- Email: [email protected]
Reopening a Permit
Environmental Coating Problems by Ron Joseph
Use the Shop Problem Card in this issue for free expert advice.
L
ast month we published an interesting article by Rahul Chettri of Geomet Technology, “Record Keeping Requirements under Title V for Electroplating and Painting Facilities” (Metal Finishing, May 1997, p. 45). After reading his article, there were additional questions for which I thought that answers might be of interest to our readers. What follows is a Q & A between myself and Mr. Chettri. Shut Down Operations Because of Upset Conditions . In your article, you mentioned . that when you have an upset con s ition in your facility you need to report it to your state agency. Do you need to shut down operations under these conditions? Some examples come to mind. For instance, if the pressure drop across your dry filter spray booth exceeds the permitted limit, and you don’t have time to change the filters or if, for some obscure reason that you have not yet investigated, the firebox of your thermal oxidizer is not able to achieve the minimum oxidation temperature that is stated on your permit. At what point are you required to shut down until a problem such a either of these has been fixed? I have often been confused about the regulatory requirements and would appreciate any insight you can provide. R.J. . Regulations do not generally . specify when an operation must be shut down because of upset conditions or emergencies resulting in excess air pollutant emissions. As such, it is up to the facility owner or operator to decide when an upset condition has reached a point that the operations should be shut down. (Obvious criteria are adverse impacts on public health and the environment.) I discussed this
A
132
issue with Ray Vogel of the U.S. EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, Permit Support Section. He concurred that it is up to the permittee to determine whether a shutdown is the most appropriate action. In terms of enforcement action, Part 70 provides a defense if the permittee can demonstrate that appropriate remedial actions were taken to mitigate the effects of the upset condition or emergency. Vogel points out that shutting down operations is included in the category of “appropriate remedial actions,” but is obviously not required in every instance. Another way of looking at the issue is to recognize that you are legally required not to exceed or violate your permit requirements. When you face an upset condition, you are required to take actions that will ensure that you do not violate your permit conditions. For instance in the case of the oxidizer example, you could conceivably have a backup system that could be turned on to prevent the violation; however, the cost of having a backup might be unrealistically high, or by shutting down the operation you might introduce a safety problem within the plant. You might, therefore, be able to justify the need to continue operating despite violating the permit. This of course introduces a risk on your part. If your justification is weak and does not satisfy your regulatory agency, the EPA, or a public watchdog organization, you are vulnerable to being taken to court for potentially affecting the health and welfare of the public outside the fence line of your facility. To protect yourself against having to make rash on-the-spot decisions, you are well advised to plan for the most likely upset conditions and develop a plan that will provide the staff with guidance if and when the upset occurs. It might be worth your while to per0 Copyright
Elsevier
Science
Inc.
form risk assessments assuming a range of possible scenarios. Discuss the justifications with your attorney to add another measure of comfort to your proposed course of action. Remember, however, that the decision to continue operating out of compliance with the permit remains with you, not the state. Bearing this in mind it seems obvious that you will want to have a good maintenance program in effect at all times (particularly as it concerns pollution control equipment), so that when an unexpected upset condition does occur, your adversaries cannot point to a poor maintenance program as the cause for the upset. One final point. Even if the state and EPA accept your justifications, there is no guarantee that one or more of the public citizen watchdog groups might not take you to court. R.C. Reopening a Permit . What happens to an already. issued Title V permit if a NESHA is passed while the permit is in effect? Is the permit opened and rewritten? R.J. . If a National Emission Stan. dards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) is passed while a permit is in effect, the permit must be reopened and revised if the remaining term of the permit is 3 or more years. If the effective date of the NESHAP is later than the date on which the permit is due to expire, then a reopening of the permit is not required. (There is an exception to this provision if the original permit continues to be in effect past its date of expiration because of the permitting authority’s inability to process a renewal application in a timely manner.) The rules also allow the EPA to reopen any permit at any
Q A
METAL
FINISHING
l
JUNE
1997
time if the agency determines it is necessary to ensure compliance with an applicable requirement such as a NESHAP. R.C.
