual sources.
The EPA is committed to aiding all States in developing and
implementing adequate, streamlined, and cost-effective vehicles
for creating federally-enforceable limits on a source's potential
emissions by the time that section 112 or title V requirements
become effective. To help bridge any gaps, EPA will expedite its
reviews of State exclusionary rules and operating permit rules
by, among other things, coordinating the approval of these rules
with the approval of the State's part 70 program and by using
expeditious approval approaches such as "direct final" Federal
Register notices to ensure that approval of these programs does
not lag behind approval of the part 70 program.
In addition, in such approval notices EPA will affirm any
limits established under the State's program since its adoption
by the State but prior to Federal approval if such limits were
established in accordance with the procedures and requirements of
the approved program. An example of language affirming such
limits was recently used in approving an Illinois SIP revision
(see 57 FR 59931, included as Attachment 5).
The EPA remains concerned that even with expedited approvals
and other strategies, sources may face gaps in the ability to
acquire federally-enforceable potential to emit limits due to
delays in State adoption or EPA approval of programs or in their
implementation. In order to ensure that such gaps do not create
adverse consequences for States or for sources, EPA is announcing
a transition policy for a period up to two years from the date of
this memorandum. The EPA intends to make this transition policy
available at the discretion of the State or local agency to the
extent there are sources which the State believes can benefit
from such a transition policy. The transition period will extend
from now until the gaps in program implementation are filled, but
no later than January 1997. Today's guidance, which EPA intends
to codify through a notice and comment rulemaking, provides
States discretion to use the following options for satisfying
potential to emit requirements during this transition period.
1. Sources maintaining emissions below 50 percent of all
applicable major source requirements. For sources that typically
and consistently maintain emissions significantly.below major
source levels, relatively few benefits would be gained by making
such sources subject to major source requirements under the Act.
For this reason, many States are developing exclusionary rules
and general permits to create simple, streamlined means to ensure
that these sources are not considered major sources. To ease the
-------
burden on States' implementation of title V, and to ensure that
delays in EPA's approval of these types of programs will not
cause an administrative burden on the States, EPA is providing a
2-year transition period for sources that maintain their actual
emissions, for every consecutive 12-month period (beginning with
the 12 months immediately preceding the date of this memorandum) ,
at levels that do not exceed 50 percent of any and all of the
major stationary source thresholds applicable to that source. A
source that exceeds the 50 percent threshold, without complying
with major source requirements of the Act (or without otherwise
limiting its potential to emit), could be subject to enforcement.
For this 2-year period, such sources (i.e., those emitting under
the 50 percent threshold) would not be treated as major sources
and would not be required to obtain a permit that limits their
potential to emit. To qualify under this transition policy,
sources must maintain adequate records on site to demonstrate
that emissions are maintained below these thresholds for the
entire transition period. Consistent with the California
approach, EPA believes it is appropriate for the amount of
recordkeeping to vary according to the level of emissions (see
paragraphs 1.2 and 4.2 of the attached rule).
2. Larger sources with State limits. For the 2-year
transition period, restrictions contained in State permits issued
to sources above the 50 percent threshold would be treated by EPA
as acceptable limits on potential to emit, provided: (a) the
permit is enforceable as a practical matter; (b) the source owner
submits a written certification to EPA that it will comply with
the limits as a restriction on its potential to emit; and (c) the
source owner, in the certification, accepts Federal and citizen
enforcement of the limits (this is appropriate jiven that the
limits are being taken to avoid otherwise applicable Federal
requirements). Such limits will be valid for purposes of
limiting potential to emit from the date the certification is
received by EPA until the end of the transition period. States
interested in making use of this portion of the transition policy
should work with their Regional Office to develop an appropriate
certification process.
