July 10, 1995
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: White Paper for Streamlined Development of Part 70
Permit Applications
FROM: Lydia N. Wegman, Deputy Director /s/
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
Please find attached a White Paper on Part 70 permit
applications. The paper is designed to streamline and simplify
the development of part 70 permit applications. The guidance was
developed to respond to the concerns of industry and permitting
authorities that preparation of initial permit applications was
proving more costly and burdensome than necessary to achieve the
goals of the Title V permit program.
The White Paper provides several streamlining improvements.
Among them, it allows industry to:
- Provide emissions descriptions, and not emissions
estimates, for emissions not regulated at the source,
unless such estimates are needed for other purposes
such as calculating permit fees;
- Submit checklists, rather than emission descriptions,
for insignificant activities based on size/production
rate and for risk management plans potentially owed
under section 112(r);
- Provide citations for applicable requirements, with
qualitative descriptions for each emissions unit, and
for prior new source review (NSR) permits;
- Exclude certain trivial and short-term activities from
permit applications;
- Provide group treatment for activities subject to
certain generally-applicable requirements;
- Certify compliance status without requiring re-
consideration of previous applicability decisions;
- Use the Part 70 permit process to identify
environmentally significant terms of NSR permits, which
should be incorporated into the part 70 permit as
federally-enforceable terms; and
- Submit tons per year estimates only where meaningful to
do so and not, for example, for section 112(r)-only
pollutants; such estimates should be based on
generally-available information rather than new studies
or testing.
There is an immediate need for the implementation of this
guidance. Increasing numbers of sources are becoming subject to
the requirement to file a complete part 70 application as more
State part 70 programs are approved. I strongly encourage you to
work with your States to effect near-term use of the White Paper
guidance to streamline the application process.
I want to thank you and your staff for your support in
developing this guidance and invite your suggestions on what
additional guidance is needed to improve further the initial
implementation of title V. If you should have any questions
regarding the attached guidance, please contact Michael Trutna at
(919) 541-5345 or Jeff Herring at (919) 541-3195.
Attachment
cc: M. Trutna (MD-12)
J. Herring (MD-12)
A. Eckert (2344)
J. Domike (2242A)
A. Schwartz (2344)
WHITE PAPER FOR
STREAMLINED DEVELOPMENT OF PART 70 PERMIT APPLICATIONS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
July 10, 1995
Contacts: Michael Trutna (919) 541-5345
Jeff Herring (919) 541-3195
EPA WHITE PAPER FOR
STREAMLINED DEVELOPMENT OF PART 70 PERMIT APPLICATIONS
July 10, 1995
I. INTRODUCTION
The EPA is issuing this guidance to enable States to take
immediate steps to reduce the costs of preparing and reviewing
initial part 70 permit applications. A perceived lack of clarity
in these requirements has led to an unintended escalation in
permit application costs. Too often, sources have felt compelled
to make conservative assumptions to assure themselves of
receiving the "application shield" and avoiding enforcement
actions.
Title V of the Clean Air Act (the Act) and its implementing
regulations in part 70 set forth minimum requirements for State
operating permit programs. In general, this program was not
intended by Congress to be the source of new substantive
requirements. Rather, operating permits required by title V are
meant to accomplish the largely procedural task of identifying
and recording existing substantive requirements applicable to
regulated sources and to assure compliance with these existing
requirements. Accordingly, operating permits and their
accompanying applications should be vehicles for defining
existing compliance obligations rather than for imposing new
requirements or accomplishing other objectives.
There is an immediate need for this guidance. Most States
and those local air pollution control agencies participating in
the program (hereinafter referred to as "States") are expected to
receive approval by the fall of 1995 of their part 70 operating
permit programs to implement title V of the Act. As a result,
most sources are in the process of preparing their initial
applications, a number of sources have already submitted their
initial applications, and a few part 70 permits have already been
issued. As programs start to be implemented, concerns are being
raised by States and sources as to the expectations for complete
permit applications and permit content, the intended scope of the
program, and the respective responsibilities of sources,
permitting authorities, and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) in making implementation decisions in accomplishing permit
issuance.
The EPA recognizes that the burden for filing a complete
application may vary significantly among States as does the
nature of their applicable requirements, status of source
compliance, air quality conditions, the type of permit fee
schedule, and the size and complexity of their industry.
However, EPA believes that the mentioned problems, if
unaddressed, would threaten implementation of the title V
program, and thus warrant a timely response. The clarifications
contained in this policy statement are made under the current
part 70 regulations and should typically not require State
rulemaking. The EPA strongly urges States to allow sources to
take near term advantage of the flexibility provided by this
paper, particularly during the initial implementation phase of
the program. It is imperative that the provisions and
clarifications of this paper are implemented by States as quickly
as possible. Most States need not wait for EPA approval before
implementing this guidance, however they are encouraged to
consult with the appropriate EPA Regional Office as they adjust
implementation of their programs.
Section II of this paper articulates how part 70 allows
permitting authorities considerable flexibility to make decisions
regarding the completeness of applications and their adequacy to
support initial permit issuance. This guidance makes clear that
the part 70 rules do not impose unreasonable permit application
preparation burdens. In particular, it accomplishes application
streamlining by enabling and encouraging the use of:
- Tons per year (tpy) estimates for emissions units and
pollutant combinations subject to applicable
requirements, and only where meaningful to do so (e.g.,
not for section 112(r)-only pollutants); such estimates
can be based on generally-available information rather
than new studies or testing;
- Emissions descriptions, not estimates, for emissions
not regulated at the source (unless needed for permit
fee calculation, for purposes of establishing a permit
shield or a plantwide applicability limit (PAL), or for
resolution of applicable requirement coverage or major
source status);
- Checklists rather than emission descriptions for
insignificant activities based on size/production rate
and risk management plans potentially owed under
section 112(r);
- Exclusions for certain trivial and short-term
activities from permit applications (see Attachment A);
- Group treatment for activities subject to certain
generally-applicable requirements;
- Part 70 permit process to reconcile which terms of
existing new source review (NSR) permits should be
incorporated into the part 70 permit as federally-
enforceable terms;
- Citations for applicable requirements with qualitative
descriptions for each emissions unit, and for prior NSR
permits as they may be revised; and
- Certifications of compliance status which do not
require re-evaluation of previous applicability
decisions.
This paper affirms EPA's strong commitment to successful
program implementation. It is the first in a series of policy
statements intended to alleviate known implementation concerns
within the framework of the existing part 70 regulations. At the
same time, the Agency is developing rulemaking which will afford
a new streamlined approach to part 70 permit revisions and
provide other relief not possible under the current rule. The
policies set out in this paper are intended solely as guidance,
do not represent final Agency action, and cannot be relied upon
to create any rights enforceable by any party.
II. STREAMLINED DEVELOPMENT OF COMPLETE Part 70 APPLICATIONS
A. Current Requirements for Complete Applications ( 70.5)
Within 12 months of the effective date of a part 70 program,
all sources subject to the program must submit complete permit
applications. The State may establish, and many have
established, a phased schedule for application submittals.
Section 70.5(c)(3) requires a permit application to describe
all emissions of pollutants for which a source is major and all
emissions of regulated air pollutants. It also authorizes the
permitting authority to obtain additional information as needed
to verify which requirements are applicable to the source.
Applications are also sometimes relied upon to evaluate the fee
amount required under the approved permit fee schedule.
Emissions information for these purposes does not always need to
be detailed or precise. Information for applicability purposes
need only be detailed enough to resolve any open questions about
which requirements apply. Information for fee purposes only has
to be consistent with what is required in applications by the
permitting authority to implement its fee schedule. No
information is needed when this activity is done outside the
part 70 permit application process. Finally, in cases where the
applicable requirement will be established or defined in the
part 70 permit (e.g., PAL), the part 70 permit application must
contain additional information as needed to verify emissions
levels and the basis for measuring changes from them.
Section 70.5(c) further requires the application to contain
a compliance plan describing the compliance status of the source
with respect to all applicable requirements. For sources that
will not be in compliance at the time of permit issuance, the
application must contain a narrative description of how the
source will achieve compliance and a detailed schedule of
remedial measures leading to compliance. If the source is in
compliance, the application need only contain a statement that
the source will continue to comply. For applicable requirements
that will take effect during the permit term, the compliance plan
may be a statement that the source will meet them. Each
application must also include a certification of the source's
compliance status with respect to each applicable requirement and
a statement of the methods used for determining compliance.
Finally, the responsible official must also certify that the
application form and the compliance certification are true,
accurate, and complete based on information and belief formed
after reasonable inquiry.
Each part 70 program must contain criteria and streamlined
procedures for determining when permit applications are complete.
Applications for an initial part 70 permit may be considered
complete if they have information sufficient to allow the
permitting authority to begin processing the application. Unless
the permitting authority determines that an application is not
complete within 60 days, it will be considered complete by
default. If the source submits a timely and complete application
the source is shielded against penalties for operating without a
permit until its part 70 permit is issued (i.e., the source is
granted the "application shield").
Even after applications have been initially determined to be
complete, the source must submit any additional information
requested by the permitting authority to determine, or evaluate
compliance with applicable requirements, within the reasonable
timeframe allowed by the permitting authority, to maintain the
effect of the application shield. In addition, until release of
the draft permit, sources have an on-going responsibility to
correct information or submit supplemental information needed to
prepare the permit. The timeframe for updates will depend on the
permitting authority's schedule for performing the technical
review for a given application. The application shield once
granted remains in effect until permit issuance even where the
source augments its original application submittal in response to
requests for more information by the permitting authority.
As mentioned, considerable confusion exists as to what
constitutes a complete application under the requirements of part
70. Due to the significant new penalties for knowing violations
and the extremely visible forum for processing permit
applications, in the absence of clear guidance many sources have
made or are making very conservative assumptions regarding their
obligations. For example, many in the regulated community feel
that a part 70 application can be complete only if it
exhaustively catalogues every past and present emitting activity
with great precision. Others fear that an application can never
be complete since many Act requirements are still evolving,
confusion exists as to which requirements are applicable to the
source (e.g., what constitutes the State Implementation Plan
(SIP)), or no monitoring data exists upon which to base the
initial certification of compliance. Other concerns have been
raised regarding the choice of emissions estimation techniques
and the amount of information needed to support decisions of
applicability or exemption, especially those involving the
appropriate NSR for previous construction activities.
There is also a general apprehension that EPA will second
guess any or all of these judgments during its review period and
thereby impede the permit issuance process. Others are concerned
that even if complete applications could be filed, they soon
would grow obsolete and require updates before a draft permit
could be prepared. In addition, there are concerns that EPA will
issue guidance in the future which would establish extensive new
requirements concerning the content of a complete application.
As a result, worst-case assumptions for various determinations
are being made effecting a level of rigidity and rigor as well as
cost unintended by the current regulations.
This guidance is intended to correct these
misunderstandings. It is intended to give States and sources
direction on how States can reduce these burdens while achieving
the requirements of title V. As previously stated, EPA believes
that these streamlining ideas can and should be implemented under
the current part 70 rule for most States. To the extent State
forms reflect the current confusion, the Agency wishes to clarify
the issues sufficiently for States to revise the portion of their
forms implementing title V to be consistent with this guidance.
B. Content of Part 70 Permit Applications
1. Overview
This section describes the level of information which must
be contained in a part 70 permit application for it to be
considered complete. This guidance clarifies the minimum
requirements under the Federal regulations for acceptable part 70
permit applications. It grants a substantial degree of
discretion to State permitting agencies. The EPA recognizes that
different States may adopt different approaches to these minimum
requirements depending on their local needs and circumstances,
and that others may elect to go beyond those minimum
requirements. However, at least in the initial program phase,
EPA urges States to keep part 70 application requirements to the
minimum needed to identify applicable requirements. In many
instances, a qualitative description of emissions, or sometimes
no description at all, will satisfy this standard.
This section specifically clarifies that there are different
expectations for information from emissions units depending on
whether and how applicable requirements apply. In addition, this
section provides several policy clarifications aimed at lowering
current application burdens associated with addressing
insignificant activities, generic grouping of emissions units and
activities, short-term activities, incorporation of current NSR
permit conditions, section 112(r) requirements, and Research and
Development (R&D) activities.
2. Required Emissions Information And Source Descriptions
Applications should contain information to the extent needed
to determine major source status, to verify the applicability of
part 70 or applicable requirements, to verify compliance with
applicable requirements, and to compute a permit fee (as
necessary). Section 70.5(c) requires the application to describe
emissions of all regulated air pollutants for each emissions
unit. This would require at least a qualitative description of
all significant emissions units, including those not regulated
by applicable requirements.
While part 70 does not require detailed emissions inventory
building, it does require limited emissions-related information
for each pollutant and emissions unit combination which is
regulated at the source. Section 70.5(c)(3)(iii) requires for
such units emissions rate descriptions in tpy and in such terms
as are necessary to establish compliance consistent with the
applicable standard reference test method. The EPA interprets
the tpy estimates to not be required at all where they would
serve no useful purpose, where a quantifiable emissions rate is
not applicable (e.g., section 112(r) requirements or a work
practice standard), or where emissions units are subject to a
generic requirement (see Section 4. Generic Grouping of
Emissions Units and Activities).
