# OAR Box 1781 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 14)11-1- 6 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:18 AM Sheet 14 of 142 p. 1p_ _



### '• f 

### • 

### •'.- i• ^ 

### U-I- 6 

# LLylodifyin g Operation s unde r CA A Permittin g an dNe w Sourc e Revie w Requirement s

Clar a G . Poffenberge r an d Stephe n E . Road y

The operating permit

requirements contained in Title V of

the Clean Air Act not only have the potential

to impose new regulatory requirements on sources of

air emissions that

have hitherto been unregulated, they also raise significant

questions as to the relationship between those requirements and the requirements of

the New Source Review program. The potential overlap between Title V requirements and NSR requirements is particularly important for sources that

plan to modify their

operations. This article examines the principal

features of

Title V and

NSR for sources pursuing modifications, and

recommends that

these sources consider obtaining flexible permits, designing a facilitywide emissions cap, or converting themselves into "synthetic minor" sources, in order

to avoid

potential regulatory redundancies. 

# T h e operatin g permi t requirement s o f

Titl e V o f

th e Clea n Ai r

Ac t swee p ane w se t

o f source s unde r

th e ambi t

o f th e Ac t an dals o presen t anumbe r

o f potentia l issue s unde r

th e Ne w Sourc e Revie w (NSR ) program s containe di n th e Act
. Thi s articl e explore s severa l o f th e mor e importan t

issue s pose db y th e relationshi p betwee n th e Titl e V permittin g requirement s an dth e NS Rrequirements , an dprovide s guidanc e t o source s wishin g t o modif y thei r operation s a s the y sor t

ou t strategie s fo r complyin g wit hthes e requirements
. Th e potentia l fo r

overla p betwee n th e Titl e V requirement s an dth e NS Rprogram s arise s chiefl y becaus e bot har e designed , amon g othe r
Clara G. Poffenberger

is the New Source Review representative

of the Stationary

Source Compliance

Division;

she reviews NSR enforcement

and compliance

issues for the Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards

at EPAin Washington, DC. In

1992, she

served as an attorney advisor in Office of Enforcement. Stephen E. Roady

is a partner with the law firm ofAndrews

& Kurth LLP. in Washington, DC. During 1989 and 1990, he

served as counsel to the minority with the United States Senate Committee

on Environment

and Public Works, where he was closely involved in drafting the permits title of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The opinions expressed

in this article are those of the authors alone. Except

when deliberations

or decisions

are attributed

directly to EPAor to specified

state authorities, this article is not meant to

reflect the official position of EPA, or of any other federal, state, or

local governmental

authority.

Autum n 199 3 Environmenta l Permittin g • 48 5Clar a G . Poffenberge r an d Stephe n E . Road y P. 3
^



### ...th e NS R progra m mandate s that al l propose d majo r modification s o

f existin g source

s b e reviewe d an d issue

d permits prio r t o constructio n an d operation . things , t o addres s modification s in th e operation s o f regulate dsource s o f ai r emissions
. Althoug hTitl e V mandate s tha t al l ne w an dexistin g majo r source s o f

regulate dai r

emission s obtai n afederally-approved , state
administere doperatin g permit , i t als o set s ou t

rule s governin g th e nee dfo r permi t revision s whe n source s modif y thei r operations
. A t

th e sam e time , th e NS Rprogra mmandate s tha t al l propose dmajo r

modification s o f existin g source s b e reviewe dan dissue dpermit s prio r t o constructio nan d operation
. Unde r

thes e circumstances , asourc e tha t seek s t o modif

y it s operation s mus t

conside r whethe r i t ca n minimiz e th e chanc e tha t i t wil l b e require dt o underg o bot hTitl e V an dNS Rscrutin y unde r th e Act
. In starkes t

terms , source s i n thi s situatio n fac e on e o f tw o options
. A t on e en do f

th e spectrum , the y ar e allowe db y th e EPA regulation s implementin g Titl e V, 1 t o conver t themselve s int o "syntheti c minor " source s an davoi dan y entanglemen t wit hoperatin g permits , a s well a s an y involvemen t

wit hNS Rrequirement s (othe r tha n wit h"mino r

source " NSR)
. A t

th e othe r

en do f th e spectrum , the y coul dfin dtha t NS R requirement s overrid e an y flexibility the y migh t otherwis e enjo y t o engag e in th e propose dmodificatio n unde r Titl e V wit haminimu mo f regulator y involvement
. Althoug hther e ar e anumbe r o f possibl e variation s tha t fall betwee n thes e tw o extremes , th e ke y poin t i s tha t source s wishin g t o engag e in modification s unde r

th e Clea n Ai r

Ac t ar e no w require dt o conside r th e problem s an dth e opportunitie s create db y th e overla p betwee n Titl e V an d NSR
. Accordingly , afte r reviewin g th e mai n provision s o f thes e tw o program s tha t

affec t propose dmodifications , thi s articl e wil l us e a hypothetica l exampl e t o illustrat e th e kind s of option s ope n t o source s tha t modif y thei r operations
. KE YASPECTS O F TH E TITL E V PROGRA M Th e Scop e o f th e Federa l Ai r Permi t Requirement s In enactin g Titl e V o f

th e Clea n Ai r

Act , Congres s intende dt o follo w th e mode l establishe dinth e effluen t discharg e permit s progra mo f th e Clea n Wate r

Act , b y requirin g source s o f pollutio n t o collec t

al l applicabl e requirement s in on e document
. Th e theor y underlyin g Titl e V wa s tha t suc hpermit s woul denhanc e th e abilit y o f asourc e t o compl y wit hth e requirement s o f

th e Clea nAir

Act , an da t

th e sam e tim e woul dimprov e th e abilit y of th e governmen t

t o enforc e compliance
. A s par t o f thi s effort , Congres s greatl y expande dth e potentia l univers e o f source s o f

ai r emission s tha t

woul db e subjec t

t o permittin g require

ments . Unde r

th e Titl e V provisions , al l majo r source s o f

regulate dai r emission s wil l b e require dt o appl y for permits
. I

n additio n t o settin g a n independen t

majo r sourc e threshol dof

10 0 ton s o f

emission s pe r

year , Titl e V adopt s th e majo r

sourc e definition s fro mTitl e I
. Thus , Titl e V include s a s majo r an y sourc e considere dmajo r unde r Sectio n 11 2 o f

th e Ac t an d unde r Par t D of th e Ac t (Par t D of th e Ac t cover s nonattainmen t

are aNe w Sourc e Review)
. B y settin g it s ow n independen t threshol dof

10 0 ton s pe r

year , Titl e V require s permit s for

source s tha t

woul db e concerne donl y abou t muc h highe r threshold s (fo r

example , man y source s woul db e considere dmajo r

48 6 • Environmenta l Permittin g Autum n 199 3P. 4
Modifyin g Operation s unde rCA APermittin g an d Ne wSourc e Revie wRequirements""* *

Th e enhance d monitorin g provision s o f Titl e V...requir e monitorin g fo ral l emissio n unit s tha t ar e subjec t t o applicabl e limits

