EPA's Compliance Assurance Monitoring
Rule, Including Title V Compliance
Certification Revisions
Introduction
EPA's Compliance Assurance Monitoring ("CAM") rule imposes
significant new monitoring requirements on many sources that are subject to the
Title V operating permit program. The purpose of the rule, which was promulgated
on October 22, 1997 (62 Fed. Reg. 54,900), is to require that Title V sources take
steps to provide a "reasonable assurance of compliance" with applicable Clean Air
Act requirements for emissions units subject to the rule. Many sources will be
required to install new monitoring systems for those units subject to the CAM rule.
Every source with units covered by the rule must develop a CAM plan to identify
and correct any problems with control devices used to comply with applicable
emission requirements. Under the CAM rule, sources will be required to generate
data that can be used for enforcement purposes. This is particularly significant in
light of EPA's promulgation earlier in 1997 of the "credible evidence" rule.
In conjunction with its promulgation of the CAM rule, EPA also issued
final revisions to the monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance
certification provisions of the Part 70 and Part 71 Title V operating permit program
rules. EPA made significant changes to the compliance certification requirements.
EPA chose to finalize these changes to the Title V rules in the CAM rulemaking
because these revisions, in part, clarify the relationship between the CAM rule and
Title V.
This issue analysis will summarize the CAM rule and present the
information in a format intended to make the elements of the rule more readily
accessible. It also describes the revisions to the Part 70 and Part 71 rules. A copy
of the CAM rule is attached. The principal purpose of the issue analysis is to
facilitate an understanding of the CAM program and provide a vehicle for working
with state and local permitting authorities in implementing the rule.
Applicability (^U 64.2)
General Applicability (^U 64.2(a))
The CAM rule applies to certain large pollutant-specific emissions units
("PSEUs") that are located at sources required to obtain a Title V operating permit.
As the term PSEU suggests, a source must determine the applicability of the CAM
rule to individual emissions units with respect to each regulated air pollutant
separately. In other words, applicability determinations must be made on a
pollutant-by-pollutant basis for each emissions unit.
Part 64 specifies that the CAM monitoring requirements apply to a PSEU
that meets the three following criteria:
The unit is subject to a federally enforceable emission limitation or standard for
the applicable regulated air pollutant (or a surrogate therefor);
The unit uses a control device to achieve compliance with any such emission
limitation or standard; and
The unit has "potential pre-control device emissions" of the applicable air
pollutant that are equal to or exceed the relevant major source threshold for that
pollutant.
There are several key concepts and definitions that are essential to
interpreting these criteria.
Emission Limitation or Standard
Part 64 applies only to PSEUs that are subject to an applicable federally
enforceable emission limitation or standard for a relevant regulated air pollutant.
The rule also applies if the limitation is expressed as a "surrogate" for a regulated
air pollutant. In the preamble, EPA explains that examples of surrogates include
emission limits expressed in terms of particulate matter and opacity rather than
PM-10, or emission limits expressed as a control device operating requirement,
rather than in terms of the applicable regulated air pollutant. 62 Fed. Reg. at
54,912.
Control Device
A prerequisite to CAM applicability is that the PSEU uses a control device
to comply with the limit for the relevant regulated air pollutant. EPA stated that it
intends for Part 64 to require monitoring of devices that are considered "add-on"
or "active controls" and not inherent process equipment. 62 Fed. Reg. at 54,912.
As a result, the rule's definition of "control device" focuses on control equipment
that removes or destroys air pollutants. It specifically excludes from the definition
equipment that is inherent to the process operation and passive control measures
that merely act to prevent pollutants from forming.
Potential Pre-Control Device Emissions
When determining whether Part 64 applies to a unit, the source must
calculate the PSEU's potential to emit without taking credit for emissions
reductions that are achieved by control devices. The source may, however, "take
into account all federally-enforceable emissions reductions except for those
resulting from control devices." 62 Fed. Reg. at 54,914. The preamble discusses
emission reductions that occur as a result of operating hour or throughput
restrictions as examples of limitations that would be considered in calculating
potential pre-control device emissions. Id.
Exemptions From Applicability
Part 64 provides exemptions from CAM monitoring for certain emissions
limitations or standards that EPA believes already establish adequate monitoring.
