United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Air Pollution Training Institute
MD 20
Environmental Research Center
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EPA-450/
January 1986
Air
APT I
Course SI:454
Effective Permit Writing
Student Guidebook
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Air Pollution Training Institute
MD 20
Environmental Research Center
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EPA-450/
January 1986
Air
APT I
Course SI:454
Effective Permit Writing
Student Guidebook
Developed and designed by:
Craig Mann
Gary Saunders
David Dunbar
PEI Associates, Inc.
11499 Chester Road
Post Office Box 46100
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246-0100
iUnder Contract No.
'68-02-3890
EPA Project Officer
Charles Pratt
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
NOTICE
This is not an official policy and standards document. The opinions and
selections are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Every attempt has been made to repre-
sent the present state-of-the-art as well as subject areas still under
evaluation. Any mention of products or organizations does not constitute
endorsement by the EPA.
AVAILABILITY
This document is issued by the Manpower and Technical Information
Branch, Control Programs Development Division, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, EPA. It was developed for use in training courses presented
by the EPA Air Pollution Training Institute and others receiving contractual
or grant support from the Institute. Other organizations are welcome to use
the document.
This publication is available, free of charge, to schools or govern-
mental air pollution control agencies intending to conduct a training course
on the subject covered. Submit a written request to the Air Pollution Train-
ing Institute, U.S. EPA, MD-20, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
Others may obtain copies, for a fee, from the National Technical Infor-
mation Service (NTIS), 5825 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
CONTENTS
Notice ii
Availability ii
Figures . . . . v
Tables vi
Course Introduction 1
Lesson 1 - Regulatory Requirements and Permit Review 4
SIP Requirements 6
NSPS Requirements 7
NESHAPS and Toxic Air Pollutants Requirements 8
PSD Program Requirements (Part C) 9
Nonattainment Area Requirements (Part D) 12
Lesson 2 - PSD Requirements 15
Introduction . . . 15
Source Applicability Determination 16
Pollutant Applicability Determination 22
BACT Proposal and Analysis 24
Ambient Air Quality Analysis .... 33
Additional Impacts Analysis 48
Review of Completed PSD Permit Application 53
Lesson 3 - Nonattainment Area Requirements 71
Introduction 71
LAER Requirement 81
Statewide Compliance Requirement 82
Consistency With RFP 82
Lesson 4 - Major Elements of Permit Review 85
Introduction 85
Check for Completeness 85
Applicability Determinations 86
Technical Review 87
Recommendations Based on Permit Review 94
Summary 95
Lesson 5 - Considerations for Writing a Successful Permit 97
Introduction 97
111
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Legal Authority 98
Written Procedures for Technical Review 100
Waste Disposal 103
Documentation Procedures 104
Lesson 6 - Elements of Effective Permit Writing 107
Introduction 107
General Guidelines in Permit Writing 108
Specific Guidelines in Permit Writing Ill
Summary 117
Lesson 7 - Permit Followup/Renewal 120
Introduction 120
Source Inspection Results 121
Emission Test Results 124
Computerized Tracking Systems 127
Summary 131
References 134
IV
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
2-1 Creditable contemporaneous changes 21
2-2 BACT process 25
2-3 Example 1 of baseline area concept 38
2-4 Example 2 of baseline area concept 40
2-5 Impact area 41
2-6 Emissions inventory screening area 45
2-7 Preliminary determination summary format 56
2-8 Checklist for pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act . 61
2-9 PSD completeness data summary/review worksheet 70
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1-1 Criteria Pollutants 5
1-2 Major Stationary Sources (Threshold - 100 tons per year). . . 10
1-3 De Minimi's Emission Rates 11
2-1 Named PSD Source Categories 18
2-2 Significant Emission Rates 19
2-3 Regulated Pollutants 23
2-4 Steps to Determining Applicability 23
2-5 Comparison of Control Strategy Alternatives 30
2-6 Allowable Concentrations for S02 and PM (yg/m ) 35
2-7 Allowable PSD Increments (ug/m ) 36
2-8 Significance Levels for Air Quality Impacts 42
VI
-------
COURSE INTRODUCTION
Description
This course is designed for permit engineers and administrators respon-
sible for issuing and reviewing construction and/or operating permits for
stationary sources of air pollution. Permit auditors who review and analyze
permit review, preparation, execution, and revision will also find it useful.
The following major topics are covered:
0 Basic overview of permit review goals
0 Regulatory requirements
0 Major elements of permit review
0 Legal, technical, and administrative considerations
0 Key elements of good permit construction
0 Permit followup and renewal.
Course Goal and Objectives
Course Goal
To familiarize you with the basic requirements and components of permit
review, permit preparation, and permit evaluation.
Course Objectives
At the end of the course, you should be capable of the following -
1. Stating the goals of the permit review process
2. Recognizing the basic Federal regulatory requirements that may be
applicable to the permit review process
3. Briefly describing the basic steps necessary in reviewing and
issuing federally enforceable permits under Part C (PSD) and Part D
(Nonattainment Areas) of the Clean Air Act
1
-------
4. Naming the major elements of permit review
5. Naming the major legal considerations for writing a successful
permit
6. Discussing the procedures for reviewing technical and engineering
specifications involved in permit review
7. Recognizing the major elements of successful permit construction
8. Listing the key components to be addressed in writing a good permit
9. Discussing the major factors involved in permit followup and/or
renewal
10. Discriminating between good permit conditions and those with major
f1aws.
Requirements for Successful Completion
of this Course
To receive 4.0 Continuing Education Units (CEU's) and a certificate of
course completion, you must:
1. Take a mail-in final examination
2. Achieve a final examination grade of at least 70 percent (out of
100 percent).
Reading:
This text is the only required reading material. Other supplementary
reading material is not required.
Prerequisite Courses:
SI:453 Overview of PSD Regulations
Using the Guidebook
This book directs your progress through the course. Seven lessons
review and summarize the key elements in permit review and preparation.
Review exercises are presented at the end of each lesson with the exception
of lesson Nos. 2 and 3 which are required reading assignments only. The
final examination for this course will not include a test for these lessons.
-------
The content of lesson Nos. 2 and 3, however, is extremely important to a
total understanding of the permit review process and should be read very
carefully. To complete an exercise, place a piece of paper across the page
covering the questions below the one you are answering. After answering the
question, slide the paper down to uncover the next question. The answer for
the first question will be given on the right side of the page separated by a
line from the second question, as shown here. All answers to review ques-
tions will appear below and to the right of their respective questions and
will be numbered to match the question. Please do not write in this book.
Always complete the review exercise in the lessons. If you are unsure about
a question or answer, review the material preceding the question. After
completing the review exercises, proceed to the next section.
Review Exercise
1. Question lonio
nil i cllu yUonulH
2. Questioned out
ll llllMitiytC a
3. Question > «•• lot
^N^lo nil i cilo yU
-------
LESSON 1
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND PERMIT REVIEW
Goal: To familiarize you with the major elements of the Federal air pollu-
tion control program for stationary sources and how these elements are
interrelated.
Objectives: At the end of.this lesson, you should be capable of the follow-
ing:
1. Understanding the program requirements for New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS), Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD),
Nonattainment Review, and how they relate to the overall New Source
Review (NSR) program
2. Recalling the primary goals of the programs listed in objective No.
1
3. Discussing the major differences between the programs listed in
objective No. 1.
The Clean Air Act (Act) and its amendments strive to achieve and main-
tain clean air by a variety of means. The dominant concept is the establish-
ment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants be-
lieved to.have an adverse effect on public health and welfare. These
criteria pollutants are listed in Table 1. States are divided into Air
Quality Control Regions (AQCR's), which are designated as "attainment," "non-
attainment," or "unclassified" for each criteria pollutant according to
whether the ambient air quality is better or worse than the NAAQS for that
pollutant. Each State is required to adopt a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
that is designed to attain and maintain the NAAQS throughout the State.
Generally, owners of proposed major new sources and existing major
sources planning modifications must obtain air pollution permits prior to
commencing construction of the new or modified source. To obtain these
permits, sources must undergo a general preconstruction review. The type of
review required is determined by the pollutants the source will emit and the
existing ambient pollutant concentrations at the location where the source
-------
TABLE 1-1. CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Sulfur dioxide S(L
Carbon monoxide CO
Total suspended particulate TSP
Nitrogen dioxide NOg
Photochemical oxidants 0
y\
Lead Pb
will be constructed. Sources located in nonattainment areas and emitting a
pollutant or pollutants for which the area is nonattainment must undergo
nonattainment review. Sources located in attainment areas must generally
undergo PSD review. Because an area may simultaneously be attainment for one
pollutant and nonattainment for another, a source may have to undergo both
types of review.
The evaluation of an application for a "permit to construct" by the air
quality regulatory agency with legal jurisdiction to issue the permit is
commonly referred to as NSR. The rather complicated permitting process can
take from 6 months to several years to complete. An NSR application is
required for all proposed major new or modified sources, as well as for
selected minor new or modified sources.
The sources for which NSR is applicable generally are required to con-
duct the following studies:
0 Engineering. To estimate expected emission rates and available
control technologies.
0 Ambient Impact. To determine the expected impact of the emissions
from the source, either new or modified.
0 Monitoring/Testing. To establish actual air pollutant concentra-
tions and to evaluate impacts on soils, vegetation, or visibility,
as required.
Although the specific NSR requirements may vary from State to State, all NSR
programs must as a minimum comply with the basic requirements set forth in 40
CFR 51.18.
-------
1.1 SIP REQUIREMENTS
Federal regulation (40 CFR 51) requires that States have the authority
to "prevent construction, modification, or operation of any stationary source
at any location where emissions from such source will prevent the attainment
or maintenance of a national standard." The implementation plans submitted
by the States (SIP's) and approved by EPA include procedures for reviewing
air pollution sources prior to construction and disapproving those construc-
tion projects that would interfere with the attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS's.
Typically, the most effective means of conducting NSR is through the
framework of a permitting program. The State issues a permit for the con-
struction of a facility following a prescribed examination of the plans for
that facility to ensure that the facility will comply with all applicable
regulatory requirements. In many States the NSR process may be followed by
the issuance of an operating permit after construction has been completed and
initial compliance has been demonstrated. The source must continuously
comply with the permit conditions or face enforcement action and/or revoca-
tion or suspension of the permit.
The primary benefits of a permit system are that it:
1. Insures proper design of air pollution control equipment
2. Provides an opportunity to examine potential impacts of proposed
new sources and major modifications of existing sources
3. Provides a mechanism for generating source and emission inventory
data
4. Supports uniform enforcement operations.
All new sources in a State are subject to the requirements of the appli-
cable SIP. The SIP normally specifies limitations on allowable emissions and
procedural requirements for preconstruction review. In addition, NSPS may
apply to specific pollutants emitted by the permitted source, and the emis-
sion of specified hazardous pollutants may also be subject to special regula-
tion under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS).
-------
1.2 NSPS REQUIREMENTS
Section 111 of the Act, "Standards of Performance of New Stationary
Sources," requires EPA to establish Federal emission standards for stationary
source categories that cause or contribute significantly to air pollution.
Both the regulated pollutants emitted by these source categories and their
associated emission limits vary for each NSPS promulgated and include partic-
ulate matter, SC^, CO, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds (VOC),
acid mist, total reduced sulfur (TRS), and fluorides. The regulated sources
and pollutants at issue are numerous and are listed in 40 CFR 60. The Act,
however, precisely states that the States should have the primary authority
for implementing the NSPS program.
If a NSPS does apply to a particular new or modified source, the owner
must give advance notification to EPA or the State before beginning construc-
tion with further notification due before actual startup of the facility.
The owner or operator must also submit operating data after startup to demon-
strate that the source is complying with the applicable limit. A new or
modified source will be subject to NSPS if standards have been proposed for
that particular source category before the facility has commenced construc-
tion.
In the language of Section 111, the standards of performance for each
affected facility "shall reflect the degree of emission limitation and the
percentage reduction achievable through application of the best technological
systems of continuous emission reduction which (taking into consideration the
cost of achieving such emission reduction, any nonair quality health and
environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines
has been adequately demonstrated." The "percentage reduction" requirement is
limited to fossil-fuel-fired sources of air pollution.
The emission control technology on which NSPS are based is best demon-
strated technology (BDT). Numerical emission limits that reflect the per-
formance of BDT are established for each affected facility. Typically, the
numerical limit is accompanied by other provisions requiring proper operation
and maintenance of the control system. Design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standards are authorized by Section 111 where it is not feasible
to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission limit.
-------
1.3 NESHAPS AND TOXIC AIR POLLUTANTS REQUIREMENTS
Section 112 of the Act, "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants," requires EPA to establish Federal emission standards for non-
criteria air pollutants that the Administrator judges "to cause or contribute
to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to result in an increase
in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating re-
versible illness." These standards apply to new, modified, and existing
sources and are set at levels to protect public health with an ample margin
of safety.
Within 1 year of listing a particular pollutant under Section 112, EPA
must propose a standard for that pollutant under NESHAPS. The intent of the
NESHAPS program is to establish a uniform national standard for specific
sources that emit the listed hazardous pollutant.
In addition to the NESHAPS program, many State air pollution control
agencies are in the process of formulating toxic air pollutant control pro-
grams. Many States have to one degree or another attempted to use their
permitting program as a method of implementing their air toxic control pro-
gram.
The current State air toxics control programs generally fall into four
categories—ambient guidelines, ambient standards, risk assessment, and
control technology requirements.
0 Ambient Guidelines. Some States rely on ambient guidelines for
determining "acceptable ambient levels" of toxic air pollutants.
Acceptable levels are based primarily on Threshold Limit Values
(TLV's) developed by the American Conference of Governmental and
Industrial Hygiem'sts (ACGIH) and the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA).
0 Ambient Standards. Some States base their program primarily on
TLV's adjusted for area receptors. In these programs modeling is
the primary tool for demonstrating compliance. A few States have
issued such ambient standards requiring a source to demonstrate
compliance for various averaging periods.
0 Risk Assessment. Some States have elected to use a risk assessment
approach particularly for evaluating sources of suspected carcino-
gens. Levels of acceptable risk are established with modeling
techniques used to project lifetime exposures.
-------
0 Control Technology Requirements. Some States also use control
technology requirements in conjunction with one of the preceding
programs. State requirements, especially with regard to suspected
carcinogen emissions, can be particularly exacting.
If a State develops its own regulations to deal with hazardous air
pollutants, the regulations must be consistent with the Federal regulations
outlined in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61. All emission limits or standards appli-
cable to NESHAP sources must be at least as stringent as the Federal NESHAPS.
State agencies must not grant immunities that are not granted by Federal
regulations. Test methods, monitoring requirements, and reporting require-
ments must be approved by EPA and be comparable to EPA methods. As with the
NSPS programs, the Act indicates that the States should have the primary
authority for implementing NESHAPS programs.
1.4 PSD PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS (PART C)
The purpose of PSD is to prevent significant deterioration of air
quality already cleaner than the NAAQS. PSD applies to major new stationary
sources of air pollution and to major modifications of existing sources.
Because the purpose of PSD is to prevent significant deterioration of air
quality in areas where the air is cleaner than the applicable national stan-
dards, PSD regulations apply only in areas that are either cleaner than the
national standards, or are unclassified with respect to the areas attainment
status.
New sources among the list of 28 source types specified in the PSD
regulations (Table 2) are required to obtain a PSD permit if controlled
emissions of any pollutant regulated under the Act have the potential to
exceed 100 tons per year. New sources in categories not found on the list of
28 are required to obtain a PSD permit if controlled emissions of any pollu-
tant regulated under the Act have the potential to exceed 250 tons per year.
Both criteria and noncriteria pollutants are subject to PSD review if emitted
by a major new source or increased by a major modification in significant
amounts.
In determining PSD permit requirements needed for major modifications of
existing sources, new capitol equipment or emission units with different
-------
TABLE 1-2. MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCES (THRESHOLD - 100 TONS PER YEAR)
1. Fossil-fuel-fired steam electric plants of more than 250,000,000 Btu per
hour heat input
2. Coal cleaning plants (with thermal dryers)
3. Kraft pulp mills
4. Portland cement plants
5. Primary zinc smelters
6. Iron and steel mills
7. Primary aluminum ore reduction plants
8. Primary copper smelters
9. Municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons of refuse
per day
10. Hydrofluoric acid plants
11. Sulfuric acid plants
12. Nitric acid plants
13. Petroleum refineries
14. Lime plants
15. Phosphate rock processing plants
16. Coke oven batteries
17. Sulfur recovery plants
18. Carbon black plants (furnace process)
19. Primary lead smelters
20. Fuel conversion plants
21. Sintering plants
22. Secondary metal production facilities
23. Chemical process plants
24. Fossil-fuel boilers of more than 250,000,000 Btu per hour heat input
25. Petroleum storage and transfer facilities with a capacity exceeding
300,000 barrels
26. Taconite ore processing facilities
27. Glass fiber processing plants
28. Charcoal production facilities
Standard Industrial Codes (SIC's) at the same facility must each be treated
as new sources. A PSD permit is required for modifications to major existing
facilities if the "net" emissions increase due to the modification will
exceed any value on the de minimis emissions list (Table 3). The net change
in emissions accounts for both increases and decreases associated with the
modification over a specified period of time prior to the intended date for
beginning construction. A modification to an existing minor source would not
require a PSD permit unless the proposed modification would be major by
itself (i.e., exceed 100 or 250 tons per year as a function of the source
category).
10
-------
TABLE 1-3. DE MINIMIS EMISSION RATES
Pollutant
Emission rate,
tons per year
CO
Nitrogen oxides (NO )
so2
Particulate matter
Ozone
Pb
Asbestos
Beryllium
Mercury
Vinyl chloride
Fluorides
Sulfuric acid mist
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
TRS (including H2S)
Reduced sulfur compounds (including H2S)
100
40
40
25
40 tons per year of
volatile organic
compounds
0.6
0.007
0.0004
0.1
1
3
7
10
10
10
The following are the major components of the PSD program:
1. Area Classification System. All areas in the Nation are designated
as Class II except selected National parks, wilderness areas, etc.,
that are classified as Class I areas.
2. Air Quality Increments. Numerical limitations restricting in-
creases in the ambient concentration above existing baseline con-
centrations.
3. Best Available Control Technology (BACT). The best available
emission control technology is decided on a case-by-case basis,
after all costs and impacts have been taken into account to
11
-------
determine what is achievable at the proposed installation. The
BACT can never be less strict than NSPS and it applies to all
pollutants regulated under the Act.
4. Preconstruction Review and Approval. This review includes the sub-
mission of detailed data along with modeling and engineering
analyses, public hearings, and monitoring data.
1.5 NONATTAINMENT AREA REQUIREMENTS (PART D)
The EPA1s preconstruction review regulations (40 CFR 51) require States
to prevent construction or modification of any source that would interfere
with attainment and maintenance of ambient standards. Because a literal in-
terpretation of the Act would essentially prohibit all new growth in and
around nonattainment areas, EPA developed regulations to allow new growth in
such areas only if stringent conditions were met. These conditions ensure
that new source emissions will be reduced to the greatest degree possible,
that more than equivalent emission reductions (i.e., offsets) will be ob-
tained from existing sources, and that the actions will have a net air
quality benefit.
Thus, the Nonattainment Area requirements (Part D)..provide that in any
area where any ambient air quality standard is being violated, no major new
source can be constructed unless a permit has been issued that imposes
stringent controls and requires sufficient offsets to assure progress toward
compliance. Sources subject to the nonattainment requirements may include
any new source (or modification) with potential emissions of any criteria
pollutant in quantities equal to or greater than 100 tons per year .
In principle, new sources can be allowed only within a framework that
assures a net reduction in total emissions. The SIP revision process gives a
State considerable leeway as to how it chooses to direct its control efforts
toward attaining NAAQS in a nonattainment area. Nevertheless nonattainment
permit requirements have certain things in common. These include:
1. Offsets. Enforceable reductions in existing sources of pollution
that exceed expected emissions from the new source.
2. Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER). LAER is required for new
or modified major sources located in nonattainment areas. LAER is
based on the most stringent emission rate contained in any SIP or
achieved in practice by the same or similar sources.
12
-------
3. Other Sources in Compliance. All other commonly owned or operated
sources within the affected State must be in compliance or on
approved compliance schedules.
Some confusion and overlap can exist in the application of the PSD or
the nonattainment regulations to a new or modified source. The basic rule of
distinction is that a major new source is subject to PSD requirements if the
source impacts a clean area and subject to nonattainment requirements if it
impacts an area that is currently exceeding the NAAQS. A new source,
however, may be subject to both PSD and nonattainment reviews if 1) cross-
boundary effects would cause emissions from a source in a PSD area to have an
impact on a nonattainment area or vice versa, or 2) the source's location is
classified as PSD with regard to certain pollutants, but classified as non-
attainment with regard to others.
REVIEW EXERCISE
1. Each State is required to adopt a State Implementation
Plan designed to attain and maintain
throughout the State.
a. NESHAPS
b. Pollution offsets
c. NAAQS
d. Compliance
All proposed new sources that, after installation of 1. c. NAAQS
air pollution control equipment, have the potential
to emit 100 tons per year or more of any regulated
pollutant are required to file
application.
a. A New Source Review
b. An NSPS
c. A source test
d. A de minimis
3. PSD and Nonattainment Permit reviews cannot be 2. a. A New
required of the same source? Source
Review
True or False
13
-------
4. Of the Clean Air Act regulatory programs, which 3. False
clearly requires a verifiable improvement in
ambient air quality rather than maintenance of
existing levels?
a. NSPS
b. NESHAPS
c. PSD
d. Nonattainment
5.
6.
7.
Operating permits are
a. Required by the Clean Air Act
b. Found in all States
c. Required at the discretion of the States
d. Only applicable to new sources
NSR always requires analyses of
pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act.
a. Modeling, criteria
b. Offset, noncriteria
c. Separate, each
d. None of the above
True or False? Section 111 of the Clean Air Act
(Standards of Performance of New Stationary
Sources) authorizes design, equipment, work
4. d. Non-
attain-
ment
5. c. Required
at the
discre-
tion of
the
States
6. c. Sepa-
rate,
each
practice, or operational standards where prescrip-
tion or enforcement of emission limits is not
feasible.
8. If the emissions increase due to a 7. True
modification at a major source is significant,
PSD review is required.
a. Criteria pollutant
b. Actual
c. Potential
d. Net
8. d. Net
14
-------
LESSON 2
PSD REQUIREMENTS
Goal: To familiarize you with the PSD program requirements.
Objectives: At the end of the lesson, you should be capable of the follow-
ing:
1. Understanding the source applicability requirements
2. Understanding the pollutant applicability requirements
3. Reviewing a BACT proposal and analysis
4. Describing the ambient air quality analysis process
5. Understanding the source impact analysis
6. Conducting a determination of a completed PSD permit application.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Prior to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, the question arose as to
whether a State could allow the air quality within its borders to deteriorate
to the NAAQS level in areas that were cleaner than the NAAQS for a given
pollutant. Several environmental groups brought suit on this issue and the
court held that Congress intended to prevent significant deterioration of air
quality that was better than the applicable NAAQS. As a result of the
court's decision, the EPA promulgated the first set of PSD regulations on
December 5, 1974.
On August 7, 1977, Congress substantially amended the Clean Air Act and
outlined a rather detailed PSD program. On June 19, 1978, EPA revised the
PSD regulations to comply with the 1977 Amendments. The June 19, 1978, regu-
lations were challenged in a lengthy and comprehensive judicial review
process. As a result of the judicial process, EPA proposed a revised set of
PSD regulations, which were finally promulgated on August 7, 1980. These
15
-------
regulations and subsequent minor modifications and interpretations of these
regulations are the subject of Lesson 2.
2.2 SOURCE APPLICABILITY DETERMINATION1'2
The basic goal of the PSD program is to ensure that air quality in clean
air areas (i.e., those areas with air quality better than the applicable
NAAQS) does not significantly deteriorate while maintaining a margin for
future industrial growth and expansion. Thus, the PSD regulations focus on
those new and modified sources that create large increases in emissions and
could significantly affect the air quality levels in the area surrounding the
source.
A source is defined as all emission units in the same industrial group-
ing located on contiguous or adjacent properties under common ownership or
•control. An emission unit is any part of a stationary source that emits or
has the potential to emit any pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean
Air Act. The major groups of two-digit codes contained in the Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) manual define industrial groupings.