. onl y i f thei r emission s of

regulate dpollutant s exceede d25 0 ton s pe r year)
. Moreover , a s define din Titl e I , th e ter m"majo r source " ca n includ e source s tha t

emi t a s few a s 1 0 ton s pe r

yea r o f aregulate dai r

pollutan t

in certai n nonattainmen t

areas . In addition , unlik e Ne w Sourc e Review , Titl e V require s permit s fo r

existin g sources , man y o f whic hmigh t

b e grandfa

there dou t

of Ne w Sourc e permittin g requirements
. Thus , Titl e V require s man y source s tha t

hav e neve r

befor e bee n subjec t

t o permittin g require

ment s t o appl y for

operatin g permits
. Unde r Titl e V , source s tha t

ar e require dt o obtai n operatin g permit s wil l discove r

tha t thei r permit s includ e al l "applicabl e requirements. " Suc h requirement s wil l likel y cove r aver y broa dspectrum . Applicabl e require

ment s includ e no t

onl y al l majo r

sourc e requirements , bu t als o an y requirement s provide dfo r i n th e approve dSIPo r promulgate db y EPA throug hrulemakin g unde r Titl e I o f

th e Act
. Thus , al l majo r NS Ran d mino r NS Rrequirement s approve din th e SIPar e considere dapplicabl e requirement s unde r

Titl e V
. In addition , enhance dmonitorin g requirement s ar e considere dappli

cabl e requirement s unde r th e EPA regulation s implementin g Titl e V
. Previousl y permitte dsource s ma y hav e receive dpermit s fo r specifi c unit s rathe r tha nfo r th e entir e plant
. Th e enhance dmonitorin g provision s of Titl e V , however , requir e monitorin g for al l emissio n unit s tha t

ar e subjec t t o applicabl e limits
. State s suc ha s Orego n an dVirgini aar e alread y requirin g limit s o n every emissio n unit , regardles s o f applicabl e require

ments . I n addition , inorde r

t o obtai n aclea r

pictur e o f

it s emissio n inventor y an dt o allo w for futur e industria l growth , Virgini ano. w require s al l majo r source s t o adop t

limit s base do n actua l emission s a t al l emissio n units
. Significantly , however , althoug hTitl e V doe s impos e potentiall y formidabl e ne w regulator y requirement s o n source s o f regulate dai r emissions , i t

als o provide s apreviousl y unavailabl e mechanis mfo r source s t o avoi dmajo r

sourc e requirements
. Specifically , unde r th e definitio no f th e ter m"potentia l t o emit " in th e Titl e V regulations, 2 source s ca nelec t t o adop t federally-enforceabl e emissio n limit s tha t reduc e thei r

potentia l emission s t o level s belo w th e threshold s require dt o trigge r majo r sourc e status . Becaus e Titl e V define s th e ter m"majo r source " b y referenc e t o th e NS Rprovision s in Par t

D o f Titl e I , source s whic hbecom e syntheti c mino r source s unde r

Titl e V ar e considere dmino r source s for

purpose s o f

NSR
. Thi s avenu e fo r

avoidin g th e regulator y requirement s applicabl e t o majo r source s i s describe din mor e detai l late r in thi s articl e a s apar t o f th e discussio n o f

syntheti c mino r

sources . Modificatio n an d "Gatekeeper " Provision s On e of th e mos t controversia l issue s in th e debat e ove r Titl e V an dth e EP A regulation s implementin g i t wa s whethe r

source s woul db e allowe dt o mak e modification s i

n operation s tha t

affecte dthei r

emission s withou t

th e nee dt o obtai n arevise dpermi t in advance
. I

n a n effort

t o allo w suc h modification s withou t

significan t

delays , th e EP

A regulation s se t

ou t procedure s tha t

woul dauthoriz e certai n change s (deeme d"mino r permi t

Autum n 199 3 Environmenta l Permittin g • 48 7P. 5

Clara G . Poffenberge r an d Stephe n E . Road y SlilSSgS**-
- V

...i f a sourc e decrease s emission s an d hope s t o tak e credi t fo r th e decrease , i t must make th e chang e federall y enforceable.. . 

### modifications" ) withou t th e needfo

r prio r approva l o

f th e permittin g authorities. 3 

### Th e EP A regulations , however , als o contai nsevera l provision s tha t mus t b e satisfie d("gatekeeper " provisions ) a s apreconditio n fo r thes e automati c mino r

modifications
. Under

th e regulations , asourc e i s allowe d t o make a"mino r

permi t modification " only i

f th e propose dmodificatio n (1 ) doe s no t

violate any requiremen t

applicabl e t o th e source ; (2 ) doe s no t involv e significant

change s t o existin g monitoring , reporting , o r record

keepin g requirement s i

nth e permit ; (3 ) doe s not

chang e any "case-by-cas e determinatio no

f a nemissio nlimitatio no r

othe r standard" ; (4 ) doe s not see k "t o establis ho r

chang e apermi t

ter mo r conditio nfo

r whic hther e i s n o correspondin g underlyin g applicabl e requirement , an dtha t th e sourc e ha s assume dt o avoi da

napplicabl e requiremen t

t o whic hth e sourc e woul d otherwis e b e subject " (suchterm s an dcondition s caninclud e federally

enforceabl e emission s cap s "assume dt o avoi dclassificatio na s amodifica

tio n under any provisio no

f Titl e I") ; (5 ) doe s no t

constitut e amodificatio n under Titl e I o f th e Act ; an d(6) i s no t

require dt o b e processe da s a significant modification. 4 

### Give nth e potential reac ho

f thes e gatekeeper

provisions , ther e i s a significant questio nwhethe r

man y situation s will b e abl e t o qualif y fo r th e mino r modificatio nprocedure
. Indeed , onc e asourc e ha s aTitl e V permi t tha t cover s all applicabl e requirement s o nall emission s an dall emissio n units , it i s conceivabl e tha t

almos t an y chang e woul db e likel

y t o trigger

on e o f th e gatekeeper

provisions
. Eve

nchange s tha t

resul t i nemissio n de

crease s coul dbe capture db y thes e provisions
. For

example , i

f asourc e decrease s emission s an dhope s t o tak e credi t fo r th e decrease , i t

mus t make th e chang e federally enforceable ; tha t process , i nturn , i s likely t o requir e achang e i

ncomplianc e term s o r

emissio nlimits , thereb y potentiall y triggerin g gatekeeper s tw o o r three
. Operationa l Flexibilit y 

### Th e EP A regulation s implementin g Titl e V als o provid e tha t source s ca n be allowe dt o mak

e change s withi napermitte dfacilit y withou t th e needfo r apermi t revision , provide dsevera

l condition s are satisfied : (1 ) Th e change s mus t

no t b e deeme dmodification s unde r Titl e I o f th e Act ; (2) th e change s mus t

no t resul t i na nincreas e i

nthe amoun t

o f emission s tha t

are allowabl e under

th e permit ; an d(3 ) the sourc e mus t provid e seve

ndays ' advanc e writte nnotic e o

f th e propose dchang e t o th e stat e permittin g authority an dt o EPA. 5 

### Thus , bot hth e mino r

permi t modificatio nprovi

sion s an dth e operationa l flexibilit y provision s ba

r change s tha t

are deemedmodification s under Titl e I fro

memployin g streamline dproce dures
. I t i s therefore apparen t

that source s that

are abl e t o minimiz e action s deemedt o be Titl e I modification s wil l be abl e t o maximiz e thei r abilit y t o mak e operationa l change s wit

