Some states, like Ohio, offer web-based air permitting systems where air permit applications can be submitted electronically without the need to submit hardcopy air permit applications while others still require the submission of one or more hardcopy application packages. Air permit application packages generally include state specific application forms; emission calculations; process data; process flow diagrams; control equipment specifications; egress point information; Best Available Technology (BAT) Studies; and, sometimes, air quality modeling for air toxics and criteria pollutants (NOx, SO2, VOC, CO, PM, PM10, PM2.5 and Lead).

PTIs and PTIOs must be obtained prior to commencing construction. Depending on the complexity of the project, it may take consultants several months to prepare very complex air permit application packages that trigger PSD, NNSR and/or air quality modeling requirements. Also, depending on the complexity of the project, some permit applications packages may take up to 6 months for the state agencies to issue a final permit. Typically, GT can prepare routine air permit application packages in 1-2 weeks and the state agencies can issue those final permits in 2-3 months. As a general rule of thumb, facilities should plan to submit air permit application packages at least 6-months prior to commencing construction.

GT has significant experience with preparing Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Non-Attainment New Source Review (NNSR) permit application packages for steel plants and coal fired baseload power plants as well as numerous other chemical and general manufacturing facilities.  The initial goal of any PSD and/or NNSR permitting project is to figure out how to avoid these permitting requirements in the first place.  GT has significant experience with assisting our clients with avoiding these onerous permitting requirements.

The Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Non-Attainment New Source Review (NNSR) permits are special types of installation or construction air permits for major sources of criteria pollutants.  Facilities that are one of the 28 source categories listed in 40 CFR 52.21 are major if they have potential emissions of one or more criteria pollutants in excess of 100 tons/yr.  All other facilities are major if they have potential emissions of one or more criteria pollutants in excess of 250 tons/yr.

Major facilities or major stationary sources in attainment areas of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) should evaluate the applicability of the PSD permitting requirements each time they install a new air contaminant source or modify an existing air contaminant source.  Projects in an attainment area that result in an increase in emissions of greater than 40 tons of NO_x, SO₂ or VOC; 100 tons of CO; 15 tons of PM₁₀; 10 tons of PM_2.5 or 0.6 tons of lead must submit an air permit application package that includes a BACT Study, Air Quality Modeling and an Additional Impacts Analysis.

Facilities located in a non-attainment area are major if they have potential emissions greater than 100 tons/yr for a pollutant for which they are non-attainment.  Major facilities or major stationary sources should evaluate the applicability of the NNSR permitting requirements each time they install a new air contaminant source or modify an existing air contaminant source.  Projects in a non-attainment area that result in an increase in emissions of a pollutant for which the area is non-attainment of greater than 40 tons of NO_x, SO₂ or VOC; 100 tons of CO; 15 tons of PM₁₀; 10 tons of PM_2.5 or 0.6 tons of lead must submit an air permit application package that includes a LAER Study, Air Quality Modeling and obtain emissions offsets.

GT has significant experience with running US EPA approved air quality dispersion models such as AERMOD, AERSCREEN, SCREEN3 and CALPUFF.  AERMOD, AERSCREEN and SCREEN3 are all short-range transport models designed to evaluate receptors up to 50-km from the project site.  CALPUFF is a long-range transport model designed to evaluate receptors beyond 50-km and up to 300-km from the project site.

 Most facilities conduct air quality modeling in support of an air permit application.  However, sometimes facilities conduct air quality modeling to: (1) evaluate whether a permit modification has been triggered due to a change in dispersion characteristics; (2) optimize stack heights and stack location; (3) respond to state agency complaints about odors; or (4) locate the optimum location of an ambient monitor.

 SCREEN3 and AERSCREEN are often used, as their names suggest, as a screening tool to determine whether more sophisticated models such as AERMOD must be run.  Typically, SCREEN3 and AERSCREEN overestimate offsite concentrations as compared to AERMOD.  If SCREEN3 or AERSCREEN predict offsite concentrations above the required levels, then just switching to AERMOD may resolve the problem.