62 Fed. Reg. at 54,915. Specifically, CAM monitoring is not required for the
following limits and standards:
Emission limitations or standards under the New Source Performance
Standards ("NSPS") or National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants ("NESHAP") programs proposed after November 15, 1990;
Stratospheric ozone protection requirements under Title VI of the Act;
Acid Rain Program emission limits under Title IV of the Act;
Emission limits that apply solely under an emissions trading program
approved or promulgated by EPA;
Emission caps that meet the requirements of the Parts 70 or 71 Title V
permit programs;
Emission limits or standards for which a Title V permit specifies a
continuous compliance determination method.
The rule also includes an exemption for certain municipally-owned small
backup utility power emissions units.
Monitoring Plans (^U 64.3)
Sources with units subject to Part 64 must prepare unit-specific CAM
monitoring plans. The rule requires that monitoring plans comply with certain
design and performance criteria.
Monitoring Design Criteria (^U 64.3(a))
To meet the goals of Part 64, sources must design monitoring plans
according to the following specifications:
Indicators
The monitoring must be designed "to obtain data for one or more
indicators of the performance" of the control device, the associated capture
system, and/or any processes significant to achieving compliance. In the preamble,
EPA explains that a process must be monitored only if such monitoring is necessary
to document that the control equipment is operating properly. 62 Fed. Reg. at
54,920. Part 64 also provides that the source must "monitor indicators to detect any
bypass of the control device (or capture system) [that results in discharge] to the
atmosphere, if such bypass can occur based on the design of the [PSEU]." Bypass
monitoring is not required, however, if an underlying rule specifically provides that
such monitoring is not required for certain operations or units.
Indicators may include:
Direct or predicted emissions (including visible emissions or opacity),
Process and control device parameters that affect control device efficiency
or emission rates, or
Recorded findings of inspection and maintenance activities conducted by
the owner or operator.
Ranges or Conditions Specified for Each Indicator
The CAM monitoring plan must include ranges or designated conditions
for each selected indicator. The ranges or conditions are to be set at a level to
provide "a reasonable assurance of ongoing compliance with the emission
limitations or standards for the anticipated range of operating conditions." These
indicators are to provide sources with information about the operation and
maintenance of control devices so that problems can be addressed before a unit fails
to comply with an applicable requirement.
Part 64 characterizes departures from an indicator range as "excursions."
The source is to establish indicator ranges or conditions so that excursions from the
indicators will indicate potential problems with the operation and maintenance of
the control device. An excursion from a Part 64 indicator range or an indicator
condition does not, in and of itself, constitute an enforceable violation. 62 Fed.
Reg. at 54,919. In the preamble, EPA indicates that an excursion from an indicator
range could constitute an enforceable violation only if that excursion were a
violation of the underlying applicable requirement or if the permitting authority,
pursuant to approved state implementation plan authority, includes a requirement
to comply with the indicator range as a federally-enforceable element of a Title V
permit. 62 Fed. Reg. at 54,928. As discussed below, Part 64 itself does not
authorize a permitting authority to establish an excursion as an enforceable Title
V permit term.
Expression of Indicator Ranges or Conditions
To provide sources with flexibility to develop indicators and ranges that are
most appropriate for their affected emissions units, the rule allows indicator ranges
or designated indicator conditions to be expressed in any of the following formats:
Based on a single maximum or minimum value;
Established at multiple levels that are relevant to "distinctly" different
operating conditions;
Expressed as a function of process variables;
Expressed as maintaining the applicable parameter in a particular
operational status or designated condition;
Established as interdependent between more than one indicator.
Monitoring Performance Criteria (^U 64.3(b))
The rule requires that CAM monitoring meet certain minimum
performance specifications. These are designed to assure that the data generated
by the monitoring program "present valid and sufficient information on the actual
conditions being monitored." When developing this monitoring, sources are to
consider "site-specific factors." ^U 64.3(c). The final rule sets forth the following
performance criteria:
Data Representativeness
The data must be "representative" of the emissions or parameters being
monitored. Part 64 does not establish a specific test by which to determine whether
data are representative of the operations monitored. 62 Fed. Reg. at 54,921.
Verification of Operational Status
The operational status of any new or modified monitoring equipment must
be confirmed by verification procedures. The owner or operator must consider
manufacturer requirements or recommendations for installation, calibration and
start-up operation.
Quality Assurance and Quality Control ("QA/QC")
Part 64 monitoring must include QA/QC procedures that are "adequate to
ensure the continuing validity of the data." The preamble explains that these
procedures must document that the monitoring system remains operational and is
providing suitable readings for the purpose of measuring changes in control
performance. EPA emphasizes that satisfying this general design criterion should
not be confused with the detailed quality assurance provisions required for monitors
that are used to determine direct emission limit compliance (e.g., 40 C.F.R. Part 60,
App. F). Rather, a source can comply with the Part 64 QA/QC requirement with
a minimum degree of ongoing quality checks. According to the preamble, an
example of an acceptable quality assurance procedure is the quarterly recalibration
requirement for wet scrubber parameter monitoring that is set forth in NSPS subpart
PPP. 62 Fed. Reg. at 54,921.
