EPA-450/2-76-003
February 1976
(OAQPS No. 1.2-036)
GUIDELINE SERIES
GUIDELINES
FOR EVALUATING
SUPPLEMENTARY CONTROL
SYSTEMS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
EPA-450/2-76-003
(OAQPS No. 1.2.-036)
GUIDELINES
FOR EVALUATING
SUPPLEMENTARY CONTROL
SYSTEMS
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
February 1976
-------
This document does not constitute a general endorsement of
supplementary control systems as a control alternative. It is intended
only to assist the responsible control agencies in those limited
situations where legislation, EPA or the courts permit its use.
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to
report technical data of interest to a limited number of readers.
Copies are available free of charge to Federal employees, current con-
tractors and grantees, and nonprofit organizations - as supplies
permit - from the Air Pollution Technical Information Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; or, for a fee, from the National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
Publication No. EPA-450/2-76-003
-------
PREFACE
The purpose of this document is to provide guidance in evalua-
ting the technical aspects of a supplementary control system (SCS).
It is intended for use in conjunction with other key EPA documents
concerned with SCS; particularly: EPA, September 1975; EPA, October
1975; EPA, February 18, 1976; and EPA, 1976a. This document should
be referred to as early as possible in the development phase of a
supplementary control system, although it should serve as a useful
reference at any stage of SCS development.
The document is intended for use by the control agency and by
the user or prospective user of an SCS. Section 1 presents an over-
view of SCS and discusses the responsibilities of the control agency
and the SCS user. Section 2 describes the basic elements and functions
of an SCS. Sections 3 through 5 provide guidance for the control
agency in evaluating the SCS application, the SCS background study
report, and the SCS operational manual submitted by the source. A
brief discussion of the enforcement aspects of SCS is presented in
Section 6. Detailed information on meteorological conditions con-
ducive to high ground-level concentrations and a listing of the in-
formation that should be included in the SCS application and back-
ground study report are presented in two appendices.
-------
It is assumed in these guidelines that a source using SCS will
be required to accept legal responsibility for ambient S02 concen-
trations that occur within a designated liability area. The specific
manner in which the source is to be considered responsible for air
quality will be dictated by regulations applicable to the source.
Credit for the original version of this document is gratefully
extended to the H.E. Cramer Company, Inc. (Contract No. 68-02-1392).
Recent events regarding SCS have necessitated subsequent revisions.
The document was prepared under the direction of Mr. Laurence Budney,
EPA project officer, and under the general supervision of Mr. Herschel
Slater, Chief, Source Receptor Analysis Branch, OAQPS, EPA. Figure A-3
of Appendix A is reproduced from "Recommended Guide for the Prediction
of the Dispersion of Airborne Effluents, Second Edition" (1973) by
permission of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page No.
PREFACE iii
DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS vii
1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Background 1-1
1.2 Control Agency Responsibilities 1-5
1.3 Sequence of Steps for Implementing
Supplementary Control Systems 1-7
2 BASIC FUNCTIONS AND ELEMENTS OF A SUPPLEMENTARY
CONTROL SYSTEM 2-1
2.1 Open-Loop Control of Stack Emissions 2-1
2.2 Closed-Loop Control of Stack Emissions 2-5
2.3 The Data Storage Function 2-7
2.4 The System Upgrade Function 2-9
3 APPLICATION TO USE A SUPPLEMENTARY CONTROL SYSTEM 3-1
3.1 Description of the Facility 3-1
3.2 Qualification as an Isolated Source 3-2
3.3 Effectiveness of the Proposed Supplementary
Control System 3-5
4 EVALUATION OF THE BACKGROUND STUDY 4-1
4.1 Air Quality Monitoring Network 4-1
4.2 Emission Monitoring and Prediction Capability 4-4
4.3 Operating Model 4-5
4.4 Meteorological Network 4-6
4.5 Meteorological Forecasting 4-8
4.6 Data Storage System 4-9
4.7 System Upgrading Procedures 4-10
5 EVALUATION OF THE OPERATIONAL MANUAL 5-1
6 ASSESSMENT OF SUPPLEMENTARY CONTROL SYSTEM
ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS 6-1
7 REFERENCES 7-1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Title Page No.
APPENDIX
A METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS AND OTHER FACTORS
CONDUCIVE TO HIGH GROUND-LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS A-l
A.I Factors Leading to High Ground-Level Concen-
trations from Stack Emissions A-l
A.2 Factors Leading to High Ground-Level Concen-
trations from Low-Level or Fugitive Emissions A-12
B ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED IN SUPPLEMENTARY CONTROL SYSTEM
APPLICATION AND BACKGROUND STUDY REPORT B-l
B.I Application B-2
B.2 Background Study Report B-4
VI
-------
DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS
The key terms used in this document are defined as follows:
Air Quality - Ground-level pollutant concentrations and their tempo-
ral and spatial distributions
Air Quality Monitoring Network - An array of continuous sampling
stations that measure air quality. Ideally, these stations should
be located at points where high ground-level concentrations are most
likely to occur (see Section 4.1)
Air Quality Violation - The occurrence* of an ambient S0? concentra-
tion that exceeds an ambient air quality standard for S02 at any
point within a designated liability area
Background Study - The collection and analysis of source, meteoro-
logical, and air quality data for the purpose of developing the SCS
operational procedures (see Section 1.3).
Closed-Loop Mode of Operation - The SCS operational mode in which
emission control decisions are based upon real-time measurements by
the air quality monitoring network (see Section 2.2)
Compliance Schedule - A specification of the date or dates by which
a source is required to comply with specific emission limitations
* In the case of the national ambient air quality standards for S0?, it is
recommended that (1) running averages be used to determine the occurrence
or non-occurrence of violations and (2) the concentrations specified for the
3-hour and 24-hour standards should not be exceeded more than one time per
year in the designated liability area. This means that two or more non-
overlapping excursions above either concentration should constitute "air qual
ity violations," whether the excursions occur at the same or different moni-
tors. It is important to recognize the distinction between this interpreta-
tion of the national standards for SCS applications and the recommended in-
terpretation that has been commonly applied for AQCRs (EPA, August 1974).
-------
and with requirements for SCS or other measures contained
in an implementation plan. The compliance schedule may also
include dates by which a source is required to achieve
specified increments of progress toward such compliance
(see Section 1.3)
Constant Emission Control (CEC) - The continuous limitation
of SQy emissions from a stack through techniques such as stack
gas cleaning or use of low sulfur fuel
Control Decision - The decision as to whether or not to cur-
tail emissions. Emissions are curtailed whenever a curtail-
ment criterion is met (see Section 2)
Controlled Emissions - The SCu emission rate resulting from
the control decision
Control Strategy - The use of constant emission control in
combination with the additional control measures necessary
to assure the attainment and maintenance of air quality stan-
dards. Additional control measures include, but are not
necessarily limited to, SCS, process changes, and reduction of
low-level fugitive emissions
Curtailment Criteria - The criteria (predesignated thres-
hold concentrations and meteorological conditions) upon
which emission curtailment decisions are based (see
Sections 2.1 and 2.2)
Data Storage - Synchronous records of meteorological data,
emission data, dispersion model predictions, control
viii
-------
decisions and measured air quality. The records must be
available for control agency review and for system upgrade
(see Section 2.3)
Designated Liability Area (DLA) - The geographic area
within which ambient air quality may be significantly
affected by SCL emissions from the source and wherein the
source accepts responsibility for maintaining ambient air
quality standards for SO^ (see Section 3.2)
Dispersion Model - A mathematical model that relates
meteorological data, emission rates, other source data
and terrain factors to air quality in the vicinity of
the source
Effective Stack Height - The sum of (1) the physical
stack height above grade and (2) the rise of the plume
center!ine after leaving the stack. The latter is due to
the plume's initial vertical momentum and buoyancy
Emission Monitors -A system for the monitoring and re-
cording of SOo emission rates (see Section 4.2)
Fugitive Emissions - Emissions that are not discharged
through stacks, but escape to the atmosphere from plant
buildings and vents because of leaks or the failure
to capture emissions at all stages of production (see
Appendix A)
IX
-------
Isolated Source - A source sufficiently remote from other
significant sources such that it can and will accept respon-
sibility for attaining and maintaining ambient air quality
standards for SOp within a designated liability area
(see Section 3.2)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)- The primary
NAAQS for SCL are a 24-hour average concentration of 365 micro-
grams per cubic meter (not to be exceeded more than once per
year) and a maximum annual average concentration of 80 micro-
grams per cubic meter; the secondary NAAQS for SCL is a 3-hour
concentration of 1300 micrograms per cubic meter (not to be
exceeded more than once per year)
Open-Loop Mode of Operation - The SCS operational mode in
which emission control decisions are based on calculations
using the operating model in conjunction with either real-
time or projected meteorological and emission data (see
Section 2.1)
Operating Model - The key element in the open-loop mode of
SCS operation. The model generates the information (viz.,
estimates of existing or predicted air quality or meteoro-
logical conditions) necessary for the open-loop control de-
cision (see Sections 2.1 and 4.3)
Operational Manual - A detailed description of the SCS opera-
tional procedures and the curtailment criteria developed dur-
ing the background study. The operational manual identifies
the SCS responsibilities of specific company personnel
(see Section 5)
-------
Supplementary Control System (SCS) - A system by which S02
emissions are curtailed during periods when meteorological
conditions conducive to ground-level concentrations in excess
of ambient standards for S02 either exist or are anticipated
(see Section 1.1)
System Upgrade - The continuous and systematic evaluation of
the SCS elements and their interrelation in order to improve
the reliability of the SCS in maintaining ambient standards for
S02; the data-storage function is a prerequisite for fulfilling
this SCS function (see Section 2.4)
Threshold Concentration - A measured or predicted short-term
S02 concentration and/or rate of change of concentration that
serves as an indicator of a potential violation of an ambient
S02 standard. As such, it serves as an emission curtailment
criterion
Time Delay - The time elapsed between the emission control
decision and the time that the reduction in emissions begins
to affect ambient air quality. This delay is equal to the
sum of the time required to achieve the reduced emission level
and the time required for the atmospheric transport of the re-
duced emissions to the point of the maximum ground-level con-
centration (see Section 2.1)
xi
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Through a supplementary control system (SCS), stack emissions of
S02 are curtailed during periods when meteorological conditions condu-
cive to ground-level concentrations in excess of ambient air quality
standards for S02 exist or are anticipated. If certain prerequisites
are met, as discussed in the following sections, an SCS may be effec-
tively used by certain types of sources as a means to avoid the con-
travention of air quality standards. However, there are limitations
inherent in supplementary control systems, particularly with regard
to enforcement difficulties, the subjectivity inherent in such systems,
and the fact that SCS relies upon emission dispersion rather than
emission reduction. Due to those limitations, SCS will be permitted
only in certain restricted situations where "achievable" constant
emission control has been applied but is still inadequate to assure the
attainment and maintenance of ambient standards for S02. Regulations
will dictate the specific circumstances under which SCS may be applied.
An important restriction on the use of SCS arises from the fact
that the source should be sufficiently isolated from other large S02
sources such that measured S02 levels in the area affected by emissions
from the source may be attributed to that source. If this condition
is not satisfied, it may be exceedingly difficult for the control
1-1
-------
agency to determine which source is responsible for any given contra-
vention of an air quality standard. The geographic area in which
ambient air quality may be significantly affected by the SOo emissions
from a single, large stationary source, such as a nonferrous smelter
or coal-fired electrical generating plant may range in extent from
on the order of a hundred to a thousand square kilometers. It follows
that SCL sources located close to other large stationary sources will
not meet the isolated-source requirement for SCS.
The SCS concept of curtailing pollutant emissions during periods
of adverse meteorological conditions (i.e., conditions conducive to
excessively high ground-level concentrations) is not new. Historically,
nonferrous smelter emissions of S02 were curtailed in the Salt Lake Valley
of Utah during the 1920's and in the Columbia River Valley near Trail,
British Columbia during the 1930's to reduce damage to vegetation. In
recent years, considerable effort has been expended by certain large
nonferrous smelters and coal-fired electrical generating plants to
develop and operate supplementary control systems for the purpose of pre-
venting ground-level SO? concentrations from exceeding ambient air quality
standards. As a result of this effort, much has been learned about the
design and operation of such systems as well as their effectiveness in
maintaining air quality standards. This recent experience demonstrates
that the use of SCS may substantially reduce the number of violations
of the 3-hour and 24-hour national ambient SCL standards. At the same
time, it is clear that the success of SCS in attaining and maintaining
the NAAQS for SCL poses a number of highly complex technical and logis-
tical problems.
1-2
-------
The technical problems posed by SCS arise in part from the fact
that many of the operational details of the system are affected by
meteorological factors, topographic features and factors uniquely iden-
tified with the source in question. The meteorological factors include
wind circulation patterns and atmospheric stability conditions con-
trolling the transport and dispersion of stack discharges. Topographic
features include prominent terrain elements that channel or block the
normal airflow or induce vortices that affect the dispersion of stack
plumes. Source factors include, in addition to the usual stack para-
meters (stack height, exit velocity, exit temperature, effluent
composition and density, and pollutant discharge rate), fugitive
emissions, plant layout of buildings and other structures that may
produce aerodynamic effects on the effluent plume, and process details
that determine the rate of emission curtailment. Other SCS technical
problems include the selection and operation of an atmospheric dis-
persion model that accurately relates stack emissions to ambient air
quality; the design and operation of automated air quality monitoring
networks, meteorological measurement networks, and data-acquisition,
-processing, -storage and -retrieval systems. The meteorological
factors involved in SCS have only been partially quantified and, in
most cases, the meteorological data required to design an SCS are not
available. Furthermore, the number of professional meteorologists
with extensive training and experience in SCS applications is limited.
At some sources, SCS will simply not be feasible due to insur-
mountable technical problems. For example, the source may not be
technically capable of curtailing emissions fast enough (or to the
1-3
-------
degree necessary) to protect ambient air quality. In other cases, due
to the frequency of adverse dispersion conditions, an unacceptably high
frequency of emission curtailments would be dictated to meet short-term
air quality standards. In some cases, the long-term curtailment of
plant production required to meet annual ambient standards would render
operation of the facility economically unfeasible. A large SCL emitter
in a poor-dispersion valley situation could easily fall into the latter
category.
Logistical problems associated with SCS include decisions as to
the total funds and personnel that should be committed to SCS; the
allocation of funds and personnel to the various SCS functions; the
specific types of equipment to be used for air quality monitoring and
for network meteorological measurements; and the minimum time required
for the design, procurement, installation, staffing and operational
checkout of SCS. Experience to date indicates that the initial capital
investment for a typical SCS is on the order of a half to one-million
dollars; the annual SCS operating cost is approximately a third of a
million dollars and approximately 6 to 8 full-time personnel are re-
quired to operate the SCS (2 to 4 meteorologists, 2 instrument
specialists and 2 data-processing specialists); and the minimum time
required for SCS design, procurement, installation and operational
checkout varies from one to two years. The above estimates are very
rough and are presented only to indicate the general magnitude of the
SCS costs and the time required to implement SCS assuming no prior
development or SCS operational experience.
1-4
-------
1.2 CONTROL AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES
Air pollution control agencies have four major areas of responsi-
bility with regard to the use of SCS as a supplemental measure for
limiting S02 emissions by a source within their jurisdiction. These
areas are:
Establishment of criteria that a source must meet in order
to be considered eligible to use SCS
Evaluation of SCS applications on a case-by-case basis to
determine the justification for SCS and the feasibility of
using SCS to attain and maintain ambient SOp standards.
Surveillance of SCS operations and enforcement of applicable
regulations
Periodic review of SCS performance
Before a source can use SCS, it should submit the following
documents to the responsible control agency for approval:
A comprehensive statement (SCS application) justifying the
need for SCS as a measure to limit S0£ emissions and providing
evidence that air quality standards could be attained through
the use of SCS
1-5
-------
t A background study report that documents the field monitoring
program (see Section 1.3), describes the SCS, and demonstrates
that ambient air quality standards will be attained through
the use of SCS
An operational manual for the SCS containing a complete
description of all SCS components, the procedures to be used
- in operating and maintaining the SCS, the specific steps to be
followed in curtailing emissions, and the specific criteria
upon which curtailment decisions are based
The above documents are discussed in Sections 3, 4, 5 and Appendix B.
It is the responsibility of the control agency to evaluate those
documents to determine if SCS is justified and if the proposed system
is a feasible means for meeting air quality standards.
In order to fulfill the requirements for SCS surveillance and
enforcement, the responsible control agency should have access to all
SCS operational data possessed by the source and should be authorized
to inspect and check the performance of all equipment and monitors
associated with the SCS. In addition, regulations may require the
control agency to ascertain whether or not the curtailment procedures
specified in the SCS operational manual are being followed. The
control agency activities and responsibilities with respect to SCS
surveillance and enforcement are clearly much more extensive and more
costly than those required for sources that rely solely upon constant
emission control. If appropriate, the control agency should evaluate
1-6
-------
the possibility of recovering the additional costs involved in SCS
surveillance and enforcement by imposing fees on each source using SCS.
1.3 SEQUENCE OF STEPS FOR IMPLEMENTING SUPPLEMENTARY CONTROL SYSTEMS
Table 1-1 lists the approximate sequence of actions to be taken
by the source and the responsible control agency in the implementation
of an SCS. It should be noted that the sequence in Table 1-1 is in-
tended only as an example. The exact sequence of steps in each case
will be dictated by regulations and will be a function of circumstances.
An SOp source considering SCS as a control measure must first
determine whether or not SCS is justified in its particular case. Regu-
lations will specify the criteria upon which that determination is to
be based.
Technical feasibility must also be determined before the source
submits its application (Table 1-1, Step 1) for permission to use SCS.
(Also see Section 3 and Appendix B). If feasibility is anticipated, a
tentative SCS design concept (including a proposed designated liability
area) should then be developed, based upon an analysis of existing
source, meteorological, air quality, and other relevant data. It is
recommended that such data be supplemented by a pollutant dispersion
modeling analysis. In cases where the source has already had experience
with some form of SCS, the formulation of an SCS design concept may be
relatively straightforward. In any case, SCS feasibility must be
anticipated and a tentative SCS concept should be developed before the
source submits an application to use such a system.
1-7
-------
TABLE 1-1
EXAMPLE SEQUENCE OF STEPS* FOR SUPPLEMENTARY CONTROL
SYSTEM DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, AND IMPLEMENTATION
1 Source Submits Application to use SCS, which:
1.1 Demonstrates that SCS is justified. (Regulations may specify
the criteria upon which justification is to be based.)
1.2 Demonstrates that SCS is a feasible control measure at the
source in question.
1.3 Presents a tentative SCS design that will ensure the attain-
ment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards for S02
1.4 Proposes a designated liability area.
1.5 Proposes a plan for developing and implementing the SCS.
2 SCS Compliance Schedule:
2.1 Submit final plan for developing and implementing the SCS.
2.2 Issue purchase orders, let contracts, etc., for SCS equipment
required under the plan and personnel required to operate the
system.
2.3 Complete installation and testing of SCS equipment and orien-
tation of SCS personnel.
2.4 Complete a field monitoring program, during which concurrent
source, meteorological, ana air quality data are collected.
2.5 Submit a background study report that documents the field
monitoring program, describes the SCS in detail, and demon-
strates that ambient standards for S02 will be attained and
maintained.
2.6 Submit the SCS operational manual, which describes the SCS
including all of the operational procedures.
2.7 The Source becomes responsible for maintenance of ambient
standards for SOo within the designated liability area.
*The timing of public hearings and the promulgation of regulations for
SCS will vary, depending upon circumstances. Therefore, those two items
are not included in this table.
1-8
-------
Upon control agency approval of the application, a compliance
schedule (Table 1-1, Step 2) will be established. A major portion of
the schedule involves an SCS "background study," which basically in-
volves the collection and analysis of source, meteorological and air
quality data, including consideration of other relevant factors such as
other sources in the area and topography. The objective of the back-
ground study is to develop the initial SCS design concept into a work-
ing system. The basic functions and elements of a supplementary con-
trol system are discussed in Section 2.
An integral part of the background study is the field monitoring
program. The principal objective of the monitoring program is to collect
adequate amounts of concurrent source, meteorological and air quality
data, and any other relevant data, such that (1) the meteorological
conditions during which emission curtailment will be required can be
identified, (2) the corresponding effect of those conditions on S0£
dispersion from the source can be determined and (3) the timing and
degree of emission curtailment that will be required during each con-
dition can be estimated. To make such determinations, a substantial
quantity of data is obviously required. The shortest period during
which a meaningful field monitoring program can be conducted is on the
order of 120 days. Also, the 120-day period is adequate only if it
occurs during the time of year when the worst dispersion conditions
are likely to occur. If the latter condition is not met, a period of
240 to 360 days is preferable.
The background study report (Step 5 of the compliance schedule) is
drafted and submitted to the control agency for approval after a
1-9
-------
working SCS has been developed. (Also see Section 4 and Appendix B)
The working system should contain the basic functions and elements
discussed in Section 2. The background study report should:
t Document the field monitoring program.
Describe the meteorological conditions during which emission
curtailment will be required.
t Describe in detail the functions and elements of the SCS.