haminimumo

f regulatory involvement

an d attendan t potentia l fo

r delay
. Syntheti cMino rSource s 

### Althoug hTitl e V require s permit s fo r all major source s o f regulate dai r

48 8 • Environmenta l Permittin g Autum n 199 3P. 6



### 3 Modifyin g Operation s unde rCA APermittin g an d Ne

wSourc e Revie wRequirement

s

EP Aemploy s th e ter m "syntheti c minor " source s fo rsource s tha t conver t themselve s fro m majo rt o mino rstatus..
. emissions , th e EPA regulation s allo w source s tha t woul dotherwis e excee d th e threshol dcutof

f fo r classificatio n a s amajo r sourc e t o conver t

them

selve s int o mino r

sources . Thus , fo r

example , asourc e tha t woul dother

wis e hav e th e potentia l t o emi t mor e tha n 1 0 ton s o f ahazardou s ai r pollutan t annuall y ca nadop t

procedure s an dinstal l equipmen t t o brin g it s emission s potentia l belo w th e 10-ton-per-yea r threshold
. A s lon g a s thes e procedure s an dth e dut y t o operat e th e equipmen t ar e deeme dfederally

enforceabl e requirements , thi s actio n wil l suffic e t o conver t th e sourc e fro m amajo r sourc e tha t

i s subjec t

t o permittin g unde r

Titl e V t o amino r

sourc e tha t i s no t subjec t t o Titl e V. 6 EPA employ s th e ter m"syntheti c minor " source s fo r

source s tha t

conver t themselve s fro mmajo r

t o mino r

statu s i n thi s fashion
. Althoug hsyntheti c mino r limit s ar e applicabl e requirements , asyn theti c mino r

sourc e i s no t

require dt o obtai n aTitl e V permit
. But , i f a sourc e i s require dt o hav e aTitl e V permi t fo r anothe r reason , thes e limit s mus t b e containe din th e permit , an dth e sourc e migh t no t b e abl e t o chang e an y o f th e limit s withou t

goin g throug hth e significan t permi t modificatio n process . Fo r

example , asourc e ca n decid e t o limi t it s potentia l t o emi t

i n suc hafashio n tha t

i t become s asyntheti c mino r for emission s o f

hazardou s ai r pollutant s unde r

Sectio n 112
. Notwithstandin g thi s statu s unde r Sectio n 112 , however , th e sourc e coul db e require dt o obtai n aTitl e V permi t i f i t i s amajo r

sourc e unde r

Par t D of th e Act , in whic hcas e it s syntheti c mino r

limit s unde r

Sectio n 11 2 woul db e considere dapplicabl e requirement s t o b e containe din th e Titl e V permit
. Thus , change s tha t affec t thos e emissio n limit s woul db e subjec t t o th e gatekeepe r

provisions — particularl y gatekeepe r

fou r (whic hcatche s change s tha t th e sourc e as sume s t o avoi da n applicabl e requirement)
. Source s tha t

decid e t o limi t

thei r potentia l t o emi t

t o avoi dmajo r

sourc e requirement s (i.e. , source s tha t decid e t o conver t

themselve s int o syntheti c minors ) mus t

includ e thei r

limit s in afederally-enforceabl e mechanism
. Althoug hther e ar e severa l federally-enforceabl e mechanism s availabl e t o states , fo r

som e source s th e Titl e V permi t ma y b e th e onl y mechanis m available
. Th e difficulty i s tha t syntheti c mino r

source s tha t

hol dTitl e V permit s ar e subjec t

t o th e EPA regulation s unde r Titl e V ; thus , the y ca n trigge r th e gatekeeper s fo r

change s an db e require dt o g o throug hth e significan t

permi t modificatio n proces s whe n the y mak e operationa l changes
. Anothe r federally-enforceabl e mechanis mavailabl e in som e state s (an don e tha t

ma y becom e availabl e in th e futur e in mor e states ) i s th e mechanis mo f

existin g stat e operatin g permi t program s tha t

hav e alread y bee n federall y approve dpursuan t t o aFedera l Registe r

notic e issue db y EP A in Jun e o f

1989. 7 Thes e programs , althoug habsorbe db y Titl e V fo r majo r sources , ma y continu e t o exis t for an dappl y t o mino r

sources . Thes e program s requir e les s regulator y proces s tha n i s require db y Titl e V
. Unde r thes e stat e operatin g permi t programs , mino r

source s woul donl y b e require dt o g o throug hstat e requirement s for change s tha t

ma y includ e mino r NS Rrequirements ; the y woul dno t b e require dt o underg o th e substantiv e federa l revie w tha t Titl e V change s involve
.

Autum n 199 3 Environmenta l Permittin g • 48 9Clar a G

. Poffenberge ran d Stephe n E

. Road y P. 7

&& *

. ^ >«*v s « w vi\XsWt&.W^\^"U«Usii»
. - « A s lon g a s th e tota l amoun t o f emission s emanatin g fro m th e to p o f th e bubbl e remain s unchange d followin g th e ne w constructio n o rth e modification , federa l NS R i s no t required

. KE YASPECT

S O F TH E NE W SOURC E REVIE W PROGRA M Th e Theorybehin d NS R Th e Ne w Sourc e Revie w (NSR ) program s require db y Titl e I o f th e Clea n Ai r

Ac t appl y t o ne w source s an dt o majo r modification s t o majo r existin g sources . Ne w Sourc e Revie w consist s o f bot hth e nonattainmen t NS Rprogram 8 an dth e Preventio n o f Significan t

Deterioratio n (PSD ) program, 9 whic happlie s t o attainmen t areas . Th e nonattainmen t

NS Rrequirement s appl y t o area s o f th e countr y tha t ar e no t in complianc e wit hth e Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit y Standard s (NAAQS)
. Th e theor y behin dnonattainmen t NS Ri s t o impos e stric t requirement s o n ne w source s in thes e area s s o tha t th e area s ma y wor k toward s reasonabl e furthe r progres s t o compl y wit hth e NAAQS
. Ne w source s an dmodification s tha t ar e subjec t

t o nonattainmen t

NS Rar e require dt o instal l lowes t achievabl e emissio n rat e (LAER ) technolog y t o contro l emissions
. I n addition , thes e source s mus t provid e emission s offset s t o negat e an y emission s increase s in th e are atha t remai nafte r

th e applicatio n o f

LAER
. Th e PS D requirement s appl y t o ne w source s an dmodification s i narea s tha t ar e in complianc e wit hth e NAAQS
. Th e theor y behin dPS D i s t o preven t degradatio n o f

clea n ai r areas . Thus , protectio n o f Clas s I area s an d protectio n of

th e incremen t

betwee n th e NAAQ S an dth e existin g qualit y of th e ai r in th e are a(cleane r

tha n require db y th e NAAQS ) ar e important
. A s aresult , ne w source s an dmodification s subjec t t o PS D mus t

appl y bes t availabl e contro l technolog y (BACT ) t o contro l emissions
. Source s ma y als o b e require dt o obtai n offset s t o negat e th e effect s o f an y emission s o n Clas s I area s an dincrement s tha t remai n afte r

applicatio n o f

BACT
. Nettin g an d Offset s Unde r th e NS Rprograms , apropose dchang e in th e operatio no f a sourc e i s deeme damodificatio n onl y i f th e chang e result s in ane t emission s increase
. Thus , i norde r

t o avoi dNS Rfo r

modification s altogether , source s ofte n endeavo r

t o desig n modification s i n suc hafashio n a s t o "ne t out " an y resultin g ne w emission s b y reducin g othe r emissions
. Th e specifi c calculation s required 1 0 t o determin e th e ne t emission s chang e a t