Frequency of Monitoring and Data Collection
The rule establishes minimum criteria for monitoring frequency, data
collection procedures, and data averaging periods. In general, monitoring shall be
designed to obtain data at intervals that are "consistent with the characteristics and
typical variability" of the PSEU and its control device. The intervals are to be
commensurate with the time period over which an excursion from an indicator
range is likely to be observed. It is important to note that Part 64 does not contain
a presumptive data availability provision.
The rule sets forth different minimum data collection frequency
requirements based upon a unit's potential to emit.
Requirements for "Large" Units Owners and operators
of PSEUs that have a potential to emit (calculated
considering reductions achieved by controls) at or above
the relevant major source threshold, must collect data at
four or more equally spaced points per hour for each
monitored parameter. The rule allows the permitting
authority to approve a reduced data frequency for these
large units on a case-by-case basis. To obtain an
alternative, the owner or operator must present
information concerning the data collection mechanisms
available for a particular parameter for the PSEU.
Requirements for All Other PSEUs For all other
PSEUs, some data must be collected for each unit "at least
once per 24-hour period."
EPA's Technical Guidance Document for the CAM rule contains
sample monitoring approaches. The examples in that document
demonstrate that the frequency of monitoring, data collection procedures
and averaging of data points can vary based on the type of emission unit
and the control device employed at that unit.
Special Monitoring Criteria Applicable to Continuous Emission
Monitoring ("CEM"), Continuous Opacity Monitoring ("COM"),
or Predictive Emission Monitoring ("PEM") (^U 64.3(d))
If CEM, COM or PEM "is required pursuant to authority under the Act or
state or local law," the owner or operator must use those monitoring systems to
comply with Part 64. While the rule specifically exempts from the CAM rule any
emissions limit for which a Title V permit specifies a continuous compliance
determination method, CEM, COM and PEM systems often are required as an
indicator of good operations and maintenance, and not as the compliance method.
Therefore, a PSEU for which an applicable emissions standard requires the use of
CEM, COM or PEM as an indicator would not be exempt from the CAM rule. 62
Fed. Reg. at 54,922. Moreover, in this situation, the continuous monitoring method
must be used to comply with Part 64.
A CEM, COM or PEM system will be deemed to satisfy the Part 64 design
criteria requirements if the monitoring is conducted in accordance with any of the
requirements and performance specifications EPA has established for continuous
monitoring systems or comparable requirements and specifications established by
the permitting authority. 62 Fed. Reg. at 54,923.
A CEM, COM or PEM system must be designed to assure reporting of any
exceedances. The preamble states that this requires a source to coordinate the data
collection or data averaging periods of the monitoring system with the emission
limitation or standard. Id.
Specific Requirements for Certain COM Systems
If a COM system is used to determine compliance with an opacity standard
and also as a control performance indicator for a particulate matter standard, the
source may have to establish a separate indicator range to assure compliance with
the particulate matter standard. However, the opacity limit may be used as the
indicator level as long as that limit satisfies the Part 64 monitoring design criteria
for indicator ranges. The preamble explains that the Agency believes that an
opacity standard may be set at a level that represents a likely significant exceedance
of the particulate matter standard. In those situations, the Agency believes "an
opacity level below the required opacity standard would be more appropriate as
a CAM indicator." Nevertheless, if a source can show that the opacity standard
meets the general monitoring design criteria (as set forth in ^U 64.3(a)), that standard
may be used as the appropriate indicator level for the particulate matter standard.
Id.
Submittal of Proposed Part 64 Monitoring (^U 64.4)
The rule specifies the information on the proposed Part 64 monitoring
approach that the owner or operator must submit with a Part 70 application:
Basic Elements of the Monitoring Approach (^U 64.4(a))
The rule identifies the following basic elements:
Proposed indicators.
Indicator ranges or conditions, or the process by which such indicators or
conditions will be established.
Performance criteria that satisfy ^U 64.3(b).
Indicator ranges and performance criteria for any CEM, COM or PEM
systems.
