United States
Environmental Protection Air and Radiation EPA/400/1-91/005.D
Agency (ANR-445) April 1991
c.a '•
(V-
en
CD
EPA Acid Rain Advisory
Committee Meeting:
December 13-14,1990
, Permits and Technology
Issue Papers
HEADQUARTERS LIBRARY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
-------
Permits and Technology Issue Paper
Index
P-l Background Paper on Permits
and Compliance Plans
p-2 Key Issues for Acid Rain Permits, Permit
Applications and Compliance Plans
P-3 Permit Term Issue Paper
-------
-------
PI
BACKGROUND PAPER ON PERMITS AND COMPLIANCE PLANS
The Acid Rain requirements will be implemented through an
operating permits program under Section 408 of the Acid Rain Title
and the general permits provisions, Title V, of the Act.
Regulations implementing the permitting requirements will include
provisions regarding schedules for submission and approval or
disapproval of permit applications and compliance plans, contents
of permits and compliance plans, and permit issuance and amendment
procedures.
Permits and compliance plans should complement the allowance
system and foster trading by providing sufficient flexibility to
allow sources to make real time allowance trading decisions. Our
challenge in this critical program element is to develop permit
and compliance plan requirements which maximize flexibility for
the market, certainty and predictability for sources, and
accountability.
Why are Operating Permits Necessary or Desirable?
An affected source under the Clean Air Act, as amended, is
typically subject to numerous requirements. These include Acid
Rain program requirements such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxides limits; compliance deadlines; emissions monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements; and regulations
concerning allowance tracking and trading. In addition, each
source is potentially subject to State implementation plan (SIP)
emissions limits, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), air
toxics requirements, and new source review/prevention of
significant deterioration (NSR/PSD) requirements. These
requirements apply to a greater or lesser degree to a particular
source depending on the type of facility involved. An affected
source might, for example, be subject to the year 2000 compliance
deadline or it might be granted a repowering extension to 2003.
Similarly the applicable NOx limit will vary depending on the type
of boiler involved.
The intent of Section 408 of the Acid Rain title and by the
general permits title, Title V of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990, is, thus, to establish a mechanism for clearly articulating
the specific requirements applicable to an individual source in
one document. Operating permits will provide greater certainty,
thereby facilitating compliance by individual sources and oversight
by air pollution control agencies.
Whv is Flexibility Desirable?
Flexibility is desirable in order to —
(1) Promote efficiency: Rigid and inflexible requirements
for compliance would hamper the ability of sources to make
decisions based on economic considerations. Flexibility in
allowing sources to determine (and modify) methods of
-------
compliance will promote economic efficiency and reduce
compliance costs.
(2) Foster active allowance trading: Flexibility in
selecting methods of complying with the requirements of the
Acid Rain program will foster an active allowance trading
market. Since the Acid Rain program is the first substantial
market-based environmental program, it is important that the
trading system not stifled through inflexible command-and-
control requirements.
(3) Allow compliance program modifications: Flexibility is
essential to allow sources to modify their methods of
compliance as necessary to minimize the cost of compliance.
Provided each affected unit complies with its obligations by
applicable deadlines, sources should not be burdened by
excessive impediments to obtain permit and compliance plan
modifications.
How Can Flexibility Be Promoted While Ensuring Accountability?
While the benefits of building flexibility into the Acid Rain
permit program are clear, the Agency must ensure that units are
held accountable for compliance with the emissions reduction and
other program requirements. The Agency must balance these
objectives through the implementing regulations.
The Agency contemplates promoting flexibility by creating an
administratively adjustable compliance planning process. As
currently contemplated, plans could be adjusted periodically
without the need of a formal permit revision or lengthy approval
process. The incorporation of explicit emissions monitoring and
reporting requirements will complete the measures needed to enable
the Agency to take this passive role in compliance planning. Up
to date, accurate emissions data will couple with the Act's
stringent excess emissions offset and fee requirements to enable
the Agency to close the loop and ensure that the goals of the
program are achieved.
To accomplish this, EPA is exploring procedural mechanisms
for building flexibility into the program. For example, different
types of information requirements, and amendment procedures can be
established for permits and compliance plans. In addition,
reliance on forms and electronic systems may contribute to the
program flexibility.
