Thank you for your replies to my original query posed below regarding exclusion of "initial fill" from the total annual consumption and from the rolling 12-month PERC purchases. FYI, I have provided a summary/snipets of the responses received.

We (Joni and I) are currently assisting a small dry cleaner. I will be sitting in on an enforcement meeting scheduled for next Monday August 13, 2007. One of the violations listed in the Notice of Violation for them is an exceedance in annual PERC purchases which can be partially explained by the businesses use of initial fill to his "reconfigured" machine. (He took two machines and used one for parts to make one machine)

Where I could use your help is in identifying where in the EPA Rule or Policy it states that the initial fill of PERC is not used in calculating the total annual consumption of PERC and/or that it is not added to the 12-month rolling total purchases of PERC. I have heard from Nick M. that this consideration of initial fill was added as an addendum/amendment to the MACT, and/or added as an EPA policy about one year after the final rule, I just need some assistance in locating it. Joni/I have checked in the 1993 MACT and in the new rule and can't find it.

Elizabeth Sapio
Environmental Agriculture Program and Small Business Ombudsman
Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80246-1530
Phone: 303-692-2135
Fax: 303-782-4969
E-Mail: elizabeth.sapio@state.co.us
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/ap/sbap/index.html

*******************************************************************************
Here are the replies from the list serve, separated by a line of asterisks:
*******************************************************************************
The simplest thing to do is call Warren Johnson at EPA at OAQPS, he is in charge of the Dry Cleaning Rule. He is usually there until 5:30 EST. (919) 541-5124

Richard G. Rasmussen
Director, Small Business Assistance Program
Air Division
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
(Note New Mailing Address)
P. O. Box 1105
Richmond, VA 23218-1105
(800) 592-5482 ext. 4394 (in-state only)
(804) 698-4394
Fax: (804) 698-4264
rgrasmussen@deq.virginia.gov

TOOLS
Virginia Small Business Assistance Program Website
National Small Business Assistance Program Resource
Virginia Comprehensive Assistance Network - VACan
DEQ Innovative Technology Website

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subparts: Part 63, M Perc Dry Cleaning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References: 63.320(g) 63.320(h)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract:
Q1: Will EPA consider a facility that does not have a permit limiting its potential to emit below the major source threshold before the first compliance date of the dry cleaner MACT an area source if the facility can demonstrate that it maintained its consumption of perc below the major source threshold in the dry cleaner MACT?

A1: Yes. EPA intended that the the dry cleaner MACT provide the method for identifying major sources under both the MACT program and Title V. However, the facility must reconcile reported VOC emissions that indicate perc consumption almost double the threshold.

This is a corrected version of the letter I sent you on October 17, 2001, which inadvertently omitted several lines of text. This letter responds to your May 23, 2001, letter requesting clarification on the applicability of the perchloroethylene (perc) dry cleaner standard, 40 CFR part 63, subpart M (dry cleaner MACT), to Leather Rich, Inc. of Oconomowoc, Wisconsin. Specifically, you requested a United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) determination on whether this facility is a major or
area source under the dry cleaner MACT. As explained below, the U.S. EPA believes that Leather Rich could be an area source, if certain supporting information is provided.

Leather Rich sent a letter to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) dated October 8, 1993, requesting an annual usage permit limit of 2,100 gallons of perc in order to maintain its status as a non-major source under the dry cleaner MACT. The WDNR issued Leather Rich a construction permit on October 12, 1993, with a potential-to-emit (PTE) limit of 17 tons per year (TPY) for volatile organic compounds (VOC). The permit did not reflect the request for the perc usage limit and apparently neither the WDNR nor the source followed up on the request.

Discussion between our offices suggested that, since the facility did not have a permit limiting its perc PTE below the major source level of 10 TPY before the first compliance date of the dry cleaner MACT, the facility could be subject to the MACT in accordance with the "Once In, Always In" policy set forth in the May 16, 1995, U.S. EPA memorandum entitled "Potential to Emit for MACT Standards -- Guidance on Timing Issues".

