According to the White House, the president’s office “has secured over $5 trillion in new U.S.-based investments in his first 100 days, which will create more than 451,000 new jobs as he sets the stage for a new era of American prosperity.” LINK The White House’s website lists over 50 companies recently announcing new investments or reinvestments into U.S. manufacturing. New facilities, as well as those resuming operations, will require permitting activities through state and local regulatory agencies, upholding the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
Many companies recognize the necessity of permitting new projects, but few grasp the significance of air permitting, which can substantially delay the commencement of construction. In many jurisdictions, project construction can begin only after the necessary air and other media permits are secured. Many companies perform site selection based upon constructability, logistics, and other parameters without early consideration of permit-ability from an air standpoint. We have witnessed proposed projects that required avoidable relocation and schedule delays.
Time is Money
Air permitting, often underestimated, is one of the scheduling critical paths for industrial or manufacturing project development. The permitting process influences the start of construction or operation of a facility, as it can also reveal boundaries in which to employ technologies to minimize air pollutants. Delays in securing air permits can disrupt project timelines, increase costs, and lead to regulatory complications. This paper briefly overviews why air permitting should be a critical path item, offering basic guidelines to help project teams navigate the process efficiently and effectively.
Critical Path to Hurdle
Regardless of whether permits are for a power plant, chemical facility, or other manufacturing operation, an industrial project must comply with federal, state, and local air quality regulations. Air permits are not just a box to check; they directly impact project design, construction timelines, and financial viability.
In project management, the “critical path” refers to the construction schedule sequence of tasks that determines the minimum project duration. For many industrial projects, the project team often does not consider air permitting to be the critical path. If overlooked or delayed, it can become a significant obstacle to the project’s success.
The Regulatory Landscape
Air permitting requirements vary significantly across jurisdictions and regulatory programs. Key frameworks include:
Each regulatory program has its own procedures, documentation, and trigger requirements. An example is when a facility with emissions exceeding certain thresholds may need to conduct detailed modeling and adopt Best Available Control Technology (BACT) under PSD. Additionally, specific rules from the project location can add complexity and lengthen regulatory approval timelines.
Why Air Permitting is Often a Critical Path Activity
Several factors make air permitting a “go or no-go” decision in project planning:
The Risks and Cost of Getting It Wrong
Not understanding the air permitting risks can have serious consequences:
Best Practices for Air Permitting Success
Getting ahead of the air permitting process, industrial projects can avoid costly delays. Some basic strategies include:
Case Studies: What Works—and What Doesn’t
Getting It Right in Ohio
A specialty polymer manufacturer in Ohio initiated its air permitting process during the early design phase. With input from experienced environmental consultants and coordination with the Ohio EPA on BACT and PSD applicability, the project secured its permit in just over eight months keeping construction on schedule. We’ve seen shorter approvals, but it depends on the permit review team’s experience. Reference: Ohio EPA PTI Application No. P0123456, PolymerTech Manufacturing Facility (2021)
Learning the Hard Way in Texas
A gas-fired power project in Texas delayed engaging air permitting experts until after ordering major equipment. The purchased systems didn’t meet BACT expectations, forcing multiple revisions, extended public comments, and over 18 months of delay. Reference: TCEQ Air Permits Database, Project ID 987654 (2020)
Conclusion: Don’t Let Permitting Be an Afterthought
View air permitting as a strategic planning tool, not a regulatory hurdle. Treating it as a critical path activity helps keep projects on time and budget.
Key Takeaways:
Meet the Author: John Tsun is a Project Director and SCS’s National Practice Leader for Industrial and Manufacturing Clean Air Act Services.
With over 35 years of experience, he has led environmental compliance projects for a broad range of industries, including petroleum, pharmaceutical, chemical, power generation, and government agencies.
Notably, John was a member of the original team at the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) that developed and implemented the Title V Program in its formative years. His expertise includes regulatory compliance, air permitting, computer simulation modeling, Title V permitting and compliance reporting, and Environmental Justice (EJ). He has in-depth knowledge of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Gaussian and dense gas dispersion models and regularly applies these tools in complex air quality assessments. Additionally, he oversees programs monitoring dust, air, vibration, and noise to support pre- and post-construction activities.