Justification for the Monitoring (^U 64.4(b))
The source must submit information and data that justify each of the basic
elements of its proposed Part 64 monitoring for PSEUs. As a part of this
justification, the following information must be submitted with the application, as
appropriate:
General Data Justifying Proposed Monitoring
The data or information supporting the justification may include generally
available sources or information used to select the monitoring approach. As
examples of relevant information for the justification, the rule lists generally
available air pollution engineering manuals and EPA or permitting authority
publications on appropriate monitoring for various types of control device or
capture systems. The justification may also be based in part on "existing applicable
requirements that establish the monitoring for the applicable [PSEU] or a similar
unit."
Monitoring Certification and QA/QC Practices
The source may rely on verification and QA/QC practices contained in the
manufacturers' recommendations as the performance specifications for CAM. If
it proposes different requirements, the source must provide a justification for its
proposal.
Presumptively Acceptable Monitoring
The rule establishes a number of categories of presumptively acceptable
monitoring. If such monitoring is proposed, the owner or operator must simply
explain the applicability of such monitoring to the relevant PSEU. Presumptively
acceptable monitoring includes:
CEM, COM, or PEM systems that satisfy the Part 64 monitoring
requirements and performance specifications.
Accepted or alternative monitoring methods allowed or approved pursuant
to 40 C.F.R. Part 75 (regulations establishing continuous emissions
monitoring requirements for the Acid Rain Program).
Monitoring from an NSPS or NESHAP (or other rules that are exempt from
Part 64) that also applies to control equipment used for non-exempt
emissions limits at the same emissions unit.
Monitoring identified in EPA guidance documents as presumptively
acceptable.
Monitoring established by the permitting authority in a rule that is designed
to achieve compliance with Part 64 for particular PSEUs and is included in
the applicable state implementation plan.
Compliance or Performance Test Data to Justify Indicator Ranges
The presumptively acceptable approach for justifying Part 64 indicator
ranges is to demonstrate that the ranges were established "in the context of
performance testing." 62 Fed. Reg. at 54,927. However, the rule does not require
that indicator ranges must relate precisely to conditions that existed during a
performance test. Operating parameter data for any relevant control device, process
or capture device that was gathered during a compliance or performance test, may
be supplemented by engineering estimates, historical data, and manufacturers
recommendations. In the preamble, the Agency explains that in most cases,
appropriate indicator ranges can be established by considering the results of
performance testing, "without additional site-specific correlation of operational
indicators with actual emission values." 62 Fed. Reg. at 54,926. Moreover, Part
64 allows a source to base indicator ranges solely on engineering judgment,
historical data and other information under certain circumstances.
The rule identifies several options for satisfying this requirement:
Conduct New Testing to Satisfy Part 64 Requirements The source may
conduct new compliance testing to generate data to justify the indicator
ranges. If the applicable rule does not specify testing conditions, the source
shall conduct a performance test, which generally "shall be conducted
under conditions representative of maximum emissions potential under
anticipated operating conditions at the [PSEU]." ^U 64.4(c)(1). Part 64 does
not require that a source conduct compliance testing over the entire
indicator range or "the whole range of potential emissions." 62 Fed. Reg.
at 64,927. In addition, the preamble clarifies that the baseline values
recorded during a performance test may be adjusted "to account for the
inappropriateness of requiring that indicator conditions stay exactly the
same as during a test." Id.
Use Existing Compliance Test Data to Satisfy Part 64 Requirements
Under certain circumstances, the source may rely upon existing
performance compliance testing data. The source must verify that since the
tests were conducted, no changes have been made to the PSEU that could
"result in a significant change in the control system performance or the
selected ranges or designated conditions for the indicators monitored."
^U 64.4(c)(2).
Submit Schedule for Future Testing If the above-referenced
compliance testing data are not available when the source proposes Part 64
monitoring, the owner or operator may submit a test plan and schedule for
conducting compliance testing to obtain the necessary data. ^U 64.4(d)(1).
Rely on Engineering Judgment and Other Information The source
may propose to rely on engineering assessments and other relevant data to
justify its indicator ranges. To qualify for this option, the source must
submit documentation demonstrating that compliance or performance
testing is "unnecessary" to establish acceptable ranges. ^U 64.4(d)(2).
Schedule for Installing Monitoring or Performing Any Additional
Required Testing
If the Part 64 monitoring requires installation, testing or any other action
prior to its use, the owner or operator must submit an implementation plan and
schedule for such activities. A schedule may allow the owner or operator up to 180
days after the approval of the Title V permit within which to complete installation
and startup of the Part 64 monitoring. ^U 64.4(e).
Monitoring for Control Device Common to More than One PSEU
If a control device is common to more than one PSEU, the owner is not
required to submit separate monitoring for each PSEU. The owner or operator may
comply with the Part 64 monitoring submission requirements by providing
information regarding the monitoring for the control device and identifying the
PSEUs affected. ^U 64.4(f)
Monitoring for a PSEU Controlled by More than One Control Device
If a PSEU is controlled by more than one control device, the owner does not
have to submit a separate description of monitoring for each control device.
Instead, the source may submit monitoring that applies to all the relevant control
devices and identify the control indicator ranges or conditions that will be used to
satisfy Part 64. ^U 64.4(g).
Monitoring Approval or Disapproval (^U 64.6)
Approval (^U 64.6(a))
The permitting authority shall approve the Part 64 monitoring submitted by
the owner or operator if the monitoring satisfies the monitoring design and
performance criteria set forth in the rule. Upon approval of the proposed
monitoring, the permitting authority will include terms in the Title V permit that
reflect the Part 64 monitoring requirements.
Conditional Approval (^U 64.6(b))
The permitting authority may condition approval of Part 64 monitoring on
the owner or operator collecting additional data regarding the indicators, conducting
compliance or performance tests, confirming the ability of the monitoring to
provide appropriate data, or confirming the appropriateness of an indicator range
or designated conditions.
Disapproval (^U 64.6(e))
The rule sets forth requirements that apply if the permitting authority
disapproves Part 64 monitoring that is proposed by an owner or operator. In the
event of such disapproval, the source's Title V permit must include the following
terms and conditions:
Monitoring that satisfies the periodic monitoring requirements set forth in
Part 70 or Part 71.
A compliance schedule spelling out when the source must submit revised,
appropriate Part 64 monitoring. The source may have up to 180 days after
the issuance of the draft or final permit within which to submit the revised
Part 64 monitoring. The source is then obligated to submit the revised Part
64 monitoring plan in accordance with the Title V permit compliance plan.
The source will be deemed in noncompliance with Part 64 if:
It fails to submit the monitoring according to the compliance schedule; or
The permitting authority disapproves the revised proposed monitoring.
It is important to note that the source may appeal any decision by the
permitting authority to disapprove Part 64 monitoring. ^U 64.6(e)(3).
Title V Permit Terms to Require Part 64 Monitoring (^U 64.6(c) and (d))
The permitting authority must establish Title V permit terms or conditions
that specify the approved Part 64 monitoring. The rule provides that, at a minimum,
the permit must include terms that incorporate the following information:
A description of the approved monitoring approach, which must include:
The indicators to be monitored (such as temperature, pressure
drop, emissions or similar parameters);
The means or device to be used to measure the indicator (such as
temperature measurement device, visual observation, or CEMs);
and
The performance requirements established to satisfy section
64.3(b) or (d), as applicable.
A description of how the owner or operator "will define an exceedance or
excursion for purposes of responding to and reporting [either event]." The
inclusion of the indicator range in the permit is for the purpose of defining
when a source must report an excursion or exceedance. Part 64 does not
authorize permitting authorities to establish an indicator range as an
enforceable Title V permit condition.
The permit must "specify the level at which an excursion or exceedance
will be deemed to occur." ^U 64.6(c)(2). (This provision must indicate the
averaging period that will be used to make this determination.) The rule
specifies that, when defining an excursion, the source "may either include
the specific value(s) or condition(s) at which an excursion shall occur, or
the specific procedures that will be used to establish that value or
condition." Id.
An obligation to conduct monitoring, perform appropriate corrective
actions, and comply with the Part 64 reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
If appropriate, specification of a minimum data availability requirement
for valid data collection for each averaging period and a minimum data
availability requirement for the averaging periods in a reporting period.
An enforceable schedule for the installation, testing or final verification of
the monitoring if these activities will be necessary after the effective date
of the Title V permit.
After Part 64 monitoring is included in a Title V permit, the permitting
authority may extend the permit shield "to the Part 64 monitoring approved in the
permit." 62 Fed. Reg. at 54,930. If the shield is granted, the source will be shielded
from any claim that the monitoring in the permit does not satisfy Part 64
requirements
The source must follow the appropriate Title V permit modification
procedures when revising aspects of the Part 64 monitoring that appear as terms in
the Title V permit. ^U 64.7(e). EPA intends to promulgate revisions to the Part 70
Title V permit program rules that will clarify when a change in monitoring will
trigger the need to modify the underlying operating permit and set forth the
procedures for making the necessary permit revision. Operation of Ap proved Monitoring (^U 64.7)
General Obligations
The owner or operator must operate the Part 64 monitoring in accordance
with the terms of its Part 70 or Part 71 permit. ^U 64.7(a). Once initiated, the
monitoring must be conducted continuously or at the required intervals during all
times that the PSEU is in operation. ^U 64.7(c)
Exception to Continuous Operation Requirement
The only exception to this requirement is when monitoring cannot be
conducted because of monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, or required quality
assurance or control activities. Id. Data collected under such circumstances are not
to be used for purposes of averaging data and making calculations, fulfilling data
availability requirements or for any other compliance purposes under Part 64. 62
Fed. Reg. at 54,930. The rule provides that all other data collected during all other
periods of operation must be used in assessing the operation of the control device
and associated monitoring equipment.
