EPA-450/2-77-027
November 1977
(OAQPS No. 1.2-084)
GUIDELINE SERIES
GUIDELINES
FOR THE REGIONAL
EVALUATION OF STATE
AND LOCAL NSR PROGRAMS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
LIBRARY
rn,La'VIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGfNCT
EDISON, / ' 08817
-------
EPA-450/2-77-027
(OAQPS No. 1.2-084)
GUIDELINES
FOR THE REGIONAL
EVALUATION OF STATE
AND LOCAL NSR PROGRAMS
by
Daniel J. deRoeck
Standards Implementation Branch
Control Programs Development Division
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
November 1977
-------
OAQPS GUIDELINE SERIES
The guideline series of reports is being issued by the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) to provide information to state and local
air pollution control agencies; for example, to provide guidance on the
acquisition and processing of air quality data and on the planning and
analysis requisite for the maintenance of air quality. Reports published in
this series will be available - as supplies permit - from the Library Services
Office (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; or, for a
nominal fee, from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
Publication No. EPA-450/2-77-027
(OAQPS No. 1.2-084)
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Special Headquarters Visits 2
1.2 Use of the Guideline 3
2.0 NSR REGULATIONS 5
2.1 Permit Denial Authority 6
2.2 Information Requirements 9
2.3 Sources Subject to Review 10
2.3.1 Source Exemptions 10
2.3.2 Major Source Requirement 12
2.4 Public Comment Requirements 13
3.0 NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROCEDURES 15
3.1 Preliminary Application Review 17
3.1.1 Application Forms 17
3.1.2 Pre-Application Conference 18
3.2 Implementation of Major Source Criteria 18
3.3 Public Conment Procedures 21
3.4 Engineering Analysis 22
3.4.1 Independent Analysis 22
3.4.2 Emission Factors 23
3.4.3 BACT/LAER Determinations 24
3.4.4 Documentation 25
3.5 Air Quality Impact Analysis 26
3.5.1 Status of Air Quality Modeling Function 27
3.5.2 Background Air Quality 28
3.5.3 Averaging Time 29
3.5.4 Allowable Emissions 30
3.5.5 Critical Meteorological Conditions 31
3.6 Final Permit Determination 32
4.0 PERMIT AUDITS 34
4.1 Definition of Permit Audit 34
4.2 Submitting Permits for Audit 35
4.3 Sources Subject to Audit 36
5.0 NSR EVALUATION FOLLOW-UP RESPONSIBILITIES 37
5.1 Recommending Program Improvements 38
5.2 Reporting Requirements 40
5.3 EPA Assistance to States 41
APPENDIX A. Example Permit Audit Form 42
APPENDIX B. NSR Checklist Used for Headquarters Study 44
iii
-------
GUIDELINES FOR THE REGIONAL EVALUATION
OF STATE AND LOCAL NSR PROGRAMS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
During FY 1978, EPA plans to continue its emphasis on programs for
the control of new and modified stationary sources as part of the nation-
wide goal to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards. An
essential part of this emphasis involves a close working relationship
with the States in order to encourage and support the implementation of
new source review (NSR) programs at the State and local levels of govern-
ment. In order to gain a full understanding of the current status of
State (and local) NSR programs, Regions are required to evaluate the
NSR programs administered in each of their States. This requirement is
set forth in the FY 1978 Agency Operational Guidance, which defines a
minimum, adequate NSR program to include the following:
1. A program to identify sources subject to NSR requirements.
2. An established procedure for review of permit applications, including:
a. an engineering (emissions) analysis
b. an air quality impact analysis
c. a complete inventory and accounting procedure to track PSD
increments
d. RACT/BACT/LAER determination procedures
e. a description of existing air quality
3. Established procedures by which the State is to seek public comment
and by which the State notifies EPA of NSR applications, and,
4. A program for State enforcement of applicable requirements.
1
-------
It should be understood that before any general pronouncement of
program adequacy can be made, Regions must determine that the NSR program
not only contains the appropriate requirements and procedures for imple-
menting the requirements, but also that the State can demonstrate the
ability to properly perform its approved responsibilities.
!•! Special Headquarters NSR Visits
In order to get a first-hand indication of how NSR responsibilities
are being carried out by States, a Headquarters team, accompanied by at
least one representative from the appropriate Regional Office, visited 15
State and local air pollution control agencies during the period from
October 1976 to January 1977. During each visit the team gathered per-
tinent information describing the individual NSR programs. The agencies
provided for review such information as State and local NSR regulations,
written agency operating procedures, flow diagrams, organization charts,
policy memos, and case examples of permit reviews completed or underway.
In addition, further information was obtained through a series of questions
prepared beforehand and supplemented by questions raised during the onsite
visits. It should be noted that the interviews with various agency personnel
provided tremendous insight concerning program operations as well as the
agency's own NSR philosophy. Such information could not have been provided
by only examining the written material provided. For this reason, the
Regions are advised to include an onsite visit and interview session for
each agency that is evaluated.
-------
The general findings of the headquarters visits indicate that a
combination of administrative and technical inconsistencies exist in
the way that State's currently implement the NSR program. One of the
most obvious findings was that many present air quality dispersion modeling
efforts for NSR are in their infancy and lack the desired detail of a com-
prehensive air quality impact analysis. But this was certainly not the
only significant problem observed. This guideline describes the various
problems that were identified during the Headquarters visits.
1-2 Use of the Guideline
Regions should use this information to conduct similar evaluations for
each State and local NSR program administered within their respective States.
In some cases this guideline will likely be useful for planning upcoming
evaluation efforts. In other cases, however, it is known that Regions
have already begun to evaluate certain NSR programs. Where this is the
case, this guideline should serve as a measure of the completeness of
such evaluations. Indeed, it may be necessary to re-examine portions of
the programs, without unnecessarily duplicating other work already com-
pleted.
The discussions pertaining to the headquarters trip findings are
provided in chapters 2 and 3. The problems are divided into two categories,
namely regulatory and procedural. Although a faulty regulation is usually
reflected in terms of an inadequate procedure, one should never make a
simple assumption concerning the relationship of one to the other in the
place of a close examination of each separately as called for in this guide-
line.
-------
Because of the potential for widespread inadequacies in NSR regulations
and operating procedures, Regions are called upon to audit State permits
during FY 1978. Chapter 4 defines the audit responsibility, thus providing
a uniform audit approach for all Regions.
Finally, each Region is to respond to the problems which are revealed
through the evaluation process by recommending solutions to such problems
and by working with the States to solve them. Chapter 5 describes a course
of action which is designed to seek program improvements in State and
local agencies. Where the desired agency improvements cannot be brought
about, additional steps are defined that the Region may need to pursue.
