 The Graphic Arts Coalition

   Representing the Graphic Communications Industries

September 14, 2000

To: Mike Trutna

From: 	Marci Kinter, Gary Jones, and Dale Kalina

Re: Comments On White Paper 3

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Operating Permits Program
White Paper Number 3, Design of Flexible Air Permits.  Overall, the
concepts and opportunities for flexibility outlined in the White Paper
are very encouraging and these opportunities will lead to more flexible
Title V operating permits for the printing industry. 

We appreciate the considerable effort expended in revising the previous
draft. The examples incorporated into the document as well as the
formatting changes facilitate organization and readability of the
document as a whole and, in particular, the discussion of the
interrelationship of Title V and NSR. It is anticipated that these
improvements will lead to smoother implementation of the concepts and
approaches outlined in the White Paper. 

 

While the document is much improved, there are additional revisions that
would further clarify how the White Paper’s “smart permitting”
approaches can be implemented by state permitting authorities. Due to
some continuing concerns, consideration should be given to deleting or
delaying the PAL discussion pending issuance of EPA’s NSR reform
rulemaking on this topic. The current proposal does not address several
questions identified in our previous comments and leaves several other
ones unanswered.  In addition, the White Paper states that any emission
caps established under these approaches will need to conform to whatever
rule is eventually issued, which could trigger significant revisions to
a PAL if it differs from the requirements in the final rule. To the
extent that this aspect of the White Paper is retained, suggestions have
been included for improvement of this section.  

 The additional comments below are presented by page number and topic:  

Page 3, Introduction and Overview

Under the Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting data summary, there
is a reference that the permit contain periodic monitoring requirements
sufficient to yield reliable data and where applicable requirements fail
to have periodic testing or monitoring, flexible permits must be
constructed to have such monitoring.  EPA needs to clarify that this
position is based on the text of 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and it does not
require a “sufficiency” review of underlying monitoring. This is
important to ensure that the guidance is not misconstrued as relying on
the periodic monitoring guidance, which was recently vacated by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Appalachian
Power Co. v. EPA, No.  (April 14, 2000).     

Under the Anticipated Environmental Benefits from Flexible Permits
section, the first bulleted item discusses the improved knowledge of the
source’s emissions and compliance status through the application of
CEM systems or their equivalent. While many sources that take advantage
of the opportunities outline in this White Paper will have to increase
the frequency and detail of monitoring, there is real concern that all
sources will have to adopt CEM or its equivalent in order to utilize the
approaches contained in the White Paper.  CEMS are not necessary to
provide a “reasonable assurance of compliance” which is the standard
provide in Clean Air Act § 504 and adopted in EPA’s Compliance
Assurance Monitoring (CAM), 40 CFR § 64.3(a).  Indeed, these statements
in the White Paper are actually inconsistent with the CAM rule because
CAM focuses on providing an assurance that control devices are
functioning properly.  In promulgating the CAM rule, EPA stated: 

[O]nce an owner or operator has shown that the installed control
equipment can comply with an emission limit, there will be a reasonable
assurance of ongoing compliance with the emission limit as long as the
emissions unit is operated under the conditions anticipated and the
control equipment is operated and maintained properly. This logical
assumption is the basis of EPA standard setting under the NSPS program
and serves as the model for the CAM approach as well.

EPA should adopt this same logic in the White Paper, rather than
arbitrarily mandating use of CEMS, which are costly to operate and
maintain, have been demonstrated to be viable in many operations,
including printing, and are not needed in many cases to provide a
reasonable assurance of compliance.

Page 8, Replacement Conditions, First Full Paragraph

While the revisions to this particular section provide a much better
discussion on the topic of revising restrictive NSR conditions to more
flexible ones, the section does not explicitly state that one such
approach would involve using an emissions based limit and that this
approach is not prohibited by the June 13, 1989, memo “Guidance on
Limiting Potential to Emit in New Source Permitting.”

Several state permitting authorities and one EPA Region have
misinterpreted the 1989 memo as not allowing a source to limit its PTE
with an emission based limit. In order to eliminate any potential
conflict in interpretations, the following statement should be included
in the White Paper: “

For example, a permit with individual material and VOC content limits
can be rewritten to limit the total emissions from the source or sources
such that the underlying emission limit is preserved.  In a typical
situation, a source would simply track VOC content as a method of
determining compliance, but limitations on content and throughput would
not be imposed, allowing the source to vary usage and content such that
it continues to meet emission limits on a rolling 12-month basis. 

