Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0087-0034
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2007-09-12T04:00Z

217/785-4140

September 13, 2000

Mr. Michael Trutna

Information Transfer and Program Integration Division (MD-12)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27711

Re:	Draft Guidance on Design of Flexible Air Permits (White Paper 3)

	65 Fed.Reg. 49803 (August 15, 2000)

Dear Mr. Trutna:

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) appreciates
this opportunity to comment on the draft guidance on the design of
flexible air permits, known as White Paper 3.  Following are our
comments:

 USEPA regional staff who deal with Title V permits need to be fully
educated and convinced of the uses of White Paper 3.  More specifically,
portions of the document refer to the use of a Plant-wide Applicability
Limit (PAL) for allowing changes at a source to avoid the applicability
of certain requirements.  We are concerned with Region 5’s
acceptability of this type of limit, including by regional permit
reviewers and associated persons (lawyers and managerial staff). 
Historic dealings with USEPA regional staff in attempts to establish
PALs have met with significant resistance.  Therefore, it is imperative
that, in a timely manner, the appropriate USEPA regional staff be fully
educated on White Paper 3 and that the mechanisms of White Paper 3 be
promoted and “sold” to USEPA regions as acceptable practices.  If
such preparation steps are not taken, then we fear that permitting
authorities will waste a significant amount of time and other resources
in efforts to promote the use of White Paper 3 only to be unreasonably
delayed or rejected in the final stages by USEPA regional staff.  

Note that USEPA review of draft permits typically occurs only in the
final stages of the permit issuance process.  Recent conversations with
certain USEPA regional Title V permit reviewers indicated little
knowledge of White Paper 3 and no known plans for internal training or
discussions on White Paper 3.  This situation must be corrected for
White Paper 3 to be successful.   Also note that similar problems
existed with White Papers 1 and 2.  USEPA Headquarters should take the
lead role in educating and promoting White Paper 3.  Again, this did not
appear to occur for the first two White Papers and may have contributed
to implementation delays.

	

Currently in Illinois a two-step permitting process exists when a source
constructs or modifies.  In Step 1, a construction permit is obtained. 
In Step 2, the source revises its Title V permit to allow operation of
the changes permitted in the construction permit.  Note that
construction permits are required in Illinois prior to the construction
of all emission units and activities, unless specifically exempted.  It
would significantly streamline the process if mechanisms were available
that allowed for both sources and permitting authorities to forego the
resource-consuming task of subsequently revising Title V permits to
allow new construction and/or modification projects to operate.  

In light of the above, the most straightforward benefit of White Paper 3
in Illinois appears to lie in the prevention of the necessity to revise
Title V permits for certain new construction and modification projects
(Step 2), not to avoid the issuance of new construction permits for new
projects (Step 1).  However, Illinois recognizes that in certain cases,
the permitting of current as well as forecasted future projects in a
single permitting action and permit (referred to in the White Paper as
“enabling NSR permits”) may lead to the saving of significant time
and other resources, i.e., fewer times going through both Steps 1 and 2.
 The above appears to distinguish between the two main uses of White
Paper 3, those being:

To allow permitting authorities and the source to avoid having to revise
the Title V permit to accommodate new construction and modification
projects (this is mostly performed by writing flexible Title V permits,
e.g., PALs and/or formula based compliance procedures), and

To allow permitting authorities and the source to avoid having both to
issue/obtain a preconstruction permit and to revise the Title V permit
in accordance with the change.  This is performed by the prior issuance
of an enabling NSR permit and its incorporation into a flexibly written
Title V permit.

	

	Thus, one of the main concepts of White Paper 3 is advance approval
through the “enabling NSR permit”.  As this is a relatively new type
of permitting, Illinois EPA suggests that USEPA should clarify this in
the White Paper and expand upon this further.  Also, it needs to be made
crystal clear that, for what Illinois believes to be most permitting
authorities, a preconstruction permit allowing advance approval needs to
be issued in order to allow avoidance of subsequent preconstruction
permitting for pre-approved changes, and for the Title V permit to
contain such flexibility and thus avoid the need for revision.  This
topic is addressed on a limited basis in the White Paper, but more is
needed. 

	In addition, another potential obstacle, for any enabling NSR permit in
Illinois that the permit may need to be renewed each year due to
construction permits being valid for only one year from the date of
issuance.  We assume other permitting authorities have similar
expiration periods on their preconstruction permits.  