asourc e ar e designe dt o implemen t th e "bubble " concep t

approve din th e semina l cas e o f Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 46 7 U.S
. 837(1984)
. In essence , th e bubbl e concep t treat s al l emission s a t

on e facility a s i

f the y ar e unde r

abubbl e tha t

encompasse s th e entir e plant
. Lookin g a t th e emission s onl y a t

th e to p o f

th e bubble , th e facility tha t i s engagin g inth e modificatio nendeavor s t o offse t emission s internall y fro mon e par t o f th e facility wit hthos e tha t

wil l b e emitte dfro mth e ne w o r modifie dpar t

o f th e facility
. A s lon g a s th e tota l amoun t o f emission s emanatin g fro mth e to p o f th e bubbl e remain s unchange dfollowin g th e ne w constructio no r th e modification , federa l NS Ri s no t required
. Source s unabl e t o ne t ou t thei r emission s mus t

mee t NS Rrequirement s and , a s state dearlier , ma y b e require dt o obtai noffsets
. Source s mus t

b e aware , however , tha t stat e program s ma y defin e th e ter m"source " in amanne r tha t differ s from'th e federa l definition
. I n

49 0 • Environmenta l Permittin g Autum n 199 3P. 8


### •* • Modifyin g Operation s unde rCA APermittin g an d Ne wSourc e Revie wRequirements *

mmmmwmwmmmmmmm ...ther e ar e a numbe r o f stat e provision s tha t ca n plac e restriction s o n th e bubblin g an d nettin g process.. . addition , man y state s ma y prohibi t bubblin g o r

netting , particularl y in nonattainmen t

areas . Man y stat e NS Rprogram s als o continu e t o us e th e "dua l source " definitio n fo r modifications ; thi s definitio n prohibit s a sourc e fro mnettin g ou t o f revie w amodificatio n tha t independentl y exceed s majo r

sourc e threshold s in it s ow n right
. Source s mus t als o b e awar e of th e ne w nonattainmen t

requirement s o f

Sectio n 182(c ) o f

th e Ac t tha t restric t netting
. Inshort , ther e ar e anumbe r o f stat e provision s tha t

ca n plac e restriction s o nth e bubblin g an dnettin g process , dependin g upo nth e locatio n o f

th e source . Bothth e nettin g an dth e offse t procedure s ca n b e quit e comple x an d time-consuming
. A t

aminimum , in orde r

t o satisf

y thes e procedures , source s mus t

compl y wit hemission s tradin g requirement s an dSectio n17 3 o f th e Act , whic happlie s t o requirement s fo r offsets
. Thes e requirement s includ e th e requiremen t tha t emission s credit s b e creditable , tha t the y b e base do n actua l emission s i n mos t cases , an dtha t

the y b e mad e federall y enforceable
. NS R Refor m Ove r th e pas t year , EPA ha s bee n activel y considerin g method s fo r simplifyin g th e proces s b y whic hcompanie s ca n engag e in physica l an d operationa l change s an davoi dNS Rrevie w a s aTitl e I modification
. A s o f mid-1993 , severa l option s ha dbee n developed
. Thes e includ e th e proposa l currentl y inus e in Oregon , unde r whic habubbl e i s use do n afacilitywid e basi s for determinin g NS Rcompliance
. Unde r th e Orego n bubbl e provisions , al l source s subjec t t o permittin g requirement s mus t

als o obtai n limit s i

n thei r permit s fo r

al l pollutant s t o b e emitte da t

th e entir e plant
. Lik e Virginia' s ne w permi t requirements , emissio n unit s tha t

wer e previousl y unregulate dar e permitte d(wit hlimit s base do n pas t

actua l emissions)
. Wit hthi s bubbl e permit , source s ma y mak e change s withou t

goin g throug hNSR , a s lon g a s ne t emission s ar e no t increase dabov e th e permitte dlevel
. Eve n unde r thi s program , however , som e othe r

emission s tradin g concern s ar e separatel y addressed
. Fo r example , consisten t

wit hfedera l requirements , source s canno t bubbl e ou t o f BACT , LAER , NSPS , o r NESHA Prequirements
. Furthermore , emis

sion s trade s canno t

resul t in adifferen t

ai r qualit y impac t

fro mth e impac t tha t wa s occurrin g prio r

t o th e trades
. Fo r

example , for

source s in comple x terrai n areas , asignifican t chang e i n stac k height s o r

shif t in emission s a t point s fa r apar t fro meac hothe r

may resul t

in adifferen t

o r additiona l ai r qualit y impact
. Additionally , eve n unde r thi s flexibl e system , source s ar e require dt o appl y t o th e stat e fo r apermi t modification
. In th e recen t

NS Rsimplificatio n workshops , EPA presente dan d discusse dcap s lik e th e Orego n bubbl e approac ha s amean s for simplifyin g NS Rmodificatio n determinations
. EPA als o recentl y approve da nap proac hsuggeste db y Minnesot aMinin g an dManufacturin g (3M ) o f St
. Paul , Minnesota , tha t

allow s 3 M t o undertak e anumbe r o f change s a s lon g a s emission s d o no t

excee daplantwid e ca p tha t wa s se t base do n3M' s actua l emissions
. (See Memorandu mfro mJoh n B
. Rasnic , director , Stationar y Sourc e Complianc e Division , t o Davi dKee , director , Ai r an d Radiatio n Division , date dJul y 14,1992 , an dMemorandu mfro mJoh n B
.
Autum n 199 3 Environmenta l Permittin g • 49 1P. 9

Clara G . Poffenberge r an d Stephe n E . Road y m-memm V'X^'^KaSffiSXj'^vS i

Titl e V regulation s no t onl y encourag e bu t requir e stat e permittin g authoritie s t o allo wpermit s t o contai n emission s tradin g term s an d conditions.. . Rasnic , director , Stationar y Sourc e Complianc e Division , t o Georg e T
. Czerniak , chief

, Ai r Enforcemen t

Branch , Regio n V , date dJun e 17,1993. ) Similarly , Ne w Jerse y ha s engage di n negotiation s wit hrepresentative s o f th e pharmaceutica l industr y t o develo p an dimplemen t apolic y tha t utilize s cap s an dalternativ e operatin g scenario s t o allo w source s opera tiona l flexibilit y a s lon g a s emissio n change s resul t in emissio n level s tha t remai n belo w ca p levels
. Althoug hEPA i s discussin g pollutio n preventio n opportunitie s tha t ca n b e create db y suc hflexibl e permittin g approaches , ther e ar e severa l statutor y an dpractica l limitation s t o th e approach
. Specifically , existin g regulator y exclusion s ma y b e absorbe dint o th e cap ; ai r qualit y impac t concern s o f

emission s trade s ma y nee dt o b e separatel y addressed ; ne w nonattainmen t

requirement s supersed e ca p flexibility ; an dth e sourc e mus t stil l mee t unit-specifi c technolog y requirements
. Titl e V regulation s no t

onl y encourag e bu t

requir e stat e permittin g authoritie s t o allo w permit s t o contai n emission s tradin g term s an d conditions , a s lon g a s th e chang e i s no t aTitl e I modificatio n an di s in complianc e wit hal l applicabl e requirements
. Thes e approache s ar e de

signe dspecificall y t o exclud e change s unde r th e ca p fro mth e definitio no f modificatio n unde r

