NOTE:
SIMILAR
LETTERS
WERE
SENT
TO
ALL
6
STATES
IN
REGION.

January
15,
1997
Ann
Foss,
Program
Administrator
Division
Programs
and
Permits
Section
Minnesota
Pollution
Control
Agency
520
Lafayette
Road
North
St.
Paul,
Minnesota
55155
Dear
Ms.
Foss:

I
am
writing
this
letter
to
all
Region
5
States
to
reaffirm
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
(
USEPA)
commitment
to
ensure
the
integrity
of
the
Clean
Air
Act's
Title
V
program
and
the
permits
issued
thereunder.
It
has
come
to
our
attention
that
there
may
still
be
some
questions
regarding
the
monitoring,
record
keeping,
and
reporting
requirements
of
the
Title
V
program.

Monitoring,
record
keeping,
and
reporting
requirements
are
important
elements
of
a
technically
sound
and
enforceable
Title
V
permit.
Section
70.6(
a)(
3)
of
the
Title
V
regulations
specifies
the
standard
monitoring
and
related
record
keeping
and
reporting
requirements
that
each
Title
V
permit
must
contain.
One
important
element
of
the
monitoring,
record
keeping,
and
reporting
requirements
of
Title
V
is
that
each
permit
must
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.
This
provision
is
commonly
referred
to
as
the
gap­
filling
provision.
Therefore,
if
the
underlying
applicable
requirements,
such
as
construction
permit
conditions
or
State
Implementation
Plan
requirements,
do
not
contain
adequate
monitoring,
record
keeping,
and
reporting
provisions
sufficient
to
provide
such
reliable
data,
the
State
must
add
such
provisions
in
the
Title
V
permit,
and
these
provisions
must
be
located
in
the
federally
enforceable
section
of
the
permit.
This
periodic
monitoring
requirement
is
a
Title
V
program
element,
and
it
exists
independent
of
the
USEPA's
future
actions
with
respect
to
the
Compliance
Assurance
Monitoring
regulations,
which
are
currently
under
consideration.

The
USEPA
has
not
issued
any
guidance
related
to
the
content
or
sufficiency
of
Title
V
periodic
monitoring
scenarios,
and
State
permitting
authorities
have
significant
discretion
to
tailor
the
application
of
the
gap­
filling
requirement
in
ways
that
are
effective
and
reasonable.
Nonetheless,
Title
V
does
require
that
operating
permits
include
gap­
filling
measures
where
needed.
We
have
discussed
this
matter
with
USEPA
Headquarters
offices
and
can
confirm
that
this
is
their
position
as
well.

Enclosed
are
some
excerpts
from
recent
Wisconsin
Title
V
permits
which
contain
periodic
monitoring
elements
that
meet
the
intent
of
the
Title
V
provisions.
I
am
using
examples
from
Wisconsin
as
this
State
is
the
furthest
along
in
the
actual
issuance
of
Title
V
permits
in
Region
5,
and
Wisconsin's
Title
V
permit
format
is
designed
to
assure
that
compliance
requirements
are
included.
Please
note
that
these
examples
are
provided
to
show
Wisconsin's
approach
of
addressing
the
periodic
monitoring
requirements,
and
are
not
comprehensive
of
all
the
variations
to
gap­
filling
that
are
possible
for
any
given
situation.
Also,
note
that
many
of
the
specific
Wisconsin
statutory
and
regulation
citations
in
column
B
of
these
excerpts
refer
to
the
state's
general
authority
for
establishing
gap
filling
or
expand
upon
underlying
general
monitoring
requirements.
These
permits
are
available
for
viewing
on
the
Internet
at
the
Wisconsin
Department
of
Natural
Resources
Gopher
site.

As
Region
5
works
with
its
States
to
implement
Title
V
permitting,
the
presence
of
periodic
monitoring
requirements
is
one
area
which
will
receive
Regional
review.
Any
permit
that
does
not
contain
the
periodic
monitoring
provisions
as
required
by
40
CFR
70.6
is
subject
to
an
USEPA
veto
in
accordance
with
the
objection
provisions
in
40
CFR
70.8(
c).