Record Keeping . In my experience, almost all of . the companies I visit are alrea Q y required to keep daily records. The only paint facilities that I’ve visited in recent years that have not been required to keep records daily have been those that reside in areas that are in attainment with the ozone standard. For companies in nonattainment areas, I know of almost no facilities that are allowed to use purchase records instead of records of actual usage. Moreover, records must be maintained daily, not monthly. What has been your experience? R.J. Almost all the facilities I’ve : worked with do not maintain records on a daily basis. Sometimes it is because they are unaware of relevant rules, but most often it is because their surface coating or plating operations are part of a larger facility. As such, the coating or plating operations are typically not covered under a preconstruction permit, or the VOC control rules do not apply to them because of the volume of paint or solvent usage. I agree that a large coating or plating operation would likely be covered by a preconstruction permit or by rules limiting VOC emissions, which, in turn, would require detailed record keeping. I also agree that states such as California require detailed record keeping; however, states such as Texas, Virginia, and Massachusetts do not require such detailed record keeping for smaller coating operations on a daily basis. This is mainly because there are no daily VOC or material use limits. For example, under the Texas Administrative Code, an automotive paint booth that qualifies for a “Standard Exemption” from the requirement to
A
obtain a preconstruction permit may use up to 320 gal of topcoats per month. The paint booth operator must then maintain sufficient records to demonstrate no more than 320 gal of topcoats are used in any given month. Naturally, daily record keeping is not necessary. R.C.
Record Keeping NESHAPS?
Under
. Do you know if there is a stan. dard record keeping requirement in the NESHAPs? R.J. The Part 63 general require. ments of NESHAPs do not have a standard statement regarding daily record keeping. Under Parts 63 and 70, there are, however, requirements to perform monitoring sufficient to demonstrate continuous compliance. This does not necessarily mean on a daily basis, and what is deemed to be sufficient is left for you and your agency to negotiate. For instance, you might have several boilers in your facility and cannot justify the installation of continuous opacity meters for each emission stack. Although visual monitoring might be acceptable for determining compliance, it is not realistic to expect someone to look up at the stacks continually to confirm compliance. The state might consider it sufficient if your certified technician walks around the plant once per day to inspect for opacity. Experience has shown that in many cases, the operator will want to monitor as infrequently as possible (as this can be costly), whereas the agency wants a more frequent period. The purpose of negotiations is to find a compromise that is mutually acceptable. Be aware, though, that your agency might simply mandate the monitoring period without giving you the opportunity to negotiate. R.C.
Q A
l
Opacity Testing and Certification
. Q
How does one certify a technician for performing opacity
tests;
R.J. States suggest what is known as Smoke Schools for training and certification in opacity reading. Many states refer interested persons to contractors that run Smoke School programs throughout the year at various locations across the country. A Smoke School session would typically consist of three parts: a lecture presentation on the fundamentals of opacity; field training with standard opacity plumes for observer assessment; and certification, consisting of tests to read opacity. To become a certified visible emissions observer, the student must identify the opacity of all smoke plumes in the test, have an average error not exceeding 7.5% on each of two sets within the test, and have no single error on any plume evaluation exceeding 15%. The certification process meets relevant EPA reference methods for opacity evaluations. R.C.
A ..
Communications Rahul Chettri is with Geometric Technology at 20251 Century Blvd., Germantown, MD 20874; (301) 4289898, Fax: (301) 428-9482. If you can contribute to this column by providing some of your ideas or comments regarding coating-related environmental issues, please feel free to write to me at Metal Finishing. For those readers who have an on-line computer service, you can also correspond with me via the following Email address: [email protected]. You may also want to visit my website at http://www.best.corn/rja/ Ron Josephis an independent consultant in Saratoge, Calif. MF
Want to Write for Metal Finishing? Please contact the editor at (914) 333-2571 or fax to (914) 333-2570 Metal Finishing 660 White
METAL
FINISHING
. JUNE
1997
Plains
Road, Tarrytown,
NY 10591
133
Use the Shop Problem Card in this issue for free expert advice.