This example should be inserted after the sentence ending with
“…title V permit.” and before the final sentence beginning “You
may accomplish…” A statement of this nature would help clarify for
states how they can streamline permits with unnecessary VOC content
restrictions.

 EPA also should include more explicit instructions for states as to how
to accomplish the revision of underlying permits containing these types
of terms.  Specifically, EPA should expand on the statements made in
John Seitz’s May 20, 1999 memorandum to Mr. Robert Hodanbosi and Mr.
Charles Lagges which indicated EPA’s belief that Title V permits
cannot void or supersede underlying permits but that the Title V process
could be used to revise underlying permits at the same time that the
Title V permit is issued.  Including the following statements in the
White Paper regarding parallel processing of minor NSR permit revisions
and Title V issuance would be beneficial:

Specifically, this would involve using the Title V procedures to meet
any procedural requirements associated with revising the minor NSR
permit terms.  For example, you could include in the public notice for
the Title V permit a statement that this notice serves as a public
notice for issuing (or revising) the Title V permit as well as for
revising certain terms in previously-issued minor NSR permits.  You
could identify those terms in the Title V permit which represent revised
minor NSR terms with an asterisk or another appropriate designation and
make available the relevant documents in the public review file for the
permit.  In this way, the only additional step involved in revising the
minor NSR permit would be to change the permit terms in that permit to
be consistent with the Title V permit terms once the final permit
decisions have been made. EPA has approved a similar approach which was
developed in Illinois and is being implemented successfully in the
Illinois EPA Title V permits.

Page 8, Replacement Conditions, Case Example for Lithographic Printer

First paragraph, third sentence - Please insert the words “inks,
fountain solutions, fountain solution additives, cleaning solutions”
between “certain” and “coatings” so that the sentence reads
“…which were imposed to limit certain inks, fountain solutions,
fountain solution additives, cleaning solutions, coatings and other
solvents and the rates…”.

First paragraph, fourth sentence – Please delete the phrase “The
printer has demonstrated to you that it” and replace it with “Since
printing” as this could be interpreted that each and every printer
seeking to utilize this White Paper would have to prove in some manner,
their operations are highly variable. Also, there is no criteria
identified which would constitute situations that qualify as being
“highly variable.” Printing by its very nature is highly variable in
that no two jobs are the same and very little, if any exact repeat type
of work is printed. Thus, the printing operations, as a category, meet
the criteria of highly variable. Revising this sentence would clarify
that printing operations should be presumed to be sources that would
qualify for and benefit from flexible permitting options described in
the White Paper.   

First paragraph, fifth sentence – Please delete the first word of the
sentence “Where” and replace it “As” since it would eliminate
the impression that a source must prove that each condition constrains
operational flexibility. Limits on material throughput and VOC content
are always constraining to printing operations. Those facilities that do
not need such flexibility would not enter into negotiation for flexible
permitting in the first instance. Once the process has begun, therefore,
individual demonstrations should not be necessary.  

 The inclusion of the formula-based approach for revising existing NSR
conditions by allowing PTE limits to be based on emissions is strongly
supported. There is concern that this section might be misconstrued as
only being applicable to heatset web offset lithographic operations.
Therefore, it is important to state explicitly that the formula approach
is applicable to all industry sectors and the lithographic scenario is
provided as only an example. It would also be beneficial to use real
data and information to demonstrate more clearly how the formula-based
approach can be utilized enhanced the example.