Part 64 also imposes a general "proper maintenance" obligation which
requires that "at all times, the owner or operator shall maintain the monitoring,
including but not limited to, maintaining necessary parts for routine repairs of the
monitoring equipment." ^U 64.7(b).
Corrective Action Required for Excursions or Exceedances (^U 64.7(d))
The rule requires that upon detecting an excursion or exceedance, the owner
or operator must restore operation of the PSEU (including the control device and
capture system) "to its normal operation as expeditiously as practicable." This is
to be done "in accordance with good air pollution control practices for minimizing
emissions." The corrective action response shall include minimizing periods of
startup, shutdown or malfunction, and taking necessary corrective action to restore
normal operation and prevent the likely recurrence of the cause of an excursion or
exceedance (other than those caused by excused startup or shutdown conditions).
The rule specifies that a wide range of activities can constitute corrective
action, including:
Initial inspection and evaluation.
Recording that operations returned to normal without operator
action.
Any follow-up actions to return the operation to within the
indicator range conditions, or applicable limitations.
Determining whether a source complies with the Part 64 corrective action
obligation will be based on "available information." ^U 64.7(d)(2). The rule
indicates that such information may include monitoring data, review of operation
and maintenance procedures followed, inspection of the control device and process
operation, and relevant records.
In the preamble, the Agency indicates that prompt corrective action does
not establish a shield from enforcement for a potential violation of the underlying
emissions limitation. 62 Fed. Reg. at 54,907.
Obligation to Revise Monitoring (^U 64.7(e))
The rule requires an owner or operator to notify the permitting authority
and, if necessary, propose revised part 64 monitoring under two circumstances:
If the unit failed to comply with a relevant applicable requirement,
but the Part 64 monitoring did not indicate excursions or
exceedances for this period, or
If the results of compliance or performance testing document a
need to modify the existing indicator ranges or designated
conditions.
Quality Improvement Plan ("QIP") (^U 64.8)
The CAM rule provides that EPA or a permitting authority may require a
source to implement a Quality Improvement Plan ("QIP"). However, QIPs are not
a mandatory element of CAM plans. The permitting authority may require the
development and implementation of a QIP if it determines that the source has not
used acceptable procedures in response to an excursion or exceedance. ^U 64.8(a).
The rule also authorizes the permitting authority to set a QIP "trigger" in a source's
Title V permit. Such a term would specify that the source must implement a QIP
if its CAM plan exceedances or excursions exceed a certain threshold. The CAM
rule provides that if a permit includes a QIP provision, an "appropriate" QIP trigger
is when excursions meet or exceed 5%, although the permitting authority may set
the trigger at a higher or lower level.
The rule specifies that implementing a QIP does not excuse the owner or
operator from complying with the underlying emission limit or standard or any
other existing monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting to which the source is subject
under federal or state law. ^U 64.8(e).
Elements of a QIP (^U 64.8(b))
The rule provides that a QIP must outline general procedures for evaluating
the control performance problems at the PSEU. After the owner evaluates the
performance, it must revise the QIP to include specific corrective action procedures.
^U 64.8(b)(2). The rule specifies that the corrective action must include one or more
of the following:
Improvement of preventive maintenance practices.
Change of process operations.
Making appropriate improvements to control methods.
Taking other steps appropriate to correct control performance.
When implementing any of the above, the owner or operator may also
initiate improved or more frequent monitoring.
Timeframe for Implementing a QIP (^U 64.8(c))
A source must implement a QIP "as expeditiously as practicable." The rule
does not require a source to complete a QIP within a certain period of time.
However, the source must notify the permitting authority if it will take longer than
180 days to complete the QIP.
Revisions to a QIP (^U 64.8(d))
After a source implements a QIP, the permitting authority or EPA may
require the source to revise the QIP if the plan 1) failed to address the cause of the
control device performance problems, or 2) failed to provide adequate procedures
for correcting control device performance problems as expeditiously as practicable
in accordance with good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.