3. Limits for noncriteria HAP. For noncriteria HAP for
which no existing federally-approved program is available for the
creation of federally-enforceable limits, the 2-year transition
period provides for sufficient time to gain approval pursuant to
section 112(1). For the 2-year transition period, State
restrictions on such noncriteria pollutants issued to sources
with emissions above the 50 percent threshold would be treated by
EPA as limiting a source's potential to emit, provided that:
(a) the restrictions are enforceable as a practical matter;
(b) the source owner submits a written certification to EPA that
it will comply with the limits as a restriction on its potential
to emit; and (c) the source owner, in the certification, accepts
Federal and citizen enforcement of the limits. Such limits will
be valid for purposes of limiting potential to -?mit from the date
the certification is received by EPA until the ad of the
transition period.
-------
10
The Regional Offices should send this memorandum, including
the attachments, to States within their jurisdiction. Questions
concerning specific issues and cases should be directed to the
appropriate Regional Office. Regional Office staff may contact
Timothy Smith of the Integrated Implementation Group at
919-541-4718, or Clara Poffenberger with the Air Enforcement
Division at 202-564-8709.
Attachments
cc: Air Branch Chief, Region I-X
Regional Counsels
NOTE: THE ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE ON EPA'S
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER NETWORK (SEE CHAPTER 8).
-------
APPENDIX B.
SEMINAR OVERHEAD TRANSPARENCIES
-------
-------
FEDERAL OPERATING
PERMITS PROGRAM
(PART 71)
By:
Valerie V. Harris
and
Stephen Edgerton
Midwest Research Institute
••W AGENDA
9:00 am
9:30
10:00
10:45
11:00
Noon
1:15 pm
1:45
2:15
2:30
3:00
3:30
Introduction
Who Needs a Permit
Gathering Information
Break
Application Forms/Examples
Lunch (on your own)
Application Forms/Examples
Permitting Options
Break
Permitting Strategies
Timing and Expectations
Questions/Answers
INTRODUCTION
• Purpose
• Schedule
• Presenters
Bf INTRODUCTION
Title V background:
« Cornerstone of 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
« All facility requirements compiled into one
operating permit
• Available to facility, permitting authority, and
the public
mm INTRODUCTION
Part 71 background:
» Title V envisioned as State program (Part 70)
• Part 71 implemented where Part 70 program not
approved
• State-specific Part 71 status
• Why Invoked
• Delegated or non-delegated
• Anticipated Part 71/Part 70 transition
• Portions of Part 70 program Incorporated Into Part 71
SESSION I
Who Needs a Permit
Page 1
-------
V WHO NEEDS A PERMIT?
• Major sources - Titles I, III, VI
• Affected sources - Title IV
• Solid waste incineration - section 129(e)
• Other nonmajor sources specified by rule
W AFFECTED SOURCES -
TITLE IV
• Acid rain program from '90 Amendments
• Phase I (1995) - specified electric utility units
« Phase II (2000) - other units (including
cogeneratlon)
m SOLID WASTE INCINERATION
UNITS - SECTION 129(e)
» Municipal waste Incinerators
• Medical waste incinerators
4 Commercial or industrial waste incinerators
V MAJOR SOURCES
» Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) (Section 112)
• Other air pollutants (Section 302)
• Nonattainment areas/Ozone Transport Region
(Part Dof Title I)
MAJOR SOURCES (CONT.)
