Uploaded by brysyn.aryian


Compliance Assurance and Title V
A Summary of the
Rules and Applications
Peter Westlin, EPA,
Presentation topics
Title V monitoring principles
Part 64/CAM rule summary
Other Title V Monitoring
Part 70/Title V permit responsibilities
Compliance certification
Enhanced Monitoring Rule History
1990 - CAAA requires EPA to publish
monitoring rules for major sources
1992 - EPA proposes Enhanced Monitoring
CEMS based
All major sources subject
1995 - EPA changes direction
Reasonable Assurance of Compliance
Focus on add-on control devices
Part 64 (CAM) design principles
Monitoring sufficient to provide a
reasonable assurance of compliance with
the applicable requirements (e.g.,
emissions limits) and to ensure operators
pay the same level of attention to pollution
control measures as to production
What is CAM rule?
40 CFR Part 64 - Compliance Assurance Monitoring
 Implements the monitoring design principle for
a reasonable assurance of compliance
 Targets facilities with add-on control devices
 Requires source owners to design monitoring to
fit site and incorporate into permits
What are CAM design criteria?
Build on current requirements and practices:
 Select representative control device operational
parameters (e.g., temperature, flow, pressure drop,
electrical voltages, component concentration);
 Establish indicator ranges for reasonable assurance of
– Accounting for site-specific factors such as margin of
compliance, emissions control variability, correlation
with emissions,
– Relying on design information, historical data, similar
sources, test data; and
 Establish data collection method and averaging time.
Who will be affected by CAM?
Rule applies to each pollutant-specific emissions unit
(PSEU) that:
 Is located at major source subject to Title V
operational permits program, and
 Is subject to emission limitation and has a
control device to meet that limit (e.g., ESPs,
scrubbers, fabric filters), and
 Has precontrol emissions >major source size
threshold (e.g., >100 tons/year uncontrolled
Who is exempt from CAM?
Exemptions are by rule type, not facility
Acid rain rules,
Post-1990 EPA rules,
Rules with continuous compliance
determination methods (e.g., Da facilities
for SO2).
One exemption exception: Municipallyowned peaking units.
Apply CAM to PSEUs in new (including renewal)
Title V applications after April 22, 1998:
Large units (post-control emissions greater than
major source threshold) at initial permit and
significant permit revisions,
All PSEUs meeting three criteria at permit renewal.
Other monitoring sufficient to assure compliance
applies in interim.
What is required in part 70 for
Monitoring requirements from applicable
rules including part 64
Monitoring to fill gaps
If applicable rule has no monitoring, no
frequency, initial testing only
Gap-filling monitoring to provide reliable data
from relevant time period representative of
compliance (70.6(a)(3))
What must the source owner do to
get a permit?
Develop and propose monitoring in permit
application that at a minimum:
Satisfies part 64, as applicable, and
Includes applicable monitoring requirements.
May also propose monitoring to fill gaps
including applying or improving existing
What is permitting authority role in
Title V monitoring?
Review and approve or disapprove proposed
 Is gap-filling monitoring with justification
 Is required monitoring (e.g., part 64, rulespecific) included?
 If proposal indicates no monitoring is
needed, is justification adequate?
What is permitting authority role in
Title V monitoring?
Specify gap-filling or, under own
authority, improvements to proposed or
existing monitoring as needed to assure
Define monitoring in permit, specify all
elements and conditions for clarity and
future inspections.
How is the monitoring described in a
Permit elements (EPA’s part 64 guidance has
example format):
 Description of monitoring (what is measured,
how, frequency, averaging time),
 What defines excursions and consequences
(e.g., excursion triggers corrective action and
reporting obligation), excess emissions,
 QA/QC schedules and procedures.
What does source owner do with
monitoring results?
Use the data to assure and assess compliance
with applicable requirements by:
Operating control device(s) within designated
CAM or other indicator ranges, and
Responding to excursions, excess emissions,
deviations with appropriate corrective action;
Operating other control measures in
accordance with applicable conditions.
Defining Excursions and Exceedances
Exceedance – condition detected by
monitoring (in units of pollutant
emissions) that emissions are beyond
Excursion – departure from indicator
range established in accordance with
part 64
Status of Compliance for Excursions
Potential problem in the operation and
maintenance of the control device,
Possible exception to compliance with applicable
Owner or operator to take appropriate
corrective action, but
Not necessarily a failure to comply with the
underlying emissions limitation or standard.
Status of Compliance for Exceedance
(Excess Emissions)
Reporting requirements already
established in existing requirements, in
many cases,
May have to specify an appropriate time
period for averaging data to report
Exceptions to compliance.
Status of Exceptions to Compliance
Certification of intermittent compliance is
not necessarily a certification of
Periods for which one does not really know
(e.g., excursions from operating conditions),
Excused periods (e.g., SS&M),
Monitoring errors offset by other
information indicating compliance.
What is required for compliance
40 CFR 70.6(c)(5) - annual or more frequent
certification requires the source owner
(responsible official) to:
 Certify as to status of compliance for
each permit term or condition, and
 Indicate whether compliance is
continuous or intermittent.
What constitutes continuous or
intermittent compliance?
From preamble to part 70 revisions (06/27/03):
Any failure to meet permit terms or conditions (e.g.,
deviations or possible exceptions to compliance as per part
64 excursions) will result in intermittent compliance
From other EPA documents (e.g., 1997, 2001 FR
notices): Certification of intermittent compliance is not
necessarily a certification of noncompliance:
Periods for which one does not really know (e.g., excursions
from CAM indicator ranges),
Monitoring errors offset by other information indicating
Two related acronyms
From Great Britain
• From regulatory language:
BATNEEC – Best available
technology not entailing excessive
• From industry paper: CATNIP –
Cheapest available technology not
incurring prosecution
Questions? Break?
Related documents