 SCREEN3 is the predecessor to AERSCREEN and is based on the ISCST modeling algorithms.  SCREEN3 requires much less information than AERSCREEN and, as a result, produces much less accurate and, often times, higher offsite concentrations.  AERSCREEN is based on the AERMOD modeling algorithms and normally predicts offsite concentrations that are higher than AERMOD but lower than SCREEN3.  SCREEN3 is no longer accepted by US EPA and state agencies for PSD and NNSR air quality modeling projects but still used in some states for minor source air permitting projects and air toxic modeling.  AERMOD is typically the preferred model for PSD and NNSR projects and for complex modeling projects that involve multiple stacks, multiple buildings, complex terrain or where less conservative offsite concentrations are required.

 AERMOD is a short-range transport model designed to evaluate receptors up to 50-km from the project site.  AERMOD typically requires terrain height data covering an area up to 50-km from the project site and 5-years of meteorological data.  AERMOD is typically used in PSD projects to evaluate the maximum offsite concentrations versus the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), PSD Class II Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and PSD Class II Increments.  Class II areas are all areas of the United States that are not Class I areas.  Class I areas include a specific list of national parks over 6,000 acres and national wilderness areas and national memorial parks over 5,000 acres.  AERMOD is also used in NNSR projects to verify that the project and proposed offsets will result in a net air quality improvement.

 CALPUFF is a long-range transport model designed to evaluate receptors beyond 50-km and up to 300-km from the project site.  CALPUFF typically requires terrain height data covering an area up to 300-km from the site and 3-years of meteorological data.  CALPUFF is typically used in PSD projects to evaluate the maximum offsite concentrations versus the PSD Class I Increments and to conduct Class I Visibility and Sulfur and Nitrogen Deposition Analyses.  PSD Class I modeling analyses should be conducted in accordance with the Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG) Phase I Report -Revised 2010 (FLAG 2010) guidance document and in close cooperation with the Federal Land Managers (FLM) and state agency air quality modeling experts.

Some air permit application packages require the preparation of Best Available Technology (BAT), Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), Best Available Control Technology (BACT), and/or Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) Studies. 

 GT has extensive experience with the preparation of RACT/BAT/BACT/LAER Studies and associated cost-effectiveness evaluations.

 BAT/RACT Studies are sometimes required for large air contaminant source projects that do not trigger PSD or NNSR.  Typically, BAT is defined as the most cost-effective and technically feasible control technique available for each source category.  BAT must be at least as stringent as an applicable state rule or federal rule such as a New Source Performance Standard (NSPS), National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) or Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT).

 BACT Studies are required for projects that trigger PSD permitting requirements.  BACT is typically equal to or more stringent than BAT or RACT.  BACT Studies are conducted following a rigorous 5-step top down analysis.  Step 1 involves identifying all of the available control technologies.  Step 2 involve eliminating all of the technically infeasible options.  Step 3 involves ranking the remaining technologies in order from most to lease effective.  Step 4 involves eliminating any technologies that are not cost effective.  Step 5 involves the selection of BACT.  Guidance on the preparation of a BACT Study can be found in the Draft October 1990 New Source Review (NSR) Workshop Manual and the August 2017 New Source Review (NSR) Manual published by the Air & Waste Management Association.

 LAER Studies are required for projects that trigger NNSR permitting requirements.  LAER is the most stringent emission limitation derived from: (1) the most stringent emission limitation contained in the implementation plan of any state for such class or category of source unless the proposed stationary source demonstrates that the limit is unachievable; or (2) the most stringent emission limitation achieved in practice by such class or category of source.  LAER is typically equal to or more stringent than BACT.

Any time a new air contaminant source is installed, or an existing air contaminant source is modified, facilities should evaluate which, if any, state and federal rules may be triggered.  GT has extensive experience with conducting regulatory assessments of state and federal rules such as the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standards, and Generally Available Control Technologies (GACT) Standards.

NSPS are found in 40 CFR Part 60; NESHAPs are found in 40 CFR Part 61; and MACT and GACT Standards are found in 40 CFR Part 63.  NSPS regulate criteria pollutants.  NESHAP, MACT and GACT standards regulate HAPs.  MACT Standards only apply to facilities that are major for HAPs while GACT Standards apply to facilities that are non-major for HAPs (area sources of HAPs).