Two items within the formula require clarification. 

fficiency (ξ) is described as being the value determined during a
performance test. The control efficiency is generally established by
underlying regulations, RACT, BACT, or other regulatory requirements and
is not based solely on performance test results. The purpose of the
performance test is to establish that this efficiency is being met and
to demonstrate that the source is in compliance.  As such, the following
revision is suggested:

	ξ	=	Control Efficiency (90 - 95% minimum typically required) as
established in a permit or regulation and verified during an initial
performance test and through parameter monitoring.

b) The term for capture efficiency is described as being the value
determined during a Method 204 capture test. There has been clear
guidance issued by EPA for lithographic printing that presumptive
capture efficiencies for process materials may be used and capture
testing for lithographic printing is not required.  Although capture
testing may be required for other processes, statements that Method 204
testing applies to lithographic printing could undermine the previously
issued guidance.  Due to the inapplicability of Method 204 to the
lithographic industry, the reference to Method 204 should be deleted and
the following language be adopted:

	η	=	Capture efficiency for individual material emitted as allowed by
EPA Control Technology Guidance Document and Alternative Control
Techniques Document for Offset Lithography.

Page 9, Replacement Conditions, Case Example for Lithographic Printer,
First Full Paragraph, Second Sentence 

Please replace the word “coating” in the parenthetical example with
“ink” and add the word “containing” after “VOC”, so that it
reads “ (e.g., use of a higher VOC containing ink).” Ink is the more
common input material that would vary. 

Page 11, What are Advanced Approvals and How Do They Work, First
Paragraph

Since the concept of allowing for advanced approvals for changes not
specifically well known is a critical and important one, an example
would be very beneficial. Specifically, it would be helpful if EPA could
include an example of a “defined category of changes” in the paper.
Otherwise, states may be very reluctant to implement this type of
advance approval.  Because printers frequently make changes to existing
operations requiring minor NSR permitting, the ability to advance
approve such changes in the Title V permit could substantially enhance a
printers ability to respond rapidly to customer demand. 

Page 11, Reasonably Anticipated Operating Scenarios Under Title V, First
Paragraph

It is not apparent what the definition of “current operating
scenario” is and what types of changes can occur within it. As we
understand advance approvals, a source would only need to obtain such an
approval if a new or different applicable requirement would apply to the
change. If there is no change in applicable requirements, no advance
approval would be needed and there would be no new operating scenario.
Thus, this sentence seems to be circular since an advance approval would
necessarily involve a new operating scenario with new or different
applicable requirements. Accordingly, this sentence should either be
deleted or clarified with an example as to how it would apply in
practice. 

Page 12, Additional Requirements for Certain Advance Approvals, First
Paragraph

There are two typos in this paragraph. The fourth sentence appears to be
missing a verb from the part of the sentence “…advance approvals,
the permit meet the criteria…” The last sentence has two periods. 

Page 15, Additional Requirements for Certain Advance Approvals, Second
Paragraph, Second Sentence

Please delete or revise the statement “but may go beyond compliance
obligations incorporated directly from applicable requirements.” While
most air pollution control authorities will exercise their discretion
appropriately, there is serious concern that this statement could be
used to set standards so high that facilities will be effectively
prevented from utilizing White Paper 3’s approaches. This statement
should be more clearly limited to those steps that are necessary to
provide a reasonable assurance of compliance with applicable
requirements and it should note any such steps must be consistent with
the recent Appalachian Power decision by the DC Circuit, cited above. 
40 CFR 70.6(a)(9) does not provide independent monitoring authority
under Title V and does not allow imposition of any requirements beyond
those needed to assure compliance.

Page 16, Required Content of Title V Applications, General Requirements,
Third Bulleted Item

It appears that the tense of “bound” needs to be revised to
“bind.”

Page 19, Required Content of Title V Permits, Sixth Bulleted Item

The condition specifies that a 7-day advance notice is required for
changes that   alter the operating scenario to install an advanced
approved unit.  While the addition of a new unit that triggers a new
applicable requirement, which had been advanced approved in the permit,
constitutes an alternative operating scenario, there does not appear to
be a basis in the regulation to require a notice when the unit is
installed.  Under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(9), a source is required to record in
an on-site log when it shifts to a new operating scenario for a
particular emission unit.  There is no requirement for a seven-day
advance notice in the regulations.  

In section 70.4(b)(12), EPA provided for a seven-day advance notice for
certain specified types of changes (i.e., changes that contravene a
permit term, emissions trading under a SIP, and emissions trading under
a Title V cap), none of which apply to the advance approval of an
emissions unit.  Moreover, even for off-permit changes under
70.4(b)(14), only a contemporaneous notice is required.  Thus, there
appears no regulatory basis for requiring a seven-day advance notice in
this situation.  As a practical matter, the permitting authority will
have reviewed the advance approved change during the construction permit
and Title V issuance processes.  Additional notification should not be
needed given the prior level of review. 

