North
Carolina
Department
of
Environment
and
Natural
Resources
Division
of
Air
Quality
November
4,
1999
Mr.
Gregg
Worley,
Section
Chief
Operating
Source
Section
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Air,
Pesticides,
and
Toxics
Management
Division
Region
IV
Atlanta
Federal
Center
61
Forsyth
Street,
SW
Atlanta,
Georgia
30303­
8909
Dear
Mr.
Worley:

The
implementation
of
Title
V
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
has
been
challenging
but
worthwhile.
One
of
the
basic
tenets
of
the
Title
V
program
is
the
clarity
required
by
the
Title
V
permit.
This
clarity
is
required
to
allow
the
permittee
to
complete
their
mandatory
annual
compliance
certification
in
light
of
aggressive
enforcement
penalties
associated
with
that
certification.
In
addition,
the
far
greater
involvement
of
citizen
groups
demands
that
compliance
be
clearly
defined.
This
mandate
was
set
forth
in
the
legislative
discussion
of
the
1990
amendments,
(
H.
R.
Rep.
No.
101490,
1015t
Cong.,
2d
Sess.,
pt
1,
at
351
(
1990)).

"...
The
permittee,
the
permitting
agency,
and
the
citizen
all
should
be
able
to
look
at
the
permit
and
know
what
are
the
requirements
applicable
to
the
source
under
the
Act.
It
should
be
emphasized
that
the
permit
issued
under
this
title
is
intended
by
the
Administration
to
be
the
single
document
or
source
of
all
the
requirements
under
the
Act
applicable
to
the
source.
Again,
the
Committee
stresses
that
the
permit
is
the
document
that
everyone
should
look
at
to
know
what
the
permittees
should
do
to
comply
with
the
Clean
Air
Act."

In
many
cases,
we
have
had
to
carefully
consider
what
our
own
regulations
have
required,
as
well
as
those
of
Federal
programs.
Senator
Chaffee
recognized
this
challenge
in
drafting
Title
V,

"...
This
would
clearly
be
an
improvement
over
the
present
system,
where
both
the
source
and
the
EPA
must
search
through
numerous
provisions
of
State
implementation
plans
and
regulations
to
assemble
a
complete
list
of
requirements
that
apply
to
any
particular
plant."
1
Excess
emission
in
this
context
refers
to
a
six­
minute
average
of
COM
data
that
is
greater
than
40%.

2
In
the
particular
case
of
North
Carolina's
SIP,
the
rules
for
start­
up
and
shut­
down
have
not
been
approved
into
the
SIP.
However,
the
discussion
can
assume
they
are
federally
approved
without
loss
of
generality.
Mr.
Gregg
Worley
November
4,
1999
Page
2
This
has
been
beneficial
to
us
as
it
has,
I
believe,
been
beneficial
to
the
sources
and
citizen
groups.

In
keeping
with
this
improved
way
of
doing
business,
we
are
requesting
guidance
from
your
office
regarding
the
use
of
continuous
opacity
monitors
(
COMs)
as
periodic
monitoring
method
for
opacity
standards
for
boilers,
including
utility
units.
In
particular,
we
have
had
numerous
discussions
with
members
of
your
staff,
as
well
as
permit
managers
from
other
states
in
Region
IV
and
elsewhere
in
the
country.
In
addition,
we
have
read
with
interest
Title
V
(
and
Draft
Title
V)
permits
from
other
states.
Finally,
we
have
recently
noted
the
guidance
issued
by
Region
VI
regarding
this
very
issue
(
see
attached).
It
is
on
this
basis
that
we
request
this
guidance.

Our
specific
question
in
this
regard
has
to
do
with
whether
the
results
from
a
COM,
when
specifically
named
as
the
periodic
monitoring
method
for
a
SIP
opacity
standard
in
the
Title
V
permit,
define
compliance.
A
hypothetical
example
for
a
utility
boiler
may
be
the
simplest
way
of
asking
the
questions:

Given:
The
SIP
emission
standard
for
opacity,
as
measured
in
six­
minute
average
values,
is
40%
in
North
Carolina
excluding
one
exceedance
per
hour
but
no
more
than
four
in
any
24­
hour
period.
The
SIP
also
allows
excess
emissions1
due
to
start­
up,
shut­
down
and
malfunctions2
to
be
excused
under
appropriate
circumstances.

Question
1:
Excluding
excess
emissions
that
occur
during
these
excused
periods,
is
a
six­
minute
average
of
COM
data
that
exceeds
40%
considered
a
violation,
for
which
the
permittee
must
certify
noncompliance
at
the
end
of
the
year?

Question
2:
If
not,
is
a
reference
method
9
test
(
in
the
case
of
opacity)
the
only
way
to
determine
non­
compliance
with
an
emission
standard?
Mr.
Gregg
Worley
November
4,
1999
Page
3
We
would
like
to
emphasize
the
distinction
between
certifying
non­
compliance
and
subsequent
enforcement
through
penalties
or
fines.
Clearly,
discretion
can
be
used
in
the
latter.
However,
for
the
purposes
of
implementing
the
intent
of
the
Title
V
program,
activities
must
be
considered
either
in
compliance
or
not
in
compliance.
We
do
not
believe
that
the
intentions
of
Title
V
would
be
served
if
the
regulatory
agency
allowed,
indeed
sanctioned,
a
facility
to
certify
that
they
did
not
know
what
their
compliance
status
was
during
periods
of
time.
It
is
difficult
to
imagine
that
such
an
indeterminate
state
serves
the
intent
of
the
CAA
in
promoting
citizen
involvement.

Question
3:
Will
the
EPA
accept
a
Title
V
compliance
certification
from
a
facility
stating
that
for
a
given
permit
condition
or
requirement
the
facility
"
did
not
know"
what
their
compliance
status
was?

Thank
you
for
your
help
in
answering
these
important
questions.
We
hope
questions
such
as
these
will
serve
to
facilitate
the
implementation
of
the
Title
V
permit
program.
If
you
have
any
questions,
please
feel
free
to
contact
me
at
(
919)
715­
6253.

Sincerely,

Donald
R.
van
der
Vaart,
Ph.
D.,
P.
E.
Supervisor,
NSR/
Title
V
Branch
Attachment
c:
Laura
S.
Butler
Alan
W.
Klimek