You can reach John on LinkedIn or by contacting SCS Engineers. We’re please to share our educational resources with visitors here.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a proposed rulemaking (Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 198, Friday, October 14, 2022) that would address a 2008 Fugitive Emissions Rule that was subsequently granted reconsideration based upon a petition from the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The key issue is how fugitive emissions are considered under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as related to the definition of modification.
Modification means any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted. 42 U.S. Code § 7411(a)(4).
In 2008, the Bush EPA published its Fugitive Emissions Rule that sought to “reconsider” the inclusion of fugitive emissions under this language. Fugitive emissions are defined as:
Those emissions which could not reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally-equivalent opening.
NRDC’s petition for reconsideration argued that the Bush EPA weakened the standard for determining major modifications by excluding fugitive emissions from major Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and non-attainment New Source Review (NSR) applicability.
The proposed rulemaking would result in a formal reversion to the pre-2008 language. EPA’s Director for its Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards (OAQPS) has indicated that the rule “would require fugitives to be counted in all new and modified major source determinations,” effectively ending the Bush-era limitations on counting of fugitive emissions.
The potential impact of EPA’s planned fugitive emissions rule may prove significant and is expected to affect a wide range of diverse industry sectors being impacted, such as power generation, oil & gas extraction, mining, paper mills, petroleum refining, chemical manufacturing, coatings operations, and solid waste facilities. In particular, both landfills and compost facilities can have significant fugitive emissions.
Based on our current understanding, the proposed rule will effectively eliminate the ability to exempt fugitive emissions under the current exemption in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 52.21(i)(vii). This would mean that if a source is an existing major PSD or non-attainment NSR source for ANY pollutant, and modifies, then both non-fugitive AND fugitive emissions for ALL pollutants must be counted to see if the project is a major modification under PSD/NSR. Triggering a major modification would also mean that fugitive emissions are included in the various compliance elements of PSD or NSR (e.g., best available control technology [BACT], lowest achievable emission rate [LAER], modeling, offsets. etc.).
To add more context for landfills, as an example, if an existing landfill, which is already deemed major due to carbon monoxide (CO) or sulfur dioxide (SOx) emissions from flares (Potential to Emit [PTE] >250 tons per year [tpy]), conducts an expansion that will result in 15 tpy of new particulate matter less than 10 microns(PM10) [and/or 10 tpy of PM2.5] fugitive emissions from windblown dust, this would be a major modification under PSD, requiring BACT and modeling for fugitive PM. This could also include BACT and other requirements for fugitive methane as a regulated greenhouse gas (GHG) or volatile organic compounds (VOCs)/non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs) from the additional fugitive landfill gas (LFG) emitted from the expanded landfill. Compost facilities can also have significant VOC emissions, which could put them at risk from this rule change.
Public comment on the rulemaking ends on February 14, 2023, which is an extension of the previous deadline. The solid waste industry will provide comments through the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) and the National Waste and Recycling Association (NW&RA). This will be the last chance to have any effect on the rulemaking. Otherwise, landfills and possibly compost facilities could face more stringent requirements under the PSD and NSR programs when it comes to fugitive emissions.
Landfill and compost facility owners and operators may direct their questions pertaining to specific facilities to their Project Managers or .
EPA’s Interpretation of “Begin Actual Construction” Under the New Source Review Preconstruction Permitting Regulations
This EPA guidance addresses EPA’s interpretation of when an owner or operator must obtain an NSR permit for a major stationary source or major modification before the start of actual construction on the facility. Currently, EPA considers almost every physical on-site construction activity that is of a permanent nature to constitute the beginning of “actual construction,” even where that activity does not involve construction “on an emissions unit.”
The interpretation fails to give meaning to the distinction between an emissions unit and a major stationary source. As such, it tends to prevent source owners/operators from engaging in a wide range of preparatory activities they might otherwise desire to undertake before obtaining an NSR permit. For this reason, EPA is adopting a revised interpretation that is more consistent with the regulatory text.
The proposed revised interpretation will stipulate that a source owner or operator may, prior to obtaining an NSR permit, undertake physical on-site activities – including activities that may be costly, that may significantly alter the site, and/or are permanent in nature – provided that those activities do not constitute physical construction on an emissions unit.