« Based on "Potential to Emit"
• Can include group of sources on contiguous
properties under common control
» Can include fugitive emissions
W MAJOR SOURCES OF HAP
Potential to emit:
«>10tpyof asingleHAP
» > 25 tpy of all HAPs combined
• Lesser quantities as established by rule
•» For radionuclldes, established by rule
Page 2
-------
yg MAJOR SOURCES IN
NONATTAINMENT AREAS/OTR
(POTENTIAL TO EMIT THRESHOLDS)
VOC and NOX:
• 100 tpy in Marginal and Moderate Areas
» 50 tpy in Serious Areas and the OTR (VOC only)
« 25 tpy in Severe Areas
• 10 tpy in Extreme Areas
Carbon Monoxide:
•50 tpy in Serious Areas
•70 tpy in Serious Areas
MAJOR SOURCES IN
NONATTAINMENT AREAS/OTR
Aggregate contiguous sources under common
control only If in same 2-diait SIC code Major
Group
• Fugitives included only if in 1 of 27 listed
source categories
m OTHER MAJOR SOURCES •
SECTION 302 DEFINITION
Potential to emit > 100 tpy of "any air pollutant"
Pollutants included:
« voc
» NO,
« Criteria pollutants: PM10, SO* ozone, NO2, CO, lead
» NSPS - regulated polutants
» Title VI pollutants - Class I and II ozone-depleting
substances
• HAPs
• Section 112(r) pollutants -toxic, flammable, and
explosive materials regulated under the accidental
release provisions (exempt from Title V)
OTHER MAJOR SOURCES -
SECTION 302 DEFINITION
• Aggregate contiguous sources under common
control only if in same 2-digit SIC code Major
Group
• Fugitives included only if in 1 of 27 listed
source categories
NONMAJOR SOURCES
Types of nonmajor sources that may require
Title V permits in the future:
« Sources subject to NSPS or NESHAP
promulgated after July 21,1992 unless
exempted in rule
« Sources subject to other NSPS/NESHAP or to
NSR/PSD, after rulemaking on Title V program
for minor sources
• Other source categories designated by EPA by
rule
a EXCEPTIONS TO
APPLICABILITY
« Sources included solely because they are major
Section 112(r) pollutant sources
Sources included solely because they are subject to
the NSPS for residential wood heaters (io CFR part so,
Subpart AAA)
Sources included solely because they are subject to
the NESHAP for asbestos demolition and renovation
(40 CFR 61.1451
Oil or gas exploration or production well emissions
and pipeline compression or pump station
emissions not aggregated for purposes of HAP
major source status.
Page 3
-------
HOW TO APPLY
« Determine applicability
» Contact Title V Permitting Authority for forms
and schedules
• Fill out application
• Submit complete and timely application
W DETERMINE
APPLICABILITY
* Major sources (HAPs, NAA/OTR, other)
• Affected sources
• Solid waste Incinerators
• Other sources specified by rule
CONTACT TITLE V
PERMITTING AUTHORITY
Undelegated Part 71 program - EPA Regional
Office
• Delegated part 71 program - State/local agency
« Approved Part 70 program - State/local agency
STATE-SPECIFIC
INFORMATION/CONTACTS
» To be provided during seminar
m FILL OUT APPLICATIONS
• Emission units/emissions of "regulated
« Applicable requirements
« Information related to operational flexibility
options
« Compliance status/schedules
« Monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, test
methods
• General permit application, if applicable
« Certification by a "responsible official"
M SUBMIT COMPLETE
APPLICATION
• Must include:
• Information "sufficient to evaluate the source and Its
application and to determine all applicable
requirements'
• Fee calculation and remittance
• Additional Information as requested by the permitting
authority
• Must supplement or correct application upon
becoming aware of need
Page 4
-------
SUBMIT TIMELY
APPLICATION
• Generally due within 12 months after source
becomes subject to Title V program
For some sources (with advance notice), may
be due within 6 months
• "Application Shield" applies only from date
deemed or determined complete
STATE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION
ON SUBMITTAL TIMEFRAME
« To be provided during seminar
U APPLICATION SHIELD
CONSIDERATIONS
«• Source can operate after due date only if
application has been deemed or determined
complete
• Deemed complete if no action within 60 days
• Should consider time needed:
• For permitting authority to review Initial application
(up to 60 days)
• To generate and submit any additional Information
requested
• For permitting authority to review additional
Information
SESSION H
Gathering Information
m EMISSION INVENTORY
FOR PERMITTING
• Gathering of information
• A preview of the permit application
• Final calculations and totals will drive the
permitting process
m SESSION OUTLINE
• Collecting data for all emission points
• Applying estimation techniques
• Sources of information
• Critical concerns
• Examples and documentation
Page 5
-------
COLLECTING DATA
• Identify all emission points
(Nothing is too small)
• Include all regulated air pollutants
M TYPES OF EMISSION POINTS
• Anything that releases emissions
• Process ducts/stacks
• Fugitive emission sources
• Process fugitive emissions
• Controlled and uncontrolled emissions
TYPES OF EMISSION
POINTS (CONT.)