Page 20, Menu of Choices, Third Bulleted Item

Is the concept of representative testing embodied in the phrase
“performance tests and/or engineering analyses to comply with the
applicable standards or limits?” If so, it should be stated explicitly
so that it is evident to the air pollution control authority and
permitted entity. If it was not meant to include representative testing,
then it should not be included in this item.

Representative testing includes the ability to conduct a performance
test on only one of two or more of the same or similar control devices,
testing process lines under normal and not maximum operating conditions,
and in some cases utilization of preapproved default destruction
efficiencies.  

Page 20, Menu of Choices, Fifth Bulleted Item

There appears to be a typo with the words “for to” in “…are
approach for to each type…”.

Page 20, Replicable Operating Procedures

It would be beneficial if one or two examples of replicable operating
procedures could be provided.

Page 22, Synchronizing With Title V, First Paragraph, Third Sentence 

A statement is included regarding the submission of the same information
otherwise required for an advanced notice not subject to for approval to
merely see if the proposed new unit would be of the type which was
advanced approved. However, there are no criteria or examples that would
provide an idea of the types of changes that would be subject to this
requirement. This notice requirement should be synchronized with the
other notice or no notice should be required as previously discussed.
Otherwise, there is a potential that an air pollution control authority
may require detailed notices prior to any change in operating scenario
or modifications.

 

Page 23, Clean Buildings, First Paragraph, Second Sentence 

There seems to be a presumption that every “clean building” scenario
will be using some type of add-on control device to reduce emissions.
This is not always the case as many printers do not use control devices,
but rely upon input material limits and/or substitution to meet BACT and
LAER. Therefore, it would be better to state “…this control
technology (i.e., control device, material limits, etc.) meets…”
instead of “…this control device meets…”.   

Page 23, Clean Buildings, First Paragraph, Second Sentence 

The requirement to revisit BACT/LAER or state BAT determinations every
18 months should be deleted from the document. This requirement is
apparently based on the fact that many SIPs provide for expiration of
construction permits if construction is not begun within 18 months of
issuance.  As a practical matter, technology simply does not advance at
a pace that would change a determination in just 18 months time. To
provide certainty to sources participating in flexible permitting
approaches, these technology determinations should be valid for the life
of the permit.  As a legal matter, many SIPs do not require that a
permit expire after 18 months.  Most states with such requirements would
also have the discretion to extend a permit beyond the 18-month time
period.  Accordingly, this requirement should be deleted from the White
Paper.

If this requirement is retained, the White Paper should clearly indicate
that technology determinations would not need to be revisited once
construction begins. In addition, revisiting a determination should not
require a full analysis of BACT/LAER or BAT or a public notice permit
process. Instead, the state should simply review the determination and
verify that it is still consistent with the applicable technology
standard. 

Page 24, Clean Buildings, Second Paragraph, Second Sentence 

While examples were added in response to comments on the first draft of
the White Paper, concern still remains with the reference to
“ancillary sources.”  Although not defined, it is assumed that this
term is intended to include boilers, wastewater treatment and other up
or downstream utilities serving the clean building. The White Paper is
not clear, however, as to what it means to “take into account” the
emissions from such units. Site utilities, such as boilers, need to
provide resources to an entire facility and these units should not be
forced to accept restrictions to qualify for a “clean building”
approach. In no event should such units be subject to control
requirements when they are not undergoing physical or operational
changes.  Moreover, the cost associated with monitoring of emissions
(and allocating the appropriate portion to the “clean building”) for
up and downstream emission units may make the “clean building”
approach prohibitively expensive.  For the “clean building” approach
to be workable, it is important to clarify that control or emissions
monitoring requirements will not be imposed on up or downstream units. 

