Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Interoffice Memorandum To: Permit Engineers Date: March 10, 1997 From: Victoria Hsu, P.E., Director, New Source Review Permitting Division Subject: Permit Renewal Requirements Senate Bill 1125, which was passed in the 74th legislative session, states that the commission may not impose conditions more stringent than the existing permit unless the commission determines more stringent conditions are necessary to avoid a condition of air pollution or to ensure compliance with other state and federal air quality control requirements. This legislation also addressed when the commission may consider a request for a hearing on a renewal or amendment reasonable; however, this aspect of the legislation is not specifically addressed in this memo. Any requests for a hearing on a renewal should be deferred to the Legal Division for consideration of the "reasonableness of the request" in accordance with the procedural rules (30TAC 263). Regulation VI, 30 TAC Chapter 116, has been amended to incorporate changes in the renewal requirements per SB 1125. The corresponding guidance document, "Technical Guidance Package for Permit Renewals," has also been revised. The purpose of this memo is to clarify the legislative intent as it applies to renewals and to address issues that were not specifically considered in the guidance document. For a facility to be granted a permit, the owner or operator must demonstrate that the facility will comply with the rules and regulations and the intent of the TCAA. Once the permit is granted, it is assumed that the original demonstration is valid unless the commission concludes a condition of air pollution exists due to the operation of the facility under consideration of renewal. Therefore the language contained in 116.310 was specifically written to refocus the permit renewal requirement on compliance with the facility's permit or any applicable regulatory requirements to which the facility may be subject. For a facility which is operating in substantial compliance with its permit and for which there are no complaints from the surrounding community, the permit should be renewed without requiring additional controls or permit conditions. This also means the traditional demonstration of impacts through modeling is not a requirement for obtaining a permit renewal unless there are specific violations or a history of complaints associated with the operation of the facility. Compliance problems and/or complaints should be brought to the attention of the team leader/section manager to determine if additional conditions or controls are warranted pursuant to SB 1125. The renewal review is intended to continue the operation for which a permit was originally sought. It is not intended to authorize changes in operation, physical modifications or construction of new facilities. The permit engineer should do a thorough evaluation of the file to ascertain that the original design and operation of the facility is not being modified with the renewal submittal. Such changes would require alternative authorization through standard permit, standard exemption or permit amendment. This alternative authorization does not include authorizing changes made prior to May 19, 1995 with the claim they would not today be considered a modification pursuant SB 1126. During permit renewal reviews there are occasions in which there is no established allowable table or air contaminants and/ or sources are missing. For permits that were issued without a Maximum Allowable Emission Rate Table (MAERT), the emissions from the facility undergoing renewal should be quantified and a MAERT created to accurately reflect the facility's operation. If a permit was issued with a MAERT but a facility or air contaminant was omitted, the associated emissions should be quantified based on the original design criteria using current calculation methodologies and good engineering judgement and added to the MAERT. The MAERT should also be updated to reflect current calculation methods and to roll in any standard exemption authorizations or standard permits that may apply. The inclusion of omitted facilities, increased emission levels or new air contaminants on the MAERT may require additional evaluation to ensure that the permit is being protective as well as to determine the applicability of any federal permitting programs. The reviewing engineer should make an initial determination on whether additional analysis is needed for the increase in potential to emit. Generally, if the net emission increases are below the 25/250 tpy limit they will not be considered significant. Standard exemptions and standard permits should not be included in the assessment of the significance limit, but rather rolled into the permit without review. The standard exemption, "cumulative effects" focus group will be examining this practice and may recommend changes to this policy in the future. If the net emission increases are above the significance level, the engineer should evaluate best available control technology, the associated off property impact and any federal implications, consistent with the review that would have been conducted when the permit was originally sought.