The requirements of a NSPS are triggered by installing a new air contaminant source that is covered by the NSPS or by modifying an existing air contaminant source that is currently not regulated by the NSPS because it was installed prior to the effective date of the standard.  A modification under the NSPS is triggered when the maximum hourly emissions are increased.

The requirements of a MACT or GACT Standards regulate new and existing affected sources.  Existing affected sources are those that are not new affected sources.  New affected sources are those that were installed after the promulgation date of the standard.  The requirements for new affected sources are more stringent than for existing affected sources.  Existing affected sources that undergo reconstruction need to comply with the new affected source requirements upon startup.

GT has extensive experience with preparing Title V permit applications and reviewing and negotiating Title V permit terms and conditions.

Facilities with potential emissions greater than or equal to: 100 ton/yr of a regulated air pollutant (e.g., NO_x, SO₂, VOC, CO, PM₁₀, PM_2.5 and Lead); 10 ton/yr of an individual HAP; or 25 tons/yr of all combined HAPs must obtain a Title V operating permit. 

The federal Title V permitting requirements are found in 40 CFR 70 and Ohio’s Title V permitting requirements are found in OAC Rule 3745-77.  Title V permits are designed to consolidate all installation and construction permits at major sources under one operating permit.  Title V permits are not supposed to add any new substantive requirements.  Title V permits only include permit terms and conditions for significant emission units.  Insignificant emission units are typically just listed in the Title V permit.  Title V permits must be renewed every 5-years.

Title V permits and many installation and construction permits require quarterly, semi-annual, and annual reporting.  Title V permits, at a minimum, require facilities to submit quarterly and semi-annual deviation reports.  Quarterly Title V deviation reports identify deviations of emission limitations, operational restrictions and control device operating parameters.  Semi-annual Title V deviation reports identify deviations of monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting and testing requirements.  Title V Annual Compliance Certifications summarize the quarterly and semi-annual deviation reports and identify any other deviations not previously reported.  Most permits also require facilities to periodically report emissions, production data and/or control device operating parameter data.  GT routinely assists our clients with preparing these reports which frees up the environmental manager’s time to focus on other important responsibilities.

Title V permits, synthetic minor permits, and PSD/NNSR permits normally require a 30-day public comment period.  During this public comment period permit applicants and the public can comment on the terms and conditions of draft permits.  Air permits for true minor facilities likely won’t include an official draft comment period, however, regulatory agencies normally offer the facility an opportunity to review the permit before it is issued final.  It is important that facility’s review their draft permits thoroughly to make sure they are maximizing the facility’s operational flexibility and limiting the facility’s liability.  Typically, GT will be far more up to speed with changes in agency standard permit terms and conditions and in agency permitting policy than most industrial facilities.  Engaging GT to review your draft permits will ensure that you are getting the best permit possible.  Also, submitting written comments on draft permits will provide a solid foundation should the facility decide to appeal the final air permit.

GT often works in conjunction with environmental attorneys on assisting facilities with responding to Notices of Violation (NOV) or US EPA 114 requests.  GT has the technical and regulatory experience necessary to assist attorneys with responding to NOVs and 114 requests.  GT has the technical experience necessary to review facility records before they are submitted to the regulatory agency to make sure the facility’s records are not going to make matters worse.  GT has the regulatory and enforcement support experience necessary to be able to ascertain the basis of the agency’s questions so that technical and legal arguments can be formulated in advance of the regulatory agencies.

GT has the technical, permitting, and regulatory expertise to provide Expert Report and Testimony services to environmental attorneys on air permitting and regulatory compliance matters.

GT does not offer stack testing or emissions measurement services.  However, we do assist clients with: (1) reviewing stack test reports; (2) developing stack testing programs that meet our client’s goals; and (3) managing and witnessing stack test programs.  GT has the stack testing experience necessary to assist clients with selecting the proper test methods; stack test durations and stack testing conditions necessary to meet our clients expectations.

The purpose of this rule is to reduce emissions of Class I and Class II refrigerants and their non-exempt substitutes to the lowest achievable level by maximizing the recapture and recycling of such refrigerants during the maintenance, service, repair, and disposal of appliances and restricting the sale of refrigerants consisting in whole or in part of a Class I or Class II ozone-depleting substance or their non-exempt substitutes.

This rule applies to any person maintaining, servicing, or repairing appliances containing Class I, Class II or non-exempt substitute refrigerants. This subpart also applies to persons disposing of such appliances (including small appliances and motor vehicle air conditioners), refrigerant reclaimers, technician certifying programs, appliance owners and operators, manufacturers of appliances, manufacturers of recovery and/or recycling equipment, approved recovery and/or recycling equipment testing organizations, and persons buying, selling, or offering to sell Class I, Class II, or non-exempt substitute refrigerants.

This rule prohibits any person maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance or industrial process refrigeration from knowingly venting or otherwise releasing into the environment any refrigerant from such appliances.  This rule also regulates the disposal of appliances containing Class I, Class II, and non-exempt substitute refrigerants.

Facilities that use their own employees to maintain their refrigerant systems are subject to all of the requirements of this rule while those who use outside contractors have limited requirements under this rule.  Facilities that utilize outside contractors must ensure that each technician is properly certified to maintain the equipment being serviced.

All technicians that maintain, service, repair or dispose of appliances containing Class I, Class II, or non-exempt substitute refrigerants must pass a certification exam offered by an approved technician certification program.  Below are the different levels of certification:

1. Type I Technician – Small Appliances (≤5 lbs)
2. Type II Technician – Medium-, High-, or Very High-pressure appliances
3. Type III Technician – Low-pressure appliances
4. Universal Technician – Technician that services Type I, II and III appliances.

GT conducts environmental audits for the following reasons:

1. In preparation of a facility purchase or refinance (Due Diligence);
2. Third-party internal audits;
3. Change in company ownership or management; and
4. Follow-up to the identification of a potential environmental violation.

Often buyers of an industrial facility will conduct an environmental compliance audit in addition to a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prior to purchasing a new industrial facility.  A Phase 1 ESA only focuses on the identification of soil or groundwater contamination resulting from past or present petroleum or chemical spills.  Phase 1 ESAs do not evaluate the industrial facility’s compliance with air permitting and regulatory compliance; stormwater and wastewater permitting and compliance; and hazardous waste management requirements. 

A full Environmental Due Diligence Audit should include a Phase 1 ESA and a multi-media environmental permitting and compliance audit.  A multi-media environmental permitting and compliance audit will involve a site visit where the auditor will be looking for unpermitted air and stormwater/wastewater discharges; review of a facility’s air and stormwater/wastewater permits; review of a facility’s monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements; review of state and federal regulatory requirements; and a review of the facility’s hazardous waste management requirements.  A full Environmental Due Diligence Audit that includes a Phase 1 ESA and a multi-media environmental permitting and compliance audit will provide the buyer with the information necessary to evaluate the potential environmental risks and whether funds should be set aside by the seller to cover environmental issues that were caused under the sellers watch.

Many companies have an internal auditing process.  On occasions, companies may also include third-party internal audits as a means of verifying the thoroughness and effectiveness of the company’s internal auditing process.  Often third-party auditors (consulting firms) are engaged by attorneys representing the company.

Often companies will request a multi-media environmental audit following the change in facility ownership or management as a means of establishing an environmental baseline.  After establishing the environmental baseline, the company can focus its efforts on areas of higher risk or areas of perceived weakness.

Often companies will engage GT to conduct a multi-media audit after discovering a potential violation but before reporting the violation to the appropriate regulatory agency.  This is often done to take advantage of the state or federal audit privileged requirements or because the company feels the reporting of the original violation will cause the regulatory agencies to investigate other areas of potential non-compliance.  Self-identifying and reporting environmental non-compliance often results in more favorable treatment by the regulatory agencies.