-------
2.0 NSR REGULATIONS
State NSR regulations set forth the legally enforceable framework
by which the State is able to evaluate the performance and location of new
stationary sources and the modification of existing ones. The Clean Air
Act requires that these legally enforceable procedures be a part of the
approved State Implementation Plan (SIP). Although EPA efforts in the past
have been directed toward the development of totally approvable SIP regu-
lations for new source control, the recent headquarters NSR visits indicate
that some regulatory deficiencies and inconsistencies remain. It is EPA's
continued goal to work with States to help them to establish SIP's that are
in complete conformance with EPA's preconstruction review requirements for
stationary sources.
As part of the FY 1978 evaluation commitment, Regions must evaluate
the NSR regulations contained in each State's SIP. Unless otherwise
specified in this guideline, the Regional Office is expected to use as the
basis for comparison the minimum program requirements described in 40 CFR
51.18, including the December 21, 1976, Interpretative Ruling (41 CFR 55524),
otherwise known as the "offset policy." Regions should identify those
instances where the SIP fails to address a required regulatory provision
as well as where a provision is addressed but appears inadequate. It is
possible that certain required provisions will not be found in the SIP,
-------
but have been only recently added to State regulations or, more likely,
to their agency operating procedures. Nevertheless, when the SIP itself
is deficient or inadequate, the appropriate identification and documentation
of the problem should be made.
2.1 Permit Denial Authority [S 51.18(b)]
The SIP must contain the appropriate affirmative language to ensure
that a source shall be prevented (via some official denial process) from
being constructed or modified unless the source meets any and all precon-
struction requirements pertaining to such source. An adequately worded
regulation has language to the effect that "no approval to construct or
modify will be granted if such construction or modification will result in
or worsen a violation..."
Inadequate permit denial authority may be the result of several types
of problems that have been identified in some State regulations. The
Regional Office should examine the regulations for any of the following:
(1) Non-inclusive regulatory language - Some regulations merely
provide that a permit shall be issued if a source complies with the NSR
requirements, or that a permit may be denied if a source is determined
-------
to violate any of the requirements. The scope of S 5l.l8(b) is a
function of the scope of S 51.11(a)(4) which requires States to prevent
construction of sources when necessary. The example language above is
not sufficiently inclusive to assure that such prevention will always
occur.
(2) Circumvention of NSR requirements - Some regulations may allow
a source to take an alternative course of action (e.g., application of
the highest degree of control available) if the applicant is unable to
meet any preconstruction requirements. It 1s proper that sources be
allowed to take special action as necessary only if such action will
bring the source into compliance with NSR requirements - not if 1t will
circumvent them.
(3) Defau1t prp vis1 on - This regulatory provision requires that any
permit application not reviewed within a prescribed period of time is to
be issued automatically. Originally developed to prevent agencies from
taking an unreasonable amount of time to review permit applications, such
provisions could undermine the ability of the State to prevent sources
which would result in violations. (States may, however, deny permits
automatically if they want to maintain rigid review time limits.) The
-------
default provision is usually written so specifically that it is not
necessary to obtain an interpretation of it from agency representatives.
Agency officials may claim that the provision is never used. Regardless,
if the provision appears in the State regulations, it is not approvable.
(4) Board or Commission override - Most, if not all, State regulations
include an appeal process which is available to sources whose permit
requests have been disapproved. Such procedures serve as a legal means
of guaranteeing applicants that an unjust or incorrect determination
has not been made in denying the permit to them. However, the appeal
mechanism should never be used as a means of overriding permit denials
that are based on valid technical findings. Some States, when questioned
concerning their air pollution control boards or commissions, indicated
that they thought permit denials could be overridden on the basis of
equity or other non-technical rationale. Such determinations could over-
look violations of national standards and, when this occurs, cannot
be considered acceptable decisions.
Regional reviewers may or may not be able to Identify the ability
of the appeals board to (Improperly) override valid permit denials by
checking the specific provisions of the regulation. If such ability is
not clear by examining the regulations, then the appropriate agency repre-
sentatives should be questioned about this during the on-site interview.
EPA--if not the State itself—must intervene whenever a source is improperly
granted a permit under such circumstances.
8
-------
The Regional evaluation must identify any inadequate regulatory
language, circumventive options5 or other improper regulatory provisions
that weaken the State's authority to prevent construction when sources
cannot meet the applicable preconstruction requirements. Furthermore,
States cannot be allowed to issue permits that do not meet the tests of
S 51.18 and other applicable NSR regulations. The Regional Office should
act immediately to prevent the issuance of any such permits.
2.2 Information Requirements
States typically require that every applicant provide information
which is to be used to evaluate the proposed source's ability to meet NSR
requirements. Until some States began requiring an air quality analysis
as part of the preconstruction review process it was expected that the
only information needed for review was source-specific information. It
is now important that the applicant also submit monitored and/or projected
ambient data, and meteorological data when requested by the State. Some
States that do not presently perform detailed air quality analyses require
that the applicant perform and submit air quality dispersion modeling results
of their own. In a few cases, States have been known to require from
the applicant the submission of monitored air quality data from prescribed
locations as a prerequisite for conducting the new source review.
The Region should determine whether State regulations provide suf-
ficient flexibility to require any and all information needed to conduct
a thorough analysis. The evaluation should also take into consideration
the types of information currently being required by the agency pursuant
to their informational requirements. The Regional evaluator will have
an opportunity to discuss this matter with agency representatives during
the onsite evaluation.
-------
2.3 Sources Subject to Review LS 51.18(f)1
States are required to Identify in their SIP regulations the types
and sizes of sources that are subject to review pursuant to NSR require-
ments. States have typically responded to this requirement by
identifying specific types of sources or equipment that they consider to
be insignificant. Such sources are then exempted from review altogether.
All other sources are required to undergo agency review and must receive
authority to construct.
2.3.1 Source Exemptions - The State SIP(s) should be examined in order
to identify any weaknesses in the manner that source exemptions are
currently written. The following areas, in particular, should be
reviewed:
(1) Routine source exemptions - Most States provide, in regulatory
format, a list of sources that are routinely exempt from review on the
basis of their predetermined insignificant nature. EPA has not provided
firm national guidance as to what sources may be insignificant; thus
the list of exempted sources may vary from one State to another. There
is reason to believe that some of the sources being exempted from State
reviews can emit substantial quantities of pollutants. EPA is now
considering further action on the Appendix Q exemption list that was
proposed on July 8, 1975 (40 FR 28629). Regions are advised not to require
Immediate regulatory change, but to Identify sources currently exempted by
States, which do not appear in Appendix Q, and which experience tends to
indicate may not be Insignificant sources.