Demonstrate that the system, in conjunction with any other
control measures employed by the source, will result in the
attainment and maintenance of ambient air standards for SOp
in the designated liability area.
The operational manual (Step 6 of the compliance schedule) is sub-
mitted to the control agency for approval following the background
study. It is largely based upon the background study report, and is
similar to the latter in that it also includes a description of the SCS
(see Section 5). However, it goes further than the background study
report in that it specifies the SCS operational procedures in consider-
able detail, including procedures to be followed when specific curtail-
ment criteria are met, and it describes the responsibilities of specific
company personnel. Also, from an enforcement standpoint (see Section 6),
1-10
-------
and unless regulations specify otherwise, the SCS user will be required
to operate the SCS in strict accordance with the approved operational
manual.
1-11
-------
SECTION 2
BASIC FUNCTIONS AND ELEMENTS OF A SUPPLEMENTARY CONTROL SYSTEM
The operation of an SCS comprises four basic functions:
Open-loop control of stack emissions
Closed-loop control of stack emissions
Data storage
System upgrade
2.1 OPEN-LOOP CONTROL OF STACK EMISSIONS
Open-loop control is defined herein as the SCS function whereby
an "operating model" (see Figure 2-1) is used to determine when
emission curtailment is dictated. (The concept of open-loop control
must be distinguished from closed-loop control, discussed in the follow-
ing section, which is based solely upon monitored air quality.) The
operating model, utilizing input source and meteorological data, will
generally supply the following type of information:
1. Estimates of existing or predicted air quality within the
geographic area affected by emissions from the source.
2-1
-------
O
ii
O3
(O
i-
O)
CL
o
i/o
C_)
to
ex
o
o
O)
CL
O
s-
o
o
to
S-
o
(O
in
+->
C
d)
CD
-------
2. A determination of whether or not meteorological
conditions conducive to excessive ambient
pollutant concentrations exist or are anticipated.
The air quality estimates provided in (1) are compared to specified
concentration "threshold" values. If the estimates indicate that a
threshold value is exceeded or is expected to be exceeded, emission
curtailment is dictated. Thus, the threshold concentration values
serve as open-loop emission curtailment criteria.
Additional open-loop curtailment criteria may be in the form of
specified "critical" meteorological conditions, which are known to be
conducive to excessive ambient pollutant concentrations (see item 2
above). When a critical meteorological condition is observed or antici-
pated, emissions are curtailed accordingly.
Appropriate emission curtailment criteria can best be identified
through the experience gained during development or operation of the
SCS. Much relevant experience should be gained during the SCS back-
ground study, which is discussed in Section 4. For example, through the
background study, appropriate safety factors can be identified and in-
corporated into the threshold concentrations; i.e., the threshold con-
centrations should be established at "safe" levels below the air
quality standards of concern. The accuracy of the operating model in
-«.
estimating existing and future air quality will be a key factor in
determining the magnitude of the safety factors.
In general, open-loop control will comprise an essential component
of supplementary control systems. That is apparent for two important
2-3
-------
reasons. First, through the operating model, air quality can be esti-
mated at a large number of locations compared to the limited number of
locations served by an air quality monitoring network. Thus, air
quality can be estimated at many locations between the monitor sites,
providing air quality information that would otherwise not be avail-
able. Such air quality information is important (1) to the SCS user
for the operational aspects of the system and (2) to the control agency
for enforcement purposes.
A second major asset of open-loop control arises from the fact
that advance warning will often be required by the SCS operator in
order to prevent an air quality standard from being exceeded. Such
warning may be provided by the open-loop mode if the system is designed
to generate air quality forecasts; e.g., through application of a dis-
persion model that utilizes input source data and predicted meteorolo-
gical conditions. Advance warning of unfavorable dispersion conditions
is necessary because of two time delays that come into play whenever a
decision is made to curtail emissions. The time delays are defined
here and are indicated in Figures 2-1, 2-2, and 2-4:
Time delay I - the time required to effect a specified percentage
curtailment in SCL stack emissions through process changes or
other means
Time delay II - the time required for a curtailment in emissions
to have a significant effect on maximum ground-level concentrations;
this time delay is determined by existing air quality and meteoro-
logical conditions.
2-4
-------
Depending upon circumstances, time delays I and II can be as long
as several hours.
2.2 CLOSED-LOOP CONTROL OF STACK EMISSIONS
The concept of closed-loop control is less complex than that of
open-loop control. Emission curtailment decisions in the closed-loop
mode of SCS operation are simply a function of real-time monitored
air quality. When the monitoring network indicates that ambient concen-
trations exceed specified threshold values, or that the rate of increase
of concentrations exceeds a specified rate, the emissions are reduced
accordingly. These threshold values may be referred to as the
closed-loop emission curtailment criteria.
The value of closed-loop control lies in the fact that it offers
real-time air quality information. Thus, when the open-loop mode
fails to recognize or predict an air quality problem, the closed-loop
mode may offer the SCS operator enough information so that he will be
aware of the problem and be in a position to take corrective action.
In noting the value of closed-loop control, however, serious
shortcomings of that mode of SCS operation also become apparent:
1. A fixed monitoring network provides air quality information
only at a limited number of discrete locations. Peak ground-level
concentrations will often occur in areas other than where the monitors
are located.
2-5
-------
fl
o
^
>- a:
li
o
is
-d
CONTROLLED
EMISSIONS
t
THRESHOLD
VALUES
'
CONTROL
1
DECISION
03
O
CO
Q,
O
O
I I
I
TJ
0)
tn
o
p 4
o
J3
MH
Cl
_0
i-J
rt
a
f-<
i
T3
a
CO
^
01
a
_Q)
0)
a
03
eg
-------
2. A monitoring network provides little or no warning of air
quality problems. By the time high concentrations are detected, it may
be too late to prevent an air quality violation. (See the discussion of
Time Delays I and II in the preceding section.)
Due to those limitations, the closed-loop mode will usually
serve primarily as a back-up or supplement to open-loop control. Open-
loop control should normally constitute the primary basis for the
emission curtailment decisions.
2.3 THE DATA STORAGE FUNCTION
The SCS data-storage function shown schematically in Figure 2-3
is intended to provide for archiving, in a convenient and readily
accessible form, detailed records of SCS operation and performance. It
is particularly important that records are kept on every parameter
used in the decisions to curtail and resume emissions. These records
will generally include, and are not necessarily limited to, chrono-
logical tabulations and summaries of:
Meteorological data
Meteorological inputs used in the operating model (including
meteorological forecasts)
Operating model calculations
2-7
-------
03
< < 2
g o
to z
i °
UJ S
a «
Q tO
_i tn
2 o
UJ
Q.
o
o
UJ
o
tr
o
to
§s
<
o
Ul
UJ
o
o ±
UJ
H
LU
03
ca
ts
a
CO
O
CO
a
S-,
g
ro
4~>
0)
a
CD
I-**
3)
(1)
s
a a
a o
II
W
K
§
2-8
-------
Scheduled emissions
Emission monitoring data
Air quality monitoring data
Control decisions
System malfunctions, calibrations of system components, and
adjustments or replacements of system components
Detailed records of this type form the basis of reports on SCS per-
formance and operation required by the control agency for SCS evaluation
and enforcement. These detailed records are also needed by the SCS
operator to implement the fourth SCS function - system upgrade.
2.4 THE SYSTEM UPGRADE FUNCTION
The system upgrade function has as its purpose the refinement and
improvement of SCS operation through a periodic analysis of SCS opera-
tion. It is expected that the maximum effort and activity in system
upgrade will be required during the first year of SCS operation. As
a result of the experience gained during the first year of actual
operations, and using the detailed records available from data storage,
it should be possible to make a detailed assessment of the adequacy of
each of the SCS elements and functions and to effect many of the
changes necessary to optimize SCS performance. A system upgrading
2-9
-------
1
Q
CO
oc
-p
h-
A
I
i
i
i
i
i
l
i
1
l_
0Q
CO
LU - *
1 fr
Q
a.
1
vl
J
LL
s
*
1-
J
c
Ij
_
c
CK
1-
z
o
CJ
J
LU
T
» 1
H
_l
Q
IX
1
U
CD
-?
1-
cc
LU
LL
O
s
LU
H
co
>
CO
1- »
' -j fe
Z3
Of
I
<
I t t
LU i
Q
< i
CO
z.
0
CO
CO ^
SI
LU
t
< 1
_J 1
LU
Q
A
t
21
0
~ 1
CO |
l_l . . 1
o
LU
Q
i ,
- sz.
\- o
1
^ o
o s:
CO
ct:
o
i n
i
r- " 1
(I
1 1 1
---
_, HI
O ill
11 III
CO ID n|
t; 9 ^ in
z or < '"
' O Q i,,
£
t "I
3T (I
1 II
III
1 II
1
, , "III
y 1 III
Z LU _ III
0 ^D
co h- I- ce i
co < < o * '
-- a: Q h-
s: co *
LlJ -, . ,
;j
.
4->
C
(U
E
1 "^
1 «
c
LU
Q 10
LU O LU C
Q 21 Q 0
O LU < <-
O < CD 0
CLOKQ. C
0 _J 0 => =3
Of- «*-
(/* _i Q co s:
Z 1 LU LU E
« LU O h- C/5 4->
U O O Q CO >,
Z co
13 1
LL. ' i
1 °
CO ' i-
CJ | +J
col ' c
1 ' 5
< CQ CJ Q >>
i-
(O
O)
Ii
Q)
a
1 §-
,o
1 ^
1*-
0
E
IfO
^
u>
1 *
^
1
1"
.,_
^
0
o
0
1
Io >- T
C£ O c\j
1 " Z
1 Z at LU
O CD Q£
u < =>
1 . 1 CD
A -H
1 LL"
_J
2-10
-------
program should continue on a permanent basis, even if ambient SCL stand-
ards are maintained, to maximize the possibility of effectively dealing
with the various contingencies that can arise during the operation of
such systems. Additional guidance on SCS reliability analysis and
upgrading is presented in Section 4 and "A Technique for Supplementary
Control System Reliability Analysis and Upgrading" (EPA, 1976a).
Figure 2-4 is a composite diagram of all SCS functions and
elements, including system upgrade. The lines in Figure 2-4 have
different markings to assist in identifying the elements involved in
each of the four SCS functions.
2-11
-------
SECTION 3
APPLICATION TO USE A SUPPLEMENTARY
CONTROL SYSTEM
A facility proposing to use SCS should submit to the responsible
control agency an application that (1) justifies the proposed use of
SCS by demonstrating that it is needed in order for ambient S02 stan-
dards to be met in the vicinity of the source, (2) proposes an SCS
design concept and (3) provides evidence that use of the proposed
system would result in the attainment of the ambient standards. A
suggested list of the information that should be included in the SCS
application is presented in Appendix B, Section B.I. Specific require-
ments for the application may be dictated by regulations applicable
to the source.
This section discusses factors that should be accounted for by the
control agency in evaluating the technical aspects of the SCS, as pro-
posed in the application.
3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITY
The SCS application should include a description of the type,
location and age of the facility as well as the processes, equipment,
raw materials and/or fuels used by the facility. Stack data and
estimated emission data under the proposed SCS should be included to
permit the control agency to estimate the impact of the source's
emissions on air quality. In addition, plant layout and topographic
information should be provided to permit an assessment of the possibility
3-1
-------
of adverse effects of terrain features and buildings on effluent plume
dispersion (see Appendix A).
The application should also include a description of the source's
current and projected constant emission control techniques and the
corresponding emission rates. Regulations applicable to the source will
specify constant emission control requirements. Fugitive emissions, if
any, and the source's plans to control fugitive emissions should also
be described.
3.2 QUALIFICATION AS AN ISOLATED SOURCE
In order to use SCS, a source should qualify as an isolated
source - that is, one that is sufficiently remote from other large
sources such that it can and will accept legal responsibility for
attaining and maintaining the ambient standards for SOo within a desig-
nated liability area (DLA). The DLA defines the specific geographic
area surrounding the source in which the ambient air quality may be
significantly affected by emissions from the source. In the applica-
tion to use SCS, the source should propose a designated liability area.
Determination of the Designated Liability Area (DLA)
It is suggested that ambient monitoring and pollutant dispersion
modeling be used to define the DLA. Dispersion modeling techniques
are presented in "Reviewing New Stationary Sources" (EPA, 1976c).
In the absence of dispersion modeling, a first approximation to the
3-2
-------
DLA may be designated as the circular region defined by the minimum
radius given in Table 3-1 for the applicable source emission rate.
Table 3-1 is intended only for approximate initial estimates of the
DLA, and will be conservative for some sources. Short-term and long-
term dispersion modeling, on-site observation, and experience during
the field monitoring program, will provide the best insight into how
the DLA can be tailored to the source in question.
Conflicting Sources
The application should include the location, number and relevant
emissions inventories of current or proposed sources in the vicinity
of the source proposing to use SCS if the sources are likely to in-
fluence the ambient air quality of the proposed DLA. In some exceptional
cases, if regulations permit, the control agency may decide that two or
more SCS users may share a DLA. In such cases, the basis for sharing
liability for an air quality violation should be established a priori.
For SCS to be enforceable, use of SCS by sources located in or near
large urban areas is not recommended because of the difficulty in un-
equivocally determining the relative contribution to ambient air
quality of the non-SCS sources and because the SCS cannot normally be
expected to anticipate the impact on ambient air quality of sources
beyond its control.
3-3
-------
TABLE 3-1
A FIRST APPROXIMATION TO MINIMUM RADII DEFINING THE
LIMITS OF THE DESIGNATED LIABILITY AREA
S02 Emission Rate*
Tons Per Hour
16 or less
24
32
40
48 or more
Grams Per Sec.
4,000 or less
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000 or more
Radius
Statute Miles
7
10
15
20
25
Kilometers
n
16
24
32
40
*Full-production emission rate without considering any constant
emission controls employed by the facility.
3-4
-------
Existing Ambient Air Quality
A source proposing to use SCS should provide all available data
on the frequency and severity of recent SCL concentrations in excess
of the ambient standards, together with supporting emission and
meteorological data, if available. If the air quality data are not
adequate to make such a determination, they should be supplemented by
dispersion modeling results. On the basis of these data, the source
should be able to provide a preliminary assessment of the meteorologi-
cal conditions during which ground-level concentrations may endanger
the ambient air quality standards.
That preliminary analysis should provide the background for the
source's initial plan for the development and implementation of an
operational SCS (see Table 1-1, Step 1.5). More information on the
initial plan for SCS development is presented in Appendix B, Section B.I
3.3 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTARY CONTROL SYSTEM
The application should include estimates of the emission reduction
required to meet the ambient standards for S02, emission reduction
attainable with any constant emission control techniques that will be
used, and the emission reduction attainable with SCS. The source
should provide evidence that emission rate curtailments attainable with
SCS will ensure compliance with ambient standards at all points within
the proposed designated liability area. These calculations should take
3-5
-------
into account estimated effects of the time delay (see Section 2.1)
between the time of the control decision and the time that the reduced
emissions begin to affect ambient air quality. The advance warning
time of adverse atmospheric dispersion conditions provided by the SCS
must be compatible with the time delays inherent in the system.
3-6
-------
SECTION 4
EVALUATION OF THE BACKGROUND STUDY
Upon control agency approval of the SCS application, the pros-
pective SCS user will generally be required to conduct a background
study (see Section 1.3). The study will be largely based upon a
field measurement program during which concurrent source, meteoro-
logical and air quality data are collected. The data are then
analyzed for the purpose of developing the SCS operational procedures.
Upon completion of the background study, the source should submit
to the control agency a report on the study. The topics that should
be addressed in the SCS background study are listed in Appendix B.
In reviewing this report, the control agency should determine whether
the SCS includes the minimum elements (air quality monitoring network,
emission monitoring capability, operating model, meteorological network,
meteorological forecasting capability, data storage system, and system
upgrading procedures) and whether the operational interrelation of
these elements developed during the study is likely to ensure compli-
ance with ambient S0? standards. These elements are discussed below.
4.1 AIR QUALITY MONITORING NETWORK
The air quality monitoring network provides the basic data re-
quired to establish the degree of compliance with ambient standards.
In addition, the network is a key element in the development of both
the closed- and open-loop modes of SCS operation (see Section 2),
4-1
-------
and is the central element of the closed-loop mode. Thus, the source
should demonstrate that it has made a good-faith effort to assure that
the monitors are at or near the points of expected maximum S02 concen-
trations. To assist in the siting of monitors, it is strongly
recommended that dispersion modeling and mobile or portable air quality
monitors be utilized. In addition, it is recommended that some monitors
be sited in population centers and sensitive crop areas that may be
subject to significant (albeit not necessarily the highest)ambient SCL
concentrations.
The monitoring network must be designed to be capable of the
routine real-time measurement of maximum SCL concentrations for the
averaging times of the applicable ambient standards. In the absence
of significant terrain or building-wake effects, the short-term max-
imums produced by tall stack emissions will occur at radial distances
from the stack that vary from about 10 to 30 stack heights. The short-
term maximums resulting from low-level fugitive emissions will occur
in close proximity to the source and should be monitored near the
source (e.g., at the property boundaries). The above estimates of the
distances from the source at which short-term maximums are most likely
to occur serve to define the radial distances at which air quality
monitoring stations should generally be located. The angular sectors
within which the short-term maximums will occur can only be defined
from a knowledge of the joint frequency distributions of wind speed,
wind direction and stability applicable to a particular site.
Generalized criteria for determining the number and location of
air quality monitoring stations required by an SCS have not been
4-2
-------
established. The maximum number of air quality monitoring stations
is ultimately set, on a case-by-case basis, by economic and logistics
factors. The optimum number of monitoring stations will therefore
probably lie between this upper limit and the minimum number of
stations that will ensure compliance with ambient standards at the
lowest acceptable level of risk that violations of the short-term
standards will not be detected. Based on the experience to date with
SCS at nonferrous smelters and large coal-fired power plants,
SCS air quality monitoring networks should include at least 10 monitors,
and two or three times that number will be appropriate in certain cases.
Experience gained by the applicant during the background study
will often present the first opportunity to assess the adequacy
of the initial network design with respect to the number and location
of monitors. Thus, a substantial degree of flexibility should be
maintained with respect to the siting of air quality monitors, at
least until well into the background study. The use of mobile air
quality sampling techniques during the study, in conjunction with the
operation of fixed monitors and dispersion analyses accounting for the
factors addressed in Appendix A, will be the best way of determining
any required adjustments.
Additional guidance on air quality monitor siting in the vicinity
of a point source is provided in "Guidance for Air Quality Monitoring
in the Vicinity of Large Point Sources" (EPA, 1976b).
4-3
-------
4.2 EMISSION MONITORING AND PREDICTION CAPABILITY
Emission monitoring provides the basic data required by the con-
trol agency to establish compliance with the SCS operational manual and
with any other emission limitation requirements applicable to the
source. In an operational SCS, emission rates must be determined by
continuous in-stack monitoring or by appropriate process calculations
if they have the same degree of reliability as the in-stack monitoring
rates. It is recommended that control agencies require that both methods
be routinely used. The process calculations will provide an important
overall check on the in-stack monitoring measurements. Also, in the
event that the in-stack monitoring system fails, process calculations
afford the only means of obtaining emission rates during the period
required to take corrective action and to place the in-stack monitoring
system back in operation. It is essential that the procedures for pro-
cess calculations and the relationship of these calculations to the
stack measurements be firmly established.
The background study must clearly demonstrate that the source has
the ability to accurately predict emission rates that will occur during
normal operations and during the various degrees of proposed emission
curtailment. Thus, during the background study, the source should have
used emission measurements or process calculations to determine (1)
the response time for emission reductions and (2) the degree of
uncertainty in predicted emission rates.
4-4
-------
4.3 OPERATING MODEL
The operating model is the single most important component in the
open-loop operational mode of an SCS (Section 2.1). The basic SCS
concept requires that the operating model be capable of relating
emission and meteorological data to short-term maximum ground-level
concentrations. It is on the basis of the operating model that open-
loop emission control decisions are made. Since the closed-loop mode
of SCS operation often cannot be relied upon to allow enough lead time
to preclude violations of short-term air quality standards, the value
of the operating model can readily be appreciated.
Development of an SCS operating model for a particular facility
requires a careful analysis of source factors, climatological records,
topographic factors, and air quality data. Because each source will be
characterized by a unique combination of factors, the development of an
operating model must be conducted on a case-by-case basis.
The first phase in the development of an operating model will
usually be to utilize existing data in conjunction with an elementary
dispersion model (e.g., Turner, 1970; Carpenter, ej^ aj_., 1971; and EPA,
1976c) to obtain initial estimates of an appropriate DLA and to formu-
late initial SCS curtailment criteria. Much of the first phase should
normally be accomplished before the source submits its application to
use SCS. It is during the background study, and during subsequent
system upgrading, that any complicating factors peculiar to the source
and to effluent dispersion from the source should be assessed in the
requisite detail to ensure that they can be adequately accounted for in
the operating model. Adequate incorporation of those factors is the
4-5
-------
time-consuming step in the development of an operating model,
and it may take a year or longer before all such effects can be
adequately accounted for.