Implementation Schedule (^U 64.5)
The Part 64 rule requirements will be implemented through the Title V
permit program. Because the Title V permit program application process is already
underway, implementation of the Part 64 monitoring will proceed on a phased-in
schedule. Generally, the size of a PSEU and the stage of Title V permitting for a
source are the factors that determine when the source will become subject to the
Part 64 monitoring requirements.
Large PSEUs (^U 64.5(a))
Sources with units having emissions that exceed the major source threshold
for a given pollutant (considering controls) are characterized as Large PSEUs.
These units must submit proposed CAM monitoring by April 20, 1998, unless by
that date the permitting authority has determined that the facility's Title V
application is complete.
Other PSEUs (^U 64.5(b))
The rule does not require proposal of CAM monitoring for other units
subject to the rule (i.e., units with emissions less than the major source threshold
considering controls and units with emissions above those levels that are included
in a Title V application deemed complete by April 20, 1998) until Title V permit
renewal, except as indicated in the next paragraph.
Large PSEUs That Are Modified During Initial Permit Term (^U 64.5(a)(2))
If a source applies for a significant Title V permit revision on or after April
20, 1998, CAM monitoring must be included in the application, "but only with
respect to those [large PSEUs] for which the proposed permit revision is
applicable."
Reporting and Recordkeeping (^U 64.9)
Reporting Obligations (^U 64.9(a))
The owner or operator must submit Part 64 monitoring reports to the
permitting authority in accordance with the reporting requirement of the Title V
permit program. A Part 64 monitoring report must include the monitoring report
information required under Title V, as set forth in ^U 70.6(a)(3)(iii), and any of the
following applicable information:
Summary of the number, duration and cause of excursions or exceedances
and the corrective actions taken.
Summary of the number, duration and cause for monitor downtime
incidents.
Description of the actions taken to implement a QIP during the reporting
period.
Documentation that the QIP was completed and that it reduced the
likelihood of similar levels of excursions or exceedances occurring in the
future.
Recordkeeping Obligations (^U 64.9(b))
The owner or operator must comply with the recordkeeping requirements
of the Title V permit program for the CAM monitoring provisions. Specific
recordkeeping for the Part 64 program includes records of monitoring data, monitor
performance data, corrective actions taken, written QIPs, activities taken to
implement a QIP, and other supporting information required to be maintained under
Part 64.
Analogous to the Title V requirements, a source may maintain Part 64
monitoring records as traditional paper records, as well as on alternative media,
such as computer files or magnetic tape. The only limitation is that the alternative
media must allow for expeditious inspection and review and must not conflict with
other recordkeeping requirements.
Savings Provision (^U 64.10)
The rule states that Part 64 is not intended to excuse the owner or operator
from compliance with any applicable requirements under the Act or to restrict the
authority of the EPA or the permitting authority to impose additional monitoring
under the Act. It also states that nothing in Part 64 is to interfere with the ability
of the permitting authority or EPA to pursue enforcement of violations of the
underlying applicable requirements.
Clarifications to Title V Rules
In conjunction with the final Part 64 rule, EPA promulgated various
revisions to the Title V permit program rules to define the relationship of these two
programs. The changes to the rules, found at 40 C.F.R. Parts 70 and 71, also include
significant clarifications of the compliance certification requirements.
Monitoring Requirements (^U 70.6(a) and ^U 71.6(a))
The original Title V program rules specified that each permit must include
"[all emissions monitoring and analysis procedures or test methods required under
the applicable requirements, including any procedures and methods promulgated
pursuant to sections 114(a)(3) or 504(b) of the Act." The revised Parts 70 and 71
rules provide that the permit must include "[a]ll monitoring and analysis procedures
or test methods required under applicable monitoring and testing requirements,
including part 64 of this chapter and any other procedures and methods that may be
promulgated pursuant to sections 114(a)(3) or 504(b) of the Act."
This provision was also revised to codify EPA's guidance from White
Paper No. 2 that authorized streamlining of multiple monitoring requirements. This
is permissible if the streamlined monitoring assures compliance to at least the same
extent as the requirements that are not included as a result of the streamlining.
Compliance Certification (^U 70.6(c) and ^U 71.6(c))
EPA revised various aspects of the compliance certification provision "to
tailor compliance certification to the monitoring imposed by Part 64." 62 Fed. Reg.
at 54,936.
General Requirements
The original Title V rules required that the compliance certification include
certain information. The revised rule now clarifies that "the identification of
applicable information may cross-reference the permit or previous reports."