10
-------
Another type of routine exemption that is written into some State
regulations is one that specifies a pollutant load (e.g., 3,000 Ibs. per
day of certain organics, or 600 Ibs. per day of SO^} rather than identifying
specifically exempted sources. Sources emitting less than the specified
amount renuire no control, while those sources emitting more than the
specified amount are required to control a percentage of that amount which
is in excess. This type of exemption does not take into account a maximum
emission rate and could allow sources to make a significant contribution
to the air pollutant levels, particularly where poor air quality may already
prevail.
(2) Special exemptions for existing sources - Some States have been
found to provide special exemptions for certain existing sources that make
subsequent operating changes. It has been found, for example, that some
existing sources may be exempt from subsequent review if a later source
action is specifically classified as either a source "relocation," or
"reconstruction," or "replacement." Such sources could conceivably cause
violations or contribute to existing violations without any preventive
action being taken by the State. While minor routine equipment adjustments
or replacements can be exempted, large-scale replacements, (i.e., 50% of
the capital cost of the existing source) generally should not be. State
regulations that appear to allow existing sources to be exempt from further
review without ample consideration of any resulting net emission increases
or of the source's changed impact on air quality should be identified.
-------
(3) Vague regulatory language - Some States may unintentionally
exempt certain sources because of vague regulatory language. For
example, several States' regulations are known to require that sources
"which may result in air pollution" must obtain a permit to construct.
There is a chance that as a result, of this particular language some
sources might conclude that they would not cause air pollution and,
therefore, would not need to apply for a permit.
There is little doubt that a source must obtain a permit if the
regulation applies to sources "from which air contaminants are or may
be emitted." This more inclusive language precludes sources from
exempting themselves and allows the State to determine the ambient impact
of the source once the necessary information has been provided by the
source.
State regulations should be reviewed to determine whether uninten-
tional exemptions could result from vague regulatory language. Any
potential problems should be identified in the evaluation.
2.3.2 Major Source Requirement - Once specific sources have been exempted
from the NSR requirements, all nonexempt sources must be reviewed for com-
pliance with any applicable SIP emission limitations. Beyond this level
of review, the Interpretative Ruling (41 CFR 55528) enables States to
subject only major sources to an air quality impact analysis and to offset
requirements. A specific major source requirement, although not in S 51.18
at this time, will likely be part of the S 51.18 amendment package now
12
-------
under development. When approved, States will be required to define major
sources in their NSR regulations as well as in the approved SIP. In the
interim, Regions may accept State operating procedures which achieve the
intended purpose of requiring an air quality impact analysis for major
sources.
The Regional evaluation should include a review of the State's NSR
regulations to determine whether a definition of major source currently
exists. If so, the stringency of the definition must be compared to the
EPA definition. (See page 19.) It is thought however, that most States
have taken a non-regulatory approach by incorporating the definition solely
in their agency operating procedures. Further guidance concerning the
State's implementation of major source criteria is provided in Section 3.2,
beginning on page 17.
2.4 Public Comment Requirements [S 51.18(h)]
Few States are known to have regulations, in their approved SIP or
otherwise, requiring that the public be given an adequate opportunity
to comment on the new source reviews. In many cases, when States have
responded to the EPA requirement for public comments they have agreed
to do so through their operating procedures. Although S 51.18(h) could
be strictly interpreted to require all sources to undergo a public comment
period3 such interpretation is not currently being made by EPA. In fact,
EPA is considering an amendment to its public comment requirements stip-
ulating that, as a minimum, only major sources (see page 19 ) must undergo
13
-------
the public comment procedure. Therefore, the State's requirements
should be examined with the understanding that applicability is only for
major sources. (The procedures are discussed in greater detail in Section
3.3, beginning on page 21.)
The Regional Evaluation should identify the extent to which the SIP
provides for public comment. Documentation should include (1) whether
there is a basic provision for public comnent, (2) whether the procedure
includes all of the required provisions of § 51.18(h), and (3) whether
the procedure is required for at least all major sources.
14
-------
3.0 NEM SOURCE REVIEW PROCEDURES
The administrative and technical procedures which States develop to
describe their new source review process must provide them with an adequate
method to evaluate each permit application in accordance with the minimum
requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.18. If the procedures fail to do so,
the Regional Office should identify the specific deficiencies and areas
of weakness and set forth plans to work with the State to the extent neces-
sary to develop fully workable NSR procedures.
States describe their NSR process in various ways. The description
will generally include some combination of organizational charts, flow
diagrams, standard operating procedures, policy memoranda, and, perhaps,
even manuals. This information is extremely useful in order to gain a good
overview of the particular agency subject to evaluation. The Regional
Office may already have this information on hand; otherwise, a request
should be made to the State agency in order to obtain the most up-to-date
information. Once the Regional evaluator has reviewed available written
descriptions of the State NSR process, it will be possible to anticipate
some of the problems that may exist relative to S 51.18 requirements. How-
ever, it will almost certainly be necessary to sit down with agency repre-
sentatives to discuss the procedures in order to get the "full story" of
how the agency operates.
The Regional evaluator must always be concerned with the ability of
the State procedures to comply with applicable NSR requirements, however,
administrative concepts for which there are no specific requirements must
also be appraised. This is especially important since most States appear
15
-------
to exhibit a certain degree of uniqueness in the way that their NSR process
is implemented. This is not to say that any specific approach is always
more appropriate than another, but that the administrative framework
chosen by any State should provide for effective implementation of NSR
requirements. For example, the evaluator must know the type of approval
system that the State administers. Some programs require a permit to
construct and a permit to operate; some only a permit to construct; while
others require a "plan approval" as opposed to a "permit" per se. Responsi-
bility-sharing and internal communications may depend upon the degree of
program centralization (or decentralization). Some programs assign little
or no direct review responsibility to field office personnel, while others
rely heavily upon their technical support. In fact, there are States
which delegate permit-issuing authority to field engineers.
If administrative time constraints have been legally placed upon the
review process (e.g., 60-day review period), this may have an impact on
the review, often by requiring that various phases of the review be completed
within prescribed time limits. Such limits may facilitate a smooth, effi-
cient review process or they could impose restraints that result 1n incom-
plete or inaccurate reviews.
The remaining sections in this chapter describe for the Regional evaluator
program areas where particular attention should be devoted in order to ade-
quately address the acceptability of the State's NSR procedures. Whereas
most of the discussions deal with required areas of performance, some do not.
The evaluator should not hesitate to Identify any procedure, special policy,
analytical technique, or any other consideration that may limit the State's
ability to implement a NSR program consistent with EPA requirements.
16
-------
3.1 Preliminary Application Review
At the outset, each permit application is usually checked by a
State engineer to determine whether all required information has been
supplied by the applicant. Particularly where the State procedure con-
tains mandatory time constraints for either requesting additional infor-
mation from the applicant or for conducting the entire review, it is
important that this preliminary task be performed as soon as possible.
In any case, a review of the application for completeness should consume
as little of the overall review time as possible, while still providing
reasonable assurance that the necessary information is correct and
complete.