On the other hand, more emissions information would
presumptively be required to verify emissions levels and
monitoring approaches where PALs or other plantwide emissions
limits would be established or defined in part 70 permits.
Another situation where additional emissions information might be
needed is where the permitting authority would be granting the
shield relative to a decision of non-applicability where a source
is claiming an exemption based on an emissions level cutoff in a
standard that has been issued for the category to which the
emissions unit potentially belongs. In such cases additional
information to support a determination that a requirement is not
applicable may well be required. In addition, for the minority
of States that use the part 70 application to determine the first
year's permit fee, the application and its description of all
regulated air pollutants for presumptive fee calculation must
also be adequate for that purpose. Finally, additional emissions
information might also be necessary in some cases to resolve a
dispute over whether a particular requirement is applicable, or
whether a source is major for a particular pollutant (additional
information would not be necessary where a source would stipulate
to the applicablity of the requirement and/or its major status).
Wherever emissions estimates are needed (unless the source
independently decides to more accurately estimate emissions), use
of available information should suffice. Any information that is
sufficient to support a reasonable belief as to compliance or the
applicability or non-applicability of requirements will be
acceptable for these purposes. That could include AP-42 emission
factors, emissions factors in other EPA documents, or reasonable
engineering projections, as well as test data (see Section C.
Quality of Required Information).
Any required tpy estimates are not to be included as
federally-enforceable part 70 permit terms, unless otherwise
required by an applicable requirement or requested by the source
to avoid one. In addition, where tpy descriptions are needed,
EPA does not believe that part 70 requires multiple forms of
emissions estimates (i.e., actual allowable, and potential
emissions). Also, where an emissions estimate is needed for
part 70 purposes but is otherwise available (e.g., recent
submittal of emissions inventory), then the permitting authority
can allow the source to cross-reference this information for
part 70 purposes.
Even if tpy estimates are not necessary, part 70
applications must describe all significant emissions units,
including any which are not subject to any applicable requirement
at any given emissions unit. Such unregulated emissions can
include hazardous air pollutants (HAP) listed under section
112(b) of the Act and criteria pollutants that are unregulated
for a particular emissions unit. A general description of
emissions (i.e., simple identification of the significant
pollutant or family of pollutants believed to be emitted by the
emissions unit) should suffice. For part 70 purposes, the
descriptions of emissions units themselves also can be quite
general (i.e., descriptions need not contain information such as
UTM coordinates or model and serial numbers for equipment, unless
such information is needed to determine the applicability of, or
to implement, an applicable requirement). Negative declarations
are not required for pollutants that are not emitted by the
emissions unit.
Some examples may help to illustrate where only source
descriptions of regulated and unregulated emissions are necessary
for title V purposes:
- An application for a de-greaser subject to a
requirement to have a certain type of lid could
describe the relevant applicable requirement and simply
identify that it emits volatile organic compounds (VOC)
and falls within the scope of the regulation.
Quantification of the VOC emissions would not be
necessary since the level of emissions is not relevant
to the standard.
- An application for a storage tank subject to a
requirement to have a certain type of seal, in addition
to describing this requirement, would only need to
generally identify the types of pollutants emitted,
such as VOC and HAP generally.
- An application for a boiler that is grandfathered under
the SIP could just identify that PM, SO2, NOx, VOC,
lead, and HAP are emitted and that no applicable
requirement is relevant.
3. Insignificant Activities
Section 70.5(c) allows the Administrator to approve as part
of a State program a list of insignificant activities which need
not be included in permit applications. For activities on the
list, applicants may exclude from part 70 permit applications
information that is not needed to determine (1) which applicable
requirements apply, (2) whether the source is in compliance with
applicable requirements, or (3) whether the source is major. If
insignificant activities are excluded because they fall below a
certain size or production rate, the application must describe
any such activities at the source which are included on the list.
Even for such insignificant activities, the process for listing
them in the application can be fairly simple. The permitting
authority could allow the source merely to list in the
application the kinds of insignificant activities that are
present at the source or check them off from a list of
insignificant activities approved in the program.
In addition to the insignificant activity provisions of
70.5(c), there is flexibility inherent in 70.5 to tailor the
level of information required in the application to be
commensurate with the need to determine applicable requirements.
The EPA believes this inherent flexibility encompasses the idea
that certain activities are clearly trivial (i.e., emissions
units and activities without specific applicable requirements and
with extremely small emissions) and can be omitted from the
application even if they are not included on a list of
insignificant activities approved in a State's part 70 program
pursuant to 70.5(c). Attachment A lists examples of activities
which EPA believes should normally qualify as trivial in this
sense. This list is intended only as a starting point for States
to consider. The determination of whether any particular item
should be on the State's trivial list may depend on State-
specific factors (e.g., whether the activity is subject to the
requirements of the SIP). Permitting authorities can also allow,
on a case-by-case basis without EPA approval, exemptions similar
to those activities identified in Attachment A. Additional
exemptions, to the extent that the activities they cover are not
clearly trivial, still need to be approved by EPA before being
added to State lists of insignificant activities.
4. Generic Grouping of Emissions Units and Activities
Questions have arisen regarding whether emissions units and
activities may be treated generically in the application and
permit for certain broadly applicable requirements often found in
the SIP. Examples of such requirements brought to EPA's
attention include requirements that apply identically to all
emissions units at a facility (e.g., source-wide opacity limits),
general housekeeping requirements, and requirements that apply
identical emissions limits to small units (e.g., process weight
requirements). These requirements are sometimes referred to as
"generic," because they apply and are enforced in the same manner
for all subject units or activities.
These requirements can normally be adequately addressed in
the permit application with minimal or no reference to any
specific emissions unit or activity, provided that the scope of
the requirement and the manner of its enforcement are clear.
Even where such generic requirements attach to individual small
emissions units or activities, requiring a unit-by-unit or
activity-by-activity description of numerous units or activities
would generally impose a paperwork burden that would not be
compensated by any gain in the practical enforceability of such
relatively simple requirements. Therefore, provided the
applicant documents the applicability of these requirements and
describes the compliance status as required by 70.5(c), the
individual emissions units or activities may be excluded from the
application, provided no other requirement applies which would
mandate a different result. Similarly, the part 70 permit which
must assure compliance with the generic applicable requirement
would be written without specificity to applicable emissions
units or activities.
In EPA's view, the validity of this approach stems from the
nature of these applicable requirements. Accordingly, EPA
believes application of this principle for grouping subject
activities together generically should not depend on whether
those activities qualify as trivial or insignificant. Where the
applicable requirement is amenable to this approach, that is,
where (1) the class of activities or emissions units subject to
the requirement can be unambiguously defined in a generic manner
and where (2) effective enforceability of that requirement does
not require a specific listing of subject units or activities,
permitting authorities may follow this approach regardless of
whether subject activities have been listed as trivial or
insignificant.
