Compliance Assurance and Title V Monitoring A Summary of the Rules and Applications Peter Westlin, EPA, OAQPS 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 rules – – 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 activities. 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 compliance – 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 emissions). Who is exempt from CAM? Exemptions are by rule type, not facility type: – – – 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. Timing? 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? 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 monitoring. What is permitting authority role in Title V monitoring? Review and approve or disapprove proposed monitoring: Is gap-filling monitoring with justification included? 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 compliance; Define monitoring in permit, specify all elements and conditions for clarity and future inspections. How is the monitoring described in a permit? 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, deviations. 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; and 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 limit 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 requirements, 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 exceedances, Exceptions to compliance. Status of Exceptions to Compliance Certification of intermittent compliance is not necessarily a certification of noncompliance – – – 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 certification? 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 certification; 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 compliance. Two related acronyms From Great Britain • From regulatory language: BATNEEC – Best available technology not entailing excessive costs • From industry paper: CATNIP – Cheapest available technology not incurring prosecution Questions? Break?