The Regional evaluator should note that while no EPA requirements
address this aspect of the review process, at least two possible areas
of consideration exist where certain recommendations may assist the State
in providing a greater degree of permit processing efficiency.
3.1.1 Application forms - States that have been using the same appli-
cation forms for a number of years may find it necessary to supplement
such forms in order to accomodate the receipt of special informational
requirements such as those described in Section 2.2, page 9. When
additional informational requirements are made it is important to
include clear, concise instructions for properly completing and submitting
the information. Agencies may unnecessarily expend valuable time in
repeated communications with an applicant who is unable to fill out forms
completely and accurately because of unclear or misleading instructions.
Such instructions can be included on the reverse side of a form, or on
a separate sheet, as desired.
17
-------
During the onsite evaluation the Region should seek to learn whether
the agency typically experiences defficulty obtaining the correct informa-
tion frorr a source. If inadequate instructions may be even a partial
cause of the problem, the Region could recommend the development of more
definitive instructions.
3.1.2 Pre-application conference - Some States have indicated that
meetings held with the applicant before a formal application is submitted
provide an excellent opportunity to define and clarify information require-
ments as they apply to specific sources. This option, though voluntary
on the part of the agency and the source, appears particularly useful for
those sources whose informational requirements may be extensive. In some
cases, a pre-application conference with a number of prospective applicants
called together may be the most effective way of disseminating all relevant
NSR requirements
3.2 Implementation of Major Source Criteria
States have typically reviewed each stationary source to determine
whether it will comply with applicable SIP emission requirements. It
has only been within the past year or so, however, that any States have
begun to perform an air quality analysis to determine new source com-
pliance with ambient standards. In doing so, States have independently
sought to limit their performance of the resource intensive modeling
exercise to only those sources whose impact was thought to be significant
in terms of their emission rate, or sometimes in terms of the location or
18
-------
the controversial nature (public acceptability) of the proposed source.
Consequently, a number of independent, and generally Inconsistent defini-
tions of a "significant" source are currently in use. These definitions
are rarely found in the State regulations. Instead, most States have
chosen to incorporate the definition in their operating procedures without
supportive regulatory language at this time.
EPA will accept a major source definition when contained only in the
State's operating procedures if it can be demonstrated that such definition
is equivalent to the EPA definition as provided by S 302(j) of the Clean
Air Act. Regions should note that this new definition supercedes the
major source definition set forth by the Interpretative Ruling (41 CFR
55528) when conducting a NSR evaluation. States will not be expected to
implement the new definition until the interpretative ruling is actually
amended. The effective definition defines as a major source "any major
facility or source of air pollutants which directly emits, or has the
potential to emit, one hundred tons per year or more of any air pollu-
tant..." Forthcoming NSR requirements will reflect this definition.
In the event that a State is now applying a less stringent definition,
it will become necessary to determine, if possible, the types of sources
most likely to be omitted from the State's air quality impact analysis.
Subsequently, precautions must be taken to assure that sources defined as
major by EPA, but omitted by State definition, receive the proper depth
of review prior to final permit approval. The Regional evaluator must also
determine that the State's application of major source criteria is thorough.
This is done by ascertaining that the major source criteria is applied
19
-------
to the emission rates resulting from the entire stationary source. A
stationary source is composed of one or more pollutant-emitting facilities.
Some States Issue permits for each separate facility or emission point that
is part of the stationary source. In doing so, there is a chance that
each facility (or emission point) will be reviewed Independently, and only
the emissions from that particular component of the source will be
compared to the major source cut-off level. The obvious result is that
a 120 tons per year major source consisting of three facilities will
be reviewed in terms of its three separate facilities (e.g., 30 tons,
40 tons, 50 tons) and would not be ruled subject to the air quality
impact analysis required for major sources.
20
-------
3.3 Public Comment Procedures
Not all States are providing ample opportunity for public corrment.
Some States claim, however, to be doing so in ways other than the mini-
mum requirements described in Section 51.18(h). An example of this is
a procedure by which periodic public notices are published (1) summarizing
the receipt of numerous permit applications, and (2) announcing permits
that have been issued. The public is thus informed only in a very gen-
eral way of agency permit actions (with essentially no source-specific
information prepared for public inspection), and is not provided with
a specific invitation or time within which to comment. For these reasons,
the example procedure is considered to be an inadequate public comment
procedure.
Pursuant to EPA requirements for public comment, States must issue
a public notice summarizing the proposed permit action, and make available
for public inspection sufficient information concerning that proposed
action. "Sufficient information" is to include the following:
0 The information submitted by the applicant (excluding confi-
dential information).
0 The agency's technical analysis of the effects of the proposed
source.
0 The agency's tentative approval or disapproval, including any
specific conditions for approval.
Even when State procedures adhere to the itemized requirements of § 51.18(h),
few States, if any, currently require that all new source reviews be sub-
mitted for public comment. Oftentimes, the State implements its public
21
-------
comment procedure based upon the same criteria used to perform an air
quality impact analysis (See Section 3-2). As previously mentioned,
such criteria may or may not be as stringent as the EPA definition of
major source. EPA does not have any provisions for limiting the oppor-
tunity for public comment only to major sources. Such a provision 1s
being considered, however, and it appears to be reasonable. In the
interim, therefore, Regions can accept procedures that limit public com-
ment to major source reviews.
Each State's public comment procedures should be reviewed according
to how they are being implemented. Regional evaluators should determine
(1) whether any public comment procedure is currently being used, (2)
whether all of the provisions of 5 51.18(h) are actually being followed,
and (3) whether the agency provides an opportunity for public comment
on at least those reviews involving major sources (EPA definition).
These topics should be fully addressed by discussing them with agency
representatives and also by examining completed permit reviews.
3.4 Engineering Analysis
3.4.1 Independent Analysis - Each State is expected to have adequate
procedures (and sufficient numbers of qualified engineers) to perform
an independent engineering analysis. An independent analysis requires
that any engineer assigned to a permit review be capable of thoroughly
reviewing and evaluating the basic equipment and processes according to
the stated operating conditions, and evaluating the approach the applicant
22
-------
has taken in the design of the air pollution control system—not merely
searching for mathematical errors in the emission calculations submitted
with the application. The engineer will have to assess the information
contained in the application and should generally make his own calcula-
tions to judge the necessary source compliance.
The engineering analysis of an air pollution control system should
Include the following technical information:
0 The types of pollutants emitted by the source
0 Rate of contaminant emissions of each pollutant
0 Volume, temperature and % HJD of gas to be handled by the air pollu-
tion control system
0 Adequacy of the design of the air pollution control system
0 Efficiency of the air cleaning device(s)
0 Reliability of equipment to meet standards on a continuing basis.
A discussion of the procedures for evaluating permit applications and
some example engineering reviews are contained in Chapters 5 and 6 of
the "Guide to Engineering Permit Processing" (APTD-1164). This informa-
tion is appropriate background material for Regional evaluators who will
be talking to engineers during the onsite evaluation. The evaluator
will also find the information useful for the permit audits where specific
engineering analyses will be examined on a first-hand basis.