A lengthy list of the types of requirements suitable for
this treatment is not possible here because, among other reasons,
the examples of which EPA is aware are SIP requirements, and so
vary from State to State. Permitting authorities are in the best
position to decide which SIP requirements can be treated in this
generic fashion. However, permitting authorities may wish to
consult with the EPA Regional office in advance to clarify any
uncertainties.
5. Short-term Activities
States can treat many short-term activities (e.g.,
activities occurring infrequently and for a short duration at a
part 70 source) subject to an applicable requirement in the same
fashion as activities subject to a generic requirement (see
previous discussion). Since these activities are not present at
the source during preparation of the permit, the most that can be
expected is generic treatment in the application. For such
activities, the application and permit would not include
emissions unit specificity but instead would contain a general
duty to meet all applicable requirements that would apply to any
qualifying short-term activity. Short-term activities which are
not subject to an applicable requirement should be classified as
insignificant activities or would qualify as trivial, and so
would not be included in either the part 70 application or
permit.
For example, a contractor-run sandblasting operation that is
subject to a SIP limit for particulate matter might be operated
on an infrequent but recurring basis might qualify for the
general duty approach. However, where such activities re-occur
with considerable frequency, the permitting authority could
require them to be included in the permit. The source would also
be obligated to revise the permit if operation of any short-term
activity would be in conflict with the permit. If short-term
construction activities occur, the part 70 permit application
would need to address them only if they are subject to the
State's NSR program or are otherwise in conflict with the
envisioned part 70 permit.
6. Determination of Applicable SIP Requirements
One of the undisputed challenges facing both State and the
regulated community in their efforts to develop complete
applications is the determination of the applicable SIP
requirements for a part 70 source. In some situations, it may be
difficult to identify all the requirements in the SIP which are
applicable to a particular source. Applicants, after
consultation with the permitting authority, should include in
permit applications the State rules which, to the best of their
knowledge, are in the SIP. A good faith estimate will be enough
to support both a valid compliance certification and a
"completeness" determination. Review by the permitting
authority, EPA, and the public may provide additional insight
into whether any other applicable requirements exist. Any
additions should not affect the validity of the original permit
application and its eligibility for the application shield or of
the accompanying compliance certification. However, the source
would have to update its certification to account for any
subsequently identified SIP requirements.
At least one State has developed a checklist of its air
rules and required the applicant to check off which ones apply
and select appropriate codes for rationalizing which ones do not
apply. This type of approach should aid the source in providing
in the part 70 application its understanding of what applicable
requirements apply. Sources in such a State may rely on the
checklist. The EPA has also provided a contractor to document
the approved SIP for each State. Where an EPA compilation
exists, sources may rely on it as well. This process is well
underway for most States and permitting authorities and, in many
cases, EPA Regional Offices can provide the rule citation of the
State rules that have been approved as part of the SIP.
Where a State has adopted a rule that is pending approval by
EPA into the SIP, sources (if advised by the permitting
authority) could in their applications note that the
corresponding State-only requirements will become federally
enforceable upon SIP approval. The permitting authority during
review of the application would be responsible for determining if
the SIP had been approved. If so, then the permitting authority
would incorporate the requirements into the federally-enforceable
portion of the permit. If the requirements had not been approved
into the SIP, the permitting authority could incorporate the
pending requirements into the State-only enforceable portion of
the permit and note that the requirements would become federally
enforceable upon SIP approval. The federally-enforceable portion
of the permit would include the existing SIP requirements and
condition them to expire upon EPA approval of the SIP revision.
Once the SIP revision is approved, the pending permit terms would
become federally-enforceable and the permit terms based on the
superseded SIP rule would become void.
7. Incorporation of Prior NSR Permit Terms and Conditions
This paper provides guidance to States and sources in
devising a means to revise NSR permit terms as appropriate
(including classification as a State-only enforceable term) in
conjunction with the part 70 permit issuance process. As used
here, "new source review" refers to all forms of preconstruction
permitting under programs approved into the SIP, including minor
and major NSR (e.g., prevention of significant deterioration).
Section 70.2 defines any term or condition of a NSR permit issued
under a Federal or SIP-approved NSR program as being an
applicable requirement. The Agency has concluded, however, that
only environmentally significant terms need to be included in
part 70 permits. The EPA recognizes that NSR permits contain
terms that are obsolete, extraneous, environmentally
insignificant, or otherwise not required as part of the SIP or a
federally-enforceable NSR program. Such terms, as subsequently
explained, need not be incorporated into the part 70 permit to
fulfill the purposes of the NSR and title V programs required
under the Act.
Minor NSR, in particular, is a program which the State has
discretion to mold as necessary to be consistent with the goals
of the SIP. Therefore, the permitting authority has very broad
discretion in determining the terms of minor NSR. This
discretion also exists to a much lesser extent in crafting major
NSR permits, since the Act and EPA regulations contain several
express requirements for review of major subject sources. Many
NSR permit terms written in the past for both minor and major
NSR, however, were understandably not written with a view toward
careful segregation of terms implementing the Act from State-only
requirements.
The EPA believes that the part 70 permit issuance process,
involving as it does review by the permitting authority, public,
and EPA, presents an excellent opportunity for the permitting
authority to make appropriate revisions to a NSR permit
contemporaneously with the issuance of the part 70 permit. The
public participation procedures for issuance of a part 70 permit
satisfy any procedural requirements of Federal law associated
with any NSR permit revision. This parallel processing approach
is also an excellent opportunity to minimize the administrative
burden associated with such an exercise. By conducting a
simultaneous revision to the NSR permit, the permitting authority
would be revising the "applicable NSR requirement" for purposes
of determining what must be included in the part 70 permit.
There are several factors which bound the available
discretion of the permitting authority in deciding whether an
NSR permit term is necessary and must be incorporated into the
part 70 permit as a federally-enforceable condition. Certainly
all NSR terms must be incorporated which are mandatory under
EPA's governing regulations (e.g., best available control
technology, lowest achievable emissions rate, and other
applicable NSR emission limits), or are not mandatory under EPA
regulations but are expressly required under the terms of the
State's NSR program (e.g., new source performance standards
(NSPS) and SIP emission limits, reporting and recordkeeping
requirements), or are voluntarily taken by the source to avoid
an otherwise applicable requirement (e.g., emission limits used
to create a "synthetic minor" source, to "net out" of major NSR,
or to create tradeable offsets or other emission reduction
credits).