Examples
• Fuel storage and handling
• Solvent storage and usage
• Chemical processes
• Power/heat generation
• Material storage piles
• Wastewater treatment
• Leaks from valves, lines, etc.
- Material loading/unloading
f TYPES OF POLLUTANTS
» Participate matter and PM1(
• NO., SO,, CO, Lead, VOC
« Individual HAP's (from HAP list)
• Other regulated air pollutants
•f DESIGN AND OPERATING
PATTERNS
For each point: How much?
• Definition/type of emission point
• Capacity/rating; hours of operation
• Usage/throughput rate
• Definition of cycles (if batch)
• Control equipment/efficiency
• Maximum and Actual Values
• Define Variations
• Hourtv and Annual Basis
QT OTHER POINT SPECIFIC
INFORMATION
» Chemical content of materials
» Btu, sulfur content of fuels
» Additional specific information for emission
factor modeling of tanks and wastewater
treatment
Page6
-------
W ADDITIONAL
SETTING/MODELING
INFORMATION
• SIC codes/SCC codes
» Location (UTM coordinates)
» Stack data
• Release height
• Exit temperature
• Exit flow or velocity
• Stack diameter
• Plant layout
W ADDITIONAL
SETTING/MODELING
INFORMATION (CONT.)
» Building diagrams and data
• Height, length, width
• Base elevation
• Location of other structures
• Community setting
(Map with nearest school, hospital, etc.)
» Basic process flow diagrams
(Blocks with Input/outputs)
m EMISSION ESTIMATION
METHODS
• Measured emissions data
• Emission factors
» Mass balance
« Engineering calculations
If ACCESS TO EMISSION
FACTORS
• EPA Technology Transfer Network (TTN)
« TTN access to CHIEF (Clearinghouse for
Inventories and Emission Factors) and EMTIC
(Emission Measurement Information Center)
» TTN: (919) 541-5742
• System Operator: (919) 541-5384
» Also CHIEF CD-ROM
U EMISSION FACTOR
SOURCES
• AP-42 (primary reference)
• SPECIATE
» XATEF (Crosswalk)
• TANKS model
• SIMS (Surface Impoundment Modeling System)
» LANDFILL
• Locating and estimating air emissions series
• Others
CALCULATE TOTALS
• Average emissions
• Potential to emit
• 8,780 hours/year
• Maximum production rate
• Worst polluting fuel, raw material, or media
• Uncontrolled
Page 7
-------
V CRITICAL CONCERNS
• Quality of data
• Potential to emit vs. emission thresholds
» Other pertinent regulations
» Future expansion or operational changes
• Fee determination
NOTE ON FLEXIBILITY
« EPA's "White Paper" (July 10,1996) offers
flexibility in emissions quantification
' Use of least costly estimation method
Use of available Information should suffice
KEY STEPS
• Propose compliance program, If necessary
• Develop permit application
(with plan of attack)
V CALCULATIONS: ACTUAL
ANNUAL EMSSIONS FROM TWO
INDUSTRIAL-SIZE BOILERS
1. Determine fuel/product usage consumption -
natural gas and fuel oil
Boiler #1 • fuel type = natural gas
(Quantity consumed, calendar yew • 40 x 10ft3)
Boiler #2 - fuel type = distillate fuel oil
(Quantity consumed, calendar year - 16,000 gal)
2. Control equipment - none
CALCULATIONS (CONT.)
3. Obtain appropriate/applicable emission factor.
In this case, Sections on Fuel Oil
Combustion and Natural Gas Combusion from
EPA's AP-42 contain appropriate emission
factors for boilers of this size.