Titl e I
. HYPOTHETICA L CAS E Baselin e Assumption s fo rth e Hypothetica l Sourc e Wit hthes e basi c Titl e V an dNS Rprinciple s in mind , th e followin g hypothetica l exampl e illustrate s th e kind s o f choice s availabl e t o source s a s the y contemplat e modification s in th e fac e o f th e ne w Clea nAi r

Act
. A s a ninitia l matter , w e assum e tha t th e modification s examine dinthi s hypothetica l exampl e wil l occu r durin g 199 6 o r

1997 , afte r

th e dat e o n whic hth e Titl e V permi t progra mi s in effec t

for th e source . W e als o assum e tha t th e sourc e ha s take n n o step s prio r t o 199 6 t o addres s an y Titl e V o r NS Rissues—fo r

example , w e assum e tha t th e sourc e di dno t

attemp t t o transfor mitsel f

fro mamajo r

sourc e int o asyntheti c mino r source , an dtha t it di dno t attemp t t o appl y fo r

aflexibl e Titl e V permi t tha t wa s designe d t o allo w i t

t o operat e unde r

anumbe r

o f differen t scenario s withou t

th e nee dt o seek

apermi t revision
. Fo r purpose s o f

ou r illustration , thi s hypothetica l sourc e i s locate din th e Northeas t

Ozon e Transpor t

Region , whic hcover s a n are afro m norther n Virgini at o Maine
. Th e are ain whic hth e sourc e i s locate di s classifie da s aseriou s nonattainmen t are afo r ozone ; it i s in attainmen t

for al l othe r regulate dai r

pollutants
. Th e sourc e itsel f i s locate dnea r

anothe r are atha t i s classifie da s aClas s I are afor PS D purposes . Ou r exampl e furthe r

assume s tha t

th e hypothetica l sourc e ha s th e potentia l t o emi t

th e followin g regulate dai r pollutants :

. VUC s i

n amount s greate r

tha n 5 0 ton s pe r

year (tpy )
'
. NO
. in amount s greate r tha n 10 0 tp y bu t

les s tha n 25 0 tp y >. SO , inamount s greate r tha n 4 0 tp y bu t

les s tha n 25 0 tp y \. PM-1 0 in amount s greate r tha n 1 5 tp y bu t

les s tha n 25 0 tp y i
. C O i n amount s les s tha n 10 0 tp y

49 2 • Environmenta l Permittin g Autum n 199 3P.1 0
Modifyin g Operation s unde rCA APermittin g an d Ne wSourc e Revie wRequirement s

Th e Clea n Ai rAc t Amendment s lowere d th e threshol d fo r majo rsource s i n nonattainmen t areas.. . Additiona l assumption s materia l t o ou r hypothetica l ar e a s follows : 1
. Th e sourc e ha s limit s o n it s potentia l t o emi t toxi c VOC s tha t

ar e subjec t t o Sectio n 11 2 o f

th e Act
. 2
. Th e stat e i n whic hth e sourc e i s locate dha s bot han.,operatin g permi t progra munde r

Titl e V , an dafederally-approve dstat e operatin g permi t

progra mtha t

wa s establishe dpursuan t t o th e provision s o f

th e 198 9 Federa l Registe r notice. 1 1 3
. Th e Titl e V permi t

tha t applie s t o th e sourc e woul dals o contai n SIP-require dsource-specifi c emissio n limits
. 4
. Th e sourc e i s no t

a n electri c utility , no r

i s i t i n asourc e categor y currentl y regulate dunde r Sectio n 11 1 (NSPS ) o r Sectio n11 2 (MAC T standard s o r

NESHAPS)
. 5
. Th e stat e i n whic hthi s sourc e i s locate dha s regulate dth e toxi c pollutant s a t

thi s sourc e unde r

stat e authority
. Wit hthes e assumption s a s th e startin g point , ou r analysi s wil l examin e th e sort s o f

issue s presente dunde r

Titl e V an dth e NS Rprogra mfo r th e hypothetica l sourc e b y th e followin g type s o f modifications : 1
. A physica l chang e tha t wil l increas e VO C emission s a t on e emissio n point , wit hth e furthe r

assumptio n tha t

th e sourc e wil l b e abl e t o decreas e VO C emission s a t anothe r emissio n poin t

sufficien t

t o produc e n o ne t

increas e in VO C emissions ; 2
. A physica l chang e tha t wil l increas e th e NO xemission s b y 4 0 ton s pe r year , wit hn o accompanyin g nettin g o r offsetting ; 3
. A physica l chang e tha t wil l increas e PM-1 0 emission s b y 1 5 ton s pe r year , wit hn o nettin g o r offsetting ; 4
. A relaxatio n o f

th e limitatio n o n emission s o f toxi c pollutants ; an d 5
. A chang e tha t

wil l increas e emission s o f S0 2 a t on e emissio npoint , bu t tha t wil l als o decreas e S0 2 emission s a t anothe r emissio npoin t (e.g. , achang e infuel us e limitations)
. Analysi s o f Hypothetica l Modification s W e wil l explor e th e variou s consideration s tha t woul daffec t

th e sourc e plannin g t o compl y wit hth e Ac t unde r thes e variou s modificatio nsce nario s b y usin g tw o models : (1 ) amode l tha t assume s existin g NS R program s remai n unchanged ; an d(2 ) amode l tha t assume s th e sourc e i s i n astat e tha t

ha s decide dt o adop t

th e Orego n plan
. Before w e begi n ou r

analysis , however , afew observation s ar e inorde r in ligh t o f th e assumption s w e hav e alread y mad e wit hrespec t t o ou r hypothetica l source . First , sinc e thi s sourc e i s in th e Northeas t Ozon e Transpor t

Region , i t i s treate dth e sam e a s othe r source s locate din seriou s nonattainmen t areas . Th e Clea n Ai r

Ac t Amendment s lowere dth e threshol dfo r majo r source s in nonattainmen t

areas ; for

seriou s nonattainmen t

area s th e threshol di s 5 0 tp y of VOCs
. Second , eve ni

f thi s sourc e di dno t

emi t VOCs , N O emission s ar e treate da s VOC s in suc harea s of ozon e nonattainment
. Thus , th e sourc e i s considere dmajo r

for NO xa s well , withou t

regar dt o VOCs
.
Autum n 199 3 Environmenta l Permittin g • 49 3P.1 1

Clar a G . Poffenberge r an d Stephe n E . Road y ¥&$£j^&$i!ririiirM<

Th e plai n statutor y languag e o f Sectio n 182(c ) woul d appea r t o supersed e th e flexibilit y provide d unde r bot h th e Orego n approac h an d th e 3 M bubbl e approach . Third , i f thi s sourc e wer e ane w source , LAERwoul db e applie dfo r al l nonattainmen t

pollutant s emitte di n majo r amounts , bot hVOC s an dNO x . Fourth , unde r

th e PS D program , th e sourc e mus t emi t acriteri apollut

an t fo r whic hth e are ai s i n attainmen t i n majo r amount s i n orde r

t o b e sub

jec t t o PS D requirements
. I n tha t situation , BAC T woul db e applie dt o al l pollutant s regulate dunde r th e Ac t tha t ar e emitte din significan t amounts . Althoug hthi s sourc e i s majo r fo r NO xan dVOCs , i t

doe s no t emi t NO xo r an y othe r pollutan t

ove r th e PS D majo r

sourc e leve l o f

25 0 tpy . Last , i f thi s hypothetica l sourc e wer e i n a n ozon e attainmen t are a (rathe r tha n i n a n ozon e nonattainmen t area) , i t woul dno t

b e considere d amajo r sourc e fo r

nonattainmen t

NS Ro r fo r PSD , fo r th e reaso ntha t

i t emit s les s tha n 25 0 tp y o f regulate dpollutants
. However , a s thi s sourc e emit s ove r