Because of the uncertainties involved in using an operating
model to anticipate high ambient concentrations, a reasonable
margin of safety in predicted concentrations should be built into
the model to ensure adequate protection of air quality. The
adequacy of the model should be demonstrated in the background
study report by a comparison of expected and observed maximum
ground-level concentrations obtained during the background study.
Finally, it should be noted that the guidance of an experi-
enced meteorologist with a background in dispersion modeling is
clearly required during all phases of development of the operating
model.
4.4 METEOROLOGICAL NETWORK
Utilization of the dispersion model during the normal open-
loop operational mode of an SCS requires that current emission
and meteorological data be available for input to the model. The
meteorological data must be representative of the wind and
temperature structures controlling the downwind transport and
dispersion of the stack discharge. In essence, this requires knowledge
of the vertical profiles of wind speed, wind direction and air tempera-
ture through an atmospheric layer that extends from ground level to
elevations above the plume stabilization height. Such measurements
4-6
-------
are difficult and expensive and clearly cannot be obtained at the
higher elevations from fixed sensors. The maximum measurement
height that can generally be attained by fixed-point methods is
probably given by the stack height since it may be possible to
use the stack as a measurement platform, and since towers more than 200
to 300 feet in height are generally economically infeasible. The
SCS meteorological measurement problem is additionally complicated
by the fact that the dispersion-model calculations often require current
hourly mean values that are updated hourly. The required
hourly measurements can be provided by fixed sensors for the
height interval between ground level and the top of the stack. A
minimum of two measurement levels is requiredone located near
ground level (in a location not significantly affected by downwash
or other types of airflow distortion due to plant buildings or
other roughness elements) and one located at the height of the
top of the stack. The low-level wind measurements are needed to
predict the transport and dispersion of fugitive emissions. The
meteorological parameters to be measured at these levels include
hourly mean values of wind speed, wind direction, standard devia-
tion of wind-direction angle, air temperature, and humidity.
Measurements of the wind speed, wind direction, and air tempera-
ture in the air layer above the top of the stack must be obtained
by remote sensing techniques (pibals, rawinsondes, lidar, radar,
acoustic soundings, aircraft, etc.) and should be routinely made
at least twice in every 24-hour period (once in the early morning
and once in the afternoon). Provision should also be made for
4-7
-------
remote sensing at such other times as required by the existence or
likely existence of meteorological conditions that are conducive
to high ground-level concentrations.
In some instances, it may be possible to utilize the upper-
air soundings made twice daily by nearby National Weather Service
(NWS) stations to satisfy in part or completely the need for
above-stack wind, temperature and humidity measurements. However,
if NWS meteorological measurements or other off-site measurements
are to be utilized by an operational SCS, such data must be
demonstrated by the applicant to be representative of meteorolo-
gical conditions at the source. In order to demonstrate
representativeness, it will probably be necessary for the applicant
to make on-site soundings during the background study and to
relate these to concurrent NWS soundings.
4.5 METEOROLOGICAL FORECASTING
Many sources utilizing SCS will incur significant time-
delays between the control decision and the effect of the decision
on air quality. Such facilities will require a meteorological
forecasting capability in addition to real-time meteorological
and air quality monitoring. Control decisions for such sources
in the open-loop mode of operation will require meteorological fore-
casts in addition to observed meteorological data, and the source
will have to begin curtailment activities prior to the onset of the
meteorological conditions conducive to high ground-level concentrations,
4-8
-------
If the open-loop operational mode fails to anticipate the onset of
conditions leading to high ground-level concentrations, the warning
provided by the real-time air quality data may be too late to prevent
concentrations from exceeding ambient standards.
The meteorological inputs to the operating model are based
upon the meteorological elements forecast by the SCS. These
elements include, but are not limited to, vertical profiles and time
sequences of wind speed, wind direction and temperature from the sur-
face to altitudes of a few thousand feet. The SCS forecasts will
require a resolution in time and space net provided by the NWS forecasts,
It is important to note that SCS forecast errors are
significant only when they fail to anticipate the onset of
adverse dispersion conditions. For example, the NAAQS do not permit
the short-term standards to be exceeded more than one time in
any given year and, if conditions conducive to high ground-level
concentrations occur more than several times per year, a near
perfect forecasting capability is required for an SCS to be
reliable. Since that degree of forecasting reliability will be
difficult to achieve, adequate safety factors must be incorporated
into the system.
4.6 DATA STORAGE SYSTEM
The operational SCS must also have a data storage system to
document the SCS performance and to permit implementation of the
system-upgrade function. Data collection and storage procedures
4-9
-------
should be developed during the background study and outlined in
the report on that study. Data that must be recorded by the
operational SCS and made available to the control agency are
listed in Section 2.3.
4.7 SYSTEM UPGRADING PROCEDURES
Upon completion of the background study, the operators of
the facility should have a good idea of the capability of the
SCS to ensure compliance with ambient standards, and the strengths and
weaknesses of the system should be fairly well known. The
report on the background study should assess these strengths and
weaknesses and should specify additional upgrading procedures that
the source will undertake to improve the reliability of the system.
The reliability of an SCS can best be demonstrated by
operating the system, including employment of emission curtail-
ments as dictated by the curtailment criteria. Because all types
of conditions endangering the ambient air quality standards will not
necessarily occur during the period of the background study, the up-
grading techniques employed during the background study must be con-
tinued, although possibly on a more limited basis, beyond the period
of the study in order to improve the reliability of the system.
Additional guidance on SCS reliability assessment and
upgrading is presented in "A Technique for Supplementary Control System
Reliability Analysis and Upgrading" (EPA, 1976a).
4-10
-------
SECTION 5
EVALUATION OF THE OPERATIONAL MANUAL
In addition to the report on the background study, the source
must submit an SCS operational manual. Basically, the SCS operational
manual is a detailed summary of the specific operational procedures
developed during the background study. Thus, some of the same
material will be contained in both reports. However, the purposes
of the two documents are different. The report on the background
study describes the SCS in detail and demonstrates to the control
agency the feasibility of maintaining air quality standards by
means of SCS. The operational manual states the operational procedures
in detail, including procedures to be followed when specific curtail-
ment criteria are met, and specifies the responsibilities of specific
company personnel.
The operational manual should include:
t An exact description of the designated liability area
The number, type and location of ambient air quality monitors
in-stack emission monitors and meteorological instruments to
be employed in the operational system
Maintenance and calibration procedures for all SCS equipment
A description of the meteorological regimes that may lead to
ground-level concentrations endangering the short-term air
quality standards for S0£
The procedures used to determine the existence and to antici-
pate the onset of those critical meteorological regimes
A description of the dispersion model or models that account
for all meteorological conditions identified during the
background study that lead to high ground-level concentrations
5-1
-------
0 The curtailment criteria used by the source to determine when
emission curtailment is required to preclude air quality
violations (see Section 2.1 and 2.2)
0 The specific actions that will be taken to curtail emissions
when the curtailment criteria are met
0 A description of alternate procedures to be followed in con-
tingencies such as plant equipment failure, SCS instrumenta-
tation failure, plant process problems, or, in the case of
power plants, load requirements in excess of those dictated
by the SCS
0 Identification of the company personnel (names and positions)
responsible for initiating and supervising curtailment
activities, including names of the individual and alternates
responsible for the operation of the SCS and who can apprise
the control agency of the status of the SCS at any time
0 A description of how the continuous system-upgrade function
will be carried out
0 Evidence (based on the background study) that the curtailment
program will permit attainment of all ambient standards for SOp
In addition to the above, the following requirements should apply:
0 The responsibilities of each individual involved in operation
of the SCS should be clearly defined
0 From an enforcement standpoint, it is essential that all items
in the operational manual that deal with (1) decisions to cur-
tail and resume emissions and (2) the curtailment procedures
themselves are as clear and unambiguous as possible.
0 Curtailment decisions must be quantitative rather than quali-
tative and must be based upon the open-loop and closed-loop
curtailment criteria specified in the operational manual
0 Meteorological, emission and air quality data must be available
to the source on a real-time basis
0 All requisite data (see Section 2.3) must be recorded and
must be available to the control agency; sample formats used
to record each type of data should be included in the manual
5-2
-------
SECTION 6
ASSESSMENT OF SUPPLEMENTARY CONTROL
SYSTEM ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS
Sections 3 through 5 have addressed the responsibilities of
the cognizant control agency to evaluate applications for SCS.
Upon successful completion of the SCS application and development
phases, the control agency has the responsibility for surveillance
and enforcement of the SCS operation. Additionally, the control
agency must conduct periodic reviews of the SCS performance.
Those areas of responsibility, briefly discussed in the following
paragraphs, are addressed in detail in "Guidelines for Enforcement
and Surveillance of Supplementary Control Systems" (EPA, September,
1975).
Regulations will likely require the SCS user to assume responsi-
bility for ambient S02 concentrations in a designated liability area and
to operate the SCS in strict accordance with the approved operational
manual. Compliance with the S02 air quality standards within the desig-
nated liability area will be largely determined through the air quality
monitoring networks operated by the source and the control agency. The
control agency should have determined the adequacy of the source's air
quality network during its evaluation of the SCS application and back-
ground study report. The results of the background study may also aid
the control agency in optimizing the location of its own monitors. The
control agency should have access to the SCS air quality monitors in
order to check their calibration. It is also suggested that the control
agency periodically operate its own monitors adjacent to SCS monitors
6-1
-------
and compare the simultaneous observations. It is not recommended
that the control agency determine compliance solely on the basis of
the source's air quality monitoring network. The control agency
should operate its own air quality network, even if cost dictates
that it be a limited one.
Unless regulations specify otherwise, the source will be required
to operate the SCS in strict accordance with an approved operational
manual. The manual should stipulate the courses of action to be
followed when specified emission curtailment criteria are met (see
Sections 2.1 and 2.2). Adherence to an operational manual adds the
element of objectivity to the emission curtailment activities and
provides a consistent data base (Section 2.3) for periodic system
upgrading (Section 2.4).
It should be expected that situations will occur when it will be
difficult or impossible for the source to follow normal emission cur-
tailment procedures (for example, during plant equipment failure, SCS
instrumentation failure, plant process problems, or, in the case of a
power-plant, load requirements in excess of those dictated by the SCS).
Enforceable alternate procedures that are to be followed during such
contingencies should be stipulated in the SCS operational manual.
One of the basic principles of the SCS concept is that the source
should be sufficiently remote from other significant sources such that
it can and will accept responsibility for attaining ambient SO-
standards within a designated liability area. In exceptional cases,
if regulations permit, SCS may be feasible in multi-source situations
6-2
-------
as long as the sources assume joint responsibility for air quality
violations, with predetermined liability apportionment. In multi-
source situations, liability for violations must be assumed by the
sources because of the difficulty that the control agency would have
in quantifying the contribution from each source.
Enforcement of an operational SCS should require that the source
keep adequate records (see Section 2.3) so that the cause of an air
quality violation can be determined. In addition, since regulations
may require that the source comply with the procedures outlined in the
operational manual, such records would be needed by the control agency
to determine if the source is in compliance with that requirement.
Finally, in order to maintain an effective surveillance and
enforcement operation, the control agency must have expertise in air
quality and emission monitoring, dispersion modeling, and air pollution
engineering. Also, the control agency will require more personnel,
equipment, and funds to enforce SCS regulations than to enforce CEC
requirements. Thus, it may be appropriate for the agency to impose
fees on an SCS source to cover the additional costs of surveillance
and enforcement.
6-3
-------
SECTION 7
REFERENCES
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1973: Recommended
Guide for the Prediction of the Dispersion of Airborne
Effluents, Second Edition. ASME Air Pollution Control
Division. New York, N. Y.
Briggs, G. A., 1973: Diffusion Estimates for Small Emissions.
ATDL Contribution File No. (Draft) 79, Air Resources
Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Laboratories, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee.
Carpenter, S. B., T. L. Montgomery, J. M. Leavitt, W. C. Colbaugh
and F. W. Thomas, 1971: Principal Plume Dispersion Models:
TVA Power Plants. Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association, 21_(8), 491-495.
Environmental Protection Agency, August 1974: Guidelines for the
Interpretation of Air Quality Standards. OAQPS No. 1.2-008.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Environmental Protection Agency, September 1975: Guidelines for
Enforcement and Surveillance of Supplementary Control Systems,
Volumes 1 and 2. EPA-340/1-75-008, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.
Environmental Protection Agency, October 1975: Guidance for
Specifying Primary Standard Conditions under ESECA, OAQPS
No. 1.2-035, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, N. C.
Environmental Protection Agency, February 18, 1976: Legal Interpre-
tation and Guideline to Implementation of Recent Court Decisions
on the Subject of Stack Height Increase as a Means of Meeting
Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards, Federal Register, Vol. 41,
No. 33, February 18, 1976 (pp. 7450-74527!
Environmental Protection Agency, 1976a: A Technique for Supplementary
Control System Reliability Analysis and Upgrading (in preparation),
OAQPS No. 1.2-037. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, N. C.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1976b: Guidance for Air Quality
Monitoring in the Vicinity of Large Point Sources (in
preparation). OAQPS No. 1.2-012. Supplement B, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N. C.
7-1
-------
Environmental Protection Agency, 1976c: Reviewing New Stationary
Sources; Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning
and Analysis, Vol. 10 (in preparation). OAQPS No. 1.2-029,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C,
Turner, D.B., 1970: Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates
(revised). Office of Air Programs Publication No. AP-26. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
7-2
-------
APPENDIX A
METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS AND OTHER FACTORS
CONDUCIVE TO HIGH GROUND-LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS
Essential to the development and operation of a reliable SCS is
an adequate knowledge of the meteorological conditions and other factors
most likely to result in ground-level concentrations that endanger
ambient air quality standards for SO,,. The effects of these factors are
a function of source characteristics.
A.I FACTORS LEADING TO HIGH GROUND-LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS FROM STACK
EMISSIONS
The meteorological conditions most likely to lead to high ground-
level concentrations from stack emissions are:
t Looping plume
Inversion breakup (fumigation)
Neutral stability in combination with moderate to high wind-speeds
Limited mixing
Other factors that may lead to high ground-level concentrations
from stack emissions are:
t Building wakes
Terrain effects
Building-wake effects are generally of concern only in the presence
of moderate or strong winds. Terrain effects can occur under a wide
range of stability and wind-speed conditions.
A-l
-------
The behavior of stack plumes under the above conditions is
summarized below. Mathematical formulas for estimating ground-level
concentrations under some or all of these conditions are given by
Turner (1970), Carpenter, e_t al_. (1971), Briggs (1973) and in "Review-
ing New Stationary Sources" (EPA, 1976c).
A.1.1. Meteorological Conditions
Looping Plume
This situation is usually observed on warm days with clear
skies and low to moderate wind speeds. The vertical temperature
structure is unstable, creating large thermally-induced eddies that
cause the plume to impact at ground level close to the source. This
condition can persist for most of the daylight hours, but due to the
variable nature of a looping plume, any specific receptor site will be
affected for only a fraction of that time. Thus, looping is of great-
est concern with respect to compliance with very short term air quality
standards defined for averaging times of one hour or less.
Inversion Breakup (Fumigation)
The behavior of stack plumes and the meteorological structure
associated with the breakup of nocturnal ground-based radiation inver-
sions is shown schematically in Figure A-l. Conditions during the early
morning hours shortly after sunrise are shown in Figure A-la. The
surface-based temperature inversion (temperature increases with height)
that typically forms over land surfaces at night in fair-weather light-
wind regimes has begun to dissipate, but the stack plume is still con-
tained in a thermally stable layer. Under these conditions, the stack
plume remains aloft and does not mix to the ground. Concentrations
A-2
-------
100 50 0 100 m
MIXING LAYER
(a) EARLY MORNING
20 30(°C) 0 2 4 (m sec~')
MIXING
LAYER
(b) MID-MORNING
25 35 (°C) 024 (msec'1)
MIXING
LAYER
(c) AFTERNOON
25 35 (°C) 6 2 4 (m se
-------
within the plume are high, as shown by the small plume dimensions,
because of the very limited turbulent mixing. The shallow thermally-
unstable layer (temperature decreases with height) near the ground is
called the surface mixing layer. As the heating of the ground surface
by solar radiation proceeds, the depth of the surface mixing layer in-
creases. Figure A-lb shows that when the top of the mixing layer
reaches the height of the stack plume the pollutants contained in the
plume are suddenly brought to the ground. This process, which is
called fumigation, produces very high ground-level concentrations that
typically persist for 10 to 30 minutes. Fumigation is a transient
phenomenon and the high initial ground-level pollutant concentrations
decrease as the depth of the surface mixing layer increases and turbu-
lent mixing acts to spread the pollutants over the entire depth of the
layer. Figure A-lc shows the stack plume at a later time when the mix-
ing layer extends well above the plume stabilization height and the
ground-level pollutant concentrations are controlled by turbulent
mixing processes.
Fumigation is clearly of greatest concern with respect to
compliance with very short-term air quality standards defined for
averaging times of one hour or less. It is generally of lesser concern
with respect to compliance with the 3-hour NAAQS for S0?, especially
when the surface mixing layer extends well above the plume stabilization
height. However, fumigation tends to produce high ground-level concen-
trations for relatively long distances downwind from the stack because
of the high concentrations in the plume prior to the onset of fumigation.
For this reason, and also because it is difficult to predict with
A-4
-------
acceptable certainty the onset time of fumigation, sources for which
fumigation may lead to violations of short-term air quality standards
should routinely curtail emissions several hours before fumigation can
reasonably be expected to occur.
Neutral Stability in Combination with Moderate to High Hind
Speeds
Maximum ground-level concentrations resulting from buoyant
stack emissions, in the absence of fumigation or other special conditions,
generally occur under neutral stability when the mean wind speed at the
plume stabilization height reaches a certain value called the critical
wind speed. The critical wind speed is determined principally by the
heat content of the stack discharge and the height of the stack.
Figure A-2a shows the behavior of a stack plume for the critical wind
speed condition (also called the critical coning condition). If an
elevated inversion lid (base of an elevated thermally-stable layer) is
located just above the plume stabilization height, the vertical
growth of the stack plume will be restricted and this may produce an
increase in the maximum ground-level concentration for the critical
wind-speed condition. Relatively large departures of the wind speed
from the critical wind speed produce relatively small decreases in the
maximum ground-level concentration. For example, mean wind speeds
that differ from the critical wind speed by a factor of two may cause
only a 10 percent reduction in the maximum ground-level concentrations
calculated for the critical wind speed.
A-5
-------
"8
CD
CO
03
3
O
o
C
O
O
"8
a,
CD
I
T3
r-*
r4
C8
O
O
o a
I
a 2
3 5>
S «
I
<
H
O
A-6
-------
Limited Mixing
The presence of an elevated inversion base above the plume
stabilization height restricts the vertical growth of the stack plume
and thus results in higher ground-level concentrations than would
occur in the absence of such a restriction. As mentioned above, if the
height of the elevated inversion base is just above the plume stabiliza-
tion height, the maximum ground-level concentration is increased.
Additionally, two processes act to produce higher ground-level concentra-
tions than would otherwise occur at downwind distances beyond the point
of the maximum ground-level concentration. First, further vertical
plume growth is prevented by the inversion lid. Second, as the result
of the turbulent mixing of the plume within the layer below the inver-
sion lid, the concentration of pollutants tends to become uniform along
the vertical. This results in a relative decrease of pollutant concen-
tration near the plume stabilization height and a relative increase at
ground-level. The vertical restriction of plume growth during the
limited-mixing condition is shown in Figure A-2b.
A.1.2 Building and Terrain Effects
Building Wakes
In the presence of moderate and high wind speeds, the disper-
sion of stack plumes may be adversely affected by aerodynamic wakes
formed in the lee of tall buildings or other obstacles. As pointed out
in the general discussion of aerodynamic wake effects on plume disper-
sion in the ASME Guide (1973), plumes emitted from stacks less than one
building height above the tops of adjacent buildings are likely to be
caught in the building-wake cavity circulations and brought quickly to
A-7
-------
the ground. Plumes emitted from stacks extending between one and two
building heights above a nearby building may be caught in a region of
disturbed (displacement) flow which can limit the buoyant rise and bring
the plume to the ground somewhat sooner than would otherwise occur.
Figure A-3 shows the airflow pattern about a cubical building during
moderate to strong winds.
The most obvious consequence of building wakes is to cause
higher ground-level concentrations than would otherwise occur. A
rough rule-of-thumb is that adverse building-wake effects extend up to
2 1/2 times the building height and downwind to a distance of 10 build-
ing heights. Thus, building-wake effects can be largely avoided if the
tops of the facility stacks are outside that adverse zone of influence.
If this condition is not satisfied, plume dispersion calculations that
do not take building-wake effects into account may very seriously under-
estimate the maximum short-term ground-level concentrations that will
actually occur with moderate to strong winds. As a part of their
justification for use of SCS, applicants should be required to include
scale drawings showing stack and building locations, building dimensions
and ground elevation contours. The effects of building wakes
on plume dispersion and simplified methods for estimating ground-level
concentrations are described by Briggs (1973).