L
ast month we published an interesting article by Rahul Chettri of Geomet Technology, “Record Keeping Requirements under Title V for Electroplating and Painting Facilities” (Metal Finishing, May 1997, p. 45). After reading his article, there were additional questions for which I thought that answers might be of interest to our readers. What follows is a Q & A between myself and Mr. Chettri. Shut Down Operations Because of Upset Conditions . In your article, you mentioned . that when you have an upset con s ition in your facility you need to report it to your state agency. Do you need to shut down operations under these conditions? Some examples come to mind. For instance, if the pressure drop across your dry filter spray booth exceeds the permitted limit, and you don’t have time to change the filters or if, for some obscure reason that you have not yet investigated, the firebox of your thermal oxidizer is not able to achieve the minimum oxidation temperature that is stated on your permit. At what point are you required to shut down until a problem such a either of these has been fixed? I have often been confused about the regulatory requirements and would appreciate any insight you can provide. R.J. . Regulations do not generally . specify when an operation must be shut down because of upset conditions or emergencies resulting in excess air pollutant emissions. As such, it is up to the facility owner or operator to decide when an upset condition has reached a point that the operations should be shut down. (Obvious criteria are adverse impacts on public health and the environment.) I discussed this
A
132
issue with Ray Vogel of the U.S. EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, Permit Support Section. He concurred that it is up to the permittee to determine whether a shutdown is the most appropriate action. In terms of enforcement action, Part 70 provides a defense if the permittee can demonstrate that appropriate remedial actions were taken to mitigate the effects of the upset condition or emergency. Vogel points out that shutting down operations is included in the category of “appropriate remedial actions,” but is obviously not required in every instance. Another way of looking at the issue is to recognize that you are legally required not to exceed or violate your permit requirements. When you face an upset condition, you are required to take actions that will ensure that you do not violate your permit conditions. For instance in the case of the oxidizer example, you could conceivably have a backup system that could be turned on to prevent the violation; however, the cost of having a backup might be unrealistically high, or by shutting down the operation you might introduce a safety problem within the plant. You might, therefore, be able to justify the need to continue operating despite violating the permit. This of course introduces a risk on your part. If your justification is weak and does not satisfy your regulatory agency, the EPA, or a public watchdog organization, you are vulnerable to being taken to court for potentially affecting the health and welfare of the public outside the fence line of your facility. To protect yourself against having to make rash on-the-spot decisions, you are well advised to plan for the most likely upset conditions and develop a plan that will provide the staff with guidance if and when the upset occurs. It might be worth your while to per0 Copyright
Elsevier
Science
Inc.
form risk assessments assuming a range of possible scenarios. Discuss the justifications with your attorney to add another measure of comfort to your proposed course of action. Remember, however, that the decision to continue operating out of compliance with the permit remains with you, not the state. Bearing this in mind it seems obvious that you will want to have a good maintenance program in effect at all times (particularly as it concerns pollution control equipment), so that when an unexpected upset condition does occur, your adversaries cannot point to a poor maintenance program as the cause for the upset. One final point. Even if the state and EPA accept your justifications, there is no guarantee that one or more of the public citizen watchdog groups might not take you to court. R.C. Reopening a Permit . What happens to an already. issued Title V permit if a NESHA is passed while the permit is in effect? Is the permit opened and rewritten? R.J. . If a National Emission Stan. dards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) is passed while a permit is in effect, the permit must be reopened and revised if the remaining term of the permit is 3 or more years. If the effective date of the NESHAP is later than the date on which the permit is due to expire, then a reopening of the permit is not required. (There is an exception to this provision if the original permit continues to be in effect past its date of expiration because of the permitting authority’s inability to process a renewal application in a timely manner.) The rules also allow the EPA to reopen any permit at any
Q A
METAL
FINISHING
l
JUNE
1997
time if the agency determines it is necessary to ensure compliance with an applicable requirement such as a NESHAP. R.C.