3.4.2 Emission Factors - Agencies appear to be relying heavily upon AP-
42 emission factors to estimate the emissions from most sources. The AP-
4? document was not originally intended for use in estimating the emissions
23
-------
from specific single sources or processes, nevertheless States use it
because developing more accurate factors on their own is time consuming and
costly. In several cases States have developed their own factors for
selected source categories. Some States have even chosen to adjust AP-42
emission factors to obtain more "believable" results. States should be
questioned concerning their ability to derive emission estimates from
other available methods (e.g., stack test results, emission measurements
from identifical or similar sources, material balance equations, and emis-
sion factors developed from similar sources). Wherever possible, States
should be encouraged to place a lesser degree of reliance on AP-42 emis-
sion factors and a greater reliance on more source-specific estimating
methods. The evaluation should address the State's dependence on AP-42
emission factors relative to other methods that it has been known to
utilize.
3.4.3 BACT/LAER Determinations - An important aspect of each State's
engineering responsibility concerns the growing need to define, on a case-
by-case basis, best available control technology (BACT) and lowest achiev-
able emission rate (LAER). Engineering determinations will play an essential
role in allowing new major sources to locate in areas already exceeding
national standards. New sources of organic emissions represent a particular
area of difficulty for many States who claim to have little technological
experience with volatile organic compounds (VOC) control concepts. It
is quite apparent that States will need EPA technical assistance in order
to make some of the engineering determinations that will be forthcoming.
Moreover, the extent of such assistance will depend upon the current tech-
nical capabilities of the State..
24
-------
The Regional evaluation must address the Issue of technical assis-
tance 1n order to appropriately plan for the allocation of regional
resources. Specific agency experience should be identified as well as
any plans for the training of engineers to expand their present capabili-
ties. Where possible, the evaluator should identify in each State the
specific types of sources for which BACT/LAER determinations may have to
be made. EPA assistance to States is further discussed in Section
5.3, page 41.
3.4.4 Documentation - Each engineering analysis should be fully docu-
mented and routinely retained as part of the agency's permit file. This
documented work is the clearest evidence of an independent analysis.
Moreover, the results of the engineering analysis may comprise, in whole
or in part, the legal grounds for approving or disapproving the appli-
cation. The agency will be expected to respond on the basis of well-
documented facts and conclusions to any appeal made against the final
permit decision. State reviews which have been examined often suffered
from poor documentation. Emission calculations were not always pro-
vided or were incomplete. Sometimes, even when it was apparent that
work had been done, pages were missing from the permit folder.
The engineering report should contain the following:
0 Source data and operating conditions.
0 Technical assumptions, including references to technical support
documents.
0 All calculations made by the State engineer.
25
-------
0 Summary of findings, including the identification of any design
deficiencies and recommendations for modifications.
0 Conclusions, indicating the status of compliance with applicable
emission requirements.
0 Recommendation for approval or disapproval of application (major
source approvals also subject to air quality impact analysis and
public comment).
The adequacy of documentation should be ascertained as a result
of the permit audits which are discussed further on page 34. Regional
evaluators finding inadequacies in the State's engineering documentation
should discuss the problem with agency officials and stress the impor-
tance of well-documented analyses.
3.5 Air Quality Impact Analysis
In most States currently demonstrating modeling capability, agencies
have incorporated the air quality impact test into their NSR procedure only
within the past year or two. Some relatively sophisticated air quality
modeling techniques are being used in some cases, but all States appear
to need substantial improvements in their overall procedures in order to
conduct a comprehensive air quality impact analysis. This section addresses
the major aspects of a comprehensive air quality impact analysis. It is
not intended to be a technical presentation of modeling techniques since
EPA has and continues to develop modeling guidelines which serve that speci-
fic purpose. Instead, the discussions will focus on the concept of a
"total analysis." It will be left for the Regional Office to make a
judgment as to where the State procedures currently stand, and what
specific areas of improvement are necessary.
26
-------
3.5.1 Status of Air Quality Modeling Function - Each State should identify
all of the models that it has the capability of using. The use of the
term "models" here includes all techniques for estimating ambient air
quality concentrations, including simple screening techniques and programs
for pocket or desk calculators, programmable calculators, and computers.
Whatever techniques are used should be well defined and some procedural
documentation of each technique should be maintained by the agency. Where
such documentation does not exist, States may find themselves relying
upon the expertise of one specialized person, and should that individual
leave the agency, there is generally no one else who could duplicate the
technique in a timely manner or explain analyses already performed. (The
documentation will also assist sources in knowing how their own air
quality analyses will be evaluated by the agency.)
Included in the Regional evaluation of the State's modeling function
should be (1) the identification of pollutants that the agency has or
intends to analyze with each available technique, and (2) the conditions
under which specific techniques are implemented. The extent to which a
specific air quality model is suitable for use will depend upon several
factors , including:
0 The detail and accuracy of the State's data base (i.e., emission
inventory, meteorological data, and air quality data).
0 The meteorological and topographic characteristics of the area.
0 The technical capability of individuals undertaking such techniques.
0 The resources, in terms of monies and facilities available for
State utilization.
27
-------
Each of these factors should be considered in evaluating the
State's ability to use any models available to them, as well as for
upgrading the State's modeling capabilities when necessary.
It should be noted that many States may not have facilities of
their own for running sophisticated models (i.e., computer-based models).
Some agencies utilize computer facilities available at other governmental
office locations, while others may operate under contracts with local
universities or private concerns. Such arrangements should be identified
and special note made of the type of arrangement (e.g., time-sharing)
and the average turnaround time for test results. Any potential diffi-
culties with such arrangements should be identified.
Some States may not perform the NSR air quality modeling analysis
and thus require that the source prepare its own (generally via con-
tractor assistance). When the source is required to submit a modeling
analysis to the agency, it is essential that the agency be fully capable
of evaluating the data and the analytical results. States should not
accept the source's analysis without an appropriate level of in-house
review. The Regional Office should assess any and all techniques used
by State agencies to ascertain the accuracy and validity of both input
data and modeling analyses that an applicant submits.
3.5.2 Background Air Quality - Most State air quality impact
analyses stress only the impact or contribution to ambient pollu-
tant concentrations anticipated from the proposed source. As a
result, some States tend to establish arbitrary limits, based on
the percentage of the applicable NAAQS or PSD increment, that
28
-------
any source may contribute. To varying degrees, some States do account
for the ambient contribution from natural causes, area sources, and
"existing" stationary sources. Often neglected from background air
quality considerations is the impact of new sources which have already
received approval to construct but are not yet constructed and/or
operating. These sources must be considered existing sources for the
purpose of subsequent new source reviews. A complete analysis requires
that the pollutant concentrations from the proposed source be added to
the appropriate background levels resulting from new source growth up
to the proposed source's start-up date to determine the source's impact
on the NAAQS.
