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

Title: Review the draft Title V with care

Abstract

The Title V permitting process is well underway for many industries and just beginning for others. Waste Management recently conducted the first in-depth reviews of draft Title V permits for some of its municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. The Company`s comments on the draft permits were numerous. The draft permits contained some obvious as well as several less obvious errors. The results of these reviews identified a need to scrutinize carefully each and every draft permit issued to the Company`s landfills. The Company expects to require Title V permits for most of its 140 plus active landfills, due to the recently-enacted New Source Performance Standards for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Many issues of concern were encountered during the review. Had these issues not been identified, the facility would have had to live with an unnecessarily burdensome permit consisting of permit conditions that were more strict than the regulations required and lacking protections allowed by the law. This paper discusses many of the issues of concern identified during the draft permit review. Although many of the issues addressed in this paper are specific to MSW landfills, many of the issues are also applicable to Title V permits in general.

Authors:
 [1];  [2]
  1. Waste Management, Inc., Oak Brook, IL (United States)
  2. Rust E and I, Greenville, SC (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
682190
Report Number(s):
CONF-980632-
TRN: IM9942%%175
Resource Type:
Conference
Resource Relation:
Conference: 91. annual meeting and exhibition of the Air and Waste Management Association, San Diego, CA (United States), 14-18 Jun 1998; Other Information: PBD: 1998; Related Information: Is Part Of Proceedings of the 91. annual meeting and exhibition. Bridging international boundaries: Clean production for environmental stewardship; PB: [5000] p.
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES; 29 ENERGY PLANNING AND POLICY; CLEAN AIR ACTS; AIR POLLUTION; LICENSES; SANITARY LANDFILLS; MUNICIPAL WASTES; AIR POLLUTION CONTROL; IMPLEMENTATION

Citation Formats

Romzick, P.G., and Heitz, D.R.. Review the draft Title V with care. United States: N. p., 1998. Web.
Romzick, P.G., & Heitz, D.R.. Review the draft Title V with care. United States.
Romzick, P.G., and Heitz, D.R.. Thu . "Review the draft Title V with care". United States. doi:.
@article{osti_682190,
title = {Review the draft Title V with care},
author = {Romzick, P.G. and Heitz, D.R.},
abstractNote = {The Title V permitting process is well underway for many industries and just beginning for others. Waste Management recently conducted the first in-depth reviews of draft Title V permits for some of its municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. The Company`s comments on the draft permits were numerous. The draft permits contained some obvious as well as several less obvious errors. The results of these reviews identified a need to scrutinize carefully each and every draft permit issued to the Company`s landfills. The Company expects to require Title V permits for most of its 140 plus active landfills, due to the recently-enacted New Source Performance Standards for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Many issues of concern were encountered during the review. Had these issues not been identified, the facility would have had to live with an unnecessarily burdensome permit consisting of permit conditions that were more strict than the regulations required and lacking protections allowed by the law. This paper discusses many of the issues of concern identified during the draft permit review. Although many of the issues addressed in this paper are specific to MSW landfills, many of the issues are also applicable to Title V permits in general.},
doi = {},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Thu Dec 31 00:00:00 EST 1998},
month = {Thu Dec 31 00:00:00 EST 1998}
}

Conference:
Other availability
Please see Document Availability for additional information on obtaining the full-text document. Library patrons may search WorldCat to identify libraries that hold this conference proceeding.

Save / Share:
  • The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 required the USEPA to establish a comprehensive operating permit program which is being administered by the states. Most major air pollution sources will be required to submit operating permit applications by November 15, 1995 or earlier. Portland cement plants that burn waste-derived fuel face some special permitting problems that need to be addressed during the permit application process. This paper presents a brief summary of the Title V application with special emphasis on the permitting requirements incurred by the utilization of waste fuel at cement plants.
  • The Title V Operating Permits program has been extended over many more years than originally anticipated when the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments were first legislated. In fact, the regulatory program is still being refined even as facilities complete and submit their Title V permit applications. Likewise, it is clear that the agency review of the Title V permit applications will probably take considerably longer than originally anticipated. Finally, when the agency does complete the review, it is equally clear that there will need to be a significant amount of negotiating on the part of the facility to arrive atmore » a simplified permit that is operationally feasible. This paper presents a number of suggestions for what the facility should be doing between the time the permit application is first submitted and the agency responds with a draft permit. The suggestions are designed to help simplify the permit and enhance flexibility. In addition, the paper presents permit negotiating techniques and points out the pitfalls that will be encountered if the facility does not take action prior to receiving the draft Title V permit. This paper suggests that the facility should internally evaluate how the permit application impacts facility operations prior to the agency doing so. It also suggests that the facility should contact the agency early and amend the permit application to take advantage of increasing regulatory flexibility. By taking these steps, and properly negotiating the permit terms and conditions; the facility will achieve a much better permit, and will hopefully be able to avoid the regulatory burdens and delays associated with re-opening the permit during the next 5 to 8 years (from the time of permit application submittal).« less
  • Now that some state regulatory agencies are reviewing Title V permit applications and issuing permits, evaluation of the process can be made in comparison with the original goals of the Title V permitting program. In addition, assessment of the terms and conditions that are being incorporated into permits, the nature of draft permits that are issued to facilities for comment, and the extent and type of negotiation that have been conducted with agencies to develop successful Title V permits, will be helpful for facilities that are currently undergoing application review. In working with a Fortune 500 surface coating company, fourteenmore » Title V permit applications were developed and submitted for plants located in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, Illinois, Georgia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Indiana and southern California. Draft permits have been issued for several of the plants, and differences in the terms and conditions, testing requirements, and permit format and structure have been noted between states. One of the issued permits required modification, and the process was one of the first for this state agency.« less
  • The coal industry has already begun to feel the affects of the acid deposition title, particularly in Illinois. Two challenges to the producers and sellers of coal; i.e., (1) Title III, Hazardous Air Pollutants and what is in store for customers, and (2) Title V, Operating Permits, which may affect production facilities are discussed. The utilities are temporarily exempted from Title III. The Great Waters report suggests that mercury will be regulated, and it looks like risk assessments will be based on coal analysis rather than on actual emission measurements. Stack sampling is difficult, expensive and slow. Coal cleaning ismore » important in reducing trace elements. Electrostatic precipitators also remove trace elements. ESPs are less effective for mercury and selenium because they are emitted in the gas phase. FGD can remove hazardous air pollutants, but it is not well documented.« less
  • Title IV of the Clean Air Act not only created a regulatory program unlike any other under the Clean Air Act, but also established a unique position--the designated representative--as an integral part of the program. The designated representative is required to meet certain basic obligations under Title IV, and a panoply of enforcement mechanisms are available to EPA in the event of noncompliance with these obligations. Also, because a designated representative may take on responsibilities under the permit provisions of Title V of the Clean Air Act, the designated representative can also be subject to an enforcement action for failuremore » to comply with certain Title V permit requirements. This paper considers the basic definition of the designated representative under EPA`s Title IV and Title V regulations, identifies the responsibilities assigned to the designated representative, and then analyzes the enforcement mechanisms that may be applied to the designated representative if a regulatory responsibility has not been satisfied.« less