On the other hand, other NSR permit terms and conditions may
be patently obsolete and no longer relevant to the operation of
the source, such as terms regulating construction activity during
the building or modification of the source, where the
construction is long completed and the statute of limitations on
construction-phase activities has run out. These terms no longer
serve a Federal purpose and need not be included as terms of the
part 70 permit. Likewise, the State will also need to identify
provisions from NSR permits that are not required under Federal
law because they are unrelated to the purposes of the NSR
program. Examples typically include odor limitations, and
limitations on emissions of hazardous air pollutants where such
limitations do not reflect a section 112 standard or a SIP
criteria pollutant requirement. Where the State retains such
conditions, it would draft the part 70 permit to specify that
they are State-only conditions and incorporate them into the
part 70 permit as such.
New source review permits are also likely to contain other
terms that are not patently obsolete or irrelevant, but that the
source and permitting authority agree are nevertheless
extraneous, out-dated, or otherwise environmentally insignificant
and inappropriate for inclusion in a federally-enforceable
permit. Candidates for this exclusion include: (1) information
incorporated by reference from an application for a
preconstruction permit (to the extent this information is needed
to enforce NSR permit terms it should be converted to terms in
the part 70 permit), or (2) original terms of a preconstruction
permit that has been superseded by other terms related to
operation. The propriety of excluding other types of NSR permit
terms will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
The EPA believes that the above parallel processing approach
should be effective in most situations to incorporate the
federally significant NSR permit terms into the part 70 permit in
an efficient and workable way. However, the Agency recognizes
that sources and permitting authorities may experience serious
burden and timing concerns in accomplishing this process.
Therefore, the Agency recommends the following approach, which
EPA believes is consistent with the current part 70 rule. Under
this approach, sources may in their part 70 permit applications,
propose candidate terms from their current NSR permits which they
reasonably believe should be considered for revision, deletion,
or designation as being enforceable only by the State. Upon
submittal of the application, the source would, as a Federal
matter, only need to certify compliance status for those
remaining NSR terms that it had earmarked for incorporation into
the part 70 permit as federally-enforceable terms. The
permitting authority, as part of the collaborative part 70 permit
issuance process, would review the list of terms recommended in
good faith by the source for deletion, revision, or State-only
status and would ultimately agree or disagree with the source's
proposal. Where the permitting authority decided that terms
beyond those proposed as federally enforceable by the source
should be retained to implement NSR, the source would be required
to re-certify its application with respect to those NSR terms.
Failure to do so within the timeframe required by the permitting
authority would result in an inaccurate certification and the
loss of the application shield.
The resolution of which NSR terms are to be incorporated
should ideally be completed by the time of initial part 70 permit
issuance. However, the resources available for timely issuance
of thousands of part 70 permits may not be sufficient to achieve
final resolution of NSR permit terms by permit issuance. Serious
concerns have been raised by industry that they should not be
subject to premature incorporation of these remaining permit
terms into the part 70 permit. They believe that this could
trigger, in many cases, inappropriate part 70 responsibilities
(e.g., monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping) for these terms.
The EPA believes that the current part 70 rule allows
permitting authorities to address these concerns as well. Where
States wish to extend the time in which to decide whether to
revise, delete, or designate as State-only certain terms of
current NSR permits, permitting authorities may stipulate in
initial part 70 permits that any of those NSR terms so listed in
the permit will be reviewed and be deleted, revised, or
incorporated as federally-enforceable terms of the part 70 permit
on or before a specified deadline (not later than the renewal of
the permit). Prior to the deadline, the permitting authority
would delete, revise, or make federally enforceable any terms
that the State determined warranted such treatment. In the
meantime, all other terms would continue to be enforceable under
State law as terms of the NSR permit. The permitting authority
would incorporate any NSR permit terms that were not deleted or
designated as State-only into the federally enforceable portion
of the part 70 permit consistent with its approved part 70 permit
revision procedures.
Finally the permitting authority may be required to add new
terms to the part 70 permit to make any incorporated NSR permit
terms enforceable from a practical standpoint, to reflect
operation rather than construction, or to meet other part 70
requirements regarding the content of permits. Where a
permitting authority has already converted the NSR permit into an
existing State operating permit before incorporation into the
part 70 permit, the terms of the current permit to operate will
presumptively define how NSR permit terms should be incorporated
into part 70 permits.
8. Section 112(r) Requirements
For sources otherwise required to obtain a part 70 permit,
complete applications merely need to acknowledge (where
appropriate) that the on-site storage and processing of section
112(r) chemicals may require the source to submit a section
112(r) risk management plan (RMP) when that requirement becomes
applicable. This acknowledgment should be based on the "List of
Regulated Substances and Their Thresholds" rule [59 FR 4478
(January 14, 1994)]. Sources are not required to quantify
emissions of these substances (unless they are also pollutants
listed under section 112(b), and such quantification is needed
for fee collection purposes). To resolve issues of
applicability, permitting authorities may ask for additional
information from certain sources regarding materials stored and
transferred and the amounts of chemicals used in certain
processes if the source does not indicate its potential
applicability with respect to the section 112(r) requirement to
file an RMP.
9. Research and Development Activities
The EPA expects that R&D activities will generally be exempt
from part 70 and not be involved in the part 70 application
process since they are typically independent, non-major sources.
The July 1992 part 70 preamble provided general guidance
explaining that R & D activities could often be regarded as
separate "sources" from any operation with which it were co-
located (57 FR 32264 and 32269). The Agency is clarifying and
confirming their substantial flexibility under the ongoing
rulemaking action to revise part 70.
Some R&D activities can still be subject to part 70 because
they are either individually major or a support facility making
significant contributions to the product of a collocated major
manufacturing facility. In addition, laboratory activities which
involve environmental and quality assurance/quality control
sample analysis, as well as R&D, present similar permitting
problems. Such activities should be eligible for classification
as an insignificant activity if there are no applicable SIP
requirements. Where applicable SIP requirements do apply, they
typically consist of "work practice" (e.g., good laboratory
practice) requirements. In this situation, permit applications
would need to contain only statements acknowledging the
applicability of, and certifying compliance with, these work
practice requirements. There is no need for an extensive
inventory of chemicals and activities or a detailed description
of emissions from the R&D or laboratory activity. Similarly,
there would be no need to monitor emissions as a part 70 permit
responsibility.
10. Applications from Non-major Sources
Applications for non-major sources subject to part 70 can be
less comprehensive than those for major sources. (Note that
virtually all States have deferred the applicability of these
sources as provided by part 70.) While permits for major sources
must include all applicable requirements for all emissions units
at the source, 70.3(c)(2) stipulates that permits for non-major
sources have to address only the requirements applicable to
emissions units that cause the source to be subject to part 70
(e.g., requirements of sections 111 or 112 of the Act applicable
to non-major sources). Other emissions units at non-major
sources that do not trigger part 70 applicability, even if they
are subject to applicable requirements, do not have to be
included in the permit. Since permits for non-major sources do
not have to include applicable requirements for emissions units
that do not cause the source to be subject to part 70, no
information on those units is needed in the permit application.