It should be noted that the general rules-of-thumb for wake
effects given in the ASME Guide (1973) cannot be expected to apply in
every case, and each source should be evaluated by a qualified
A-8
-------
o
I
t+H
O
e
g
0}
W
s
8
o
-8
o
0>
bC
£3
S tn
-o ^
13 8
8 .s
o W
rt -;
03
rt
8
Ci CD
g g
fcH O
-------
meteorologist. The potential for building wake effects may be determined
by visual observation of plume behavior over a sufficient period of
time, by tracer releases or by wind tunnel studies.
Terrain Effects
There are two principal terrain effects that may produce
ground-level concentrations of stack emissions that exceed the maximums
predicted by the conventional dispersion model formulas for fumigation,
critical wind-speed and limited-mixing conditions in which flat terrain
is assumed. These terrain effects are:
Aerodynamic downdrafts in the lee of prominent terrain features
during moderate and strong winds
Increases in terrain elevations along the downwind plume tra-
jectory that significantly reduce or eliminate the height of
the plume axis above the ground surface
The essential features of the disturbed air flow in the lee of
terrain obstacles during moderate and strong winds are qualitatively
very similar to those shown in Figure A-3. Plume downdrafts occur
whenever the plume enters either the lee-vortex (cavity) or displacement-
zone circulations. Significant terrain features located near the stack
thus have effects on plume dispersion similar to the effects due to plant
buildings or other structures. Potentially serious aerodynamic down-
draft problems exist whenever the stack height is below or approximately
equal to the maximum terrain elevation. Aerodynamic downdrafts may
also occur downwind from the stack where the plume passes over a ridge
or other elevated terrain feature.
A-10
-------
Plume behavior in rugged or mountainous terrain is in general
not well documented, and accurate calculations of pollutant concentra-
tions at air-terrain interfaces on the sides or tops of mountains are
generally not possible. Air quality monitoring is currently the only
reliable method of evaluating the magnitude of terrain effects for
sources located in complex terrain.
Visual Evidence of Building or Terrain Effects
Relatively simple observations often can give evidence of
the presence of adverse or potentially adverse building or terrain
effects. The following questions should be considered in evaluating
an individual source for the possibility of wake or terrain effects:
1. Has the plume centerline been observed to slope downward
instead of horizontally or upward (evidence of downdrafts
or wake effects)? If so, under what meteorological con-
ditions has this behavior been observed? Is there a pre-
ferred direction for this behavior?
2. Are the top few feet of the outside of the stack blackened
by soot (evidence of downdrafts or wake effects)?
3. Does the plume often fail to rise significantly, even under
light wind conditions (evidence of downdrafts or wake
effects, low effluent momentum and/or buoyancy, or a
combination of these factors)?
4. Are there any significant hills, valleys, rivers or lakes
within a few miles of the source that might affect the
plume dispersion?
5. Has the plume been observed to drift into, or appear to
A-ll
-------
be trapped against, a hillside (evidence that the plume
centerline may approach the elevated terrain, leading to
high concentrations)? If so, where, when and under what
meteorological conditions has this behavior been observed?
6. Has the plume exhibited any other behavior that could
affect ground-level concentrations?
A.2 FACTORS LEADING TO HIGH GROUND-LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS FROM LOW-LEVEL
OR FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
Fugitive emissions, frequently a problem at certain sources (e.g.,
nonferrous smelters), are discharges to the atmosphere from plant
buildings, roof vents, or other low-level exit points. Such emissions,
because of their low release heights, have a relatively large impact
on air quality and may lead to air quality violations alone or in com-
bination with stack emissions. Thus, to insure against air quality
violations and to minimize the required frequency of stack emission
curtailments, fugitive emissions should be captured and vented into stacks,
Because fugitive emissions typically have little thermal buoyancy
and frequently enter the building cavity circulations, they are best
classified as surface-based volume sources. Fugitive emissions are
thus most likely to adversely affect ambient air quality in the
vicinity of the source during persistent light-wind and poor dispersion
conditions. These conditions typically occur at night and in the early
morning during fair weather with light gradient winds.
A-12
-------
In most cases, steps may be taken to significantly reduce or
effectively eliminate fugitive emissions by sealing leaks and by cap-
turing emissions at all stages of production and discharging them
through existing stacks. As a part of the implementation of an SCS,
the source should be required to present a comprehensive inventory of
all low-level fugitive emissions and to show that these emissions do
not endanger the ambient air quality standards. Procedures for estima-
ting ground-level concentrations arising from low-level fugitive
emissions are given by Briggs (1973).
A-13
-------
APPENDIX B
ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED IN SUPPLEMENTARY CONTROL
SYSTEM APPLICATION AND BACKGROUND
STUDY REPORT
Sources proposing to use SCS generally must submit three reports
to the responsible control agency. In the first report, the application
to use SCS, the source must (1) demonstrate that SCS is needed as a
control measure if ambient standards for SO,, are to be met in the
vicinity of the source, (2) propose an SCS design concept and (3) pro-
vide evidence that use of the proposed system would ensure the attain-
ment of the ambient S02 standards. Although the specific outline for
the application may vary from case to case, the items listed in Section
B.I should be addressed in all applications to use SCS.
Upon control agency approval of the application, the source must
conduct a background study, which includes a field monitoring program,
to develop an operational SCS. A report on this background study,
demonstrating that the operational SCS will maintain the air quality
standards, must then be submitted to the control agency. Section B.2
provides a list of the items that should be included in the report on
the background study.
In addition to the report on the background study, the source
must submit an SCS operational manual for approval. Basic requirements
for the operational manual are outlined in Section 5.
B-l
-------
B.I APPLICATION
1. Justification for the source's application to use SCS; viz.
a demonstration that SCS is needed as a control measure at the source
in question if ambient standards for S(L are to be attained.
2. Description of the type, location and age of the facility,
including:
t A description of the processes, equipment, raw materials
and/or fuels used by the facility
Stack heights, exit velocities, volumetric flow rates, stack
gas exit temperatures and pollutant emission rates.
t Scaled plan layouts, including horizontal and vertical dimen-
sions of all structures within a 10 stack-height radius of
emission points
t A topographic map of the plant property and surrounding area
3. Evidence that the source qualifies as an isolated source and
an exact description of the designated liability area (DLA) in
which the facility proposes to accept legal responsibility for
meeting ambient S0? standards (see Section 3.2).
4. Number, location and relevant emission inventory of sources
in the vicinity of the proposed DLA.
5. Data on the frequency and severity of recent ambient S0? con-
centrations in excess of the ambient standards, together with support-
ing emission and meteorological data, if available.
6. A complete description of the source's constant emission
control (CEC) techniques including:
A description of CEC techniques that are currently in use and
the resulting emission rate
B-2
-------
t A description of any additional CEC techniques that will be
employed, the proposed schedule for implementing these
measures, and the emission rate that will be achieved upon
implementation
t Emission standards, if any, that will apply to the source and
evidence that these emission limitations will be met
A description of the source's current fugitive emissions (if
any), an assessment of the impact of those emissions on ambient
air quality and the source's plans to control fugitive emissions
7. A preliminary demonstration of the feasibility of attaining
ambient SOp standards through the use of SCS, including:
Estimates of the response times required by the source to
achieve various degrees of emission curtailment and a descrip-
tion of the procedures to be employed to curtail emissions
Estimates of the advance warning times that the SCS will pro-
vide regarding adverse atmospheric dispersion conditions
A listing of all parameters necessary for dispersion modeling,
including stack and building locations and dimensions, total
volumetric emission rates, stack gas temperatures, stack gas
exit velocities and pollutant emission rates
Dispersion model calculations of maximum concentrations for
the averaging times of the applicable ambient SOp standards
for (1) emission rates resulting from existing and planned CEC
and (2) emission rates resulting from the projected CEC in
combination with the proposed SCS (the latter calculations
should show the facility to be in compliance with all air
quality standards for SCL)
8. The source's plan for the development of the proposed SCS to
include:
A description of all air quality, emission monitoring and
meteorological equipment to be used
A description of the method that will be used to determine
emission rates
t Names and qualifications of key personnel responsible for the
development of the SCS (the guidance of an experienced
meteorologist with a background in dispersion modeling is
clearly required during the design, data collection and
analysis phases of the SCS development)
B-3
-------
t A description of the general plan of investigation to be
followed during the background study to develop the SCS
operational procedures
9. Any other factors deemed pertinent by the source in justifying
the use of SCS.
10. Any additional information that regulations require from the
source to justify the use of SCS
B.2 BACKGROUND STUDY REPORT
1. Names and qualifications of all key personnel involved in the
background study (resumes should indicate adequate experience in air
quality monitoring, dispersion modeling, air pollution engineering
and the analysis of field data).
2. A description of the air quality monitoring network to include:
An exact description of the DLA
Type or types of monitors, calibration procedures and proce-
dures for obtaining, recording and analyzing data
Number of monitors, locations of monitors at the start of the
study, and rationale for the initial placement of monitors
Details of monitoring program conducted during the background
study (including the use of mobile and portable monitors)
Basis of the finalized locations of the monitors and assess-
ment of the probability that the air quality network will ob-
serve air quality violations
3. A description of the emission monitoring system to include:
t Number and type of in-stack monitors, calibration procedures,
and procedures for obtaining and recording data
t Proof that material balance or process calculations provide
data equivalent to in-stack monitors (if the operational
SCS proposes to use such calculations rather than in-stack
monitoring)
B-4
-------
An assessment of the uncertainties in real-time emission
estimates
4. A description of the meteorological system to include:
Number, type and location of all meteorological instruments
Calibration procedures and procedures for obtaining, analyzing
and recording data
Evidence that these data are representative of the conditions
affecting the dispersion of emissions from the source
A description of the source's meteorological forecasting pro-
gram
5. A description of the dispersion model or models to be used in
the open-loop SCS operational mode, including:
An explanation of all model equations and input parameters
t An explanation of the basis of model selection
t The concentration averaging time of the model or models
A comparison of maximum observed and calculated ground-level
concentrations for all periods during which simultaneous
emission, meteorological and air quality data were collected
An assessment of the accuracy of the model or models, based
on the above calculations
6. A description of the method used to vary the emission rate,
to include:
An explanation of why this method was selected
An estimate of the time-response curve for emission reduction
t An estimate of the accuracy of emission projections based on
this response curve
A tabulation of all emission curtailments employed during the
background study, including the curtailment criteria that
applied in each case
7. A description of the SCS operational procedures developed
during the background study, including:
B-5
-------
t The SCS threshold concentrations (see Sections 2.1 and 2.2)
for the open and closed-loop modes of system operation, and
the corresponding degrees of required emission curtailment
The specific manner in which the threshold concentrations
were derived
A description of the critical meteorological conditions (see
Section 2.1), the meteorological criteria used by the
operating model to identify each critical condition, and the
corresponding degrees of required emission curtailment
The criteria used by the operating model (Section 2.1) to
predict the occurrence of critical meteorological conditions
t The specific manner in which the critical meteorological
conditions were identified
An estimate of the annual number of occurrences of each critical
condition as well as the periods (time of day and time of year)
when each condition is most likely to occur
t An estimate of the percent of the time that emission curtail-
ment will be required under the operational SCS
The data storage procedures
0 The system upgrade procedures
8. Evidence that the procedures outlined for the operational SCS:
(1) would have precluded all air quality violations if they had been
employed during the background study, and (2) will prevent violations
in the future (this analysis must include the effects of time delays in
emission curtailment and downwind transport of pollutants).
9. A summary of the air quality, emission and meteorological data
gathered during the field study that is sufficient for the control
agency to independently verify any of the major conclusions of the study.
B-6
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-450/2-76-003
J. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Guidelines for Evaluatina Supplementary Control
Systems
' AUTHOR(S)
PERFORMING OR 'ANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5. REPORT DATE
February 1Q7fi
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
2 AC 129
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
6. ABSTRACT
Through a supplementary control system (SCS), S(L emissions from a facility are
temporarily curtailed when meteorological conditions conducive to high ambient S02
concentrations exist or are anticipated. The purpose of the document is to proviae
guidance to facilities proposing to use SCS and to air pollution control agencies in
their case-by-case evaluation of such systems to determine if the proposed systems
nil ensure attainment of air quality standards. The document provides specific
guidance on (1) technical considerations with such systems, (2) meteorological condi-
tions conducive to high ambient pollutant concentrations, (3) the application by the
source to use an SCS, and (4) the development and implementation of such systems.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Air Pollution
Sulfur Dioxide
Meteorology
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
lo restriction
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution Control
Supplementary Control Sy:
terns
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page I
Unclassified
c. COS ATI Field/Group
-
21. NO. OF PAGES
76
22. PRICE
Form 2220-1 (9-73)
C-l
-------
O
c
O
T3
T)
O
C
2
O
-n
TI
O
f-
03
m
01
oo
o
3-
n O '
Z 2. a O
o 3 ~ H
~ in O m
=" =? 5 n
OS mH
S 5 SO
^3
a
w
r1
I~H
n
>
H
>-M
o
z
25
O
w
T3
>
4x
vyi
O
K)
^
ON
6
o
v»
N O jo
O ZT ^
CL m «.
o> 5 3-
CD
03 CD
Q. '-
Q ___
CO O
C/) CL
3 °
2 z
CD ,-,
Dl
Q. CD
O
O CD
* <
CD CD
» o
id 3
_CD g
_. CD
Ci
m
-z.
n
z
<
3
m _,
>
oo H ~n
CJi m m
O m
-I 01
Z
n
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBJECT: Distribution of OAQPS Guidelines tor Delegation of
DATE: March 22, 1976
New Source Review Authority to State and Local Agencies
FROM: Jean J. Schueneman, Director
Control Programs Development Division
TO-. Addressees
The enclosed guidelines consolidate all new source review delegation
requirements. They are being submitted to the Regional Offices in two
parts as follows:
1. For EPA regional office use as a guidance package under Roger
Strelow's (OAWM) and Stanley Legro's (OE) signature. This
guidance package includes the OAQPS Guideline 1.2-045 ("Guide-
lines for Delegation of Authority to State and Local Agencies")
as enclosure 1 and 5 other enclosures of various example letters
and example FEDERAL REGISTERS - all enclosed within one binding.
2. As OAQPS Guideline # 1.2-045 without enclosures for transmittal
to the States.
Ten copies of each of the above items have been included for the
Regional Office Addressees. Additional copies will be available through
Ted Creekmore (629-5437) of my staff.
Enclosures
Addressees:
Directors, Div. of Enforcement, Regions I-X (10)
Directors, Air & Hazardous Materials Div., Regions I, III-X (10)
Director, Environmental Programs Div., Region II (10)
cc: R. Zener, OGC
N. Shutler, OGE
B.J. Steigerwald, OAQPS
P. Cashman, ORIO
R. Wilson, DSSE
M. James, AQNRD
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 6-72)
-------
\
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
I 2 MAR 1375
SUBJECT: Guidelines for Delegation of New Source Review Authority
to State and Local Agencies
TO: Addressees
Enclosed is the Guideline for Delegation of Authority to State
and Local Agencies, OAQPS #1.2-045, (enclosure 1). This guideline
has been prepared in a format suitable for sending to the States.
In order to consolidate new source review delegation requirements,
this guideline incorporates the Office of Enforcement's S-13 guideline
entitled, "Delegation of Authority to the States - NSPS and NESHAPS".
Section 1.8 discusses resolution of major issues raised in this conso-
lidation action. Procedures for the delegation of authority for parking
management are not included. These provisions have been suspended
indefinitely pending congressional action.
EPA Order 1265.1 was issued September 15, 1975, delegating from
the Administrator to the Regional Administrators responsibility for
approving State procedures for implementing and enforcing Stationary
Source Review (SSR), Indirect Source Review (ISR), Review for Non-
Significant Deterioration (NSD), New Source Performance Standards (NSPS),
and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
and for delegating authority to the States to implement and enforce the
associated regulations. In delegating authority for review of new
sources, prior concurrence from headquarters will not be necessary
although DSSE and CPDD will monitor delegation activities for consis-
tency with national policy.
While a request for delegation of authority is entirely vol-
untary, it is EPA policy to both encourage and facilitate such
requests, to the maximum extent possible. The Regional Offices
have primary responsibility for review of State and local requests
and subsequent delegation. Thus Regional Offices may exercise broad
discretion with regard to the adequacy of requests for delegation,
but should strive to make delegations as complete and free of con-
ditions as possible.
The Regional Offices should coordinate air and water reviews
whenever possible. Opportunities exist especially when either the
State or EPA have responsibility for both programs. Where these
responsibilities are shared, increased attention to potential coor-
dination should be given prior to complete delegation of these pro-
grams to the States.
-------
In addition to the guideline in enclosure 1, other information
to assist the Regional Offices in preparation of delegations of
authority is included as follows:
1. Example letter notifying State or local agency of its
eligibility to request delegation of authority for new source review
and encouraging such requests (Enclosure 2),
2. A block diagram to show steps by the Regional Office in
processing delegation requests (Enclosure 3),
3. Example letter from Regional Office to the State or local
agency delegating new source review authority (Enclosure 4),
4. Example FEDERAL REGISTER notice of delegation of authority
for new source review to State or local agencies (Enclosure 5), and
5. Example FEDERAL REGISTER rulemaking changing addresses from
EPA to the requesting agency for applications required under new source
review (Enclosure 6).
The Region^ Offices and Headquarters Staff Offices have been
given an opportunity to ..comment on a draft of these guidelines.
Rogar/Strelow Stanley/'legro /
Assistant Administrator Assistant Administrator
for Air and Waste Management for Enforcement
Enclosures
Addressees:
Directors, Div. of Enforcement, Regions I-X (10)
Directors, Div. of Air and Hazardous Materials, Regions 1,111-X (10)
Director, Environmental Programs Div., Region II (10)
cc: R. Zener, OGC
N. Shutler, OGE
B. J. Steigerwald, OAQPS
P. Cashman, ORIO
R. Wilson, DSSE
M. James, AQNRD
-------
ENCLOSURE 1
GUIDELINE SERIES
OAQPS NO. 1.2-045
FINAL
GUIDELINES FOR DELEGATION OF NEW SOURCE
REVIEW AUTHORITY TO STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES
IWHJ976
US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 NEW SOURCE REVIEWS SUBJECT TO DELEGATION 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Stationary Source Review 2
1.3 Indirect Source Review 3
1.4 Review for Non-Significant Deterioration 4
1.5 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources . . 5
1.6 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants 5
1.7 Authority for Delegation 6
1.8 Consolidation of Guidance 7
2.0 PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 8
3.0 DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY - AGENCIES ACCEPTING 10
3.1 Who May Request Delegation 10
3.2 Degree of Authority Requested ll
3.3 Redelegation lz
4.0 ADEQUACY OF STATE PROCEDURES 13
4.1 Surveillance 14
4.2 Public Notification and Disclosure of Information ... 15
4.3 Reporting Status of Review to EPA 18
4.4 Resources 19
4.5 Identification and Notification of Potential New
Sources 19
4.6 Enforcement Against Non-Complying Sources 19
4.7 Consistency with Federal Regulations 20
5.0 RELATIONSHIP TO STATE STANDARDS 22
6.0 REVOCATION 22
7.0 CONCURRENT FEDERAL AUTHORITY 23
8.0 FEDERAL FACILITIES 23
Appendix A - List of Stationary Sources Which May Be Exempt
From The New Source Review Procedures A-l
Appendix B - Sources Covered By Indirect Source Review B-l
Appendix C - Sources Which Must Apply for Approval to Construct
Under NSD Regulations C-l
Appendix D - New Source Performance Standards - Applicability . . D-l
Appendix E - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants - Applicability E-l
Appendix F - Check Sheet - Requirements for Delegation of
Authority Requests F-1
1
-------
GUIDELINES FOR DELEGATION OF NEW SOURCE REVIEW AUTHORITY
1.0 NEW SOURCE REVIEWS SUBJECT TO DELEGATION
1.1 Introduction
This guide sets forth the procedures for delegation of authority
to States and local agencies to enforce EPA regulations for the
review of new and modified sources. The new source review regulations
subject to delegation include those promulgated to implement SS 110,
111 and 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended.
Section 110 of the Act requires States to submit implementation
plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain air quality standards. The control
strategy portions of the SIPs describe how these goals will be reached.
Important portions of this strategy are procedures to review prior to
construction, proposed new sources. Initially, States were re-
quired to develop procedures for stationary source review (SSR) to
ensure that attainment and maintenance of air quality standards would
not be compromised by new source construction and operation or modi-
fication of existing sources, and that all new sources would comply
with the SIP control strategy. Court decisions have resulted in
expanded review requirements to include indirect sources (ISR), and
review for non-significant deterioration (NSD). Where these "new
source review" procedures have been deficient, EPA has disapproved
that section of the SIPs and promulgated its own regulations.
-------
In addition to the new source review required for SIPs, the Act,
in §§ 111 and 112, required the establishment of New Source Per-
formance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS).
It is EPA's policy to encourage State and local agencies to
develop their own new source review (NSR) regulations equivalent to
EPA's. Delegation of Authority will relieve EPA of the responsibility
of enforcing these regulations, and put enforcement in the hands of
the States where the Clean Air Act intended it to be. In the case of
SIP related new source reviews, EPA is relieved of enforcement respon-
sibility when State regulations equivalent to EPA's are adopted in the
SIP. For NSPS and NESHAPS reviews, the only manner by which EPA can
be relieved of its enforcement responsibility is through delegation.