I
hope
this
letter
and
the
examples
I
have
provided
clarify
the
Agency's
position
that
periodic
monitoring
provisions
must
be
contained
in
all
Title
V
permits,
regardless
of
the
underlying
regulations.
If
you
or
your
staff
have
any
questions
regarding
this
information,
please
feel
free
to
contact
Rachel
Rineheart,
Minnesota
Permit
Specialist,
at
(
312)
886­
7017.

Sincerely
yours,

/
s/

Stephen
Rothblatt,
Chief
Air
Programs
Branch
Revised
Enclosures
(
EPA
note:
Excerpt
from
Zalk
Josephs
Fabricators
Inc.
­
Issued
April
29,
1996.
Additional
testing
and
reporting
requirements
are
included
in
Section
C.,
Testing
and
Reporting
Requirements
Applicable
to
the
Entire
Facility,
and
Part
II,
General
Permit
Conditions.)
PART
I
APPLICABLE
LIMITATIONS
AND
SPECIFIC
CONDITIONS
A.
S98/
P03/
C03:
Shotblast.
Fabric
Filter
Control.
Installed
1979.

POLLUTANT
a.
LIMITATIONS
b.
COMPLIANCE
DEMONSTRATION
c.
REFERENCE
TEST
METHODS,
RECORDKEEPING
AND
MONITORING
1.
Particulate
Matter
Emissions
(
1)
The
emissions
may
not
exceed
6.12
lb/
hr.
This
is
the
most
restrictive
allowable
emission
rate,
based
on
the
equation
0.40
lb/
1000
lb
gas
x
(
Airflow)
scfm
x
0.075
lb/
cf
x
60
min/
hr,
based
on
a
maximum
airflow
of
3400
acfm
and
at
an
exhaust
gas
temperature
that
is
considered
standard
conditions.
Operation
of
the
baghouse
is
required
in
order
to
allow
the
facility
to
comply
with
this
limit.
[
§
(
1)
The
baghouse
must
be
controlling
emissions
and
operating
properly
at
all
times
shotblasting
is
being
performed.
[
§
144.394(
3),
Wis.
Stat.]

(
2)
The
pressure
drop
across
the
baghouse
shall
be
maintained
between
1
and
10
inches
of
water.
[
§
NR
439.055(
1)(
a),
Wis.
(
1)
Whenever
compliance
testing
is
required,
USEPA
Method
5,
including
the
condensible
backhalf,
shall
be
used.
When
approved
in
writing
an
equivalent
test
method
may
be
substituted
for
the
required
test
method.
[
§
NR
439.06(
1),
Wis.
Adm.
Code]
NR
415.05(
1)(
o)
and
(
2),
Wis.
Adm.
Code]
Adm.
Code]

(
3)
The
facility
shall
perform
a
weekly
inspection
of
the
baghouse
to
ensure
there
are
no
broken/
torn
bags
which
would
allow
excess
emissions.
[
§
NR
407.09(
1)(
c)
1.
b.,
Wis.
Adm.
Code]
(
2)
The
facility
shall
install,
operate,
calibrate
and
maintain
a
pressure
drop
monitor
at
the
baghouse.
[
§
NR
439.055(
1),
Wis.
Adm.
Code]

(
3)
The
pressure
drop
across
the
baghouse
shall
be
monitored
continuously.
[
§
NR
439.055(
1)(
a),
Wis.
Adm.
Code]

(
4)
The
facility
shall
maintain
the
following
records:
(
a)
A
log
of
the
name
or
initials
of
the
operator
performing
each
weekly
baghouse
inspection
and
the
time
each
inspection
took
place.
(
b)
A
description
of
any
maintenance
or
repairs
of
the
baghouse
that
resulted
from
the
inspection.
(
c)
The
daily
pressure
drop
readings.
[
§
NR
439.04(
1)(
d),
Wis.
Adm.
Code]
(
EPA
note:
Excerpt
from
WIS
DOA
/
Capitol
Heat
&
Power
­
Issued
August
29,
1996.
Additional
testing
and
reporting
requirements
are
included
in
Section
E.,
Testing
and
Reporting
Requirements
Applicable
to
the
Entire
Facility,
and
Part
II,
General
Permit
Conditions.)