10 0 tp y o f

on e pollutan t

(NO x ) i t i s amajo r

sourc e fo r

Titl e V , an di t i s therefor e subjec t

t o th e modificatio n requirement s o f Titl e V
. W e no w tur n t o a n analysi s o f th e propose dmodification s a t thi s hypothetica l source . Modificatio n Producin g N o Ne t Increas e i n VO C Emission s Under existing federal

NSR programs. Becaus e ou r hypothetica l sourc e i s amajo r

sourc e locate din aseriou s nonattainmen t area , modifi

cation s a t th e sourc e mus t

satisf y th e requirement s o f

Subsection s 182(c)(6 ) an d(7 ) o f

th e Clea n Ai r

Act. 1 2 Thes e requirement s appl y t o unit-specifi c increase s an drequir e aggregatio n o f increase s ove r

five year s fo r

asourc e t o avoi dapplicatio n o f

NS Rfor th e specifi c change"
. Ho w thes e provision s wil l specificall y appl y wil l b e subjec t t o EPA rulemakin g tha t i s currentl y schedule dfor

final publicatio n i n 1994
. I f thi s sourc e ca n offse t

emission s a t a n interna l offse t

rati o o f a t leas t 1. 3 t o 1 , i t

ca n avoi dcertai nNS R requirements
. I

f i t cannot , i t

mus t mee t th e NS Rrequirements , bu t i t migh t b e abl e t o appl y BAC T instea do f LAER
. Under the Oregon plan. Th e plai n statutor y languag e o f Sectio n 182(c ) woul dappea r

t o supersed e th e flexibility provide dunde r bot hth e Orego n approac han dth e 3 M bubbl e approach
. Th e 3 M approac hwa s implemente din a nozon e attainmen t area . I f ou r hypothetica l sourc e wer e locate din a nattainmen t area , th e emissio n tradin g concern s abou t differin g ai r

qualit y impact s woul dno t appl y t o th e ozon e pollutant s becaus e (1 ) ther e ar e n o increment s for ozone ; an d(2 ) th e impac t o f pollutant s o n ozon e modelin g doe s no t var y dependin g o n location
. A sourc e lik e ours , however , tha t i s locate din aseriou s nonattainmen t are a an demit s les s tha n 10 0 tp y o f VOC s (an dpresumptivel y NO x ) mus t mee t th e requiremen t

of th e 1. 3 t o 1 interna l offse t t o avoi dNSR
. Thi s 1. 3 t o 1 nettin g proces s woul drequir e lowerin g th e emissio n ca p t o avoi da n applicabl e requirement , thu s triggerin g gatekeepe r fou r of Titl e V (whic h catche s change s in caps)
. Again , absen t suc hoffset s th e sourc e i s require d t o appl y BACT , an dt o mee t othe r NS Rrequirements
. Modificatio n Producin g 4 0 tp yIncreas e i n NO K Under existing federal

NSR programs. Ou r

hypothetica l sourc e i s a majo r sourc e of

N O locate di

n a n ozon e nonattainmen t area . Accord

49 4 • Environmenta l Permittin g Autum n 199 3P.1 2

• i > Modifyin g Operation s unde rCA APermittin g an d Ne wSourc e Revie wRequirements ' ingly , th e requirement s applicabl e t o VO C emission s appl y t o NO x emission s fro mthi s source . Additionally , becaus e thi s sourc e emit s greate r tha n 10 0 tp y o f

NO xi t mus t mee t th e requirement s o f

Sectio n 182(c)(8 ) o f th e Act , possibl y fo r

bot hit s NO xincrease s an dit s VO C emissio n changes
. Absen t interna l offsets , th e sourc e mus t mee t al l NS Rmodificatio n requirement s (includin g LAER ) fo r significan t

emissio n increase s o f nonattainmen t

pollutants
. Fo r

detail s o n th e specifi c applicatio no f th e provisions , source s shoul dloo k fo r th e EPA NS Rrulemakin g tha t i s schedule dfo r

1994
. Furthermore , i

f thi s sourc e wer e considere dmajo r fo r it s N O emission s fo r

th e attainmen t

area , thi s modificatio n woul db e X' subjec t t o PS D modificatio n provision s a s well , an dPS D requirement s in additio n t o th e ozon e nonattainmen t requirement s woul dnee dt o b e met . Specifically , a s thi s sourc e i s locate dnea r aClas s I area , i t

woul db e require d t o conduc t

a n ai r qualit y analysi s o f

th e NO xfor

impact s o n th e Clas s I are a an dfor consumptio n o f

increment
. I

f th e sourc e coul dfin dinterna l offset s for th e nonattainmen t

requirements , however , i t woul dals o b e abl e t o ne t ou t of PS D review
. I

nan y case , thi s modificatio n require s th e sourc e t o g o throug hsignifican t

permi t modificatio n procedures , eve n i f onl y t o obtai n federall y enforceabl e offsets
. Under the Oregon plan. A s wa s th e cas e wit hrespec t t o th e VO C emission s change , th e Clea n Ai r Ac t provision s appea r

t o supersed e th e flexibility tha t

woul dotherwis e b e provide dunde r th e ca p vi ath e Orego n approac han dth e 3 M approach
. Moreover , eve n i f th e sourc e coul dobtai n interna l offset s for

th e ozon e provisions , i

f thi s sourc e wer e majo r

for NO x in a n attainmen t

are aan dsubjec t

t o PSD , an y emissio n tradin g unde r th e ca p coul drequir e ai r

qualit y analysis
. No t

onl y woul dth e emissio n tradin g concern s nee dt o b e met , bu t PS D include s a s asignifican t increas e in emission s an y chang e tha t cause s a n impac t

o n Clas s I areas . Whethe r th e sourc e wa s locate din a n attainmen t o r nonattainmen t area , thi s chang e woul dtrigge r a t leas t on e o f th e gatekeepers , eithe r gatekeepe r

tw o (whic hcatche s achang e in complianc e terms) , gatekeepe r fou r (whic hcatche s settin g limit s t o avoi dapplicabl e modificatio n require

ments) , o r

gatekeepe r

five (whic hcatche s Titl e I modifications)
. Finally , unde r aca p approach , an y emission s increas e ove r th e permitte dlevel s woul drequir e NS Ran dTitl e V permi t modification
.