	Obviously, White Paper 3 focuses on the use of flexible permitting
tools for Title V operating permits.  However, many of the concepts of
flexible permitting are suited for, and perhaps would find greater use
in, preconstruction permits.  For example, in Illinois advance approval
would originally be given in a construction permit.  The Title V permit
would then, either concurrently or later, be revised to incorporate the
construction permit and advanced approval contained therein.  In this
vein, White Paper 3 should more clearly state that permit flexibility is
also appropriate for preconstruction permitting.  This would hopefully
avoid the need to seek approval from USEPA regional staff for use of the
suggested tools in Illinois’ construction permits.  Illinois intends
to explore these concepts further and encourages USEPA to also explore
expanding the use of White Paper 3 mechanisms to state and local
preconstruction permit programs.  That is, the use of flexible
permitting tools (e.g., advanced approval, operational flexibility,
PALs) should be promoted for use in preconstruction permitting, not just
for Title V permitting.  Although White Paper 3 touches on this and
implies this, it is not specifically stated.  Note also that Illinois is
currently successfully using several of the flexibility mechanisms in
its preconstruction permits, e.g., formula based emission calculations
instead of production and/or material usage limits.

3.		It would be helpful to include in the paper more specific examples
of permit conditions that provide for operational flexibility.  These
concepts are complicated and seeing how others have interpreted and
implemented them is needed.  The example given for using a formula based
approach to limit lithographic printers is excellent and more examples
like this would prove very useful.

4.		In some cases the use of White Paper 3 and its tools, in particular
advanced approval, may lead to a significant amount of work being
performed unnecessarily, e.g., if a permitting authority and source work
to implement advanced approval only to have the source never utilize the
flexibility.  It may be useful for White Paper 3 to emphasize that care
should be taken in deciding when to use these mechanisms.  Also, in the
portion of the paper that addresses when it would be inappropriate to
allow a source to use flexible permitting, Illinois EPA suggests that
this section should include sources with a history of non-compliance. 
Operational flexibility for such sources would likely only lead to
additional compliance problems.  This would also serve as an incentive
for sources to achieve lasting compliance.

5.		It should be made clear that these flexibility mechanisms are not
mandatory or suitable for all Title V permits.  Also, the additional
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting (MRR) that often accompany
flexibility in permits are not necessarily required when little
flexibility exists.  A good rule of thumb is less flexibility, less MRR;
more flexibility, more MRR.  As was a concern with the periodic
monitoring guidance, it should be made clear that the suggested MRR
identified in the guidance is not mandatory or always appropriate and
should not be used as a minimum requirements guide.

 Another useful and common mechanism for writing flexible Title V
permits is identifying emission units in general terms as opposed to
specific terms.  This easy technique can be used in practically all
Title V permits and often makes it unnecessary to revise the permit for
both new construction and modifications to existing emission units.  For
example, if a source has 2 heatset web offset lithographic printing
lines identified by the source as lines 1 and 2, the following shows two
common ways that such lines are identified in a permit:

		

2 heastset web offset lithographic printing lines, or

heatset web offset lithographic printing lines 1 and 2.

Although there is only a small difference in the above descriptions, the
implications for revising the Title V permit should a printing line be
replaced or modified is significant.  By way of explanation, if the
source decides to replace existing line 1 with a new line 3 that is
relatively identical, then the description in item (i) is such that no
revision to the Title V permit is necessary.  However, the description
used in item (ii) would require that the Title V permit be revised to
permit lines 1 and 3 and remove line 2.  Of course, the general
description would be used throughout the permit such that the permit
basically allows the operation of any two lithographic printing presses
that meet the description and comply with the requirements in the
permit.  Obviously, other factors will play a role in whether a revision
to the Title V is necessary, e.g., no revision for NSR purposes is
needed if the natural PTE of line 3 is less than NSR trigger levels or
if the Title V permit already contains limits on PTE for total emissions
from the lines such that emissions are less than NSR trigger levels.  
In addition, the source would not be able to avoid the need to obtain a
construction permit, if required, prior to construction (unless, of
course, they had advanced approval).  Again, this would simply eliminate
the need to revise the Title V permit.  Note that this technique, like
the other flexible permit writing techniques, is applicable for use in
construction permits as well as Title V permits.  Illinois EPA suggests
that this flexible permit mechanism should be identified and described
in White Paper 3.

If you have questions regarding our comments, please contact Jim Ross of
my Permits Section at 217/782-2113.

Sincerely,

David J. Kolaz

Chief

Bureau of Air

Instructions Page

Mail via overnight; e-mail to U.S. EPA on September 13, 2000

bcc:	Kathleen Bassi

	Jim Ross

	Don Sutton

	Bonnie Sawyer

	Dennis Lawler

kcb    FILENAME \p  G:\BASSI\FEDREG\13.WhitePaper3.comments.9-13-00.doc 

JRR:  FILENAME  \* MERGEFORMAT  Comments on White Paper 3.doc 

 

 PAGE   

Mr. Michael Trutna, USEPA

Comments of the Illinois  EPA on White Paper 3

September 13, 2000

Page   PAGE  6 

 PAGE   

 PAGE   6