Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: EBH
Can anyone decipher the legaleze in the attachment to this memo?

http://www.epa.gov/region6/6pd/air/pd-r/objectionletters/flint_hills032610-o1272.pdf

35 posted on 06/03/2010 4:11:54 AM PDT by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]


To: palmer
Here's the reference for the memo attachment legaleze section: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfr63_main_02.tpl
This is basically all the technicalities of what to permit, how to permit, how to grandfather, etc. None of this that I can see applies to CO2 climate change crap. It is all for normal clean air act pollutants such as volatile organic chemicals, etc. Also click on subpart E and search for Texas and you can see that everything is basically delegated to TCEQ.
37 posted on 06/03/2010 4:42:33 AM PDT by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: palmer

Objection 1: The Fed is objecting to the incorporation of a flexible permit to the Title V application. The State Issued permit needs to prove it meets Fed. regulations to be included or the entire Title V permit will be denied. (Business must stop operating until permit is approved).

Objection 2: Looks to be a documentation issue in the permit application. They are also claiming a major source permit is inserted in this section of the permit and should be documented elsewhere in the Title V permit application.

Objection 3: Looks to be a minor source on the permit that has had a revision way back in 1998. EPA is claiming the permit is now not good enough without further documentation.

Objection 4: Again it appears that documentation is missing. For a Title V permit one must present all documentation proving compliance. This may need to be actual testing, pollution control devices installed, etc. There is a certification statement at the end of the section that must be signed by an officer of the company.

Objection 5: Is dealing with point sources on the facility that have been exempt under pollution control standards. This is kind of tricky in that units like these can suddenly be required to have pollution controls mandated under a Title V permit. ALL sources must be accounted for and again, this is a documentation issue that the Feds. will require testing to prove exemption status on a Title V permit.

Objection 6: This is again a failure to properly document which emission sources fall under the regulations stated in the permit application. DETAILS! DETAILS! DETAILS!

Objection 7: More of the same as objection 6, just a different area of the permit application.


I’ve done Title V permits in my career. There is the notice in the front of the letter demanding they submit this information in less than the 90 day compliance time to submit the documentation. This is unreasonable and appears to be excessive. The applicant has the right to take the full 90 days to submit the documentation. The Fed. EPA has no authority to demand it sooner than the law allows.


38 posted on 06/03/2010 4:45:58 AM PDT by EBH (Our First Right...."it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson