NOTE: SIMILAR LETTERS WERE SENT TO ALL 6 STATES IN REGION.

January 15, 1997 Ann Foss, Program Administrator Division Programs and Permits Section Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Dear Ms. Foss:

I am writing this letter to all Region 5 States to reaffirm the United States Environmental Protection Agency's ( USEPA) commitment to ensure the integrity of the Clean Air Act's Title V program and the permits issued thereunder. It has come to our attention that there may still be some questions regarding the monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements of the Title V program.

Monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements are important elements of a technically sound and enforceable Title V permit. Section 70.6( a)( 3) of the Title V regulations specifies the standard monitoring and related record keeping and reporting requirements that each Title V permit must contain. One important element of the monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements of Title V is that each permit must contain periodic monitoring sufficient to yield reliable data from the relevant time period that are representative of the source's compliance with the permit, if the underlying applicable requirements do not otherwise specify such monitoring. This provision is commonly referred to as the gap filling provision. Therefore, if the underlying applicable requirements, such as construction permit conditions or State Implementation Plan requirements, do not contain adequate monitoring, record keeping, and reporting provisions sufficient to provide such reliable data, the State must add such provisions in the Title V permit, and these provisions must be located in the federally enforceable section of the permit. This periodic monitoring requirement is a Title V program element, and it exists independent of the USEPA's future actions with respect to the Compliance Assurance Monitoring regulations, which are currently under consideration.

The USEPA has not issued any guidance related to the content or sufficiency of Title V periodic monitoring scenarios, and State permitting authorities have significant discretion to tailor the application of the gap filling requirement in ways that are effective and reasonable. Nonetheless, Title V does require that operating permits include gap filling measures where needed. We have discussed this matter with USEPA Headquarters offices and can confirm that this is their position as well.

Enclosed are some excerpts from recent Wisconsin Title V permits which contain periodic monitoring elements that meet the intent of the Title V provisions. I am using examples from Wisconsin as this State is the furthest along in the actual issuance of Title V permits in Region 5, and Wisconsin's Title V permit format is designed to assure that compliance requirements are included. Please note that these examples are provided to show Wisconsin's approach of addressing the periodic monitoring requirements, and are not comprehensive of all the variations to gap filling that are possible for any given situation. Also, note that many of the specific Wisconsin statutory and regulation citations in column B of these excerpts refer to the state's general authority for establishing gap filling or expand upon underlying general monitoring requirements. These permits are available for viewing on the Internet at the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Gopher site.

As Region 5 works with its States to implement Title V permitting, the presence of periodic monitoring requirements is one area which will receive Regional review. Any permit that does not contain the periodic monitoring provisions as required by 40 CFR 70.6 is subject to an USEPA veto in accordance with the objection provisions in 40 CFR 70.8( c).

I hope this letter and the examples I have provided clarify the Agency's position that periodic monitoring provisions must be contained in all Title V permits, regardless of the underlying regulations. If you or your staff have any questions regarding this information, please feel free to contact Rachel Rineheart, Minnesota Permit Specialist, at ( 312) 886 7017.

Sincerely yours,

/ s/

Stephen Rothblatt, Chief Air Programs Branch Revised Enclosures ( EPA note: Excerpt from Zalk Josephs Fabricators Inc.  Issued April 29, 1996. Additional testing and reporting requirements are included in Section C., Testing and Reporting Requirements Applicable to the Entire Facility, and Part II, General Permit Conditions.) PART I APPLICABLE LIMITATIONS AND SPECIFIC CONDITIONS A. S98/ P03/ C03: Shotblast. Fabric Filter Control. Installed 1979.

POLLUTANT a. LIMITATIONS b. COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATION c. REFERENCE TEST METHODS, RECORDKEEPING AND MONITORING 1. Particulate Matter Emissions ( 1) The emissions may not exceed 6.12 lb/ hr. This is the most restrictive allowable emission rate, based on the equation 0.40 lb/ 1000 lb gas x ( Airflow) scfm x 0.075 lb/ cf x 60 min/ hr, based on a maximum airflow of 3400 acfm and at an exhaust gas temperature that is considered standard conditions. Operation of the baghouse is required in order to allow the facility to comply with this limit. [ § ( 1) The baghouse must be controlling emissions and operating properly at all times shotblasting is being performed. [ § 144.394( 3), Wis. Stat.]

( 2) The pressure drop across the baghouse shall be maintained between 1 and 10 inches of water. [ § NR 439.055( 1)( a), Wis. ( 1) Whenever compliance testing is required, USEPA Method 5, including the condensible backhalf, shall be used. When approved in writing an equivalent test method may be substituted for the required test method. [ § NR 439.06( 1), Wis. Adm. Code] NR 415.05( 1)( o) and ( 2), Wis. Adm. Code] Adm. Code]

( 3) The facility shall perform a weekly inspection of the baghouse to ensure there are no broken/ torn bags which would allow excess emissions. [ § NR 407.09( 1)( c) 1. b., Wis. Adm. Code] ( 2) The facility shall install, operate, calibrate and maintain a pressure drop monitor at the baghouse. [ § NR 439.055( 1), Wis. Adm. Code]

( 3) The pressure drop across the baghouse shall be monitored continuously. [ § NR 439.055( 1)( a), Wis. Adm. Code]

( 4) The facility shall maintain the following records: ( a) A log of the name or initials of the operator performing each weekly baghouse inspection and the time each inspection took place. ( b) A description of any maintenance or repairs of the baghouse that resulted from the inspection. ( c) The daily pressure drop readings. [ § NR 439.04( 1)( d), Wis. Adm. Code] ( EPA note: Excerpt from WIS DOA / Capitol Heat & Power  Issued August 29, 1996. Additional testing and reporting requirements are included in Section E., Testing and Reporting Requirements Applicable to the Entire Facility, and Part II, General Permit Conditions.)

A. S11, B21  Water Tube Boiler with Traveling Grate Stoker  ( Continued)

POLLUTANT a. LIMITATIONS b. COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATION METHODS c. REFERENCE TEST METHODS, RECORDKEEPING, AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 2. Sulfur Dioxide ( 1) 7.0 pounds per million Btu heat input. This more restrictive sulfur dioxide limitation corresponds the limitation on the sulfur content of the coal of not greater than 0.95 percent by weight. [ s. NR 418.03( 1)( a), Wis. Adm. Code]

( 2) The maximum sulfur content of the coal used may not exceed 0.95 percent by weight. Conditions carried over from U. S. EPA order number EPA 5 88 113A( a) 29, which expired June 9, 1991. [ ss. 144.394( 3) and 144.393( 1)( a), Wis. Stats.] ( 1) Compliance emission tests of boiler B21 shall be conducted every 24 months as long as this permit remains valid. Each biennial test shall be performed within 90 days of the anniversary date of the issuance of this permit or within 90 days of an alternate date specified by the Department in writing. These compliance emission tests shall be conducted to demonstrate compliance with the sulfur dioxide emission limit in condition I. A. 2. a.( 1). This testing shall be conducted while operating at 100% capacity as limited by condition I. A. 1. a.( 2). This testing shall be conducted in accordance with condition I. F. 2. a.( 1). Stack testing at operating loads in ( 1) Reference Test Method for Sulfur Dioxide Emissions: Whenever compliance emission testing is required, US EPA Method 6 shall be used to demonstrate compliance. [ s. NR 439.06( 2)( a), Wis. Adm. Code]

( 2) Reference Test Method for the Sulfur Content in Coal: Whenever the sulfur content of a coal sample is required, it shall be determined according to ASTM D3177 89, Standard Test Methods for Total Sulfur in the Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke, or ASTM D4239 93, Standard Test Methods for Sulfur in the Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke Using High Temperature Tube Furnace Combustion excess of the load limitation set forth in condition I. A. 1. a.( 2), shall be approved by the Department in writing prior to testing. [ ss. NR 439.07 and NR 439.075( 2)( a) 2. and ( 3)( b), Wis. Adm. Code]

( 2) To demonstrate compliance status with the sulfur content limitation in condition I. A. 2. a.( 2), the permittee shall perform coal sampling and analysis according to the quarterly fuel sampling and analysis requirements outlined in conditions I. F. 1. a.( 1) and ( 2). [ ss. NR 439.085( 2)( c) and ( d) and NR 407.09( 1)( c) 1. a., Wis. Adm. Code] Methods. [ s. NR 439.08( 1)( c), Wis. Adm. Code]

( 3) The permittee shall prepare, submit and retain copies of the quarterly fuel sampling and analysis reports required by conditions I. E. 1. a.( 1) and ( 2). [ ss. NR 439.085( 2)( c) and ( d), and NR 439.04( 1)( d), Wis. Adm. Code]

( EPA note: Excerpt from WIS DOA / Capitol Heat & Power  Issued August 29, 1996. Additional testing and reporting requirements are included in Section E., Testing and Reporting Requirements Applicable to the Entire Facility, and Part II, General Permit Conditions.)

C. S11, B23  Industrial Water Tube Type Boiler rated at 104.5 mmBtu/ hour  installed 1971 POLLUTANT a. LIMITATIONS b. COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATION METHODS c. REFERENCE TEST METHODS, RECORDKEEPING, AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 1. Particulate Matter Emissions ( 1) 0.60 pounds per million Btu heat input to the stack. [ s. NR 415.06( 1)( a), Wis. ( 1) Natural gas and # 2 fuel oil are the only fuels that may be fired in this boiler. Because the ( 1) Reference Test Method for Particulate Matter Emissions: Whenever compliance emission Adm. Code] maximum theoretical emissions while firing these fuels are less than the allowable limit of 0.60 pounds per million Btu heat input, limiting the types of fuels used is adequate to demonstrate compliance with the particulate matter emission limit. Maximum theoretical particulate matter emissions were calculated using an emission factor of 2.0 pounds per thousand gallons of # 2 fuel oil fired from AP 42. [ ss. NR 407.09( 1)( c) 1. b., Wis. Adm. Code and 144.394( 3) and 144.393( 1)( a), Wis. Stats.] testing is required, US EPA Method 5, including condensible backhalf emissions, shall be used to demonstrate compliance. [ s. NR 439.06( 1), Wis. Adm. Code]

( 2) The permittee shall retain on site, plans and specifications of the boiler. These plans and specifications are sufficient because the boilers are designed to only burn natural gas and # 2 fuel oil. [ s. NR 439.04( 1)( d), Wis. Adm. Code]

2. Sulfur Dioxide ( 1) The sulfur content of the # 2 fuel oil used may not exceed 0.5 percent by weight. [ s. NR 418.03( 1)( c) 1., Wis. Adm. Code] ( 1) For each shipment of # 2 fuel oil received, the permittee shall require sampling and analysis for the sulfur content of the # 2 fuel oil. [ s. NR 407.09( 1)( c) 1. b., Wis. Adm. Code] ( 1) Reference Test Method for Sulfur Dioxide Emissions: Whenever compliance emission testing is required, US EPA Method 6 shall be used to demonstrate compliance. [ s. NR 439.06( 2)( a), Wis. Adm. Code]

( 2) Reference Test Method for Sulfur Content in Liquid Fossil Fuel: Whenever the sulfur content of a liquid fossil fuel sample is require, it shall be determined according to ASTM D129 91, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products ( General