Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0179-0126
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-11-04T05:00Z

June
3,
1998
Robert
Hodanbosi,
Chief
Division
of
Air
Pollution
Control
Ohio
Environmental
Protection
Agency
1800
WaterMark
Drive
Columbus,
Ohio
43215
Dear
Mr.
Hodanbosi:

I
am
writing
to
express
our
concerns
about
the
periodic
monitoring
requirements
in
utility
Title
V
permits
recently
processed
by
your
office.
The
Title
V
permits
for
two
utilities,
Conesville
Power
Plant
(
Conesville)
and
Ohio
Valley
Electric
Corporation,
Kyger
Creek
Station
(
Kyger
Creek),
did
not
receive
any
comments
from
our
agency
during
their
draft
or
proposed
stages
and
have
been
finalized.
However,
concerns
about
certain
terms
in
these
permits
have
been
brought
up
in
light
of
the
developing
periodic
monitoring
guidance
and
out
of
concern
for
national
consistency.
The
Title
V
permits
for
two
other
facilities,
DP&
L,
Killen
Generating
Station
(
Killen)
and
Department
of
Public
Utilities
in
the
City
of
Orrville,
Ohio
(
Orrville),
did
receive
comments
from
our
office
during
their
draft
stage
and
have
not
yet
reached
the
proposed
stage.

Section
70.6(
a)(
3)(
B)
requires
each
Title
V
permit
to
contain
periodic
monitoring
sufficient
to
yield
reliable
data
from
the
relevant
time
period
that
are
representative
of
the
source's
compliance
with
the
permit,
if
the
underlying
applicable
requirements
do
not
otherwise
specify
such
monitoring.
In
order
to
meet
this
"
gap­
filling"
provision,
the
periodic
monitoring
terms
for
each
emission
unit
in
the
permit
must
include
not
only
the
appropriate
method
for
monitoring,
but
also
the
minimum
frequency
at
which
the
monitoring
must
be
done
in
order
to
yield
sufficient
data
to
represent
the
source's
compliance
with
the
permit.
If
a
Title
V
permit's
monitoring
requirements
do
not
specify
a
frequency,
the
monitoring
methods
they
institute
cannot
be
considered
periodic.

The
four
Title
V
permits
require
Part
60
Method
9
testing
for
many
of
the
emission
units,
but
they
do
not
specify
the
frequency
at
which
Method
9
must
be
performed.
The
Ohio
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
OEPA)
has
argued
that
the
frequency
does
not
need
to
be
specified
because
the
emission
units
either
have
1)
continuous
opacity
monitoring
systems
(
COMS)
which
will
provide
monitoring
data
for
direct
compliance
with
opacity
limits,
or
2)
inherently
clean
emissions
and
infrequent
periods
of
operation.
In
accordance
with
our
November
10,
1997
letter
to
you,
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
USEPA)
believes
that
such
explanations
belong
in
a
statement
of
basis
for
each
permit.
We
understand
that
OEPA
is
working
on
including
statements
of
basis
in
future
Title
V
permits.
USEPA
also
believes
that,
regardless
of
operating
history,
the
emission
units
for
which
COMS
data
is
not
required
must
have
a
frequency
for
Method
9
testing
specified
in
the
permits
in
order
to
meet
the
gap­
filling
requirement.
USEPA
recommends
that
OEPA
consider
the
guidance
written
by
Region
7
on
periodic
monitoring
for
opacity
and
the
periodic
monitoring
guidance
being
developed
by
the
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards
at
USEPA.

USEPA
has
commented
that
OEPA's
utility
permits
appear
to
lack
adequate
requirements
for
periodic
monitoring
of
particulate
emissions,
and
for
proper
operation
and
maintenance
of
particulate
control
equipment.
OEPA
has
explained
that
the
actual
particulate
emissions
will
be
well
below
the
allowable
limits,
that
the
emissions
will
be
parametrically
monitored
through
the
COMS,
and
that
the
COMS
will
provide
adequate
information
to
ensure
proper
operation
and
maintenance
of
control
equipment.
USEPA
believes
that
these
justifications,
as
well
as
a
technical
explanation
of
the
correlation
between
COMS
data
and
particulate
matter
emission
limit
compliance,
also
belong
in
a
statement
of
basis
for
each
permit.

The
four
permits
allow
the
sources
to
be
deemed
in
compliance
if
less
than
1.5%
of
their
nonexempt
6­
minute
average
opacity
values
during
a
calendar
quarter
exceed
the
20%
opacity
limit.
USEPA
has
commented
that
this
appears
to
be
an
unnecessary
limit
on
enforcement
authority.
OEPA
has
argued
that
the
1.5%
leeway
is
considered
necessary
based
on
experience
in
enforcing
the
20%
standard
and
on
the
Pacific
Environmental
Services
study
of
continuous
emission
data,
and
that
the
COMS
data
will
still
be
used
for
direct
compliance.
USEPA
understands
the
need
to
practice
enforcement
discretion,
but
opposes
putting
such
discretion
in
writing
in
any
air
pollution
permit.
USEPA
will
object
to
the
incorporation
of
enforcement
discretion
in
the
federally
enforceable
section
of
proposed
Title
V
permits,
and
requests
that
the
Conesville
and
Kyger
Creek
permits
be
administratively
amended
to
correct
this
problem
as
soon
as
possible.

Finally,
the
four
utility
permits
contain
a
clause
that
contradicts
the
Credible
Evidence
rule.
The
permits
state
that
in
case
of
a
discrepancy
between
COMS
data
and
Method
9
data
for
a
particular
emission
unit,
the
Method
9
data
will
take
precedence.
USEPA
believes
that
the
Credible
Evidence
rule
prohibits
preferring
one
monitoring
method
over
another
by
default
in
a
permit,
and
will
object
to
any
proposed
Title
V
permit
that
contains
such
anti­
credible
evidence
language.
USEPA
requests
that
the
Conesville
and
Kyger
Creek
permits
be
administratively
amended
to
correct
this
problem
as
soon
as
possible.
USEPA
understands
that
OEPA
will
be
adding
a
Credible
Evidence
rule
provision
in
the
General
Terms
and
Conditions
section
of
their
Title
V
permits,
but
does
not
believe
this
provision
nullifies
the
problem
of
rejecting
one
type
of
possibly
accurate
monitoring
data
in
favor
of
another.

In
addition
to
making
the
administrative
amendments
to
the
Conesville
and
Kyger
Creek
permits
prescribed
above,
we
request
that
OEPA
revise
the
Killen
and
Orrville
permits
to
correct
the
problems
mentioned
in
this
letter
before
those
permits
reach
the
proposed
stage.
We
also
recommend
that
OEPA
examine
all
other
Title
V
permits
for
similar
language
and
correct
them
appropriately.

We
appreciate
OEPA's
consideration
of
our
comments
and
efforts
to
improve
the
periodic
monitoring
requirements
in
their
Title
V
permits.
If
you
have
any
questions
regarding
this
letter,
please
contact
Kaushal
Gupta,
of
my
staff,
at
(
312)
886­
6803.

Sincerely
yours,

/
s/

Cheryl
Newton,
Chief
Permits
and
Grants
Section
(
IL/
IN/
OH)