11. Supporting Information
The great majority of the detailed background information
relied upon by the source to prepare the application need not be
included in the application for it to be found complete. Even
though certain emissions-related calculations [see
70.5(c)(3)(viii)] are required, the application size can still
be significantly reduced if the permitting authority allows the
source to submit examples of calculations performed that
illustrate the methodology used. Cost savings can be realized,
even though the calculations are still performed, in that the
efforts to exhaustively record them in the application can be
omitted.
The permitting authority can request additional, more
detailed information needed to justify any questionable
information or statement contained in the initial application or
to write a comprehensive part 70 draft permit. Applications for
permits which will establish a requirement uniquely found in the
part 70 permit (such as an alternative reasonably available
control technology (RACT) limit) would require more supporting
information, including any required demonstration.
C. Quality of Required Information
The quality of emissions estimates where they are needed in
the part 70 permit application depends on the reasonable
availability of the necessary information and on the extent to
which they are relied upon by the permitting authority to resolve
disputed questions of major source status, applicability of
requirements, and/or compliance with applicable requirements. In
general, where estimates of emissions are necessary, reasonably-
available information may be used.
Generally, the emissions factors contained in EPA's
publication AP-42 and other EPA documents may be used to make any
necessary calculation of emissions. When an acceptable range of
values is defined for a general type of source situation,
permitting authorities have considerable discretion to define the
appropriate emissions factor value within that range. States are
most often better able to make such decisions given their closer
proximity to the particular source and its operation.
For purposes of certifying the truth and accuracy of the
application, part 70 requires that emissions estimates be
expressed in terms consistent with the applicable requirement.
This does not mean that only test data is acceptable. Rather,
the source may rely on any data using the same units and
averaging times as in the test method. New testing is not
required and emission factors are presumed to be acceptable for
emissions calculations, but more accurate data are preferred if
they are readily available. Emissions factors provided by
permitting authorities are also allowed where EPA emission
factors are missing or State or industry values provide greater
accuracy. The applicant may also use other estimation methods
(materials balance, source test, or continuous emissions
monitoring (CEM) data) when emission estimates produced through
the use of emission factors are not appropriate.
In disputed cases, the source may propose the least costly
alternative estimation method as long as it will produce
acceptable data. Owners and operators may propose use of
emissions estimation methods of their choosing to the permitting
authority when the resulting data is more accurate than that
obtained through the use of emissions factors. Sources are
encouraged to contact the permitting authority to discuss the
appropriate estimation techniques for a particular circumstance.
Emissions estimates when they are necessary for HAPs often
become less precise below certain thresholds. The need for
quantification or even estimation should therefore decrease the
lower the levels are that are present. For example, VOC
estimates based on manufacturer's safety data sheets may indicate
that trace amounts of certain HAPs may be present. It is
reasonable for the source to report these HAPs as present in
trace amounts and not quantify them further or perform expensive
testing procedures to collect more accurate data, unless the
permitting authority requires otherwise. On the other hand, more
precise estimates might be required to defend a position that a
VOC source was below emissions cutoffs which subject it to a RACT
requirement if the source appeared close to that threshold and it
exact emissions level was in doubt.
D. Phase-In of Details for Completeness Determinations
Permitting authorities have considerable flexibility in
processing the expected huge volume of permit applications so as
to issue initial permits by the required deadline of 3 years
after program approval. The 70.5(c) requirement that a permit
application will be complete only if it addresses all the
information required in this section must be interpreted in light
of the July 1992 preamble (which clarifies the 70.5(c)
requirement for completeness in terms of information needed by
the permitting authority to begin processing of an application).
Accordingly, the permitting authority may balance the need for
information to support timely permit issuance pursuant to the
schedule approved in the program against the workload associated
with managing and updating as necessary the initially submitted
information.
Sources must submit complete applications within 12 months
of the effective date (i.e., 30 days after the Federal Register
date where EPA approves the program) of a State part 70 program
or on whatever schedule for application submittal the State
establishes in its approved program for its sources. Permitting
authorities may also require application submittals prior to
part 70 program approval under State authority, however, a
failure to comply with any application deadline earlier than the
effective date for the program cannot be considered a violation
of the Act.
The current rule allows permitting authorities to implement
a two-step process for application completeness, first
determining an application to be administratively complete, then
requiring application updates as needed to support draft permit
preparation. For example, permitting authorities can initially
find an application complete if it defines the applicable
requirements, and major/minor source status; certifies compliance
status with respect to all applicable requirements (subject to
the limitation on this action provided for in Section H.
Compliance Certification Issues); and allows the permitting
authority to determine the approved permit issuance schedule.
The application must also include a certification as to its
truth, accuracy, and completeness. In any event, permitting
authorities must award the application shield if the source
submits a timely application which meets the criteria for
completeness in 70.5(c).
Under this approach, if the source has supplied at least
initial information in all the areas required by the permit
application form and has certified it appropriately, the
permitting authority generally has flexibility to judge the
application to be complete enough to begin processing.
Accordingly, there should normally be no need for an applicant to
submit an application many days in advance in order to build in
extra time for an iterative process before the relevant submittal
deadline. Sources scheduled for permitting during the first year
of the transition schedule must submit any additional information
as needed to meet fully the requirements of 70.5(c) for
completeness on a more immediate schedule so that their permit
can be issued within that first year.
E. Updates to Initially Complete Applications Due to Change
Sources, to maintain their application's status as complete
and therefore preserve the application shield, must respond to
requests from the permitting authority for additional information
to determine or evaluate compliance with applicable requirements
within the reasonable timeframe established by the permitting
authority. Where more information is needed in the permit
application to continue its processing, permitting authorities
may opt to add the additional information to the application
themselves or require additional submittals from the source.
Sources must promptly certify any additional information
submitted by them and certify or revise any relevant information
furnished by the permitting authority.
1. Changing Emissions Information
Updates to the initially complete application may be
required if emissions information, such as revised emissions
factors, changes or additional NSR projects are approved after an
application is submitted. The exact response required will
depend in part on whether the change affects a source's
applicable requirements or its compliance status and when it is
discovered. If, after consultation with the permitting
authority, it is determined that the applicability status of the
source is affected by new emissions information (e.g., the change
causes the source to become newly subject to applicable
requirements or may affect its ability to comply with a current
NSR permit condition), then the source must promptly submit the
new information to the permitting authority, identify any new
requirements that apply, and certify any change in the source's
compliance status. The issuance of an NSR permit may also add a
new applicable requirement that would need to be addressed by the
part 70 permit.