(1) Permit Application, Compliance Plan, and Permit Contents;
A critical program element to facilitate real-time allowance
trading decisions, is that permit applications, compliance
plans, and permits will not have to be amended each time a
source engages in allowance trading. Rather the success of
the Acid Rain control program will depend heavily on a
-------
reliable allowance tracking and trading system to support end-
of-year compliance determinations.
The permit documents must, however, articulate the essential
requirements of the Acid Rain program. Since the permit
application, compliance plan, and permit are binding on the
source, maximum flexibility will depend on limiting the
information required in these documents to what is necessary
for ensuring compliance at the affected units. Although many
of the Acid Rain program requirements that must be included
in the permit documents are explicitly enumerated in Title IV,
additional information may be needed to ensure program
accountability. The Agency needs to consider what data
elements are implicitly needed to ensure compliance with the
CAA.
For example, the legislation authorizes a wide range of
compliance methods. The compliance plan, which becomes a part
of the permit and is required to be developed by sources and
submitted with their permit applications, is the vehicle for
the source to articulate its choice of one or more of the
authorized compliance methods. Certain compliance options may
be chosen for affected units at the source which must be
supported by information and commitments to achieve mandated
deadlines (e.g. demonstrations of compliance by substitution
sources, deadlines for achieving repowering demonstrations).
By contrast, the permit is expected to contain the more rigid
requirements, such as the emissions monitoring, recordkeeping
and reporting requirements, prohibitions concerning the use
of allowances, operational information such as the unit's
baseline, the number of allowances initially allocated to each
unit covered by the permit, and the applicable compliance
deadlines. Permit application contents will depend on the
information needed for permit issuance.
(2) Amendments Procedures; The Agency is considering adding
flexibility to the program by authorizing amendments by notice
for modifications to compliance plans. Amendments to the
terms of the permit would, by contrast, require more extensive
Agency review and opportunities for public comment.
Provisions necessary to ensure accountability, such as
emissions monitoring requirements for each unit, would be
included in the permit. Thus, a source which decides to
change its method of compliance could do so with only minimal
restrictions. The process would have to include certain
safeguards, however, to ensure the source is accountable for
its emissions and compliance with other applicable
requirements.
(3) Standardized Permitting: To facilitate information
transfer, the Agency is considering allowing the electronic
-------
submission of permit applications, and computer generated
permits. In addition, the Agency may develop a series of
forms to reflect the differing data requirements for the
various compliance options authorized by the legislation.
For example, all affected sources would be required to submit
a general form, accompanied by specific forms for each of the
alternative compliance methods chosen (e.g., substitution
plans, repowering). Thus, a source considering either a
substitution or a Phase I extension would submit the general
form, the form for substitution plans and the form for Phase
I extensions. In this instance the compliance plan would also
have to indicate a date certain by when the source would
decide which option it will pursue. The forms could be
available in electronic format for sources wishing to use
electronic submissions of applications.
How Will Permits Be Issued? y
As with all other facilities regulated by the CAA, every
affected source is required to develop and submit a permit
application and a compliance plan for each affected unit at the
source. Acid Rain operating permits are required to have a term
of five years. (See Section 408(a).) EPA is required to issue
permits for affected sources in Phase I, which begins in 1995.
For Phase II, which begins in 2000, Title IV provides that permits
will be issued by States and localities with approved permitting
programs under Title V, or by EPA in the event of state default.
Eventually, all CAA requirements (Acid Rain, SIPs, KSPS, etc.) will
be incorporated into one permit. EPA must develop regulations to
implement the requirements of the Acid Rain Program, consistent
with the Title V general operating permits program.
A critical issue EPA will have to resolve early on in
developing the program concerns the timing of permit issuance.
