Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) Panel Peter Westlin, EMC Barrett Parker, EMC.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
METAL COIL SURFACE COATING MACT OVERVIEW 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART SSSS May CFR PART 63, SUBPART SSSS May 2006.
Advertisements

METAL CAN SURFACE COATING MACT OVERVIEW 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART KKKK June CFR PART 63, SUBPART KKKK June 2006.
DRAFT IRON & STEEL FOUNDRY MACT FACILITY INSPECTIONS 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART EEEEE.
METAL CAN SURFACE COATING MACT COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART KKKK June 2006 June CFR PART 63, SUBPART KKKK June 2006 June 2006.
METAL FURNITURE SURFACE COATING MACT COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
METAL COIL SURFACE COATING MACT FACILITY INSPECTIONS 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART SSSS May, CFR PART 63, SUBPART SSSS May, 2006.
METAL COIL SURFACE MACT COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART SSSS May 2006 May 2006.
METAL CAN SURFACE COATING MACT FACILITY INSPECTIONS 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART KKKK June, CFR PART 63, SUBPART KKKK June, 2006.
Compliance Dates The final rule was published on January 25, 1995,
IRON & STEEL FOUNDRY MACT QUESTION & ANSWERS
IRON & STEEL FOUNDRY MACT COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
1 The Credible Evidence Rule and Compliance Certifications Peter Westlin OAQPS, EMAD.
Harmonization of Parts 60 and 75
1 Proposed Rule: Amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program and Minimum Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing Presented at May 12,
APAI Environmental Workshop FESOP Recordkeeping/Plans James (Jim) Heim, C.T.C., E.P. Bruce Carter Associates, L.L.C February 9, 2012.
ADEC Air Permits Title V Permit Renewal Project Workshop Jim Baumgartner Title V Section Manager.
1 Licensing in the Energy Sector Georgian National Energy And Water Supply Regulation Commission Nugzar Beridze June 27 – July 3, 2008.
Louisiana Department of EnvironmentalQuality LDEQ CAM Plan Overview LDEQ’s 27 th Annual Conference on the Environment Cajundome Convention Center Lafayette,
1 Proposed Rule to Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration
What options do states have? What is Georgia planning to do? What are some of the other states doing? What are the possible implications to permit fees?
2015 NCMA EPA Enforcement Policies and How They Affect Your Facility Michael Pjetraj, P.E. DAQ Stationary Source Compliance Branch Supervisor.
TITLE V COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION AND DEVIATION REPORTING Annette Maxwell and Erica Solis Office of Compliance and Enforcement May 5, 2015.
NCMA Workshop March 19 and 24, 2015 Betty Gatano, P.E. Permitting Section North Carolina Division of Air Quality, Raleigh, NC (919)
Managing Air Quality Data 101 Presented by: Chris Bellusci & Claire Lund, PE (Sanborn Head) International Conference for Environmental.
COSCDA Conference 2012 Washington, DC Susan Ziff, HUD March 12, 2012 Substantial Amendment Process for Second Allocation of FY 2011 ESG Funds.
Approaches for forest certification System versus performance ? Presentation prepared by Pierre Hauselmann for the WWF / WB Alliance Capacity building.
1 PSD - Case #1 Case #1: –A simple cycle natural gas power plant with PTE NOx of 300 tpy and GHGs of 150,000 tpy CO2e receives a PSD permit addressing.
1 Title V Permitting and CAM Planning Title V Permitting and CAM Planning APPA E&O Technical Conference April 19, 2005 Robert M. Iwanchuk, C.C.M. ENSR.
NEW SOURCE REVIEW REFORM/SIMPLIFICATION JOHN A. PAUL STAPPA/ALAPCO MAY, 2002.
Where to find Information About Facilities. Overview of Title V Permits.
Indiana New Source Review Reform Plantwide Applicability Limitations (PALs) IDEM/Office of Air Quality September 7, 2004.