Page 26, Section 112 Requirements, First Paragraph, First Sentence 

As discussed above, there seems to be a presumption that every source
subject to MACT standards will be using some type of add-on control
device to reduce emissions. This is not always the case as many printers
do not use control devices exclusively to meet the Printing and
Publishing MACT Standard, but are relying upon input material limits
and/or substitution to meet it. Therefore, it would be better to include
a materials limit option as well so that the sentence reads 
“…construction/operation time lines, planned control devices with
expected removal efficiencies or other compliance approaches (i.e.,
reformulation, input material limits, etc.) …”.   

Likewise, the third bulleted item should be revised to reflect the other
control options used by sources. 

Page 27, Additional Requirements for New or Modified Control Devices,
Second Paragraph, Third Sentence 

The requirement for advance approving a thermal oxidizer describing the
design parameter requirements should be revised to reflect destruction
efficiency only. Since the goal is to reduce emissions and all
regulations for printers only specify a destruction or overall control
efficiency, there is no reason to specify other design parameters.
Destruction efficiency alone is all that is required for a thermal
oxidizer. It is not necessary to specify other design parameters, as
doing such will severely limit the ability of the printer and thermal
oxidizer manufacturer to be able to employ innovative approaches in
thermal oxidizers.  

By setting the design parameter requirements to just the destruction
efficiency will also limit the amount of testing necessary as well
reduce or eliminate the potential for enforcement actions. Implied in
the statement “However, if subsequent performance tests show that
these initial operating parameter values were not sufficient to comply
with applicable requirements” is that the source will have to test and
verify each one of the specific parameters. This goes beyond current
common testing which tends to focus on destruction efficiency only.
There could be a dramatic increase in testing costs with no commensurate
environmental protection.  

One of the most critical requirements that limit a printer’s
flexibility with add-on control devices is when an agency sets these
parameters in a permit. One of the agreements we have reached in the P4
project is that the printer will be allowed to set oxidizer operating
temperature at the time of testing and having it predetermined through a
permit condition would eliminate this flexibility.

Page 30, PTE Limits 

As previously discussed, the approaches for limiting PTE should include
a reference that an emissions only limit can be used and that this
approach is consistent with the June 13, 1989, memo “Guidance on
Limiting Potential to Emit in New Source Permitting. It would also be
beneficial if the reader were referred to the Replacement Conditions
Section in the White Paper where this topic is discussed. 

Page 30, Plantwide Applicability Limits

The printing industry strongly supports the PAL concept and EPA should
promote PAL implementation.  As noted in the introduction to these
comments, there are some unanswered questions and concerns with several
of the proposed conditions. Furthermore, there is also the potential for
the White Paper to effectively prejudge the outcome of the currently
pending rulemaking on PALs.  Accordingly, it may prudent to either
delete this section or delay it pending issuance of the final rule.  If
it is not deleted, however, it is important for EPA to explain the legal
basis for PALs under the existing regulations as well as to make the
recommended changes outlined below.

Page 31 and 32, Baseline/Pollutant, First and Second Bulleted Item

It appears that the policy on setting a source’s baseline will be
based on actual emissions and not allowable emissions. It is critical
that sources be allowed to set their baseline on allowable emissions.
Using allowable emissions to set the base is a much better methodology
since this is the level that the source was originally permitted at and
most importantly, it reflects the capability of the source. It is also
important to note that the allowable emissions are based on a careful
evaluation of the type and rate of emissions and deemed to be
acceptable. As a result, the source should be allowed to emit up to this
limit.

In printing, actual emission will fluctuate as customer and job demands
vary. Printers will experience different levels of material consumption
and thus emissions through the course of a year and over a period of
years. As a result, actual emissions are not reflective of the overall
potential of equipment utilization. Therefore, allowable emissions must
be used to set the baseline; otherwise a printer will end up
unnecessarily constraining operations to receive a small measure of
flexibility. 

Additionally, using actual emissions penalizes those sources that have
gone beyond compliance requirements though an increase in control
efficiency, pollution prevention, or voluntarily controls. There is the
potential that using the last two years' historical emissions might
penalize a facility in setting the PAL.  In stating that the baseline
can be based on emissions "more representative of normal source
operation," EPA’s intent appears to be to allow an earlier time frame
more representative of source capability. This should be clarified in
the White Paper as discussed below. 