A.
S11,
B21
­
Water
Tube
Boiler
with
Traveling
Grate
Stoker
­
(
Continued)

POLLUTANT
a.
LIMITATIONS
b.
COMPLIANCE
DEMONSTRATION
METHODS
c.
REFERENCE
TEST
METHODS,
RECORDKEEPING,
AND
MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS
2.
Sulfur
Dioxide
(
1)
7.0
pounds
per
million
Btu
heat
input.
This
more
restrictive
sulfur
dioxide
limitation
corresponds
the
limitation
on
the
sulfur
content
of
the
coal
of
not
greater
than
0.95
percent
by
weight.
[
s.
NR
418.03(
1)(
a),
Wis.
Adm.
Code]

(
2)
The
maximum
sulfur
content
of
the
coal
used
may
not
exceed
0.95
percent
by
weight.
Conditions
carried
over
from
U.
S.
EPA
order
number
EPA­
5­
88­
113A(
a)­
29,
which
expired
June
9,
1991.
[
ss.
144.394(
3)
and
144.393(
1)(
a),
Wis.
Stats.]
(
1)
Compliance
emission
tests
of
boiler
B21
shall
be
conducted
every
24
months
as
long
as
this
permit
remains
valid.
Each
biennial
test
shall
be
performed
within
90
days
of
the
anniversary
date
of
the
issuance
of
this
permit
or
within
90
days
of
an
alternate
date
specified
by
the
Department
in
writing.
These
compliance
emission
tests
shall
be
conducted
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
sulfur
dioxide
emission
limit
in
condition
I.
A.
2.
a.(
1).
This
testing
shall
be
conducted
while
operating
at
100%
capacity
as
limited
by
condition
I.
A.
1.
a.(
2).
This
testing
shall
be
conducted
in
accordance
with
condition
I.
F.
2.
a.(
1).
Stack
testing
at
operating
loads
in
(
1)
Reference
Test
Method
for
Sulfur
Dioxide
Emissions:
Whenever
compliance
emission
testing
is
required,
US
EPA
Method
6
shall
be
used
to
demonstrate
compliance.
[
s.
NR
439.06(
2)(
a),
Wis.
Adm.
Code]

(
2)
Reference
Test
Method
for
the
Sulfur
Content
in
Coal:
Whenever
the
sulfur
content
of
a
coal
sample
is
required,
it
shall
be
determined
according
to
ASTM
D3177­
89,
Standard
Test
Methods
for
Total
Sulfur
in
the
Analysis
Sample
of
Coal
and
Coke,
or
ASTM
D4239­
93,
Standard
Test
Methods
for
Sulfur
in
the
Analysis
Sample
of
Coal
and
Coke
Using
High
Temperature
Tube
Furnace
Combustion
excess
of
the
load
limitation
set
forth
in
condition
I.
A.
1.
a.(
2),
shall
be
approved
by
the
Department
in
writing
prior
to
testing.
[
ss.
NR
439.07
and
NR
439.075(
2)(
a)
2.
and
(
3)(
b),
Wis.
Adm.
Code]

(
2)
To
demonstrate
compliance
status
with
the
sulfur
content
limitation
in
condition
I.
A.
2.
a.(
2),
the
permittee
shall
perform
coal
sampling
and
analysis
according
to
the
quarterly
fuel
sampling
and
analysis
requirements
outlined
in
conditions
I.
F.
1.
a.(
1)
and
(
2).
[
ss.
NR
439.085(
2)(
c)
and
(
d)
and
NR
407.09(
1)(
c)
1.
a.,
Wis.
Adm.
Code]
Methods.
[
s.
NR
439.08(
1)(
c),
Wis.
Adm.
Code]