Th e sourc e doe s no t nee d t o accep t an y limit s i n orde rt o ne t out ; therefore , i t shoul d no t trigge r gatekeepe rfour

. Modificatio n Producin g 1 5 tp yIncreas e i n PM-1 0 Under existing federal

NSR programs. Ou r

hypothetica l sourc e i s no t amajo r sourc e for

PM
. Althoug hth e increas e i s significant , i t doe s no t qualif y a s aTitl e I modification
. Th e sourc e doe s no t nee dt o accep t

an y limit s in orde r

t o ne t out ; therefore , i t

shoul dno t

trigge r gatekeepe r

four
. Stat e NS Rrequirements , however , coul dresul t in triggerin g gatekeepe r thre e (whic hcatche s change s in case-by-cas e determination s o f emissio n limits ) o r gatekeepe r

tw o (whic hcatche s change s in complianc e terms)
. Fo r example , change s t o source-specifi c emission s limit s take n pursuan t t o a SIPcoul dtrigge r

thes e gatekeepe r

provisions
. Under the Oregon plan. Unde r aplantwid e ca p approach , th e sourc e

Autum n 199 3 Environmenta l Permittin g • 49 5P.1 3

Clar a G

. Poffenberge ran d Stephe n E

. Road y WMmmmsmMSmmmmm V, -



### Th e stat e mayals o choose , however , t o conside ran yincrease s o f an ypollutan t ove rth e ca p a

s a modification

. ma y hav e allowe ditsel f som e flexibilit y an dth e increas e woul dno t requir e permi t changes
. But , withou t suc hroo mfor

flexibilit y (assumin g th e sourc e accepte dlimit s base dstrictl y o n actua l emissions) , th e chang e woul db e likel y t o trigge r gatekeepe r

tw o (whic hcatche s change s in complianc e terms)
. Th e chang e woul dno t necessaril y trigger.gat e keepe r thre e o r four
. Th e stat e ma y hav e reserve dt o itsel f th e authorit y t o allo w increase s ove r

th e ca p tha t

woul dno t

otherwis e b e considere dTitl e I modifications
. Th e stat e ma y als o choose , however , t o conside r an y increase s o f

an y pollutan t

ove r th e ca p a s amodification
. Thus , th e questio n o f

whethe r th e sourc e woul db e require dt o follo w th e significan t modificatio n procedur e for thi s chang e depend s in larg e par t o n(1 ) th e natur e o f th e stat e regulator y regime ; an d(2 ) th e amoun t o f flexibilit y buil t int o th e ca p tha t

th e sourc e negotiate s wit hth e state . Relaxatio n o f Limitatio n o n Emission s o f Toxi cPollutant s Under existing federal

NSR programs. Nonattainmen t NS Rapplie s onl y t o criteri apollutants
. Prio r t o 1990 , th e PS D progra mapplie dt o al l pollutant s regulate dunde r th e Act , includin g anumbe r o f toxi c pollutants
. Pursuan t t o federa l PS D permittin g authority , man y state s implemente d PS D program s tha t

ma y stil l hav e independen t authorit y t o regulat e toxi c pollutants
. Sectio n 112(b)(6 ) of th e 199 0 Amendment s t o th e Ac t exempt s th e 18 9 hazardou s ai r

pollutant s liste din Sectio n 112(b)(1 ) fro mfedera l PS D programs , bu t

state s wit hindependen t authorit y remai nabl e t o regulat e thes e pollutant s unde r thei r permittin g programs . Thus , arelax

atio n o f alimitatio n o n toxi c pollutant s ma y trigge r stat e requirement s tha t ar e include di n th e SIP
. In othe r words , thi s chang e migh t trigge r gatekeepe r thre e (whic hcatche s change s in case-by-cas e limit s o r standards) , a s well a s gatekeepe r

tw o (whic hcatche s change s in complianc e terms)
. Whethe r majo r sourc e requirement s unde r Sectio n 11 2 wil l appl y depend s o nEPA rulemakin g unde r

Sectio n 11 2 authorit y (fo r MAC T an dfo r

othe r 11 2 provisions)
. Variou s Sectio n 11 2 rulemaking s ar e underwa y a t EPA , an d som e wil l no t

b e complete dunti l th e en do f thi s decade
. Under the Oregon plan. Al l pollutant s emitte db y th e sourc e ar e presumptivel y covere db y aca p permi t of th e typ e use dunde r

th e Orego n plan
. Accordingly , th e specifi c provision s applicabl e t o th e sourc e wil l determin e wha t

requirement s wil l apply
. Th e Orego n pla n permit s change s t o emissio n level s withou t triggerin g majo r

modificatio n requirement s unde r certai n limite dcircumstances , usuall y du e t o erro r indata , o r allowance s fo r

consumptio n o f

incremen t

fo r fuel switches , o r

increase s i n hour s o r production
. However , ho w ca p program s ma y allo w increase s in toxi c emission s depend s o n th e exemption s fro mmodificatio n provision s unde r th e Sectio n 11 2 progra man dunde r th e provision s o f

th e stat e ca p itself
. Inan y event , gatekeepe r fou r (whic hcatche s change s t o avoi d applicabl e requirements ) i s likel y t o b e triggere di n thi s case , merel y becaus e th e limi t

wa s on e take n t o avoi dapplicabl e requirements ; suc ha relaxatio ntrigger s th e significan t permi t modificatio n requirement s of Titl e V
.

49 6 • Environmenta l Permittin g Autum n 199 3P.1 4

t£__<___mi$£8ti Modifyin g Operation s unde rCA APermittin g an d Ne wSourc e Revie wRequirement* 3 "

Unde ra cap , th e stat e ma yrequir e som e emission s tradin g ai r qualit yanalysi s dependin g o n th e characteristic s o f th e change

. Chang e i n Fue l Us e Limitation s Unde r existin g federa l NS Rprograms . Ou r hypothetica l sourc e i s likel y t o b e asyntheti c mino r fo r S0 2 base do n limit s tha t includ e fuel us e limits
. In NSR , mino r

source s generall y canno t ne t ou t o f revie w achang e tha t exceed s majo r

sourc e thresholds
. Thus , i f th e chang e i s majo r

itself , i t coul dresul t

in majo r NSR
. Recen t

polic y clarification s b y EPA , however , ma y allo w source s wit haTitl e V permi t t o accep t

enforceabl e syntheti c mino r limit s in th e Titl e V permit , an dthereb y avoi dmajo r sourc e requirements
. In an y event , achang e i n unit-specifi c emissio n limit s b y itsel f woul d appea r t o trigge r

gatekeepe r

thre e (whic hcatche s change s i n case-by-cas e determination s o f

limits)
. Moreover , t o th e exten t tha t th e chang e involve s achang e in complianc e terms , i t woul dtrigge r

gatekeepe r

two . Under the Oregon plan. Unde r acap , fo r

mor e flexibility , th e sourc e ma y choos e t o accep t

a n emission s limi t

o r atota l fuel us e limi t

fo r al l units , rathe r tha n for individua l units
. Unde r suc hacap , th e chang e woul dno t trigge r an y gatekeepers , becaus e th e sourc e woul db e permitte dt o mak e an y change s a s lon g a s i t i s in complianc e wit hemissio n limitation s an d complianc e terms . However , althoug hachang e in specifi c complianc e term s ma y no t

resul t inmajo r NSR , i t woul dprobabl y nee dt o mee t Titl e V modificatio n requirement s becaus e of gatekeepe r

two . Unde r

acap , th e stat e ma y requir e som e emission s tradin g ai r qualit y analysi s dependin g o n th e characteristic s o f

th e change
. Again , a s in exampl e 3 above , thi s sourc e i s no t amajo r sourc e fo r