Once a source is defined, one must determine if the stationary source is
a major or minor source. This determination is based on the source's poten-
tial to emit pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act. Potential to emit is
defined as "the capability at maximum design capacity to emit a pollutant
after air pollution control equipment has been applied, considering all
Federally enforceable permit restrictions that limit the design capacity
utilization, the hours of operation, or the type or amount of material
processed or stored." In the absence of Federally enforceable limits, the
potential to emit is based on full capacity and year round operation. The
emissions after control are considered only to the extent that the emission
levels are the result of Federally enforceable emission limitations. En-
forceability is determined by two conditions: 1) the applicable restriction
must be required by a Federal or State permit granted under the applicable
SIP or be embodied in the SIP itself, and 2) the source and/or enforcement
authority must be able to demonstrate compliance by using approved methods.
For estimation of emissions from a source, the emissions from the individual
units should be estimated and the individual values summed for the source in
question.
16
-------
Fugitive emissions, where quantifiable, are included in the potential
emissions accounting procedure to determine if a source is major. Fugitive
emissions are defined as emissions that cannot reasonably be expected to pass
through a stack, vent, or functionally equivalent opening, such as a chimney,
roof vent, or roof monitor. Because fugitive emissions vary widely from
source to source, they must be quantified through a source-specific analysis.
Although fugitive emissions are to be included in the determination of
potential emissions, secondary emissions, or those emissions associated with
the source but not emitted by the source itself, are not included in the in
the calculation of potential emissions. Secondary emissions, however, must
be considered in other aspects of the PSD analysis when a PSD review is
required.
The primary step in assessing the applicability of both new and proposed
modifications focuses on whether the source is a major or minor source. A
source is major if 1) it is one of the 28 named source categories (Table 2-1)
listed in Section 169 of the Act and emits or has the potential to emit 100
tons/yr or more of any pollutant regulated by the Act, or 2) it is an un-
listed stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 250 tons/yr
or more of any pollutant regulated by the Act.
The first applicability test involves the application of the 100 or 250
tons/yr emission threshold against the total potential emission estimates for
each pollutant emitted by the source. If any regulated pollutant equals or
exceeds the applicable 100 or 250 tons/yr criterion, the source is designated
as a major stationary source.
A modification is generally a physical change in a stationary source or
a change in its method of operation that increases the source's actual emis-
sions of any pollutant regulated under the Act. A major modification subject
to PSD review is defined as "any physical change or change in the method of
operation of a major stationary source that would result in a significant net
emissions increase of any pollutant subject to regulation under the Act."
As shown in Table 2-2, a significant emission rate has been established
for each pollutant regulated under the Act. These rates range from 100
tons/yr for CO to less than 1 Ib/yr for beryllium. To determine if a signif-
icant emission increase has occurred, one must evaluate the net change in the
actual emissions that may have resulted from the modification. In evaluating
17
-------
TABLE 2-1. NAMED PSD SOURCE CATEGORIES
1. Fossil fuel-fired steam electric plants of more than 250 million Btu/h
heat input
2. Coal cleaning plants (with thermal dryers)
3. Kraft pulp mills
4. Portland cement plants
5. Primary zinc smelters
6. Iron and steel mill plants
7. Primary aluminum ore reduction plants
8. Primary copper smelters
9. Municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons of refuse
per day
10. Hydrofluoric acid plants
11. Sulfuric acid plants
12. Nitric acid plants
13. Petroleum refineries
14. Lime plants
15. Phosphate rock processing plants
16. Coke oven batteries
17. Sulfur recovery plants
18. Carbon black plants (furnace process)
19. Primary lead smelters
20. Fuel conversion plants
21. Sintering plants
22. Secondary metal production plants
23. Chemical process plants
24. Fossil-fuel boilers (or combinations thereof) totaling more than 250
million Btu/h heat input
25. Petroleum storage and transfer units with a total storage capacity
exceeding 300,000 barrels
26. Taconite ore processing plants
27. Glass fiber processing plants
28. Charcoal production plants
18
-------
TABLE 2-2. SIGNIFICANT EMISSION RATES'
Pollutant
Emission rate,
tons per year
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen oxides
Sulfur dioxide
Particulate matter
Ozone (VOC)
Lead
Asbestos
Beryllium
Mercury
Vinyl chloride
Fluorides
Sulfuric acid mist
Hydrogen sulfide (FLS)
Total reduced sulfur (including H^S)
Reduced sulfur compounds (including H2S)
Any other pollutant regulated under the Clean
Air Act
Each regulated pollutant
100
40
40
25
40 (of VOC's)
0.6
0.007
0.0004
0.1
1
3
7
10
10
10
Any emission rate
Emission rate that
causes an air quality
impact of 1 pg/m3 or
greater, (24-h basis)
in any Class I area
located within 10 km
of the source
^Extracted from 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23).
19
-------
the net change, certain contemporaneous emission changes must be considered
with the increase from the modification. All changes are assessed on the
basis of actual emissions. Actual emission estimates are generally based on
1) reasonable engineering assumptions regarding actual emission levels over a
2-year history, or 2) permitted allowable emissions determined on a site-
specific, case-by-case basis. The net increase is calculated by the follow-
ing formula:
Net increase: = Change in actual emissions from the proposed
new and modified emission unit - [(minus) credit-
able contemporaneous actual emission decreases +
(plus) creditable contemporaneous actual emission
increases].
To be contemporaneous, a change in actual emissions must have occurred
after January 6, 1975. The change must also occur within a period beginning
5 years before the date construction is scheduled to commence on the proposed
modification and ending with the modification. Figure 2-1 shows a procedure
for determining a creditable contemporaneous change. In general, to be
creditable the following must occur:
0 Reduction must be Federally enforceable under the applicable SIP or
PSD review authority on and after the date the construction on the
modification begins.
0 Reduction must occur before construction of the new or modified
emission units.
0 Reductions must be of the same pollutant type and must be qualita-
tively equivalent in their effects on public health and welfare.
Any change, whether an increase or decrease, cannot be credited more than
once. Also, a change in S02 or PM that does not affect the allowable PSD
increment consumption is not creditable. In summary, any change that occurs
after the established baseline date may be considered for possible credit as
a contemporaneous change.
The second applicability test involves comparing the change in emissions
against the significant levels to determine if the modification results in a
significant emission increase. A significant increase at a major stationary
source constitutes a major modification subject to PSD review.
Applicability tests must be performed for each regulated pollutant
emitted from the proposed construction. For PSD review to be required, the
20
-------
•Hi
crodlud muter
provlout HO
•omltt
Ch»»go
occur*
U UtOllM
dlU?
thU i yc
t CMtlnic
•f proposed modtlIc
boforo op«r
KOt
•ngo II
comtructl
•t • Mjer sUtlo
OocroMO
It
fotftrolly
•forco«blo
so It
:rodlUblo. COM Id
•I oalttloat chtn4«
Mt locr< no
Ch»B9« It Ml
contc«por*acout
or crtdlttbU
Actial calttlOM
locrotto It
co*lt*poroMout
•o4 cradltiblt
Figure 2-1. Creditable contemporaneous changes.
1
-------
criteria for each test need only be satisfied for one pollutant and not
necessarily for the same pollutant that makes the source major.
Emission increases at existing minor sources must also be examined for
applicability to PSD review as a modification in and of itself could be major
because the modification could increase emissions by greater than 100 or 250
tons/yr. In addition, a modification could make the source a major source
because the emissions at the source accumulate. Thus, a minor source would
become a major source as a result of the modification and although the modi-
fication which caused the source to be a minor source would not be subject to
PSD, all future significant increases would be subjected to PSD review.
2.3 POLLUTANT APPLICABILITY DETERMINATION1'2
The PSD review requirements only apply in certain geographic areas of
the country. Specifically, PSD applies to construction in those areas desig-
nated as attainment or unclassified areas for any criteria pollutant. Con-
struction involving only pollutants for which an area is designated as non-
attainment does not require a PSD permit. The construction, however, would
be subject to the nonattainment provisions of the applicable SIP. The non- .
attainment requirements are discussed in Lesson 3.
As noted previously, applicability determinations are pollutant-
specific; That is, the emissions accounting and geographic applicability to
determine PSD applicability must be conducted separately for each pollutant
emitted by the new source or modification subject to regulation under the
Act. Currently, 17 pollutants (6 criteria pollutants and 11 noncriteria
pollutants) are regulated by the Act. These pollutants are listed in Table
2-3.
After it has been determined that a new or modified source is subject to
PSD review, the net actual emission increase for each pollutant must be
compared against the significance criteria (Table 2-2). PSD review must be
conducted for each pollutant for which a significant net increase occurs.
Applicability is determined through a systematic approach that sub-
divides the applicability determination process into discrete steps. New
source applicability involves five such steps. Applicability for modifica-
tions follows a similar procedure and requires two additional steps. Table
2-4 presents the five steps for new source applicability and the seven steps
22
-------
TABLE 2-3. REGULATED POLLUTANTS
Criteria pollutants
Noncriteria pollutants
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen oxides
Sulfur dioxide
Particulate matter
Ozone (regulated VOC)
Lead
Aresenic (inorganic)
Asbestos
Benzene
Beryllium
Mercury
Vinyl chloride
Fluorides
Sulfuric acid mist
Hydrogen sulfide (HgS)
Total reduced sulfur
(including J^S)
Reduced sulfur compounds
(including H«S)
TABLE 2-4. STEPS TO DETERMINING APPLICABILITY
New Sources
1. Define the source.
2. Estimate the source's potential to emit.
3. Determine if the source is a major stationary source.
4. Determine what review requirements must be met. •
5. Evaluate any exemptions.
Modified Sources
1. Define the existing source and understand the proposed modifica-
tion.
2. Estimate the existing source's potential to emit.
3. Determine if the existing source is a major stationary source.
4. Determine the net emissions change due to the modification after
considering creditable contemporaneous changes.
5. Determine whether a significant net emissions change has occurred.
6. Determine what review requirements must be met.
7. Evaluate any exemptions.
23
-------
for modified source applicability. More information on applicability deter-
minations can be found in SI 453 and the PSD Workshop Manual (EPA-450/2-80-
081).
New major source and major modifications subject to the PSD regulations
must meet the following preconstruction review requirements:
BACT Analysis
0 Air Quality Impact Analysis
0 Additional Impact Analysis.
Applicable control technologies and environmental impacts for each pollutant
are evaluated through these analyses. In some cases, site-specific ambient
air quality monitoring may be required as part of the air quality impact
analysis.
2.4 BACT PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS1'2
The BACT analysis is an important step in the PSD review process for
several reasons. A BACT analysis and the results it produces provide a large
portion of the input data for analyses of the air quality and the additional
impacts. In some cases, the results of the BACT analysis may indicate that
application of efficient emission controls may exempt the proposed construc-
tion from PSD review altogehter. In addition, a comprehensive, correctly
prepared BACT analysis enables an applicant to develop sufficient information
to serve as the basis for corporate decisions concerning possible control
strategies and simultaneously to serve as an information source to the public
that would be potentially affected by the construction of the proposed
source. Figure 2-2 is a flow diagram of the major elements of the BACT
analysis process.
In conducting a BACT analysis, the following criteria must be con-
sidered: 1) the energy and economic costs of emission controls should be
considered reasonable and 2) direct and residual risks with, and impacts on,
environmental factors must be considered. The BACT analyses for the same
types of emission units and the same pollutants in different locations or
situations may determine the need to apply different control strategies at
24
-------
Economic Impacts
Analysis
Pollutant
Applicability
Emissions Unit
Applicability
Identification of
Potentially
Sensitive Concerns
Selection of
Control Strategy
Alternatives
Energy Impacts
Analysis
BACT Decislonmaking
Environmental
Impacts
Analysis
Figure 2-2. BACT process.
25
-------
the different sites based on site-specific factors. Therefore, a BACT deter-
mination is a case-by-case process.
The first step in the BACT analysis process is the determination of
pollutant applicability. As discussed previously, all emissions at the
source must be accumulated to determine if significant emissions for each
pollutant will occur. This includes both stack and fugitive emissions.
Also, emissions of regulated pollutants that fall into two or more categories
must be accumulated in each category. For example, some reduced sulfur
compounds, such as dimethyl sulfide, are also volatile organic compounds
(VOC's). Because VOC's and reduced sulfur compounds are regulated as
separate categories of pollutants, dimethyl sulfide emissions are accumulated
in both categories.
The second step in the BACT analysis involves the determination of the
emission unit applicability. All emissions units involved in a major modi-
fication or a new major source that emit or increase emissions of the appli-
cable pollutants must undergo a BACT analysis. Because each applicable
pollutant must be analyzed, many emissions units, such as combustion sources,
must undergo BACT analysis for more than one pollutant.
Fugitive emissions units also must be included in a BACT analysis. The
following are examples of these units:
0 Valves, flanges, and pumps
° Coal, limestone, and other storage piles
0 Conveyors or transport facilities
0 Volatile organic liquid storage vessels.
Because fugitive emissions are difficult to quantify, BACT for these sources
usually consists of equipment or work practice standards or a combination of
both rather than a quantifiable allowable emission rate. For stack emis-
sions, however, BACT consists of equipment and/or process standards and an
enforceable allowable emission limit.
Emissions units that produce only secondary emissions are exempt from
the BACT analysis process. The following are examples of emission units that
produce secondary emissions:
26
-------
0 Offsite vehicles and vessels coming to and from a major stationary
source
0 Increased utility boiler emissions caused by increased electrical
demand
0 Increased offsite vehicular emissions caused by an increased number
of employees.
If, however, the air quality impact analysis reveals that secondary emissions
may cause potential NAAQS or increment violations, additional controls would
have to be applied to eliminate the potential for such violations.
Similar emissions units should be analyzed together to consider the
benefits associated with "economy of scale." For example, a flue gas desul-
furization (FGD) system serving three boilers will cost less than three
separate FGD systems, one for each boiler.
All affected emissions units which emit pollutants above the de minimi's
levels, regardless of size, must undergo BACT analysis. In light of the
criterion of economic reasonableness, however, an analysis should only be as
extensive as the quantity of pollutants emitted and the associated ambient
air impacts. Experience has shown that extremely high costs are associated
with the installation and operation of highly effective emission controls at
facilities that emit small amounts of pollutants.
The third step is to identify areas of potentially sensitive concerns.
A primary purpose of BACT is to minimize the consumption of PSD increment and
thus expand the affected area's potential for future economic growth. There-
fore, the identification of potentially sensitive concerns involving energy,
economic, and environmental factors is an important part of the BACT process.
Furthermore, because of the case-by-case approach of a BACT analysis, local
concerns should be considered. All potentially sensitive air quality con-
cerns should apply specifically to the case under review. Insofar as possi-
ble, they should be quantifiable so the possible impacts of various control
alternatives can be compared.
The fourth step involves the selection of alternative control strate-
gies. One important part of the BACT analysis is the identification of
applicable alternative control strategies. Information on possible alterna-
tive control strategies and their emission reduction efficiencies can be
27
-------
obtained from industry surveys and from EPA literature that describes the
application of emission control techniques.
In selecting an alternative control strategy, the source must first
determine its technical feasibility. A technically feasible control strategy
is one that has been demonstrated to function efficiently on identical or
similar processes. Control techniques that have not been so demonstrated but
could achieve greater emission reductions (or efficiency) than those cur-
rently in use are classified as innovative control techniques. To encourage
their use, the PSD regulations provide special consideration for innovative
control techniques.
A base case should be established against which the alternative control
options could be ranked and considered quantitatively. The base case would
be the control option that, in the absence of BACT decisionmaking, would
normally have been applied. The choice of the base case may be dictated by
other existing regulations, or by company practice standards or choices, if
the latter provides a greater degree of emission reduction than that required
by existing regulations such as NSPS, NESHAPS, etc.
With the creation and analysis of a base case, alternative control
options affording a greater degree of continuous emission reduction than the
base case can now be ranked in order of control efficiency and analyzed
accordingly. The only exception to this requirement would be when applicant
has demonstrated that the chosen control strategy (i.e., the base case)
provides the highest degree of emission reduction available. This would
preclude the requirement for an analysis of alternative options. The various
alternative control strategies can represent existing technology, transfer-
able emission control technology, and innovative control technology. Pro-
cesses that inherently produce less pollution should also be considered as
alternatives.
Familiarity with previous BACT determinations can serve as a guide for
review and consideration of the proposed control options. A helpful source
of this information is the BACT/LAER Clearinghouse. Because BACT is a case-
by-case decision, however, similar emission units at different sources may
require significantly different control options.
After an alternative set of control options have been identified, each
option must be analyzed. The analysis must include 1) an economic impact
28
-------
analysis, 2) an energy impact analysis, and 3) an environmental impact
analysis. These analyses should identify quantifiable impacts.
Table 2-5 is an example of a table that can be used to conduct the
impact analyses. The completed form enables both the Agency and the appli-
cant to compare the results of the impact analyses.
The economic impacts analysis addresses all the costs of emission con-
trol. Traditional engineering and accounting procedures should be used to
calculate the capital costs. Where necessary, standard engineering assump-
tions should be used. Information on equipment costs can be found in several
sources, such as a current Chemical Engineering Equipment Buyers' Guide.
U.S. Internal Revenue Service criteria should be used to determine equipment
life expentancy.
All standard operating costs, from labor costs to insurance costs,
should be determined. The expected escalation of these costs over the life
of the control equipment should be incorporated into these cost determina-
tions. The costs of rectifying problems created by the control technique
also should be estimated; for example, the sludge disposal costs of sludge-
producing scrubbers should be examined.
For consistency and ease of comparison, and in recognition of changing
or variable tax environments, all data should be reported on a "before-taxes"
basis. Some special tax situations may be of significant economic impor-
tance, however; these situations should be noted, and their estimates should
be provided in addition to the "before-taxes" data. An example of such a
situation would be a significant tax advantage for certain energy-conserva-
tion projects.
Determination of the relative economics of the alternative control
options should include a comparison of both total and incremental annual
costs of the options to demonstrate the incremental costs of residual emis-
sion reduction. Incremental costs entail a comparison of the emission reduc-
tion costs of two or more control options. Pollutant quantity reduction
should be determined on an annual or some other logical, cyclical basis that
permits a realistic calculation of emissions that considers maintenance or
any other downtime associated with the emission unit being reviewed. The
alternative control option being analyzed is assumed to be operating in full
compliance with the expected allowable emission and permit limitations. In
29
-------
TABLE 2.5. COMPARISON OF CONTROL STRATEGY ALTERNATIVES
1
POLLUTANT:
Control Percent
alternative reduction
1. Best ( )
2. Second highest ( )
3. Other ( )
4. Base case ( )
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Impact en
I/ton I/ton sensitive
Incremental total .Issues
<><><>
« , « , « ,
« , < , « ,
C 1 I 1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Impact Impact en
Maximum . ereas sensitive
Q.L.C.'sl>D (km) Issues
<><><>
«><><>
«,«,«,
< , < , i ,
ENERGY IMPACTS
Impact en
Btu/ton Btu/ton sensitive
Incremental total Issues
< > , , , ,
«,<>«>
< , « , « ,
— — — . till
OJ
o
*Q.L.C. Is ground-level concentration.
Units of |ig/m* - specify averaging period.
-------
the case of alternative control strategies that abate emissions of more than
one applicable pollutant, the control costs should be divided among all
applicable pollutants and then included in each pollutant's analysis.
Significant impacts of the following economic factors should be con-
sidered in the BACT analysis: 1) pollution-specific costs (dollars per ton
of emissions controlled), 2) additional product costs (cents per unit of
production), and 3) the ability to secure financing for the alternative
control strategy. Although no universally accepted criteria exist for deter-
mining the dollar value of the elimination of a ton of a particular pollu-
tant! information is available on the value of various emissions reductions
that EPA and affected industries generally agree are reasonable. This infor-
mation can be found in the background information documents (BID's) issued by
EPA to support NSPS. An NSPS is designed to reflect the degree of emission
\
reduction achievable through the application of the best technological system
of continuous control taking into consideration the cost of achieving the
emission reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and
energy requirements. If information and data in these documents are used to
compare pollutant control costs, the procedures and assumptions used in the
case-by-case analysis should be identical to those used in the NSPS develop-
ment. Through a survey of relevant BID's, general guidelines can be devel-
oped for estimating the cost to control a particular pollutant. All BID
information used in the BACT analysis should be cited for future reference.
Additional product costs resulting from the alternative control strate-
gies also should be included in the economic impact analysis. The percentage
of total manufacturing costs that the cost of additional emission control
represents should be included in this evaluation. This information will
determine if, and to what degree, the applicant will be at a competitive
disadvantage in the marketplace because of the cost of an alternative control
option. For example, if an additional 5 cents per pound of product for
emission control creates an intolerable increase in product cost, this
information should be considered in making the BACT determination.
The ability to secure financing is also a critical consideration. If an
applicant's plans to expand a plant require outside financing, additional
financing required for an alternative control strategy may jeopardize the
financing of the entire project.
31
-------
The second analysis to be conducted for each alternative control
strategy addresses energy impacts. Because the dollar value of energy costs
can be significant, the energy impact analysis actually should be conducted
before the economic impact analysis, although energy is just one of the
elements considered in the latter analysis. The energy impact analysis
should consider only direct energy consumption, not indirect energy impacts.
Direct energy impacts should also be evaluated on both a total and a pollu-
tant-specific basis.
As in the economic analysis, energy impacts should be determined and
analyzed on both an absolute and an incremental cost basis. Because energy
costs consist of fuel usage, they should be converted to Btu's and barrels-
of-oil equivalents. Finally, in some cases, the combustion of fuels to
provide energy for alternative control strategies might result in direct
emissions of pollutants. These emissions, however, should be considered in
the environmental impact and air quality analyses.
Consideration of environmental impacts is essential to the primary
purpose of a BACT analysis, which is to minimize the consumption of PSD
increments and to preserve the ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants
so as to maintain the potential for future economic growth.
The environmental impact analysis should include an air quality impact
analysis. It should consider the maximum ground-level impact and ground-
level concentrations that could result from the emissions from the proposed
new source or modification after each alternative control strategy is
applied, as well as the size of the area significantly affected by these
increased emissions (i.e., the impact area).
Using a modeling analysis of worst-case conditions, the maximum ground-
level impacts and ground-level concentrations resulting from the hypothetical
application of each alternative should be determined. This analysis is also
used to determine the impact area of each alternative. Using the worst-case
approach produces an analysis of the risks associated with the pollutant
concentration for the exposed population. For example, consider a situation
in which the use of low-sulfur fuel is compared with the use of an FGD system
to control SO^ emissions from a boiler. Although the SCL emissions resulting
from an FGD system may be significantly less than from the burning of low-
sulfur fuel, because of different stack parameters, dispersion modeling
32
-------
showed resulting S(L ambient impacts to be essentially the same in both
cases. Because the FGD system achieves a lower S(L emission rate, however,
the impact area of the FGD system would be significantly smaller and
therefore affect less population. This factor may be significant in the
analysis.
The applicant also should consider any other significant environmental
impacts that result from the application of specific alternative control
strategies. Scrubbers, for example, may affect water quality and land use,
whereas strategies involving cooling towers may affect visibility. Such
impacts should be discussed and summarized along with other pertinent data.
2.5 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS1'2
A key element of the PSD review process is the air quality analysis.
The source must demonstrate that neither NAAQS nor an allowable PSD increment
will be violated as a result of the emissions from a new major source or a
major modification subject to the PSD requirements. An air quality analysis
must be conducted for each regulated pollutant subject to PSD review that is
expected to be emitted from the proposed construction or one whose emission
is expected to increase significantly. An air quality analysis is also
required in certain cases involving insignificant pollutant emissions from
sources located near Class I areas.
The five basic steps in an air quality analysis are:
1. Defining the impact area of the proposed major source or major
modification for each applicable pollutant
2. Establishing appropriate inventories of each applicable pollutant
from all sources contributing to air quality in the impact area
3. Determining existing ambient air concentrations of those pollutants
4. Performing a screening analysis for each applicable pollutant
5. Determining projected air quality resulting from emissions of
applicable pollutants.
Depending on the amount and types of regulated pollutants subject to an
air quality analysis, may include as many as three separate but interrelated
phases:
33
-------
1. Performance of an increment consumption analysis for proposed
sulfur dioxide and particulate matter emissions for comparison with
allowable increments
2. Determination of existing air quality for all pollutants subject to
the air quality analysis
3. Analysis of projected future air quality for all applicable
criteria pollutants and any applicable noncriteria pollutants that
the reviewing authority determines should be evaluated. The
purpose of this phase is to determine if any NAAQS violation or
very high ambient concentration of noncriteria pollutants will
result that may pose a threat to health or welfare.
Where increments exist for sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, the ambient
air quality analysis consists of two components, baseline concentration and
increment concentration.