(
3)
The
permittee
shall
prepare,
submit
and
retain
copies
of
the
quarterly
fuel
sampling
and
analysis
reports
required
by
conditions
I.
E.
1.
a.(
1)
and
(
2).
[
ss.
NR
439.085(
2)(
c)
and
(
d),
and
NR
439.04(
1)(
d),
Wis.
Adm.
Code]

(
EPA
note:
Excerpt
from
WIS
DOA
/
Capitol
Heat
&
Power
­
Issued
August
29,
1996.
Additional
testing
and
reporting
requirements
are
included
in
Section
E.,
Testing
and
Reporting
Requirements
Applicable
to
the
Entire
Facility,
and
Part
II,
General
Permit
Conditions.)

C.
S11,
B23
­
Industrial
Water
Tube
Type
Boiler
rated
at
104.5
mmBtu/
hour
­
installed
1971
POLLUTANT
a.
LIMITATIONS
b.
COMPLIANCE
DEMONSTRATION
METHODS
c.
REFERENCE
TEST
METHODS,
RECORDKEEPING,
AND
MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS
1.
Particulate
Matter
Emissions
(
1)
0.60
pounds
per
million
Btu
heat
input
to
the
stack.
[
s.
NR
415.06(
1)(
a),
Wis.
(
1)
Natural
gas
and
#
2
fuel
oil
are
the
only
fuels
that
may
be
fired
in
this
boiler.
Because
the
(
1)
Reference
Test
Method
for
Particulate
Matter
Emissions:
Whenever
compliance
emission
Adm.
Code]
maximum
theoretical
emissions
while
firing
these
fuels
are
less
than
the
allowable
limit
of
0.60
pounds
per
million
Btu
heat
input,
limiting
the
types
of
fuels
used
is
adequate
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
particulate
matter
emission
limit.
Maximum
theoretical
particulate
matter
emissions
were
calculated
using
an
emission
factor
of
2.0
pounds
per
thousand
gallons
of
#
2
fuel
oil
fired
from
AP­
42.
[
ss.
NR
407.09(
1)(
c)
1.
b.,
Wis.
Adm.
Code
and
144.394(
3)
and
144.393(
1)(
a),
Wis.
Stats.]
testing
is
required,
US
EPA
Method
5,
including
condensible
backhalf
emissions,
shall
be
used
to
demonstrate
compliance.
[
s.
NR
439.06(
1),
Wis.
Adm.
Code]

(
2)
The
permittee
shall
retain
on
site,
plans
and
specifications
of
the
boiler.
These
plans
and
specifications
are
sufficient
because
the
boilers
are
designed
to
only
burn
natural
gas
and
#
2
fuel
oil.
[
s.
NR
439.04(
1)(
d),
Wis.
Adm.
Code]

2.
Sulfur
Dioxide
(
1)
The
sulfur
content
of
the
#
2
fuel
oil
used
may
not
exceed
0.5
percent
by
weight.
[
s.
NR
418.03(
1)(
c)
1.,
Wis.
Adm.
Code]
(
1)
For
each
shipment
of
#
2
fuel
oil
received,
the
permittee
shall
require
sampling
and
analysis
for
the
sulfur
content
of
the
#
2
fuel
oil.
[
s.
NR
407.09(
1)(
c)
1.
b.,
Wis.
Adm.
Code]
(
1)
Reference
Test
Method
for
Sulfur
Dioxide
Emissions:
Whenever
compliance
emission
testing
is
required,
US
EPA
Method
6
shall
be
used
to
demonstrate
compliance.
[
s.
NR
439.06(
2)(
a),
Wis.
Adm.
Code]

(
2)
Reference
Test
Method
for
Sulfur
Content
in
Liquid
Fossil
Fuel:
Whenever
the
sulfur
content
of
a
liquid
fossil
fuel
sample
is
require,
it
shall
be
determined
according
to
ASTM
D129­
91,
Standard
Test
Method
for
Sulfur
in
Petroleum
Products
(
General