If the new information is discovered before the draft permit
has been issued, it should be submitted as an addendum to the
application, and the draft permit should reflect the new
information. The permitting authority and a source can agree on
set intervals at which such updating is required in order to
structure the process and make it more efficient. If new
information is discovered after the draft permit has completed
public review but before the proposed permit has been issued, the
information should still be submitted, and it is the
responsibility of the permitting authority to revise the permit
accordingly.
If new information is discovered after the permit has been
issued, the resulting change could, at the discretion of the
permitting authority, be addressed as a permit revision or as a
reopening. If the change would not allow a source to comply with
its current permit, the source should initiate a permit revision.
If the information does not affect applicability of, or
compliance with, any applicable requirement (e.g., only alters
the tpy emissions estimates of regulated pollutants), the
information need not be submitted until permit renewal. If the
permitting authority requires submittal of new information
earlier, however, then it must be submitted according to
reasonable deadlines established by the permitting authority.
2. Other Changes
Other changes can also occur that would require the source,
even absent a specific request from the permitting authority, to
propose an update to an initially complete application. One
example is where a new regulatory requirement becomes applicable
to the source before the permit is issued.
F. Content Streamlining
1. Cross Referencing
The permitting authority may allow the application to cross-
reference previously issued preconstruction and part 70 permits,
State or local rules and regulations, State laws, Federal rules
and regulations, and other documents that affect the applicable
requirements to which the source is subject, provided the
referenced materials are currently applicable and available to
the public. The accuracy of any description of such cross-
referenced documents is subject to the certification requirements
of part 70. Such documents must be made available as part of the
public docket on the permit action, unless they are published
and/or are readily available (e.g., regulations printed in the
Code of Federal Regulations or its State equivalent). In
addition, materials that are available elsewhere within the same
application can be cross referenced to another section of the
application.
In many cases, incorporation of prior information from
previously issued permits would be useful. Examples are where a
source is updating a part 70 permit by referencing the
appropriate terms of a NSR permit or renewing a part 70 permit by
referencing the current permit and certifying that no change in
source operation or in the applicable requirements has occurred.
Even where existing permit conditions are expressed in
terminology other than that used in the part 70 permit, cross-
referencing can still be possible. Such citations, however,
would have to provide sufficient translations of terms to ensure
the same effect.
As discussed previously, the permitting authority may
determine that certain terms and conditions of existing NSR
permits are obsolete, environmentally insignificant, or not
germane with respect to their incorporation into part 70 permits.
Even when a NSR permit contain such terms, citation can still be
used to the extent that the NSR permit provisions appropriate for
part 70 permit incorporation are clearly identified through the
cross-reference. Also, the NSR permit terms not cited for
part 70 incorporation are still in effect as a matter of State
law unless and until expressly deleted by the permitting
authority. Wherever this citation approach is used, the
permitting authority should review all referenced terms to ensure
they meet part 70 requirements for enforceability.
The EPA believes that one reason for the excessive length
and cost of some permit applications is that sources believe they
are required to paraphrase or re-state in their entirety the
provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) or other
repositories of applicable requirements. Citations can be used
to streamline how applicable requirements are described in an
application and will also facilitate compliance by eliminating
the possibility that part 70 permit terms will conflict with
underlying substantive requirements. Indeed, many States have
taken a citation-based approach as a way of streamlining
applications and permits. Thus, a source could cite, rather than
repeat in its application, the often extensive details of a
particular applicable requirement (including current NSR permit
terms), provided that the requirement is readily available and
its manner of application to the source is not subject to
interpretation. The citation must be clear with respect to
limits and other requirements that apply to each subject
emissions unit or activity. For example, a storage tank subject
to subpart Kb of the NSPS would cite that requirement in its
application rather than re-typing the provisions of the CFR.
2. Incorporation of Part 70 Applications by Reference into
Permits
The EPA discourages the incorporation of entire applications
by reference into permits. The concern with incorporation of the
application by reference into the permit on a wholesale basis is
the confusion created as to the requirements that apply to the
source and the unnecessary limits to operational flexibility that
such an incorporation might cause.
If States do incorporate part 70 applications by reference
in their entirety into part 70 permits, EPA will consider
information in the application to be federally enforceable only
to the extent it is needed to make other necessary terms and
conditions enforceable from a practical standpoint. Moreover,
EPA does not interpret part 70 to require permit revisions for
changes in the other aspects of the application.
3. Changing Application Forms
The EPA urges States to re-examine their permit application
forms in light of their experience to date and the contents of
this guidance. Although the revision of an application form
requires a program revision when it impacts any portion of the
form which was relied upon by EPA in approving the part 70
program for the State, such a revision can, in most cases, be
accomplished through an exchange of letters with the appropriate
EPA Regional Office. Changes made to implement this guidance
can be effected immediately with implementing documents sent to
the appropriate EPA Regional Office. Similarly, a State could
notify the Regional Office in writing that the State intends to
make completeness determinations based on completion of parts of
the existing forms to avoid costly changes in computerized form
systems that have already been developed. This is another way
that a State can act quickly to streamline application
requirements while minimizing its own administrative burdens.
G. Responsible Official
Part 70 provides that a "responsible official" must perform
certain important functions. In general, responsible officials
must certify the truth, accuracy, and completeness of all
applications, forms, reports, and compliance certifications
required to be submitted by the operating permits program
[ 70.5(d)]. As an example, a responsible official must certify
the truth, accuracy, and completeness of all information
submitted as part of a permit application [ 70.5(a)(2)] and that
the source is in compliance "with all applicable requirements"
under the Act [ 70.5(c)(9)(i)]. In addition, part 70 requires
responsible officials to certify monitoring reports, which must
be submitted every 6 months, and "prompt" reports of any
deviations from permit requirements whenever they occur.
The definition of responsible official in 70.2 identifies
specific categories of officials that have the requisite
authority to carry out the duties associated with that role. The
definition provides in part that the following corporate
officials may be a responsible official:
. . . a president, secretary, treasurer, or vice president
or any other person who performs similar policy or decision-
making functions for the corporation, or a duly authorized
representative of such person if the representative is
responsible for the overall operation of one or more
manufacturing, production, or operating facilities applying
for or subject to a permit . . . . [emphasis added]
Similarly, for public agencies, the definition indicates the
following persons may be responsible officials:
. . . a principal executive officer or ranking elected
official. For purposes of this part, a principal executive
officer of a Federal agency includes the chief executive
officer having responsibility for the overall operations of
a principal geographic unit of the agency . . . . [emphasis
added]
Concerns have been raised over the apparent narrowness of
the current definition of responsible official. In the August
1994 Federal Register notice, EPA responded to those concerns
related to acid rain by proposing a revision to the definition of
responsible official to allow a person other than the designated
representative to be the responsible official for activities not
related to acid rain control at affected sources [59 FR 44527].
