skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Title V permitting delayed for some non-major sources

Abstract

Some small businesses subject to the Clean Air Act`s maximum achievable control technology (MACT) regulations may be a break from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). While the businesses, considered non-major air-pollutant sources, must still meet all MACT requirements, they are likely to receive a Title V operating permit program deferral. On December 13, 1995, EPA proposed to defer Title V operating permit requirements for non-major sources in the following three industries: decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing; perchloroethylene dry cleaning; ethylene oxide commercial sterilization and fumigation. In addition to describing its reasons for the temporary deferments, EPA sets forth the rationale for permanently exempting certain non-major electroplating and anodizing sources. This rationale may pave the way for small businesses in other industries to escape Title V.

Authors:
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
207913
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Pollution Engineering; Journal Volume: 28; Journal Issue: 3; Other Information: PBD: Mar 1996
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES; 29 ENERGY PLANNING AND POLICY; CLEAN AIR ACTS; IMPLEMENTATION; CHROMIUM; POLLUTION SOURCES; CHLORINATED ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS; ETHYLENE; METAL INDUSTRY; AIR POLLUTION ABATEMENT; CHEMICAL INDUSTRY; SMALL BUSINESSES; AIR POLLUTION; LICENSES

Citation Formats

Bassett, S.M. Title V permitting delayed for some non-major sources. United States: N. p., 1996. Web.
Bassett, S.M. Title V permitting delayed for some non-major sources. United States.
Bassett, S.M. 1996. "Title V permitting delayed for some non-major sources". United States. doi:.
@article{osti_207913,
title = {Title V permitting delayed for some non-major sources},
author = {Bassett, S.M.},
abstractNote = {Some small businesses subject to the Clean Air Act`s maximum achievable control technology (MACT) regulations may be a break from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). While the businesses, considered non-major air-pollutant sources, must still meet all MACT requirements, they are likely to receive a Title V operating permit program deferral. On December 13, 1995, EPA proposed to defer Title V operating permit requirements for non-major sources in the following three industries: decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing; perchloroethylene dry cleaning; ethylene oxide commercial sterilization and fumigation. In addition to describing its reasons for the temporary deferments, EPA sets forth the rationale for permanently exempting certain non-major electroplating and anodizing sources. This rationale may pave the way for small businesses in other industries to escape Title V.},
doi = {},
journal = {Pollution Engineering},
number = 3,
volume = 28,
place = {United States},
year = 1996,
month = 3
}
  • The establishment of an operating permit program for air pollution sources represents the most significant procedural change to the Clean Air Act (CAA) in the 1990 amendments. The new operating permit Title V will drastically alter the way many companies comply with the CAA and will also lead to an increase in enforcement activity by EPA and states. This article summarizes the overall structure of Title V and EPA`s regulations, without attempting to cover every detail. Generally, where the regulations add little to the corresponding statuary provisions, the statute is cited. Otherwise, citations are to EPA`s part 70 operating permitmore » regulations.« less
  • Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments requires states to implement new air operating permit programs. States have a great deal of flexibility in developing their permit programs. Industry should work now to ensure that state programs contain the favorable aspects of the federal regulations and do not contain more stringent requirements that are not required under the Clean Air Act. This article outlines areas of the permit program that have the potential to handicap industry`s ability to expand.
  • Title V of the Clean Air Act Amendments will have a profound effect on industry. Industry should be aware that preparing a Title V permit application is a significant undertaking. If a Title V operating permit is required, the recommended approach is described.
  • In 2005, Wal-Mart opened experimental stores in McKinney, Texas (hot climate), and Aurora, Colo. (cold climate). With these projects Wal-Mart can: * Learn how to achieve sustainability improvements; * Gain experience with the design, design process, and operations for some specific advanced technologies; * Understand energy use patterns in their stores more clearly; * Lay groundwork for better understanding of how to achieve major carbon footprint reductions; and * Measure the potential benefits of specific technologies tested.
  • With the cost of fuel continuing to fluctuate, alternate energy sources continue to be examined. In 1980, The Procter and Gamble Company began investigating the feasibility of burning wood waste as an alternate fuel source. The paper describes the necessary steps and data required to obtain federal, state, and local air construction permits for this modification. The first step was to determine the regulatory classification for the Staten Island area. It was nonattainment for CO, HC, and attainment for TSP, NO/sub x/, and SO/sub x/. The second step was to determine the wood-burning emissions. This was done after an extensivemore » literature search was completed. The result was a significant reduction in the pollutant factors from those published earlier by EPA. The next step was to analyze the air quality impact from the change in pollutant emissions. Due to the projected increase in TSP and CO in excess of 100 tpy, the modification was classified as major under current PSD and nonattainment rules. New York had no approved SIP for CO, so construction of the modification was blocked by the construction moratorium under the 1977 Clean Air Act. After lengthy negotiations with the state and federal agencies, efforts were begun to redesignate the area for CO through modeling. Redesignation and final permit approvals were received by Feb. 1, 1982.« less