Lastly, PALs may also be set using allowable emissions since: 

The permitting authority has discretion to presume that source-specific
allowables are equivalent to actuals (40 CFR 52.21(b)(21)(iii)) and

 

 For sources that have obtained a major NSR permit, EPA has defined
creditable emissions increases to exclude any increases up to allowable
levels (40 CFR 52.21(b)(3)(iii)).

Page 32, Baseline/Pollutant, Second Bulleted Item

Clarification is still needed for the terms “… or a different time
period determined to be more representative of normal source
operation.” For facilities that do not operate on a consistent basis,
such as printing, definitive wording in the baseline discussion is
crucial to implementation. EPA should clarify its NSR regulations allow
both a different 2-year period than the immediately preceding two years
as well as a different time period (e.g., six months for a batch
operation where that period is representative or for a source that has
experienced atypical downtime, any one year period in the past ten years
as proposed in the NSR Reform rulemaking).   

Page 32, Enforceability, Second Bulleted Item

As noted above, CEMS or CEM equivalent monitoring is not needed to
provide a reasonable assurance of compliance.  Therefore, this section
should be revised to reflect the regulatory requirement that the permit
provide a reasonable assurance of compliance. To the extent that this
language is retained, EPA needs to provide a definition of “CEMs
equivalent monitoring.” Very few, if any, members of the printing
industry conduct CEMs monitoring and most printers and other industries
will be conducting other “equivalent” monitoring. A clear
understanding of what this term means will eliminate potential conflicts
and problems associated with meeting these criteria. 

Page 32, Enforceability, Third Bulleted Item

The inability of the PAL to address minor NSR requirements will limit
its utilization. If a facility cannot address all NSR issues associated
with establishing a PAL, the PAL will not be attractive as it will still
have to address the minor NSR review and approval process, which has
historically lead to permit issuance delays. Based on this guidance, it
appears that sources would still be required to obtain construction
permits for minor NSR activities. If this is true, then the benefit of
establishing a PAL considerably decreases.  

Page 32, Duration, Second Bulleted Item

Based on the current discussion, it appears that once a facility has
entered into a PAL, the source cannot exceed the PAL level even after it
expires.  If this is the case, without definitive direction as to what
will occur upon renewal of a PAL, there is little incentive to
participate since the source will not be able to exceed the PAL level if
it elects not to renew.  

Page 33, Making Changes

Although the White Paper refers to the ability to install a new unit
outside the PAL, there is no discussion of how or if this could be
included in the PAL at some later date.  Is there a mechanism for such a
consolidation and, if so, how might the new PAL be established?

Page 38, General Monitoring Requirements, First Paragraph, First
Sentence

Considerable confusion as to the correct definition of fugitive
emissions exists at the state level and within the regulated community.
Therefore, EPA’s formal definition should be included in this section
to help clarify what does or does not qualify as a fugitive emission. 

Page 39, Interim Use of Emission Factors, First Full Paragraph

EPA states that if a source has not developed site-specific emission
factors for PALs or “emission cap” permit compliance, it must, on an
interim basis, use the most relevant factors available. While using
relevant factors seems appropriate, the White Paper is unreasonable in
requiring that relevant factors be doubled for debits and halved for
credits pending completion of site-specific tests.  EPA itself has
recognized that many processes are well defined and that emission
factors are an extremely accurate way of characterizing emissions. Thus,
the Agency has used emission factors to develop standards because the
cost of additional testing would be too high. It is inconsistent with
EPA’s prior actions to say now that sources may not use “relevant”
emission factors and must always conduct expensive site-specific testing
if they want to use the cap approaches embodied in the White Paper. No
arbitrary adjustment of emission factors or requirement for site
specific testing should be imposed. If additional conservatism is
required, it should occur only in cases where a factor is being
transferred from one type of process to another and it is determined
that the relevance of the factor is attenuated. If EPA does not adopt a
reasonable approach to deal with emission factors, sources will simply
not participate in this program.  

  

 62 Fed. Reg. 54900, 54918 (October 22, 1997).

  The reliance on the June 1989 memo is questioned, given that it
predates the court decision which vacated EPA’s “potential to
emit” definition and has not been revised to reflect that decision.
Chemical Manufacturers Ass’n v. EPA, No. 89-1514 (D.C. Cir. Sept.
15,1995).

 PAGE   

 PAGE   2 

