EPA-909-N-03-001
United states
Environmental Protection
Agency
Spring 2003
Volume 2, Number 1
In this issue...
Air Permits Pg. I
Endangered Species Pg. 3
Pacific Islands Pg. 4
Hawaii Pg. 4
Arizona Pg. 5
Nevada Pg 6
California Pg. 7
Tribal Lands Pg. 8
Title V
(Operating Permits) Pg. 10
Power Plants Pg. 11
Hazardous Air Pg. 12
Innovative Strategies Pg. 12
U.S. EPA Pacific Southwest/Region 9
Clean Air
Permitting Programs
A publication of the Pacific Southwest Region Air Division
Editor: AlZemsky (zemsky.al@epa.gov) Design: Jan Byers (byers.jan@epa.gov)
AIR PERMITS
How Does the Public Benefit from Air Permits?
The public benefits from preconstruction permitting
because it requires pollution sources to evaluate their
controls, potential air pollution mitigation and opportunities
for public review and comment. Moreover, federal law
prohibits the construction or modification of a major
stationary source unless it can demonstrate that the project
will not cause or contribute to a violation of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
The federal operating permitting program requires
sources to assure compliance with all applicable require-
ments. This program also provides the public with an
opportunity for review of the proposed operating permit, the
ability to petition EPA for changes to the permit and the
capability for tracking the facility's compliance by reviewing
the reports and certifications that each permittee must send
to the permitting agency.
Printed on 50% postconsumer recycled paper.
-------
What is an Air Permit?
An air permit is a legally binding document that
includes enforceable conditions which apply to the
owner or operator of the source of air pollutant
emissions. There are two categories of air permits:
preconstruction permits and operating permits. The
purpose of an air permit is to protect and manage air
quality by ensuring each stationary source complies
with the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), associated feder-
al regulations and state and local air requirements. The
EPA Region 9 Air Permits Office is primarily respon-
sible for reviewing preconstruction and operating
permits for stationary sources of air pollution in
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada and Guam. Although
most air permits are issued by state and local permit-
ting authorities, EPA issues preconstruction permits
and operating permits to sources in some areas where
the federal government is the permitting authority.
(I) Preconstruction Permits: Major stationary
sources of air pollution and major modifications to
major stationary sources are required by the CAA to
obtain a preconstruction permit before commencing
construction. The process is called new source
review (NSR) and is required whether the major
source or modification is planned for an area where air
quality is acceptable (in attainment and unclassifiable
areas) or for an area where the national ambient air
Criteria air pollutants include nitrogen oxides
(NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic
compounds (VOC), particulate matter under 10
microns (PM]0), sulfur dioxide (SOJ and lead (Pb).
&EPA
REGION IX
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT
DETERIORATION (PSD)
PERMITTING AUTHORITY
3 EPA
State Agency-SIP*
_j State Agency - Delegated
Local Agency-SIP
| Local Agency - Delegated
VIDEO has Delegated Authority forPM-10
quality standards (NAAQS) are exceeded (nonattain-
ment areas). Permits for sources in attainment areas
are referred to as prevention of significant air
quality deterioration (PSD) permits, while permits
for sources located in nonattainment areas are re-
ferred to as nonattainment area (NAA) permits.
The entire program, including both PSD and NAA
permit reviews, is referred to as the NSR program.
The PSD and NAA requirements are specific to a
particular criteria air pollutant. For example, a facility
may emit many air pollutants. However, depending on
the magnitude of the emissions of each pollutant, only
one or a few may be subject to the PSD or NAA per-
mit requirements. Also, a source may have to obtain
both PSD and NAA permits if the source is in an area
where one or more of the pollutants is designated
nonattainment.
(2) Operating permits: All major stationary
sources must apply for a federal operating permit
(also known as Title V or Part 70 permit). The goal
of the federal operating permit is to improve a
source's compliance by
including all federal require-
ments that apply to a source
into one comprehensive
document. The federal
requirements could include
any preconstruction permit
conditions, performance
standards, implementation plan
requirements, acid rain
program requirements or any
other CAA requirements.
Additional information
about the Title V operating per-
mit program can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/oar/
oaqps/permits/partic/
proof.html
GUAM
50 0 50 100 150 200 Miles
-,HM I 1 .
Map Updated March 2003/Curt Taipale USEPA Region 9
-------
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Endangered Species Act and
Clean Air Permitting
We are all probably aware of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). It was designed to provide
protection to certain endangered or threatened
species. But how does the Endangered Species Act
relate to air permits?
Air permits are issued either by a local air
permitting agency (either state or local air district)
or by the federal EPA. Whether the permitting
authority is local or federal differs from state to state
as well as areas within each state. Furthermore, it can
depend on the type of permit being issued.
If the permit is being issued by the EPA, then
federal requirements, including those of the ESA,
apply. Specifically, due to ESA requirements, a biolog-
ical assessment must be performed and approved
before a federal permit will be issued. (For state-
issued permits, the state may have its own endan-
gered species regulations and requirements with
which the source must comply.) The U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service (FWS) is the agency responsible for
reviewing biological assessments and determining
whether ESA requirements are met. EPA works in
partnership with FWS and the applicant to have all
ESA issues addressed. EPA is involved by providing
guidance as well as an independent review of the
biological assessments. The following examples illus-
trate how ESA issues were addressed in recent PSD
permits in Region 9:
I. GilaBend Power
Generation Project:
EPA consulted with the
FWS regarding the proposed
project's effect on the
endan-gered cactus
ferruginous pygmy-owl.
The applicant agreed to a
plan proposed by FWS to
mitigate the effects the
project plan in place. FWS concurred with EPA's
determination of no likely adverse effect on any
listed species in the proposed project area.
CHINOOK
II. Potrero Power
Plant Unit 7
Project: EPA
requested initiation
of a formal consul-
tation for this on-
going project because there is a suspected adverse
impact on Central California Coast steelhead, Sacra-
mento River winter-run chinook salmon, Central
Valley spring-run chinook salmon and Central Valley
steelhead species. In addition, the project site, the
southern bay portion of San Francisco Bay, is a
designated critical habitat. EPA's concerns included
potential impacts on juvenile salmonids from the
heated discharge plume, entrainment at the pump
intakes of prey species that form the basis of the
food chains in San Francisco Bay and the cumulative
effects of the project with other activities in the
project area. EPA is working closely with the
National Marine Fisheries Service and the applicant
to resolve these concerns.
III. Colusa Power
Plant: EPA requested
the initiation of a
formal consultation for
the Colusa Power project to address potential adverse
impacts to the giant garter snake, vernal pool fairy
shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. The formal
consultation process is ongoing.
IV. Elk Hills Power Plant: Since this power plant
project was subject to an action by the U.S. Bureau
of Land Management (BLM), both EPA and BLM
jointly requested formal consultation with the Fish
and Wildlife Service. As part of the formal consul-
tation process, the FWS published a Biological
Opinion, which concluded that the project was not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
following listed species that were studied: San
Joaquin kit fox, giant kangaroo rat, Tipton kangaroo
rat, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Hoover's eriastrum
and California condor. In addition, the Biological
Opinion required reason-
able and prudent meas-
ures to be implemented
to minimize the impact of
the Elk Hills Power
project on these species.
-------
PERMIT PROGRAMS
THROUGHOUT REGION 9
Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments
requires that all states and territories adopt and
submit to EPA a Title V operating permit pro-gram
for EPA review and approval. As a result, permit
programs vary somewhat from state to state and,
in some cases, even from area to area within a
state.
In the case of preconstruction permitting, if
states or local agencies would like to administer
the NSR program themselves, they must first sub-
mit PSD and NAA rules, if applicable, to EPA for
review and approval as part of the state imple-
mentation plan (SIP). The NSR SIP can include
local district rules more stringent than the feder-
al PSD/NAA requirements. Once the SIP is
approved by EPA, the state or local agency has a
"SIP approved PSD program. "
For either the NSR program or the Title V
operating permit program, if the state or local
agency does not submit a plan or program, EPA
assumes the responsibility of administering the
program for that agency. Another option is that
EPA can "delegate " the program to the state or
local agency. This means that the agency is re-
sponsible for writing and issuing permits, but EPA
must review each permit before it is finalized.
Below are descriptions of various permit pro-
grams in Region 9.
'V I
— > —1 -I
Pacific Island Programs
(Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands and American Samoa)
Instead of submitting a Title V program, in
1994 the governors of Guam, the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and
American Samoa submitted petitions to EPA
requesting an exemption from the Title V program,
but committing to achieve the goals of Title V by
developing an alternate operating permit program.
The Clean Air Act does allow for this petition
process for these territories.
\
In 1996, EPA granted a condi-
tional waiver to Guam, CNMI and
American Samoa exempting them
from the requirement to adopt a
Title V operating permit program
on the condition that the territories
adopt and implement a local alternate
program by 1999.
The alternate operating permit program, as
approved by EPA, contains all of the core require-'
ments of a usual Title V program, including monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements. How-
ever, it generally allows more time for sources to
obtain permits.
Guam, CNMI and American Samoa all submitted
their alternate permit programs to EPA before the
1999 deadline. Currently, EPA is preparing to grant
interim approval of Guam's alternate program. How-
ever, because of significant program changes still
needed before approval, CNMI and American Samoa
will not be able to meet their permit issuance dead-
lines and may become subject once again to the usual
requirements of the Title V program.
_T
J
Air Permitting in Hawaii
The air permitting program in Hawaii is
administered by the Hawaii Department of Health
(HDOH). Hawaii's air permitting program is a
combined New Source Review/Operating Permits
Program. In Hawaii, each new major source must
obtain a permit that satisfies both the requirements
for preconstruction permits (under the New Source
Review program) and operating permits (subject to
Title V). Each existing major source must obtain an
operating (Title V) permit, as usual. The air permitting
program in Hawaii is unusual in its PSD permitting
process in that EPA concurrence is required.
Preconstruction Permits
Under a 1989 agreement, each PSD permit
issued by HDOH must have EPA concurrence on
certain analyses before the permit can become final.
As a result, every final PSD permit issued by the
HDOH must have not only the signature of the
Director of the HDOH, but also the signature of the
-------
Director of EPA Region 9's Air Division.
Originally, a 1983 agreement required EPA con-
currence on only the first five PSD permits issued by
Hawaii. In the late '80s, however, a dispute arose over
a final PSD permit that HDOH issued to a municipal
waste combustor, over EPA's objections. These objec-
tions centered on lack of air pollution controls. As a
result of this dispute, EPA amended the agreement in
1989 to require EPA concurrence on all future Hawaii
PSD permits.
Operating Permits
Deficiencies in Hawaii's Title V permitting pro-
gram came to light as a result of the court decision in
Western States Petroleum Association v. Environmental
Protection Agency (9th Cir. 1996). Because of the signif-
icance of the deficiency in the state program, EPA was
required by law to issue a notice of deficiency (NOD)
directing the state to correct the identifiec
program deficiencies within 18 months.
Since then Hawaii, working closely with
EPA, has drafted regulations that address1
the deficiencies identified in the NOD
and is currently in the process of adopt-
ing the proposed rule revisions. EPA and
HDOH are confident that the state will
have regulations in place correcting the
identified program deficiencies well before
the deadline imposed by the NOD.
I
Arizona Permitting Programs
The permitting programs in Arizona are similar
to Hawaii's in that they have an integrated Title V/New
Source Review (NSR) program. In other words, a
new major source must obtain a permit which satis-
fies both the requirements of NSR and Title V in one
document. Existing sources are required to obtain a
Title V operating permit, as usual.
The state of Arizona has four air permitting
authorities which EPA oversees: Maricopa County
Environmental Services Department, Pima County
Department of Environmental Quality, the Pinal
County Air Quality Control District, and the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality, which issues
permits in all other counties. These permitting
authorities are responsible for issuing both precon-
struction permits, under the NSR program, as well as
federal operating permits under the Title V program.
EPA reviews permits for major sources proposed
by these four permitting authorities and provides their
offices with guidance concerning permitting issues. In
order to facilitate a cooperative working relationship
with these agencies, EPA also holds quarterly meetings
with all of the permitting managers from each of the
permitting authorities in order to address any issues
concerning their program implementation.
Recent Work Achievements in Arizona
Earlier this year, the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) faced a deadline
imposed by the Arizona state legislature in which the
agency had to issue initial Title V permits to various
sources by June 30, 2002. In order to meet this
deadline, EPA was asked by ADEQ to expedite review
of six of its most controversial Title V permits. These
permits included the Phelps Dodge Sierrita Copper
Mine, Phelps Dodge Miami Copper Smelter, Chemical
Lime Douglas, Chemical Lime Nelson, Arizona Portland
Cement and Phoenix Cement. Title V permits are
subject to a 30-day public comment period followed
by a 45-day EPA review period. Typically the EPA
review period begins once the permitting authority
concludes the public comment period and responds
to public comments. This enables EPA to review a
proposed permit which incorporates any changes that
may have resulted from public comments. To help
meet the deadline, EPA agreed with ADEQ to initiate
the public comment period at the same time as the
EPA 45-day review period for five of these permits.
It
-------
Over the course of the four months leading up to
the state's deadline, EPA worked very closely with
ADEQ to address any concerns regarding the pro-
posed permits. EPA's efforts yielded substantial
improvements to all of the permits reviewed. EPA was
able to ensure that the final permits contained all the
appropriate applicable requirements as well as provi-
sions that adequately assured compliance with these
requirements. Specifically, the review resulted in
ADEQ withdrawing one of the proposed permits
because it found that the source should have under-
gone review under the preconstruction permit
program. EPA was also able substantially to improve
the periodic monitoring requirements in all the
permits. At the same time, EPA's expedited review
enabled ADEQ to meet its June 30, 2002 deadline to
issue these initial Title V permits.
jl
Nevada Permitting Programs
The EPA Air Permits Office works with three
permitting authorities in Nevada: Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection (NDEP), Clark County
Department of Air Quality Management (DAQM) and
Washoe County Health Department, Air Quality
Management Division. Like the permitting authorities
in Hawaii and Arizona, NDEP has a combined New
Source Review and Operating Permits Program.
Clark DAQM and Washoe County implement sepa-
rate NSR and Title V Operating Permit programs.
All three Nevada agencies have authority to issue
PSD permits to major sources in attainment areas.
Clark County has a PSD program approved as part
of the applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP),
while NDEP and Washoe County have PSD authority
because EPA Region 9 has delegated EPA's PSD
authority to them.
Recent Work in Nevada
The Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) preconstruction review program uses
"increment" - the maximum allowable increase in the
concentration of a pollutant that is allowed to occur
above a baseline concentration - to protect air
quality in areas with clean air. Air districts have to
keep track of pollutant concentration levels and
increments. First, the area has to be defined. Within
what boundaries will levels of a particular pollutant
be tracked? Will the pollutant levels be measured in
several areas within the state, or throughout the
entire state as one large area? Second, the baseline
concentration has to be defined. Thus, normal levels
of the pollutant are recorded before a certain date
within a defined area. This becomes the baseline
concentration, and increments are based on any
increases above this value.
In Nevada, the defined areas, or "baseline areas"
in which increment consumption is tracked, are
defined by reference to hydrographic areas. In
November 2001, Nevada requested that EPA ap-
prove a request to split Hydrographic Area 61, in the
northeastern part of the state, to create two new
PSD baseline areas for coarse particles particulate
matter (PM|0), nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide.
Nevada made this request because NDEP believes
that the subdivision of this area will promote better
air quality by allowing the state to manage the two
new hydrographic areas according to their distinct
geographic, meteorologic, and land use characteristics.
EPA relied on the Clean Air Act provisions (in
Section 107) on baseline area redesignation and EPA
regulations (in 40 CFR Part 52) to evaluate Nevada's
request to split Hydrographic Area 61. On Nov. 13,
2002, EPA finalized its approval after full consider-
ation of public comments submitted on the proposal.
The decision to split Hydrographic Area 61 reaffirms
EPA's belief that states should have a fair degree of
autonomy to balance air quality management with
economic planning, and is an example of federal and
state partnership in managing air quality.
-------
JH
_r
KlJ.
The state of California has 35 local districts
which serve as air permitting authorities. These
permitting authorities are responsible for issuing
both preconstruction permits and federal Title V
permits. The Air Permits Office provides oversight
to the local districts, reviews permits proposed by
the local districts, and - for some districts - issues
the permits.
Farm Permits in Region 9?
Jn Jthe mid-1990's, the California state Attorney
General identified - as part of a required opinion for
the air districts' Title V program approval - that state
law does not allow any of the local air pollution con-
trol districts to issue air quality permits to certain
agricultural sources, regardless of how much air
pollution they may emit. At that time, EPA granted
interim approval to the California Title V programs
and identified this as an issue that needed to be
corrected before full approval could be granted. In
May 2000, EPA notified permitting authorities that all
state programs must be corrected and submitted to
EPA by June 2001, and be approved by EPA by \
December 2001.
In California, EPA worked tirelessly with the**
state and local agencies to meet the December 2001
approval deadline. The hard work paid off, because
full approval was granted to the 34 district Title V
permitting programs on time. (The 35th district, the
Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District, was
not included in the initial program approvals because
it was a newly formed district.) EPA deferred the
issue of permitting of agricultural sources for a three-
year period so that agricultural air pollution could be
fully studied. EPA's approval of the 34 Title V pro-
grams was challenged by a coalition of three environ-
mental groups because they argued California's
exemption of major agricultural operations from
Title V permit requirements is inconsistent with the
federal Clean Air Act.
In May 2002, as a result of the lawsuit, EPA and
the three groups signed a settlement agreement
requiring the agency to do three things: I) issue a
Notice of Deficiency (NOD) to inform the state that
the exemption is a deficiency that must be cor-
rected in 90 days or EPA will conduct rulemaking
to withdraw the Title V permitting authority from
the 34 districts; 2) perform rulemaking to partially
withdraw the Title V permitting authority; and,
3) request applications from and issue permits to
state-exempt agricultural sources according to a
timeline prescribed in the settlement agreement (all
permits to be issued by December 2004).
EPA has fulfilled the deficiency notice and
rulemaking aspects of the settlement agreement
and begun the process of requesting applications for
Title V permits (see the schedule outlined in the
table on pg. 8). EPA is working closely with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, the farming community
and the local air districts to develop a program that
identifies workable solutions and reasonable ap-
proaches to agricultural air emissions.
EPA anticipates that the vast majority of station-
ary agricultural sources will not require permitting
because they would fall below permitting thresholds.
Sources that may require permits include facilities
with large stationary diesel engines and large animal
feeding operations. Applicability of the Title V permit
program depends on where sources are located and
the air quality rating of that area. Plowing or harvest-
ing activities will not trigger permitting requirements
under the Title V program.
-------
Timeline for Title V Agricultural Permitting in CA
Date
May 14,2002
May 22, 2002
July 24, 2002
Oct. 15,2002
Nov. 14,2002
May 14,2003
Aug. 1,2003
Dec. 1,2004
Item
Settlement agreement between the EPA and three environmental groups signed.
Notice of Deficiency (NOD) published in the Federal Register.
Proposed rule published in the Federal Register (67 FR 48426).
Publication of final rule in Federal Register (67 FR 63551).
Effective date of EPA's Title V permitting authority program (30 days after publication of final rule).
Title V applications due for those agricultural sources that are major due to diesel internal
combustion (1C) engine emissions.
Title V applications due for all other agricultural sources that are major sources of air pollution.
Deadline for Region 9 to act on all Title V permit applications from major agricultural sources.
Permitting on Tribal Lands
Who issues permits on Tribal lands? The EPA
Region 9 Air Permits Office is currently responsible
for issuing both federal preconstruction and Title V
operating permits to major air emission sources on
all tribal lands within California, Arizona, Nevada and
Hawaii, as well as the entire Navajo Nation, which
encompasses northeastern Arizona as well as por-
tions of New Mexico and Utah. Ongoing work on
tribal lands in Region 9 is highlighted below, including
permit issuance numbers, the development of the
Navajo Nation Title V program and a redesignation
request by the Hualapai Nation.
Title V Permits Issued by the Region 9
Air Permits Office
For the 22 facilities on Indian land in Region 9
that are subject to Title V permitting, the Region 9 Air
Permits Office has issued 15 permits so far, including
I I of 14 on the Navajo Nation. These permits con-
tain all of the regulatory requirements that apply to
each facility, including emission limits, monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Navajo Nation Title V Program
The Navajo Nation Environmental Protection
Agency (NNERA) is currently developing its own
Title V program so that it can regulate Title V sources
on its land. To achieve this goal, NNERA requested
Navajo and EPA staff and management pose in front of the
Window Rock in Window Rock, AZ on our recent visit with
the Tribe to discuss its Title V program submittal. (From left
to right: Chris Lee (NNEPA), Wilson Laughter (NNEPA),
Gerardo Rios (EPA R9), Emmanuelle Rapicavoli (EPA R9),
Robert Trianni (NNEPA)).
technical assistance from Region 9 to refine the
tribe's permitting regulations and assemble the nec-
essary components for its Title V program.
In October 2002, the Permits Office responded
to this request by providing the tribe with detailed
written comments on its draft operating permit and
acid rain rules. EPA Region 9 representatives traveled
to the reservation to meet with tribal air quality staff.
This was the first of what is expected to be many
face-to-face meetings, as EPA and NNEPA staff work
together toward the common goal of a Title V pro-
gram submittal by the end of 2003.
If NNEPA submits a program and EPA Region 9
approves it, the Navajo will be the first tribe in the
country to have its own Title V program.
-------
Redesignation to Class I
Under the federal Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program, a tribe can opt to
redesignate its reservation to a Class I area. Under
PSD, there are three area classifications with varying
degrees of air quality protection: Class I, Class II and
Class III. Class I calls for the greatest degree of air
quality protection. In the Clean Air Act, Congress
designated certain national wilderness areas and
parks as "mandatory Class I areas," meaning that they
are and always will be Class I. In addition to the
mandatory areas, Congress also provided that both
states and tribal governing bodies have the authority
to redesignate additional areas as Class I. Redesignat-
ing to Class I affords tribes greater protection of
their air quality.
The PSD program is designed to protect air
quality in areas that already meet national standards.
One way the PSD program achieves this is via "PSD
increment," which is the maximum allowable increase
in concentration allowed to occur above a baseline
concentration for a specific pollutant. Class I areas
have the smallest increments and thus allow only a
small degree of air quality deterioration. In addition, a
Class I area may define Air Quality Related Values
(AQRVs), which are those features or properties of a
Class I area that may be adversely affected by deteri-
oration of air quality. Some examples of AQRVs are
visibility, water quality and odor. Thus a major source
proposing to locate on or near a Class I area will
need to ensure that its impact will not result in a
violation of the Class I increments or in an adverse
impact to the AQRVs established for that area.
The Hualapai Nation, a federally recognized tribe
located in Northern Arizona adjacent to Grand
Canyon National Park, has developed a proposal to
redesignate its reservation to Class I. The tribe held
a public hearing in April 2002, which was attended by
EPA Region 9 staff, and is currently in the process of
responding to public comments on its proposal.
Class I and Class II Increments
A Comparison (Micrograms per Cubic Meter)
Pollutant
PM,0
(annual)
PM,0
(24 hr.)
S02
(annual)
SO2
(24 hr.)
S02
(3 hr.)
N02
(annual)
Class 1
Increment
4
8
2
5
25
2.5
Class II
Increment
17
30
20
91
512
25
NAAQS1
50
150
80
365
1,300
100
^National Ambient Air Quality Standard
vi L fcffhjiru v
-------
Contacts
Hawaii & the Pacific Islands:
Bob Baker (415) 972-3979
baker.robert@epa.gov
Arizona:
Emmanuelle Rapicavoli (415) 972-3969
rapicavoli.emmanuelle@epa.gov
Anna Yen (415) 972-3976
yen.anna@epa.gov
Nevada:
Roger Kohn (415) 972-3973
ko h n. roge r@e pa.gov
California:
Ed Pike (415) 972-3970
pike.ed@epa.gov
Nahid Zoueshtiagh (415) 972-3978
zoueshtiagh.nahid@epa.gov
Tribal Lands:
Emmanuelle Rapicavoli (415) 972-3969
rapicavoli.emmanuelle@epa.gov
Roger Kohn (415) 972-3973
ko h n. roge r@e pa.gov
TITLE V OPERATING PERMITS
Title V Permit Issuance Status
Hawaii's Success Story
How many Title V permits have been issued, and
how many should have been issued by this time?
These are questions that environmental groups began
asking EPA. They were concerned because more than
three years had elapsed since initial approval of
various Title V permitting programs throughout the
nation, yet the issuance of initial Title V permits had
not been completed.
These questions led to EPA's research into the
status of permit issuance, to ascertain just how many
major sources require Title V permits, and of those,
how many initial Title V permits had been issued.
Because issuance of these permits proved to be more
challenging than expected, and because of the
importance of permitting major sources in a timely
manner, EPA and the states have placed significant
effort and emphasis on Title V permit issuance. All
permitting agencies in Region 9 made a commitment
to issue initial Title V permits by December 2003.
Current progress in issuing permits, particularly by
the state of Hawaii, is encouraging. The table below
shows the status for each state in Region 9.
As of December 2002, California agencies had
issued approximately 65% of their Title V permits,
Nevada agencies had issued approximately 35% of
their permits and Arizona agencies had issued approx-
imately 38% of theirs. The state of Hawaii, with 125
initial sources, had issued 120 permits, with two cur-
rently undergoing EPA review, for an issuance rate
approaching 98%! Well done, Hawaii!
State
California
Nevada
Arizona
Hawaii
Region 9
Total
Total
Sources*
1,288
60
144
125
1617
Total
Permits
Issued
822
21
55
120
1018
% Issued
64%
35%
38%
96%
63%
* A source may be recategorized as a "synthetic minor." In general,
this means that the source is not considered a "major" source
anymore and, thus, does not require a Title V permit. Note that
some sources may have already been converted to synthetic minors
and that the numbers in the table do not reflect this.
Refer to http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/
permits/maps/index.html for a map depicting
Title V permit issuance status for the entire nation.
Photo: Kim Savage
-------
POWER PLANTS
Power Plant Permitting
During the recent power crisis in California, the
state and U.S. EPA implemented an emergency
process to speed up construction of new power
plants - particularly those that serve peak demand.
EPA cooperated with its state and local partners,
paying particular attention to the President's Febru-
ary 15, 2001 directive that instructed federal agen-
cies to "expedite federal permit reviews and deci-
sion procedures with respect to the siting and
operation of power plants in California." Though
the urgency to build new power plants was high, the
demand for new power had to be balanced with the
objective of protecting air quality.
One way the Air Permits Office achieved this
balance was to develop a more streamlined and
efficient permitting process for new peaking power
plants in California. In short, a simplified permit
allowed power plant developers to cut through the
thicket of site-specific decisions, in return for tough
NOx Levels from Turbines
150
* 9
1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1994 1996 2002
LEGEND
Recently On-Line Non Peaker
Power Plants
Proposed Non Peaker Power
Plants
Recently On-Line Peaker
Power Plants
Proposed Peaker Power Plants
requirements that minimized environmental
impact and maximized accountability. During
2001 alone, EPA Region 9 reviewed permits for
15 peaking projects totaling approximately 1,320
megawatts of peaking power generation. (One
megawatt is enough electricity for about 200
homes on a hot day.) Since the beginning of
2001, Region 9 has issued final permits for five
new large baseload power plants in California,
totaling 2,390 megawatts of new energy supply.
All together, state, local and federal agencies have
licensed almost 40,000 megawatts of power in
Region 9 since the beginning of 2000.
Over the years, the permit programs have
been instrumental in reducing harmful emis-
sions. For example, permits typically include
requirements to install air pollution control
technologies. Noticeable improvements in
emission rates have been recorded. In partic-
ular, emissions of nitrogen oxides, a precursor to
ozone pollution, have dropped dramatically in
the past twenty years.
November 22, 2002
Map Provided by the California Energy Commission
-------
HAZARDOUS AIR
Hazardous Air Pollutants and Air Permits
Requirements on limiting emissions of hazardous
air pollutants are an important component of Title V
operating permits.
Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are chemicals
that cause serious health and environmental effects.
Health effects include cancer, birth defects, nervous
system problems and even death in the case of
massive accidental releases. HAPs are released by
sources such as refineries, chemical plants, dry clean-
ers, printing plants and motor vehicles.
The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to
regulate emissions of HAPs from industrial sources.
There are both a list of regulated HAPs and a list of
regulated industrial sources (referred to as "source
categories"). The list of regulated HAPs, numbering
I 18 compounds, is included in the law. Some exam-
ples of the listed HAPs are asbestos, benzene, chlo-
rine, fomaldehyde, methanol, phenol and trichloro-
ethylene (TCE). EPA was required by the CAA to
come up with regulations that set emissions stand-
ards and require the maximum degree of HAP
reduction from source categories. These regulations
are called Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(or MACT) standards. Most of these regulations
pertain to major sources of HAPs.
The CAA defines "major" sources of HAPs as
sources that emit or have the potential to emit at
least 10 tons per year of any single HAP compound
listed in the CAA, or at least 25 tons per year of a
mixture of several HAP compounds.
All major sources of HAPs must obtain an
operating permit that includes the MACT require-
ments as permit conditions. All of the 43 local air per-
mitting agencies within EPA Region 9 are authorized to
issue operating permits and implement federal MACT
standards. The Region 9 Air Permits Office provides
oversight to the local agencies.
What is the MACT Hammer?
The CAA required EPA to pass regulations on
HAPs within a period of 10 years. EPA was not able
to promulgate all the MACTs within the required 10
years. Therefore, under the CAA provision called the
MACT Hammer, states (and air permitting agencies in
Region 9) must establish the remaining standards.
To eliminate the need for establishing case-by-case
MACT Hammer standards by individual states and air
permitting agencies, EPA is proposing a new timetable
for submittal of required applications for case-by-case
determination. EPA intends to finalize all the remaining
MACT standards before the due dates proposed in
this timetable.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES
Innovative Projects in Permitting -
The Otay Mesa Power Plant Project
(San Diego County) and Its Use of
Mobile Emission Reduction Credits.
The Otay Mesa Power Plant is a new 510-mega-
watt generating facility being built in southern San
Diego County by the Calpine Corporation. In 1999,
when the project was being considered for develop-
ment, the owner at the time, PG&E Generating
Company, approached EPA, the California EPA Air
Resources Board (ARB) and the San Diego Air
Pollution Control District (APCD) with the idea of
using emission reductions from mobile vehicles
(garbage trucks, package delivery trucks and/or
marine vessels) to "offset" some of the air pollution
increases that the plant would cause. This was an
-------
innovative idea because new major sources of air
pollution (such as power plants) in nonattainment
areas typically offset their emission increases with
emission reductions from existing stationary sources.
In this case, however, traditional stationary sources
which could provide emission reductions were scarce
in San Diego County, thereby jeopardizing the ability
of PG&E to build the plant. Mobile source reductions
posed new challenges to the power plant owner,
the regulators and environmental organizations.
Emission offsets: To make up for an increase
in emissions of a particular pollutant, emission
reductions (of a somewhat greater amount) of
that same pollutant elsewhere in the facility or
from other sources within the district must be
obtained by the source that is increasing its
emissions.
This allows major sources in nonattainment
areas the flexibility to meet overall pollution
reduction requirements.
Working cooperatively with the San Diego
County APCD, the ARB, and the project developer,
all parties agreed in March 2000 on how mobile
emission reduction credits (MERCs) could be
created in the county and used by the power plant.
This was the first time EPA had approved a mobile
reduction trade for a source this large. To date,
numerous diesel-powered garbage trucks owned by
Waste Management of California have been replaced
with new natural gas-powered trucks. Additionally,
several older diesel-powered marine vessels that
operate in and around the San Diego harbor have
had their engines replaced with new cleaner-burning
diesel engines. In total, mobile reductions comprise
approximately 75 tons per year (tpy) of the 120 tpy
of emissions reductions that the Otay Mesa Power
plant must obtain.
For this project, EPA Region 9 found that the
mobile sources considered by PG&E and San Diego
were viable sources for creating emission reductions
and could be used to meet the federal offset require-
ments. The MERCs would be actual emissions re-
ductions, and would be quantifiable, permanent,
surplus and federally enforceable.
In addition to meeting the conditions above,
EPA required that the owner of the fleets maintain
the fleet's typical usage level or "activity" (such as
number of miles traveled). By tracking the activity
(gallons of fuel consumed, miles traveled, or hours
operated) of the fleet, EPA will be able to determine
if a shift in demand away from the newer, "cleaner"
vehicles to the dirtier vehicles occurs. This shift is
important to note because, if the dirty vehicles are
still being used to a large extent, the purpose of
MERCs is defeated. If a significant shift occurs, the
power plant would be responsible for making up
the shortfall in emission offsets. Other features and
benefits of the program included:
• Only NOx emission reductions were allowed.
• The vehicles or marine vessels generating the
reductions had to operate in the San Diego
County air basin. In other words, the vehicles
or vessels had to be "captive" sources.
• By replacing older diesel garbage trucks with
new, cleaner-burning, natural-gas-powered
trucks, emissions of hazardous diesel exhaust
particulates were reduced in the neighbor-
hoods of San Diego County.
Emission offsets, when initially implemented,
were viewed as a creative solution to meeting air
pollution reduction requirements. Today, emission
offsets are a standard component of air pollution
reduction requirements for major sources in non-
attainment areas. This project is an example of taking
one further step toward creative solutions. The
demand for offsets provided an incentive for facility
owners and operators to think of a creative way to
meet the federal, state and local requirements. It
also encouraged regulatory agencies to move beyond
traditional approaches of mitigating emission
increases from new projects.
-------
Clean Air
Air Permitting
U.S. EPA Pacific Southwest Region Air Division
(415) 947-8715
www.epa.gov/region09/air
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pacific Southwest Region
75 Hawthorne Street (AIR-1)
San Francisco, CA 94105
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300
Address Service Requested
FIRST-CLASS MAIL
POSTAGES FEES PAID
U.S. EPA
Permit No. G-35
------- |