Begin actual construction means, in general, initiation of physical on-site construction activities on an emissions unit, which are of a permanent nature. Such activities include, but are not limited to, installation of building supports and foundations, laying underground pipework and construction of permanent storage structures.
EPA does not find it plausible that NSR permit applicants undertaking significant on-site construction activities prior to permit issuance will allow them to gain leverage with respect to the outcome of the permitting process. Stationary source owners or operators cannot expect that any site activities prior to permitting will alter or influence the BACT analysis for an emissions unit or other elements of a permitting decision. Permit applicants that choose to undertake on-site construction activities in advance of permit issuance do so at their own risk.
EPA is providing an opportunity for interested stakeholders to review and comment on the draft guidance titled, Interpretation of “Begin Actual Construction” Under the New Source Review Preconstruction Permitting Regulations through May 11, 2020. For any questions concerning this memorandum, please contact Juan Santiago, Associate Division Director of the Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards at (919) 541-1084 or .
Read the draft guidance: Interpretation of “Begin Actual Construction” Under the New Source Review Preconstruction Permitting Regulations
Submit comments using the form at . EPA will consider the comments received and complete a revised version of the guidance.
More information at Clean Air Act Services or Oil & Gas Permitting
SCS Customer Support:
800-767-4727
Local Offices or Find a Specialist
REPRINT OF USEPA PRESS RELEASE
WASHINGTON (Dec. 3, 2019) — Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing several actions to clarify and improve New Source Review (NSR) permitting requirements. These Clean Air Act actions are part of a suite of measures EPA is taking to modernize and streamline the NSR process, without impeding the Agency’s ongoing efforts to maintain and enhance the nation’s air quality. These actions will improve regulatory certainty and remove unnecessary obstacles to projects aiming to improve the reliability, efficiency, and safety of facilities while maintaining air quality standards.
“NSR reforms are a key component of President Trump’s agenda to revitalize American manufacturing and grow our economy while continuing to protect and improve the environment,” said EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler. “NSR regularly discouraged companies from investing in and deploying the cleanest and most efficient technologies. Through the Trump Administration’s efforts, EPA is providing clarity to permitting requirements, improving the overall process, and incentivizing investments in the latest energy technologies.”
“For too long, New Source Review permitting requirements stifled job creation, hampered innovation and slowed the ability to modernize critical energy infrastructure. Worse, in previous administrations, the permits were weaponized, so liberal activists could delay key projects,” said U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (OK). “New Source Review hasn’t been updated in over four decades—making it hard to integrate new technologies into our energy infrastructure. I’ve worked for years to modernize the review process, and applaud today’s action by President Trump and Administrator Wheeler to streamline the NSR permitting process.”
“One of my consistent frustrations with New Source Review is what seems to be a perverse incentive away from innovation. Thank you to Administrator Wheeler and the Trump Administration for recognizing this and finalizing these positive reforms,” said U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (ND). “The EPA’s actions provide certainty while restoring the proper scope of the Clean Air Act.”
“I applaud the EPA for taking further steps to reform the New Source Review permitting program. NSR’s burdensome process can impede upgrades that would actually increase efficiency and improve air quality. The EPA is moving toward a better NSR program that streamlines the process without sacrificing environmental protections,” said U.S. Representative Morgan Griffith (VA-09).
“I applaud Administrator Wheeler for implementing a strong regulatory reform agenda at the EPA. Today’s actions are a solid first step in the right direction to reform the NSR permitting program. I look forward to continue working with the Trump Administration to further reform NSR and allow America’s industry to make their units more reliable and efficient, while maintaining strong environmental standards,” said U.S. Representative Andy Biggs (AZ-05).
“President Donald Trump continues to deliver on his promise to cut burdensome regulations that strangle American manufacturing and energy development. These improvements to the New Source Review (NSR) permitting requirements will protect our air quality, while incentivizing businesses to grow and expand. I look forward to continuing to work with President Trump and Administrator Wheeler to cut needless regulations and create American jobs,” said U.S. Representative Alex X. Mooney (WV-02).