Record Keeping . In my experience, almost all of . the companies I visit are alrea Q y required to keep daily records. The only paint facilities that I’ve visited in recent years that have not been required to keep records daily have been those that reside in areas that are in attainment with the ozone standard. For companies in nonattainment areas, I know of almost no facilities that are allowed to use purchase records instead of records of actual usage. Moreover, records must be maintained daily, not monthly. What has been your experience? R.J. Almost all the facilities I’ve : worked with do not maintain records on a daily basis. Sometimes it is because they are unaware of relevant rules, but most often it is because their surface coating or plating operations are part of a larger facility. As such, the coating or plating operations are typically not covered under a preconstruction permit, or the VOC control rules do not apply to them because of the volume of paint or solvent usage. I agree that a large coating or plating operation would likely be covered by a preconstruction permit or by rules limiting VOC emissions, which, in turn, would require detailed record keeping. I also agree that states such as California require detailed record keeping; however, states such as Texas, Virginia, and Massachusetts do not require such detailed record keeping for smaller coating operations on a daily basis. This is mainly because there are no daily VOC or material use limits. For example, under the Texas Administrative Code, an automotive paint booth that qualifies for a “Standard Exemption” from the requirement to
A
obtain a preconstruction permit may use up to 320 gal of topcoats per month. The paint booth operator must then maintain sufficient records to demonstrate no more than 320 gal of topcoats are used in any given month. Naturally, daily record keeping is not necessary. R.C.
Record Keeping NESHAPS?
Under
. Do you know if there is a stan. dard record keeping requirement in the NESHAPs? R.J. The Part 63 general require. ments of NESHAPs do not have a standard statement regarding daily record keeping. Under Parts 63 and 70, there are, however, requirements to perform monitoring sufficient to demonstrate continuous compliance. This does not necessarily mean on a daily basis, and what is deemed to be sufficient is left for you and your agency to negotiate. For instance, you might have several boilers in your facility and cannot justify the installation of continuous opacity meters for each emission stack. Although visual monitoring might be acceptable for determining compliance, it is not realistic to expect someone to look up at the stacks continually to confirm compliance. The state might consider it sufficient if your certified technician walks around the plant once per day to inspect for opacity. Experience has shown that in many cases, the operator will want to monitor as infrequently as possible (as this can be costly), whereas the agency wants a more frequent period. The purpose of negotiations is to find a compromise that is mutually acceptable. Be aware, though, that your agency might simply mandate the monitoring period without giving you the opportunity to negotiate. R.C.
Q A
l
Opacity Testing and Certification
. Q
How does one certify a technician for performing opacity
tests;
R.J. States suggest what is known as Smoke Schools for training and certification in opacity reading. Many states refer interested persons to contractors that run Smoke School programs throughout the year at various locations across the country. A Smoke School session would typically consist of three parts: a lecture presentation on the fundamentals of opacity; field training with standard opacity plumes for observer assessment; and certification, consisting of tests to read opacity. To become a certified visible emissions observer, the student must identify the opacity of all smoke plumes in the test, have an average error not exceeding 7.5% on each of two sets within the test, and have no single error on any plume evaluation exceeding 15%. The certification process meets relevant EPA reference methods for opacity evaluations. R.C.
A ..
Communications Rahul Chettri is with Geometric Technology at 20251 Century Blvd., Germantown, MD 20874; (301) 4289898, Fax: (301) 428-9482. If you can contribute to this column by providing some of your ideas or comments regarding coating-related environmental issues, please feel free to write to me at Metal Finishing. For those readers who have an on-line computer service, you can also correspond with me via the following Email address: [email protected]. You may also want to visit my website at http://www.best.corn/rja/ Ron Josephis an independent consultant in Saratoge, Calif. MF
Want to Write for Metal Finishing? Please contact the editor at (914) 333-2571 or fax to (914) 333-2570 Metal Finishing 660 White
METAL
FINISHING
. JUNE
1997
Plains
Road, Tarrytown,
NY 10591
133