Baseline concentration is the adjusted ambient concentration at a given
location at the time after August 7, 1977, when the first complete PSD appli-
cation was submitted for a proposed major source or for major modifications
subject to EPA's PSD regulations as amended August 7, 1980. The adjustment
to this ambient concentration compensates for the impacts of actual emission
changes resulting from construction of major stationary sources commencing
after January 6, 1975. The baseline concentration also includes projected
emissions of major sources whose construction commenced before January 6,
1975, but were not in operation as of the baseline date. Conversely, incre-
ment concentration is, generally that portion of ambient air concentration in
an area that results from:
0 Increases and decreases in emissions from major stationary sources
resulting from construction that began after January 6, 1975
0 Increases and decreases in emissions from all stationary sources
occurring after the baseline date.
Increment consumption and expansion are usually based on actual emissions.
If little or no operating data are available, however, as in the case of
permitted emission units not in operation at the time of the increment.
analysis, the allowable emission rate must be used. In addition, if allow-
able emissions are the result of a case-by-case new source review, the PSD
applicant may presume, subject to the approval of the reviewing agency, that
allowable emissions may be used to represent actual emissions.
34
-------
To obtain a permit, the source must demonstrate that the proposed
emissions in conjunction with other applicable emissions will not cause or
contribute to violations of the allowable increment and the NAAQS for SOg and
PM. Both increment and total ambient concentration standards exist for
annual and 24-hour periods, as shown in Table 2-6. In addition, a 3-h
allowable increment and NAAQS exist for SCL. The NAAQS are defined in terms
of total ambient pollutant concentrations that are not to be exceeded more
than once per year for other than an annual time period. Allowable
increments are defined as maximum allowable increases in ambient air concen-
trations that also are not to be exceeded more than once per year for other
than an annual time period.
TABLE 2-6. ALLOWABLE CONCENTRATIONS FOR SO, AND PM (yg/m3)
Pollutant/time period
Parti cul ate Matter
0 Annual
0 24-hour
Sulfur Dioxide
0 Annual
0 24-hour
0 3-hour
Control! inc
NAAQS
75
150a
80
365a
l,300a
Class II
increment
19
37a
20
91a
512a
Not to be exceeded more than once a year.
As indicated in the PSD regulations, all PSD areas are to be classified
as Class I, Class II, or Class III areas, and different allowable increments
of S02 and PM concentrations have been established for each type of area
(Table 2-7). The most restrictive allowable increments are for Class I
areas, which represent certain international and national parks and
wilderness areas. All other PSD areas have initially been designated as
Class II areas. Under certain conditions and with the concurrence of its
Governor and legislature, a State can designate a Class II area as Class III
35
-------
TABLE 2-7. ALLOWABLE PSD INCREMENTS (ug/m3)
Sulfur Dioxide
0 Annual
0 24-hour
0 3-hour
Total Suspended
Particulate Matter
0 Annual
0 24-hour
Class I
2
5a
25a
5
10a
Class II
20
91a
512a
19
37a
Class III
40
182a
700
37
75a
Not to be exceeded more than once a year.
and thereby allow greater potential for industrial growth. Under no circum-
stances can air quality deteriorate beyond levels allowed by the NAAQS,
regardless of the area's compliance status with applicable increments. An
example is a Class II area for which the annual S02 baseline concentration is
determined to be 70 micrograms per cubic meter. Although the allowable PSD
increment permits the annual S0? concentration to increase by 20 micrograms
per cubic meter, a PSD applicant must demonstrate that, as a result of opera-
tion of the new major source or modification, the SOp concentration in that
area will not increase beyond the NAAQS of 80 micrograms per cubic meter, an
increase of only 10 micrograms. On the other hand, if the annual S0? base-
line concentration in the area is only 40 micrograms per cubic meter, the PSD
applicant must demonstrate that SOp air quality will not deteriorate beyond
60 micrograms per cubic meter in that area. In the latter case, demonstra-
tion of compliance with the allowable PSD increments also demonstrates that
the NAAQS for annual S02 concentration will not be violated.
As previously noted, the baseline concentration is established in an
area for a given pollutant as of the date after August 7, 1977, on which a
complete PSD application that is subject to the 1980 amended PSD regulations
is submitted. The baseline date is established for a given pollutant only if
36
-------
the increase in emissions of that pollutant is significant. For example, a
PSD application for a new major source or modification that proposes signifi-
cant S02 emissions but insignificant PM emissions will trigger the establish-
ment of the S02 baseline date only. Therefore, the baseline dates for S0«
and particulate matter may be different in the same area.
The area in which the baseline date is triggered by a PSD permit appli-
cation is known as the baseline area. The extent of a baseline area is
confined to intrastate areas and the area or areas designated as attainment
or unclassified under Section 107 of the Act in which the proposed major
*
source or major modification is located or will have a significant impact.
This baseline area includes all portions of any Section 107 area that the
source emissions affect. For this purpose, such an impact is defined as an
annual increase in ambient concentrations of the applicable pollutant of at
least 1 microgram per cubic meter. Under Section 107 of the Act, all areas
of the country have been given either an attainment, a nonattainment, or an
unclassified designation for each criteria pollutant.
Figure 2-3 demonstrates the baseline concept. A new major source with
significant S0« emissions proposes to locate in County C and submits a com-
plete PSD application to the appropriate reviewing authority on October 6,
1978. A review of the S0« attainment designation reveals that attainment
status is listed by individual counties in the State. County C is designated
attainment for S02 and the source proposes to locate there; therefore, the
baseline date for S0? is triggered for all portions of that county. Disper-
sion modeling of proposed SOp emissions in accoradance with approved methods
reveals that the annual S0« impact area of the proposed source extends into
Counties A and B. The baseline date is thus triggered in all parts of these
two counties also. Although the proposed emissions will consume the SOp
increment in the State to the north, the baseline date remains untriggered
unless it has been previously triggered by a PSD permit application in that
Section 107 area of the other State. Note that increment-consuming emissions
affect the increment concentration at all places where they have an ambient
impact regardless of the baseline date, including out-of-state areas.
Most emissions changes that will affect the increment occur at major
stationary sources; therefore, the most significant date to consider for
increment tracking is January 6, 1975, the date after which emissions
37
-------
Inial SO, Cxttit if
Sffiificait lipact
Line TW^>
County A
SO* Attainment
Major feint
Trigftr SO, liuliit
County C
0 Attainment
County E
SO2 UncJa»«lfi«d
County
SO* Unclassified
County 0
Attainment
\///A Baseline Date Triggered 10/6/78
Figure 2-3. Example 1 of baseline area concept.
38
-------
resulting from construction at major stationary sources affect the increment.
Once triggered, the baseline date establishes the time after which all other
emissions changes at stationary sources affect the increment. A State,
however, may propose and be granted approval to redesignate the boundaries of
a Section 107 area. This action may "untrigger" the baseline date and thus
reduce the inventory of emissions in the redesignated area that affects
increment. For example, as shown in Figure 2-4, part of County A has been
redesignated as separate the Section 107 area after the baseline date had
been triggered. If the baseline date has not been established by another PSD
application in the redesignated portion of the area, the SOp emission changes
occurring after October 6, 1978, from minor and area sources and nonconstruc-
tion-related activities at all sources in this area will be transferred into
the baseline concentration. Under no circumstances can any boundary of the
redesignated area intersect the line around the annual impact area of the
source triggering the baseline date.
The previous example demonstrated the effect of the annual impact area
of a PSD source triggering the baseline date. For all sources and modifica-
tions subject to PSD review, impact areas of applicable pollutants should
also be established, but for another reason. They should be determined where
the proposed emissions will produce significant ambient concentrations in
order to determine compliance with applicable ambient air standards and
increments. The impact area should be established for each applicable pollu-
tant for each averaging time for which an NAAQS exists. As shown in Figure
2-5, the impact area is a circular area whose radius is equal to the greatest
distance from the source at which approved dispersion modeling shows the
proposed emissions will have a significant impact. Table 2-8 gives the
values of significant ambient air impacts.
Before continuing with the impact area determination, the design heights
of stacks proposed to be constructed or otherwise used to emit pollutants
subject to the air quality analysis should be addressed. The good engineer-
ing practice (GEP) stack height regulations include specific equations and
methods for use in determining GEP stack heights. Unless the applicant can
demonstrate by acceptable methods that the stack or stacks must be con-
structed at a height that exceeds the height determined by the GEP formula,
dispersion modeling must be performed at the actual or GEP stack height,
39
-------
liml SO, Exttit if
Sipificait Impact
•ajtrSnrct
Triijtr SO, lasilin
County B
30, Uneiaulfl«d
County 0
SO, Attainment
V///A Baseline Date Triggered 10/6/78
Figure 2-4. Example 2 of baseline area concept.
40
-------
(•pact Iru
Citutif
Slpificaat
(•pact
Figure 2-5. Impact area.*
41
-------
TABLE 2-8. SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS FOR AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
Pollutant
so2
TSP
N02
CO
Averaging time
Annual ,
yg/m3
1
1
1
24-hour,
yg/m3
5
5
8-hour,
mg/m3
0.5
3-hour,
yg/m3
25
1-hour
mg/m3
2
whichever is lower. If a source proposes increasing existing stack height in
conjunction with a proposed modification, it will have to demonstrate through
acceptable methods (fluid modeling or field studies) that the additional
height is required to avoid excessive concentrations due to downwash. If, on
the other hand, the actual stack height is significantly less than the 6EP
height, excessively high concentrations could result from downwash. In such
a case, there must be a dispersion modeling demonstration that no violations
of any increment or NAAQS will result from downwash. The Huber-Snyder down-
wash calculation method incorporated into some dispersion models is an
acceptable technique for this purpose.
The latest revisions of EPA documents Guideline on Air Quality Models
and the Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis. -
Volume 10 and the Air Pollution Training Courses on Dispersion Modeling, 423
and SI410, provide acceptable dispersion modeling procedures. Because the
air quality analysis must be conducted on a case-by-case basis, a dispersion
modeling plan should be submitted to the reviewing agency for comment and
concurrence before conducting detailed analyses. The dispersion modeling
plan should include at least the following information:
0 Nature of proposed construction
0 Pollutants to be modeled
0 Site characteristics
0 Topography within 50 kilometers of site
. 42
-------
0 Proposed dispersion model and meteorological data
0 Proposed use of dispersion model options
0 Emissions data.
Determination of the impact area of the proposed new source or modifica-
tion must include all direct emissions, including both stack and quantifiable
fugitive emissions of the applicable pollutants. Temporary emissions,
however, such as those related to construction, need not be considered.
The dispersion model input emission data should be based on the worst-
case condition for the time period of concern. The worst-case condition is
generally the maximum emission rate. Depending on operating and stack
characteristics, however, the worst-case condition may not be represented by
the maximum emission rate.
If used actual measured meteorological data should be obtained from
either site-specific meteorological monitoring or the National Weather
Service station closest to the site. If onsite data are used, the selected
period should be demonstrated to be typical of the area. If, for example, a
chosen period indicates abnormally high amounts of rainfall, that period may
not be typical. If National Weather Service information is used, 5 years of
meteorological data will generally be required for input into the dispersion
models.
If preliminary dispersion modeling demonstrates that proposed emissions
of a criteria pollutant will have no significant impacts, further air quality
analysis of that pollutant will generally not be required unless the source
is located near a Class I area. In such a case, an air quality analysis of
the pollutant may be required if the proposed emissions are expected to
exceed 1 microgram per cubic meter on a 24-hour basis in the Class I area.
Depending on the specific pollutant predicted to result in a significant
impact, three inventories of emissions may have to be established:
1. An inventory of increment-consuming PM or S(L emissions.
2. An inventory of all existing emissions of applicable pollutants
having an effect on air quality in the impact area of the proposed
emissions.
3. An emission inventory of applicable pollutants from permitted
emission units not yet operating that may affect the air quality in
the impact area.
43
-------
If an air quality analysis is required for PM and SO^ emissions, and
both pollutants are predicted to have significant impacts, an increment
inventory should consist of all PM and S(L increment-consuming emissions
within the impact area and those emissions outside the impact area that could
have a significant impact within the impact area. Thus, a source may have to
consider large sources as far away as 50 kilometers outside its own impact
area for increment-consuming emissions. On a short-term basis such as a
24-hour or a 3-hour period, the applicant generally need only identify those
increment-consuming emissions within the respective impact area. For annual
impact determinations, however, large emission sources as far as 50 kilome-
ters from the impact area may have to be considered because of their impact
within the applicant's area of impact.
As shown in Figure 2-6, the annular ring outside the impact area is
called the screening area. In determining which emission sources in the
screening area should be added to the emission inventory, three criteria
should be considered: 1) annual emissions of the source, 2) degree of
ambient impact, and 3) distance from the impact area. For example, a source
emitting 100 tons per year and located 10 kilometers from the impact area
generally can be excluded from the inventory because its effect on air
quality in the impact area is expected to be insignificant. On the other
hand, a source emitting 10,000 tons per year source and located 40 kilometers
from the impact area would probably have to be considered in the increment
analysis. A simple screening modeling analysis can be used to justify the
exclusion of certain emissions from this analysis. Such exclusions should be
justified and documented.
After the emission units to be included in the emission inventory have
been identified, the emission rates must be determined for input into the
proper dispersion model. Although allowable PSD increment consumption is
based on actual emissions, the first effort to perform an increment analysis
should be based on allowable emissions for the following reasons:
1. Allowable emissions rates are more readily available from State
emission files.
2. The resulting analysis will be more conservative.
44
-------
Figure 2-6. Emissions inventory screening area.
45
-------
State air emission files are the proper source of emission information.
If dispersion modeling with allowable emissions fails to demonstrate com-
pliance with allowable PSD increment consumption, actual emissions data
should be used.
Emission inventories for the last two categories are needed to demon-
strate compliance with the applicable NAAQS and should be gathered and com-
piled in a similar manner as the increment emissions inventory. For existing
sources, this inventory should be based on actual emissions if data are
available. Actual emissions should be used in this case to reflect the
impact that would be detected by ambient air monitors. When permitted emis-
sion units are not yet in operation, the allowable emission rates must be
used.
Perhaps one of the most critical aspects of PSD review is the require-
ment that the source owner provide up to 1 year of preconstruction monitoring
data. This requirement applies to all applicable criteria pollutants (with
the exception of nonmethane hydrocarbons) that the source would emit in
significant amounts; however, it may apply to some noncriteria pollutants as
well. Generally, continuous ambient air monitoring data will be required for
all criteria pollutants whose emissions will increase significantly. If,
however, predicted impacts or existing air quality in the source's impact
area are less than the significant levels, then, at the Administrator's
discretion, site-specific monitoring may not be required. Therefore, the
first step in determining monitoring requirements is to estimate source
impacts on the air quality and to determine the total existing air quality in
the area.
A source can satisfy the monitoring requirement in two ways. First,
under certain conditions, the applicant may rely on existing continuous
monitoring data collected by Federal, State, or local air pollution control
agencies. Second, the source can conduct site-specific monitoring for those
pollutants that the proposed source is expected to emit in significant.
amounts. The EPA has published specific guidelines for monitoring in the
latest revision of Ambient Monitoring Guidelines for Prevention of Significant
Deterioration. Meteorological monitoring is generally required during site-
specific monitoring.
46
-------
Before using existing data, the applicant must first verify that the
data meet certain criteria: 1) sufficiency or completeness, 2) representa-
tiveness, and 3) reliability. Although State and local agencies have gener-
ally monitored ambient air quality for several years, all the data collected
are not necessarily adequate for the preconstruction analysis required under
PSD. The ambient monitoring guidelines and the PSD review agency should be
consulted for the minimum requirements on the usefulness of the data.
When site-specific monitoring is necessary, the requirements focus on
site selection and quality assurance. The site selection process involves
dispersion modeling analyses of existing sources and of the proposed emis-
sions to locate ambient air monitors.
The primary requirement for site-specific monitoring is that the owner
or operator of the proposed source meet the quality assurance requirements of
Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 58 during the operation of monitoring stations.
The quality control program developed by the organization operating the
monitoring network must be described in detail, be suitably documented, and
be approved by the permit-granting authority.
Long before a monitoring program begins, the source should submit a
monitoring plan to the permit-granting authority for comment and approval.
The monitoring plan should include, at a minimum, a description and discus-
sion of the following items: 1) the network, 2) the monitoring site, 3) the
monitor, 4) the sampling program, and 5) the quality assurance program. The
EPA guidelines on PSD monitoring describe these requirements in greater
detail.
After collecting and screening the data, the source should integrate the
monitoring results into the air quality analysis. The amount of data and
manner of presentation in the application depend on the requirements of the
permit-granting authority. At a minimum, the data should be presented in
a summary format showing highest and second highest concentrations for pollu-
tants with short-term standards and the appropriate long-term average
associated with each standard. These concentrations effectively describe the
existing ambient concentrations within the impact area that are attributable
to actual emissions from existing sources.
In many cases, monitoring data may have to be adjusted to compensate for
new emissions permitted in the impact area but not occurring during the
47
-------
monitoring period. The emissions inventory used for adjusting the monitoring
data should be gathered in the previously described manner and should be used
to adjust the monitoring data by proper dispersion modeling procedures.
In conclusion, all applications for a PSD permit subject to the require-
ments of the air quality impact analysis must include complete and accurate
analyses to ensure compliance with the NAAQS and the PSD increments. To
demonstrate compliance, the source must:
1. Define the impact area
2. Compile an emission inventory
3. Determine existing air quality
4. Determine the projected air quality.
2.6 ADDITIONAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS1'2
All sources requiring a PSD permit must prepare an additional impacts
analysis for each pollutant subject to review. This analysis is concerned
with determining the air pollution impacts on soils, vegetation, and visi-
bility caused by emissions from the source or modification under review and
the emissions resulting from any associated growth.
The three basic purposes of an additional impacts analysis are:
1. To determine the effects of emissions of the applicable criteria
and noncriteria pollutants to assist in BACT decisionmaking
2. To inform the general public of potential air quality-related
impacts
3. To help provide the Federal land manager with information regarding
potential impacts on Class I areas.
Although every source seeking a PSD permit must perform an additional
impacts analysis, the depth of such analysis generally depends on the
quantity of emissions, the existing air quality, and the sensitivity of those
emissions on local factors such as soils, vegetation, and visibility. The
need for a rigorous additional impacts analysis is aimed primarily at those
new major sources and major modifications that may reasonably be expected to
have a significant, impact on these factors.
48
-------
Small increases in emissions in an area are not expected to have any
major impacts on soils, vegetation, and visibility. Nevertheless, the impact
areas of new major sources and major modifications must be surveyed to verify
and document the expectation of "no significant impact."
A primary goal of the additional impacts analysis is to provide public
information. Therefore, the source should prepare an analysis that will
provide the public with an assessment of the relevant environmental air
pollution impacts that could occur in the area affected by emissions of the
pollutants subject to review. Any potential air pollution impacts on Class I
areas are especially important and these impacts should be assessed
thoroughly.
An additional impacts analysis is triggered whenever emissions of pollu-
tants will occur in significant quantities or be increased significantly.
Thus, both criteria and noncriteria pollutants may trigger an additional
impacts analysis.
Determining the air pollution effects on soils, vegetation, and visi-
bility generally requires an analysis of the projected ambient air concentra-
tions and an evaluation of the potential impacts. The analysis must encom-
pass potential impacts of direct emissions from the new major source or major
modification and secondary emissions from associated residential, commercial,
or industrial growth. It is important that this analysis be fully docu-
mented.
It should be noted that no "hard and fast" formula, format, or "cook-
book" approach to an additional impacts analysis currently exists. What is
most important is that all significant factors and the resulting impacts are
recognized and carefully analyzed.
The additional impacts analysis is made up of three component analyses:
1) a growth analysis, 2) a soils and vegetation impact analysis, and 3) a
visibility-impairment analysis.
2.6.1 Growth Analysis
The growth analysis should be considered first because it provides
information essential to the other analyses. The elements of the growth
analysis include:
49
-------
1. A projection of the associated industrial, commercial, and resi-
dential growth that will occur in the area.
2. An estimate of the air pollution emissions generated by associated
permanent growth.
3. An air quality analysis that includes these estimates. The results
from this analysis become the basis for determining the extent of
the air pollution impacts in the affected area.
To determine the first element in the growth analysis, which is the
projection of associated growth in the impact area, the source should first
consider the availability of two types of support factors, local support
factors and industrial support factors. Examples of local support factors
include the area's ability to house new employees and the commercial indus-
tries currently within the area that are available to support residential
growth. For example, a large new major source that causes a permanent popu-
lation growth may result in new housing developments and associated air
emissions. Examples of industrial support factors include industries that
provide goods and services related to the source or modification. These
might include large industries that provide raw materials and smaller indus-
tries that provide maintenance and other support. For instance, a new major
source using coal for fuel may attract coal mining operations for support.
After the source has assessed the residential, commercial, and indus-
trial services already existing in the area, the next step is to predict how
much new growth must occur to support the source or modification under
review. The amount of residential growth will depend on the size of the
available work force, the number of new employees required, and the availa-
bility of housing in the area. Industrial growth refers to those industries
providing goods and services, maintenance facilities, and other large in-
dustries necessary for the operation of the source or modification under
review.
Having completed this portrait of expected growth, the source must
develop an estimate of the air pollution that is likely to evolve from perma-
nent residential, commercial, and industrial growth. Excluded from consid-
eration are emissions from temporary and mobile sources. To generate emis-
sion estimates, the source should consult such sources as manufacturer's
specifications and guidelines, AP-42, and other PSD applications.
50
-------
The source should arrive at an analysis of projected air quality by
taking the air pollution estimates from all the variables of growth already
surveyed and combining these estimates with the estimates of applicable
pollutant emissions expected to be produced directly as a result of the
source or modification. The combined estimate, through the modeling process,
serves as the input to the air quality analysis. What emerges is a predic-
tion of the ground-level concentration of pollutants generated by the source
and any associated growth.
2.6.2 Soils and Vegetation Analysis
The manifestations of air pollution impacts on soils and vegetation can
be seen in such occurrences as premature bud loss, failure of flowering, leaf
necrosis, and plant death. Although high ambient concentrations can produce
readily apparent effects, many deleterious effects also can occur from subtle
but chronic exposure to pollutants over a long period of time. Such time-
delayed impacts can ultimately prove to be more harmful.in some cases.
A suggested informational basis for an analysis of air pollution impacts
can be obtained by conducting a survey of the kinds of soil and vegetation
found in the impact area. This survey should include all vegetation with any
commercial or recreational value. Surveys of this nature usually have
already been performed for the area and are readily available from conserva-
tion groups, State agencies, and universities. Such a comprehensive listing
of the various kinds of soils and vegetation would allow the source to deter-
mine air pollution impacts by use of the method discussed in the following
paragraph.
The modeling results of an air quality analysis conducted to demonstrate
compliance with NAAQS, will provide the source with estimates of the maximum
ambient air concentrations for criteria pollutants under review in the impact
area. For applicable noncriteria pollutants, the source should project
future ambient air concentrations. By consulting scientific literature, the
source can assess the impacts of applicable pollutants on the various soils
and vegetation in the impact area by correlating the known ambient air con-
centrations of pollutants with the kinds of soil and vegetation found in the
area. The source should document all conclusions.
51
-------
For most soils and vegetation, ambient air concentrations of criteria
pollutants below the NAAQS will have no harmful effects. Some sensitive
vegetation species and soil types, however, may experience harmful effects at
low ambient air concentrations (e.g., soybeans and alfalfa). For this
reason, the suggested initial soil and vegetation survey serves as an impor-
tant basis for the analysis. Noncriteria pollutants can produce harmful
effects at generally lower concentrations than the criteria pollutants.
2.6.3 Visibility Impairment Analysis
In the visibility impairment analysis, there is a special concern with
Class I area impacts, as well as with impacts that occur within the area
affected by applicable emissions. The Clean Air Act specifically requires
plans and procedures for maintaining the visual quality within Class I areas.
A good visibility impairment analysis should include the following com-
ponents:
1. An initial screening of emission sources that examines the possi-
bility of visibility impairment.
2. If warranted, a more in-depth analysis involving computer models.
3. A determination of the visual quality of the area.
To complete a successful visibility impairment analysis, the source
should use the procedures contained in the Workbook for Estimating Visibility
Impairment. This workbook presents a screening procedure designed to expe-
dite the analysis of emission impacts on the visual quality of an area.
Although the workbook was designed for Class I area impacts, the outlined
procedures are also generally applicable to other areas. The following
subsections present brief synopses of the screening procedures.