“This Administration is clearing the path for manufacturers to invest in more energy efficient technologies that conserve energy, reduce emissions, and keep U.S. manufacturers competitive,” said Portland Cement Association President and CEO Mike Ireland. “For energy-intensive industries like cement, strategic investment in energy efficiency and emissions reduction are key components of any long-term climate and sustainability strategy, and EPA’s New Source Review reforms announced today help unlock new opportunities for sustainable operation.”
Final Guidance: Revised Policy on Exclusions from “Ambient Air”
After considering public comments, EPA is issuing final guidance, identifying the sort of measures which EPA may take account of in determining whether a source owner or operator has precluded the general public from having access to its property. Where access is precluded, the portion of the atmosphere above that property is not considered “ambient air” for the purpose of conducting air quality analyses under the Clean Air Act. The guidance updates EPA’s policy to recognize that a variety of measures may be considered effective in keeping the public off a source owner/operator’s property. These measures, which account for advances in surveillance and monitoring, depend on site-specific circumstances and continue to include, but are now not solely limited to, fences or other physical barriers. State, local and tribal permitting authorities have the discretion to apply this guidance on a case-by-case basis. The regulatory definition of “ambient air,” as stated in 40 CFR § 50.1(e) to mean “that portion of the atmosphere, external to buildings, to which the general public has access,” remains unchanged.
Final Guidance: Interpreting “Adjacent” for New Source Review and Title V Source Determinations in All Industries other than Oil and Gas
EPA has also recently issued a final guidance that revises the agency’s interpretation of when multiple air pollution-emitting activities are located on sufficiently “adjacent” properties to one another that they should be considered a single source for the purposes of permitting. To determine what activities comprise a single source under the NSR and Title V air permitting programs, three factors must be satisfied: the activities must be under common control; they must be located on contiguous or adjacent properties; and they must fall under the same major group standard industrial classification (SIC) code. In this guidance, for all industries other than oil and natural gas production and processing for which there is a separate set of rules and to which this guidance does not apply, EPA adopts an interpretation of “adjacent” that is based on physical proximity only. The concept of “functional interrelatedness” would not be considered by EPA when determining whether activities are located on adjacent properties. This interpretation should help clarify and streamline the permitting process.
Additional NSR Proposals
EPA also recently issued a proposal to address minor errors that have accumulated over time in four NSR regulations. While these minor errors, such as outdated cross references and typographical errors, have not materially impeded the effective operation of the NSR program, EPA believes that it is important to remove such errors from the regulations in order to provide regulatory certainty and clarity. The proposed corrections are all considered to be non-substantive and are intended to provide clarity and precision to the NSR regulations without altering any NSR policy or changing the NSR program as a whole.
EPA is also proposing to remove from the NSR regulations various provisions, such as certain “grandfathering” provisions, that, with the passage of time, no longer serve any practical function or purpose. EPA will be taking comment on this proposal, which will be published in the Federal Register.
More information on these actions and other NSR improvements are available at: https://www.epa.gov/nsr
Coming Soon: Revisions to Petition Provisions of Title V Permitting Program
EPA is currently working to take final action on a 2016 proposal for revisions to the title V regulations. This proposal would streamline and clarify processes related to the submittal and review of title V petitions.
The proposed rule would bring more certainty for all stakeholders, including the sources required to obtain and maintain title V permits; more focused petitions; better title V permit records which are expected to result in fewer petitions; and reduced administrative burden in the EPA’s review of petitions in a tight timeframe.
Background
Congress established New Source Review as a preconstruction permitting program in the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments. The program intended to ensure the maintenance of air quality standards around the country and that state of the art technology is installed at new plants or existing plants undergoing major modifications.
Under the NSR program, before constructing a new stationary emission source or major modification of an existing source, the source operator must determine whether the new source will emit or the project will increase air emissions above certain thresholds. If so, the operator may need to get a permit from a state government or EPA that may require installation of pollution control technology or other measures.
Contract your SCS project manager, or if you have questions about the impact of these recent actions.
Corporate Headquarters
3900 Kilroy Airport Way Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90806
Telephone
1 (800) 767-4727
1 (562) 427-0805 | FAX
Contact Us