Our conclusion regarding applicability of the "Once In, Always In" policy is that in this case the dry cleaner MACT provides for a specific method to determine source status. The applicability section of the dry cleaner MACT, 40 CFR 63.320(g), states in pertinent part, "In lieu of measuring a facility's potential to emit perchloroethylene emissions or determining a facility's potential to emit perchloroethylene emissions, a dry cleaning facility is a major source if: (1) It includes only dry-to-dry machine(s) and has a total yearly perchloroethylene consumption greater than 8,000 liters (2,100 gallons) as determined according to 63.323(d)...."

It was the intent of the U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) to create a mechanism for smaller facilities to determine their applicability with ease, while granting a measure of regulatory certainty. The January 30, 1997, OAQPS memorandum entitled "Major Source Determinations for Dry Cleaners" states, "Those sources
limiting their perc usage to less than ... 2100 gallons (dry-to-dry machines) are considered area sources as indicated in section 63.320(h)." Therefore, if a facility using dry-to-dry machines can successfully demonstrate that it has always consumed less than 2,100 gallons of perc per year, the facility qualifies for status under the rule as an area
source. The memorandum further states that OAQPS intended that the dry cleaner MACT provide the method for identifying major sources under both the MACT program and Title V. Therefore, the MACT consumption applicability threshold applies for Title V purposes as well.

Leather Rich uses dry-to-dry machines. The facility states in its December 14, 1993, letter to the WDNR that the annual usage of perc solvent should not exceed 1,700 gallons in 1994. In addition, Leather Rich has submitted documentation that, since 1994, its 12-month rolling total consumption has always been less than 2,100 gallons per year. A fact that has yet to be reconciled with Leather Rich's stated intention to use less than 1,700 gallons of perc in 1994, is that the source reported to the WDNR that its
1994 VOC emissions were 19.2 tons. In developing the dry cleaner MACT, U.S. EPA determined that some of the total perc used is disposed of as waste and that staying under the threshold value of 2,100 gallons consumed per year ensures that perc emissions are less than 10 tons per year. To emit 19.2 tons of perc in 1994, the facility would have had to consume about 1.92 times the 2,100 gallon threshold, or over 4,000 gallons of perc that year. If this fact is found to be in error, the facility may yet successfully claim it has remained an area source.

The facility did have a one-time purchase of 2,255 gallons of perc for initial start-up in 1993. Region 5 discussed this matter with OAQPS staff, who indicated that the consumption thresholds are intended to be surrogates for annual perc emissions which determine source status. The initial fill does not indicate perc emissions, since perc has been neither consumed nor emitted. Only perc added to the machine after the initial fill reflects perc consumption and perc emissions. Therefore, the initial fill does not count in establishing the MACT and Title V applicability status.

If the facility demonstrates that VOC emissions reported in 1994 were in error or that these emissions were not indicative of perc emissions, and that perc usage was below the 2,100 gallon threshold, the U.S. EPA would conclude, based on the accuracy of other facts already presented, that Leather Rich is an area source, not a major source, under both the dry cleaner MACT and Title V.

If the source truly emitted 19.2 tons of perc in 1994, then it violated its 1993 permit limit of 17 tons, has not represented its perc purchases accurately in this matter, and has been, and continues to be, in violation of major source requirements of the dry cleaner MACT and Title V.

*****************************************************************************
If you are still trying to locate information on EPA's policy regarding initial fill, the EPA's Applicability Determination Index may help. You
can search it by going to the following website: http://cfpub.epa.gov/adi/
Add the search criteria for Subpart (Part 63, M - Perc Dry Cleaning)
Click "Display/Submit Query"
Click "Submit Query"
Click on the selection for Control Number "M020001" (Dry Cleaner Major
Source Threshold, October 23, 2001)

****************************************************************************
I was able to find the attached EPA Air Docket which talks about exceedences of the perc consumption limits found in the NESHAP. On page 3, the last 3 paragraphs define what an episodic exceedance is and how, if it is determined to be episodic, it will not affect the regulatory status of the source.

I don't know how much this will help you with regards to the enforcement action and meeting, but it looks to me like if the owner can prove this is a one time "episodic" exceedance of the limit and does not happen on a regular basis that it can be done.

*****************************************************************************
I've attached the guidance you are looking for. It's actually a memo from the U.S. EPA, which allows exceedances of the perc consumption levels in specific instances that are considered to be "episodic" (i.e., not likely to be repeated on a frequent basis). I know I got it off the web but I can't remember where exactly. If you need to know I'm sure I could find it.