Phase I permit applications, binding on the source until the permit
is issued, must be submitted by each affected source for Phase I
by February 15, 1993. EPA must review the compliance plans
submitted with each such application within six months. (There is
no deadline by which EPA must issue Phase I permits.) Phase II
permit applications are due January 1, 1996 (or 1998 for NOx
requirements and some new sources). Phase II permits are required
to be issued by States or localities with approved programs by
December 3J., 1997, or by EPA in the event of a State/local default,
by January 1, 1998. Given the legislative mandate that Acid Rain
permits have a term of- five years: (1) if a Phase I permit is
issued before 1995, it will expire before Phase I ends. EPA would
have to issue another permit to cover the last two years of Phase
I, or Phase II permits issued by the States would have to include
the requirements for the last two years of Phase I. (2) If the
Phase I permit is not issued until December 31, 1994 (so it lasts
throughout Phase I), the source will have two Acid Rain permits
from 1998 through 2000.
-------
The Agency is considering using computerized expert systems
to generate all or part of the Acid Rain permits. Use of expert
systems would facilitate expeditious permitting and would ensure
consistency in permit requirements, particularly during Phase II
permitting by States and localities. At a minimum, expert systems
would help ensure that essential Acid Rain program permit
conditions are not inadvertently left out of permits. Although
such a system promises efficiency and national consistency, its
success will depend on an effective outreach and training program.
How Will Acid Rain Permits Be coordinated With The General
Operating Permits Program?
The CAA requires that the Acid Rain permit program operate in
accordance with the general permits title (Title V), except as
modified by the Acid Rain title (Title IV). Where the two
permitting programs differ, the Acid Rain requirements take
precedence for purposes of the Acid Rain portion of the permit.
(See Section 506(b)).
(1) Relationship Between Acid Rain. SIP. NSPS. and Other
Clean Air Act Permit Requirements. It is important to keep in mind
in any discussion of integration issues that the general permit
program under Title V does not establish any substantive program
requirements, only the permitting program. Each permit issued
under Title V will, thus, have .essentially separate chapters
specifying Acid Rain requirements, SIP requirements, NSPS
requirements, NESHAP requirements, as appropriate depending on the
source involved. A paramount concept to understand in considering
how these separate programs might affect operations at a source is
that nothing in one substantive program can supersede the
requirement to comply with other programs. Thus, a source subject
to a strict SIP or NSPS limit of S02 may not emit in excess of that
limit just because it holds allowances under the Acid Rain program.
A source in that situation will be better off selling the
allowances it cannot use. Similarly, a relaxed SIP limit will not
override the absolute Acid Rain prohibition that a unit cannot emit
SO2 in excess of the allowances it holds for use in that year. As
a practical matter, therefore, the most stringent CAA requirement
will govern the operations at a source.
(2) Timing Conflicts Between Titles IV and V. A critical
issue, related to the permit-term issue discussed above, is the
conflict between permit duration and permit issuance deadlines in
Title IV and Title V. As previously noted, Section 408(a) mandates
that Acid Rain permits have a term of five years. Title V
authorizes permit terms of u£ £fi five years, but allows states
the discretion to issue permits of shorter duration. In addition,
Title V mandates revisions to operating permits before the end of
five years to incorporate new requirements.
-------
EPA needs to address these permit-term conflicts to ensure
effective use of resources by the permitting authority and to avoid
burdening facilities which are both SIP arid Acid Rain affected
sources with multiple permitting. The permit issuance process is
resource-intensive for both the permitting authority and the source
involved. It is, therefore, important to ensure that all air
permitting requirements (e.g. Acid Rain, SIPs, NSPS, etc.) are
included in a source's permit as quickly as possible — preferably
by the beginning of Phase II. Unless the authority for shorter
permit terms in Title V is deemed to be superseded by Title IV,
affected sources under the Acid Rain program will tend to be
burdened inordinately by repeated permitting.
(3) Compliance Plan Contents Under Titles IV and V. Another
area needing integration is the extent to which Title V compliance
planning requirements might be superseded by Title IV. Section
408(b) limits the contents of compliance plans for sources not
seeking approval of one or more special compliance options which
are specifically enumerated. This provision presumably applies to
the planning requirements for achieving initial compliance. Plans
may, however, include such Title V components as a description of
the source's operation and maintenance, and compliance monitoring
program.
-------
P2
Key Issues for Acid Rain Permits. Permit Applications and
Compliance Plans
What must be in the permit application, in the compliance
plan, and in the permit?
How can the integrity of the acid rain program be ensured,
particularly state-issued permits during Phase II? For
example, how can the shield provisions of Title V be
interpreted restrictively in the context of the Acid Rain
program? Should regulations bar state permits if state law
is changed to significantly alter the approved permit
program? What mechanisms must be created and what tasks
performed to ensure that permit applications and proposed
compliance plans faithfully articulate and are consistent
with:
(1) special allowance allocation authorities, such as
clean states, energy conservation-renewable energy
(404(e)/503(j)), incentive units (section 503(m))?
(2) requirements for NOx program, and for the
alternative methods of compliance in the S02 program, e.g.
election sources (section 410/509), substitution plans
(section 404(b)/504(c)), Phase I scrubber extensions
(section 404(d)/504(e), and repowering/CCT demonstrations
(sections 402(1), 409/502(a)(14), 508)?
How can the Acid Rain permit program best be structured to
facilitate the transition from Phase I Federal permitting to
Phase II State permitting? (e.g. use of expert systems)
What dangers exist of sources trying to use ambient program
permit requirements to insulate themselves from Acid Rain
program requirements?
Since nothing in Acid Rain program immunizes source from the
obligation to comply fully with other CAA requirements (e.g.
SIP or NSPS limits), under what circumstances would it be
appropriate to rely on optional authority in Section
408(b)(l) of requiring demonstration of attainment of the
NAAQS or of compliance with a SIP, NSPS or other limitation,
be appropriate? Are there statutory or policy reasons or
benefits for conditioning Acid Rain permit approval on
demonstrations of compliance with other requirements under
the Act? E.g. if the SIP is known to be inadequate? when
reviewing substitution plans? other? or should we require
demonstrations of attainment only if there is no SIP in
place? What are the dangers of intermingling the ambient
and total loadings programs in this way?
If the facility has SIP, NSPS, or NSR/PSp limits on NOx or
SO2, can or should the Acid Rain permit impose the most
stringent limit as an operating requirement for purposes of
-------
Acid Rain permitting? Should a source be obligated to
transfer allowances based on more stringent non-Acid Rain
limits? Or should non-Acid Rain limits be addressed
completely separately from the Acid Rain portion of the
permit? Should this issue addressed differently in Phase I
and Phase II permitting?
How should permit challenges be handled? Should challenges
to permits be time-barred? What permit challenge procedures
should be provided for? Should procedures be mandated
during Phase II? Should enforcement be barred while a
permit challenge is pending? Should there be some type of
interim relief? Would treatment in case of initial permit
challenges differ from challenges to permit revisions?
How specific should compliance planning requirements be so
as to ensure accountability yet afford maximum flexibility
in support of the allowance trading provisions of the
program? (E.g. should compliance plans relying on the
intent of the owner or operator to obtain allowances by end
of year, be required to include a fall back add-on schedule
with increments of progress if allowances are not available
by a date certain? Should advance back-up planning be
required for sources seeking Phase I or repowering
extensions, in the event an increment of progress is missed
or the technology does not give intended results?)
What policy decisions and guidance should be included in the
regulations to address conflicting statutory deadlines?
(See more detailed issue paper.)
Applications for various extensions and for optional
alternative baselines are due March 31, 1991, before the
regulations defining designated representative are due. How
should we deal with this timing issue?
The permit application and compliance plan are binding until
the permit is issued. What should be required to be
included in the application based on this fact? Should an
application form be mandated containing or referencing
applicable prohibitions?
What criteria in addition to submittal of required
information will be used to determine whether compliance
plans should be approved or modified by the permitting
authority? For example, in reviewing Phase I substitution
plans submitted under Sections 404(b) and (c), should EPA
approve plans that are facially sufficient and rely on the
strength of the excess emissions and other enforcement
provisions as the incentive for not sources to overextend?
or must EPA assess whether allowances will be available
under the trading system rather than, or in addition to, the
-------
allowance allocations specified in Table A?
Under what circumstances should integrated permit
applications or compliance plans be required? (Section
408(b) — governing more than one source)
Can EPA approve allowance pools, obviating the need for an
end-of-year unit-by-unit accounting? If so, what
limitations should be imposed?
Reduced Utilization or Shutdown: Section 408(c)(l)(B)
limits the planning requirements to affected sources under
section 404 (Phase I - S02) and section 407 (NOx). Does
this mean that such plans cannot be required from Section
405 units which intend to comply in this manner?
Substitution Plans: Should or can the language "unit(s)
under the control of such owner or operator" be read to
include units which, by agreement of two or more owners or
operators, are placed under the control of one designated
representative?
Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy: Units may begin
earning credits under Section 404(f) towards allowances 4
months before EPA issues conservation/renewable regulations
and permit regulations. What guidance should EPA provide
regarding certification of emissions avoided during this
time period?
A Phase II unit could presumably earn allowances under this
subsection from 1992 through 2000. When would the Phase II
source have to submit a permit application? (Phase II
permit applications are normally due by January 1, 1996. If
a source wants to receive conservation/renewable allowances
beginning in 1995, it seems that the source should submit
some type of permit application by the Phase I permit
application deadline.)
The criteria for acceptable plans are difficult to address.
EPA must determine what constitutes "qualified" conservation
and renewable energy under subsection 404(f) (in consulta-
tion with the Secretary of Energy), and the determination
must rely heavily on the potential to demonstrate the
legislated requirements for issuance. If the reductions
cannot be quantified, can the measure qualify?
How frequently should compliance certifications (progress
reports) be submitted? Quarterly? Within a specified time
period of the occurrence of a scheduled deadline or a change
of circumstances, e.g. 10 days? (This issue should be
coordinated with the emissions reporting regulations to
minimize reporting burden.)
-------
Can permit application, compliance plan, final permit, and
compliance certification forms be developed to facilitate
use of a expert systems for generating permits, and of
computerized information retrieval systems accessible, to
participants in the allowance trading program? If so, what
EPA data system should be used to record and provide
regulated community ready access to such information? What
confidentiality protections should: be established?
Duration of Operating Permits: Under Section 408(a), acid
rain operating permits shall have a term of five years.
Title V authorizes permit terms of shorter duration. In
addition, the Title V mandates revisions to operating
permits before the end of five years to incorporate new
requirements. These permit term provisions conflict with
the initial Phase I and Phase II Acid Rain permitting
requirements which would appear to require longer terms:
(1) Phase I begins on January 1, 1995. Phase I permit
applications, binding on the source until a permit is
issued, are due 27 months after the date of enactment
(i.e. February 15, 1993). EPA must review the
submission within 6 months, i.e. August 15, 1993.
(2) Phase II begins January 1, 2000. Phase II permit
applications are due on January 1, 1996, or in 1998 in
the case of Section 407 requirements and for some new
sources. Phase II permits are required to be issued by
the States December 31, 1997, or by EPA in the event of
a State default, January 1, 1998.
How should EPA address these permit term conflicts? Will
the Acid Rain portion of the permit be reissued, revoked,
and revised in accordance with state program permitting
schedules? Section 506(b) seems to indicate this is not the
case. If not, when the Acid Rain portion of the permit
comes up for reissuance, will the entire permit be reissued
and reopened? Is there any way of avoiding the permit
reissuance process for Phase I and the first five years of
Phase II? e.g. Can the legislation be read to allow a Phase
I permit to expire December 31, 1999, or must the Phase II
permit issued in 1998, include requirements to govern
operations the last two years of Phase I? Similarly, must a
Phase II permit issued December 31, 1997, be reissued in
2002?
Assuming two types of amendment processes are used (formal
amendments and amendments by notice) what should the
effective date of any amendment be: Upon receipt of notice
by EPA? Upon EPA notification to source of date of
effectiveness of amendment?
-------
Phase I Extensions: when should EPA start accepting Phase I
Extension applications? Note Allowances for units granted
extensions are awarded on a first-come-first-serve basis.
Many sources which may not ultimately actually seek such
extensions would like to begin submitting applications
immediately in order top preserve their place in line.
Presumably EPA will not be in a position to consider such
submissions until permit application requirements are
promulgated in final form in 18 months.
Repowering: How should EPA define qualifying clean coal
technology for purposes of a Section 409 compliance deadline
extension? ("Repowering" is defined at Section 402(12) as
replacement of an existing coal-fired unit (or any oil or
gas unit which was awarded clean coal demonstration funding
as of January 1, 1991), with an enumerated clean coal
technology or with any other new technology to control
simultaneous multiple emissions and improved efficiency and
waste reduction.)
There is a conflict in the repowering extension referred to
as a 1-year extension at section 403(a)(1) , on p. 15, and as
a three-year extension in section 409. Is the reference on
p. 15 a typo?
Does a Phase I Extension or a Repowering extension apply to
NOx requirements? Presumption that extension only applies
to SO2. However, statutory language is ambiguous. Is there
authority to include NOx limits in extensions if it will
result in a decrease in NOx emissions? Do we want to do
this?
Should the technological/economic infeasibility of a chosen
repowering technology demonstration requirement go into the
permit? If a demonstration is made, should the permit be
modified? Should the demonstration requirement be separate
from the permit? Should the compliance plan be required to
specify a back-up technology?
New Units: There is an apparent conflict in that §405(g)(4)
provides for allowances for certain new units, but they are
not listed as one of the exceptions for allowance
allocations under §403(e): (1) Is this a technical error in
Section 403(e)? (2) Should we presume that new units
authorized to have allowances allocated under the exceptions
in Section 405(g) must submit permit applications by 1/1/96
and meet all other Phase II deadlines? Or are they on the
more lenient new unit permit application deadline?
How should "designated representative" status be
established?
-------
How should EPA perform offset fee CPI adjustments, and what
mechanisms must be established for the receipt and deposit
of excess emissions fees?
-------
P3
November 29, 1990
ACID RAIN PERMITS, PERMIT APPLICATIONS
AMD COMPLIANCE PLANS — PERMIT TERM ISSUE
ISSUE
How can the conflict between Title IV and Title V, resulting from
the provision in Title IV mandating permit terms of 5 years
duration, be resolved?
DISCUSSION
There are several permit duration and scheduling conflicts
between the General Permits title (Title V), and the Acid Rain
Permits requirements (Title IV).
Section 506 (b) states that the Acid Rain Act (Title IV)
overrides Title V in regards to permits.
11 Permits Implementing Acid Rain Provisions.— The provisions
of this title, including provisions regarding schedules for
submission and approval or disapproval of permit applications,
shall apply to permits implementing the requirements of Title
IV except as modified by that title.11
Under Section 408(a), Acid Rain operating permits shall have
a term of five years. Title V authorizes permit terms of shorter
duration. In addition, Title V mandates revisions to operating
permits before the end of five years to incorporate new
requirements. These permit term provisions conflict with the
initial Phase I and Phase II Acid Rain permitting requirements.
(1) Phase I begins on January 1, 1995. Phase I permit
applications, binding on the source until a permit is issued,
are due 27 months after the date of enactment (i.e. February
15, 1993). EPA must review the compliance plans submitted
within 6 months, i.e. August 15, 1993, although there is no
mandated date for issuing the permit.
(2) Phase II begins January 1, 2000. Phase II permit applications
are due on January 1, 1996, or in 1998 in the case of Section
407 NOx requirements and for some new sources. Phase II
permits are required to be issued by the States or localities
with approved programs December 31, 1997, or by EPA in the
event of a State or local default, January 1, 1998.
See attached Timelines.
How should EPA address these permit term conflicts?
Will the Acid Rain portion of the permit be reissued,
revoked, and revised in accordance with the Title V state
-------
or local program permitting schedule, or must all
facilities which are Acid Rain affected sources be placed
on a five-year cycle for purposes of SIP permitting
notwithstanding a different state/local program
permitting cycle for other types of sources? Section
506(b) seems to indicate this is not the case. If not,
when the Acid Rain portion of the permit comes up for re-
issuance, will the entire permit be reissued and
reopened?
Is there any way of avoiding a permit re-issuance process
for Phase I and the first five years of Phase II? e.g.