PS D an dma y b e exempte dfro mrevie w fo r modification s unti l i t

become s majo r

fo r a n attainmen t

pollutant
. SUMMAR YO F MODIFICATION S ANALYSI S Althoug hth e ca p approac hdoe s littl e t o avoi dNS Ran dsignifican t per mi t modificatio n requirement s fo r change s 1 an d2 , change s 3 an d5 ma y b e easil y handle dunde r aflexibl e permi t

allowin g fo r

emission s trading
. EP A i s currentl y considerin g flexibl e permittin g for toxi c pollutan t

source s in it s discussion s o npollutio n prevention
. Thu s chang e 4 ma y als o b e al

lowe dunde r

acap , unles s th e chang e make s th e sourc e subjec t t o majo r sourc e requirement s unde r Sectio n 112
. I

f thi s sourc e wer e in a n ozon e at
tainmen t area , change s 1 an d2 woul db e permitte dwithou t NSR
. Botho f thos e change s coul dals o escap e prio r Titl e V revie w unde r

aca p approach
. A few additiona l observation s o n th e relationshi p betwee n Titl e V an d th e NS Rprogra mar e inorder
. First , ther e i s th e questio n o f whethe r Titl e V provision s wil l overrid e NS Rprovision s altogether
. Fo r example , ho w wil l operationa l flexibility wor k i f th e stat e NS Rprogra mdoe s no t allo w bubblin g o r

trading ? Whic hregim e wil l gover n i f th e stat e NS Rprogra m allow s variou s modification s withou t th e nee dfor

publi c revie w an d comment ? Th e answe r

i s mixed
. O n th e on e hand , i f th e stat e NS Rprogra m doe s no t allo w bubblin g o r

trading , Titl e V operationa l flexibilit y provi

sion s woul dno t

allo w asourc e t o avoi dth e NS Rprovision s throug hacap . O n th e othe r

hand , however , th e definition s for modification s unde r

th e federal program s ar e ofte n very simila r t o th e definition s in stat e programs .

Autum n 199 3 Environmenta l Permittin g • 49 7P.1 5

Clar a G

. Poffenberge ran d Stephe n E

. Road y &Sawl^£&%«-^ ^ :£»**• • -r



### ...enhance d monitorin g requirement s tha t mayb e require d i n NS R permit s ma

y minimiz e th e revie w neede d t o issu e a Titl e V permi t t o th e source . Th e 3 M permi t approac hmerel y worke dwithi n thes e definition s t o allo w for th e ca p approach
. Similarly , eve n i f stat e NS Rprogram s allo w variou s modification s withou t

th e nee dfor

publi c revie w an dcomment , th e Titl e V mino r permi t modificatio n gatekeeper s woul dstil l requir e certai n change s t o underg o publi c revie w an dcomment . Second , ther e i s th e questio n ho w a n enhance dNS Rprogra mwoul dfi t wit haTitl e V program . Fo r example , i

f a n EPA vet o provisio n i s grafte d ont o NSR , wil l ther e b e an y practica l differenc e betwee n th e kin do f revie w require dfo r

a nNS Rpermi t

an dfo r aTitl e V permit ? Th e answe r t o thi s questio n appear s t o b e tha t th e tw o program s ar e capabl e o f bein g integrate dwit haminimu mo f difficulty
. Fo r

example , th e EPA regulation s implementin g Titl e V requir e operatin g permi t program s t o ensur e tha t priorit y i s give nt o NS Rpermits , bu t the y als o provid e tha t

enhance dNS R program s woul dallo w NS Rpermit s t o b e incorporate dint o aTitl e V permi t a s a n administrativ e amendment
. Furthermore , enhance dmonitor

in g requirement s tha t

ma y b e require din NS Rpermit s ma y minimiz e th e revie w neede dt o issu e aTitl e V permi t t o th e source . In short , ther e i s roo m fo r hop e tha t

EPA an dth e state s wil l b e abl e t o avoi doverla p betwee nTitl e V an dth e NS Rprogram s ove r time
. ADVIC E FO R SOURCE S PLANNIN G T O MODIF YOPERATION S Th e example s discusse din thi s articl e sugges t tha t source s shoul d conside r th e followin g option s a s the y ma p complianc e strategie s t o minimiz e conflict s betwee n th e requirement s o f Titl e V~an dth e NS R progra mwhe n the y modif y thei r operations
. First , wit hrespec t

t o Titl e V , source s shoul dconside r designin g thei r application s fo r

operatin g permit s in a s flexibl e an dcomprehensiv e a fashio n a s possible
. In connectio n wit hthi s effort , source s shoul dconside r establishin g realisti c goal s for productio n an demission s a t al l units
. By obtainin g aTitl e V permi t tha t ha s variou s operationa l scheme s buil t in , source s wil l b e abl e t o minimiz e th e chance s tha t the y wil l b e require dt o see k permi t revision s i

f the y modif

y operations
. Second , source s shoul dconside r seekin g apermi t

tha t contain s a n overal l emission s ca p for thei r entir e facility
. In thi s connection , source s shoul danticipat e th e nee dfo r enhance dmonitorin g t o establis hbaselin e emission s reading s an dt o demonstrat e tha t the y ar e maintainin g emission s a t level s belo w th e leve l of th e cap . Third , source s shoul dgiv e carefu l consideratio n t o measure s tha t woul destablis hrealisti c emissio n limit s tha t transfor mthei r

classificatio n fro mamajo r

sourc e t o asyntheti c mino r source . Som e source s migh t b e abl e t o accomplis hthi s transformatio n b y acombinatio n o f pollutio n preventio n effort s an ddesig n an doperationa l changes
. Althoug hi t i s tru e tha t EP A retain s authorit y t o impos e hars hpenaltie s (includin g requirin g installatio n o f

BAC T o r

LAER ) o n source s tha t violat e syntheti c mino r emission s limitations , th e benefit s o f usin g legitimat e syntheti c mino r statu s t o avoi dth e regulator y burden s impose do n majo r source s unde r Titl e V an dth e NS Rprogram s ar e apparent .

49 8 • Environmenta l Permittin g Autum n 199 3P.1 6

m® Modifyin g Operation s unde rCA APermittin g an d Ne wSourc e Revie wRequirement s CONCLUSIO N 

### Source s proposin g t o mak e operationa l change s tha t affect emission s o f regulate dai r

pollutant s shoul db e engage di npreventiv e plannin g no w t o ensure tha t

they minimiz e overla

p betweenth e new requirement s o f Titl e V o f th e Clea nAi r Act , o nth e on e hand , an dth e requirement s o f Ne w Sourc e Review , o nth e other
. Transformin g th e sourc e int o asyntheti c minor , designin g th e Titl e V permi t t o allo w maximu mflexibility , an d seekin g t o bubbl e th e entire sourc e are thre e option s tha t shoul db e seriously considere da s par t o f an y complianc e strategy . © NOTE S 1
. 5 7 Fed
. Reg
. 32249-3231 2 (Jul y 21 , 1992)
. Note that

variou s aspect s o

f thes e regulation s are currentl y i n litigation
. 2
. 4 0 CF

R70.2
. 3
. Se e 4 0 CF R70.7(e)
. 4
. 4 0 CF

R70.7(e)(2)
. 5
. See40CFR70.4(b)(12)
. 6
. Se e 4 0 CF R70.2
. 7
. Se e 5 4 Fed
. Reg
. 2727 4 (June 28,1989)
. 8
. Requirement s fo

r state program s are containe di n4 0 CF R51.165
. 9
. Requirement s fo

r state program s arc i

n4 0 CF R51.16 6 an dfederall

y applie d requirement s are i

n4 0 CF R52.21
. 10
. 4 0 CF

R52.21
. 11
. Se e 5 4 Fed
. Reg
. 2727 4 (June 28 , 1989)
. 12
. 42USC7511a(c)(6)and(7)
.

Autum n 199 3 Environmenta l Permittin g • 49 9