September 14, 2000

Mr. Michael Trutna

Information Transfer and Program Integration Division 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MD-12

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27711

Dear Mr. Trutna:

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) appreciates the
opportunity to provide comments on the Environmental Protection
Agency’s (EPA’s) draft White Paper Number 3, Operational Flexibility
in Facilities Subject to Title V Permitting (65 FR 49803; 

August 15, 2000).  The MPCA supports EPA’s efforts to promote
flexibility for facilities regulated under Part 70 permits, and urges
EPA to consider our comments.

Neither “advanced approval” nor “alternative operating scenario”
has been defined in White Paper Number 3 (WP3) or in Part 70. 
“Replicable operating procedures” is a term not defined in WP3 nor
mentioned or defined in Part 70.  Unambiguous definitions could lend
clarity to WP3 and discussions on flexibility.

The MPCA’s permitting program appears to conflict with WP3 regarding
the need for notifications for changes between differing alternative
operating scenarios, including installing new equipment under an
advanced approval.  While our EPA-approved program requires that the
facility keep a log of such changes, it does not require facilities to
provide a seven day advanced notice for changes between differing
alternative operating scenarios, as indicated by WP3.  The MPCA wants to
retain its discretion not to require these notices.   

The requirement for seven day advance notices is burdensome and
unnecessary, and diminishes the usefulness and flexibility otherwise
offered by alternative operating scenarios.  While there may
occasionally be a need for the frequent scrutiny provided by seven day
notices, contemporaneous recordkeeping would be sufficient and
appropriate in many (if not most) cases.  In addition, it is unlikely
that state and local permitting authorities have adequate resources to
conduct a timely and appropriate review of the advance notices as they
are submitted. 

Furthermore, such advance notices are likely to provide no additional
information on an approved project’s environmental impacts than those
considered during the drafting of the permit that authorizes the various
alternative operating scenarios.  In the preamble to its Part 70
proposal, EPA promoted flexible permits, noting, “Processing
unnecessary permit modifications for routine changes takes time and
provides little environmental benefit.”  Similarly, processing
unnecessary advance notices takes time and provides little environmental
benefit.

A permit that provides the opportunity for a variety of alternative
operating scenarios emanates from an application that fully contemplates
those scenarios.  The appropriate time to review the potential impacts
from a facility’s actions takes place prior to permit issuance, not
seven (or fewer) days prior to the commencement of the action. 

All alternative operating scenarios must be proposed in permit
applications and approved by permitting authorities.  Permitting
authorities should carefully scrutinize these proposals to ensure the
practical enforceability of each scenario, and this review should be on
a case-by-case basis.

A summary report, collected quarterly, semiannually, or annually
(depending on the projected rate of change at the facility), provides
sufficient information to the permitting authority and the public for
documenting the status of the facility.

In Section III, the WP3 discusses the concept of the “smart permit”
in Section III.  The section describes a methodology that would allow a
facility to move away from general limitations on the volatile content
of coating and solvents and rates of application or production.  In its
place, the facility would accept a more flexible set of limitations that
relies on an overall emission-based limit and a calculation method that
takes the physical properties into consideration. 

The MPCA believes that this guidance must be applied carefully depending
on the facility.  In the past, permitting authorities have introduced
limitations on the volatile organic compounds (VOC) content of coatings
or solvents as means to promote pollution prevention at facilities that
have not adopted or moved toward alternative coating technologies.  In
the future, such facilities will continue to exist; encouraging
pollution prevention is more likely to generate a significant
environmental benefit (in the near term) than providing flexibility. 
WP3 could point out that flexibility in the form of the replacement
conditions may best fit 

facilities farther up the alternative technology learning curve to have
increased flexibility.  In particular, increased flexibility may be
appropriate for facilities that have already implemented low or no VOC
coating alternatives in some areas and now need the flexibility to
extend the use of that technology quickly and easily to other or new
areas of operation.

While the concept of limiting emissions rather than material usage
provides increased flexibility, the capacity and the willingness of the
permittee to perform the expanded recordkeeping must also be considered.
 The permitting authority must be clear that as flexibility increases,
so does the recordkeeping burden.  Some sources may still be willing to
have less flexibility as a trade off for less recordkeeping.

(The example provided in this section includes an example in which a
calculation method is provided for a lithographic printer.  Since the
volatile content of some materials may be recycled in this or a similar
situation, it would be helpful to know how a “recycled material” 
term can be included in the equation provided.)

Also, when calculating emissions, it is difficult to obtain reliable
emission factors for certain processes (though this is usually for
non-VOC pollutants such as particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides
[NOx]).  

The MPCA is concerned that WP3 will become a de facto rule, rather than
being guidance.  The permitting authority may deem this guidance
inappropriate for a given circumstance permit.  Our fear is that the
regional EPA office would use WP3 to override the permitting
authority’s judgement in such a situation.  In addition, the use of
WP3 as a regulatory yardstick could inhibit the development of other
innovative approaches to permitting.

We appreciate the examples that were provided at the end of WP3. 
However, additional examples are needed to more fully illustrate the
concepts being presented.  Language from existing permits could be
displayed, or sample language could be developed.  Examples are sorely
needed to show how advance approvals and alternative operating scenarios
can work for pollutants other than volatile organic compounds including,
in particular, fine particulate matter.  Such examples could include the
routine change-out of (identical or similar) combustion turbines at
pipeline pumping stations.  (This situation would address emissions of
NOX and perhaps particulate matter less than 10 micron in size [PM10]
and sulfur dioxide.)  Another possible example would be the installation
and removal of temporary reciprocating internal combustion engines and
boilers.

Section IV.A. includes the statement that “… advanced approved
changes … require neither a notice nor a log entry when they do not
shift the sources from its current operating scenario.”  It would be
helpful to be able to review examples illustrating advanced approved
changes that require a log entry; a notice and a log entry; or no notice
and no log entry.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.  

Sincerely,

J. David Thornton

Section Manager 

Major Facilities Section

Policy and Planning Division

JDT/RC:lmg

cc:	Peggy Bartz, MPCA, MD/MF

	Dave Beil, MPCA, MD/MF

	Marshall Cole, MPCA, SD/MF

	Dick Cordes, MPCA, PP/MF

	Cindy Hilmoe, MPCA, PP/RF

	Al Innes, MPCA, PP/OP

 	For that matter, a reading of Part 70 itself does not lead us to
believe that changes among alternative operating scenarios requires a
7-day advance notification.

 	September 24, 1992.

Mr. Michael Trutna

Page   PAGE  4 

September 13, 2000

 PAGE   