Identification of Terms
EPA did not change the requirement that the certification must include
"[t]he identification of each term or condition of the permit that is the basis of the
certification."
Methods Used to Determine Compliance
The original Title V rules required the owner or operator to identify "[t]he
methods used for determining the compliance status of the source, currently and
over the reporting period consistent with [^U 70.6(a)(3)]." (Section 70.6(a)(3)
specifies the monitoring and related recordkeeping and reporting requirements that
must be included in each permit.)
The Agency revised Part 70 to clarify that the compliance certification must
identify "[t]he method(s) or other means used by the owner or operator for
determining the compliance status with each term and condition during the
certification period. . . ." The rule provides that such methods "shall include, at a
minimum, the methods and means described under paragraph (a)(3) of this section."
As discussed above, paragraph (a)(3) was revised to specifically reference Part 64.
Of particular significance is EPA's clarification of the meaning of
"continuous or intermittent" in the context of certifying compliance. As originally
promulgated, the Title V rules required that the owner or operator specify in the
compliance certification "[w]hether compliance was continuous or intermittent."
EPA revised Parts 70 and 71 to clarify that sources must simply indicate in the
certification whether the "methods or means [identified for determining
compliance] provide continuous or intermittent data." ^U 70.6(c)(5)(iii)(B).
Identification of Other Material Information
The Agency added language to Parts 70 and 71 requiring that "[i]f
necessary, the owner or operator also shall identify any other material information
that must be included in the certification to comply with section 113(c)(2) of the
Act, which prohibits knowingly making a false certification or omitting material
information." In the preamble, the Agency points out that this requirement "does
not impose a duty on the owner or operator to assess every possible piece of
information that may have some undetermined bearing on compliance." 62 Fed.
Reg. at 54,937.
Status of Compliance
Parts 70 and 71, as originally promulgated, stated that the certification must
include "[t]he compliance status." EPA replaced that provision with the requirement
that the certification must indicate "[t]he status of compliance with the terms and
conditions of the permit for the period covered by the certification, based on the
methods or means designated [in the certification]."
Identification of "Possible Exceptions to Compliance"
The Agency added language to the rule requiring that "[t]he certification
shall identify each deviation and take it into account in the compliance certification.
The certification shall also identify as possible exceptions to compliance any
periods during which compliance is required and in which an excursion or
exceedance as defined under Part 64 of this chapter occurred." The preamble to the
final rule clarifies that the owner or operator may simply indicate in the certification
that any deviations, excursions or exceedances identified during the certification
period are "possible exceptions to compliance." Id. At the source's option, the
certification may include information that documents that the source was in
compliance during any period in which a possible exception is noted. Id.
The preamble to the 1996 draft rule includes a comprehensive discussion
of the requirement to identify possible exceptions to compliance in the certification.
The Agency "[e]mphasizes that not all deviations constitute violations of a permit."
Preamble to EPA's Aug. 2, 1996 Draft of the CAM Rule, p.16. The preamble
explained, "[a] deviation acts only to indicate potential problems . . . ." Id. This
concept is also reflected in the Part 71 rule revisions. Because "deviation" is a
defined term in Part 71 (but not in Part 70), Part 71 expressly provides that "a
deviation is not always a violation." ^U 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(C). Footnotes:
1. In many instances, the contents of this Issue Analysis will be identical to the rule text or preamble language of the final
rule. Quotation marks will only be included at various points as a means of emphasizing certain language. References
to the specific provisions of the rule will be made for ease in using the Issue Analysis as a guide to a more detailed review
of the rule's provisions.
2. The CAM rule definitions are set forth in ^U 64.1.
3. Part 64 defines a "capture system" as the equipment used to contain, capture and transport a pollutant to a control device.
Examples of equipment that may qualify as capture systems include hoods, ducts, fans and booths. ^U 64.1.
4. In the preamble, EPA states that "even if a Title V permit specifies that certain monitoring, CAM or other monitoring, be
performed and that this monitoring is the sole or exclusive means of establishing compliance or non-compliance, EPA
views such provisions as null and void." 62 Fed. Reg. at 54,907. This statement conflicts with EPA and state Title V
permit rules and the Act, which both provide for permitting authorities to make determinations when issuing permits
regarding what requirements are applicable to sources and how compliance is to be determined. Also, EPA must follow
specified "objection" or "reopener" provisions to challenge any Title V permit term.
Please e-mail any comments or questions to the Clean Air Act Information Network.
Return to the Clean Air Act
Information Network Home Page