Screening Procedures: Level 1--
The Level 1 visibility screening analysis is a series of conservative
calculations designed to identify those emission sources that have little
potential for adversely affecting visibility. Calculated values relating
source emissions to visibility impacts are compared with a standardized
screening value. Those sources for which calculated values are greater than
the screening criteria are judged to have the potential for visibility im-
pairments. When this occurs, a Level 2 analysis is undertaken.
52
-------
Screening Procedures: Level 2—
The Level 2 screening procedure is similar to the Level 1 analysis in
that its purpose is to estimate impacts during worst-case meteorological
conditions; however, more specific information regarding the source, topo-
graphy, regional visual range, and meteorological conditions is assumed to be
available. The analysis involve the use of hand calculations, reference
tables and figures, or a computer-based visibility model called the "plume
visibility model."
Screening Procedures: Level 3—
If the Level 1 and 2 screening analyses indicate the possibility of
visibility impairment, a more detailed Level 3 analysis is undertaken in with
the aid of the plume visibility model and meterological and other regional
data. The purpose of the Level 3 analysis is to provide an accurate descrip-
tion of the magnitude of the impacts and its frequency of occurrence. The
procedures for using the plume visibility model are described in the "User's
Manual for the Plume Visibility Model."
As part of the visibility impairment analysis, the source is urged to
provide a description of the visual quality of the area, which should include
a discussion of any scenic vista in the area that may have public appeal or
aesthetic value. What constitutes "scenic" and "aesthetic" is always open to
the consideration of differing tastes. Nevertheless, a broad consensus,
however, does generally exist in most as to what occurrences would or would
not affect the visual beauty of an area.
2.7 REVIEW OF COMPLETED PSD PERMIT APPLICATION1'2
The reviewing authority is responsible for carrying out the requirements
of the PSD regulations. The broad goal of PSD is to prevent significant air
quality deterioration in clean air areas and, at the same time, to provide a
margin for future industrial growth.
In the PSD review process, the source is responsible for 1) performing
all required analyses, 2) documenting the results in a clear and concise form
in the permit application, 3) applying BACT where required, and 4) maintain-
ing compliance with all permit conditions.
53
-------
The role of the reviewing authority is to evaluate the preconstruction
analysis performed by the source for compliance with statutory requirements
and to manage regional air quality through a collective assessment of indus-
trial growth. By following these procedures, the reviewing authority meets
its responsibility through the preconstruction permitting process. Because
PSD regulations place the burden of analysis on the source, the engineering
analysis provided must show that air quality standards and available incre-
ment will not be threatened and that BACT is applied. The reviewing author-
ity's thorough evaluation of the analyses presented in the application is
instrumental in maintaining the opportunity for future industrial growth in a
particular area.
The reviewing or permitting authority is not expected to redo an incom-
plete or unsatisfactory application. Analysis and thorough documentation are
the responsibility of the source. When an incomplete application is sub-
mitted or the analyses presented do not adequately demonstrate compliance
with PSD requirements, the source should be notified and required to correct
any deficiencies.
The major steps in implementing the permit process are:
0 The preapplication meeting
0 Completeness review
0 Preliminary determination
0 The opportunity for public review and comment
0 The final determination with corresponding compliance checks.
During the preapplication meeting, the reviewing authority should make a
preliminary assessment of applicability to determine whether a PSD review is
necessary and what PSD review requirements must be met. An assessment of
applicability made at this time outlines the engineering analyses that must
be performed. Also, the PSD applicability assessment is the starting point
of the completeness review of a submitted application.
The reviewing authority is responsible for both the application review
and the development of the preliminary determination. The preliminary deter-
mination has a dual purpose: 1) it provides a comprehensive air-quality-
related environmental assessment of the key impacts of a proposed expansion;
54
-------
and 2) it provides the general public with a description of the project's
impacts, requirements, and compliance demonstration. Figure 2-7 is a sug-
gested format for a preliminary determination.
The last step in the review process is the publication of a public
notice and a request for public comment on the preliminary determination.
After the public comment period or public hearings are closed and the public
comments have been evaluated, the reviewing authority must complete the
process by making a final determination of approval, approval with condi-
tions, or disapproval. Before a final determination is made, public comments
should be made available to the source for the opportunity to provide re-
sponses to the reviewing agency. The methods for compliance checks must be
included with the final determination.
The first step in the actual permit review process is to identify the
source and understand the proposed construction. This entails having the
answers to certain questions. For example, has the source correctly defined
the proposed new or existing source according to PSD definitions? If a
modification to an existing source is involved, has the source fully de-
scribed the physical change or the proposed change in the method of operation
of the source, and has he or she identified all additional new and modified
emissions units? One helpful suggestion for a reviewer attempting to verify
the information submitted by an applicant is to list the emissions units
proposed for construction. For modifications, a listing of new and modified
emissions units and emissions units involved in any associated contempora-
neous changes is useful. Listing all existing emissions units also can help
to define the existing source. Frequently, a source may be unaware that it
contains more emission units than those addressed in the application. For
example, cooling towers are often ignored as a source of future hydrocarbon
(HC) emissions. For a general understanding of a process or source type that
is new to a review engineer, AP-40 and AP-42 should be consulted. These
publications will help to broaden the reviewer's understanding of the pro-
posed project.
The next major step in applicability review is to check the source's
emissions estimates. Any discrepancies in the emission estimates that are
not identified and corrected, may result in an incorrect applicability deter-
mination. The keys the reviewer should use for. evaluating the emission
estimates are as follows:
55
-------
PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION SUMMARY CONTENTS AND FORMAT
I. APPLICANT'S NAME
MAILING ADDRESS
II. PROPOSED SOURCE OR MODIFICATION LOCATION
County or Parish
UTM coordinates or longitude and latitude
Street or road location
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Generalized description of the project, including process weight
rate, whether new, or modified. Emphasis should be on capacity or
firing rate.
IV. SOURCE IMPACT ANALYSIS
This section should introduce those items for which the application
was reviewed:
A. BACT
This section must discuss the applicant's proposed BACT. The
alternatives must be discussed for each facility that emits
(or increases the emissions of) an applicable pollutant. If
the proposed BACT results in emissions different from any
applicable NSPS, the rationale must be given.
B. Increment Analysis
This section must contain the following minimum information:
1) Computer model used, highlighting any modifications and
stating why it was used and whether it was approved for
use
2) If applicant used resulting highest or second-highest
values, 5 years meteorological data must be used. State
whether the numbers reflect highest or highest, second-
highest values
3) The maximum impact area for TSP and/or S02
4) List of other increment-consuming sources in the impact
area and the source of this information such as the
applicant or State agency
5) The maximum increment consumed as a result of the appli-
cation
Figure 2-7. Preliminary determination summary format. (continued)
56
-------
C. NAAQS Analysis
This section must contain a brief explanation of how the
source reached its conclusion; for example, which monitor
provided the background readings and which other sources in
the area were modeled. This case-by-case analysis must demon-
strate that good engineering logic was used. The results
should be in tabular form and show background plus other
sources' contributions plus the applicant's contribution and
the resultant sum to arrive at the predicted worst-case.
The analysis should also, state whether the source has demon-
strated the application of GEP to all emitting stacks and that
no NAAQS violations are expected to occur as a result of
downwash.
D. Soils, Vegetation. Visibility
This section should include a summary of the source's state-
ment regarding any effected harm to any of the above. Appro-
priate references and studies the source used to reach its
conclusions should be cited.
E. Growth Impacts
A statement should be included regarding any deterioration of
air quality due to secondary emissions from associated
industry, local rush hour traffic from its employees, future
phases of the project, etc.
Also, a statement should be made here about availability of
future growth and the increment consumed by this project.
F. Class I Area Analysis
State what impact, if any, will result from the project. Also
state whether the source is (or is not) within 100 km of any
Class I area.
V. CONCLUSIONS
This section should begin with a recommendation of approval or
disapproval and present the items of correspondence upon which the
recommendation is based.
The remainder of this section deals with specific permit condi-
tions:
1. Applicant will verify all emissions within 90 days of startup
according to EPA methods of 40 CFR 60 etc.
Figure 2-7. Preliminary determination summary format. (continued)
-------
2. Provide a table of allowable emissions, BACT, etc. For
example:
TSP
facility BACT % Pollutant reduction Allowable emission
3. For power-generating stations, the applicant should provide a
description of final design and received EPA approval before
ordering equipment.
4. Any other condition(s) needed to ensure that EPA is not allow-
ing any emissions greater than those on which the modeling
results were based. This might include shutdown of equipment
being replaced when new equipment is started up, etc.
5. Appropriate compliance methods should be cited.
Figure 2-7. Preliminary determination summary format. (continued)
1. Make sure that every regulated pollutant that the source will emit
is listed, and that each affected emission unit is evaluated.
2. Check the basis for the potential to emit and for actual emissions
estimates. Do all assumptions conform with the PSD definitions?
Are they reasonable or conservative in an engineering sense? Did
the source use less than maximum capacity for these estimates
without demonstrating the existence of enforceable restrictions?
3. Determine if the source presented the accumulated increases and
decreases for all emission units located at the source. Were the
quantifiable fugitive emissions included where necessary? Will the
described modification affect emissions units that are not dis-
cussed?
4. Keep in mind that all claimed emissions changes must be contempo-
raneous and creditable.
5. Finally, verify that the source's estimates of potential emissions
and the "net change" in actual emissions are reasonable and con-
sistent with definitions given in the PSD regulations.
The third major step in applicability review is to evaluate the location
of the proposed construction. This entails such questions as: Has the
source considered all Class I areas which are in that locale? Is the pro-
posed construction site in or near a nonattainment area for any pollutant or
an area of known increment violation for particulate matter or S02?
58
-------
The fourth step is to perform the applicability tests outlined pre-
viously. This entails ascertaining whether the applicant correctly applied
these tests, to determine if the proposed source is subject to PSD review,
and deciding what requirements must be met.
The final step in determining applicability is to examine any exemptions
claimed by the source. In many cases, the conditions on which exemptions are
based are those that affect Class I areas, nonattainment areas, and known
areas of increment violations.
Several areas associated with the PSD permit process should receive
special attention. These areas are discussed briefly in the following para-
graphs.
Source definition can be a problem in an application. Sometimes the
owner wiTl incorrectly define the source. For example, the owner may con-
sider only the new and modified emission units as the source. Although this
is consistent with many State plans, it is inconsistent with the PSD regula-
tions. The definition includes all existing emissions units at a location
that are associated under the same two-digit SIC code. It should be noted
that source definitions for preconstruction review under nonattainment provi-
sions are not identical to PSD source definitions.
More subtle items in source definition occur at large complexes that are
proposing additions to the existing source. For these sources, the reviewing
authority should check files for previous source determinations conducted at
the same location and for determinations on similar sources. Permitting
personnel should contact the enforcement personnel tc verify existing emis-
sions units and to gain an overall understanding of the source operation.
Another problem area in a PSD application occurs in the emissions esti-
mates. Estimates of both the potential emissions and the actual emissions
may be incomplete. For example, some emission units that should be included
may be overlooked or ignored, and pollutants regulated under the Clean Air
Act may be excluded from the estimated emissions. Again, this is generally a
definition problem. Also, pollutants may be missing from the estimated
emissions because the applicant is unaware that PSD review applies to all
pollutants regulated under the Act. In many cases applicants may concentrate
on SOp and PM, the pollutants for which increments have been established and
ignore the other pollutants. Another common oversight is to concentrate on
59
-------
the criteria pollutants and to forget to present emission estimates for the
noncriteria pollutants regulated by the Act.
A similar problem occurs with estimated emissions for equipment that has
a dominant pollutant. Examples are rock dryers, grain dryers, and asphalt
plants, which emit large quantities of PM. Some applicants focus on these
emissions and overlook the emissions from combustion products released
through fuel consumption to provide process heat. Nitrogen oxides, CO, S0«,
hydrocarbons (HC), and all other regulated pollutant emissions must be esti-
mated.
The experience of the reviewer is important in detecting these over-
sights, but an overall awareness of common problems in PSD analyses is also
helpful. A pollutant checklist similar to that shown as Figure 2-8 is useful
in eliminating these potential problems.
When checking a source's emissions estimates, the reviewer may find the
applicant failed to include estimates for fugitive emissions. Quantifiable
fugitive emissions estimates must be presented if they are expected to occur.
A source may be eligible for an exemption if its fugitive emissions caused it
to be designated a major source. This exemption applies only to sources
other than those included in the 28 named categories and those regulated
under Sections 111 or 112 of the Act. Quantifiable fugitive emissions are
considered in all other emissions estimates, including calculations of actual
emissions and net changes in actual emissions, to determine the level of PSD
review required.
Another common concern is the use of inappropriate emission factors.
The reviewer can check these factors by consulting the emission estimates in
other applications or by examining BACT/LAER Clearinghouse reports for
similar source types. Identifying mistakes caused by overestimation of
emissions can reduce review requirements and, in some cases, can eliminate
the need for a PSD review. Consequently, reviewers should also closely
scrutinize estimates and the basis for estimates when the total source emis-
sions fall just below the 100/250 tons/yr criterion or when the net increase
in actual emissions falls just below the defined significance level.
Finally, the definitions of potential emissions and actual emissions are
sometimes misunderstood. The reviewer can check these definitions in the PSD
60
-------
Check
Pollutant
Significant net
increase, tons/yr
CO
Nitrogen oxides
so2
PM
Ozone (VOC)
Lead
Asbestos
Beryllium
Mercury
Vinyl chloride
Fluorides
SuIfuric acid mist
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
Total reduced sulfur (including H-S)
Reduced sulfur compounds (including
H2S)
100
40
40
25
40
0.6
0.007
0.0004
0.1
1
3
7
10
10
10
Figure 2-8. Checklist for pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act.
1
regulations or the application guidance package. When an incorrect defini-
tion is used, an extensive revision to emissions estimates is often required,
Another emissions estimating error is pertinent only to potential emis-
sions. Estimates of potential emissions are often based on average rather
than maximum capacity operation. The only time maximum capacity operation
should not be used in estimates of potential emissions is when there are
enforceable restrictions on a source's ability to emit a pollutant. Any
restrictions claimed by an applicant must be federally enforceable.
Two concerns are associated with estimating the net change in actual
emissions. First, the source may fail to accumulate all the creditable
61
-------
contemporaneous increases that have occurred at the source in the previous
5-year period or other period as defined by the permit-granting authority.
Also some decreases may be claimed that do not meet the criterion of con-
temporaneous. Decreases that are not federally enforceable cannot be
credited in determining the net emissions change.
The second concern is the misinterpretation of actual operating data.
Sometimes the assumptions used in calculating actual emissions are not indic-
ative of actual operating records. The application should fully document the
operating data on which actual emissions estimates are based. As a check,
the reviewer should consult State emission inventory questionnaires. A
questionnaire response made on the basis of actual operating data may be
available for that particular plant site or a plant of similar type .
The reviewer uses the BACT analysis submitted by the applicant to estab-
lish the PSD permit conditions that will specify the operation of the control
strategy for the source or modification under review. The reviewer's primary
responsibility is to determine the best emissions strategy to balance the
environmental benefits gained from applying pollution control technology with
the prudent use of energy and justifiable industrial expenditures. To
achieve this goal, the reviewer considers the following questions with regard
to the BACT analysis:
0 Is the analysis complete? The analysis must be pollutant- and
emissions-unit-specific because each affected new or modified
emissions unit must be evaluated with respect to each pollutant
subject to PSD review. Major emissions sources should be
emphasized; however, the requirement for enforceable continuous
limits remains, even for relatively minor emissions units. In
general, the attention of the analysis should be focused where it
can produce the most environmental benefits.
0 Is the analysis thorough? Has the source evaluated the range of
demonstrated options, including alternatives, that may be transfer-
able or innovative? The source need not evaluate control alterna-
tives that would result in greater emissions than those proposed as
BACT.
0 Are the cost estimates that appear in the analysis reasonable? Do
they appear to contradict cost expectations and experience?
0 Has the applicant made a good-faith effort in proposing BACT?
62
-------
The BACT must be a system of continuous emission reduction. The source
will suggest the control technology, but the reviewer is ultimately respon-
sible for establishing the permit conditions that specify the operation of
the control systems. Therefore, permitted emission rates must be specified
on the basis of both total and specific allowable emissions. The total
allowable emission rate (pounds per hour) of a unit is the expected emission
rate when the unit is operating at its maximum capacity. Because BACT is a
system of continuous emission reduction, however, the allowable emissions
must also consider the required control strategy at all other operating
levels. This is generally done by specifying, wherever possible, the allow-
able emissions in terms of process unit variables such as material processed
or fuel consumed, or even by specifying an allowable pollutant concentration
in the stack gases. Allowable emissions in units such as pounds per million
Btu or pounds per ton of product serve this purpose. No BACT can be any less
stringent than any applicable NSPS, NESHAP, or other SIP limitations. There-
fore, the reviewer must ensure that the total system proposed by the appli-
cant and the permit conditions are enforceable.
It is the reviewer's responsibility to specify enforceable equipment or
work practice standards when emissions are expected but are not measurable.
To make BACT enforceable and continuous, the reviewer should realistically
consider the reliability of the control systems. For example, he or she
should consider the average efficiency (not the maximum efficiency) of a
control and if necessary should devise compliance and monitoring systems that
are repeatable and straightforward.
Reviewers should also note that some sources might be motivated to
propose allowable emissions that the reviewer believes to be excessive.
Although trying to eliminate the last ounce of allowable emissions from a
proposed allowable emission rate is inefficient, one of the prime objectives
of PSD is to require emission control strategies that force the evolution of
pollution control technology. Industrial motivation to force this technology
will be reduced if allowable emissions can easily be met with a large margin
of safety.
The permitting authority is also responsible for reviewing the PSD
permit applications to ensure that all aspects of the air quality analyses
are addressed. The steps in air quality analysis review include:
63
-------
0 A determination and quantification of those pollutants for which
air quality review is required
0 A clear description of the proposed source or modification
0 A review of modeling techniques
0 A determination of existing air quality
0 A check for impact on Class I areas
0 A comparison of analyses results with the national ambient air
quality standards and allowable increments.
All regulated pollutants that may be emitted in significant quantities
from the proposed source or modification are subject to an air quality re-
view. The pollutants that must be part of the air quality review are gener-
ally identified in the applicability analysis, which determines if the pro-
posed construction is subject to review and what analyses must be performed
if a PSD permit is to be issued.
The model presented by the source is a mathematical representation of a
physical situation. A clear picture of the physical setting of the proposed
source is a prerequisite to a proper review of the mathematical representa-
tion. Such an understanding should encompass all facets of the proposed
source or modification. A description of all emission units, including
allowable emissions, stack parameters, location, and nearby tall buildings is
required. The review must also ensure the inclusion of all sources of fugi-
tive emissions in the proposed project.
If the project is a modification, changes in actual emissions at the
source must be established and carefully documented. The reviewing authority
should carefully check all these changes to determine whether they are rea-
sonable and in agreement with State files.
A plot plan can be useful in determining emission unit location and
possible critical meteorology. It will assist the reviewer in the analysis
of source interaction and building downwash effects. In many cases, the
applicant will make what he or she considers conservative assumptions in
performing dispersion modeling. The plot plan will help the reviewer deter-
mine if these assumptions are indeed conservative.
If the source has submitted a modeling plan, a quick check will provide
the review engineer with the information necessary to determine if the plan
64
-------
is complete. He or she should compare the procedures outlined in the PSD
application with those in the modeling plan. This is especially important if
a modeling plan has been approved with conditions and stipulations.
The modeling data presented in the source's application should be com-
plete and accurate. To check for completeness and accuracy, the reviewer
should:
0 Determine which models were used
0 Ensure that all sources are included in the inventory
0 Examine allowable and actual emissions for proper treatment
0 Check meteorological data used
0 Review modeling assumptions used
0 Check 6EP stack height regulations with respect to the operation.
All modeling results presented by the source should be substantiated by
computer printouts from the modeling analysis. The reviewer should verify
that an appropriate model has been used and applied properly and that the
data presented are complete and accurate.
The job of the reviewer is critical to the preservation of the NAAQS and
the PSD increments. The reviewer should address all data presented by the
source to certify that a thorough analysis of the predicted air quality
around the source in question has been conducted. The following critical
items should be reviewed with respect to air quality impacts:
0 A determination of those pollutants for which a review is required
0 A clear description of the proposed source or modification
0 The proper selection and use of models
0 A determination of existing air quality
0 An analysis of any impacts on a Class I area
0 A demonstration of compliance with the NAAQS and PSD increments by
a careful examination of all results.
The PSD regulations require air quality analyses for both criteria and
noncriteria pollutants that are emitted or whose emissions are increased in
significant amounts. The predicted ambient air concentrations are used as a
65
-------
basis for assessing the extent of soil, vegetation, and visibility impacts.
Because NAAQS for noncriteria pollutants do not exist, the additional impacts
analysis plays a major role in establishing the air quality impacts of these
pollutants.
Finally, the reviewer should note that applicants have a great deal of
flexibility in their approach to an additional impacts analysis. It is the
reviewer's responsibility to determine if the source's analysis has been
completed with sufficient depth to determine potential significant effects on
soils, vegetation, and visibility resulting from air quality impacts. The
reviewer must rely on information presented by the applicant as well as on
his or her own experience in determining the adequacy of the analysis.
In a growth analysis it is important that the reviewer query regional
planning offices or other State agencies to verify the data presented by the
applicant. The reviewer may also check other PSD applications that are
similar to the one under review. In addition, the reviewer should be able to
delineate those types of situations that could lead to associated growth. In
many cases, the reviewer must rely on data presented by the source to deter-
mine the type and amount of expected growth. If insufficient data are
presented for review, the reviewer should request additional information from
the applicant.
If the reviewer agrees with the projected growth analysis, the next step
is to assess the data on air pollution that may result from this growth.
Temporary growth,.such as a construction work force, does not necessarily
apply; therefore, data on emissions from temporary growth are generally not
considered. The reviewer should verify the projected emissions be referring
to manufacturer's specifications and guidelines or by comparing the data with
similar examples of growth and emissions found in other PSD applications.
The reviewer also should verify that all significant quantifiable emissions
projected in the growth analysis are considered in the modeling analysis;
both applicable criteria and noncriteria emissions should be modeled. If no
growth is projected to result from the introduction of a new source or modi-
fication, no growth-related air quality impacts will occur. Once the re-
viewer has a clear understanding of expected growth and its impacts, the next
consideration should be the analysis of the soils and vegetation.
66
-------
The soils and vegetation analysis examines the effect of predicted
ambient air concentrations on soils and vegetation. Because the source could
have approached the analysis from a variety of viewpoints, the reviewer must
check any analysis for accuracy and credibility.
A source who has followed the suggested method of analysis will provide
a categorization of the soil and vegetation types found naturally in the
area. The reviewer should verify that this list is accurate and comparable
to the assessments of other conservation groups, State agencies, or univer-
sities. The soils and vegetation survey is very important and should
emphasize the sensitive species in the area.
Reviewers should examine the modeling data presented in the PSD applica-
tion to determine the maximum pollutant concentrations of each applicable
pollutant in the impact area. The modeling should include applicable
criteria and noncriteria pollutants. The source should present predictions,
supported by scientific literature, of the effects of maximum concentration
of pollutants on the types of soils and vegetation found within the impact
area. Good references include the EPA Air Quality Criteria Documents and a
U.S. Department of the Interior document entitled Impacts of Coal-Fired Power
Plants on Fish, Wildlife, and Their Habitats.
For criteria pollutants with maximum predicted concentrations that are
less than the secondary NAAQS, the impact on most soils and vegetation
usually will be negligible. Some sensitive species of plants may be directly
affected by these lower concentrations, however, and the list of vegetation
for a particular area should emphasize these sensitive species. The reviewer
must check any supporting documentation provided to ensure that the conclu-
sions of the applicant are correct.
In the last step, the reviewer should assess the source's visibility
impacts analysis. Air pollution visibility impacts include visible stack
emissions, mists associated with cooling towers, and any transformation of
pollutants involved in atmospheric chemistry.
An assessment of visibility impacts, as in the case of all additional
impacts analyses, is based on comprehensive data presented by the source.
Data correlating emissions with visibility impacts must be properly applied.
Currently, the suggested method for completing the visibility impairment
analysis is to use the screening techniques outlined in the Workbook for
67
-------
Estimating Visibility Impairment. If the source has used the workbook as a
guide, the reviewer should verify all the calculations and conclusions pre-
sented. If the source used a different method of analysis, the reviewer
should check to see that the analysis is correct and should verify the
source's conclusions by performing a separate visibility screening analysis.
For large sources of emissions that may result in visibility impair-
ments, sources have been urged to use the plume visibility model. The re-
viewer should consult with a meteorologist, as appropriate, to verify both
the proper application of the model and the results submitted by the
applicant. The reviewer also should be familiar with the User's Guide for
the Plume Visibility Model.