The SPECIATE database will also be used to
speciate emissions of VOCs and HAPs from
boiler #1.
Speciation of VOC and HAP emissions from
boiler #2 will be quantified using both
SPECIATE and an independent chemical
analysis of the distillate oil used.
CALCULATE (CONT.)
Calculations. Tables 1 and 2 display
uncontrolled emission factors for combustion of
natural gas and fuel oil, respectively. Emissions
from the boilers can be calculated as follows:
E = ec
E * Annual emission rate (Ib pollutant/yr)
e « Emission factor (Ib pollutant/quantity of fuel consumed)
c * Annual fuel consumption (l.e. 103 gal/yr, 10*ft3/yr)
PageS
-------
TABLE 1
AP-42 Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Domestic
and Commercial Boilers (<10 x 10' Btu/hr input)
for Natural Gas Combustion
Participate:
Sulfur Dioxide:
Nitrogen Oxides:
Carbon Monoxide:
Volatile Organics:
1-5 lb/106 ft3
0.6 lb/101 ft3
IOOIb/10'ft3
20 lb/101 ft3
Nonmethane: 5.3 lb/10* ft3
Methane: 2.7 lb/10" ft3
CRITERIA POLLUTANT
EMISSIONS: BOILER #1
Particulate/PM10 Emissions
E « 5 Ib PM^IOft3** x 40 x 10«tt»/yr « 200 Ib PM,/yr
SOX Emissions
E - 0.6 Ib SO/IOft3 x 40 x 10«fP/yr - 24 Ib SOJyr
"Factor chosen to yield worst case scenario
CRITERIA: BOILER #1
(CONT.)
NOx Emissions
E -100 Ib N natural gas
consumed/yr
= 320 Ib VOC/yr
"Total VOCs calculated from the combination of both
nonmethane and methane emission factors
TABLE 2
AP-42 Emission Factors for Uncontrolled
Distillate OH Commercial Boilers
Particulate:
Sulfur Dioxide:
2 lb/10* gal
142 x (wt % of sulfur in oil)
lb/103 gal
Nitrogen Oxides: 20 lb/103 gal
Carbon Monoxide: 5 lb/103 gal
Volatile Oroanics: Nonmethane 0.34 lb/103 gal
Methane 0.216 lb/10' gal
CRITERIA POLLUTANT
EMISSIONS: BOILER #2
Particulate/PM10 Emissions
E > 2 Ib PM1t/103 gal x 15 x 103gal/yr - 30 Ib PM1(/yr
SOX Emissions
E - (142 x 0.5%) Ib SO/IO3 gal x 15 x 103gal/yr
' 1,060lbSOx/yr
Page 9
-------
CRITERIA: BOILER #2
(CONT.)
NO, Emissions
E - 20 Ib N gal x 15 x 10'gal/yr - 300 Ib HOJyr
CO Emissions
E - 5 Ib CO/101 gal x 15 x 10»gal/yr - 75 Ib CO/yr
CRITERIA: BOILER #2
(CONT.)
VOC Emissions
E - 0.6H Ib VOC/10* gal x 16 x 10>gal/yr - 8 Ib VOOyr
•V VOC PROFILE SPECIATION
REPORT
Profile Name: External Combustion Boiler - Natural Gas
Control Device: Uncontrolled
Data Source: Information based on stack sample for natural
gas analyzed by GC/MS
SCC As*lgnm*n1»: 1*1 MM1,1«»W1,1I3MM1,1ISM1M, 1C5M2M, 9fffMU, MtMtli
SAROM CAS NO
SKC MM SPEC II
BOMBUOPHCXANE
MiTHWE
PROTANE
14-BUTAttl
0410
MM
7011
•213
SPECIATED EMISSIONS:
BOILER #1
ISOMERS OF HEXANE"
E « 320 Ib VOC/yr x 1% by weight Isomars of haxana
• 3.2 Ib isorrmrs of h«xan«/yr.
-Regulated as a HAP under the Clean Air Act Amendments
r SPECIATED EMISSIONS:
BOILER #1 (CONT.)
FORMALDEHYDE-
E « 320 Ib VOC/yr x 8% by weight formaldehyde
- 26 Ib formaldehyde/yr.
—Regulated a« a HAP under the Clean Air Act Amendments
SPECIATED EMISSIONS:
BOILER #1 (CONT.)
BENZENE-
E - 320 Ib VOC/yr x 4% by weight benzene
• 13 Ib benzene/yr.
TOLUENE—
E - 320 Ib VOC/yr X 2% by weight toluene
- 6 Ib toluene/yr.
—Regulated as a HAP under the Clean Air Act Amendments
Page 10
-------
BV VOC PROFILE SPECIATION
REPORT
Control Device: Uncontrolled
Data Source: Information based on stack sample for residual oH
analyzed by GC/MS.
SCC Assignees: 10100501.10200S01.10300501.10SQ0205. 3MM001. 39990011
SAROAD CAS NO NAME SPEC MW SPEC m
43106
4310S
43-wr
43122
ISOMERS OF HEXANE
ISOMERS OF HEPTANE
ISOMERS OF OCTANE
ISOMERS OF PENTANE
PROPANE
N-BUTANE
BO-BUTANE
100-20
114.23
7215
HEXANE
HEPTANE
FORMALDEHYDE
V SPECIATED EMISSIONS:
BOILER #2
(USING SPECIATE DATABASE)
ISOMERS OF HEXANE—
E - 8 Ib VOC/yr x 5.2% by weight Isomers of hexane
• 0.4 Ib Isomers of hexane/yr.
•"Regulated as a HAP under the Clean Air Act Amendments
SPECIATED EMISSIONS:
BOILER #2 (CONT.)
HEXANE***
E • 8 Ib VOC/yr x 10.8% by weight hexane
= 1 Ib hexane/yr.
"Regulated as a HAP under the Clean Air Act Amendments
I SPECIATED EMISSIONS:
BOILER #2 (CONT.)
FORMALDEHYDE™
E * 8 Ib VOC/yr x 48.7% by weight formaldehyde
* 4 Ib formaldehyde/yr.
"Regulated as a HAP under the Clean Air Act Amendments
•f SPECIATED EMISSIONS:
BOILER #2
(USING FUEL ANALYSIS RESULTS)
• METAL, CHLORINE, AND SULFUR EMISSIONS
• Annual dlesel throughput • 15,000 gal
• 15,000 gal x 7.1 Ib/gal - 0.108500 x 10« Ib/yr
• Metal, chlorine, and sulfur emissions
Chlorine <8 ppm x .1065 x 10'/yr - 0.9 Ib/yr
Sulfur 426 ppm x 1065 x 10«/yr - 45 Ib/yr
Chloride <8 ppm x .1065 x 10'/yr - 0.9 Ib/yr
Total organic chlorine <8 ppm x .1065 x 10'/yr - 0.9 Ib/yr
Silver <1 ppm x .1065 x lO'/yr - 0.1 Ib/yr
Arsenic <5 ppm x .1065 x 10c/yr •* 0.5 Ib/yr
Beryllium <1 ppm x .1065 x 10'/yr - 0.1 Ib/yr
mOU SPECIATED EMISSIONS:
BOILER #2 (CONT.)
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Manganese
Zinc
lote: ppm *
<1 ppm x .1065 x 10*/yr
<12ppm x .1065 x 10"/yr
12 ppm x .1085 x Mflyr
-------
SESSION m
Application Forms
and Examples
NOTE REGARDING
SESSION m
• This session will consist of a discussion of
actual application forms
SESSION IV
Permitting Options
mSPECIAL
OPTIONS/DECISIONS
• Synthetic minor sources
• Insignificant and exempt emissions units
• Monitoring, recordkeeplng, and reporting
• Adding emission controls
SYNTHETIC MINOR
SOURCES
Potential to emit means the maximum capacity of
a stationary source to emit any air pollutant under
its physical and operational design.