The Regional evaluation should consider the extent to which
agencies currently consider background levels for the NAAQS. Each
agency should be asked to describe and to provide any documentation
of the procedures for using its air monitoring network, specific modeling
techniques, or any combination thereof for background determinations. Any
problems which prevent the State from adequately taking into account back-
ground levels for new source reviews should be identified, whether they
be resource problems, procedural problems, technical problems or others.
3.5.3 Averaging Time - It is generally assumed that the short-term condi-
tions will be the "controlling" ones for most new stationary sources. For
any specific review, however, the State analysis should not overlook the
29
-------
long-term situation when there is any reason to believe that the annual
standards (NAAQS) or air quality increment may be violated. On the other
hand, most States that give consideration to ambient background levels
seem to give considerably more attention to the annual background than
to the short-term (more difficult, to derive) air quality background.
State procedures should be checked to see whether there are adequate
provisions to determine both long- and short-term background concentrations.
The use of monitored air quality data should be discussed with agency
personnel. Where monitored data cannot be obtained from an appropriate
local site, the use of "regional" sites or prediction from multisource
models should also be discussed. Any resulting problems should be iden-
tified and discussed in the evaluation report.
3.5.4 Allowable Emissions - The air quality impact analysis (whether
completed by the State or submitted by the source) must take into account
the allowable emission rate of the proposed source. 'The allowable rate
1s defined as the applicable NSPS, the applicable SIP emission limita-
tion, or an emission rate agreed to by the source as a permit condition,
whichever of these 1s less. There are some instances (e.g., large buoyancy
sources) when maximum ground level concentrations may occur at levels
less than the allowable rate and such critical emission rates should
also be given ample consideration. However, the point of emphasis here
1s that some States have been found to use only the actual emission rate
even though it may be substantially less than the legally allowable rate
for such source. Use of and the actual rate is inadequate because the
maximum legal source impact could be underestimated. Moreover, the agency
would have no legal means of preventing the source from subsequently
emitting up to the allowable rate.
30
-------
The State's analytical procedures should be reviewed to determine
whether allowable emission rates are used routinely for air quality impact
analyses. States that do not should be immediately advised of the possible
subsequent legal hazards. The State must also make this requirement
known to potential sources.
3.5.5. Critical Meteorological Conditions - In order to estimate the maxi-
mum ambient air quality impact of a proposed source, including the appro-
priate background considerations, State procedures must take into account
the critical meteorological conditions which can reasonably be expected
to occur within the area of concern. Some States have expressed diffi-
culty in being able to consistently do this. Typically, States base
their impact analysis on a single year of data. This is acceptable but
multi-year data is more desirable when available. Regional evaluators
should discuss with agency modelers the specific meteorological data base
being applied by the State and assist them in arriving at an acceptable
number of years of data to use to account for meteorological variations
and climatic extremes. The agency should be asked to describe and provide
documentation of its procedure for identifying the "critical" meteolorolo-
gical conditions that are used to arrive at a final air quality estimate.
Consideration should also be given to whether the appropriate meteorological
data is being used in each of the models the State uses.
31
-------
3.6 Final Permit Determination
The final determination to issue or deny a permit is to be made
only after careful consideration has been made of all applicable NSR
requirements, including public comment. If the evaluation has already
identified a regulatory provision that allows the State to circumvent
a specific NSR requirement, the operating procedures should also be
checked to see how such a provision is implemented. It is possible
that the States may never implement an improper regulatory provision
as common practice. On the other hand, State procedures should not
allow circumvention of NSR requirements where regulatory provisions
clearly prohibit such circumvention. For example, some States have
expressed a "lack of faith" in their air quality modeling results and
are thus reluctant to deny a permit on the basis of projected ambient
air quality violations. As a result, the modeling results are some-
times used as a negotiating tool to achieve a greater 'degree of emis-
sion control, but not as a criterion for the final permit determination.
The Regional evaluation should include specific questions designed
to allow agency personnel to expand upon agency practices that are not
readily apparent from reviewing the State's procedures.
A final determination which is forced upon the agency by a regu-
latory default provision (e.g., automatic approval after 90 days) was
described in chapter 2 as being unacceptable. The same is true of
appeal board decisions which may overrule an agency's decision to deny
a permit that is based on valid technical findings.
32
-------
A final determination to issue a permit should be accompanied by
specific conditions of that approval. The State procedures should pro-
vide for the routine conditioning of permits and, where applicable,
might include such qualifying conditions as:
0 Construction start and completion dates
0 Fuel usage and specification
0 Operating hours and days
0 A requirement for approval from the agency prior to the imple-
mentation of design changes which may affect the nature and
amounts of emissions
0 Specific instructions regarding the location of permanent
scaffolding and sampling ports
0 Testing methods
0 Maintenance of equipment.
In addition to the above typical standard permit conditions, special
conditions may be necessary. For example, in the event that a source may
be required to control emissions to a greater degree than the normal
SIP or other allowable limit (e.g., NSPS), the more stringent limit must
be firmly established as an enforceable permit condition. Moreover, any
special agreement which may be subject to future enforcement action,
and is a prerequisite for permit approval, should generally be included
as a permit condition. The State's procedures should also provide for
a legal review of special permit conditions to ascertain their enforce-
ability.
33
-------
4.0 PERMIT AUDITS
Permit audits are an integral part of the Regional commitment to
evaluate State NSR programs during FY 1978, Since the audits will
generally continue past the planned completion date of other evaluation
activities already described, it may be possible to anticipate the
types of problems that many audits could reveal. On the other hand,
the audits could be instrumental in the identification of problems that
might not otherwise be discovered,, It is possible that the Region may
find it necessary to re-examine certain aspects of the State program in
the event that unanticipated problems are revealed during an audit, which
are repeated in a number of the permits audited. However, whether the
identification of a problem actually justifies further study of the
State program or not, it certainly means that the permit(s) should not
be issued until the problem has been resolved to the Region's satisfac-
tion.
4.1 Definition of Permit Audit
The FY 1978 permit audit is defined herein as a two-phase examina-
tion of State permits. Specifically the audit responsibility is to be
fulfilled by 1) a thorough examination of the State review which forms
the basis for their preliminary determination, and 2) a follow-up review
of the completed permit package when the State has reached a final deter-
mination.
The two-phased approach is prescribed because an effective permit
audit must not only consider the final outcome of the permit review, but
should also be performed at such time during the review process when
corrective action can most readily be taken to ensure that the final
34
-------
outcome is correct. Once a permit has been issued by the State, it
becomes an involved task to seek appropriate legal action to invalidate
one that has been improperly issued.