A major goal of the additional impacts analysis is to provide the local
community with information that demonstrates how a new source will affect the
enjoyment derived from the area. Areas that contribute to the common
aesthetics of a community should be part of the application. The reviewer is
responsible for ensuring the descriptive nature of the information presented
in the application.
The source also must submit an expanded visibility impairment analysis
when primary or secondary emissions affect Class I areas or other areas of
scenic beauty. Any potential impacts on Class I areas must be reviewed in a
manner that adequately addresses the impacts on the recreational and scenic
beauty of these areas.
After the reviewer has carefully examined all data on additional
impacts, he or she must decide whether a particular applicant has met the
standards of the review. This decision is based on the following:
0 Whether the applicant has given the reviewer a clear and accurate
portrait of the soils, vegetation, and visibility in the proposed
impact area.
0 Whether the applicant has provided adequate documentation of the
potential impacts on soils, vegetation, and visibility resulting
from applicable pollutant emissions.
0 Whether the data were presented in a logical manner (i.e., begin-
ning with a growth analysis, followed by a visibility analysis,
etc.).
68
-------
0 Whether the applicant, the reviewer, and the affected community
understand the potential additional impacts posed by the proposed
source.
During the review process, the reviewer must determine if sufficient
information has been supplied. A data summary sheet (Figure 2-9) will help
in this assessment. Once an application is determined to be complete, the
agency has a maximum time period within which to complete the PSD review.
The date a complete application is received generally determines per-
mitting priority. Mistakenly identifying an application as complete may be
unfair to another source in the same area.
Additional information sometimes necessitates a revaluation of pre-
viously reviewed analyses, which is redundant and cost-inefficient. There-
fore, emphasis on a thorough completeness review can expedite the overall PSD
review process, minimize effects on construction schedules, reduce agency
resource expenditures, and aid in the proper management of air quality re-
sources.
69
-------
COMHWY KAMI: REVIEW DATE:.
HO NUMBER: «6 or m (circle one) «VIEWER:_
MICF PHOJECT
I. DCTERMIHATION OF APPIICABIIITY
For Proposed Con»tniet1on, «0 Review - Applies - DOM Not Apply - Undetermined* (Circit On«)
"Tl» fallowing Information Is needed to complete the determination: ________________
REVIEU REQUIREMENTS ARE AS FOLLOW (if subject a review):
Net Egrlsslons
Pollutant BACT Hanltorlm? £_ Add'1 Impacts Increase (T/yr)
o,(voe)
OtMr
otmr—
OF REVIEWER:
1. POTBfflAl EHKSIOIB OATA SUfWRT FOR THE SOURCE (proposed MM source or the
•listing source for t proposed modification!:
, Basis for Esflmit«S
PT EnlMlon ^T[ Qrisslons Actual6 Allo«ibl»c
PalluUnt (T/yr) Units Hr»/d«y hrs/yr (Umelty Factor (T/yr) (T/yr)
PN
Oj(VOC)
OtnS
Other
a. The source Is a 28-11sted source or Is a __ non-2B-11sted source
(100/250 nejor ciisslons criteria respective) yj!
b. If less than 8760 nrs/yr and 1001, do enforceable restrictions exist?
c. If PC. actual and allowable are net equal, explain w*iy: _______
2. IHT CHAH6ES IH ACTUAL EMISSIONS? (for modifications only).
Describe oadlflcatlon Including previous or planned Missions changes:
NM Creditable Creditable Net
1 IM. ConUBtp. Contemp. Change
Units Increises Decreases 1n actual Significance
Pollutant (T/yr) (T/vr) (T/yr) (T/yr) Criteria" (T/yr)
PN 25
SO, 40
NO* 40
CO* 100
0,(VOC) 40 (VOC)
Other
Other
a. Are decreases ensured by enforceable restrictions? yes no.
b. Is the source within 10 tan of any Class I area? __/« no.
If so. is maximum air Impact (discussed below) > 1 ug/m3 (2!3Tr)?
c. The baseline date
-------
LESSON 3
NONATTAINMENT AREAS REQUIREMENTS
Goal: To familiarize you with the nonattainment NSR requirements.
Objectives: At the end of the lesson, you should be capable of the follow-
ing:
1. Understanding the nonattainment area applicability requirements
2. Reviewing the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) proposal and
analysis
3. Understanding the offset requirements
4. Understanding the noninterference with reasonable further progress
(RFP) requirement
5. 'Understanding the requirement that all sources within the State
must be in compliance.
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Part D of the Clean Air Act sets forth the SIP requirements for non-
attainment areas, i.e., those areas that are classified under Section 107 as
not currently attaining the NAAQS as demonstrated by monitored data or calcu-
lated by air quality modeling.
Section 172 of Part D identifies several SIP requirements associated
with growth and NSR. Section 172(a)(l) states that an approved SIP demon-
strating attainment by the prescribed date is a prerequisite to approving
major construction. Section 172(b)(5) requires that the SIP expressly
identify and quantify the emissions allowed for the operation and construc-
tion of major sources in the area. Section 172(b)(6) calls for the develop-
ment of an appropriate permit system for new major sources. Finally, Section
172(b)(ll)(A) requires that the SIP contain special new source procedures
when attainment beyond 1982 (not to exceed 1987) is allowed for ozone or CO.
71
-------
This special program is to weigh the benefits and analyze the alternatives to
approving this source relative to the need for attaining the ozone and CO
NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable.
Section 173 outlines the details of the NSR system called for in
172(b)(6). Section 173(1) identifies the two options for approving major
construction without jeopardizing attainment. Section 173(1)(A) states that
by new source operation the total allowable emissions from existing sources,
new minor sources, and the proposed source must be less than those allowed
under the SIP at the time of new source application so as to be consistent
with reasonable further progress (RFP). RFP means annual incremental reduc-
tions in emissions of the applicable air pollutant that are sufficient, in
the judgment of the Administrator, to provide for attainment of the applica-
ble NAAQS by the prescribed date.
Section 173(1)(B) alternatively allows approval of major construction if
such construction not cause or contribute to a violation the Section 173
allowance for growth. Section 173 also requires that major construction in a
nonattainment area must apply LAER and all other major sources under common
ownership of the source within the State must be in compliance with the
applicable SIP. Section 171(3) defines the term LAER for any source as that
rate of emissions that reflects:
0 The most stringent emission limitation contained in the implementa-
tion plan of any State for such class or category of source, unless
the owner or operator of the proposed source.demonstrates that such
limitations are not achievable
0 The most stringent emission limitation achieved in practice by such
class or category of source, whichever is more stringent.
In no event shall the application of LAER permit a proposed new or modified
source to emit any pollutant in excess of the amount allowable under the
applicable NSPS.
Section 51.18 set forths the minimum NSR requirements associated with an
acceptable SIP. Each SIP must set forth the legally enforceable procedures
to enable the State or local agency to determine whether the new or modified
source will result in violations of the applicable portions of the control
strategy or interfere with attainment and maintenance of a NAAQS.
72
-------
The SIP must include procedures for preventing the construction if
violations are noted. The SIP must also provide for the submission of the
following information:
0 Nature and amount of emissions to be emitted
0 Location, design, construction, and operation of the source.
The State's procedures must indicate that any approval to construct or modify
shall not relieve the owner or operator of his responsibility to comply with
the control strategy. The procedures must also provide an opportunity for
public comment on the information submitted by the source.
The following definitions or more stringent definitions as set forth in
51.18 must be contained in the SIP:
0 "Stationary source" means any building, structure, facility, or
installation that emits or may emit any air pollutant subject to
regulation under the Act.
0 "Building, structure, or facility" means all of the pollutant-
emitting activities that belong to the same industrial grouping,
are located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties, and
are under the control of the same person (or persons under common
control). Pollutant-emitting activities shall be considered as
part of the same industrial grouping if they belong to the same
"Major Group" (i.e., that have the same two-digit code) as
described in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1972,
as amended by the 1977 Supplement (U.S. Government Printing Office
stock numbers 4101-0066 and 003-005-00176-0, respectively).
0 "Installation" means an identifiable piece of process equipment.
0 "Potential to emit" means the maximum capacity of a stationary
source to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational
design. Any physical or operational limitation on the capacity of
the source to emit a pollutant, including air pollution control
equipment and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or
amount of material combusted, stored, or processed, shall be
treated as part of its design only if the limitation or its effect
on emissions is federally enforceable. Secondary emissions do not
count in determining a stationary source's potential to emit.
0 "Major stationary source" means:
Any stationary source of air pollutants that emits, or has the
potential to emit, 100 tons per year or more of any pollutant
subject to regulation under the Act.
73
-------
Any physical change that would occur at a stationary source
not qualifying as a major stationary source, if the change by
itself would constitute a major stationary source.
"Major modification" means any physical change in a major
stationary source or any change in its method of operation that
would result in a significant net emissions increase of any pollu-
tant subject to regulation under the Act.
Any net emission increase that is considered significant for
volatile organic compounds shall be considered significant for
ozone.
A physical change or change in the method of operation shall
exclude:
(1) Routine maintenance, repair, and replacement.
(2) Use of an alternative fuel or raw material by reason of
an order under Sections 2(a) and (b) of the Energy Supply
and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974 (or any super-
seding legislation) or by reason of a natural gas cur-
tailment plan pursuant to the Federal Power Act.
(3) Use of an alternative fuel by reason of an order or rule
under Section 125 of the Act.
(4) Use of an alternative fuel at a steam generating unit to
the extent that the fuel is generated from municipal
solid waste.
(5) Use of an alternative fuel or raw material by a station-
ary source which the source was capable of accommodating
before December 21, 1976, unless such change is pro-
hibited under any federally enforceable permit condition
that was established after December 21, 1976, pursuant to
40 CFR 52.21 or under regulations approved pursuant to 40
CFR 51.18 or 40 CFR 51.24 or the source is approved to
use under any permit issued under regulations approved
pursuant to this section.
(6) An increase in the hours of operation or in the produc-
tion rate, unless such change i§ prohibited under any
federally enforceable permit condition that was
established after December 21, 1976, pursuant to 40 CFR
52.21 or regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR 51.18 or
40 CFR 51.24.
(7) Any change in ownership at a stationary source.
"Net emissions increase" means the amount by which the sum of the
following exceeds zero:
74
-------
Any increase in actual emissions from a particular physical
change at a stationary source or a change in the method of
., operation.
Any other increases and decreases in actual emissions at the
source that are contemporaneous with the particular change and
are otherwise creditable.
An increase or decrease in actual emissions is considered con-
temporaneous with the increase from the particular change only if
it occurs before the date the increase from the particular change
occurs. An increase or decrease in actual emissions is creditable
only if it occurs within a reasonable period, to be specified by
the reviewing authority, and the reviewing authority has not relied
on it in issuing a permit for the source under regulations approved
pursuant to this section, which permit is in effect when the in-
crease in actual emissions from the particular change occurs.
An increase in actual emissions is creditable only to the extent
that the new level of actual emissions exceeds the old level.
A decrease in actual emissions is creditable only to the extent
that:
The old level of actual emissions or the old level of allowa-
ble emissions, whichever, is lower, exceeds the new level of
actual emissions.
It is federally enforceable at and after the time that actual
construction on the particular change begins.
The reviewing authority has not relied on it in issuing any
permit under regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR 51.18, or
the State has not relied on it in demonstrating attainment or
RFP.
It has approximately the same qualitative significance for
public health and welfare as that attributed to the increase
from the particular change.
An increase that results from a physical change at a source occurs
when the emissions unit on which construction occurred becomes
operational and begins to emit a particular pollutant. Any re-
placement unit that requires shakedown becomes operational only
after a reasonable shakedown period (not to exceed 180 days).
"Emissions unit" means any part of a stationary source that emits
or would have the potential to emit any pollutant subject to regu-
lation under the Act.
"Reconstruction" will be presumed to have taken place where the
fixed capital cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent of the
75
-------
fixed capital cost of a comparable entirely new stationary source.
Any final decision as to whether reconstruction has occurred shall
be made in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 60.15(f)(l)-
(3). In determining LAER for a reconstructed stationary source,
the provisions of 40 CFR 60.15(f)(4) shall be taken into account in
assessing whether a NSPS is applicable to such stationary source.
"Fixed capital cost" means the capital needed to provide all the
depreciable components.
"Secondary emissions" means emissions that would occur as a result
of the construction or operation of a major stationary source or
major modification, but do not come from the major stationary
source or major modification itself. For the purpose of this
section, secondary emissions must be specific, well defined,
quantifiable, and have an impact on the same general area as the
stationary source or modification that causes the secondary emis-
sions. Secondary emissions may include, but are not limited to:
Emissions from ships or trains coming to or from the new or
modified stationary source
Emissions from any offsite support facility that would not
otherwise be constructed or increase its emissions as a result
of the construction or operation of the major stationary
source or major modification.
"Fugitive emissions" means those emissions that could not rea-
sonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally
equivalent opening.
"Significant" means, in reference to a net emissions increase or
the potential of a source to emit any of the following pollutants,
a rate of emissions that would equal or exceed any of the indicated
rates for these pollutants:
Carbon monoxide: 100 tons/yr
Nitrogen oxides: 40 tons/yr
Sulfur dioxide: 40 tons/yr
Particulate matter: 25 tons/yr
Ozone: 40 tons/yr of VOC's
Lead: 0.6 tons/yr.
"Allowable emissions" means the emissions rate of a stationary
source calculated by using the maximum rated capacity of the source
(unless the source is subject to federally enforceable limits that
restrict the operating rate or hours of operation or both) and the
most stringent of the following:
The applicable standards set forth in 40 CFR Part 60 or 61.
76
-------
Any applicable SIP emissions limitation, including those with
a future compliance date.
The emissions rate specified as a federally enforceable permit
condition, including those with a future compliance date.
"Actual emissions" means the actual rate of emissions of a pollu-
tant from an emissions unit as determined (in accordance with the
following:
Actual emissions as of a particular date shall equal the
average rate, in tons per year, at which the unit actually
emitted the pollutant during a 2-year period preceding the
particular date and that is representative of normal source
operation. The reviewing authority shall allow the use of a
different time period upon a determination that it is more
representative of normal source operation. Actual emissions
shall be calculated by using the unit's actual operating
hours, production rates, and types of materials processed,
stored, or combusted during the selected time period.
The reviewing authority may presume that the source-specific
allowable emissions for the unit are equivalent to the actual
emissions of the unit.
For any emissions unit that has not begun normal operations on
the particular date, actual emissions shall equal the unit's
potential to emit on that date.
"LAER" means, for any source, the more stringent rate of emissions
based on the following:
The most stringent emissions limitation contained in the
implementation plan of any State for such class or category of
stationary source, unless the owner or operator of the pro-
posed stationary source demonstrates that such limitations are
not achievable.
The most stringent emissions limitation that is achieved in
practice by such class or category of stationary source. This
limitation, when applied to a modification, means the LAER for
the new or modified emissions units within the stationary
source. In no event shall the application of this term permit
a proposed new or modified stationary source to emit any
pollutant in excess of the amount allowable under an applica-
ble new source standard of performance.
"Federally enforceable" means all limitations and conditions that
are enforceable by the Administrator, including those requirements
developed pursuant to 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61, requirements within
any applicable SIP, and any permit requirements established
77
-------
pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 or under regulations approved pursuant to
40 CFR 51.18, or 51.24.
0 "Begin actual construction" means, in general, initiation of
physical onsite construction activities on an emissions unit that
are of a permanent nature. Such activities include, but are not
limited to, installation of building supports and foundations,
laying of underground pipework, and construction of permanent
storage structures. With respect to a change in method of operat-
ing, this term refers to those onsite activities other than
preparatory activities that mark the initiation of the change.
0 "Commence" as applied to construction of a major stationary source
or major modification means that the owner or operator has all
necessary preconstruction approvals or permits and has:
(a) Begun, or caused to begin, a continuous program of actual
onsite construction of the source to be completed within a
reasonable time.
(b) Entered into binding agreements or contractual obligations,
which cannot be cancelled or modified without substantial loss
to the owner or operator, to undertake'a program of actual
construction of the source to be completed within a reasonable
time.
0 "Necessary preconstruction approvals or permits" means those per-
mits or approvals required under Federal air quality control laws
and regulations and those air quality control laws and regulations
that are part of the applicable SIP.
0 "Construction" means any physical change or change in the method of
operation (including fabrication, erection, installation, demoli-
tion, or modification of an emissions unit) that would result in a
change in actual emissions.
The State's NSR program must establish a baseline for determining credit
for emission reductions as the emission limits under the applicable SIP in
effect at the time the application to construct is filed, except that the
offset baseline shall be the actual emissions of the source from which offset
credit is obtained, where:
0 The demonstration of RFP and attainment of ambient air quality
standards is based on the actual emissions of sources located
within a designated nonattainment area for which the preconstruc-
tion review program was adopted.
0 The applicable SIP does not contain an emissions limitation for
that source or source category.
78
-------
The NSR nonattainment program must also provide that:
0 Where the emissions limit under the applicable SIP allows greater
emissions than the source's potential to emit, emissions offset
credit will be allowed only for control below this potential.
0 For an existing fuel combustion source, credit shall be based on
the allowable emissions under the applicable SIP for the type of
fuel being burned at the time the application to construct is
filed. If the existing source commits to switch to a cleaner fuel
at some future date, emissions offset credit based on the allowable
(or actual) emissions for the fuels involved is not acceptable,
unless the permit is conditioned to require the use of a specified
alternative control measure that would achieve the same degree of
emissions reduction if the source were switch back to a dirtier
fuel at some later date. The reviewing authority should ensure
that adequate long-term supplies of the new fuel are available
before granting emissions offset credit for fuel switches.
0 Emissions reductions achieved by shutting down an existing source
or permanently curtailing production or operating hours below
baseline levels may be credited, provided the work force to be
affected has been notified of the proposed shutdown or curtailment.
Source shutdowns and curtailments in production or operating hours
occurring prior to the date the new source application is filed
generally may not be used for emissions offset credit. Where an
applicant, however, can establish that it shut down or curtailed
production after August 7, 1977, or less than 1 year prior to the
date of permit application (whichever is earlier) and the proposed
new source is a replacement for the shutdown or curtailment credit,
such shutdown or curtailment may be applied to offset emissions
from the new source.
0 No emissions credit may be allowed for replacing one hydrocarbon
compound with another of lesser reactivity, except for those com-
pounds listed in Table 1 of EPA's "Recommended Policy on Control of
Volatile Organic Compounds" (42 FR 35314, July 8, 1977).
0 All emission reductions claimed as offset credit shall be federally
enforceable.
0 Procedures relating to the permissible location of offsetting
emissions shall be followed that are at least as stringent as those
set out in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix S, Section IV.D
0 Credit for an emissions reduction can be claimed to the extent that
the reviewing authority has not relied on it in issuing any permit
under regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR 51.18 or the State
has not relied on it in demonstrating attainment or RFP.
The NSR program may also provide that the nonattainment provisions do
not apply to a source or modification that would only be a major stationary
79
-------
source or major modification if fugitive emissions, to the extent quantifi-
able, are considered in calculating the potential to emit and the source does
not fall into to any of the following categories:
0 Coal cleaning plants (with thermal dryers)
Kraft pulp mills
0 Portland cement plants
0 Primary zinc smelters
0 Iron and steel mills
0 Primary aluminum ore reduction plants
0 Primary copper smelters
0 Municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons of
refuse per day
0 Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, or nitric acid plants
0 Petroleum refineries
0 Lime plants
0 Phosphate rock processing plants
0 Coke oven batteries
0 Sulfur recovery plants
0 Carbon black plants (furnace process)
0 Primary lead smelters
0 Fuel conversion plants
0 Sintering plants
0 Secondary metal production plants
0 Chemical process plants
0 Fossil-fuel-fired boilers (or combination thereof) with a heat
input totaling more than 250 million British thermal units per hour
0 Petroleum storage and transfer units with a total storage capacity
exceeding 300,000 barrels
80
-------
0 Taconite ore processing plants
0 Glass fiber processing plants
0 Charcoal production plants
0 Fossil-fuel-fired steam electric plants with a heat input of more
than 250 million British thermal units per hour
0 Any other stationary source category that, as of August 7, 1980, is
being regulated under Section 111 or 112 of the act.
Finally, the NSR program must contain enforceable procedures that pro-
vide the following:
0 Approval to construct shall not relieve the owner or operator from
complying with all applicable provisions of the plan and any other
requirements under local, State, or Federal law.
0 At such time that a particular source or modification becomes a
major stationary source or major modification solely by virtue of a
relaxation of any enforcement limitation that was established after
August 7, 1980, on the capacity of the source or modification
otherwise to emit a pollutant (such as a restriction on hours of
operation) the requirements of regulations approved pursuant to
this section shall apply to the source or modification as though
construction had not yet commenced on the source or modification.
3.2 LAER REQUIREMENT
As mentioned previously, Section 171(3) defines LAER in terms of the
"best SIP" limit or "best in-practice" control that is achievable by the
source undergoing review—not to be less stringent than an applicable NSPS.
The following discussion provides additional insight into the terms "Best
SIP" and "in- practice."
"Best SIP" means that limit of the highest stringency that the source is
capable of meeting considering all limits that are currently part of an
approved SIP; i.e., if a State has extraordinary regulatory measures incor-
porated into its SIP that are designed to preclude the construction of a
certain source type, these applications need not define LAER. In addition,
SIP's with BACT requirements are not applicable in the abstract. Only where
specific limits exist within these regulations or where a BACT-type regula-
tion has been implemented for a similar source would this type of regulation
be applicable. The EPA-promulgated requirements are, or course, part of the
81
-------
applicable SIP. Finally, "equipment standards" can substitute for emission
limitations when the latter have typically not been prescribed. Note that
the limits need only to have been prescribed for a source and existing in a
SIP to be eligible for consideration. If, however, a limit has not yet been
tested through source operation, the "achievability" of the limit must be
carefully considered.
"In practice" means controls that have been demonstrated for that exact
source type or one of similar general function. Although this interpretation
does not preclude the use of "control technology transfer," in many cases the
need to offset new source emissions consistent with RFP will often cause
sources voluntarily to advance the state-of-the-art for control technology.
Thus, control transfer is not likely to be needed in most cases.
3.3 STATEWIDE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT
Section 173(3) requires that all other major sources (100 tons/yr poten-
tial) owned or operated by the applicant in the same State are in complaince
with the applicable emission limits and standards under the Act. In respond-
ing to this requirement, the reviewing authority must ensure that major
sources under common ownership or operational control with the proposed one
in the same State be in compliance (or on enforceable schedules) with all
established SIP limits at the time of new source approval.
3.4 CONSISTENCY WITH RFP
Section 173(1) basically outlines two options for accommodating major
source growth in SIP's without jeopardizing the attainment mandate. Section
173(1)(A) allows a form of offset policy to be conducted on a case-by-case
basis. In general, this offset regulation is decidedly more restrictive than
is EPA's Interpretative Ruling (Appendix S, 40 CFR 51). In addition to
subjecting sources on the basis of their increased emission potential, it
requires new major sources to offset not only their emissions but also those
of minor point sources that have come into the area since 1979 (which have
not already been offset). More importantly, the decrease in allowable emis-
sions that Section 173(1)(A) must be consistent with RFP. This effectively
changes the baseline for offsets from the stated SIP at the time of
82
-------
application to the attainment SIP because RFP can in no way jeopardize
attainment.
In implementing the Section 173(1)(A) option, a SIP must consider the
following items: 1) the proposed reductions are not otherwise needed to
provide for or maintain attainment; 2) the offsets would be transacted on a
tons/yr actual emissions basis; 3) the offsetting reductions will be accom-
plished on or before the time of new source operation; 4) the reductions come
from sources in the emission inventory used for approved control strategy;
and 5) the amount of the proposed reductions is sufficient to offset both the
emissions reductions directly associated with the proposed source construc-
tion and those emissions attributed to minor point sources that have come
into the area since the last RFP milestone was met.
It should be noted that item No. 2 is consistent with how RFP is pri-
marily tracked and will require the establishment of new enforceable tons/yr
limits for the reducing sources. An exception to this is when only short-
term violations of the TSP or S02 standards are at stake. In this case,
maximum emissions on a Ibs/h basis should be used,together with a new air
quality benefit criterion. Note that in the general case of tons/yr trans-
actions the net air quality benefit constraint does not have to be con-
sidered. However, a reviewing authority would be ill-advised to approve new
sources that worsen air quality trends since RFP and attainment status are
linked with air quality trends.
Use of the case-by-case offsets NSR option does not affect the shape of
the RFP schedule. Permitting of new major growth in a nonattainment area,
however, does complicate the tracking procedures for RFP. In general, when
satisfactory offsets are obtained, emission tracking will not be affected
until the new sources come into operation or the offsetting reductions
actually occur. This is true because no actual emissions would have occurred
and the SIP would not have allowed any net increase in emissions to occur.
It should be noted that if RFP is not met, the sanctions imposed would over-
ride the permitting authority of systems developed under Section 173(1)(A) or
Section 173(1)(B).
A second option open for allowing major construction is described under
Section 173(1)(B). Under this option, a growth allowance system can be set
83
-------
up that allows major sources to be approved as long as they would not exceed
the available growth allowance.
Implementation of this program for accommodating new sources includes
several inherent requirements: 1) there must be a sizable amount of reduc-
tions accomplished by the time the system is in operation; 2) the reductions
in the amount must all be beyond those needed for attainment; 3) no major
growth can be permitted beyond that accommodated within the growth allowance
available at the time of source application; 4) accomplished reductions are
eligible for addition to the growth allowance, whereas new sources as
approved reduce th'e amount of allowance available for approving future new
sources; 5) the available growth allowance is consumed or augmented on an
actual basis; and 6) no further major construction approvals can be issued if
3
RFP has not been met.
84
-------
LESSON 4
MAJOR ELEMENTS OF PERMIT REVIEW
Goal: To familiarize you with the three elements of permit review that
should be addressed prior to preparing a permit.
Objectives: Upon completing this lesson, you should be capable of the fol-
lowing:
1. Listing the three major elements of permit review
2. Listing the major stumbling blocks in applicability determinations
3. Describing the goal of technical review
4. Describing the recommendations that may occur from permit review.
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The permit review process involves three distinct elements or major
areas that are necessary precursors for technically sound and legally en-
forceable permits: 1) applicability determination, 2) technical review, and
3) conclusions and recommendations. They are not mutually exclusive because
decisions in one area may affect the other two. Nevertheless, each is dis-
cussed as an individual element with special emphasis on how this element may
affect the other elements.
4.2 CHECK FOR COMPLETENESS
Before any work on the permit review can begin, the application should
be checked for completeness. This may mean comparing submitted data against
a checklist to ensure that all the necessary information is avaialble for
review. A more general definition of completeness is that the permit
application contains the data and information needed for the level of review
required under the regulations. Different sources require different levels
of review based on the applicability determinations. Although a permit
application appears to be complete, this does not preclude the agency
85
-------
from making further requests for information if the need arises. However,
once the completeness is determined, the permit review process can begin.
4.3 APPLICABILITY DETERMINATIONS
The previous lessons have discussed the regulatory requirements under
the various programs for PSD, Nonattainment Review, NSPS, and NESHAPS, as
well as SIP requirements that may apply. A source could be subject to the
regulatory requirements and emission limits for all of these programs; thus,
it be necessary for the permit review engineer to be familiar with the re-
quirements of each program.
The first effort in the review of an application for a proposed new or
modified source is to determine what regulations apply to the source. This
step in the permit review process is essential because it not only dictates
what regulations apply, but may also dictates what level of review must be
conducted, what must be included in the review, and what permit conditions
must be applied. For example, based on its geographic location, its area of
impact, and potential to emit a regulated pollutant, the new or modified
source may be classified as subject to PSD, Nonattainment Area Review, or not
subject to review because it falls under a "minor" source or de minimis
increase classification. Proper application of the criteria of each program
is essential to proper source classification.
Most applicability determination problems are associated with determin-
ing sources that are not subject to review. Audits indicate that most deter-
minations indicating that a source is major or is otherwise subject to review
are generally correct. Determining the potential to emit and arriving at the
net emissions, however, are probably the most likely problem areas that can
cause an improper applicability determination. The permit reviewer should be
cautioned that the proper interpretation of these procedures is necessary to
determine what level of review is applicable. Although not required by the
regulations, a negative declaration of applicability to PSD and Nonattainment
Area Review, including documentation demonstrating that the source is not
subject to review, is one alternative for providing a check on the applica-
bility process.
86
-------
4.4 TECHNICAL REVIEW
Once-the applicability determination has been conducted and it has been
determined whether the source is subject to NSR, the necessary considerations
for PSD review or Nonattainment Review are relatively clear with regard to
the BACT/LAER requirements, ambient impact analysis, etc. For a source that
has been determined to be "minor," however, the requirements are less clear
and beyond the applicability determination, no further review is required
under Federal programs. This does not mean, however, that the source is not
subject to other State requirements and that technical review for both
process and control equipment is required.
4.4.1 Process Equipment Review
Much of the guidance provided associated with NSR is concerns control
technology analyses, economic considerations, and ambient impact modeling.
To date, little or no emphasis is placed on process review beyond the data
required for the applicability determination and potential to emit. The NSR
programs for PSD and Nonattainment Review can be viewed as special subsets of
an overall review that should take place for each source. In a technical
review, the review of the process equipment design is often neglected.
The purpose of the process review is to determine if the process equip-
ment and uncontrolled emission parameters appear compatible with the control
equipment operating parameters. The difficulty in reviewing process-related
data is that it is unreasonable to expect a. permit engineer to be knowl-
edgeable of all the many different processes. In addition, a certain intimi-
dation factor enters into the review in that the source or the equipment
designer is more familiar with the operating principles than the permit
reviewer, although legitimate questions or concerns may need to be addressed.
Each reviewer, however, must remember that he or she is not trying to design
the equipment, but merely to discern if there are any obvious problems.
In reviewing a process, the reviewer may reasonably expect to require
answers to the following questions:
0 What process is to be used to generate the final product?
0 What raw materials are used?
0 What are the physical or chemical reactions?
87
-------
0 What are the products?
0 What pollutants are emitted from the process, in what quantities,
and under what conditions (temperature, pressure, etc.)?
0 Have any alterations been made in the processes to produce the
final product that will affect the type and quantity of pollutants?
0 Do any identifiable raw material characteristics affect the emis-
sion rate or uncontrolled gas conditions? If so, what are they?
0 Are there identifiable parameters in the process operation that
affect emission rate or uncontrolled gas conditions? If yes, what?
0 Can these parameters be separated into major and minor categories
based on their effects on emissions?
0 Can major parameters be easily measured?
0 Can some other outside influences or considerations significantly
affect the emission rate?
0 Do the pollutant characteristics and uncontrolled emission rates
given in the permit application match what is known about the
process?
0 Can variations in identified parameters significantly affect the
control equipment performance?
Underlying this very general listing of questions to which the reviewing
agency should have answers are two additional concerns: how will the neces-
sary process information be obtained and how much information is needed to
conduct a comprehensive review without being unreasonable in terms of requir-
ing the submission of every possible piece of data? Only data on those
factors that have the potential for significantly changing emissions should
be considered. An example is provided to illustrate the type of information
that should be obtained in conducting a process technical review.
EXAMPLE:
PERFORM A PROCESS REVIEW FOR A NITRIC ACID PLANT
For purposes of this example, it is not important whether the source is
subject to review under PSD or Nonattainment, or perhaps not subject to
review at all. This process would be analyzed in the following manner
regardless of applicability.
-------
Question 1) What is the process?
At first glance, it appears that the answer is nitric acid production.
That, however, is the product not the process. The permit application
itself might reveal the nature of the process. The permit review
engineer should ask himself/herself "What do I know about nitric acid
production?" and "How do I gain more information if needed?" In addi-
tion to the permit application, information resources include EPA and
non-EPA documents, journals, other inspectors or permit reviewers, and
even personnel at the source if specific questions arise. The informa-
tion sources will indicate that an ammonia oxidation process (AOP) is
used.
Question 2) What raw materials are used?
The permit application or one of the other information sources will
indicate that the raw materials are ammonia and air.
Question 3) What are the physical or chemical reactions?
Ammonia is vaporized and "burned" catalytically to react NH3 (ammonia)
with air to form N02 (nitrogen dioxide) and H20 (water). The N02 dis-
solves in water to form nitric acid (HN03) and to produce nitrous oxide
(NO). Nitrous oxide is oxidized by air to form more N02. The reaction
never goes to "completion," i.e., the NO compounds are never completely
absorbed. These reactions typically occur under a pressure greater than
100 psig.
Question 4) What are the products?
The product is nitric acid, which is produced by absorbing N02 in water
in an absorption tower. Further research would indicate that production
(in tons/day) is expressed as though the nitric acid was 100 percent
HN03. Actually, the nitric acid varies in strength from 50 to 70 per-
cent HN03 (the balance is water).
Question 5) What pollutants are emitted and under what conditions?
The pollutants are N02 and NO. The gas stream is typically less than
150°F and under slight pressure after a pressure recovery turbine.
Question 6) Have any alterations been made in the processes that affect
the type and quantity of pollutants?
This question should help the reviewer formulate what operating param-
eters may be important to the emissions. In this example, no major
process alterations have been made. Variations occur primarily in
operating pressure, in absorption capacity, and in cooling of the
absorbing solution (water) to increase acid strength. The basic AOP
process, however, is unchanged.
89
-------
Question 7) Do any identifiable raw material characteristics affect the
emission rate or uncontrolled gas conditions? If so, what are they?
In this example, the answer is no. The characteristics of ammonia and
air do not vary much during nitric acid production.
Question 8) Do any identifiable parameters in the process operation
affect the emission rate or uncontrolled gas conditions? If so, what
are they? *
In this example, several factors that may affect the emission rate.
First, operating pressure during the catalytic burning of.ammonia
affects the amount of N02 absorbed to form nitric acid; higher pressure
favors increased absorption and increased formation of N02. Also, the
temperature of the absorption solution affects the amount of N02
absorbed to form nitric acid; greater absorption occurs during lowered
temperature. For this reason, cooling water is supplied to the absorp-
tion column to remove the heat generated by the reaction to form nitric
acid and; in some cases, the absorption solution is chilled. The
operating rate is generally held constant with a little variation over
short time periods.
Question 9) Can these parameters be separated into major and minor cate-
gories based upon their effect on emissions?
In this case, the parameters cited above can be subdivided into major
and minor in terms of their effect on emissions. The major parameters
having the greatest effect are operating pressure of the absorption
column and the temperature of the absorbing solution because variations
in these values significantly affect the quantity of NO compounds that
leave the absorption column. Other parameters such as catalyst condi-
tion and the pressure of the catalyst, are considered to have only minor
effects on NO emissions.
^
Question 10) Can the major parameters be easily measured?
Yes, temperature and pressure are easily monitored by the plant and are
typically monitored as part of the normal operating instrumentation.
Question 11) Can some other outside influences or considerations
significantly affect the emission rate?
The answer to a question such as this may require experience or good
information sources for prediction of the likelihood of occurrence. In
this case, a possible outside influence could affect emissions. High
ambient temperatures could cause the cooling or chilled water system to
function inadequately for plant production and result in significant
increases in the NO emissions.
A
90
-------
Question 12) Do the pollutant characteristics and uncontrolled emission
rates given in the permit application match what is known about the
process?
This is a judgment call made by the reviewer who checks to see if any
obvious mistakes have been made in the application.
Question 13) Can variations in the identified parameters significantly
affect the control equipment performance?
Although a complete answer to this question would require an analysis of
the control equipment the following is a qualitative answer. For
example, if the nitric acid plant were using process control to control
emissions, the answer would be yes, and that might require special
permit conditions. For this example, however, the installation of
external abatement equipment is assumed. Because no major variation in
gas flow is expected and operating pressures will be nearly constant,
the control equipment can be expected to operate well during normal
process variations.
This series of questions can be asked and answered for nearly any
process, whether it be a nitric acid plant, coal-fired boiler, asphalt plant,
or vinyl chloride polymer facility, to help the permit reviewer identify key
operating characteristics that are important to control equipment performance
and emission rates. Initially, the permit reviewer may be unable to find the
answer to every question regarding every process. The background knowledge
obtained, however, should enable the reviewer to find other sources to answer
the remaining questions.
4.4.2 Control Equipment Review
Once the process review has been completed and the important operating
characteristics identified, the review of control equipment can begin. The
major focus during this review is to examine the application for an obvious
mismatch between process conditions and control equipment. It is not the
intent of this section to provide a list of items to be reviewed for each
major type of control equipment. Many other sources of information are
available to the reviewer for that purpose, although there are fewer control
equipment technologies than process technologies. As in the review of
process equipment, however, a general set of questions is useful for analysis
of control equipment performance.
The purpose of control equipment review is to determine if the control
equipment is compatible with the process operation and capable of reducing
91
-------
emissions to the levels required by the applicable regulations. The review
may also include such factors as maintenance considerations, instrumentation,
spare parts, and design characteristics for maintaining continuous com-
pliance. The questions that require answers include:
0 What pollutants are to be controlled and under what conditions?
0 What type(s) of control equipment are to be used to control emis-
sions?
0 What control equipment design parameters are useful in determining
performance?
0 What are the values for these design parameters, and how do they
compare with typical design values?
0 Do any of the design values seem deficient?
0 What design factors aid in continuous compliance?
0 What process operating parameters significantly affect the opera-
tion of the control equipment?
0 What control equipment operating parameters are important in defin-
ing or monitoring performance, and are they (or will they be) moni-
tored?
0 Can any outside influences or considerations significantly affect
emissions?
0 Does the control equipment appear to match to the process to obtain
desired control efficiency?
Of course, some parameters will always be important regardless of the
type of control equipment. For example, gas flow rate, temperature, pollu-
tant concentration, and control efficiency will be important regardless of
what pollutant is being controlled and what control equipment is being used.
Other parameters will relate only to a specific type of control device (e.g.,
liquid-to-gas ratio for a scrubber or the aspect ratio for an ESP). Obtain-
ing answers to the questions listed above, however, will lead the reviewer to
the information necessary for a complete evaluation of the control equipment.
EXAMPLE:
CARBON BED ADSORBERS WITH STEAM STRIPPING ON A ROTOGRAVURE PRINTING
OPERATION
92
-------
Question 1) What pollutants are to be controlled and under what condi-
tions?
The application indicates that the pollutants to be controlled are
toluene and cyclohexanol solvents evaporated from the printing inks used
by the printing press. Gas flow, temperature (125°F), and concentration
are also given.
Question 2) What types of control equipment are to be used to control
the emissions?
The application proposes four carbon beds for adsorption of the VOC
compounds. One of the four carbon beds will always be off-line for bed
regeneration using steam.
Question 3) What control equipment design parameters are useful in
determining performance?
At this point, the reviewer decides how much he or she knows about the
control equipment and where to obtain more information if needed to
identify the parameters that are important to performance. In this
example, gas velocity through the beds, temperature, humidity, solvent
molecular weight, solvent capacity per bed, and concentration are all
important parameters.
Question 4) What are the design values for these parameters and how do
they compare with typical design values?
The application may not explicitly list the design parameters, and
calculations may be necessary to generate site-specific values for
comparison with typical values.
Question 5) Do any of the design values seem deficient?
Failure of the values given in the application to compare favorably with
typical design or good engineering practice values may be grounds for
denying the permit application if a satisfactory resolution of the issue
is not obtained from the source. The reviewer must be sure, however,
that there are no calculation errors on his or her part.
Question 6) What design factors aid in continuous compliance?
This is a case-by-case judgment of items such as extra installed
capacity, good access for maintenance, etc.
Question 7) What process operating parameters significantly affect the
operation of the control equipment?
This answer should be identical to that found during the process review.
In this example, the area of inked surface and the number of colors used
(particularly yellow ink) have a major effect on the amount of VOC to be
captured and controlled.
93
-------
Question 8) What control equipment operating parameters-are important in
defining or monitoring performance, and are they (will they be) moni-
tored?
For this example, the concentration leaving the bed, temperature,
pressure drop across the bed, and bed cycle times are important.
Question 9) Can any outside influences or considerations significantly
affect emissions?
Again, previous experience and good information sources are essential to
defining these "unusual" conditions. For this example, considerations
might include proper application and maintenance of a lint filter to
prevent dust from plugging the carbon bed, adequate cooling and condens-
ing capacity in hot weather for recovering solvent rather than overload-
ing the beds, and an awareness of other contaminants that may cause
adsorption problems.
Question 10) Does the control equipment appear to match the process and
be capable of obtaining the desired control efficiency?
By answering this question we are ready to proceed to the next step in
permit rev.iew.
4.5 RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON PERMIT REVIEW
The last phase of any permit review process involves a series of recom-
mendations concerning permit issuance or denial. These recommendations,
which form the basis for the actual permit, are the result of the applica-
bility determination and technical review. In general, the three possible
recommendations concerning the permit are: 1) issuing the permit without
special conditions, 2) issuing the permit with special conditions, and
3) denial of the permit.
1. Issuing a permit without special conditions usually applies to
smaller sources that do not need to meet a large number of require-
ments to maintain compliance because of adequately designed equip-
ment. "Standard" permit conditions, however, would be included.
2. Issuing the permit with special conditions may include permit
conditions ranging from an enforceable method of keeping a source
"minor" to an extensive list of requirements and emission limits.
Denial of a permit is justified when program requirements are not
or will not be fulfilled or serious doubts exist regarding the
source's ability to comply. In some instances, however, a source
may not be subject to NSR, but be subject to the NSPS, and the
agency is unable to stop construction of capital equipment that
94
-------
could not comply with the NSPS emission limits. Because of the
nature of the regulatory requirements for NSPS, no review of plans
is required and failure to comply can be proven only by the per-
formance test.
Additional recommendations for special conditions may include:
0 Operating and monitoring requirements and malfunction reporting.
0 Recordkeeping requirements for both process and control equipment.
4.6 SUMMARY
The major elements of a permit review include the applicability deter-
mination, technical review, and recommendations. A basic review process has
been outlined for reviewing technical specifications regardless of source
type. Requirements for additional review under PSD review and Nonattainment
Area Review can be viewed as special subsets of this basic review process.
When the requirements of the review have been fulfilled and the review is
complete, recommendations should be made for permit issuance and content.
These recomendations form the basis for the next step, writing the permit.
REVIEW EXERCISE
1. Although not required by the regulations,
can serve as a check
on applicability.
a. An application review
b. A de mim'mis review
c. PoTTutant-by-pollutant review
d. A negative declaration
2. True or False? Minor sources should undergo 1. d. A negative
technical review. declaration
95
-------
3. In performing a process review of a source, 2. True
the permit engineer should consider only
data on parameters that .
a. Can vary significantly
b. Have the potential for significantly
changing emissions
c. Are likely to occur
d. b and c
e. a and b
4. A permit application should ^ 3. d. b and c
before any permit review process begins.
a. Include all permit fees
b. Be cross-checked with the regulations
c. Be complete
d. None of the above
5. The two areas most likely to cause problems 4. c. Be complete
in an applicability determination are
and .
a. Potential to emit, netting of emissions
b. Emissions offsets, potential to emit
c. Emissions offsets, netting of emtssions
d. Ambient monitoring requirements,
emissions offsets
5. a. Potential to
emit, netting
of emissions
96
-------
LESSON 5
CONSIDERATIONS FOR WRITING A SUCCESSFUL PERMIT
Goal: To familiarize-you with the major factors to be considered prior to
writing a successful permit.
Objectives: At the end of this lesson, you should be capable of-the follow-
ing:
1. Stating the major legal considerations in permit writing
2. Recalling the benefits of written technical review procedures
3. Recalling key written procedures to enhance the permit review
process
4. Recognizing the importance of addressing waste disposal in permit
writing
5. Recognizing the importance of proper permit preparation documenta-
tion.
5.1 INTRODUCTION
A program for NSR is required under 40 CFR 51.18 and followup inspection
procedures, are required under 40 CFR 51.19. These regulations do not
specifically require a permit system to be in place to carry out the review;
however, they do require a review system with the legal authority to dis-
approve any plans that would violate ambient air criteria. Most agencies
accomplish this by a permit system for construction and/or operation. Some
agencies already had a permit system in place prior to the NSR program and
extended the regulatory requirements and legislative authority to cover new
and modified sources. Other agencies have only recently added a permit
system, one that applies to new sources only. This section will discuss some
of the legal and procedural issues that should be considered prior to writing
the permit.
97
-------
5.2 LEGAL AUTHORITY
The requirement for an NSR program is cited in 40 CFR 51.18. Most often
this is translated as a system for issuance or denial of a permit to con-
struct or modify a major source. There is no requirement for a permit system
for minor sources; however, there is the requirement for the agency to write
Federally enforceable conditions that ensure the maintenance of ambient air
quality criteria. In other words, if a source is deemed "minor" because of a
restriction in operating hours the amount of product throughput, etc., a
method must be established to ensure that the source remains "minor." For
agencies with Federally approved SIP's, NSR is totally integrated into the
program. An agency may also have partial delegation for technical review if
it lacks the necessary enabling legislation to issue permits.
One difficulty that occurs involves determining what is included in the
approved SIP regulations. In some cases, the material submitted with the SIP
revision package was not included in the Federal Register notice and there-
fore is not part of the Federally enforceable program. If some uncertainty
exists as to whether regulations are Federally approved, the appropriate
Federal Register notice must be consulted to determine what is and is not
included in the SIP.
5.2.1 Administrative Procedures
The procedures that must be followed for PSD review and nonattainment
review are fairly consistent from plan to plan. Although there are certain
rules and exceptions that must be followed, there is some room for interpre-
tation. Basically, however, the procedure for determining what type of
review is necessary is the same for each major source. In the case of minor
sources not subject to review, however, there are no guidelines for source
review after the applicability determination. Although the technical review
for the process and control equipment should be similar to that for PSD and
nonattainment sources, there are generally only a few guidelines available to
determine how a minor or existing source should perform given the process and
control equipment design information. In addition, the permit reviewer must
be aware of any time limit restrictions built into a permit review system,
any requirements for notification by the source, any public notice and
comment, and the appeal of a permit or its conditions. Both minimum and
98
-------
maximum time limits may be included in the administrative procedures as well
as consequences for missing permit review deadlines.
5.2.2 Approval and Denial of the Permit Application
Essential to the NSR program is the ability to approve or disapprove
construction or modification of a major source. If there is cause to believe
that the source may violate a NAAQS or PSD increment, the agency must have
the legal authority to disapprove the plans as submitted. This legal
authority should also be extended to minor sources as well, although such
authority is not always provided.
In addition, most regulations typically restate the source's responsi-
bility to meet the emission limits and other regulatory requirements even
though the agency approved the plans. This prevents a potentially nonen-
forceable situation in which the source is not accountable for failure of
equipment and violations of the applicable emission limit because the agency
had approved the plans.
5.2.3 Permit Modification
Legal means should be provided to modify the construction and/or operat-
ing permit when deemed necessary after permit expiration and renewal.
Although a comprehensive permit can and usually does address most operating
situations, it cannot take every possible variation into account . Specific
modifications may include monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting of operat-
ing parameters; additional continuous emission monitoring; and specific
requirements for operation and maintenance of process and/or control equip-
ment. Clarification of procedures and definitions of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction also may be necessary if they present a problem, provided the
agency can further define malfunction under its legal authority. Permit
modifications may also allow the deletion of unneeded, unwarranted, or un-
attainable permit conditions (e.g., mutually exclusive emission limits that
cannot be met simultaneously because the necessary technology does not
exist).
5.2.4 Stack Test Requirements
Consideration should be given to whether test methods and testing fre-
quency can be written into the permit. In most cases, the test method to be
99
-------
used certainly should be written into a permit. Frequency of testing will
depend on the agency's goals and the interpretation of agency regulations.
Although it is more difficult to outline operating conditions prior to the
test, it is also easier to assign operating limits after a test. Test condi-
tions are best left to the test protocol. Test results, on the other hand,
may indicate optimum process and control equipment characteristics that can
be written into the permit after the test.
5.2.5 Permit Revocation
The threat of permit revocation is inherent in permit issuance. It is
seldom used, however, although theoretically, it is easier to revoke or
suspend a permit and cite a source for failure to have a valid permit than it
is to test, file a notice of violation, and take action to recieve judicial
relief. The legislative authority to issue a permit, however, does not auto-
matically mean that the agency can revoke the permit. That authority must
also be granted to the agency in its enabling legislation.
5.2.6 Permit Expiration and Renewal
Permits are generally of limited duration and subject ta periodic re-
newal. Permits should be reviewed and renewed at least every 5^years;
however, 2 to 3 years is more typical. With the advent of permit fee
systems, permit renewal may be annual. Procedures should be outlined to
allow adequate time for permit renewal as old permits expire.
5.2.7 Restrictions on Emission Limitations
The emission limits that some agencies specify in a permit may be re-
stricted to the appropriate NSPS based on their enabling legislation.
Therefore, unless proposed by the source, these agencies cannot impose a BACT
limit that is more strict than the applicable NSPS and therefore these
agencies must rely on enforceable limitations on production rates and hours
of operation to limit a source's impact on ambient air quality or otherwise
to disapprove the application. Agency personnel should be aware if such con-
flicts exist.
5.3 WRITTEN PROCEDURES FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW
The preceding lesson presented the logical process for determining what
information is necessary to review process and control equipment parameters.
100
-------
In practice, it is advantageous for an agency to have prepared formal proce-
dures for the review of at least the major control equipment groups. Because
this is rarely done, however, reviews of permit applications may be incon-
sistent and permit requirements may be both inconsistent and unjustifiable.
Although it may be more difficult to establish guidelines for basic process
data in an application, the major control equipment groups generally do have
guidelines for critical parameters, which should be followed. It is to an
agency's benefit to have written procedures describing how the data are to be
handled and used.
5.3.1 Confidential Information
Because potentially confidential information may be received as a result
of the permit review process, a system should be established to handle such
sensitive information. This should consist of a locked file, a controlled-
access system, and written procedures for handling information as it is
received and for preventing its return to the public domain without proper
review. A good rule of thumb regarding confidential information is: "If it
is not essential to describing performance or emissions don't obtain it."
The liability in releasing confidential information can be substantial.
The consequences for an individual's releasing confidential information can
include loss of job, fines, and criminal penalties. An individual also may
face a civil suit for damages as a result of such a release. The agency also
may face future difficulties in obtaining data that may be essential to its
permit review if it is unable to safeguard confidential business information.
Agency personnel should be aware of procedures for safeguarding confidential
information and the consequences of its release. The agency should incor-
porate formal, written procedures to be followed in all cases, and it should
also be aware of any other regulatory requirements that may conflict with the
protection of confidential information.
5.3.2 Process/Control Equipment Review Procedures
The goal of the technical review of process and control equipment is
threefold: 1) to determine what the controlled and uncontrolled emissions
will be, 2) to determine if the match between the process and proposed con-
trol equipment is compatiable and will result in meeting the emission limits,
and 3) to determine what parameters can influence potential emissions and if
101
-------
these parameters can be measured or monitored. To the extent possible, an
agency should establish guidelines and written procedures for the permit
writer to follow to help ensure that the basic data are reviewed in a con-
sistent manner. It is unreasonable to expect an agency to produce permit
review guideline documents for every industrial classification. An agency,
however, may consider standardizing procedures for certain process classifi-
cations that are prevalent in its jurisdiction (e.g., asphalt plants,
gasoline bulk loading terminals, or industrial boilers). These guidelines
may be as simple as checklists or as extensive as guideline documents with
recommended design parameter ranges. In addition to assuring consistent
technical review, formalized procedures can also lead to more consistent
permit conditions in the issued permit.
It is recommended that permit reviewers keep the emission point under
review in perspective with the rest of the source if there are multiple emis-
sion points. In the event of an obvious or apparent mismatch between pro-
posed or existing equipment selection and operation or process conditions,
there may be justification for closer scrutiny of the emission point. An
example of a review that had lost sight of this perspective was uncovered
several years ago during a file review of a coal-fired powerplant. The
source included several existing units in addition to new units under con-
struction. The source had decided to replace its existing ash-handling
system with a pneumatic conveying system with a fabric filter for final
control. The new ash-handling system was to handle all the ash from the
existing boilers as well as from the new boilers and electrostatic precipi-
tators (ESP's) under construction. The source had rebuilt and modified the
existing ESP to achieve substantial emissions reduction. Although the infor-
mation on this source filled nearly four file cabinet drawers almost all of
it (and the apparent concern of the agency) dealt with a conservatively
designed fabric filter for ash handling. The files included little or no
information on the boilers or ESP's (only one passing reference to one of the
ESP's). Although it was true that the potential uncontrolled emission rate
was substantial, this example showed a complete disregard for a balanced
approach to permit review. The reason for this situation was not determined,
but. certainly a lack of understanding of the process and control equipment
operation was a contributing factor.
102
-------
5.4 WASTE DISPOSAL
The permits and the review processes that have been concentrated on
throughout this manual have dealt most often with air discharge permits. It
is relatively rare for a reviewer to be concerned with water pollution, solid
wastes or hazardous wastes. Nevertheless, the permit reviewer should at
least conduct a material balance in relation to the applicable control equip-
ment and follow the various effluent streams to their ultimate disposal
points. The results of such a procedure may be valuable in alerting per-
sonnel within other regulatory disciplines to potential concerns and in
avoiding problems with the discharge of materials in a manner that is un-
acceptable.
Most of the technical review of control equipment concerns itself with
the efficiency of the removal of contaminants from the effluent stream. The
material that is captured represents a concentration of pollutants that may
contain toxic or potentially toxic materials. Technical review should also
include a check for acceptable disposal methods consistent with regulatory
goals and requirements. Several examples can illustrate the importance of
such a review.
5.4.1 Example No. 1
A woodworking facility replaces an existing cyclone on its sanding and
planing operation with a fabric filter. The dust is relatively fine, and the
older cyclone could not efficiently control emissions, the fabric filter,
however, does a good job of removing the sawdust from the gas stream. The
dust discharge from the fabric filter is tied into an existing pneumatic
conveying system that feeds a woodwaste boiler with the dust and woodwaste
from the various plant operations. Unfortunately, the dust-separating device
on the pneumatic conveying system is a low-efficiency cyclone that is unable
to separate the sander/planer dust, and it is discharged at this point at a
rate greater than that for the existing cyclone that was replaced.
5.4.2 Example No. 2
An ESP designed with an inadequate dust conveying system caused hopper
pluggage and poor ESP performance. In an effort to reduce the conveying
problems, the system was modified so that the dust would free-fall into a bin
103
-------
through a chute. This allowed a bucket front-end loader access to scoop up
the dust periodically and transport it across the plant site to a dust dis-
posal area. The area below the ESP is subject to strong winds, which cause
the dust to blow out of the open bins. In addition, the dust is also lost
during transport to the disposal site. Unfortunately, the dust contains a
high concentration of lead and other heavy metals. Review of the initial
design and subsequent modifications did not take these factors into account.
5.5 DOCUMENTATION PROCEDURES
•
A primary area of weakness in some permit review processes is a lack of
adequate documentation. A permit review file should be self-explanatory from
the receipt of an application to the issuance of a permit. A system auditor
should be able to determine what information was submitted; to evaluate the
applicability determination; and to evaluate the technical review and all
underlying assumptions, justifications, and conclusions used to issue the
permit. The documentation procedure may include checklists, narrative, and
calculations. One major objective of the permit review process is to review
the accuracy of all data submitted by the source and to note any s.erious
discrepancies between what is proposed and what may actually exist. Although
even the best permit review process cannot be expected to foresee every
difficulty or possible combinations of circumstances that may occur, adequate
and proper documentation will indicate what was initially proposed and con-
sidered and may be essential to the justification of any permit modification,
to denial of a permit or to the support of conditions written into the per-
mit.
REVIEW EXERCISE
1. True or False? Adequate permit review guidelines
exist for both major and minor sources.
104
-------
2. Essential to the NSR program is the ability to 1. False
_ _ construction or modifications
of a major source.
a. Administer
b. Specify
c. Disapprove
d. All of the above
3. The authority to revoke a .permit must be granted 2. c. Dis-
to an agency _ . approve
a. In the Clean Air Act
b. In the Federal Register
c. By the courts
d. In its enabling legislation
4.
Permits
renewed
a. 5
to operate should
at least every
be reviewed and
years.
3. d. In its
enabling
legisla-
tion
b. 3
c. 1
d. 8
5. A good rule-of-thumb for handling confidential 4. a. 5
information is: "If it is not essential to
describing performance or emissions.... .
a. Safely file it for later review
b. Return it
c. Do not obtain it
d. Safely dispose of it
6. True or False? It is not advisable to establish 5. c. Do not
written procedures for technical review because obtain
this would place excessive restrictions on the it
permit writer.
7. With regard to waste disposal of pollutants, a 6. False
should be performed in relation to
the control equipment.
a. Reference method test
b. Cost/benefit analysis
c. Separate efficiency calculation
d. Material balance
105
-------
8. A primary concern of the permit reviewer is that 7. d. Material
residual pollutants collected by the control balance
equipment may contain materials.
a. Toxic
b. Valuable
c. Reentrained
d. Unprocessed
8. a. Toxic
106
-------
LESSON 6
ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE PERMIT WRITING
Goal: To familiarize you with the general legal, administrative, and
technical elements that should be considered before writing a permit.
Objectives: At the end of this lesson, you should be capable of the follow-
ing:
1. Recalling the essential legal authorities required for an effective
permit
2. Discriminating between clear, concise, and specific permit condi-
tions and those lacking the same
3. Identifying meaningful and reasonable permit conditions
4. Identifying the essential elements to include in the technical
specifications of a good permit
5. Recalling the most effective emission limit values to use in a
permit
6. Recalling administrative considerations involved in permitting.
6.1 INTRODUCTION
In the previous sections, the importance of applicability determina-
tions, elements of the permit review process, supporting legal authority, and
permit review procedures have been discussed. The end results of these are
the recommendations and conclusions that determine whether a permit is issued
and what conditions will be written into the permit. The permit that is
issued may be seen as an extension of the regulations that define, as clearly
as possible, what is expected of the source. The permit also provides an
opportunity to accommodate site-specific factors that the regulations may not
address adequately.
The particular requirements for permit content vary from agency to
agency and depend on the type of permit issued. The emphasis placed on
107
-------
permit review usually differs for sources subject to PSD review, Nonattain-
ment Area Review, and minor new or modified sources. Although the require-
ments of the permit review process may vary, the general approach to permit
writing is similar. The final goal is to write an effective and enforceable
permit that provides a mechanism to protect the ambient air quality within
the regulatory requirements and to help ensure continuous compliance with
emission standards.
Permit content also may differ depending on whether it is a permit to
construct, a permit to operate, or a combined permit for both construction
and operation. The requirements of 40 CFR 51.18 do not require an operating
permit system; however, they do require a system 1) to review new and
modified sources for their potential impacts on ambient air quality, 2) to
establish emission limits that will be consistent with these potential
impacts, and 3) to prevent construction where impacts exceed regulatory
limits. Thus, a minor source or an existing source, may not need a permit at
all unless the agency requires one. For sources subject to review, a
properly written permit to construct also becomes a defacto operating permit.
Combined construction/operating permits are, perhaps, the most difficult to
write because the key operating parameters and emission characteristics may
not be well defined before construction. The basic elements of each type of
permit, however, are similar.
6.2 GENERAL GUIDELINES IN PERMIT WRITING
A permit may be viewed as an extension of the regulations reflecting the
results and conclusions of the permit review process. The permit should be a
stand-alone document that identifies the emissions units to be regulated,
establishes emission limits to be met, specifies methods for determining
compliance and/or excess emissions, and outlines the procedures necessary to
maintain continuous compliance with the emission limits. Because of the
number of conditions that it may incorporate, a permit can become relatively
complex. These conditions, however, are necessary to make the permit an
effective tool in maintaining compliance. This lesson explains several
guidelines that can be followed to reduce the complexity of the permit and
still maintain its effectiveness.
108
-------
6.2.1 Legal Authority
First, the legal authority to specify certain permit conditions must be
incorporated into the permit system. Whereas some have argued that a source
that accepts a permit without challenge is legally bound to meet the permit
conditions, the ability to enforce a violation of those permit conditions may
be compromised if the legal authority is not granted or implied in the regu-
lations. Several potential problem areas include the specification of emis-
sion limits on nonregulated pollutants, the specification of certain operat-
ing parameters, restrictions on operation of particular process equipment,
and the specification of a spare parts inventory. The following are examples
of these situations:
0 Specification of emission limits on nonregulated pollutants to
limit the amount of hydrochloric acid produced at a municipal
incinerator. In this case, the agency might establish an emission
limit to restrict acid rain potential. The limit may be chal-
lenged, however, because it is arbitrary and, as a nonregulated
pollutant, not within the legal authority of the agency.
0 Specification of an operating parameter that is nonattainable or
necessary to achieve compliance with an emission limit, e.g.,
specification of an operating temperature of 1500°F for an in-
cinerator when 1300°F will meet the emission limit. It may be
difficult to justify a permit condition if compliance is demon-
strated under conditions other than those specified by the permit.
0 An example of the specification of inappropriate permit conditions
is ttie requirement that an ESP's voltage controls be maintained on
"automatic" under all circumstances. Occasionally, an ESP may be
unable to accommodate changes in dust characteristics with controls
set on automatic and is better able to operate under manual con-
trol. In this case, requiring operation on automatic is tantamount
to operating in violation of a particulate standard, and it is
unlikely that the agency can require operation under these condi-
tions.
0 A condition written in the permit requires that a complete change
of fabric filter bags be on hand in the source's spare parts inven-
tory. Whereas this may be a reasonable requirement for a fabric
filter containing less than 100 bags, it is unlikely that the
agency has the authority to require the same of a facility whose
fabric filter uses 1000 to 2000 bags because of the cost of such a
requirement.
These examples also point out the second general guideline for writing
effective permits.
109
-------
6.2.2 Reasonable and Meaningful Permit Conditions
A reasonable and meaningful permit condition is one that provides some
indication or assurance of compliance with emission limitations or otherwise
furthers continuous compliance goals. Requiring measurement, monitoring, or
recordkeeping of certain parameters is one way of demonstrating continuous
compliance with emission limits and ambient air quality goals. For example,
it may be reasonable and meaningful to specify a maximum production time of 8
h/day to maintain compliance with ambient air quality standards, or to limit
sulfur content in fuel, the amount of product produced, or raw materials .
consumed. These kinds of permit requirements demonstrate a method of ensur-
ing that emission limits are met. Specification of process and control
equipment parameters also offers a surrogate method of determining com-
pliance, particularly when the parameter values chosen are at or near those
needed to achieve and maintain compliance. The parameters chosen to be
monitored'and recorded, however, should have a demonstrable correlation with
compliance. For example, scrubber pH should not be selected for monitoring
and maintaining at some value unless operating at a different value could
result in nqncompliance with an emission limitation.
In constructing a permit and selecting reasonable and meaningful permit
conditions, the permit writer should ask himself/herself if the permit condi-
tion can indeed be achieved. If the condition can be met, is it a direct
indicator of compliance or a method of maintaining continuous compliance? If
it is an indirect indicator, how indirect is it, and is there a better indi-
cator? These questions require considerable informed judgment on the part of
permit reviewer. The permit reviewer and the source are unlikely to foresee
every possible situation or be aware of every key parameter. It is more
desirable, however, to specify permit conditions that are reasonable to the
source, objective, easily determined, and produce meaningful data or results
than it is to specify a permit whose conditions are unenforceable and mean-
ingless.
6.2.3 Clear, Concise, and Specific Permit Conditions
Permit conditions should be written as clearly and directly as possible
and state precisely what is expected of the source. They should contain as
few exceptions or conditional statements as possible. The permit should
110
-------
state what is to be measured, recorded, or reported; what the emission stan-
dards are, and how these standards are to be met. The permit itself, should
include no explanation or justification as to why a permit condition is
specified, and each condition should leave as little room as possible for
interpretation. Permit conditions also should be grouped together into some
logical order and not cover more than one area at a time to minimize con-
fusion. The following is an example of the same permit condition demonstrat-
ing progressively clearer and more concise statements of what is expected of
the source and how it is to be accomplished.
EXAMPLE:
Poor - "Source shall install monitoring equipment for the scrub-
ber." This requirement is not specific, and it is not
clear as to what type of monitoring equipment is to be
installed.
Better - "Source shall install differential pressure gauges across
the scrubber throat." This indicates what kind of gauge
or monitoring equipment is required and where it is to be
placed.
Best - "Source shall install and maintain differential pressure
instrumentation to monitor pressure drop across the
scrubber throat." This statement completes the require-
ment by indicating exactly what parameter is to be mea-
sured, and it specifies continuous maintenance of the
measurement device.
6.3 SPECIFIC GUIDELINES IN PERMIT WRITING
Any permit can be divided into the following six distinct areas:
1. Legal authority
2. Technical specifications
3. Definition of compliance
4. Excess emissions
5. Administrative procedures
6. Other site-specific conditions.
Some permit conditions included in each of these categories can be considered
standard permit conditions, i.e., included in nearly every permit. Others
111
-------
are more specific and require variations depending on the unique requirements
of an individual source.
6.3.1 Legal Authority
The first provision of the permit is the specification of the legal
authority to issue the permit. Generally, this includes a reference to
enabling legislation and to the legal authority to issue and enforce the
conditions contained within the.permit. This standard condition is usually
common to nearly all permits. Also generally included under legal authority
is a specification or reiteration of the right to establish, enforce, and
periodically modify specific permit conditions. A specific citation of
effective and expiration dates of the permit are also included under legal
authority.
The length of time that a permit is valid depends on several factors.
For example, a permit to construct a source may have to cover a relatively
long period of time if the source is new and the time required for its con-
struction is lengthy. Operating permits can be issued to cover much shorter
periods. Generally, the validity of an operating permit should not exceed a
period of 5 years, even though the agency may have the right to modify the
permit if it is deemed necessary. It is usually more common for operating
permits to be valid for a period of 2 to 3 years. This practice is diminish-
ing, however, and annual permit renewal is becoming more common as annual
permit fees are incorporated into agency functions. Although annual permit
renewal will increase the number of permit applications to consider, it will
also increase the frequency at which permit conditions can be reviewed and
modified to reflect actual conditions at the source and to reflect agency
concerns.
6.3.2 Technical Specifications
The permit should include a listing of the sources or emission units to
be regulated under the permit. This listing should include a brief process
description for those sources when the conventional terminology does not
provide an adequate description of the process. A similar guideline can also
be established for control equipment, however, the use of trade names should
be avoided in descriptions of equipment that is subject to regulation under
the permit.
112
-------
For some sources, the listing of individual emission units can be exten-
sive. When this is the case, it may be simpler to divide one permit into
several permits that cover different areas. This may increase the number of
permits to be tracked per source, but it also tends to shorten each permit
and allows for better identification of individual emission units in the
field during stack tests or inspections. The permit's technical specifi-
cations also include the emission limitations. The emission limitation
values incorporated into a permit condition are either those specified in a
regulation (SIP, NSPS, NESHAP) or those resulting from PSD review or non-
attainment NSR. When the source is in a regulated category, the emission
limit should be presented in units of the standard for that category (e.g.,
pounds per million British thermal units or pounds per ton of production,
etc.). Most NSPS emission limitations, for example, are specified in
quantity of allowed emissions per quantity of production.
In general, it is a good idea to address the emission limit in two
different ways with one value serving as an emission cap. This latter value
is the one that reflects the results of air quality modeling and is usually
expressed as maximum mass/time (e.g., pounds/hour). For existing sources,
the agency may not have the legal authority to specify this value. Also for
some minor sources not subject to PSD review, some question may exist as to
whether such a second value can be specified. Nevertheless, it is important
that the emission limits reflect all the conditions in the permit applica-
tion. If the application assumes limited hours of production or limited
materials of production, these should also be stated as permit conditions
along with methods to measure or monitor these requirements.
For new or modified sources subject to PSD review, these two emission
limits represent values for both continuous application of BACT and values
needed to protect ambient air quality. The permit writer should keep in mind
that the source must comply with both values to demonstrate compliance.
EXAMPLE:
As a permit condition, the emission limit might be set at 0.05
lb/10 Btu and at a maximum of 60 Ib/h. Both emission rates are
equivalent if the source operates at 1200 x 10 Btu/h. Below this
heat input rate, the 0.05 lb/10 Btu value assures that BACT is
continuously applied. Above 1200 x 10 Btu/h, the 60 Ib/h limit
applies representing the conditions used for ambient modeling. The
113
-------
permit condition should be written so that the most stringent value
always applies.
Units of the emission limit should also be easily measured. Values such
as pounds per hour and pounds per unit of production are favored over values
-^
more difficult to measure, such as tons/year. In some cases, however, a
tons/year limit may be imposed in addition to the pound/hour limit as an
overall cap on the emissions. Even pound/day values are not considered good
practice because these units may be outside the testing procedures to demon-
strate compliance.
In addition, if the values selected for the emission limits are
different from those specified in the regulatory limits, the authority to set
such values should be cited. Although this is not usually a problem for new
sources and modifications, it can be a problem in permits for existing
sources. When published regulatory limits differ from those in the permit,
it may be necessary to establish the legal authority to set such a value;
otherwise, such numbers appear to be baseless.
EXAMPLE:
An existing source is subject to an emission limit as determined by
maximum production on a process weight formula published in the
regulations. Using this formula, the source contends that it is
subject to a 150 Ib/h emission limit. The issued permit states a
90 Ib/h limit. That limit is not legally enforceable if the agency
does not have the legal authority to establish a lower limit,
regardless of whether the source accepts the permit. Citing a
regulation that allows the establishment of a lower emission limit
establishes the legal authority to specify a limit different from
the published limit and eliminates the possibility that it was
merely a calculation error. The emission limit may still be
challenged, but the legal authority to specify a different emission
limit will have been cited.
The last item included under technical specifications is an operation
and maintenance (O&M) plan for process and/or control equipment. Currently
greater interest exists in identifying O&M procedures in the permit as part
of the permit conditions rather than a more general O&M requirement or the
submittal of an O&M plan. Although O&M procedures may be very site-specific,
they generally include periodic checks and recordkeeping. Minimal O&M guide-
lines are usually provided by equipment manufacturers. Other technical
documents on specific control equipment also may be useful in establishing
O&M procedures.
114
-------
6.3.3 Compliance Determination
The permit should state how compliance with the emission limit is to be
determined. This includes, but is not limited to, the test method(s) to be
used to determine compliance and the reference date for each test method.
This date is important because changes in the method over time may change how
much pollutant must be measured. On the other hand, specifying a test date
has, on occasion, specified a test method with mistakes or without refine-
ments that improve the test method and its accuracy. If a test method has
remained unchanged for a period of time and is not likely to change in the
future, it is usually adequate to cite the test method without a promulgation
date. If the test method has been changed or is likely to change in a manner
that alters the amount of pollutant measured, the test method promulgation
date should be specified.
Emission tests, both initial and followup, are usually conducted at
"representative" conditions. Defining representative conditions is beyond
the scope of this manual and sometimes can be a highly objective and
arbitrary judgment. Even specifying worst-case (nonmalfunction) operating
conditions as a test requirement can be difficult for any -given source.
Although specifying operating conditions for the test may give some assurance
that the equipment can do the job under these conditions, the establishment
of test parameters probably should be left to a test protocol developed
outside of the permit.
More important, however, is the use of test data to establish a baseline
and to identify and quantify surrogate process or control equipment param-
eters that have some correlation with emissions. Identifying these surrogate
parameters may require several tests to establish a correlation, and only
those parameters that exhibit such a correlation with emissions should be
used. One example is a mass/opacity correlation, which is developed on a
site-specific basis as an indicator of continuous compliance. In this
instance, care must be taken that a common reference condition be applied to
concentrations used to construct the correlation in order to avoid dilution
problems (e.g., concentrations referenced to percentage 02 or C02) so dilu-
tion problems are avoided.
115
-------
Parameters that are monitored either continuously or continually should
be specified in the permit, including averaging time for continuously moni-
tored data or frequency of data recorded for continually (periodic) monitored
data. Whenever possible, "never to exceed" values should be specified for
surrogate compliance parameters. If surrogate compliance parameters are used
to determine continuous compliance, values should be specified that correlate
with emissions that are easily determined. Also, O&M should be specified for
the monitoring instruments such as zero, span, and other periodic checks to
ensure that valid data are obtained.
6.3.4 Excess Emissions
When emissions exceed the emission limits determined by a performance
test, from surrogate parameters, or from continuous emission monitors, some
action is required by the source. Permit conditions outlining reporting
requirements, actions to be initiated, and time limits for correction should
be included in the permit. Simply stated, the permit conditions should
indicate that excess emissions from the source require corrective action by
the source to restore the emissions to compliance levels. These are usually
standard conditions in most permits.
Excess emission permit conditions also may include exemptions from
startup, shutdown, and malfunctions. These should be as specific as
possible. In recent years, there has been more interest and greater emphasis
on limiting abuse of the malfunction and startup/shutdown exemptions.
Although the definition of a malfunction is very site-specific, every effort
should be made to include adequate definitions of both preventable and non-
preventable malfunctions. Requirements may include reporting the malfunction
duration, severity, and cause; taking interim and corrective actions; and
taking actions to prevent recurrence. The overall goal is to prevent a
malfunction condition from becoming a standard operating condition.
6.3.5 Administrative Procedures
Most administrative procedures are usually standard among permits.
These administrative procedures include:
0 Recordkeeping and reporting, including all continuous monitoring
data, excess emission reports, malfunctions, and surrogate compli-
ance data.
116
-------
0 Notification requirements for performance tests, malfunctions, etc.
0 Actions to be taken if noncompliance with emission limits is deter-
mined.
0 Specification of administrative procedures for noncompliance deter-
minations, penalties, hearings, and appeals (includes time limits
for action/response).
0 Specification of procedures to revoke, suspend, or modify the
permit.
0 Specifications for handling confidential business information.
0 Specification of source's requirement to meet emission limits set
forth in the permit.
6.3.6 Other Permit Conditions
From time to time, it may be necessary to outline specific permit con-
ditions that do not fit into the standard categories. Because they are so
site-specific, they can be collectively grouped into the "others" category.
Some examples include:
0 Definition of nonstandard terminology or units or abbreviations
unique to a given facility. Some words have special meanings when
used in reference to a specific industry. Clarification of these
nonstandard words, units, or abbreviations help minimize confusion.
0 Definition or specification of procedures to determine process
related variables or parameters. Examples include coal analysis,
correlation between black liquor fired in a recovery boiler and
paper production, etc.
0 Specification of ambient monitoring requirements.
0 Specification of site-specific operation and maintenance proce-
dures; for example, requiring a warmup of 10 minutes for a fabric
filter or transformer/rectifier set adjustment once per shift on an
ESP to accommodate a site-specific operating condition.
6.4 SUMMARY
A permit is only as good as the conditions specified for achieving and
maintaining continuous compliance with emission limits. A permit cannot
ensure compliance or foresee every contingency. It can, however, be a stand-
alone document that specifies what is allowed and required and how that is to
be accomplished. Selecting proper permit conditions requires knowledge of
117
-------
the regulatory requirements and regulatory limits placed upon the permit
writer, a complete and accurate permit application, and knowledge of
technical factors relating to the process and control equipment, and process
economics. It is hoped that the document that emerges will be a useful tool
in maintaining compliance and ambient air quality criteria.
REVIEW EXERCISE
Because key operating parameters and emission
characteristics may not be well defined,
can be the most difficult
to write.
a. Permits to construct
b. Permits to operate
c. Combined construction/operating permits
d. Minor source permits
True or False? The legal authority to specify
permit conditions should be incorporated into
the permit system.
c. Combined con-
struction/
operating
permits
Generally, the length of time an operating
permit is valid should not exceed years.
a. 5
b. 1
c. 10
d. None of the above
True
Which of the following emission limit values
is more easily determined by source testing?
a.
b.
c.
d.
Ib/ton
Ib/day
Ib/h ,
lb/100 Btu
3. a. 5
118
-------
5. Which of the following is generally not 4. c. Ib/h
included in the technical specifications
of a permit?
a. Emission test protocol
b. Emission limits
c. List of emission units
d. Operation and maintenance conditions
or plan
6. Emission testing is usually conducted at 5. a. Emission test
conditions. protocol
a. Malfunction
b. Optimum
c. Representative
d. Reference
6. c. Representative
119
-------
LESSON 7
PERMIT FOLLOWUP/RENEWAL
Goal: To familiarize you with the need to interface permit review and writ-
ing with other agency functions such as source inspections, per-
formance testing, and computerized tracking systems.
Objectives: At the end of this lesson, you should be capable of:
1. Identifying the difference in focus between inspection of new and
existing sources.
2. Discussing the importance of defining representative conditions for
performance testing.
3. Recalling the potential contributions of the source inspector to
the permit review process.
4. Discussing the importance of performance test results as they
relate to the permitting process.
5. Discriminating between the different functions and advantages of
various computerized source data tracking systems.
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The goal of permit writing is to provide a tool that helps ensure the
source's long-term continuous compliance and protection of the NAAQS. Com-
pleting the task of writing a permit, however, does not guarantee compliance
with established emission limits, and a permit application alone may not
provide a complete picture of equipment performance at the source. The
agency must rely on other tools in conjunction with the permit to help
achieve continuing compliance. These include source inspections, performance
tests, and data tracking and handling systems. These tools are part of an
integral process of which permit review and writing is only one part of the
overall NSR process.
The goals of source inspection, performance testing, and data tracking
differ depending on whether the permit is for a new or modified source or if
120
-------
it is a renewal of a previous permit. The distinction between the two is
that a new or modified source will not have an operating history or a base-
line established, whereas an existing source will. For the new source,
performance testing and inspection provide a time to compare actual equipment
and performance with that proposed in the application. During permit
renewal, however, these data are used for refinement and adjustment of the
permit conditions. Although the underlying purposes may differ, the tools
available to the agency are the same and so is the overall goal of continuing
compliance.
7.2 SOURCE INSPECTION RESULTS
One of the resources available to the permit engineer is the source
inspector. The inspector often is the agency resource with the most day-to-
day contact with the source. A good inspector can provide a wealth of infor-
mation to the permit review process with first-hand knowledge of processes
and control equipment, operation and maintenance procedures, source line and
management personnel, and source history (including compliance strengths and
deficiencies).
Because the inspector frequently operates out of a branch in the agency
separate from that of the permit engineer, this valuable resource is often
either not readily available for use in the review process or it is over-
looked. The source inspector may be the only means by which compliance can
be determined without emission testing; thus, it becomes the inspector's
responsibility to ascertain whether compliance can be met on a continuous
basis.
For various reasons, process parameters and control equipment efficien-
cies may, and often do, change over time, and the inspector can provide
verification and often quantification of these conditions that may be of use
in the permit review process. It is vital that the first-hand knowledge and
experience of the inspector be used to improve the permit-writing process and
to help achieve continuing compliance goals. Inspection of a new source or
modification can verify that the capital equipment and process conditions
required in the permit are the same as those actually occurring after start-
up.
121
-------
Combining the regulatory knowledge and engineering skills of the permit
engineer with the first-hand observations and informed conclusions of the
inspector produces a more complete and accurate assessment of actual condi-
tions at the source and, it is hoped, a better permit.
The difference between the emphasis placed on permitting a new sources
as opposed to that placed on permitting an existing source is most evident in
the use of inspections as part of the permit process. Although the major
goal may be the same (i.e., to determine if the permit requirements are being
achieved and to assess the compliance status of the source), the type of
information to be gathered is different.
Inspection of a new or modified source may occur prior to startup (upon
completion of construction) or some time after the startup and shakedown of
the process. During the initial inspection, specific tasks to be
accomplished include:
0 A check to see if the installed equipment is the same as that
proposed in the application and for which the permit was issued.
Although it is probably less common to see a different piece of
equipment than was proposed in a PSD or nonattainment review
application than in cases involving minor sources, it does happen.
Sometimes "equivalent" equipment is not truly equivalent.
0 An assessment of construction practices. Drawings and specifica-
tions do not always reflect the actual situation, and "field" modi-
fications can and do occur that may limit performance.
0 An evaluation of continuous compliance factors. Again, drawings
and specifications may not always account for other factors. For
example, access doors may be provided on control equipment for
routine maintenance, but support structures or railings prevent
them from being opened.
0 A check to see that all instrumentation for monitoring process or
control equipment parameters has been installed and is operational.
0 An evaluation of test port locations.
The initial inspection may also be the best time for gathering the data
necessary to establish both baseline and representative conditions for future
performance testing. Equipment (both process and control) may be designed
for one set of conditions, but may not be operated in the same way on a
day-to-day basis. For example, the control equipment may have been designed
for maximum capacity conditions but the process is rarely operated at
122
-------
capacity. Depending on the type of control equipment, it may be unable to
perform as well as it could at full load conditions. This would also be
helpful to know when defining representative test conditions.
Inspection of existing sources for permit renewal provides a different
focus. Although all inspections should be conducted with a view towards
documenting the operating characteristics and operating history of the
source, an inspection conducted prior to permit renewal should provide the
most up-to-date performance review of the source. When combined with the
data from previous inspections, performance tests, and malfunction and excess
emission reports, the information gained from such an inspection can help the
inspector make recommendations that can be incorporated into the new permit
to "fine tune" or refine the permit to the present operating characteristics
of the source. Some specific areas of interest include:
0 Changes in operation that have occurred over time. These may in-
clude hours of operation and product or raw material character-
istics that affect control equipment performance and emissions.
0 Changes in maintenance practices and levels of malfunctions. These
may lead to specific changes in recordkeeping, maintenance, and
reporting practices under special permit conditions.
0 .Changes in monitoring and reporting requirements. Based on the
operating characteristics, an evaluation should be conducted as to
whether to add or delete the monitoring requirements.
0 Definitions of specific limits for startup, shutdown, and malfunc-
tions if these periods cause frequent problems.
The permit renewal process may also require a performance test to demon-
strate compliance with emission limits as well as the validation of surrogate
indicators of compliance to document any changes that may have occurred over
a period of time. This updating and clarification process may also reflect
changes in agency policy that have occurred since the permit was issued.
Information from the performance tests and the inspection results should be a
valuable resource for the permit review engineer. In this way, data from
actual operating experience are recycled through the system to improve the
permit writing process.
123
-------
7.3 EMISSION TEST RESULTS
The permit to construct and/or operate is, in effect, a contractural
agreement licensing the source to discharge air contaminants into the atmo-
sphere. Other permits, for water-borne pollutants and toxic or hazardous
wastes, may be necessary in conjunction with these activities. The permit
establishes limits for these activities beyond which the source is liable in
terms of civil and possibly criminal penalties. The agency acts not only as
the issuing authority, but also as the enforcement authority, whose responsi-
bility it is to ensure that the source does not violate the contract by
exceeding the emission limits set forth in the permit. As previously dis-
cussed, surrogate indicators of compliance may be used to discover a variance
from baseline or representative process or control equipment operating prac-
tices. In these cases, a deviation in one or more surrogate indicators of
compliance may be grounds for a determination of noncompliance with specific
permit requirements. In many cases, however, an emission test is the only
available legal method for determining compliance with the emission limits
set forth in the permit. In these cases, the accuracy, representativeness,
timeliness, and legitamacy of a test are of paramount importance.
Whether the permit issued is a permit to construct or a permit to
operate, the contractural agreement between the issuing agency and the source
is binding for the life of the permit. Therefore, the source must comply
with the conditions set forth in the permit at all times and under all con-
ditions except for those expressly granted in the permit (malfunction, start-
up, shutdown, etc.). The performance test provides a comparison of actual
emissions and operating practices with the emission limitations contained in
the permit and with the conditions (process and control equipment) under
which the emissions occurred. Regardless of the purpose of the emission
test, the results must be representative of actual operating practice and
demonstrate the capability of the source to comply with the emission limita-
tions under these conditions.
Whether the enforcement agency or the source is conducting the test, the
test method to be used should be cited in the permit, either by reference or
point by point. This practice ensures that all procedures are legally en-
forceable and that unauthorized variance from cited procedures cannot be used
to demonstrate compliance with an emission limit.
124
-------
As a means of ensuring that emission test results are actual indicators
of compliance with the emission limits, the emission units to be reported
(pounds/ton, pounds/hour, etc.) from the emission test should be expressly
cited in the permit. The enforcement agency should exercise care to see that
the source does not report test results in inappropriate values. Where more
than one emission limit exists, reported test results should be compared with
the permit limits value by value.
The goal of continuing compliance also dictates strict adherence to
quality assurance procedures. This not only applies to laboratory quality
assurance procedures for periodic emission testing, but also to continuous
monitoring requirements. Particular care should be given to examining the
source's quality assurance procedures for continuous emission monitoring
data. Factors such as data quality, frequency, and data omissions with and "
without justifiable cause (i.e., malfunctions, lapses in data reporting,
etc.) should be reviewed.
Specific test procedures, variations from accepted test methods, and
specific operating conditions of the process and control equipment are
important parts of the performance test, but they are better suited to a
written test protocol developed prior to the test and outside the permit
itself.
The emission test protocol is a step-by-step plan by which the emission
test is to be conducted. This plan designates specific process and control
equipment parameters to be followed during the test as well as actual testing
procedures. Because new sources have no operating history on which to base
representative or typical operating conditions, such conditions may have to
be estimated in in the test protocol. When this occurs, these conditions
should be confirmed as source history develops. In the case of existing
sources, however, previous operating conditions and test results can be used
to establish a case-by-case determination of representative conditions for
each performance test.
By specifying test protocol items directly in the permit, the issuing
agency may restrict its ability to test under different conditions. For
example, if a given permit specifies that all emission testing shall be
conducted at maximum process load, verification of emission rates at reduced
125
-------
loads (which, over time, may have become typical defacto operating condi-
tions) may be preempted. Stating that the performance test be conducted
under "representative" conditions, however, gives the agency the flexibility
to have tests performed under conditions other than maximum process load.
One of the most important considerations in determining whether a source
remains in compliance with permitted emission limits on a continuous basis is
the source's ability to maintain control equipment efficiency and related
process conditions regardless of whether these conditions are inherently
stated in the permit. Initial engineering analyses conducted to determine
both potential uncontrolled and controlled emissions will most likely not
represent actual contemporary conditions at the source because of "normal"
variations in process conditions, control equipment age, maintenance, and
modifications. As changes occur, the issuing/enforcement agency must be
aware of the influences these changes will have on potential emissions. So
that the necessary flexibility will be retained to determine compliance under
these conditions, emission testing must be able to accommodate changes in the
process and in control equipment efficiency. Accurate emission testing is
very helpful in correlating process and control equipment variances with
changes in actual emissions and thereby establishing grounds for future
permit modifications or permit renewal conditions.
For example, a BACT analysis for a source subject to PSD does not simply
require a specific control device. The BACT requires not only the existence
of the control device, but its continuous operation at design efficiency to
attain and maintain (where possible) a specific emission rate. Because
control device efficiency is a function of both pollutant capture efficiency
and uncontrolled emission rate, BACT must consider potential changes in
process conditions and control device O&M. It is not enough to assume that
one compliance test under optimum conditions when the equipment is initially
installed will necessarily ensure continuing compliance.
The role of emission testing may also change as the goals of the issu-
ing/enforcement agency change. The permit should enable the agency to modify
the test protocol and.reporting requirements of the source in order to re-
flect any such changes. Source operating history, for example, may require
the agency to redefine test goals for the following reasons: 1) to reestab-
lish representative conditions, 2) to establish the uncontrolled emission
126
-------
rates of specific process units vented to a common stack, 3) to establish
baseline conditions for proposed modifications, 4) to determine current
control device efficiency, 5) to cross-check continuous moniotoring emission
results, or 6) to correlate actual emissions with surrogate emission indi-
cators (mass vs. opacity, etc.).
Finally, any emission testing program is only as good as its documenta-
tion. Whether the emission testing is performed by the issuing/enforcement
agency or by the source, legal enforcement of permit emission limits and
conditions depends on accurate, adequate, and retrievable documentation.
Because considerable time may elapse between actual testing and any potential
legal action or redress, proper documentation is critical.
It is the responsibility of the permit writer to ensure that the emis-
sion limits, general permit conditions, and specific permit conditions be
constructed in such a way as to allow the agency the flexibility to ensure
continuing compliance and to give the source to understand exactly what is
expected in terms of its responsibility with respect to the specific permit
conditions.
7.4 COMPUTERIZED TRACKING SYSTEMS
Permit development support data, routine inspection details, and results
of testing and monitoring for all sources under an agency's jurisdiction
create large volumes of data. The potential usefulness of these data is
directly proportional to their immediate availability to permit reviewers,
inspectors, and enforcement staff. Modern, data management systems lend
themselves to this task. The reality of implementing such a system, however,
is another matter. The most successful uses of data management systems are
those that "grow up" with the data base, in other words, where new data
acquisition begins with a new data base management system (no historical data
to retrofit). This, however, is usually not the case for permit files.
Although some agencies may use the filebox method, many use the EPA's
Compliance Data System (CDS). In addition some agencies have developed their
own or modified commercial data management systems to support permitting,
renewal, inspection, and enforcement activities.
127
-------
7.4.1 Compliance Data System
The EPA developed the CDS in 1972 to assist their Regional Offices in
implementing their enforcement programs. It was designed to provide users
with the capability to store, update, and retrieve information on all sources
placed in the system.
The Regional Offices and some State agencies use CDS for the following
purposes:
1. To provide an accurate and easily accessible inventory of sources
subject to Federal and State emission regulations and their com-
pliance status.
2. To develop enforcement strategies by providing summaries of the
compliance status of sources tracked in the CDS system.
3. To provide a means of tracking numerous Federal, State, and local
enforcement actions, both for historical and future scheduling
purposes.
4. To assist the Region in the preparation of various national report-
ing requirements.
5. To provide data to the States for fulfilling various reporting re-
quirements to the Region.
The CDS is operated on EPA's National Computer Center (NCC) mainframe
computers and is available via remote terminal devices. The system is not
designed to store large quantities of parametric monitoring data; instead, it
is a management information system for tracking compliance and enforcement
information in an easily accessible manner.
The inventory of sources in CDS should correspond to those sources
registered in the National Emission Data System (NEDS). Whereas NEDS con-
tains parametric and relatively static emission data for sources, CDS con-
tains the considerably more dynamic compliance and enforcement data for these
facilities. The NEDS source numbering system is used by CDS for a majority
of its sources. In addition, the NEDS source number is carried as a retriev-
able data element for all CDS sources.
A number of State permit tracking systems are compatible with CDS. Some
States that use the Enforcement Management System (EMS) or a State version of
128
-------
CDS, use converter programs that reformat EMS data to meet CDS input specifi-
cations. With the EMS-to-CDS converter, compliance and enforcement informa-
tion from a State is placed directly into CDS with little data input prepara-
tion needed on the part of the Region. The Region is still required to
verify data accuracy through quality control procedures.
A number of output utilities called "Reports" are built into the CDS
system that may be of use to the States and other premitting jurisdictions.
Principally, the Quick Look Report and the Source Data Report are of use to
State and local agencies in addition to the enforcement and compliance track-
ing capabilities of CDS. Quick Look is designed to print only certain data
elements for selected sources. Although all these data are of value, report
requirements can often best be met by specifying a few user-selected data
elements in a user-specified format. Source Data Reports supply a complete
listing of all data on the system for a specific source. For all output
utilities, the user can specify the order and control the format of the
output.
7.4.2 Comprehensive Data Handling System
Several agencies have installed the Comprehensive Data Handling System
(CDHS) made available through EPA. The CDHS incorporates a CDS-type software
package as well as the State's Emission Inventory System (EIS), which is the
State's own version of NEDS. The types of reports available are similar to
those in CDS and NEDS and includes a "Quick Look" type data retrieval format.
Some agencies have chosen to use the NCC rather than operate their own
hardware systems. When this is the case, they operate in much the same way
as when the Regional Offices update their own State files for CDS or EIS.
The advantage of this approach is that software modifications are made by
EPA, and all of the update and data storage costs are borne by EPA. Some of
the retrieval account costs are often paid through the § 105 grants to the
States.
7.4.3 BACT/LAER Information System
The EPA maintains a data base software system called the BACT/LAER
Information System (BLIS) to provide information on BACT/LAER determinations.
The purposes of BLIS are:
129
-------
0 To provide State and local agencies with current control technology
determinations.
0 To summarize recent determinations for sources of a similar size
and nature.
0 To provide data on the specific emission limits imposed on new or
modified sources across the country.
The system depends on submission of determinations by State and local
agencies. Although the information is requested by EPA, the submission of
information is voluntary.
The BACT/LAER Clearinghouse determinations in the BACT LAER Information
System (BLIS) are published annually by EPA or are available through a
computer terminal and telephone hookup to the NCC. The Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, can provide
more information on system access.
7.4.4 Other Systems
Some agencies maintain their own computer-based systems to provide an
emission inventory of sources in their jurisdiction. The data carried in
this type of system can be a more precise listing of processes and control
equipment as well as a listing of fugitive emission sources around a
facility. In addition, other data, such as yearly production, hours of
operation, and stack data, can be stored in such a system and updated
annually. This type of system is usually a hybrid of both CDS and NEDS and
contains elements of both. As in CDS and NEDS, however, there is a general
inability to load parametric data from inspections into the system for future
use during permit renewal or inspection followup.
Computerized systems specifically used for permits generally fall into
one of two categories: 1) those that track permit expiration and compute
fees, and 2) those that are word-processing-based and allow selection or
creation of specific permit conditions. A system for tracking permits is
useful for those agencies responsible for overseeing a large number of
sources. The computer output can list several months in advance those per-
mits that are about to expire, which allows the agency to schedule inspec-
tions, stack tests, etc. These systems generally cannot or do not contain
much in the way of operating or design data for the use of the inspector or
130
-------
the permit review and they are usually limited to simple calculations such as
permit fees.
Agencies that write a large number of permits and use many special
permit conditions may find a word-processing-based computerized permit writ-
ing system to be advantageous. The standard provisions that will be included
in all permits can be loaded as fill-in blanks that allow the permit writer
to select from a list or to create, if necessary, permit conditions that are
appropriate for the source under review. The advantage of such a system is
that it can aid in quickly constructing and writing a permit with special
conditions as well as provide more uniform treatment of sources and the use
of consistent permit language. The disadvantage of such a system is the
potential for selecting unnecessary or incorrect permit requirements, as
selection of-permit conditions from a menu may not be as accurate as creating
original permit conditions for each source.
Unfortunately, no single system currently allows the incorporation of
key design information, operating information, stack test results, inspection
results, and source operating history into one data base.
7.5 SUMMARY
Post-permitting efforts such as performance testing, inspections, and
data management are necessary to the achievement and maintenance of continu-
ing compliance goals. Whereas such activities may occur independent of the
permit review process, their effectiveness may depend on how the permit was
originally written and the degree of specificity included in the permit
conditions. The permit writer should rely on the actual experiences of the
source inspector and on performance test data for the further refinements and
upgrading of individual permits and the permit-writing procedures.
The actual process of permit review and permit construction is not
simple. It requires a knowledge of the regulations and the ability to in-
terpret them. It also requires the ability to review technical data, to
locate available resources of information when needed, to draw appropriate
conclusions, to make recommendations, and to write a permit with conditions
that are enforceable and meaningful and represent a balanced approach to
continuous compliance. A good permit is an important tool for meeting
various program requirements and for maintaining source compliance. As a
131
-------
tool, however, it can only be as effective as the quality of its construc-
tion.
REVIEW EXERCISE
1. The agency inspector is typically not responsi-
ble for permit review. The inspector, however,
can be a valuable resource to permit review per-
sonnel because:
a. The inspector has first-hand knowledge
of the source
b. Only the inspector knows what test methods
can be used to demonstrate compliance
c. The inspector can inspect both new and
existing sources
d. None of the above
2. The primary purpose of the initial inspection 1. a. The inspector
of a new source is to . has first-
hand knowl-
a. Establish a working relationship with edge of the
source management personnel source
b. Verify installation of equipment as
specified in the permit
c. Evaluate previous operating performance
d. Observe performance tests
3. The results of inspections, performance tests, 2. b. Verify in-
malfunction, and excess emission reports should stallation of
be . equipment as
specified in
a. Kept in a locked file and treated as con- the permit
fidential information
b. Kept for 2 years and then disposed of
c. Used to refine or fine-tune the permit
conditions during permit renewal
d. Used to establish the validity of the
performance test requirements
132
-------
4. The specification of operating conditions, 3. c. Used to re-
malfunction, and excess emission reports should fine or fine
be . tune the per-
mit condi-
a. Kept in a locked file and treated as tions during
confidential information permit re-
fa. Kept for 2 years and then disposed of newal
c. Used to refine or fine tune the permit
conditions during permit renewal
d. Used to establish the validity of the
performance test requirements
5.
CDS
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
is not designed to
Provide an inventory of sources and
their compliance status
Maintain design parameters for future
review
Assist in various reporting requirements
a. and b.
a. and c.
4. b. Kept for 2
years and
then disposed
of
6. The BACT/LAER Information System (BLIS) 5. b. Maintain de-
. sign param-
eters for
• a. Calculates emission rates from design future review
data for BACT/LAER determinations
b. Provides agencies with current control
technology determinations
c. Provides data on specific emission
limits imposed across the country
d. a. and b. only
e. b. and c. only
6. e. b. and c.
only
133
-------
REFERENCES
1. Hayes, Leigh. Prevention of Significant Deterioration Workshop Manual
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-450/2-80-081, October 1980.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. APTI Course SI:453 Overview of
PSD Regulations. EPA-450/2-82-008, December 1983.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Workshop on Requirements for
Nonattainment Area Plans. Revised Edition, April 1978.
134
------- |