SYNTHETIC MINOR
SOURCES (CONT.)
Any physical or operational limitation on the
capacity of a source to emit an air pollutant,
including air pollution control equipment and
restrictions on hours of operation, or on the
type/amount of material combusted, stored, or
processed, shall be treated as part of Its design if
the limitation Is enforceable by the Administrator
(subject to change, due to recent court
decisions).
Page 12
-------
IV SYNTHETIC MINOR
SOURCES (CONT.)
In other words, PTE assumes:
• 24 hour/day, 385 day/year operation
* Worst-case emissions
• Maximum process rate
• Dirtiest fuel or raw materials
• Does not Include any emission controls
• Does Include enforceable emission If m fiat Ions
W SYNTHETIC MINOR
SOURCES (CONT.)
Address sources with:
• Potential to emit above major source threshold(s)
• Actual emissions below major source threshold(s)
SYNTHETIC MINOR
SOURCES (CONT.)
Created by accepting enforceable emission
limitations:
• Limit hours of operation
• Limit production
• Limit material use
• Install emission control equipment/define minimum
control efficiency
SYNTHETIC MINOR
SOURCES (CONT.)
Federally-enforceable State operating permit
programs (FESOPs)
» Limits established by rules ("exclusionary" or
"prohibitory")
• General permits
• Preconstruction permit programs (NSR)
• Source-specific SIP revision
STATE-SPECIFIC
INFORMATION ON SYNTHETIC
MINOR PROGRAMS
» To be presented during seminar
BV SYNTHETIC MINOR
SOURCES (CONT.)
EPA transitional guidance (good until January 1997)
• Sources with actuals < 50% of major source
thresholds
• Maintain actual emissions at these levels for each
rolling 12-month period (beginning January 1994)
• Maintain records on site
Page 13
-------
SYNTHETIC MINOR
SOURCES (CONT.)
• Sources with actuals > 50% of major source
thresholds
1 Use limitations on State permits, If permit Is
enforceable as a practical matter
W INSIGNIFICANT AND
EXEMPT EMISSION UNITS
• Insignificant activities
• Trivial activities (White Paper)
• Insignificant emission levels
» Exempt emissions units
Notes: (1) WIN be some changes to Part 71
(2) May be some State-specific provisions thai
supersede Part 71
•V INSIGNIFICANT AND EXEMPT
EMISSIONS UNITS (CONT.)
Insignificant activities under Part 71:
• Comfort air-conditioning units (not subject
to Title VI)
• Comfort ventilating units
• Comfort heating units
«• Noncommercial food preparation
INSIGNIFICANT AND EXEMPT
EMISSIONS UNITS (CONT.)
• Consumer use of office equipment and
products
• Janitorial services and consumer use of
janitorial products
• Internal combustion engines used for
landscaping purposes
• Mobile sources
INSIGNIFICANT AND EXEMPT
EMISSIONS UNITS (CONT.)
• Insignificant activities under State Part 70
program:
If the State'* lift differ* from Part 71, EPA
will eomlder adding actfvfUe* to smooth
the ultimate trantltlon to the Part 70
•f INSIGNIFICANT AND EXEMPT
EMISSIONS UNITS (CONT.)
Insignificant emission levels under Part 71:
• Levels for regulated air pollutants, except HAPs
• PTE for single emissions units < 2 tpy
• Levels for HAPs
• PTE for single emissions unit < 1,000 Ib/yr of any HAP
Page 14
-------
INSIGNIFICANT AND EXEMPT
EMISSIONS UNITS (CONT.)
Trivial activities from the "White Paper:"
List of S3 types of activities and
emission* units that may be
presumptively omitted from permit
applications even If not Included on the
list of Insignificant activities.
m EXCLUSION OF "TRIVIAL"
ACTIVITIES
• List in "White Paper" Attachment A
Examples:
• Janitorial services
• Tobacco smoking rooms and areas
• Steam vents
m INSIGNIFICANT AND EXEMPT
EMISSIONS UNITS (CONT.)
Exempt emissions units:
• "Grandfathered" units
• Units below size thresholds
• Other exemptions
Bff INSIGNIFICANT AND EXEMPT
EMISSIONS UNITS (CONT.)
Application treatment:
• Insianificant and trivial activities - not included
in application
• Insignificant emission levels - identify
emissions units and indicate that exemption
applies
• Exempt emissions units - explain exemption
from applicable requirements; provide all other
data
Bf INSIGNIFICANT AND EXEMPT
EMISSIONS UNITS (CONT.)
Must supply additional information if needed to
determine:
• Applicability of any applicable requirement
• Whether a source is major
• Whether a source needs a Part 71 permit
• Fee
m MONITORING,
RECORDKEEPING, AND
REPORTING
• Emissions units with monitoring required by
underlying applicable requirements
• Emissions units requiring "periodic
monitoring"
• Emissions units requiring other reporting/
documentation
Note: CAM rule developments likely to apply.
Page 15
-------
•T MONITORING,
RECORDKEEPING, AND
REPORTING (CONT.)
• Monitoring required by applicable requirements:
• Specified In standard - NSPS, NESHAP, SIP, etc.
• Specified by preconstructlon permit - NSR, PSD
• Other
Jg MONITORING,
RECORDKEEPING, AND
REPORTING (CONT.)
» "Periodic monitoring" required for other
emissions units - CAM Rule
• Emissions monitoring
• Parameter monitoring - process or control device
• Trigger O & M activities
M MONITORING,
RECORDKEEPING, AND
REPORTING (CONT.)
Recordkeeplng requirements:
• Per applicable requirements
• Per periodic monitoring requirements
• Records retained for 5 years
If MONITORING,
RECORDKEEPING, AND
REPORTING (CONT.)
Reporting requirements:
• Per applicable requirements
• Every 8 months (or less)
• Prompt reporting of deviations from permit
requirements
ADDING EMISSION
CONTROLS
« May be required for new or future MACT
standards
« Voluntary controls to reduce PTE
SESSION V
Permitting Strategies
Page 16
-------
I OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY
• Remain competitive
» Adjust to changing market
» Minimize permit revisions
m REALITIES OF PERMIT
REVISIONS
• Reopen files
• Possible public notice
• Wait for approval
m ISSUES FOR OPERATIONAL
FLEXIBILITY
• Variations in product/operations
• Increased production rates
• Other
m OPTIONS
» Alternative operating scenarios
« Maximize potential to emit
• Emission caps
• Emission trading
« Off permit changes
V ALTERNATIVE OPERATING
SCENARIOS
• Include in original permit application
• Different fuels, solvents
• Different operating modes
» Worst case scenario
m MAXIMUM POTENTIAL
TO EMIT
• Maximize production
• Maximize hours of operation
• Minimize efficiency of control equipment
• Most hazardous chemicals
• Worst case scenario
(But, avoid NSR, PSD, etc., limits!)
Page 17
-------
EMISSION CAPS
• Maximum for facility or subset of facility
• Be prepared for:
• Recordkeeplng
• Limits
• "Llke-for-llk«" HAPs
W EMISSION TRADING
» Between one company's facilities, or
• Open market
W INTEL, OREGON EXAMPLE
» Semiconductor industry as a fast changing
Industry
« Pollution prevention goals
• Grouping of non-boiler sources for a VOC cap
• Permit viewed by many as an example to follow
SESSION VI
Timing and
Expectations
NOTES REGARDING
SESSION VI
• This session will consist of a last minute
update of the status of the Part 71 program
• The latest decisions on implementation
expectations and submittal timelines will be
discussed
SESSION VH
Questions/Answers
Page 18
------- |