4.2 Submitting Permits for Audit
In order that the first part of the permit audit can be completed
it is necessary for States to submit a permit package to the Region during
or sometime before the formal public comment period. This may present a
particular problem insofar as some States are not known to provide an
opportunity for public comment at this time. For such States, it will
be necessary to inform them as early as possible, prior to other evalua-
tion activities, of the need to submit permits for Regional auditing.
While all States must eventually provide an opportunity for public comment,
they should be required immediately to agree to forward permit reviews to
EPA as they become available. Regions should seek further headquarters
guidance in the event that an agreement cannot be reached with any State
or local agency concerning this matter.
Once received, each permit should be audited in sufficient detail to
ascertain that 1) the appropriate steps have been followed, 2) adequate
documentation is provided, and (3) the preliminary determination is con-
sistent with technical findings. A recommended format is provided for
completing each permit audit. This, or a similar format, may be used as
a checklist to document each audit. Only where specific problems are
identified is it necessary to provide additional information and comment.
35
-------
The State should be notified immediately if the audit identifies
problems. Corrective action should be sought during the public comment
period or as soon thereafter as possible. Following the return of comments
and recommendations to the State, it may be necessary to work closely
with the State to prepare an adequate permit review. In any case, the
Region should monitor the subsequent status of the review until the issuance
of the final permit determination.,
The audit of each permit is complete when an acceptable final permit
determination is made. It will be necessary to review any public corrments,
as well as the State's response to such comments (including modifications
to the technical analysis), and all conditions for approval as part of the
final phase of the audit.
4.3 Sources Subject to Audit
The FY 1978 Agency Operational Guidance specifies that the Regions
commit to a level of SSR and PSD permit audits for Class A sources,
which are major sources as defined by S 302(j) in the Clean Air Act,
as amended. Regions will be expected to audit as many major source per-
mits (at least 10%) issued during FY 1978 as possible within available
resources and workload. A reasonable estimate can be established by
using historical data for permits issued by the State as well as the
State's projections for the FY 1978 period. Highest priority for auditing
should be given to permits involving non-attainment problems (i.e.,
offset conditions apply).
36
-------
5.0 NSR EVALUATION FOLLOW-UP RESPONSIBILITIES
The actual evaluation of each State program 1s to be followed by a
Regional plan which identifies specific program problems and recommends
solutions for them. The success of the Regional effort involves not only
a thorough program evaluation, but the ability of the Region to produce a
plan containing workable solutions that the State will agree to. This
final chapter addresses the recommended course of action for the Regions
to follow in order to pursue the necessary program improvements in NSR
programs.
Two factors must be taken into account during the development of
solutions to a State's NSR problems. First, the primary thrust of this
evaluation effort is to retain as much of the direct responsibility for
carrying out NSR's with the State as possible. EPA's role should focus
upon program guidance and technical assistance to strengthen the State
programs. Second, the Regions are being called upon to seek program
changes at a time when work is underway to amend the S 51.18 NSR require-
ments. When the amendments are completed, States will be required to
make certain changes in their NSR regulations.
At first sight 1t might appear inappropriate to induce program change
at a time when regulatory changes are Impending. Yet, interim corrective
measures are not only feasible, but quite necessary if the Regions are to
ensure that State-issued permits conform to applicable NSR requirements
set forth by EPA. Furthermore, as States begin to develop plans of their
own to broaden their NSR responsibility for PSD as well as for new source
control in non-attainment areas, it is imperative that all facets of the
basic programs now in operation be strengthened as expeditiously as possible.
37
-------
The sections that follow describe responsibilities that are to be incor-
porated within a plan of corrective action, Briefly, these activities
are designed to 1) provide recommendations for program improvement mainly
through changes to agency operating procedures, 2) require the reporting,
by States, of certain actions defined by the Region, and 3} commit EPA
support to any agency where such need is identified. The overall plan
is an interim approach to resolving the problems that weaken current
program operations, yet without interfering with the overall objective
of seeking appropriate regulatory changes which result in an approvable
SIP.
5.1 Recommending Program Improvements
Effective feedback to the State and local agencies will be instru-
mental in bringing about the improvements which the Regional Office
deems necessary. As a minimum, feedback should be provided at two parti-
cular stages during the evaluation process; first, irrmediately upon com-
pletion of the onsite program visitation, and second, after the Region
has had time to prepare and document solutions to the identified problems.
Regional evaluators should set aside time at the conclusion of the
onsite visit to discuss the preliminary findings with the appropriate
agency representatives. No formal negotiations are to take place at
this time; an oral summary of the agency's potential problems is all that
is intended. It is possible that during the ensuing discussion, if any,
agency officials may be sufficiently convinced that certain difficulties
can be adequately resolved without the need for formal negotiations. On
the other hand, the agency may be able to clarify any misunderstandings
38
-------
that the evaluator could have obtained during the evaluation. In any
event, whether this immediate feedback actually resolves any problems
or not, it will provide the agency with a general understanding of
the Regional assessment of their current program status.
The preparation of a written plan, documenting specific agency
problems and recommending solutions to them, should focus on the
agency's operating procedures as much as possible. The realization of
more immediate corrective action is a desirable feature of procedural
rather than regulatory changes in addition to the other reasons for
not seeking widespread regulatory changes at the present time. When
situations seem to necessitate regulatory change, however, Regions are
advised to contact Headquarters for precise guidance concerning the
feasjbility of specific changes being sought. Consideration should
also be given to the idea of seeking State participation in the draft-
ing of solutions. The agency's own insight insofaras what it can or
cannot be reasonably expected to accomplish in a particular manner
or by a certain time could avoid lengthy negotiations at a later date
while still arriving at reasonable solutions.
Once a plan has been completed, with or without prior consultation
with the appropriate State or local agency, all recommendations should
be formally presented to the agency. On certain parts of the plan, an
agreement may be reached immediately, although full implementation of
a new or revised procedure may involve some delay. Interim reporting may
be required. This is described in the following section. Where certain
changes are to be gradually developed or phased in, specific milestones
39
-------
of progress should be required for subsequent monitoring by the Region
on a periodic basis. Where changes may require a significant resource
commitment by the agency, the grant process should be used to negotiate
the final agreement. The final agreement should include not only the
changes agreed to, but the details of the commitment in terms of respon-
sibilities to be assumed, manpower requirements, and monies to be expended.
It is EPA's objective that the State be given every opportunity to
implement, and thus retain primary responsibility for, as many NSR
responsibilities as practicable. The ultimate inability to successfully
negotiate the appropriate corrective measures with each State may result
in the assumption of unwanted program responsibility by the Regional
Office. The importance of seeking direct State involvement cannot be
overstressed.