To respond to further concerns over the definition of
responsible official as it applies to partnerships formed by
corporations, or partnerships, or a combination of both, EPA
confirms that the same categories of officials who can act as
responsible officials for corporations can also act in that
capacity for partnerships where they carry out responsibilities
substantially similar to those in the same categories in
corporations. Partnerships that are essentially unions of
corporations and/or partnerships will normally have the same
management needs as corporations and so will establish a
management structure with categories of officials similar to
those of most corporations. In these partnerships, the persons
with the knowledge and authority to assure regulatory compliance
are the officials of the partnership.
Interpreting the definition of responsible official as
limiting the class of persons in partnerships that may be
responsible officials to general partners would frustrate the
intent of the definition because it would in many instances
actually result in designating a person that is not in a position
to adequately fulfill the role of a responsible official. For
this reason, EPA believes it is reasonable for permitting
authorities, in the case of partnerships composed of corporations
and/or partnerships, to allow for the same flexibility in
designating a responsible official as would be the case for
corporations.
H. Compliance Certification Issues
To make the required compliance certification to accompany
the initial part 70 permit applications, sources are required to
review current major and minor NSR permits and other permits
containing Federal requirements, SIP's and other documents, and
other Federal requirements in order to determine applicable
requirements for emission units. The EPA and/or the State
permitting authority may request additional information
concerning a source's emissions as part of the part 70
application process.
Companies are not federally required to reconsider previous
applicability determinations as part of their inquiry in
preparing part 70 permit applications. However, EPA expects
companies to rectify past noncompliance as it is discovered.
Companies remain subject to enforcement actions for any past
noncompliance with requirements to obtain a permit or meet air
pollution control obligations. In addition, the part 70 permit
shield is not available for noncompliance with applicable
requirements that occurred prior to or continues after submission
of the application. ATTACHMENT A
LIST OF ACTIVITIES THAT MAY BE TREATED AS "TRIVIAL"
The following types of activities and emissions units may be
presumptively omitted from part 70 permit applications. Certain
of these listed activities include qualifying statements intended
to exclude many similar activities.
Combustion emissions from propulsion of mobile sources,
except for vessel emissions from Outer Continental Shelf
sources.
Air-conditioning units used for human comfort that do not
have applicable requirements under title VI of the Act.
Ventilating units used for human comfort that do not exhaust
air pollutants into the ambient air from any
manufacturing/industrial or commercial process.
Non-commercial food preparation.
Consumer use of office equipment and products, not including
printers or businesses primarily involved in photographic
reproduction.
Janitorial services and consumer use of janitorial products.
Internal combustion engines used for landscaping purposes.
Laundry activities, except for dry-cleaning and steam
boilers.
Bathroom/toilet vent emissions.
Emergency (backup) electrical generators at residential
locations.
Tobacco smoking rooms and areas.
Blacksmith forges.
Plant maintenance and upkeep activities (e.g., grounds-
keeping, general repairs, cleaning, painting, welding,
plumbing, re-tarring roofs, installing insulation, and
paving parking lots) provided these activities are not
conducted as part of a manufacturing process, are not
related to the source's primary business activity, and not
otherwise triggering a permit modification.
Repair or maintenance shop activities not related to the
source's primary business activity, not including emissions
from surface coating or de-greasing (solvent metal cleaning)
activities, and not otherwise triggering a permit
modification.
Portable electrical generators that can be moved by hand
from one location to another.
Hand-held equipment for buffing, polishing, cutting,
drilling, sawing, grinding, turning or machining wood, metal
or plastic.
Brazing, soldering and welding equipment, and cutting
torches related to manufacturing and construction activities
that do not result in emission of HAP metals.
Air compressors and pneumatically operated equipment,
including hand tools.
Batteries and battery charging stations, except at battery
manufacturing plants.
Storage tanks, vessels, and containers holding or storing
liquid substances that will not emit any VOC or HAP.
Storage tanks, reservoirs, and pumping and handling
equipment of any size containing soaps, vegetable oil,
grease, animal fat, and nonvolatile aqueous salt solutions,
provided appropriate lids and covers are utilized.
Equipment used to mix and package, soaps, vegetable oil,
grease, animal fat, and nonvolatile aqueous salt solutions,
provided appropriate lids and covers are utilized.
Drop hammers or hydraulic presses for forging or
metalworking.
Equipment used exclusively to slaughter animals, but not
including other equipment at slaughterhouses, such as
rendering cookers, boilers, heating plants, incinerators,
and electrical power generating equipment.
Vents from continuous emissions monitors and other
analyzers.
Natural gas pressure regulator vents, excluding venting at
oil and gas production facilities.
Hand-held applicator equipment for hot melt adhesives with
no VOC in the adhesive formulation.
Equipment used for surface coating, painting, dipping or
spraying operations, except those that will emit VOC or HAP.
CO2 lasers, used only on metals and other materials which do
not emit HAP in the process.
Consumer use of paper trimmers/binders.
Electric or steam-heated drying ovens and autoclaves, but
not the emissions from the articles or substances being
processed in the ovens or autoclaves or the boilers
delivering the steam.
Salt baths using nonvolatile salts that do not result in
emissions of any regulated air pollutants.
Laser trimmers using dust collection to prevent fugitive
emissions.
Bench-scale laboratory equipment used for physical or
chemical analysis, but not lab fume hoods or vents.
Routine calibration and maintenance of laboratory equipment
or other analytical instruments.
Equipment used for quality control/assurance or inspection
purposes, including sampling equipment used to withdraw
materials for analysis.
Hydraulic and hydrostatic testing equipment.
Environmental chambers not using hazardous air pollutant
(HAP) gasses.
Shock chambers.
Humidity chambers.
Solar simulators.
Fugitive emission related to movement of passenger vehicles,
provided the emissions are not counted for applicability
purposes and any required fugitive dust control plan or its
equivalent is submitted.
Process water filtration systems and demineralizes.
Demineralized water tanks and demineralizer vents.
Boiler water treatment operations, not including cooling
towers.
Oxygen scavenging (de-aeration) of water.
Ozone generators.
Fire suppression systems.
Emergency road flares.
Steam vents and safety relief valves.
Steam leaks.
Steam cleaning operations.
Steam sterilizers.
Please e-mail any comments or questions to the Clean Air Act Information
Network.
Return to the Clean Air
Act Information Network Home Page