FRANKLIN engineering group, inc. Start-up Shutdown Malfunction Plan Development and Implementation Duncan F. Kimbro
Our Vision – Healthy Kansans living in safe and sustainable environments.
1 DOE IMPLEMENTATION WORKSHOP ASSESSING MY EMS Steven R. Woodbury
Compliance Assurance and Title V Monitoring A Summary of the Rules and Applications Peter Westlin, EPA, OAQPS.
Guidance on Establishing Monitoring to Comply with CAM and Other Title V Requirements A Summary of Technical and Policy Materials Barrett Parker, EPA,
| Philadelphia | Atlanta | Houston | Washington DC Boiler MACT Compliance Plans: Failure to Develop Plans Is Planning to Fail Susie Bowden|
Quality assurance / Quality control system for the Greek GHG emissions inventory Yannis Sarafidis, Elena Georgopoulou UNFCCC Workshop on National Systems.
MS4 Remand Rule Intergovernmental Associations Briefing September 15, 2015.
Welcome Revisions of Chapter WAC Sections -035 and -036 Rule advisory committee workshop #5 Lacey, WA October 28, 2009.
SPS policy – Information Presentation Presentation to ROS June 16, 2004.
Title V: The Big Picture
Sound solutions delivered uncommonly well Understanding the Permitting Impacts of the Proposed Ozone NAAQS Pine Mountain, GA ♦ August 20, 2015 Courtney.
Restoring VA Waters the TMDL Way Jeff Corbin Senior Advisor to the Regional Administrator U.S. EPA Region 3.
Compliance Assurance and Title V Monitoring A Summary of Rules and Permitting Issues Peter Westlin, EPA, OAQPS.
Proposed Rule for Preventive Controls for Animal Food.
Proposed Rule: 21 CFR 507 Proposed Rule for Preventive Controls for Animal Food 1.
Title V Operating Permits: A Compliance and Enforcement Tool Candace Carraway US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
The Paper and Other Web Coating (POWC) MACT – Executive Summary The executive summary is a power point presentation designed to be used for basic education.
Jessica Montanez Environmental Protection Agency NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) PROGRAM.
Region 9 Title V Permit Review Guidelines Ray Vogel EPA/OAQPS.
Title V, Preliminary Completeness Review. What do I need to do?  I need to find out if the application contains the required information.  Initial Title.
Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) November 24, 2009.
Update on Methane Regulations Affecting Landfills Pat Sullivan Senior Vice President SCS Engineers Nov. 10, 2015.
Revised Total Coliform Rule Sandy Brentlinger Southwest Drinking Water.
2005 NSR Regulation Changes Dwight Wylie. Old Units vs. New Units  There is a broad disparity between air pollution control requirements and emissions.
ISO Registration Common Areas of Nonconformances.
1 Special Information Session on USEPA’s Carbon Rules & Clean Air Act Section 111 North Carolina Division of Air Quality Special Information Session on.
Item 21 May 11-12, 2004 CIWMB Meeting Discussion And Request For Rulemaking Direction To Formally Notice Proposed Regulations For RCRA Subtitle D Program.
REVISIONS TO THE FEDERAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS RULE JILL CSEKITZ, TECHNICAL SPECIALIST TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
1 The Exceptional Events Rule (EER) Overview Tom Link EPA – OAQPS Geographic Strategies Group Westar Meeting, San Francisco, February 25, 2009.
Permit Application Information and Work Group Exercises Peter Westlin, EPA, OAQPS.
1 Update on New Source Review (NSR) Activities and Priorities for Information Transfer and Program Integration Division April 7, 2004.
SAFE DRINKING WATER GENERAL UPDATE TO CHAPTER 109 June 19, 2007 Bureau of Water Standards and Facility Regulation.
Final Rulemaking Nonattainment Source Review 25 Pa. Code, Chapter 121
WESTAR Increment Recommendations
Draft Modeling Protocol for PM2.5
Groundwater and Waste Management Committee November 9, 2016
Julie Woosley, Division of Waste Management
Enforcing the NAAQS Case Study Sean Taylor
Presentation transcript:

Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) Panel Peter Westlin, EMC Barrett Parker, EMC

Topics Where we are What we have heard (FAQs) What to expect What you want us to address

Where we are CAM implementation on track – Many title V permits being renewed Satellite broadcast in August – Swan song (?) for EMC video outreach Strong demand for live course – States, A&WMA

FAQs are FAQs Responses to Frequently Asked Questions About CAM and Other Title V Monitoring Peter Westlin, OAQPS, EMAD, EMC

Topics Basic TV monitoring principle Control device definition CAM vs CEMS vs CEMS/PEMS Combined or merged permits Compliance certification Excess emissions vs excursions

What is the Title V and Compliance Assurance Monitoring principle? Monitoring sufficient to provide a reasonable assurance of compliance with the applicable requirements (e.g., emissions limits) and to ensure operators pay the same level of attention to pollution control measures as to production CAM - Raising the monitoring floor, not setting a ceiling.

What is CAM rule? 40 CFR Part 64 - Compliance Assurance Monitoring Regulation implementing the Title V monitoring principle Targets facilities with add-on control devices Requires source owners to design monitoring to fit site and include in permits

When is a control device not a control device? Control device – mechanical, electrical, chemical process to remove, reduce, or transform pollutant (will trigger part 64) Inherent process equipment – looks like control device but operation critical to production (justification hurdles to cross) Other control measures – passive and manual means to meet emissions limits (everything else)

Doesn’t Part 64 require PEMS or CEMS? Nope

What is the difference between Part 64, CEMS, PEMS, and CCDMs? Part 64 – site-specific monitoring of control devices to provide a reasonable assurance of compliance, can include at source owner’s option: – Control device operating parameter monitoring (CAM indicator ranges representative of compliance) – CEMS – required if specified by rule – PEMS – required if specified by rule Continuous compliance determination method (CCDM) – CEMS/PEMS specified by underlying rule as performance test method (e.g., Da for SO 2 ) – Exempt from part 64 (beyond CAM)

What happens to part 64 schedule in merged (TV and NSR) permits? Common sense? Build conditions into permit to require source owner to: Submit monitoring plan x days before process startup Commence monitoring upon start-up or Establish indicator ranges and commence monitoring within 180 days of start-up (relates to part 64 allowance for data collection)

What else is included in a permit for monitoring? Permit elements (EPA guidance has examples): Description of monitoring (what is measured, how, frequency, averaging time), What defines excursions and consequences (e.g., excursion triggers corrective action and reporting obligation), Rudimentary QA/QC schedules and procedures.

What is required for compliance certification? 40 CFR 70.6(c)(5) - annual or more frequent certification requires the source owner (responsible official) to: Certify as to status of compliance for each permit term or condition, and Indicate whether compliance is continuous or intermittent (as per 1999 Court decision, rule change due later this year).

What is the difference between excursions and exceedances? Exceedance (excess emissions) – condition detected by monitoring in terms of applicable standard that emissions are beyond limit - e.g., CEMS or PEMS data Excursion – departure from indicator range established in accordance with part 64 - control device parameter data

What is the source’s compliance status during excursions? Potential problem in the operation and maintenance of the control - corrective action obligation, Possible exception to compliance with applicable requirements - reporting obligation, but Not necessarily a failure to comply with the underlying emissions limitation or standard.

What is source’s compliance status during exceedances? Reporting requirements already established in existing requirements in many cases, may have to specify an appropriate time period for averaging data to report exceedances, Exceptions to compliance noted in compliance certification.

Next?

What we have heard Periodic Monitoring – Proposed rule change creates ‘sufficiency monitoring’ per 70.6(c)(1) – Periodic monitoring remains in 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) If Periodic Monitoring not applicable, then Sufficiency Monitoring is applicable

Proposed Part 70 rule change THIS DATA CURRENT AS OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER DATED OCTOBER 25, CFR - CHAPTER I - PART 70 View Part § 70.6 Permit content. (a) Standard permit requirements. Each permit issued under this part shall include the following elements: (3) Monitoring and related recordkeeping and reporting requirements. (i) Each permit shall contain the following requirements with respect to monitoring: (B) Where the applicable requirement does not require periodic testing or instrumental or noninstrumental monitoring (which may consist of recordkeeping designed to serve as monitoring), periodic monitoring sufficient to yield reliable data from the relevant time period that are representative of the source's compliance with the permit,.... (c) Compliance requirements. All part 70 permits shall contain the following elements with respect to compliance: (1) Consistent with paragraph (a)(3) of this section, compliance certification, testing, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements sufficient to assure compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit...

What we have heard (continued) Interim final rule to suspend the phrase for 60 days Proposal to remove the phrase permanently – 30 day comment period closed Oct 17 th Another notice-and-comment rulemaking to follow – “to consider more comprehensively means of meeting the statutory monitoring requirements”

What we have heard (continued) Why is this needed? – Weave NRDC and Appalachian Power decisions with Pacificorp and Fort James orders Impact on CAM rule – None – CAM satisfies PMon and PMon satisfies SM

What to expect Satellite Workshop Case Studies Summary – On-Site Coordinator CAM Protocols – EPRI’s relationship among ESP COMS, model output, and PM emissions – AAM’s relationship between oxidizer temperature and VOC emissions from ovens and spray booths

What to expect – Printer’s TSD parameters with a relationship to VOC emissions for Incinerators (catalytic and thermal) Solvent recovery systems (2) Unenclosed capture systems (2) Permanent total enclosure capture systems (3)

What you want us to address More candidates for FAQs ?