Can the legislation be read to allow a Phase I permit to
expire December 31, 1999? Should the Phase II permit
issued in 1998, include requirements to govern operations
the last two years of Phase I? Similarly, must a Phase
II permit issued December 31, 1997, be reissued in 2002?
-------
TIMELINES
1. ACID RAIN PERMITTING TIMELINE: The Acid Rain Permits Program
(Section 408 of Title IV) specifies the following timeline —
May 15, 1992: Promulgate final regulations
February 1993: Phase I permit applications and proposed
compliance plans due
August, 1993: Deadline for EPA to act on Phase I compliance
plans. (Note, there is no express statutory deadline for EPA
to issue Phase I permits. If issued on this date, Phase I
permits would have to be reissued before August 1998 for
remainder of Phase I due to 5-year permit term restriction.
Re-issuance could be virtually automatic. Alternatively, the
legislation might be construed to authorize the EPA to issue
permits with an effective date beginning 1995, particularly
since the source will be bound by the permit application and
proposed plan until the permit is issued.
January 1, 1995: Phase I emissions limitation compliance
begins, except for sources with extensions. Closing date for
sources to submit applications for 15-month NOx extensions.
April 1, 1995: Deadline for EPA to act on NOx extension
petitions
January 1, 1996: Phase II permit applications and proposed
compliance plans due. (Must be submitted to States or
localities and to EPA since we will not know until July who
has to issue the permits. See, below).
July l, 1996: Deadline for approval of State/local permit
programs. If State or local program is not approved by this
date, EPA must issue Phase II permits by 1/1/98.
December 31, 1997: Deadline for States/locals with approved
programs to issue Phase II permits for SO2 (including approved
compliance plans). Since permits are of 5-year duration,
query whether we can make the effective date of the permit
begin in the year 2000 in order to avoid re-issuance in 2002?
January 1, 1998: Deadline for EPA to issue Phase II permits
for S02, where State/local does not have approved program by
July 1, 1996. (Permits shall include approved compliance
plans). Note, permits are of 5-year duration. One issue is
whether we can make the effective date of the permit begin in
year 2000 in order to avoid re-issuance in 2002.
January 1, 1998: Sources must submit (Phase II) NOx permit
application and proposed compliance plan.
-------
January 1, 2000: Phase II emissions limitations compliance
begins (except for sources vith three-year Repowering
extensions.)
December 31, 2002: Reissue five-year Phase IZ permits.
December 31, 2003: Phase II compliance begins for sources
vith three-year Repovering extensions.
II. PERMITS TITLE TIMELINES: The General Permits Title calls for
the following regulatory development and implementation
timeline —
November 15, 1991: Promulgate final regulation
November 15, 1993: Deadline for submission of State or local
permit programs to EPA
November 15, 1994: Deadline for EPA to act on State or local
permitting program
November 15, 1995: Deadline for sources to submit permit
applications unless EPA has to promulgate the permit program
(presumably for non-acid rain permitting requirements)
November 15, 1996: EPA promulgates state/local permit program
where State or locality defaults
May 15, 1997: State must have issued 1/3 of initial permits
with terms of up to five years
May 15, 1998: State must have issued 2/3 of initial permits
with terms of up to five years in duration. (Presumably Acid
Rain SO2 permits issued by December 1997, and NOx permits
issued based on January 1, 1998 submissions, can be counted
in meeting this obligation.)
May 15, 1999: State must have issued initial permits for all
sources, vith terms of up to five years in duration.
(Presumably, Acid Rain NOx permits, which must be issued
before 1/1/2000 can be included in this number).
-------
Other Issues:
There is a conflict in the repowering extension referred to as a
1-year extension at section 403(a) (1), on p. 15, and as a 3 year
extension in section 409. Is the reference on p. 15 a typo?.
The closing date for sources to submit applications for a 15-day
NOx extension for Phase I is the date that Phase I compliance
begins. How will last minute applications be handled?
Repowering extension documentation for Phase II is due on the date
that Phase II compliance begins. How will last minute submissions
be evaluated in time to require Phase II compliance if the
documents fail to show adequate advancement in the repowering
process.
-------
------- |