Therefore delegation is recommended for NSPS and NESHAPS, even though
State standards may be as stringent as EPA's. However, if States and
local agencies are unable to develop equivalent regulations, they
may request delegation of authority to enforce EPA promulgated regulations,
1.2 Stationary Source Review (SSR)
The requirements for these regulations are outlined in 40 CFR
51.18. EPA has promulgated SSR regulations for a few States (or
portions thereof). This review includes stationary sources which
might cause violation of ambient air quality standards or provisions
of the SIP control strategy. EPA has proposed a list of stationary
sources which may be exempt from new source review procedures in the
-------
FEDERAL REGISTER (40 FR 28629), July 8, 1975. The list includes
sources from which, in EPA1s judgment, the impact of emissions is
not significant enough to require that all States allocate the
manpower and resource expenditures necessary to review them. Appendix
v
A includes a list of these sources. EPA would approve a regulation
exempting a source not listed in Table 1 only if the State demon-
strated to EPA the negligible impact of such a source.
1.3 Indirect Sources Review (ISR)
These regulations were promulgated by EPA on February 25, 1974
for all States except Florida and the territory of Guam, and amended
July 9, 1974 as 40 CFR 52.22 in response to a court order. Since
this date several other States have submitted approvable plans for the
control of indirect sources. This review covers facilities such as
shopping centers and airports which do not themselves emit pollutants,
but which attract increased motor vehicle activity. On July 3, 1975
(40 FR 28064); the Administrator suspended indefinitely those portions
of EPA's indirect source regulation covering parking related facilities,
Indirect source review for highways and airports, which make up the
remaining sources subject to ISR, has not yet been enforced. The
regulations state that these reviews will be based on separate guidance.
The Administrator, in the preamble to the suspension of parking
related reviews, stated that he plans to propose such guidance in the
near future. Appendix B presents a description of sources presently
covered by ISR.
-------
1.4 Review for Non-Significant Deterioration (NSD)
These regulations were promulgated by EPA December 5, 1974, for
all States and amended June 12, 1975, as 40 CFR 51.21 in response to
a court order. This review covers specific categories for new and
modified sources to determine whether these sources cause a violation
of the appropriate increments of air quality for total suspended
particulate and sulfur dioxide. On September 10, 1975 a new source
category, ferroalloy production facilities, was added. A list of
these source categories is presented in Appendix C. NSD categories
apply to SOp and particulate matter emissions only.
In the NSD regulations, a precondition exists with regard to
reelassification of area designations. A State must have requested
and received delegation of the new source review before a State may
reclassify any area. An exemption from this precondition may be
granted where the State Attorney General has determined (formally
or informally) that they cannot legally accept delegation of authority,
For this case, EPA would delegate the administrative/technical func-
tions described in Section 3.2 herein to the State or local agency
and EPA would implement any necessary enforcement functions. Thus,
if the State assumes neither full nor partial delegation, for
whatever reason, it may not reclassify.
-------
1.5 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (NSPS)
These regulations were promulgated by EPA on December 23, 1971,
March 8, and October 24, 1974, and August 6, and September 23, 1975,
in 40 CFR 60. This review covers specific categories for new and
modified sources to determine whether these sources meet emission
standards for specified pollutants. Appendix D lists sources
covered under NSPS. Preconstruction review is not required for
NSPS. Compliance with Part 60 is determined solely by testing
sources after they start up within the regulatory time limitation.
It should also be noted that delegations of NSPS authority should
include responsibility for emission and fuel monitoring for sources.
1.6 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
These regulations were promulgated by EPA on April 6, 1973
with additional amendments on May 3, 1974 and October 14, 1975, in
40 CFR 61. This review covers specific categories for new, modified,
and existing sources to determine whether these sources meet emission
standards for specified non-criteria pollutants. Appendix E lists
sources covered under NESHAPS. Authority for this review may be
delegated. However, authority to grant waivers of compliance under
40 CFR 61.10 for existing sources will not be delegated to States or
local agencies. All other regulatory provisions of NESHAPS (except
for alternative test methods) will be delegated to States submitting
an adequate request.
-------
1.7 Authority to Delegate
General authority to implement and enforce new source review,
may be delegated to States and local agencies pursuant to the following:
a. For SSR, ISR and NSD 40 CFR 52.02(d) provides:
"(d) All approved regulatory provisions of each plan are
incorporated by reference in this part. Regulatory pro-
visions of a plan approved or promulgated by the Administrator
and all permit conditions or permit denials issued pursuant
to approved or promulgated regulations for the review of new
or modified stationary or indirect sources are enforceable
by the Administrator and the State, and by local agencies in
accordance with their assigned responsibilities under the
plan."
b. For NSPS, Section lll(c) of the Clean Air Act, as amended
provides:
"(1) Each State may develop and submit to the Administrator
a procedure for implementing and enforcing standards of
performance for new sources located in such State. If the
Administrator finds the State procedure is adequate, he shall
delegate to such State any authority he has under this Act to
implement and enforce such standards (except with respect to
new sources owned or operated by the United States).
"(2) Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the Adminis-
trator from enforcing any applicable standard of performance
under this section."
c. For NESHAPS, Section 112(d) of the Act provides:
"(d)(l) Each State may develop and submit to the Administrator
a procedure for implementing and enforcing emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants for stationary sources located
in such State. If the Administrator finds the State procedure
is adequate, he shall delegate to such State any authority
he has under this Act to implement and enforce such standards
(except with respect to stationary sources owned or operated
by the United States).
"(2) Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the Adminis-
trator from enforcing any applicable emission standard under
this section."
-------
1.8 Consolidation of Guidance
This guide incorporates the Office of Enforcement's S-13
guideline entitled "Delegation of Authority to the States - NSPS
and NESHAPS", which was issued in 1973. NSPS and NESHAPS reviews
are required under Section 111 and 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended, and SSR, ISR and NSD reviews are required under Section 110.
New source review requirements and subsequent delegation thereof
vary to some degree. This guideline consolidates all new source
review delegation guidelines in such a way that variations in
different type reviews are minimized. Major differences and their
resolution are listed below.
a. The S-13 guidelines for delegation of authority for NSPS
and NESHAPS restricted delegations to States only. These guidelines
now modify that policy to allow delegation directly to local agencies
if the State does not accept it.
b. The S-13 guidelines required State agencies to request new
delegation of authority each time new standards of performance are
issued. Presently, every time a new source performance standard
is promulgated, 55 separate delegations are possible. These guide-
lines provide for development of an "automatic" delegation of
authority in such cases to reduce the paperwork involved.
c. The recommended procedure for reporting the status of review
to EPA has been modified to require the information stipulated under
40 CFR 51.7 on a semi-annual basis and to eliminate duplicate reporting,
unless the delegatee's public disclosure procedures are inadequate.
-------
2.0 PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
The procedures set forth below should be followed by a State
or local agency requesting delegation of authority.
a. The Governor of the State, his designee, or other appro-
priate agency shall submit to the appropriate Regional Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency a written request for dele-
gation of authority. The request must describe in reasonable detail:
(1) The administrative/technical and enforcement procedures
(see Section 4) that will be followed in implementing and enforcing
one or more SSR, ISR, NSD, NSPS or NESHAPS,
(2) Identify the State offices or other agencies responsible
for carrying out the procedure(s), and
(3) Demonstrate the adequacy of the procedure(s) with respect
to the criteria set forth in this statement of requirements. A
check-off sheet listing the requirements for delegation of authority
requests is included as Appendix F.
b. The Regional Administrator shall notify the requesting
official in writing whether and to what extent the request has been
approved or disapproved. If the request is disapproved in whole or in
part, the notification shall specify the reasons for such disapproval.
c. If the request is approved in whole or in part, the Regional
Administrator shall delegate to the requesting governmental organization
authority to carry out the provisions of the appropriate Federal regu-
lation. Such delegation is accomplished by and effective upon, the date of
-------
a written Letter of Delegation. The Letter of Delegation shall
identify the approved procedure by reference to the request and to
any additional submission by the requesting authority supplementing
or modifying the State procedure and shall specify which portions of
the proposed procedure, if any, are disapproved.
d. A delegation of authority shall not authorize implementation
and enforcement of new source review which is different from the
approved procedures identified in the Letter of Delegation, unless a
revised procedure is submitted by the agency and approved by the
Regional Administrator. Such revision shall be announced through
a second Notice of Delegation and follow-up FEDERAL REGISTER package.
e. A FEDERAL REGISTER package announcing delegation of respon-
sibility to the State or local agency, or other governmental authority
will be prepared by the Regional Office. The delegation goes into
effect upon approval of the Regional Administrator as indicated in
(c) above. This package is for the purpose of giving notice of EPA
delegation and to provide that applications from sources be submitted
to the delegated State or local agency.
f. As additional source categories for NSD, NSPS, or NESHAPS
are promulgated, the requesting agency may submit additional requests
for delegation of authority in accordance with the foregoing pro-
cedure. It is also possible to make this delegation automatic, i.e.,
as each NSD review requirement, NSPS, and NESHAPS is promulgated
-------
the requesting agency automatically agrees to accept delegation
without the necessity of adopting their own requirements. Thus, if
the State and EPA agree, delegation could be automatic, unless either
party declares otherwise in writing. This agreement would be recog-
nized in the letter from EPA to the requesting agency and in the
subsequent I-EDERAL REGISTER notification. However, in the circumstance
where the State bases their delegation upon either their adoption of
EPA regulations or reference in State Regulations to EPA regulations,
automatic delegation is inappropriate.
3.0 DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY - AGENCIES ACCEPTING
3.1 Who May Request Delegation
EPA desires to delegate authority only to State agencies whenever
possible. Thus, the State air pollution control agency shall be the
first agency contacted by the Regional Office with regard to delegation
of authority. If the State will not accept delegation, the Regional
Office may ask the State to recommend local air pollution control or
other appropriate agencies that might qualify and desire to accept
delegation. If the State presents no recommendations, the Regional
Office has the option to suggest certain agencies and solicit btate
comment on such delegations. If the State disapproves of these
suggestions for delegation of authority, the Regional Office will
consider the States reasons for not delegating before any final dele-
gation action is initiated. If the Regional Office delegates authority
directly to a local agency, this delegation is subject to revocation
upon reception of an adequate delegation request from the btate.
Organizations other than air pollution control agencies may be
delegated authority to conduct new source review. However, for NSD
and ISR it
10
-------
is EPA policy that such agencies must consult with the appropriate
State or local air pollution control agency prior to making determina-
tions required by new source review. Thus, such agencies must include
in their delegation request, procedures for obtaining comments from
the appropriat2 air pollution control agency prior to new source
review action. Similarly for NSD and ISR, where the agency desig-
nated does not have continuing responsibility for land use planning,
such agency shall consult with the appropriate State and local land
use planning agency prior to making any determination require by
new source review. These provisions are not required for SSR.
3.2 Degree of Authority Requested
It is EPA's policy to delegate all new source reviews to States
and local agencies whenever possible. However, EPA will make partial
delegation. In this case, partial may mean any, or all, or the
following:
a. Delegation of authority may be sought for only a portion of
the State.
b. Delegation of authority may be sought for only a portion of
the source categories involved. Specific source categories might be
identified for SSR, ISR, NSD, NSPS or NESHAPS. (Example - only
airports would be reviewed under indirect source requirements or only
a portion of the source categories would be reviewed for NSPS or NSD).
c. Delegation of authority may be made in regard only to the
administrative/technical portion of the review of new sources, with
11
-------
EPA providing enforcement should any litigation become necessary. The
administrative/technical portion of the review includes reception of
the source's request for approval, and evaluation of that request.
The enforcement portion consists of advising the source of the results
of this evaluation, issuance of the appropriate approval/disapproval
action, and initiating any litigation required should the source re-
fuse to accept the evaluation of its request.
d. Delegations may be made for the enforcement portion of the
review with EPA performing the administrative/technical portions.
3.3 Re delegation
Where a State agency requests delegation, it will be the respon-
sibility of that agency to determine if the authority should be
redelegated to local agencies. Prior to redelegating its authority,
the State must obtain approval from the Regional Administrator, unless
the State has received authority to redelegate without further approval.
Such authority may be requested in the original delegation request.
The State must present guidelines which it will use to select local
agencies for redelegation. Such guidelines must include the following
provisions:
a. A requirement that the local agency has the necessary legal
authority (or can use the State's legal authority),
b. A provision to insure that the local agency meets the require-
ments of this guideline, and
c. A requirement that the local agency furnish written indication
that it has agreed to assume the responsibility for the specified new
source review.
12
-------
Once redelegation authority is granted the State must notify
the RA of any redelegation. The Regional Administrator will prepare
the necessary FEDERAL REGISTER address changes. No further notice
of delegation will be necessary.
The State shall be ultimately responsible for effective enforce-
ment of the new source reviews redelegated to local agencies. When-
ever possible, it is desirable to specify such redelegation in the
original delegation request.
4.0 ADEQUACY OF STATE PROCEDURES
Procedures for implementing and enforcing new source review
should be considered adequate and should be approved by the Regional
Administrator if the procedures make adequate provisions for the
following:
1. Surveillance of sources,
2. Public Notice and disclosure of information,
3. Reporting status of review to EPA,
4. Resources,
5. Identification and notification of potential new sources,
6. Enforcement against non-complying sources, and
7. Equivalency with the requirements of 40 CFR Parts 52, 60 and 61
A check-off sheet which summarizes the requirements for delegation of
authority requests is included as Appendix F.
13
-------
When requesting delegation for SSR, ISR, NSD and to some extent
for NSPS and NESHAPS, the bulk of the submittal may be reduced by
citing pertinent approved portions of the SIP. The name of the
regulation or procedure, and when it was submitted to EPA (as part
of the original SIP or in a later revision - give dates) must be
noted. If the majority of the SIP was approved, it may be possible
to cite information from the surveillance, public disclosure, resources,
and regulatory portions. If extensive citing of SIP provisions is
included in the request for delegation, the requesting agency may
forward a draft to the Regional Office for review prior to final
submission.
4.1 Surveillance
The procedure must, as a minimum, provide for access to and use
of monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting required by the following
Federal regulations:
a. For SSR - 40 CFR 52, various Subparts thereof. These regu-
lations specify when performance tests must be conducted.
b. For NSPS - 40 CFR 60.7, .8. These regulations require
sources to notify EPA of initial start-up and to maintain a 2 year
record of all excess emissions of any affected facility. These regu-
lations also specify when performance tests must be performed.
c. For NESHAPS - 40 CFR 61.09, 10, 12, 13, and 14. These
regulations require sources to submit the same information as required
for NSPS. Additionally there are provision for waiver of emission tests
14
-------
Required reports and notices from sources will be submitted to
States to which authority has been delegated. The addresses in
the FEDERAL REGISTER will be changed accordingly. In addition, for
NSPS and NESHAPS, an adequate State or local agency procedure must
include a field investigation system for detecting violations of emission
standards and for conducting or observing source emission tests. For
SSR, NSPS and NESHAPS the source must conduct a performance test after
startup and submit the results of this test to the delegated agency.
The delegated agency must have the capability to monitor these tests.
For SSR, ISR, and NSD States or local agency are encouraged to
provide for field inspection during construction to ensure conformity
with approved plans, although this is not a requirement.
Delegations to States of authority to require monitoring, record-
keeping and reporting by sources and to conduct other forms of survei-
llance under an approved State procedure may, in addition, be considered
to constitute a delegation of authority pursuant to Section 114(b).
4.2 Public Notification and Disclosure of Information
For SSR, ISR, and NSD public participation is required prior to
preconstruction approval. 40 CFR 51.18(h)(4) requires States (or
local agencies) to send EPA a copy of its notice that an application
from a source for new source review is available for public comment.
Procedures for public participation are included in the NSD regulations
15
-------
(40 CFR Part 52.21(e)). These same procedures apply for SSR and
ISR review. Essentially, these procedures require a 90-day turn-
around time for processing applications with public notification through
newspapers of general circulation in each region in which the proposed
source would be constructed. The public has 30 days in which to submit
written comments. A public hearing may be scheduled if sensitive issues
are involved. In this case the public notification would include 30
day notice of the public hearing.
For all delegations, emission data must be available to the public
in the air quality control region in the State where the source is
located. Other records, reports, or information collected as a result
of the new source review (except trade secrets) must also be made
available. If the State requests it, delegation of S 114 authority
to implement public disclosure requirements may be granted in
addition to New Source Review (NSR) responsibility in the same
delegation.
For SIP related new source reviews, where State laws containing
confidentiality provisions have clouded the adequacy of a State
plan, EPA has taken one of two approaches. The first was to delegate
S 114 authority to a State in order to cure the inadequacy (e.g.,
Idaho, 40 CFR 52.674). The second was to promulgate corrective
regulations providing for release of emission data by the Regional
Office when such data is not available from the appropriate State or
16
-------
local agencies (e.g., as was done for 26 States on November 28, 1975
(40 FR 55326)). These corrective regulations provide that any person
who cannot obtain emission data from the State or local agency respon-
sible for making such data available to the public, may request such
data from the appropriate Regional Administrator.r.
It is not adequate to employ either the Part 52 delegation
of S 114 authority or the promulgated substitute regulations of Part
52 to satisfy similar legal authority required for NSPS and NESHAPS.
These regulations and delegations are specifically aimed at correcting
SIP deficiencies. Because NSPS and NESHAPS are outside the implemen-
tation plan, additional action is necessary to cure such inadequacies
before a delegation may be granted. Either of the following approaches
may be taken.
First, a delegation of S 114 authority as necessary for the S 111
or S 112 delegation may be employed. Although EPA would normally
require that the State formally request delegation, the S 114 delegation
may be concurrent with the NSPS or NESHAPS delegation, and granted
without being preceeded by a formal request, if the State will accept
S 114 delegation as necessary to the S 111 or S 112 delegation.
The second method to cure public disclosure inadequacies is
conditioning the delegation upon a clear cooperative effort between
the State and EPA in releasing information requested by the public.
This method is especially useful where a State refuses to accept a
S 114 delegation as described above. Sample language for such a
condition is as follows:
17
-------
In order to satisfy § 114 of the Clean Air Act, and 40
CFR 60;9 (or 61.15, as applicable), in any instance
where the State is unable under its own authority to
release emissions data to the public, the State shall so
notify EPA, so that EPA may take the action necessary to
release such data.
4.3 Reporting Status of Review to EPA
Reporting requirements in 40 CFR 51.7 already require that emissions
be reported for sources which (1) achieve compliance, (2) receive
approval to construct, or (3) begin operations. However, these require-
ments do not apply to NSPS and NESHAPS. Thus, each delegation of NSPS
and NESHAPS should be conditioned to require information required in
40 CFR 51.7. This would include information on NESHAPS and NSPS for
sources which receive approval to construct or begin operations, as
appropriate. Submission of duplicate review requests by the source
will not be required unless the State or local agency has a public
disclosure deficiency in its State Implementation Plan and it has
not been corrected as covered in Section 4.2 of this guideline.
In addition, each delegation should be conditioned to indicate that
the State agency and EPA will develop a system of communication
sufficient to guarantee that each office is always fully informed
regarding current compliance status of subject sources and regarding
interpretation of applicable regulations. Example conditions are
included in Enclosure 4.
The Regional Office will review the program annually at the
time of grant related program reviews. The Regional Office will
monitor important cases through the newspapers, letters from the
public, and notices of availability of applications for public comment
sent to EPA by States.
18
-------
4.4 Resources
The delegation request must include assurance that the delegated
agency has the necessary resources to perform the reviews required
and to take the necessary actions required by the applicable regulations.
Each request must include a description of the resources available
to the requesting agency for enforcement of the required new source
review and assurances that these resources are adequate. Manpower and
money allocations may be submitted in a form similar to that included
in Appendix K of 40 CFR 51. Previous submission of such information
in the SIP pursuant to 40 CFR 51.20 may be cited.
45 Identification and Notification of Potential New Sources
The delegation request should demonstrate that the requesting
agency is capable of identifying potential new sources to prevent
unapproved construction. "Early warning" mechanisms such as A-95 Reviews
and Environmental Impact Statements should be monitored to identify
potential new sources. Access to information from government agencies
which issue permits for building, sewage, water, and electrical
connections, zoning, etc., is helpful.
4.6 Enforcement Against Non-Complying Sources
If the requesting agency seeks full delegation of the administrative/
technical and enforcement provisions of new source review the procedure
must provide for institution of suits for injunctive relief to
prevent construction for SSR, ISR, NSD, and NESHAPS and to prevent
operation for NSPS. (State or local authority and procedures to
prevent construction for sources subject to NSPS would, of course,
19
-------
be acceptable.) The agency should provide for the recovery of
significant fines or penalties in appropriate cases. The agency
must demonstrate that it has the ability to seek injunctive relief
for violations.
It is important that delegation not be delayed due to legal
authority problems. If the agencies cannot accept delegation of
EPA legal authority to enforce the requirement in State courts,
EPA will provide legal support and/or enforcement should any liti-
gation be necessary until such time as the agency can obtain its
own legal authority. Thus, an arrangement can be made with the State
or local agency whereby the administrative/technical portions of the
review would be done locally and EPA would issue the appropriate
construction or operation approval.
Assurances on the part of State agencies that they will attempt
to enforce federal regulations will normally be accepted. Formal
opinions from the State Attorney General regarding such authority are
not necessary.
EPA will remain ready to enforce against violations of its regu-
lations and permit conditions even where enforcement as well as review
is delegated.
4.7 Consistency with Federal regulations
The procedures should not create exceptions or immunities not
created by Federal regulations. Modifications to EPA regulations
are discouraged. The regulations should be implemented as written.
20
-------
No variances may be given by a State or local agency for NSD, NSPS,
or NESHAPS. For NSPS and NESHAPS, there is no authority or allowance
in the Clean Air Act for such variances by EPA or States. For NSD it
is EPA's position that sufficient flexibility is provided in the
prescribed procedures for reclassification and thus one should not
allow circumvention of such procedures through the granting of
variances. Also, for NSD "Best Available Control Technology" (BACT)
must be determined for each source; thus, States already have flexi-
bility in setting emission limits and do not need variance authority.
For SSR, States or local agencies may give variances for emission
limiting regulations, but such variances shall be treated as SIP
revisions and subject to EPA approval.
EPA will not delegate to the States its authority to issue ad-
ministrative orders nor to initiate civil or criminal actions in Federal
court pursuant to Section 113. Rather, it is presumed that each State
will undertake enforcement actions using its own procedures within
its own State court system.
For NSPS and NESHAPS the procedure must be appropriate for deter-
mining compliance with emission limitations in accordance with the
test methods referred to in 40 CFR 60 and 61 respectively. The
Regional Offices, after consultation with headquarters will handle all
requests from States for approval of alternative test methods.
For SSR, EPA regulations as specified in 40 CFR 52.12(c) apply
with regard to test methods. S 52.12(c) is quoted as follows:
21
-------
For purpose of Federal enforcement, the following test
procedures shall be used:
(1) Sources subject to plan provisions which do not specify
a test procedure and sources subject to provisions promul-
gated by the Administrator will be tested by means of the
appropriate procedures and methods prescribed in Part 60 of
this chapter; unless otherwise specified in this Part.
(2) Sources subject to approved provisions of a plan wherein
a test procedure is specified will be tested by the specified
procedure.
21a
-------
5.0 RELATIONSHIP TO STATE STANDARDS
When the State or local agency has adopted standards and regu-
lations Identical to or more stringent than SSR, ISR, and NSD, EPA
will rescind the delegation of authority and EPA's promulgated regu-
lations.
For NS'hS and NESHAPS States and local agencies are advised to
request delegation ej/er^ if their regulations are equivalent to NSPS
and NESHAPS in ordp-- to become primary enforcers of these require-
ments and to Deduce any possible duplication of effort. EPA is
the primary enforcer of ?!SPS and NESHAPS, until a delegation is made.
Thus, if no delegation is made, EPA has primary responsibility to
enforce the rec!ii1at'!o" even though States and local agencies may be
enforcing similar one-,,
For SSR, ISP,,, and NSO the same situation does not exist. Under
these regulations tT'A enforcement occurs only if the State fails to
do so. These new source reviews are considered State responsibilities
which should be cov^r^d ,mder the State Implementation Plans (SIPs).
Thus, upon adoption of a^nuate State SSR, ISR, or NSD procedures,
that portion of the SIP v ould be approved and the State would assume
the lead in that activity. Further, if the State regulations ade-
quately provide for SSR, ISR aid NSD, then EPA would simply with-
draw its disapproval of the States plan, and rescind EPA's regula-
tions and delegation of authority for that State.
6.0 REVOCATION
If the Regional Administrator determines that a State or other
responsible agency's procedure for implementing and enforcing new
22
-------
source review is inadequate, or is not being effectively carried out,
the authority may be revoked in whole or in part. The revocation shall
be effective as of the time specified in a Notice of Revocation to
the officer who received delegation. Whenever possible, the Regional
Administrator will notify the responsible agency in advance of the
revocation notice that their delegation of authority will be revoked,
and explain what they must do to retain the delegation. The Notice
of Revocation may provide that pending enforcement actions by the
States shall not be affected by the revocation. Notice of any such
revocation shall be published in the FEDERAL REGISTER.
7.0 CONCURRENT FEDERAL AUTHORITY
Pursuant to Sections lll(c)(2) and 112(d)(2) and the provisions
of 40 CFR 52.02(d), EPA retains concurrent authority to enforce EPA
promulgated regulations for new source review following any delegation
of authority to a State or local agency. EPA will only exercise its
concurrent authority, however, when necessary to secure effective
enforcement of new source review. In exercising its concurrent authority,
EPA is not bound by any State or local action or determination in
carrying out delegated authority.
8.0 FEDERAL FACILITIES
In accordance with the Clean Air Act, EPA retains authority to
enforce new source review with respect to sources owned or operated by
the Federal Government. For NSPS and NESHAPS this authority is pre-
sented under Sections lll(c)(l) and 112(d)(l). For SSR, ISR and NSD,
this authority is discussed in 40 CFR 52.21(f)(3) and 40 CFR 52.22(14)(ii)
23
-------
APPE;;CTX A - LIST OF STATIONARY SOURCES
UhlCH FAY BE EXEMPT FROII THE NEU SOURCE REVIEV PROCEDURES*
1. Maintenance, structural changes or minor repair of process
eauiprent, fuel-burning equipment, control equipment, or incinerators
which do not chance capacity of such process equiprrent, fuel-burning
equipment, control equipment, or incinerators and which do not involve
any change in the quality, nature, or quantity, of emissions therefrom.
2. Fuel burning units, other than smokehouse generators, which
have a heat input of not more than 250 million BTUs per hour and burn
only gaseous fuel containing not more than 20 grains HpS per 100
>
standard cubic feet; have a heat input of not trore than 10 milVjon
BTUs per hour and burn oil; or have a heat input of not more than
350,000 BTUs per hour and burn solid fuel.
3. Stationary internal combustion engines with less than 1000
brake horsepower.
4. Bench scale laboratory equipment used exclusively for chemical
or physical analysis or experimentation.
5. Portable brazing, soldering, or welding equipment.
6. The following equipment:
(a) Comfort air conditioners or comfort ventilating systems which
.*
are not designed to remove emissions generated by or released from
specific units or equipment.
(b) Vlater cooling towers and water cooling ponds unless used for
evaporative cooling of process water, or for evaporative cooling of water
from barometric jats or barometric condensers or used in conjunction with
an installation requiring a permit to operate.
(c) Equipment used exclusively for steam cleaning.
(d) Grain, metal, plastic or mineral extrusion presses.
(e) Porcelain enameling furnaces or porcelain enameling drying ovens.
(f) Unheated solvent dispensing containers or unheated solvent
rinsing contains of 60 gallons capacity or less.
A-l
-------
(g) Equipment used for hydraulic of hydrostatic testing.
7. The following equipment or any exhaust system or collector
serving exclusively such equipment:
(a) Blest cleaning equipment using a suspension of abrasive in water.
(b) Bakery ovens where the products are edible and intended for
human consumption.
(c) Kilns for firing ceramic ware, heated exclusively by gaseous
fuels, singly or in combinations with electricity.
(d) Confection cookers where the products are edible and intended
for human consumption.
/
(e) Drop hanr.ers or hydraulic presses for forging or meta),working.
(f) Die casting machines.
(g) Photographic process equipment through which an image is reproduced
upon material through the use of sensitized radiant energy.
(h) Equipment for drilling, carving, cutting, routing, turning,
sawing, planning, spindle sanding or disc sanding of wood or wood products,
which is located within a facility that de*s not vent to the outside air.
(1) Equipment for surface preparation of metals by use of aqueous
solutions, except for acid solutions.
(j) Equipment for washing or drying products fabricated from metal
or glass: Provided, that no volatile organic materials are used in the
process and that no oil or solid fuel is burned.
(k) Laundry dryers, extractors or tumblers for fabrics cleaned with
only water solutions of bleach or detergents.
(1) Containers, ressrwirs,. or tanks* used exclusively for electrolytic
plating with, or electrolytic polishing of, or electrolytic stripping cf
the following petals: Brass, Bronze, Cadmium, Copper, Iron, Lead, Nickel,
Tin, Zinc, Precious Metals.
8. Natural draft hoods or natural draft ventilators.
9. Contains, reservoirs or tanks used exclusively for:
A-2
-------
(a) D1pp-.no operations for coating objects with oils, waxes, or
greases, where no <.'. came solvents are used.
(b) Dipping or f- -at ions for applying coatings of natural or synthetic
resins v/hich ccnUtln -TO organic solvents.
(c) Storage of butane, propaie or liquified petroleum or natural gas.
(d) Storage of lubricating oils.
(e) Storage of Nos. 1 5 2, 4, 5 and 6 fuel oil, non-military jet
engine fuel, and crude petroleum or condensate which is stored, processed,
and/c treated at a drilling and production facility prior to custody
transfer.
(f) Storage of volatile organic compounds in any stationary tank,
/
reservoir, or other container of 40,000 gallons or less. Volatile organic
compounds are defined as any compounds containing carbon and hydrogen or
containing carbon and hydrogen in combination with any other element
which has a vapor pressure of 1.5 pounds per square inch absolute or
greater under actual storage conditions.
10. Gaseous fuel-fired or electrically-heated furnaces for heat
treating glass or petals, the use of which does not Involve molten materials.
11. Crucible furnaces, pot furances or induction furnaces, with a
capacity of 1,000 pounds or less each, unless otherwise noted, in which
no sweating or distilling is conducted, nor any fluxing conducted utilizing
chloride, fluoride, or anmonium compounds, and from which only the following
metals are poured or in which only the following metals are held in a
molten state:
(a) Aluminum or any alloy containing over 50 percent aluminum,
provided that no gaseous chlorine compounds, chlorine, aluminum chloride
or aluminum fluoride are used.
(b) Magnesium or any alloy containing over 50 percent ragnesium.
(c) Lead or any alloy containing over 50 percent lead, in a furnace
with a capacity of 550 pounds or less.
(d) Tin or any alloy containing over 50 percent tin.
(e) Zinc or any alloy containing over 50 percent zinc.
Copper. .-, ..
(g) Precious metals.
'Proposed July 8, 1975, 40 FR 28629.
A-3
-------
APPENDIX B - SOURCES COVERED BY INDIRECT SOURCE REVIEW*
a. In an SMSA
(i) Any new highway section with an anticipated average annual
daily traffic volume of 20,000 of more vehicles per day within ten
years of construction; or
(ii) Any modified highway section which will increase average
annual daily traffic volume by 10,000 or more vehicles per day within
ten years after modification.
b. Anywhere
(i) New airport: 50,000 or more operations per year by regularly
scheduled air carriers, or use by 1,600,000 or more passengers per year.
(ii) Modified airport: Increase of 50,000 or more operations per
year by regularly scheduled air carriers over the existing volume of
operations, or increase of 1,600,000 or more passengers per year.
*Source: 39 FR 7270, Feb. 25, 1974; 39 FR 25292, July 9, 1974;
40 FR 28064, July 3, 1975.
B-l
-------
APPENDIX C - SOURCES WHICH MUST APPLY FOR
APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT UNDER NSD REGULATIONS*
1. Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Electric Plants of more than 1000 million
B.T.U. per year heat input.
2. Coal Clean Plants.
3. Kraft Pulp Mill Recover Furnaces.
4. Portland Cement Plants.
5. Primary Zinc Smelters.
6. Iron and Steel Mill Metallurgical Furnaces.
7. Primary Aluminum Ore Reduction Plants.
8. Primary Copper Smelters.
9. Municipal Incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons
of refuse per day.
10. Sulfuric Acid Plants.
11. Petroleum Refineries.
12. Lime Plants.
13. Phosphate Rock Processing Plants.
14. By-Product Coke Oven Batteries.
15. Sulfur Recover Plants.
16. Carbon Black Plants (furnace process).
17. Primary Lead Smelters.
18. Fuel Conversion Plants.
19. Ferroalloy Production Facilities.
*Numbers 1-18: 39 FR 42510, December 5, 1974; Number 19: 40 FR 42011,
September 10, 1975.
C-l
-------
.
1
-
1
i i
i
t 4
CO
O
^_t
1
0-
O-
cC
1
1/5
Q
ce
e^
Co
^y
«=c
to
UJ >-
t;
T~ 1
C£ CO
O eC
U. O
ct: i <
UJ J
CL. CL
Q-
UJ
ai
=3
O
to
X
g
t
xsj
0
00
-^
s:
a.
*-^
0
o
vo
un
sL
x:
ID
1
CO
VO
o
^
X
o
un
CM
C
ro
x:
40
i.
w
40
ro
ai
s~
CD
.//
I
in
s-
o
ro
s-
ai
c
E
5
V}
^
ai
i.
.^
u-
r
ai
^
u.
i
r-
m
in
O
LL.
1
r ₯ *"
^
0.
*-"
O
LO
O
va
un
^ *
oi
40
ro
i.
en
c
~
ro
XI
S*-
ai
o.
in
c.
o
40
u
f
s.
40
0}
E
in
c:
to
x:
40
i.
oi
40
ID
e
0
in
S-
o
40
ID
S-
at
c:
f~
u
tr
» i
cO
U»X-r r .-,-
S
D-
01
x:
t~ \y
* C r
E »" 3
Ol ** jO
40
in «x>
>> O) C
in en ro
ro
r- i- en
i O C
f- 40 f-
E in en
x: s- ro
in ai xi
*E c >
f- i- in
u c; o
» »p i^,
E 0
Ol Ol O.O ,.
40 en vo
m ro s-
>, s- aiun
in o vi
40 m
i 1/1 c
f 10 in
*^~ r~* $. E
E ro 40 ai
S i- s- m
10 Ol O >j
i- +o >>.«n
10 n>
E > en
s- c c
o> 3: Oi-
i ro u -a
os. ro
0 0
o on
s- en c
s- ai ro 3
Ol >> S-
.*: s- o x>
C XI 40 c
i- m ro
O 40 en
- o c
** E 3 *i~
C XJ XI
2 o ro
^ ro s- o
:*: i- o-r-
in
40
C
IO
ol
^J
c
g
a>
0
XI
f-
to
t~~
40
O
a.
ro
- .-
o
z.
t
~~1
in
t/j
G^
t.
r~.
at
x:
40
s-
a>
x:
40
.,_
flj
>.
XI ^"^
0
x» r-.
f->
o o
ro uj
u un
»t ^_x
s-
40
i- in
£Z in
ai
JkC U
ro o
01 S-
S CL
cn a>
c s-
r 3
O in
3 in
X) O)
0 S-
s- a.
a.
01
>> 4-
4-y cj
r XI
r O.
f in
o o
ro E
i*- 40
ro
>>j_
=c o
VI
4->
g
r_
O.
T3
<
U
«^
U
r
S-
40
.,
^
^
+> - « '
r-
S
x>
T5
^c
*
o
to
x>
40
in ai o
CO Xi C
di f
u "4- in
O i ai in
S- 3 O -r-
o. in TD
XJ
40 C 40 .,-
o a> 3 o
ro ^ " r*^ ro
40 0
C i- « 0
O TJ QJ *^
(j >, en s_
x: tJ 3
01 3 >»-
x: "r- i
40 XJ in 3
r- in
>> UX)
xi ro t- o
O 40
XI C ID
i- O C
O T- I. O
ro 40 o i-
10 in
Ui S-
i >i in o>
I- Ji C >
3 r ro C
i*- ro 40 o
i ro o
3 0
in S- s_ o)
3 , 40
CL C XI i-
OJ -r- r
40 W *~~ O
r- i 3 to
r 01 in t-
1
(J en (j oi
ro c -r- xi
t- -i- C 3
c ro t
>» S- en o
C 3 l_ C
«« X> O i-
in
g
r
O.
XI
U
«£
U
r
S-
3
M-
3
00
Uf)
- ,
ai
x:
40
o
40
in
in xi
c a
0 3
i- O
in Q-
in t
*r~ O
E u
at
S-
CJJ 3
C H-
r- r
40 3
c: m
a;
> s_
ai a>
0.40
o
o s_
o
in
e oi
ro xi
Ol f-
E X
o
ID v-
o
in
ro s-
3
>>*-
ro
E V(-
i- o
S-
o Cl
^ f ^
XI 0) O
oi x: co
N 0.
t- in O
i O IO
t- E
40 40 un
" -" '%y?~-
^~
CL.
cn
c en
^ c oi
~5>TI 40
-r- 0
tt) 40 XI
jfc l/i C
ro c~
X) X3 40
c c --
ro ro >cr>
x: *r- -c in
XI X O
*> ro »- oi vo
cn o E cn
cr ro un
r $- i- *~^
C I- O O
O) O 1*- 40
oi <*- in in
,t- in £
O «n h:~O a,
in E 0) c 40
o 4-« ro in
S 40 in 2>)
O in >-, "in
t- >, in i-
in O) r
in -"ii- O
E s- in s-
ai ai o. c; 40
40 40 , to c:
in ro i i_ o
>-, C- r- -|0 O
in s+o c ro T-
C 0 -r- 0 E
a x: 1 1 cu
40
Ol
u
c
o
o
1 »
r
ro
x:
o.
in
«t
vo
-
O
*"*
»
E; s:
a. Q.
. .
ro xi
i
in
S-
40 40
ro in
s- ro
0) S
c:
Ol 1
cn
t^ O
40
40 ro
in s-
>, Ol
i c:
ro -c-
40 O
ro c
40 40
r "I
C C
3 3
cn cn
c c
u u
ro ro
s- s-
o o
u o
r -r
40 40
ro ro
40 40
tu CU
0 U
TJ X)
3 3
r~. ,
1 i 1 1
.
ro /^*
in
Ol
S-
01
tr
in
t-f'
E
3
^~
O
40
a.
r^
,-^-
CM
O
to
,
O
f-~^
o
C3
O
vo
on
Ol
>^~
>
O)
XI
c
o
40
in
3
"XI
in E
Oi u
r- in
o ro
xi cn
40 i
ro at
at 3
x: u.
^
u
-'- T-Z-
O
a:
^-^,
o
r~-
r
O
VO
un
in
s-
Q)
4-*
f
r
CM
^*
M
r~*
in
r
(0
x:
40
s_
(U
40
ro
o>
s_
cn
JJ
0
ro
a.
ro
O
0)
cn
ro
s-
0
I/)
E
3
ai
40
Ol
a.
i.
0
in
Ol
in
Ol
ai tn
CTiXJ
1C -r-
1- 3
O cr
40 ;-
00
1
*»-"' / * * « *
»
j
-
*
i
»
1
{
1
I
f
"
'
5
t
*
1
D-l
-------
CO
CM
I
I
o.
O)
CO
_
g
o
in
>_
l_
» *
_J
CO
<£
^J
1 1
f
o.
a.
^c
UJ
cc
o
co
+-* * *
in O
ro CM
r i
CO
^o
i^un
*1~ *+-~^
U
ro
CL in
ro CO
0 0
CO
O) C
C S-
13
OT*fr-
i.
x: £"
u o
en ro
.^ i-
01
0X1
in s-
CM Ol
C 01
CO S-
x:
4-> "O
s- to
Ol
co in
Ol Ol
s- u
co to
c
in s-
01 3
0 M-
ro
c *~~*
&_ to
4- O
CL
+-> 3
o u
fX --^
in
Ol
1
o
CD
>-
S-
ro
c
o
u
11
CO
en
o
s-
x:
«o --^
3 0)
01
o
j- in
O CM
E o
ro +->
x:
ro
t- 3-
Oi cr
+-> Ol
CO
0! S-
s_ o
17^
I/} tJ
85
ro
C J-.
S- 0) O
3 4J CO
,
s- -P
-03^-
C » E ro
i- O O
o -
»->!-> C
CO U O
S- 3 «-
0 -0 +J
XI O U
S- S- 3
Ol Q.-O
> o
O> CO i-
C£ ±1 CL
f
o
co
,5
01
rsl
c
o
S-
ca
o
c
re
v>
ro
s.
CO
^
S-
ro
o
c:
o
CJ
Ol
0
r
^^
o
^*
^
o
vo
m
"-'-
Ol
u
ro
E
3
*
in
I/)
Ol
u
0
CL
c
03
x"
o
u
^
in
ro
CO
i/i
t->
1
rx
I
ai
a>
CO
-o
c:
CO
C
s
1
-
r*»
ro
CL
"o
r»
§
E
^J
JQ
a
O)
u
3
^0
S- LO
Ol O
OllO
TJJ
^22-
v>
Ol V)
x: ai
,(~* fQ
M-
^:
u -*->
»- c
JC
t- *O
O a»
4J C.
(O 4 *
s-
gg,
f-
o
x:
M
i/i
o o"
CO CM
0 0
CO
> an
UJ ^-^
1/1
c
ro
CL,
o
u
,_
S-
o
x:
O.
in
O
x:
t.
Ol
9-
co
^
U>
1 .
r
1
-a
c:
ro
1/1
CT
Ol
C3
S-
O
in
A
in
i~
Ol
8
u
.
I/)
£.
01
S-
o
in
s-
0
ro
^
C
*o
t
co
"C.
I/I CM
S- CM
O
«-> 0
U IO
CO
CU UO
in
E
CO
r
rx
Ol
to
a.
i/i
o
x:
rx
3
-r
C
O
£
£j^
(O
5
*
tn
in i
v. >»-
Ol O
0 3
S-
£2
o o
ro i/}
3 XI
C U
ro t-
s-x:
co 2
" in
I/I Ol ^~*»
S-T- 0
O 4-> CO
J-r- CM
Or
«!- 0
Ol U VO
J- re
.**" ""
i/i c ai
C ro 4->
Ol ro
0 in x:
r O.
r in
I/I * O
+J E x:
« a.
01 s-
xi in 01
C CL
CO CU 3
C cu en
r- i.
S- CJ O)
o ""a.
" in J-
l/l i. +->
i- Ol
Ol -S£ Ol
X O i
1- O T-
'^- t*> Q-
l/l
s
^_
rx
cu
CO
x:
CL
in
O
x:
e-
0)
Q.
CO
ai
CL
IT
1
vo
a
CO
in
c
cu
Ol
s-
u
LO
m
I/I
S-
o
ro
Ol
ai
in
o
S
c
o
o
in
r2
r-
Q.
O)
r- O"
i. n-
3 C\j
U
0
s- vo
o
uo
01
CO
ro in
O r
4-* *r
co E
ai
CO
x:
a.
i/i
o
x:
CL
s_
Ol
a.
3 in
CO Ol
r *r
^"^
S- U
r~~ (T3
U-
S-
to G;
i D)
3 IO
C !-
CO O
s- +->
t»I
^«^
O
CM
O
VO
un
4
^
c
u
E
CL
r-
3
cr
ai
E
r
x>
c
CO
x:
i
in
3
o
in
Ol
o
03
^*
3
U
s_
to
3
CO
r '
Cr.
« c'
co.,-
C "X3
in
3 -o
i. E
O ro
k *t
CO »
c in
r- T3
-*: o
ro x:
o> *J
w a>
JD £=
^.
>>-u
XI
a
r E
CO (O
O
O »->
ai
in 2
Ol
s- x:
ro +>
CL 0
Ol XI
CL
x: c-o
O i- O)
- E in
x: to o
S Ol O.
r O
>> o s.
I COO
T- E in
CJ -r-CM
10 E
i»_
. 0
o
*t
CO
CM CM
CM
s-o>
j co
Ol CC
U U.
i cn
co
r-* 01
CO in
«a- o
CM a.
o
oc. s-
u_ CL
CM V.
i Ol
Q) .«
XI LT>
3 CTl
2Ti
*
D-2
-------
APPENDIX E - NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS
FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS - APPLICABILITY*
POLLUTANT
SOURCES COVERED
Asbestos
Asbestos mines
Asbestos mills
Buildings and structures 1n which the following
operations are conducted or directly from any of
the following operations if they are conducted
outside of buildings or structures.
The manufacture of -
(a) cloth, cord, wicks, tubing, or other textile
(b)
c
d
materials.
cement products
fireproofing and Insulating materials
friction products .'/""'
paper, millboard, and felt
f) floor tile
g) paints, coating, caulks, adheslves and sealants
hj plastics and rubber materials
1) chlorine
4. Buildings or structures which will be constructed
using asbestos insulating products (S 61.20)
5. Specified demolition and renovation activities
(S61.22(d))
6. Waste disposal sites (5 61.25)
Beryllium
1
Extraction plans, ceramic plants, foundries,
Incinerators and propel 1 ant plants which process
beryllium ore, beryllium, beryllium oxide, beryllium
alloys or beryllium-containing wastes. (S 61.30)
2. Machine shops which process beryllium oxides or any
alloy when such alloy, contains more than 5 percent
beryllium by weight. (S 61.30)
3. Rocket motor test sites. (S 61.40)
Mercury
1. Facilities processing ore to recover mercury.
2. Facilities using mercury chlor-alkall cells to
produce chlorine gas and alkali iretal hydroxide.
3. Facilities which incinerate or dry wastewater
treatment plan sludge. (5 61.50)
*38 FR 8826, April 6, 1973 (all sources except asbestos disposal sites);
40 FR 48291, October 14, 1975 (added asbestos waste disposal sites).
E-l
-------
Q^
o
u_
co
H;
LU CO
2: LU
UJ ID
rv^ fy
i i LU
ID a:
o-
LU >-
Q; i
»__f
i a:
o
i m
LU I
LU ra
T" ^^
co
u_
i«i O
0 __
3C O
1
i
a: co
co i-
z.
C. 0
O "4->
r- ae.
4-> CO 4J
ro co o
co co
CO "-I-J
r JD
CO cn 3
"O -to
CO
cn- ' to
C CO
I- >>-
M Cs-
to O O
a> cn cn
3 CO CO
cr+J 4->
co ro ro
s- o o
>> 3: CO
u co u
C T- S-
CO > 3
O> CO O
>
jjif
s-
o
_c
4-*
3 -0
c* aj
S w
CO CO
r- 3
> CT
QiQ:
r '
3;
CO
> to
CO O)
S- i-
V«rf-
«*- >»
O 0
c
ro co
CO Cn
i- ro
ro
CO
Or-
r- X>
Q- to
ro c
i- O
cn ex
o to
CO CO
cr. s-
to to
1 1
«d" LO
1 CO
CO 4->
0 3
S- 4J
O T-
«*- 4->
c to
CO C
1
a
c o
ro 4-»
ro£
O !-
i- S-
C 0
0 4J
CO 3
4-> ro
"*N^
co to
r- "r~
1 *
ro co
s- *->
4-> i-
io o
r
C 4->
i- tO
E 3
ro
CO
4->
c ro
0 +J
r- CO
!-)
ro co
n^ t-
^co ««-
O CO -M
co ^: c
^^* |~_ ^
o
" !-
co co i-
Q- C
CO 01
"z: -
C£ to
co s-
co o s-
O C 0
««- o o
r- CO
C 4J S-
o ro
- S- 0
4-> CO 4->
0 Q.
3 0 >,
S- -IJ
!-> C T-
to M- S-
C O O
o TT>_C:
0 C +J
CO 3
c ro
r- O
O 4-> t/)
1-3 +J
c -a -r-
ai c:
ro co
0 4J
»-> CO -r-
Q- 0
to r«.
^ *r- r?
> c cr
CO -C CO
$- 0 S-
CO
i -4-> to
r ***^ *f~
ro co
> >>
J_ .r- +?
O +J -r-
<*- ro i.
i- 0
CO to 4->
10 1- 3
ro c: ro
0 -i-
E r
co -o ro
4-* ro cn
ro co
r- CO
s- -c
QL4J O
o c
S- M-
Q. O «
Q. >,
ro ci-?
0 C
C -r- O
r- +J
ro 2
to cn co
CO CO -i-
!-!>
+-> CO CO
i -0 S-
iTt
nj
c: s- QJ
CO O J=
Q.U- +J
OJ
^
CO
c
M-
O
c~
o
r-
4->
ro
o
r
t-
.,_
4->
C
CO
r-
S-
o
If
to
a>
S-
3
XJ
CO
0
o
c
Q.
^
Q
C"
to
D
r^
3
O
f~
to
4_>
to
CO
3
cr
CO
g~
ro
LU
T3
C
ro
c
0
1
+J
ro
u
i
M-
r
4J
C
CO
-a
i i
Cv}
to >
CO S-
i- CO
O +J
c ro i
CO S O
cn s~
ro > -M
c c
r- O O
ro -r- o
+J 4->
c o c
CO 3 O
E S- -r-
S- 10 3
CO C
> O i
o u o
cn a.
s-
i- O S-
c~ fQ
!-> tO
O +J CO
r f"
.C E !->
M S-
i CO E
S Q- S-
O
to
cn ro
C 3 «
ro to
s- to u
S- -r- 4->
ro co
CO
to -C "
ro 4-> cn
c
f" <" if
0 -M C
3 T- O
W S N
CO TD **
O
ro S-
O 3
- o
<4- CO
1
M S
O CO
Z.Z.
to i
CO -r-
S- 4->
3 O
a c
CO
U S-
o o
S- 1-
Q.
to
S- CO
CO S-
_C 3
^ * "O
O CO
u
i- O
O i-
Q.
to o
4-* (/)
r i
E«C
S-
Q.
c
J= 0
O i-
3 4->
to ro
E
«4- i-
M-
CO C
f
ro to
3 !-
to -C
to +J
r-
CO
CO +3
.c: ro
4-> S-
co
<*- c
O CO
rr\
Wi
O JC
c~ tj
cn!c
ro s
i
CO
S-
3
cr
CO
S-
+J
r
E
CO
a.
t^.
o
CO
u
S-
3
O
to
^
CO
^
ro
r~
| * "U
C CO
COT3
4~> H3
Or-
Cl- U
c:
CO-r-
to
CO CO
JC JD
1 »
73
<+-!
O 3
0
C -C
O tO
+-> to
ro 4-^
° S
t E
^ ^
^>X3
JD CO
4-)
X> -r-
T3 CO 0
C. S-
ro -r- co
3 JD
" cr
cn a» >>
c s- ro
r- E
Q. to
co ro a.
CO HH
^c ~o co
T3 C
s- ro
0 Q
O CD O
CO O
1- «3-
3
« c s-
cn o _c:
C -r- 4J
r* | ^
i- o ea
O O) *
4-> CO tO
r- 4-> 1
C C J- CJ^
o -r- ro o
E a-co
-a .a i o
3: co 3 i vo
O N CO
.c -r- CD ce
to S- oj to u-
ro LO (_>
4J E cc:
to E c£ u_ o
3 3 U_ O «*
E to 0
o
4-> to O «=3-
to ro ^r co
co ex.
3 O> CO CO LU
s- co z: :r
-C O
u a.
CO flj
LU S- r OJ CO
CO
0
c
ro
r-
CO
S-
3 |
co
^
F-l
-------
t
-y
UJ
^"
LU
CXL
1 I
ID
cr
LU
c£
s:
UJ
1
1
o
CUr-
S- 0 r-
O i. to
r- 3
i- O O
CL V) -p-
r
4-> 5 xa
E CU 3
CU E O.
E
E r 0)
Or- .E
O fO +J
0 £_ 0
r- O 4->
i U,
jQ CU
3 r
CL . JQ
4-> fO
S- CJ
O 3 T-
tt- S- fO
4-) ^
to to rO
CU E
i- O CU
3 U _*
~O tO
CU 0 £
O 4-»
O O
$_ 4-> .jj
CL-r-
£ to
a s_ cu
co cu s-
S CL 3
-o
» to CU
a: o
to ci_ o
i i O S-
a.
» cu
rv* o «*
CO E 3
to to cu
3 !
S- tO >
o to cu
U_ -r- S_
tu
i-
3
to
o
r
o
to
1
Q
T3
E
to
E
CU O
O !-
I- 4->
4-> tO
-CD £
"~ O
0 <*_
r- E
1 t-H
xi
3 <+-
CL 0
.
IO
E
o
1
4J
to
£
s_
o
*4
E
r-
s_
0
to
s_
o
0-
cu
S-
**
in "O
T3 CU
s- 4->
O -r-
O 0
Co,
.0
s~
QJ ^>
_c~ fO
4-> E
o
D_
a i i
E CO
to
cu
XT
tO 1
^ *
to
TJ .
a
E CU
0 4->
r- 0
to cu
to i
r t
E 0
cu o
cu
O.E
r- 4->
M- 1-
4 2
o
cu
r O
<0 E
E rt»
o -a
r- S-
CO O
cu u
a: o
to
cu
J= C.
O CU
4J-D
to
to E
4J
£ TJ
0 c
Q. rO
O)
C ~Q
r-£
*0 CU => E >
CU -r- E <-
"O O «O E
CO S- O
CO CU £
O- S- CL
< O O r-
"T" lf_ r -
CO E T-
UJ E -r- 3
^ o en
r- CU CU
13 4-> JQ 0
C *O ""
to E S- t-
i. 0
CO E U r
:z -r- 3 .
n
e£
O.
UJ
O
4J
4J
E
CU
to
4J
E
CU
£
p^
O
o
o
1
^~-
ja
3
CL
S-
o
(f
to
E
O
tO
o
r
i- U_ !- E Cnr
i- > 3 O CU CL
O CU
«f- i-
to co
CU E
S- -r-
3 E
a i_
cu cu
0 U
0 E
S- 0
O- O
en
E
r-
[ >
s_
o
a.
cu
C£
f
vo
cr o a:
. cu
r^ s- o cu
4-* c~
i O 1
LO 4-> r
fO
ct: -a > .
LU cu o co
0 E S- T-
O CL tO
O T- CL fO
^j- 4^ to <*>
CL
to
M-
O
>-
4-> to
r- CU
r- IB
JQ 4->
to to
to
3
£
4-> tO
0 4J
E tO
CU
to 3
cu cr
r- CU
4-> f.
r
E '"
3 tO
£ CU
E u
"" 3
S- 0
o to
to JC.
E 0
O 3
i tO
4^
CL S-
tu o
OM-
X
cu to
E
CU O
tO 4J
tu to
l-r-
0 3
en
4-> CU
0 s_
E
"O fO
r- S-
3-8
J= 0)
to u_
to >>
CU J3
S-
3-O
o cu
CU 4->
0 1C S
o tu o
S- S- -E
O. (J 10
to
-o
S-
fO
-a
c
IO
1 *
to
r
(O
s-
-s
tu
u_
^
r^
^ * i \
to c
3 O CU
£ 10 4-*r
E tO
co a: cu >
4O 1 1 f «|
fO C_J to 3
4-> > cr
to CD cu
«* 3
S- cr i.
O JC CU O
"r- S_r
CX 2 O l£>
1 1
to cu o cc.
i tO U-
E XI O
, ,. ^x
4-> U- O
CU CL
> E 0 E
O 0 «3- -r-
S- U
Q. E to
f* *» !"- fO
+-> 4-> cu en
CU E E
£ tO *r
i. OT4J
O) CU E to
E x: -r- cu
r- 4-> 4->|
4-> 0 10
to cu
CU >)l to
1 M- Q-
o co it
CC CU Q- CO
tO CLtO LU
zz in z: z:
*
i CM CO
to
fO
x:
cu
to
en
cu
cu
o
cu
1 ^ ,
a
4-> CU
tO 4->
e~ (
4-J ^>
CU CU
o ja
E
to >>
s- to
3 E
to
tO tX
fO li
to
cu
-o -
3 to
i CU
0 U
E S-
r- 3
O
4-> to
to CU
3 S-
E
4-> S-
to to
cu to
3 to
cr CU
cu o
i- CU
E
x:
u cu
to .£:
1 1 1 .40
to
cu
o
s^
3
o
to
Q
.
CO
to
to CU
i- en
j- -a
O E
4J fO
IO
S- tO
4J 4->
to to
r-
tO to
E 4-J
o to
en en
tu E
ce:.,-
E
CU 3
x; to
4-> to
to
o
4J
E
tu o
4J -r-
4J fO >,
tO CO4-J
CU -r-
CUr- S-
x: cu o
4-» TO x:
CU 4^
XI to
E
E O E
O CL O
r- 3 !-
4-> 4->
fO ^O fO
U cu en
- s- cu
4- -r- r-
i- 3 CU
I % O~"C*
o cu tu
^ s- x-
E
O
40
03
Cn
CU
^~
tu
-o
cu
CL
,
en
to
CU "O
s- cu
3 E i-
-O 0 -r-
CU T- 3
0 4J CT
O 3 CU
S-r- i-
CLr
O E
50.0
O -i-
f- C | ^
10 -i- fO
tO E
to i E
3 tO i-
E 0 CU
O 4->
4-> r- CU
to *o
cu ~o
3 E >>
O" (O E
CU to
S- 0)
4-> CD
C 03 E
O 4-! -r-
1- tO -^
4J 03
(0 E E
en O
CU S- O
<4- 4->
CU
"O to S-
4-J O
X: E -r-
03 E CL
CU E
o to
a; o tu
to T-
> i en u
E E
a - tu
E E Cn
O3 '1 O3
03
0 4->r-
CO X» O
;r o i-
-I*
i- i- E
O O O
U_ t_ t_)
E
03
x: i
4-> O
E i-
O S- 4->
c- CU E
4-> x: o
03 4-» O
E O
i- E
-a >>o
i- O -r-
O E 4->
O CU 3
O CJ!r
03 r
>> o
0 E CL
E QJ
cu x: i.
Cn S fr~~
=3; 03
O
r~~
CO
^
cu
>
tu
C
O)
o
i-
3
O
to
.5
tu
E
to
3
0
i_
(O
>
XJ
E
0
|
4->
03
cn
tu
f^
O)
a
to
4_>
to
tu
3
cr
cu
>~
o
E
tu
cn
03
F-2
-------
ENCLOSURE 2 EXAMPLE LETTER STATING EPA POLICY ON IMPLEMENTING
FEDERALLY PROMULGATED NEW SOURCE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
Mr. __^
D1rector (Name of Agency)
(Address)
Dear
Pursuant to Section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended, each State air implementation plan must provide for
review of all new direct (stationary) and certain indirect air pollu-
tion sources to ensure that violations of National Ambient Air
Quality Standards will not occur. This review process has
been expanded to ensure that significant deterioration of
air quality will be prevented. These latest provisions were
enacted when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pro-
mulgated regulations for the Prevention of Significant Air
Quality Deterioration on December 5, 1974.
To date your State has not adopted adequate legally
enforceable procedures for preconstruction review (new source
review; indirect source review; prevention of significant deter-
ioration). Until such rules and regulations are developed
(and approved by EPA) you are encouraged to request delegation of
Federal review authority for your agency. EPA regulation (40 CFR
52.02(d)) provides that provisions of an approved or promulgated
2-1
-------
implementation plan may be enforced by State and local agencies
in accordance with their assigned responsibilities under the
applicable implementation plan. Under this authority, a State
or local agency may be designated by EPA to carry out the
review.
In addition to the State implementation planning process,
the Clean Air Act, as amended, required establishment of Federal
emission standards for new stationary sources and sources of
hazardous pollutants. Accordingly, the Environmental Protection
Agency promulgated Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources on December 23, 1971, March, 8, and October 24, 1974 and August
6, and September 23, 1975 and for National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants on April 6, 1973 with additional amendments on
May 3, 1974 and October 14, 1975. Sections lll(c) and 112(d) of the
Act provide for delegation of authority to a State to implement and
enforce the standards if such State submits an adequate procedure for
doing so.
We are hereby transmitting a statement of "Guidelines for
Delegation of New Source Review Authority to State and Local Agencies."
While a request for delegation of authority is entirely voluntary
on your part, it is the policy of the Environmental Protection Agency
to both encourage and facilitate such requests, to the maximum extent
2-2
-------
possible since the prevention and control of air pollution is primarily
a State and local responsibility. There are many good reasons why it
is advantageous for NSR programs to be administered at the State and
local level rather than at the Federal level. Some of these are as
follows:
1. No additional burdens are placed on sources in regard to control
costs by virtue of State implementation of NSR programs. The sources
must meet the applicable requirements regardless of whether they are
enforced by Federal or State agents.
2. Having NSR done at the State or local level should be more
convenient for sources since in many cases, the offices of such agency
will be located closer to the offices of the source company than would
be the EPA regional office.
3. The possibility for inconsistent Federal-state actions relative
to a particular case is much reduced if the State takes over the NSR
function.
4. State and local agencies will usually have more complete infor-
mation available on all aspects of a proposed source than would a
remote Federal office and therefore should be able to make a better
over-all decision in the public interest and in accordance with all
applicable state and local laws and regulations.
5. State and local agencies generally administer most of the laws
and regulations applicable to a proposed source, while EPA, when involved
2-3
-------
in NSR programs would be responsible for the air pollution aspects only.
Thus, state and local agencies should be better able to simplify regu-
latory actions relating to a source and better integrate all actions
than EPA would be.
You should note that under EPA's significant deterioration regu-
lations, States are not allowed to reclassify any area (e.g., from
Class II to Class I or Class III) unless they accept delegation of
the administrative and technical functions of EPA significant deteriora-
tion review regulations. Only if States are legally precluded from
taking enforcement action pursuant to a delegation of authority can
they be exempted from this restriction on reelassifications.
It is particularly important that States or local agencies assume
responsibility for reviewing proposed construction of new sources
of air pollution because these decisions involve land-use considerations
and should reflect State and local policies on growth and local health
and welfare. Accordingly, we urge you to request this delegation. Such
a request may be submitted by your agency. A Governor's request is not
required.
As explained in the enclosure, this delegation can be divided
into two specific areas as follows:
1. Delegation of authority to implement the administrative
portion of the new source review, and
2. Delegation of authority for enforcement actions.
2-4
-------
Thus, your agency may accept delegation for the first area even though
you are precluded from accepting the second, thereby remaining intimately
involved in the review process. Whenever a State accepts delegation,
it is expected that all procedures and requirements specified in the
regulations being delegated will be adhered to.
EPA encourages those States not already having NSR, ISR, and NSD
regulations to adopt such regulations as part of their SIP. This will
allow EPA to rescind its delegation of authority and, any related
regulations EPA has promulgated and grant approval of the applicable
part of the SIP. Regardless of whether you accept delegation of
authority, or adopt your own regulations, the emission limitations
sources must meet will remain unchanged.
If you have any questions concerning the requirements or need
assistance in preparation of your request for delegation, please feel
free to contact of our (Air and Hazardous Materials
or Enforcement Division) (phone number).
Sincerely yours,
Regional Administrator
2-5
-------
co
ii
CD
LU
o:
a.
o
UJ
O
1 1 1 Q
CJ CO
o z
C£
a. «
0£
LU i i
r-
CO «
LU Ct
CD CO
O CO
ID
CO 1
1 >-
i i
co a:
o
LU :C
CO en
o: co en co
CO CO
a: a: r- 3
t- a: a> a
o u. a co
U E ** CO
^.> O ^ . rfff "O O
c T- a: "v c +j
CO -M Li. CU
P CO CO S-
a. en co co
CO CO TJ -M
Ur- C O 4J
u at co co
a: a co ce. _j
^
LU
CO C
CO O
O Q i-
o: ^.-iJ
o; en co
|i OP IM
0. S- X1"
"CJ O >,
z. ««-
a: o c: c
^ k
rv^
en
o co
r- J=
4J O
CO
5- T- CO J3 ,
P -i- £
P «-> TJ QC
(U O TJ CC
Z. CO
P
S_
«C CO
..,._ o: TJ
CO CO
>>-C CO
ja -p ^:
TJ ^ O
CO O -P CO
C CO
Oil TJ C
r~ CO t- "^"
CO CO r
O en co
1 -P CO TJ
-=C J- T-
>, ^-^LO 3
cj o: co f^- .c en
c cncn -P
CO >> C r T- CO
en o co 2 co
i 00
en co i- co co _c
r CO CO E -P
CO S- JQ CO -r-
TJ E = S
1 TJ CO 3 r
S- CO CO
C CL E 0
O CO r S- C
i cnco co o co
-P C C C TJ
CO -i- C T~ = S-
0 JK: O <4- 0
i- CO CO O
to TJ v-
i a>
oc a: > o -c
O t- S
1 1 O -P CO
<:
LU LU -P C T-
Q Q S- to O >
LU LU CD -Q «r- CO
U_ U_ TJ 3 -P S-
It. CO CO
i i o i cn«*-
Z. DC e£ O r CO
a: a: Q. c co -P
U- U- LU = O CO
co .a o
3-1
-------
ENCLOSURE 4 - EXAMPLE DELEGATION LETTER
(To be tailored to fit specific cases)
CERTIFIED MAIL NO.
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTETT
Dear (Authorized Person Requesting Delegation):
This is in response to your letter of (Date of Formal Request)
requesting delegation of authority for implementation (and enforce-
ment) of (Stationary Source Review, Indirect Source Review, Non-
significant Deterioration, New Source Performance Standards, and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants) to the
(State and/or local agency when applicable).
We have reviewed the pertinent laws of the State of
and the rules and regulations of the (local agency when applicable)
and have determined that they provide an adequate and effective pro-
cedure for implementation (and enforcement) of the (NSR, ISR, NSD,
NSPS and NESHAPS) by the (local agency when applicable) and the State
of . We have reviewed the resources and capabilities
of the State of (and/or the local agency when
applicable). Therefore, we hereby grant delegation of (Stationary
Source Review (SSR), Indirect Source Review (ISR), Non-significant
Deterioration (NSD), New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
to the (State and/or local agency when applicable) as follows:
4-1
-------
A. Stationary Source Review (SSR): Authority for all sources
located in the (State name or local agency jurisdiction whatever is
applicable) subject to review of new sources and modifications pro-
mulgated in 40 CFR Part 52 Subparts (Identify applicable State Sections)
of the date of delegation.
B. Indirect Source Review (ISR): Authority for all sources
located in the (State name or local agency jurisdiction whatever
is applicable) subject to review of new or modified indirect
sources promulgated in 40 CFR Part 52.22 as of the date of delegation.
The categories of new sources (should be modeled to fit request)
covered by the delegation include highways and roads, and airports.
C. Review for Non-significant Deterioration (NSD): Authority
for all sources located in the (State name or local agency
jurisdiction whatever is applicable) subject to review for the
prevention of significant air quality deterioration promulgated
in 40 CFR Part 52.21 as of the date of delegation. The 19 categories
of new sources (update as new categories are issued to fit request)
covered by the delegation are fossil-fuel steam electric plants of more
than 1000 million B.T.U. per hour heat input; coal cleaning plans;
kraft pulp mills; portland cement plants; primary zinc smelters; iron
4-2
-------
and steel mills; primary aluminum ore reduction plants; primary copper
smelters; municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons
of refuse per 24 your day; sulfur acid plant; petroleum refineries;
lime plants; phosphate rock processing plants; by-produce coke oven
batteries; sulfur recovery plants; carbon black plants (furnace process);
primary lead smelters; and fuel conversion plants.
D. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): Authority for
all sources located in the (State name or local agency jurisdiction
whatever is applicable) subject to the standards of performance
for new stationary sources promulgated in 40 CFR Part 60 as
of the date of delegation. The categories of new sources
(update as new categories are added to fit request) covered by the
delegation are fossil fuel-fired steam generators; incinerators;
Portland cement plants; nitric acid plants; sulfuric acid plants;
asphalt concrete plants; petroleum refineries; storage vessels for
petroleum liquids; secondary lead smelters; secondary brass and
bronze ingot production plants; iron and steel plants; and sewage
treatment plants; in the phosphate fertilizer industry; wet process
phosphoric acid plants, superphosphoric acid plants, diammonium
phosphate plants and granular triple superphosphate storage facilities;
and steel plants with electric arc furnaces.
E. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS): Authority for all sources located in the (State name
or local agency jurisdiction whatever is applicable) subject to the
4-3
-------
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants promulgated
in 40 CFR Part 61 as of the date of delegation. The 3 hazardous air
pollutants covered by the delegation (should be modeled to fit
request) are asbestos; beryllium; and mercury.
[This paragraph or the equivalent Part 52 regulation may be used
to correct inadequacies in State public disclosure regulations for
SSR, ISR, and NSD. For MSPS and NESHAPS, this paragraph or condition
#12 may be used.] We have also determined that the State of
(or local agency) is qualified to receive a delegation of
authority under 40 CFR 52. , 60.9 and 61.15 (as applicable) to make
emissions data available to the public which is provided to, or other-
wise obtained by, the State pursuant to the review authority delegated
elsewhere within this letter.
[Generally, delegations must be conditioned to correct inadequacies
in the delegatees procedures. A list of example conditions is presented
below for inclusion as appropriate.]
This delegation is based upon the following conditions: (These
conditions should be discussed with the requesting agency prior to
issuance of the delegation letter).
1. Reports will be submitted to EPA by (local agency if applicable)
through the State agency) as specified in 40 CFR 51.7. (For NSPS
and NESHAPS, which are not covered by 40 CFR 51.7) semi-annual
reports will be submitted to EPA by the delegatee (State or local
agency) which include information for sources which receive approval
to construct or begin operations.
4-4
-------
2. The (delegates) and EnA will develop a system of communication
sufficient to guarantee that each office is always fully informed
and current regarding compliance status of the subject sources and
interpretation of the regulations.
3. Enforcement of the SSR, ISR, NSD, NSPS and NESHAPS in the (local
agency jurisdiction) will be the primary responsibility of the (agency).
If the (local and State agencies) determine that such enforcement
is not feasible and so notify EPA, or where the (local and State
agencies) act in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this dele-
gation, EPA may exercise its concurrent enforcement authority pur-
suant to Section 113 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, with respect
to sources within the (State name or local agency jurisdiction)
subject to the SSR, ISR, NSD, NSPS and NESHAPS.
4. Future Delegation - Use alternative A or B as follows as applicable:
A Alternative. Acceptance of this delegation of presently pro-
mulgated NSR, ISR, NSD, NSPS and NESHAPS does not commit the State of
(and/or the local agency when applicable) to accept
delegation of future standards and requirements. A new request for
delegation will be required for any standards not included in the State's
Request of (Date of Formal Request).
B Alternative. Acceptance of this delegation of presently pro-
mulgated NSD, NSPS, and NESHAHS constitutes agreement by the btate of
(and/or local agency when applicable) to automatically
4-5
-------
accept delegation of future standards and requirements for NSD, NSPS,
and NESHAPS. No new request for delegation is required for this auto-
matic delegation. This agreement is void upon written notification
by either party.
5. Redelegation - Use alternative A or B as follows as applicable:
A Alternative. Upon approval of the Regional Administrator of
Region , the (title of head, and name of State agency) may subdele-
gate his authority to implement and enforce the SSR, ISR, NSD, NSPS and
NESHAHS to air pollution control authorities in the State when such
authorities have demonstrated that they have equivalent or more stringent
programs in force.
B Alternative. The (State) may subdelegate its authority to imple-
ment and enforce the (SSR, ISR, NSD, NSPS and NESHAPS) to air pollution
control authorities in when such authorities have demon-
strated that they have equivalent or more stringent programs in force.
The State must notify EPA of such redelegation so that the appropriate
address changes may be made in the FEDERAL REGISTER.
6. The delegation to the State of (and the local agency
when applicable) does not include the authority to implement and enforce
SSR, ISR, NSD, NSPS and NESHAPS for sources owned or operated by the
United States which are located in the State. The condition in no way
relieves any Federal facility from meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
Parts 52, 60 and 61 or any state or local regulation.
7. The State of (and the local agency when applicable)
will at no time grant a variance or waiver from compliance with (cite
the appropriate NSD, NSHS and NESHAPS regulations). Should the (State
4-6
-------
and/or local agency) grant such a variance or waiver, EPA will consider
the source receiving such relief to be in violation of the applicable
federal regulation and may initiate enforcement action against the
source pursuant to Section 113 of the Clean Air Act. The granting of
such relief by the (State or local agency; shall also constitute grounds
for revocation of delegation by EPA. A variance may be granted for
SSR, but such variance must be treated as an SIP revision and be pro-
cessed in accordance with 40 CFR Part 51, including obtaining EPA
approval.
8. Applications for new source review in process at the time of dele-
gation of authority shall be processed through to completion by the
Regional Office. Subsequent enforcement requirements shall be performed
by the delegatee.
9. (Use only if delegation is to other than an ARC agency). For SSR,
ISR and NSD, non-air pollution control agencies must consult with appro-
priate State or local air pollution control agencies, prior to making
determinations required by new source review. Records of comments
received and subsequent actions must be maintained by the delegated
agency and be available for review by EPA.
10. If at any time there is a conflict between a State (or local if
applicable) regulaion and a federal regulation (40 CFR Part 52, 60, or
61), the federal regulation must be applied if it is more stringent
than that of the State (or local if applicable). If the State (or local
agency) does not have the authority to enforce the more stringent
federal regulation, this portion of the delegation may be revoked.
4-7
-------
11. For NSPS and NESHAPS the (State or local agency) will utilize
the methods specified in 40 CFR Part 60 and 61 in performing source
tests pursuant to the regulations.
12. If the Regional Administrator determines that a State (or local
agency it applicable) procedure for enforcing or implementing the
SSR, ISR, NSD, NSPS or NESHAPS is inadequate, or is not being effectively
carried out, this delegation may be revoked in whole or part. Any
such revocation shall be effective as of the date specified in a Notice
of Revocation to the (State agency).
13. (If State public disclosure procedures are inadequate and appropriate
public disclosure authority has not be delegated, the following condi-
tion should be included for NSPS and NESHAPS). In order to satisfy
§ 114 of the Clean Air Act, and 40 CFR 60.9, and 61.15 (as applicable),
in any instance where the State is unable under its own authority to
release emissions data to the public, the State shall so notify EPA, so
that EPA may take the action necessary to release such data.
A Notice announcing this delegation will be published in the
FEDERAL REGISTER in the near future. The Notice will state, among
other things, that, effective immediately, all reports required pursuant
to the federal SSR, ISR, NSD, NSPS and NESHAPS by sources located in
the (State or local agency jurisdiction] should be submitted to the
(appropriate agency) Office at (address). Any such reports which have
been or may be received by EPA, Region , will be promtly transmitted
to the (State or local agency).
4-8
-------
Since this delegation Is effective upon the date of this letter,
there is no requirement that the State notify EPA of its acceptance.
Unless EPA receives from the State written notice of objections with-
in 10 days of the date of receipt of this letter, the State (and local
agency, if applicable) will be deemed to have accepted all of the
terms of the delegation.
Sincerely,
Regional Administrator
cc: Local agency or State agency as appropriate
4-9
-------
ENCLOSURE 5 - EXAMPLE NOTICE OF DELEGATION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Review of New Sources and Modifications,
Review of New and Modified Indirect Sources,
Prevention of Significant Deterioration,
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
[Modify According to Request]
Notice of Delegation of Authority to State of
(or other agency)
On June 18, 1973 (38 FR 15834), pursuant to Section 110 of
the Clean Air Act, as amended, the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated regulations for the
review of new sources and modifications for stationary sources (SSR).
On February 25, 1974 (39 FR 7270), pursuant to Section 110 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended, the Administrator promulgated regulations
for the review of new or modified indirect sources (ISR). On
December 5, 1974 (39 FR 42510), and June 10 (40 FR 25004) and
September 10, 1975 (40 FR 42011), pursuant to Section 110 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended, the Administrator promulgated regulations
for the prevention of significant air quality deterioration (NSD).
On December 23, 1971 (36 FR 24876) and March 8, 1974 (39 FR 9808),
and August 6, 1974 (39 FR 33152), and September 23, 1975 (40 FR 43850),
pursuant to Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, the Adminis-
trator promulgated regulations establishing standards of performance
for five categories and seven categories of new stationary sources
(NSPS), respectively. On April 6, 1973 (38 FR 8820) and May 3, 1974
5-1
-------
(39 FR 15396), and October 14, 1975 (40 FR 48291), pursuant to Section
112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, the Administrator promulgated
national emission standards for three hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS)
[Expand the F.R. references as more NSRs are added]. Section 301 in
conjunction with Sections 101 and 110 authorizes the Administrator to
delegate his authority to implement and enforce SSR, ISR and MSD to any
State which has submitted adequate implementation and enforcement pro-
cedures. Sections lll(c) and 112(d) direct the Administrator to dele-
gate his authority to implement and enforce PiSPS and NESHAPS to any
State which has submitted adequate procedures. Nevertheless, the
Administrator retains concurrent authority to implement and
enforce the standards following delegation of authority to
the State.
On , the Regional Administrator, Region
, EPA, forwarded to the State of information
setting forth the requirements for an adequate procedure for
implementing and enforcing the standards for SSR, ISR, NSD, NSPS
and NESHAPS. On (date of request), the (person requesting
delegation) submitted to the EPA Regional Office a request
for delegation of authority. Included in that request were
procedures for (SSR, ISR, NSD, NSPS and NESHAPS) and information
on available resources to implement such review(s). (For NSPS
and NESHAPS include the following if appropriate: Included in that
request were copies of the State regulations
which incorporate by reference the federal emission
5-2
-------
standards and testing procedures set forth in 40 CFR Parts 60
and 61, with certain exceptions.) Also included were copies of
State statutes which provide the State with the requisite authority
to enforce the Federally promulgated SSR, ISR, NSD, NSPS and NESHAPS.
After a thorough review of that request, the Regional Administrator
has determined that for the source categories set forth in paragraphs
(A), (B), (C), (D), and (E) of the following official letter to the
(person requesting delegation), delegation is appropriate subject to the
conditions set forth in paragraphs through of that letter:
INSERT COPY OF LETTER TO PERSON REQUESTING DELEGATION.
Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to him by
the Administrator, the Regional Administrator notified the
(person requesting delegation) on , that authority
to implement and enforce Stationary Source Review (SSR), Indirect
Source Review (ISR), Non-significant Deterioration (NSD), New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS), and National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) was delegated to the
State (or local agency) of .
Copies of the request for delegation of authority are
available for public inspection at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region Office, (address).
Effective immediately, all reports required pursuant to
the delegated Stationary Source Review (SSR), Indirect Sourth Review
(ISR), Non-significant Deterioration (NSD), New Source Performance
5-3
-------
Standards (NSPS), and National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) should not be submitted to the EPA Region
Office but instead should be submitted to the State (or local)
Agency at the following address:
(address)
Applications for new source review in process at the time
of this delegation shall be processed through to completion by the
EPA Region Office.
This Notice is issued under the authority of Sections 110, 111,
112 and 301) as appropriate) of the Clean Air Act, as amended. 42 U.S.C.
1857, 1857c-5, 6, 7 and g.
Date:
Regional Administrator
5-4
-------
ENCLOSURE 6 - EXAMPLE RULEMAKING - ADDRESS CHANGES
(To be modified according to delegation requested)
Title 40 - Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER C - AIR PROGRAMS
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY - NEW SOURCE REVIEW
Delegation of Authority to the State of (or
local agency)
The amendments below institute certain address changes for
reports and applications required from operators of new sources.
EPA has delegated to authority to review new and
modified sources. The delegated authority includes the reviews
under 40 CFR 52 for new sources and modifications, indirect sources
and the prevention of significant deterioration. It also includes
the review under 40 CFR 60 for the standards of performance for
new stationary sources and review under 40 CFR 61 for national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants.
A Notice announcing the delegation of authority is/was published
(date) in the FEDERAL REGISTER (__ FR ). The amendments now
provide that all reports, requests, applications, submittals, and
communications previously required for the delegated reviews will now
be sent instead to the (name of State or local Agency) instead of
EPA's Region .
6-1
-------
The (RA or Assistant Administrator) finds good cause for fore-
going prior public notice and for making this rulemaking effective imme-
diately in that it is an administrative change and not one of substantive
content. No additional substantive burdens are imposed on the parties
affected. The delegation which is reflected by this administrative
amendment was effective on (the date of delegation), and it serves no
purpose to delay the technical change of this addition of the State
address to the Code of Federal Regulations.
This rulemaking is effective immediately, and is issued under
the authority of Sections 101, 110, 111, 112 and 301 of the Clean
Air Act, as amended 42 U.S.C. 1857, 1857C-5, 6, 7 and 1857g.
Date:
Assistant Administrator for
(responsible Office). or Regional
Administrator when he has received
authority from the Administrator
6-2
-------
PART 52 - APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Delegation of Authority for Review of New Stationary
Sources and Modifications (SSR), Review of Indirect
Sources (ISR), and Non-Significant Air Quality
Deterioration (NSD) to the State of (or local agency)
Part 52 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regula-
tions is amended as follows:
1. S 52.xxx (appropriate designation for SSR found in Subpart
A to DDD. This may involve revising a section previously promulgated
because a State plan for SSR was disapproved, or it may involve adding
a new section to implement the reporting address change) Subpart
(appropriate lettering for State) is amended by adding paragraph ( )
as follows:
S 52.xxx Review of New Sources and Modifications
* * * * *
(b) *** (the paragraphs throughout this sample are chosen as (b)
and (c) for simplicity).
(c) All applications and other information required pursuant
to 52.xxx from sources located in (describe delegated jurisdiction)
shall be submitted to the (appropriate State or local agency address)
instead of the EPA Region Office.
* * * * *
2. In S 52.yyy Subpart (appropriate State designation,
A to DDD) is amended by adding paragraph ( ) as follows:
6-3
-------
S 52.yyy Review of Indirect Sources
* * * * *
(b) ***
(c) All applications and other information required pursuant
to 52.yyy from sources located in (describe delegated jurisdiction)
shall be submitted to the (appropriate State or local agency address)
instead of the EPA Region Office.
* * * * *
3. In S 52.222 Subpart (appropriate State designation,
A to ODD) is amended by adding paragraph ( ) to read as follows:
S 52.22Z Prevention of Significant Air Quality Deterioration
* * * * *
(b) ***
(c) All applications and other information required pursuant to
52.21 from sources located in (describe delegated jurisdiction) shall
be submitted to the (appropriate State or local agency address) in-
stead of the EPA Region Office.
PART 60 - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Delegation of Authority to the State of (or
local agency).
Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:
4. In S 60.4 paragraph (b) is amended by revising subparagraph
(appropriate lettering for State), to read as follows:
6-4
-------
S 60.4 Address
* * * *
(b) ***
(c) (immediately preceding letter designation) *** (appropriate
lettering designation for State; e.g., Alabama is B, Texas is SS) -
State of , (State Agency), (Address).
* * * *
PART 61 - NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
Delegation of Authority to the State of (or
local agency).
Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:
5. In S 61.04 paragraph (b) is amended by revising subparagraph
(appropriate letter for State), to read as follows:
S 61.04 Address
* * * *
(b) ***
(A) - (immediately preceding letter designation) *** (appropriate
letter desgination for State; e.g., Alabama is B, Texas is SS) - State
of , (State Agency), (Address).
This rulemaking is effective immediately, and is issued under the
authority of Sections 110, 111, 112 and 301 (as appropriate) of the
Clean Air Act, as amended. 42 U.S.C. 1857, 1857c-5, 6, 7 and 1857g.
Date:
Assistant Administrator for
(responsible Office), or Regional
Administrator when he has received
authority from the Administrator
6-5
------- |