5.2 Reporting Requirements
In conjunction with any agreement to bring about changes in a State's
current mode of operation, the Region must require the State to report on
any permit action which when taken would lead to the issuance of an improper
permit approval. This requirement applies to situations where 1) a State
agrees to a change but additional time is required for full implementation
to occur, and 2) a State does not agree to make necessary changes in its
program. The Regional should identify those specific situations where
reporting is to be required. However, it may not always be possible for
the State to report prior to the action being taken in certain instances.
Such a case is when an air pollution hearing board improperly overrides
a permit determination made by the reviewing agency. It will be possible
40
-------
to report beforehand, for example, on permits that would have to be issued
pursuant to a default provision (see page 7). Once reported, appropriate
action would have to be taken to see that the applicable review requirements
are met before a permit is issued. Hopefully, the State will continue to
conduct the necessary review once the Region acts to override the particular
problem at fault.
5.3 EPA Assistance to States
The third part of the plan should include a Regional commitment to
provide program guidance and technical assistance as part of the overall
upgrading of the State NSR program. Regional assistance is likely to be
a major concern when RACT/BACT/LAER determinations are called for. Head-
quarters has developed a clearinghouse function to facilitate the dis-
tribution of such determinations as they become known. In this way,
when a new control technology is put into practice all States can be in-
formed of it. Regions will be advised of continuing developments in
this particular area.
Since most States have not entered into the modeling of new sources
until recently, various types of assistance will probably be needed to con-
duct an adequate air quality analysis. EPA modeling guidelines should be
made available to States and special training efforts may be justified to
expand a State's current level of expertise. Regions should call upon head-
quarters for assistance in terms of special contracting support or direct
manpower support as needed.
41
-------
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE PERMIT AUDIT FORM
I. PRELIMINARY AUDIT
A. Background Information
1. State
2. Agency Name and Address
3. New Source
Modified Source
4. Brief Description of Site Location:
5. Date Application Receive by State
Date Preliminary Determination Completed
6. Agency Prepared (Adequate, Inadequate) Public Notice.
B. Engineering Review YES NO.
1. Agency conducted independent analysis
2. Agency calculated allowable emissions
3. Agency calculated actual emissions
4. Agency calculated potential emissions
5. Agency used AP-42 emission factors
6. Applicable degree of control (circle one):
a. SIP b. BACT c. NSPS d. LAER
C. Air Quality Impact Analysis YES N0_
1. Agency applied a simple screening technique
2. Agency applied more detailed dispersion model
3. Assessment included (circle appropriate items):
a. NAAQS: Annual standard Short-term standard
b. Background air quality: Annual impact Short-term Impact
c. Emissions: Actual Allowable
A-l
-------
D. Remarks:
II. FINAL AUDIT
1. Permit Approved Disapproved Other Action (specify)
2. Agency Received public comment
Responded to public comment
3. Permit Conditions: Standard Conditions of Approval
Special Conditions Developed
Conditions Appear Enforceable
Conditions Appear Sufficient
4. Conclusions:
Permit Determination is Consistent with Agency Analysis
All Information Necessary for Audit was Readily Available
Permit Review was Well Documented
Technical Support Data Maintained in Permit File
5. Remarks:
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B
NSR CHECKLIST USED FOR HEADQUARTERS STUDY
I. PROGRAM OVERVIEW
A. Program Philosophy
1. Current NSR responsibilities SSR NSPS PSD NESHAP_
2. Political climate for NSR (Gov/mayor, Agency, public, etc.)
3. Program priority for NSR
4. Plans to accomodate new source growth via SIP revisions
5. Emphasis on public involvement
6. Role of modeling in NSR
B. Organization
1. Organization structure, lines of responsibility
2. Types of people involved (focal point?)
3. Hdqtr/District operations (communic, supervision, overview)
4. Roles of other agencies
5. Anticipated changes
C. Resources
1. Approximate $ for NSR (% personnel, % equipment)
2. Number of persons involved
3. Available equipment (access to computer?)
4. Status of emission inventory
5. Number permits reviewed annually (major sources)
B-l
-------
II. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
A. Source Applicability and I.D.
1. Define: source (plant, facility, emission point)
major source - modified source
2. Source exemptions (which ones) (what criteria)
3. Source identification
4. Source tracking system (status, exempt sources, approval/
disapproval)
5. Central NSR file
B. Permit System/Engineering
1. Standard application forms
2. Information requirements
3. What emissions are considered (allowable - SIP/NSPS, fugitive,
actual, worst case, peak loading)
4. Emission estimates (emission factors, % control, specs.)
5. RACT/BACT policy
6. Application check points (completeness, tech accuracy, emission
verification)
7. Length of typical review (major review)
C. Air Quality Assessment
1. Types of models used by agency (individuals responsible)
2. When is modeling performed (source size, special conditions)
3. Screening techniques
4. Can source be required to model/monitor
5. Background determination (long-term/short-term) (methods)
6. Access to meteorological data (use of meteorologist)
B-2
-------
7. Documentation of analysis
8. Incorporation of modeling with engineering analysis
III. ENFORCEMENT
A. Legal Authority
1. Legal guidance (ARC lawyer, other)
2. When can agency legally prevent permit
3. Can agency legally require - source to model/monitor; permit
conditions; controls > NSPS; any information; emission tradeoffs
4. Enforce AQ - on plant property; over water bodies; rough terrain;
no receptors
5. Authority to accept delegations
6. "Interfere with attainment or maintenance of NAAQS1 'non-
attainment area1"
B. Surveillance
1. Enforcement responsibility (what agency, persons)
2. Procedure for enforcement action
3. Current surveillance activities
4. Source compliance with preconstruction information (inspections,
source test, reporting requirements)
5. Permit violations (preconstruction, post-construction, post-
operation)
6. What permit Information is enforceable (emission data, control
equipment, % efficiency, process Information)
7. Responsibility for subsequent violations (after approval)
B-3
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/2-77-027
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Guidelines for the Regional Evaluation of State and
Local New Source Review Programs
5. REPORT DATE
November 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Daniel J. deRoeck
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
OAQPS 1.2-084
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS '
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA 200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This report provides the necessary guidance for the evaluation of State and local
agencies conducting new source review (NSR) programs. In addition to defining a
minimum level of adequate program responsibility, the guideline identifies problems
which may be common to a number of agencies. Essential NSR program considerations
are described in terms of regulatory requirements and agency operating procedures.
Also described is the EPA regional responsibility for auditing State-issued
permits for completeness and enforceability. Regions are also expected to document
evaluation findings and to prepare a report containing recommended solutions to
those difficulties identified. Negotiations with each agency should produce a
commitment to undertake steps necessary for program improvement.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a.
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
Emission Limits
Evaluation Guidance
Air Pollution Control Agencies
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
New Source Review
Permits
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
50
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage/
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |