and GUIDANCE
Volurne 1
U. S, /^NVlRpNMBfr^t PROTECTION
Off^e* of Air and Radiation
Ofr'lce'pfs Air 'OUality Planning anil Standards
TfiaH^l* Park. North Carolina 271il ,s
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street "
Chicago, Illinois 60604
-------
r " •» f- rr ^f, • i •—/•-,• • * •• p
I.: .?.«.«• ' . . -. ",">, • . E-V
-------
Page Ho.
08/07/90
PROGRAMS POLICY ADD GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCDMEHT
VOLUME SUBJECT
** 100 TPY SOURCES
PH65-87-10-06-029 VOLUME 2
PH172-84-06-25-047 VOLUME 1
PN172-84-12-21-049 VOLUME 1
PI172-86-10-3(H)53 VOLUME 2
** AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
PN172-89-07-06-076
** AFTERBURNERS
PH165-85-06-28-023
- PN172-80-12-01-033
M72-86-02-28-052
** AIR QUALITY MODELING
PH107-82-09-16-007 VOLUME 1
PN107-83-04-21-008 VOLUME 1
PN110-84-U-28-069 VOLUME 1
PN110-85-01-02-070 VOLUME 1
PN1NH7-04-30-082 VOLUME 2
PH110-87-04-30-083 VOLUME 2
PNUO-87-09-21-086 VOLUME 2
PN110-87-05-11-088 VOLUME 2
PH110-90-07-05-106 VOLUME 2
PN123-85-10-10-007 VOLUME 1
PN123-86-02-11-012 VOLUME 2
PM165-84-01-20-013 VOLUME 1
PN165-87-01-29-027 VOLUME 2
PN165-89-03-31-040 VOLUME 2
PH172-78-03-10-002 VOLUME 1
PH172-81-01-22-039 VOLUME 1
PN172-89-05-03-074 VOLUME' 2
** AIR QUALITY MONITORING
PM107-86-04-11-012 VOLUME 2
PN110-79-ll-21*023 VOLUME 1
EMISSIONS FSOM LAMDFILLS
COHFUMATIOM OP DEFOITIOH OF "100 TOH-PER-YEAE (100 TPY) SOC1CZ"
COKNECTICUT VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) ISSUES
OCLUSIOH OF CLEAH-UP SOLVEMTS IM DETEMIMDIG APPLICABILITY TO THE
100-TON PER YEA£ ifON-CTG REQOISEMENTS
VOLUME 2 AESOSPACE AND SIXILAS RULES IK OZONE STATE UPLEMEHTATION PLANS (SIP'S)
VOLUME 1 MEMO TO OTLLI&M S. BAKER ON SEASONAL AFTESB0RNER POLICY
VOLUME 1 REVISED SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
MILWAUKEE 302 NONATTAIXNENT DESIGNATION .
SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SUMMARY
CORRECTING ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION MODEL RESULTS TO STANDARD TEMPERATURE
AND PRESSURE
REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF MODELING GUIDANCE
AMBIENT AIR
AMBIENT AIR
AMBIENT AIR DEFINITION
GUIDANCE ON ACCOUNTING FOR TRENDS IN PARTICOLATE MATTER EMISSION AND AIR
QUALITY DATA
PH-10 SIP DEMONSTRATIONS FOR SMALL ISOLATED AREAS WITH SPATIALLY UNIFORM
EMISSIONS
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON IMPLEMENTING THE REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGULATION
CLARIFICATION OF EXISTING GUIDANCE ON DISPERSION MODELING REQUIREMENTS FOR
PLANTS WITH "TALL STACKS" AND OTHER PROHIBITED DISPERSION TECHNIQUES
PSD INCREMENT CONSUMPTION CALCULATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REVISED MODELING GUIDELINE FOR PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
APPLICATION OF-BUILDING DOWNWASH IN PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT
DETERIORATION (PSD) PERMIT ANALYSES
EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT FOR PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (46 FR 7182)
IDENTIFICATION OF NEW AREAS EXCEEDING THE HAAQS
REQUIRED MONITORING PERIOD FOR OZONE REDESIGNATION IN UNCLASSIFIED AREAS
MINIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES FOR DETERMINING QUARTERLY AVERAGE LEAD
CONCENTRATION
-------
Page Bo. 2
08/07/90
All PROGRAMS POLICY AMD GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
Ofc..* (S$>TEMBa 1990 UPDATE)
OOCOMEMT
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
PS110-83-03-18-063
PM110-83-05-27-064
VOLOHE 1
VOLUME 1
'
PH110-88-U-21H)99
PHiil^o?-i-foli
PN172-81-05-21-K)38
**
LETTER 10 HARRY H. HOVE? RE EPA POLICY WITH KEGASD TO AMBIENT AIB
8ETATIQH . f . ,
FOR mass is PARTICDLATE UTTER EMISSION AJCD AH.-
, '" " * *"y*"T
... .;;
C? ON THE USE OP,,PM10 KE1SUREMENT DATA ('j<-,
'
PH110-83-05-26-068
PH110-87-04-30-082
VOLDKl"
VOLUME 2
VOLOME-2
VOlCUMf 2
GUIDANCE INDEX M*
PIANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (46 FR 71$2fr- «
WITH ^REGARD TO AMBIENT;AU-.. -'A ;:«
if AMBIENT AIR FOR LEAD
AMBIENT AER ' >•-•" '^ w>i- **
e.- '!.:C'-- . ~y'i>.;- f,
PM165-84-06-11-014
** ARSENIC
PN112-86-l(H)l«009-
** ASBESTOS
VOLUME 1
DEFINlflpN
. LETTEB TO HONORABLE ^JENNINGS RANDOLPH FROM DOUGLAS X. COS5LB
'' DEFINITION OF AMBIENT AIR
APPLICABILITY OF PSD INCREMENTS TO BQJLDING JCSfTOPS V
. -
- »j;. • 7 ' "• it '• " ' .**' . f: '-;'. "T '"H "C-'IK1!
*2§ - ENFORCEMENT "ttf THE ARSENIC NESHAP FOR GCXS9- -«AilUFAeTOIfi((l
PLANTS
PN112-85HJ2-P8-OQ6
PMU2-88-03-31-010
PH113-88-06-30-050 =
** ASPHALT, JBGOLAflOflS
PN172-79-03-06-014
PN172-79-10-04-021 •
PN172-86H39-29-058
VOLUME 2
CV. VOLUMES
?.; .VOLOKE 2
VOLUME 1
STATE ENFORCEMENT OF ASBESTOS DEMOLITION REG8EATIONS IN LIGHT OF- ADAMS :M
tfltSCKING GOUPANY V. DNIIED. STATES
REVISIONS>m"ASBESTOS"DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION CIVIL PENALTY POLICY c- '^
REVISED ASBESTOS NESHAP STRATEGY
_LISTHK. ASBESTOS DE8C8SISIOS AND RENOVATION COMPANIES PURSUANT TO SECTION^
306 OF THE CLEAN AlTACf^<: •
ASBESTOS CONTBACTO* LISTING • ^ -' '
;V%,.,rttVH'
VOLUME 2
** ATTAINMENT DATE POLIC? i;»
PN172-79-01-16-012 VOLUME 1
PN172-82-10-29-041 VOLUME 1
** ATTAINMENT DEHONSTRATi6N "
PN107-83-04-21H308 i TOLWE 1-
PN107-85-04-08-009 VOLUME 1
CUTBACK ASPHALT VOC REGULATIONS - i?
^CLARIFICATION "FOR FINAL SIP ACTIONS'-of ASI%AIjT REGULATIONS
SEASONAL VOC CONTROLS
' COifTINUITf OF SIP REGULATIONS - REVISED ENCLOSURE
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SUMMAt! - r.,
LETTETfO JBDGE TEJffif ROBERTS FROM GERA1D A.'EMISON
-------
Page Ho. 3
08/07/90
AIX PROGRAMS POLICY AMD GOtfWfCE NOTEBOOK
_,._ SUBJECT INDEX.
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUHBMT
VOLUME
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT
PmO-83-03-18-063
Plb(HJ7-05-ll-bM
PH110-88-06-17-094
PH172-78-03-10-002
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 1
LETTER Tp HARRY
GUIDANCE ON ACCOUNTING
QUALITY DATA
' -~ tONpF
EXCKBW DETEXJOHATIOMS
** ATTABMENT EXTENSIONS
PH172-81-01-22-039 VOLUME 1
•ARTICUlATB' MATTE* EMISSION AND AU""
:ON;
PSOTOCSEIICAL
v •>••'<•
ftlONS" FOX
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PUN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS HEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (46.f2 7182.) *,,
PN172-82-lO-2§-04t-' VOLUME 1JV $ESKONSi AND —Lfc-'~-— •*- ----- — ' • '
** AUTO COATINGS
PHlO-80-07-31-039 VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF VOC CONTXpL TECHNJQ^-GUIDELINES, (CTGS) TO;pB
MANUFACTURING INDU^Hfir *'' *•'''•'"• • v '""
VOLUME 2 LAEX EMISSION LIMITS' FOX AUTOMbBI&lND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK TOPCdAT "
OPEXATIONS •• -' : -• -
?mtm 1 -C0MHENTS ON AUTO ODUSTXY PX0PO§iLS •*• "•* ' '' - ":'
VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF AUTOMOBILE TOPCOAT PROTOCOL
VOLUME 2 RACT REQUIREMENTS IN OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS
|«172'i.8>l(b24-«)77:' SC". " VDLOME. 2 "COMPLIANCE'!Har:pERIOD FOX ElECtROPHORlTIC PXlMB%)ATING OPERATIONS
PN172-78-10-06-008
PN172-88-06-21-062
PN172-88-12-01-066
*-.
** BACT DETERMINATIONS
PN165-78-12-22-001 VOLUME 1
^6^86-11-24-016; .;. i
PN165-8-7-<^T22-019
VOLUME 2
2
PN165-87-09-22-021
PN165-87-12-01-022
PN165-88-07-28-033
PN165-89-06-13-043,,
PN165-89-09-11-048
PN172-88-06-21-062
** BART GUDELINES
PN123-85-10-28-009
PN123-89-04-20-017
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME/2,
VOLUME 2
VOLUME -2
VOLUME 1
,VOLpE 2
BACT INFORMATION FOX COAL-FIXED POWER PLANTS '-" ~
NEED FOR A'SffilT-TEEM BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (BACT) ANALYSIS'
FOX THE PROPOSEDULLIAM A.. ITNHEE POWE$ PLANT
HUNTSVILLE INCfNERAfOX' - iDETEXMHONG BEST AVAILABLE
(BACT) f "... ;• -' ^ : r o:
OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE ON CONTROL TKHHOLOGY FOX«E» AND MODIFIED MUNICIPAL
WASTE COHBUSTORtyNWCs) '. . ' ?. . '
IMPLEIlEirrATIOJf.OF,.NOXfB'.CODNTY^^ XESOOXeLXECOVBX^JRSD XEMAND v: .- • -
IMPROVING NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSX) IMPLEMENTATION
SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE IN IMPLEMENTING THE HOXTH COUNTY EREVaETKK OFU,
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) REMAND - -r - - -•;•
TXANSMITTAL OF BACKGROUND STATEPNT ON 3TOP-DOBJC!'BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY (BACT) -t •, • , . (. ± ', . , , f. ^
LETTER TO CHRISTOPHER J. DAGGETT FROM GERALD A. EMISON ON USE OF UXEA
INJECTION FOR NOX CONTROL FROM MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUST0XS : .. f , '
TRANSMITTALiOF AUTOMOBILE TOPCOAT PROTOCOL , ^:v
IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - PRESDMPTIVEi»S,PS;
FOR FLUID MODELING STACKS ABOVE FORMULA SEP HEIGHT
TO JOHN PROCTejbFROJH. EMISON i j "r .; •
-------
Page HO. 4
08/07/90
AH PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
•r< SUBJECT INDEX
_ -.{SBFPEHBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCOMEHT
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
mure. ,„ SUBJECT.-
• ..IIP.:
** BENZENE
PN112-84-06-01-004
** "BLOCK AVERAGES'"' *
PNl^-83-05-27r064, ;
* -BOItDOG DOWMASH
PH165-89-03-31-040
** BOILDOG BWFT01PS
**
PH172-8(Mi-20-032 '' -
** CAPTURE EFFICIENCY
PNr72i89-05-25-075 ;
** CIVIL PENALTIES
PN112-85-02-08-006;
PN113-87-03-25-035
PN113-88-03-02-045
VOLUME 1
C^SSlllCAflON OP BENZENE AS A VOC
GUIDANCE
"'
VDLOHE 2
VOLOHE 2
OP 1&AQS "DITSOTffiTATJOH
BLOCK AVEEAGES IS IKPLEHE8TDIG S02 HAAQS
APPLICATIOH OP BOILDUG DOWWASB Dl PREVEITIOH OP SIGHIPICABT
DETERIOEATIOK (KD) PEBHT AHALYSES
VOUJH 1 APPLICABILITY OP PSD DKREKEHTS TO BOILDOG ROOPTOPS
VOLOffl 1 ' COHPI.IAHCI BITE VOC HUSSION LIMITATIONS FOB CAN COATING OPERATIONS
VOLUME 2 CORRECTING CAPTURE EFFICIENCY (CE) REGULATIONS"
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 2
-VOLUME 2
** COiL SAMPLING AMD AHALYSIS
PN113-85-10-30-025 VOLUME 1
** COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
PN172-80-07d)2-029: .', ': VOLUME1
** COMPLIANCE .:•;; .
PN110-80-01-10-023i:: :. .VOLUME 1
PN1IO-80-05-09-034A VOLUME 1
PN111E-76-05-03-001 ; VOLUME 1
PN111E-82-05-07-002 VOLUME 1
PN112-84-06-01-004 ' VOLUME 1
PN112-84-07-11-005" VOLUME 1
PN112-85-02-08-006 VOLUME 1
PN112-86-10-01-OQ9 -, VOLUME 2
*r" s*w
REVISIONS TO ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
REVISED CLEAN AIR ACT STATIONARY SOURCE CIVIL PENALTY POLKY
REVISIONS TO VOLATILE HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (VHAP) CIVIL PENALTY "
FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF COAL SAMPLING AND
ANALYSIS DATA l>
EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
ALTERNATE PROCEDURE FOR SECTION 110(F). RELIEF IN LOCALIZED*SH0RT TERN' -L
ENERGY EMERGENCIES
CLARIFICATION OP REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION'"?'-~ ''
MONITORING PROVISIONS IN STATE IMPLEMENTATIONTLANS - -- ---""' -•
ENFORCEMENT OF NSPS REQUIREMENTS . • -' -"''-" ^ ~ '-<• - -
RESTATEMENT OF GUIDANCE ON EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SOOT BLOWING
BENZENE NESHAP GUIDANCE ' - '" ---11 -'
VINYL CHLORIDE NESHAP ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
REVISIONS TO ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
GUIDELINE S-26 - ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARSENIC NESHAP FOR GLASS MANUFACTURING
PLANTS,.,, .- ;.- '";
-------
Page Ho.
08/07/90
DOCDMEHT
NUMBER
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AMD GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT IMDEX :< : r
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
NOTEBOOK DOCOHENT
VOLOME SUBJECT
PN112-88-03-31-010
PN113-76-06-25-002
PNU3-80-03-11-006
PH113-82-05-04-013
PN113-83-02-15-017
PN113-83-01-12-013
PN113-84-12-20-022
PM113-85-04-24-023
PM113-85-06-28-024
PH113-85-11-27-026
PM113-86-01-17-027
PN113-86-04-11-028
PM113-86-04-11-029
PH113-86-04-22-030
PH113-86-08-22-033
PN113r87-03-25-035'-"
PN113-87-06-25-037"
PH113-87-09-23-041
PN113-87-11-23-042 '"
PN113-87-12-31-043
PH113-88-03-02-045
pnii3-8s-oir.3.fcOi« •, -T
PN114-77-12-02-001A
PN114-81-05-13-002
PN114-83-12-15-003
PN114-84-09-06-004
PN167-83-12-14-001
>lj . .
VOLUME 2 REVISED ASBESTOS NESHAP STRATEGY
VOLUME 1 DOCUMENTATION OF VIOLATION EXTENDING 30 DAYS BEYOND NOTICE,OF \
UNDER SECTION 113 OF THE ei|4NJAf|-ACT ' 3 '_*.
VOLUME 1 INTERIM PARTICOLATE COinffi Sr:1"c *'~
VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON POLICY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF VE VIOLATIONS AGAINST,
ARE MEETING AN APPLICABLE MAS^.EMISSION SJAUDAiD
VOLUME 1 POLICY ON; EXCESS' EMISSIONS IJDR^-STARTUP/JSBBTDOWN,
MALFUNCTIONS' ~ ' ' l '•'"'-' ^ ''"* ""*'
VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT, POLICY, ISSUED
_ SEPTEMBER ,2p, .1982.. .,,.,,, . ,-, "L'.J- •'. -^,,3 .fji
VOLUME ir-'POLICY ON"HP-ACTION ASSURANCES •-':',
VOLUME 1 ACHEVfNG VOC COMPLIAKE FROM DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTOR FACILITIES
VOLUME 1 PARTICULATE MATTER INTERIM ENFORCEMENT POLICY - ,,,,/r? .,,,——. ,
VOLUME 1 REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES, COMPLYING' 1$?', <$$" iltyK3
REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN " ' " " '" "
VOLUME 2 ISSUES /3(E) AND /5 OF THE VOC ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCESS: ESTABLISHING ,
.„ PROOF OF VOC EMISSIONS VIOLATIONS, AND BUBBLES -Of CONSENT .DECREES *.'••<
RESOLVING CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 113(bj OF THE CLEAN'AIR ACT
VOLUME 2 TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE GUIDANCE -- - - ~ ^ ..
VOLJ3MEJ ;,,50IDANCE ON FEDERALLY-REPORT^BLE, VIOLATIONS FOR STATIONARY AIR,SODRC^ ,.i
VOLUME 2' TRANSMITTAL" OF NATIONAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE" - ENFORCEMENT APPLICATIONS OF "
CONTIKDOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM DATA . - lty^, •>-•••-
..VOLUME,2, SAMPLE FEDERAL REGISTER LANGUAGE FOR PROPOSAL AND FHU, DOO'X.--r-?'•-^ r
'VOLUME-'^ "LETTER TO TOM BISPHRAJfON CDS DATA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS' ^ ,.',,., •
; VOLUMI',2 'REVISED CLEAN'.AIR ACT STATIONARY SOURCE CIVIL PENALTY POLICY, .io-t,-,.
VOLUM/"2 PROPER AND TIMELY REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) REVISIONS
VOLUME 2 REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS AND REVISIONS FORrENFQRCEABILITY>ANB'
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY , -^ r, j -..,;;,- ?•,. ;-
VOLUME 2 SETTLING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IN CLEAN AIR ACT NONATTAINMENT AREAS AGAINST
STATIONARY SOURCES WHICH WILL HOT BE IN COMPLIANCE BY THE APPLICABLE
ATTAINMENT DATE '„:'•?«, J.Sr* .: *,: '• -
VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON EVALUATING CLEAN AIR ACT ENFORCEMENT OF STAIE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN VIOLATIONS INVOLVING PROPOSED STATE REVISIONS
VOLUME 2 REVISIONS TO VOLATILE HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (VHAP) CIVIL PENALTY?'POLICY'
VOLUME 2 - LISTING ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION COMPANIES PURSUANT) TO SECTION
306 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
VOLUME 2 TRAMSMITTAL OF REISSUED OAQPS CEMS POLICY ' "' : •''"
VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE FOR SECTION U4(D) OF THE CAA
VOLUME 1 REGIONAL OFFICE CRITERIA FOR NEUTRAL IHSPECTIONS Of STATIONARY^SOURCES -
., AMENDED GUIDANCE ' '
VOLUME 1 EXECUTION OF CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS UNDER SECTION 114 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT . : ' • . ^ ,,.'-.
VOLUME 1 FINAL GUIDANCE ON USE OF UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS '" **
VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON ENFORCEMENT OF PREVENTION1 OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION -
REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACf1 •
-------
Page Mo. 6
08/07/90'
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
' . -. SOBJECT IHDEX .
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUHEHT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SOBJECT
PN167-88-07-15-003 VOLOME 2 PROCEDURES FOR EPA TO ADDRESS DEFICIENT HEW SOURCE PERMITS ONDER THE CLEAN
PH172-80-11-20-032 VOLUME 1 . -COMPLBMCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAN COATIHG OPERATIONS C ..!'•
PN172-89-10-24-077. VOLUME 2 COMPLIANCE TIME PERIOD FOR ELECTROPHORETIC PRIME-COATING OPERATIONS
** coMPUAicE MOMITCIEHG. >-. . ., ,r^ . - •,.„;
PN110-86-04-11-074 VOLUME! 'RESPONSES TO FIVE J70C ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
. :' .: .. - OF JUSTICE - .....:E
PHH3-82-08-12-014 VOLDMS P GUIDANCE CONCERNING EPA'S USE OF CONTIHOOUS EMISSION HONITORIHG DATA -, .IF.
PN113-86-04-22-03Q -TOESIffi 2 ' 'TXANSMITTAL OF HATIOKAL PROGRAM GUDANCE - ENFORCEMENT APPLICATIONS Of ' ;.TF
. CONTDTOOUS EMISSION HQNITORING SYSTEM DATA
PNU4-88-03-31-006 VOLUME 2 COMPLIANCE HONITORIHG STRATEGY FOR FY 89 .HF
** COMPLIANC2 SCHEDOLZS . - •- :. >.--" fl. *=
PN110-79-$[H)4-3I5 '' ' VOLUME 1 'GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKOG ON APPROVAL OF STATE-; .••;,: — ~J,,IF
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS FOR HONATTADMENT AREAS (44 FR 20372)
PNliO-$^08-07-076 " - VOLUME 2 POLICY ON SIP REVISIONS RE^UESTIHG COMPLIANCE DATE EXTENSI0HS |0r5WC-:LO»
SOURCES - ~ •
PN113-83-04-12-019 VOLUME 1 LETTER TO ROBERT R. WAHLER FROM KATHLEEN BENHETT RE ENFORCEKEST -P9HC!
OTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
PN113-86-08-07-032 VOLUME 2 POLICY ON THE AVAILABILITY OF LOW-SOLVENT TECHNOLOGY SCHEDULES IN
AIR ACT ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS . ?'.' ... .^OP
P!&-7>78-10-06-008 • " VOLUME! COMMENTS ON AUTO ODUSTRY PROPOSALS . ' •-':'• • '-•"OIIS-
PH172-81-01-22-039 VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON- MONOXIDE PLAN
" - - -•- " • REVISIONS FOR AREAS HEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (46 FR 71J2V -,•:;&
** CONFIDENTIAIiITY AGREEMENTS
PNU4-83-12-15-003 VOLUME 1 EXECUTION OF CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS UNDER SECTION 114 OF THE rCLEA* 'AO '
•'•...-'. ACT - ,•;:£*
** CONSENT DECREES
PN113-85-11-27-026 VOLUME 1 REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING WITH CLEAN ADWKI
REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN *-
PNU3-87-03-25-035 VOLUME 2 REVISED CLEAN AIR ACT STATIONARY SOURCE CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
PN113-87-11-23-042 VOLUME 2 SETTLING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IN CLEAN AIR ACT NONATTAIHMENT AREAS AGAIHST
STATIONARY SOURCES WHICH WILL HOT BE IS COMPLIANCE BY THE APPLICABLE Hi
ATTAINMENT DATE
PN113-88-03-02-045 VOLUME 2 REVISIONS TO VOLATILE HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (VHAP) CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
"""/," '. ' j <
** CONSTRUCTION BAN
PM110-80-10-23-044 VOLUME 1 GROWTH RESTRICTIONS IN SECONDARY HAAQS NONATTAISMENT AREAS- ---•;••-•
PH165-84-01-09-012 VOLUME 1 INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICY ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF; PART D
** CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE .
PH113-84-10-05-021 ' VOLUME 1 FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE OH THE REVIEW AND USE OF EXCESS EMISSION REPORTS
-------
Page No.
08/07/90
All PROGRAMS POLICY ADD GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX ',
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDAT8)- •--«-
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
•VOLOSE—-SUBJECT
PNU3-86-04-11-029 VOLUME 2
PN113-88-07-05-051 ' VOLUME 2
** CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING
PN110-80-05-09-034A VOLUME 1
PN113-82-08-12-014 VOLUME 1
PN113-84-10-05-021 VOLUME 1
PN113^6-04-22-030 VOLUME 2
PNU3-88-03-31-048 VOLUME 2
** CONTRACTOR LISTING PROGRAM
PH13-S7-10-08HMI:
•T-.C / '••
PH13-«WBsll-«6
** COMRQL STRATEGY .
PN107-83-04-21-008
PN110-80-07-31-039
? *c
PN110-90-07-C5-106
** >, COST EFFECTIVENESS
PN172-80-12-02-034
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 1
** CROSS LINE AVERAGING. : ,
PN172-89-04-07-073 VOLUME 2
** 'GIGS.
PN110-79-Q9-17*020 f. VOLUME 1
PN110-80-07-31-039 VOLUME 1
PN110-80-08-04-040, . VOLUME 1
PN172-78-08-04-004 VOLUNE 1
PN172-78-10-06-008 VOLUME 1
PN172-79-06-20-018 VOLUNE 1
PN172-79r08-21-019 VOLUME 1
GUIDANCE ON FEDEMLLY-REPOSTABLE JHOLATIONS FOE STATIONARY AIR SOURCES
TSANSMITTAL OP S02 CONTINUOUS'330MPLIAHCE STRMBGT '-
CLARIFIQTION OF XEQUIWMENTS FOR INCLUSION OF CONTIN00Q5. EMISSKSS ^ a.
MONITORING PROVISIONS IN STATE.IH8LEMSITATIQN PLANS , . -.. <>- ,- u
GUIDANCE CONCERNING EPA'S USE OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION HONITOXING DATA
FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEH AND: QK.Jff EXCESS EMISSION ,3®083S"-
TRANSffiTTAL OF NATIONAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE - ENFORCEMENT APPLICATIONS -Of tj1
OMif INUOUS EMISSION HONITORING SYSTEM DATA
TRANSHITTAL OF REISSUED OAQPS CEMS POLICY. '.' •: -•;.: ,.- *-*:;:
POLICY ON CORRECTING THE CONDITION GIVING RISE .TO LISTING UNDER
CONTRACTOR LISTING PROGRAM
LISTING ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION COMPANIES PURSUANT TO SECTION..
306 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
ASBESTOS CONTRACTOR LISTING : _ . • ?>'-.-•;.
SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SUMMARY
APPLICABILITY OF VOC CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINES (CTGS) TO USE
HANUFACTURING INDUSTRY ...".. . - • ;-;
PM-10 SIP DEMONSTRATIONS FOR SMALL ISOLATED AREAS WITH SPATIALLY UNIFORM
EMISSIONS
COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY
EQUIPMENT
BASELINE FOR CROSS-LINE AVERAGING
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAINMENT AREAS - (SUPPLEMENT ON CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUDELINES) (44 FR
53761)
APPLICABILITY OF VOC CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINES (CTGS) TO THE AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
APPLICABILITY OF PAPER COATING, FABRIC COATING, AND GRAPHIC ARTS CTGS
REQUIREMENT FOR VOC RACT REGULATIONS IN ALL OXIDANT NONATTAINMENT AREAS
COMMENTS ON AUTO INDUSTRY PROPOSALS
MODIFICATIONS TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLVENT METAL CLEANING
STATE. IMPLEMENTATION PLANS: GENERA^ .PREAMBLE,JOR PROPOSED RULZMAKING jON\
APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON
REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMISSION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICAL RACT
-------
Page Mo.
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAMS POLICT AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
PH172-79-03-22-020
PH172-80-06-16-027
PN172-80-07-02-029
PN172-80-09-03-030
PN172-80-12-02-034
PN172-80-12-02-035
PN172-84-06-25-046
PN172-84-06-25-047
PN172-84-09-14-048
PN172-84-12-21-049
PN172-85-07H32-051
PH172-86-02-28-052
PM172-87-06-25-054
PN172-86-01-09-057
PN172-88-08-23-063
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1'
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
** DECREASES REGULATIONS
PN172-78-08-24-006 VOLUME 1
PN172-79-12-12-023 VOLUME .1
PN172-80-07-02-029 VOLUME 1
PM172-84-06-25-047 VOLUME 1
** DELAYED COMPLIANCE ORDERS
PN113-78-07-27-005 VOLUME 1
PH113-80-05-27-007
PH113-83-01-12-018
PN113-83-04-26-020
PH113-86-06-02-031
PN113-86-08-22-033
PH172-89-03-16-071
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
- "C1F
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS/REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMITTING RACT
REGULATIONS POX STATIONARY SOURCES OP VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOONDS(VOC). -
GASOLINE TANK TRUCK REGULATIONS
EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS CTG - EMISSION LIMITS FOR COATING
OF SHIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY
EQUIPMENT
RACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
APPLICABILITY OF GROUP III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTG'S)
CONFIRMATION OF DEFINITION OF "100 TON-PER-YEAR (100 TPY) SOURCE"
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VQC) TEST METHODS OR PROCEDURES FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES IN GROUPS I, II, AND III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES
CONNECTICUT VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) ISSUES
RESIDUAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTAINED IN COATING LINE
PRODUCTS ,I,Y
RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES
OF JUSTICE
EMISSION CUT-OFF FOR CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES
COMPOUND SOURCES
CLARIFICATION OF CTG RACT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE,
POLYPROPYLENE, AND POLYSTYRENE
LETTER TO WILLIAM JURIS ON VOC EMISSION CUTOFF
CLARIFICATION OF EPA POLICY OK-EMISSIONS FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM
EXEMPTIONS FOR DEGREASERS
EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
CONFIRMATION OF DEFINITION OF "100 TON-PER-YEAR (100 TPY) SOURCE"
ENFORCEMENT UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS - ORDERS UNDER SECTION 113(A)
AMD 113(D)
DELAYED COMPLIANCE ORDERS REQUIRING SIP COMPLIANCE THSOOGH TEMPORARY
CONTROL MEASURES - AMENDED GUIDANCE
GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ISSUED""
SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW AND FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION OF DELAYED
COMPLIANCE ORDERS UNDER SECTION 113(D) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
113(d)(4) LETTER TO CAN MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE
SAMPLE FEDERAL REGISTER LANGUAGE FOR PROPOSAL AND FINAL DCO'S
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC's)
-:::i?
** DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
PN111E-86-09-11-004 VOLUME 2 DELEGATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) AND NATIONAL
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAP) AUTHORITY TO
-------
Page Ho. 9
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX —
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK,. DOCUMENT
NUMBER " VOLUME SUBJECT
PN112-82-03-24-002 VOLUME 1 DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO STATES: NESHAPS . "
PN165-85-05-09-015 VOLUME 1 IMPROVED NEH SOURCE REVIEW/PREVENTION OP SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSR/PSD) PROGRAM TRANSFER
PN165-89-02-15-037 VOLUME 2 GUDANCE ON EARLY DELEGATIONS AUTHORITY FOR THE NITROGEN DIOXIDE (N02)
INCREMENTS PROGRAM -? .;- ;
** DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FACILITIES • '• ' ." .,
PN113-85-04-24-023 VOLUME 1 ACHIEVING VOC COMPLIANCE FROM DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTOR FACILITIES
** DESIGNATION CRITERIA : •,-
PN107-82-09-16-007 VOLUME 1 MILWAUKEE S02 NONATTAINNENT DESIGNATION
PN107-S3-04-21-008 VOLUME 1 SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SUMMARY , •: -<•
PM107-85-04-08-009 VOLUME 1 LETTER TO JUDGE TERRY ROBERTS FROM GERALD A. EHSON . . .
** DIRECT FINAL SIP PROCESSING
VOLUME 2 EXPANDED USE OF DIRECT FINAL SIP PROCESSING
** DISPERSION fECfflfl&JES
PN123-85-10-28-008 VOLUME 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - EXCEPTIONS FROM RESTRICTIONS
• ON CREDIT FOR MERGED STACKS
PN123-86-02-11-011 VOLUME 2 PRIORITY FOR REVIEW OF PARTICULATE MATTER SOURCES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH .= i.,- -v-
REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS
PN123-88-05-17-016 VOLUME 2 APPLICATION OF THE INTERIM POLICY FOR STACK HEIGHT REGULATORY ACTIONS v - B,
** DRUM AND PAIL COATINGS - •• Y,
PN172-80-09-03-030 VOLUME 1 MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS CTG - EMISSION LIMITS FOR COATING
OF SHIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
, ». '
** DUAL DEFINITION , ,,
PN165-84-01-09-012 VOLUME 1 INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICY ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PART D , ,
** ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
PN110-86-04-11-074- ' VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FIVE VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
PN110-87-01-20-080 VOLUME 2 DETERMINATION OF ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
** EKMA -, if
PN172-78-10-26-009 VOLUME 1 OZONE TRANSPORT VALUES FOR SIP REVISIONS
PN172-81-01-22-039 VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN ^
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (46 FR 7182)
** EMERGENCY SIP SUSPENSIONS
PN110-80-01-10-023A VOLUME 1 ALTERNATE PROCEDURE FOR SECTION 110(F) RELIEF IN LOCALIZED, SHORT TERM
ENERGY EMERGENCIES
-------
Page Ho.
08/07/90
10
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY ADD GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
** EMISSION INVENTORIES,
PN172-79-03-06-014 VOLUME 1
PN172-80-12-02-034 VOLUME 1
PN172-81-05-21-038 VOLUME 1
PN172-81-01-22-039 VOLUME 1
PN172-89-01-27-069 VOLUME 2
** EMISSION OFFSETS
PN110-80-03-10-030 VOLUME 1
PN110-80-10-23-044 VOLUME 1
PN165-85-05-09-015 VOLUME 1
PN172-79-05-25-016 VOLUME 1
CUTBACK ASPHALT VOC REGULATIONS
COST EFFECTIVEHESS FOR RACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY
EQUIPMENT
1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (46 F2 7182)
TRANSMTTTAL OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON EMISSION INVENTORIES FOR POST-1987
OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CALL AREAS
EMISSION OFFSET REQUIREMENTS IN SECONDARY STANDARD TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE PLANS
GROWTH RESTRICTIONS IN SECONDARY NAAQS NONATTAINKENT AREAS
IMPROVED NEW SOURCE REVIEW/PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSR/PSD) PROGRAM TRANSFER
SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
ii*
** EMISSIONS TRADING
PN110-80-07-31-039 VOLUME 1
PN110-80-08-08-041 VOLUME 1
PN110-82-11-24-061 VOLUME 1
PN110-85-01-02-070 VOLUME 1
PN110-86-12-04-077 VOLUME 2
PN113-86-01-17-027 VOLUME 2
PN165-84-01-20-013 VOLUME 1
PH172-84-01-20-045 VOLUME 1
PN172-89-04-07-073 VOLUME 2
** ENERGY CONSERVATION
PN175-80-04-23-006 VOLUME 1
APPLICABILITY OF VOC CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINES (CMS) TO THE AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
THE BUBBLE POLICY AND STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT
SECTION HID
SIP ACTIONS AND TOXIC POLLUTANTS
REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF MODELING GUIDANCE
EMISSIONS TRADING POLICY STATEMENT (51 FR 43814)
ISSUES /3(E) AMD /5 OF THE VOC ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCESS: ESTABLISHING
PROOF OF VOC EMISSIONS VIOLATIONS, AND BUBBLES IN CONSENT DECREES
RESOLVING CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 113(b) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
PSD INCREMENT CONSUMPTION CALCULATIONS
AVERAGING TIMES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITS - SIP REVISION
POLICY
BASELINE FOR CROSS-LINE AVERAGING
IMPLEMENTATION-OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 12185, CONSERVATION OF PETROLEUM AND
NATURAL GAS
** ENERGY EMERGENCIES
PN110-80-01-1(M)23A VOLUME 1 ALTERNATE PROCEDURE FOR SECTION 110(F) RELIEF IN LOCALIZED., SHORT TERX
ENERGY EMERGENCIES
** EXCESS EMISSIONS
PN113-83-02-15-017
VOLUME 1 POLICY ON EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, MAINTENANCE, AND
MALFUNCTIONS
-------
Page Ho.
08/07/90
11
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
PN113-84-10-05-021 VOLUME 1 FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON TEE REVIEW AND USE OF EXCESS EMISSION REPORTS .
** EXPECTED EXCEEDANCE
PN110-88-06-17-094 VOLUME 2 DEMONSTRATION OF "REPRESENTATIVE EMISSION CONDITIONS" FOR USE IN "EXPECTED ,
EXCEEDANCE" DETERMINATIONS
** FABRIC COATING
PH110-80-08-04-040
PN172-80-12-02-035
** FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT
PH112-84-06-01-004
- PN112-84-07-11-005
PN112-85-02-08-006
PN112-86-10-01-009
PMU2-88-03-31-010
PN113-85-04-24-023
PH113-86-04-22-030
PN113-87-03-25-035
PN113-87-07-06-038
PM113-87-09-11-040
PN113-87-09-23-041
PH113-87-11-23-042
PN113-87-12-31-043
PN113-88-03-02-045
PN113-88-03-31-049
PN165-87-04-08-018
PN167-83-12-14-001
PN167-88-03-29-002
VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF PAPER COATING, FABRIC COATING, AND GRAPHIC ARTS CTGS
VOLUME 1 RACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
VOLUME 1 BENZENE NESHAP GUIDANCE
VOLUME 1 VINYL CHLORIDE NESHAP ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
VOLUME 1 REVISIONS TO ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATIOM CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
VOLUME 2 GUIDELINE S-26 - ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARSENIC NESHAP FOR GLASS MANUFACTURING
PLANTS
VOLUME 2 REVISED ASBESTOS NESHAP STRATEGY
VOLUME 1 ACHIEVING VOC COMPLIANCE FROM DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTOR FACILITIES
VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF NATIONAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE - ENFORCEMENT APPLICATIONS OF
CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM DATA
VOLUME 2 REVISED CLEAN AIR ACT STATIONARY SOURCE CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
VOLUME 2 SMALL VOC SOURCE COMPLIANCE STRATEGY - FINAL
VOLUME 2 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE: SMALL VOC SOURCE
COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
VOLUME 2 REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS AND REVISIONS FOR ENFORCEABILITY AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
VOLUME 2 SETTLING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IN CLEAN AIR ACT HONATTAINHENT AREAS AGAIHST
STATIONARY SOURCES WHICH WILL NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE BY THE APPLICABLE
ATTAINMENT DATE
VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON EVALUATING CLEAN AIR ACT ENFORCEMENT OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN VIOLATIONS INVOLVING PROPOSED STATE REVISIONS
VOLUME 2 REVISIONS TO VOLATILE HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (VHAP) CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
VOLUME 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF RULE EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES
VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE REVIEW POLICY ON AVERAGING TIMES FOR
PRODUCTION LIMITATIONS
VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON ENFORCEMENT OF PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT
VOLUME 2 OPINION IN U.S. V. LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION
** FEDERALLY-REP08TABLE VIOLATIONS
PN113-86-04-11-029 VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON FEDERALLY-REPORTABLE VIOLATIONS FOR STATIONARY AIR SOURCES
** FLUID MODELING
PN123-85-09-19-006
VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE OH FLUID MODEL DEMONSTRATIONS FOR DETERMINING GEP STACK HEIGHT IN
COMPLEX TERRAIN
-------
Page No.
08/07/90
12
All PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT HIDE!
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
PN123-85-10-28-009 VOLUME 1
PN123-85-10-28-010 VOLUME 1
** FUEL SHORTAGES ANALYSIS
PN124-78-07-31-001 VOLUME 1
** GASOLINE TANK TRUCKS
PN172-80-06-16-027 VOLUME 1
** GLASS MANUFACTURING
PN112-86-10-01-009 VOLUME 2
IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - PRESUMPTIVE NSPS EMISSION
LIMIT FOR FLUID MODELING STACKS ABOVE FORMULA GEP HEIGHT
DETERMINING STACK HEIGHTS "IN EXISTENCE" BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 1970
IMPLEMENTING SECTION 124 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
GASOLINE TANK TRUCK REGULATIONS
GUIDELINE S-26 - ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARSENIC NESHAP FOR GLASS MANUFACTURING
PLANTS
** GRAPHIC ARTS
PN110-80-08-04-040 VOLUME 1
PN172-80-12-02-035 VOLUME 1
PH172-84-06-25-047 VOLUME 1
PN172-87-09-09-055 VOLUME 2
** INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
PN110-80-09-25-043 VOLUME 1
APPLICABILITY OF PAPER COATING, FABRIC COATING, AND GRAPHIC ARTS CTGS
RACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
CONFIRMATION OP DEFINITION OF "100 TON-PER-YEA8 (100 TPY) SOOSCE"
ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE FOR GRAPHIC ARTS RACT
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF SIP REVISIONS
**
INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE
PN110-78-07-17-007 VOLUME 1
PN110-82-08-11-060 VOLUME 1
PN172-81-05-21-038 VOLUME 1
PN172-81-01-22-039 VOLUME 1
** INSPECTIONS AND ENTRY
PN114-77-12-02-001A VOLUME 1
PN114-84-09-06-004 VOLUME 1
INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE POLICY
REVIEW OF 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (46 FR 7182)
GUIDANCE FOR SECTION 114(D) OF THE CAA
FINAL GUIDANCE ON USE OF UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS
** INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONSULTATION
PN110-79-06-18-066 VOLUME 1 REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION AND SUBHJTTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION
PLANS: INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONSULTATION (FR CITATION)
** INTERIM CONTROL POLICY
PN113-88-03-31-047 VOLUME 2 TRAHSMITTAL OF OAQPS INTERIM CONTROL POLICY STATEMENT
** INTERNATIONAL POLLUTION
PN115-78-01-31-001 VOLUME 1 ACCOUNTING FOR POLLUTION ACROSS INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES
PN115-78-03-20-002 VOLUME 1 INTERNATIONAL POLLUTION (EL PASO/JUAREZ)
-------
Page Ho.
08/07/90
13
AH PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 OPDATE)
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
** INTERSTATE AIR POLLUTION
PN126-78-03-16-001 VOLUME 1
PH126-89-01-11-005 VOLUME 2
** LAER DETERMINATIONS
PN165-87-06-26-020
PN165-87-12-01-022
PN165-88-04-25-030
PN165-88-08-29-034
PN165-89-02-28-038
PN165-89-02-24-046
PN165-89-08-09-047
PN172-88-06-21-062
PN172-90-02-28-078
** LANDFILLS
PN165-87-10-06-029
** LEAD SIPS
PH107-83-04-21-008
PN110-79-06-14-016
PN110-79-11-21-023
PN110-80-04-08-032
PN110-83-05-26-068
PN110-83-03-14-087
** LETTER NOTICE
PN110-89-01-30-102
PN172-80-11-20-032
** MARINE VESSELS
PN172-89-02-15-070
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
** LOW SOLVENT COATINGS
PN113-86-08-07-032 VOLUME 2
VOLUME 1
OUT OF STATE SOURCES EFFECT ON IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION
LETTER TO THOMAS JORLING REGARDING INTERSTATE AIR POLLUTION CRITERIA
OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE ON CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR NEW AND HODIFIED MUNICIPAL
HASTE CONBUSTORS(NWCS)
IMPROVING NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) IMPLEMENTATION
LAER EMISSION LIMITS FOR AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK TOPCOAT
OPERATIONS
TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY IN DETERMINING LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION SATE
(LAER)
GUIDANCE ON DETERMINING LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION RATE (LAER)
CUT-OFF DATE FOR DETERMINING LAER IN MAJOR NEW SOURCE PERMITTING
LAER DETERMINATION FOR A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED SOURCE
TRANSMITTAL OF AUTOMOBILE TOPCOAT PROTOCOL
LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION LIMITS (LAER) F08 OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS
VOLUME 2 EMISSIONS FROM LANDFILLS
VOLUME 1 SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SUMMARY
VOLUME 1 LEAD SIPS
VOLUME 1 MINIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES FOR DETERMINING QUARTERLY AVERAGE LEAD
CONCENTRATION
VOLUME 1 NEW SOURCE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR LEAD
VOLUME 1 DEFINITION OF AMBIENT AIR FOR LEAD
VOLUME 1 ISSUES ON LEAD SIPS
VOLUME 2 PROCEDURES FOR LETTER NOTICE APPROVAL OF MINOR SIP ACTIONS
POLICY ON THE AVAILABILITY OF LOW-SOLVENT TECHNOLOGY SCHEDULES IN CLEAN
AIR ACT ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAN COATING OPERATIONS
VOLUME 2 MARINE VESSEL VAPOR CONTROL
** METAL CAN MANUFACTURING
PN113-86-06-02-031 VOLUME 2
113(d)(4) LETTER TO CAN MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE
-------
Page Ho. 14
08/07/90
AH PROGRAMS POLICY AHD GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT ODE!
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
** METAL PASTS COATINGS
PN172-80-09-03-030
PH172-89-04-03-072
PN172-89-04-07-073
** METHYL CHLOROFORM
PN172-78-08-24-006
PH172-79-05-25-017
** HETHYLENE CHLORIDE
PN172-79-05-25-017
** MODIFIED SOURCE
PN165-86-07-07-024
PN165-86-10-21-025
PN165-86-12-01-026
PN165-89-04-10-041
PN165-90-01-18-049
VOLUME 1 MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS CTG - EMISSION LIMITS FOR COATING
OF SHIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
VOLUME 2 APPLICABILITY OF MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AMD PRODUCTS COATISGS
REGULATIONS TO ADHESIVES, SEALANTS AND FILLERS
VOLUME 2 BASELINE FOR CROSS-LINE AVERAGE
VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OF EPA POLICY ON EMISSIONS FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM
VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AND SOLVENT
REACTIVITIES
VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AND SOLVENT
REACTIVITIES
VOLUME 2 PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) DEFINITION OF "MODIFICATION"
VOLUME 2 APPLICABILITY OF PSD TO PORTIONS OF A PLANT CONSTRUCTED IN PHASES WITHOUT
• PERMITS
VOLUME 2 NEED FOR EMISSION CAP ON COMPLEX NETTING SOURCES
VOLUME 2 PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) APPLICABILITY TO SULFUR
DIOXIDE (S02) EMISSIONS FROM INCINERATION OF TOTAL SEDUCED SULFUR (TRS)-
COMPOUNDS
VOLUME 2 LETTER TO MORTON STERLING OF DETROIT EDISON FROM GERALD E. EHISON
** MUNICIPAL WASTE INCINERATION
PN165-87-04-22-019 VOLUME 2 HUNTSVILLE INCINERATOR - DETERMINING BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
(BACT)
PN165-87-06-26-020 VOLUME 2 OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE ON CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR NEW AND MODIFIED MUNICIPAL,
WASTE COMBUSTORS(MWCs)
VOLUME 2 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
APPLICABILITY DETERMINATION
VOLUME 2 LETTER TO CHRISTOPHER J. DAGGETT FROM GERALD A. EMISON ON USE OF DREA
INJECTION FOR NOX CONTROL FROM MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
PN165-88-06-07-031
PN165-89-09-11-048
** MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS
PN172-80-08-11-043 VOLUME 1 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS: CONSTRUCTION GRANTS LIMITATION
PROVIDED BY SECTION 316 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT: POLICY AND PROCEDURES (FR
CITATION)
** NESHAP
PN111E-86-09-11-004
VOLUME 2 DELEGATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) AND NATIONAL
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAP) AUTHORITY TO
STATE/LOCAL AGENCIES
-------
Page No.
08/07/90
15
AIX PROGRAMS POLICY AMD GUIDANCE SOTEBOOK
SUBJECT DffiEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCDMEHT
VOLOME SUBJECT
PH112-78-03-30-001 VOLDHE 1
PN112-82-03-24-002 VOLUME 1
PN112-84-06-01-004 VOLOHE 1
PN112-84-07-11-005 VOLDHE 1
PN112-85-02-08-006 VOLDHE 1
PN112-86-10-01-009 VOLDHE 2
PN112-88-03-31-010 VOLDHE 2
PHU3-85-11-27-026 VOLDHE 1
PN113-86-04-11-028 VOLDHE 2
PN114-81-05-13-002 VOLDHE 1
PN114-84-09-06-004 VOLOHE 1
PN120-80-09-12-001 VOLOHE 1
** m SOURCE REVIEW
PN110-80-04-08-032 VOLDHE 1
PH123-85-10-10-007 VOLDHE 1
PN123-88-05-17-016 VOLOHE 2
PN165-80-12-16-007 VOLOHE 1
PN165-84-01-09-012 VOLOHE 1
PH165-84-06-11-014 VOLOHE 1
PH165-85-05-09-015 VOLDHE 1
PN165-37-02-27-017 VOLOHE 2
PN165-87-04-08-018 VOLOHE 2
PN165-87-04-22-019 VOLOHE 2
PN165-87-06-26-020 VOLOHE 2
PH165-87-12-01-022 VOLOHE 2
PM165-85-06-28-023 VOLOHE 1
PN165-87-10-06-029 VOLOHE 2
PN165-88-07-05-032 VOLDHE 2
PN165-89-06-13-043 VOLOHE 2
PN165-89-02-24-046 VOLDHE 2
PN165-89-08-09-047 VOLOHE 2
PN167-88-07-15-003 VOLOHE 2
STATE EHFORCEHENT OP ASBESTOS DEHOLITIOH REGULATIONS H LIGHT OP ADAHO
WRECKING COHPANY V. UNITED STATES
DELEGATION OP AUTHORITY TO STATES: NESHAPS
BENZENE NESiAP GUIDANCE
VINYL CHLORIDE NESHAP ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
REVISIONS TO ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
GUIDELINE S-26 - ENFORCEMENT OP THE ARSENIC NESHAP FOR GLASS MANUFACTURING
PLANTS
REVISED ASBESTOS NESHAP STRATEGY
REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING WITH CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN
TIHELY AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE GOIDANCE
REGIONAL OFFICE CRITERIA FOR NEUTRAL INSPECTIONS OF STATIONARY SOURCES -
AMENDED GUIDANCE
FINAL GOIDANCE ON OSE OF UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS
PRIORITIES FOR ISSOING NOTICES OF NONCOHPLIANCE
NEW SOURCE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR LEAD
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON IHPLEHENTING THE REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGULATION
APPLICATION OF THE INTERIH POLICY FOR STACK HEIGHT REGULATORY ACTIONS
INTERPRETATION OF "SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION"
INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICY ON COHPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PART D
APPLICABILITY OF PSD INCREHENTS TO BUILDING ROOFTOPS
IHPROVED NEW SOURCE REVIEW/PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSR/PSD) PROGRAH TRANSFER
PLANTWIDE DEFINITION OF MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION
CLARIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE REVIEW POLICY ON AVERAGING TIMES FOR
PRODUCTION LIMITATIONS
HUNTSVILLE INCINERATOR - DETERMINING BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
(BACT)
OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE ON CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR NEW AND MODIFIED MUNICIPAL
WASTE COHBUSTORS(MWCs)
IMPROVING NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) IMPLEMENTATION
MEMO TO WILLIAM S. BAKER ON SEASONAL AFTERBORNER POLICY
EMISSIONS FROM-LANDFILLS
AIR QOALITY ANALYSIS FOR PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
TRANSHITTAL OF BACKGROUND STATEMENT ON "TOP-DOWN11 BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY (BACT)
CUT-OFF DATE FOR DETERMINING LAER IN MAJOR NEW SOURCE PERMITTING
LAER DETERMINATION FOR A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED SOURCE
PROCEDURES FOR EPA TO ADDRESS DEFICIENT NEW SOURCE PERMITS ONDER THE CLEAN
AIR ACT
-------
Page Mo.
03/07/90
16
AIB PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT
NOTEBOOK DOCDHENT
VOLOXE SUBJECT
** NO-ACTION ASSURANCES
PH113-84-12-20-022
** N02 SIPS
PN110-83-05-27-064
PN165-89-02-15-037
PN165-89-08-24-044
VOLUME 1 POLICY OJf NO-ACTION ASSURANCES
VOLUNE 1 SUMMARY OP NAAQS INTERPRETATION
VOLUHE 2 GUIDANCE ON EARLY DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY FOR THE NITROGEN DIOXIDE (H02)
DOEHENTS PROGRAM
VOLUHE 2 GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTING THE NITROGEN DIOXIDE (902) PREVENTION OP
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) INCREMENTS
** NON-DISCRETIONARY ENFORCEMENT DUTIES
PN113-75-11-05-001 VOLUME 1 NON-DISCRETIONARY ENFORCEMENT DUTIES - ISSUANCE OF NOTICES OF VIOLATION
** NONATTAINHENT AREAS
PN107-82-09-16-007 VOLUME 1
PN107-83-04-21-008 VOLUME 1
PN110-78-02-24-002 VOLUME 1
PN110-79-04-04-015 VOLUME 1
PM110-79-07-02-017 VOLUME 1
PN110-79-09-17-020 VOLUME 1
PS110-80-10-23-044 VOLUME 1
PN110-88-11-04-098 VOLUME 2
PN113-83-01-12-018 VOLUME 1
PN113-85-11-27-026 VOLUME 1
PN113-87-11-23-042 VOLUME 2
PN113-88-03-31-049 VOLUHE 2
PN172-83-11-02-044 VOLUHE 1
PN172-84-06-25-046 VOLUME 1
PN172-84-06-25-047 VOLUME 1
PN172-84-09-14-04S VOLUME 1
PN172-84-12-21-049 VOLUME 1
PN172-85-07-02-051 VOLUME 1
PN172-86-10-30-053 VOLUME 2
MILWAUKEE S02 NONATTAINHENT DESIGNATION
SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SUMMARY
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED SULEMAKDfG ON APPROVAL OF STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINHENT AREAS (44 FR 20372)
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAINHENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON PUBLIC COHKENT AND CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL) (44 FR 38583)
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEHAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
80NATTAINHENT AREAS - (SUPPLEMENT ON CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES) (44 FR
53761)
GROWTH RESTRICTIONS IN SECONDARY NAAQS SONATTAINHENT AREAS
GUIDANCE ON LONG-TERM NONATTAINHENT OF THE PH10 STANDARDS
GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ISSUED
SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COHPLYING WITH CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN
SETTLING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IN CLEAN AIR ACT NONATTAINHENT AREAS AGAINST
STATIONARY SOURCES WHICH WILL HOT BE IN COHPLIANCE BY THE APPLICABLE
ATTAINHENT DATE
IHPLZHENTATION OF RULE EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES
COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT -
FINAL (48 FR 50686)
APPLICABILITY OF GROUP III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTG'S)
CONFIRMATION OF DEFINITION OF "100 TON-PER-YEAR (100 TPY) SOURCE"
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) TEST METHODS OH PROCEDURES FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES IN GROUPS I, II, AND III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTGS)
CONNECTICUT VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) ISSUES
RESIDUAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COKPOUND (VOC) CONTAINED IN COATING LINE
PRODUCTS
INCLUSION OF CLEAN-UP SOLVENTS IN DETERMINING APPLICABILITY TO THE
100-TON PER YEAR NON-CTG REQUIREMENTS
-------
Page No.
08/07/90
17
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
PN172-87-06-25-054
PK172-87-09-11-059
PN172-87-12-10-060
PN172-88-05-27-061
PN172-88-09-07-064
PN172-88-12-01-066
PN172-90-02-28-078
PN172-90-06-18-079
PM175-80-06-12-008
PN175-80-06-23-009
PN176-79-06-08-001
VOLUME 2 EMISSION CUT-OFF FOX CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUND SOURCES
VOLUME 2 GEOGRAPHIC APPLICABILITY OF CLEAN AIR ACT SANCTIONS
VOLUME 2 LETTER TO LEONARD LEDBETTER ON USE OF POTENTIAL VS ACTUAL EMISSIONS FOR
VOC REGULATIONS
VOLUME 2 TRAHSMITTAL OF EPA GUIDANCE ON VOC ISSUES
VOLUME 2 AIR PROGRAMS APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS COMPLIANCE
WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D AND SECTION 110 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT (FR CITATION)
VOLUME 2 RACT REQUIREMENTS IN OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS
VOLUME 2 LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION LIMITS (LAER) FOR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS
VOLUME 2 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE DESIGN VALUE CALCULATIONS
VOLUME 1 PROCEDURES FOR CONFORMANCE OF TRANSPORTATION PLANS, PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
WITH CLEAN AIR ACT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
VOLUME 1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - TRANSPORTATION
REVISION PROCESS: EXPANDED GUIDELINES (FR CITATION)
VOLUME 1 IMPACT OF CLEAN AH ACT NONATTAINMENT SANCTIONS -
** NONCOMPLIANCE
PN120-80-09-12-001 VOLUME 1
PN120-81-02-12-003 VOLUME 1
PN120-81-04-02-004 VOLUME 1
PN120-81-04-30-005 VOLUME 1
PN120-85-03-19-006 VOLUME 1
PN120-85-03-19-007 VOLUME 1
** NOTICES OF VIOLATION
PN113-75-11-05-001 VOLUME 1
PN113-76-06-25-002 VOLUME 1
PN113-83-01-12-018 VOLUME 1
** NSPS
PN110-80-05-09-034A VOLUME 1
PN111E-76-05-03-001 VOLUME 1
PN111E-82-05-07-002 VOLUME 1
PN111E-86-09-11-004 VOLUME 2
PRIORITIES FOR ISSUING NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE
IMPLEMENTATION OF NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTY PROGRAM UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE
CLEAN AIR ACT
SETTLEMENT OF NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE
CLEAN AIR ACT, AS AMENDED
ISSUANCES OF NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT TO SEASONAL SOURCES
PERMISSIBLE GROUNDS FOR SETTLEMENT OF NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTIES UNDER
SECTION 120 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
GUIDANCE CONCERNING IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 120 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT IN
FISCAL YEAR 1985
NON-DISCRETIONARY ENFORCEMENT DUTIES - ISSUANCE OF NOTICES OF VIOLATION
DOCUMENTATION OF VIOLATION EXTENDING 30 DAYS BEYOND NOTICE OF VIOLATION
UNDER SECTION 113 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ISSUED
SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION
MONITORING PROVISIONS IN STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
ENFORCEMENT OF NSPS REQUIREMENTS
RESTATEMENT OF GUIDANCE ON EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SOOT BLOWING
DELEGATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) AND NATIONAL
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAP) AUTHORITY TO
STATE/LOCAL AGENCIES
-------
Page No.
08/07/90
18
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
PK113-82-08-12-014
PN113-84-10-05-021
PN113-85-10-30-025
PN113-85-11-27-026
PH114-81-05-13-002
PN120-80-09-12-001
PN123-85-10-28-009
PM165-86-07-07-024
PN165-88-09-09-035
PH165-88-10-14-036
PN165-89-02-15-042
PM165-90-06-08-050
PN172-78-08-24-006
** OPERATING PERMITS
PN172-79-05-25-016
** ORGANISOLS
PN172-85-04-25-050
** OZONE/CO CONTROL
PN107-85-04-08-009
PN107-85-10-08-010
PN107-86-04-11-012
PN107-87-04-06-013
PN110-79-09-17-020
PM110-82-08-11-060
PN110-83-05-27-064
PN110-80-07-22-067
PMUO-85-08-27-071
PN110-86-08-07-076
PN110-87-01-08-079
PN110-87-04-17-081
PH113-87-07-06-038
PN113-87-09-11-040
VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE CONCERNING EPA'S USE OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING DATA
VOLUME 1 FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF EXCESS EMISSION REPORTS
VOLUME 1 FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE OH THE REVIEW AND USE OF COAL SAMPLING AND
ANALYSIS DATA
VOLUME 1 REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING WITH CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN
VOLUME 1 REGIONAL OFFICE CRITERIA FOR NEUTRAL INSPECTIONS OF STATIONARY SOURCES -
AMENDED GUIDANCE
VOLUME 1 PRIORITIES FOR ISSUING NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE
VOLUME 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - PRESUMPTIVE NSPS EMISSION
LIMIT FOR FLDID MODELING STACKS ABOVE FORMULA GEP HEIGHT
VOLUME 2 PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) DEFINITION OF "MODIFICATION"
VOLUME 2 APPLICABILITY OF PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) AND MEH
SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) TO THE WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER
COMPANY (WEPCO) PORT WASHINGTON LIFE EXTENSION PROJECT
VOLUME 2 LETTER TO JOHN BOSTON FROM LEE THOMAS ON WEPCO DETERMINATION
VOLUME 2 LETTER TO JOHN BOSTON FROM DON CLAY ON WEPCO DETERMINATION
VOLUME 2 LETTER TO JOHN BOSTON FROM WILLIAM G. ROSENBERG OH WEPCO DETERMINATION
VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OF EPA POLICY ON EMISSIONS FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM
VOLUME 1 SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
VOLUME 1 CONSIDERATION OF ORGANISOLS IN VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC) COMPLIANCE
CALCULATIONS
VOLUME 1 LETTER TO JUDGE TERRY ROBERTS FROM GERALD A. EHISON
VOLUME 1 OZONE AIR QUALITY DATA FOR REDESIGNATIONS
VOLUME 2 REQUIRED MONITORING PERIOD FOR OZONE RESIGNATION IN UNCLASSIFIED AREAS
VOLUME 2 OZONE REDESIGNATION POLICY
VOLUME 1 GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RDLEKAMNG ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
HONATTAINNENT AREAS - (SUPPLEMENT ON CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES) (44 FR
53761)
VOLUME 1 REVIEW OF 1982- OZONE AND CO SIPS
VOLUME 1 SUMMARY OF NAAQS INTERPRETATION
VOLUME 1 (CITATION OF FR NOTICE ON SOLVENT REACTIVITIES)
VOLUME 1 CLASSIFICATION OF BENZENE AS A VOC
VOLUME 2 POLICY ON SIP REVISIONS REQUESTING COMPLIANCE DATE EXTENSIONS FOR VOC
SOURCES
VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF SEASONAL VOC CONTROL POLICY
VOLUME 2 DEFINITION OF VOC
VOLUME 2 SMALL VOC SOURCE COMPLIANCE STRATEGY - FINAL
VOLUME 2 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE: SMALL VOC SOURCE
COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
-------
Page Mo.
08/07/90
19
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AMD GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
PN113-88-03-31-049
PN172-78-03-10-002
PH172-78-08-04-004
PN172-78-10-26-009
PH172-79-03-06-014
PN172-79-05-25-017
PN172-79-06-20-018
PN172-79-08-22-020
PN172-79-12-12-023
PN172-80-07-02-029
PN172-80-09-03-030
PM172-80-11-20-032
PH172-80-12-01-033
PN172-80-12-02-034
PN172-80-12-02-035
PN172-81-02-06-036
PM172-81-05-21-038
PN172-81-01-22-039
PM172-82-10-29-041
PM172-83-11-02-044
PN172-84-06-25-047
PN172-86-02-28-052
PH172-86-09-29-058
PN172-87-09-11-059
PN172-87-12-10-060
PN172-88-06-21-062
PN172-88-09-07-064
PN172-88-12-01-066
PN172-89-01-27-069
PN172-90-02-28-078
PH172-90-06-18-079
VOLDHE 2 IMPLEMENTATION OP RULE EFFECTIVEHESS STUDIES
VOLUME 1 EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATION OP ATTAINMENT FOR PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDAHTS
VOLUME 1 REQUIREMENT POR VOC RACT REGULATIONS DT ALL OXIDANT NONATTAINHENT AREAS
VOLUME 1 OZONE TRANSPORT VALUES FOR SIP REVISIONS
VOLUME 1 CUTBACK ASPHALT VOC REGULATIONS
VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OP AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AND SOLVENT
REACTIVITIES
VOLUME 1 MODIFICATIONS TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLVENT METAL CLEANING
VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS/REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMITTING RACT
REGULATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES OP VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS(VOC)
VOLUME 1 EXEMPTIONS FOR DEGREASERS
VOLUME 1 EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
VOLUME 1 MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS CTG - EMISSION LIMITS FOR COATING
OP SHIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
VOLUME 1 COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAN COATING OPERATIONS
VOLUME 1 REVISED SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
VOLUME 1 COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY
EQUIPMENT
VOLUME 1 RACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
VOLUME 1 STORAGE TANK VAPOR BALANCE REQUIREMENTS AT SYNTHESIZED PHARMACEUTICAL
PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE FACILITIES
VOLUME 1 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (46 FR 7182)
VOLUME 1 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
VOLUME 1 COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT -
FINAL (48 FR 50686)
VOLUME 1 CONFIRMATION OF DEFINITION OF "100 TON-PER-YEAR (100 TPY) SOURCE"
VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
VOLUME 2 SEASONAL VOC CONTROLS
VOLUME 2 GEOGRAPHIC APPLICABILITY OF CLEAN AIR ACT SANCTIONS
VOLUME 2 LETTER TO LEONARD LEDBETTER ON USE OF POTENTIAL VS ACTUAL EMISSIONS FOR
VOC REGULATIONS
VOLUME 2 TRANSNITTAL OF AUTOMOBILE TOPCOAT PROTOCOL
VOLUME 2 AIR PROGRAMS APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS COMPLIANCE
WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D AND SECTION 110 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT (FR CITATION)
VOLUME 2 RACT REQUIREMENTS IN OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS
VOLUME 2 TRANSHITTAL OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON EMISSION INVENTORIES FOR POST-1987
OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CALL AREAS
VOLUME 2 LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION LIMITS (LAER) FOR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS
VOLUME 2 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE DESIGN VALUE CALCULATIONS
-------
Page Ho.
08/07/90
20
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
** PAPER COATING
PN110-80-08-04-040 VOLUME 1
PU172-80-12-02-035 VOLUME 1
** PARTICULATE MATTES CONTROLS
PN110-80-03-10-030 VOLUME 1
PN110-87-08-11-085 VOLUME 2
PNUO-87-05-11-088 VOLUME 2
PH110-87-08-11-090 VOLUME 2
PN110-87-10-02-091 VOLUME 2
PN110-88-09-06-097 VOLUME 2
PN110-88-11-04-098 VOLUME 2
PHUO-88-11-21-099 VOLUME 2
PN110-89-06-30-103 VOLUME 2
PNUO-89-08-14-104 VOLUME 2
PH110-90-06-18-105 VOLUME 2
PN110-90-07-05-106 VOLUME 2
PH113-80-03-11-006 VOLUME 1
PN113-83-04-12-019 VOLUME 1
PH113-85-06-28-024 VOLUME 1
PN123-86-02-11-011 VOLUME 2
PH165-87-08-05-028 VOLUME 2
APPLICABILITY OF PAPER COATING, FABRIC COATIHG, AMD GRAPHIC ARTS CTGS
RACT FOR SPECIALTY PRIHTIHG OPERATIOHS
EMISSION OFFSET REQUIREMENTS IN SECONDARY STANDARD TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE PLANS
PROCESSIHG OF PARTICULATE MATTER STATE ISPL2MEHTATIOH PLAH REVISIONS
GDIDAHCE OH ACCOOHTIKG FOR TREHDS H PARTICOLATE MATTER EMISSION AHD AIR
QUALITY DATA
DEVELOPMENT PLAH FOR PM10 STATE IMPLZMEHTATIOH PLAHS (SIP'S)
CLARIFIQTIOH OF IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES FOR PM10 NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR
QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS)
PM10 SIP DEVELOPMENT: STATUS AND CONCERNS
GUDANCE OH LONG-TERM HONATTAINMENT OF THE PM10 STANDARDS
REVISION TO POLICY ON THE USE OF PM10 MEASUREMENT DATA
RESPONSE TO PM10 CONTROL STRATEGY ISSUES
REVIEW OF PM-10 IMPLEMENTATION POLICY
REPLACEMENT OF SURROGATE PM-10 MONITORS
PM-10 SIP DEMONSTRATIONS FOR SMALL ISOLATED AREAS WITH SPATIALLY UNIFORM
EMISSIONS
INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
LETTER TO ROBERT 8. HAHLER FROM KATHLEEN BENNETT RE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ON
INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
PARTICULATE MATTER INTERIM ENFORCEMENT POLICY
PRIORITY FOR REVIEW OF PARTICULATE MATTER SOURCES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION OF REVISED PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
PROGRAM FOR PARTICULATE MATTER
** PERFORMANCE TESTS
PN111E-76-05-03-001 VOLUME 1 ENFORCEMENT OF NSPS REQUIREMENTS
PNlllE-82-05-07-002 VOLUME 1 RESTATEMENT OF GUIDANCE ON EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SOOT BLOWING
** PERMIT ENFORCEABILITY
PN167-88-03-29-002 VOLUME 2 OPINION IN U.S-. V. LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION
PN167-88-07-15-003 VOLUME 2 PROCEDURES FOR EPA TO ADDRESS DEFICIENT NEW SOURCE PERMITS UNDER THE CLEAN
AIR ACT
PN172-79-05-25-016 VOLUME 1 SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
** PETROLEUM REFINERY LEAKS
PN172-80-12-02-034 VOLUME 1 COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY
EQUIPMENT
-------
Page No.
08/07/90
21
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
** PHARMACEUTICALS
PN172-81-02-06-036 VOLUME 1
STORAGE TANK VAPOR BALANCE REQUIREMENTS AT SYNTHESIZED PHARMACEUTICAL
PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE FACILITIES
** POLYETHYLENE
PN172-86-01-09-057 VOLUME 2
** POLYPROPYLENE
PN172-86-01-09-057 VOLUME 2
-** POLYSTYRENE
PN172-86-01-09-057
** POWER PLANTS - COAL FIRED
PN111E-76-05-03-001 VOLUME 1
PN111E-82-05-07-002 VOLUME 1
PN113-80-03-11-006 VOLUME 1
PN113-83-04-12-019 VOLUME 1
PN165-78-12-22-001 VOLUME 1
CLARIFICATION OF CTG RACT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE,
POLYPROPYLENE, AND POLYSTYRENE
CLARIFICATION OF CTG RACT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE,
POLYPROPYLENE, AND POLYSTYRENE
VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF CTG RACT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE,
POLYPROPYLENE, AND POLYSTYRENE
ENFORCEMENT OF NSPS REQUIREMENTS
RESTATEMENT OF GUIDANCE ON EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SOOT BLOWING
INTERIM PARTICDLATE CONTROLS
LETTER TO ROBERT R. WAHLER FROM KATHLEEN BENNETT RE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ON
INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
BACT INFORMATION FOR COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS
** PRODUCTION LIMITATIONS
PN165-87-04-08-018 VOLUME 2
** PSD
PN110-87-09-21-086 VOLUME 2
PN113-87-05-27-036 VOLUME 2
PN123-85-10-10-007 VOLUME 1
PN123-88-05-17-016 VOLUME 2
PN165-81-04-03-006 VOLUME 1
PN165-80-12-16-007 VOLUME 1
PN165-84-01-20-013 VOLUME 1
PN165-84-06-11-014 VOLUME 1
PN165-85-05-09-015 VOLUME 1
PN165-86-11-24-016 VOLUME 2
PN165-87-02-27-017 VOLUME 2
PN165-87-06-26-020 VOLUME 2
PN165-87-09-22-021 VOLUME 2
CLARIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE REVIEW POLICY ON AVERAGING TIMES FOR
PRODUCTION LIMITATIONS
AMBIENT AIR DEFINITION
REACTIVATION OF NORANDA LAKESHORE MINES' RLA PLANT AND PSD REVIEW
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON IMPLEMENTING THE REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGULATION
APPLICATION OF THE INTERIM POLICY FOR STACK HEIGHT REGULATORY ACTIONS
LETTER TO NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FROM EDWARD F. TUERK REGARDING PSD PERMITS
INTERPRETATION OF "SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION"
PSD INCREMENT CONSUMPTION CALCULATIONS
APPLICABILITY OF PSD INCREMENTS TO BUILDING ROOFTOPS
IMPROVED NEW SOURCE REVIEW/PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSR/PSD) PROGRAM TRANSFER
NEED FOR A SHORT-TERM BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (BACT) ANALYSIS
FOR THE PROPOSED WILLIAM A. ZIMNER POWER PLANT
PLANTWIDE DEFINITION OF MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION
OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE ON CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR NEW AND MODIFIED MUNICIPAL
WASTE COMBUSTORS(MWCs)
IMPLEMENTATION OF NORTH COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY PSD REMAND
-------
Page Ho.
08/07/90
22
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCOMEHT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
PM165-87-12-01-022 VOLUME 2
PM165-86-07-07-024 VOLUME 2
PH165-86-10-21-025 VOLUME 2
PM165-86-12-01-026 VOLUME 2
PM165-87-01-29-027 VOLUME 2
PH165-87-08-05-028 VOLUME 2
PN165-88-06-07-031 VOLUME 2
PN165-88-07-05-032 VOLUME 2
PN165-88-07-28-033 VOLUME 2
PN165-88-09-09-035 VOLUME 2
PH165-88-10-14-036 VOLUME 2
PN165-89-02-15-037 VOLUME 2
PN165-89-03-16-039 VOLUME 2
PN165-89-03-31-040 VOLUME 2
PH165-89-04-10-041 VOLUME 2
PH165-89-02-15-042 VOLUME 2
PH165-89-06-13-043 VOLUME 2
PN165-89-08-24-044 VOLUME 2
PN165-89-09-18-045 VOLUME 2
PN165-89-08-09-047 VOLUME 2
PN165-90-01-18-049 VOLUME 2
PN165-90-06-08-050 VOLUME 2
PH167-83-12-14-001 VOLUME 1
PN167-88-03-29-002 VOLUME 2
PH172-79-05-25-016 VOLUME 1
** PUBLIC COMMENT
PN110-79-07-02-017 VOLUME 1
IMPROVING MEW SOURCE REVIEW (USB) IMPLEMENTATION
PREVENTION OP SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) DEFINITION OF "MODIFICATION"
APPLICABILITY OF PSD TO PORTIONS OF A PLANT CONSTRUCTED IN PHASES WITHOUT
PERMITS
NEED FOR EMISSION CAP ON COMPLEX NETTING SOURCES
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REVISED MODELING GUIDELINE FOR PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
IMPLEMENTATION OF REVISED PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
PROGRAM FOR PARTICULATE HATTER
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
APPLICABILITY DETERMINATION
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS FOR PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE IN IMPLEMENTING THE NORTH COUNTY PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) REMAND
APPLICABILITY OF PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) AND NEW
SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) TO THE WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER
COMPANY (WEPCO) PORT WASHINGTON LIFE EXTENSION PROJECT
LETTER TO JOHN BOSTON FROM LEE THOMAS ON WEPCO DETERMINATION
GUIDANCE ON EARLY DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY FOR THE NITROGEN DIOXIDE (N02)
INCREMENTS PROGRAM
DSE OF ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS FOR NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
(NAAQS) IMPACT ANALYSES DNDER THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
APPLICATION OF BUILDING DOWNWASH IN PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT
DETERIORATION (PSD) PERMIT ANALYSES
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) APPLICABILITY TO SULFUR
DIOXIDE (S02) EMISSIONS FROM INCINERATION OF TOTAL REDUCED SULFUR (TRS)
COMPOUNDS
LETTER TO JOHN BOSTON FROM DON CLAY ON WEPCO DETERMINATION
TRANSMITTAL OF BACKGROUND STATEMENT ON "TOP-DOWN" BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY (BACT)
GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTING THE NITROGEN DIOXIDE (N02) PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) INCREMENTS
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF POLICY REGARDING TIE "NET EMISSIONS INCREASE"
LAER DETERMINATION FOR A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED SOURCE
LETTER TO MORTON STERLING OF DETROIT EDISON FROM GERALD E. EMISON
LETTER TO JOHN BOSTON FROM WILLIAM G. ROSENBERG ON WEPCO DETERMINATION
GUIDANCE ON ENFORCEMENT OF PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
REQUIREMENTS UNDER TEE CLEAN AIR ACT
OPINION IN U.S. V. LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION
SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULZMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAINMENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL) (44 FR 38583)
-------
Page No.
08/07/90
23
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
PM110-79-09-17-020
** RACT DETERMINATIONS
PN110-82-08-11-060
PM110-87-01-20-080
PN113-83-01-12-018
PN172-80-11-20-032
PN172-84-01-20-045
PN172-85-07-02-051
PN172-86-02-28-052
PN172-86-01-09-057
PN172-88-06-21-062
PN172-88-08-23-063
PN172-88-11-04-065
PN172-88-12-01-066
PN172-90-02-28-078
** REACTIVITY
PN110-77-07-08-065
PN110-85-08-27-071
PN110-87-04-17-081
PN110-87-07-21-089
VOLUME 1 GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAINMENT AREAS - (SUPPLEMENT ON CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES) (44 FR
53761)
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
** REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS
PN165-85-05-09-015 VOLUME 1
PN172-81-01-22-039
VOLUME 1
** REDESIGNATION PROCEDURES
PN107-82-09-16-007 VOLUME 1
PM107-83-04-21-008 VOLUME 1
PN107-85-10-08-010 VOLUME 1
PH107-86-04-11-012 VOLUME 2
PN107-87-04-06-013 VOLUME 2
PN107-88-04-05-014 VOLUME 2
PN110-83-05-27-064 VOLUME 1
REVIEW OF 1982 OZONE AMD CO SIPS
DETERMINATION OF ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ISSUED
SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAN COATING OPERATIONS
AVERAGING TIMES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITS - SIP REVISION
POLICY
RESIDUAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTAINED IN COATING LINE
PRODUCTS
RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
CLARIFICATION OF CTG RACT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE,
POLYPROPYLENE, AND POLYSTYRENE
TRANSMITTAL OF AUTOMOBILE TOPCOAT PROTOCOL
LETTER TO WILLIAM JURIS ON VOC EMISSION CUTOFF
EPA AUTHORITY TO REQUEST CHANGES IN RACT RULES
RACT REQUIREMENTS IN OZONE NONATTAINHENT AREAS
LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION LIMITS (LAER) FOR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS
(CITATION OF FR NOTICE ENTITLED "RECOMMENDED POLICY ON CONTROL OF VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS")
CLASSIFICATION OF BENZENE AS A VOC
DEFINITION OF VOC
DEFINITION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC's)
IMPROVED NEW SOURCE REVIEW/PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSR/PSD) PROGRAM TRANSFER
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR ^REAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (46 FR 7182)
MILWAUKEE S02 NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATION
SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SUMMARY
OZONE AIR QUALITY DATA FOR REDESIGNATIONS
REQUIRED MONITORING PERIOD FOR OZONE REDESIGNATION IN UNCLASSIFIED AREAS
OZONE REDESIGNATION POLICY
LETTER TO NANCY MALOLEY ON REDESIGNATION OF 2 INDIANA COUNTIES
SUMMARY OF NAAQS INTERPRETATION
-------
Page No. 24
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
PN110-86-12-10-078
VOLUME 2 RULENAKING ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP'S) FOE 302
** REGIONAL CONSISTENCY
PM110-82-08-11-060 VOLUME 1 REVIEW OF 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
PN301-81-01-20-001 VOLUME 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REGIONAL CONSISTENCY REGULATIONS
** REPRESENTATIVE EMISSION CONDITIONS
PMllO-88-06-17-094 VOLUME 2 DEMONSTRATION OF "REPRESENTATIVE EMISSION CONDITIONS" FOR USE IN "EXPECTED
EXCEEDANCE" DETERMINATIONS
** RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITIES
PN165-87-09-22-021
PN165-88-07-28-033
** RISK ANALYSIS
PN112-85-09-17-008
** RISK REDUCTION
PN112-85-06-H-007
** RULE EFFECTIVENESS
PN113-88-03-31-049
VOLUME 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF NORTH COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY PSD REMAND
VOLUME 2 SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE IN IMPLEMENTING THE NORTH COUNTY PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) REMAND
VOLUME 1 PREPARATION OF QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS IN AGENCY DECISION-MAKING
VOLUME 1 REPRINT OF THE EPA AIR TOXICS STRATEGY (REFERENCE ONLY)
VOLUME 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF RULE EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES
** RURAL NONATTAINMENT
PN172-84-06-25-046 VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF GROUP III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTG'S)
** SAHCTIONS
PN110-80-10-23-044
PN115-78-03-20-002
PN172-80-08-11-043
PN172-83-11-02-044
PN172-87-09-11-059
PN176-79-06-08-001
** SEASONAL CONTROLS
PN110-87-01-08-079
PN120-81-04-30-005
PN165-85-06-28-023
PN172-80-12-01-033
PN172-86-02-28-052
VOLUME 1 GROWTH RESTRICTIONS IN SECONDARY NAAQS NONATTAINMENT AREAS
VOLUME 1 INTERNATIONAL POLLUTION (EL PASO/JUAREZ)
VOLUME 1 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS: CONSTRUCTION GRANTS LIMITATION
PROVIDED BY SECTION 316 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT: POLICY AND PROCEDURES (FR
CITATION)
VOLUME 1 COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT -
FINAL (48 FR 50686)
VOLUME 2 GEOGRAPHIC APPLICABILITY OF CLEAN AIR ACT SANCTIONS
VOLUME 1 IMPACT OF CLEAN AIR ACT NONATTAINMENT SANCTIONS
VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF SEASONAL VOC CONTROL POLICY
VOLUME 1 ISSUANCES OF NOTICES OF NONCONPLIANCE UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT TO SEASONAL SOURCES
VOLUME 1 MEMO TO WILLIAM S. BAKER ON SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
VOLUME 1 REVISED SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
-------
Page No. 25
08/07/90
AH PROGRAMS POLICY AMD GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
PN172-86-09-29-058
VOLUME 2 SEASONAL VOC CONTROLS
** SECONDARY STANDARDS
PN110-80-03-10-030 VOLUME 1
PN110-80-10-23-044
VOLUME 1
** SECTION HID PLAN REQUIREMENTS
PN110-78-03-24-003 VOLUME 1
PN110-80-08-08-041 VOLUME 1
PI111D-81-09-14-001 VOLUME 1
** SHUTDOWNS
PN113-83-02-15-017 VOLUME 1
PN113-85-11-27-026 VOLUME 1
PN113-87-05-27-036 VOLUME 2
** SIGNIFICANT VIOLATORS
PN110-88-08-05-096 VOLUME 2
PN113-83-01-12-018 VOLUME 1
PN113-86-04-11-028 VOLUME 2
** SIP COMPLETENESS CRITERIA
PN110-88-03-18-093 VOLUME 2
** SIP ENFORCEMENT
PN110-78-03-24-003 VOLUME 1
PN110-80-03-10-030 VOLUME 1
PNHO-80-10-23-044 VOLUME 1
PN111D-81-09-14-001 VOLUME 1
PN113-76-08-12-003 VOLUME 1
PN113-76-08-13-004 VOLUME 1
PN113-78-07-27-005 VOLUME 1
PN113-80-05-27-007 VOLUME 1
PN113-82-05-04-013 VOLUME 1
PN113-82-08-12-014 VOLUME 1
EMISSION OFFSET REQUIREMENTS IN SECONDARY STANDARD TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE PLANS
GROWTH RESTRICTIONS IN SECONDARY NAAQS HONATTAINMENT AREAS
PLANS UNDER SECTION HID OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
THE BUBBLE POLICY AND STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT
SECTION HID
EPA POLICY ON WELFARE-RELATED POLLUTANTS UNDER SECTION HID
POLICY ON EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, MAINTENANCE, AND
MALFUNCTIONS
REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING WITH CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN
REACTIVATION OF HORANDA LAKESHORE MINES' RLA PLANT AND PSD REVIEW
IDENTIFYING AND EXPEDITING SIP REVISIONS THAT IXPACT THE ENFORCEMENT
PROCESS
GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ISSUED
SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE GUIDANCE
POLICY FOR DETERMINING COMPLETENESS OF SIP SUBMITTALS
PLANS UNDER SECTION HID OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
EMISSION OFFSET REQUIREMENTS IN SECONDARY STANDARD TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE PLANS
GROWTH RESTRICTIONS IN SECONDARY NAAQS NONATTAINNENT AREAS
EPA POLICY ON "WELFARE-RELATED POLLUTANTS UNDER SECTION HID
ENFORCEMENT OF SIPS UNDERGOING REVISION
"REVIEWABILITY" OF EPA DETERMINATIONS IN SIP ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ENFORCEMENT UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS - ORDERS UNDER SECTION 113(A)
AND 113(D)
DELAYED COMPLIANCE ORDERS REQUIRING SIP COMPLIANCE THROUGH TEMPORARY
CONTROL MEASURES - AMENDED GUIDANCE
GUIDANCE ON POLICY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF VE VIOLATIONS AGAINST SOURCES WHICH
ARE MEETING AN APPLICABLE MASS EMISSION STANDARD
GUIDANCE CONCERNING EPA'S USE OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING DATA
-------
Page No.
08/07/90
26
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCOHENT
VOLDHE SUBJECT
PH113-84-12-20-022 VOLOHE 1
PN113-85-06-28-024 VOLUME 1
PNU3-85-11-27-026 VOLUME 1
PH13-86-04-11-02S VOLUME 2
PN114-81-05-13-002 VOLUME 1
PN114-84-09-06-004 VOLUME 1
PN120-80-09-12-001 VOLUME 1
PN172-79-05-25-016 VOLUME 1
PN172-86-02-28-052 VOLUME 2
** SIP GRANDFATEERING
PN110-88-06-27-095
** SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
PH172-81-05-21-038
** SIP REQUIREMENTS - SOX
PN110-80-05-09-034A VOLUME 1
** SIP REVIEW PROCEDURES
PM107-83-04-21-008 VOLUME 1
PN110-78-02-24-002 VOLUME 1
PN110-80-09-25-043 VOLUME 1
PN110-81-07-22-052 VOLUME 1
PN110-81-11-09-055 VOLUME 1
PH110-82-06-23-059 VOLUME 1
PN110-82-08-11-060 VOLUME 1
PN110-83-03-18-063 VOLUME 1
PN110-79-06-18-066 VOLUME 1
PN110-87-12-23-092 VOLUME 2
PN110-88-03-18-093 VOLUME 2
PN110-88-06-27-095 VOLUME 2
PlfllO-88-08-05-0% VOLUME 2
PHliO-89-01-19-100 VOLUME 2
PN110-89-01-19-101 VOLUME 2
PN110-89-01-30-102 VOLUME 2
PH113-87-06-25-037 VOLUME 2
POLICY ON NO-ACTION ASSURANCES
PARTICULATE NATTER INTERIM ENFORCEMENT POLICY
REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING WITH CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN
TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE GUIDAHCE
REGIONAL OFFICE CRITERIA FOR NEUTRAL INSPECTIONS OF STATIONARY SOURCES -
AMENDED GUIDANCE
FINAL GUIDANCE ON USE OF UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS
PRIORITIES FOR ISSUING NOTICES OF HONCONPLIAHCE
SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY-THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE '
VOLUME 2 "GRANDFATHERING" OF REQUIREMENTS FOR PENDING SIP REVISIONS
VOLUME 1 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION
MONITORING PROVISIONS IN STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SUMMARY
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF SIP REVISIONS
EXPERIMENTAL STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) PROCESSING TECHNIQUES
NEW PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBHITTAL OF STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-NEW SIP PROCESSING PROCEDURES TO SAVE TIME AND
RESOURCES (FR CITATION)
REVIEW OF 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
LETTER TO HARRY H. HOVEY RE EPA POLICY WITH REGARD TO AMBIENT AIR
REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION AND SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION
PLANS: INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONSULTATION (FR CITATION)
EXPANDED USE OF DIRECT FINAL SIP PROCESSING
POLICY FOR DETERMINING COMPLETENESS OF SIP SUBMITTALS
"GRANDFATHERING" OF REQUIREMENTS FOR PENDING SIP REVISIONS
IDENTIFYING AND EXPEDITING SIP REVISIONS THAT IMPACT THE ENFORCEMENT
PROCESS
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN COMPLETENESS REVIEW (FR CITATION)
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PROCESSING REFORM (FR CITATION)
PROCEDURES FOR LETTER NOTICE APPROVAL OF MINOR SIP ACTIONS
PROPER AND TIMELY REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) REVISIONS
-------
Page Ho. 27
08/07/90
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
PN172-79-05-25-016 VOLUME 1
PH172-82-10-29-041 VOLUME 1
** SIP REVISIONS
PN107-83-04-21-008 VOLUME 1
PN110-83-05-27-064 VOLUME 1
PN110-86-08-07-076 VOLUME 2
PN113-87-09-23-041 VOLUME 2
PN113-87-12-31-043 VOLUME 2
PN165-84-01-09-012 VOLUME 1
PN165-85-05-09-015 VOLUME 1
PM169A-86-11-10-002 VOLUME 2
PN172-78-08-04-004 VOLUME 1
PN172-79-01-16-012 VOLUME 1
PN172-83-11-02-044 VOLUME 1
PN172-84-01-20-045 VOLUME 1
PN172-87-09-09-055 VOLUME 2
PN172-88-09-07-064 VOLUME 2
PN175-80-06-12-008 VOLUME 1
PN175-80-06-23-009 VOLUME 1
** S02 SIPS
PN110-79-04-04-015 VOLUME 1
PN110-79-07-02-017 VOLUME 1
PN110-79-09-17-020 VOLUME 1
PN110-83-05-27-064 VOLUME 1
PN110-86-03-28-073 VOLUME 2
PN110-86-05-23-075 VOLUME 2
PM110-86-12-10-078 VOLUME 2
SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
QUESTIONS AMD ANSWERS ON 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SUMMARY
SUMMARY OF MAAQS INTERPRETATION
POLICY ON SIP REVISIONS REQUESTING COMPLIANCE DATE EXTENSIONS FOR VOC
SOURCES
REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS AND REVISIONS FOR ENFORCEABILITY AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
GUDANCE ON EVALUATING CLEAN AIR ACT ENFORCEMENT OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN VIOLATIONS INVOLVING PROPOSED STATE REVISIONS
INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICY ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PART D
IMPROVED NEW SOURCE REVIEW/PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSR/PSD) PROGRAM TRANSFER
VISIBILITY PROTECTION STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP'S)~VISIBILITY SIP'S
PART II
REQUIREMENT FOR VOC RACT REGULATIONS IN ALL OXIDAUT NONATTAINMENT AREAS
CONTINUITY OF SIP REGULATIONS - REVISED ENCLOSURE
COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT -
FINAL (48 FR 50686)
AVERAGING TIMES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITS - SIP REVISION
POLICY
ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE FOR GRAPHIC ARTS RACT
AIR PROGRAMS APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS COMPLIANCE
WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D AND SECTION 110 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT (FR CITATION)
PROCEDURES FOR CONFORMANCE OF TRANSPORTATION PLANS, PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
WITH CLEAN AIR ACT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - TRANSPORTATION
REVISION PROCESS: EXPANDED GUIDELINES (FR CITATION)
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS FOR HONATTAINMENT AREAS (44 FR 20372)
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAINMENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL) (44 FR 38583)
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAINMENT AREAS - (SUPPLEMENT ON CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES) (44 FR
53761)
SUMMARY OF MAAQS INTERPRETATION
BLOCK AVERAGES IN IMPLEMENTING S02 KAAQS
LETTER TO NANCY MALOLEY FROM CRAIG POTTER ON THE INDIANA S02 SIP
RULEMAKING ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP'S) FOR S02
-------
Page No.
08/07/90
28
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AMD GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
PN110-87-07-29-084
PN113-83-02-15-017
PN113-88-07-05-051
PN123-85-10-10-007
PN123-88-05-17-016
PN165-89-04-10-041
VOLUME 2 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE
VOLUME 1 POLICY ON EXCESS EMISSIONS DOTING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, MAINTENANCE, AND
MALFUNCTIONS
VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OP S02 CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
VOLUME 1 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON IMPLEMENTING THE REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGULATION
VOLUME 2 APPLICATION OF THE INTERIM POLICY FOR STACK HEIGHT REGULATORY ACTIONS
VOLUME 2 PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) APPLICABILITY TO SULFUR
DIOXDE (S02) EMISSIONS FROM INCINERATION OF TOTAL REDUCED SULFUR (TRS)
COMPOUNDS
** SOLVENT REACTIVITY
PN110-80-07-22-067
PN172-79-05-25-017
** SOLVENT REGULATIONS
PH172-79-06-20-018
PN172-79-12-12-023
PN172-80-07-02-029
PN172-86-10-30-053
** SOOT BLOWING
PN111E-82-05-07-002
** SOURCE DEFINITION
PN165-87-02-27-017
VOLUME 1 (CITATION OF FR NOTICE ON SOLVENT REACTIVITIES)
VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AND SOLVENT
REACTIVITIES
VOLUME 1 MODIFICATIONS TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLVENT METAL CLEANING
VOLUME 1 EXEMPTIONS FOR DEGREASERS
VOLUME 1 EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
VOLUME 2 INCLUSION OF CLEAN-UP SOLVENTS IN DETERMINING APPLICABILITY TO THE
100-TON PER YEAR NON-CTG REQUIREMENTS
VOLUME 1 RESTATEMENT OF GUIDANCE ON EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SOOT BLOWING
VOLUME 2 PLANTWIDE DEFINITION OF MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION
** STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS
PN123-85-09-19-006 VOLUME 1
PN123-85-10-10-007 VOLUME 1
PN123-85-10-28-008 VOLUME 1
PN123-85-10-28-009 VOLUME 1
PN123-85-10-28-010 VOLUME 1
PN123-86-02-11-011 VOLUME 2
PN123-86-02-11-012 VOLUME 2
PN123-87-09-03-013 VOLUME 2
PN123-87-10-09-014 VOLUME 2
PN123-88-01-07-015 VOLUME 2
PN123-88-05-17-016 VOLUME 2
GUIDANCE ON FLUID MODEL DEMONSTRATIONS FOR DETERMINING GEP STACK HEIGHT IN
COMPLEX TERRAIN
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON IMPLEMENTING THE REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGULATION
IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - EXCEPTIONS FROM RESTRICTIONS
ON CREDIT FOB MERGED STACKS
IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - PRESUMPTIVE NSPS EMISSION
LIMIT FOR FLUH) MODELING STACKS ABOVE FORMULA GEP HEIGHT
DETERMINING STACK HEIGHTS "IN EXISTENCE" BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 1970
PRIORITY FOR REVIEW OF PARTICDLATE MATTER SOURCES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS
CLARIFICATION OF EXISTING GUIDANCE ON DISPERSION MODELING REQUIREMENTS FOR
PLANTS WITH "TALL STACKS" AND OTHER PROHIBITED DISPERSION TECHNIQUES
TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR STACK HEIGHT NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS
PROCESSING OF STACK HEIGHT NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS
STACK HEIGHT EMISSIONS BALANCING - FINAL POLICY STATEMENT (53 FR 480)
APPLICATION OF THE INTERIM POLICY FOR STACK HEIGHT REGULATORY ACTIONS
-------
Page Mo.
08/07/90
29
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AMD GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT IBDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 DPDATE)
DOCUMENT
MOXBEE
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLDHE SUBJECT
PH123-89-04-20-017
VOLOHE 2 LETTER TO JOHM PROCTOR FROM G. EMISOM
** SURROGATE AH QUALITY DATA
PM107-85-10-08-010 • VOLDHE 1 020ME AIR QUALITY DATA FOR 8EDESIGHATIOMS
** SURVEILLANCE ACTIONS
PH114-81-05-13-002 VOLUME 1 REGIONAL OFFICE CRITERIA FOR NEUTRAL INSPECTIONS OF STATIONARY SOURCES -
AMENDED GUIDANCE
PN120-80-09-12-001 VOLUME 1 PRIORITIES FOR ISSUING NOTICES OF NONCOMPUANCE
** TOXIC SUBSTANCES
PH110-82-11-24-061 VOLUME 1
PN112-85-06-X3C-007 VOLUME 1
PN112-89-06-15-011 VOLUME 2
PN165-87-09-22-021 VOLUME 2
PN165-88-07-28-033 VOLUME 2
** TRANSFER EFFICIENCY
PN110-85-12-16-072 VOLUME
PN110-86-04-11-074 VOLUME
** TRANSPORT VALUES - OXIDANT
PN172-78-08-04-004 'VOLUME 1
PN172-78-10-26-009 VOLUME 1
** TRANSPORTATION GRANTS
PN175-79-02-12-004
** TRANSPORTATION PLAKNING
PN172-78-06-14-026
PN172-81-05-21-038
PN172-81-01-22-039
PN175-80-06-12-008
PN175-80-06-23-009
SIP ACTIOMS AND TOXIC POLLUTANTS
REPRINT OF THE EPA AIR TOXICS STRATEGY (REFERENCE ONLY)
CONTROL OF AIR EMISSIONS FROM SUPERFUND AIR STRIPPERS AT SUPERFUND
GROUNDWATER SITES
IMPLEMENTATION OF NORTH COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY PSD REMAND
SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE IN IMPLEMENTIHG THE NORTH COUNTY PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) REMAND
1 BASELINE TIME PERIODS FOR VOC TRANSFER EFFICIENCY CREDITS
2 RESPONSES TO FIVE VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
REQUIREMENT FOR VOC RACT REGULATIONS IN ALL OXIDANT NONATTAINMENT AREAS
OZONE TRANSPORT VALUES FOR SIP REVISIONS
VOLUME 1 REGIONAL OFFICE ASSISTANCE IN EXPEDITING HEADQUARTERS REVIEW OF SECTION
175 GRANT APPLICATIONS
VOLUME 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGARDING THE INTEGRATION OF
TRANSPORTATION- AND AIR QUALITY PLANNING
VOLUME 1 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (46 FR 7182)
VOLUME 1 PROCEDURES FOR CONFORMANCE OF TRANSPORTATION PLANS, PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
WITH CLEAN AIR ACT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
VOLUME 1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - TRANSPORTATION
REVISION PROCESS: EXPANDED GUIDELINES (FR CITATION)
-------
03/07/90
AH PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
** TRICHLOROETHANE
PN172-78-08-24-006
VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OP EPA POLICY ON EMISSIONS POX METHYL CHLOROFORM
** UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS
PN114-84-09-06-004 VOLUME 1
FINAL GUIDANCE ON OSE OP UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS
** VINYL CHLORIDE
PN112-84-07-11-005
** VIN7L COATINGS
PN172-85-07-02-051
VOLUME 1 VINYL CHLORIDE NESHAP ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
VOLUME 1
** VISIBILITY PROTECTION
PN169A-35-03-25-001 VOLUME 1
PN169A-86-11-10-002 VOLUME 2
** VISIBLE EMISSIONS
PN113-82-05-04-013 VOLUME 1
** VOC COMPLIANCE
PN113-87-07-06-038 VOLUME 2
PN113-87-09-11-040 VOLUME 2
PH172-85-04-25-050 VOLUME 1
PN172-85-07-02-051 VOLUME 1
PN172-86-02-28-052 VOLUME 2
PN172-89-03-16-071 VOLUME 2
* VOC CONTSOLS
PN110-79-04-04-015 VOLUME 1
'N110-79-09-17-020 VOLUME 1
N110-80-07-31-039 VOLUME 1
M10-80-08-04-040 VOLUME 1
mO-80-08-08-04i VOLUME 1
RESIDUAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTAINED IN COATING LINE
PRODUCTS
VISIBILITY HONITORING STRATEGY REQUIREMENTS
VISIBILITY PROTECTION STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP'S)-VISIBILITY SIP'S
PART II
GUIDANCE ON POLICY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF VE VIOLATIONS AGAINST SOURCES WHIC2
ARE MEETING AN APPLICABLE MASS EMISSION STANDARD
SMALL VOC SOURCE COMPLIANCE STRATEGY - FINAL
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDAHCZ: SMALL VOC SOCRCE
COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
CONSIDERATION OF ORGANISOLS IN VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC) COMPLIANCE
CALCULATIONS
RESIDUAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTAINED IN COATING LINE
PRODUCTS
RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC's)
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS (44 FR 20372)
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
HONATTAINNENT AREAS - (SUPPLEMENT ON CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES) (44 FR
53761)
APPLICABILITY OF VOC CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINES (CTGS) TO THE AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
APPLICABILITY OF PAPER COATING, FABRIC COATING, AND GRAPHIC ARTS CTGS
THE BUBBLE POLICY AND STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT
SECTION HID
-------
Page Ho.
08/07/90
31
All PROGRAMS POLICY ADD GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT ODE!
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCDHEHT
VOLUME SUBJECT
PN110-82-11-24-061
PN110-77-07-08-065
PH110-85-08-27-071
PH110-85-12-16-072
PN110-86-04-11-074
PM110-86-08-07-076
PN110-86-12-04-077
PH110-87-01-08-079
PN110-87-04-17-081
PN110-87-07-21-089
PH112-89-06-15-011
PN113-85-04-24-023
PM113-86-01-17-027
PN113-86-P8-07-032
PN165-85-06-28-023
PN165-88-04-25-030
PH172-78-03-10-002
PN172-78-06-30-003
PN172-78-08-04-004
PN172-78-08-24-006
PN172-78-10-06-008
PN172-79-03-06-014
PN172-79-05-25-017
PN172-79-06-20-018
PN172-79-08-21-019
PH172-79-08-22-020
PH172-79-12-12-023
PN172-80-06-16-027
PH172-80-07-02-029
PN172-80-09-03-030
VOLUME 1 SIP ACTIONS AND TOXIC POLLUTANTS
VOLUME 1 (CITATION OF FR NOTICE ENTITLED "RECOMMENDED POLICY ON CONTROL OF VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS")
VOLUME 1 CLASSIFICATION OF BENZENE AS A VOC
VOLUME 1 BASELINE TIME PERIODS FOR VOC TRANSFER EFFICIENCY CREDITS
VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FIVE VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
VOLUME 2 POLICY ON SIP REVISIONS REQUESTING COMPLIANCE DATE EXTENSIONS FOR VOC
SOURCES
VOLUME 2 EMISSIONS TRADING POLICY STATEMENT (51 FR 43814)
VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF SEASONAL VOC CONTROL POLICY
VOLUME 2 DEFINITION OF VOC
VOLUME 2 DEFINITION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC's)
VOLUME 2 CONTROL OF AIR EMISSIONS FROM SUPERFUND AIR STRIPPERS AT SUPERFUND
GROUNDWATER SITES
VOLUME 1 ACHIEVING VOC COMPLIANCE FROM DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTOR FACILITIES
VOLUME 2 ISSUES /3(E) AND /5 OF THE VOC ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCESS: ESTABLISHING
PROOF OF VOC EMISSIONS VIOLATIONS, AND BUBBLES Df CONSENT DECREES
RESOLVING CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 113(b) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
VOLUME 2 POLICY ON THE AVAILABILITY OF LOW-SOLVENT TECHNOLOGY SCHEDULES IN CLEAN
AIR ACT ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
VOLUME 1 MEMO TO WILLIAM S. BAKER ON SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
VOLUME 2 LAER EMISSION LIMITS FOR AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK TOPCOAT
OPERATIONS
VOLUME 1 EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT FOR PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS
VOLUME 1 VAPOR RECOVERY REGULATIONS REQUIRED TO MEET RACT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 1979
SIP
VOLUME 1 REQUIREMENT FOR VOC RACT REGULATIONS IN ALL OXIDANT HONATTAINMENT AREAS
VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OF EPA POLICY ON EMISSIONS FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM
VOLUME 1 COMMENTS ON AUTO INDUSTRY PROPOSALS
VOLUME 1 CUTBACK ASPHALT VOC REGULATIONS
VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AND SOLVENT
REACTIVITIES
VOLUME 1 MODIFICATIONS TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLVENT METAL CLEANING
VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS: GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON
APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAIBHENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON
REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMISSION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICAL RACT
REGULATIONS)
VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS/REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMITTING RACT
REGULATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS(VOC)
VOLUME 1 EXEMPTIONS FOR DEGREASERS
VOLUME 1 GASOLINE TANK TRUCK REGULATIONS
VOLUME 1 EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
VOLUME 1 MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS CTG - EMISSION LIMITS FOR COATING
OF SHIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
-------
Page Mo.
08/07/90
32
All PROGRAMS POLICY AMD GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
(SEPTEMBER 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLDHE SUBJECT
PH172-80-11-20-032
PN172-80-12-01-033
PN172-80-12-02-034
PN172-80-12-02-035
PH172-81-02-06-036
PN172-81-01-22H339
PN172-84-01-20-045
PM172-84-09-14-048
PN172-84-12-21-049
PM172-85-04-25-050
PN172-87-06-25-054
PH172-86-09-29-058
PN172-87-12-10-060
PN172-88-05-27-061
PN172-88-08-23-063
PN172-83-12-16-067
PH172-89-02-15-070
PN172-89-04-03-072
PN172-89-04-07-073
PH172-89-05-25-075
PN172-89-07-06-076
PN172-89-10-24-077
** VOC RECORDKEEPING
PH110-86-04-11-074
VOLUME 1 COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAN COATING OPERATIONS
VOLUME 1 REVISED SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
VOLUME 1 COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY
EQUIPMENT
VOLUME 1 RACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
VOLUME 1 STORAGE TANK VAPOR BALANCE REQUIREMENTS AT SYNTHESIZED PHARMACEUTICAL .
PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE FACILITIES
VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (46 FR 7182)
VOLUME 1 AVERAGING TIMES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITS - SIP REVISION
POLICY
VOLUME 1 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) TEST METHODS OR PROCEDURES FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES IN GROUPS I, II, AND III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTGS)
VOLUME 1 CONNECTICUT VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) ISSUES
VOLUME 1 CONSIDERATION OF ORGANISOLS H VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC) COMPLIANCE
CALCULATIONS
VOLUME 2 EMISSION CUT-OFF FOR CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUND SOURCES
VOLUME 2 SEASONAL VOC CONTROLS
VOLUME 2 LETTER TO LEONARD LEDBETTER ON USE OF POTENTIAL VS ACTUAL EMISSIONS FOR
VOC REGULATIONS
VOLUME 2 TRANSNITTAL OF EPA GUIDANCE ON VOC ISSUES
VOLUME 2 LETTER TO WILLIAM JURIS OH VOC EMISSION COTOFF
VOLUME 2 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) DISPOSAL REGULATION
VOLUME 2 MARINE VESSEL VAPOR CONTROL
VOLUME 2 APPLICABILITY OF MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS COATINGS
REGULATIONS TO ADBESIVES, SEALANTS AND FILLERS
VOLUME 2 BASELINE FOR CROSS-LINE AVERAGING
VOLUME 2 CORRECTING CAPTURE EFFICIENCY (CE) REGULATIONS
VOLUME 2 AEROSPACE AND SIMILAR RULES IN OZONE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP'S)
VOLUME 2 COMPLIANCE TIME PERIOD FOR ELECTROPHORETIC PRIME-COATING OPERATIONS
VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FIVE VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
4
** VOC TEST METHODS
PN110-86-04-11-074
PN172-84-09-14-048
** VOC WASTE DISPOSAL
PN172-88-12-16-067
VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FIVE VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
VOLUME 1 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) TEST METHODS OR PROCEDURES FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES IN GROUPS I, II, AND III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTGS)
VOLUME 2 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) DISPOSAL REGULATION
-------
Page No. 33
08/07/90
AIX PBOGBAKS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT ODE*
(SEPTEMBEE 1990 UPDATE)
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBEX VOLUME SUBJECT
** VOLATILE HAZARDOUS AIB POLLUTANTS
PH113-88-03-02-045 VOLUME 2 BEVISIONS TO VOLATILE HAZABDOUS AIE POLLUTAHT (VHAP) CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
-------
»>MK**
SXl/^L
.^^^^^^ -
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1
AUG 2 4 199Q
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook
FROM: John S. Seitz, Director ^-J^^^^f^ ' TT^
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)U
TO: Recipients of the Air Programs Policy and
Guidance Notebook
I am pleased to inform you that we have completed another update of the
Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook. Attached are the documents that
you will now need to include in your existing Notebooks. Please follow the
instructions below in order to minimize any possible confusion during the
updating process.
Instructions
1. Replace the existing Subject Index in both Volume 1 and in
Volume 2 with the new subject indices provided. The subject indices
for Volume 1 and Volume 2 are identical; either can be placed in
either volume.
2. Replace the existing document title listings for Sections 110,
165, and 172 of Volume 2 of the Notebook with the revised title
listings that are provided. The revised section title listings are
to be placed immediately behind the dividers for the respective
sections. The individual memos and other documents (see below) are
then placed behind the individual section title listings.
3. There are 8 new documents to be added to the Notebook this time,
all of which are to be added to Volume 2 of the Notebook. Place these
documents into the appropriate sections of Volume 2, inserting them
so that the last 3 digits of the PN numbers, which are located in the
upper right hand portion of the first page of each new document, are in
descending order. The documents to be added are listed below:
PN 110-90-07-05-106 "PM-10 SIP Demonstrations for Small
Isolated Areas with Spatially Uniform
Emissions"
PN 110-90-06-18-105 "Replacement of Surrogate PM-10 Monitors"
PN 165-90-06-08-050 Letter to John Boston from William G.
Rosenberg on WEPCO Determination
PN 165-90-01-18-049 Letter to Morton Sterling of Detroit Edison
from Gerald A. Emison
-------
2
PN 165-89-09-11-048 Letter to Christopher J. Daggett from
Gerald A. Emison on use of urea injection
for NOx control from municipal waste
combustors
PN 165-89-08-09-047 "LAER Determination for a Previously
Constructed Source"
PN 172-90-06-18-079 "Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value
Calculations"
PN 172-90-02-28-078 "Lowest Achievable Emission Limits (LAER) for
Ozone Nonattainment Areas"
4. Refer to Attachment 1 ("Complete Listing of the Contents of
Volume 1 of the Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook") and
Attachment 2 ("Complete Listing of the Contents of Volume 2 of the
Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook") to check to see that you
have all of the documents in your Notebook that you should have. If
any documents are missing contact Bill Hamilton, USEPA, Mail Drop
15, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Telephone number 919-541-5498
or FTS 629-5498.
Every effort has been taken in order to make the Air Programs Policy and
Guidance Notebook the best possible compilation of its kind. However, users
of the Notebook cannot assume that the Notebook alone contains all of the
policy and guidance that they may need in a given situation, particularly in
the case of newly-issued materials which are not included in the Notebook. In
addition, the Notebook is not intended to be the primary means of distributing
policy and guidance to the implementers of air quality management programs.
As in the past, policy memorandums and other guidance will continue to be sent
to the EPA Regional Offices for their use and for possible subsequent
distribution to State and local air pollution control agencies.
As we have previously mentioned, we realize that the Notebook,
particularly Volume 2, has nearly exceeded the capacity of the 3-ring binders.
At this time, however, we do not intend to distribute additional 3-ring
binders to the Notebook users. In the future we intend to revise the Notebook
in order to be compatible with any Clean Air Act amendments that are passed by
Congress. During that process we will, among other things, examine the need
for additional binders for the Notebook.
Any comments that you might have on how to improve the Notebook would be
appreciated. If you have any suggestions please contact Bill Hamilton at the
address and telephone number listed above. In addition, please feel free to
contact Bill if you have any questions regarding this update to the Notebook.
Attachments
cc: W. Hamilton
-------
08/07/9i * ATTACHMENT 1
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1990)
** PN107-82-09-16-007
MILWAUKEE SO2 NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATION
** PN107-83-04-21-008
SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SUMMARY
** PN107-85-04-08-009
LETTER TO JUDGE TERRY ROBERTS FROM GERALD A. EMISON
** PN107-85-10-08-010
OZONE AIR QUALITY DATA FOR REDESIGNATIONS
** PN110-78-02-24-002
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
** PN110-78-03-24-003
PLANS UNDER SECTION HID OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
** PNHO-78-07-17-007
INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE POLICY
** PNHO-79-04-04-015
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS (44 FR
20372)
** PNHO-79-06-14-016
LEAD SIPS
** PNHO-79-07-02-017
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN
REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON PUBLIC COMMENT
AND CONDITIONAL APPROVAL) (44 FR 38583)
** PN110-79-09-17-020
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN
REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS - (SUPPLEMENT ON CONTROL
TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES) (44 FR 53761)
** PNHO-79-11-21-023
MINIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES FOR DETERMINING QUARTERLY AVERAGE LEAD
CONCENTRATION
** PN110-80-01-10-023A
ALTERNATE PROCEDURE FOR SECTION 110(F) RELIEF IN LOCALIZED, SHORT
TERM ENERGY EMERGENCIES
-------
Page No. 2
08/07/90
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1990)
** PNHO-80-03-10-030
EMISSION OFFSET REQUIREMENTS IN SECONDARY STANDARD TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE PLANS
** PN110-80-04-08-032
NEW SOURCE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR LEAD
** PN110-80-05-09-034A
CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION
MONITORING PROVISIONS IN STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
** PN110-80-07-31-039
APPLICABILITY OF VOC CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINES (CTGS) TO THE
AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
** PN110-80-08-04-040
APPLICABILITY OF PAPER COATING, FABRIC COATING, AND GRAPHIC ARTS
CTGS
** PNHO-80-08-08-041
THE BUBBLE POLICY AND STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS UNDER CLEAN AIR
ACT SECTION HID
** PN110-80-09-25-043
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF SIP REVISIONS
** PN110-80-10-23-044
GROWTH RESTRICTIONS IN SECONDARY NAAQS NONATTAINMENT AREAS
** PN110-81-07-22-052
EXPERIMENTAL STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) PROCESSING TECHNIQUES
** PNHO-81-11-09-055
NEW PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
** PN110-82-06-23-059
REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-NEW SIP PROCESSING PROCEDURES TO SAVE TIME
AND RESOURCES (FR CITATION) -
** PN110-82-08-11-060
REVIEW OF 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
** PN110-82-11-24-061
SIP ACTIONS AND TOXIC POLLUTANTS
** PNHO-83-03-18-063
LETTER TO HARRY H. HOVEY RE EPA POLICY WITH REGARD TO AMBIENT AIR
-------
Page No. 3
08/07/90
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1990)
** PN110-83-05-27-064
SUMMARY OF NAAQS INTERPRETATION
** PN110-77-07-08-065
(CITATION OF FR NOTICE ENTITLED "RECOMMENDED POLICY ON CONTROL OF
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS")
** PN110-79-06-18-066
REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS: INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONSULTATION (FR CITATION)
** PN110-80-07-22-067
(CITATION OF FR NOTICE ON SOLVENT REACTIVITIES)
** PN110-83-05-26-068
DEFINITION OF AMBIENT AIR FOR LEAD
** PN110-84-11-28-069
CORRECTING ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION MODEL RESULTS TO STANDARD
TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE
** PN110-85-01-02-070
REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF MODELING GUIDANCE
** PN110-85-08-27-071
CLASSIFICATION OF BENZENE AS A VOC
** PN110-85-12-16-072
BASELINE TIME PERIODS FOR VOC TRANSFER EFFICIENCY CREDITS
** PN110-83-03-14-087
ISSUES ON LEAD SIPS
** PN111D-81-09-14-001
EPA POLICY ON WELFARE-RELATED POLLUTANTS UNDER SECTION HID
** PN111E-76-05-03-001
ENFORCEMENT OF NSPS REQUIREMENTS
** PN111E-82-05-07-002
RESTATEMENT OF GUIDANCE ON EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SOOT BLOWING
** PN112-78-03-30-001
STATE ENFORCEMENT OF ASBESTOS DEMOLITION REGULATIONS IN LIGHT OF
ADAMO WRECKING COMPANY V. UNITED STATES
-------
Page No. 4
08/07/90
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1990)
** PN112-82-03-24-002
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO STATES: NESHAPS
** PN112-84-06-01-004
BENZENE NESHAP GUIDANCE
** PN112-84-07-11-005
VINYL CHLORIDE NESHAP ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
** PN112-85-02-08-006
REVISIONS TO ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION CIVIL PENALTY
POLICY
** PN112-85-06-XX-007
REPRINT OF THE EPA AIR TOXICS STRATEGY (REFERENCE ONLY)
** PN112-85-09-17-008
PREPARATION OF QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS IN AGENCY DECISION-MAKING
** PN113-75-11-05-001
NON-DISCRETIONARY ENFORCEMENT DUTIES - ISSUANCE OF NOTICES OF
VIOLATION
** PN113-76-06-25-002
DOCUMENTATION OF VIOLATION EXTENDING 30 DAYS BEYOND NOTICE OF
VIOLATION UNDER SECTION 113 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
** PN113-76-08-12-003
ENFORCEMENT OF SIPS UNDERGOING REVISION
** PN113-76-08-13-004
"REVIEWABILITY" OF EPA DETERMINATIONS IN SIP ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
** PN113-78-07-27-005
ENFORCEMENT UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS - ORDERS UNDER SECTION
113(A) AND 113(D)
** PN113-80-03-11-006
INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS -
** PN113-80-05-27-007
DELAYED COMPLIANCE ORDERS REQUIRING SIP COMPLIANCE THROUGH
TEMPORARY CONTROL MEASURES - AMENDED GUIDANCE
** PN113-82-05-04-013
GUIDANCE ON POLICY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF VE VIOLATIONS AGAINST
SOURCES WHICH ARE MEETING AN APPLICABLE MASS EMISSION STANDARD
-------
Page No. 5
08/07/90
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1990)
** PN113-82-08-12-014
GUIDANCE CONCERNING EPA'S USE OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING
DATA
** PN113-83-02-15-017
POLICY ON EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, MAINTENANCE,
AND MALFUNCTIONS
** PN113-83-01-12-018
GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY
ISSUED SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
** PN113-83-04-12-019
LETTER TO ROBERT R. WAHLER FROM KATHLEEN BENNETT RE ENFORCEMENT
POLICY ON INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
** PN113-83-04-26-020
PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW AND FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION OF DELAYED
COMPLIANCE ORDERS UNDER SECTION 113(D) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
** PN113-84-10-05-021
FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF EXCESS EMISSION
REPORTS
** PN113-84-12-20-022
POLICY ON NO-ACTION ASSURANCES
** PN113-85-04-24-023
ACHIEVING VOC COMPLIANCE FROM DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTOR
FACILITIES
** PN113-85-06-28-024
PARTICULATE MATTER INTERIM ENFORCEMENT POLICY
** PN113-85-10-30-025
FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF COAL SAMPLING
AND ANALYSIS DATA
** PN113-85-11-27-026
REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING WITH CLEAN
AIR ACT REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN
** PN114-77-12-02-001A
GUIDANCE FOR SECTION 114(D) OF THE CAA
** PN114-81-05-13-002
REGIONAL OFFICE CRITERIA FOR NEUTRAL INSPECTIONS OF STATIONARY
SOURCES - AMENDED GUIDANCE
-------
Page No. 6
08/07/90
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1990)
** PN114-83-12-15-003
EXECUTION OF CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS UNDER SECTION 114 OF THE
CLEAN AIR ACT
** PN114-84-09-06-004
FINAL GUIDANCE ON USE OF UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS
** PN115-78-01-31-001
ACCOUNTING FOR POLLUTION ACROSS INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES
** PN115-78-03-20-002
INTERNATIONAL POLLUTION (EL PASO/JUAREZ)
** PN120-80-09-12-001
PRIORITIES FOR ISSUING NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE
** PN120-81-02-12-003
IMPLEMENTATION OF NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTY PROGRAM UNDER SECTION 120
OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
** PN120-81-04-02-004
SETTLEMENT OF NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 120
OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT, AS AMENDED
** PN120-81-04-30-005
ISSUANCES OF NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE
CLEAN AIR ACT TO SEASONAL SOURCES
** PN120-85-03-19-006
PERMISSIBLE GROUNDS FOR SETTLEMENT OF NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTIES
UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
** PN120-85-03-19-007
GUIDANCE CONCERNING IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 120 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT IN FISCAL YEAR 1985
** PN123-80-12-19-001
LETTER TO HONORABLE JENNINGS"RANDOLPH FROM DOUGLAS M. COSTLE
REGARDING DEFINITION OF AMBIENT AIR
** PN123-85-09-19-006
GUIDANCE ON FLUID MODEL DEMONSTRATIONS FOR DETERMINING GEP STACK
HEIGHT IN COMPLEX TERRAIN
** PN123-85-10-10-007
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON IMPLEMENTING THE REVISED STACK HEIGHT
REGULATION
-------
Page No. 7
08/07/90
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1990)
** PN123-85-10-28-008
IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - EXCEPTIONS FROM
RESTRICTIONS ON CREDIT FOR MERGED STACKS
** PN123-85-10-28-009
IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - PRESUMPTIVE NSPS
EMISSION LIMIT FOR FLUID MODELING STACKS ABOVE FORMULA GEP HEIGHT
** PN123-85-10-28-010
DETERMINING STACK HEIGHTS "IN EXISTENCE" BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 1970
** PN124-78-07-31-001
IMPLEMENTING SECTION 124 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
** PN126-78-03-16-001
OUT OF STATE SOURCES EFFECT ON IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION
** PN165-78-12-22-001
BACT INFORMATION FOR COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS
** PN165-81-04-03-006
LETTER TO NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FROM EDWARD F. TUERK REGARDING PSD
PERMITS
** PN165-80-12-16-007
INTERPRETATION OF "SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION"
** PN165-84-01-09-012
INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICY ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
PART D
** PN165-84-01-20-013
PSD INCREMENT CONSUMPTION CALCULATIONS
** PN165-84-06-11-014
APPLICABILITY OF PSD INCREMENTS TO BUILDING ROOFTOPS
** PN165-85-05-09-015
IMPROVED NEW SOURCE REVIEW/PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSR/PSD) PROGRAM TRANSFER
** PN165-85-06-28-023
MEMO TO WILLIAM S. BAKER ON SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
** PN167-83-12-14-001
GUIDANCE ON ENFORCEMENT OF PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT
-------
Page No. 8
08/07/90
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1990)
** PN169A-85-03-25-001
VISIBILITY MONITORING STRATEGY REQUIREMENTS
** PN172-78-03-10-002
EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT FOR PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS
** PN172-78-06-30-003
VAPOR RECOVERY REGULATIONS REQUIRED TO MEET RACT REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE 1979 SIP
** PN172-78-08-04-004
REQUIREMENT FOR VOC RACT REGULATIONS IN ALL OXIDANT NONATTAINMENT
AREAS
** PN172-78-08-24-006
CLARIFICATION OF EPA POLICY ON EMISSIONS FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM
** PN172-78-10-06-008
COMMENTS ON AUTO INDUSTRY PROPOSALS
** PN172-78-10-26-009
OZONE TRANSPORT VALUES FOR SIP REVISIONS
** PN172-79-01-16-012
CONTINUITY OF SIP REGULATIONS - REVISED ENCLOSURE
** PN172-79-03-06-014
CUTBACK ASPHALT VOC REGULATIONS
** PN172-79-05-25-016
SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
** PN172-79-05-25-017
CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AND
SOLVENT REACTIVITIES
** PN172-79-06-20-018
MODIFICATIONS TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLVENT METAL CLEANING
** PN172-79-08-21-019
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS: GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED
RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS
SUPPLEMENT (ON REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMISSION OF VOLATILE
ORGANIC CHEMICAL RACT REGULATIONS)
** PN172-79-08-22-020
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS/REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMITTING RACT
REGULATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF VOLATILE ORGANIC Co* potM/OS
-------
Page No. 9
08/07/90
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1990)
** PN172-79-10-04-021
CLARIFICATION FOR FINAL SIP ACTIONS ON ASPHALT REGULATIONS
** PN172-79-12-12-023
EXEMPTIONS FOR DEGREASERS
** PN172-78-06-14-026
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGARDING
THE INTEGRATION OF TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY PLANNING
** PN172-80-06-16-027
GASOLINE TANK TRUCK REGULATIONS
** PN172-80-07-02-029
EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
** PN172-80-09-03-030
MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS CTG - EMISSION LIMITS FOR
COATING OF SHIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
** PN172-80-11-20-032
COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAN COATING
OPERATIONS
** PN172-80-12-01-033
REVISED SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
** PN172-80-12-02-034
COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM
REFINERY EQUIPMENT
** PN172-80-12-02-035
RACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
** PN172-81-02-06-036
STORAGE TANK VAPOR BALANCE REQUIREMENTS AT SYNTHESIZED
PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE FACILITIES
** PN172-81-05-21-038
1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
** PN172-81-01-22-039
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON
MONOXIDE PLAN REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE
EXTENSION (46 FR 7182)
-------
Page No. 10
08/07/90
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1990)
** PN172-82-10-29-041
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
** PN172-80-08-11-043
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS: CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
LIMITATION PROVIDED BY SECTION 316 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT: POLICY
AND PROCEDURES (FR CITATION)
** PN172-83-11-02-044
COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D OF THE CLEAN
AIR ACT - FINAL (48 FR 50686)
** PN172-84-01-20-045
AVERAGING TIMES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITS - SIP
REVISION POLICY
** PN172-84-06-25-046
APPLICABILITY OF GROUP III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTG'S)
** PN172-84-06-25-047
CONFIRMATION OF DEFINITION OF "100 TON-PER-YEAR (100 TPY) SOURCE"
** PN172-84-09-14-048
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) TEST METHODS OR PROCEDURES FOR
SOURCE CATEGORIES IN GROUPS I, II, AND III CONTROL TECHNIQUES
GUIDELINES (CTGS)
** PN172-84-12-21-049
CONNECTICUT VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) ISSUES
** PN172-85-04-25-050
CONSIDERATION OF ORGANISOLS IN VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC)
COMPLIANCE CALCULATIONS
** PN172-85-07-02-051
RESIDUAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTAINED IN COATING LINE
PRODUCTS
** PN175-79-02-12-004
REGIONAL OFFICE ASSISTANCE IN EXPEDITING HEADQUARTERS REVIEW OF
SECTION 175 GRANT APPLICATIONS
** PN175-80-04-23-006
IMPLEMENTATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 12185, CONSERVATION OF PETROLEUM
AND NATURAL GAS
** PN175-80-06-12-008
PROCEDURES FOR CONFORMANCE OF TRANSPORTATION PLANS, PROGRAMS AND
PROJECTS WITH CLEAN AIR ACT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
-------
Page No. 11
08/07/90
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1990)
** PN175-80-06-23-009
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN -
TRANSPORTATION REVISION PROCESS: EXPANDED GUIDELINES (FR CITATION)
** PN176-79-06-08-001
IMPACT OF CLEAN AIR ACT NONATTAINMENT SANCTIONS
** PN301-81-01-20-001
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REGIONAL CONSISTENCY REGULATIONS
-------
Page No. 1 ATTAPHMFNT ?
08/07/90 MHAUIWtNl £.
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1990)
** PN107-86-04-11-012
REQUIRED MONITORING PERIOD FOR OZONE REDESIGNATION IN UNCLASSIFIED
AREAS
** PN107-87-04-06-013
OZONE REDESIGNATION POLICY
** PN107-88-04-05-014
LETTER TO NANCY MALOLEY ON REDESIGNATION OF 2 INDIANA COUNTIES
** PN110-86-03-28-073
BLOCK AVERAGES IN IMPLEMENTING SO2 NAAQS
** PN110-86-04-11-074
RESPONSES TO FIVE VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
** PN110-86-05-23-075
LETTER TO NANCY MALOLEY FROM CRAIG POTTER ON THE INDIANA S02 SIP
** PN110-86-08-07-076
POLICY ON SIP REVISIONS REQUESTING COMPLIANCE DATE EXTENSIONS FOR
VOC SOURCES
** PN110-86-12-04-077
EMISSIONS TRADING POLICY STATEMENT (51 FR 43814)
** PN110-86-12-10-078
RULEMAKING ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP'S) FOR SO2
** PN110-87-01-08-079
CLARIFICATION OF SEASONAL VOC CONTROL POLICY
** PN110-87-01-20-080
DETERMINATION OF ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
** PN110-87-04-17-081
DEFINITION OF VOC
** PN110-87-04-30-082
AMBIENT AIR
** PN110-87-04-30-083
AMBIENT AIR
** PN110-87-07-29-084
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE
-------
Page No. 2
08/07/90
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1990)
** PN110-87-08-11-085
PROCESSING OF PARTICULATE MATTER STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
REVISIONS
** PN110-87-09-21-086
AMBIENT AIR DEFINITION
** PN110-87-05-11-088
GUIDANCE ON ACCOUNTING FOR TRENDS IN PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSION
AND AIR QUALITY DATA
** PN110-87-07-21-089
DEFINITION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC's)
** PN110-87-08-11-090
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PM10 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP'S)
** PN110-87-10-02-091
CLARIFICATION OF IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES FOR PM10 NATIONAL AMBIENT
AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS)
** PN110-87-12-23-092
EXPANDED USE OF DIRECT FINAL SIP PROCESSING
** PN110-88-03-18-093
POLICY FOR DETERMINING COMPLETENESS OF SIP SUBMITTALS
** PN110-88-06-17-094
DEMONSTRATION OF "REPRESENTATIVE EMISSION CONDITIONS" FOR USE IN
"EXPECTED EXCEEDANCE" DETERMINATIONS
** PN110-88-06-27-095
"GRANDFATHERING" OF REQUIREMENTS FOR PENDING SIP REVISIONS
** PN110-88-08-05-096
"DENTIFYING AND EXPEDITING SIP REVISIONS THAT IMPACT THE
ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
** PN110-88-09-06-097
PM10 SIP DEVELOPMENT: STATUS AND CONCERNS
** PN110-88-11-04-098
GUIDANCE ON LONG-TERM NONATTAINMENT OF THE PM10 STANDARDS
** PN110-88-11-21-099
REVISION TO POLICY ON THE USE OF PM10 MEASUREMENT DATA
-------
Page No. 3
08/07/90
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1990)
** PN110-89-01-19-100
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN COMPLETENESS REVIEW (FR CITATION)
** PN110-89-01-19-101
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PROCESSING REFORM (FR CITATION)
** PN110-89-01-30-102
PROCEDURES FOR LETTER NOTICE APPROVAL OF MINOR SIP ACTIONS
** PN110-89-06-30-103
RESPONSE TO PM10 CONTROL STRATEGY ISSUES
** PN110-89-08-14-104
REVIEW OF PM-10 IMPLEMENTATION POLICY
** PN110-90-06-18-105
REPLACEMENT OF SURROGATE PM-10 MONITORS
** PN110-90-07-05-106
PM-10 SIP DEMONSTRATIONS FOR SMALL ISOLATED AREAS WITH SPATIALLY
UNIFORM EMISSIONS
** PN111E-86-09-11-004
DELEGATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) AND NATIONAL
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAP) AUTHORITY
TO STATE/LOCAL AGENCIES
** PN112-86-10-01-009
GUIDELINE S-26 - ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARSENIC NESHAP FOR GLASS
MANUFACTURING PLANTS
** PN112-88-03-31-010
REVISED ASBESTOS NESHAP STRATEGY
** PN112-89-06-15-011
CONTROL OF AIR EMISSIONS FROM SUPERFUND AIR STRIPPERS AT SUPERFUND
GROUNDWATER SITES
** PN113-86-01-17-027
ISSUES #3(E) AND #5 OF THE VOC ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCESS:
ESTABLISHING PROOF OF VOC EMISSIONS VIOLATIONS, AND BUBBLES IN
CONSENT DECREES RESOLVING CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 113(b) OF
THE CLEAN AIR ACT
** PN113-86-04-11-028
TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE GUIDANCE
-------
Page No. 4
08/07/90
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1990)
** PN113-86-04-11-029
GUIDANCE ON FEDERALLY-REPORTABLE VIOLATIONS FOR STATIONARY AIR
SOURCES
** PN113-86-04-22-030
TRANSMITTAL OF NATIONAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE - ENFORCEMENT
APPLICATIONS OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM DATA
** PN113-86-06-02-031
113(d)(4) LETTER TO CAN MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE
** PN113-86-08-07-032
POLICY ON THE AVAILABILITY OF LOW-SOLVENT TECHNOLOGY SCHEDULES IN
CLEAN AIR ACT ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
** PN113-86-08-22-033
SAMPLE FEDERAL REGISTER LANGUAGE FOR PROPOSAL AND FINAL DCO'S
** PN113-87-01-09-034
LETTER TO TOM BISPHRAM ON CDS DATA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
** PN113-87-03-25-035
REVISED CLEAN AIR ACT STATIONARY SOURCE CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
** PN113-87-05-27-036
REACTIVATION OF NORANDA LAKESHORE MINES7 RLA PLANT AND PSD REVIEW
** PN113-87-06-25-037
PROPER AND TIMELY REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP)
REVISIONS
** PN113-87-07-06-038
SMALL VOC SOURCE COMPLIANCE STRATEGY - FINAL
** PN113-87-09-11-040
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE: SMALL VOC SOURCE
COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
** PN113-87-09-23-041
REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS AND REVISIONS FOR
ENFORCEABILITY AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
** PN113-87-11-23-042
SETTLING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IN CLEAN AIR ACT NONATTAINMENT AREAS
AGAINST STATIONARY SOURCES WHICH WILL NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE BY THE
APPLICABLE ATTAINMENT DATE
-------
Page No. 5
08/07/90
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1990)
** PN113-87-12-31-043
GUIDANCE ON EVALUATING CLEAN AIR ACT ENFORCEMENT OF STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN VIOLATIONS INVOLVING PROPOSED STATE REVISIONS
** PN113-87-10-08-044
POLICY ON CORRECTING THE CONDITION GIVING RISE TO LISTING UNDER
THE CONTRACTOR LISTING PROGRAM
** PN113-88-03-02-045
REVISIONS TO VOLATILE HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (VHAP) CIVIL PENALTY
POLICY
** PN113-88-03-11-046
LISTING ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION COMPANIES PURSUANT TO
SECTION 306 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
** PN113-88-03-31-047
TRANSMITTAL OF OAQPS INTERIM CONTROL POLICY STATEMENT
** PN113-88-03-31-048
TRANSMITTAL OF REISSUED OAQPS GEMS POLICY
** PN113-88-03-31-049
IMPLEMENTATION OF RULE EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES
** PN113-88-06-30-050
ASBESTOS CONTRACTOR LISTING
** PN113-88-07-05-051
TRANSMITTAL OF SO2 CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
** PN114-88-03-31-006
COMPLIANCE MONITORING STRATEGY FOR FY 89
** PN123-86-02-11-011
PRIORITY FOR REVIEW OF PARTICULATE MATTER SOURCES FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS
** PN123-86-02-11-012
CLARIFICATION OF EXISTING GUIDANCE ON DISPERSION MODELING
REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANTS WITH "TALL STACKS" AND OTHER PROHIBITED
DISPERSION TECHNIQUES
** PN123-87-09-03-013
TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR STACK HEIGHT NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS
** PN123-87-10-09-014
PROCESSING OF STACK HEIGHT NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS
-------
Page No. 6
08/07/90
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1990)
** PN123-88-01-07-015
STACK HEIGHT EMISSIONS BALANCING - FINAL POLICY STATEMENT (53 FR
480)
** PN123-88-05-17-016
APPLICATION OF THE INTERIM POLICY 'FOR STACK HEIGHT REGULATORY
ACTIONS
** PN123-89-04-20-017
LETTER TO JOHN PROCTOR FROM G. EMISON
** PN126-89-01-11-005
LETTER TO THOMAS JORLING REGARDING INTERSTATE AIR POLLUTION
CRITERIA
** PN165-86-11-24-016
NEED FOR A SHORT-TERM BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (BACT)
ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED WILLIAM A. ZIMMER POWER PLANT
** PN165-87-02-27-017
PLANTWIDE DEFINITION OF MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION
** PN165-87-04-08-018
CLARIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE REVIEW POLICY ON AVERAGING TIMES FOR
PRODUCTION LIMITATIONS
** PN165-87-04-22-019
HUNTSVILLE INCINERATOR - DETERMINING BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY (BACT)
** PN165-87-06-26-020
OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE ON CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR NEW AND MODIFIED
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS(MWCs)
** PN165-87-09-22-021
IMPLEMENTATION OF NORTH COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY PSD REMAND
** PN165-87-12-01-022
IMPROVING NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) IMPLEMENTATION
** PN165-86-07-07-024
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) DEFINITION OF
"MODIFICATION"
** PN165-86-10-21-025
APPLICABILITY OF PSD TO PORTIONS OF A PLANT CONSTRUCTED IN PHASES
WITHOUT PERMITS
-------
Page No. 7
08/07/90
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1990)
** PN165-86-12-01-026
NEED FOR EMISSION CAP ON COMPLEX NETTING SOURCES
** PN165-87-01-29-027
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REVISED MODELING GUIDELINE FOR PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
** PN165-87-08-05-028
IMPLEMENTATION OF REVISED PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(PSD) PROGRAM FOR PARTICULATE MATTER
** PN165-87-10-06-029
EMISSIONS FROM LANDFILLS
** PN165-88-04-25-030
LAER EMISSION LIMITS FOR AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK TOPCOAT
OPERATIONS
** PN165-88-06-07-031
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(PSD) APPLICABILITY DETERMINATION
** PN165-88-07-05-032
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS FOR PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(PSD)
** PN165-88-07-28-033
SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE IN IMPLEMENTING THE NORTH COUNTY PREVENTION
OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) REMAND
** PN165-88-08-29-034
TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY IN DETERMINING LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION
RATE (LAER)
** PN165-88-09-09-035
APPLICABILITY OF PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) AND
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) TO THE WISCONSIN ELECTRIC
POWER COMPANY (WEPCO) PORT WASHINGTON LIFE EXTENSION PROJECT
** PN165-88-10-14-036
LETTER TO JOHN BOSTON FROM LEE THOMAS ON WEPCO DETERMINATION
** PN165-89-02-15-037
GUIDANCE ON EARLY DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY FOR THE NITROGEN DIOXIDE
(NO2) INCREMENTS PROGRAM
-------
Page No. 8
08/07/90
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1990)
** PN165-89-02-28-038
GUIDANCE ON DETERMINING LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION RATE (LAER)
** PN165-89-03-16-039
USE OF ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS FOR NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS (NAAQS) IMPACT ANALYSES UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS FOR .
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
** PN165-89-03-31-040
APPLICATION OF BUILDING DOWNWASH IN PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT
DETERIORATION (PSD) PERMIT ANALYSES
** PN165-89-04-10-041
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) APPLICABILITY TO
SULFUR DIOXIDE (SO2) EMISSIONS FROM INCINERATION OF TOTAL REDUCED
SULFUR (TRS) COMPOUNDS
** PN165-89-02-15-042
LETTER TO JOHN BOSTON FROM DON CLAY ON WEPCO DETERMINATION
** PN165-89-06-13-043
TRANSMITTAL OF BACKGROUND STATEMENT ON "TOP-DOWN" BEST AVAILABLE
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (BACT)
** PN165-89-08-24-044
GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTING THE NITROGEN DIOXIDE (NO2) PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) INCREMENTS
** PN165-89-09-18-045
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF POLICY REGARDING THE "NET EMISSIONS
INCREASE"
** PN165-89-02-24-046
CUT-OFF DATE FOR DETERMINING LAER IN MAJOR NEW SOURCE PERMITTING
** PN165-89-08-09-047
LAER DETERMINATION FOR A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED SOURCE
** PN165-89-09-11-048
LETTER TO CHRISTOPHER J. DAGGETT FROM GERALD A. EMISON ON USE OF
UREA INJECTION FOR NOX CONTROL FROM MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
** PN165-90-01-18-049
LETTER TO MORTON STERLING OF DETROIT EDISON FROM GERALD E. EMISON
** PN165-90-06-08-050
LETTER TO JOHN BOSTON FROM WILLIAM G. ROSENBERG ON WEPCO
DETERMINATION
-------
Page No. 9
08/07/90
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1990)
** PN167-88-03-29-002
OPINION IN U.S. V. LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION
** PN167-88-07-15-003
PROCEDURES FOR EPA TO ADDRESS DEFICIENT NEW SOURCE PERMITS UNDER
THE CLEAN AIR ACT
** PN169A-86-11-10-002
VISIBILITY PROTECTION STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
(SIP'S)—VISIBILITY SIP'S PART II
** PN172-86-02-28-052
RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
** PN172-86-10-30-053
INCLUSION OF CLEAN-UP SOLVENTS IN DETERMINING APPLICABILITY TO THE
100-TON PER YEAR NON-CTG REQUIREMENTS
** PN172-87-06-25-054
EMISSION CUT-OFF FOR CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUND SOURCES
** PN172-87-09-09-055
ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE FOR GRAPHIC ARTS RACT
** PN172-86-01-09-057
CLARIFICATION OF CTG RACT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HIGH-DENSITY
POLYETHYLENE, POLYPROPYLENE, AND POLYSTYRENE
** PN172-86-09-29-058
SEASONAL VOC CONTROLS
** PN172-87-09-11-059
GEOGRAPHIC APPLICABILITY OF CLEAN AIR ACT SANCTIONS
** PN172-87-12-10-060
LETTER TO LEONARD LEDBETTER ON USE OF POTENTIAL VS ACTUAL
EMISSIONS FOR VOC REGULATIONS
** PN172-88-05-27-061
TRANSMITTAL OF EPA GUIDANCE ON VOC ISSUES
** PN172-88-06-21-062
TRANSMITTAL OF AUTOMOBILE TOPCOAT PRpTOCOL
-------
Page No. 10
08/07/90
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1990)
** PN172-88-08-23-063
LETTER TO WILLIAM JURIS ON VOC EMISSION CUTOFF
** PN172-88-09-07-064
AIR PROGRAMS APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D AND SECTION 110
OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT (FR CITATION)
** PN172-88-11-04-065
EPA AUTHORITY TO REQUEST CHANGES IN RACT RULES
** PN172-88-12-01-066
RACT REQUIREMENTS IN OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS
** PN172-88-12-16-067
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) DISPOSAL REGULATION
** PN172-89-01-27-069
TRANSMITTAL OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON EMISSION INVENTORIES FOR
POST-1987 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CALL
AREAS
** PN172-89-02-15-070
MARINE VESSEL VAPOR CONTROL
** PN172-89-03-16-071
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC'S)
** PN172-89-04-03-072
APPLICABILITY OF MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS COATINGS
REGULATIONS TO ADHESIVES, SEALANTS AND FILLERS
** PN172-89-04-07-073
BASELINE FOR CROSS-LINE AVERAGING
** PN172-89-05-03-074
IDENTIFICATION OF NEW AREAS EXCEEDING THE NAAQS
** PN172-89-05-25-075
CORRECTING CAPTURE EFFICIENCY (CE) REGULATIONS
** PN172-89-07-06-076
AEROSPACE AND SIMILAR RULES IN OZONE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
(SIP'S)
** PN172-89-10-24-077
COMPLIANCE TIME PERIOD FOR ELECTROPHORETIC PRIME-COATING
OPERATIONS
-------
Page No. 11
08/07/90
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1990)
** PN172-90-02-28-078
LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION LIMITS (LAER) FOR OZONE NONATTAINMENT
AREAS
** PN172-90-06-18-079
OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE DESIGN VALUE CALCULATIONS
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
MAY 1 0 1984
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Air Programs Policy and Guidance Note-book - Update No. 7
FROM: /-John R. O'Connor, Acting Di>ectORJ^S-^~-r~V>4-XJ?
y/CDffice of Air Quality Planning and StandarMCMD-loT^
TO: Recipients of the Guidance Notebook
We are attaching new material for your Air Programs Policy and
Guidance Notebook. The updated material should be placed in reverse
chronological order at the beginning of each section as indicated by the
document number at the top right-hand corner of each item. Please make
all the changes indicated in the attached set of detailed instructions
that accompany the new material.
We hope you find this information helpful in carrying out your air
programs.
Attachment
VJ
-------
DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS FOR PLACING UPDATED MATERIAL IN NOTEBOOK
AND REMOVING SUPERSEDED OR OUTDATED MATERIAL
1. Remove the following documents:
I/PN 110-77-08-16-001 Guidance on SIP Development and New Source
Review in Areas Impacted by Fugitive Dust
ypN 110-78-05-16-005 Options for Handling State Implementation
Plans Relaxation in Face of Uncertainty
l/PN 110-78-10-11-009 Questions and Answers on 1979 SIP Revisions
110-78-12-21-012 Supplementary Guidelines for Lead Implemen-
tation Plans—Corrections
"/PN 1
10-79-02-21-014 Inspection/Maintenance Policy
i/PN 110-79-07-16-018 Revision to Procedure for Projecting Automotive
Lead Emissions
110-79-09-21-021 Secondary Standards Attainment Plans - Extensions
of Submittal Date
110-79-10-02-022 Amendments to Ambient Monitoring Regulations
/PN 110-80-03-04-029 Deadline for Review of State Implementation
v Plan Submittals
/PN 110-80-06-20-036 Attainment Date for Ambient Lead Standard
yPN 110-80-07-15-038 Attainment Dates for Newly Designated Nonattain-
ment Areas
\fl>\
N 113-81-04-24-009 Final Compliance Date for Unclassified Areas
,/2. Discard existing "Subject Inaex" material and replace with new "Subject
Index" material.
./3. Remove "Title Listing by CAA Section" and replace with new "Title
v Listing by CAA Section."
I
ft. Remove "Section 107: Air Quality Control Regions" listing and replace
with new "Section 107: Air Quality Control Regions" listing.
Add new PN107 material in reverse chronological order, item 008.
Remove "Section 110: Implementation Plans" listing and replace with
new "Section 110: Implementation Plans" listing.
-------
Add new PN 110 material in reverse chronological order including U63
and 064.
Remove "Section lll(e): NSPS Enforcement" listing and replace with
new "Section lll(e) NSPS Enforcement" listing.
Add new PN lll(e) material in reverse chronological order, item 003.
Remove "Section 113: Federal Enforcement" listing and replace with new
"Section 113: Federal Enforcement" listing.
Add new PN 113 material in reverse chronological order including 018,019
and 020.
Remove "Section 114: Inspections, Monitoring and Entry" listing and
replace with new "Section 114: Inspections, Monitoring, and Entry"
listing.
13. Add new PN 114 material in reverse chronological order, item 003.
14. Remove "Section 165: Preconstruction Requirements" listing and replace
with new "Section 165: Preconstruction Requirements" listing.
15. Add new PN 165 material in reverse chronological order including 012
and 013.
IV
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
• Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
OCT191983
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook - Update No. 6
FROM: /B.J. Steigerwald, Acting Director
: /B.J.
/OlOffi
ce of Air Quality Planning and Standards lD-10)
TO: Recipients of the Guidance Notebook
We are attaching new material for your Air Programs Policy and
Guidance Notebook. The updated material should be placed in reverse
chronological order at the beginning of each section as indicated by the
document number at the top right hand corner of each item. Please make
all the changes indicated in the attached set of detailed instructions
that accompany the new material.
We hope you find this information helpful in carrying out your air
programs.
Attachment
-------
DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS FOR PLACING UPDATED MATERIAL IN NOTEBOOK
AND REMOVING SUPERSEDED OR OUTDATED MATERIAL
Remove "Table of Contents" and replace with new "Table of Contents".
'2. Relocate "Subject Index" divider immediately after "Table of Contents"
pages. Discard existing "Subject Index" material and replace with
new "Subject Index" material.
tA
3. Remove "Title Listing by CAA Section" and replace with new "Title
Listing by CAA Section".
Remove "Section 107: Air Quality Control Regions" listing and
replace with new "Section 107: Air Quality Control Regions" listing.
Add new PN-107 material in reverse chronological order including
006 and 007.
•J6. Remove "Section 110: Implementation Plans" listing and replace
with new "Section 110: Implementation Plans" listing.
/7. Add new PN-110 material in reverse chronological order including
v/ / 062, 061, 060, and 059.
Remove "Section lll(e): NSPS Enforcement" listing and replace
with new "Section lll(e) NSPS Enforcement" listing.
Add new PN-lll(e) material in reverse chronological order, item 002.
I
10. Remove "Section 112: Hazardous Air Pollutants" listing and replace
with new "Section 112: Hazardous Air Pollutants" listing.
11. Add new PN-112 material in reverse chronological order, item U02.
12. Remove "Section 113: Federal Enforcement" listing and replace with
new "Section 113: Federal Enforcement" listing.
Add new PN-113 material in reverse chronological order, items 010
through 014 and 016 and 017.
14. Remove "Section 165: Reconstruction Requirements" listing and
replace with new "Section 165: Preconstruction Requirements" listing.
15. Add new PN-165 material in reverse chronological order, item Oil.
16. Remove "Section 172: Nonattainment Plan Revisions" listing and replace
with new "Section 172: Nonattainment Plan Revisions" listing.
17. Add new PN-172 material in reverse chronological order, items 041
and 042.
m
-------
! jSLr| UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D C. 20460
OFFICE OF
AIR, NOISE, AND RADIATION
May 4, 1983
MEMORANDUM I
SUBJECT: Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook - Update No. 5
FROM: Sheldon Meyers, Director _
Affeffice of Air Quality Plan^TgandSta^Krds(ANR-443)
/
TO: Recipients of the Guidance Notebook
We are attaching new material for your Air Programs Policy and
Guidance Notebook. You will note that the updated material has been
expanded to include enforcement guidance not previously included in
the Notebook. This is due to a recent EPA organizational change; certain
elements of the Office of Enforcement are now included within the
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation (OANR) and the corresponding guidance
is being included in the Notebook. The updated material should be
placed in reverse chronological order at the beginning of each section
as indicated by the document number at the top right hand corner of each
item. You will also find a new Table of Contents, a new Title Listing,
and a new Subject Index to replace the ones now in your book. Please
remove the old Table of Contents, Title Listing, and Subject Index from
your book since their replacements contain both old as well as updated
material.
Included with the material that updates existing sections of the
Notebook are materials and appropriate dividers for five new sections:
Section 111 (e), NSPS Enforcement; Section 112, Hazardous Air Pollutants;
Section 113, Federal Enforcement; Section 120, Noncompliance Penalties;
and Section 320, Standardized Air Quality Modeling. Dividers for these
sections should be added to your notebook in numerical sequence.
Please make the changes as indicated in the attached set of detailed
instructions that accompany this package.
We hope this information will be helpful in carrying out your air
programs .
Attachment
-------
DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS FOR PLACING UPDATED
MATERIAL IN NOTEBOOK AND REMOVING
SUPERSEDED OR OUTDATED MATERIAL
. Remove the following documents:
PN-110-81-1-19-048 Guidance on Modeling for Bubbles Involving
Point or Process Sources.
PN-110-80-03-12-031 Response to Questions on Bubble Policy.
. Remove "Table of Contents" and replace with new "Table of
Contents" in updated package.
f>. Remove "Title Listing by CAA Section" and replace with new
"TiMe Listing by CAA Section".
'4. Remove "Section 110: Implementation Plans" listing and replace
with ne^ "Section 110: Implementation Plans'" listing.
. Add new PN-110 material in reverse chronological order including
01 4A, &17A, 023A, 034A and 058.
Jo. Place "Section llf(e): NSPS Enforcement" divider in Notebook
between Section lll(d) and Section 114.
W. Add "Section lll(e): NSPS Enforcement" listing followed by memo
identified as PN-lll(e)-76-05-03-001.
/8. Place "Section 112: Hazardous Air Pollutants" divider in
Notebook between Section lll(e) and Section 114.
'9. Add "Section 112: Hazardous Air Pollutants" listing followed
by memo identified as PN-112-78-03-30-001.
^10. Place "Section 113: Federal Enforcement" divider in Notebook
between Section 112 and Section 114.
11. Add "Section 113: Federal Enforcement" listing followed by
memos /identified as PN-113-81-04-24-009 through PN-113-75-11-05-001 in
reveyie chronological order.
'1/12. Remove "Section 114: Inspections, Monitoring, and Entry"
listing and replace with new "Section 114: Inspections, Monitoring, and
Entry"7 listing.
J3. Add new PN 114 material in reverse chronological order beginning
with 001A and ending with 002.
-------
14. Place "Section 120: Noncompliance Penalty" divider in Notebook
between Section 115 and Section 123.
•/I5. Add "Section 120: Noncompliance Penalty" listing followed by
memos identified as PN-120-81-04-30-005 through PN-120-80-09-12-001 in
reverse chronological order.
M6. Remove "Section 123: Stack Heights" listing and replace
with "Section 123: Stack Heights" listing.
17. Add new PN-123 material in reverse chronological order beginning
with 005 and ending with 004.
18. Place "Section 320: Standardized Air Quality Modeling" divider
in Notebook between Section 301 and Section 406.
19. Add "Section 320: Standardized Air Quality Modeling" listing
followed by memo identified as PN-320-82-04-01-001.
20. Remove "Subject Index" and replace with new "Subject Index."
11
-------
SUBJEC
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
r0grarns Policy and Guidance Notebook
Walter C. Barber, vv--
,/L Office of Air Quality Planning anoljtandards (MD-10)
' J Recipients of the Guidance Notebook
We are attaching new material for your Air Programs Policy and
Guicance Notebook. The updated material should be placed in reverse
chronological order at the beginning of each section as indicated
by the document number at the top right hand corner of each item.
You will also find a new Table of Contents, a new Title Listing, and
a new Subject Index to replace the ones now in your book. Please
remove the old Table of Contents, Title Listing, and Subject Index
fro~ your book since their replacements contain both old as well as
updated material .
Included with the material that updates existing sections of the
Notebook are materials and an appropriate divider for a new section:
Section lll(d) Plans. Please add this section to your notebook in
numerical sequence.
We have also identified a number of documents that have been
superseded or are outdated and should be removed from your notebook.
Please make all these changes as indicated in the attached set of
detailed instructions that accompany the new material.
We hope this information is helpful in carrying out your air
qual ity programs.
Attachment
EPA Form 1320-4 (Rev. 3-761
-------
DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS FOR PLACING UPDATED MATERIAL
IN NOTEBOOK AND REMOVING SUPERSEDED OR OUTDATED MATERIAL
1. Remove the following documents:
/PN-107-78-10-18-003 Unclassified Counties with Significant VOC
Point Sources.
i/PN-107-78-03-24-001 Follow-up Actions Regarding Section 107 Attainment
Designations.
i/PH-110-81-07-27-053 Normal/Special Action Criteria for SIP Revisions
to Relax SO,, Emission Limits.
/PN-110-81-01-26-049 Federal Register Actions for Bubble Proposals.
ypN-110-80-11-21-047 Criteria for Determining if Lead SIPs are
Normal or Special Actions.
/PN-110-80-11-17-045 Bubble Proposal for the ARMCO, Inc. Middletown
Works.
/PN-110-80-08-14-042 Criteria for Evaluating Bubble Transactions
Equivalency Demonstrations.
/PN-110-80-07-14-037 Credit for Increasing Stack Heights at Existing
Sources.
J PN-110-80-06-12-035 Information Required in Federal Register Packages.
//PN-110-80-02-01-026 Reasonable Available Control Technology for
Particulate Matter.
i/PN-110-79-12-28-025 SIP Relaxation in Nonattainment Areas.
\yPN-nO-79-12-n-024 SIP Issue Memorandum, No. 2.
yPN-110-79-08-23-019 SIP Issue Memorandum, No. 1 (Conditional
Approvals, 18 Month Extensions).
^/PN-123-81-06-25-003 Requirements for Fluid Modeling for Stack
Height Increases.
-------
i/PN-123-81-04-06-002 Good Engineering Practice (GEP) De Minimis
Stack Height.
N-l26-80-06-08-003 Interstate Pollution Abatement Petitions -
Pol icy Statement.
'PN-126-78-07-26-002 Union Electric Variance - Interstate Equity.
i/p"N-l65-80-02-26-005 Implementation of PSD Administrative Stay.
/PN-165-80-02-08-004 Conditional Language for PSD Permits.
i/PN-165-79-07-03-003 Conditional Language for PSD Permits.
-165-79-01-10-002 BACT Determination for Power Plants Subject
to Revised NSPS.
L/PN-172-80-07-01-028 Boiler Plate Language for Ozone SIPs.
yPN-172-79-11-14-022 Data Collection for 1982 Ozone Implementation
Plan Submittals.
•J PN-172-79-02-21 -013 Determination of Reductions Necessary to Attain
the Ozone Standard.
i/PN-172-78-11-01-010 Guidance on SIP Requirements Contained in
Section 172(B)(9)(A).
t/PN-172-78-09-11-007 Continuity of SIP Regulations.
/
> PN-172-78-08-16-005 Clarification of Attainment/Monattainment
Evaluation Guidance.
V/PN-172-78-02-02-001 Implementation of Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) on Hydrocarbon Stationary Sources.
1/2. Remove "Table of Contents" and replace with new "Table of
Contents" in updated package.
V 3. Remove "Title Listing by CAA Section" and replace with new
"Title Listing by CAA Section."
\ji\. Remove "Section 107: Air Quality Control Regions" listing
and replace with new "Section 107: Air Quality Control Regions"
listi/ig.
U5. Remove "Section 110: Implementation Plans" listing and
replace with new "Section 110: Implementation Plans" listing.
-------
6. Add new PN-110 material in reverse chronological order
beginning with 054 and ending with 057.
^ 7. Place "Section lll(d) Plans" divider in Notebook between
Section 110 and Section 114.
* 8. Add "Section lll(d): Standards of Performance for Existing
Sources" listing followed by memo identified as PN-111(d)-81-9-14-001.
I/ 9. Remove "Section 123: Stack Heights" listing and replace
with new "Section 123: Stack Heights" listing.
-------
DATE
SUBJECT
FROM
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
c iqni Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
1 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook
(MD-10)
waiter C. Barber, Director
of Air Quality Planning an
Recipients of the Guidance Notebook
We are attaching new material for your Air Programs Policy and
Guidance Notebook. The updated material should be placed in reverse
chronological order at the beginning of each section as indicated by the
document number at the top right hand corner of each item. You will
also find a new Table of Contents, a new Title Listing, and a new Subject
Index to replace the ones now in your book. Please remove the old Table
of Contents, Title Listing, and Subject Index from your book since their
replacements contain both old as well as updated material.
We hope you find this information helpful in carrying out your air
programs.
Attachment
EPA Form 1320-4 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS FOR PLACING UPDATED MATERIAL IN NOTEBOOK
1. Remove "Introduction" sheet at front of book and replace with
new one containing current telephone number.
2. Remove "Title Listing by CAA Section" and replace with new
"Title Listing by CAA Section."
3. Remove "Section 110: Implementation Plans" listing and replace
with new "Section 110: Implementation Plans" listing.
4. Add new PN-110 material in reverse chronological order beginning
with 050 and ending with 053.
5. Remove "Section 123: Stack Heights" listing and replace with
new "Section 123: Stack Heights" listing.
6. Add new PN-123 material in reverse chronological order beginning
with 002 and ending with 003.
7. Remove "Section 165: Reconstruction Requirements" listing
and replace with new "Section 165: Reconstruction Requirements" listing.
8. Add new PN-165 material indicated as 006 in reverse chronological
order.
9. Remove "Section 172: Nonattainment Plan Provisions" listing
and replace with new "Section 172: Nonattainment Plan Provisions"
1isting.
10. Add PN-172 material in reverse chronological order beginning
with 036 and ending with 038.
11. Remove the Subject Index at the rear of the book and replace
with new Subject Index.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE April 20,1981 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
SUBJECT .Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook
FROfi Walter C. Barber, Director
iWjJffice of Air Quality Planning and Standards
T0 Recipients of the Guidance Notebook
We are attaching new material for your Air Programs Policy and
Guidance Notebook. The updated material should be placed in reverse
chronological order at the beginning of each section as indicated by the
document number at the top right hand corner of each item. You will
also find a new Table of Contents, a new Title Listing, and a new Subject
Index to replace the ones now in your book. Please remove the old Table
of Contents, Title Listing, and Subject Index from your book since their
replacements contain both old as well as updated material.
Included with the material that updates existing sections of the
Notebook are materials and appropriate dividers for two new sections:
Section 114, Inspections, Monitoring and Entry; and Section 301, Administration.
Please add these sections to your notebook in appropriate numerical
sequence.
We hope you find this information helpful in carrying out your air
quality programs.
Attachment
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS FOR PLACING UPDATED MATERIAL IN NOTEBOOK
1. Remove "Table of Contents" and replace with new "Table of
Contents" in updated package.
2. Remove "Title Listing by CAA Section" and replace with new
"Title Listing by CAA Section."
3. Remove "Section 110: Implementation Plans" listing and replace
with new "Section 110: Implementation Plans" listing.
4. Add new PN-110 material in reverse chronological order
beginning with 044 and ending with 049.
5. Place "Section 114: Inspections, Monitoring, and Entry"
divider in Notebook between Section 110 and Section 115.
6. Add "Section 114: Inspections Monitoring, and Entry" listing
followed by memo identified as PN-114-80-10-31-001.
7. Insert "Section 123: Stack Heights: listing followed by
material indicated as PN-123-80-12-19-001.
8. Remove "Section 172: Nonattainment Plan Provisions" listing
and replace with new "Section 172: Nonattainment Plan Provisions"
listing.
9. Add PN-172 material in reverse chronological order beginning
with 032 and ending with 035.
10. Remove "Section 175: Transportation Planning" listing and
replace with new "Section 175: Transportation Planning" listing.
11. Place "Section 301: Administration" divider in Notebook
between Section 176 and Section 406.
12. Insert "Section 301: Administration" listing followed by
material indicated as PN-301-81-1-20-001.
13. Remove the Subject Index at the rear of the book and
replace with new Subject Index.
-------
".Si- t
-------
UNITED
DATE
CT
FROM
DEC
1980
LTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 277T1
Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook
'alter C. Barber, Director
ffice of Air Quality Planning" and
TO Recipients of the Guidance Notebook
Last summer we sent you a copy of the Air Programs Policy and
Guidance Notebook and promised to send you periodic updates. Accordingly,
we are forwarding such material. The updated material should be placed
in reverse chronological order at the beginning of each section as
indicated by the document number at the top right hand corner of each
item. You will also find a new Table of Contents, a new Title Listing,
and a new Subject Index to replace the ones now in your book. Please
remove the old Table of Contents, Title Listing, and Subject Index from
your book since their replacements contain both old as well as updated
material.
You will also find materials and an appropriate divider for a new
Section, Section 175, Transportation Planning. Please add this Section
to your notebook following Section 172.
We hope you find this information helpful in carrying out your air
quality programs.
Attachment
PA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE: June 13, 1980
SUBJECT-. Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook
**
d stan
FRotf Walter C. Barber, Director
tfflpffice of Air Quality Planning and Standards
V
T°- Recipients of Guidance Notebook
Accompanying this memorandum is the new Air Programs Policy and
Guidance Notebook. The Notebook is for your use in referring to current
air programs guidance. The Notebook includes material from my Office as
well as the Offices of Transportation and Land Use Planning and Mobile
Source Air Pollution Control.
The Notebook is being distributed by mail keys to the Regional
Administrators and other EPA senior management officials in the Regions.
In addition to officials in OANR it is also being distributed to various
other headquarters officials, and is being sent to heads of State and
local air pollution control agencies.
The Notebook represents a collection of material previously distributed
which can be used as a handy reference for those involved in the developrrsent
and implementation of air programs.
You will receive periodic updates of the Notebook from the Control
Programs Development Division of my Office. Further details on the
organization and distribution of the Guidance Notebook appear in the
Introduction section of the Notebook itself.
Attachment
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
, stCTt Jr-'-
*•• -referring
a.
3
' «
-------
Table of Contents and
Title Listing by Clean Air Act (CAA) Section
-------
'!, AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANC
Introduction
The Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook is a collection of
previously-distributed material which can be used as a convenient
reference document for anyone who is involved in the development and
implementation of air pollution control programs. The material is
organized according to sections of the Clean Air Act and is cross-indexed
by subject.
The documents in each section have been assigned code numbers
related to the respective section of the Clean Air Act, the date of
issuance of the document, and a number denoting the order or location of
the document in each section of the Notebook. For example, a document
coded PN 172-80-06-16-027 would indicate:
Policy Notebook
Section 172 of the Clean Air Act
80-06-16 June 16, 1980 - date of initial distribution of
the document
027 - 27th item included in the Section 172 portion of
the Notebook
Documents within each section are arranged such that the most
current documents generally appear at the front of any given section. To
accomplish this, the documents should be placed in each section so that
the last three digits of the code number are in descending order.
The subject index in the Notebook lists code numbers for all
documents relating to the individual subject. For example, economic
feasibility has two documents listed: PN 110-86-04-11-074 and PN 110-87-
01-20-080. This indicates that both documents can be found in the
Section 110 chapter of the Notebook. They can readily be located in the
book using the code information as explained above.
Users of the Policy and Guidance Notebook should be aware that it
does not necessarily contain all of EPA's policy and guidance related to
a given topic. It is a compilation of policy and guidance documents but
the users cannot rely only upon the Notebook for all of their needs.
Users should be aware of other policy compilations which might be useful.
One such compilation is the Clean Air Act Campliance/Enforcement Manual -
- Compendium of Operative Policies, which is maintained by EPA's Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring. Another compilation is the New
Source Review - Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainrnent
Area Guidance Notebook, which is also published by EPA's Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards.
-------
Distribution of the Notebook is to EPA Regional Offices and to
officials of State and local agencies. Recipients of the Notebook will
receive periodic updates. For additional information related to the
Notebook please call Bill Hamilton, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, at FIS 629-5498 or 919-541-5498.
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
** 100 TPY SOURCES
PN165-87-10-06-029
PN172-84-06-25-047
PN172-84-12-21-049
PN172-86-10-30-053
VOLUME 2 EMISSIONS FROM LANDFILLS
VOLUME 1 CONFIRMATION OF DEFINITION OF "100 TON-PER-YEAR (100 TPY) SOURCE"
VOLUME 1 CONNECTICUT VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) ISSUES
VOLUME 2 INCLUSION CF CLEAN-UP SOLVENTS IN DETERMINING APPLICABILITY TO THE
100-TON PER YEAR NON-CTG REQUIREMENTS
** 1983 AIR QUALITY DATA
PN107-85-04-08-009
VOLUME 1 LETTER TO JUDGE TERRY ROBERTS FROM GERALD A. EMISON
** 30-DAY AVERAGING
PN110-86-05-23-075
VOLUME 2 LETTER TO NANCY MALOLEY FROM CRAIG POTTER ON THE INDIANA S02 SIP
** ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
PN113-78-07-27-005 VOLUME 1 ENFORCEMENT UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS - ORDERS UNDER SECTION 113CA)
AND 113(0)
** AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
PN172-89-07-06-076 VOLUME 2 AEROSPACE AND SIMILAR RULES IN OZONE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP'S)
** AFTERBURNERS
PN165-85-06-28-023
PN172-80-12-01-033
PN172-86-02-28-052
VOLUME 2 MEMO TO WILLIAM S. BAKER ON SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
VOLUME 1 REVISED SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
** AIR QUALITY MODELING
PN107-83-04-21-008 VOLUME 1
PN110-85-01-02-070 VOLUME 1
PN110-87-04-30-082 VOLUME 2
PN110-87-04-30-083 VOLUME 2
PN110-87-09-21-086 VOLUME 2
PN110-87-05-11-088 VOLUME 2
PN123-85-10-10-007 VOLUME 1
PN165-84-01-20-013 VOLUME 1
PN165-87-01-29-027 VOLUME 2
PN165-89-03-31-040 VOLUME 2
PN172-78-03-10-002 VOLUME 1
PN172-81-01-22-039 VOLUME 1
PN172-89-05-03-074 '-VOLUME 2
SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SUMMARY
REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF MODELING GUIDANCE
AMBIENT AIR
AMBIENT AIR
AMBIENT AIR DEFINITION
GUIDANCE ON ACCOUNTING FOR TRENDS IN PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSION AND AIR
QUALITY DATA
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON IMPLEMENTING THE REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGULATION
PSD INCREMENT CONSUMPTION CALCULATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REVISED MODELING GUIDELINE FOR PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
APPLICATION OF BUILDING DOWNWASH IN PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT
DETERIORATION (PSD) PERMIT ANALYSES
EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT FOR PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (FR CITATION)
IDENTIFICATION OF NEW AREAS EXCEEDING THE NAAQS
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK
VOLUME
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT
** AIR QUALITY MONITORING
PN107-86-04-11-012 VOLUME 2
PN110-79-11-21-023 VOLUME 1
PN110-83-03-18-063
PN110-83-05-27-064
PN110-87-05-11-088
PN110-88-11-21-099
PN172-81-05-21-038
PN172-81-01-22-039
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
REQUIRED MONITORING PERIOD FOR OZONE REDESIGNATION IN UNCLASSIFIED AREAS
MINIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES FOR DETERMINING QUARTERLY AVERAGE LEAD
CONCENTRATION
LETTER TO HARRY H. HOVEY RE EPA POLICY WITH REGARD TO AMBIENT AIR
SUMMARY OF NAAQS INTERPRETATION
GUIDANCE ON ACCOUNTING FOR TRENDS IN PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSION AND AIR
QUALITY DATA
REVISION TO POLICY ON THE USE OF PM10 MEASUREMENT DATA
1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (FR CITATION)
»* AIR TOXICS STRATEGY
PN112-85-06-XX-007
VOLUME 1 REPRINT OF THE EPA AIR TOXICS STRATEGY (REFERENCE ONLY)
** AMBIENT AIR
PN110-83-03-18-063 VOLUME 1
PN110-83-05-26-068 VOLUME 1
PN110-87-04-30-082 VOLUME 2
PN110-87-04-30-083 VOLUME 2
PN110-87-09-21-086 VOLUME 2
PN123-80-12-19-001 VOLUME 1
PN165-84-06-11-014 VOLUME 1
LETTER TO HARRY H. HOVEY RE EPA POLICY WITH REGARD TO AMBIENT AIR
DEFINITION OF AMBIENT AIR FOR LEAD
AMBIENT AIR
AMBIENT AIR
AMBIENT AIR DEFINITION
LETTER TO HONORABLE JENNINGS RANDOLPH FROM DOUGLAS M. COSTLE REGARDING
DEFINITION OF AMBIENT AIR
APPLICABILITY'OF PSD INCREMENTS TO BUILDING ROOFTOPS
** ARSENIC
PN112-86-10-01-009
VOLUME 2 GUIDELINE S-26 - ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARSENIC NESHAP FOR GLASS MANUFACTURING
PLANTS
** ASBESTOS
PN112-78-03-30-001
PN112-85-02-08-006
PN112-88-03-31-010
PN113-88-03-11-046
PN113-88-06-30-050
VOLUME 1 STATE ENFORCEMENT OF ASBESTOS DEMOLITION REGULATIONS IN LIGHT OF ADAMO
WRECKING COMPANY V. UNITED STATES
VOLUME 1 REVISIONS TO ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
VOLUME 2 REVISED ASBESTOS NESHAP STRATEGY
VOLUME 2 LISTING ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION COMPANIES PURSUANT TO SECTION
306 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
VOLUME 2 ASBESTOS CONTRACTOR LISTING
** ATTAINMENT DATE POLICY
PN172-79-01-16-012 VOLUME 1
PN172-82-10-29-041 VOLUME 1
CONTINUITY OF SIP REGULATIONS - REVISED ENCLOSURE
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
** ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION
PN107-83-04-21-008 VOLUME 1
PN107-85-04-08-009 VOLUME 1
PN110-83-03-18-063 VOLUME 1
PN110-87-05-11-088 VOLUME 2
PN110-88-06-17-094 VOLUME 2
PN172-78-03-10-002 VOLUME 1
SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SUMMARY
LETTER TO JUDGE TERRY ROBERTS FROM GERALD A. EMISON
LETTER TO HARRY H. HOVEY RE EPA POLICY WITH REGARD TO AMBIENT AIR
GUIDANCE ON ACCOUNTING FOR TRENDS IN PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSION AND AIR
QUALITY DATA
DEMONSTRATION OF "REPRESENTATIVE EMISSION CONDITIONS" FOR USE IN "EXPECTED
EXCEEDANCE" DETERMINATIONS
EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT FOR PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS
** ATTAINMENT EXTENSIONS
PN172-81-01-22-039 VOLUME 1
PN172-82-10-29-041 VOLUME 1
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (FR CITATION)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
** AUTO COATINGS
PN110-80-07-31-039 VOLUME 1
PN165-88-04-25-030 VOLUME 2
PN172-78-10-06-008 VOLUME 1
PN172-88-06-21-062 VOLUME 2
PN172-88-12-01-066 VOLUME 2
APPLICABILITY OF VOC CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINES (CTGS) TO THE AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
LAER EMISSION LIMITS FOR AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK TOPCOAT
OPERATIONS
COMMENTS ON AUTO INDUSTRY PROPOSALS
TRANSMITTAL OF AUTOMOBILE TOPCOAT PROTOCOL
RACT REQUIREMENTS IN OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS
** AVERAGING TIMES
PN165-87-04-08-018
VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE REVIEW POLICY ON AVERAGING TIMES FOR
PRODUCTION LIMITATIONS
** BACKGROUND SOURCES
PN172-89-05-03-074
VOLUME 2 IDENTIFICATION OF NEW AREAS EXCEEDING THE NAAQS
** BACT DETERMINATIONS
PN165-78-12-22-001 VOLUME 1
PN165-86-11-24-016 VOLUME 2
PN165-87-04-22-019 VOLUME 2
PN165-87-06-26-020 VOLUME 2
PN165-87-09-22-021 VOLUME 2
PN165-87-12-01-022 VOLUME 2
PN165-88-07-28-033 VOLUME 2
PN172-88-06-21-062 -VOLUME 2
BACT INFORMATION FOR COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS
NEED FOR A SHORT-TERM BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (BACT) ANALYSIS
FOR THE PROPOSED WILLIAM A. ZIMMER POWER PLANT
HUNTSVILLE INCINERATOR - DETERMINING BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
(BACT)
OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE ON CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR NEW AND MODIFIED MUNICIPAL
WASTE COMBUSTORS(MWCs)
IMPLEMENTATION OF NORTH COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY PSD REMAND
IMPROVING NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) IMPLEMENTATION
SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE IN IMPLEMENTING THE NORTH COUNTY PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) REMAND
TRANSMITTAL OF AUTOMOBILE TOPCOAT PROTOCOL
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
** BART GUIDELINES
PN123-85-10-28-009
PN123-89-04-20-017
VOLUME 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - PRESUMPTIVE NSPS EMISSION
LIMIT FOR FLUID MODELING STACKS ABOVE FORMULA GEP HEIGHT
VOLUME 2 LETTER TO JOHN PROCTOR FROM G. EMISON
** BENZENE
PN110-85-08-27-071
PN112-84-06-01-004
VOLUME 1 CLASSIFICATION OF BENZENE AS A VOC
VOLUME 1 BENZENE NESHAP GUIDANCE
** BLOCK AVERAGES
PN110-83-05-27-064
PN110-86-03-28-073
VOLUME 1 SUMMARY OF NAAQS INTERPRETATION
VOLUME 2 BLOCK AVERAGES IN IMPLEMENTING S02 NAAQS
** BUBBLE POLICY
PN110-80-07-31-039
PN110-80-08-08-041
VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF VOC CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINES (CTGS) TO THE AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
VOLUME 1 THE BUBBLE POLICY AND STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT
SECTION 111D
** BUBBLE POLICY - SECTION 111D
PN110-80-08-08-041 VOLUME 1 THE BUBBLE POLICY AND STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT
SECTION 1110
** BUILDING DOWNUASH
PN165-89-03-31-040
VOLUME 2 APPLICATION OF BUILDING OOUNUASH IN PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT
DETERIORATION (PSD) PERMIT ANALYSES
** BUILDING ROOFTOPS
PN165-84-06-11-014
VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF PSD INCREMENTS TO BUILDING ROOFTOPS
** CAN COATINGS
PN172-80-11-20-032
VOLUME 1 COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAN COATING OPERATIONS
** CAPTURE EFFICIENCY
PN172-89-05-25-075
VOLUME 2 CORRECTING CAPTURE EFFICIENCY (CE) REGULATIONS
** CARBON MONOXIDE SIPS
PN110-78-02-24-002
PN110-82-08-11-060
PM110-83-05-27-064
PN172-81-05-21-038
PN172-81-01-22-039
VOLUME 1 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
VOLUME 1 REVIEW OF 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
VOLUME 1 SUMMARY OF NAAQS INTERPRETATION
VOLUME 1 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (FR CITATION)
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK
VOLUME
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT
PN172-82-10-29-041 VOLUME 1
PN172-88-09-07-064 VOLUME 2
PN172-89-01-27-069 VOLUME 2
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
AIR PROGRAMS APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS COMPLIANCE
WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D AND SECTION 110 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT (FR CITATION)
TRANSMITTAL OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON EMISSION INVENTORIES FOR POST-1987
OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CALL AREAS
** CIVIL ENFORCEMENT COURT ACTIONS
PN113-78-07-27-005 VOLUME 1
PN113-86-01-17-027
VOLUME 2
ENFORCEMENT UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS - ORDERS UNDER SECTION 113(A)
AND 113(0)
ISSUES #3(E) AND #5 OF THE VOC ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCESS: ESTABLISHING
PROOF OF VOC EMISSIONS VIOLATIONS, AND BUBBLES IN CONSENT DECREES
RESOLVING CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 113(b) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
** CIVIL PENALTIES
PN112-85-02-08-006
PN113-87-03-25-035
PN113-88-03-02-045
VOLUME 1 REVISIONS TO ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
VOLUME 2 REVISED CLEAN AIR ACT STATIONARY SOURCE CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
VOLUME 2 REVISIONS TO VOLATILE HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (VHAP) CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
** COAL CONVERSIONS
PN113-83-04-26-020
VOLUME 1 PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW AND FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION OF DELAYED
COMPLIANCE ORDERS UNDER SECTION 113(0) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
** COAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
PN113-85-10-30-025 VOLUME 1
FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF COAL SAMPLING AND
ANALYSIS DATA
** COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
PN172-80-07-02-029 VOLUME 1
EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
** COMPLIANCE
PN112-34-06-01-004
PN112-84-07-11-005
PN112-85-02-08-006
PN112-86-10-01-009
PN112-88-03-31-010
PN113-83-01-12-018
PN113-84-12-20-022
PN113-86-04-11-029
PHI13-86-04-22-030
PN113-86-08-22-033
VOLUME 1 BENZENE NESHAP GUIDANCE
VOLUME 1 VINYL CHLORIDE NESHAP ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
VOLUME 1 REVISIONS TO ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
VOLUME 2 GUIDELINE S-26 - ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARSENIC NESHAP FOR GLASS MANUFACTURING
PLANTS
VOLUME 2 REVISED ASBESTOS NESHAP STRATEGY
VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ISSUED
SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
VOLUME 1 POLICY ON NO-ACTION ASSURANCES
VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON FEDERALLY-REPORTABLE VIOLATIONS FOR STATIONARY AIR SOURCES
VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF NATIONAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE - ENFORCEMENT APPLICATIONS OF
CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM DATA
,VOLUME 2 SAMPLE FEDERAL REGISTER LANGUAGE FOR PROPOSAL AND FINAL DCO'S
-------
Page No. 6
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
PN113-87-01-09-034 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO TOM BISPHRAM ON CDS DATA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
PN167-83-12-14-001 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON ENFORCEMENT OF PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT
PN172-80-11-20-032 VOLUME 1 COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAN COATING OPERATIONS
** COMPLIANCE DATA SYSTEM
PN113-86-04-11-028 VOLUME 2 TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE GUIDANCE
PN113-87-01-09-034 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO TOM BISPHRAM ON CDS DATA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
** COMPLIANCE DATE EXTENSIONS
PN110-86-08-07-076 VOLUME 2 POLICY ON SIP REVISIONS REQUESTING COMPLIANCE DATE EXTENSIONS FOR VOC
SOURCES
PN113-83-01-12-018 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ISSUED
SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
** COMPLIANCE MONITORING
PN110-86-04-11-074 VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FIVE VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
PN113-82-08-12-014 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE CONCERNING EPA'S USE OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING DATA
PN113-86-04-22-030 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF NATIONAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE - ENFORCEMENT APPLICATIONS OF
CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM DATA
PN114-88-03-31-006 VOLUME 2 COMPLIANCE MONITORING STRATEGY FOR FY 89
** COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES
PN113-83-04-12-019 VOLUME 1 LETTER TO ROBERT R. WAHLER FROM KATHLEEN BENNETT RE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ON
INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
PN113-86-08-07-032 VOLUME 2 POLICY ON THE AVAILABILITY OF LOW-SOLVENT TECHNOLOGY SCHEDULES IN CLEAN
AIR ACT ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
PN172-78-10-06-008 VOLUME 1 COMMENTS ON AUTO INDUSTRY PROPOSALS
** COMPLIANCE TESTING
PN113-88-03-31-048 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF REISSUED OAQPS CEMS POLICY .
** CONDITIONAL APPROVALS
PN110-78-02-24-002 VOLUME 1 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
PN110-79-07-02-017 VOLUME 1 GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAINMENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL)
** CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS
PN114-83-12-15-003 VOLUME 1 EXECUTION OF CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS UNDER SECTION 114 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT
1
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
** CONSENT DECREES
PN113-85-11-27-026 VOLUME 1
PN113-87-03-25-035 VOLUME 2
PN113-87-11-23-042 VOLUME 2
PN113-88-03-02-045 VOLUME 2
REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING WITH CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN
REVISED CLEAN AIR ACT STATIONARY SOURCE CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
SETTLING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IN CLEAN AIR ACT NONATTAINMENT AREAS AGAINST
STATIONARY SOURCES WHICH WILL NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE BY THE APPLICABLE
ATTAINMENT DATE
REVISIONS TO VOLATILE HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (VHAP) CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
** CONSTRUCTION BAN
PN110-80-10-23-044 VOLUME 1
PN165-84-01-09-012 VOLUME 1
GROWTH RESTRICTIONS IN SECONDARY NAAQS NONATTAINMENT AREAS
INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICY ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PART D
** CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE
PN113-84-10-05-021 VOLUME 1
PN113-86-04-11-029 VOLUME 2
PN113-88-07-05-051 VOLUME 2
FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF EXCESS EMISSION REPORTS
GUIDANCE ON FEDERALLY-REPORTABLE VIOLATIONS FOR STATIONARY AIR SOURCES
TRANSMITTAL OF S02 CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
** CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING
PN110-80-05-09-034A VOLUME 1
PN113-82-08-12-014 VOLUME 1
PN113-84-10-05-021 VOLUME 1
PM113-86-04-22-030 VOLUME 2
PN113-88-03-31-048 VOLUME 2
CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION
MONITORING PROVISIONS IN STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
GUIDANCE CONCERNING EPA'S USE OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING DATA
FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF EXCESS EMISSION REPORTS
TRANSMITTAL OF NATIONAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE - ENFORCEMENT APPLICATIONS OF
CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM DATA
TRANSMITTAL OF REISSUED OAQPS CEMS POLICY
** CONTRACTOR LISTING PROGRAM
PN113-87-10-08-044 VOLUME 2 POLICY ON CORRECTING THE CONDITION GIVING RISE TO LISTING UNDER THE
CONTRACTOR LISTING PROGRAM
PN113-88-03-11-046 VOLUME 2 LISTING ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION COMPANIES PURSUANT TO SECTION
306 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
PN113-88-06-30-050 VOLUME 2 ASBESTOS CONTRACTOR LISTING
** CONTROL STRATEGY
PN107-83-04-21-008
PN110-78-02-24-002
PN110-80-07-31-039
VOLUME 1 SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SUMMARY
VOLUME 1 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF VOC CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINES (CTGS) TO THE AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
** COST EFFECTIVENESS
PN172-80-12-02-034
VOLUME 1 COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY
EQUIPMENT
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK
VOLUME
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT
** CROSS LINE AVERAGING
PN172-89-04-07-073
VOLUME 2 BASELINE FOR CROSS-LINE AVERAGING
** CTGS
PN110-79-09-17-020 VOLUME 1
PN110-80-07-31-039 VOLUME 1
PN110-80-08-04-040 VOLUME 1
PN172-78-08-04-004 VOLUME 1
PN172-78-10-06-008 VOLUME 1
PN172-79-06-20-018 VOLUME 1
PM172-79-08-21-019 VOLUME 1
PN172-79-08-22-020 VOLUME 1
PN172-80-06-16-027 VOLUME 1
PN172-80-07-02-029 VOLUME 1
PN172-80-09-03-030 VOLUME 1
PN172-80-12-02-034 VOLUME 1
PN172-80-12-02-Q35 VOLUME 1
PN172-84-06-25-046 VOLUME 1
PN172-84-06-25-047 VOLUME 1
PN172-84-09-14-048 VOLUME 1
PN172-84-12-21-049 VOLUME 1
PN172-8S-07-02-051 VOLUME 1
PN172-86-02-28-052 VOLUME 2
PN172-87-06-25-054 VOLUME 2
PN172-86-01-09-057 VOLUME 2
PN172-88-08-23-063 VOLUME 2
** CUTBACK ASPHALT
PN172-79-03-06-014 VOLUME 1
PN172-79-10-04-021 .VOLUME 1
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NOMATTAINMENT AREAS - (SUPPLEMENT ON CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES) (FR
CITATION)
APPLICABILITY OF VOC CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINES (CTGS) TO THE AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
APPLICABILITY OF PAPER COATING, FABRIC COATING, AND GRAPHIC ARTS CTGS
REQUIREMENT FOR VOC RACT REGULATIONS IN ALL OXIDANT NONATTAINMENT AREAS
COMMENTS ON AUTO INDUSTRY PROPOSALS
MODIFICATIONS TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLVENT METAL CLEANING
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS: GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON
APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON
REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMISSION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICAL RACT
REGULATIONS)
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS/REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMITTING RACT
REGULATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS(VOC)
GASOLINE TANK TRUCK REGULATIONS
EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS CTG - EMISSION LIMITS FOR COATING
OF SHIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY
EQUIPMENT
RACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
APPLICABILITY OF GROUP III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTG'S)
CONFIRMATION OF DEFINITION OF "100 TON-PER-YEAR (100 TPY) SOURCE"
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) TEST METHODS OR PROCEDURES FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES IN GROUPS I, II, AND III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTGS)
CONNECTICUT VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) ISSUES
RESIDUAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTAINED IN COATING LINE
PRODUCTS
RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
EMISSION CUT-OFF FOR CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUND SOURCES
CLARIFICATION OF CTG RACT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE,
POLYPROPYLENE, AND POLYSTYRENE
LETTER TO WILLIAM JURIS ON VOC EMISSION CUTOFF
CUTBACK ASPHALT VOC REGULATIONS
CLARIFICATION FOR FINAL SIP ACTIONS ON ASPHALT REGULATIONS
i
i
4
I
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
PN172-86-09-29-058
VOLUME 2 SEASONAL VOC CONTROLS
** DEGREASER REGULATIONS
PN172-78-08-24-006 VOLUME 1
PN172-79-12-12-023 VOLUME 1
PN172-80-07-02-029 VOLUME 1
PN172-84-06-25-047 VOLUME 1
CLARIFICATION Of EPA POLICY ON EMISSIONS FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM
EXEMPTIONS FOR DEGREASERS
EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
CONFIRMATION OF DEFINITION OF "100 TON-PER-YEAR (100 TPY) SOURCE"
** DELAYED COMPLIANCE ORDERS
PN113-78-07-27-005 VOLUME 1
PN113-80-05-27-007 VOLUME 1
PN113-83-01-12-018 VOLUME 1
PN113-83-04-26-020 VOLUME 1
PN113-86-06-02-031 VOLUME 2
PN113-86-08-22-033 VOLUME 2
PM172-89-03-16-071 VOLUME 2
ENFORCEMENT UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS - ORDERS UNDER SECTION 113(A)
AND 113(D)
DELAYED COMPLIANCE ORDERS REQUIRING SIP COMPLIANCE THROUGH TEMPORARY
CONTROL MEASURES - AMENDED GUIDANCE
GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ISSUED
SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW AND FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION OF DELAYED
COMPLIANCE ORDERS UNDER SECTION 113(D) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
113(d)(4) LETTER TO CAN MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE
SAMPLE FEDERAL REGISTER LANGUAGE FOR PROPOSAL AND FINAL DCO'S
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC's)
** DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
PN111E-86-09-11-004 VOLUME 2
PN112-82-03-24-002 VOLUME 1
PN165-85-05-09-015 VOLUME 1
PN165-89-02-15-037 VOLUME 2
DELEGATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) AND NATIONAL
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAP) AUTHORITY TO
STATE/LOCAL AGENCIES
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO STATES: NESHAPS
IMPROVED NEW SOURCE REVIEW/PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSR/PSD) PROGRAM TRANSFER
GUIDANCE ON EARLY DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY FOR THE NITROGEN DIOXIDE (N02)
INCREMENTS PROGRAM
** DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FACILITIES
PN113-85-04-24-023 VOLUME 1
ACHIEVING VOC COMPLIANCE FROM DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTOR FACILITIES
** DESIGNATION CRITERIA
PN107-82-09-16-007 VOLUME 1
PM107-83-04-21-008 VOLUME 1
PN107-85-04-08-009 VOLUME 1
MILWAUKEE S02 NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATION
SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SUMMARY
LETTER TO JUDGE TERRY ROBERTS FROM GERALD A. EMISON
** DIRECT FINAL SIP PROCESSING
PN110-87-12-23-092 VOLUME 2
EXPANDED USE OF DIRECT FINAL SIP PROCESSING
'* DISPERSION MODELING
PN107-82-09-16-007
.VOLUME 1 MILWAUKEE S02 NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATION
-------
Page No. 10
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
PN107-83-04-21-008
PN110-84-11-28-069
PN123-86-02-11-012
VOLUME 1 SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SUMMARY
VOLUME 1 CORRECTING ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION MODEL RESULTS TO STANDARD TEMPERATURE
AND PRESSURE
VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF EXISTING GUIDANCE ON DISPERSION MODELING REQUIREMENTS FOR
PLANTS WITH "TALL STACKS" AND OTHER PROHIBITED DISPERSION TECHNIQUES
** DISPERSION TECHNIQUES
PN123-85-10-28-008 VOLUME 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - EXCEPTIONS FROM RESTRICTIONS
ON CREDIT FOR MERGED STACKS
PN123-86-02-11-011 VOLUME 2 PRIORITY FOR REVIEW OF PARTICULATE MATTER SOURCES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS
PN123-88-05-17-016 VOLUME 2 APPLICATION OF THE INTERIM POLICY FOR STACK HEIGHT REGULATORY ACTIONS
** DRUM AND PAIL COATINGS
PN172-80-09-03-030 VOLUME 1 MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS CTG - EMISSION LIMITS FOR COATING
OF SHIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
** DUAL DEFINITION
PN165-84-01-09-012
VOLUME 1 INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICY ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PART D
** ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
PN110-86-04-11-074 VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FIVE VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
PN110-87-01-20-080 VOLUME 2 DETERMINATION OF ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
** EKMA
PN172-78-10-26-009
PN172-81-01-22-039
VOLUME 1 OZONE TRANSPORT VALUES FOR SIP REVISIONS
VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (FR CITATION)
** EMISSION INVENTORIES
PN172-79-03-06-014
PN172-80-12-02-034
PN172-81-05-21-038
PN172-81-01-22-039
PN172-89-01-27-069
VOLUME 1 CUTBACK ASPHALT VOC REGULATIONS
VOLUME 1 COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY
EQUIPMENT
VOLUME 1 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (FR CITATION)
VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON EMISSION INVENTORIES FOR POST-1987
OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CALL AREAS
** EMISSION OFFSETS
PN110-80-03-10-030
PN110-80-10-23-044
VOLUME 1 EMISSION OFFSET REQUIREMENTS IN SECONDARY STANDARD TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE PLANS
.VOLUME 1 GROWTH RESTRICTIONS IN SECONDARY NAAQS NONATTAINMENT AREAS
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
11
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
PN165-85-05-09-015
PN172-79-05-25-016
VOLUME 1 IMPROVED NEW SOURCE REVIEW/PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSR/PSD) PROGRAM TRANSFER
VOLUME 1 SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
** EMISSION TIME AVERAGING
PN172-84-01-20-045 VOLUME 1 AVERAGING TIMES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITS - SIP REVISION
POLICY
** EMISSIONS BALANCING
PN123-88-01-07-015
VOLUME 2 STACK HEIGHT EMISSIONS BALANCING - FINAL POLICY STATEMENT (FR CITATION)
** EMISSIONS TRADING
PN110-82-11-24-061 VOLUME 1
PN110-85-01-02-070 VOLUME 1
PN110-86-12-04-077 VOLUME 2
PN113-86-01-17-027 VOLUME 2
PN165-84-01-20-013 VOLUME 1
PN172-84-01-20-045 VOLUME 1
PN172-89-04-07-073 VOLUME 2
SIP ACTIONS AND TOXIC POLLUTANTS
REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF MODELING GUIDANCE
EMISSIONS TRADING POLICY STATEMENT (CITATION)
ISSUES #3(E) AND #5 OF THE VOC ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCESS: ESTABLISHING
PROOF OF VOC EMISSIONS VIOLATIONS, AND BUBBLES IN CONSENT DECREES
RESOLVING CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 113(b) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
PSD INCREMENT CONSUMPTION CALCULATIONS
AVERAGING TIMES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITS - SIP REVISION
POLICY
BASELINE FOR CROSS-LINE AVERAGING
** EMULSIFIED ASPHALT
PN172-79-03-06-014
VOLUME 1 CUTBACK ASPHALT VOC REGULATIONS
** ENERGY CONSERVATION
PN175-80-04-23-006
VOLUME 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 12185, CONSERVATION OF PETROLEUM AND
NATURAL GAS
** ENERGY EMERGENCIES
PN110-80-01-10-023A
VOLUME 1 ALTERNATE PROCEDURE FOR SECTION 110(F) RELIEF IN LOCALIZED, SHORT TERM
ENERGY EMERGENCIES
** ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
PN113-87-03-25-035 VOLUME 2
PN113-87-06-25-037 VOLUME 2
PN113-87-11-23-042 VOLUME 2
PN113-88-03-02-045 VOLUME 2
PN113-88-03-31-048 VOLUME 2
REVISED CLEAN AIR ACT STATIONARY SOURCE CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
PROPER AND TIMELY REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) REVISIONS
SETTLING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IN CLEAN AIR ACT NONATTAINMENT AREAS AGAINST
STATIONARY SOURCES WHICH WILL NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE BY THE APPLICABLE
ATTAINMENT DATE
REVISIONS TO VOLATILE HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (VHAP) CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
TRANSMITTAL OF REISSUED OAQPS CEMS POLICY
\
-------
Page No. 12
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
** EPISODE MONITORING
PN110-83-05-27-064
VOLUME 1 SUMMARY OF NAAQS INTERPRETATION
** EXCESS EMISSIONS
PN113-83-02-15-017
PN113-84-10-05-021
VOLUME 1 POLICY ON EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, MAINTENANCE, AND
MALFUNCTIONS
VOLUME 1 FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF EXCESS EMISSION REPORTS
** EXPECTED EXCEEDANCE
PN110-88-06-17-094
VOLUME 2 DEMONSTRATION OF "REPRESENTATIVE EMISSION CONDITIONS" FOR USE IN "EXPECTED
EXCEEDANCE" DETERMINATIONS
** FABRIC COATING
PN110-80-08-04-040 VOLUME 1
PN172-80-12-02-035 VOLUME 1
** FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT
PN112-84-06-01-004 VOLUME 1
PN112-84-07-11-005 VOLUME 1
PN112-85-02-08-006 VOLUME 1
PN112-86-10-01-009 VOLUME 2
PN112-88-03-31-010 VOLUME 2
PN113-85-04-24-023 VOLUME 1
PN113-86-04-22-030 VOLUME 2
PN113-87-03-25-035 VOLUME 2
PN113-87-07-06-038 VOLUME 2
PN113-87-09-11-040 VOLUME 2
PN113-87-09-23-041 VOLUME 2
PN113-87-11-23-042 VOLUME 2
PN113-87-12-31-043 VOLUME 2
PN113-88-03-02-045 VOLUME 2
PN113-88-03-31-049 VOLUME 2
PN165-87-04-08-013 . VOLUME 2
PN167-83-12-14-001 VOLUME 1
PN167-88-03-29-002 .VOLUME 2
APPLICABILITY OF PAPER COATING, FABRIC COATING, AND GRAPHIC ARTS CTGS
RACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
BENZENE NESHAP GUIDANCE
VINYL CHLORIDE NESHAP ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
REVISIONS TO ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
GUIDELINE S-26 - ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARSENIC NESHAP FOR GLASS MANUFACTURING
PLANTS
REVISED ASBESTOS NESHAP STRATEGY
ACHIEVING VOC COMPLIANCE FROM DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTOR FACILITIES
TRANSMITTAL OF NATIONAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE - ENFORCEMENT APPLICATIONS OF
CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM DATA
REVISED CLEAN AIR ACT STATIONARY SOURCE CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
SMALL VOC SOURCE COMPLIANCE STRATEGY - FINAL
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE: SMALL VOC SOURCE
COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS AND REVISIONS FOR ENFORCEABILITY AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
SETTLING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IN CLEAN AIR ACT NONATTAINMENT AREAS AGAINST
STATIONARY SOURCES WHICH WILL NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE BY THE APPLICABLE
ATTAINMENT DATE
GUIDANCE ON EVALUATING CLEAN AIR ACT ENFORCEMENT OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN VIOLATIONS INVOLVING PROPOSED STATE REVISIONS
REVISIONS TO VOLATILE HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (VHAP) CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
IMPLEMENTATION OF RULE EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES
CLARIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE REVIEW POLICY ON AVERAGING TIMES FOR
PRODUCTION LIMITATIONS
GUIDANCE ON ENFORCEMENT OF PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT
OPINION IN U.S. V. LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION
<
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
13
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
** FEDERAL LAND MANAGER
PN169A-85-03-25-001 VOLUME 1
** FEDERALLY-REPORTABLE VIOLATIONS
PN113-86-04-11-029 VOLUME 2
** FLARES
PN172-80-12-02-035
VISIBILITY MONITORING STRATEGY REQUIREMENTS
GUIDANCE ON FEDERALLY-REPORTABLE VIOLATIONS FOR STATIONARY AIR SOURCES
VOLUME 1 RACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
** FLOATING ROOF TANKS
PN172-81-02-06-036 VOLUME 1
STORAGE TANK VAPOR BALANCE REQUIREMENTS AT SYNTHESIZED PHARMACEUTICAL
PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE FACILITIES
** FLUE GAS CONDITIONS
PN113-80-03-11-006 VOLUME 1
PN113-83-04-12-019 VOLUME 1
INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
•LETTER TO ROBERT R. WAHLER FROM KATHLEEN BENNETT RE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ON
INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
** FLUID MODELING
PN123-85-09-19-006
PN123-85-10-28-009
PN123-85-10-28-010
VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON FLUID MODEL DEMONSTRATIONS FOR DETERMINING GEP STACK HEIGHT IN
COMPLEX TERRAIN
VOLUME 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - PRESUMPTIVE NSPS EMISSION
LIMIT FOR FLUID MODELING STACKS ABOVE FORMULA GEP HEIGHT
VOLUME 1 DETERMINING STACK HEIGHTS "IN EXISTENCE" BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 1970
** FUEL SHORTAGES ANALYSIS
PN124-78-07-31-001 VOLUME 1
IMPLEMENTING SECTION 124 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
** FUGITIVE DUST
PN110-78-02-24-002 VOLUME 1
PN110-80-03-10-030 VOLUME 1
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
EMISSION OFFSET REQUIREMENTS IN SECONDARY STANDARD TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE PLANS
** FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
PN113-82-05-04-013 VOLUME 1
GUIDANCE ON POLICY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF VE VIOLATIONS AGAINST SOURCES WHICH
ARE MEETING AN APPLICABLE MASS EMISSION STANDARD
** GASOLINE STORAGE
PN172-84-06-25-047
VOLUME 1 CONFIRMATION OF DEFINITION OF "100 TON-PER-YEAR (100 TPY) SOURCE"
** GASOLINE TANK TRUCKS
PN172-80-06-16-027 VOLUME 1
GASOLINE TANK TRUCK REGULATIONS
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
14
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
»* GEP STACK HEIGHT
PN123-85-10-28-009
VOLUME 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - PRESUMPTIVE NSPS EMISSION
LIMIT FOR FLUID MODELING STACKS ABOVE FORMULA GEP HEIGHT
** GLASS MANUFACTURING
PN112-86-10-01-009
VOLUME 2 GUIDELINE S-26 - ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARSENIC NESHAP FOR GLASS MANUFACTURING
PLANTS
** GRAPHIC ARTS
PN110-80-08-04-040
PN172-80-12-02-035
PN172-84-06-25-047
PN172-87-09-09-055
VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF PAPER COATING, FABRIC COATING, AND GRAPHIC ARTS CTGS
VOLUME 1 RACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
VOLUME 1 CONFIRMATION OF DEFINITION OF "100,TON-PER-YEAR (100 TPY) SOURCE"
VOLUME 2 ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE FOR GRAPHIC ARTS RACT
** HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
PN110-82-11-24-061 VOLUME 1
PN113-88-03-02-045 . VOLUME 2
** INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
PN110-80-09-25-043 VOLUME 1
SIP ACTIONS AND TOXIC POLLUTANTS
REVISIONS TO VOLATILE HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (VHAP) CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF SIP REVISIONS
€
4
** INDUSTRIAL BOILERS
PN113-80-03-11-006
VOLUME 1 INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
** INDUSTRIAL COATINGS
PN172-85-04-25-050
VOLUME 1 CONSIDERATION OF ORGANISOLS IN VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC) COMPLIANCE
CALCULATIONS
** INSPECTION FREQUENCY
PN114-88-03-31-006
VOLUME 2 COMPLIANCE MONITORING STRATEGY FOR FY 89
**
INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE
PN110-78-02-24-002 VOLUME 1
PN110-78-07-17-007 VOLUME 1
PN110-82-08-11-060 VOLUME 1
PN172-81-05-21-038 VOLUME 1
PN172-81-01-22-039 VOLUME 1
** INSPECTIONS A«D ENTRY
PN114-77-12-02-001A VOLUME 1
PN114-84-09-06-004 VOLUME 1
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE POLICY
REVIEW OF 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (FR CITATION)
GUIDANCE FOR SECTION 114(0) OF THE CAA
FINAL GUIDANCE ON USE OF UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
15
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
** INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONSULTATION
PN110-79-06-18-066 VOLUME 1 REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION AND SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION
PLANS: INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONSULTATION (FR CITATION)
** INTERIM CONTROL POLICY
PN113-88-03-31-047 VOLUME 2
** INTERIM STACK HEIGHT POLICY
PN123-88-05-17-016 VOLUME 2
** INTERNATIONAL POLLUTION
PN115-78-01-31-001 VOLUME 1
PN115-78-03-20-002 VOLUME 1
** INTERSTATE AIR POLLUTION
PN126-78-03-16-001 VOLUME 1
PN126-89-01-11-005 VOLUME 2
** LAER DETERMINATIONS
PN165-87-06-26-020 VOLUME 2
PN165-87-12-01-022 VOLUME 2
PN165-88-04-25-030 VOLUME 2
PN165-88-08-29-034 VOLUME 2
PN165-89-02-28-038 VOLUME 2
PN172-88-06-21-062 VOLUME 2
** LANDFILLS
PN165-87-10-06-029
TRANSMITTAL OF OAQPS INTERIM CONTROL POLICY STATEMENT
APPLICATION OF THE INTERIM POLICY FOR STACK HEIGHT REGULATORY ACTIONS
ACCOUNTING FOR POLLUTION ACROSS INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES
INTERNATIONAL POLLUTION (EL PASO/JUAREZ)
OUT OF STATE SOURCES EFFECT ON IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION
LETTER TO THOMAS JORLING REGARDING INTERSTATE AIR POLLUTION CRITERIA
OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE ON CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR NEW AND MODIFIED MUNICIPAL
WASTE COMBUSTORS(MWCs)
IMPROVING NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) IMPLEMENTATION
LAER EMISSION LIMITS FOR AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK TOPCOAT
OPERATIONS
TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY IN DETERMINING LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION RATE
.(LAER)
GUIDANCE ON DETERMINING LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION RATE (LAER)
TRANSMITTAL OF AUTOMOBILE TOPCOAT PROTOCOL
VOLUME 2 EMISSIONS FROM LANDFILLS
** LEAD MONITORING
PN110-79-11-21-023 VOLUME 1
MINIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES FOR DETERMINING QUARTERLY AVERAGE LEAD
CONCENTRATION
** LEAD SIPS
PN110-79-06-14-016 VOLUME 1
PN110-80-04-08-032 VOLUME 1
PN110-83-05-26-068 VOLUME 1
PN110-83-03-14-087 VOLUME 1
LEAD SIPS
NEW SOURCE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR LEAD
DEFINITION OF AMBIENT AIR FOR LEAD
ISSUES ON LEAD SIPS
** LETTER NOTICE
PN110-89-01-30-102
..VOLUME 2 PROCEDURES FOR LETTER NOTICE APPROVAL OF MINOR SIP ACTIONS
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
16
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
** LOW SOLVENT COATINGS
PN113-86-08-07-032 VOLUME 2 POLICY ON THE AVAILABILITY OF LOW-SOLVENT TECHNOLOGY SCHEDULES IN CLEAN
AIR ACT ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
PN172-80-11-20-032 VOLUME 1 COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAN COATING OPERATIONS
** MARINE VESSELS
PN172-89-02-15-070
VOLUME 2 MARINE VESSEL VAPOR CONTROL
** MERGED STACKS
PN123-8S-10-28-008 VOLUME 1
PN123-85-10-28-010 VOLUME 1
IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - EXCEPTIONS FROM RESTRICTIONS
ON CREDIT FOR MERGED STACKS
DETERMINING STACK HEIGHTS "IN EXISTENCE" BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 1970
** METAL CAN MANUFACTURING
PN113-86-06-02-031 VOLUME 2
113(d)(4) LETTER TO CAN MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE
** METAL PARTS COATINGS
PN172-80-09-03-030 VOLUME 1
PN172-89-04-03-072 VOLUME 2
PN172-89-04-07-073 VOLUME 2
MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS CTG - EMISSION LIMITS FOR COATING
OF SHIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
APPLICABILITY OF MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS COATINGS
REGULATIONS TO ADHESIVES, SEALANTS AND FILLERS
BASELINE FOR CROSS-LINE AVERAGING
** METEOROLOGICAL PARAMETERS
PN107-85-04-08-009 . VOLUME 1
LETTER TO JUDGE TERRY ROBERTS FROM GERALD A.. EM I SON
** METHYL CHLOROFORM
PN172-78-08-24-006 VOLUME 1
PN172-79-05-25-017 VOLUME 1
CLARIFICATION OF EPA POLICY ON EMISSIONS FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM
CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AND SOLVENT
REACTIVITIES
** METHYLENE CHLORIDE
PN172-79-05-25-017 VOLUME 1
CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AND SOLVENT
REACTIVITIES
** MODIFIED SOURCE
PN165-86-07-07-024 VOLUME 2
PN165-86-10-21-025 VOLUME 2
PN165-86-12-01-026 VOLUME 2
PN165-89-04-10-041 VOLUME 2
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) DEFINITION OF "MODIFICATION"
APPLICABILITY OF PSD TO PORTIONS OF A PLANT CONSTRUCTED IN PHASES WITHOUT
PERMITS
NEED FOR EMISSION CAP ON COMPLEX NETTING SOURCES
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) APPLICABILITY TO SULFUR
DIOXIDE (S02) EMISSIONS FROM INCINERATION OF TOTAL REDUCED SULFUR (TRS)
COMPOUNDS
-------
Page Ho.
09/01/89
17
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
** MUNICIPAL WASTE INCINERATION
PN165-87-04-22-019 VOLUME 2 HUNTSVILLE INCINERATOR - DETERMINING BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
(BACT)
PN165-87-06-26-020 VOLUME 2 OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE ON CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR NEW AND MODIFIED MUNICIPAL
WASTE COMBUSTORS(MWCs)
PN165-88-06-07-031 VOLUME 2 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
APPLICABILITY DETERMINATION
** MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS
PN172-80-08-11-043 VOLUME 1 MUNICIPAL UASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS: CONSTRUCTION GRANTS LIMITATION
PROVIDED BY SECTION 316 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT: POLICY AND PROCEDURES (FR
CITATION)
** NESHAP
PN111E-86-09-11-004 VOLUME 2
PN112-78-03-30-001 VOLUME 1
PN112-82-03-24-002 VOLUME 1
PN112-84-06-01-004 VOLUME 1
PN112-84-07-11-005 VOLUME 1
PN112-85-02-08-006 VOLUME 1
PN112-86-10-01-009 VOLUME 2
PN112-88-03-31-010 VOLUME 2
PN113-85-11-27-026 VOLUME 1
PN113-86-04-11-028 VOLUME 2
PN114-81-05-13-002 VOLUME 1
PN114-84-09-06-004 VOLUME 1
PN120-80-09-12-001 VOLUME 1
DELEGATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) AND NATIONAL
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAP) AUTHORITY TO
STATE/LOCAL AGENCIES
STATE ENFORCEMENT OF ASBESTOS DEMOLITION REGULATIONS IN LIGHT OF ADAMO
WRECKING COMPANY V. UNITED STATES
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO STATES: NESHAPS
BENZENE NESHAP GUIDANCE
VINYL CHLORIDE NESHAP ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
REVISIONS TO ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
GUIDELINE S-26 - ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARSENIC NESHAP FOR GLASS MANUFACTURING
PLANTS
REVISED ASBESTOS NESHAP STRATEGY
REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING WITH CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN
TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE GUIDANCE
REGIONAL OFFICE CRITERIA FOR NEUTRAL INSPECTIONS OF STATIONARY SOURCES -
AMENDED GUIDANCE
FINAL GUIDANCE ON USE OF UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS
PRIORITIES FOR ISSUING NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE
** NEW SOURCE REVIEW
PN110-80-04-08-032 VOLUME 1
PN165-80-12-16-007 VOLUME 1
PN165-84-01-09-012 VOLUME 1
PN165-84-06-11-014 VOLUME 1
PN165-85-05-09-015 VOLUME 1
PN165-87-04-08-018 VOLUME 2
NEW SOURCE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR LEAD
INTERPRETATION OF "SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION"
INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICY ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PART D
APPLICABILITY OF PSD INCREMENTS TO BUILDING ROOFTOPS
IMPROVED NEW SOURCE REVIEW/PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSR/PSD) PROGRAM TRANSFER
CLARIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE REVIEW POLICY ON AVERAGING TIMES FOR
PRODUCTION LIMITATIONS
-------
Page No. 18
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
PN165-87-04-22-019 VOLUME 2
PN165-87-06-26-020 VOLUME 2
PN165-87-12-01-022 VOLUME 2
PN165-85-06-28-023 VOLUME 2
PN165-87-10-06-029 VOLUME 2
PN165-88-07-05-032 VOLUME 2
PN167-88-07-15-003 VOLUME 2
HUNTSVILLE INCINERATOR - DETERMINING BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
(BACT)
OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE ON CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR NEW AND MODIFIED MUNICIPAL
WASTE COMBUSTORS(MWCs)
IMPROVING NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) IMPLEMENTATION
MEMO TO WILLIAM S. BAKER ON SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
EMISSIONS FROM LANDFILLS
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS FOR PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
PROCEDURES FOR EPA TO ADDRESS DEFICIENT NEW SOURCE PERMITS UNDER THE CLEAN
AIR ACT
** NO-ACTION ASSURANCES
PN113-84-12-20-022
** N02 SIPS
PN110-83-05-27-064
PN165-89-02-15-037
VOLUME 1 POLICY ON NO-ACT I ON ASSURANCES
VOLUME 1 SUMMARY OF NAAQS INTERPRETATION
VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON EARLY DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY FOR THE NITROGEN DIOXIDE (N02)
INCREMENTS PROGRAM
** NON-DISCRETIONARY ENFORCEMENT DUTIES
PN113-75-11-05-001 VOLUME 1 NON-DISCRETIONARY ENFORCEMENT DUTIES - ISSUANCE OF NOTICES OF VIOLATION
** NONATTAINMENT AREAS
PN107-82-09-16-007 VOLUME 1
PN107-83-04-21-008 VOLUME 1
PN110-78-02-24-002 VOLUME 1
PN110-79-04-04-015 VOLUME 1
PN110-79-07-02-017 VOLUME 1
PN110-79-09-17-020 - VOLUME 1
PN110-80-10-23-044 VOLUME 1
PN110-88-11-04-098 VOLUME 2
PN113-83-01-12-018 VOLUME 1
PN113-85-11-27-026 VOLUME 1
PN113-87-11-23-042 VOLUME 2
PN113-88-03-31-049 .VOLUME 2
MILWAUKEE S02 NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATION
SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SUMMARY
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS (FR CITATION)
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAINMENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL)
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAINMENT AREAS - (SUPPLEMENT ON CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES) (FR
CITATION)
GROWTH RESTRICTIONS IN SECONDARY NAAQS NONATTAINMENT AREAS
GUIDANCE ON LONG-TERM NONATTAINMENT OF THE PM10 STANDARDS
GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ISSUED
SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING WITH CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN
SETTLING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IN CLEAN AIR ACT NONATTAINMENT AREAS AGAINST
STATIONARY SOURCES WHICH WILL NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE BY THE APPLICABLE
ATTAINMENT DATE
IMPLEMENTATION OF RULE EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES
<
I
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
19
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK
VOLUME
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT
PN172-83-11-02-044
PN172-84-
PN172-84-
PN172-84-
PN172-84-
PN172-85-
PN172-86-
PN172-87-
PN172-87-
PN172-87-
PN172-88-
PN172-88-
06-25-046
06-25-047
09-14-048
12-21-049
07-02-051
10-30-053
06-25-054
09-11-059
12-10-060
05-27-061
09-07-064
PN172-88-12-01-066
PN175-80-06-12-008
PN175-80-06-23-009
PN176-79-06-08-001
VOLUME 1 COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
(FR CITATION)
VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF GROUP III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTG'S)
VOLUME 1 CONFIRMATION OF DEFINITION OF "100 TON-PER-YEAR (100 TPY) SOURCE"
VOLUME 1 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) TEST METHODS OR PROCEDURES FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES IN GROUPS I, II, AND III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTGS)
VOLUME 1 CONNECTICUT VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) ISSUES
VOLUME 1 RESIDUAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTAINED IN COATING LINE
PRODUCTS
VOLUME 2 INCLUSION OF CLEAN-UP SOLVENTS IN DETERMINING APPLICABILITY TO THE
100-TON PER YEAR NON-CTG REQUIREMENTS
VOLUME 2 EMISSION CUT-OFF FOR CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUND SOURCES
VOLUME 2 GEOGRAPHIC APPLICABILITY OF CLEAN AIR ACT SANCTIONS
VOLUME 2 LETTER TO LEONARD LEDBETTER ON USE OF POTENTIAL VS ACTUAL EMISSIONS FOR
VOC REGULATIONS
VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF EPA GUIDANCE ON VOC ISSUES
VOLUME 2 AIR PROGRAMS APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS COMPLIANCE
WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D AND SECTION 110 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT (FR CITATION)
VOLUME 2 RACT REQUIREMENTS IN OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS
VOLUME 1 PROCEDURES FOR CONFORMANCE OF TRANSPORTATION PLANS, PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
WITH CLEAN AIR ACT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
VOLUME 1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - TRANSPORTATION
REVISION PROCESS: EXPANDED GUIDELINES (FR CITATION)
VOLUME 1 IMPACT OF CLEAN AIR ACT NONATTAINMENT SANCTIONS
** NONCOMPLIANCE
PN120-80-09-12-001 VOLUME 1
PN120-81-02-12-003 VOLUME 1
PN120-81-04-02-004 VOLUME 1
PN120-81-04-30-005 VOLUME 1
PN120-85-03-19-006 VOLUME 1
PN120-85-03-19-007 VOLUME 1
PRIORITIES FOR ISSUING NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE
IMPLEMENTATION OF NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTY PROGRAM UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE
CLEAN AIR ACT
SETTLEMENT OF NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE
CLEAN AIR ACT, AS AMENDED
ISSUANCES OF NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT TO SEASONAL SOURCES
PERMISSIBLE GROUNDS FOR SETTLEMENT OF NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTIES UNDER
SECTION 120 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
GUIDANCE CONCERNING IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 120 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT IN
FISCAL YEAR 1985
** NOTICES OF VIOLATION
PN113-75-11-05-001
PN113-76-06-25-002
VOLUME 1 NON-DISCRETIONARY ENFORCEMENT DUTIES - ISSUANCE OF NOTICES OF VIOLATION
VOLUME 1 DOCUMENTATION OF VIOLATION EXTENDING 30 DAYS BEYOND NOTICE OF VIOLATION
UNDER SECTION 113 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
20
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK
VOLUME
DOCU.MEHT
SUBJECT
PN113-83-01-12-018 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ISSUED
SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
** NOx EMISSION LIMITATIONS
PN110-78-02-24-002 VOLUME 1 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
** NSPS
PN110-80-05-09-034A
PN111E-76-05-03-001
PN111E-82-05-07-002
PN111E-86-09-11-004
PN113-82
PN113-84
PN113-85-
PN113-85-
PN114-81-
•08-12-014
,10-05-021
-10-30-025
11-27-026
05-13-002
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
PN120-80-09-12-001
PN123-85-10-28-009
PN165-86-07-07-024
PN165-88-09-09-035
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
PN165-88-10-14-036 VOLUME 2
PN172-78-08-24-006 VOLUME 1
CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION
MONITORING PROVISIONS IN STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
ENFORCEMENT OF NSPS REQUIREMENTS
RESTATEMENT OF GUIDANCE ON EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SOOT BLOWING
DELEGATION OF NEU SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) AND NATIONAL
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAP) AUTHORITY TO
STATE/LOCAL AGENCIES
GUIDANCE CONCERNING EPA'S USE OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING DATA
FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF EXCESS EMISSION REPORTS
FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF COAL SAMPLING AND
ANALYSIS DATA
REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING WITH CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN
REGIONAL OFFICE CRITERIA FOR NEUTRAL INSPECTIONS OF STATIONARY SOURCES -
AMENDED GUIDANCE
PRIORITIES FOR ISSUING NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE
IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - PRESUMPTIVE NSPS EMISSION
LIMIT FOR FLUID MODELING STACKS ABOVE FORMULA GEP HEIGHT
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) DEFINITION OF "MODIFICATION"
APPLICABILITY OF PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) AND NEW
SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) TO THE WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER
COMPANY (WEPCO) PORT WASHINGTON LIFE EXTENSION PROJECT
LETTER TO JOHN BOSTON FROM LEE THOMAS ON WEPCO DETERMINATION
CLARIFICATION OF EPA POLICY ON EMISSIONS FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM
** OFFSETS - GENERAL
PN165-80-12-16-007
VOLUME 1 INTERPRETATION OF "SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION"
** OPERATING PERMITS
PN172-79-05-25-016
** ORGANI SOLS
PN172-85-04-25-050
** OZONE SIPS
PN107-85-04-08-009
VOLUME 1 SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
VOLUME 1 CONSIDERATION OF ORGANISOLS IN VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC) COMPLIANCE
CALCULATIONS
^VOLUME 1 LETTER TO JUDGE TERRY ROBERTS FROM GERALD A. EMISON
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
21
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
PN107-85-10-08-010 VOLUME 1
PN107-86-04-11-012 VOLUME 2
PN107-87-04-06-013 VOLUME 2
PN110-78-02-24-002 VOLUME 1
PN110-79-09-17-020 VOLUME 1
PN110-82-08-11-060 VOLUME 1
PN110-83-05-27-064 VOLUME 1
PN110-80-07-22-067 VOLUME 1
PN110-85-08-27-071 VOLUME 1
'PN110-86-08-07-076 VOLUME 2
PN110-87-01-08-079 VOLUME 2
PN110-87-04-17-081 VOLUME 2
PN113-87-07-06-038 VOLUME 2
PN113-87-09-11-040 VOLUME 2
PN113-88-03-31-049 VOLUME 2
PN172-78-03-10-002 VOLUME 1
PN172-78-08-04-004 VOLUME 1
PN172-78-10-26-009 VOLUME 1
PN172-79-03-06-014 VOLUME 1
PN172-79-05-25-017 VOLUME 1
PN172-79-06-20-018 VOLUME 1
PN172-79-08-22-020 VOLUME 1
PN172-79-12-12-023 VOLUME 1
PN172-80-07-02-029 VOLUME 1
PN172-80-09-03-030 VOLUME 1
PN172-80-11-20-032 VOLUME 1
PN172-80-12-01-033 VOLUME 1
PN172-80-12-02-034 VOLUME 1
PN172-80-12-02-035 VOLUME 1
PH172-81-02-06-036 VOLUME 1
PN172-81-05-21-038 VOLUME 1
PN172-81-01-22-039 VOLUME 1
PN172-82-10-29-041 VOLUME 1
PN172-84-06-25-047 VOLUME 1
OZONE AIR QUALITY DATA FOR REDESIGNATIONS
REQUIRED MONITORING PERIOD FOR OZONE REDESIGNATION IN UNCLASSIFIED AREAS
OZONE REDESIGNATION POLICY
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEHAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAINMENT AREAS - (SUPPLEMENT ON CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES) (FR
CITATION)
REVIEW OF 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
SUMMARY OF NAAQS INTERPRETATION
(CITATION OF FR NOTICE ON SOLVENT REACTIVITIES)
CLASSIFICATION OF BENZENE AS A VOC
POLICY ON SIP REVISIONS REQUESTING COMPLIANCE DATE EXTENSIONS FOR VOC
SOURCES
CLARIFICATION OF SEASONAL VOC CONTROL POLICY
DEFINITION OF VOC
SMALL VOC SOURCE COMPLIANCE STRATEGY - FINAL
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE: SMALL VOC SOURCE
COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
IMPLEMENTATION OF RULE EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES
EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT FOR PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS
REQUIREMENT FOR VOC RACT REGULATIONS IN ALL OXIDANT NONATTAINMENT AREAS
OZONE TRANSPORT VALUES FOR SIP REVISIONS
CUTBACK ASPHALT VOC REGULATIONS
CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AND SOLVENT
REACTIVITIES
MODIFICATIONS TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLVENT METAL CLEANING
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS/REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMITTING RACT
REGULATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS(VOC)
EXEMPTIONS FOR DEGREASERS
EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS CTG - EMISSION LIMITS FOR COATING
OF SHIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAN COATING OPERATIONS
REVISED SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY
EQUIPMENT
RACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
STORAGE TANK VAPOR BALANCE REQUIREMENTS AT SYNTHESIZED PHARMACEUTICAL
PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE FACILITIES
1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (FR CITATION)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
CONFIRMATION OF DEFINITION OF "100 TON-PER-YEAR (100 TPY) SOURCE"
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
22
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK
VOLUME
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT
PN172-86-02-28-052 VOLUME 2
PN172-86-09-29-058 VOLUME 2
PN172-87-09-11-059 VOLUME 2
PN172-87-12-10-060 VOLUME 2
PN172-88-06-21-062 VOLUME 2
PN172-88-09-07-064 VOLUME 2
PN172-88-12-01-066 VOLUME 2
PN172-89-01-27-069 VOLUME 2
** OZONE/CO CONTROL STRATEGY
PN110-78-02-24-002 VOLUME 1
PN172-81-01-22-039 VOLUME 1
RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
SEASONAL VOC CONTROLS
GEOGRAPHIC APPLICABILITY OF CLEAN AIR ACT SANCTIONS
LETTER TO LEONARD LEDBETTER ON USE OF POTENTIAL VS ACTUAL EMISSIONS FOR
VOC REGULATIONS
TRANSMITTAL OF AUTOMOBILE TOPCOAT PROTOCOL
AIR PROGRAMS APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS COMPLIANCE
WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D AND SECTION 110 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT (FR CITATION)
RACT REQUIREMENTS IN OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS
TRANSMITTAL OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON EMISSION INVENTORIES FOR POST-1987
OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CALL AREAS
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (FR CITATION)
** PAPER COATING
PN110-80-08-04-040 VOLUME 1
PN172-80-12-02-035 VOLUME 1
APPLICABILITY OF PAPER COATING, FABRIC COATING, AND GRAPHIC ARTS CTGS
RACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
** PARTICULATE MATTER SIPS
PN110-78-02-24-002 VOLUME 1
PN110-80-03-10-030 VOLUME 1
PN110-87-08-11-085 VOLUME 2
PN110-87-05-11-088 VOLUME 2
PN110-87-08-11-090 VOLUME 2
.PN110-87-10-02-091 VOLUME 2
PN110-88-09-06-097 VOLUME 2
PN110-88-11-04-098 VOLUME 2
PN110-88-11-21-099 VOLUME 2
PN110-89-06-30-103 VOLUME 2
PN113-80-03-11-006 VOLUME 1
PN113-83-04-12-019 VOLUME 1
PN113-85-06-28-024 VOLUME 1
PN165-87-08-05-028 VOLUME 2
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
EMISSION OFFSET REQUIREMENTS IN SECONDARY STANDARD TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE PLANS
PROCESSING OF PARTICULATE MATTER STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS
GUIDANCE ON ACCOUNTING FOR TRENDS IN PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSION AND AIR
QUALITY DATA
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PM10 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP'S)
CLARIFICATION OF IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES FOR PM10 NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR
QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS)
PM10 SIP DEVELOPMENT: STATUS AND CONCERNS
GUIDANCE ON LONG-TERM NONATTAINMENT OF THE PM10 STANDARDS
REVISION TO POLICY ON THE USE OF PM10 MEASUREMENT DATA
RESPONSE TO PM10 CONTROL STRATEGY ISSUES
INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
LETTER TO ROBERT R. UAHLER FROM KATHLEEN BENNETT RE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ON
INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
PARTICULATE MATTER INTERIM ENFORCEMENT POLICY
IMPLEMENTATION OF REVISED PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
PROGRAM FOR PARTICULATE MATTER
<
-------
Page No. 23
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
** PARTICIPATE MATTER SOURCES
PN123-86-02-11-011 VOLUME 2 PRIORITY FOR REVIEW OF PARTICULATE HATTER SOURCES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS
** PERFORMANCE TESTS
PN111E-76-05-03-001 VOLUME 1 ENFORCEMENT OF NSPS REQUIREMENTS
PN111E-82-05-07-002 VOLUME 1 RESTATEMENT OF GUIDANCE ON EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SOOT BLOWING
** PERMIT ENFORCEABILITY
PN167-88-03-29-002 VOLUME 2 OPINION IN U.S. V. LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION
PN167-88-07-15-003 VOLUME 2 PROCEDURES FOR EPA TO ADDRESS DEFICIENT NEW SOURCE PERMITS UNDER THE CLEAN
AIR ACT
PN172-79-05-25-016 VOLUME 1 SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
** PERMIT FEES
PN110-78-02-24-002 VOLUME 1 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
** PETROLEUM REFINERY LEAKS
PN172-80-12-02-034 VOLUME 1 COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY
EQUIPMENT
** PHARMACEUTICALS
PN172-81-02-06-036 VOLUME 1 STORAGE TANK VAPOR BALANCE REQUIREMENTS AT SYNTHESIZED PHARMACEUTICAL
PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE FACILITIES
** POLYETHYLENE
PN172-86-01-09-057 VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF CTG RACT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE,
POLYPROPYLENE, AND POLYSTYRENE
** POLYPROPYLENE
PN172-86-01-09-057 VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF CTG RACT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE,
POLYPROPYLENE, AND POLYSTYRENE
** POLYSTYRENE
PN172-86-01-09-057 VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF CTG RACT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE,
POLYPROPYLENE, AND POLYSTYRENE
** POWER PLANTS - COAL FIRED
PN111E-76-05-03-001 VOLUME 1 ENFORCEMENT OF NSPS REQUIREMENTS
PN111E-82-05-OT-002 VOLUME 1 RESTATEMENT OF GUIDANCE ON EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SOOT BLOWING
PN113-80-03-11-006 VOLUME 1 INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
PN113-83-04-12-019 VOLUME 1 LETTER TO ROBERT R. WAHLER FROM KATHLEEN BENNETT RE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ON
INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
PN165-78-12-22-001 .VOLUME 1 BACT INFORMATION FOR COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
24
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK
VOLUME
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT
** PRESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY DECLARATIONS
PN110-80-01-10-023A VOLUME 1 ALTERNATE PROCEDURE FOR SECTION 110(F) RELIEF IN LOCALIZED, SHORT TERM
ENERGY EMERGENCIES
** PRESUMED COMPLIANCE
PN126-78-03-16-001
VOLUME 1 OUT OF STATE SOURCES EFFECT ON IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION
** PRODUCTION LIMITATIONS
PN165-87-04-08-018 VOLUME 2
CLARIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE REVIEW POLICY ON AVERAGING TIMES FOR
PRODUCTION LIMITATIONS
** PSD
PN110-87-09-21-086 VOLUME 2
PN113-87-05-27-036 VOLUME 2
PN165-81-04-03-006 VOLUME 1
PN165-84-01-20-013 VOLUME 1
PN165-84-06-11-014 VOLUME 1
PN165-85-05-09-015 VOLUME 1
PN165-86-11-24-016 VOLUME 2
PN165-87-06-26-020 VOLUME 2
PN165-87-09-22-021 VOLUME 2
PN165-87-12-01-022 VOLUME 2
PN165-86-07-07-024 VOLUME 2
PN165-86-10-21-025 VOLUME 2
PN165-86-12-01-026 VOLUME 2
PN165-87-01-29-027 VOLUME 2
PN165-87-08-05-028 VOLUME 2
PN165-88-06-07-031 VOLUME 2
PN165-88-07-05-032 VOLUME 2
PN165-88-07-28-033 VOLUME 2
PN165-88-09-09-035 VOLUME 2
PN165-88-10-14-036 VOLUME 2
PN165-89-02-15-037 VOLUME 2
AMBIENT AIR DEFINITION
REACTIVATION OF NORANDA LAKESHORE MINES' RLA PLANT AND PSD REVIEW
LETTER TO NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FROM EDWARD F. TUERK REGARDING PSD PERMITS
PSD INCREMENT CONSUMPTION CALCULATIONS
APPLICABILITY OF PSD INCREMENTS TO BUILDING ROOFTOPS
IMPROVED NEW SOURCE REVIEW/PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSR/PSD) PROGRAM TRANSFER
NEED FOR A SHORT-TERM BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (BACT) ANALYSIS
FOR THE PROPOSED WILLIAM A. ZIMMER POWER PLANT
OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE ON CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR NEW AND MODIFIED MUNICIPAL
WASTE COMBUSTORS(MWCS)
IMPLEMENTATION OF NORTH COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY PSD REMAND
IMPROVING NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) IMPLEMENTATION
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) DEFINITION OF "MODIFICATION"
APPLICABILITY OF PSD TO PORTIONS OF A PLANT CONSTRUCTED IN PHASES WITHOUT
PERMITS
NEED FOR EMISSION CAP ON COMPLEX NETTING SOURCES
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REVISED MODELING GUIDELINE FOR PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
IMPLEMENTATION OF REVISED PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
PROGRAM FOR PARTICULATE MATTER
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
APPLICABILITY DETERMINATION
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS FOR PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE IN IMPLEMENTING THE NORTH COUNTY PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) REMAND
APPLICABILITY OF PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) AND NEW
SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) TO THE WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER
COMPANY (WEPCO) PORT WASHINGTON LIFE EXTENSION PROJECT
LETTER TO JOHN BOSTON FROM LEE THOMAS ON WEPCO DETERMINATION
GUIDANCE ON EARLY DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY FOR THE NITROGEN DIOXIDE (N02)
INCREMENTS PROGRAM
-------
Page No. 25
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
PN165-89-03-16-039 VOLUME 2
PN165-89-03-31-040 VOLUME 2
PN165-89-04-10-041 VOLUME 2
PN167-83-12-14-001 VOLUME 1
PN167-88-03-29-002 VOLUME 2
PN172-79-05-25-016 VOLUME 1
USE OF ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS FOR NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
(NAAQS) IMPACT ANALYSES UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
APPLICATION OF BUILDING DOWNWASH IN PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT
DETERIORATION (PSD) PERMIT ANALYSES
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) APPLICABILITY TO SULFUR
DIOXIDE (S02) EMISSIONS FROM INCINERATION OF TOTAL REDUCED SULFUR (TRS)
COMPOUNDS
GUIDANCE ON ENFORCEMENT OF PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT
OPINION IN U.S. V. LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION
SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
** PSD APPLICABILITY
PN165-80-12-16-007
** PUBLIC COMMENT
PN110-79-07-02-017
PN110-79-09-17-020
VOLUME 1 INTERPRETATION OF "SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION"
VOLUME 1 GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAINMENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL)
VOLUME 1 GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAINMENT AREAS - (SUPPLEMENT ON CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES) (FR
CITATION)
** PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MEASURES
PN110-78-02-24-002 VOLUME 1 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
** RACT DETERMINATIONS
PN110-78-02-24-002 VOLUME 1
PN110-82-08-11-060 VOLUME 1
PN110-87-01-20-080 VOLUME 2
PN113-83-01-.12-018 VOLUME 1
PN172-80-11-20-032 VOLUME 1
PN172-84-01-20-045 VOLUME 1
PN172-85-07-02-051 VOLUME 1
PN172-86-02-28-052 VOLUME 2
PN172-86-01-09-057 VOLUME 2
PN172-88-06-21-062 VOLUME 2
PN172-88-08-23-063 VOLUME 2
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
REVIEW OF 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
DETERMINATION OF ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ISSUED
SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAN COATING OPERATIONS
AVERAGING TIMES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITS - SIP REVISION
POLICY
RESIDUAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTAINED IN COATING LINE
PRODUCTS
RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
CLARIFICATION OF CTG RACT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE,
POLYPROPYLENE, AND POLYSTYRENE
TRANSMITTAL OF AUTOMOBILE TOPCOAT PROTOCOL
LETTER TO WILLIAM JURIS ON VOC EMISSION CUTOFF
-------
Page No. 26
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK
VOLUME
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT
PN172-88-11-04-065
PN172-88-12-01-066
PN172-88-11-04-068
VOLUME 2 EPA AUTHORITY TO REQUEST CHANGES IN RACT RULES
VOLUME 2 RACT REQUIREMENTS IN OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS
VOLUME 2 EPA AUTHORITY TO REQUEST CHANGES IN RACT RULES
** REACTIVITY
PN110-77-07-08-065
PN110-85-08-27-071
PN110-87-04-17-081
PN110-87-07-21-089
VOLUME 1 (CITATION OF FR NOTICE ENTITLED "RECOMMENDED POLICY ON CONTROL Of VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS")
VOLUME 1 CLASSIFICATION OF BENZENE AS A VOC
VOLUME 2 DEFINITION OF VOC
VOLUME 2 DEFINITION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC's)
REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS
PN110-78-02-24-002
PN165-85-05-09-015
PN172-81-01-22-039
VOLUME 1 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
VOLUME 1 IMPROVED NEW SOURCE REVIEW/PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSR/PSD) PROGRAM TRANSFER
VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL Of 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (FR CITATION)
** REDESIGNATION PROCEDURES
PN107-85-10-08-010
PN107-86-04-11-012
PN107-87-04-06-013
PN107-88-04-05-014
PN110-86-12-10-078
VOLUME 1 OZONE AIR QUALITY DATA FOR REDESIGNATIONS
VOLUME 2 REQUIRED MONITORING PERIOD FOR OZONE REDESIGNATION IN UNCLASSIFIED AREAS
VOLUME 2 OZONE REDESIGNATION POLICY
VOLUME 2 LETTER TO NANCY MALOLEY ON REDESIGNATION OF 2 INDIANA COUNTIES
VOLUME 2 RULEMAKING ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP'S) FOR S02
** REGIONAL CONSISTENCY
PN110-82-08-11-060 VOLUME 1
PN301-81-01-20-001 VOLUME 1
REVIEW OF 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REGIONAL CONSISTENCY REGULATIONS
** REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
PN113-83-01-12-018 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ISSUED
SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
** REPRESENTATIVE EMISSION CONDITIONS
PN110-88-06-17-094 VOLUME 2 DEMONSTRATION OF "REPRESENTATIVE EMISSION CONDITIONS" FOR USE IN "EXPECTED
EXCEEDANCE" DETERMINATIONS
** RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITIES
PN165-87-09-22-021 VOLUME 2
PN165-88-07-28-033 VOLUME 2
IMPLEMENTATION OF NORTH COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY PSD REMAND
SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE IN IMPLEMENTING THE NORTH COUNTY PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) REMAND
** RISK ANALYSIS
PN112-85-09-17-008
VOLUME 1 PREPARATION OF QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS IN AGENCY DECISION-MAKING
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
27
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
** RISK ASSESSMENT
PN172-79-05-25-017
VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AND SOLVENT
REACTIVITIES
** RISK REDUCTION
PN112-85-06-XX-007
VOLUME 1 REPRINT OF THE EPA AIR TOXICS STRATEGY (REFERENCE ONLY)
** ROLLBACK
PN172-78-10-26-009
VOLUME 1 OZONE TRANSPORT VALUES FOR SIP REVISIONS
** RULE EFFECTIVENESS
PN113-88-03-31-049
VOLUME 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF RULE EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES
** RUNNING AVERAGES
PN110-83-05-27-064
VOLUME 1 SUMMARY OF NAAQS INTERPRETATION
** RURAL NONATTAINMENT
PN172-84-06-25-046
VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF GROUP III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTG'S)
** SANCTIONS
PN110-80-10-23-044
PN115-78-03-20-002
PN172-80-08-11-043
PN172-83-11-02-044
PN172-87-09-11-059
PN176-79-06-08-001
VOLUME 1 GROWTH RESTRICTIONS IN SECONDARY NAAQS NONATTAINMENT AREAS
VOLUME 1 INTERNATIONAL POLLUTION (EL PASO/JUAREZ)
VOLUME 1 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS: CONSTRUCTION GRANTS LIMITATION
PROVIDED BY SECTION 316 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT: POLICY AND PROCEDURES (FR
CITATION)
VOUUME 1 COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
(FR CITATION)
VOLUME 2 GEOGRAPHIC APPLICABILITY Of CLEAN AIR ACT SANCTIONS
VOLUME 1 IMPACT OF CLEAN AIR ACT NONATTAINMENT SANCTIONS
** SEASONAL CONTROLS
PN110-87-01-08-079
PN120-81-04-30-005
PN165-85-06-28-023
PN172-80-12-01-033
PN172-86-02-28-052
PN172-86-09-29-058
VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF SEASONAL VOC CONTROL POLICY
VOLUME 1 ISSUANCES OF NOTICES OF NOMCOMPLIANCE UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT TO SEASONAL SOURCES
VOLUME 2 MEMO TO WILLIAM S. BAKER ON SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
VOLUME 1 REVISED SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
VOLUME 2 SEASONAL VOC CONTROLS
** SECONDARY STANDARDS
PN110-80-03-10-030
VOLUME 1 EMISSION OFFSET REQUIREMENTS IN SECONDARY STANDARD TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE PLANS
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
28
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
PN110-80-10-23-044
VOLUME 1 GROWTH RESTRICTIONS IN SECONDARY NAAQS NONATTAINMENT AREAS
** SECTION 1110 PLAN REQUIREMENTS
PN110-78-03-24-003 VOLUME 1
PN110-80-08-08-041 VOLUME 1
PN111D-81-09-14-001
VOLUME 1
PLANS UNDER SECTION 1110 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
THE BUBBLE POLICY AND STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT
SECTION 111D
EPA POLICY ON WELFARE-RELATED POLLUTANTS UNDER SECTION 111D
** SHUTDOWNS
PN113-83-02-15-017 VOLUME 1
PN113-85-11-27-026 VOLUME 1
PN113-87-05-27-036 VOLUME 2
POLICY ON EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, MAINTENANCE, AND
MALFUNCTIONS
REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING WITH CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN
REACTIVATION OF NORANDA LAKESHORE MINES' RLA PLANT AND PSD REVIEW
** SIGNIFICANT VIOLATORS
PN110-88-08-05-096 VOLUME 2 IDENTIFYING AND EXPEDITING SIP REVISIONS THAT IMPACT THE ENFORCEMENT
PROCESS
PN113-83-01-12-018 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ISSUED
SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
PN113-86-04-11-028 VOLUME 2 TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE GUIDANCE
** SIP COMPLETENESS CRITERIA
PN110-88-03-18-093 VOLUME 2 POLICY FOR DETERMINING COMPLETENESS OF SIP SUBMITTALS
** SIP CRITERIA MEMO
PN110-78-02-24-002
VOLUME 1 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979'SIP REVISIONS
** SIP ENFORCEMENT
PN110-78-03-24-003 VOLUME 1
PN110-80-03-10-030 VOLUME 1
PN110-80-10-23-044 VOLUME 1
PN1110-81-09-14-001 VOLUME 1
PN113-76-08-12-003 VOLUME 1
PN113-76-08-13-004 VOLUME 1
PN113-78-07-27-005 VOLUME 1
PN113-80-05-27-007 VOLUME 1
PN113-82-05-04-013 VOLUME 1
PN113-82-08-12-014 VOLUME 1
PN113-84-12-20-022 VOLUME 1
PLANS UNDER SECTION 1110 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
EMISSION OFFSET REQUIREMENTS IN SECONDARY STANDARD TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE PLANS
GROWTH RESTRICTIONS IN SECONDARY NAAQS NONATTAINMENT AREAS
EPA POLICY ON WELFARE-RELATED POLLUTANTS UNDER SECTION 111D
ENFORCEMENT OF SIPS UNDERGOING REVISION
"REVIEWABILITY" OF EPA DETERMINATIONS IN SIP ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ENFORCEMENT UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS - ORDERS UNDER SECTION 113CA)
AND 113(0)
DELAYED COMPLIANCE ORDERS REQUIRING SIP COMPLIANCE THROUGH TEMPORARY
CONTROL MEASURES - AMENDED GUIDANCE
GUIDANCE ON POLICY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF VE VIOLATIONS AGAINST SOURCES WHICH
ARE MEETING AN APPLICABLE MASS EMISSION STANDARD
GUIDANCE CONCERNING EPA'S USE OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING DATA
POLICY ON NO-ACT I ON ASSURANCES
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
29
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK
VOLUME
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT
PN113-85-06-28-024 VOLUME 1
PN113-85-11-27-026 VOLUME 1
PN113-86-04-11-028 VOLUME 2
PN114-81-05-13-002 VOLUME 1
PN114-84-09-06-004 VOLUME 1
PN120-80-09-12-001 VOLUME 1
PN172-79-05-25-016 VOLUME 1
PN172-86-02-28-052 VOLUME 2
PARTICULATE MATTER INTERIM ENFORCEMENT POLICY
REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING WITH CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN
TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE GUIDANCE
REGIONAL OFFICE CRITERIA FOR NEUTRAL INSPECTIONS OF STATIONARY SOURCES -
AMENDED GUIDANCE
FINAL GUIDANCE ON USE OF UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS
PRIORITIES FOR ISSUING NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE
SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
** SIP FORMAT
PN110-80-09-25-043
PN110-81-07-22-052
VOLUME 1 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF SIP REVISIONS
VOLUME 1 EXPERIMENTAL STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) PROCESSING TECHNIQUES
** SIP GENERAL PREAMBLE
PN110-79-04-04-015 VOLUME 1
PN110-79-07-02-017 VOLUME 1
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS (FR CITATION)
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAINMENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL)
** SIP GRANDFATHERING
PN110-88-06-27-095
VOLUME 2 "GRANDFATHERING" OF REQUIREMENTS FOR PENDING SIP REVISIONS
** SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
PN172-81-05-21-038
VOLUME 1 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
** SIP REGULATORY CONTINUITY
PN172-79-01-16-012 VOLUME 1
CONTINUITY OF SIP REGULATIONS - REVISED ENCLOSURE
** SIP RELAXATION
PN113-76-08-12-003
VOLUME 1 ENFORCEMENT OF SIPS UNDERGOING REVISION
** SIP REQUIREMENTS - NOX
PN110-78-02-24-002 VOLUME 1
PN110-80-05-09-034A VOLUME 1
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION
MONITORING PROVISIONS IN STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
** SIP REVIEW PROCEDURES
PN107-83-04-21-008 VOLUME 1
PN110-80-09-25-043 VOLUME 1
PN110-81-07-22-052 VOLUME 1
SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SUMMARY
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF SIP REVISIONS
EXPERIMENTAL STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) PROCESSING TECHNIQUES
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
30
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
PN110-81-11-09-055 VOLUME 1
PN110-82-06-23-059 VOLUME 1
PN110-82-08-11-060 VOLUME 1
PN110-83-03-18-063 VOLUME 1
PN110-87-12-23-092 VOLUME 2
PN110-88-03-18-093 VOLUME 2
PN110-88-06-27-095 VOLUME 2
PN110-88-08-05-096 VOLUME 2
PN110-89-01-19-100 VOLUME 2
PN110-89-01-19-101 VOLUME 2
PN110-89-01-30-102 VOLUME 2
PN113-87-06-25-037 VOLUME 2
PN172-79-05-25-016 VOLUME 1
PN172-82-10-29-041 VOLUME 1
NEW PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND' SUBMITTAL OF STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-NEW SIP PROCESSING PROCEDURES TO SAVE TIME AND
RESOURCES (FR CITATION)
REVIEW OF 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
LETTER TO HARRY H. HOVEY RE EPA POLICY WITH REGARD TO AMBIENT AIR
EXPANDED USE OF DIRECT FINAL SIP PROCESSING
POLICY FOR DETERMINING COMPLETENESS OF SIP SUBMITTALS
"GRANDFATHERING" OF REQUIREMENTS FOR PENDING SIP REVISIONS
IDENTIFYING AND EXPEDITING SIP REVISIONS THAT IMPACT THE ENFORCEMENT
PROCESS
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN COMPLETENESS REVIEW (FR CITATION)
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PROCESSING REFORM (FR CITATION)
PROCEDURES FOR LETTER NOTICE APPROVAL OF MINOR SIP ACTIONS
PROPER AND TIMELY REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) REVISIONS
SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
** SIP REVISIONS
PN107-83-04-21-008 VOLUME 1
PN110-83-05-27-064 VOLUME 1
PN110-79-06-18-066 VOLUME 1
PN110-86-08-07-076 VOLUME 2
PN113-87-09-23-041 VOLUME 2
PN113-87-12-31-043 VOLUME 2
PN165-84-01-09-012 VOLUME 1
PN165-85-05-09-015 VOLUME 1
PN169A-86-11-10-002 VOLUME 2
PN172-78-08-04-004 VOLUME 1
PN172-79-01-16-012 VOLUME 1
PN172-83-11-02-044 VOLUME 1
PN172-84-01-20-045 VOLUME 1
PN172-87-09-09-055 VOLUME 2
PN172-88-09-07-064 VOLUME 2
SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SUMMARY
SUMMARY OF NAAQS INTERPRETATION .
REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION AND SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION
PLANS: INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONSULTATION (FR CITATION)
POLICY ON SIP REVISIONS REQUESTING COMPLIANCE DATE EXTENSIONS FOR VOC
SOURCES
REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS AND REVISIONS FOR ENFORCEABILITY AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
GUIDANCE ON EVALUATING CLEAN AIR ACT ENFORCEMENT OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN VIOLATIONS INVOLVING PROPOSED STATE REVISIONS
INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICY ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PART D
IMPROVED NEW SOURCE REVIEW/PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSR/PSD) PROGRAM TRANSFER
VISIBILITY PROTECTION STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP'S)--VISIBILITY SIP'S
PART II
REQUIREMENT FOR VOC RACT REGULATIONS IN ALL OXIDANT NONATTAINMENT AREAS
CONTINUITY OF SIP REGULATIONS - REVISED ENCLOSURE
COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART 0 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
(FR CITATION)
AVERAGING TIMES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITS - SIP REVISION
POLICY
ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE FOR GRAPHIC ARTS RACT
AIR PROGRAMS APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS COMPLIANCE
WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D AND SECTION 110 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT (FR CITATION)
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
31
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK
VOLUME
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT
PN175-80-06-12-008 VOLUME 1
PN175-80-06-23-009 VOLUME 1
PROCEDURES FOR CONFORMANCE OF TRANSPORTATION PLANS, PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
WITH CLEAN AIR ACT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - TRANSPORTATION
REVISION PROCESS: EXPANDED GUIDELINES (FR CITATION)
** SITE-SPECIFIC RACT LIMITS
PN172-86-02-28-052 VOLUME 2
RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
** S02 SIPS
PN110-78-02-24-002 VOLUME 1 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
PN110-83-05-27-064 VOLUME 1 SUMMARY OF NAAQS INTERPRETATION
PN110-86-03-28-073 VOLUME 2 BLOCK AVERAGES IN IMPLEMENTING S02 NAAQS
PN110-86-05-23-075 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO NANCY MALOLEY FROM CRAIG POTTER ON THE INDIANA S02 SIP
PN110-86-12-10-078 VOLUME 2 RULEMAKING ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP'S) FOR S02
PN110-87-07-29-084 VOLUME 2 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE
PN113-88-07-05-051 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF S02 CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
PN165-89-04-10-041 VOLUME 2 PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) APPLICABILITY TO SULFUR
DIOXIDE (S02) EMISSIONS FROM INCINERATION OF TOTAL REDUCED SULFUR (TRS)
COMPOUNDS
** SOLVENT REACTIVITY
PN110-80-07-22-067
PN172-79-05-25-017
VOLUME 1 (CITATION OF FR NOTICE ON SOLVENT REACTIVITIES)
VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AND SOLVENT
REACTIVITIES
** SOLVENT REGULATIONS
PN172-79-06-20-018
PN172-79-12-12-023
PN172-80-07-02-029
PN172-86-10-30-053
VOLUME 1 MODIFICATIONS TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLVENT METAL CLEANING
VOLUME 1 EXEMPTIONS FOR DEGREASERS
VOLUME 1 EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
VOLUME 2 INCLUSION OF CLEAN-UP SOLVENTS IN DETERMINING APPLICABILITY TO THE
100-TON PER YEAR NON-CTG REQUIREMENTS
** SOOT BLOWING
PN111E-82-05-07-002
VOLUME 1 RESTATEMENT OF GUIDANCE ON EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SOOT BLOWING
** SOURCE DEFINITION
PN165-87-02-27-017 VOLUME 2 PLANTWIOE DEFINITION OF MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION
** STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS
PN123-85-09-19-006 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON FLUID MODEL DEMONSTRATIONS FOR DETERMINING GEP STACK HEIGHT IN
COMPLEX TERRAIN
PN123-85-10-10-007 VOLUME 1 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON IMPLEMENTING THE REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGULATION
PN123-85-10-28-008 VOLUME 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - EXCEPTIONS FROM RESTRICTIONS
ON CREDIT FOR MERGED STACKS
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
32
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK
VOLUME
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT
PN123-85-10-28-009 VOLUME 1
PN123-85-10-28-010 VOLUME 1
PN123-86-02-11-011 VOLUME 2
PN123-86-02-11-012 VOLUME 2
PN123-87-09-03-013 VOLUME 2
PN123-87-10-09-014 VOLUME 2
PN123-88-01-07-015 VOLUME 2
PN123-88-05-17-016 VOLUME 2
PN123-89-04-20-017 VOLUME 2
IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - PRESUMPTIVE NSPS EMISSION
LIMIT FOR FLUID MODELING STACKS ABOVE FORMULA GEP HEIGHT
DETERMINING STACK HEIGHTS "IN EXISTENCE" BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 1970
PRIORITY FOR REVIEW OF PARTICULATE MATTER SOURCES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS
CLARIFICATION OF EXISTING GUIDANCE ON DISPERSION MODELING REQUIREMENTS FOR
PLANTS WITH "TALL STACKS" AND OTHER PROHIBITED DISPERSION TECHNIQUES
TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR STACK HEIGHT NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS
PROCESSING OF STACK HEIGHT NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS
STACK HEIGHT EMISSIONS BALANCING - FINAL POLICY STATEMENT (FR CITATION)
APPLICATION OF THE INTERIM POLICY FOR STACK HEIGHT REGULATORY ACTIONS
LETTER TO JOHN PROCTOR FROM G. EMISON
** STATE BOARDS
PN110-78-02-24-002 VOLUME 1 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
** STORAGE TANKS
PN172-81-02-06-036
VOLUME 1 STORAGE TANK VAPOR BALANCE REQUIREMENTS AT SYNTHESIZED PHARMACEUTICAL-
PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE FACILITIES
** SURROGATE AIR QUALITY DATA
PN107-85-10-08-010 VOLUME 1 OZONE AIR QUALITY DATA FOR REDESIGNATIONS
** SURVEILLANCE ACTIONS
PN1U-81-05-13-002 VOLUME 1 REGIONAL OFFICE CRITERIA FOR NEUTRAL INSPECTIONS OF STATIONARY SOURCES -
AMENDED GUIDANCE
PN120-80-09-12-001 VOLUME 1 PRIORITIES FOR ISSUING NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE
** TANK TRUCK UNLOADING
PN172-81-02-06-036 VOLUME 1 STORAGE TANK VAPOR BALANCE REQUIREMENTS AT SYNTHESIZED PHARMACEUTICAL
' PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE FACILITIES
** TEMP EMERGENCY SIP SUSPENSIONS
PN110-80-01-10-023A VOLUME 1 ALTERNATE PROCEDURE FOR SECTION 110(F) RELIEF IN LOCALIZED, SHORT TERM
ENERGY EMERGENCIES
** TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE
PN113-86-04-11-028 VOLUME 2 TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE GUIDANCE
PN172-86-02-28-052 VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
** TOXIC SUBSTANCES
PN110-82-11-24-061
PN165-87-09-22-021
VOLUME 1 SIP ACTIONS AND TOXIC POLLUTANTS
VOLUME 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF NORTH COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY PSD REMAND
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
33
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
PN165-88-07-28-033
VOLUME 2 SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE IN IMPLEMENTING THE NORTH COUNTY PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) REMAND
** TRADE SECRETS
PN114-83-12-15-003
VOLUME 1 EXECUTION OF CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS UNDER SECTION 114 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT
** TRANSFER EFFICIENCY
PN110-85-12-16-072 VOLUME 1 BASELINE TIME PERIODS FOR VOC TRANSFER EFFICIENCY CREDITS
PN110-86-04-11-074 VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FIVE VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
** TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
34
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
** UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS
PN114-84-09-06-004 VOLUME 1 FINAL GUIDANCE ON USE OF UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS
** UNCLASSIFIED AREAS
PN107-83-04-21-008
VOLUME 1 SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SUMMARY
** VAPOR RECOVERY
PN172-78-06-30-003
PN172-81-02-06-036
VOLUME 1 VAPOR RECOVERY REGULATIONS REQUIRED TO MEET RACT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 1979
SIP
VOLUME 1 STORAGE TANK VAPOR BALANCE REQUIREMENTS AT SYNTHESIZED PHARMACEUTICAL
PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE FACILITIES
** VINYL CHLORIDE
PN112-84-07-11-005
VOLUME 1 VINYL CHLORIDE NESHAP ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
** VINYL COATINGS
PN172-85-07-02-051
VOLUME 1 RESIDUAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTAINED IN COATING LINE
PRODUCTS
** VISIBILITY PROTECTION
PN169A-85-03-25-001 VOLUME 1
PN169A-86-11-10-002 VOLUME 2
VISIBILITY MONITORING STRATEGY REQUIREMENTS
VISIBILITY PROTECTION STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP'S)--VISIBILITY SIP'S
PART II
** VISIBLE EMISSIONS
PN113-82-05-04-013
** VOC BASELINE YEAR
PN172-86-02-28-052
VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON POLICY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF VE VIOLATIONS AGAINST SOURCES WHICH
ARE MEETING AN APPLICABLE MASS EMISSION STANDARD
VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
** VOC COMPLIANCE
PN113-87-07-06-038 VOLUME 2
PN113-87-09-11-040 VOLUME 2
PN172-85-04-25-050 VOLUME 1
PN172-85-07-02-051 VOLUME 1
PN172-86-02-28-052 VOLUME 2
PN172-89-03-16-071 VOLUME 2
SMALL VOC SOURCE COMPLIANCE STRATEGY - FINAL
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE: SMALL VOC SOURCE
COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
CONSIDERATION OF ORGANISOLS IN VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC) COMPLIANCE
CALCULATIONS
RESIDUAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTAINED IN COATING LINE
PRODUCTS
RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC'S)
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
35
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
** VOC CONTROLS
PN110-78-02-24-002 VOLUME 1
PN110-80-07-31-039 VOLUME 1
PN110-80-08-04-040 VOLUME 1
PN110-77-07-08-065 VOLUME 1
PN110-85-08-27-071 VOLUME 1
PN110-85-12-16-072 VOLUME 1
PN110-86-04-11-074 VOLUME 2
PN110-86-08-07-076 VOLUME 2
PN110-87-01-08-079 VOLUME 2
PN110-87-04-17-081 VOLUME 2
PN110-87-07-21-089 VOLUME 2
PN113-85-04-24-023 VOLUME 1
PN113-86-01-17-027 VOLUME 2
PN113-86-08-07-032 VOLUME 2
PN165-85-06-28-023 VOLUME 2
PN165-88-04-25-030 VOLUME 2
PN172-78-03-10-002 VOLUME 1
PN172-79-03-06-014 VOLUME 1
PN172-79-05-25-017 VOLUME 1
PN172-79-08-21-019 VOLUME 1
PN172-79-08-22-020 VOLUME 1
PN172-79-12-12-023 VOLUME 1
PN172-80-06-16-027 VOLUME 1
PN172-80-07-02-029 VOLUME 1
PN172-80-12-01-033 VOLUME 1
PN172-81-02-06-036 VOLUME 1
PN172-84-01-20-045 VOLUME 1
PN172-84-09-14-048 VOLUME 1
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
APPLICABILITY OF VOC CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINES (CTGS) TO THE AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
APPLICABILITY OF PAPER COATING, FABRIC COATING, AND GRAPHIC ARTS CTGS
(CITATION OF FR NOTICE ENTITLED "RECOMMENDED POLICY ON CONTROL OF VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS")
CLASSIFICATION OF BENZENE AS A VOC
BASELINE TIME PERIODS FOR VOC TRANSFER EFFICIENCY CREDITS
RESPONSES TO FIVE VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
POLICY ON SIP REVISIONS REQUESTING COMPLIANCE DATE EXTENSIONS FOR VOC
SOURCES
CLARIFICATION OF SEASONAL VOC CONTROL POLICY
DEFINITION OF VOC
DEFINITION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC's)
ACHIEVING VOC COMPLIANCE FROM DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTOR FACILITIES
ISSUES #3(E) AND #5 OF THE VOC ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCESS: ESTABLISHING
PROOF OF VOC EMISSIONS VIOLATIONS, AND BUBBLES IN CONSENT DECREES
RESOLVING CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 113(b) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
POLICY ON THE AVAILABILITY OF LOW-SOLVENT TECHNOLOGY SCHEDULES IN CLEAN
AIR ACT ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
MEMO TO WILLIAM S. BAKER ON SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
LAER EMISSION LIMITS FOR AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK TOPCOAT
OPERATIONS
EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT FOR PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS
CUTBACK ASPHALT VOC REGULATIONS
CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AND SOLVENT
REACTIVITIES
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS: GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON
APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON
REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMISSION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICAL RACT
REGULATIONS)
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS/REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMITTING RACT
REGULATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS(VOC)
EXEMPTIONS FOR DEGREASERS
GASOLINE TANK TRUCK REGULATIONS
EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER OEGREASERS
REVISED SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
STORAGE TANK VAPOR BALANCE REQUIREMENTS AT SYNTHESIZED PHARMACEUTICAL
PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE FACILITIES
AVERAGING TIMES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITS - SIP REVISION
POLICY
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) TEST METHODS OR PROCEDURES FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES IN GROUPS I, II, AND III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTGS)
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
36
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
PN172-84-12-21-049
PN172-85-04-25-050
PN172-87-06-25-054
PN172-86-09-29-058
PN172-87-12-10-060
PN172-88-05-27-061
PN172-88-08-23-063
PN172-88-12-16-067
PN172-89-02-15-070
PN172-89-04-03-072
PN172-89-04-07-073
PN172-89-05-25-075
PN172-89-07-06-076
** VOC RACT
PN110-78-02-24-002
PN110-79-09-17-020
PN172-78-06-30-003
PN172-78-08-04-004
PN172-78-08-24-006
PN172-78-10-06-008
PN172-79-06-20-018
PN172-79-08-21-019
PN172-79-08-22-020
PN172-80-09-03-030
PN172-80-11-20-032
PN172-80-12-02-034
PN172-80-12-02-035
PN172-89-07-06-076
VOLUME 1 CONNECTICUT VOLATILE. ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) ISSUES
VOLUME 1 CONSIDERATION OF ORGANISOLS IN VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC) COMPLIANCE
CALCULATIONS
VOLUME 2 EMISSION CUT-OFF FOR CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUND SOURCES
VOLUME 2 SEASONAL VOC CONTROLS
VOLUME 2 LETTER TO LEONARD LEDBETTER ON USE OF POTENTIAL VS ACTUAL EMISSIONS FOR
VOC REGULATIONS
VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF EPA GUIDANCE ON VOC ISSUES
VOLUME 2 LETTER TO WILLIAM JURIS ON VOC EMISSION CUTOFF
VOLUME 2 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) DISPOSAL REGULATION
VOLUME 2 MARINE VESSEL VAPOR CONTROL
VOLUME 2 APPLICABILITY OF MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS COATINGS
REGULATIONS TO ADHESIVES, SEALANTS AND FILLERS
VOLUME 2 BASELINE FOR CROSS-LINE AVERAGING
VOLUME 2 CORRECTING CAPTURE EFFICIENCY (CE) REGULATIONS
VOLUME 2 AEROSPACE AND SIMILAR RULES IN OZONE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP'S)
VOLUME 1 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
VOLUME 1 GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAINMENT AREAS - (SUPPLEMENT ON CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES) (FR
CITATION)
VOLUME 1 VAPOR RECOVERY REGULATIONS REQUIRED TO MEET RACT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 1979
SIP
VOLUME 1 REQUIREMENT FOR VOC RACT REGULATIONS IN ALL OXIDANT NONATTAINMENT AREAS
VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OF EPA POLICY ON EMISSIONS FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM
VOLUME 1 COMMENTS ON AUTO INDUSTRY PROPOSALS
VOLUME 1 MODIFICATIONS TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLVENT METAL CLEANING
VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS: GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON
APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON
REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMISSION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICAL RACT
REGULATIONS)
VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS/REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMITTING RACT
REGULATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS(VOC)
VOLUME 1 MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS CTG - EMISSION LIMITS FOR COATING
OF SHIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
VOLUME 1 COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAN COATING OPERATIONS
VOLUME 1 COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY
EQUIPMENT
VOLUME 1 RACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
VOLUME 2 AEROSPACE AND SIMILAR RULES IN OZONE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP'S)
I
I
-------
Page No.
09/01/89
37
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
** VOC RECORDKEEPING
PN110-86-04-11-074
VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FIVE VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
** VOC TEST METHODS
PN110-86-04-11-074
PN172-84-09-14-048
** VOC WASTE DISPOSAL
PN172-88-12-16-067
VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FIVE VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
VOLUME 1 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) TEST METHODS OR PROCEDURES FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES IN GROUPS 1, II, AND III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTGS)
VOLUME 2 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) DISPOSAL REGULATION
-------
Page No.
03/03/8^
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 107
UPDATE NUMBER 8 !
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 107
x
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN107-82-09-16-007
MILWAUKEE SO2 NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATION
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN107-83-04-21-008
SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SUMMARY
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN107-85-04-08-009
LETTER TO JUDGE TERRY ROBERTS FROM GERALD A. EMISON
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN107-85-10-08-010
OZONE AIR QUALITY DATA FOR REDESIGNATIONS
-------
-------
PN 107-85-10-08-010
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
OCT 8 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Ozone Air Quality Data for
FROM:
TO:
Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Developme
ion (MD-15)
Director, Air Division, Regions I-X
This is to clarify the meaning of the term
to EPA's redesignation policy for ozone.
'surrogate" as it applies
The EPA redesignation policy for ozone comprises two parts, both of
which relate to the underlying need to review all available information
relative to the attainment status of an area. One of these parts addresses
the necessity for sufficient measured data. The other part addresses the
need for evidence that some real and enforceable emission reductions have
caused the improvement in air quality. Both of these parts must be
satisfied in order for a redesignation request to be considered.
The May 30, 1985, ozone policy summary! states that "for ozone,
redesignation requires either that the three most recent years of air
quality data not show more than an average of one exceedance per year or,
as a surrogate, that the most recent 8 quarters of air quality data show
ji£ exceedances." The reference is Sheldon Meyers' April 21, 1983, memorandum
on redesignation criteria. That memorandum was developed to provide some
reasonable flexibility to all areas that, in 1983, had not had an adequate
monitoring network in operation for the necessary 3 years.
Recently, at least one agency has erroneously interpreted this past
ozone redesignation guidance to exclude valid existing data. The EPA
position is that valid data, which are representative of current conditions,
cannot be arbitrarily excluded. Therefore, when 3 years of valid data
are available, the term "surrogate" should not be interpreted to mean
that the most recent 8 quarters of data can be used in place of the most
recent 3 years.
iQzone Policy Summary, May 30, 1985, prepared by Larry J. Wilson, OAQPS,
page 14.
-------
-2-
*•
An exception to the requirement for 3 years of ozone data is possible
if a demonstration can be made that substantial reductions in ozone-forming
emissions have occurred within the same 3-year period. The reductions must
still be in effect such that earlier air quality data are no longer
representative of current conditions.
This means that areas with substantial emission reductions occurring
over the 3-year period may make a demonstration that only the years after
the reductions occurred should be used as the basis for redesignation.
The EPA recognizes that the use of fewer than 3 years of data significantly
increases the uncertainty of whether attainment has been reached. The EPA
will review the demonstration as to whether the entire 3-year period or
only the post-reduction part is most representative of current emission
conditions. Accordingly, any request for actions using less than 3 years
of ozone data should be coordinated in advance with OAQPS.
We recommend the following guideline in reviewing the demonstrations:
- Reductions must be substantial and of an order of magnitude
corresponding to the reduction in air quality values.
- Post-reduction data must be adequate to assure attainment. There
should be a minimum of 2 years of data in the post-reduction period.
- Post-reduction emission levels must be real, quantifiable, and
maintained in the future.
Please make sure that this issue is clarified to all interested
parties and employed in all ozone redesignation actions. If your staff
have any questions, please contact Larry Wilson at 629-5540.
cc: Regional-Administrator, Regions I-X
Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
Ron Campbell
~~ Tom Cur ran
Gerald Emison
Richard Rhoads
John Silvasi
B. J. Steigerwald
John Ulfelder
Ray Vogel
Larry Wilson
-------
PN 107-85-04-08-009
uszz;
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality PlanriiQ£*and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
APR
0819®
Judge Terry Roberts
Boone County Pi seal Court
Post Office Box 77
Burlington, Kentucky 41005
Dear Judge Roberts:
I em responding to your letter of February 25, 1985, to Administrator
Lee M. Thomas which discussed the 1982 air quality management plan for
Boone, Kenton, and Campbell Counties. As you indicated, EPA proposed to
disapprove this State implementation plan (SIP) on July 25., 1984.
t
The Agency appreciates the substantive comments that you and your-
colleagues made subsequent to this proposed rulemaking. These and all
other comments were reviewed by EPA Headquarters staff both here and in
Washington, D.C., and by EPA Regional Offices in Chicago and Atlanta.
These comments were thoroughly evaluated in the preparation of the final
rulemaking which is now undergoing Agency review.
The notice will indicate that the present attaircnent demonstration
is not acceptable and the State of Kentucky will be asked to submit a new
plan. This new pVan must meet the requirements for ozone extension
areas. These requirements are outlined in the January 22, 1981, Federal
Register (46 FR 7182) and, among other things, include the expeditious
implementation of a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program.
This decision is consistent with what has been required in other metropolitan
areas with similar ozone air quality problems.
You raised the question of discarding or at least riot considering at
this time the 1983 air quality data. This question has been raised
elsewhere and EPA has consistently held that all data should be considered.
Additionally, we have reviewed the information submitted to us regarding
the character of meteorological conditions in 1983. Several commenters
suggested that the summer of 1983 may have been hotter and drier than
normal, but this does not necessarily lead to a determination that the
combination of meteorological parameters'that are conducive to ozone in
excess of the national ambient 'air quality standards should be considered •
unusual. The analyses submitted to date do not present a sufficient
basis to make such a case. Additionally, it is our opinion that the
basic character of 1983 would not lead us to a different decision regarding
the nonattainment status of the area. EPA will review any additional
analyses that the State may wish to perform but the development or imple-
mentation of a revised SIP should not be delayed pending completion of
those analyses.
-------
I hope this answers your concerns on these issues. I appreciate
your interest in the air quality problems in your area and look forward
to working with you on them.
Sincerely,
/s\
Gerald A. Emison
Director
Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards
-------
PN 107-83-04-21-008
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON D C 20460
APR 2 I 1S83
OFFICE OF
AIR, NOISE, AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Section 107 Designation Policy Summary
J£jkJUW"7KAeieA^
FROM: Sheldon Meyers, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (ANR-443)
TO: Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Regions II-IV, VI-VIII, X
Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, V, IX
On February 3, 1983, the Agency published a Federal Register notice
regarding the status of all areas designated nonattainment under Part D
of the Clean Air Act. This notice indicated that for a significant
number of nonattainment areas States are anticipated to be able to
demonstrate attainment of the primary national ambient air quality standards.
Accordingly, for those areas, States have been encouraged to update their
Section 107 designations. In addition, a number of nonattainment areas were
identified in the February 3, 1983, notice as "unlikely to attain standards."
The Federal Register also stated that the basic existing policy will generally
be continued for redesignation. This memorandum summarizes and clarifies
existing policy for reviewing designations and provides new guidance on
processing these actions.
Policy For Reviewing 107 Designations
1. Data: In general, all available information relative to the attainment
status of the area should be reviewed. These data should include the most
recent eight (8) consecutive quarters of quality assured, representative
ambient air quality data plus evidence of an implemented control strategy
that EPA had fully approved. Supplemental information, including air
quality modeling emissions data, etc., should be used to determine if
the monitoring data accurately characterize the worst case air quality
in the area. Also, the following items can be considered in special
situations.
An attainment designation can be made using only the most recent four (4)
quarters of ambient data if an acceptable state of the art modeling analysis
(such as city-specific EKMA for ozone) is provided showing that the basic
SIP strategy is sound and that actual, enforceable emission reductions are
responsible for the recent air quality improvement.
107
-------
For nonattainment designations which were originally based solely on
modeling, redesignation to attainment is possible even if less than four (4)
quarters of ambient data are available provided that a reference modeling
analysis considering the sources' legal emission limits shows attainment of
the standards. Information must also be presented showing that the sources
causing the problem are in compliance with the enforceable SIP measures.
Although the current ozone standard implies the need for three years
of data for attainment designations, two years of data with no exceedances
is an acceptable surrogate. As discussed previously, this should be
accompanied by evidence of an implemented control strategy that EPA had
fully approved.
2. Projected Future Violations: Projections of future violations can
provide the basis for continuing nonattainment designations. This
concept is particularly important because of the current economic downturn.
Information submitted to support attainment redesignations must adequately
and accurately reflect anticipated operating rates. Areas should remain
nonattainment where such projections reveal air quality violations.
3. Modeling: In most 502 cases, monitoring data alone will not be
sufficient for areas dominated by point sources. A small number of ambient
monitors usually is not representative of the air quality for the entire
area. Dispersion modeling employing the legally enforceable 502 SIP limits
will generally be necessary to evaluate comprehensively the sources' impacts
as well as to identify the areas of highest concentrations. If either the
modeling or monitoring indicates that S02 air quality standards are being
violated, the area should remain nonattainment.
4. Boundaries: Current policies on appropriate boundaries for designation
of nonattainment areas by EPA remain in effect, i.e., generally political
boundaries such as city or county for TSP and S02, county as a minimum for
rural ozone, entire urbanized area and fringe areas of development for
urban ozone, and urban core area for CO. When States redesignate, EPA
will continue to accept reasonable boundaries which are supported by
appropriate data, such as specific new monitoring and/or modeling data or
evidence of improvement due to control strategy implementation. Nonattain-
ment areas for ozone should include the significant VOC sources.
5. Dispersion Techniques: Areas which are projected to attain the TSP
or S02 standards because of the use of unauthorized dispersion techniques
should continue to be designated as nonattainment.
107
8-2
-------
Policy for Processing 107 Redesignations
1. SIP Review Actions: Section 107 designations have generally been
classified as minor actions, with only a few of the more significant
ones being processed as moderate. In the future, redesignations of Tier II
nonattainment areas should be classified as major actions so that they
can receive a comprehensive review to help ensure regional consistency.
Redesignation of Tier I nonattainment areas should continue to be handled
as minor or moderate actions, as appropriate.
2. "Unclassifiable" Areas: Since EPA and the States have had nearly five
years to resolve discrepancies for nonattainment designations, it is now
inappropriate to redesignate any area from nonattainment to unclassi-
fiable. There has been ample time since the first designations were made
in 1978 to thoroughly study each nonattainment area. Sufficient data
should now exist to either make a redesignation to attainment or to keep
the nonattainment designation.
If you have any questions, please contact Tom Helms at (FTS) 629-5526.
cc: Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
107
8-3
-------
PN 107-82-09-16-007
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 16 1982
OFFICE OF
AIR, NOISE, AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Milwaukee SOoNonattainment Designation
8 j(JjLtfLtr^ c*y*~u^ts~^-
FROM: Sheldon Meyers, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (ANR-443)
TO: David Kee, Director
Air Management Division, Region V
Thank you for your August 9, 1982, memorandum to Assistant
Administrator Bennett regarding Wisconsin's request for a redesig-
nation to attainment of the sulfur dioxide (S02) standard for the
Milwaukee area.
You asked four (4) separate questions in your memo. Those questions
are repeated in full below along with my responses.
Q) In nonattainment areas with no emission limits, what is required to
support a redesignation to attainment? (It does not appear to be
sufficient to accept eight quarters of data showing no violations, even
if the monitors were located in the expected high concentration areas.)
A) The fact that no Federally enforceable emission limits are in place
does not affect the criteria applied in determining the area's attain-
ment status. In general, Section 107 designatio.! changes should utilize
all available data, including both monitoriiK ?rid modeling data.
Whatever is available should certainly be usf.-d. Monitoring data should
be used only within the limits of being representative for a specific
geographic area. The object of any designation should be to make the
best decision based upon the maximum amount of available information.
Q) What is the role of modeling in redesignations?
A) The need for dispersion modeling for Section 107 designation
purposes is especially important when dealing with areas dominated by
point sources of S02« In these cases, a small number of ambient air
107
7-1
-------
quality monitors will not be able to tell the whole story. Modeling is
essential to evaluate comprehensively and thoroughly the sources'
impacts as well as identify the areas of highest concentrations. It
must be included in a redesignation analysis where feasible.
For all other areas, if modeling already exists, it should be
considered. However, dispersion modeling is generally not required to
be performed strictly for the purposes of Section 107 redesignation
requests for such areas.
Q) Is a redesignation to attainment acceptable if there are eight
quarters of monitored data showing no violations but there is modeling
that predicts violations? (Note, this is not to say that the modeling
contradicts the monitoring since the modeling shows attainment at the
monitor locations, but nonattainment at other, nonmonitored locations.)
A) There is no answer that fits all possible situations. However,
where valid dispersion modeling has been performed, such modeling
results should set the designation status. When the appropriateness
of the model is of some concern, Regional Offices must exercise judgment
after considering such things as how many monitors are in the network;
is complex terrain (terrain greater than stack height) involved; what
model is being used; is it a guideline model, if not, has it been
demonstrated to be appropriate; does the model tend to over- or under-
predict for the situation at hand?
Again, it should be emphasized that the objective is to make the
best determination possible using all relevant information as to what
the attainment status of an area really is.
Q) Mr. Barber's letter says that adequate monitored data are necessary.
How is "adequate" defined? (We suggest that a determination of adequate
monitoring data involve reference modeling. That is, monitors must be
located in the areas of expected high concentrations, based on a
reference modeling analysis.)
A) Your suggestion is what ideally should be required. However,
monitors are seldom sited at the locations shown by later dispersion
modeling to be those of maximum impact.
Again, the responsibility lies with the Regional Office to make the
necessary judgments as to whether or not the existing monitor locations
are sufficient both in number and spatial arrangement to allow them to
be representative of the air quality for the area. Some judgment as to
whether the potential problem is of a localized or more general areawide
nature should be made. This judgment will influence whether modeling or
monitoring should be given preference in the particular situation in
question. How much information is needed before such a judgment can be
made is subject to the complexity of the situation.
107
7-2
-------
I would like to add the following comments regarding the particular
situation in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, as described in the background portion
of your August 9, 1982, memo.
In a situation where an area was originally designated nonattaimnent
based on measured violations but subsequently has air quality measure-
ments less than the ambient air quality standard, common sense would
recognize the need for a study of the situation, including modeling. It
could not reasonably be expected that violations would disappear by
themselves. If a source has voluntarily made some emission reduction
changes that eliminate violations, these changes need to be embodied
into regulation and then be made part of the approved State Implementa-
tion Plan (SIP) control strategy. The approval of such emission limits
as part of a SIP must be based on an adequate demonstration that ambient
air quality standards will be protected. Such a demonstration must
include a dispersion modeling analysis under worst case conditions.
If you have any other questions, please let me know.
107
7-3
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 110
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 110
* PN110-78-02-24-002
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
* PN110-78-03-24-003
PLANS UNDER SECTION HID OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
* PN110-78-07-17-007
INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE POLICY
* PN110-79-04-04-015
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS (FR CITATION)
* PNHO-79-06-14-016
LEAD SIPS
* PN110-79-07-02-017
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS
FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL)
* PNHO-79-09-17-020
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS
FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS - (SUPPLEMENT ON CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES)
(FR CITATION)
* PN110-79-11-21-023
MINIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES FOR DETERMINING QUARTERLY AVERAGE LEAD
CONCENTRATION
* PN110-80-01-10-023A
ALTERNATE PROCEDURE FOR SECTION 110(F) RELIEF IN LOCALIZED, SHORT TERM
ENERGY EMERGENCIES
* PN110-80-03-10-030
EMISSION OFFSET REQUIREMENTS IN SECONDARY STANDARD TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE PLANS
* PNHO-80-04-08-032
NEW SOURCE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR LEAD
* PN110-80-05-09-034A
CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION
MONITORING PROVISIONS IN STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
* PN110-80-07-31-039
APPLICABILITY OF VOC CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINES (CTGS) TO THE
AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
-------
Page No. 2
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 110
(VOLUME 1)
* PN110-80-08-04-040
APPLICABILITY OF PAPER COATING, FABRIC COATING, AND GRAPHIC ARTS CTGS
* PN110-80-08-08-041
THE BUBBLE POLICY AND STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT
SECTION HID
* PN110-80-09-25-043
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF SIP REVISIONS
* PN110-80-10-23-044
GROWTH RESTRICTIONS IN SECONDARY NAAQS NONATTAINMENT AREAS
* PN110-81-07-22-052
EXPERIMENTAL STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN "(SIP) PROCESSING TECHNIQUES
* PN110-81-11-09-055
NEW PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
* PN110-82-06-23-059
REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-NEW SIP PROCESSING PROCEDURES TO SAVE TIME AND
RESOURCES (FR CITATION)
* PNHO-82-08-11-060
REVIEW OF 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
* PN110-82-11-24-061
SIP ACTIONS AND TOXIC POLLUTANTS
* PNHO-83-03-18-063
LETTER TO HARRY H. HOVEY RE EPA POLICY WITH REGARD TO AMBIENT AIR
* PNHO-83-05-27-064
SUMMARY OF NAAQS INTERPRETATION
* PNHO-77-07-08-065
(CITATION OF FR NOTICE ENTITLED "RECOMMENDED POLICY ON CONTROL OF
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS")
* PN110-79-06-18-066
REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION AND SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATI,
PLANS: INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONSULTATION (FR CITATION)
* PN110-80-07-22-067
(CITATION OF FR NOTICE ON SOLVENT REACTIVITIES)
-------
Page No. 3
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 110
(VOLUME 1)
* PN110-83-05-26-068
DEFINITION OF AMBIENT AIR FOR LEAD
* PN110-84-11-28-069
CORRECTING ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION MODEL RESULTS TO STANDARD TEMPERATURE
AND PRESSURE
* PN110-85-01-02-070
REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF MODELING GUIDANCE
* PN110-85-08-27-071
CLASSIFICATION OF BENZENE AS A VOC
* PN110-85-12-16-072
BASELINE TIME PERIODS FOR VOC TRANSFER EFFICIENCY CREDITS
* PN110-83-03-14-087
ISSUES ON LEAD SIPS
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
14 MAR TO
suajccr
Issues on Lead SIP's
PN 110-83-03-14-087
P9OM
TO
G. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch (MO-15)
Conrad Simon, Director
Air and Waste Management Division, Region II
Thank you for your memorandum of January 11, and Bill Baker's
memorandum of February 9, 1983, on the status of lead SIP's in your
Region. In those memorandums, you also raised several issues to which I
would like to respond.
* Attainment and maintenance—-In response to a petition by three
primary lead smelters in Missouri, EPA is expected shortly to propose to
revise EPA's policy on the interpretation of an attainment date. Under
that expected change, an attainment date for a criteria pollutant (other
than those covered by Title I, Part D, of the Clean Air Act) would be
three years from the date EPA actually approves (or promulgates) a SIP
for that pollutant. Thus the "record date" (i.e., the date of EPA
approval) for each SIP would be different. While States are projecting
their emissions, they will not know in advance the date of EPA approval.
Therefore, they will have to estimate their date of submission to EPA
and then add seven months to allow for c?A processing time (under the
"5-2/5-2" system for processing Federal Register notices). Adding three
years beyond that will yield the estimated attainment date. While the
revised policy on attainment dates is still technically under development,
other States "are assuming that the policy will eventually be issued and
are basing their attainment dates on the anticipated policy. In one such
case—Pennsylvania—EPA will propose to take no action on the attainment
date until EPA's policy 1s issued. When the revised policy is issued,
EPA would then approve the attainment date specified in the plan.
° Summary of Pb air quality data since January 1974—We agree that
only air quality data collected since January 1, 1978, need be submitted
with SIP's now being developed. We believe, however, that considering
only the last two years of data in developing a control strategy may be
misleading. For Instance, low levels of production at major stationary
sources during the last two years of economic stagnation may have resulted
in failure to Identify an ambient lead problem that would exist if the
sources were to Increase production. Therefore, as a compromise, we
recommend: (a) considering the last three years of air quality data (1980,
1981, and 1982) in control strategy development if sources in the analysis
area were operating close to capacity or if there are no significant
stationary sources, and (b) considering air quality back to January 1,
1978, where the sources were not operating close to capacity. Since these
recommendations conflict with the letter of the regulation, we will have to
check with OGC on how to implement^these recommendations legally.
E PA f~- U20-4 (««.. 3-7*1
-------
0 Reentrained dust from paved roadways—You have been asked whether
this area source is being double counted, since emissions from the tail-/
pipe are already being considered. It is true that tailpipe emissions
contribute to local ambient air concentrations of lead before the lead
particles settle out. Once the particles settle out on highway pavement,
however, vehicular traffic will cause them to be resuspended in the air.
The emission factors for tailpipe emissions were developed based on
actual measurements of lead emissions from tailpipes of automobiles.
Thus, these emissions would exist even if resuspenslon did not occur.
On the other hand, the emission factor for reentrained dust was based on
tests in which ambient concentrations were measured upwind and downwind
of roadways; dispersion models were "run backwards" to back-calculate
emissions that would cause the measured concentrations; the estimated
emissions were then reduced by the calculated tailpipe emissions to yield
the reentrained fraction. The reentrained fraction is partially dependent
on the tailpipe emissions, however; as tailpipe emissions diminish over
time as a result of decreased lead in gasoline, the amount of lead
particles that settle out on highway pavement—and any resulting emissions
from their resuspenslon—will also decline. In summary, inclusion of
reentrained lead dust from roadways 1n the lead emission inventory is not
"double counting."
You also noted that a State might not include reentrained road dust as
a line Item in the emission Inventory even though it may consider this as
an area source when modeling. This practice appears acceptable.
* Air quality dispersion modeling—You indicated that current
modeling techniques would have to be modified if States had to determine
the impact of emissions from a combination of'line, area, and point
sources of lead. This is not necessarily so. There are several cases
that may occur:
1. Isolated point source with a few roads nearby and fugitive
area sources on plant property.Currently, the Industrial Source Complex
(ISC) model will handle this configuration (point, line, and area). A
background lead air quality concentration would have to be considered.
EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models (EPA-450/2-78-027), pp. 34-37,
provides techniques for estimating background concentrations.
2. Point source in the middle of a substantial road network.
In this situation, it is better to consider the lead concentrations that
result from the road network as background and model the source and any
nearby major roadways separately using, the ISC. Two cases come to mind
in applying the Guideline's techniques for estimating background:
a. If air quality data are available that are representative
of the roadway network 1n the vicinity of the plant, but not influenced
by emissions from that plant, those data can be used as the baseline
background concentration.
-------
b. If air quality data representative of the roadway network
in the vicinity of the plant are not available, the agency should obtain
data that are representative of a similar roadway network that is located
elsewhere and also not influenced by lead point sources. The agency
should use those data as the baseline background concentrations.
In either (a) or (b), the baseline background concentration must be
proportionately reduced to account for the reduction of mobile source
lead emissions over the period ending with the attainment date.
3. Several nearby point sources—Page 35 of the Guideline on
Air Quality Models states that the "impact of nearby sources must be
summed for locations where Interactions between the effluents of the.
point source under consideration and those of nearby sources can occur."
In summary, we do not see the need for modified models to account
for the above situations since the ISC and the modeling Guideline appear
to address them. " '
0 Calculation of grams per nrile of lead emissions from mobile sources—
You indicated that States need information regarding the effects of the
recent changes 1n the Federal regulation of lead in gasoline and changes
in projected vehicle mix that have taken place since 1979. We recently
have asked the Office of Mobile Source A1r Pollution Control to revise
the methodology for projecting xoblle source lead emissions in light of
the recent regulation and other information. This Information will be
forwarded to the Regional Offices when it 1s available, which will probably
be around April. Until that guidance 1s issued, States can use the
former method for projecting mobile source emissions of lead (which will
likely over-predict emissions) or develop their own methods to account
for the recent changes.
*
0 Transporatl on control strategy development— You Indicated that States
need additional information on the effectiveness of various transportation
control measures if mobile sources must be considered in the development
of a control strategy. We anticipate that mobile source lead emissions
will not contribute significantly to any violation of the national ambient
air quality standard for lead anywhere in the United States because of
the Federal requirement for reducing lead in gasoline and the other
Federal program that result in reduced automotive lead emissions. If,
however, an area must Institute a transportation control strategy for
attainment of another criteria pollutant (e.g., carbon monoxide or ozone).
credit for reduced vehicle miles traveled that result from that control
strategy can and should be taken Into consideration in calculating mobile
source lead emissions. Note, however, that an increase in the average
vehicle speed as a result of that control strategy will work to increase
mobile "
0 Lead point source definition for significant sources— Your interpretat
is correct— analysis and dispersion modeling are required for the "signific
source categories listed 1n 40 CR 51.80 and 51.84 only if their actual
emissions of lead equal or exceed five tons per year.
-------
* Statewide inventory development—Your analysis is correct—we would
not recommend disapproval of a lead SIP for failure to provide a statewide
emission inventory, despite my memorandum of June 14, 1979, to the
Air Branch Chiefs.
I trust that this memorandum replies to your issues satisfactorily.
Because these issues and our replies are of general interest to the other
Regional Offices, I am sending copies of this memorandum to them.
cc: Air and Waste Management Division Director, Regions I, III-X
Lead Contacts, Regions I-X
W. Baker
J. Calcagni
J. Sableskl
J. Silvasi
J. Ulf elder
R. Wilson
-------
PN 110-85-12-16-072
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DEC 15 1385
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Baseline Time Periods for VOC Transfer Efficiency Credits
FROM: G. T. Helms,
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD-15)
TO: Thomas J. Mas! any, Chief
Air Enforcement Branch, Region III
This is in response to your recent request for assistance and guidance
concerning the setting of a baseline time period for the State to determine
an industry norm (for the miscellaneous metal source category concerned)
for volatile organic compound (VOC) transfer efficiency credit.
As you are aware, at the time the control technique guideline documents
were issued, emission reductions due to transfer efficiency were not
considered as a credit. The main consideration at that time was that
source categories would apply control technology (low solvent technology
or conventional add-on controls) that was reasonably available.
In view of this, it is our opinion that the baseline time period for
determining transfer efficiency credit be established as the date the
State adopted the regulation.
Any transfer efficiency credit should relate to improvements in
transfer efficiency beyond the industry/category norm appropriate for the
subject source made subsequent to the date noted above". -Transfer efficiency
credit would only be allowed to the extent that reductions in emissions
beyond reasonably available control technology were achieved.
Requests for transfer efficiency credit must be submitted as State
implementation plan revisions.
Should you have any questions, please contact me (FTS 629-5526).
cc: R. Campbell, OAQPS Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
R. Ossias, OGC VOC Regulatory Contacts, Regions I-X
D. Tyler, CPDD VOC Enforcement Contacts, Regions I-X
-------
-------
PN 110-85-08-27-071
/>>
f ^m u UNITEJD STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I ^tpj § * Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards^
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
AUG 2 1 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Classification of Benzene as a/VdC
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development^iVisi^r (MD-15)
TO: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
Several Regions have inquired as to the classification of benzene as
a volatile organic compound (VOC). This memorandum is intended to reiterate
(see memorandum from Walter C. Barber, Director, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, to Stephen Wassersug, Director, Air and Hazardous
Materials Division, Region III, dated July 8, 1980) the Agency's position
with regard to exemption of this organic compound from control as a VOC
in an ozone nonattainment State implementation plan.
Benzene has been indicated as having only negligible photochemical
reactivity (see "Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds,"
42 FR 35314, dated July 8, 1977). However, under Section 112 of the
Clean Air Act, EPA has officially listed benzene as a hazardous pollutant
(see 42 FR 29332, dated June 8, 1977). Therefore, any exemption of this
compound should be discouraged because of the associated air toxics
implications. Exempting toxic compounds such as this or encouraging
solvent substitutions involving toxic air pollutants does not represent
sound environmental policy.
We recommend that you adhere to the July 8, 1977, policy on the
control of volatile organic compounds and only exempt those compounds
that have been specifically exempted either in the recommended policy or
by listing in the Federal Register.
Should you have any questions concerning this memorandum, please
contact Tom Helms, Control Programs Development Division (FTS 629-5526).
Attachments
cc: R. Campbell B. J. Steigerwald
G. Emison VOC Contact, Regions I-X
NOTE: Attachments not included in the
Policy and Guidance Notebook.
-------
-------
PN 110-85--01-02-070
I
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
? Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1
January 2, 1985.
MEMORANDUM - - -
SUBJECT: Regional Implementation of Modeling Guidance
FROM: Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief
Source Receptor Analysis Branch, MDAD (MD-14)
TO: Regional Modeling Contact, Regions I-X
Attached for your use is information on the implementation of modeling
guidance. Attachment 1 is an excerpt of a memorandum from J. Wilburn to D. Tyler
(dated November 13, 1984) which identifies several issues. Attachment 2
provides our response to these issues.
It is our intent that the response merely reiterate the way in which we
understand modeling guidance to be routinely implemented by all Regional Offices.
however, having formalized thai understanding, we believe that ITS circulation
is desirable. If you have any questions, please call me.
Attachments
cc: Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions, I-X
B. Turner
V D. Wilson
-------
Attachment 1
(Excerpt of Memorandum from J. Wilburn to D. Tyler, Dated November 13, 1984)
As discussed in this memo, we are quite concerned as to our credibility
regarding the development and approval of SIP revisions and bubbles which
consider complicated and involved modeling. While our Armco experience may
be viewed by some as atypical, we feel that the problem is real enough to the
point that we request guidance on the following three .questions:
1. When do changes in EPA modeling procedures become official Agency
policy? Do such forms as informal modeling protocols and consensus
opinions developed at meteorologist meetings and workshops constitute
official Agency policy? If so, how is management at the regional
division and branch level informed of those decisions (i.e., are such
decisions communicated by policy memorandum or must regional manage-
ment be dependent upon regional participants at such meetings and
workshops to accurately convey OAQPS's policy decisions)?
2. How do changes in Agency modeling policy affect in progress modeling
analyses? Do policy changes in modeling procedures invalidate
modeling protocols which accurately reflected modeling policy at the
initiation of ongoing modeling analyses? If so, we would appreciate
copies o.f all policy memorandums which communicated such policies.
3. Will it be necessary in order for Armco's bubble application to be
concurred with by OAQPS, for Region IV to require Armco to submit a
fourth revision to their modeling procedures which would provide an
analysis of the 46 days with more than 6 hours of calm which have
thus far been deleted for the submittal pursuant to the original
protocol? If so, we would like an explanation of the rationale for
this requirement in light of our discussion in this memo.
-------
Attachment 2
f •-
'"*••**
(Excerpt of Memorandum from R. Rhoads to J. Wilburn, Dated December 24, 1984)
Regarding your first question: Changes in EPA modeling procedures
become official Agency guidance when (1) they are published as regulations
or guidelines, (2) they are formally transmitted as guidance to Regional
Office managers, (3) they are formally transmitted to Regional Modeling
Contacts as the result of a Regional consensus on technical issues, or
(4) they are a result of decisions by the Model Clearinghouse that effec-
tively set a national precedent. In the last case, such issues and deci-
sions are routinely forwarded to all of the Regional Modeling Contacts.
In order for this system to work, the Regional Modeling Contacts must be
actively involved in all Regional modeling issues and they must be con-
sulted on modeling guidance as necessary by other Regional personnel.
Regarding your second question: The time at which changes in
modeling guidance affect on-going modeling analyses is a function of the
type of agreement under which those analyses are being conducted. On-going
analyses should normally be "grandfathered" if (1) there is a written pro-
tocol with a legal or regulatory basis (such as the Lovett Power Plant) or
(2) the analysis is complete and regulatory action is imminent or underway.
If the analysis is based on a less formal agreement and is underway, the
Regional Office should inform the source operators of the change and deter-
mine whether the change can be implemented without serious disruption to
the analysis. If for some reason any previous analysis must be redone,
then it should be redone in accordance with current modeling guidance. In
any event, consequences of failing to implement current guidance should be
discussed with the OAQPS staff (Helms/Tikvart) to ensure that inappropriate
commitments are not made by the Regional Office.
Regarding your third question: As previously discussed with your
staff, the recent Armco modeling analysis is technically inadequate and
not approvable so long as the approximately 46 days with c^lms are
ignored. At the time the original protocol was developed, the deletion
of calms was common practice because we had no consensus on technically
valid procedures for addressing calms. However, (largely due to the
assistance of RO IV staff in developing a technical solution to the
calms issue) this practice was discontinued by consensus of the Regional
Modeling Contacts who recommended immediate implementation of the new
procedures (see Joe Tikvart's June 13, 1983, memo to Regional Modeling
Contacts). The subsequent Armco analysis which ignored calms was, there-
fore, deficient since there is no rationale for "grandfathering" an analy-
sis which was initiated after the new calms guidance was disseminated.
This issue is no longer an issue since Armco has already submitted a
reanalysis that addresses the calms issue.
-------
-------
PN 110-84-11-28-069
November 28, 1984
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Correcting Atmospheric Dispersion Model Results to Standard
Temperature and Pressure
FROM: Richard 6. Rhoads, Director
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division (MD-14)
TO: Robert L. Duprey, Director
Air and Waste Management Division, Region VIII (8AW-AP)
We have considered your request on whether atmospheric dispersion
model estimates should be corrected to standard temperature and pressure
conditions (STP). Given the manner in which the S02 ambient air quality
standards are written, and to be consistent with the handling of
monitoring data, it could be reasoned that the correction of model
estimates to STP should be made.
From a historical standpoint, we can find no indication from our
records that we have provided written guidance on correcting model
estimates to STP. To provide additional background information, we
contacted all the other Regional Offices to find out what their current
policies are. In most cases the possible need to correct to STP has
not arisen and in no case has a correction been made, other than possibly
in your Region.
Considering the historical precedent and how other Regions are
handling the STP issue I do not believe it is wise to institute a new
nationwide policy at this time. However, if a State wishes to make the
STP cornjstion, I would have no objection, since they have the right to
be more stringent than EPA.
If you have any questions please contact me.
cc: T. Helms
R. Neligan
M. Trutna
bcc: Regional Modeling Contacts, Regions I-X
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PN 11Q-83-05-26-068
6 e MAY 19G.:
"~J A 1 C
lO'O-.
of Ambient Air for>Lead
FROMDarryl D. Tyler, Directort_v^''^^'L
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
TOAllyn Davis, Director
Ai r & Waste Management Division, Region VI
This is in response to your memorandum of May 23, 1983, to
Sheldon Meyers. In that memorandum, you indicated that the Texas Air
Control Board 'TACB) believes that an ambient lead monitor in El Paso
is not located in the ambient air, and therefore the data from thac
monitor should not be used to develop a control strategy for lead.
The monitor is located at the International Boundary Water
Commission's (IBWC) property, about 1000 feet from the edge of the property
of ASARCO's primary lead smelter. TACB believes that the monitor is not
in the ambient air because public exposure at the IBWC property wou.d at
most be only daily for a period of not more than eight hours, and there-
fore no one person is expected to be at the IBWC site continuously for a
full three months, the exposure time innerent in the lead standard.
TACB's logic runs counter to EPA's policy on ambient air. In
40 CFR 50.1(e), ambient air includes "that portion of the atmosphere,
external to buildings, to which the general public has access." "''hat
definition does not account for any time limitation or averaging time.
Regardless of whether any member of the public is expected to repMin at
a particular place for a specific period of time, ambient air is ;efined
in terms of oublic access, not frequency of access, length of stay, age
of the person or other limitations. The only exemption in EPA policy to
compliance with the provisions of ambient air is for the atmosphere over
land owned or controlled by the source and to which public access is
precluded by a fence or other physical barriers. Since ASARCO does not
own the site of the IBWC monitor, it clearly falls within our definition
of ambient air.
Furthermore, .any monitor can give only an estimate of the actual
maximum concentration of a pollutant in the vicinity of the monitor.
There may actually be higher concentrations of lead in the area oetween
ASARCO's boundary and the IBWC monitor, such as on the highway tnat run,
between the ASARCO smelter property and the IBWC property. The general
public may have more frequent or longer access to this location than to
the IBWC property itself. Therefore, the fact that the general public
may not be expected to remain at the IBWC site itself continuously for
three months is no reason to disallow tne use of the monitor's data for
developing a control strategy.
EPA form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
Please feel free to call me or G. T. Helms in this Division if you
have any further quest-ions on this matter.
cc: J. Calcagni
J. Divita
K. Greer
T. Helms
J. Silvasi
D. Stonefield
J. Ulfelder
-------
PN 110-80-07-22-067
In order to conserve space, the Federal Register notice entitled:
Air Quality; Clarification of Agency Policy Concerning
Ozone SIP Revisions and Solvent Reactivities (45 FR 48941)
is not included in the Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook.
Please refer to this notice for EPA policy/guidance related to this
subject.
-------
PN 110-79-06-18-066
In order to conserve space, the Federal Register notice entitled:
Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans; Intergovernmental Consultation
(44 FR 35176, June 18, 1979)
is not included in the Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook. Please
refer to this notice for EPA policy/guidance related to this subject.
-------
PN 110-77-07-08-065
In order to conserve space, the Federal Register notice entitled:
Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile Organic
Compounds (42 FR 35314, July 8, 1977)
is not included in the Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook.
Please refer to this notice for EPA policy/guidance related to this
subject.
-------
PN 110-79-09-17-020
In order to conserve space, the Federal Register notice entitled:
State Implementation Plans, General Preamble for
Proposed Rulemaking on Approval of Plan Revisions
for Nonattainment Areas—Supplement (on Control
Techniques Guidelines) (44 FR 53761, September 17, 1979)
is not included in the Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook.
Please refer to this notice for EPA policy/guidance related to this
subject.
-------
-------
Page No. 1
03/03/88
AIK PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION HID
UPDATE NUMBER 8
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION HID
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN111D-81-09-14-001
EPA POLICY ON WELFARE-RELATED POLLUTANTS UNDER SECTION HID
-------
-------
PN 110-83-05-27-064
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
o Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
•£ Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
MAY 2 7 1983
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Summary of NAAQS Interpretation
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director,
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division (MD-14)
TO: Gary L. O'Neal, Director'
Environmental Services Division, Region X
In response to your May 10, 1983 request, I have summarized our current
guidance with respect to the data analysis aspects involved in the interpreta-
tion of the NAAQS. As you noted, several of the NAAQS are being reviewed and
it is our intention to ensure that all revised standards be structured to
minimize the ambiguities associated with data handling conventions. However,
until this is done, I understand your concern in resolving these issues in
order to meet immediate program needs. Therefore I have attempted to respond
to the specific questions that you raised and to indicate the current status
of our guidance. The two guideline documents that provide most of the
supporting material are (1) "Guidelines for the Interpretation of Air Quality
Standards," OAQPS No. 1.2-008, which was originally issued in 1974 and then
revised in 1977 and (2) "Guideline for the Interpretation of Ozone Air Quality
Standards," OAQPS No. 1.2-108, which was issued in 1979 with the promulgation
of the ozone NAAQS. These two documents provide answers for the majority of
questions and, when these are applicable, the discussion is relatively brief.
For questions not addressed in these documents, or where a policy memorandum
was issued to supersede this guidance, a more detailed discussion is included.
Data Handling Conventions
Many of the problems that arise with respect to the data handling
conventions are a result of the fact that the initial NAAQS, promulgated in
1971, indicated a ug/m^ (or mg/n>3) concentration level and a parenthetical
ppm concentration level that was not an exact equivalent. To ensure that an
attainment decision did not vary simply because of the measurement units
involved, our initial 1974 guidance was that the ug/m^ (or mg/m3) concentra-
tion level took precedence and that the parenthetical ppm value should be
viewed as an approximate guide which may need to be modified to ensure equi-
valence. The 1974 guidance also stated the principle of "... letting
no
64-1
-------
the standard Itself dictate the number of significant figures to be used
in comparisons..." For the NAAQS promulgated in 1971, this meant that the
comparisons with the standard were to be made 1n terms of integer values
of ug/m3 (or mg/m3) and it was stated that fractional parts of 0.5 were
to be rounded up. Extending this same approach to the lead standard, the
standard level of 1.5 ug/m3 would mean that comparisons were to be made
to one decimal place and, in terms of the rounding convention, 1.55 ug/m3
would round up to 1.6 ug/m3.
The ozone NAAQS was promulgated in 1979 and in this case the ppm
value of the level, 0.12 ppm, was stated first because we felt this was
more consistent with the way the data are actually measured. The associated
guideline for the ozone standard stated that "... 0.125 ppm is the smallest
concentration value in excess of the level of the standard." In effect,
the same principles for significant figures and rounding still apply but
the ppm value takes precedence for ozone. Although we anticipate that in
all of the revised NAAQS for the gaseous pollutants the ppm value would
be stated first, at the present time ozone is the only case where the ppm
value takes precedence when determining exceedances.
Basically, these data handling conventions adequately define how we
determine exceedances. When calculations are done in measurement units
other than the one that takes precedence in the NAAQS, then the equivalent
level of the standard should be selected to ensure that the results will
be consistent. For example, a daily maximum ozone value of 236 ug/m3
would not be counted as an exceedance of the ozone NAAQS because it is
less than 0.125 ppm. The appropriate conversion factors between ppm and
ug/nr are 2620 for SO? and 1880 for N0£. To convert ppm CO values to
mg/m3, the factor is 1.15 and to convert ug/m3 to ppm for ozone the factor
is 0.00051.
The other issue which affects exceedance counts is whether running
or block averages are used for CO and S02- The use of running 8-hour
averages for CO has generally been accepted with the convention that a
violation requires two non-overlapping 8-hour averages above the level of
the standard. Both the counting procedure and the determination of the
second highest non-overlapping value are documented in the 1977 guidance
(or the earlier 1974 version).
In contrast to the general agreement for CO, there has been considerable
discussion on the use of running averages for S02- In 1981, the D.C.
Circuit Court remanded to EPA the record of ftnbient Air Quality Monitoring
and Data Reporting Regulations, 40 CFR 58, dealing with the 24-hour NAAQS
for S02« In effect, this invalidated the portion of the monitoring
regulations requiring States to report ambient S02 data to EPA as running
averages. In a December 24, 1981 memorandum to the Regional Offices,
Kathleen Bennett, then Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise, and Radiation,
indicated that because the SO? NAAQS was under review she had decided to
defer any further rulemaking dealing with the reporting of ambient SOg
levels although this would "... leave the States without any legal duty
to submit 24-hour running averages in the annual State and Local Air
Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) report." She also stated that "... in most
110
64-2
-------
cases, we have relied on block averages and have not found It necessary
to examine running average data to insure attainment and maintenance of
the 24-hour NAAQS." A related memorandum from Ms. Bennett to Region V on
March 24,1982 on the subject of the "Use of Running Averages for Determining
Compliance with the 24-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Standard" concerned the PPG
Barberton Plant in Summit County, Ohio. She stated that she would "...
recommend that you base your decisions on the 24-hour standard solely on
the basis of midnight-to-midnight block averages in that case and in all
similar cases." This particular SIP revision is now under review and the
use of running versus block averages is a key issue.
Episode Monitoring
The issues that you raise with respect to the reporting and use of
accelerated/episode monitoring data for TSP are basically concerned with
the appropriate use of the "extra" values obtained in addition to those
resulting from the minimum sampling schedule. Our recommendations would
be (1) all data collected at NAMS sites be submitted (2) for all sites,
all of the data should be used for comparison with the "once per year"
standards and (3) an appropriate weighting scheme can be used to compute
the annual geometric mean incorporating all of the data rather than
simply ignoring the "extra" days.
Because these issues are not specifically addressed in our
interpretation guideline, it is probably useful to briefly comment on the
rationale. If a site had data for every day of the year, then all of the
data would be used to determine attainment with the "once per year"
standards. Therefore, it seems reasonable to continue to use all of the
data for these comparisons even when episode monitoring is involved. The
real problem with the use of all of the data in such cases is in the
computation of a summary statistic such as the annual geometric mean,
where there is the possibility of bias because the higher days are over-
represented. One possible alternative would be to compute the geometric
mean by only using the once every sixth day data. While this may seem
appealing initially because of its simplicity, it would be difficult to
defend that ignoring actual data values is better than incorporating them
by an appropriate weighting scheme. The TSP NAAQS only refers to the
geometric mean and does not specify how it should be computed but, in the
case of unbalanced data sets, the use of a weighting scheme seems defensible
Although episode monitoring data is not specifically addressed, our 1974
"Guidelines for the Evaluation of Air Quality Data," OAQPS No. 1.2-015 does
discuss the use of weighted averages for cases with unbalanced seasonality.
However, that particular discussion was limited to determining the annual
mean by using the quarterly means. A more general approach that would be
applicable to episode monitoring data has been considered as part of the
review of the particulate matter NAAQS. Basically, the entire year would
be viewed as successive sets of six day periods. A geometric mean would
be computed for each of these six day periods. When a six day period
only contains a single data value (i.e. the normal scheduled sampling
day), the geometric mean for that six day period would simply be that
no
64-3
-------
single observed value. However, when the six day period contained more
than one value, all of the additional values would enter Into the calculation.
Once the geometric mean for each of these six day periods has been determined,
the annual geometric mean would be computed as if each of the six day
geometric means represented a single observation.
As I indicated, this particular approach is not presented in our current
guidance documents, but it is being considered as part of the participate
matter NAAQS review and does appear to be an acceptable interim solution to
your question. I should note, however, that this computational scheme is not
currently implemented on the National Aerometric Data Bank (NADB). At the
present time, NADB programs would continue to compute the geometric mean by
giving equal weight to each value. Admittedly, this can result in a bias for
episode monitoring data and adjustment would be reasonable before developing
or approving specific actions.
Data Completeness
The data completeness requirements for the ozone NAAQS were specifically
treated in the 1979 standard and associated guideline. A daily maximum value
is considered valid if at least 75 percent of the hourly values from 9:01 A.M.
to 9:00 P.M. (LSI) were present or if at least one hourly value was above the
level of the standard. The guideline indicates that data for a year may be
considered adequate if the data set is at least 75 percent complete for the peak
pollution potential season. As other NAAQS are revised, we intend to incor-
porate this type of specific guidance. However, at the present time, the
earlier standards are not explicit with respect to data completeness require-
ments and our recommendation can probably best be viewed as relying upon
tradition and reflecting the summary criteria used on the NADB.
In general, the validity criteria for continuous measurement methods
follows what could be termed the 75 percent rule, i.e., a year is valid if at
least 75 percent of the hourly measurements are present. The same approach
is used for computing 8-hour average CO and both 3-hour and 24-hour average
S0£. This 75 percent requirement for 3-hour S02 averages means that all
three hourly values must be present. In all of these cases, the average is
computed on the basis of the number of hourly values present. I should point
out that these completeness requirements are not intended to discount obvious
exceedances. For example, if only five hourly CO values are available for an
8-hour period but the 8-hour average would exceed the level of the standard
even if the three missing values were set equal to one-hanf the minimum
detectable limit, then this should be counted as an exceedance. However,
this is not currently done as part of the routine NADB summaries.
The validity criteria for 24-hour data, typically resulting from
intermittent sampling schedules, require at least five samples for a quarter
to be considered valid and if one month has no data the remaining months must
each have at least two observations. An annual statistic is considered valid
no
64-4
-------
if all four quarters are valid. These requirements for the 24-hour data
trace back to the old bi-weekly sampling schedules that were typically
used until the early 1970's. In view of the current every six day schedules,
they can certainly be viewed as minimal.
I hope that this summary will be useful to you in responding to the
issues that you raised. Obviously, there are certain areas where a more
definitive response would be desirable. As these earlier NAAQS are
revised, we intend to incorporate the necessary guidance to minimize
potential ambiguities. For example, it is relatively easy to give precise
responses with respect to the ozone NAAQS because many of these details
were specifically addressed when the standard was promulgated. To a
large degree, this is due to the interaction that we have with the Regional
Offices in helping us to identify those areas that need to be clarified
to facilitate the actual implementation of the NAAQS.
cc: Director, Environmental Services Division, Regions I-VIII
Director, Office of Technical and Scientific Assistance, Region IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Regions II-IV,
yi-VIII, X
Director, Air Management Division, Regions I, V, IX
J. Padgett, Director, SASD
D. Tyler, Director, CPDD
E. Reich, EN-341
W. Pedersen, A-133
110
64-5
-------
PN 110-83-03-18-063
MAR 18 1983
Mr. Harry H.-Hovey, Jr. P.E.
Director, Division of Air
New York State Dept. of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233
Dear Mr. Hovey:
In response to your letter of January 11, please be advised that
there has been no major change in EPA policy with regard to ambient air
and the associated requirements of a SIP demonstration. We have defined
"ambient air" at 40 CFR §b0.1(e) to include "that portion of the atmosphere,
external to buildings, to which the general public has access." Our general
policy is that the only exemption to compliance with the provisions of
ambient air is for the atmosphere over land owned or controlled by the
source and to which public access is precluded by a fence or other physical
barriers.
The national ambient air quality standards are designed to protect
the public health and welfare and apply to all ambient air which does include
the rooftops and balconies of buildings accessible by the public. While
EPA has the responsibility to develop the air quality standards, the
States have the initial responsibility to implement them. In effect, the
States have the prime responsibility to protect public health and welfare.
While EPA considers ambient air to include elevated building receptor
sites, it is not practical to analyze the air quality at every such existing
location. Therefore, both EPA and the States must exercise their best
technical judgment as to when such sites must be evaluated so as to
protect public health and welfare. Thus, we do not expect States, in
most circumstances, to evaluate the impact on elevated building receptors.
However, if the State has reason to believe that such an evaluation is
necessary to protect public health and welfare, then it is incumbent upon
the State to conduct such an analysis.
110
63-1
-------
I appreciate your interest in this issue and am willing to discuss
it further if you desire.
Sincerely yours,
Kathleen M. Bennett
Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation
cc: R. Campbell
0. Schafer
110
63-2
-------
PN 110-82-11-24-061
• " ' *4 .f
»-.*"
x-7 -
'/ ••
I'1. TED STATES E\'\ IRON V.E'.'TAL PROTECTION AGENCY
V. -,; ~",G~iC-. i: C
4 JSR2.
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SIP Actions and Toxic Pollutants
OFFICE, r F
'•; o. £ E , AND P « r' f- T , o N
FROM: Sheldon Meyers, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: David Kee, Director
Air Management Division, Region V
This is a follow-up to my July 30, 1982 memo to you regarding your
recommendation that the Agency disapprove any SIP action which would result
in an increase of any pollutant which the Agency is "actively considering"
for designation as a hazardous air pollutant. You suggested using our
current assessment list of 37 chemicals in implementing such a policy.
My staff, in conjunction with the interagency group working on the proposed
emissions trading policy statement, has examined your suggestion as well as
other options for restricting emission trades involving potentially hazardous
air pollutants. We have concluded that we should not attempt to broaden the
restrictions on emission trades or other SIP actions beyond those pollutants
listed under section 112 or health-based designated pollutants for which NSPS
have been promulgated under section 111. Currently, only sulfuric acid mist
would be in this latter category.
As a legal matter, we do not feel the Agency could sustain a SIP
disapproval for a compound just because it appears on a "candidates list."
While there is some evidence for concern over the compounds on our list of 37,
our evaluations to date indicate that the health evidence on many will fall
far short of that needed to list under section 112 or regulate under section
Ill/Ill (d). It would be equally tenuous to impose SIP restrictions on toxic
compounds that are subject to regulation under other EPA programs or by
other Federal agencies or to rely on determinations made by independent
groups such as the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
or the International Agency for Research on Cancer. We feel that an
official Agency finding of adverse health effects, according to criteria
and procedures specified under the Clean Air Act, would be needed to
support SIP disapprovals involving increases of toxic compounds. As you
may know, the Agency attempted to restrict SIP actions involving potential
toxics as part of its Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile Organic
Compounds (42 FR 35314, July 8, 1977). The Agency was forced to retreat
from that policy statement for lack of an adequate legal foundation.
As a policy matter, I feel your suggestion would also be contrary to the
Administrator's emphasis on having a credible scientific basis, including appro-
priate peer review of the science, for all the Agency's regulatory actions. The
assessment list of 37 compounds does not meet this test.
-------
We feel that the most appropriate Agency position would be to recognize
that SIP actions that increase emissions of certain unlisted compounds may
be unwise and that the Agency should provide whatever information it has
available to assist the States in making their decision in such situations.
We plan to include a discussion to this effect in the preamble to the final
issuance of the Agency's Emission Trading Policy Statement.
cc: L. Scopino, SSCD
B. Sih, OGC
L. Stander, CPDD
I. Tether, OPRM
110
61-2
-------
SUBJECT
FROM
TO
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North~Carolina 27711 N 110-82-08-ii-o60
Review of 1982 Ozone and CO SIP's
DATE AU6 1 J 1982
Darryl D. Tyler, Acting Director f
Control Programs Development Division
'-15)
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Regions II-IV, VI-VIII, X
Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, V, IX
He have received a number of questions from Regions regarding their
1982 carbon Monoxide (CO) and ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP)
reviews. In order to assure consistency among Regions, we intend to
periodically prepare questions and answers and distribute them to all
Regions. This is the first memorandum, of that series, which has been
reviewed and agreed upon by all affected Headquarters offices.
1. What are the criteria for approval?
The statutory requirements are spelled out in Sections 110 and 171
to 178 of the Clean Air Act. The criteria for approval were published
in EPA's policy statement in the January 22, 1981, Federal Register.
While we intend to be appropriately flexible in so far as the law will
allow, there are four conditions which cannot be violated for approval.
These four essential conditions for plan approval are: the plan must
show attainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) by
1987, the plan must include an approvable inspection/maintenance (I/M)
program for all urban areas over 200,000 population, the plan must show
reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment, and the plan must
include schedules for the adoption and implementation of any incomplete
SIP elements.
We will not expect reasonably available control technology (RACT)
regulations for the stationary sources covered by the Group III control
technique guideline (CTG) documents until after EPA publishes the final
documents. Failure to complete the adoption of these regulations by
July 1, 1982, should not be a basis for disapproval. On the other
hand, SIP's should include regulations that provide for RACT on all
major stationary sources of VOC that are not covered by a CTG or the
plan should demonstrate that the existing level of control represents
RACT.
When addressing SIP deficiencies (except as noted below), the
Regions must make several findings before we can accept schedules. The
necessary findings are: RFP is maintained, the State has made a
reasonable effort to address the requirements in its July submittal, the
proposed schedule is as expeditious as practicable, the schedule
includes specific submittal dates to EPA, and the governor is personally
committed to ensure that the schedule will be met.
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
110
60-1
-------
2. What specific action should Regions take on 1982 0, SIP's that
are missing regulations for the Group III VOC sources?
For most affected States, the "Approval Status" section of Part 52
includes a statement that "... continued satisfaction of the require-
ments of Part D of the ozone portion of the SIP depends upon the adoption
and submittal ... by each subsequent January of additional RACT require-
ments for sources covered by CTG's issued by the previous January."
Where appropriate, States should be advised that this requirement
will remain in effect and will establish the submittal date for the
missing regulations. If this language is not currently in Part 52,
Regions should incorporate it when final approval action is taken on the
plan.
cc: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
Charles El kins
Jack Hidinger
Sheldon Meyers
Ed Reich
Lydia Wegman
Richard Wtlson
110
60-2
-------
PN 110-82-06-23-059
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 121 / Wednesday. June 23. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 27073
40 CFR Part 52
lAD-FRL 2153-4)
Requirements for Preparation,
Adoption, and Submittal of State
Implementation Plans; New SIP
Processing Procedures To Save Time
and Resources
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency(KPA)
ACTION: hifoimationa) notice
SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is
to inform the public of EPA efforts to
shorten and streamline the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) review
process. Specific new SIP processing
procedures, discussed in an earlier
Federal Register notice (September 4,
1981, 46 FR 44476), are described, as are
the results of an EPA study of their
effectiveness.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John Calcagni, Chief, Plans Analysis
Section, Control Programs Operati6ns
branch, MD-15, Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, 27711, (919) 541-
5665; FTS 629-5665.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.' Over the
past several years, numerous concerns
have been raised both within EPA and
the air pollution control community in
general regarding the time and
complexities involved in processing SIP
revisions. On July 22, 1981, as a result of
these concerns, EPA initiated a national
experimental SIP processing program
designed to improve and enhance the
SIP process. The program aimed at
shortening the time necessary to
complete rulemaking actions, avoiding
unnecessary EPA review, providing the
State with EPA's formal comments on a
more timely basis, and reducing the
uncertainly States and industry felt
regarding EPA's position on specific
issues.
At least 40 percent of all SIP revisions
processed between July 22, 1981, and
January 5,1982, were processed using
one of three processing techniques. To
determine the effectiveness of the
techniques, EPA conducted a study
comparing the existing system of
processing SIP's to these new
piucedures. The results of the study
showed the new processes not only
saved significant amounts of time, but
generated an overwhelmingly positive
response within EPA and without. As a
result, EPA is instituting these
procedures on a permanent basis.
The following are descriptions of
these processing techniques and the
results of EPA's study to determine their
effectiveness.
Parallel Processing
In the past, SIP revisions were
developed between the States and EPA
through independent rulemaking
processes. First, the State would
develop and adopt a regulation
following its administrative procedures.
Then, it would be submitted to EPA for
Federal approval/disapproval action.
This sequential/independent rulemaking
ptocess often led to tension between the
110
59-1
-------
27074 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 121 / Wednesday, June 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
State and EPA. The total review process
was lengthy and there were many
opportunities for false starts,
miscommunication, and
misunderstanding over the approval of a
SIP revision, even though the State may
have spent a considerable amount of
time developing and adopting the
regulation. In some cases, if significant
changes were required by EPA, ihe State
would have to repeat its rulemaking
process.
Parallel processing was first
implemented in April 1981 in EPA
Region I. In July 1981, the program was
expanded to include all EPA Regions.
Using the parallel processing procedure,
the EPA Regional Office works closely
with the Slate as it develops a major
regulation and proceeds through the
State rulemaking process. Whenever
possible, the State and EPA propose the
regulation at the same time, announce
concurrent comment periods, and jointly
review the comments. The EPA Regional
Office will consult with all other
appropriate EPA offices as the
regulation is being developed and during
the State and Federal rulemaking
process to ensure that all issues are
identified before the State adopts the
regulation.
If the State or EPA receives no
comments that would necessitate
significant changes to the regulation, it
will be adopted by the State and
submitted to EPA. The State-adopted
regulation will then be processed by
EPA as a final rulemaking. If significant
changes must be made to the proposed
regulation due to comments during the
public comment period, EPA would have
to repropose the regulation.
EPA rulemaking to incorporate a State
regulation in a SIP may also be initiated
when a rule has been proposed by the
State but not yet adopted. This will
allow thii total Federal/State processing
time to be reduced in cases where State
rulemakirtg has progressed too far to
allow the ideal parallel processing
procedure.
To test the effectiveness of the
parallel processing technique, EPA had
to first find out the average time it took
to process a SIP using previously
established procedures. A random
selection of 137 typical SIP revisions
processed between 1978 and October
1981 were analyzed. Using existing
procedures, it took an average of 425
calendar days from the time the SIP
revision was submitted to EPA by the
State until it was published as a final
rulemaking in the Federal Register.
A SIP revision processed between
April 1981 and January 1982, using the
parallel processing technique, took an
average of 128 calendar days from the
time it was submitted to EPA until the
final rulemaking was published in the
Federal Register. Thus, the processing
time was reduced by 297 days.
In conclusion, parallel processing is
not appropriate for all SIP revisions. But
when issues are clearly understood and
the expected State action is well
defined, employing such an approach
can save in excess of 60 percent of the
normal processing time.
Immediate Final Rulemaking
The immediate final rulemaking SIP
processing approach was first used in
June 1981 in KPA Region IV. In July 1981,
the program was expanded to include
all Regions.
Previously established procedures
required that all SIP revisions bo
proposed for public comment before
going to final rulemaking. The comment
period could be 30 or 60 days depending
on the anticipated public interest in the
revision. Because of the straightforward
nature of some actions, or the
narrowness of their scope, many SIP
revisions get few, if any, comments from
the public during the comment period.
Therefore, as part of EPA's new SIP
processing program, a SIP revision that
is judged by EPA to be noncontrov(;rsial
and where no adverse public comments
are anticipated, will be published as a
final rulemaking without first going
through a proposed rulemaking phase.
The public will be advised that no
comments are anticipated and that,
unless notice is received within 30 days
that someone wishes to submit adverse
or critical comments, the rulemaking
will be effective 60 days from the date
the notice is published. If notice is
received that someone wishes to submit
adverse or critical commenls. the final
rvilemaking notice will be withdrawn
and a proposed rulemaking notice will
be published. The proposed rulemaking
notice will establish a comment period.
As of January 5,1982, 90 SIP revisions
had been processed using the immediate
final rulemaking approach. Less than
five percent of these were withdrawn
because notice was received that
someone wished to submit adverse or
critical comments. To determine the
effectiveness of this technique, the 90
SIP revisions that were processed using
it were compared to 81 SIP revisions
processed between 1978 and October
1981 using previously established
procedures. The 81 SIP revisions used in
thfi comparison did not receive
110
59-2
comments during their proposed
rulemaking and therefore it was
assumed that most of them could have
been processed using the immediate
final rulemaking approach. The average
processing time for the SIP revisions
using existing processing procedures
was 419 calendar days. Using the
immediate final rulemaking approach, it
took an average of 161 calendar days.
Thus, there was an average savings of
258 days to process a SIP revision using
this technique.
Other Agency Actions
EPA has also implemented a number
of administrative measures to
streamline internal Agency review. One
of these measures, which was first
implemented as an experimental
processing technique in EPA Region V in
April 1931 and expanded in July 1981 to
include all Regions, eliminates
duplicative reviews by EPA
Headquarters offices of SIP revisions
that do not change significantly during
their proposed rulemaking. This
technique saved an average of 149
calendar days in processing time.
Because use of these procedures has
been found to save considerable time as
well as resources, EPA intends, to use
them whenever possible to more
efficiently process SIP revisions. Parallel
processing will be used for major SIP
revisions that are likely to require
coordination and cooperation between
the State and EPA to identify and
resolve issues and to make policy
doterminations in a more expedient
manner. Immediate final rulemaking will
be used to process SIP revisions that are
noncontroversial and are not likely to
elicit public comments. Finally, EPA
Headquaiters has eliminated its review
of final rulemaking notices for SIP
revisions that do not change
significantly during their proposed
rulemaking. EPA guideline documents
for processing SIP revisions will be
updated to reflect these changes.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Ozone, Sulfur
oxides, Nitrogen dioxide, Lead,
Particulate matter, Carbon monoxide.
Hydrocarbons.
Dated- June 11,1982.
Kathleen M. Benetl,
Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise &
Radiation.
|l H Doc 82-l(>997 Filed 6-22-«2. 8 45 Jlr|
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
-------
PN-110-81-11-9-055
^
f f* \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
T WASHINGTON D C 20460
'f
Nov. 9, 1581
OFFICE OF
AIR, NOISE, AND RADIATION
SUBJECT: New Procedures for Review of State Implementation Plans
/
FROM: Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise and Radiation (ANR-443) ^' '
TO: Regional Administrators, Reqions I-X "
I am very encouraged by the response of regional offices to the goal
of eliminating the backlog of state implementation plan (SIP) revisions.
The number of SIP revisions being sent to headquarters has increased
dramatically over the past several months. There are, however, additional
steps that need to be taken to streamline the review process and improve
the overall quality of the SIP packages.
To help improve the flow of SIP revisions during review by headquar-
ters offices and ensure that each revision receives the appropriate degree
of review, I am instituting new headquarters review procedures.
New Categories of SIP Revisions
• The two existing categories of SIP revisions, special and normal, are
now replaced with three categories: major, moderate, and minor. The
category into which a SIP revision falls depends on the potential effects
of the revision on air quality. The criteria that regional offices should
use to identify the appropriate category for a SIP revision are included in
Attachment A. Headquarters staff will help regional offices identify the
appropriate category and will do some initial screening to ensure that
revisions are properly classified. The new categories should be used for
all SIP revisions sent to headquarters after November 13, 1981.
Revised Procedures for Review
The three categories will be used to determine the level of review for
each revision. A major SIP revision will undergo the full 14-day review
previously given special actions. A moderate SIP revision will be reviewed
primarily by the appropriate offices within the Office of Air, Noise, and
Radiation. A minor SIP revision will be reviewed primarily by the regional
office. The review procedures for each category of revision are described
more fully in Attachment B.
Relationship to Experimental Processing Techniques
The three categories will also be used to determine whether a SIP
revision may be processed as a final rule without first being proposed for
approval. A major SIP revision should not be processed as a direct final.
A moderate SIP revision may be processed as a direct final action if
adverse comments appear unlikely. A minor revision may be routinely
processed as a direct final. Use of parallel processing is encouraged for
all three categories of revisions.
-------
Better Identification of Important Issues
Many of the action merrcs accompanying notices of final rulemaking for
SIP revisions have not adequately identified the potential effects of the
proposed action on air quality, the extent to which the affected states
agree or disagree with the action, and other factors important to the
Administrator in deciding whether to sign the Federal Register notice.
Future action memos should clearly describe the air quality implications of
the SIP revision. You, as Regional Administrator, should assure that the
state understands the action to be taken. Coordination with the state
should be described in the action memo. If the state does not agree with
an action, the reason for the disagreement should be identified.
In addition to describing the effects of the action on air quality and
on relationships with the states, the action memo should discuss any
associated litigation, describe any local controversy associated with the
action, and identify any organizations or individuals particularly affected
by the action. Comments from the affected organizations and individuals
should be noted in the action memo. The statutory requirement for the
action should also be included.
As you know, I am reviewing each notice of proposed rulemaking prior -
to its publication in the Federal Register. An action memo requesting my
concurrence should now accompany each proposal. This action memo should
contain the same type of information as the action memo requesting the
Administrator to sign a final rulemaking. The general format to be used
for both types of action memos is shown in Attachment C.
General Improvement of SIP Packages
One of the primary reasons for preparing the Federal Register notice
is to provide interested organizations and individuals with an adequate
understanding of the action being taken. Regional Office staff should
attempt to better organize the notices and write in plain English. The
technical and legal jargon in the notices generally needs to be reduced.
Tracking the Progress of SIP Revisions
The Office of Transportation and Land Use Policy has established a
computerized tracking system to help regional offices determine the status
of SIP revisions during review by headquarters offices. Status reports
will be provided to regional offices on a regular basis. The reports will
be transmitted directly to the computer facilities at your offices.
I intend to take additional steps to improve the overall process for
review and approval of SIPs. I welcome any suggestions that you may nave
to improve the process.
Attachments
-------
ATTACHMENT A: NEW CATEGORIES OF SIP REVISIONS
MAJOR ACTIONS
Major SIP actions have the greatest potential effect on air
quality in terms of the populations and geographic areas affected.
Major actions will include:
0 Actions establishing areawide or statewide control requirements
submitted to meet Part D requirements (e.g., Set II VCC
regulations)
0 Actions establishing or modifying statewide programs for
preconstruction review of major new sources or source modifica-
tions (e.g., prevention of significant deterioration plans and
generic bubble rules)
8 Actions relaxing sulfur dioxide limits for major power plants
" Actions establishing new Agency precedents
0 Actions involving litigation
8 Actions likely to lead to section 126 petitions
0 Actions involving major unresolved Agency policy issues
(e.g., stack heights)
* Actions disapproving SIP revisions
MODERATE ACTIONS
Moderate actions affect the air quality of more limited geographic
areas. Moderate actions will include:
0 Actions changing the emission limits for major point sources
8 Actions approving variances for major sources that delay
attainment dates
8 Actions where a state does not fully agree
Actions receiving significant local interest and comments
MINOR ACTIONS
Minor actions are generally routine SIP revisions having little
effect on air quality and generating minimal public interest. Minor
actions will include:
Actions where the Agency simply affirms a state action, except
where the action falls into the major or moderate category
Final actions where no comments were received on the proposal,
even though the proposed action was categorized as major or
moderate
-------
Actions generally causing minimal changes in air quality. The
subjects of such actions include:
- Section 111(d) negative declarations
- Lead SIPs relying solely on the lead-in-fuel program
- Composition of state boards
- Air quality monitoring netvvorks and procedures
- Variances for sources not delaying attainment dates
- Section 107 designation changes to attainment
- Approval of emission offsets for a new source permit
- Relaxation of emission limits for minor sulfur dioxide
sources
- Bubbles for individual sources
-------
ATTACHMENT B: NEW REVIEW PROCEDURES*
MAJOR ACTIONS
Major actions will be subject to the same 14-day review process
used for the old special category of SIP revisions. Federal Register
packages for major actions should still be sent to the Office of
Regional Liaison.
MODERATE ACTIONS
Moderate actions will be reviewed primarily by the appropriate
offices within the Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation (Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution
Control, Office of Transportation and Land Use Policy, and the Office
of Air, Noise, and Radiation Enforcement). The Office of General
Counsel will participate in the review when necessary. Review of
moderate actions will be completed in 14 days or less. The Office of
Transportation and Land Use Policy will coordinate the review. Federal
Register packages for moderate actions should be sent to the Federal
Register Officer with copies sent to the same offices previously
receiving copies of normal actions.
MINOR ACTIONS
Minor actions will be reviewed primarily by the regional office.
Federal Register packages should be sent to the Federal Register
Officer with courtesy copies sent to the same offices that receive
moderate actions. Proposed actions will be sent by the Assistant
Administrator to the Federal Register for publication. Final actions
will be sent by the Assistant Administrator to the Administrator for
signature.
*These procedures replace those described in the March 1981 guideline,
"Processing Procedures for SIP Revisions [And 111(d) Plans]," prepared
by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. That guideline
will be updated to reflect the new procedures.
-------
ATTACHMENT C: ACTION MEMO FORMAT
SUBJECT:
FROM: Regional Administrator
TO: Administrator (Final rulemaking action)
OR
Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and
Radiation (Proposed rulemaking action)
IDENTIFICATION OF ACTION
This brief introductory paragraph should describe the action in
one or two sentences, indicate whether the action is a proposed or
final rule, and identify the category (major, moderate, or minor) into
which the action falls.
SUMMARY OF ACTION
This section of the memo should discuss the action in more detail.
The discussion should include:
* Sources or source categories affected
8 Geographic area affected, including the potential for long-range
transport
* Potential changes in air quality, including the effects on
national ambient air quality standards and prevention of
significant deterioration increments
0 Statutory requirements for the action
COORDINATION WITH STATE OR STATES
This section of the memo should describe the coordination between
the state and the regional office and indicate the state's position on
the action. The reason for any disagreement between the regional
office and the state should be included. If the SIP revision affects
other states, a summary of any discussions with those states and, if
appropriate, other regional offices should also be included.
ISSUES
This section should identify the major issues associated with the
action and describe the response or recommendations of the regional
office for these issues. This section should discuss any associated
litigation, describe any local controversy associated with the action,
and identify any organizations or individuals particularly affected by
the action, ftn action memo for a notice of final rulemaking should
describe any comments received on the proposal.
-------
f PN 110-81-07-22-052
£1 ~i UNITED SPATES ENVIRON vlENTAL PROTECTION AGEN~X'
A i S, N O i 3 E., A N C -. -, I?' A
JUL221981
SUBJECT: Experimental State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Processing Tecjw4«ues
FROM: EgJs^dZK^if^k^^fng Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation (ANR-443)
MEMO TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Regions I-X
Over the past several years numerous concerns have been raised both
within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the air pollution
control community in general, regarding the time and complexities
involved in processing State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions. In
response to these concerns, EPA is developing ways to improve processing.
Experimental processing techniques have been ongoing in Regions I, IV,
and V for several months. These techniques include:
0 Parallel processing of SIP revisions by the States and EPA
(Region I).
0 Going directly to final rulemaking with noncontroversial SIP
revisions while maintaining a public comment period (Region IV).
0 Eliminating unnecessary EPA Headquarters review by processing
as a normal final rulemaking any SIP revision on which no
comments are received in response to the notice of proposed
rulemaking (Region V).
The first technique is applicable where a State is in the process
of developing a regulation and has not initiated the formal State
rulemaking process. The second and third techniques apply where the
State has adopted a regulation and submitted it to EPA for approval as
a SIP revision.
This program is now being expanded to include all Regions. I
encourage you to use these experimental techniques for processing SIP
revisions and to identify additional ways to improve processing.
(NOTE: Attachments B and C are not included.)
-------
A more detailed description of the three techniques identified
above is attached (Attachment A). Also attached are a Federal Register
notice including example language for the immediate final rule processing
technique (Attachment B), and a status report describing SIP revisions
that are currently being processed using one of the three techniques
(Attachment C).
There are other techniques that may be used to streamline the
preparation of Federal Register notices. These include grouping
several SIP revisions into one Fede ra1 Register notice, and providing
more detailed information in a technical support document, rather
than in the notice itself. Where a technical support document is used,
a reference to the document and a statement that the document is
available to the public must be included in the notice.
Comments received in response to a notice of proposed rulemaking
may also be described in a technical support document, rather than in
the final rulemaking notice. EPA's response to the comments must,
however, be briefly summarized in the final notice. This approach was
described in a February 2, 1981 memo to you entitled "Revisions Pertaining
to Processing of Federal Register Actions," from Darryl Tyler, Acting
Director, Control Programs Development Division (Attachment D).
The Control Programs Operations Branch of the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards is coordinating efforts to implement and oversee
these experimental processing techniques. A program has been established
to track and evaluate the results. A Federal Register notice will soon
be published notifying the public of these procedures. If you have any
questions regarding the procedures or wish to advise Headquarters on a
specific action applying one of these techniques, please contact
Jane Kelly at 629-5665.
Attachments
cc: Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
Bill Becker, STAPPA/ALAPCO
Ed Reich, DSSE
Alan Jennings, 0PM
Lydia Wegman, OGC
Richard Kozlowski, FOSD
Jack Hidinger, OTLUP
Charles Gray, OMSAPC
Office of Regional Counsel, Regions I-X
Office of Regional Enforcement, Regions I-X
-------
Attachment A
Experimental SIP Processing Techniques
Parallel Processing
Presently, SIP revisions are developed between the State and EPA
through independent rulemaking processes. First, the State develops
and adopts a regulation following State administrative procedures.
Then, EPA incorporates the regulation in the SIP. This sequential
rulemaking may lead to tension between the State and EPA because the
total review process is lengthy. Also, if significant changes are
required by EPA, the State may have to repeat their rulemaking process.
Under the parallel processing procedure, the EPA Regional Office
will work more closely with the State as the State develops a major
regulation and proceeds through the State rulemaking process. EPA
rulemaking will be carried on simultaneously with the State process.
Ideally, the State and EPA will propose the regulation at the same
time, announce concurrent comment periods, and jointly review the
comments. The Regional Office will consult with EPA Headquarters
offices as the regulation is being developed and during the State and
Federal rulemaking process to ensure that all issues are resolved before
the State adopts the regulation. All substantive issues should be
raised by EPA Headquarters offices before the regulation is proposed.
Procedures will be established to quickly resolve any issues raised by
EPA Headquarters officer after notices of proposed rulemaking have
been published.
If no comments are received by the State or EPA that necessitate
significant changes to the regulation, the regulation will be adopted
by the State and submitted to EPA. The adopted regulation will then be
processed by EPA as a final rulemaking. If significant changes do have
to be made to the proposed regulation, EPA may need to repropose the
regulation.
EPA rulemaking to incorporate a State regulation in a SIP may also
be initiated when a State rule has been proposed but not adopted. This
will allow the total Federal/State processing time to be reduced in
cases where State rulemaking has progressed too far to allow parallel
processing.
A proposed rulemaking based on the parallel processing technique
was published in the Federal Register on June 1, 1981 (46 FR 29289).
The rulemaking revises the Massachusetts Part D SIP.
Immediate Final Ruletnaking
Presently, the SIP revision process requires that all revisions be
proposed for public comment before going to final rulemaking. The
comment period is 30 or 60 days depending on the anticipated public
-------
interest in the revision. Both the proposed rulemaking and the final
rulemaking must go through Headquarters review before being published.
Many SIP revisions get few, if any, comments from the public during the
comment period. Therefore, as part of the experimental SIP processing
program, SIP revisions that are judged by the Region to be noncontro-
versial will be published as a final rulemaking without going through a
proposed rulemaking. The public will be advised that no comments are
anticipated and that unless notice is received within 30 days that
someone wishes to submit adverse or critical comments, the revision will
be effective 60 days from the date the Federal Register notice is
published. However, if within 30 days notice is received that someone
wishes to submit adverse or critical comments, the action will be
withdrawn and the Region will publish subsequent notices before the
effective date. One notice will withdraw the final action and the
other will begin a new rulemaking by announcing a proposal of the action
and establishing a comment period.
This approach can save time and resources while maintaining the
public's right to comment. If SIP revisions do not require substantial
changes due to public comments and past experience indicates that this
is the case, then the Regional Office will only have to write one
Federal Register notice instead of two. Also, Headquarters review will
be cut in half.
Attachment B is a Federal Register notice redesignating two counties
in North Carolina to attainment for particulate matter. It is included
as an example of a SIP revision that is being processed using the direct
final experimental processing technique. An asterisk identifies the
boilerplate language that has been approved for use by OGC.
Eliminating Duplicative Review
SIP revisions designated as special actions must go through two
Headquarters reviews while those designated as normal actions are not
reviewed by Headquarters. This experimental technique involves pro-
cessing, as normal actions, those rulemakings that were proposed as
special actions but did not generate significant public comments and
were not significantly changed from the proposal. By doing so, only one
Headquarters review is required and thus the SIP processing time is
decreased.
The Regional Office will be responsible for determining the
significance of comments received during the proposed rulemaking as well
as the significance of any changes to the proposal. If there are any
questions as to the significance of comments or changes, the Regional
Office should confer with the appropriate Headquarters offices before
proceeding.
-------
Attachment D
• t " " UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE; FEB 21981
JBJECT- Revisions Pertaining to Processing of Federal Register Actions
FROM-. Darryl Tyler, Acting Director ,,
Control Programs Development Divisiorr (MD-15)
TO-
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
The purpose of this memorandum is to institute revised policies
regarding formal Agency rulemaking actions. These new policies are
intended to help expedite the processing of SIP revisions. Additionally,
it is hoped that these"measures will result in reduced Federal Register
printing requirements and costs.
The new policies are summarized below:
Comments received on proposed rulemakings do not have to be explicitly
addressed in final rulemaking notices.
In the past, the Agency has attempted to summarize all comments
received on notices of proposed rulemaking and then list these comments
along with the Agency's response in the final rulemaking register. This
approach often results in lengthy packages. More importantly, since the
Agency's responses are included with a formal public rulemaking notice,
there is particular emphasis in Headquarters review on the policy and
legal implications of these necessarily abbreviated responses. Hence,
often the rulemaking portion of the package is satisfactory but problems
with the response to comments holds up the overall package.
Therefore, it is recommended that responses to comments be
incorporated into a technical support document. The rulemaking dis-
cussion should include some reference to this document and indicate that
it is available for public review. This technical support document must
be forwarded with the Federal Register package for 14-day review.
Irrespective of this new policy, it is essential that the Federal
Register clearly spell out the Agency's final determination regarding
comments received. This can normally be handled in a brief summary
statement.
Region V final rulemakings where no significant comments were raised
on the proposal may now be handled .as "normal actions."
At this time, we are formally initiating a pilot program in
Region V aimed at decreasing the time required to process final SIP
revisions. During the course of the pilot program, 'Region V will process
as normal actions those final rulemakings that were proposed after
February 1 as special actions, did not generate significant public
-PA Form 1320-4 (R«v. 3-76)
-------
comments, and were not significantly changed from the proposal. The
Regional Office will be responsible for determining the significance of
any comments received on the proposal package as well as the signifi-
cance of any changes to the proposal. For those comments or changes
about which there might be any question as to their significance, the
Regional Office will confer with the appropriate Headquarters offices
before proceeding.
It is our intention to review the benefits of this pilot program
after six months to determine if appreciable time savings can be
realized without unduly affecting the quality of the review process.
If this is the case, it is our intention to institute this program in
all Regions. We will work with Region V to develop a tracking and
evaluation system that will allow us to clearly judge the merits of
the pilot at that time.
These new policies are effective immediately. Should you or your
staff have any questions regarding their implementation, please contact
either me or John Calcagni at 629-5365.
cc: Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
David Menotti, OGC
Ed Reich, DSSE
Jim Sakolosky, MSED
Henry Beal, SRED
Jack Hidinger, OTLUP
Charles Gray, MSAPC
Mary Rhones, 01R
Deborah Taylor, OPE
-------
PN-110-80-11-17-045
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE: ft QV 17 1980
SUBJECT: Bubble Proposal for the Armco Inc. Middletown Works
FROM; Richard G. Rhoads, Dv, ^w,,^. ^ ,» ~—
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
T0: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with a brief
status report on the bubble proposal from Armco Inc. for its Middletown,
Ohio, iron and steel facilities. This proposal involves the installation
of open dust or nontraditional controls, such as road and parking lot
paving and cleaning and the utilization of dust suppressants on storage
piles and unpaved areas, in lieu of fugitive process controls on the
basic oxygen and open hearth shops and the blast furnace cast house.
The monitoring phase of Armco's proposal is now underway. Results
for the first two months (August and September) were presented to Ohio
EPA and U.S. EPA in October. These data indicated that the ambient
standards were nearly being attained at the monitoring sites affected by
Armco1s emissions. Because of an unavoidable delay in obtaining
meteorological data for the demonstration period, dispersion modeling
has not yet been completed to substantiate these results or to evaluate
the impact of the other control measures to be undertaken in the
Middletown area. EPA has agreed to propose approval of Armco's bubble
once the Ohio EPA has developed and submitted a SIP to EPA which identifies
control measures for Armco and other contributing sources. Final approval,
however, will be contingent on the submission of an appropriate modeling
demonstration.
The requirements for implementing the bubble policy have not
changed since their initial publication on December 11, 1979 (44 FR
74780) with respect to trades involving open dust sources. Though such
trades are allowed, EPA has specifically identified in the policy
certain restrictions on their use. Because of the difficulty of ensuring
equivalent effects on air quality and the uncertainty regarding the
accuracy of model projections, EPA generally will not approve any bubble
proposal based solely on a modeling demonstration that proposes to
substitute controls on open dust sources for reasonable controls on the
more significant sources of process emissions. For such trades, sources
should first demonstrate the effectiveness of open dust controls by
installing the controls and then by monitoring the results. Modeling
can be used to supplement, as Armco has agreed to do, the monitoring
demonstrations by providing a further evaluation of the air quality
impact of the trades at maximum allowable emission limits and under
various meteorological conditions.
EPA Form 1320-6 (R.v. 3-76)
-------
Though we believe that Armco can meet the requirements of the
bubble policy and the Clean Air Act, we are not yet in a position to
utilize the Armco experience as a basis for revising requirements for
bubble applications at other steel mills. The Armco situation is some-
what unique because an extensive monitoring network is in operation in
and around the plant, and ambient air quality concentrations are very
close to the national standards. Because of this uniqueness, the Armco
decision cannot be automatically applied to other steel mills. However,
we will be conducting further studies at Armco, including industrial
source model validation, which should provide a basis for reconsidering
the fugitive dust aspects of the policy in mid-1981.
I hope this memorandum answers some of the questions you or your
staff may have encountered with regard to our actions with Armco Inc.
If you have further questions or seek further clarification, please
contact me at 629-5251 or Leo Stander of my staff at 629-5516.
cc: Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
-------
PN-110-80-10-23-044
UN,JfD
, STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ice of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE: OCT 2 ?, I960
SUBJECT: Growth Restrictions in Secondary NAAQS
Nonattainment Areas
FROM-. Richard G. Rhoads, Director^S— ^x?2~
Control Programs Development Division
TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions l-\
Some uncertainty has existed concerning the applicability of the
Section 110(a)(2)(I) construction prohibition for areas with no approved
plans to attain the secondary, welfare-related standards.
Attached for your information is a memorandum from Mike James which
resolves that uncertainty by explaining that Section 110(a)(2)(I) would
not apply for failure to have an approved SIP for secondary national
ambient air quality standards.
I would also like to reiterate that the emission offset policy
remains in effect in TSP nonattainment areas violating only the secondary
standard until a SIP is approve'd for those areas. I am also attaching a
copy of the March 10, 1980 memorandum from Mr. Hawkins to the Regional
Administrators, "Emission Offset Requirements in Secondary Standard
Total Suspended Particulate Plans," for your information, (see PN-110-80-03-10-0:
Please provide this information to the States and other interested
parties in your Regions.
Attachments
cc: Dan Goodwin, STAPPA SIP Committee
Ed Reich, DSSE
Mike James, OGC
Regional Counsel, Regions I-X
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
—• •— ^-J^ v ^CA* ^-'' -
".-,s-W'° ""' ''^
October 1, 1980
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Growth Restrictions In Secondary NAAQS
Nonattainment Areas
FROM: Michael A. James, Associate General Counsel ///
Air, Noise and Radiation Division (A-133) *
TO: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
You have asked for a legal opinion as to whether the
growth restrictions of section 110(a)(2)(I) of the Clean Air
Act would apply if a State fails to timely submit a Part D
plan for attainment of a secondary NAAQS only. For the
reasons set out below, I conclude that the growth restric-
tions would not apply.
Background
Section 110 of the Act requires each State to develop,
and to submit to EPA for approval, implementation plans
(SIPs) which provide for the attainment and maintenance of
the primary and secondary national ambient air quality stand-
ards (NAAQS). Under section 109(b) of the Act, primary
standards for air pollutants are those which, "allowing an
adequate margin of safety, are requisite to protect the
public health." A secondary standard for an air pollutant,
on the other hand, specifies the level of air quality which
"is requisite to protect the public welfare from any known
or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence
of such air pollutant in the ambient air."
In 1977, to address the problem of continued nonattain-
ment of the NAAQS, Congress amended the Clean Air Act to add
Part D (sections 171-178). Part D required States to revise
their SIPs to include, for any area which was designated as
not having attained an NAAQS, the provisions specified in
section 172(b), including the permit program specified in
section 173. Under section 172(a), the Part D plan generally
had to provide for attainment of the NAAQS in those areas "as
expeditiously as practicable". In the case of a primary
standard, however, it had to provide for attainment not later
-------
-2-
than December 31, 1982. I/ In addition, under the newly-
added section 110(a)(2)(I), beginning on July 1, 1979, no
major stationary source of a pollutant could be constructed
or modified in an area which was designated nonattainment
for that pollutant unless a Part D plan for that pollutant
had been approved for that area.
Finally, section 129(c) of Public Law 95-95 2/ estab-
lished a general deadline of January 1, 1979, for submission
of Part D revisions. Under existing section 110(b), however,
the deadline for submission of Part D plans for secondary
standards could be extended for up to eighteen months, or
until July 1, 1980.
Discussion
Read literally, the growth restrictions contained in
section 110(a)(2)(I) could be interpreted to apply, after
June 30, 1979, to any area which has not attained a NAAQS—
either primary or secondary—and for which EPA has not
approved a Part~D plan. However, I do not believe that such
an interpretation would be consistent with the intent of
Congress.
This conclusion is supported by the statutory scheme it-
self, which imposes much more rigid requirements on Part D
plans for primary standards than on those for secondary
standards. Part D plans for primary, health-based standards
must be submitted to EPA by January 1, 1979 and must provide
for attainment no later than December 31, 1982. _3/ Part D
plans for secondary, welfare-based standards do not have to
provide for attainment by any prescribed date. This demon-
strates that Congress did not view attainment of secondary
standards with the same urgency as it viewed attainment of
primary standards. It is therefore unlikely that failures to
timely submit secondary plans were intended to have the same
consequences as were failures to timely submit primary plans.
It is also instructive that, in section 110(b), Congress
expressly authorized the Administrator to grant extensions
for the submission of secondary plans for a period not to
exceed eighteen months -- or, in the case of secondary Part
T7In the case of photochemical oxidants and carbon monoxide,
~ if a State demonstrates that attainment by December 31,
1982 is not possible, the deadline is December 31, 1987.
2] Public Law 95-95 is the official citation for the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1977. Section 129(c) of that
statute is not technically part of the Clean Air Act
but it is part of the law of the land.
3/ See footnote 1, supra.
-------
-3-
D plans, until July 1, 1980. The date for submission of a
secondary Part D plan, therefore, could be one full year
later than the date that growth restrictions go into effect
if a plan has not yet been approved. It is inconceivable
that Congress intended such a discontinuity. If Congress
intended the construction restrictions to apply to secondary
standard nonattainment situations, I think they would have
included language to harmonize section 110 (b) with section
The legislative history of Part D supports the interpre-
tation discussed above. Congress1 concern was that the pri-
mary, health-based standards had not yet been attained in
many areas of the country. Since allowing new industrial
growth in those areas would worsen the existing health prob-
lems, the purpose of Part D was to assure that any new growth
would not jeopardize the Act's predominant goal of protecting
the public health. This focus on the health aspects of non-
attainment is reflected in the House Report on the 1977
Amendments 4_/ ; the House debate on the House bill 5_/ ; the
Senate Report on the 1977 Amendments 6_/ ; the Senate debate on
the Senate bill ]_/ ' tne Conference Report on the 1977 Amend-
ments 8/ ; the House debate on the Conference report 9_/ ; and
the Senate debate on the Conference report 10/. For example,
during the Senate debate on the Senate bill, Senator Muskie
remarked:
47H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (May 12,
1977), pp.33, 207-210, 213, 214-215. This report is
part of the compendium entitled "A Legislative History
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977," Library of
Congress, Congressional Research Service, Serial No.
95-16 (hereinafter cited as the "Legislative History").
The corresponding citations are Legislative History,
Vol. 4, pp. 2500, 2674-2677, 2680, 2681-2682.
5_/ Legislative History, Vol. 4, pp. 3037, 3041, 3055.
6_/ S. Rep. No. 95-127, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (May 9, 1977),
p.54; Legislative History, Vol. 3, p. 1428.
]_/ Legislative History, Vol. 3, pp. 717, 771, 1123-1125.
8_/ H.R. Rep. No. 95-564, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (August 3,
1977); Legislative History, Vol. 3, p. 537.
9_/ Legislative History, Vol. 3, pp. 319, 322, 336,
10/ Legislative History Vol. 3, p. 367.
-------
-4-
. . . This year the [committee's] time was
spent on the issue of growth in areas not
yet meeting national health standards.
The threat to human health in these
areas is serious. Yet the potential harm
to welfare from prohibiting all major
industrial growth is also great, ll/
In short, all the evidence we have in the history indicates
that Congress' intent was to prevent new growth unless attain-
ment of the primary, health-based standards by the new statu-
tory deadline would be assured. The total lack of any dis-
cussion showing comparable concern for the secondary standards
indicates that they were not included in the protection scheme.
In light of the statutory scheme and the legislative
history of Part D, I do not believe that the growth restric-
tions of section 110(a)(2)(I) were intended to apply in
situations where only the attainment of secondary, welfare-
based standards is involved.
ITTLegislative History, Vol. 3, p.771,
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE:
SEP 25 19°0 PN no-80-09-25-043
SUBJECT: Incorporation by Reference of SIP Revisions
FROM:Richard G. Rhoads, Director/*:
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
to:Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
We have received a few questions regarding my June 21, 1980 memo
in which minor changes were described in the procedures to be followed
in the submissions for incorporation by reference by the Office of the
Federal Register (OFR). The purpose of this memo is to clarify a few
points.
1. A copy of the document described in the Identification of the
Plan must be attached, to the package intended for the OFR. This is
important since it is the document which is really being incorporated by
reference and is indexed and placed in OFR's public information center.
2. Some Identification of Plan sections are quite lengthy. In
such cases, there is no need for a verbatim repetition in the identifica-
tion of the document section of the covering memo. This memo submits
the package to OFR by EPA's Office of Federal Register (EPA/OFR). A
short identification will do.
3. Final submission of all parts, including Part 81, should be
forwarded for incorporation by reference.
4. There may be public inquiries by mail to the OFR so the
zip code, 20408, should be added to the OFR address.
5. The contract period has been recently extended to provide time
for the contractor to update the compilation to September 1, 1980
rather than to August 1, 1980. This means that there is no need to
submit any final approval action taken during the month of August to
the EPA/OFR.
If you have any further questions, please call Tom Gunning (629-5365)
1320-6 (R«y. 3-76)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE:
AUG
0 iS80
FROM:
TO:
PN 110-80-08-08-041
SUBJECT: The Bubble Policy and State PL
Under Clean Air Act Section
Walter C. Barber, Direc
Office of Air Quality
Director, Air and Hazardous
hd Standards (MD-10)
terials Division, Regions I-X
A number of inquiries/have been received concerning the applicability
of the bubble policy wit!/respect to the noncriteria pollutants designated
under the requirements or Section lll(d) of the Clean Air Act. This
memorandum is a response to these inquiries.
The bubble policy, as published in the December 11, 1979 Federal
Register (44 FR 71780), may be applied to emission limitations developed
as part of State Implementation Plans required by Section 110 of the
Clean Air Act. The bubble policy does not apply to sources which
must comply with the performance standards for existing stationary
sources developed in accordance with the requirements of Section lll{d).
These performance standards are applied to specific individual facilities
for certain designated pollutants.
Although the bubble policy does not apply to Section lll(d), the
advantages of the policy can be achieved, in some cases, simply by
observing EPA1s requirements for implementing this Section as found in
40 CFR Part 60 Subpart B. This is particularly true if the Administrator
determines that a designated pollutant may only cause or contribute to
the endangerment of public welfare but not endanger public health. In
such cases, the States are not bound by the EPA guideline document but
may balance "other factors of public concern" against the EPA guidelines
when setting standards. These other factors may include: (a) the cost
of achieving such emission reductions; (b) any other health and environ-
mental impacts; (c) energy requirements; and (d) the remaining useful
life of the existing sources.
Under the regulations, States have less flexibility if the
Administrator determines the designated pollutant to be health related.
In such cases, the States are generally expected to set standards at
least as stringent as the EPA guidelines. Less stringent standards may
be set but only in situations where the State demonstrates compelling
reasons to do so.
:ofrr, 1320-6 (R.v. 3-76)
-------
We encourage you to be receptive to Section lll(d) proposals. If a
company tells you or the State that they want to "bubble" lll(d)
pollutant control requirements, ask to see their specific plan before
you give them an opinion. In many cases, it may be possible to adopt
the company's preferred control strategy. In particular, since TRS
regulations are due soon in many States and it is a welfare related
pollutant only, you may want to remind your States that they already
have substantial flexibility under our regulations to design source-
specific regulations for these sources.
Should you have any questions concerning the relationship between
EPA's bubble policy and the requirements of Section lll(d), please
contact Dick Rhoads at FTS 629-5251 or Leo Stander of his staff at
FTS 629-5365.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE: August 4, 1980
PN 110-08-04-040
SUBJECT: Applicability of Paper Coating, Fabric Coating, and Graphic Arts CTGs
(MD-15)
FROM-. Tom Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch, CPDD
TO-. Air Branch Chief, Regions I - X
Recent discussions with State agencies and industry indicate there
are misunderstandings concerning which coating processes are subject to
the Graphic Arts CTG (Volume VIII) and which are covered by the Paper
Coating and Fabric Coating CTGs (Volume II).
As stated in Section 1.2.4 of Volume VIII, the Graphic Arts CTG is
intended to cover printing operations in the production of packaging
materials and publication rotogravure printing operations. Other types
of web coating operations are covered by Volume II in the Paper Coating
and Fabric Coating CTGs. These Volume II operations include some
printing operations, such as printing of wallpaper, floor coverings,
gift wrap, shower curtains, and artificial leather and wood grains.
Industry spokesmen have requested that all rotogravure printing
operations be covered under the Graphic Arts CTG (Volume VIII). There
is a certain simplicity to having all rotogravure printing operations
included under one RACT level; however, since publication printing and
flexible package printing would be included, such a general rotogravure
RACT level would, of necessity, be less strict than the paper coating
and fabric coating RACT levels described in Volume II.
EPA engineers have observed that there are many rotogravure coating
operations which are as amenable to control as are paper and fabric
coated by reverse roll or blade coating techniques. Thus, in order to
obtain the maximum reasonable control, rotogravure operations (other
than publication printing and flexible packaging printing) have been
included in the Paper Coating and Fabric Coating CTGs along with roll,
reverse roll, blades, air knife, and other coating application techniques-
Some types of printing, such as textile printing, are not covered
by either Volume II or Volume VIII, but may be covered in future CTGs.
cc: VOC Contact, Regions I - X
Jim Berry, ESED
"orm 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE:
JUL3H980
PN 110-80-07-31-039
SUBJECT: Applicability of VOC Control Technique Guidelines
(CTGs) to the Automobile Manufacturing Industry
FROM:
TO:
Richard G. Rhoads, Director,
Control Programs Development" Division' (MD-15)
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I
- X
It has been brought to my attention that some confusion exists
concerning the applicability of EPA-CTG, Vol. II, "Surface Coating of
Automobiles and Light Duty Trucks" and EPA-CTG, Vol. VI, "Surface
Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products" in the automobile
manufacturing industry. This memorandum clarifies the applicability of
these two CTGs to the automobile manufacturing industry.
For the purposes of this discussion, metal coating operations in
the automobile manufacturing industry can be separated into the following
three distinct subdivisions:
I. Primer, guidecoat (surfacer), topcoat, and final repair coating
of main body and front end sheet metal parts.
II. Application of coatings other than those in I above to main
body and front end sheet metal parts.
III. Separate coating of metal parts other than main body and front
end sheet metal parts.
Coating operations in I above are covered by the Automobile and
Light-Duty Truck CTG. The recommended limits apply whether the main
body and front end sheet metal parts are coated as a single unit or
separately as is done at some stamping plants and some assembly plants.
Contrary to two statements (pages viii and 6-5) in the Automobile
and Light-Duty Truck CTG which indicate that all automotive metal
coating operations are covered by this CTG, all operations in II and III
above should be covered by the Miscellaneous Metal Parts CTG. This WdS
noted in the attached April 18, 1980 memorandum from F. W. Giaccone,
Region II to Don Goodwin, Director ESED.
The Miscellaneous Metal Parts CTG best takes into account the broad
range of performance requirements for coatings in II above such as
plastisols, striping, trunk spatter, and undercoatings; and for coatings
applied to such varied parts in III as wheels, steering columns,
brackets, and engine parts. The recommended emission limits in the
Miscellaneous Metal Parts CTG are generally less stringent than those in
the Automobile and Light-Duty Truck CTG.
1320-6 (R.v. 3-76}
-------
As is noted in the CTG for Miscellaneous Metal Parts, when reviewing
regulations for these products, consideration should be given to the
possibility that for some operations in II and III control to the level
recommended in the Miscellaneous Metal Parts CTG may be technically
infeasibile or unreasonably costly. Such operations may be allowed to
control to a less stringent level provided an adequate demonstration of
technical infeasibility or unreasonable cost is made. Consideration
might also be given to the utilization of alternative emission control
strategies under the bubble policy (44 FR 71780, December 11, 1979) for
those operations from II and III and thereby possibly exempting small
(measured in terms of absolute mass emission) sources from control.
Please contact Bill Polglase (FTS 629-5251) or Tom Williams
(FTS 629-5226) should you have any questions.
Attachment
cc: Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
Del Rector, Michigan DNR
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE, JUL 1 5 1980
PN 110-80-07-15-038
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Attainment Dates for Newly
Designated Nonattainment Areas
Richard G. Rhoads, Director/
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
T0- Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
The purpose of this memo is to set forth the policy for determining
the date by which areas must attain the national ambient air quality
standard for pollutants for which such areas are, hence forth, initially
designated nonattainment.
As you are aware, current Agency policy allows nonattainment area
plans to be approved only if they satisfy the criteria, among others,
of demonstrating compliance by the 1982 attainment date (unless one of
the criteria allowing post-1982 compliance dates is satisfied). Obviously,
continuance of this policy creates a difficult problem for those areas
which are designated nonattainment within a few years of the 1982 attain-
ment date. As such, my office has requested a legal opinion from OGC on
the ability of the Agency to specify an attainment date different than
1982 for newly designated nonattainment areas. A copy of our request
and OGC's subsequent response are attached.
The policy expressed in the attached OGC legal opinion states that
SIPs developed for newly designated nonattainment areas are subject to
the same time intervals set forth in Part D as were the initial 1979 plan
revisions. This allows 12 months from the nonattainment designation for
preparation and submittal of a plan, 6 additional months for EPA action
on the plan, and no more than 3 1/2 years from the date of plan approval
(i.e., 18 months from the nonattainment designation) to reach attainment.
If you have any questions or comments concerning this policy,
please contact Mike Glowers (FTS) 629-5365 of my staff.
Attachments
cc:
Mike James
Ed Reich
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning anoStandards
Research Trianole Park. North Carolina 27711
DATE
3 1880
SUBJECT Compliance Dates Extending Beyond
a 1982 Attainment Date
<=>" Richard G. Rhoads, -Director
e£v"
Consequently, the State of Wisconsin will be required to submit
lan for these areas by mid-1981 with EPA's approval/disapproval
decision being published by early 1982. Even with this optimistic
schedule, sources subject to the plan would have less then one year fro"
EPA's decision to comply with the limitations in the plan. In most
cases, due to control equipment construction and start-up times,
sources will be physically unable to comply by the 1982 attainment date.
-------
Two possible solutions for dealing with this situation are briefly
outlined below for your consideration. The first possibility is to
operate under Section 110 which allows three years from the date of plan
approval to achieve attainment. The second end more logical approach is
to prorate the time frames in Part D so that post-1978 designations are
subject to the same time period as the initial designations.
The present situation in Wisconsin and the possibility of future
nonattainment designations require that Agency policy address these
special circumstances. It is, therefore, important that we receive the
benefit of your staff's opinion of this issue as soon as possible. If
you have any questions concerning this request, please call Bob Schell
cf my staff at FTS 629-5365.
cc: Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
Ed Reich, DSSE
Steve Kuhrtz, OANR
Ron Campbell, OAQPS
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
WASHINGTON. D C. 20460
, _r. .:cfy,
,,-? WA QU i s;r;T(~>w n <~ ?n/ifin . i
'"•' PK!-V-
JUN 241960
OFFICE OF
MEMORANDUM GENERAL COUNSEL
SUBJECT: Attainment Dates For Part D Plans For Newly
Designated Nonattainment Areas
FROM: Bruce
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Air, Noise and Radiation Division
THRU: Michael A. James
Associate General Counsel
Air, Noise and Radiation Division
TO: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Office of Air, Noise and Radiation
You have as"ked for a legal opinion as to what primary
standards attainment date applies to Part D SIPs required
for areas designated nonattainment in the future. Part D
of Title I of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977, requires
that state implementation plans for areas not attaining na-
tional ambient air quality standards must, among other things,
provide for attainment of primary standards as expeditiously
as practicable but no later than December 31, 1932. Section
172(a)(l). TL_/ However, if in the future an area is newly
designated nonattainment the 1982 date could present over-
whelming practical problems.
I agree that Congress did intend that areas designated
nonattainment for CO, 03, N02, TSP and SO2 must prepare SIPs
meeting the reauirements of Part D 2_/ regardless of when the
desicrnation occurs. This is what the statute quite literallv
saysT See Sections 107(d), 110(a)(2)(I}, 171(2) and 172.
v7otViin^ in the relevant orovisions of the Act limits the
aoolicability of Part D requirements to areas designated at
any particular tine. Moreover, Section 107(d)(5) expressly
contemplates that revisions to designations will occur and
there is no indication whatever that revised designations
v;3re me ait to be any less effective in triggering Part D
(and Section 110 (a)(2)(l)) than were the original dssigna-
I/ Under certain circumstances the attainment ".ares for the
••"e have
-------
-2-
I also agree that Congress could not have intended the
deadlines contained in Part D to apply when, due to the late
date at which a nonattainment designation occurs, these dead-
lines make no sense whatever. 3/
The question, then, is what time frames to apply. Two
choices present themselves. One option is to use the time
frames in Section 110: nine months to prepare a plan (110(a)
(1); see also uncodified Section 406(d)(2)(B)), four months
to approve or disapprove it (110(a)(2)), and up to three
years from the date of approval to reach primary standards
attainment (110 (a) ( 2 ) (A) ( i ) ) . 4_/ The other option is to use
the time intervals (but not the precise dates specified) in
Part D and related provisions. This would allow 12 months
for preparation of a plan, 5/ six months for EPA approval or
37This must be distinguished from claims that the attain-
ment deadline is impractical due to other reasons.
Congress was well aware that the 1982 date could present
a severe practical challenge, yet provided only very
limited authority to EPA to extend that date. By limiting
the scope of Section 172(a)(2) to CO and 03, Congress
made clear that the 1982 deadline could not be deferred
for other pollutants despite the existence of sueh
practical obstacles as lack of data, the complexity of
the required tasks, or the severity of the pollution
problem. But maintaining the 1982 deadline for areas
first designated nonattainment well after the initial
designations were issued could lead to absurd results.
For example, there is obviously no way an area desig-
nated nonattainment in 1983 could meet a 1982 attainment
deadline. Since Congress was aware that designations
could change, see Section 107(d)(5), and since it must
be assumed that Congress could not have intended absurd
results, it is reasonable to believe that the 1982 dead-
line may be deferred for areas designated nonattainraent
in the future.
4/ The three years runs from no later than the last day
~ set by the statute for approval, even if approval is
delayed. Section 110(e) authorizes an extension of the
atttainment date of up to two years under certain cir-
cumstances .
5/ This is the approximate difference between the date
~~ nonattainment designations were originally supposed to
be promulgated under Section 107(d) and the date for
Part D Plan submission specified in uncodified Section
129(c).
-------
-3-
disapproval, 6/ and no more than 3 1/2 years from date of
plan approval (or from the last day by which approval was clue)
to reach attainment. "Tj
Neither the statute nor the legislative history addresses
the question of which option is more appropriate. I believe
that using the Part D time frame is somewhat more defensible.
As a matter of simple logic it would seem that the time frames
designed by Congress specifically for Part D SIPs are the ones
to use. Since the plans to be developed for the new nonattain-
ment areas are subject to the other requirements of Part D, it
makes sense that they also be subject to the time deadlines set
out in (or for) Part D. Although it could be argued that in
the absence of explicit alternative deadlines the deadlines of
Section 110 apply, B_/ I think the better reading of the statute,
in light of its structure and purposes, is to use the time frames
set out in the statute for Part D SIPs.
cc : Steve Kuhrtz
Ed Reich
6/ This is the difference between the January 1, 1979 date
for plan submission set in uncodified Section 129(c)
and the July 1, 1979 date for imposition of the growth
moratorium. See Sections 110(a)(2)(I) and 172(a)(l).
~lI This is the difference between July 1, 1979 and December
~ 31, 1982. Of course, attainment must always be as
expeditious as practicable.
3/ Uncodified Section 406(d)(2) provides that "TeDxcept
as otherwise expressly provided" by the statute plan
revisions required by the 1977 amendments are due within
nine months of the adoption of the regulations neces-
sary for approval of the revisions. This could provide
support for using nine months rather than twelve months
as the deadline for Part D plan subnittal for newly
designated nonattainment areas. But, since Section 405(d)
does not literally apply (since no new regulation is
involve-!) an--"! since one year w^s the ti^e originally
provided for subT.ittal of Part D plans, a one year dead-
line seems reasonable.
-------
PN 110-80-05-09-034A
MEMORANDUM
MAY 9' 1980
SUBJECT: Clarification of Requirements for Inclusion
of Continuous Emission Monitoring
Provisions in State Implementation Plans
FROM: Director, Division of Stationary Source
Enforcement
TO: Enforcement. Division Directors,
Regions I-X
Air and Hazardous Materials Division Directors,
Regions I-X
During the course of a recent survey of state continuous
emission monitoring (CEM) regulations for existing stationary
sources, the following question arose concerning the applicability
of 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix P, which requires CEM at four
categories of existing sources (power plants, sulfuric acid
plants, nitric acid plants, and fluid bed catalytic cracking unit
catalyst regenerators at petroleum refineries):
Appendix P requires CEM at the four listed
sources if they exceed certain size threshholds
and, in the case of NOx CEM, power plants and
nitric acid plants if they are located in
areas designated nonattainment for nitrogen
dioxide. If a state, due to the size threshholds,
has no Appendix P sources, or if a state has no
areas designatec nonattainnent for nitrocren
dioxide, must the state nonetheless promulgate
a CEM regulation pursuant to 40 CFP 51.19(e) in
case a source exceeding the threshhold is
subsequently constructed, in that state or in
the event an area is later designated nonattainnent
for nitrogen dioxide?
The question arose because among the reasons some states have
given for not having complete Appendix P regulations are that the
sources in those states do not meet the size threshholds or that
there are no areas in the states designated nonattainnent for
nitrogen dioxide.
It is our view that a state need not promulgate CEM regu-
lations to apply to Appendix P sources not yet in existence in the
state. Appendix P by its terms permits states, in their CE'i
regulations, to exempt from its coverage sources which would be
subject to any HSPS requiring CEM. All four of the cource
1 10
34A-1
-------
-2-
categories covered by Appendix P would, if new, be subject to NSPS
continuous monitoring requirements. Should a source meeting the
Appendix P size threshhold be subsequently constructed in a state,
it would be governed by the CEM provisions of the applicable NSPs!
Coverage under Appendix P would therefore be unnecessary to
assuring the continuous monitoring of that new source.
With regard to the absence within a state of areas designated
nonattainment for nitrogen dioxide, a state need not require NOx
monitoring under Appendix P for power plants or nitric acid plants
where there are currently no nonattainment areas for nitrogen
dioxide. A reading of Sections 2.1.3 and 2.2 of Appendix P
reveals that the presence of a nonattainment area for nitrogen
dioxide is so much a part of the description of the covered source
categories that the absence of such an area would preclude
existing power plants and nitric acid plants from Appendix P
coverage for NOx monitoring. There being no covered sources for
NOx monitoring, no regulations need be enacted to require such
monitoring.
In order, however, to encourage states to assess their CEM
regulations and to examine those sources covered by them, we will
suggest to the working group presently involved in further
developing the Agency's CEM requirements that 40 CFR 51.19(e) and
Appendix P be amended to include a provision requiring a state to
certify, in a manner similar to 40 CFR 60.23(b) for NSPS, that it
has no existing sources of the type covered by the CEM require-
ments and therefore need not have complete Appendix P regulations.
A procedure of this sort would enable the Agency to better monitor
both source and state compliance with CEM regulations for existing
sources.
If you have any questions on this matter, please feel free to
contact Mark Silvermintz (FTS 755-2570) in this Division.
Edv/ard E. Reich
cc: Richard Rhoads
Director, CPDD
Joseph Sableski, CPDD
bcc: Lou Paley
no
34A-2
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PN-110-80-04-18-034
APR 18 1980 „„,„„,
AIR, NOISE, AND RADIATION
SUBJECT: Malfunction Regulations
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrate
for Air, Noise, and Radiation (ANR-443)
MEMO TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
The discussions at the weekly meeting of the Assistant Administrators
to discuss policy issues associated with the Part D nonattainment plans
have revealed a need to restate the Agency's current policy regarding
exemptions from State Implementation Plan (SIP) emission limitations
during periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction.
As a result of allegations that a malfunction provision, which was
part of a Federally promulgated regulation affecting a nonferrous smelter,
was more restrictive and inconsistent with various malfunction regulations
approved by EPA as part of SIPs, this Agency committed to undertake a
review of all State malfunction regulations. Consequently, a directive
was issued to the Regional Offices on July 14, 1977 requesting all
Regional Offices to review their respective SIP malfunction provisions
and to take corrective action to remove unacceptable provisions from the
Federally approved SIP. In a follow-up to the directive, the Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) provided guidance on
August 18, 1977 outlining the criteria that should be utilized in
evaluating SIP malfunction provisions. In many cases, the review of
such provisions has not been accomplished due to priorities and limited
resources.
The Agency's malfunction policy was further defined in the manual
entitled "Workshop on Requirements for Nonattainment Area Plans" which
indicated that disapproval of malfunction provisions would not precipitate
growth restrictions and funding cutoffs under Part D (since malfunction
provisions are not a required element of a Part D plan) and that inappro-
priate malfunction provisions should be disapproved pursuant to Section
110 of the Clean Air Act. Again, as prior experience indicated, compliance
with this Agency policy was a function of resources and priorities.
Despite this guidance, many State malfunction provisions remain
inconsistent with EPA policy. To eliminate this problem, Regional
-------
Offices should, during the review of nonattainment area plans,
identify and disapprove inadequate start-up, shutdown, malfunction
provisions submitted with nonattainment area plans. In addition,
existing SIPs should be reviewed and inadequate malfunction
provisions should be disapproved as soon as possible.
cc: Jeff Miller
Michele Beigel Corash
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning, and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North~Carplina 27711
DATE: *PR * 1980
PN-110-80-04-08-032
New Source Review Requirements for Lead
TO-
.Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
Recently, several Regions have requested guidance regarding new
source review requirements for lead SIPs.
The "Supplementary Guidelines for Lead. Implementation Plans"
contains a brief outline of general SIP requirements. This outline
discusses those portions of 40 CFR 51 regulations "Requirements for
Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans" that were
not revised to account for the lead standard, but which are still
applicable to the lead SIPs. Specifically, the requirements of CFR
51.18 Review of New Sources and Modifications must be satisfied for lead
SIPs.
Existing permitting regulations adopted in accordance with Section
51.18 may be applicable to lead depending on the specific exemptions
included in the State's general permitting regulation. In general,
the NSR requirement for lead SIPs may be satisfied by simply revising
existing permit regulations to eliminate any exemption of sources
which have the potential to emit five tons/year or more of lead.
The source size limit is based on the definition of a point source
of lead which is five tons/year actual emissions of lead. The rationale
for this limit is based on an analysis contained in the "Supplementary
Guidelines for Lead Implementation Plans," pages 75-77. Briefly, this
rationale indicates that sources which emit five tons/year of lead
have the potential to violate the ambient standard for lead.
If you have any questions regarding new source review in lead SIPs,
contact Susi Jackson (629-5365) of my staff.
cc: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
Mike James, OGC
Ed Reich, DSSE
EPA Form 1320-6 (R.v. 3-76)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Washington, D. C. 20460 PN-110-80-03-10-030
Office of
MAR J j} t98D Air, Noise, and Radiation
SUBJECT: Emission Offset Requirements in Secondary
Standard Total Suspended Particulate Plans
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation
MEMO TO: Regional Administrator, Regions I-\
The purpose of this memorandum is to reiterate Agency policy
regarding emission offset requirements in State Implementation Plans
(SIPs) for areas in which only the secondary TSP standard is violated.
For TSP nonattainment areas violating the secondary standard
only and where the Federal offset policy remains in effect, emission
offsets are required for all major new sources permitted prior to
approval of the SIP for that area. The Federal offset policy re-
mains in effect during any extended time allowed under Section
110(B) for development and approval of a SIP revision for an area
that violates the secondary standard only (44 FR 20379; April 4,
1979, and 44 FR 50600; August 29, 1979). If the Federal offset
policy expires, however no major new sources may be permitted to
commence construction prior to final approval of the SIP for the
area impacted by the source. Following approval by EPA of the
secondary standard SIP, emission offsets would no longer be required
for any new source locating in or impacting a secondary standard
nonattainment area dominated by agricultural and related fugitive
dust sources if offsets from industrial sources are not reasonably
available.
In order to assure thorough dissemination of Agency policy and
procedures with regard to the requirements of Part D of the Act, I
am having this memorandum published in the Federal Register.
cc: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
J. Miller
M. James
-------
PN 110-80-01-10-023A
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
! WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
^
January 10, 1980
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Alternate Procedure for Section 110(f)
Relief in Localized, Short Term Energy
Emergencies
From: Acting Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement
Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise
and Radiation
To: Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
Recent discussions with various state environ-
mental and energy personnel have focused our
attention on the inappropriateness of our current
Section 110(f) guidance on procedures for obtaining
Presidential emergency declarations and subsequent
suspension of State Implementation Plan requirements
necessitated by short term, localized situations
where no alternative action appears to be ade-
quate (e.g., harbor disruptions, unanticipated
distributor delivery delays). The .Section 110 (f)
mechanism is the only manner in which the Clean Air
Act permits suspension of State Implementation Plan
requirements, with the attendant release from federal
liability for their violation, under energy emergency
circumstances. Some of our existing procedures for
handling Section 110(f) requests have occasionally
proved too cumbersome relative to the immediacy of
these short-term, localized energy problems.
Our staffs, in coordination with several
regional and State officials, have developed the
following procedures which we believe mitigate the
existing problems while complying with the intent of
Section 110(f) for these limited emergency situa-
tions. National or regional energy emergencies which
are ineligible for the expedited approach described
110
23A-1
-------
-2-
below, remain subject to earlier guidance of March 6,
and July 2, 1979. (Copies of these memoranda, as
well as a sample Presidential declaration for short
term emergencies falling within the scope of this
guidance, are attached for your convenience.)
Applicability of Expedited Procedures
Expedited procedures are available only where
relief necessary as a result of the emergency is
anticipated to last less than 30 days, and is limited
to a localized problem due to unavailability of con-
forming fuel. This expedited procedure may not be
used for 110(f) petitions based on unusually high
price differentials between conforming and noncon-
forming fuels; these petitions must conform to
earlier guidance. All other energy emergency
situations (e.g., a regional problem,anticipated to
last 2 or 3 months) require literal compliance with
the statutory procedures of Section 110(f).
EPA will recommend that any Presidential dec-
laration granted under these expedited procedures
expire, by its own terras, no later than 30 days from
issuance, and permit suspensions of SIP requirements
only for those sources (including distributors where
applicable) affected by the unavailability of
conforming fuel. These expedited procedures are
generally inappropriate where gubernatorial
suspensions across an entire state or industry
category are necessary.
I. Procedures for Expedited Relief
A. State Notice and Opportunity for Hearing Prior
to Petition
Due to the short reaction time and short
possible effective period of any suspension, public
notice and opportunity for a hearing prior to a
petition, while strongly encouraged, are not required
for EPA to recommend a Presidential declaration.
Such hearings are held to consider both the existence
and extent of the emergency and the impacts of any
suspensions which may be granted should an energy
1 10
23A-2
-------
-3-
emergency be declared. Where no opportunity for a
hearing was offered prior to the Governor's petition
to the President, EPA will recommend that any
declaration be conditioned on the requirement that
such hearings being held within 10 days after the
declaration, and that such a declaration expire by
its own terms if a hearing is not held within that
time.
Should the state later determine that the
emergency situation will or is likely to last longer
than the 30 days covered by the declaration, an
additional hearing, prior to the Governor's
request for an extension of the Presidential declara-
tion, is required.
B. The Governor's Petition to the President and
Supporting Documentation
Due to the short time period for 110(f) relief
effectiveness under these expedited procedures, an
extensive petition to the President from the -Governor
is not needed; however, a written or telegraphic
request from the Governor for the declaration, based
on consultation with both State energy and environ-
mental personnel, is required. A prior telephone
communication from State staff to the appropriate EPA
Regional Office, explaining the circumstances of the
emergency and the forthcoming request, will expedite
the procedure. A brief statement of the basis for
the request, including the approximate number and
types of sources affected, the apparent cause of the
emergency, efforts made to alleviate the situation
through other means and why those efforts are in-
sufficient, a summary of available information on
possible unemployment and/or loss of necessary
residential energy supplies, and (wherever possible)
a discussion of potential air quality impacts of
anticipated suspensions, should accompany the
Governor's request. A brief discussion of alternate
measures for alleviation of the difficulty without
emission increases (e.g., load shifting,
conversion) should be included. If the petition is
made without prior notice and opportunity for a
hearing, the request should indicate why such notice
and hearings could not be held prior to the request.
110
23A-3
-------
-4-
II. Subsequent Documentation and Air Quality
Considerations
Additional documentation, including that
collected through the public hearing, should be sub-
mitted to EPA as soon as possible after the hearing.
This documentation should include detailed infor-
mation on the topics addressed briefly in the
petition as well as any air quality information, such
as monitoring data and records of emissions from
facilities granted suspensions during the period of
the declaration. In addition, where unavailability
of conforming fuel is involved, written documentation
of source/distributor efforts to obtain conforming
fuel must be submitted.
Many states have the capability of producing
ambient air quality projections in a tight time
frame, or have modeled sources and know the maximum
allowable emissions which will protect air quality.
States should be urged to perform any necessary air
quality modeling and other environmental impact
analyses before an energy emergency arises, in order
to have this information quickly available.
III. EPA Involvement
EPA has two roles in the 110(f) process — the
statutory authority to disapprove gubernatorial
suspensions and the responsibility for recommending
action to the President on petitions for declarations
of energy emergencies. To adequately perform its
responsibilities, the Agency must maintain close
communication with the state involved. The following
communication patterns should be followed to assure
expeditious EPA action:
1. Earliest possible telephone notification of
the emergency should be made by the State
to the EPA Regional office. The energy
contact in the Regional office should
immediately inform Jean Vernet of DSSE (FTS
755-2553) of this communication from the
State, in order to expedite any response.
Providing headquarters with names and
telephone numbers of the involved State
personnel (e.g., energy, evironmental, and
public utility commission staff) has proven
to be extremely useful, especially where
the immediacy of the situation requires
speedy information gathering.
-4
-------
—• 5 —
2. A copy of the petition to the President
should be sent to the Administrator,
Attention: Edward Reich, Director,
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement,
at the same time as it is submitted to the
President. A copy of the petition and all
supporting data should be sent to the EPA
Regional Office. This will eliminate the
delay involved in transmittal from the
White House, and will permit EPA to quickly
prepare a recommendation and draft a
declaration for signature of the
President.
3. The EPA Regional office should be given
notice of any state hearing. EPA will
attend and participate to the extent a
state requests and the Agency is able.
Copies of transcripts of all hearings
should be sent to the EPA Regional office.
4. Copies of all gubernatorial suspensions of
SIP requirements, together with any sup-
porting materials, should be sent to the
EPA Regional office.
5. Copies of all source/distributor submittals
should be sent to the EPA Regional Office
directly by the source/distributor, if
possible or by the State.
6. The State environmental and energy offices
and the EPA Regional Office should maintain
close communication throughout the energy
emergency period, to monitor the existing
situation and hopefully to foresee any
additional, longer term or broader
problems.
7. The energy emergency contact in the
Regional Office should maintain close
communication with DSSE to facilitate any
necessary headquarters actions on the
emergency.
- David G. Hawkins
1 10
23A-5
-------
SAMPLE
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Based on a request submitted to me by the
Governor of _, I hereby declare that
a regional energy emergency exists in the State of
of such severity that temporary suspension of
certain air pollution control regulations which apply
to under
the Air Quality Implementation Plan may be
necessary, and that other means of responding to the
energy emergency may be inadequate. This deter-
mination shall expire (30 days from issuance), and is
made upon condition that the necessary hearings be
held with ten days. If hearings are not held, this
determination will expire (ten days from issuance).
If, during the emergency, I find that a regional
energy emergency no longer exists in ,_ I will
direct that this determination be rescinded, and that
all suspension orders issued by the Governor be
110
23A-6
-------
terminated on the day of that rescission. Please
continue to work with State officials to monitor
carefully the situation in and to inform me if
the emergency should cease to exist. You will
continue to retain full authority to disapprove
temporary suspension of regulations in and to
exercise your emergency powers authority under Section
303 of the Clean Air Act, when and if necessary.
While my determination permits the temporary
suspension of certain emission limiting requirements,
I urge Governor to exercise caution in
granting these suspensions, in order to protect, to
the fullest, extent possible, the public health and
welfare. (This determination shall be published in
the Federal Register.)
1 10
23A-7
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGETCT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PROM:
2 1 NOY 1979
PN-110-79-11-21-023
Minimum Number of Samples for Determining Quarterly Average Lead
Concentration
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division, OAQPS (MD 15)
TO: Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
In the preamble to the lead SIP regulations of October 5, 1978 (43
FR 46264), it was stated that EPA would provide guidance regarding the
minimum number of valid samples needed to determine quarterly average
lead concentrations. The preamble also cited the general practice that
at least 75 percent of the scheduled samples must be valid in order to
determine average concentrations. OAQPS has reviewed this issue and has
concluded that the "75 percent rule" is appropriate for determining
attainment with the NAAQS for lead. This means that, at the sampling
frequency of one 24-hour sample every six days (15 samples per quarter),
at least 12 valid lead samples must be available to determine whether a
State is attaining the national standard.
This criterium applies to the review of existing data submitted as
part of the original lead plan, as well as all future data collected
through the required NAMS stations. In the event that situations arise
where the minimum number of valid samples are not available, further
guidance may be sought by contacting Mr. William Cox, Chief, Monitoring
and Reports Branch at (FTS) 629-5312.
cc: Director, Surveillance & Analysis Division, Regions I-X
R.-Neligan
W. Cox
T. Helms
EPA Perm 1320-6 (R«v. 3-76)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL.PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
JUN 1 4 1979 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
IECT- , A em PN-110-79-06-14-016
1ECT Lead SIPs
TO:
G. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch, CPDD (MD-15)
Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
As you know, the SIP requirements for lead are set forth in
40 CFR Part 51, Subpart E, as promulgated on October 5, 1978. Questions
have arisen concerning the interpretation of these requirements in those
instances where no violations of the national ambient lead standard have
been recorded since January 1, 1974, no significant lead point sources
[as described in 40 CFR 51.80(a)] exist, and the State has no urbanized
area with a 1970 population greater than 500,000.
In cases where such conditions exist, a plan submission is still
required. This plan should minimally contain information pertaining
to lead emissions data (Section 51.81) and air quality data (Section
51.82). It must be submitted by the State and demonstrate continued
attainment (i.e., maintenance) of the standard for a minimum of three
years. The specific information that should be contained in this type
of plan is as follows:
1. A baseline emission inventory summarized in a form similar to
Appendix D of 40 CFR Part 51. Stationary sources emitting five or more
tons of lead per year must be included in such inventories. This inventory
must also contain area sources and mobile sources. [Section 51.81 (a)]
2. Projected lead emissions for at least three years from the date
by which EPA must approve or disapprove the plan. [Section 51.81(b)]
3. A summary of all lead air quality data measured since 1974 and
an evaluation of the data for reliability and representativeness.
[Section 51.82(a)]
4. A projection of maximum air quality concentrations based on
projected emissions. [Section 51.82(c)]
If you have any questions concerning minimum SIP requirements for
the above mentioned situations, please contact Susi Jackson at 629-5365.
cc: Jim Cahan, OGC
'RM I 320-6 IREV. 3-76)
-------
\
? UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT"™
f ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 43105 PN-110-78-07-17-007
Mil in-fn OFFICE CF
JUL 1 7 <973 AIR A,NO WATER "RQGRAMS
SUBJECT*. Inspection/Maintenance Policy
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Waste Management
MEMO TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I - X
As you know, the Claan Air Act Amendments of 1977 set forth
specific requirements for the implementation of motor vehicle
inspection/maintenance (I/M) programs. Attached is a policy paper
indicating what EPA will consider a minimally acceptable program
wherever I/M is required by the Act. It should aid your efforts to
provide for adequate I/M submissions for the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revisions of January 1, 1979. Please continue to contact
me if problems in I/M implementation develop.
cc: Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Directors, Regions I, III - X
Environmental Programs Division Director,
Region II
Air Programs Branch Chiefs, Regions I - X
-------
Policy for the Development and Implementation of
Inspection/Maintenance Programs
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 provide new direction for the
development and implementation of motor vehicle inspection/maintenance
(I/M) programs. If states are not able to demonstrate attainment of the
standards for oxidant (Ox) or carbon monoxide (CO) by December 31, 1982,
a specific schedule for the implementation of I/M must be included in
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions of January 1, 1979 for the
plan to meet the requirements, of Section 172. The general requirements
for the I/M programs are set out in a February 24, 1978 memorandum from
the EPA Administrator to the Regional Administrators (reprinted in the
Federal Register on May 19, 1973, 43 F.R. 21673). The requirements, for
these programs, are explained in more detail below.
A. I/M SIP Revision Development and the January 1, 1979, Submittal
In producing an I/M SI? revision, the statas should provide for:
1. an analysis of the benefits and costs of the program;
2. a public information effort;
3. a legislative proposal; and
4. a schedule for I/M implementation.
A copy of suggested steps for development of the SIP revision is attached
(Attachment 1). Before the January 1, 1979 submittal, the SI? revision
must be adopted by the state air pollution control board or agency head as
appropriate. As a. part of the SI? revision submittal itsali, there oust
be a commiment by the Governor to implement the I/M program according to
the schedule submitted.*
*Sections 172(b) (7) and (10) provide that the plan revisions required
for nonattainment areas shall — •
(7) identify and commit the financial and manpower resources
necessary to carry out the plan provisions required by this subsection;
[Emphasis added]
and shall —
(10) include written evidence that the state, the general purpose
local government or governments, or a regional agency designated by general
purpose local governments for such purpose, have adopted by statute, regu-
lation, ordinance, or other legally enforceable document, the necessary
requirements and schedule and timetables for compliance, and are cosmic:: el
to implement and enforce the appropriate elements of the plan; [Emphasis
added]
-------
plan elements should be prepared in accordance with the guidance
on pages 186-188 of the Compilation of Presentations, prepared by EPA's
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) for the "Workshops
on Requirements for Nonattainment Area Plans" February -March 1978
(pages 218-220 in the April 1978 edition).
B. The I/M Implementation Schedule
The specific items listed below must be included as a part of the
States' I/M implementation schedules with specified dates for implementation
of each item. The stringency planned for the program and other factors
affecting the potential for emission reductions should also be indicated.
Additional items if necessary because of local factors may be required by
USEPA Regional Offices.
1. Initiation (or continuation) of public information
program including publicizing the I/M program in the
media, meeting and speaking with affected interest
groups, etc.
2. Preparation of a. draft legislative package and
submittal of legislation package to legislature
if additional legislative authority is needed.
3. Certification of adequate legal authority by approp-
riate state official.
4. Initial notification of garages explaining program
and schedule of implementation.*
5. Development and issuance of RF?s,*
6. Award to contractor(s).*
7. Initiation of construction of facilities.*
3. Completion of construction of facilities.*
9. Adoption of procedures and guidelines for testing
and quality control including emission analyzer
requirements (and licensing requirements for private
garages, if applicable*).
10. Notification of and explanation to garages of actions
in step 9.*
-------
_*. Completion of equipment purchase and delivery of
equipment.
12. Development and adoption of cutpoints.
13. Initiation of hiring and training of inspectors o_r
licensing of garages.*
14. Initiation of introductory program (voluntary main-
tenance with either voluntary or mandatory inspection)
if not previously initiated.
15. Initiation of mechanics training and/or information
program.
16. Initiation of mandatory inspection.
17. Initiation of mandatory repair for failad vehicles.
If certification of adequate legal authority occurs after January 1979,
the States may modify previous commitments co implement and enforce the elements
of the schedule to conform to che legal authority.** These modifications will be
approved by the SPA Regional Offices and must be consistent vith the Administra-
tor's February 24, 1978, policy memorandum. The documents should be submitted
to the EPA Regional Offices for inclusion in the SIP revisions already submitted
by January 1, 1979. Any necessary adjustments to the schedule may be made at
this time but must be approved by the EPA Regional Offices.
C. Authority co Implement I/M
Normally, adequate legal authority to implement a 51? revision must exist
for a revision to be approved. Where a legislature has had adequate
opportunity to adopt enabling legislation before January 1, 1979, the
Regional Administrator should require certification that adequate legal
authority exists for I/M implementation by January 1, 1979. However,
for many states there will be insufficient opportunity to obtain adequate
legal authority before their legislatures meet in early 1979. Therefore,
a certification of legal authority far the implementation of I/M in
these states must be made no later than June 30, 1979. An extension to
July 1, 1980, is possible, but only when the state can demonstrate that
(a) there was insufficient opportunity to conduct necessary technical
analyses and/or (b) the legislature has had no opportunity to consider
any necessary enabling legislation for inspection/ maintenance between
enactment of the 1977 Amendments to the Act and June 30, 1979. Certifi-
cation of adequate legal authority, or other evidence that legal authority
has been adopted, must be submitted to the EPA Regional Offices to be
included in the 51? revision already submitted. Failure to submit evidence
of legal authority by the appropriate deadline will constitute a failure
to submit an essential element of the SIP, under Sections 110(a)(2)(I)
and 175(a) of the Act.
^Dependent on type of systam chosen (state-run centralized, contractor
centralized, or decentralized).
**See footnote on page 1.
-------
Prior to the. respective deadlines for initiating oandatory inspection
mandatory repair of failed vehicles, the state, local government, or
regional agency should adopt whatever legally enforceable requirements
are necessary to ensure that vehicles are not used unless they comply
with the inspection/maintenance requirements. Written evidence of
adoption of these requirements should be submitted to the EPA Regional
Offices, to be included in the SI? revision already submitted by January
1, 1979.*
D. I/M Implementation Deadlines
Implementation of I/M "as expeditiously as practicable" shall be
defined as imp lemeri ration of mandatory repair for failed vehicles no
later than two and a half years after passage of needed legislation or
certification of adequate legal authority for new centralized systems
and one and a half years after legislation or certification for decen-
tralized systems or for cantralized systems which are adding emission
inspections to safety inspections. For the normal legislation deadline
of June 30, 1979, new cantralized programs must start by December 31,
1981, and all others must start by December 31, 1980. For the case of
the latest possible legislation date, July 1, 1980, this means that a
new centralized program must start by December 31, 1982, while all other
programs must start by December 31, 1981. Where I/M can be implemented
more expeditiously, it must be. Each stata implementation schedule must
be looked at individually to determine if it is as expeditious as practi-
able. Implementation dates ordered by courts, if earlier than these
dates, take precedence.
£• Geographic Coverage^
I/M should focus on metropolitan araas and should include the entire
urbanized area and adjacent fringe araas of development. Boundaries of che
area affectad may be adjustad if an equivalent emission reduction is achieved.
For urbanized areas of 200,000 population or graatar which need I/M to obtain
an extension of the 1982 attainment data, full mandatory I/M must be implemented
by che deadlines indicated abova. Statewide programs ara encouraged, especially
for those states which are small and highly urbanized.
It should be emphasized that all nonattainaent araas must have SIPs
which ara adequate to attain and maintain che National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (HAAQS) by 1982 or by no later than 1987 should an
acceptable nonattainment demonstration be made. For areas under 200,000,
EPA will not at chis time automatically raquira I/M schedules in 1979 as a
condition for SI? approval or an extension. However, areas under 200,000
still have to attain and maintain NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable,
and I/M is encouraged as a means of helping to provide for an adequate
SIP. EPA will review che need for I/M in araas under 200,000 aftar che
1979 SI? revisions are submitted, and will consider additional require-
ments at that time.
*See footnote on page 1.
-------
• Emission Reductions Required for I/M
I/M programs must produce at least a 25 percent reduction in light
duty vehicle (L£V) exhaust emissions of hydrocarbons and a 25 percent
reduction in LDV emissions of carbon monoxide by December 31, 1987,
compared to what emissions would be without I/M on the basis of the most
recent motor vehicle emission factors. However, the choices of stringency
factor to be used and other actions affecting the potential for emission
reduction should be made by the states. States should of course be
encouraged to develop programs which produce more emission reduction
when possible. The final revision to Appendix N (40 C.F.R., Part 51)
when promulgated (along with its minimum program requirements) should be
used to determine if the program described in the implementation schedule
will meet the minimum 25 percent CO/25 percent EC criterion. Should a
program not need to be this stringent to attain and maintain the NAAOS
by 1982, the I/M program need be only as stringent as needed to assure
conformity with NAAQS. Should a state want to emphasize control of one
particular pollutant at the expense of the other, the plan for such an
I/M program must be submitted to the appropriate EPA Regional Office for
approval.
G. Minimum Program Requirements
In addition to the emission reduction requirement above, all I/M
programs must:
1. provide for regular periodic inspections of all vehicles
for which emission reductions are claimed;*
2. provide for maintenance and retasting of failed vehicles
to provide for compliance with applicable emission
standards;
3. prohibit registration or provide some equally affective
mechanism to prevent vehicles which do not comply with
the applicable exhaust emission requirements from operating
on public roads;
*
4. provide for quality control regulations and procedures
for the inspection system including:
*Randoia roadside checks, while a useful addition to an I/M program,
are not an acceptable substitute for regular periodic inspections.
-------
-6-
a. minimum specifications for emission analyzers
b. required calibrations of all types on analyzers and
c. minimum record keeping;
5. provide for either a mechanics training program or a program
to inform the public of service establishments with approved
emission analyzers; and
6. inform the public of the reason for the I/M program plus
the locations and hours of inspection stations.
Decentralized systems must also comply with the following require-
ments .
1. All official inspection facilities must be licensed.
Provisions for the licensing of inspection facilities
must insure that the facility has obtained, prior to
licensing, analytical instrumentation which has been
approved for use by the appropriate state, local, or
regional government agency. A representative of the
facility must have received instructions in the proper
use of the instruments and in vehicle tasting methods
and must have demonstrated proficiency in these methods.
The facility must agrae to maintain records and to submit
to inspection of the facility. The appropriate government
agency must have provisions for penalties for facilities
which fail to follow prescribed procedures and for mis-
conduct.
2. Records required to be maintained should include the
description (make, year, license number, ate.) of each
vehicle inspected, and its emissions test results.
Records must also be maintained on the calibration of
testing equipment.
*
3. Summaries of these inspection racords should be submitted
on a periodic basis to the governing agency for auditing.
4. The governing agency should inspect each facility
periodically to check the facilities' records, check
the calibration of the tasting equipment and observe
that proper tast procedures are followed.
5. The governing agency should have an effective -program
of unannounced/unscheduled inspections both as a routine
measure and as a complaint investigation measure. It is
also recommended chat such inspections be used co check
the correlation of instrument readings among inspection
facilities.
-------
-7-
The governing agency should operate a "referee" station
where vehicle owners may obtain a valid test to compare
to a test from a licensed station. At least one 'referee"
station must be present in each I/M metropolitan area.
-------
Attachment 1
Suggested I/M Milestones
1. Complete plan for preparing and implementing I/M SI? revision
including;
a. technical analysis
b. public information program
c. development of necessary legislation
d. development of I/M implementation schedule.
2. Complete technical analysis including:
a. emission reduction benefits
b. fuel economy benefits
c. costs.
3. Complete elements of a continuing public information program
including:
a. further publicity concerning oxidant (and/or carbon
monoxide) episodes
b. meeting with and speaking to affected interest groups
(including the public and public officials)
c. news releases.
4. Complete development of legislative proposals.
5, Complete development of I/M implementation schedule.
•
6. Receive approval of I/M, including implementation schedule, from
air pollution control board or agency head as applicable and
introduce into state legislature.
7. Submit SI? revision for I/M, including implementation schedule, to
E?A (due no later than January 1, 1979).
3. Obtain legal authority needed to implement I/M (required by July 1,
1979, with some exceptions allowed until July 1, 1980).
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
24 IS;B
<.uBj£CT: Plans under Section m(d) of the Clean Air Act
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director/
Control Programs Development Division
PN-110-78-03-24-003
TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, III-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II
A question has been raised concerning Section lll(d) plans and
their relationship to the State implementation plan (SIP). Specifi-
cally, it was asked whether a State is require- to develop and submit
a plan unc>:r Section lll(d) to control a facility if the facility is
currently controlled by the SIP to a degree equivalent to that of the
Section lll(d) requirements.
The State must submit under Section lll(d) a separate control
plan for designated facilities as outlined under 40 CFR 50, Subpart B -
Adoption & Submittal of State Plans for Designated Facilities.
However, certain plan requirements can be fulfilled by referencing the
appropriate provision found in the State's approved SIP. Section lll(d)
plan requirements which can be fulfilled in this manner are found in
40 CFR 60.25(d) and 40 CFR 60.26(b).
Section 60.
states that the
,25(d) of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
provisions for monitoring the status of compliance
with applicable emission standards; provisions for correlation of this
monitoring data with applicable emission standards; and provisions for
making the data available to the public may be included in the lll(d)
plan by referencing the appropriate provision in the SIP. In addi-
tion, when employing this approach, the State must make a demonstra-
tion that the SIP provision being referenced applies to the desig-
nated pollutant(s) for which the Section lll(d) plan is being submitted
and that the Section lll(d) plan requirements of Section 60.25 are, in
fact, met.
Section 60.26(b) of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
states that laws or regulations which provide authority to carry out
the Section lll(d) plan need not be directly submitted with the plan
if the legal authority to do so has been approved as part of the
existing SIP and the State demonstrates that the laws or regulations
are applicable to the designated pollutant(s) for which the lll(d) plan
is being submitted. The approved SIP provision must be specifically
identified in the Section lll(d) plan to satisfy this requirement.
H20 6 'F!Cv 3 76'
-------
I i
'he requirements listed under Section 60.25(b & c) and Section 60.26(a)
are the only Section lll(d) plan requirements which may be satisfied by
referencing the appropriate approved SIP provision. However, we believe
any emission standards which have been included in the officially approved
SIP can also be included in the Section Tll(d) plan by reference, pro-
vided that the State makes demonstrations similar to those identified in
Section 60.25 and Section 60.26. All other requirements must be specifi-
cally spelled out in the Section lll(d) plan.
Finally, it should be noted that hearing requirements can be waived,
pursuant to Section 60.23(c)(3), if certain criteria are met. All the
requirements for Section lll(d) plans, including those which can be
fulfilled by referencing the appropriate portion of the Section 110 SIP,
are summarized in a checklist found in No. 1.2-072 of the OAQPS Guideline
Series, Requirements and Procedures for Implementing Section lll(d). This
was sent to you in March, 1977, and should prove helpful to States when
they develop their lll(d) plans. I hope these comments adequately respond
to your needs; however, if I can be of any further assistance, please
feel free 1:0 call.
cc: 'd. Spratlin
D. Tyler
J. Sableski
J. Farmer
L. Wegman
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRC (MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D C 20460
PN-110-78-02-24-002
FEB 24 1978
OFFICE OP
AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMF!1-
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Criteria for Approval of l/[79 £IP Revisions
The Administrator (A-100)
Regional Administrators, I-X
The attachment to this memo summarizes the elements
which a 1979 State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
for a non-attainment area must contain in order to be
approved by EPA as meeting the requirements of Part D of
the Clean Air Act.
In summary, the Act requires the demonstration of
attainment of the air quality standards (primary and
secondary) as expeditiously as practicable, but in the
case of national primary standards not later than
December 31, 1932. However, for carbon monoxide (CO) and
oxidants (Ox), if the State can demonstrate attainment
is not possible by 1982 despite the implementation of ail
reasonable stationary source and transpc: ation control
measures, the Act provides for up to a five-year extension.
In those cases the plan revisions must demonstrate
attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later
than December 31, 1987. The extension is not automatic;
a demonstration of need must be made and :he Statu must
fulfill the other statutory requirements.
is the intent of the Agency to establish
goals for SIP submissions -,nd to •
oosture on the imposition of sanctions wh^re the
'iKe a rirm
reaso. ibis
goals are not
achieved.
Accordingly,
while the
requires a commitment to many specinc strategic
19"9 submissions (e.g., RACT on stationary sourc
rion/maintenance programs where attainment for c
in
in^pec-
monoxide or oxidants extends beyond 1932, otner
! 1 ,- .^1 " - T- r^ 1 -1 ,-3 ". C 1 • r- 0 C .I*"- "1
*~ a . s .3 ^ 3
requires ^ ^ c r c .1 r D o n
to a continuin roc
w i '- 1
easures,
m c n o x - 1 e
oxidants
process
1 i r~ 1C :., o 1
-* '
i v o1vc s the ; ;. o 1 i c as well
d officials and which ambitiously
of alte mat ives .
r e a s o n a D 1 e
m e rr. o ^ • s o
i c0;,,>.i t OK* ii t
. 3 e one vv h ± c h
State and local
•sues d wide
-------
Since reliance on stationary controls and Federal
new car standards alone will not enable most areas with
oxidant and carbon monoxide problems to attain these
standards by 1982, each Regional Office will need to put
particular emphasis on additional measures to reduce
transportation system emissions. The process committed
f1 in the 1979 plan submission must lead to the
expeditious selection and implementation of comprehensive
transportation control measures. In judging the adequacy
of the 1979 plan submission for the transportation
sector, each Regional Administrator should ensure that
ambitious alternatives (as described in the draft
"Transportation Planning Guidelines" which have been
circulated) will be analyzed.
The Department of Transportation (DOT), Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) and EPA are seeking to integrate
the transportation/air quality planning and implementation
required by the Clean Air Act into existing planning and
programming procedures. The air planning activities should
be included in the Unified Work Program required by DOT
and the adopted transportation measures should be included
in the Transportation Improvement Program required by DOT.
In complying with the Glean Air Act requirements, the Regions
should also keep in mind the requirements of the HUD-EPA
Agreement which provides for coordination of air quality
planning and planning assisted under the HUD Comprehensive
Planning Assistance (701) Program. Integration of air
and transportation planning with comprehensive planning
which incorporates growth management concerns should improve
the effectiveness of air quality planning and could reduce
the need for enforcement measures in the future.
States will be provided some discretion regarding
the amount of emissions growth to be accommodated within
the SIP. BPA generally will not question the growth rates
desired by the State so long as reasonable further progress
is demonstrated and there is a demonstration of attainment
by the statutory deadline (1982 or 1987). However, the
growth rate identified in the SIP must be consistent with
.growth rates used (or implied by) other planning programs
in the area (e.g., FWPCA §208, 201, HUD §701, FHWA
§134).
-------
You should note that there are other SIP revisions
which are not discussed in the attachment but which are
required by the 1977 Amendments. These include:
1. Section 128 (relating to State boards)
2. Section 126 (relating to interstate pollution)
5. Section 127 (relating to public notification)
4. Part C (relating to prevention of significant
deterioration)
5. Section 110(a)(2)(K) (relating to permit fees)
5. Section 123 (relating to stack heights for
existing source in other than non-attainment
areas)
7. Section 121 (relating to consultation)
Although incorporation of these provisions is required
by the law, failure to achieve final approval by
July 1, 1979 does not trigger the new source prohibition
of Section 110(a)(2)(I).
It is important to emphasize to the States that all
current SIP requirements remain in effect despite the
development of the 1979 revisions. Any suspension or
discontinuance of an existing SIP provision must be
submitted for EPA approval. This should be done as part
of the revision submitted in January 1979. Exceptions
to this procedure may be found in certain new provisions
of 5HO relating to reduction of on-street parking, bridge
tolls, and other measures.
The
minimum
1977 is
the comm
air prog
the 51 a t
approvab
the n e c e
assist v
difficul
development of the January 19^9 SIPs to meet the
requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
a complex and demanding program. It will require
itment of significant resources on the part of the
rams staff of the Regional Office to ensure that
es develoo and submit a comnrenensive and
1 e o i a n .
•king with
your staff
s s a
o u r
; u i d a n c e
.CO
c are wo
aid roiiow-up programs whic it
\Q .state to carrv out this
and
but important
•develop
will
ve rv
) a r t of the overa
air program
-------
Attachment
cc: Air P( Hazardous Division Diro^rors
Air Branch Chiefs
-------
Cri ten'a for Approval of J979 State Implementation Plan Revisions
for Non-At1TTnrngnt Areas
Purpose
The purpose of this document Is to define the criteria by which
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions for non-attainment areas
required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (the Act) will be
approved. These revisions are to be submitted to EPA by January 1, 1979.
Categories of SIP Revisions
SIP revisions submitted by January 1, 1979 can be divided into
two categories:
1. Those which provide for attainment of t!e Primary Ambient
Air Quality Standards (primary standards) for a 1 i_ criteria pollutants
on or before December 31, 1982.
2. Those which provide for attainment of the primary standards
for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter on or before
December 31, 1982 but show that despite the implementation of all
reasonable transportation and stationary source emission control measures
attainment of the primary standards for carbon monoxide and/or oxidants
cannot be achieved until after this date. In these cases, the revisions
i;ust demonstrate attainment as expedi tiously as practicable but no later
than December 31, 1987.
In order for an adequate SIP revision to fall into the second
category, the State has an affirmative responsibility to demonstrate
to the satisfaction of EPA that attainment of the primary carbon
monoxide and/or oxidants standards is not possible in an area prior
to December 31, 1982.
It snould be noted that SIP revisions of either category should
also provide for attainment of Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards
(secondary standards) as expeditiously as practicable although there is
no specific deadline contained in the Act.
General Requirements of All 1979 SIP Revisions
Each 1979 SI? revision must contain tne following:
1. A definition of the geographic araas ror wnich control
strategies have been or will be developed. Consideration should be
given to the practical benefits o* defining areas which correspond
whenever possible to those substate districts established pursuant
to Fart IV, Attachment A of OMB Circular No. 4-95.
-------
2. An accurate, comprehensive, and current (1977 calendar year)
inventory of existing emissions.
3. A determination of the level of control neevied to demonstrate
attainment oy 1982 (including growth). This demons era Lion should be
made by the application of modeling techniques as set iortn in EPA's
Guideline on Aiv Quality Models. For JxidanLo, any legitirn.-itG riicrieling
technique (e.g., chose referenced in "Use, Linn ration and Technical
Basis of Procedures for Quantifying Relationsh i os Between Photocncnical
Oxidants and Precursors." EPA 4::0/2-77-G21d. November 1977} can be
used. Consideration of background and transport for oxidants should
generally be in accordance with the procedures documented in "Procedures
for Quantifying Relationships Between Photochemical Oxidants and
Precursors." In developing photochemical oxidant control strategies
for a particular area, states may assume at a minimum (.hat the standard
"/ill be attained in adjacent staiei.
If a state can demonstrate that the level or conirol necessary for
attainment of tha primary standards for carbon monnxide and/or oxidant
is not possible by 1982 despite the application of all reasonable
measures, an extension past 1932 (but not beyond 15877 is authorized.
'\. Adoption in legally enforceable form1 of all measures necessary
to proviao for attainment by the prescribed uate or, where adoption of
all sjcn measures by 1979 is noc possible, (e.g.; certain transportation
control measures, and certain measures to control the oxides of .nitrogen
and total suspended participate) a schedule for expeditious development,
adoption, submittai, and implementation of theso measures. The
situations in v/hicn adoption of measures may be scheduled after 1979
are discussed in the pollutant specific sections of this document. Each
scnedule must provide for implementation of all reasonably available
control measures as expeditiously as practicable. During tne period
prior to attainment, tnese measures must be implemented rapidly enough
to provide at a minimum for reasonable further progress (see discussion
'Written evidence that the State, the general purpose local
government cr governments, or a regional agency designated by general
purpose local governments for such purpose, have adopted by statute,
regulation, ordinance or other legally enforceable document, the
necessary requirements and schedules and timecables for compliance,
and are committee! to imoleraent and enforce tne appropriate elements
of the plan. The relevant organizations shall provide evidence that
the legally enforceable attainment measures and the "criteria,
standards and implementing procedures necessary for effectively guiding
and controlling major decisions as to vvhere growth snail and shall not
take place," prepared by State and local governments in compliance with
Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended, are fully coordinated
in the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
-------
below). Each schedule will be considered part of the applicable
implementation plan and thus will represent a commitment on the part
of the State to meet the key milestones set forth in the submitted
schedule.
5. Emission reduction estimates for each adopted or scheduled
control measure or for related groups of control measures where
estimates for individual measures are impractical. It is recognized
that reduction estimates may change as measures are more fully
analyzed and implemented. As such estimates change, appropriate
responses will be required to insure that the plan remains adequate
to provide for attainment and for reasonable further progress.
6. Provision for reasonable further progress toward attainment
of the primary and secondary standards in the period prior to the
prescribed date for attainment. Reasonable further progress is defined
as annual incremental reductions in total emissions (emissions from
new as well as existing sources) to provide for attainment by the
prescribed date. The plan shall provide for substantial reductions in
the early years with regular reductions thereafter.
Reasonable further progress will be determined for each area
by dividing the total emission reductions required to attain the appli-
cable standard by the number of years between 1979 and the date pro-
jected for attainment (not later than 1987). This is represented
graphically by a straight line drawn from the emissions inventory sub-
mitted in 1979 to the allowable emissions on the attainment date.
However, £PA recognizes that some measures cannot result in immediate
emission reduction. Therefore, if a State can show that some lag in
emissions reduction is necessary, a SIP will be acceptable even though
reductions sufficient to produce decreases at the "straight-line --ate"
are nor achieved for a year or two after 1979. This lag in achieving
the "straight-line rate" for emissions reduction is to be accepted
only to accommodace the time required for compliance with the first set
of regulations adopted on or before January 1, 1979, if immediate
compliance is not possible. It does not authorize delays in adoption
of control requirements.
The requirement to demonstrate reasonable further progress will,
in most areas designated non-attainment for oxidant or carbon monoxide,
necessitate a continuous, phased implementation of transportation
control measures. In areas where attainment of all primary ambient
standards by 1982 is not possible EPA will not accept mere reliance on
the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program by itself as a demonstration
of reasonable further progress.
-------
In determining "reasonable further progress", those emission
reductions obtained from compliance between August 7, 1977, and
December 31, 1979, with (1) SIP revisions that have been submitted
after August 7, 1977, and (2) regulations which were approved by the
Agency prior to the enactment of the 1977 Clean Air Amendments, can
be treated as having been achieved during 1979. There should be an
assurance, however, that these are real emission reductions and hot
just "paper" ones.
7. An identification and quantification of an emissions growth
increment which will be allowed to result from the construction and
operation of major new or modified stationary sources within the area
for which the plan has been developed. Alternatively, an emissions
offset regulation can be adopted to provide for major new source growth.
The growth rates established by states for mobile sources and new
minor stationary sources should also be specified, and in combination
with the growth associated with major new or modified stationary sources
will be accepted so long as they do not jeopardize the reasonable further
progress test and attainment by the prescribed date. However, the growth
rate identified in, the SIP must be consistent with the growth rates used
(or implied by) the other planning programs in the area (e.g., FWPCA
Section 208 [201], HCO Section 701, FHViA Section 134). A system for
monitoring the emission growth rates from major and minor new stationary
sources and from transportation sources and assuring that they do not
exceed the specified amounts must also be provided for in the revision.
8. Provision for annual reporting on the progress toward meeting
the schedules summarized in (4) above as well as growth of mobile
sources, minor new stationary sources, major new or modified stationary
sources, and reduction in emissions from existing sources to provide for
reasonable further progress as in (6) above. This should include an
updated emission inventory.
9. A requirement that permits be issued for the construction and
operation of new or modified major sources in accordance with Section
173 and 110(a)(2)(u).
10. An identification of and commitment to the financial and
manpower resources necessary to carry out the plan. The commitment
should be made at "he highest executive level having responsiblity for
SIP or that portion of it and having authority to hire new employees.
This commitment should include written evidence that the State, the
general purpose local government or governments, and all state, local or
regional agencies have included appropriate provision in their respective
ts and intend to continue to do so in future years for which budgets
not yet been finalized, to the extent necessary.
-------
11. Evidence of public, local government, and state legislative
involvement and consultation. It shall also include an identification
and brief analysis of the air quality, health, welfare, economic,
energy, and social effects of the plan revisions and of the alternatives
considered by the State, and a summary of the public comment on such
analysis.
12. Evidence that the SIP was adopted by the state after reasonable
notice and public hearing.
Additional Requirements for Carbon Monoxide and Oxidant SIP Revisions
which Provide for Attainment of the Primary Standards Later than 1982
For those SIP revisions which demonstrate that attainment of the
primary standards for carbon monoxide and/or oxidants is not possible
in an area prior to December 31, 1982 despite the implementation of all
reasonable emission control measures the following items must be
included in the January 1, 1979 submission in addition to all the
general requirements listed above:
1. A program wnich requires prior to issuance of any permit for
construction or modification of a major emitting facility an analysis
of alternative sites, sizes, production processes, and environmental
control techniques for such proposed source which demonstrates that
benefits of the proposed source significantly outweigh the environmental
and social cost imposed as a result of its location, construction, or
modification.
2. An inspection/maintenance program or a schedule endorsed by
and committed to by the Governor for the development, adoption, and
implementation of such a program as expeditiously as practicable.
Where the necessary legal authority does not currently exist, it must
be obtained by June 30, 1979. Limited exceptions to the requirement
to obtain legal authority by June 30, 1979 may be possible if the state
can demonstrate that (a) there was insufficient opportunity to conduct
necessary technical analyses and/or (b) tne legislature has had no
opportunity to consider any necessary enabling legislation for inspection/
maintenance between enactment of the 1977 Amendements to the Act and
June 30, 1979. In addition, where a legislature has adequate opportunity
to^adopt enabling legislation before January 1, 1979, the Regional
Administrator should require submission of sucn legal authority by
January 1, 1979. In no case can the schedule submitted provide for
obtaining legal authority later than July 1, 1980.
-------
Actual implementation of the inspection/maintenance program must
proceed as expeditiously as practicable. EPA considers two and one half
years from the time of legislative adoption to be the maximum time
required to implement a centralized inspection/maintenance program and
one and one half years to implement a decentralized pronr?m. In no case
may implementation of the program, i.e., mandatory inspection and
mandatory repair of failed vehicles be delayed beyond 1982 in the case
of a centralized program (either state lanes or contractor lanes) or
beyond 1981 in the case of a decentralized (private garage) system.
3. A commitment by the responsible government official or
officials to establish, expand, or improve public transportation
measures to meet basic transportation needs as expeditiously as is
practicable.
4. A commitment to use insofar as is necessary Federal grants,
state or local funds, or any combination of such grants and funds as
may be consistent with the terms of the legislation providing such
grants and funds, for the purpose of establishing, expanding or
improving public transportation measures to meet basic transportation
needs.
Note that HUD has prepared guidelines for local development codes
and ordinances to provide special requirements for areas which for
significant periods of time may exceed the primary standards. These
guidelines specify criteria for new construction operation of buildings
which minimize pollutant concentrations to ensure a healthy indoor and
outdoor environment. States are encouraged to adopt such measures as
part of the SIP.
Pollutant Specific Requirements
Sulfur Dioxide
Specifically, with regard to item (4) of the General Requirements,
the January 1979 plan revisions dealing with sulfur dioxide must contain
all the necessary emission limitations and legally enforceable procedures
to provide for attainment by no "later than December 31, 1982 (i.e.,
schedules for the development, adoption, and submittal of regulations
will' not be acceptable).
-------
Nitrogen Oxides
For NOX, the January 1979 plan must contain all the necessary
emission limitations and the legally enforceable procedures, or as a
minimum, the appropriate schedules to adopt and submit the emission
limitations and legally enforceable procedures which provide for
implementation so that standards will be attained by no later than
December 31, 1982. EPA is currently evaluating the need for a short
term NO? standard and expects to promulgate such a standard during
1978. If such a standard for air quality is promulgated, a new and
separate SI? revision will be required for this pollutant.
Particulate Matter
The January 1979 plan revisions dealing with particulate matter
T.ust contain all the necessary emission limitations and legally enforce-
able procedures-for traditional sources. These emission limitations and
enforceable procedures must provide for the control of fugitive
emissions, where necessary, as well as stack emissions from these
stationary sources. Where control of non-traditional sources (e.g.,
urban fugitive dust, resuspension, construction, etc.) is necessary for
attainment, the plan shall contain an assessment of the impact of these
sources and a commitment on the part of the state to adopt appropriate
control measures. This commitment shall take the form of a schedule to
develop, submit, and implement the legally enforceable procedures, and
programs for controlling non-traditional particulate matter sources.
These schedules must include milestones for evaluating progress and
provide for attainment of the primary standards by no later than
December 31, 1982, and attainment of the secondary standards as expe-
diticusly as practicable. States should initiate the necessary studies
and demonstration projects for controlling the non-traditional sources
as soon as possible.
Carbon Monoxide and Oxidant
An adequate SIP for oxidant is one which provides for sjfficient
control of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from stationary and mobile
sources to provide for attainment of the oxidant standard. Accordingly,
the 1979 plan revision must set forth the necessary emission limitations
and schedules to obtain sufficient control of VOC emissions in all non-
attainment areas. They must oe directed toward reducing the peak
concentrations within the major urbanized areas to demonstrate attainment
as expeditious'ly as practicable but in no case later than December 31, 19
This should also solve the rural oxidant problem by minimizing VOC
emissions and more importantly oxidants that may oe transported from
urba^. to rural areas. The 1979 submission must represent a comprehensive
strategy or plan for each non-attainment: area; plan submissions that
address only selected portions of non-attainment are not adequate.
-------
8
For the purpose of oxidant plan development, major urban areas are
those with an urbanized population of 200,000 or greater (U.S. Bureau
of Census, 1970). A certain degree of flexibility will be allowed in
defining the specific boundaries of the urban area. However, the areas
must be large enough to cover the entire urbanized^ area and adjacent
fringe areas of development. For non-attainment urban areas, the highest
pollutant concentration for the entire area must be used in determining
the necessary level of control. Additionally, uniform modeling .tech-
niques must be used throughout the non-attainment urban area. These
requirements apply to interstate as well as intrastate areas.
Adequate plans must provide for the adoption of reasonably
available control measures for stationary and mobile sources.
For stationary sources, the 1979 oxidant plan submissions for
major urban areas must include, as a minimum, legally enforceable
regulations to reflect the application of reasonably available control
technology (RACT)3 to those stationary sources for which EPA has
published a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) by January 1978, and
provide for the adoption and submittal of additional legally enforce-
able RACT regulations on an annual basis beginning in January 1980, for
those CTGs that have been puolished by January of the preceeding year.
For rural non-attainment areas, the Ox plan must provide the
necessary legally enforceable procedures for the control of large HC
sources (more than 100 ton/year potential emissions) for which EPA
has issued a CTG by January 1978, and to adopt and submit additional
legally enforceable procedures on an annual basis beginning in
January 1980, after publication of subsequent CTGs as set forth above.
For mobile sources in urbanized area (population 200,000) SIPs
must provide for expeditious implementation of reasonably available
control measures. Eacn of the measures for which EPA will publish
information documents during 1973 is a reasonably available control
measure. These measures are listed on the following page:
defined by the U.S. Bureau of Census, urbanized area generally
include core cities plus any closely settled suburban areas.
3While it is recognized tnat RACT will be determined on a case-by-
-case basis, the criteria for SIP approval rely heavily upon the
information contained in the CTG. Deviations from the use of the CTG
must be adequately documented.
-------
1. To be published by February 1978
a. inspection/maintenance
b. vapor recovery
c. improved public transit
d. exclusive bus and carpool lanes
e. area wide carpool programs
2. To be published by August 1978
a. private car restrictions
b. long range transit improvements
c. on street parking controls
d. park and ride and fringe parking lots
e. pedestrian malIs
f. employer programs to encourage car and van pooling,
mass transit, bicycling and walking
g. bicycle lanes and storage facilities
h. staggered work hours
i. road pricing to discourage single occupancy auto trips
j. controls on extended vehicle idling
k. traffic flow improvements
1. alternative fuels or engines and other fleet
vehicle controls
m. other than light duty vehicle retrofit
n. extreme cold start emission reduction programs
The above measures (either individually or combined into packages
of measures) should be analyzed promptly and thoroughly and scheduled
for expeditious implementation. EPA recognizes that not all analyses
of every measure can be completed by January 1979 and, where necessary,
schedules may provide for the completion of analyses after January 1,
1979 as discussed below. (If analysis after January 1979 demonstrates
that certain measures would be unnecessary or ineffective, a decision
not to implement such measures may be justifiable. However, decisions
not to implement measures will have to be carefully reviewed to avoid
broad rejections of measures based on conclusbry assertions of
infeasibility.)
As described previously, annual incremental reductions in total
emissions must occur in order to achieve reasonable further progress
during the period prior to attainment of the standards. Therefore,
not all transportation measure implementation activities should wait
until the comprehensive analyses of control measures are completed.
Demonstration studies are important and should accompany or precede
-------
10
full scale implementation of the comprehensive strategy. It is EPA's
policy that'each area will be required to schedule a representative
selection of reasonable transportation measures (as listed above) for
implementation at least on a pilot or demonstration basis prior to the
end of 1980.
Every effort must be made to integrate the air quality related
transportation plan and implementation required by the Clean Air Act
into planning and programming procedures administered by DOT. EPA will
publish "Transportation Planning Guidelines" which will, if followed
carefully, insure that an adequate transportation planning process
exists.
EPA recognizes that the planning and implementation of very
extensive air quality related transportation measures can be a complicated
and lengthy process, and in areas with severe carbon monoxide or oxidant
problems, completion of some of the adopted measures may extend beyond
1982. Implementation of even these very extensive transportation
measures, however, must be initiated before December 31, 1982.
In the case of plan revisions that make the requisite showing to
justify an extension of the date for attainment, the portion of the 1979
plan submittal for transportation measures must:
1. Contain procedures and criteria adopted into the SIP by which
it can be determined whether the outputs of the DOT Transportation
planning process conform to the SIP.
2. Provide for the expeditious implementation of currently
olanned reasonable transportation control measures. This includes
reasonaDle but unimplemented transportation measures in existing SIPs
and transportation controls with demonstrable air quality benefits
developed as part of the transportation process funded by OCT.
3. Present a program for evaluating a range of alternative
packages of transportation options that includes, as a minimum, those
measures listed aoove for which EFA will develop information documents.
The analyses must identify a package of transportation control measures
to attain the emission reduction target ascribed to it in the SIP.
4. Provide for the evaluation of long range (post-1982) trans-
portation and growth policies. Alternative growtn policies and/or
development patterns must be examined to determine the potential for
modifying total travel demand. One of the growth alternatives evaluated
should be that prepared in response to Section 701 of the Housing Act of
1954, as amended.
-------
11
5. Include a schedule for analysis and adoption of transportation
control measures as expeditiously as practicable. The comprehensive
analysis of alternatives (item 2 above) must be completed by July 1980
unless the designated planning agency can demonstrate that analysis
of individual components (e.g., long range transit improvements) may
require additional time. Adopted measures must be implemented as
expeditiously as practicable and on a continuous schedule that demonst>- i
reasonable further progress from 1979 to the attainment date. Deter-
minations of the reasonableness of a schedule will be based en the
nature of the existing or planned transportation system and the com-
plexity of implementation of an individual measure.
Additional Carbon Monoxide and Qxidant Monitoring Requirements
It is EPA's policy to require that all SIPs which provide for
attainment of the oxicant standard after December 31, 1982, must con-
tain corrmitTients to implement a complete oxidant monitoring program in
major urbanized areas in order to adequately characterize the nature
and extent of the problem and to measure the effectiveness of the
control strategy for oxidants. The 1979 plan submittal must provide
for a schedule to conduct such CO monitoring as necessary to correct
any deficiencies as identified by the Regional Office.
SIPs for Unclassified Areas Redesignated Non-Attainment
With respect to unclassified areas which are later found to be
non-attainment areas the state will be required to submit a plan
within nine months of the non-attainment determination. During plan
development, the state will be required to implement the offset policy
for that area. However, it should be noted that in many cases, because
of previous plan revisions or adoption of previous control regulations,
the baseline ^or offsets will be more restrictive and thus offsets may
be more difficult to obtain. For oxidants, state-wide regulatory
development (for at least all sources greater than 100 tons/year),
however, would permit the state to utilize the regulations developed
for the entire state as the aoplicable plan for tne newly designated
non-attainment area. This wo\nd normally constitute an approvable SI?
per the above criteria and could essentially accommodate the proposed
growth within the previously submitted state plan and not require
offsets once the araa is designated as non-attainment.
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION HID
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION HID
* PN111D-81-09-14-001
EPA POLICY ON WELFARE-RELATED POLLUTANTS UNDER SECTION HID
-------
PN-lll(d)-81-9-14-001
fj
i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMT NTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
i
' WASHINGTON. D C 20460
VPBO"~ Sept. 14, 1981
OFFICE OF
AIR, NOISE, AND RADIATION
SUBJECT: EPA Policy on Welfare-Related Pollutants Under §111(d)
FROM: Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation (ANR-443)
MEMO TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
Questions have arisen with regard to our policy in carrying out the
requirements of Slll(d) of the Clean Air Act with regard to welfare-
related pollutants. Specifically, a State has requested clarification
of our policy for requiring Slll(d) plans establishing standards of
performance for existing kraft pulp mills emitting total reduced sulfur
compounds (TRS).
The principal purpose of listing welfare pollutants under Slll(d)
is to insure that new sources are well controlled and that the equity
objectives of Sill are achieved. With regard to existing sources, the
responsibility for determining the degree and timing of any control for
such pollutants is a State responsibility. This policy is stated in 40
CFR 60.24(d) as follows:
Uhere the Administrator has determined that a designated
pollutant may cause or contribute to endangerment of public welfare
but that adverse effects on public health have not been demonstrated,
States may balance the emission guidelines, compliance times, and
other information provided in the applicable guideline document
against other factors of public concern in establishing emission
standards, compliance schedules, and variances.
Section 40 CFR 60.24(d) then goes on to spell out the factors of concern
as relating to available control technology, welfare impacts, costs,
timing, environmental effects, information submitted at public hearings,
etc.
Although EPA does have the authority to require States to submit
plans, or in the absence of a submittal, to prescribe a plan, it is our
general policy to rely on the judgment of the individual States to
develop and implement such plans. This is particularly true for the
welfare-related pollutants, such as TRS, controlled under lll(d). I
believe this position is generally in keeping with the priority we have
assigned to Slll(d) actions and also with the regulatory philosophy of
the Administration.
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 11IE
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 11IE
* PN111E-76-05-03-001
ENFORCEMENT OF NSPS REQUIREMENTS
* PN111E-82-05-07-002
RESTATEMENT OF GUIDANCE ON EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SOOT BLOWING
-------
PN 111(e)-82-05-07-002
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
'V
1
OFFICE OF
7 lOQ-J UFMCEOF
~ I I3OC AIR, NOISE AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Restatement of Guidance on Emissions Associated with
FROM: Kathleen M. Bennett
Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and Radiation
TO: Directors, Air & Waste Management Divisions
Regions I-IV, VI- VIII, X
Directors, Air Management Divisions
Regions V and IX
This memorandum restates EPA's guidance on emissions
associated with soot-blowing as it relates to sources under New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Subparts D and Da and State
Implementation Plans (SIPs). Soot-blowers remove ash adhering to
heat transfer surfaces in boilers. In new and larger boilers
subject to Subparts D and Da, automatic, semicontinuous soot-
blowers are used; while in smaller and older boilers subject to
the SIP's, periodic soot-blowing is the dominant practice.
As required in 40 CFR 60.8(c), "performance tests shall be
conducted under such conditions as the Administrator shall specify
to the plant operator based on representative performance of the
affected facility." Since soot-blowing occurs at regular
intervals for each generator, these emissions cannot be discarded
as being a result of an upset condition.
Recent data obtained for periodic soot-blowing for smaller
pulverized and spreader stoker boilers show that uncontrolled
emissions increase significantly during soot-blowing, while
emissions controlled to levels of 0.1 lb/10^ Btu or less by
fabric filters and scrubbers are unaffected by soot-blowing. This
would indicate that the fraction of very fine particles is
relatively unaffected by soot-blowing and that other control
devices such as "cold side" electrostatic precipitators should be
unaffected, while less efficient systems such as mechanical
collectors may be affected.
For a source which blows soot on a semi-continuous basis,
emissions can be adequately represented by three sampling runs.
lll(e)
2-1
-------
For units which do not blow soot semi-continuously, data suggest
that the source's ability to comply using fabric filters,
high-energy scrubbers, and medium to high efficiency "cold side"
ESP's commonly used to meet design emission levels comparable to
Subparts D or Da should not be adversely affected by the inclusion
of soot-blowing. Testing should thus be done in accordance with
previous guidance issued by DSSE. A copy of this guidance, dated
March 6, 1979 and sent to all Regions, is attached for your
information.
Relative to SIP limits, demonstrations of attainment and
maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are
normally based upon continuously achieving the emission levels
prescribed in State Implementation Plans, and the compliance
determinations should be based upon the performance of control
devices over the normal range of boiler operation. For fabric
filters, electrostatic precipitators, and wet scrubbers, the most
stringent test of their performance occurs at maximum boiler load.
For mechanical collectors, the most stringent test occurs at low
boiler loads. Therefore, it is recommended that SIP compliance
tests be made at both high and low loads, and include
soot-blowing per the March 6, 1979 guidance.
The attached March 12, 1979 guidance noted that it is
appropriate to interpret a never-to-exceed emission limit as
requiring control of soot-blowing emissions. This assumes that
the individual SIP does not specifically address the issue of
soot-blowing. If soot-blowing provisions are included in the SIP,
these SIP provisions will, of course, take precedence; if
provisions are not included, existing sources should be handled
using the same approach as the attached March 6, 1979
determination provides for handling new sources. (Of course,
inclusion of provisions in SIPs which provide exemptions in the
mass standard for soot-blowing presupposes a demonstration that
such exceptions will not interfere with the attainment and
maintenance of NAAQS.)
Sources which are in violation of emission limits during
soot-blowing operations and have not been exempted by the
applicable SIP provisions should be treated as violating sources
in accordance with other guidance. (See, for example, the
definition of a "significant violator" in my memorandum of
December 29, 1981 entitled "EPA Accountability System—OANR Policy
Guidance.")
Should you have any questions, please contact this office.
Attachments .,,,, .
llHe)
2-2
-------
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: KSPS Determination - Subpart D
FROM: Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Enforcement Division Directors, Regions I-X
Air and Hazardous Materials Division Directors
Regions I-X
Surveillance and Analysis Division Directors
Regions I-X
This is a clarification of DSSE's June 29, 1977, memo
on including the effect of non-continuous, non-autotnatic
soot blowing when performance testing steam generators that
are subject to NSPS.
Units which do not blow soot continuously may have the
effect of soot blowing included by performance testing in
the normal manner, provided that the following precautions
are taken: 1) soot blowing is permitted only during one of
the test runs,* and 2) the soot blowing performance test
run should include as much of the soot blowing cycle as
possible.
When a short duration soot blowing period limits the
number of points which will be sampled during the portion
of the test run that the soot blowers are on, then all of the
sampling points lying on at least one stack or duct diameter
should be sampled while the soot blowers are on, if possible.
Single point sampling should always be avoided but may be
necessitated at sources with very short duration soot
blowing periods. Ideally, a point of representative velocity
should be selected when single point sampling is required,
if possible.
The representative average pounds of particulate emissions
per million BTU (E) must be calculated by the following
*If it is expected that >50% of particulate emissions
occur during soot blowing periods, then soot blowing should
be required during 2 test runs.
niCe)
2-3
-------
generalized equation rather than by simple averaging as
outlined in 40 CFR 60.8(f). This equation insures proper
weighting of a soot blowing performance test run regardless
of whether the soot blowing lasts the entire time of the
test run, and also regardless of the number and duration of
the non-soot blowing test runs made while performance
testing a steam generator.
AR
where:
E « pounds of particulate emissions per million BTU heat
input (Ib/MM BTU or ng/J)
E - average E for daily operating time
E « average E of sarcple(s) containing soot blowing
SBR
E « average E of sample(s) with no soot blowing
NOSB
A * hours soot blowing during sample(s)
B « hours not soot blowing during sample(s) containing
soot blowing
R » average hours of operation per 24 hours
S * average hours of soot blowing per 24 hours
For almost all steam generators with intermittent soot
blowing practices, the quantity of excess air is not expected
to vary significantly between periods of normal operation
and periods of soot blowing. However, if a significant
variation in the quantity of excess air is expected, then an
additional method 3 analysis should be conducted, as out-
lined in 40 CFR 60. 46(f)(ii) with soot blowers on in order
to determine the %0- while soot blowing. The %0- of the
soot blowing run can be determined from the following equa-
tion x
%0, - (%0, )B + (%0- )A
*SBR NOSB SB
B+A
wheres
%0~ <* the %0, of the sample (s) containing soot blowing
11 He)
2-4
-------
%0> » the %0~ while not blowing soot
^
W W M
SB « the % 0- while blowing soot
A - hours soot blowing during sample(s)
B « hours not soot blowing during sample(s) containing soot
blowing
Then the %0- should be used to calculate E as outlined
SBR SBR
in 40 CFR 60.46(f)
If you should have any further questions on this
determination, please contact craig Cobert (FTS 755-0103)
of my staff.
Ill
Edward E. Reich
2-5
-------
MAR I 2 !979
SUBJECT: Integration of Soot-Blowing Emissions with Routine
Operating Data for Existing Facilities
FROMi Director, Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Leslie Carothers, Director
Enforcement Division, Region I
This is in response to your memo of January 25, 1979,
concerning the effect of soot-blowing emissions on determining
compliance with particulate emission limitations. We have
extensively examined the soot-blowing issue and its impli-
cations when determining compliance with the new source
performance standard (NSPS) for fossil fuel-fired steam
generators. We have determined that soot-blowing emissions
must be included when performance tests are conducted to
satisfy the requirements of the NSPS Subpart D. See attached
memo for details on treatment of soot-blowing emissions.
The determination to include soot-blowing emissions under
NSPS were significantly affected by the language in Part 60
which requires "...no owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into
the atmosphere from any affected facility any gas which..•*
This language provides us with the justification to include
all emissions which are considered representative of the
operation of the affected facility. Since soot-blowing
occurs at regular intervals, these emissions cannot be
discarded as being a result of an upset condition.
We do not know whether the language contained in the
Maine state implementation plan (SIP) is consistent with
the NSPS language in that it provides for a never to exceed
emission limit. Any decision to include or exclude soot-
blowing emissions must be judged by the language in a
state's SIP. However, we believe that if the state SIP is
silent on the issue of soot-blowing emissions in determining
compliance of a source it would appropriate to interpret
the never to exceed emission limit as requiring control of
soot-blowing emissions.
m(e)
2-6
-------
This approach in dealing with existing sources may
be irore stringent than the averaging approach (see attached)
we have elected to use in addressing new sources. There-
fore, unless the SIP in a state specifically requires
controlling soot-blowing emissions at all tiir.es, then we are
recommending that the same method for determining compliance
with new sources be used for existing sources.
The approach for including soot-blowing emissions as
described in the attached determination is to be used for
compliance determinations for all new sources and all
existing sources unless otherwise provided in the state SIP
for existing sources.
If you have any additional questions or comments, please
give me a call.
Edward E. Reich
cct Don Goodwin
Enforcement Division
Directors II-X
lll(e)
2-7
-------
"-0\ PN 111 (e)-76-05-03-001
' UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
May 3, 1976
SUoJSCT: Enforcement of NSPS Requirements
TO: Enforcement Division Directors
Regions I-X
FrQM: Director, Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
The attached memorandum concerns an NSPS enforcement problem which
occurred recently in Region IV.
Monsanto Chemical had planned to use low sulfur coal in a steam
generator subject to NSPS to achieve compliance, with the emission
limitation provision of 40 CFR §60.43. Monsanto had asked to bum high
Siili-ur fuel for 180 days after start-up, before the performance test
requiird by §60.8. The issue was what enforcement options were
avaLj.-l-:.e to the regional office to prevent Monsanto from burning a
high sjlfur coal upon start-up.
T.'v- conclusion reached in the memorandum was that the 180-day period
provj.i./: for in 40 CFR §60.8 is not a grace period during which a source
'r' id. u-ctke no attempt to achieve compliance with NSPS. Rather, it is a
si-.oke-down period, which may be unnecessary, to allow for fine tuning of
co.rtrol equipment. When a situation like the one in Region IV arises,
the regional office should pursue whatever enforcement mechanism it feels
will insure expeditious compliance with NSPS requirements. Enforcement
options include an administrative order to burn complying low sulfur
coal or, if appropriate, a civil or criminal action.
We have reviewed these issues with the Office of General Counsel
•which concurs in the approach endorsed in the memorandum. Should you
have any questions, please contact Barry Russell (202-755-2542) of my staff.
in
1-1
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
SUBJECT: Enforcement of NSPS Requirements
TO: Jay Sargent, Chief
Legal Branch/ Enforcement Division
Region IV
FROM: Edward Reich, Chief, Enforcement Proceedings Branch £" C .£? -
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement ^
This is in response to your inquiry concerning the steam generator
subject to NSPS at the JSJonsanto Chemical Cotrpany in Decatur, Alabama.
As we understand the facts, Monsanto plans to use low sulfur coal
to achieve conpliance with the emission limitation prevision of 40 CTR
S50.43. HcwevsrA I-ionsanto has asked to burn a high sulfur fuel for ISO
days after start-up, but before the performance test required by 40 CFR
S50.S. During this period, the company vail be operating at less than
the rajdiasi production rate. Your inquiry concerns what enforcement
options, if any, the region can pursue to prevent Monsanto from buniing
a higher sulfur coal after start-up but before the performance test
required by 40 CFR S60.8.
The above circumstances should not preclude the regional office
from using vjhatever enforceicent isechanisni it feels will insure
compliance with NSPS requirements from the cantencement of operation.
Enforcement options include an administrative order to bum complying
low sulfur coal or, if appropriate, a civil or criminal action.
The rationale for this approach is as follows. Section lll(e) of the
Clean Air Act provides that it shall be unlawful to operate a new source
in violation of standards of performance applicable to such source. Also,
40 CFR 360.8(a) provides:
350.8 Perfonranca tests.
(a) Within 60 days after achieving the maximum
production rate at vMch the affected facility will be
111
1-2
-------
operated, but not later than 130 days after initial
start-up of such facility and at such other ticres as
may be required by the Administrator under section 114
of the Act,* tne owner or operator of such facility shall
conduct performance test(s) and furnish the Administrator
a written report of the results of such performance
test(s). (Emphasis added.)
The intent of 40 CFR §60.8 was to provide a short period of tire
after start-up during which an affected facility could adjust and
fine tune control equipment before the performance test. This
provision merely sets forth in regulatory form, those circumstances
where EPA will exercise its enforcement discretion to allow for
reasonable shake-down tire. This forbearance on EPA's part is
consistent with the statutory mandate of requiring use of best
adequately deronstrated control technology (considering costs)
on new sources upon start-up and at the same time provides a reasonable.
period for affected facilities to fine tune control equipment.
However, §60.8 was never meant to imply that, prior to the performance
tests, a grace period exists during which a source need make no attenpt
to achieve compliance with KSPS requirements. In fact, 40 CFR §60.11(d)
clearly outlines an affected facility's obligation to minimize emissions
at all times: ^
§60.11 Compliance with standards and maintenance'requirements.
* * *
(d) At all times, including periods of start-up, shut-down,
and malfunction, owners and operators shall, to the extent
practicable, maintain and operate any affected facility in-
cluding associated air pollution control equipment in a manner
consistent with good air pollution control practice for
minimizing emissions. Determination of whether acceptable
operating and maintenance procedures are being used will be
based on information available to the Administrator which
may include, but is not limited to, "monitoring results,
opacity observations, review of operating and maintenance
"procedures, and inspection of the source.
In sum, the 180-day period in 40 CFR §60.8 is not a grace period
during which a source need make no attempt to achieve compliance
with NSPS. Rather, it is a shake-down period for control equipment
which may (as in the present case) be unnecessary. When such a
situation arises, the regional office should pursue whatever enforcement
mechanism it feels will insure expeditious compliance with. NSPS
requirements.
Since litigation is certainly a possibility in this case, we
would suggest that you cornnunicate to Monsanto EPA's interpretation
of its regulations as soon as possible to lay a firm basis for
whatever follow-up litigation may be necessary.
* Under this provision the Administrator could, presumably, require a
performance test even earlier than would otherwise be required under
the regulations.
Ill
1-3
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 112
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 112
* PN112-78-03-30-001
STATE ENFORCEMENT OF ASBESTOS DEMOLITION REGULATIONS IN LIGHT OF ADAMO
WRECKING COMPANY V. UNITED STATES
* PN112-82-03-24-002
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO STATES: NESHAPS
* PN112-84-06-01-004
BENZENE NESHAP GUIDANCE
* PN112-84-07-11-005
VINYL CHLORIDE NESHAP ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
* PN112-85-02-08-006
REVISIONS TO ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
* PN112-85-06-XX-007
REPRINT OF THE EPA AIR TOXICS STRATEGY (REFERENCE ONLY)
* PN112-85-09-17-008
PREPARATION OF QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS IN AGENCY DECISION-MAKING
-------
PN H2-85-09-17-008
STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
SEP IT 1985
t
THE ADMINISTRATOR
MEMO RAND'J ^
SUBJECT: Preparation of Quantitative Analysis in Agency
Decision-making
TO: Assistant Administrators
General Counsel _
Inspector General
Associate Administrators
Regional Administrators
At our July Senior Management Meeting we had a thorough
and enlightening discussion of the advantages and limitations
of quantitative health risk information as a decision-making
tool. Much of our time was spent on cost per-life-saved
estimates and how these have been developed and used. As we
agreed, I am writing my thoughts on the topic so that you can
share and discuss them with your staffs.
First, quantitative risk analysis is a valuable analytic
tool but we must be mindful of its limitations. The results
of uniformly conducted risk assessments can help us compare
control strategies within a particular rulemaking or to look
across programs at the potential risk reduction from actions
that could be taken under different legal authorities or to
affect different exposure pathways. At the same time, we
must recognize that the very fact that these estimates can be
numerically expressed may imply a false precision both to the
affected public and to decision-makers. There are typically
large xincertainties associated with evaluating the toxicity
of and exposure to pollutants and contaminants. Uncertainties
and simplifying assumptions used in predicting human exposure
greatly compound the potential for differences between
predicted and actual risk.
Therefore, it is important to me that we continue to
clearly identify assumptions and uncertainties in risk assess-
ments ahat accompany regulatory and policy decision documents.
To the extent possible, explicit measures of uncertainty (such
-------
as numerical ranges and toxicological "strength of evidence"
indices for carcinogens) should be consistently and prominently
presented. Qualitative descriptions of toxicity or exposure
information that cannot be quantified should be provided.
Qualitative assessments of environmental or fish and*wildlife
impacts r.^-_ also be very important to certain risk-management
actions. "n the overall context of uncertainties surrounding
human heal-.h risk estimates, these additional considerations
may tip tr.^ balance in favor of one control approach over
another.
Second, decision-makers generally ought to evaluate both
the population risks and distribution of risks associated with
various risk management options. As a practical matter, this
should include identification of segments of the population
at relatively high risk, the size of those groups, the magnitude
of those risks, and estimates of overall population incidence.
When considering costs of reducing risks, it sometimes may be
pertinent to consider whether the costs will be borne by the
at-risk population or distributed in some other way.
Additiona-lly, risk estimates and cost estimates are
frequently used to calculate cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit
values and ratios. This kind of .analysis of health benefits
against cost does illuminate some aspects of risk management
decisions, but it is not a rigid formula for making those
decisions. These comparisons may not adequately accommodate
a range of scientific uncertainties, including "weight of evidence1
considerations, and sometimes they may not express the non-health
aspects (or even the non-cancer aspects) of decisions. These
additional factors are often important considerations in
fulfilling our statutory mandates.
For these reasons, I want to emphasize to the Agency
staff that they should not eliminate otherwise feasible and
sensible options from development and presentation to decision-
makers on the basis of any specific "rules of thumb" that,
in turn, are based on estimated risk ranges, population incidence
or cost-per-incidence avoided. Accordingly, staff should not
feel compelled to eliminate options solely because the estimated
cost-per-cancer case avoided exceeds the $7.5 million referred
to in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Guidelines. Options with
associated costs above that level can clearly be considered,
particularly where warranted by large uncertainties, or other
benefits which would not be realized from alternatives.
-------
-3-
niques and ^^^ons on the use of these techniques
, of the renainirrg-limitations^^ ^ employing increasingly
t •••
fslife^^cftrse^pc r, n P , s «hi=h ifrnt,an o nquanti.
^•.•^ie^'.nS'Sllirh^I.ri^ro^ range of r..l..t,c
options,
^u
Lee M. Thomas
-------
PN 112-85-06-XX-007
In order to conserve space, the EPA Air Toxics Strategy, published in
June 1985, is not included in the Air Programs Policy and Guidance
Notebook.
This document may be obtained through the National Air Toxics Information
Clearinghouse. For more information, contact Nancy Riley, U.S. EPA,
Emission Standards Division, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
Telephone 919-541-5353.
-------
-------
PN 112-85-02-08-006
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FEB 8 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Revisions to Asbestos Demolition and Renovation
il Penalty Pol^tcy
FROM: j-^Jsepn A. Cannon f Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation
Courtney M. Price --^ jL**
Assistant Administrator for Enforc~ewent
and Compliance Monitoring
TO: Addressees
Attached is the revised Asbestos Demolition and Renovation
Civil Penalty Policy. This replaces Appendix III to the
Clean Air Act Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy, which
we issued on September 12, 1984.
The policy was revised to address concerns raised by the
Regions in referring cases to Headquarters in the last few
months. A draft revision to the policy was distributed to
the Regions and the Department of Justice for comment on
December 5, 1984. Most of the suggestions have been incor-
porated into the final policy.
Major changes in the policy include:
1) Distinguishing among notification violations based on
whether or not they are accompanied by substantive
violations;
2) distinguishing between first offenses and subsequent
offenses; and
3) Developing a matrix for assessing the gravity component
for substantive violations, based in part on the
amount of asbestos involved.
-------
-2-
We are also providing additional guidance on calculating
economic benefit a«d on apportionment of the penalty among
multiple defendants.
This policy applies to determining the gravity and
benefit components of the civil penalty settlement amount for
asbestos demolition and renovation cases. The general
Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy should be used to make
adjustments, if appropriate, to arrive at a penalty settlement
amount.
We appreciate the considerable efforts which you and
your states have made to enforce the asbestos regulations.
We hope that you continue to emphasize enforcement of these
important public health standards.
Questions regarding this policy should be addressed to
Elliott Gilberg of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring at FTS 382-2864, or Robert Myers of the Stationary
Source Compliance Division at FTS 382-2875.
Attachment
Addressees:
Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
fi\r and Waste Management Division Directors
Regions II, VI, VII, and VIII
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, V, and IX
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division Director, Region IV
Air and Toxics Management Division Director
Region X
Regional Counsels, Regions I-X
Regional Counsel Air Enforcement Contacts
Asbestos NESHAP Contacts
Richard Mays, OECM
Rich Robinson, OLEP
Thomas Gallagher, NEIC
Gerald Emison, OAQPS
David Buente, DOJ
Bill Becker, STAPPA-ALAPCO
-------
APPENDIX III
Asbestos Demolition and Renovation Civil Penalty Policy
*
The Clean Air Act Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy
provides guidance for determining the amount of civil penalties
EPA will seek in pre-trial settlement of enforcement actions
under Title I of the Act. Due to certain unique aspects of
asbestos demolition and renovation cases, separate guidance
is provided here for determining the gravity and economic
benefit components of the penalty. Adjustment factors should
be treated in accordance with the general stationary source
penalty policy.
If the Region is referring a civil action under Section
113(b) against a demolition or renovation source, it should
recommend a civil penalty settlement amount. Consistent with
the general penalty policy, the Region should determine a
"preliminary deterrence amount" by assessing an economic
benefit component and a gravity component. This amount may
then be adjusted upward or downward by consideration of other
factors, such as degree of willfulness and/or negligence,
history of noncompliance, ability to pay, and litigation
practicalities. Since there is a wide variation in the size
of demolition contractors, ability to pay may be an important
adjustment factor in some instances.
The "gravity" component should account for factors such
as the .environmental harm resulting from the violation, the
importance of the requirement to the regulatory scheme, and
the size of the violator. Since asbestos is a hazardous air
pollutant, the gravity factor associated with substantive
violations (i.e., failure to adhere to work practices or to
prevent visible emissions from waste disposal) should be
high. Also, since notification is essential to Agency
enforcement, a notification violation should also warrant a
high gravity component.
Gravity Component
The attached chart sets forth the gravity component of
the penalty settlement figure for notification violations and
for violations of substantive requirements f*r control of
asbestos emissions. The figures in the first line of the
chart apply as a general rule to failure to notify, including
those situations in which substantive violations occurred and
those instances in which EPA has been unable to determine if
substantive violations occurred. The reduced amounts in the
second line of the chart apply only if the Agency can conclude,
from its own inspection, a State inspection, or other reliable
information, that the source complied with substantive
requirements.
-------
-2-
Where notification is made late, the Region has discretion
to seek a lesser penalty. The penalty should reflect the
degree to which the Region's ability to evaluate substantive
compliance has been hampered. If notification is late but
still allows sufficient opportunity to monitor the entire
project, little or no penalty is warranted. If notification
is given so late as to preclude any evaluation of substantive
compliance, the Region should determine a penalty as if no
notice were given.
Regions should exercise discretion in penalizing a timely
notification which is incomplete. A notification can be so
insufficient as to be tantamount to no notice, in which case
the Region should determine the penalty as if there were no
notice. Again, the important factor is the impact the company's
action has on our ability to monitor substantive compliance.
Penalties for substantive violations are based on the
particular regulatory requirements violated. The figure is
the sum of the penalty assigned to a violation of each set of
requirements: removal, wetting, and stripping, 40 C.F.R.
§61.147; collection, packaging, and transporting of asbestos-
containing waste material, §61.152(b); and disposal of wastes
at an acceptable site, §61.152(a). The figure also depends
on the.amount of asbestos involved in the operation, which
relates to the potential for environmental harm associated
with improper removal and disposal. There are three categories
based on the amount of asbestos, expressed in "units," a unit
being the threshold for applicability of the substantive
requirements. If a job involves friable asbestos on pipes
and other facility components, the amounts of linear feet and
square feet should each be separately converted to units, and
the numbers of units should be added together to arrive at a
total. Where the only information on the amount of asbestos
involved in a particular demolition or renovation is in cubic
dimensions (volume), the amount can be converted to square
dimensions by dividing the volume by the estimated thickness
of the asbestos material.
Gravity components are adjusted based on whether the
violation is a first, second, or subsequent offense. By
"second" or "subsequent" offense, we mean that the company
has violated the regulations after previously being notified
by the State or EPA of asbestos NESHAP violations. This
prior notification could range from simply a warning letter to
the filing of a judicial enforcement action. A "second"
violation could even occur at the same job as the first one
if, after bei-ng notified of violations by the State or EPA
-------
-3-
and having an opportunity to correct such violations, the
company continues to violate the regulations. If the case
involves multiple potential defendants and any one of them is
involved in a second or subsequent offense, the penalty
should be derived based on the second or subsequent offense.
In such instance, the Government should try to get the prior-
offending party to pay the extra penalties attributable to
this factor. (See discussion below on apportionment of the
penalty.)
The Region should consider enhancing the gravity component
in situations where the duration of the violation increases
the potential harm. This would be particularly appropriate
where the source allows asbestos waste material to stay on
site without any effort to collect and dispose it for a
significant period of time.
Benefit Component
This component is a measure of the economic benefit
accruing to the contractor, the facility owner, or both, as a
result of noncompliance with the asbestos regulations.
Information on actual economic benefit should be used if
available. The attached chart provides figures which may be
used as a "rule of thumb" to determine the costs of removing
and disposing asbestos in compliance with §61.147 and §61.152,
where actual information is difficult to obtain or is suspect.
The figures are based on rough cost estimates which the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards has developed in
considering revisions to the asbestos standard. These estimates
are within a range of numbers that OAQPS has considered in
determining the economic impact of the asbestos demolition
and renovation requirements. Also, if any party ultimately
pays to have all or part of the job done in compliance,
actual expenditures can be used to offset the benefit of
noncompliance.
Apportionment of the Penalty
This policy is intended to yield a minimum settlement
penalty figure for the case as a whole. In some cases, more
than one contractor and/or the facility owner will be named
as defendants. In such instances, the Government should
generally take the position of seeking a sum for the case as a
whole, which the multiple defendants can allocate among
themselves as they wish.
It is not necessary in applying this penalty policy to
allocate the economic benefit between the parties precisely.
The total benefit acci«ui'*g to the parties should be used for
this component. Depending on the.circumstances, the economic
-------
-4-
benefit may actually split among the parties in any qombination.
For example, if the contractor charges for compliance with
asbestos removal requirements and fails to comply, the contractor
has derived a savings and the owner has not. If the contractor
underbids because it does not factor in compliance with
asbestos requirements, the facility owner has realized the
full amount of the financial savings. (In such an instance,
the contractor may have also received a benefit which is
harder to quantify - obtaining the contract by virtue of the
low bid.)
There are circumstances in which the Government may
try to influence apportionment of the penalty. For example,
if one party is a second offender, the Government may try
to assure that such party pay the portion of the penalty
attributable to the second offense. If one party is known to
have realized all or most of the economic benefit, that party
may be asked to pay for that amount. Other circumstances
may arise in which one party appears more culpable than
others. We realize, however, that it may be impractical to
dictate allocation of the penalties in negotiating a settlement
with multiple defendants. The Government should therefore
adopt a single "bottom line" sum for the case and should not
reject a settlement which meets the bottom line because of
the way the amount is apportioned.
Apportionment of the penalty in a multi-defendant case
may be required if one party is willing to settle and others
are not. In such circumstances, the Government should take
the position that if certain portions of the penalty are
attributable to such party (such as economic benefit or second
offense), that party should pay those amounts and a reasonable
portion of the amounts not directly assigned to any single
party. However, the Government should also be flexible
enough to mitigate the penalty somewhat to account for the
party's relative cooperativeness. If a case is settled as to
one defendant, a penalty not less than the balance of the
settlement figure for the case as a whole should be sought
from the remaining defendants. This remainder can be adjusted
upward, in accordance with the general Civil Penalty Policy,
if the circumstances warrant it. Of course, the case can
also be litigated against the remaining defendants for the
maximum attainable penalty.
Other Considerations
We expect that each Region may want to develop its own
strategy (some have already done so) for targeting enforcement
action against violators of the asbestos demolition and
renovation requirements. The policy is intended to give
-------
-5-
Re.gions flexibility to incorporate, as part of a coherent
strategy, a practice of addressing first-time notice violations
where there is at least probable compliance with substantive
requirements through findings of violation or administrative
orders. There is also the potential for "pre-settling"
judicial actions for modest penalties for such violations.
On the other hand, the policy penalizes substantive
violations and repeat violations in a significant way.
Penalties should generally be sought for all violations which
fit these categories. If a company knowingly violates the
regulations, particularly if the violations are severe or the
company has a prior history of violations, the Region should
consider initiating a criminal enforcement action.
Examples
Following are two examples of application of this policy.
Example 1
XYZ Associates hires America's Best Demolition Contractors
to demolish a building containing 1300 linear feet of pipe
covered with friable asbestos, and 16,000 square feet of
siding and roofing sprayed with asbestos. Neither company
notifies EPA or State officials prior to commencing demolition
of the building. Tipped off by a citizen complaint, EPA
inspects'the site and finds that the contractor has not been
wetting the asbestos removed from the building, in violation
of 40 C.F.R. §61.147. In addition, the contractor has left a
pile of dry asbestos waste material on site, and the inspector
observes visible emissions in violation of §61.152(b). The
contractor has also not deposited the waste in an acceptable
disposal site, in violation of §61.152(a). At the time of
the inspection 75% of the asbestos has already been removed
from the building and handled improperly. After discussion
with EPA officials, XYZ Associates hires another contractor
to properly dispose of the asbestos wastes and to remove the
remaining 25% of the asbestos in compliance with the asbestos
NESHAP.
Neither XYZ Associates nor America's Best Demolition
Contractors has ever been cited for asbestos violations by
EPA or the State. Both parties have sufficient resources to
pay a substantial penalty.
-------
-6-
The penalty is computed as follows:
Gravity Component
No notice (first time) $10,000
Violations of §61.147, S61.152(b), and
§61.152(a) (100 + 5 » 105 units of
asbestos +45,000
$55,000
Economic Benefit
$4/sq. foot x 16,000 sq. feet + $4/
linear foot x 1300 linear feet $69,200
Offset by actual expenditure by XYZ
to remove 25% of asbestos in compli-
ance with NESHAP (25% x $69,200) -17,300
$51,900
Preliminary deterrence amount $106,900
Adjustment factors - Prompt correction
of environmental problem (-30% of
gravity component) $-16,500
Minimum penalty settlement amount $ 90,400
*
Example 2
Consolidated Conglomerates, Inc., hires Bert and Ernie's
Trucking Company to demolish a building which contains 10,000
linear feet of friable asbestos on pipes. Neither party
gives notice to EPA or to the State prior to commencement of
demolition. An EPA inspector, acting on a tip, visits the
site after the building has been totally demolished. He
finds a large pile of dry asbestos-containing waste material
on site. The inspector learns that the demolition had been
completed at least three weeks before he inspected the site.
Consolidated Conglomerates is a corporation with assets
of over $100 million and annual sales in excess of $10 million.
Bert and Ernie's Trucking is a limited partnership of two
brothers who own two trucks and have less than $250,000 worth
of business each year. This contract was for $50,000. Bert
and Ernie's was once previously cited by the State Department
of Environmental Quality for violations of asbestos regulations,
-------
-7-
The penalty is computed as follows: "
Gravity Component
No notice (2nd violation) $25,000
Violations of S61.152(b) and $40,000
S61.152(a) (2nd violation); no direct
evidence of violation of §61.147
(app. 38.5 units)
Aggravation of hazard due to duration $10,000
of disposal violation - + 25% of
substantive violations (25% x $40,000)
$75,000
Benefit Component
$4/linear foot x 10,000 linear feet $40,000
Preliminary deterrence amount
$115,000
No adjustment factors
Minimum settlement penalty amount $115,000
Apportionment of the Penalty
The penalty in this case has been increased by $35,000
because it involves a second violation by the contractor.
Ordinarily, the Government should try to get Bert and Ernie's
to pay at least that amount of the penalty. However,
Consolidated Conglomerate's financial size compared to the
contractor's will probably dictate that Consolidated pay most
of the penalty.
-------
Asbestos Demolition/Renovation Penalty Policy
Gravity Component
Notification 1st Violation 2nd Violation Subsequent
No notice $10-12,000 $20-25,000 $25,000
No notice but probable $0-5,000 $10-15,000 $25,000
substantive compliance
Late notice - discretion - if tantamount to no notice, use above table
Incomplete notice - discretion - if tantamount to no notice, use above table
Substantive Violations
Total amount of asbestos
involved in the operation 1st Violation 2nd Violation Subsequent
£ 10 units $5,000 $15,000 $25,000
> 10 units but £ 50 units $10,000 $20,000 $30,000
> 50 units $15,000 $25,000 $35,000
unit * 260 linear feet or 160 square feet - if both are involved, convert each
amount to units and add together
Apply matrix separately to violation of §61.147, §61.152(b), and §61.152(a)
- add together
QThance if duration of offense aggravates hazard - e.g., failure to dispose
of asbestos - containing wastes.
Benefit Component
For asbestos on pipes:
$3 per linear foot of asbestos for wetting of friable asbestos and
packaging of wastes - §61.147, §61.152(b)
$1 per linear foot of asbestos for transporting and disposal of wastes
- §61.152(b), §61.152(a)
$T per linear foot for both
For asbestos on other facility components:
$3.50 per square foot for wetting of friable asbestos and packaging of wastes
$ .50 per square foot for transporting and disposal of wastes
$4.00 per square foot for both
-------
PN 112-84-07-11-005
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL ^OTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUL 1 I 664
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Vinyl Chloride NESHAP Enforcement Strategy
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director ^_
Stationary Source Compliance Division™
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Michael S. Alushin /?/, #,
Associate Enforcement Counsel
for Air
TO: Air and Waste Management Division Directors
Region II, IV, and VI
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, V, and IX
Regional Counsels
Regions I-VI and IX
Attached is our strategy for the enforcement of the vinyl
chloride NESHAP standard. This strategy was developed as a
product of the Regional submittals we received in response to
our memoranda of June 28, 1983 and January 23, 1984.
In putting together this strategy, we have found that
most of the Regional Offices have sources which should receive
priority for enforcement action. We expect these Regions to act
on the basis of this strategy and to prepare cases expeditiously.
Although this strategy focuses primarily on stripping violations
and on reactor opening loss violations, all parts of the standard
should be examined when preparing cases.
In transmitting this information to us, several of your
offices have indicated that individual companies have asked
that some of the information be treated as confidential. This
material is contained in Table 5, "Summary of RVD Responses",
which is being sent to you under separate cover. No Agency
-------
determination has been made on the confidentiality of these
requests. However, because this material has been separated
from the rest of the strategy, the bulk of the strategy may
now be circulated to State and local enforcement agencies.
We would appreciate your prompt attention to this material,
Please contact Doreen Cantor of SSCD at 382-2874, or Elliott
Gilberg of OECM at 382-2864, with any comments or questions.
Attachment
-------
Vinyl Chloride NESHAP Enforcement Strategy*'
In our memorandum of June 28, 1983, we. addressed our
concern that the Regions be consistent in enforcing all major
provisions of the vinyl chloride standard, including those por-
tions other than the relief valve discharge regulations. In
that memorandum, we requested your help in developing guidelines
for the enforcement of the,regulations for stripping and reactor
opening losses. We have compiled the Regional data submitted
to us on the percentage and magnitude of violations of the
stripping and reactor opening loss standards from the two
most recent semiannual reports for each source. These data are
summarized in Table 1. The purpose of this strategy is to
discuss the results of this compilation and its implications
for future enforcement activity by the Regional Offices.
Although we have attempted to establish a framework for
setting priorities for enforcement action, we emphasize that
this does not change the standard or the definition of a viola-
tion, and establishes no right or privilege for regulated
sources. Our recommended action levels are to be used as a
basis for prioritization only.
Because of the fairly large number of sources with
substantial violations, our prioritization effort resulted
in over two-thirds of the sources being identified initially
in the highest category of priorities. Based on available
State and Regional resources and on the additional factors for
enforcement that will be discussed, each Region and State
should feel free to take enforcement efforts beyond our
recommended levels, provided action is ongoing against the
more substantial violators. The goal for compliance remains
at 100%.
In most cases, the vinyl chloride standard has been
delegated to a State or local agency. Where this is the case,
the Regional office should look to the State to obtain a satis-
factory resolution. Where a State fails to act in a satisfactory
manner or where the State has not received delegation, the
Region should respond to ensure the fulfillment of this
responsibility.
A satisfactory State enforcement action is one which
requires expeditious installation of equipment or other
remedial measures which, in EPA's view, are sufficient to
bring the source into compliance. In addition, the State
action must require payment of a civil penalty of sufficient
magnitude appropriate to the violation. A State does not
-------
-2-
necessarily have to assess !a penalty which would suffice as a '.
settlement figure for a Federal action as discussed below.
If a State action is adequate in terms of remedial relief but
fails to assess an adequate penalty, the Region should consider
a separate Federal action for penalties consistent with the
recently issued Policy Framework for State Enforcement
"Agreements".
When EPA action is required, this will generally mean the
commencement of a judicial action. The only administrative
authority EPA has to assess penalties is under Section 120,
which cannot be applied to discrete, intermittent violations.
The only other applicable administrative enforcement mechanism
(other than emergency powers) is an order under Section 113(a),
which does not involve penalties and which should be considered
only in instances in which the penalty assessment would be
negligible. However, where the State is the enforcing authority,
an administrative procedure may be appropriate, provided that
adequate penalties are assessed for all violations, including
those not exceeding the levels of frequency or magnitude con-
tained in Table 2.
Many factors enter into a decision on when to initiate
enforcement activity for a particular source. Factors which
we believe are most important are:.
1) Frequency of violations. We have summarized data on the
percentage of noncompliance for each source. Although this
may serve as a good indication of where priorities should be
focused, it is generally recommended that the Regions go beyond
the two most recent semi-annual reports to strengthen cases or
to uncover additional histories of noncompliance. All violations
which occurred in the five-year period preceding the filing of
the complaint should be addressed, as well as each type of viola-
tion (relief valve discharge, stripping, reactor opening loss,
lOppm). Even if a source has shut down, enforcement action for
penalties may be appropriate if it would serve an important
enforcement objective, such as creating an incentive, for the
company to improve its operation of other vinyl chloride plants.
Issues which should be addressed include:
a) Is there a repeated pattern of violations?
b) Has there been an increasing (or constant) frequency
of violations?
c) Has a substantial amount of time elapsed since the
most recent violation?
-------
-3-
2) Magnitude of Violations. We have also summarized data on the
range of magnitudes of violations for each source, and have
compared sources based on their most severe violation. Again,
although this may be a good starting point, this should be
further investigated by the Regional Offices to determine if
this type of comparison is truly representative. Other issues
which should be addressed include:
a) Has there been an increasing (or constant) trend in
the magnitude of. violations?
b) Is the total combined magnitude of violations signifi-
cant? This may be a more realistic basis in some cases.
3) Available remedial measures. Issues include:
a) Can specific remedial measures be identified?
b) Has there been a lack of attempts to remedy the
problem?
c) Is there a common cause or common remedy for many
violations?
d) Has the source provided a remedy only after being
informed of the violation?
4) Comparison with other sources. The attached tables and
graphs are designed to give the Regions some idea of the
severity of noncompliance nationwide, so that individual
enforcement needs and efforts may be gauged. Each Region
should set priorities based on the following:
a) How does a source compare with other sources in
the Region?
b) How does a source compare with other sources nation-
wide?
c) What is the trend of the industry in general?
5) Source Reporting. In delegated States, sources are required
to submit reports to both EPA and the State unless the delega-
tion specifies that reporting to EPA is not required. In many
cases, we were not able to determine whether each source is
reporting on time to the State and/or Regional Office, and if
-------
-4-
these reports are complete and accurate. Because our ability
to enforce against RVD, ROL, and stripping violations hinges
on self-reporting, we consider reporting violations to be very
serious. States and/or Regions should be current with each
source's reporting and should consider prompt action when a
source fails to report. The existence of reporting violations
should weigh heavily in the direction of initiating enforce-
ment action. Where a source refuses to submit required reports
despite notification by the State and/or EPA, the Region should
consider whether criminal enforcement action is warranted.
The attached graphs (Figures 1-8) display the data
summarized in Table 1, in an attempt to identify the most
severe violators and target them for enforcement action.
As shown in each of the graphs and in Table 2 (Enforcement
Priorities), we have chosen recommended levels of violations
to indicate the highest priority violations for which an
enforcement action should be initiated. These levels were
selected on the basis of (1) being the level closest to the
standard that a significant majority of sources were achieving,
or (2) being the level at which an identifiable break could be
located (,i.e_., a level at which sources could either easily
achieve or be far beyond). It is important to emphasize that
these levels are intended to be fluid. This analysis will be
done again at some point in the future, at which point we
expect these levels will have moved closer to the standard,
thus targeting a new set of sources (assuming sources presently
targeted will have achieved compliance).
Generally, either frequency or magnitude of violations is
sufficient to establish a source as high priority for enforcement
action. Thus, sources with a large number of relatively small
violations, and sources with a relatively low number of signifi-
cant violations, will be high priority sources. However,
sources exhibiting a compliance rate of 99% or greater are not
suggested for high priority status on the sole basis of magnitude
of violation. One exception to this applies to large sources
and should be determined on a Regional level. Large sources
with a significant number of violations should be prioritized
for enforcement action, even if their compliance rate is rela-
tively high due to the size of the source. Sources having
continuing violations, even if these violations are individually
relatively minor, are still being accorded high priority.
-------
-5-
In prioritizing sources based o'n magnitude of violation,
sources were ranked according to the magnitude of their
largest violation. Other methods of ranking (average magni-
tude of violation, total magnitude, percent of allowable,
etc.) are possible and may be a more realistic basis in some
cases. However, in attempting to conserve Regional resources
for other activities involved in vinyl chloride enforcement,
we feel that the magnitude of the largest violation is a useful
indicator of the potential severity of a number of violations,
and can be obtained much more easily than can be averages or
totals for large numbers of violations. We prefer that the
bulk of resources be spent in enforcing against individual
sources rather than in prioritizing a large number of sources.
Assistance in determining what sources in each Region are highest
priority sources is available from SSCD.
Table 3 describes how many facilities would be targetted
for enforcement action in the highest priority category using
the present priority levels. This is then broken out by Region.
In some cases, there are large differences between the Regions
in the degree and type of enforcement action targetted by this
memo. Some of this may be due to individual sources; some may
be due to varying degrees of aggressiveness of State and Regional
enforcement efforts. Because this table is based solely on
violations of the stripping and reactor opening loss standards,
some of the targetted sources already have ongoing enforcement
actions against them for relief valve discharges.
When a case has already been filed against a source for
other types of violations and is currently in litigation, the
Government must decide on a case-by-case basis whether the
complaint should be amended to incorporate newly identified
violations into the existing case. Generally speaking, the
new violations should not be added to an ongoing case in which
a trial date has been set or a discovery cutoff date is near.
If little or no activity beyond the filing of a complaint and
answer has taken place, amending the complaint is probably
appropriate. In all instances in which a case is pending
against a source for other violations, the Region should consult
with the EPA Headquarters and Department of Justice attorneys
assigned to the case.
-------
-6-
Table 4 contains factors to be used to determine minimum
settlement penalty figures in preparing civil actions. The
penalty should be based on the following factors: seriousness
of the violation (gravity component), the degrees of will-
fulness or negligence, degree of cooperation or noncooperation,
history of noncompliance, ability to pay, and other unique
factors. The economic benefit of noncompliance should also be
considered in those instances in which a specific piece of
equipment can be identified as a necessary remedial measure.
See the memorandum entitled "Proposed Clean Air Act Stationary
Source Civil Penalty Policy," which we sent to you on June 5,
1984. The vinyl chloride penalty policy will ultimately be
codified as part of the final stationary source civil penalty
policy.
The chart in Table 4 should be used to assign a number
attributable to the gravity of the violations. Penalties
escalate both by the magnitude of each individual violation,
and by the total number of violations. The penalty numbers
in Table 4 are to be assessed for each violation and are then
to be added to obtain a settlement figure for a case involving
numerous violations. Additional penalties accrue for failure
to submit timely semiannual and discharge reports. As a matter
of policy, the settlement figure is set at a total of up to
$25,000 for each failure to report, even though as a legal
matter the statutory maximum is arguably $25,000 per day for
each day the failure to report is not remedied. Penalty schemes
are included for relief valve discharges, exhaust gas violations,
stripping violations, and reactor opening loss violations.
Finally, Table 5 (being sent under separate cover) contains
a summary of the Regional responses to our request for informa-
tion on relief valve discharges. The complete responses are
available from the Stationary Source Compliance Division. In
many cases however, complete information was not available
from the Regional Offices. This information may be essential
in preparing enforcement actions and efforts should be made to
obtain this data from each source. Because Table 5 contains
material which has been claimed to be confidential by a number
of sources, it is being sent separately to allow the rest of this
strategy to be distributed to State and other non-EPA enforcement
agencies.
-------
-7-
We interpret the relief valve discharge standard to
establish a presumption that any relief valve discharge is a
violation, with the company having the burden to show that it
was not preventable (see Attachment I, Headquarters Policy
Memoranda on Relief Valve Discharges). Nonetheless, to litigate
a case, the Agency should be prepared to counter evidence that
the discharge was due to an "emergency" by showing that specific
measures are available which could have prevented the discharge,
and that such measures were not taken by the source.
For relief valve discharges, the litigation report
forwarded to Headquarters should include, at a minimum:
1) The date and size of each relief valve discharge,
including those determined to be emergencies.
2) The Region's determination as to whether each discharge
is preventable, i.e., a violation.
3) An analysis of the cause of each discharge. Attach-
ment 2 is an example of the technical evaluation of a company's
discharges which was included as an exhibit to a litigation
report referred to HQ.
4) A description of remedial measures designed to prevent
the types of discharges which have occurred at the plant. As
you can see from Attachment 2, this is a logical complement to
the analysis of the cause of each discharge.
5) A proposal for a minimum settlement penalty figure.
Depending on the level of detail contained in the 10-day
report submitted by the company, the Region may have to seek
more information using a Section 114 letter to properly prepare
the litigation report. Examples of records which may be useful
are logs, written maintenance procedures, inspection manuals,
incidents reports, employee records (to show possible disciplinary
action or failure to take such action), strip charts, etc.
This is potentially potent evidence, because it may reveal
answers to such questions as:
1) Was the company following its own standard operating
procedures?
t
-------
-8-
2) Did the company allow a discharge to occur in order
to preserve the integrity of the product and thereby save money?
(e.g., low grade resin is less profitable than high grade resin,
and this may affect operating decisions.)
3) Did the operator fail to recognize upset conditions?
4) Did the company fail to replace defective equipment
despite a prior history of problems?
5) Did the company fail to analyze a recurring problem?
6) Did the company perform an engineering study (or
retain a consultant to do so) and fail to adhere to the study's
recommendations?
Attachment 3 is a sample Section 114 letter which was
used to develop the litigation report in one of the cases
referred to Headquarters.
For reactor opening loss and stripping violations, the
litigation report forwarded to Headquarters should include,
at a minimum:
1) The date and amount of each exceedance. If the
number of violations makes such a listing impractical, the
litigation report shall summarize the data and cite to the
semi-annual reports so that the reader can readily identify
the violations.
2) A copy of all semi-annual reports for the period
covered by the referral.
3) A description of remedial measures designed to
prevent future violations.
4) A proposal for a minimum settlement penalty amount.
Attachment 4 is a list of Regional technical and legal
contacts involved in vinyl chloride enforcement. It is hoped
that this will encourage the exchange of general information,
and also more specific information such as the availability and
usefulness of particular remedial measures.
-------
CO
TJ
i-
-c
c
^
u.
to
CO
o
1—
Ol
c
c
0
a
o
u
c
o
ro
0
a;
c
(0
r^»
C
C
a
a
•H
^|
-U
CO
M-(
O
CO
C
0
•rH
U-l
O
>
Jtal
(0
3
CO
••
1— 1
u
-j
00
EH
CO
CO
T
I—I
en
c
•rH
C
0
P!
O
rH
0
4J
O
ro
0
«
Ol
C
•H
a
a
•rH
U
4J
CO
TJ
rH
<0
C
<0
4-*
^3
0
c
(0
«
c#>
'
*—«.
T3
/Tt
ro
T3
C
(0
CO
0
Ol
C
ro
«
00
0
O
rH
3
O
CO
C
o
CN CN CN CN
O CO CO CO
• • • •
**** *""'' ^"* *""''
p~
o
*
m
••*
o
i-H
0
O O O O
~~.
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
** T* TJI CN CN *r
00
o
^*
CN
00 1
r* oo
CN CN
CN Tf
CO VO
O O O O O CN
JC rH
O ro
•H ^4 4J
-J (0 C
C TJ 00
0 O ^TS
"U O T3 "*^
rJ O O 0
O &- O 0
CQ CQ CJ O
.
— £ "E e
£ a QJ a
ao o o
o en r-- **
m rH vo m
CO CN CN CN
CN
CN
^
I oo r-
co I-H m
vo co eft
CO CN 00
in CN co
• • •
CO rH rH O
~
o o o
o o o
«r •** CN
CN
CN
^
1 iH
in o>
rH 0
^J1 CN
CN CN
rH O CO
•
iH
rH
3
0 m
4J NX
o o
co o
ro 0
•P C
c c
03 0
04 EH
E
^r CN CN
o o o
vo • •
CN ^-^ ^-*
m oo
en o
00 rH
CN •
1 1
&\ vo
CN rH
VO CN
CN O
•
r~ ^*
• •
rr O
C "H J=
0 C 4J
H D W
CN
o
*
^"*
co
VO
CN
o
0
•
CN
^
o o
0 0
T CN
*~i
o
co ^r
^< I— 1
I-H in
1 ^
m I
• in
*J" CO
i-H O
«* CN
00 CTi
00 CN
•
CO
•u
4J
0
£4
x^
rH
(0
4J
c
0
•H
o
0
o
CN CN
o o
*
^" *"""
0 0
~ ~
o o o o
o o o o
^< CN TJ< CN
o
rH
o r~
CO CN
vo 1
1 -1
OO iH en
o r^ o
in m CN
O CTi CO
rH O O 1"
•
>1
ij
0
04
v^
rH
(0
JJ
C (0
0 (0
•o o
•iH E
U VH
0 O
O BL,
It
CN CN CN
o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o
n« ^t1 TT
r^.
vo
g\
1
i-H
rH
I1
r~~
CO O O
0 >1
•O J£
•H CJ
•Q 3
IH jj
CO
•H
ro 3
^H O
O iJ
U x^
ra Si
co o
C-rH
0 i-l
O4 'O
X O
u o
u8 U
,
^
c
0
cc
v,^
r
o
•H
}j
•o c
O 0
O T3
0 rJ
DL. 0
CQ CQ
CN CN CN CN CN
-------
CQ
CQ
O
D
C
-o
•D
C
JJ
C/D
CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
ooooooooooooo
CM CM CM
O O O
JJ
CQ
0)
3
D1
0)
C
a
o
reactor
0)
C
(0
c
0 rH
C.
f""!
c T
3 -D
0)
ro ro
O <*>
v|v|
00
o en o
000
v|v|v|
m
r> ID
CM r^ CM
«43 CM O
rH O O
v|v|v|
o
ex
in
CM
O to CM O
• c
o 3OCMoi^como
O CM i-H
ID rH CM O
CM
000
I
CM
I
D
c
•H
a
a
•H
to
JJ
en
Dl
c
(0
OOOOOOOOOOOOO 000
ooooooooooooo ooo
m vo m o
• m • . • vo
^* O rH CTl ^* VO VC
C"» rH on 00 CM O rH
00 rH O> CJN VO VO CM
V V V V V V V
m rH VOrHr-CMCMO
OOOOr^OOrHrHOOinO
CQ
o
ooo
o
•H
^|
0)
CJ
IH
3
O
U)
•o
o
o
o
03
•o
0)
s
c
•H
<0
JJ
U
0
CJ
o
CJ
o
C
o
CJ
,_ i
>i
4J
U
o
o
(0 ^^
CL (0
I -U
(0
JJ
CQ
(C -i
o o
o w
a
b 0
CQ t
-------
25
20
15
10
5_
4_
3_
2_
1
Figure 1
Stripping (total)
(percentage of violations)
49% of sources have 100% compliance
73% of sources have compliance >/ 99%
92% of sources have compliance >/ 95%
I -r
0 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10
% of violations >
-------
Figure 2
25
Stripping (total)
(magnitude of violations)
No clear breaks . . separate by process
20
15
10
3_
2
1
over
0 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 100
% above standard (highest violation) >
-------
to
jj
o
4->
cr
ro
to
0)
o
Vj
3
O
en
o
=»*:
Stripping (suspension & latex)
(percentage of violations)
Figure 3
•51% of sources have 100% compliance
82% of sources have compliance >/ 98%
20
15
10
5_
4_
3_
2
1
I I I I I
0 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10
% of violations -->
-------
Figure 4
Stripping (suspension & latex)
(magnitude of violations)
20
15
10
3_
2_
1
56% of sources within 10% of standard
26% gross'violations (over 100'%)
e
I I
over
0 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 100
% above standard (highest violation) >
-------
Figure 5
(0
4J
o
4J
fN
W
/ 98%
I I I I I I
0 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10
% of violations >
-------
Figure 6
Stripping (dispersion)
(magnitude of violations)
50% of sources within 10% of standard
I
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
% above standard (highest violation) >
-------
25
Figure 7
20
Reactor Opening Loss
(percentage of violations)
56% of sources have 100% compliance
80% of sources have compliance >/ 98%
2% of sources have compliance < 90%
2% of sources unrepor-ted (1 source)
25
-------
25
20
Figure 8
Reactor Opening Loss
(magnitude of violations)
62% of sources within 25% of standard
24% gross violations (over 100%)
4% of sources unknown/unreported (2 sources)
(B
4-1
O
-P
m
A
15
10
CO
0)
o
>-<
3
0
CO
U-l
O
4_
3_
2_
1
I I I I I
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40* 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 100
% above standard (highest violation) >
-------
TABLE 2: Enforcement Priorities
Percentage of
compliance*
Magnitude of
violations*
Stripping
(suspension and
latex)
(400 ppm)
<98%
10% above
standard
Stripping
(dispersion)
(2000 ppm)
<98%
10% above
standard
Reactor
<98%
25% above
standard
Additional factors for enforcement:
1. No (or incomplete) reporting of violations
2. Repeated pattern of violations
3. Lack of attempts to remedy problem
4. Ability to remedy problem (identification of
specific remedial measures)
5. Increasing (or constant) frequency & severity of violations
6. Comparison with other sources in Region
7. Industry trends
8. Actual or potential environmental harm/population exposure
* Generally, either factor is sufficient to prioritize a
source for enforcement action. See page 4 of strategy.
-------
TABLE 3; Current % of facilities targettefl for enforcement action
Stripping Stripping Reactor Total
(suspension, latex)
Nationwide %
(36 facilities) Mag.
Region 1 %
(1 facilities) Mag.
Region 2 %
(7 facilities) Mag.
Region 3 %
(4 facilities) Mag.
Region 4 %
(5 facilities) Mag.
Region 5 %
(5 facilities) Mag.
Region 6 %
(11 facilities)Mag.
Region 9 %
(3 facilities) Mag.
19%
22%
0%
0%
14%
14%
50%
50%
20%
20%
20%
20%
18%
27%
0%
0%
(7)
(8)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(dispersion ) Opening Loss
11% (4)
8% (3)
14% (1)
0%
75% (3)
75% (3)
0%
0%
0%
0%
_—_
22% (8)
28% (10)
0%
0%
29% (2)
14% (1)
25% (1)
50% (2)
0%
0%
0%
0%
45% (5)
64% (7)
0%
0%
444(16
04(0)
574(4)
754(3)
204(1)
644(7)
0%(0)
NOTE: Facilities are only targeted under "magnitude of violation" if they
have less than 99% compliance.
-------
TABLE 4; Penalty Scheme .
The following factors should be used to determine a penalty
settlement figure:
- seriousness of violation (gravity component)
- degree of willfulness or negligence
- degree of cooperation or non-cooperation
- history of non-compliance or steady improvement
- ability to pay
- economic savings of noncompliance (if a specific
piece of equipment can be identified as a necessary
remedial measure)
- other unique factors.
The chart below is to be used to assess the gravity component
of the penalty:
Relief Valve Discharges, Manual Vent Valve Discharges, Violations
of 10 ppm Standards
Violations
Pounds of VC released
0-1000
1-2000
2-3000
3-4000
4-5000
5-7500
7500-10,000
10-12,500
over 12,500
Failure to Report
Start with:
Size of Release not Reported (Ibs)
0-100
100-500
500-1000
1000-2000
over 2000
Penalty
$1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Penalty
2000
5000
10,000
20,000
25,000
-------
-2-
9 '
Graduated scale for late'"reporting (if not in response (to direct
request from State or EPA) - 10-day discharge reports
Within 2 months (from discharge) 25% of penalty
2-4 months 50% " "
4-6 months 75% "
over 6 months 100% " "
Stripping Violations and Reactor Opening Loss Violations
Stripping
Magnitude of Violation Penalty
Suspension/Latex Dispersion
400-500 ppm 2000-2500ppm $1000
500-600 2500-3000 2000
600-700 3000-3500 3000
700-800 3500-4000 4000
800-900 4000-4500 5000
900-1200 4500-6000 10000
1200-1400 6000-7000 15000
1400-1600 7000-8000 20000
Over 1600 Over 8000 25000
Reactor Opening Loss
Penalty = $1000/violation (for each reactor)
Failure to Measure
Penalty = Maximum penalty amount for each type of violation
= $25000 (stripping)
= $1000 (reactor opening loss)
Failure to Submit Complete Semiannual Report
Penalty = $25000
Graduated scale for late reporting (if not in response to direct
request from State or EPA)
Within 2 months 25% of penalty
2-4 months 50% "
4-6 months 75% "
Over 6 months 100% " "
Generally, this penalty scheme should be adhered to (with
relatively minor adjustments) for the majority of cases.
When a source would be subject to an unusually large
penalty (e.g. $500,000 for a single type of violation),
Regional Offices will have greater discretion in setting
penalties provided that the figure is at least $500,000.
-------
PN 112-84-06-01-004
JUN , (984
S OBJECT i Benzene HESHAPs Guidance
FROMt Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Cuality Planning and Standards
TOi Air ft Waste Management Division Directors
Region* II, IV, VI-VIII, and X
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, V, and IX
Attached are enforcement guidelines for the benzene NRSRAPs,
which is scheduled to be promulgated on June 4, 1984 and which
will regulate benzene equipment leaks front fugitive emission
sources. The guidelines summarize the regulations and address
potential enforcement problems. All Regions should work with
delegated States in identifying affected sources and ensuring
those sources are in compliance with the benzene regulations.
The Stationary Source Compliance Division and the Emission
Standards and Engineering Division have jointly agreed to present
a one day session discussing the benzene NESHAPs, if there is
sufficient interest among Regional personnel. The session is
tentatively scheduled for Washington during the week of June 18.
Please notify Robert Myers at (FTS) 382-2875 if representatives
from your Region would be interested in attending such a meeting.
Edward E. Reich
Attachment
ccs Jack Farmer
Fred Dimmick
Earl Balo
NESHAPs Contacts
NOTE: Attachments 1 and 2 are not included in the
Policy and Guidance Notebook. These attachments,
along with a copy of this memorandum, will be
found in the Section 112 portion of the Clean Air
Act Compliance/Enforcement Guidance Manual —
Compendium of Operative Policies.
-------
NE&APS Enforcement Guideline S-28 - Benzene Equipment Leaks
(Fugitive Emission Sources)
Benzene standards are being promulgated under the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Standards under this
section have already been promulgated for asbestos, beryllium,
mercury, and vinyl chloride, and have been proposed for
arsenic and radionuclides in addition to benzene. OAQPS has
prepared this document to aid in enforcement and implementation
of the benzene NESHAPs. This summarizes the benzene equipment
being regulated and the standards to which this equipment is
subject, and provides guidance on several issues of enforce-
ment concern.
Background
••«'--•=
On June 8, 1977 the Administrator declared benzene a
hazardous air pollutant and a carcinogenic risk to human
health. Standards were later proposed for four sources of
benzene emissions. These sources were benzene equipment
leaks (fugitive emission sources), proposed 1/5/81, 46 PR
1165, maleic anhydride plants, ethylbenzene/styrene plants,
and benzene storage vessels. Further analysis has led EPA
to conclude that both the benzene health risks (annual leu-
kemia incidence and maximum lifetime risk) to the public
from the latter three source categories and the potential
reduction in health risks achievable with available control
techniques are too small to warrant action under Section 112
for these three categories. As a result, EPA proposed on
March 6, 1984, 49 PR 8386, to withdraw the proposed standards
for these three categories. Because of the magnitude of
benzene fugitive emissions, the projected increase in emis-
sions as a result of new sources, and the estimated decrease
in risks and emissions achievable through controls, EPA
found fugitive benzene emissions posed a significant risk
and should be regulated.
Introduction
Valves, pumps, flanges and other pieces of equipment
are used extensively in the refining and organic chemical
industries to move streams of organic compounds to and from
-------
various process vessels.. Since this type Qf equipment can
develop leaks, each individual piece is a potential source
of organic compound emissions whenever it handles a process .
stream containing such compounds. Benzene fugitive emissions
sources are pieces of equipment handling streams that could
potentially contain benzene. These include sources that
develop leaks after some period of operation due to seal
failure as well as other sources that can emit benzene when
used in specific conditions in the production unit. The
sources that develop leaks due to seal failure are those using
a sealing mechanism to limit the escape of organic compounds
to atmosphere. These include pumps, valves, flanges, relief
valves and compressors. Other types of equipment are potential
benzene fugitive emissions sources for reasons other than
leaking seals. These types of equipment might have the poten-
tial for intermittent benzene emissions because they vent
organic materials that contain benzene to atmosphere, and
include sampling connections, open-ended valves, and product
accumulator vessels. " "- -. ,^^^=^=.
Scope and Applicability
The standard covers new and existing valves, pumps,
compressors, pressure relief devices, sampling connection
systems, open-ended valves or lines, pipeline flanges,
product accumulator vessels, and closed vent systems and
control devices used to comply with the standard. This
equipment is used in the production of benzene and other
chemicals and products, such as maleic anhydride, ethanol,
and Pharmaceuticals.
To be covered the equipment must be in benzene service,
i.e., it must contain material with a benzene concentration
of 10 percent or more by weight. See the compliance issues
topic for a discussion of "in benzene service".
Exempted from this standard is equipment located in
process units that produce benzene or benzene mixtures at coke
by-product plants. These will be covered by other regulations.
Additionally, plant sites designed to produce or use benzene in
quantities of 1000 Ng/yr or less are exempt from the standard.
The source owner or operator has the responsibility of demon-
strating to EPA's satisfaction that the site is below the 1000
Mg/yr threshold level. Such a demonstration can be accomplished
by engineering analysis as well as by proof of physical limitation
of plant capacity.
-------
Controls for new and existing sources are the same'.
In the case of an existing source or a new source which has
an initial startup date preceding the effective date, the
standard applies within 90 days of the effective date, unless
a waiver is granted pursuant to S61.ll.
EPA estimates the standard will affect equipment located
in approximately 240 existing process units and an expected
70 new process units by 1985. Attachment 1 lists 131 plant
sites EPA has identified as having the potential to emit
benzene fugitive emissions. This list is not exhaustive and
Regions and States should seek to identify other affected
sites and confirm the accuracy of those listed.
Standards
•"~—~~~—~~^~ •- - - -S-,S««li«»L. -. fc
Generic standards for equipment leaks are presented under
Subpart V of 40 CFR 61. Subpart J, standards for benzene
equipment leaks, requires that affected sources must meet the
requirements of Subpart V. Two basic control techniques are
employed by the standard to reduce benzene fugitive emissions.
These are leak detection and repair programs in which fugitive
source leaks are located and repaired at regular intervals, and
preventive programs in which potential fugitive sources are
eliminated by either retrofitting with specified controls or
replacement with leakless equipment. A discussion of the
specific standards for each affected piece of equipment follows.
1. Valves. This is one of the most common pieces of
equipment in a refinery or organic chemical production unit.
It ordinarily is activated by a valve stem requiring a seal
to isolate the process fluid from atmosphere. Since the
potential for leaks exists, valves are subject to regulation.
A monthly leak detection and repair program is required
for valves in gas or liquid service. Gas and liquid service
are defined under $61.191. Quarterly monitoring will be
allowed for valves that have been found not to leak for two
successive months. Leak detection is to be performed with a
portable organic vapor analyzer, according to Reference Method
21 of 40 CFR 60, Appendix A. A leak is described as a reading
of 10,000 ppm or greater of organic material. Whenever a
leak is detected the valve must be tagged until repaired and,
at a minimum, must be monitored monthly until a leak is not
detected for two successive months.
-------
Initial repair of the leak must be attempted within 5
days, and the repair must be completed within 15 days.
Initial repair includes, but is not limited to, the following
best practices where practicable:
(1) tightening of bonnet bolts;
(2) replacement of bonnet bolts;
(3) tightening of packing gland nuts; and
(4) injection of lubricant into lubricated packing.
See S61.192-7(e).
An annual leak detection and repair program is required
to be developed and followed if the valves are difficult to
monitor. The description of this program must be kept in a
readily accessible location. Difficult to monitor valves
are those that would require elevating the monitoring personnel
more than two meters above any permanent available support
surface. Valves that cannot be safely monitored by the use
of step ladders could be classified as difficult to monitor.
For valves which are unsafe to monitor, an owner or
operator is required to develop and follow a plan that defines
a leak detection and repair program conforming with the
routine monitoring requirements of the standard as much as
possible, with the understanding that monitoring should not
occur during unsafe conditions. Unsafe to monitor valves
are defined as those that could, as demonstrated by the
owner or operator, expose monitoring personnel to imminent
hazards from temperature, pressure, or explosive process
conditions. There should be very few valves in benzene
service that are unsafe to monitor.
Two alternative standards are available for valves in
gas/vapor and liquid service. The first alternative speci-
fies a two percent limitation as the maximum percent of
valves leaking within a process unit, determined by an initial
performance test and a minimum of one performance test
annually thereafter. Process unit is defined at $61.191.
This alternative could be met by implementing any type of
program and engineering controls chosen at the discretion of
-------
the owner or operator. If the percentage of valves leaking
is higher than two percent/ the process unit is in violation.
If owners or operators decide they no longer wish to comply
with this alternative, they must submit written notice to
EPA accepting compliance with the monthly/quarterly leak
detection and repair program.
The second alternative standard specifies two skip-period
leak detection and repair programs. Under this option an
owner or operator upon notifying EPA can skip from monthly/
quarterly monitoring to something less frequent after com-
pleting a specified number of consecutive monitoring intervals
with the percentage of valves leaking equal to or less than
2.0. Under the first program, after two consecutive quarterly
periods with fewer than two percent of valves leaking, an
owner or operator may skip to semiannual monitoring. Under
the second program after 5 consecutive quarterly periods
with fewer than two percent of valves leaking, annual moni-
toring may be adopted. An owner or operator cannot adopt
semiannual monitoring and then proceed directly to annual
monitoring by claiming one period of semiannual monitoring
substitutes for two quarterly periods. If the owner or
operator finds the two percent level is exceeded, he or she
must revert to monthly/quarterly leak detection and repair.
If EPA finds the two percent level is exceeded, an evaluation
of compliance should occur. This alternative differs from the
first alternative because the type of compliance program chosen
must be leak detection and repair, rather than a program at
the discretion of the owner or operator.
An owner or operator electing to comply with the provisions
of either of these options must notify the Administrator 90 days
before implementing the option.
Delay of repair for equipment for which leaks have been
detected is allowed under certain circumstances. See §61.192-
10. There are two general circumstances where repair delays
for pumps, compressors and closed-vent systems, as well as for
valves, are allowable. The first is where repair is technically
or physically infeasible without a process unit shutdown,
defined as a work practice or operational procedure stopping
production. The use of spare equipment and technically
feasible bypassing of equipment without stopping production
are not process unit shutdowns. Repair must occur before
the end of the next process unit shutdown; hence, only one
-------
shutdown may be passed beforje repair is always required.
Repair is required during scheduled shutdowns of any duration
and during unscheduled shutdowns of over 24 hours.
The second general circumstance where repair delay is
allowed is if the equipment is isolated from the process and
no longer contains benzene in concentrations greater than
ten percent.
Delay of repair specifically for valves is allowed
beyond a process unit shutdown when unforeseeable circumstances
deplete valves used for repair. The valve assembly supplies
must have been sufficiently stocked before the supplies were
depleted. In this case delay of repair beyond the next
process unit shutdown will not be allowed unless the next
process unit shutdown occurs sooner than six months after
the first shutdown. Delay of repair for valves is also
allowed if the owner or operator can show that leakage of
purged material resulting from immediate repair would be
greater than the fugitive equipment leaks likely to result
from delay of repair, and that when repairs are effected,
the purged material is destroyed or recovered in a control
device.
2. Pumps - A pump normally has a shaft that requires
a seal to isolate the process fluid from atmosphere. Packed
and mechanical shaft seals are most common. If the seal
becomes imperfect due to wear, compounds being pumped leak.
Requirements for pumps are similar to those for valves.
A monthly leak detection and repair program is required, with
detection determined by Reference Method 21. Alternatively,
dual mechanical seals may be used under conditions specified
at $61.192-2(d). Each pump must be visually inspected weekly
for indications of liquid dripping from the pump seal. A
reading of at least 10,000 ppm or indication of liquids
dripping is a leak.
Initial pump leak repair must be attempted within five
days and completed within 15. Delay of repair is allowed
for pumps that cannot be repaired without a process unit
shutdown and a delay of up to six months after leak detection
is allowed when the owner or operator determines that repair
requires use of a dual mechanical seal system with barrier
fluid system. Any pump equipped with a closed-vent system
capable of capturing and transporting any leakage from the
seal to a control device is exempt from the requirements.
-------
3. Compressors - Compressors have a shaft that requires
a seal to isolate the process gas from atmosphere. The
potential for a leak through this seal makes it a potential
source of benzene emissions. The standard requires the use
of seals with barrier fluid systems that prevent leakage.
The barrier fluid system must be equipped with a sensor that
will detect failure of the seal or barrier fluid system.
Sensors must be checked daily or have an alarm.• If the
sensor detects a failure, a leak is detected. Leaks must be
repaired within 15 days. A compressor is exempt from the
above if it is equipped with a closed-vent system transporting
leaks to a control device, or it satisfies the no detectable
emissions provision at S61.192-3(i).
4. Pressure relief devices in gas/vapor service.
The standard requires no detectable emissions, which is a
reading of less than 500 ppmv above background based on
Reference Method 21. Annual verification is required. As
an alternative, compliance may be achieved by use of a rup-
ture disk system or closed-vent system capable of capturing
and transporting leakage from the pressure relief device to
a control device, such as a flare. This standard does not
apply to discharges during overpressure relief, but the relief
device must be returned to a no detectable emissions status
within five days of such a discharge. Additionally, relief
valve simmering (wherein the system pressure is close to
valve set pressure) is not allowed.
5. Sampling Connection Systems - Product quality and
process unit operation is checked periodically by analysis
of feedstocks, intermediates, and products. To obtain repre-
sentative samples for these analyses, sampling lines generally
are purged first. If this flushing liquid purge is not
returned to the process, it could be drained onto the ground
or into a process drain, where it would evaporate and release
benzene to atmosphere.
The standard provides for closed-purge sampling to
eliminate emissions due to purging by either returning the
purge material directly to the process or by collecting the
purge in a collection system generally closed to the atmos-
phere and disposing of it in an appropriately designed control
device. Closed-vent vacuum systems connected to a control
device and in-situ sampling systems are also allowed.
-------
8
6. Open-Ended Valves or Lines - Some valves are installed in
a system so that they function with the downstream line open
to atmosphere. A faulty valve seat or incompletely closed
valve would cause leakage through the valve. The use of caps,
plugs, or any other equipment that will effect enclosure of
the open end is required. If a second valve is used, the
standard requires the upstream valve to be closed first. This
prevents the trapping of process fluid between the two valves.
7. Product Accumulator Vessels, Flanges, Pressure Relief
Devices in Liquid Service - Product accumulator vessels
are utilized with fractionation columns, and may be vented
directly or indirectly to atmosphere. Flanges are gasket-
sealed junctions which may develop seal leaks. Pressure relief
devices are designed to release a product material from distil-
lation columns and other pressurized systems during emergency
or upset conditions.
The standard for product accumulator vessels effectively
requires venting accumulator emissions to a control device,
or use of a closed-vent system. Flanges and pressure relief
devices in liquid service are excluded from routine leak
detection and repair requirements, but if leaks are detected
by visual, audible or olfactory techniques, they are subject
to the same allowable repair interval as applies to valves
and pumps.
8. Closed-Vent Systems and Control Devices - Control devices
will be used to reduce benzene equipment leaks captured and
transported through closed-vent systems. Reference Method 21
will be used to verify that a closed-vent system has been
designed and installed properly. Method 21 requires that
closed vent systems be checked visually to ensure there are no
leaks where they would not be expected (e.g. , in pipes) and
also requires the monitoring of connections that are expected
to leak occasionally.
Enclosed combustion devices, such as incinerators,
catalytic incinerators, boilers, or process heaters must be
designed to reduce emissions vented to them with an efficiency
of 95% or greater or provide a minimum residence time of
0.50 seconds at a minimum temperature of 760° C. Vapor
recovery systems such as carbon adsorbers or condensation
units must be designed and operated to recover the organic
vapors vented to them with an efficiency of 95% or greater.
As an alternative the use of smokeless flares designed
-------
for and operated with no visible emissions is allowed. Specific
flare conditions established at $61.192-1l(d) and S61.195(e)
must be net and destruction efficiency must be over 95%.
Equipment purges from valves, pump seals, compressor seals/
pressure relief devices, sampling connection systems, and
product accumulator vessels must be vented to a system complying
with the requirements of the control device portion of the
standard.
Closed-vent systems must be designed and operated with no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an instrument reading of
below 500 ppm above background and by visual inspections. See
S61.195(c). They shall be monitored initially, annually, and
at other times requested by the Administrator. Leaks must be
repaired as soon «s practicable, but 4iot later than 15 days
after detection, with a first attempt no later than five days
after detection.
Equivalent Means of Emission Limitation
Each owner or operator may apply to the Administrator
for determination of equivalence for any means of emission
limitation that achieves a reduction at least equivalent to
the reduction achieved by the required controls. Guidelines
for the determination of equivalence are provided at S61.194(b)
and (c). Acceptance of such an equivalent method must be
approved by the Administrator and published in the Federal
Register. Such a request applies to pumps, compressors,
sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines,
valves, pressure relief devices, product accumulator vessels
and closed-vent systems and control devices. Such requests
should be forwarded to the Emission Standards and Engineering
Division (ESED) for review and approval.
No-Detectable Emissions
Pumps pursuant to S61.192-2(e), compressors pursuant to
$61.192-3(i) and valves pursuant to S61.192-7(f) may be desig-
nated for no detectable emissions, indicated by a Method 21
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background.
These pieces of equipment would be exempt from other require-
ments, as specified. Pressure relief devices in gas/vapor
service and closed-vent systems must be designed for and
operated with no visible emissions, with compliance determined
by Method 21. Compliance of flares with the no visible
emissions standard, as provided at S61.192-ll(d), shall be
determined by Reference Method 22.
-------
10
Peformance tests shall be conducted a minimum of once per
year, except for pressure relief devices and flares. Pressure
relief devices shall be tested no later than five calendar days
after each pressure release. Flares shall be monitored with an
appropriate heat sensor, such as a thermocouple, to ensure the
presence of a flame. Also, flares must be a smokeless operation,
as evidenced by visible emissions for a maximum of 5 minutes
in any 2-hour period.
Reporting Requirements
Reporting requirements, described under 561.197, are of
two types. The first is an initial report, and the second a
series of semiannual reports. An initial report must be
submitted within 90 days of the effective date for existing
sources or new sources having an initial startup date preced-
ing the effective date. For new sources with a startup date
after the effective date, the initial report must be submitted
with the application for approval of construction, as described
in $61.07.
Receipt of the initial report is essential for ensuring
compliance with this standard. The report must specify equipment
identification number and process unit identification, type of
equipment, percent by weight benzene in the equipment fluid,
process fluid state (gas/vapor or liquid), and method of
compliance with the standard (monthly leak detection, no
detectable emissions, etc.).
Semiannual reports of leak detection and repair efforts
within a process unit are required. The reports must include
the number of leaks occurring within the process unit during
the reporting period, the number of leaks that could not be
repaired within 15 days, and the general reasons for unsuccess-
ful or delayed repair past 15 days. Reports may be photocopies
of reports under other regulations, provided the informational
requirements of §61.197 are satisfied.
Recordkeeping Requirements
These are specified at $61.196. Each leak shall be
identified and tagged, and this must be retained until the
leak is repaired. When each leak is detected, records should
be kept of the equipment and operator identification numbers,
-------
.11
dates for detection and repair, method of repair, and any reason
for delay of repair. These must be kept 'for two years.
Recordkeeping pertaining to the design requirements for closed-
vent systems and control devices must be recorded in a log and
kept in a readily accessible location. This recordkeeping
includes detailed schematics, design specifications, a descrip-
tion of the parameters monitored to ensure proper control device
operation and maintenance, periods when the closed-vent syterns
and control devices were not operated as designed, periods when
a flame pilot light did not have a flame, and dates of startups
and shutdowns of the systems. Additionally, records must be
kept explaining why valves have been classified as unsafe or
difficult to monitor and providing plans for monitoring such
valves. Records must be kept showing analyses demonstrating
that equipment is not in benzene service.
Compliance Issues
Compliance is determined by review of records required by
§61.196, review of performance test results/ and inspections
(EPA/State leak detections) using the methods and procedures
specified in §61.195. There are, however, several potential
compliance issues for which guidance is provided here.
1. For purposes of determining the percent benzene content,
S61.195(d) provides that ASTM Method D-2267 shall be used or an
owner or operator may use engineering judgment to demonstrate
that the percent benzene content does not exceed 10 percent by
weight. In case of a dispute the ASTM method takes precedence.
It should be noted that each piece of equipment within a process
unit that can conceivably contain equipment in benzene service
is presumed to be in benzene service unless an owner or operator
demonstrates otherwise. For a piece of equipment to be considered
not in service, it must be determined that the percent benzene
content can be reasonably expected never to exceed ten percent
by weight. The burden is on the owner or operator to show
equipment is not in benzene service.
2. Several benzene equipment standards require that the owner
or operator develop, based on design considerations and
operating experience, a criterion indicating system failure.
See S61.192-2(d)(5) for pumps and $61.192-3(e)(2) for compressors.
The valve standard requires at S61.192-7(g) that the owner or
operator have written plans for monitoring unsafe-to-monitor-
valves during safe periods and at S61.192-7(h) that the owner
-------
12
or operator have written plans for monitoring difficult-to-
monitor valves at least once per year. Although none of these
plans requires EPA approval, all must be accessible to inspection
personnel. Should the plan appear inadequate, inspectors may
request development of a new plan or a performance test when
applicable to ensure compliance is being achieved. If the
plan is obviously inadequate (intentionally inadequate), a
violation should be pursued.
3. The standard for closed-vent systems and control devices
at S61.192-ll(e) requires that owners and operators of control
devices used to comply with the standard monitor their control
devices to ensure they are operated and maintained in confor-
mance with their designs. No monitoring parameters are
suggested; however, the owner or operator must achieve 95%
control and the parameter selected must indicate this.
The Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry
Promulgation Background Document (EPA 450/3-30-033bf June 1982,
Appendix B) provides acceptable monitoring parameters and
equipment. These include operating temperature or flowrate
of fugitive emission vent streams for incinerators, flow
recorders to verify steam flow for boilers, thermocouples or
ultraviolet beam sensors for flares, temperature and specific
gravity of the absorbing liquid for absorbers, offgas exit
temperature for condensers, and carbon bed temperature and
steam flow recorders for carbon adsorbers. See Attachment II.
Whatever parameter is chosen, the owner or operator should
be aware that EPA can require an engineering evaluation at
any time to ensure the parameter is appropriate and monitors
the operation of the control device in accordance with the
standard.
4. The general provisions at $61.10 and 61.11 allow EPA to
grant a waiver from a benzene standard for a period of up to
two years, if the owner or operator of an existing source
subject to that standard is unable to operate in compliance
with the standard. Most benzene requirements are in the form
of work practice standards, and waivers from these standards
would not be appropriate. However, certain provisions may
require retrofitting of controls. These include standards
for compressors (mechanical seals with barrier fluid systems)
pressure relief devices (rupture disk systems or closed-vent
systems to flares), and product accumulator vessels (must vent
-------
13 . .
emissions to a control device or use a closed-vent system).
In cases where retrofit controls are necessary, requests for
waivers should be examined on a case-by-case basis. Although
ESED believes installation of controls should typically take
no more than one year, individual situations may require addi-
tional time.
-------
PN 112-82-03-24-002
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
24
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority to States: NESHAPS
FROM: Kathleen M. Bennett
Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and Radiation
TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I - X
Several Regional offices have requested guidance on issuing
an "automatic" delegation to States of the authority to implement
the NESHAP program. There has also been a request for guidance
on delegation of the authority to grant waivers of compliance with
NESHAPS.
As discussed in my guidance document of December 29, 1981,
for the Administrator's Accountability System,
the Agency should be as flexible as possible
in the determination of when a State program
is adequate and delegation should be made.
The appropriate attitude toward State and local
agencies is to presume both capability and
proper intention, if at all possible.
In order to promote the delegation of the NESHAP program (as well
as the NSPS program), an "automatic" delegation to the States
should be pursued. Automatic delegation would not only provide
States with the implementing authority for current standards under
the NESHAP program, but would also provide the authority for
future standards as they are published in the Federal Register.
Again citing the guidance document,
regional offices should foster this approach
by consulting with appropriate State officials
and attempt to resolve any legal issues which
may inhibit this approach in some States.
With regard to delegating the authority to grant waivers of
compliance with NESHAPS, the Agency has now concluded that this
authority could be incorporated into the "automatic" delegation of
the NESHAP program. Originally the Agency had retained the
authority to grant waivers to insure consistent application of the
standards while the States were familiarizing themselves with this
program. Because there was never any legal restriction preventing
112
2-1
-------
the delegation of this authority, the Agency has now determined
that the States have advanced in their general understanding of
the program and that they can assume this additional
responsibility. Therefore, the current policy with respect to
delegation of authority to grant waivers of compliance is to
include this function in the "automatic" delegation of the NESHAP
program.
As a clarification, it should be noted that no sources are
currently eligible for waivers of compliance and would not be
caught in the interim during any transfer of authority to States
to grant waivers. The waiver period of two years from the
effective date of any present NESHAP standard has already expired.
Therefore, the need to issue waivers to existing sources will not
arise until new standards are promulgated under the NESHAP
program.
If you have any questions concerning the delegation of
authority to States for the NESHAP or NSPS programs, you should
contact Bern Steigerwald at the Office of Air Quality, Planning,
and Standards (OAQPS). OAQPS is assuming the programmatic role
for delegation of authority. Mr. Steigerwald may be contacted at
FTS 629-5555.
112
2-2
-------
PN 112-78-03-30-001
bcc:Ron Naveen, OGC
DSSE:DFarnsworth:ver:EN-341:Rm 3202:3-29-78
3 Q
MEMORANDUM
Subject: State Enforcement of Asbestos Demolition
Regulations in Light of Adamo Wrecking
Company v. United States, 11 EKC 1081
(January 10, 1970)
Fron: Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
To: Abraham Ferdes (3EN11)
Air Enforcement Branch, Region III
Your February 24, 1978, mer.oranduci requested clari-
fication of State authority to enforce work practice stan-
dards to control emission from demolition and renovation
projects. You particularly sought our comment on an opinion
submitted to the Pennsylvania DER by Pennsylvania Assistant
Attorney General tiichael Alushin regarding Pennsylvania's
authority to independently enforce hazardous air pollutant
standards.
It is our opinion that Mr. Aluehin's determination that
the State may independently enforce its hazardous air
pollutant standards is correct. States which adopted work
practice standards under independent authority of a State
law (as opposed to being delegated the responsibility
to enforce Federal standards as EPA's "agent" without
adoption of standards pursuant to State enabling legislation)
are not affected by the Supreme Court's Adano opinion. Such
a State may continue to enforce its own work practice
standards.
States and citizens also have the authority to enforce
the Federal work practice standards ( 40 CFR SGI.22), under
Section 304 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
§7b04. (See the definition of emission standard in Section
304(f)(3) which specifically includes work practice regula-
tions.) Hov/ever, Section 304 actions do have some drawbacks,
particularly with regard to enforcing these standards
ayainst transient operations such as building demolitions.
112
1-1
-------
-2-
For example, sixty-ciay ante litem notices must be filed with
the Administrator, State and source prior to the filing of a
civil action, in addition, only injunctive relief is
available in a Section 304 action; penalties ir.ay not be
collected. Because of these drawbacks, citizen suits under
this Section of the Act are not an optimal enforcement
mechanism to assure coKtpliance with the work practice
regulations.
If we can be of any further assistance to you in this
matter, please contact Doug Farnsworth of my staff (FTS
7b5-2570).
Edward E. Reich
cc: Steve Wassersug, Director
Enforcement Division, Region III
A*-
112
1-2
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 113
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 113
* PN113-75-11-05-001
NON-DISCRETIONARY ENFORCEMENT DUTIES - ISSUANCE OF NOTICES OF VIOLATION
* PN113-76-06-25-002
DOCUMENTATION OF VIOLATION EXTENDING 30 DAYS BEYOND NOTICE OF VIOLATION
UNDER SECTION 113 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
* PN113-76-08-12-003
ENFORCEMENT OF SIPS UNDERGOING REVISION
* PN113-76-08-13-004
"REVIEWABILITY" OF EPA DETERMINATIONS IN SIP ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
* PN113-78-07-27-005
ENFORCEMENT UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS - ORDERS UNDER SECTION
113 (A) AND 113 (D)
* PN113-80-03-11-006
INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
* PN113-80-05-27-007
DELAYED COMPLIANCE ORDERS REQUIRING SIP COMPLIANCE THROUGH TEMPORARY
CONTROL MEASURES - AMENDED GUIDANCE
* PN113-82-05-04-013
GUIDANCE ON POLICY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF VE VIOLATIONS AGAINST SOURCES
WHICH ARE MEETING AN APPLICABLE MASS EMISSION STANDARD
* PN113-82-08-12-014
GUIDANCE CONCERNING EPA'S USE OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING DATA
* PN113-83-02-15-017
POLICY ON EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, MAINTENANCE, AND
MALFUNCTIONS
* PN113-83-01-12-018
GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY
ISSUED SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
* PN113-83-04-12-019
LETTER TO ROBERT R. WAHLER FROM KATHLEEN BENNETT RE ENFORCEMENT POLICY
ON INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
* PN113-83-04-26-020
PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW AND FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION OF DELAYED
COMPLIANCE ORDERS UNDER SECTION 113(D) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
-------
Page No. 2
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 113
(VOLUME 1)
* PN113-84-10-05-021
FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF EXCESS EMISSION
REPORTS
* PN113-84-12-20-022
POLICY ON NO-ACTION ASSURANCES
* PN113-85-04-24-023
ACHIEVING VOC COMPLIANCE FROM DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTOR
FACILITIES
* PN113-85-06-28-024
PARTICULATE MATTER INTERIM ENFORCEMENT POLICY
* PN113-85-10-30-025
FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF COAL SAMPLING AND
ANALYSIS DATA
* PN113-85-11-27-026
REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING WITH CLEAN AIR
ACT REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN
-------
PN 113-85-11-27-026
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
NOV 271985
MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
AND COMPLIANCE
MONITORING
SUBJECT
FROM
Revised Enforcement Policy Respecting Sources
Complying With Clean Air Act Requirements By
Shutdown
Courtney M. Price
Assistant Administrator fo
and Compliance Monitoring
Enforcement
c
TO: Air and Waste Management Division Directors
Regions II, VI, VII, and VIII
Air Management Division Directors
Region I, III, V, and IX
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management
Division Directors
Regions IV and X
Regional Counsels
Regions I-X
Attached are two memoranda. The first is the final
version of the revised/updated Clean Air Act enforcement
policy respecting sources complying by shutdown. The second
memorandum modifies the Agency's September 20, 1982 and
January 12, 1983 enforcement policies for sources in non-
attainment areas to be consistent with the terms of the
new policy. Please note that the new policy becomes effec-
tive for cases referred after December 15, 1985.
Two drafts of the new policy were circulated for
review during the last several months. I would like to
express my appreciation for the extensive participation by
Regional Offices in this policy development effort. Many
valuable comments were received and the final version
reflects them.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding the
interpretation or application of the new policy, please contact
Mr. William Repsher (FTS 382-2854) of my staff.
Attachments
-------
USE,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
NOV27885
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
AND COMPLIANCE
MONITORING
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT;
PROM:
Enforcement Policy Respecting Sources Complying
With Clean Air Act Requirements By/shutdown
( « — A,
\—**+*-^l n.
Courtney M. Price
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring
TO: Air and Waste Management Division Directors
Regions II, VI, VII, and VIII
Air Management Division Directors
Region I, III, V, and IX
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management
Division Directors
Regions IV and X
Regional Counsels
Regions I-X
Attached is a memorandum providing guidance for your use
in addressing sources that intend to comply with Clean Air Act
requirements by shutting down. The relationship of this policy
statement to previous policy statements on the same subject is
as follows.
On June 18, 1979, the Administrator established an enforce-
ment policy under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts respecting
sources intending to come into compliance by shutting down.
(See Administrator's Memorandum of June 18, 1979, "Limited Life
Facilities—Policy Statement.") On September 20, 1982 and
January 12, 1983, EPA affirmed that the "Limited Life Facili-
ties" policy would apply beyond the end of 1982 under the Clean
Air Act for noncomplying sources in primary nonattainment areas
where attainment was to have been achieved by the end of 1982.
(See the Administrator's Memorandum of September 20, 1982,
-------
-2-
"Enforcement Action Against Stationary Air Sources Which Will
Not Be In Compliance by December 31, 1982," and the January 12,
1983 Memorandum, "Guidance on Implementation of the 1982 Dead-
line Enforcement Policy Issued September 20, 1982," issued
jointly by the Associate Administrator and General Counsel
and the Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise .and Radiation.)
For Clean Air Act sources, the present policy, "Clean
Air Act Enforcement Policy Respecting Sources Complying By
Shutdown," supersedes the enforcement policy issued by the
Administrator on June 18, 1979 entitled "Limited Life Facili-
ties-Policy Statement." A memorandum amending relevant por-
tions of the September 20, 1982 and January 12, 1983 memo-
randa to make them consistent with today's policy statement
is being issued along with this memorandum.
Attachment
-------
ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING
WITH CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIREMENTS BY SHUtPOWfl
NOTE: THE POLICIES ESTABLISHED IN THIS DOCUMENT ARE INTENDED
SOLELY FOR THE GUIDANCE OF GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL AND ARE NOT IN-
TENDED TO CREATE ANY RIGHTS, SUBSTANTIVE OR PROCEDURAL, ENFORCE-
ABLE BY A PARTY IN LITIGATION WITH THE UNITED STATES. THE
AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ACT AT VARIANCE WITH THESE POLICIES
AND TO CHANGE THEM AT ANY TIME WITHOUT PUBLIC -NOTICE.
I. Applicability
This policy applies to all sources which are in violation
of Clean Air Act SIP, NSPS, or NESHAP's requirements, where
the owner intends to achieve compliance by shutting down the
source rather than by installing controls.1 The policy applies
to sources in all air quality regions, regardless of attainment
status.
II. Enforcement Policy For Sources Complying by Shutdown
Section 113 of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to seek
injunctions against sources in violation of Clean Air Act re-
quirements. When applying to the court for a compliance schedule
or when negotiating one with a defendant, EPA has consistently
interpreted the Act as requiring compliance as expeditiously as
practicable.
In cases where the owner intends to achieve compliance by
shutting down the source, the question arises as to what con-
stitutes an expeditious compliance schedule. EPA believes that
there are two fundamental types of shutdown situations, with
a different treatment being appropriate for each.
A. NESHAP Sources, NSPS Sources, and SIP Sources Not Being Replaced
Where a source is violating NESHAP or NSPS requirements,
or is violating SIP requirements and is not to be expeditiously
replaced (as discussed below), EPA believes that the Clean
1 As used herein, the phrase "install controls" includes:
(1) the replacement, or upgrading, of inadequate previously-
installed controls; and (2) process changes involving signif-
icant developmental costs. An example of the latter class of
cases would be product reformulation in the case of VOC
sources. Where developmental costs can be recouped at other
sources owned by the source owner, Section II.B will not be
applicable, however.
-------
-2-
Air Act requires an expeditious shutdown of the violating source.
Allowing sources violating NESHAP, NSPS, PSD or NSR require-
ments to operate more than a minimal amount of time without
controls would subvert the environmental purposes behind the
Act's requirements pertaining to such sources. Moreover,
allowing such sources or any other SIP sources which will not be
* controlled more than a minimal period of uncontrolled operation
~ would merely afford the owner an opportunity to maximize profits
• at the expense of the environment.
\ How expeditiously sources falling into the above categories
• must shut down is to be determined on a case-by-case basis. The
-' most important factors to be considered are legal restraints on
f closing, such as union agreements and bankruptcy court orders.
As necesary in appropriate cases, EPA should apply to the
relevant legal authorities for removal of any such constraints.
In NESHAPs cases or in any other cases involving a significant
public health risk, violating sources must be shut down as quick-
. ly as possible.
For sources subject to this Subsection (II.A), the period
within which expeditious shutdown must occur runs from the time
at which it is determined that the owner intends to comply by
shutdown. EPA should apply to the appropriate court for injunc-
tive relief if an acceptable expeditious shutdown schedule cannot
be speedily negotiated. Any negotiated schedule should be memo-
rialized in a judicially enforceable consent agreement and lodged
with the appropriate court.
B. Possible Extensions for Noncomplying SIP Sources Which Will
Be Replaced
If the owner intends to replace a source violating a SIP
requirement by transferring the production to some other facility
in the same geographical area2, and the replacement source is not
yet constructed and/or operable, EPA may exercise its enforcement
discretion to delay shutdown of the violating source until Jthe
i replacement facility is constructed and operable. The factors
I that EPA will take into account in determining whether to exercise
, such discretion will include:
1. The attainment status of the air quality region in which
the source is located, including whether the region's
deadline for achieving the NAAQS has passed,
2lf the replacement source were not located in the same area
as the violating source, the benefits of the extended shutdown
schedule would be reaped by some community other than the one
carrying the environmental burden of the extended period of
noncomplying operation.
-------
-3-
2. The impact of the violating source's excess emissions on
the air quality of the region,
3. The time elapsed since the source was required to have
achieved compliance, and the efforts which tho source
owner has made to achieve compliance,
4. The impact on workers and the company"of any disruption
in production which night be occasioned by a shutdown
prior to the replacement source's being operable, and
5. The owner's record of compliance with all environmental
regulations at the affected facility, and at other
facilities owned by the same owner.
•
6. Shutdown of the violating source need not consist of
physically destroying or dismantling the source. How-
ever, in cases where the source owner does not.wish to
destroy or dismantle the source, a responsible 'official
of the source owner must submit an affidavit specifying
that the owner does not, at the time'the affidavit is
given, intend to resume operating the source within at
least three years following shutdown.
The replacement facility need not be a one-for-one replica-
tion of the violating facility but it must involve some substan-
tial construction necessary to permit the transfer of production
to the replacement facility. The replacement facility need not
emit the same pollutant as the violating source. The replacement
facility may include a pre-existing source, provided some sub-
stantial construction is necessary to make the transfer of pro-
duction feasible. Finally, for the purposes of this paragraph,
the installation or upgrading of controls at the replacement
facility may constitute construction provided the installation or
upgrading is necessary for the replacement facility to achieve or
maintain compliance after the production is transferred.
In cases where EPA decides to exercise its enforcement
discretion to delay shutdown until the replacement of the viola-
ting source, the owner must enter into a judically enforceable
consent decree providing as follows:
1. The consent decree must require shutdown of the viola-
ting source by a date certain. This date must be no
later than the earliest date by which the replacement
facility can be constructed and rendered operable on an
-------
-4-
expeditious scheddle, as measured from the time when
it is determined that the owner of the source intends
to achieve compliance by shutdown.
2. The decree must require the posting of a surety bond
or equivalent mechanism providing for an automatic
forfeiture in the event shutdown does not occur by
the agreed-upon date. The bond should be in an amount
representing the cost of installing adequate controls
on the violating source.
3. Notwithstanding the provision of a bond, the decree
must contain a clause reserving the government's right
to seek other relief in the event the source fails to be
timely shut down.
4. The decree must contain a stipulated penalty provision
setting a daily penalty for any operation of the viola-
ting source beyond the shutdown date. The amount of
this penalty should be sufficient to, at a minimum,
recapture any economic benefit attributable to the
noncomplying operation, above and beyond the capital
cost of controls forfeitable pursuant to the bond re-
quired by Subparagraph 2 above.
5. The consent decree must provide that the violating
source will be either demolished or dismantled, or
that, upon any reactivation for a business reason aris-
ing after the shutdown, the source would constitute a
new source under applicable federal regulations including,
where applicable, new source review regulations.
6. All agreements regarding shutdown must be made binding
on all successors-in-interest to the owner.
7. The co'nsent decree must require a schedule of construc-
tion for the replacement facility with appropriate inter-
im dates and stipulated penalties for any violations of
the construction schedule.
8. The decree must require the owner to demonstrate and
maintain compliance with all emission standards applic-
able to all emission points at the replacement facility
which are associated with the transferred'production.
The compliance demonstration should, if feasible, occur
prior to the transfer of production. An exception can
be made in cases where A brief shakedown period is
required, or where conditions prior to the transfer of
production would not constitute representative operating
conditions. The decree should provide that compliance
shall be maintained at the replacement facility until
-------
,.~ -5-
the termination of the decree, if that date occurs later
than the date of the required compliance demonstration.
9. The decree should provide that the company shall comply
with the terms and conditions of any state, local, or
federal permits applicable to the sources associated
with the transferred production at the replacement
facility.
10. The decree must require implementation of appropriate
interim measures at the violating facility to minimize
the impact of continued noncomplying operation on the
environment. If the violating source is uncontrolled,
the decree must require implementation of whatever
operation and maintenance practices are appropriate.
If the source already has controls, the decree must at
a minimum require the best practicable operation and
maintenance of those controls until the time of shutdown.
In cases where an appropriate limit can be set, the
decree must require compliance with interim emissions
limits, as a tool for ensuring compliance with interim
operation and maintenance procedures, and must provide
for stipulated penalties for violations of such interim
emission limits.
11. The decree must contain reporting requirements regarding
such matters as increments of progress in compliance
schedules, implementation of interim control measures,
and compliance with interim emissions levels.
12. The decree must provide, in accordance with the applic-
able civil penalty policy, for the payment of a civil
penalty respecting the violations at the violating
source, and respecting any violations at the replacement
source. The penalty must cover the period beginning at
the date of the earliest provable violation to the date
that compliance will be achieved. The end of this
period for the violating source being closed down will
be the date of shutdown. The end date with respect to
any noncomplying replacement source is the date that a
successful compliance demonstration is conducted.
13. The termination clause of the decree must provide
that the jurisdiction of the court will continue until
the later of the shutdown of the violating facility
or the compliance demonstration at the replacement
facility.
have been occasions when control equipment was avail-
able on a rental basis. In any such cases, use of the rental
equipment should be required.
-------
-6-
„
C. Avoiding Abuse of This Policy ^
- - v^
Experience has shown that some source owners may seek to
obtain shutdown schedules longer than otherwise allowed under
this policy by delaying to acknowledge that shutdown is contem-
plated for a source which has become the subject of an enforce-
ment action. In order to avoid such abuse of the shutdown
policy, the following procedures should be employed:
1. At the time of EPA's initial contact with the source
owner subsequent to issuance of an N.O.V. , EPA should
routinely advise the source owner of the policy re-
specting sources complying by shutdown.
2. If the owner acknowledges in a timely fashion that
shutdown is a possibility for the source, but indi-
cates that the shutdown decision has not been finalized,
EPA may, in appropriate cases, exercise its discretion
to afford the owner a brief period to complete any
decision-making regarding whether the source will
be shut down and, if so, whether it will be replaced
within the meaning of Section II. B. The amount of time
afforded should be the absolute minimum procedurally
necessary for authorized officials of the source's
owner to make the relevant decisions.
III. Effective Date
This policy applies to all cases referred to Headquarters
or, in the case of direct referrals, to DOJ, subsequent to
December 15, 1985.
-------
W,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
NOV 27 1985
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
AND COMPLIANCE
MONITORING
MEMORANDUM
Conforming Amendments To Previous Policy Statements
Regarding Clean Air Act Sources Where Compliance
Will Be Achieved BAE. Shutdown ~
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Courtney M. Price
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring
TO: Air and Waste Management Division Directors
Regions II, VI, VII, and VIII
Air Management Division Directors
Region I, III, V, and IX
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management
Division Directors
Regions IV and X
Regional Counsels
Regions I-X
In a companion memorandum issued today, the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring has updated and revised
EPA's Clean Air Act enforcement policy respecting sources where
compliance will be achieved by by shutdown, rather than by in-
stalling controls. EPA's policy respecting such sources had
originally been issued in July, 1979 and had most recently
been treated in two memoranda:
— Administrator's Memorandum of September 20, 1982,
"Enforcement Action Against Stationary Air Sources
Which Will Not Be In Compliance by December 31, 1982"
— January 12, 1983 Memorandum, "Guidance on
Implementation of the 1982 Deadline Enforcement
Policy Issued September 20, 1982," (issued jointly
by the Associate Administrator and General Counsel
and the Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise
and Radiation).
-------
-2-
This memorandum amends the foregoing two documents to be
consistent with the updated and revised policy issued today.
The revisions to the respective memoranda are as follows:
1. Revisions to Item 10 on page 4 of the
September 20, 1982 Administrator's "Enforcement
Memorandum Action Against Stationary •
Air Sources Which will Not Be
in Compliance by December 31, 1982," is modified to read
as follows:
10) Compliance schedules for sources where compliance
will be achieved by shutdown are governed by the
policy respecting such sources issued in the
November 21, 1985 memorandum, "Enforcement Policy
Respecting Sources Complying With Clean Air Act Re-
quirements by Shutdown."
2. Revisions to Pages 1 and 2 of the January 12,
January 12, 1983 1983 Memorandum, "Guidance on
Memorandum Implementation of the*1982 Dead-
line Enforcement Policy Issued
September 20, 1982", is modified to read as follows:
Requirements for Sources Intending to Comply by Shutdown
The requirements for sources intending to comply by
shutdown are governed by the policy respecting such
sources issued in the November 27, 1985 Memorandum,
"Enforcement Policy Respecting Sources Complying With
Clean Air Act Requirements by Shutdown."
-------
-------
PN 113-85-10-30-025
\ITKl)r Vl'KS KN\ |')5(>NMIvVr\L PUOTKCTION
\v \£i i I\<;.T<>\ n.c. 20460
OCT 30 866
OFFICE OF
MR AND RADIATIONS
Final Technical Guidance on the Review and Use of
Coal Sampling and Analysis Data
Director-
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, V, and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII, and X
I. INTRODUCTION
This memorandum transmits two documents: (A) final
technical guidance on the acquisition, review and use of
coal sampling and analysis (CSA) data from large coal-fired
boilers where the monitoring data are used for targeting
agency follow-up actions; and (B) an example of the
calculations performed in accordance with item A. The
guidance is not applicable when the CSA method is specified
as the emission compliance, alternative emission compliance,
or sulfur-in-fuel compliance test method. Furthermore, this
guidance may be helpful to State and local agencies as well
as EPA's Regional Offices.
NOTE: Attachments 1 and 2 are not included in the
Policy and Guidance Notebook.
-------
•«: < .- - 2 -
On April 5, 1985%^anfl again on August 16, 1985, a
draft of this guidance^was distributed to the Regional
Offices and interested Headquarters offices. Comments were
received from six Regional offices and two Headquarters
offices. In general, the comments were very supportive of
the drafts, and included a number of constructive suggestions
for improving the document.
II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The guidance presented in Attachment I supplements the
October 5, 1984 source targeting document entitled "Technical
Guidance on the Review and Use of Excess Emission Reports"
(hereafter called the 1984 EER Guidance) by addressing those
large coal-fired boilers which burn "compliance" coal but
which are not currently required to operate SO2 CEMS, nor
to report SO2 CEMS data. Taken together, the CSA and EER
guidance packages equip agencies to review and use effectively
quarterly SO2 emission data, whether derived from S02 CEMS
or CSA methodologies.
This guidance recommends that agencies periodically
request source submittal of limited quantities of CSA
information. Such information will generally be available
to the sources as a result of their routine business practices,
In the event such information is not currently available
at a source, the source's cost of acquiring it should not
be substantial.
Furthermore, the guidance strongly recommends that
agencies use and follow-up the CSA information in a manner
comparable to how it presently uses CEMS-derived excess
emission reports (EERs).
The guidance contained in Attachment I provides forms,
equations and examples of how to convert CSA data into SO2
EERs. Attachment II presents actual calculations, discussion
and action recommendations, based upon empirical CSA data,
and is consistent with Attachment I.
III. MAJOR COMMENTS
A. Timing of Issuing the Subject Technical Guidance
Most of the commenters recommended that SSCD issue the
subject guidance as soon as possible. One Regional commenter
questioned the decision to issue it now, given that the
Agency is contemplating ppssible revision of the current
-------
- 3 -
*•
NSPS Subpart D rules. A different Regional Office, one
which is presently using a sophisticated enhancement of
the CSA procedure described herein, recommended that we
issue CSA guidance in two phases, the subject guidance now
and a more sophisticated version later.
SSCD concluded that it is appropriate to issue the
subject CSA guidance now, even though a possible CSA
alternative compliance method (Reference Method 19-A) is
contained in the current draft ot the NSPS Subpart D revision.
Issuing this technical guidance now is appropriate because:
1) the subject document is relevant to many nbn-NSPS,
large coal-fired, non-FGD controlled boilers which
do not monitor and report SC>2 CEMS data;
2) the possible Subpart D revision is not expected
to become effective for at least one year;* and
3) implementation of this guidance is not expected
to creat*e a measurable additional burden upon the .
applicable sources.
Therefore, agencies will benefit from having a CSA review
method immediately available to them.
Furthermore, SSCD agrees that it may be appropriate
to develop and disseminate more sophisticated guidance on
CSA. Therefore, after the subject guidance is issued, and
experience with it has been gained, SSCD will evaluate the
technical feasibility and advisability of issuing new, more
sophisticated, CSA guidance or procedures. If a decision
is made to develop additional CSA guidance, your input
and assistance will be requested.
B. Quality of CSA Data
One commenter expressed concern about the logic of
expending agency resources to acquire and use what they
construed were "uncertain data" to target enforcement
activities when sources are, or will in the near future
(the Region presumed), be required to submit quality-assured
SO2 CEMS data.
t'^Note: If EPA promulgates a revision of Subpart D which
""* specifies various types of continuous monitoring
(including CSA) as compliance methods, this guidance
would cease to be applicable to the SO2 emissions
from Subpart D sources.
-------
- 4 - •:.•
5 . '
*• *
r
This guidance addresses sources 'which are not required
to obtain CEMS data, but currently do have CSA data of
sufficient quality to warrant their use in targeting enforce-
ment activities. Since this guidance does not address CEMS
data, SSCD deemed it appropriate to issue this guidance at
this time. It should also be recalled that while striving to
obtain readily available, high quality data, the quality
assurance requirements for data used in targeting do not have
to be quite as stringent as when the data are used directly
to enforce an emission regulation. Furthermore, experience
shows that agencies which take the following steps generally
receive CSA data which are fully suitable to target boilers:
0 make the purpose of the agency's CSA data
acquisition program known to the source;
0 request a corporate official's signature on
each CSA data submittal;
0 conduct agency inspections and/or reviews of the
source's CSA equipment; and
0 demonstrate to the source that the agency is
using its CSA data to target enforcement follow-up
actions.
C. Relationship of the Subject Guidance to CEMS/EER Guidance
In 1984, SSCD issued the document entitled "Technical
Guidance on the Review and Use of Excess Emission Reports."
That document addressed EERs derived from SC>2 CEMS. However,
it recognized the need to develop and issue supplemental
guidance to address those large coal-fired boilers which
currently are not required to use SO2 CEMS. The guidance
contained in Attachment I is specifically intended to supple-
ment the 1984 EER Guidance. Taken together, the 1984 EER
Guidance and this document provide agencies with the procedures
to target all large coal-fired boilers based upon SO2-related
criteria.
The guidance provides specific forms and calculation
methods to convert the source's coal sampling and analysis
data into SC>2 EERs. Once such EERs are derived, it states
that one should target and follow-up such data in a manner
generally consistent with the procedures included in the 1984
EER Guidance.
-------
D. Length and Complexity of the Guidance
Some of the commenters recommended that the final
guidance should be simplified and streamlined in size.
It became clear that this could be accomplished through
the following two changes to the draft:
1) simplifying the calculation and technical details
in accordance with the comments received;" and
2) reorganizing and repackaging the guidance into
two separate attachments.
IV. RESPONSES TO SSCD'S SPECIFIC CSA QUESTIONS
A. Agencies Should Obtain CSA Data from All
"Compliance Coal" Subpart D Boilers
The commenters generally supported the idea that
agencies should periodically obtain CSA data from every
non-FGD-controlled (compliance coal) Subpart D boiler and
other large boilers which are not presently using SC>2 CEMS,
nor submitting S02 EERs.
Some Regional commenters stated that the preferred
mechanism for obtaining quarterly CSA data is to request it
by letter (e.g., §114), though other methods may be chosen
by an agency.
With respect to which CSA data to obtain each quarter,
the consensus was that, in general, it is important to obtain
the summarized results of "as-fired" or "as-bunkered" CSA
data derived from sampling the coal which is (or will be)
combusted during each twenty-four hour period. Twenty-four
hour CSA data are currently available from most modern
boilers, and this period is consistent with those contained
in the Agency's Proposed CSA Reference Method 19-A.
B. Agencies Should Take Into Account Data Uncertainties
Comments on this issue generally fell into four widely
different viewpoints. These included: (1) do not use data
which has an uncertain quality; (2) assume that the data
values are high; (3) assume that data values are low; and
(4) assume that the data are generally representative of the
real level. SSCD recognizes that in a normal situation, there
are likely to be as many causes for the CSA data to be high
as there are for them to be low. Therefore, solely for the
-------
- 6 -
purpose of targeting ,, if the source takes, reasonable care in
its CSA program, twenty-four hour CSA data are assumed to
represent adequately the actual average (three to twenty-four
hour) SC>2 emission potential of the coal combusted.
C. Preparation of CSA-derived EERs
The sentiment among the commenters was in favor of
requesting the sources to submit CSA-derived EE£s to the
agencies on a quarterly basis, rather than having the agencies
prepare the EERs in-house from "raw" source-submitted, daily
data. The experience to date is that sources generally
respond in the affirmative when requested to convert their
CSA data into S02 excess emission reports. Furthermore,
if the agency chooses to prepare EERs, it would require
two submittals (or more) per quarter of data from the source.
First it would receive "raw CSA data." Second, for every
excess emission identified by the agency, the agency would
require source submittal of concomitant process data.
Therefore, .the guidance strongly recommends that agencies
request source submittal of its EERs.
D. Negative Reaction to Using "As-Received" CSA Data
The consensus opinion on the subject of agency use of
as-received CSA data was opposed to generally accepting and
using such data. The primary reasons for this position are:
(1) there are usually no practical and simple ways
to predict which day's SC>2 emissions a specific
coal sample and its concomitant results represent;
(2) allowing a source to rely upon its own as-fired
or as-bunkered CSA data (in lieu of SC>2 CEMS) was
seen by some commenters as providing a sufficient
selection of alternatives to the source; and
(3) many sources' as-received CSA hardware and test
procedures do not meet the minimum acceptable
criteria specified in the guidance and by ASTM.
Therefore, the consensus was that it would be inappropriate
to "generally" accept as-received CSA data.
6
However, the commenters recognized that there might
be some instances where reliance on as-received data would
be appropriate. Therefore, the guidance accommodates, on a
case-by-case basis (e.g. , the sampling is consistent with
-------
- -1 -
a twenty-four burn's "lot size," the emission rate is
calculated to be far below the allowable rate, the coal
is received from a single mine), agency evaluation of
as-received data. Further, the guidance specifies that
before accepting such data, the agency should be as confident
about the resulting SC>2 EER as it would have been if it had
relied upon either as-fired or as-bunkered data.
E, Targeting Criteria
The consensus of the commenters on this subject was
that agencies should use targeting criteria fotr CSA-derived
EERs which are comparable, if not slightly tighter, than
those it uses for CEMS-derived EER results. The fact that
a source uses a different S02 monitoring method should not
measurably affect the agency's criteria. Therefore, with
only the few modifications noted in Attachment I, the
criteria included in the 1984 EER Guidance are appropriate
when CSA .data are used.
In summary, the comments received on the draft
guidance urged that final CSA guidance be issued as soon
as possible, incorporating relatively few major changes
to the draft. SSCD intends to continue to support the
program by issuing supplementary information and program
guidance as necessary.
Since this guidance supplements and is conceptually
and programmatically quite similar to the previous EER
guidance, the following are true of the CSA guidance:
0 it is issued as "technical guidance" rather
than as "program guidance" in that it supports,
but does not mandate, a review program;
0 it is equally as important as CErtb targeting
activities and, therefore, both should be
implemented concurrently;
0 there is a need for a limited period of source
submittal of CSA-derived EERs to both State and
Federal agencies, as in the case of the CEMS-derived
EER data; and
0 it is not applicable to any.situation where CSA
data are specified as the compliance method.
-------
-•' 8 - *t
If your staff desires to distribute the attached
guidance to Regional, State or industry personnel, additional
copies may be requested from Louis Paley of this office.
Requests should be sent to him at US EPA, SSCD (EN-341),
401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, or by telephone
at (202) 382-2835.
Edward E. Reich
Attachments I and II
cc: Jerry Emison, Director, OAQPS
Jack Fanner, Director, ESED
Darryl Tyler, Director, CPDD
Earl Salo, OGC
Michael Alushin, OECM
James Kilgroe, IERL
Daryl von Lehmden, EMSL/RTP
Kenneth Knapp, ESRL
Tom Gallagher, NEIC
Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs, Region II, III, IV, V, VI, IX
Directors, Environmental Services Division, Regions I-X
-------
PN 113-10-30-024
8 UMTKI) STATES ENVIRONMENTAL I'KOTKCTION AGENCY
* WASHLNCJTON, D.C. 20460
JUN 28 1986
OFFICE OF
AIR AND tADIATIO*
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Particulate Matter Interim Enforcement Policy
PROM: Charles L. Elkins
Acting Assistant Administrate
for Air and Radiation
TO: Air and Waste Management Division Directors
Regions II and VI
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, V, and IX
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division Director
Region IV
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII, and X
I recently had the opportunity to review with OAQPS staff
the status of the PM^Q rulemaking action. In that context, we
discussed the interim enforcement policy as articulated in the
April 2, 1985 Federal Register at page 13139, a copy of which
is attached. That policy is clear and straightforward. It
states that as a matter of both law and equity, existing TSP-
based emissions limitations remain fully enforceable and should
be vigorously enforced. I understand that the program is
proceeding on this basis and I want to assure you of my full
support for this policy.
Attachment
NOTE: The Federal Register notice referred to
above is not included in the Policy and
Guidance Notebook.
-------
-------
PN 113-85-04-24-023
4*241985
AIR AND RADlAh
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Achieving VOC Compliance from Department of Defense
Contractor Facilities
FROM: 'Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Air and Waste Management Division Directors
Regions II and VI
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, V, and IX
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division Director
Region IV
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII, and X
This memorandum is to inform you of the. results of a recent
meeting between my staff, OECM's Air Enforcement Division,
EPA's Office of Federal Activities and the Environmental Policy
Directorate, Department of Defense. The meeting was held in
response to questions from several Regions about enforcing
VOC emission limitations at stationary sources producing
goods or services under contract with the Department of
Defense (DOD). The questions centered on the issue of responsi-
bility, and DOD's position concerning the accountability of
its contractors for compliance with VOC regulations in a SIP.
We also wanted to elucidate DOD's role and responsibility as
a Federal agency for compliance with applicable environmental
requirements.
•
A number of interesting clarifications were disclosed at
this meeting. These warrant discussion because they play a
vital role in the position we will recommend in dealing with
air violations at facilities which have contracts with DOD.
First, in order to better understand DOD and contractor
relationships, certain terminology needs to be defined.
-------
-2-
There are at Ueast three-different types of DOD facilities
subject to environmental requirements:
**„ ••' *
0 Government Owned Government Operated (GOGO) facilities.
8 Government Owned Contractor Operated (GOCO) facilities.
0 Contractor Owned Contractor Operated (COCO) facilities.
The GOGO facility is the traditional Federal facility such
as an air force base where the government owns and operates
all the regulated activity. The GOCO facility is one that
is owned by DOD but all or portions of it are operated by
private contractor(s). The COCO facility is a non-government
owned, privately operated facility that provides goods or
services to DOD under contract. Many thousands of sources
fall into the COCO category since DOD estimates they do
"business" with a majority of the manufacturing facilities
in the country.
Given these terms, I believe it has been the contractors
operating government owned facilities (GOCO) that have raised
with States and Regions pleas of alleged immunity based on con-
tracts with DOD. It is these facilities that are the focus of
this memorandum. Attachment I is a nonexclusive list of Air
Force and Navy GOCO facilities of potential concern. It was
supplied by the Office of Federal Activities. A similar list
of Army GOCO facilities will be forwarded under separate cover.
The main findings of our meeting are:
0 The standard contract DOD has with contractors includes a
clause requiring compliance with "all environmental laws"
or language to that effect. This negates the so-called
immunity-these sources claim they have. Regions and
States should seek out this contract language should the
need warrant.
0 Responsibility for compliance with environmental require-
ments lies with the contractor and the regulatory agencies.
DOD does not actively seek to find violations of the
"environmental law" language in their contracts, even
though all GOCO facilities have a DOD representative
on site. This individual would become involved and
actively seek to resolve any environmental problem once
brought to his or her attention.
0 DOD closely monitors activity to resolve environmental
problems once a formal Federal or State action (such as a
NOV) is initiated. This involvement by DOD has been mostly
focused on violations at GOGO facilities. In the future,
DOD will monitor formal actions initiated by EPA or the
State at GOCO facilities.
-------
-3-
0 DOD and OFA, through their Headquarters staff or Regional
Federal Facility Coordinators (See Attachment II), are
available to assist EPA in any problems it faces in re-
solving environmental problems at DOD facilities, inclurF*
ing those operated by contractors. A good rule of thumb
is that DOD will support the regulatory agency when a
violation is clearly documented and a formal action is
initiated.
As a result of this meeting, SSCD recommends a Region or
State, upon a finding of violation at a DOD contractor facility
(GOCO), issue a Notice of Violation 1or equivalent) to the opera-
tor of the facility"as would be done with any other stationary
source, with copies to the DOD representative at the facility,
and the Regional Federal Facility Coordinator. Receipt of these
copies should trigger interest and involvement by OFA and DOD to
assist in resolving the violation in a timely manner. Simulta-
neous with any DOD and OFA involvement, the issuing regulatory
agency should follow up with the 'operator to whom the NOV was
issued in the usual manner to resolve the noncompliance problem.
This memorandum has been concurred in by the Office of
Federal Activities and OECM's Air Enforcement Division. If
you have any questions about the meeting or the recommended
approach, please call me or John Rasnic (FTS-382-2826).
Edward E. Reich
cc: Air Program Branch Chiefs
Regions I-X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regions II, III, V and IX
VOC Compliance Workgroup Members
Michael Alushin,
Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air
Gerald Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Allan Hirsch, Director
Office of Federal Activities
Federal Facility Coordinators
Regions I-X
-------
Attachment 1-1
AIR FORCE INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
Air Force Plant
1. AFP PJKS
Waterton, CO
2. AFP #3
Tulsa, OK
3. AFP #4
Ft. Worth, TX
4. AFP #6
Marietta, GA
5. AFP #19
San Diego, CA
*6. AFP #36
Evendale, OH
*7. AFP #38
Porter, NY
8. AFP #42
Palmdale, CA
9. AFP #44
Tucson, AZ
10. AFP #59
Johnson City, NY
*11. AFP #70
Sacramento, CA
12. AFP #78
Lampo Junction, UT
13. AFP #85
Columbus, OH
Contractor
Martin Marietta
McDonnell Douglas &
Rockwell
s
General Dynamics
Lockheed
General Dynamics
General Electric
Bell Aerospace
Rockwell, Lockheed,
Northrop, McDonnell
Douglas
Hughes Aircraft
General Electric
Aerojet
Thiokol
Rockwell International
Major Workload
Titan components, electronic
systems, space hardware
F-15 components, F-4 DLM
F-16 aircraft production,
F-lll spares
C-130, C-141 and C-5 spares,
C-141 stretch, C-5 wing mod,
Jet Star
F-lll spares, space systems
components, Navy electronics
J-79, and TF-39 engines and
spares
Laser R&D and production,
hydrazine systems, Minuteman
components
Space shuttle, B-l, F-5 and
A-4 assembly, mod & operations
flight test operations
Maverick, Phoenix, Tow and
Roland missile production,
other missile R&D
Flight controls & other
avionics
Titan, Minuteman III,
Peacekeeper
Minuteman, (Trident), Genie,
SRAM Rocket Motor Production
Peacekeeper
B-1B
*Sale is pending.
Pamela Duncan, HO USAF/RDCM, 697-1715, 27 Mar 85
-------
Attachment 1-2
**, -
List of Industrial Plants
by DOD Number
Plant and Location
Naval
Naval
Naval
Naval
Naval
Naval
Naval
Naval
Naval
Naval
Naval
Naval
Naval
Naval
Naval
Haval
val
val
Naval
Naval
Naval
Naval
Naval
Naval
Naval
Naval
Naval
Shipyard, Long Beach, CA
Shipyard, Hunters Point, San Francisco, CA
Shipyard, Mare Island, Vallejo, CA
Weapons Station, Concord, CA
Weapons Support Center, Crane, IN
Avionics Center, Indianapolis, IN
Ordnance Station, Louisville, KY
Ordnance Station, Indian Head, MD
Industrial Reserve Ordnance plant, Pittsfield, MA
Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant, Minneapolis, MN
Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant, Saint Paul, MN
Shipyard, Portsmouth, NH
Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant, Rochester, NY
Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant, Magma, UT
Shipyard, Philadelphia, PA
Shipyard, Charleston, SC
Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Dallas, TX
Weapons Industrial Reserve.Plant, McGregor, TX
Shipyard, Norfolk, Portsmouth, VA
Weapons Station, Yorktown, VA
Shipyard, Pugef Sound, Bremerton, WA
Undersea Warfare Engineering Station, Keyport, WA
Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant, Pomona, CA
Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bloomfield, CT
Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bethpage, NY
Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Calverton, NY
Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant, Sacramento, CA
DODf
31
• 48
52
53
105
112
133
155
167
194
196-
218
265
316
371
378
387
399
409
412
413
415
451
463
464
466
467
GOGO
GOCO
GOGO
GOGO
GOGO
GOGO
GOGO
GOGO
GOCO
JOCO
GOCO
GOGO
GOCO
GOCO
GOGO
GOGO
GOCO
GOCO
GOGO
GOGO
GOGO
GOGO
GOCO
GOCO
GOCO
GOCO
JOCO
I
!:•
-------
Attachment 1-3
..' 0 List of Industrial Plants
by DoD Number (Cont.)
Plant and Location DODtt Type Statu
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bedford, MA 468 GOCO Activ
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bristol, TN 469 GOCO Activ
Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant, Sunnyvale, CA 484 JOCO Activ
Naval Weapons Station, Earle, NJ . 486 GOGO Activ
Drydock and Repair Facility, San Juan, PR . 493 GOCO Lease
Naval Air Rework Facility, Alameda, CA 494 GOGO Activ
Naval Air Rework Facility, Jacksonville, FL -495 GOGO Activ
Naval Air Rework Facility, Norfolk, VA 496 GOGO Acti\
Naval Air Rework Facility, Pensacola, FL 497 GOGO Acti\
Naval Shipyard, Pearl Harbor, HI " 498 GOGO Actii
Naval Air Rework Facility, Cherry Point, NC 499 GOGO Acti^
Naval AIR Rework Facility, North Island, San Diego, CA 501 GOGO Actit
Naval Ship Repair Facility, San Diego, CA . *503 GOCO Lease
Naval Weapons Station, Charleston, SC 505 GOGO Aeti->
Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, CA 507 GOGO
Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant, Cumberland, MD 526 GOCO
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, South Bristol, ME 529 GOCO Inact
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Toledo, OH AF27 GOCO Acti-
~ T-~ • ' '
-------
Attachment II
' - / EXHIBIT IV-2
REGIONAL FEDERAL FACILITIES COORDINATORS
REGION I
George Mollineau
FTS 223-5498
REGION VI
Jim Highland
FTS 729-6659
REGION II
Drew Lahman
FTS 264-8678
REGION VII
Glen Yeager
FTS 757-2823
REGION III
Fran Mulhecn
FTS 597-1168
REGION IV
Art Linton
FTS 257-3776
REGION VIII
Elmer Chenault
FTS 564-3853
REGION IX
Mikfi Monroe
FTS 454-7539
REGION V
Bill Franz
FTS 353-2038
REGION X
Clark Smith
FTS 399-1266
IV-4
-------
-------
PN 113-84-12-20-022
I M'ir.l) ST\li;s EM IKOMIKM'AL I'KOTKC'I ION A(,IV 1
\\ \SHl\<;i< )\. DC. 20460
DEC 20 r -
SUBJECT: Policy on No-Action Assurances
FROM:
TO:
OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION
John B. Rasnic, Chief
Compliance Monitoring Branch
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Air Program Branch Chiefs
Regions I-X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regions II, III, V, VII, IX
On August 28, 1984, I forwarded a memorandum to you that
transmitted the proposed policy on No-Action Assurances and
included correspondence between SSCD and OLEC on SSCD's
concern with the policy.
Attached is the final policy on this subject. I am
forwarding it for your information and implementation. You
are still encouraged to use the NOV language written by OLEC
and included in my August 28 memorandum.
If you have any questions on the policy, please call me
(8-382-2826).
-------
3 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
I 6B64
OFFICE OF
ENFORCEMENT AND
COMPLIANCE MONITORING
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Policy Against "No Action" Assurances
FROM: Courtney M. Price
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring
TO: Assistant Administrators
Regional Administrators
General Counsel
Inspector General
This memorandum reaffirms EPA policy against giving
definitive assurances (written or oral) outside the context of
a formal enforcement proceeding that EPA will not proceed with
an enforcement response for a specific individual violation of
an environmental protection statute, regulation/ or other
legal requirement.
"No action" promises may erode the credibility of EPA's
enforcement program by creating real or perceived inequities
in the Agency's treatment of the regulated community. This
credibility is vital as a continuing incentive for regulated
parties to comply with environmental protection requirements.
In addition, any commitment not to enforce a legal
requirement against a particular regulated party may severely
hamper later enforcement efforts against that party, who may
claim good-faith reliance on that assurance, or against other
parties who claim to be similarly situated.
This policy against definitive no action promises to
parties outside the Agency applies in all contexts, including
assurances requested:
0 both prior to and after a violation has been committed;
0 on the basis that a State or local government is
responding to the violation;
-------
• on the basis that revisions to the underlying legal
requirement are being considered;
• on the basis that the Agency has determined that the
party is not liable or has a valid defense;
• on the basis that the violation already has been
corrected (or that a party has promised that it will
correct the violation); or
0 on the basis that the violation is not of sufficient
priority to merit Agency action.
The Agency particularly must avoid no action promises
relating either to violations of judicial orders, for which a
court has independent enforcement authority, or to potential
criminal violations, for which prosecutorial discretion rests
with the United States Attorney General.
As a general rule, exceptions to this policy are warranted
only
0 where expressly provided by applicable statute or
regulation (e.g., certain upset or bypass situations)
0 in extremely unusual cases in which a no action
assurance is clearly neccessary to serve the public
interest (e.g., to allow action to avoid extreme risks
to public health or safety, or to obtain,important
information for research purposes) and which no other
mechanism can address adequately.
Of course, any exceptions which EPA grants must be in an area
in which EPA has discretion not to act under applicable law.
This policy in no way is intended to constrain the way in
which EPA discusses and coordinates enforcement plans with
state or local enforcement authorities consistent with normal
working relationships. To the extent that a statement of EPA's
enforcement intent is necessary to help support or conclude an
effective state enforcement effort, EPA can employ language
such as the following:
"EPA encourages State action to resolve violations of
the Act and supports the actions which (State)
is taking to address the violations at issue. To the extent
that the State action does not satisfactorily resolve the
violations, EPA may pursue its own enforcement action."
-------
I am requesting that any definitive written or oral no
action commitment receive the advance concurrence of my office.
This was a difficult decision to reach in light of the valid
concerns raised in comments on this policy statement; neverthe-
less, we concluded that Headquarters concurrence is important
because the precedential implications of providing no action
commitments can extend beyond a single Region. We will attempt
to consult with the relevant program office and respond to any
formal request for concurrence within 10 working days from the
date we receive the request. Naturally/ emergency situations
can be handled orally on an expedited basis.
All instances in which an EPA official gives a no action
promise must be documented in the appropriate case file. The
documentation must include an explanation of the reasons
justifying the no action assurance.
Finally/ this policy against no action assurances does not
preclude EPA from fully discussing internally the prosecutorial
merit of individual cases or from exercising the discretion it
has under applicable law to decide when and how to respond or
not respond to a given violation/ based on the Agency's normal
enforcement priorities.
cc: Associate Enforcement Counsels
OECM Office Directors
Program Compliance Office Directors
Regional Enforcement Contacts
-------
PN 113-84-10-05-021
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
ocr 5
OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Final Technical Guidance on the Review and Use of
Excess Emission Reports
FROM: Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Directors, Air and Waste Management Division
Regions II, IV, VI-VIII, and X
Directors, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, V, and IX
This memorandum presents final technical guidance on the
review and use of Excess Emission Reports (EERs) being submitted
by NSPS Subpart D sources and others where the monitoring data
are not used directly to determine compliance with the emission
limits. This guidance is in direct support of the Agency's
Continuous Compliance Strategy and SPMS items A/ER-8 thru 10
for FY 1985. The guidance may be helpful to State/local agencies
as well and may be forwarded at the discretion of each Region.
On August 3, 1984, a draft of this guidance was distributed
to the Regional Offices and interested Headquarters Offices.
Comments were received from six Regional Offices, three Headquarters
offices, and the State of Wisconsin. In general, these comments
were very supportive of the draft, included a number of detailed
suggestions for improvement, and encouraged the expeditious
issuance of final guidance. We recognize that the FY 1985
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) program is a major
initiative for many of the Regions and is based to a large
extent on the availability of this guidance. Therefore, we
have judged it appropriate to issue the guidance now and to
supplement the guidance as appropriate in an EER "Users Handbook"
during FY 1985.
A discussion of the major areas of comment and the responses
received to the questions posed in the August 3rd memorandum is
presented in the following sections.
-------
- 2 -
I. MAJOR COMMENTS
"""%.'
A. Form of Guidance/Regional Office Responsibilities
The subject document is intentionally being issued as
"technical guidance" rather than as "program guidance",
providing a great deal of detailed information, forms, and
example decision criteria adaptable to a wide range of
circumstances. We recognize that since the CEMS program is a
relatively new program for most Regional Offices, program-related
issues will also arise. Such issues are outside the scope of
this guidance and will be addressed separately.
B. Importance of EER Review and Use
Based upon the experience of some Regional Offices,
particularly Region V's, SSCD revised the text of the draft
to emphasize the three primary EER activities of: (1) inventory
development; (2) assessment of source compliance with the
CEMS installation and operation requirements; and (3) review
and use of EERs. This doesn't mean that other elements of
the program to acquire valid, representative data are unimportant.
It's just that such activities (e.g., performance specification
testing) are solely the responsibility of the source, not the
Agency. By the Agency primarily concentrating its CEMS program
resources on EERs review and follow-up, most sources will find
that it is in their own best interest to achieve all of the
CEMS requirements, and to verify the quality of their data
before submitting it to the Agency.
II. RESPONSES TO SSCD's EER QUESTIONS
A. Dual Reporting of EERs to State and Federal Agencies
In general, commenters supported the need for a limited period
of dual reporting. They stressed that EPA should initially obtain
and (at least) spot-check duplicate copies of EERs from sources in
States which have received NSPS delegation in order to conduct
effective oversight audits of the State's enforcement of the CEMS
regulations. Furthermore, they strongly supported the concept of
reducing the quantity of dual reporting and the level of oversight
audits once the State had demonstrated its ability to implement
the program. Subsequent oversight could be achieved by receiving
and reviewing a small, random fraction of a State's EERs or by
receiving summary reports from the State. (Regional Offices and
their States are free to establish any mutually-acceptable arrange-
ment consistent with assuring, at a minimum, accomplishment of
the FY 1985 SPMS requirements.)
-------
-3-
B. Source Submission of Summaries of Their Excess Emissions
Commentfers strongly supported the concept of requiring the
sources to include summaries of their excess emissions in their
quarterly EERs. They also supported the idea of specifying a
standard format, content, and reason codes for the summaries
as well as the traditional EER data in order to minimize the
burden upon agencies and sources. The commenters also strongly
supported our recommendations that: (1) all CEMS-affected sources
should initially submit both the summaries and the traditional
EERs; and (2) once a source demonstrated its commitment and
capability to implement a high quality GEMS program, their
reporting burden might be reduced to submission of only the
summary data portion of the EER report.
The comments included a wide range of recommendations on
how the Agency should proceed to obtain source submission of
the summary data from the sources. These included: (1) use of
§114 letters on a case-by-case basis or in a national promulgation;
(2) a regulatory revision; and (3) simply thorough implementation
of this guidance.
SSCD intends to work with ESED and other parts of the Agency
to develop a consensus on which changes should be made to the
reporting requirements and how to proceed most effectively.
Careful consideration of the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act is an essential element of this review.
C. Applicability of Guidance to Subpart Da Sources
Most respondents to our question on this subject indicated
that, based on their limited experience, they thought that the
proposed guidance would assist them in reviewing GEMS compliance
reports from Subpart Da and other sources where the monitor
provides compliance data. A few commenters volunteered their
assistance and recommended that the Agency obtain some additonal
experience before it attempts to develop a guideline on this subject.
One Regional Office with considerable GEMS program experience
stated that, "We do not think the discretionary, probabilistic,
comparative philosophy of this screening strategy is appropriate
for sources subject to clear requirements for self-documenting
their continuous compliance status". We agree with this statement
and with the need to obtain additional experience before guidance
is developed. Accordingly, the draft guidance was not changed
with respect to its inapplicability to Subpart Da or other sources
where the GEMS is the compliance method.
In summary, the comments received on the draft guidance urged
that final guidance be issued as soon as possible, incorporating
relatively few major changes to the draft. SSCD intends to
-------
- 4 -
continue to support the program by issuing supplementary informa-
tion and program guidance. Furthermore, SSCD plans to work with
other elements of the Agency to try to address the •-remaining
issues such as revision of the EER reporting requirements and
possible applications of CEMS as the compliance method on addi-
tional source categories.
Edward E. Reich
Attachment
cc: J. Fanner, Director, ESED
D. Tyler, Director, CPDD
E. Salo, OGC
M. Alushin, OECM
Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs, Regions II, III, V, VII, IX
Directors, Environmental Services Division, Regions I-X
-------
PN 113-83-04-26-020
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
26 APR 1983
OFFICE OF
AIR, NOISE AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Procedures for Review and Federal Register
Publication of Delayed Compliance Orders Under
Section 113(d) of the Clean Air Act
FROM: Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrate
for Air, Noise and Radiation
Courtney M. Price V_|jLvJ^Z3>. LO (
Acting Associate Administrator
and General Counsel
TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
Regional Counsels, Regions I-X
Uncertainty exists with respect to who in the Regional
Offices and at Headquarters must review and concur in delayed
compliance orders (DCOs), both those issued by EPA and those
issued by the States. Questions have also arisen on what must
be contained in a DCO rulemaking package, the appropriate
number of copies, and to whom they should be mailed at
Headquarters. To resolve these uncertainties, this memorandum
establishes procedures to be followed by all Regional Offices
when reviewing DCOs and submitting them to Headquarters for
Federal Register publication.
Proposed DCOs
DCOs proposed to be issued by EPA under Section 113(d)(l)
of the Clean Air Act do not require Headquarters concurrence
(Attachment 1). The proposed DCO rulemaking package should
be sent directly from the EPA Regional Office to the Federal
Register Officer at Headquarters (PM-223) for printing in
the Federal Register. The March 10, 1978 memorandum
(Attachment 2) describes the requirements for proposal regarding
the number of copies, certifications, and content. The only
additional requirement is to include a completed printing
request form #2340-15 with the package. (Also included as
Attachment 3 is a July 27, 1978 memorandum on substantive
requirements of DCO's that remains generally applicable).
• 113
20-1
-------
-2-
Similarly, all DCOs issued by States to major stationary
sources under Section 113(d)(l) should be reviewed, as required
by Section 113(d)(2), by Regional Air Program Divisions and
Regional Counsel's Offices to assure that these orders meet
the statutory requirements under the Clean Air Act. If a Regional
Office wishes to approve a State-issued Section 113(d)(l) DCO,
Headquarters concurrence in the proposal is not required. If the
Region is recommending disapproval, the advice of the Associate
General Counsel for Air, Noise and Radiation should be sought.
As with EPA-issued DCOs, the DCO rulemaking package should be
sent directly from the EPA Regional Office to the Federal
Register Officer at Headquarters for printing.
As discussed in Kathleen Bennett's memorandum of
July 20, 1982 to all Regional Air Directors, all proposed
innovative technology DCOs under Section 113(d)(4) and coal
conversion orders under Section 113(d)(5) remain subject to
Stationary Source Compliance Division (SSCD) review for
national consistency prior to publication. These orders
should be sent to the Director, SSCD (EN-341). SSCD will transmit
the approved DCO packages to the Federal Register Officer for
publication.
Final DCOs
The review of final DCOs will follow the same pattern as
that followed for proposed DCOs. Since they require the
Administrator's signature, the Federal Register Officer will
be responsible for forwarding the package to the Administrator's
Office. Once signed, the Administrator's Office will transmit
the package back to the Federal Register Officer to assure
publication. For those DCOs that require Headquarters office
concurrence, the reviewing office will be responsible for
working with the Federal Register Officer to obtain the
Administrator's signature.
Questions of National Significance
This memorandum describes the general mechanism for
processing DCOs. It does not alter the responsibility of
Regional Offices to identify significant policy or legal issues
posed by any DCO and to seek the advice of SSCD or the Associate
General Counsel for Air, Noise and Radiation with respect to such
issues. In cases of doubt as to whether a DCO poses such an
issue, the views of these offices should be sought.
113
20-2
-------
-3-
Should you have any questions on this memorandum, please
call Ed Reich at 382-2807.
Attachments
cc: Air and Waste Management Division Directors
Regions II-IV, VI-VIII and X
Air Management Division Directors
Regional I, V, and IX
NOTE: (Attachment 1) memo dated August 7, 1978 from Ed Reich to Regional
Enforcement Directors and (Attachment 2) memo dated March 10, 1978
from Richard Wilson to Regional Enforcement Directors not included
since they are basically procedural. (Attachment 3) not included
since it is already in Notebook (PN113-78-07-25-005). '
113
20-3
-------
PN 113-83-04-12-019
COPY
April 12, 1983
Mr. Robert R. Wah ler, President
WAHLCO, Inc.
3600 West Segerstrom Avenue
Santa Ana, California 92704
Dear Mr. Wahler:
Your letter of February 22, 1983 to the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency has been referred to me for a response. In your letter
you requested that EPA review its policy of March 1980, entitled "Enforcement
Policy on Interim Particulate Controls." This policy discusses the use of
flue gas conditioning (FGC) as one means for short term reduction of particulate
emissions from non-complying coal burning power plants and industrial boilers.
You have requested that the last paragraph at the bottom of page 4 of the
policy statement be deleted becuase it is confusing and has been interpreted
by many potential users of FGC as a prohibition against voluntary use of FGC
for compliance with emission regulations.
I was surprised to learn that there remains any confusion concerning
the intent of this policy. As you know, the agency did receive a number
of inquiries concerning voluntary use of flue gas conditioning from FGC
vendors (including WAHLCO representatives) and industry in the first year
after the policy was distributed. We outlined our position that the policy
in no way precluded use of FGC as a permanent control method but that we could
not endorse, as a policy matter, use of FGC except where the conditioning
agents have been shown to be nontoxic. We have not been contacted about
this matter in recent years.
Let me emphasize the policy has application under very limited
circumstances. It applies where a source is out of compliance and there is
the potential for use of FGC to provide significant particulate reductions
during the period prior to that source installing permanent controls. The
policy was intended to encourage greater consideration of FGC as a required
interim control in administrative or court orders. However, even in this
context, a careful analysis of the possibility of increased acid sulfate
emissions and of possible toxic emissions was recommended. As the guidance
indicates, when a coal fired power plant or industrial boiler is ordered to
comply with particulate emissions, FGC should be considered as a means of
interim control provided a number of conditions are met:
1. conditioning is likely to be effective
2. acid sulfate emissions will not increase significantly
113
19-1
-------
3. an approved conditioning agent is used
4. the interim period has a reasonable duration
5. the costs are reasonable
6. the precipitator is in good repair.
These conditions form the basis for assuring a net environmental benefit will
result from the use of FGC on an interim basis.
The policy does not constrain sources from voluntarily using FGC as a
permanent control but merely makes clear that EPA does not endorse FGC use
without a case by case analysis of the particular conditioning agent to be
used. We continue to believe this is the prudent course of action.
Should any parties that you are in contact with have difficulty
understanding the FGC guidance, please feel free to refer them to my staff
for further explanation. Please contact Mark S. Siegler at 202-382-2835
if further explanation or assistance is needed.
Sincerely yours,
Kathleen M. Bennett
Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise and Radiation
bcc: Ed Reich
John Busik
Mark Siegler
Mark Antell
Mike Alushin, OLEC
George Rey, ORD
113
19-2
-------
PN 113-83-01-12-018
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
12 JAN 1383
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance on Implementation of the 1982 Deadline
Enforcement Policy Issued September 20, 1982
FROM: Robert M. Perry &~
-------
-2-
appropriate interim operation and maintenance provisions designed
to minimize emissions from the existing unit. The schedule for
construction of the replacement facility should include increments
of progress and stipulated penalties sufficient to provide a clear
incentive to meet those increments. A surety bond would also be
required, to be forfeited if the old facility does not permanently
cease operation by the specified date.
For purposes of the Limited Life Facilities Policy, a
"replacement facility" can include an existing unit which is
currently shut down if the company is proceeding with an expedi-
tious schedule to install controls and bring it back on line in
compliance. In such an instance, units currently in use may remain
in operation until the scheduled date for resuming operation of
the units currently shut down, subject to the same conditions
enumerated above.
The Limited Life Facilities Policy is currently under review
by the Office of Legal and Enforcement Policy, and further guidance
may be forthcoming.
Compliance with RACT if Part D Plan is Not inForce
The policy states on page 3 that if no Part D plan is in force,
the source must commit to comply with requirements of Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT). The judgment order should
indicate that RACT limitations acceptable to EPA remain in effect
and that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce this provision
until such time as a Part D plan satisfying the requirements of
Section 172 is approved by EPA and becomes effective.
Significant Cash Penalty
Page 4 of the policy indicates that a court order allowing a
source to operate out of compliance beyond December 31, 1982 must
require payment of a significant civil penalty, including a
"substantial" cash component. While credits are still considered
an option, they must be clearly justified under the terms of the
Civil Penalty Policy. In all cases at least one third of the
penalty settlement amount should be in cash.
A new civil penalty policy is currently being developed by the
Office of Legal and Enforcement Policy. The existing Civil Penalty
Policy remains in effect until a new policy is issued.
Filing a Federal Action Where state Action Is Inadequate
The September 20, 1982 memorandum recognizes that states have
primary responsibility for enforcement of the Clean Air Act but
clearly indicates that Federal enforcement will be inititated where
states are not adequately addressing a violation. The principles
113
18-2
-------
-3-
set forth in that memorandum are to be used to evaluate the adequacy
of the state action. While we do not expect states to track the
policy in every detail, the state's action should be consistent
with" the threshold criteria set forth in the September 20 policy
for determining whether a source should be allowed to remain in
operation beyond December 31, 1982. For sources for which an
extended compliance deadline is justified, a state judicial order
or administrative order other than a delayed compliance order
must, at a minimum, include the following key elements to justify
EPA deferral:
1) The source commits to an expeditious schedule to come into
compliance with the applicable State Implementation Plan (or RACT,
if no Part D plan is in force).
2) The compliance schedule contains enforceable increments of
progress.
3) The order includes reporting requirements, including
reporting to the state and, if a judicial order, to the court, of
completion of each increment.
4) The order treats limited life facilities consistent with
this guidance.
5) The order requires payment of a significant cash penalty.
A state does not necessarily have to assess a penalty which would
suffice as a settlement figure for a Federal action under the
Civil Penalty Policy. However, some penalty must be included, and
it must be reasonable in light of the statutory criteria set forth
in Section 113(b) of the Clean Air Act. If a state order is adequate
in all respects except the amount of penalties, the Region should
consider a Federal penalties action under Section 113(b) or 120.
We do not think it is practical to set rigid deadlines for
state resolution of a violation under this policy. However, each
Region should document the terms of deferral in every instance,
confirm them with the States, and promptly initiate Federal enforce-
ment action if those terms are not met. The terms of deferral
should require that the state expeditiously resolve each violation.
For any source which has been continuously in violation for a long
time and where the state has already failed to take timely enforce-
ment action, EPA should prepare to file an action quickly. We
expect to see a significant portion of the sources subject to the
policy in every Region either in compliance, on an acceptable
compliance schedule or subject to enforcement action within the
first six months of 1983.
113
18-3
-------
-4-
Issuance of Notices of Violation by EPA
In light of the need to bring sources subject to the policy
into" compliance as expeditiously as practicable, each Region should
begin issuing Notices of Violation to these sources as quickly as
possible. This practice should be followed even if the state is
proceeding with an enforcement action against the source, so that
EPA will be in a position to initiate its own enforcement action
in the event the Agency determines that the state action is
inadequate. (Attached is a sample paragraph which may be used in
an NOV when a state action is proceeding.) Issuance of NOV's
should be postponed only if a SIP revision has been submitted to
EPA which would place the source in compliance and which, based on
preliminary review, appears to be approvable. If the state completes
enforcement action which conforms to the terms of the policy and
this guidance, EPA should notify the source and the state that it
views the state action as a satisfactory resolution of the violation.
A Federal NOV should be formally withdrawn only if EPA subsequently
determines that there is no factual basis for it.
Implementation guidance issued by the Office of Air, Noise
and Radiation on September 20, 1982 advised the Regions to consult
with states to identify the lead enforcement agency for each source
subject to the policy. This effort should continue in addition to
the Federal issuance of NOV's to all such sources.
Facilities Subject to the Policy
The policy applies to all sources located in areas which are
designated primary non-attainment for one or more pollutants for
which the emission limitations are being violated (unless subject
to an attainment date later than December 31, 1982). If Federal
judicial action is taken against any such source, it must be
consistent with the policy.
The policy does not apply to any source which is issued a
delayed compliance order under Section 113(d) of the Act by EPA,
or by a State provided that the order meets the statutory criteria
and is submitted to and approved by EPA.
Updating Lists of Sources Subject to the Policy
We request that each Region update its list of sources subject
to the policy and submit the updated list to Ed Reich, Director,
Stationary Source Compliance Division, by January 31, 1983. This
list should be comparable in format to the previous submissions,
and it should include all Class A sources (including A-2 sources)
which are in noncompliance as of December 31, 1982 and subject to
the policy. We will use this list to monitor the initial implemen-
tation of the policy. While we recognize that the universe of
113
18-4
-------
-5-
sources subject to the policy will continue to change, we do not
plan to ask for further updating of this list. After the initial
phase of implementation, we will monitor the effectiveness of the
program through the reporting on "significant violators" currently
re.quired by the Management Accountability System.
Additional Guidance
Requests for .additional guidance should be directed to Elliott
Gilberg (382-2864) or Michael Alushin (382-2820) of the Office of
Enforcement Counsel, Air Division, or Ed Reich of the Stationary
Source Compliance Division (382-2807).
Attachment
cc: Carol E. Dinkins
Assistant Attorney General
Land and Natural Resources Division
Department of Justice
Stephen D. Ramsey, Chief
Environmental Enforcement Section
Department of Justice
Directors, Air & Waste Management Divisions
Regions II-IV, VI-VIII, and X
Directors, Air Management Divisions
Regions I, V, and IX
113
18-5
-------
Sample Language for Notices of Violation
Since the facility is located in a primary non-
attainment area for (pollutant) and will not be in compliance by
the statutory attainment deadline of December 31, 1982, EPA will
closely monitor the state's efforts to bring the source into compli-
ance in accordance with the enforcement policy issued by the EPA
Administrator on September 20, 1982 (attached). Under that policy,
if a state or local air pollution control agency proceeds with
satisfactory enforcement action, EPA will defer Federal enforcement
action so long as the source meets the terms of the state order and
achieves compliance with the applicable regulation. This notice
is issued under Section 113(a)(l) of the Act so that if Federal
enforcement action becomes necessary, EPA may promptly issue an
order requiring compliance with the applicable provisions listed
above or commence a civil action pursuant to Section 113(b) of the
Act.
113
18-6
-------
.588,
PN 113-83-02-15-017
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
FEB I 5 1983
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown,
Maintenance, and Malfunctions
FROM: Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise and Radiation
TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
I have been asked to clarify my memorandum of
September 28, 1982, concerning policy on excess emissions during
startup and shutdown.
Specifically, I stated that "startup and shutdown of
process equipment are part of the normal operation of a source
and should be accounted for in the design and implementation of
the operating procedure for the process and control equipment.
Accordingly, it is reasonable to expect that careful planning
will eliminate violations of emission limitations during such
periods." I further stated that "[i]f excess emissions occur
during routine startup and shutdown of such equipment, they
will be considered as having resulted from a malfunction only
if the source can demonstrate that such emissions were actually
caused by a sudden and unforeseeable breakdown in the equipment."
A question has been posed as to whether there can be
situations in which it is unreasonable to expect that careful
planning can eliminate violations of emission limitations
during startup and shutdown. I believe that there can be such
situations. One such situation, which was already mentioned
in the policy, is a malfunction occurring during these periods.
A malfunction during startup or shutdown is to be handled as
any other malfunction in accordance with the policy as
presently written.
Another situation is one in which careful and prudent planning
and design will not totally eliminate infrequent short periods
of excesses during startup and shutdown. An example of this
situation would be a source that starts up or shuts down once or
twice a year and during that period there are a few hours when
the temperature of the effluent gas is too low to prevent harmful
113
17-1
-------
formation of chemicals which would cause severe damage to
control equipment if the effluent were allowed to pass through
the control equipment.
Therefore, during this latter situation, if effluent gases
are bypassed which cause an emission limitation to be exceeded,
this excess need not be treated as a violation if the source
can show that the excesses could not have been prevented through
careful and prudent planning and design and that bypassing was
unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe
property damage.
I have clarified the policy concerning this issue. A copy
is attached.
Attachment
113
17-2
-------
Attachment
POLICY ON EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN,
MAINTENANCE, AND MALFUNCTIONS
Introduction
Several of the existing State implementation plans (SIPs)
provide for an automatic emission limitation exemption during
periods of excess emission due to startup, shutdown, maintenance,
or malfunction.* Generally, EPA agrees that the imposition of
a penalty for sudden and unavoidable malfunctions caused by
circumstances entirely beyond the control of the owner and/or
operator is not appropriate. However, any activity which can
be foreseen and avoided, or planned is not within the definition
of a sudden and unavoidable breakdown. Since the SIPs must
provide for attainment and maintenance of the national ambient
air quality standards, SIP provisions on malfunctions must be
narrowly drawn. SIPs may, of course, omit any provisions on
malfunctions. [For more specific guidance on malfunction
provisions for RACT SIPs, see the April 1978 workshop manual
for preparing nonattainment plans].
I. EXCESS EMISSION FROM MALFUNCTIONS
A. AUTOMATIC EXEMPTION APPROACH
If a SIP contains a malfunction provision, it cannot be
the type that provides for automatic exemption where a malfunction
is alleged by a source. Automatic exemptions might aggravate
air quality so as not to provide for attainment of the ambient
air quality standards. Additional grounds for disapproving a
SIP that includes the automatic exemption approach are discussed
in more detail at 42 FR 58171 (November 8, 1977) and 42 FR
21372 (April 27, 1977). As a result, EPA cannot approve any
SIP revisions that provides automatic exemptions for malfunctions.
* The term "excess emission" means an air emission rate which
exceeds any applicable emission limitation, and "malfunction"
means a sudden and unavoidable breakdown of process or
control equipment.
113
17-3
-------
B. ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION APPROACH—SIP EMISSION
LIMITATION ADEQUATE TO ATTAIN AMBIENT STANDARDS
EPA can approve SIP revisions which incorporate the
"enforcement discretion approach". Such an approach can require
the source to demonstrate to the appropriate State agency that
the excess emissions, though constituting a violation, were due
to an unavoidable malfunction. Any malfunction provision must
provide for the commencement of a proceeding to notify the
source of its violation and to determine whether enforcement
action should be undertaken for any period of excess emissions.
In determining whether an enforcement action is appropriate,
satisfaction of the following criteria should be considered.
1. To the maximum extent practicable the air pollution
control equipment, process equipment, or processes were maintained
and operated in a manner consistent with good practice for
minimizing emissions;
2. Repairs were made in an expeditious fashion when the
operator knew or should have known that applicable emission
limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift labor and overtime
must have been utilized, to the extent practicable, to ensure
that such repairs were made as expeditiously as practicable;
3. The amount and duration of the excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent
practicable during periods of such emissions;
4. All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact
of the excess emissions on ambient air quality; and
5. The excess emissions are not part of a recurring
pattern indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance
II. EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, AND
MAINTENANCE
Any activity or event which can be foreseen and avoided,
or planned, falls outside of the definition of sudden and
unavoidable breakdown of equipment. For example, a sudden
breakdown which could have been avoided by better operation and
maintenance practice is not a malfunction. In such cases, the
control agency must enforce for violations of the emission
limitation. Other such common events are startup and shutdown
of equipment, and scheduled maintenance.
113
17-4
-------
Startup and shutdown of process equipment are part of the
normal operation of a source and should be accounted for in the
planning, design and implementation of operating procedures for
the process and control equipment. Accordingly, it is reasonable
to expect that careful and prudent planning and design will
eliminate violations of emission limitations during such periods.
However, for a few sources there may exist infrequent short
periods of excess emissions during startup and shutdown which
cannot be avoided. Excess emissions during these infrequent
short periods need not be treated as violations providing that
the source adequately shows that the excess could not have been
prevented through careful planning and design and that bypassing
of control equipment was unavoidable to prevent loss of life,
personal injury, or severe property damage.
If excess emissions occur during routine startup and
shutdown due to a malfunction, then those instances will be
treated as other malfunctions which are subject to the malfunction
provisions of this policy. (Reference Part I above).
Similarly, scheduled maintenance is a predictable event
which can be scheduled at the discretion of the operator, and
which can, therefore, be made to coincide with maintenance on
production equipment, or other source shutdowns. Consequently,
excess emissions during periods of scheduled maintenance should
be treated as a violation unless a source can demonstrate that
such emissions could have been avoided through better scheduling
for maintenance or through better operation and maintenance
practices.
113
17-5
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 pN 113_82-08-12-014
AUS 121982
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance Concerning EPA's Use of Continuous
Emission Monitoring Data
FROM:
TO:
Kathleen M. Bennett p
Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and Radiation
Directors, Air and Waste Management Divisions,
Regions II-IV, VI-VIII, and X
Directors, Air Management Divisions,
Regions I, V and IX
This memorandum addresses EPA's use of Continuous Emission
Monitoring (CEM) data in enforcement of NSPS and SIP emission and
operating and maintenance (O&M) provisions and in other general EPA
activities. It provides guidance as to when, as a legal matter,
continuous emission monitoring constitutes the test method associated
with an emission limitation. It is not intended to preclude the
exercise of reasoned discretion by an enforcing agency based on a
review of the representativeness of the data and the circumstances
giving rise to the excess emissions.
Use of CEMs that are Specified as the Source Compliance Test Method
In each instance where CEMs have been promulgated or approved by
the Agency as an official method to determine source compliance with
the applicable emission limitations, the Agency can rely upon CEM data
when making compliance determinations. CEMs have been specifically
prescribed as the method to establish emission violations for one or
more pollutants in the following instances:
0 NSPS electric utility steam generating units,
regulated by 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Da;
0 NSPS primary nonferrous smelters, regulated by
40 CFR Part 60 Subparts P, Q and R;
0 NSPS stationary gas turbines, regulated by 40
CFR Part 60 Subpart GG;
0 various sources regulated by permits, orders, or consent
decrees in which CEM has been specifically designated as
the test method;
113
14-1
-------
- 2 -
0 various types of sources which are regulated by SJPs
(e.g., Nevada SIP, 40 CFR §52.1475(d)) where the State
has specified CEM as the test method.
Some sources object to EPA's reliance upon CEM data to enforce SIP
emission provisions for source categories for which EPA has not
specified the use of CEMs in comparable NSPS regulations. Such an
objection is not legally supportable, since States have the right to
specify their own methods in their SIPs, even if they are different
from those imposed by EPA for NSPS sources. Section 1.0 of Appendix P
to 40 CFR Part 51 delineates that SIPs may specify that CEM data be
used "directly or indirectly for compliance determinations or any other
purpose deemed appropriate by the State." The Agency can rely upon CEM
data for compliance determinations whenever such methods are specified
in the EPA-approved SIP.
Use of CEMs in SIPs where an Emission Compliance Test Method is Not
Specified
There are some instances when SIPs do not specify a compliance
test method, when that occurs, the applicable regulation, 40 CFR
§52.12(c)(1), states that for the purpose of Federal enforcement:
"sources subject to plan provisions which do not
specify a test procedure... will be tested by means
of the appropriate procedures and methods prescribed
in Part 60 of this chapter; unless otherwise specified
in this part."
Generally, Part 60 does not specify CEM as the compliance test method
and therefore EPA cannot use CEM data to determine source compliance
with a SIP emission limitation. However, in accordance with
S52.12(c)(1), CEM data would be the applicable test method for the two
categories of sources for which it is the NSPS performance test method,
nonferrous smelters (as in Subparts P, Q and R); and stationary gas
turbines (as in Subpart GG).
The Agency shall rely upon CEM data to determine a source's
compliance status with a SIP emission limit for smelters (for SO2^
and for stationary gas turbines (for NOX). Since CEM is the only
compliance test method specified in Part 60 for these source
categories, CEM is clearly the "appropriate" method under Part 60 for
purposes of S52.12(c)(1).
In addition, there is some ambiguity regarding the appropriate
procedures for fossil-fuel-fired steam generators prescribed in Part 60
because Part 60 contains two significantly different types of SC>2
NOX performance test methods. Specifically, Subpart D specifies
113
14-2
-------
Reference (stack test) Methods 6 and 7 as the performance test methods
for SO? and NOX emissions, respectively. However, Subpart Da
specifies use of CEM data to determine compliance with the S02 and
NOX emission standards.
The Agency shall rely upon the performance test methods specified
in Subpart D (Reference Methods 6 and 7) to determine a source's com-
pliance status with SIP S02 and NOX emission limits for fossil-
fuel-fired steam generators. For this category of sources, it is more
consistent with the development of the SIFs to use these methods since
they are the traditional compliance test methods for this source
category. (For new sources actually subject to Subpart Da, we would
not expect this issue to arise since new source permits should specify
the applicable test method.)
Use of CEM's where State Regulations Contain Discretionary Authority as
to Compliance Test Methods
A problem in interpreting the SIP continually arises because most
SIPs specify test methods (often adopting EPA methods by reference) but
also allow for discretionary acceptance of an "equivalent" or an
appropriate "alternative" by the State. Relying on such language, manj
States have accepted CEM data as an adequate demonstration of com-
pliance and have used such data to determine the existence of a
violation.
Since EPA's enforcement authority is guided by State regulations
specifically approved in the SIP, questions have been raised as to
whether EPA will independently apply State discretionary authority and
interpret what is reasonable as an "equivalent" or "alternative"
compliance test method, or, if not, whether EPA may follow the State's
lead, if the State chooses to allow CEM as the test method.
The answer is that EPA will not independently exercise such
authority. Only when the State has exercised such authority to adopt
CEM as a test method and when the exercise of that authority has been
reflected in the SIP, will EPA use CEM as the test method.
Use of CEM Data for Determining Potential Operations and Maintenance
(O&M) Violations
NSPS regulations (40 CFR 60.11(d)) specify that "at all times,
including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, owners and
operators shall, to the extent practicable, maintain and operate any
affected facility including associated air pollution control equipment
in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for
minimizing emissions. Determination of whether acceptable operating
and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information
113
14-3
-------
- 4 -
available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited
to, monitoring results, opacity observations, review of operating and
maintenance procedures, and inspection of the source." Many SIP's have
similar provisions requiring proper operation and maintenance. Use of
GEM data, while not necessarily conclusive, is a valid indicator of
compliance with requirements such as §60.11(d) and can be used as such.
Use of CEMs as a General Compliance Monitoring Tool
CEMs can provide the Agency with useful data for circumstances
other than those delineated above. For instance, CEM data can be used
to: (1) screen a source's compliance status (with both emission
limitations and O&M requirements); (2) select which sources should be
inspected or compliance (stack) tested; (3) document the severity
(e.g., duration, magnitude and frequency) of a source's excess
emissions; and (4) document that a compliance test was performed during
non-representative" operating conditions.
n
113
14-4
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
PN 113-82-05-04-013
MAY
1982
OFFICE OF
AIR, NOISE AND RADIATION
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Guidance on Policy for Enforcement of VE Violations
Against Sources Which are Meeting an A&i-icable Mass
Emission Standard
Kathleen M. Bennett
Assistant AdministraUJj\>r Air, Noise and Radiation
Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
The following guidance presents EPA policy for enforcement of
VE violations against sources which are meeting applicable mass
emission standards.
A Headquarters guidance memorandum issued on June 2, 1981
states that where a power plant is in violation of a visible
emission limit, but concurrently achieved the mass emission
requirements, a revision of the visible emission limit for that
source may be an appropriate regulatory response and this might
justify giving lower priority to enforcing the VE limit in the
interim while the limit is being revised. The June 2nd guidance
was initially written to address oil-fired power plants, but has
been expanded to include other stationary sources which are
subject to both mass emission and visible emission standards.
Regional response to that memo requested clarification concerning
what criteria should be used in determining when this guidance is
applicable. The policy presented below supersedes the previous
guidance issued on this subject.
Please note that this guidance is not intended to address
whether or not VE requirements are an independent, enforceable
part of a SIP. We believe they should be and, absent something in
the SIP to the contrary, we believe they are. In addition, we are
not suggesting enforcement action against VE violations be taken
only when accompanied by a fully documented mass violation.
Rather, there are circumstances as identified below where VE is
basically a surrogate for mass emissions and consequently it would
be a waste of scarce resources to proceed with a VE enforcement
action when we believe mass standards are being met.
113
13-1
-------
Most visible emission standards were developed as a practical
and economic means for determining whether emission control
equipment, necessary for a source to meet a mass emission limit,
is continuously maintained and properly operated. In instances
where no mass emission limit is applicable, such as fugitive
process emission sources, or where accurate emission testing is
ngt possible, visible emission standards are the vehicle for
directly regulating particulate emissions and are not subject to
the guidance provided in this memo.
It is our policy not to pursue visible emission violations
where we believe it is probable that the source is in compliance
with the mass standard. If a source has documented its compliance
with the mass standard, we should evaluate the case to determine
if there is reason to believe that there have been any changes in
operating conditions or in the performance of the control system
to suggest that the prior determination is not an accurate
representation of its current compliance status with respect to
the mass standard. If there have been no such changes, the policy
stated in this memorandum would be effective. If there have been
any significant changes, further action might be appropriate.
Only after these areas have been investigated should
consideration be given to revising the visible emission standard.
Of course, it will be necessary to consider the effect of any
relaxation of visible emission limits on attainment and
maintenance of the ambient standards where VE was relied upon in
the State's control strategy evaluation. Where appropriate, this
option should be discussed with the State agency as an acceptable
means of resolving the violation. However, the State may have
reasons for not wanting to change the standard and it is
appropriately the State's decision to make. In any case, under
this condition, pursuit of an enforcement action by EPA would not
normally be a justified use of resources.
If you have any questions or comments about this issue or
application of this policy, please feel free to call Richard
Wilson at 755-2977 or Edward Reich at 382-2807.
113
13-2
-------
should take the form of a letter to the source (with a copy going
to the relevant State agency). This letter should tell the source
that although its liability under Federal law has not been changed
by the State decree (order/variance), the primary responsibility
for enforcement of air pollution regulations lies with the State
under the Clean Air Act, and the existence of the State action
will mean that EPA will not take an enforcement action, provided
the source continues to cooperate with the State enforcement
efforts and EPA continues to view the State action as effective.
Upon a determination that State action is adequate, all EPA
case development activity concerning that source would be deferred
and the state would have the lead on the case (provided that the
State's handling of the case continued to be effective). Any
additional EPA case development activities concerning this source
would be directed towards assisting the State in its enforcement
endeavors. Inspections, source tests, or the issuance of S114
letters would be the most likely form of assistance requested by
the State.
EPA deferral could take place at any point in the case
development process, even after a case had been referred to
Headquarters. There is no arbitrary point at which EPA would
automatically retain the lead on a case. However, EPA would not
likely withdraw a case already filed in court unless it had great
certainty that the State action would in fact be effective in
achieving compliance. It would normally be preferable at this
stage to merely seek a postponement of the Federal action pending
the source's coming into compliance.
It is important to ensure that even non-federally cognizable
State actions (and their schedules) are tracked in CDS. This
information is essential to have for oversight purposes, and of
course, in order to keep track of the progress being made by State
enforcement agencies in addressing all significant violators.
If you have any questions or comments about this memorandum
or a particular application of this policy, please feel free to
call Dick Wilson at 755-2977 or Ed Reich at 382-2807.
cc: Robert Perry
113
12-3
-------
PN 113-80-05-27-007
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAY 2 7 1980
MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
SUBJECT: Delayed Compliance Orders Requiring SIP
Compliance Through Temporary Control
Measures—Amended Guidance
FROM: Deputy Assistant Administrator
for General Enforcement
TO: Enforcement Division Directors,
Regions I-X
As indicated by my memorandum of March 7, 1980, the memo-
randa dated September 15, 1978, and December 8, 1978 ("the 1978
memoranda"), concerning delayed compliance orders ("DCO's"),
have been withdrawn. This memorandum supersedes the 1978
memoranda.
The 1978 memoranda interpreted the provisions of Section
113(d) of the Clean Air Act as authorizing the approval of a
DCO under certain conditions notwithstanding that the order did
not require achievement of final compliance on the applicable
deadline (in most cases, July 1, 1979) through the eventual
means of control contemplated by the order. A source would
therefore have been allowed to meet the final compliance
deadline either by ceasing its operations or by other temporary
means of compliance pending the subsequent installation of
pollution controls or completion of process changes.
The Office of General Counsel has advised that an order
under Section 113(d) may be issued or approved only if the
order requires a demonstration of compliance by the applicable
DCO deadline through the use of the ultimate means of control.
Section 113(d)(l)(D) requires that an order "provide for final
compliance" by the applicable deadline. Thus, a DCO must
require a source to achieve and demonstrate compliance by the
deadline in Section 113(d)(l)(D) through the use of the control
measures set forth in the order's timetable and schedule for
compliance. While Section 113(d) does not by its terms require
that compliance be achieved by the ultimate means of control,
only such a content given to the requirements of Section
113(d)(l)(D) gives meaning to the requirement of "final
compliance." The word "final" modifies the word "compliance"
and limits the kinds of compliance that satisfy the
requirements of Section 113(d)(l).
The structure of Section 113(d) supports this inter-
pretation of "final compliance" in Section 113(d)(1)(D). Under
Section 113(d), the Agency and the States are authorized to
issue an order postponing source compliance with the applicable
113
7-1
-------
-2-
State Implementation Plan (SIP) only if the order meets the
conditions set forth in that Section. The conditions relate
generally to the achievement in fact of final compliance and
the reduction of emissions in the interim to the maximum extent
reasonable and practicable. Source compliance with the SIP may
be deferred only if, among other things, the order establishes
an enforceable schedule of actions leading to final compliance
(Sections 113(d)(1)(B), 113(d)(6), and 302(p)) as expeditiously
as practicable, but not beyond the applicable deadline (Section
113(d)(1)(D)). In addition, the order must require the source
to reduce emissions by the best practicable system in the
interim (Sections 113(d)(l)(C) and 113(d)(7)) and must require
the source to comply with SIP limitations, in so far as it is
able to do so, during the duration of the order (Section
113(d)(7)). Controlled deferral of achievement of air quality
goals by a date certain would be compromised by the issuance or
approval of an order which contemplates final compliance after
such date. This view of "final compliance" is also supported
by the absence within Section 113(d) of any mechanisms for
enforcing, within the four corners of the order, source
compliance with any increments of progress which might extend
beyond the applicable DCO deadline.
If you have any questions on this matter, contact Mark
Silvermintz in the Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
(FTS 755-2570).
son
cc: Michael James
Associate General Counsel
for Air, Noise, and Radiation
113
7-2
-------
PN 113-80-03-11-006
.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
T WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
MAR \ \ 1980
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Interim Particulate Controls
From: Deputy Assistant Administrator
for General Enforcement
To: Enforcement Division Directors, Regions I-X
The Office of Enforcement has developed a policy on the
use of flue gas conditioning as a means of interim particulate
control for power plants and industrial boilers. A statement
of the policy is attached. As more experience is acquired with
flue gas conditioning and other means of interim control,
appropriate changes will be made to the policy.
We also attach sample language that reflects the policy
statement; it is suitable for use in court orders and, with
proper word changes in paragraph 6, in administrative orders.
This language should be modified as may be appropriate to fit
the circumstances of individual cases.
The policy statement and the sample language incorporate
a reference test method for measuring sulfuric acid emissions.
A statement of the test method will be forwarded when ready.
A draft of the policy statement was circulated for comment
on October 10, 1978. The comments received from the Regions
and others were considered in preparing this final statement.
The policy statement indicates that under proper circum-
stances, flue gas conditioning is an appropriate and effective
interim particulate control. It is not, of course, the only
possible means of interim particulate control and all alterna-
tives should be considered and weighed in each particular case.
113
6-1
-------
-2-
For example, it might be appropriate in a given case to require a
moderate reduction in operations as a way of reducing patticulates
on an interim basis. Of course, where a source demonstrated the
effectiveness of flue gas conditioning in accordance with the
policy statement, this could obviate, in whole or in part, the
need for such derating.
If you have any questions, please contact Edward Reich
of the Division of Stationary Source Enforcement, at FTS
755-2550 or Dames Herlihy at FTS 423-3250.
ilson
Attachments
-------
March 1980
Office of Enforcement
ENFORCEMENT POLICY ON INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
It sometimes happens that a coal-fired power plant or
industrial boiler is out of compliance with particulate
emission regulations because an existing precipitator is
inadequate. This can occur for numerous reasons. The
precipitator may be underdesigned, the boiler may be operated
above design rates, or the plant may switch from a high to a
low sulTur fuel. In all such cases, the plant may be ordered
to install a replacement or supplementary precipitator over
a two or three year time period. During this period, interim
particulate controls should be required when practical.
Flue gas conditioning to supplement precipitator
performance may be appropriate as an interim means of
control in certain situations. In many cases, the necessary
equipment can be installed and made operational in a few
months and at reasonable cost. On the other hand,
conditioning agents may be toxic and their effectiveness is
not always certain. For these reasons, flue gas conditioning
should not be required in every case. However, where it is
reasonable to expect that particulate emission reductions
brought about by conditioning agents will more than offset
increased toxic emissions, conditioning may be appropriate.
The Office of Research and Development (ORD) has been
consulted to determine the circumstances under which flue
gas conditioning may be appropriate for interim control.
The guidelines in this memo are consistent with ORD
recommendations.
When a coal-fired power plant or industrial boiler is
ordered to comply with particulate emissions because an
existing precipitator is inadequate, it is suggested that
flue gas conditioning be considered as a means of interim
particulate control. Alternative approaches may also be
considered. For flue gas conditioning to be appropriate,
the following conditions should normally be met:
1. Conditioning is likely to be effective. As a
guideline, it should be likely that conditioning will
reduce net particulate emissions about 50 percent.
In some cases, there may be performance data
from trial runs or pilot plant studies that will help
indicate whether this condition is met. Usually, -
however, such data will be unavailable, so the effect
of conditioning must be determined some other way.
Methods have been developed to calculate the
113
6-3
-------
-2-
effectiveness of some conditioning agents. These
calculations should be made and the results used to
determine whether a net particulate reduction of about
50 percent is likely. (A contractor will be made
available to assist with the calculations.)
The calculations require an elemental analysi's
of fly ash, so samples of fly ash or coal will be
needed. If the source has not purchased its new low
sulfur coal, samples may not become available until
after the compliance order issues. If an order is
to be issued in such a situation, the order should
provide that conditioning will be required after coal
or fly ash samples are tested, if EPA determines that
conditioning is likely to be effective.
2. Acid sulfate emissions will not increase significantly
As a guideline, the increase in acid sulfate emissions,
based on averages measured by the controlled condensation
test method, should not exceed about five parts per
million.
3. An approved conditioning agent is used. To lessen
the possibility that conditioning will increase toxic
emissions, the conditioning agents should be restricted
to the following, either singly or in combination:
inorganic sulfate, phosphate, or carbonate salts of
sodium, ammonium, magnesium, aluminum, or iron; the
gases sulfur trioxide, ammonia, steam (or water), air,
or oxygen; the oxides of iron, or sulfamic acid. To
ensure that this condition is met, the approximate
composition of the conditioning agents should be
disclosed to EPA.
4. The interim period has a reasonable duration. The
interim period should be of such duration that the
conditioning system will be in operation for a
reasonable length of time before final compliance is
achieved. Reasonableness must be determined on a case
by case basis considering all relevant factors such as
emission rates, expected emission reductions, air
quality, installation times, etc.
5. The costs are reasonable. The installation and
operating costs should be reasonable. The
reasonableness of cost must be determined case by case
based on all relevant factors, as indicated in the
preceding paragraph.
6. The precipitator is in good repair. The predicted
effects of conditioning are based on the assumptions
that the precipitator is in good mechanical condition
and that the precipitator is operated properly. If an
113
6-4
-------
-3-
order is issued to a source with a poorly maintained or
operated precipitator, the order should include
requirements for proper maintenance and operation.
If flue gas conditioning appears to be a reasonably
practical means of interim control based on the above •
conditions, the Region should consider including requirements
for conditioning in the compliance order. In making a final
decision, site-specific factors should be considered. For
example, if the area in which the source will be located is
nonattainment for particulates, there will be greater
incentive to require conditioning than if the ambient
standard were being met. On the other hand, if other
sources in the area are already emitting acid sulfates,
it will be less desirable to require conditioning with
agents that cause the emission of additional acid sulfates.
The Region should make determinations on a case by case
basis, and the Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
(DSSE) will provide assistance on request.
It may also happen that flue gas conditioning is
appropriate even if the above conditions are not met;
but in such cases, the Region should consult with DSSE
before issuing orders.
If conditioning is ordered, emission tests should be
conducted with and without conditioning, to confirm expected
particulate reductions and to measure any increase in
acid sulfates. Net particulates should be reduced about 50
percent. The increase in acid sulfate emissions should not
be more than about five parts per million. EPA Method 5
should be used for the particulate measurements, and the
controlled condensation test method should be the reference
method for acid sulfates. If conditioning agents other than
sulfur trioxide, ammonium sulfate, or sodium carbonate are
used, DSSE should be consulted for possible modifications to
the test method for acid sulfates.
Unfortunately, the normal variability in measurements
of acid sulfates (due to limitations in the test method and
to changes in coal sulfur content) is about the same magnitude
as the increases that need to be determined. To obtain
sufficient accuracy, it is recommended that the average of
at least eight runs be used to determine baseline emission
levels without conditioning agents. The average of at least
eight more runs should be used to measure emission levels
with conditioning agents. The increase (if any) should be
determined by subtracting the first average from the s'econd.
As"a check on the validity of the acid sulfate measurements
it is recommended that simultaneous sulfur dioxide
measurements be made. This will indicate the variability
-------
-4-
of the sulfur in the coal and help explain any observed
variations in the acid sulfate results.
During the emission tests, the conditioning system
should be operated in a manner previously approved by EPA.
(This will normally be according to the specifications 'of
the supplier of the conditioning agents.) After the test,
the source should not be allowed to deviate from the test
mode of operation without the approval of EPA, which may be
conditioned on additional testing to determine whether other
requirements of the order are met.
Visible emissions should be recorded during the emission
tests and monitored continuously after the conditioning
system becomes operational. The order should provide that
reports be made to EPA when visible emissions increase
significantly during the interim period. EPA can then
inspect the plant to determine whether the source is violating
the order by deviating from the test mode of operation.
EPA should reserve in the order an ability to require
that a different conditioning system be installed or at
least an ability to seek a further court order for such a
change if the emission tests show that net particulate
emissions are not reduced about 50 percent or that acid
sulfate emissions increase more than about 5 parts per
million. The first option is more conservative, and should
normally be insisted upon when the source intends to select
a conditioning system that is considered less likely to be
successful than alternative systems and/or the need for
interim particulate controls is great. Interim controls are
more important, for example, when the source is located in
an area that does not meet the ambient air standards for
particulates.
Flue gas conditioning is potentially applicable to many
source types, but so far additives have been demonstrated
only on coal-fired power plants. Compliance orders that
require conditioning should not be issued to sources other
than coal-fired power plants or industrial boilers without
first consulting DSSE.
Flue gas conditioning should not be recommended as a
means for achieving final compliance, because of the possible
toxic effects of conditioning agents. The major reasons for
this are: 1) there is greater risk when possibly toxic agents
are used on a permanent basis, because the duration of
exposure will be longer, and 2) alternative technology-such
as "precipitators can achieve compliance without the increased
emission of possibly toxic agents. However, if it is shown
to EPA's satisfaction that the conditioning agents are
nontoxic their use as a means of achieving final compliance
may be considered on a case by case basis.
113
6-6
-------
-5-
Proper maintenance of the existing precipitator is also
important for interim control. If the precipitator is not
adequately maintained, the benefits of conditioning may be
cancelled out, so consideration should be given to requirements
for restoring the precipitator to good mechanical condition.
The following items are important: a) gas distribution to
the precipitator should meet the requirements of the Industrial
Gas Cleaning Institute; b) collector plates should be
properly aligned; c) all discharge electrodes should be in
place; d) all power supplies and controllers should be
operational; e) proper ash handling procedures should be
followed.
-------
March 1980
INTERIM PARTICIPATE CONTROL REQUIREMENTS:
(Sample Language For Court Orders)
(Source) shall comply with the following interim requirements.
1. On (Date), (Source) shall provide EPA with repre-
sentative samples of the coal it plans to purchase.
EPA will then make a determination whether flue gas
conditioning is likely to be effective in reducing
particulate emissions when such coal is burned at
(Affected Facility) and otherwise appropriate. If
EPA determines that flue gas conditioning is likely
to be effective and otherwise appropriate, (Source)
shall comply with the provisions of paragraphs
2 through 8 inclusive. If EPA's 'determination
is to the contrary, paragraphs 2 through B shall be
void. In either case, paragraph 9 shall be
effective.
(Note: this paragraph should be used only when it
is necessary to delay a decision on requiring flue
gas conditioning, until samples of a new coal
supply become available for testing.)
2. A system for conditioning the flue gas from
(Affected Facility) by the addition of chemical
agents shall be installed according to the
following schedule:
a) (Date): Final interim control plan submitted
to EPA.
b) (Date): Contract for flue gas conditioning
system awarded.
c) (Date): On-site construction of flue gas con-
ditioning system begun.
d) (Date): On-site construction of flue gas con-
ditioning system finished.
e) (Date): Flue gas conditioning system fully
operational.
113
6-8
-------
-2-
Before the date specified in paragraph 2 for the
flue gas conditioning system to be fully operational,
(Source) shall perform two sets of emission
tests on the stack gases from (Affected Facility).
One set of tests shall be run without flue gas
conditioning and one set of tests shall be run
with flue gas conditioning. The same type of-'coal
shall be burned during both sets of tests. The
boiler load, sootblowing operations, end the amount
of excess air shall be the same for both sets of
tests. The following pollutants shall be measured
simultaneously:
a) Particulates; for each set of tests, at least
three measurements shall be made using EPA
Method 5 (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A) and the
results averaged.
b) Visible emissions; for each set of tests, at
least three measurements shall be made using
EPA Method 9 (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A) and
the results averaged.
c) Acid sulfates; for each set of tests, at
least eight measurements shall be made using
the test method specified in Tab A, and
the results averaged.
d) Sulfur dioxide; for each set of tests, at
least eight measurements shall be made using
EPA Method 6 (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A), or
an equivalent test method, done simultaneously
with the tests for acid sulfates.
All measurements shall be made with (Affected
Facility), and the * electrostatic precipitator at
normal operating conditions.
For the set of tests with flue gas conditioning,
the flue gas conditioning system shall be operated
in the manner recommended by the supplier of the
conditioning agents.
To allow the precipitator to stabilize, the
measurements with conditioning agents shall be
preceded by at least ten days of operation with
conditioning agents. Similarly, the tests without
conditioning agents shall be preceded by at least
ten days of precipitator operation without ""
conditioning agents.
-------
-3-
(Note: if conditioning agents other than sulfur
trioxide, ammonium sulfate, or sodium carbonate are
used, D55E should be consulted for possible
modifications to the test method for acid sulfates.)
A. Any emission tests required by paragraphs 3,
5, 6, or 7 shall be subject to the following''
additional requirements:
a) EPA shall receive two weeks written notice
before the emission tests are run, and shall
have the opportunity to observe all tests.
b) A private contractor (not the supplier of the
conditioning system and not the supplier of
the conditioning agents) shall conduct the
tests and certify the results to EPA.
c) (Source) shall certify to EPA that (Affected
Facility) and the associated electrostatic
precipitator were operating normally, and that
the flue gas conditioning system was operating
according to the supplier's specifications
during the tests.
« i
5. (Source) shall use (Specify) as the conditioning
agent.
If the approximate composition of the
conditioning agent changes at any time before final
compliance with particulate emission regulations
is achieved, (Source) shall disclose the new
approximate composition to EPA in writing, within
two weeks after the change occurs. The new
conditioning agents, however, shall be subject to
approval by EPA. Moreover, if the approximate
composition of the conditioning agents is changed
after the performance tests required by paragraph 3
have been conducted, EPA may, at its discretion,
require additional performance tests that meet the
requirements of paragraphs 3 and 4. If EPA decides
to require such additional tests, EPA shall so
notify (Source) in writing. (Source) shall cause
such tests to be completed within one month from
the date the notice is received.
113
6-10
-------
-4-
(Note 1: the conditioning agents should be
restricted to the following, either singly or in
combination: inorganic sulfate, phosphate, or
carbonate salts of sodium, ammonium, magnesium,
aluminum, or iron: the gases sulfur trioxide,
ammonia, steam (or water), air, or oxygen;. the
oxides of iron, or sulfamic acid.)
(Note 2: the Region should not specify or agree to
specification of an agent, even if listed above, if
the Region believes it will not be effective at the
subject facility.)
(Note 3: if the conditioning agents are identified
by a trade name, the approximate composition
should be disclosed to EPA.)
(Note 4: if conditioning agents other than sulfur
trioxide, ammonium sulfate, or sodium carbonate
are selected, DSSE should be consulted for
possible modifications to the test method for acid
sulfates.)
6. If the emission tests required by paragraph 3 (or
paragraph 5, if applicable) show that:
A) The average particulate emissions with flue
gas conditioning are more than 50 weight
percent of the average particulate emissions
without flue gas conditioning; or
B) The average emission of acid sulfates with
flue gas conditioning exceed the average
emission of acid sulfates without flue gas
conditioning by more than five parts per
million parts of the total gas stream by
volume,
ALTERNATIVE I
Then EPA may, at its discretion, select some other
commercially available conditioning agent(s), and
such agent(s) shall be used instead of (Specify the
agent named in paragraph 3).
If EPA imposes such a requirement, EPA shall
notify (Source) in writing. (Source) shall have
six months from the date such notice is mailed, to
install a conditioning system using the agents
selected by EPA, to make said system fully
operational, and to complete a new series of
performance tests that satisfy all the requirements
of paragraphs 3 and 4.
113
6-n
-------
-5-
ALTERNATIVE II
Then EPA and (Source) shall meet to discuss what
further action would be appropriate, including the
possible installation, testing, and operation of a
flue gas conditioning system that uses some other
conditioning agent(s). If the parties agree on
further actions to be taken, the agreement shall be
submitted to the Court as a proposed modification
of this order. If the parties do not agree, EPA
may petition the Court for such further relief as
it deems appropriate.
(Note 1: only one of the above alternatives should-
be selected.)
(Note 2: Alternative I should be selected if the
agent specified in paragraph 5 is considered less
likely to be successful than alternative agents
and/or the need for interim particulate controls is
great.)
7. After the date the flue gas conditioning system is
required to be fully operational, (Source) shall
operate the flue gas conditioning system until
final compliance with particulate emission
regulations is achieved, or until EPA notifies
(Source) in writing, that conditioning is no longer
required. During this period, the flue gas
conditioning system shall be operated in the same
manner in which it was operated during the emission
tests, unless EPA gives written approval for
changes. EPA may require additional performance
tests that meet the requirements of paragraphs 3
and ft before giving such approval.
•
8. After the date the flue gas conditioning system is
required to be fully operational, and until the
final particulate standards are achieved, (Source)
shall continuously monitor the opacity of the flue
gas from (Affected Facility). Each month, (Source)
shall report to EPA all periods exceeding eight
hours throughout which (Affected Facility) operated
and one of the following happened:
a) The monitor did not operate properly.
b) The opacity exceeded, by more than ten percent,
the average opacity measured during the emission
tests required by paragraph 3. (For example, if
the average opacity during the tests was twenty
percent, an opacity qreater than thirty percent
should be reported.)
113
6-12
-------
-6-
c) Any combination of a) and b) occurred. (For
example, if excess opacity occurred for three
hours, and the monitor was not operating but
the plant continued to run for the next six
hours, this incident should be reported.)
(Source) shall repair the precipitator presently
installed on (Affected Facility) as follows:
a) All missing discharge electrodes shall be
installed.
b) ,A11 sections of the precipitator shall be made
operational.
c) All power supply units shall be made
operational.
These repairs shall be completed by (Date).
(Note: This paragraph is exemplary only. Items
should be added or deleted as appropriate.)
Tab A
Test Method For Acid Sulfates
113
6-13
-------
PN 113-78-07-27-005
| UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
2? JUL1978
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Enforcement Under Clean Air Act Amendments —
Orders Under Section 113 (a) and 113 (d)
From: Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
To: Regional Administrators
Regional Enforcement Directors
I. Introduction
My April 11, 1978 memorandum entitled, "Enforcement
Against Major Source Violators of the Air and Water Acts/1
summarized our enforcement policy against major source
violators of the Clean Air Act (and Clean Water Act).
It stated essentially that major air sources which have
not taken the steps necessary to bring themselves into
compliance must have enforcement action taken against them
and that, essentially, such enforcement action would have to
be either an administrative, delayed compliance order under
Section 113(d) or a civil and/or criminal action. My
memorandum of April ^11, 1978, entitled "Civil Penalty
Policy," stated our penalty policy for use in civil enforce-
ment court actions under Section 113.
This memorandum supplements the above memoranda of
April 11, 1978, and summarizes our policy on use of admini-
strative orders as enforcement actions, including both
administrative orders under Section 113(a) and the newly
authorized administrative order (referred to herein as a
"delayed compliance order") under Section 113(d).
II. Previous Guidance Superseded or Incorporated
For several months, EPA circulated for comment a
"Second Draft: Strategy Governing Enforcement of State
Implementation Plans Against Stationary Sources under the
Clean Air Act, as Amended in 1977." On January 16, 1978,
113
5-1
-------
-2-
I sent to the Regional Administrators a memorandum, entitled:
"Federal Issuance and Approval of Delayed Compliance Orders
Under Section 113(d) of the Clean Air Act, as Amended in
1977." This memorandum provided guidance on delayed compli
ance orders under Section 113(d). This was followed by a
memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
General Enforcement dated March 10, 1978, entitled: "Proce-
dures for Federal Register Publication of Proposed and Final
Agency Action on Administrative Orders under Section 113(d)
of the Clean Air Act." This memorandum provided guidance on
the mechanics of issuing delayed compliance orders. Subse-
quently, on May 9, 1978, the Director of the Division of
Stationary Source Enforcement issued a memorandum entitled:
"Federal Register Notices Proposing Approval, Disapproval,
or Issuance of Administrative Orders under Section 113(d) of
the Clean Air Act". This memorandum supplemented earlier
guidance on the procedures to be followed by EPA in acting
on delayed compliance orders.
This memorandum supersedes the earlier drafts entitled
"Strategy Governing Enforcement of State Implementation
Plans against Stationary Sources under the Clean Air Act, as
Amended in 1977" and incorporates the other memoranda
referenced in the immediately preceding paragraph.
III. Issuance of Administrative Enforcement Orders under
Section 113(a) of the Clean Air Act and Similar
State Authorities
Section 113(a)(l) and (4) provide for EPA issuance
of administrative orders to violators of a number of Clean
Air Act requirements, including State Implementation Plan
(SIP) requirements. Prior to the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1977, Setion 113(a) orders were issued by EPA to require
compliance within a reasonable time with SIP provisions
for which the dates for compliance and, in some cases, the
date for attainment of national standards had passed. A
number of State and local enforcement officials had similar
authority to issue administrative orders requiring SIP
compliance.
Although the 1977 Amendments did not change the
relevant Section 113(a) language, two new provisions
were added to the Act which narrowly limit the situations in
which Section 113(a) may be used to obtain compliance by
violators of SIP requirements. First, new Section 110(i) of
the Act prohibits any action, including issuance of an order
by the Administrator or the State, which modifies any
stationary source requirement of an applicable SIP,
113
5-2
-------
-3-
except in accordance with specific Clean Air Act authorities
and these authorities do not include Section 113(a).
Second, new Section 113(d) of the Act sets forth specific
new procedures and standards for issuance of administrative
orders which extend the time for SIP compliance. Section
110(i) permits modification of SIP provisions in accordance
with Section 113(d).
These new provisions preclude EPA's use of Section
113(a) to establish schedules which extend the time for SIP
compliance. Section 113(a) will now be used by EPA to
require SIP compliance by stationary sources only where the
compliance can reasonably be required essentially immediately.
Since a reasonable time for compliance must be specified
under Section 113(a), EPA orders issued under that subsection
may provide for compliance within up to 30 days. Such an
order does not have the effect of modifying the SIP require-
ment, however, and a source subject to such an order is not
insulated from other enforcement or from the imposition of
sanctions (including penalties).
State authorities which, like Section 113(a), permit
issuance of administrative orders in accordance with proce-
dures and standards which are not consistent with Section
113(d) are similarly precluded by the 1977 Amendments, at
least insofar as such orders purport to modify an applicable
stationary source SIP requirement. Section 110(i) would
permit modification of the SIP by a State order only if that
order can satisfy the requirements of Section 119 for a
primary nonferrous smelter order, of Section 110(f) for an
emergency suspension, of Section 118 for exemptions for
certain federal facilities, of Section 110 for SIP promulga-
tion or revision, or of Section 113(d) for delayed compliance
orders. Unless a violator is issued a State order which
either requires compliance immediately (i.e., within 30
days) or satisfies the requirements of the provisions listed
in Section 110(i), EPA will consider the violator to be
in need of further enforcement action to establish an
appropriate enforceable schedule for compliance and, in
appropriate cases, to impose sanctions.
IV. Issuance and Approval of Delayed Compliance Orders
under Section 113(d) of the Act
A. Definition:
Although the term "delayed compliance order" does
not appear in Section 113 of the Act, it is used here to
distinguish State and federal Section 113(d) orders
113
5-3
-------
-4-
frora other compliance orders issued under Section 113 or
similar State authorities. Section 302(o) of the Act
defines a "delayed compliance order" as "an order issued by
the State or by the Administrator to an existing stationary
source, postponing the date required under an applicable
implementation plan for compliance by such source with any
requirement of such plan". The fact that Section 113(d)
permits such a delay in the SIP compliance date distinguishes
it from Section 113(a) and similar State authorities which
would permit issuance of an order only for essentially
immediate compliance with the plan's requirement. The
criteria which must be met for lawful issuance and approval
of delayed compliance orders are set forth in Section 113(d)
of the Act and are discussed in detail in Appendix A.
Briefly, they include the following:
(1) The source must be currently unable to comply;
(2) Notice and opportunity for a public hearing must
be provided;
(3) The order must include a schedule for compliance;
(4) The order must include reasonable and practicable
interim controls;
(5) The order must include reasonable requirements for
monitoring and reporting;
(6) The order must require final compliance as expedi-
tiously as practicable but no later than July 1, 1979,
or three years after the date for final compliance
specified in the SIP, whichever is later; and
(7) If the order is to a major source, it must notify
the source of its possible liability for noncompliance
penalties under Section 120 of the Act.
B. Choosing Appropriate Cases for Delayed Compliance
Orders:
Where a source does not have an egregious history of
noncompliance or recalcitrance, the administrative delayed
113
5-4
-------
-5-
compliance order process will normally be used by EPA, and
may be used by the States, to establish a compliance schedule,
provided, of course, that the source can otherwise qualify
for a delayed compliance order. Reliance on delayed compli-
ance orders in such cases will permit use of the potentially
less time-consuming administrative, rather than judicial,
process to impose schedules and interim requirements. (To
keep the administrative burden at a minimum, public notice,
hearings, and federal rulemaking may be accomplished
for several delayed compliance orders at one time.)
This will allow more resources to be devoted to problem
sources for which litigation is appropriate. However,
issuance of a delayed compliance order must be recognized to
be a benefit to the source which will be granted only in
appropriate situations.
Since the final compliance date in a delayed compliance
order based on an existing SIP is generally limited to
July 1, 1979, delayed compliance orders will progressively
become less and less available as an option. Therefore, a
top priority in the national enforcement strategy is
to develop schedules and issue delayed compliance orders to
sources which are appropriate candidates for such orders.
The issuance of delayed compliance orders by either the
States or EPA is discretionary. In exercising its discretion,
EPA will consider any past compliance efforts and any prior
State or federal enforcement actions involving the source.
If, based on these and other relevant factors, EPA determines
that the source is one with an egregious history of noncom-
pliance, recalcitrance, or environmental harm and/or that
court supervision is likely to be required in order to
assure expeditious compliance, the source will be considered
an appropriate candidate for civil or criminal action
and no federal delayed compliance order will be issued.
Consequently, there will be no category of cases involving a
federally issued delayed compliance order and a federal
court action relating to the pre-delayed compliance order
period. EPA will continue to urge the States to adopt a
similar approach in exercising their discretion. However,
EPA approval or disapproval of a State delayed compliance
order will be based on the statutory criteria of Section
113(d). (See IV.D., "EPA Approval of State Delayed Compli-
ance Orders", below.)
C. The Appropriate Method for Initiation of the Delayed
Compliance Order Process:
If EPA and/or the State determine that a source is
an appropriate candidate for a delayed compliance order
(i.e., that the source is probably eligible for a delayed
113
5-5
-------
compliance order under the Act and that the case is not
appropriate for civil penalties), the source- should be
notified immediately.
In most cases where EPA.is enforcing, issuance of
a Notice of Violation (NOV)-' is the first step in the
enforcement process. Where the source appears to be an
appropriate candidate for a delayed compliance order, the
NOV or State notice should inform the source that it may
submit a schedule (which must reflect compliance as expedi-
tiously as practicable, include appropriate interim measures,
and otherwise satisfy Section 113(d)). Whether or not State
notice is required, or may be provided in some manner other
than a written notice, is a question of State law.
The notice should provide that if, after review of
the source's proposed schedule, the. State or EPA determines
that the source is eligible and an appropriate candidate
for a DCO and that the proposed schedule is acceptable,
public notice and opportunity for a public hearing will
be provided. The notice to the source should establish a
specific deadline for the source to submit an appropriate
schedule and should indicate that if no acceptable schedule
is submitted by that deadline, EPA or the State will commence
an action for injunctive relief and civil penalties based on
the underlying SIP violation. Reference should also be made
to the statutory authority for criminal sanctions in
cases of knowing violation.
The NOV or State notice should point out that issuance
of a delayed compliance order is discretionary and would
provide substantial benefits by insulating a source from
—' Although providing an opportunity to confer is not
statutorily required prior to EPA's issuance of a delayed
compliance order, a conference will probably be useful in
the majority of cases. Under 3113(a)(1), an NOV (i.e., 30
days notice) is required prior to issuance of an order by
EPA under either §113(a) or (d) where that order is based
on a SIP violation. The State and the source may waive
their rights to receive an NOV. In accordance with Wisconsin's
Environmental Decade, Inc., v. Wisconsin Power and Light
Company, et al, 1 ERG 2022 (U.S. Dist. Ct., Western Dist. of
Wisconsin, June 6, 1975) and EPA's interpretative guidance
following that case, issuance of an NOV would be required in
any case where EPA finds that a person is in violation of a
SIP. This is also a prerequisite to EPA's initiation of
judicial action based on such a violation.
113
5-6
-------
-7-
judicial action and civil or criminal penalties based
on violations of the underlying requirement which are
ongoing while the delayed compliance order is being met. The
notice should conclude thatf for these reasons, a delayed
compliance order will not be issued unless the source
indicates in writing (by signature of appropriate persons
authorized to agree for the source) that it will agree to
comply with the delayed compliance order. Source consent
will be required for all federal delayed compliance orders
and is .recommended for State delayed compliance orders as
well.—' However, a source's agreement to comply is not a
precondition to EPA approval of a State delayed compliance
order. (See Section IV.D., "EPA Approval of State Delayed
Compliance Orders", below.) In effect, only sources which
have not already established a history of egregious recalci-
trance should be given the opportunity to seek a delayed
compliance order. Further, if a source does not cooperate
early in the delayed compliance order process, enforcement
discretion should be exercised so as to refuse to issue a
delayed compliance order. In due course, court action will
be undertaken against uncooperative sources seeking compliance
and civil penalties under State and/or federal law for
each day of violation after August 7, 1977, the date of
enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments.
D. EPA Approval of State Delayed Compliance Orders:
While State procedures for initiation of the delayed
compliance order process may vary, Section 113(d) requires
notice and opportunity for a public hearing in all cases.
States should provide EPA with a copy of any proposed State
delayed compliance order prior to any public hearing on the
order. As soon as possible, EPA should notify the State in
writing of any questions it might have on the appropriateness
of issuing a delayed compliance order or on the adequacy of the
proposed delayed compliance order's terms. Where the proposed
—' EPA will issue federal delayed compliance orders only
to sources which consent to their terms. The form of the
consent may be similar to consent provisions embodied in
Section 113(a) administrative consent orders issued by EPA
prior to the 1977 amendments to the Act. There need not be
a specific waiver of the right to challenge the delayed
compliance order.
113
5-7
-------
-8-
State delayed compliance order presents issues which could
lead to disapproval by EPA, EPA representatives should
submit written comments to that effect and, within*the
limits of available resources, appear at the State hearing
on the proposed delayed compliance order and comment for the
record on its adequacy.
Once the State issues a delayed compliance order, it
should norify EPA by sending a copy of the final order
to the appropriate Regional Office Enforcement Division
Director.-7 EPA will act as quickly as possible, but,
in any case, EPA must approve or disapprove a State delayed
compliance order to a major source within 90 days of receipt
of the order and notice of its issuance. Upon EPA approval,
the State delayed compliance order becomes effective and
enforceable by EPA and citizens as well as the State. A
State delayed compliance order to a minor source is effective
under Section 113(d) upon issuance. However, it ceases to
be effective under Section 113(d) if EPA disapproves upon a
determination that it was not issued in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act.
In accordance with Section 113(d)(9) of the Act, EPA
will vigorously pursue appropriate actions, including
seeking penalties, in any case where a federal delayed
compliance order has been violated. Where the delayed
compliance order involved is an EPA approved State order,
— Delayed compliance orders under S113(d) of the Act
submitted by a local agency for EPA approval must be submitted
either (1) through the appropriate State agency or (2) in
accordance with procedures established by the State which
allow direct submittal to EPA by the local agency. Section
121 of the Clean Air Act requires the States to provide "a
satisfactory process of consultation with general purpose
local governments, designated organizations of elected
officials of local governments and any Federal land manager
having authority over Federal land to which the State plan
applies". This consultation process will apply to all
§113(d) orders issued after August 1, 1978, and must be
provided in accordance with regulations to be promulgated by
EPA. Until August 7, 1978, both EPA and the States should
consult with appropriate local air pollution control agencies
wherever possible prior to issuance of any §113(d) order
and should attempt to provide actual notice of any proposed
Sll3(d) orders to appropriate local officials.
113
5-8
-------
-9-
EPA will consult first with the State to determine^ whether
the State or EPA, or both together, will take action but EPA
must assure itself that prompt, vigorous and appropriate
action is taken.
If a State issues a delayed compliance order which
satisfies the criteria set forth in Section 113(d), EPA
will not disapprove the State order based on those policy
considerations (see Section IV.B., above) which govern EPA's
exercise of enforcement discretion in determining whether
judicial action, rather than a delayed compliance order,
should be pursued. However, under Section 113(d)(10) of the
Act, a delayed compliance order does not insulate a source
from initiation of an action to collect civil or criminal
penalties for violations which occurred during periods in
which the order was not in effect (i.e., the period of
violation prior to the delayed compliance order period).
Under the Act, it is clear that EPA may pursue judicial
action to obtain penalties for such an earlier period of
violation even where a State delayed compliance order has
been approved. EPA will generally pursue an action for
penalties covering the pre-delayed compliance order period
where the State has exercised its discretion differently
than EPA would have by issuing a delayed compliance order to
a source which EPA (utilizing the criteria set forth in
Section IV.B., above) has determined to be an appropriate
candidate for judicial action.
EPA will evaluate State delayed compliance orders for
approval or disapproval in accordance with the criteria
set forth in Section 113(d) of the Act. —' Those criteria
are discussed more fully in Appendix A and are outlined on
p. 4 above.
4/
— Delayed compliance orders issued by EPA must, of
course, meet the same statutory requirements. Delayed
compliance orders issued under Section 113(d)(3) to sources
intending to comply by replacement, complete change in
process, or shutdown are not covered herein but will be
addressed in separate guidance. Delayed compliance orders
may be issued by the Administrator, but not by the States,
under Sll3(d)(4) (relating to innovative technology) and
§113(d)(5) (relating to coal conversions). These will
also be treated in separate guidance.
113
5-9
-------
-10-
E. Effect of Procedural Delays on Delayed Compliance
Order Increments of Progress and Interim Require-
ments: ,
Appendix B summarizes the procedures for EPA issuance
and approval of delayed compliance orders. Since rulemaking
is required, some delay can be expected. However, the effect
of this delay can be minimized. Under State law, a State
may require the source to begin immediately to meet increments
of progress and interim requirements prior to EPA approval
of the delayed compliance order In fact, this may be
necessary in any case where final compliance cannot be
achieved well before the applicable final compliance deadline
for an approvable delayed compliance order. In order
to avoid more stringent enforcement action and possible
liability for judicial penalties, a source which is proceeding
in good faith should be willing to begin its compliance
efforts immediately and the State may enforce the delayed
compliance order immediately under' its independent State
enforcement authority. A State delayed compliance order to
a major source will not, however, become effective under
Section 113(d) of the Clean Air Act until EPA approves the
State order by final promulgation in 40 CFR Part 65. This
means that the State delayed compliance order will not
insulate a major source from other enforcement (S113(d)(10)),
nor will it become part of the SIP for the purposes of
Sections 110, 304, and 307 of the Act (S113(d)(11))
until EPA approves it.
Similarly, EPA will require sources for which federal
delayed compliance orders are to be issued, to meet appro-
priate increments and interim requirements while informal
rulemaking procedures are being followed. Again, many
sources may not be eligible for delayed compliance orders
unless they agree to begin steps toward compliance early
enough to avoid continued violation after the deadline set
in accordance with Section 113(d)(1)(D).
F. EPA Disapproval of a State Delayed Compliance Order:
Ordinarily, deficiencies in State delayed compliance
orders will be attributable to the newness of the delayed
compliance order program and unfamiliarity with the delayed
compliance order requirements. This should not be a long
term problem; EPA will work with the States to allow adequate
opportunity to correct oversights and minor problems without
113
5-10
-------
-11-
disapproval becoming necessary. Many existing State orders
can be supplemented readily to meet the requirements of
Section 113 (d). EPA is aware that many States are already
making commendable efforts to do this.
However, there may be some cases where EPA disapproval
is necessary. Where EPA disapproves a State delayed compliance
order for a major source, EPA will issue a federal delayed
compliance order (if the source is eligible and an appropriate
candidate for a delayed compliance order) or initiate
judicial action, in accordance with Agency enforcement
priorities. If EPA should disapprove a State delayed
compliance order to a minor source, EPA must simultaneously
issue its own delayed compliance order, assuming the source
can meet the statutory eligibility requirements of Section
In rare cases, EPA may receive for approval a State
delayed compliance order based on violations for which EPA
has already filed or begun to process a judicial action.
EPA's filing of a judicial action will constitute rejection
of the State delayed compliance order. Where this occurs,
the State will be notified of the reasons the State delayed
compliance order cannot be approved and will be formally
notified, immediately after EPA's receipt of the proposed
delayed compliance order, that EPA is taking or plans to
take judicial action. Notice of the disapproval of the
State delayed compliance order will also be published in the
Federal Register, but the disapproval will be effective upon
notice to the State.
V. Relation of Sectibn _113 (a)or (d) Orders to Noncompliance
Penalties under Section 120 of the Clean Air Act
A. Applicability of Non-Compliance Penalties under Section
120 of the Act:
The Division of Stationary Source Enforcement is
working with other EPA headquarters offices and regional
representatives on development of regulations implementing
Section 120 of the Act. Early drafts will be circulated
widely for comment as soon as they are available.
Generally, there is no exemption from Section 120
noncompliance penalties for sources subject to delayed
113
5-11
-------
-12-
compliance schedules by consent decrees, or other administra-
tively or judicially imposed compliance plans including even
certain delayed compliance orders with schedules extending
beyond July 1, 1979. When the Section 120 noncompliance
penalty provision becomes effective (in mid-1979),—' EPA
or the delegated State must assess a noncompliance penalty
against any major source which is not in compliance with a
SIP requirement or any other requirement for which penalties
must be assessed under Section 120(a)(2)(A). The penalty
amount will be based on the economic advantage derived from
noncompliance after mid-1979.
— With respect to violations of existing emission
limitations, the Clean Air Act Amendments did not clearly
indicate whether the effective date for noncompliance
penalty liability under Section 120 of the Act is July 1,
1979 or August 7, 1979. Both dates are referred to in the
definition of "period of covered noncompliance" in Section
120(d)(3)(C). For purposes of determining an appropriate
civil penalty, EPA will assume that the administrative
penalty will be assessed beginning August 7, 1979. Until
the regulations implementing Section 120 have been subject
to public comment and promulgated by the Administrator, no
final determination can be made, however, with respect to
the applicable date for purposes of Section 120.
With respect to any emission limitation or other
requirement approved or promulgated by the Administrator
after August 7, 1977, which is either more stringent than
those in effect at that time or which establishes a require-
ment where none existed before, Section 120(g) of the Act
provides that the effective date for noncompliance penalties
will be the date that full compliance is required with such
limitation or requirement (though not later than three years
from such approval or promulgation, nor earlier than the
effective date that noncompliance penalties begin with
respect to violations of existing limitations).
113
5-12
-------
-13-
Section 120(a)(2)(B) and (C) provide for exemptions
from the noncompliance penalty in certain cases.—'
However, unless one of these limited exemptions is' granted,
the noncompliance penalty will apply even where a compliance
schedule has been imposed in a State or federal enforcement
action, if the source's violation of the underlying SIP
provision continues past August 7, 1979. —
rnng
2J The exemptions provided in Section 120(a)(2)(B) and
(C) are:
a) a source converting to coal under a compliance
date extension or Sll3(d)(5) order;
b) a source using innovative technology under a
S113(d) (4) order;
c) a source issued a delayed compliance order based
on an inability to comply which results from
reasons entirely beyond the source's control vsee
discussion of "inability to comply" in Appendix A);
d) conditions which would authorize a temporary
emergency suspension under section 110 (f) or
( g ) ; and
e) at the Administrator's discretion, a source
whose instance of noncompliance is de minimis in
nature and duration.
— ' Section 120 (g) provides that a violating source
newly subject to an emission limit and a violating source
subject to an emission limit more stringent than that in
effect prior to August 7, 1977, must pay noncompliance
penalties beginning either on July 1, 1979, or the date they
are required to be in compliance with the new emission
limit, whichever is later, but not later than three years
after approval or promulgation of the new limit. The
application of this "three years" language to sources
covered by SIP revisions under §172 will be discussed
in separate guidance.
113
5-13
-------
APPENDIX A
Criteria for Approval of State Delayed Orders and Issuance of
Federal Delayed Compliance Orders under Section 113(d) of the
Clean Air Act
(1) Inability to comply; The delayed compliance order
(DCO) must include a finding that the source is unable to
comply with the SIP requirement involved.
Discussion: Under the Act, a source is not eligible for
a State or federal DCO "if the delay is sought simply
for convenience or for economic advantages which would
accrue from delayed compliance" (1977 Senate Report at
p. 46). If the source truly needs additional time to
install necessary controls, make appropriate process changes,
etc., the time needed to comply may be provided in a DCO in
accordance with the limitations described in item (6) below.
For purposes of this criterion of eligibility for a DCO, a
source is eligible if it is not able to comply immediately
at the time the DCO is being considered, regardless of its
past history. The source's present inability to comply need
not be for reasons entirely beyond the source's control to
qualify it for DCO eligibility. (Past compliance efforts are
relevant to the exercise of discretion to issue a DCO, even
though not relevant in determining technical eligiblity.)
Care should be taken in making the determination of inability
to comply. Although the standard is as stated above
for purposes of determining eligibility for a DCO under
8113(d), a much more stringent standard must be met for a
major source to obtain an exemption from mandatory administra-
tive noncompliance penalties under S120(a)(2)(B)(iv). To
obtain such an exemption, a source must be subject to an
administrative order based on its inability to comply and
that inability must result from "reasons entirely beyond
the control of the owner or operator of such source or of
any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common
control with the owner or operator of such source". The
legislative history of this provision suggests that it
should be read very narrowly. At the time of applying for a
DCO, sources may press to obtain findings that their inability
to comply is for reasons entirely beyond their control,
because of the protection from Section 120 penalties
such findings may afford them. However, since the standard
for eligibility for a DCO appears on its face to be less
restrictive than that for exemption from §120 penalties, it
would be wise at this stage to avoid making any formal
determination on the question of the reasons for the source's
113
5-14
-------
-2-
inability to comply and to make it clear that those reasons
were not relevant, nor were they considered, in determining
eligibility for a DCO. (Detailed explanation of ttie exemp-
tions from administrative noncompliance penalties will be
included in the preamble and regulations implementing
Section 120 of the Act.)
(2) Notice and opportunity for public hearing: The order
must have been issued after notice to the public of the
content of the proposed order and opportunity for public
hearing.
Discussion: Generally, thirty days is considered adequate
notice under both State and federal law. The form of notice
(newspaper, State Register, etc.) is generally prescribed by
State law. EPA will, at a minimum, give public notice of
i< s proposed DCOs in the Federal RegjL s t er. (Actual notice
to the State of proposed DCOs will also be given.) In
evaluating the approvability of State DCOs, EPA will as a
minimum require that the notice be adequate under State law
and that persons living in the vicinity of the source have
had adequate opportunity to comment on the proposed State
order. Thirty days notice will be considered adequate and
will be required for EPA approval of a State DCO unless the
State has obtained prior EPA approval of some other procedure
consistent wi-:h 40 CFR S51.4(e).
(3) Compliance schedule; The order must contain a schedule
and timetable for compliance, including increments of
progress.
Discussion: Section 302(p) of the Act defines "schedule and
timetable of compliance" as "a schedule of required measures
including an enforceable sequence of actions or operations
leading to compliance with an emission limitation, other
limitation, prohibition or standard". Each increment of
progress must be required to be met as expeditiously as
practicable. As a minimum, the increments of progress
described in 40 CFR S51.1(q) must be included or must have
already been achieved. If an increment has already been
achieved, the order or supporting materials supplied to EPA
must attest to this fact.
(4) Interim controls; The order must contain requirements
for use of the best practicable system or systems of emission
113
5-15
-------
-3-
reduction (taking into account the requirement with which
the source must ultimately comply) for the period the order
is in effect and for compliance with reasonable and practi-
cable interim requirements including (a) those necessary to
avoid an imminent and substantial endangerment to human
health, and (b) a requirement to meet the SIP, insofar as
the source is able.
Discussion: As a minimum, the order must include a finding
that (a) the best practicable system of interim emission
reduction has been required or, in rare cases, that no
system of interim emission reduction is practicable in the
case at hand, and (b) that the source remains subject to
enforcement of emergency provisions designed to prevent
imminent and substantial endangerment to human health (under
3303 of the Clean Air Act and any similar State authority).
Generally, a source should be required to meet an interim
emission limitation based, at a minimum, on its present
emission rate. Improved operation and maintenance procedures,
temporary switches to lass polluting fuels, and similar
specific requirements should also be considered. It may be
appropriate to require that the source conduct ambient air
quality monitoring and periodically reduce emissions,
or even periodically shut down, when air quality is expected
to contravene health related standards. A case by case
determination will be necessary to support a finding on the
reasonableness and practicability of interim control require-
ments. Ambient air quality and density of population in the
area should be considered in determining what controls are
reasonable. Cost and the length of delay in compliance
allowed by the DCO are relevant both to the reasonableness
and practicability of the interim control requirements.
(5) Monitoring and reporting; The order must include a
requirement for reasonable emission monitoring and reporting.
Discussion: If the DCO will remain in effect for any
substantial period of time, it will generally be reasonable
to require continuous emission monitoring wherever technology
exists for meeting such a requirement. The continuous
monitoring of other process parameters may be appropriate in
addition to or instead of continuous emission monitoring
where technology is less advanced. Monitoring should
normally be required for the period the DCO will be in
effect. However, if EPA or the State determines that a
monitoring requirement is not reasonable in a particular
case, a finding to this effect must be made and included
either in the DCO itself or in supporting documentation.
113
5-16
-------
-4-
Where the SIP already requires continuous monitoring, the
DCO need not address continuous monitoring after the final
compliance date in the DCO. Where EPA intends to require
continuous monitoring after the DCO's final compliance date
and no independent SIP requirement exists/ this may be
included in the DCO but the authority of Section 114 and
Section 113(a) of the Clean Air Act must be relied upon for
this requirement. Whether States must also rely on their
own separate reporting requirement authorities is a matter
of State law. Reports must be required at times and in
sufficient detail to enable the authority issuing the DCO to
determine whether interim requirements, increments of
progress, and final compliance have been achieved in a
timely way.
(6) Final compliance; The order must provide for final
compliance as expeditiously as practicable but no later than
July 1, 1979, or three years after the date for final
compliance specified in the SIP, whichever is later.
Discussion: Generally, the July 1, 1979, date will be
controlling since it will be more than three years after the
SIP compliance date. However, where the "attainment date"
is later than July 1, 1976, as in areas which were subject
to two year extensions under 8110(e) of the Act, the SIP
compliance date may be as late as mid-1977 and a DCO could
extend to mid-1980.* Where an attainment date is later in
* In the case of particulate matter requirements for
the State of Ohio, the immediately effective final compliance
date of April 15, 1974 has been extended to the attainment
date of April 15, 1977 for some sources, even though an
extension for these sources was not formally approved by the
State or EPA. The special exception for these sources is
based on the unique circumstances concerning the particulate
matter standards in Ohio. The EPA-promulgated particulate
matter plan for Ohio was challenged in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. As part of that
case, EPA represented to the Court that the April 15, 1977
attainment date in the plan was based on a determination
that many Ohio utilities would need a full three years from
the 1974 promulgation date to comply with plan requirements.
In some cases, sources relied on these representations and
timely applied for State variances deferring compliance
until April 15, 1977, but did not receive variances because
of State inaction. For these sources, the final compliance
date "specified in [the] plan" as that phrase is used in
Section 113(d)(1)(D) , can be considered to be April 15, 1977
for particulate matter requirements.
-------
-5-
time than a SIP compliance date, the three year time frame
permitted for final compliance in a DCO runs from the
compliance date. (Note also that §113(d)(3), §13(d)(4),
and §113(d)(5) specify different deadlines for compliance
in DCOs issued under their terms. However, all §113(d)
orders must provide for compliance as expeditiously as
practicable and Congress clearly intended that violators
should not be given a "free ride" up to the absolute deadlines
provided by §113(d)).)
(7) Notice of possible liability for noncompliance penalties:
If the order is to a major source, it must notify the
source that, unless exempted under Section 120(a)(2)(B) or
(C) of the Act, it will receive a notice of noncompliance
and noncompliance penalties will be assessed and collected
under Section 120 in the event the source fails to comply by
July 1, 1979, or such later date as is provided in accordance
with Section 120(b)(3).
Discussion: "A notice of noncompliance" is a term of art
under Section 120 of the Act. Once such a notice is issued,
the source would have 45 days to submit certain financial
data for purposes of assessment of an administrative non-
compliance penalty. Until the noncompliance penalty program
is implemented under regulations promulgated by EPA, no
"notice of noncompliance" need be included in a DCO.
However, the DCO must notify the source that it will receive
such a notice and will be liable for noncompliance penalties
if it does not comply by mid-1979 and is not entitled to an
exemption or delay in the applicability of Section 120 of
the Act (or a State program thereunder).
113
5-18
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary of Procedures for Issuance and Approval of DCOs
9
In issuing its own DCOs, EPA will follow informal rulemaking
procedures. Under informal rulemaking procedures, EPA must
publish, in the Federal Register, notice of its proposed DCO,
soliciting public comment and offering opportunity for a
public hearing. This notice may be after or simultaneous
with the actual notice to the State required by Section
113(d)(l) of the Act. A thirty day comment period is
generally considered reasonable and is required if notice to
the State is simultaneous to Federal Register notice. After
this comment period (and any public hearing), the final
order must be published in the Federal Register and may, for
good cause, be made immediately effective.
Informal rulemaking will also be employed for EPA's action
on State DCOs to major sources and for EPA disapproval of
State DCOs to minor sources. Note, however, that EPA is
not required to provide an opportunity for.public hearing on
a State DCO. If the State does not provide opportunity for
public hearing prior to issuing its order, EPA will not
approve the State DCO. Final EPA action on a State DCO is
required within 90 days of receipt of the order and notice
of its issuance by the regional Enforcement Division Director,
EPA will strive to act within this time frame in all cases.
The Division of Stationary Source Enforcement (DSSE) will
establish a new Part 65 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. EPA-issued,DCOs (except 9113(d)(5) DCOs to
coal conversion sources)—' and EPA approvals and disapprovals
of State DCOs will be promulgated in this Part. EPA
regional offices will prepare the Federal Register documents
for proposal and promulgation in accordance with guidance
issued by DSSE. These documents (and necessary copies)
will be forwarded, along with copies of a State DCO on which
EPA is taking action, to DSSE for processing. Once DSSE has
- Section 113(d)(5) DCOs may be issued only by EPA.
They will be promulgated in existing 40 CFR Part 55, "Energy
Related Authority".
113
5-19
-------
-2-
reviewed the documents for national consistency, they will
be handcarried to EPA's Federal Register Officer for
forwarding to the Federal Register (if a proposal> or to the
Administrator (if a final action). (After a regional office
gains experience in the DCO process, the requirement for
DSSE review will be waived and DCOs will be handled in a
manner analogous to "special action"/normal action" SIP
revisions. In the case of "special actions", however, only
Office of Enforcement concurrence will be required and the
review period will be shortened to five working days from
the date of receipt.)
EPA will provide whatever assistance it can to States in
developing approvable State DCOs. In the early stages of
the DCO program and upon request by the regional office,
DSSE will also review and provide assistance on preliminary
drafts of State and federal DCOs to the extent resources
and other priorities permit.
113
5-20
-------
PN 113-76-08-13-004
\
| UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
AUG 13
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: "Revdewability" of EPA DetemLnations in SIP
Enforcement Actions
TO: Enforcement Division Directors/ Regions I-X
As you know, EPA makes certain factual determinations in the course of
taking enforcement action under §113 of the Clean Air Act, such as the
finding of violation at the tdire a notice of violation is issued and the
finding that the violation has extended beyond the thirtieth day after such
notice as a basis for the issuance of an order or the oonnencement of a
court action. We have recently discussed with the Office of General Counsel
and the Department of Justice which, if any/ of these EPA determinations are
"reviewable" in a civil or criminal suit to enforce SIP provisions or in
preenforcement judicial review involving SIP provisions (to the extent that
preenforcanent judicial revie-; nay be determined to be proper). This memo-
randum expresses our camion understanding.
At the outset, judicial review of agency action (including any deter-
minations on which the action is based) should be distinguished from a trial
de novo on the underlying facts. Judicial review of agency action ordinarily
takes place on a pre-existing administrative record and is ordinarily limited
to whether the agency's action was supported by that record as judged by the
applicable standard of review (e.g., the "arbitrary or capricious" test).
In a trial de novo, however, there is no pre-existing record, and every
fact not stipulated or judicially noticed roust be proved through the
submission of evidence. In such cases, the agency's view of the facts may be
persuasive, but the court (or jury) must find the facts independently on the
evidence before it. Although documents and other evidence considered by the
agency may be proper evidence for that purpose/ new or different evidence
offered fay either party may also be proper. In short, trial de novo involves
independent fact-finding on the basis of any evidence properly before the
court (or jury) rather than "review" of the agency's determinations on the
basis of an administrative record.
113
4-1
-------
-2-
To the extent they are disputed, we believe most factual elements of
a case involving an alleged violation of a SIP provision (or of an order
based on such a violation) must be proved de novo. In particular/ this
conclusion includes (1) the question whether an alleged SIP violation is
still occurring more than 30 days after issuance of a notice of violation
and (2) if violation of an order based on such a violation is alleged, the
question whether a violation of the order has occurred. On these questions,
due process requires that an alleged violator be afforded an opportunity at
some point to contest any disputed factual matters, and a conference under ,,
§113(a)(4) is not intended to (and generally does not) serve this purpose. —
Accordingly, a trial de novo is both appropriate and constitutionally required
for these issues to the extent they are disputed. In such a trial, EPA's
findings on the issues would be neither dispositive nor judicially reviewed.
In a sense, they would simply become allegations to be proved through the
submission of evidence. -*
The extent to which the initial finding of violation that precedes
issuance of a notice of violation Amder §113 (a) (1) may be "reviewable" is
less clear. The West Penn case — characterizes the issuance of a notice
of violation as a sort of triggering action and holds that it (and pre-
sumably its factual basis) is not reviewable. Although we agree with that
holding, it nay not prevail in all circuits. In any event, we believe any
review (or trial) concerning the initial finding of violation should be
limited to whether the finding was based on information available to the
Administrator (or his delegatee) at the time and should not extend to whether
such a violation actually occurred. In this regard, if the regional office
has some information (regular on its face) on which its initial finding
was based (e.g., smoke readings, 114 calculation, stack test), that should
end the matter as to the initial finding.
This interpretation is consistent with.Wisconsin's Environmental Decade,
Inc. v. Wisconsin Power and Light et al., —' in which issuance of a notice
of violation was held to be non-discretionary if the Administrator has sane
information upon which to base an initial finding of violation. It should
be noted that information obtained in a conference under §113 (a) (4) would
be irrelevant on this issue because it was not before the Administrator at
the time he made his initial finding of violation.
ITFor these reasons, §113 conferences should not be characterized, in
opening statements or otherwise, as intended to satisfy due process
requirements.
2/ Note that information obtained in a conference under §113(a)(4) (e.g.,
an admission of a violation) might be relevant evidence in some cases.
Its adnaLssibility would of course depend on the applicable rules of
evidence.
3/ West Penn Power Co. v. Train, 522 F2d. 302 (3rd Cir. 1975)
4/ 395 F. Supp. 313 (W.D. Wise. 1975)
113
4-2
-------
-3-
This memorandum does not address the extent to which the Administrator's
del^oartination of a reasonable time for compliance as specified in §113 (a) (4)
is reviewable (if at aH) or && proper standard of review in that instance.
This issue, which is somewhat more complex, will be addressed in a separate
memorandum to be issued in the near future.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Edward
Reich (DSSE) at 755-2523 or Gerald Gleason (OGC) at 755-0744.
cc: Regional Counsel
Regions I-X
W. Legro
'Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
Ives4- fen
113
4-3
-------
PN 113-76-08-12-003
COPY
August 12, 1976
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Enforcement of SIP's Undergoing Revision
TO: Enforcement Division Directors,
Regions I-X
Attached is a copy of a July 21, 1976, letter from the Administrator
to Senator Muskie regarding the Agency's policy on enforcement while pro-
posed relaxations of State implementation plan (SIP) provisions are pending.
This letter responded to several questions raised by Senator Muskie on
consistency among the Regions of EPA review and,enforcement policies
concerning State relaxation of sulfur-in-fuel limitations. The letter did
not reflect any change in EPA policy, but I believe that it may be useful
to reiterate our position on the enforcement issues.
Pursuant to Federal law and under the policy communicated to Senator
Muskie, planned or submitted SIP revisions do not preclude federal enforce-
ment of the existing regulations, and would not normally justify non-enforce-
ment of those provisions. Air pollution sources are required to comply with
existing SIP regulations, which are part of federal law, until a revision
has received formal approval from the Administrator.
The submission for EPA approval of different SIP emission limitation
adopted by a State may have an effect upon Regional prioritizing of enforce-
ment activities. If a submitted revision relaxing current SIP limitations
is preliminarily determined by the Region to meet the criteria specified by
Section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act, enforcement of the existing provision
it is designed to change may have a lesser priority in an overall enforce-
ment program. Factors involved in exercising this discretion will vary
from source to source and region to region. Among these are the air quality
levels of the locale affected by a source, the degree of impact of the
regulated facility upon air quality, the number and kinds of facilities in
the area emitting air pollutants, and the degree to which steps toward com-
pliance with existing limitations require a substantial commitment beyond what
would be required for the less stringent regulation. It should be emphasized
that while, in appropriate cases, sources may not be required to install
control equipment which would be unnecessary upon formal EPA approval of the
113
3-1
-------
SIP revision, the pendency of a SIP revision relaxing emission "limitations
normally would not provide a justification for a source to increase its
current emissions. EPA would take appropriate enforcement action under
the existing SIP provision to maintain the level of current emissions
until federal approval is forthcoming.
Thus, within the bounds of priorities set by limited resources, EPA
will continue to enforce existing SIP provisions pending formal EPA approval
of State revisions. The importance of consistency among the Regional Offices
with respect to this policy has been stressed by both Senator Muskie and
Mr. Train.
Stanley W. Legro
113
3-2
-------
PN 113-76-06-25-002
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
SUBJECT: Documentation of Violation Extending 30 Days
Beyond Notice of Violation under Section 113
of the Clean Air Act
TO: Regional Administrators/ Regions I-X
Recent discussions artong representatives of the Office of
General Counsel, the Division of Stationary Source Enforcement (DSSE),
and the Pollution Control Section at Department of Justice
headquarters have led to seme clarification of EPA's responsibility
for documenting a violation extending 30 days beyond the date of a
notice of violation (NOV) issued under Section 113(a)(1) of the
Clean Air Act. As you know, Section 113 (a) (1) provides that if
the violation extends beyond the 30th day after the date of the NOV,
EPA nay issue an administrative order or initiate a civil action.
Section 113(c)(1)(A)(ii) makes similar provision for initiation of a
criminal action.
It is and has been EPA's position that the issue of fact of
whether a violation has extended beyond the thirtieth day is
subject to de novo judicial review. (A memorandum dealing witi the
scope of judicial review is being drafted and will be sent to you
shortly.) The Department of Justice concurs in this position and
has, in addition, expressed some concern that the documentation of •
continuing violation on which the EPA regional offices rely .ray not
in some cases be sufficient to support a criminal action.
We urge you, therefore, to document the continuing violation
with independent evidence before issuing any Section 113 administrative
order which is not on consent, rather than relying on the continuing^
reporting requirements of a Section 114 letter. This is critical in any
case which may ultimately require criminal action and is desirable
in all cases. The practice of relying on the absence of evidence of
compliance after issuance of the NOV through imposing a requirement
on the source to report changes in information supplied in response
to a Section 114 lett:..: is no longer acceptable. At a minimum, new
opacity readings, plant visits, or §114 inquiries as appropriate
should be relied upon.
113
2-1
-------
-2-
If you have any questions car Garments on this mattter, please
contact Ed Reich, Chief, Enforcement Proceedings Branch, DSSE, at
(202)-755-2523.
r
Stanley \U Legro
cc: Enforcsnent Division Directors, Regions I-X
Mr and Hazardous Materials Division Directors, Regions I-X
Surveillance and Analysis Division Directors, Regions I-X
113
2-2
-------
PN 113-75-11-05-001
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
5 NDV 1975
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Non- Discretionary Enforcement Duties--
Issuance of Notices of Violation
FROM: Director, Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Enforcement Division Directors, Regions I-X
On July 16, 1975, I forwarded to you a memorandum soliciting your
thoughts on a recent Federal District Court decision (Wisconsin's
Environmental Decade. Inc. v. Wisconsin Power and Light, et al. , 595
F. Supp. 313 "(W.D. Wise. 1975)) in which the question of tEe
prosecutorial discretion of the Administrator in issuing notices of
violation under Section 113 of the Clean Air Act was raised. As you
will remember. District Court Judge Doyle held that the act of issuing
a notice of violation was "not discretionary with the Administrator"
in a case where he had found a violation and that "when presented with
evidence indicat.ing that a violation may exist, the Administrator must
make a finding that a violation does or does not exist.1
ir
We wish to advise you that the Agency, has decided against an
appeal of the Wisconsin's Environmental Decade Case. One of the prime
reasons for this action was that additional decisions have now been
rendered which seem to support the original decision (e.g., West Penn
Power Co. v. Train, 7 ERC 2178 (3rd Cir., July 16, 1975); Qljato
Chapter v. Train, 515 F.2d 654 (D.C. Cir., July 7, 1975); but see,
Sierra Club v. Train, F. Supp. (N.D. Ala., September 19, 1975)).
In addition, a significant majority of the regional offices indicated
to us that they could implement the interpretation of the case
outlined in our July 16th memorandum without undue difficulty and did
not see a good reason to appeal the case. Finally, the need to appeal
the case on the specific facts has been obviated by the Chicago
Regional Office having made a formal finding that the subject power
generating station was not a new source within the definition of the
Wisconsin statutes.
It should be noted that in Sierra Club v. Train, cited above, a
Federal District Court has recently held that issuance of an order
pursuant to Section 309(a)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (FWPCA) was a discretionary function of the Administrator even
though mandatory language (i.e. "shall") is used. In this regard, the
legislative history of FWPCA, which was the basis for the court's
decision, indicates that the Congress intended that issuance of orders
113
1-1
-------
under FWPCA is a discretionary function of the Administator. In
contrast, the legislative history of Section 113(a) (1) of the Clean
Air Act implies that Congress intended that the issuance of notices of
violation be a non-discretionary function of the Administrator.
In light of the Agency's position in this matter, we believe that
when a regional office is presented,for the purpose of securing EPA
action,with information that establishes a substantial likelihood that
a. violation exists, the regional office should expeditiously undertake
an investigation to determine if in fact a violation does or does not
exist. Where data are submitted to the regional office for some
purpose other than to force the regional office to issue a notice of
violation (e.g., under regular State or local agency reporting
requirements), we are of the opinion that the applicable law does not
require the regional office to commence an investigation. If a
regional office, after an investigation of a citizen's allegation or
pursuant to its own information collecting powers, amasses data that
establish a source's violation, we believe the regional office should
expeditiously issue a notice of violation to the subject source. In
those instances where a State has initiated and is actively pursuing
enforcement proceedings against a source, however, we believe that the
applicable case law does not require the regional office to issue a
notice of violation to said source. (This applies only to true
enforcement as contemplated in the proposed Part 65 regulations rather
than State actions in the nature1, of variances.) Of course, this
situation does not preclude the regional office from issuing a notice
of violation, thereby commencing a concurrent enforcement action, if
it so desires. Except for this exception, we believe the regional
office must issue a notice of violation to any source where a
violation of the applicable State implementation plan has been
established to the satisfaction of the regional office.
Many of you have expressed to me your concern that this revised
policy might force the regional offices to initiate extensive
investigation and/or enforcement proceedings against non-priority
sources and, as a result, create a misallocation of regional manpower
resources. Although this possibility exists to some degree, we
believe that the Agency has an overriding duty to at least investigate
a source where a citizen presents data, regular on its face, that
establish a substantial likelihood that a violation exists. Note that
an allegation of violation, unsupported by any evidence, does not
establish this substantial likelihood and thereby does not compel an
113
1-2
-------
EPA investigation. Persons submitting allegations of violation that
are either unsupported or inadequately supported by evidence should be
advised by the regional office that the Agency has made a finding that
inadequate evidence exists, at this time, to justify further Agency
action. Of course, the regional office should invite the submittal of
additional information.
Although the regional offices only have limited enforcement
discretion where issuance of notices of violation is concerned, this
limitation does not apply to follow-up enforcement proceedings. We
believe that the Clean Air Act and its legislative history imply that
issuance of administrative orders, or commencement of civil and/or
criminal proceedings, are a discretionary function of the
Administrator. We anticipate such enforcement discretion will provi.de
the regional office with the necessary leeway to establish regional
priorities for those cases where follow-up enforcement proceedings are
necessary.
113
1 -3
-------
t
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 114
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 114
* PN114-77-12-02-001A
GUIDANCE FOR SECTION 114(D) OF THE CAA
* PN114-81-05-13-002
REGIONAL OFFICE CRITERIA FOR NEUTRAL INSPECTIONS OF STATIONARY SOURCES
- AMENDED GUIDANCE
* PN114-83-12-15-003
EXECUTION OF CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS UNDER SECTION 114 OF THE CLEAN
AIR ACT
* PN114-84-09-06-004
FINAL GUIDANCE ON USE OF UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS
-------
PN 114-84-09-06-004
USE:]
I;MTI:I> STVIF.S I-:N\IKONMI.\T\I.
SEP -6 1984
OFFICl OF
Alft AND *«,DHT,O>
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Final Guidance on Use of Unannounced Inspections
FROM: Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division '
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Air and Waste Management Division Directors
Regions II, IV, VI-VIII and X
Air Management Division •_" ^ectors
Regions I, III, V, and IX
%
This memorandum presents final guidance on the use of
unannounced inspections by EPA as a component of Regional
inspection programs. Comments in response to the draft guid-
ance issued on July 17, 1984 were received from six Regions
and one State agency. Because all respondants generally
supported the proposed guidance, changes to it were minimal.
Those changes and comments are discussed below.
One Region felt that the tone of the guidance was too
strong in encouraging the use of unannounced inspections,
that under the policy "EPA is somehow required not to announce
most of its inspections," and that the policy might "create
unnecessary concern over what fraction of each Region's
inspections is unannounced." Our strong support for use of
unannounced inspections as a component of an overall inspec-
tion program, which comes through in this guidance, is based
on the belief that they are more representative of normal
operating conditions. While we recognize the concerns asso-
ciated with use of such inspections, several Regions perform
a high percentage of unannounced inspections without adverse
impact on resources or EPA/State relations. However, although
this guidance does encourage the use of unannounced inspections,
no fractional or percentage requirements were established or
implied; this judgment should be made by the Region in light
of the nature of the inspections to be performed and the
sources in the Region. We would expect to see some program
in 'all Regions, however.
-------
Another Region expressed a concern for program imple-
mentation: "We would like to emphasize the need for maximum
flexibility and control to be retained by the Regional Office
staff in setting up and conducting unannounced or announced
inspections." We believe this guidance offers a great deal of
Regional discretion in implementation of a nationally-consistent
inspection program using unannounced and announced inspections.
While the guidance offers direction and options, it also defers
to Regional experience: As the guidance specifically notes
•Regional Offices are free to vary the procedures used if they
believe an alternative approach would be preferable."
One Region expressed concern that an inspection policy
utilizing unannounced inspections could "damage the working
relationships of inspectors and the company officials,' and
that "some companies will shut down or refuse entry in light
of what they perceive is a change in agency attitude."
While these concerns are real, Regional experience has
shown that they can be minimized such that they are not an
impediment to performing unannounced inspections. Most sources
accept unannounced inspections and consider them little more
than an inconvenience once they realize that EPA has the legal
right to perform them, and will do so when appropriate.
Experience indicates that companies which refuse entry to EPA
inspectors are few, and that entry is usually just delayed
until the company discusses the matter with Regional Counsel.
Finally, one Region requested clarification on whether the
definition of an announced inspection included such activities
as stack tests, CEM audits, and PSTs. We believe the definition
of an announced inspection would include these types of site
visits, however, Regions are free to assess these activities
for announcement purposes on a case-by-case basis if that has
been their previous practice.
Edward E. Reich
Attachment
cc: Air Program Branch Chiefs, Region I-x
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs, Regions II, III, V, VII, IX
-------
Guidance On EPA.Use of Unannounced Inspections For
Stationary Sources of Air Pollution
The inspection is the primary compliance assurance method
presently available in the air program for validating source
performance. As such, the issue has been raised concerning
whether or not inspections should be announced to the source
in advance of the actual visit. To assist in responding to
this issue, the Stationary Source Compliance Division (SSCD)
surveyed (through correspondence dated January 18, 1984) EPA
Regional Office practices and experience in performing both
announced and unannounced inspections. Based on the information
compiled through this survey, SSCD recommends that all Regional
inspection programs incorporate unannounced inspections as part
of their overall inspection approach. The use of this inspec-
tion type has value in obtaining data which are more represen-
tative of normal source operating conditions and can encourage
continuous source compliance. Possible obstacles to the use of
this type of inspection identified by some Regions have bier
successfully addressed by the Regional Offices which effectively
carry out an unannounced inspection program and are therefore
no overall bar to its use.
The SSCD survey conducted earlier this year received nine
Regional responses. From these responses several observations
were made. Usage of unannounced inspections is highly variable
among Regions; several Regions perform them in the majority of
situations while others only perform them under very limited
circumstances or not at all. The most commonly cited positive
aspect of performing unannounced inspection is the opportunity
to observe the source under normal operating conditions, since
the source does not have time to prepare for the inspection.
Other positive aspects'mentioned are:
• Detection of surreptitious violations;
* Detection of visible emissions and O&M type
problems and violation;
* Creation of an increased level of attention by
a source to its compliance status, and
• Projection of a more serious attitude toward
surveillance by the Agency.
One Region found the "in violation" rate in one State in 1982
to be three times higher at sources where inspections were
unannounced versus announced.
-------
Some of the potential negative aspects of performing
unannounced inspections were reiterated by several Regions:
0 The source may not be operating, or key plant
personnel are not available; and
• There may be an adverse impact on Regional
resources or EPA/State relations.
However/ as previously noted, these concerns have been addressed
and were successfully resolved by Regions which make fuller use
of unannounced inspections. Therefore, it was felt the cited
drawbacks were more anticipated than real and could be overcome.
The conclusion drawn from this survey is that all Regions
can and should perform unannounced inspections when appropriate
as a component of their inspection programs. The following
guidance addresses the issue of when announced or unannounced
inspections are more appropriate, and provides procedures b.^ed
on Regional experience which facilitate the incorporation of
unannounced inspections into Regional inspection programs.
Regional Offices are, however, free to vary the procedures used
if they believe an alternative approach would be preferable.
Definition Of An Announced And An Unannounced Inspection
For the purpose of this guidance, an announced inspection
shall mean an onsite visit where the source to be inspected is
given advanced notification by the control agency of the specific
date of the inspection such that enough time would elapse to
permit significant source operating modifications prior to the
site visit.
An unannounced inspection shall mean an onsite visit where
the control agency provides no prior notification of the actual
date of the inspection to the source, or where notice is given
shortly before the inspection such that the representativeness of
the source operation is not likely to be affected.
Advanced notification of both announced and unannounced
inspection dates shall be provided to the State or local control
agency. In this regard, please note the requirements of
Section 114(d) of the Clean Air Act relative to notice to States.
-------
Announced-. Inspections
EPA is not required by federal regulation to announce the
date of an impending inspection to the source. Therefore,
announced inspections should be performed by EPA and its'
representatives when some specific purpose is served by
providing such notice. Situations where announced inspections
would be appropriate are:
• When specific information is being sought which must
be prepared by the source, or where the source must
make significant accommodations for the inspector to
gather the information;
• When the assistance of specific plant personnel is
necessary for the successful performance of the
inspection, i.e., the information they provide can not
be obtained from other on-duty plant personnel or by a
follow-up information request;
• When inspecting government facilities or sources
operating under government contract where entry is
restricted due to classified operations; and
• When inspecting un-manned or extremely remote
sources.
Questionable operating status of a source or process
generally does not preclude utilizing an unannounced inspection.
When daily operating status is questionable, the inspector may
confirm it with the source just prior to leaving for the inspec-
tion. The inspector may also wish to consult with the State or
local agency to obtain any current information they may have
about the source's operational status.
Unannounced Inspections
Unannounced inspections will provide the most representative
picture of normal source operation and practices. They should
be performed whenever there is no reason for announcing the
inspection to the source as described previously.
As an alternative to arriving at the source totally
unannounced, if in the inspector's judgment the representative-
ness of the source operation would not be altered and the
success of the inspection would be improved by contacting the
-------
source shortly before the scheduled inspection time, this may
also be considered unannounced. If this latter method is
used, the amount of advanced notice given the source should be
noted in the inspection report.
Inspection Announcement Responsibility
When EPA accompanies a State or local agency in conducting
an inspection, or where EPA is requested by a State to assist
in compliance monitoring and enforcement at a source, the
decision regarding inspection announcement should defer to the
preference of the State or local agency. When the State or
local agency accompanies EPA on an EPA-initiated inspection,
inspection announcement shall be the responsibility of EPA and
the State or local agency should be so informed.
Inspection Announcement Protocol
The decision on inspection announcement to the source
and the name of the responsible individual should be noted in
the inspection report. The State or local agency should be
given a minimum of five working days notice in advance of an
inspection, whether it is announced to the source or not. An
exception to this minimum time period would be when the inspec-
tion is scheduled in response to an emergency situation which
does not allow such advanced notice. In cases where EPA has a
reasonable basis for believing the State or local agency will
notify the source of the inspection, no notification is required.
If the source is to be given advance notice of an inspection
date, it should be afforded a minimum of five working days notice,
but no greater than that given the State or local agency. This
latter point will assure that the State or local agency is always
notified before notice is given to the source.
When announcing an inspection to the source, advanced notice
may be given by telephone or in writing. Instances where
written notification (instead of oral) is appropriate are:
0 When requested by the State/local agency or by
the source;
• When extensive or specific records are being sought,
• When the inspection is to be performed solely by an
EPA contractor;
• When inspecting government facilities with classified
operations or otherwise restricted entry; and
• Special-purpose inspections, e.g. , to establish
conditions for a source-specific SIP revision.
» ^ jl
-------
If notice is given orally, the date of the telephone
call and the person contacted should be noted in the inspection
report. A copy of any written notification should be attached
to the inspection report.
Unannounced Inspection Implementation
State and local agencies should be notified by EPA that
unannounced inspections are a component of EPA source inspection
programs, and that they will be performed.
A pre-inspection review of all pertinent sources of infor-
mation on the source should be made (or intensified) to avoid
any preventable inconvenience to the source as a result of the
inspection. This should include contact with the State or local
agency to obtain any additional information which they may have.
Sources may be contacted as necessary, and notified that
an unannounced inspection will be performed during a specified
time period (e.g. , quarter or fiscal year) and that they should
notify EPA if key plant personnel or processes will be unavailable
for known extended periods. Portable sources, such as asphalt
concrete plants, may be required, pursuant to Section 114 to
report their scheduled location(s) on a monthly or quarterly
basis, if questionable source location is an impediment to
performing unannounced inspections.
-------
PN 114-83-12-15-003
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
DEC 15 1983
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE, AND RADIATION
SUBJECT: Execution of Confidentiality Agreements under
Section 114 of the Clean Air Act
rW-e^*s\^>
FROM: ."Joseph A. Cannon, Assistant Administrator
Air and Radiation (ANR-443)
TO: Office Directors
Regional Administrators
The purpose of this memorandum is to review aspects of existing
regulations and procedures with respect to agreements relating to confidential
treatment of information claimed to be trade secret.
Obtaining the information needed for rulemaking and other activities
of this office is essential to carrying out the responsibilities which
have been assigned to it. Section 114 provides EPA with authority to
obtain the needed information. In the past, we have generally sought to
obtain the necessary information by requesting it in a "Section 114"
letter or by entering appropriate facilities. We have sought, wherever
possible, to obtain responses to such letters and to arrange such entry on
a consensual basis, i.e., to avoid the necessity to use the enforcement
mechanisms provided by Congress.
For that reason we have generally sought, and will continue to try,
to respond favorably to reasonable company requests for clarification or
explanation of information requests, for additional time, or for use of
some more convenient and equally useful form or manner of response. We
have also established, by regulation and by contract provision, reason-
able safeguards, deterrents and sanctions against the improper disclosure
of information claimed to be trade secret, including the debarment of
contractors (whether or not such contractors have been designated EPA
representatives) and the constituting of sources as third party beneficiaries
of the terms of EPA contract provisions relating to handling of such
information, 40 CFR Part 2, 41 CFR 15-1.350-1, 15-1.350-2. These protections
and remedies are additional to the protections and remedies afforded by
other provisions of law, e.g., common law and State criminal law.
114
3-1
-------
The EPA and duly designated EPA representatives have found that many
companies are willing to assist us in carrying out our responsibilities, in
part because they recognize that they have a stake in ensuring that EPA
has timely, adequate, and accurate information. In recent years, however,
EPA and its representatives have also experienced increased difficulties
in obtaining companies' early and voluntary cooperations . /.._
i-:. A common—and increasingly frequent—source of delay and difficulty
in obtaining needed information has been company requests that EPA or an
authorized contractor representative sign agreements relating to confidential
treatment of claimed trade secret information.
This office has not always been informed of such requests nor of the
nature of contractor-representatives' response to them. Requests which
have been reviewed by this office and, in recent years, by the Office of
General Counsel, have often been found to be inconsistent with applicable
statute and regulations. Common features of such agreements have been
some prejudgment as to what information constitutes nondisclosable trade
secret information; reservation of some right for the company to determine
what information will be provided or what part of a facility EPA or its
representative may enter; reservation of some right for the company to
review and edit the work of EPA officers or representatives; and provision
which purported expressly or implicitly to authorize enforcing the terms
of a nondisclosure agreement itself against individuals or the U.S.
Government. These and other features unacceptable to EPA have all too
often resulted in lengthy and fruitless discussions with company representati'
Although companies may not set conditions on their compliance with
Section 114 requests, we are willing as a matter of policy to execute a
standard-form memorandum where a company indicates its desire for one.
Boiler-plate memoranda of this type have been used for several years.
We are willing to execute such a document in part because the document is
standardized and in part because its provisions are considered as protective
of the company as possible under applicable statute and regulation, see
40 CFR 2.215. Execution of such a document, therefore, does not consume
time and resources and, on balance, can expedite our work.
In light of this experience, this memorandum will confirm that
neither EPA nor its authorized representatives may sign any confidentiality
agreements or other document except the attached memoranda which (together
with any nonsubstantive variations needed to adapt them to different
contexts) this office believes adequate for all reasonable purposes.
2 Attachments
NOTE: Attachments are not included but can be made available upon request.
114
3-2
-------
PN 114-81-05-13-002
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D C 20460
KAY I 3 190!
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regional Office Criteria for Neutral Inspections of
Stationary Sources Amended Guidance
FROM: Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Enforcement Division Directors
Regions I-X
Surveillance & Analysis Division Directors
Regions I-X
Air & Hazardous Materials Division Director
Region II
We have reviewed the neutral inspection schemes voluntarily
submitted to us by several Regional Offices in response to the
general guidance we issued on October 29, 1980. While the Regional
criteria we have examined so far seem to track that general
guidance, there are some problems remaining in these Regional
schemes. This memorandum is intended to isolate and clarify these
problems, as well as to make some amendments to the general
guidance as suggested by some of the Regional drafts.
The purpose of having a neutral inspection scheme on file in
each Regional Office is to enable the Agency to justify to a court
a request for a warrant to conduct a compliance inspection in the
absence of evidence that a particular source is violating the Clean
Air Act. This type of inspection is usually conducted as part of
each Region's annual Overview Inspection Program, but might also be
applicable to routine inspections of NESHAPS sources, NSPS sources,
and any other sources for which the Agency has primary enforcement
responsibility (e.g., PSD sources or sources subject to New Source
Review, where such programs have not been delegated to the States)
and which must be inspected annually.
One of the questions raised by our general guidance was the
characterization of the criteria for selection of sources to be
inspected. Several factors were listed as Optional Criteria. By
this description, we did not mean to infer that these factors could
be ignored in the selection process. Rather, we intended that a
source to be inspected must meet not only the criteria labeled
Mandatory, but also at least one of those termed Optional. To take
the selection process through only the Mandatory Criteria would
leave too much latitude in source selection in violation of
principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the 1978 ParlovV
Decision. We are therefore amending the general guidance to
114 2-1
-------
-2-
relabel the selection criteria as Primary and Secondary, with both
sets of criteria to be applied to each source chosen for
inspection. Every source inspected must meet the Primary Criteria
and at least one of the Secondary Criteria. Authorization for
inspection of NESHAPS sources, which had been set forth separately,
is now subsumed in this characterization. At the suggestion of
Regional staff, we have also expanded the list of Secondary
Criteria. Additionally, in order to account for the presence of
fugitive emissions, we have amended Secondary Criteria f7 to
include sources with process equipment requiring particularly good
operation and maintenance procedures in order to maintain
compliance.
It should be remembered that the purpose of a written neutral
inspection scheme is to provide authorization for routine
compliance inspections. Any source not covered in the sc'r.erre
cannot be inspected, absent suspicion of a violation of the Clean
Air Act. Therefore, an additional problem in some of the Regional
drafts is the utilization of source categories to select sources
for inspection. The drawback in this system is that a Region might
wish to inspect a source long overdue for a routine inspection but
be unable to do so because the source is in a category not covered
by the neutral inspection scheme. There is also the possibility
that categorization will exclude various significant lead, NSPS, or
NESHAPS sources.
Please review your neutral inspection schemes once again to
see if they fit within the attached amended general guidance. Feel
free to call Mark Silvermintz of my staff at FTS 755-2570 if you
have any questions.
Edward E. Reich
Attachment
cc: Richard D. Wilson
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement
David E. Menotti
Associate General Counsel
for Air, Noise, and Radiation
114
2-2
-------
CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF STATIONARY SOURCES
FOR ROUTINE COMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS
I. Sources subject to State Implementation Plans (including
provisions approved or promulgated under 40 CFR §51.18 and
Parts C and D of Title I of the Clean Air Act), or §111 of
the Act (NSPS) or §112 of the Act (NESHAPS).
A. Primary Criteria
1. In selecting a stationary source for a compliance
inspection, the source should be one which:
a. Emits an air pollutant subject to the Clean Air Act
and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and
for which:
1. The actual emissions or potential emissions
while operating at design capacity with
pollution controls are equal to or exceed
100 tons per year of the regulated air
pollutant (Class Al sources), or
2. The uncontrolled emissions while operating
at design capacity are equal to or exceed
100 tons per year of the regulated air
pollutant (Class A2 sources); or
b. Emits less than 100 tons per year of a
regulated air pollutant in the absence
of pollution controls (Class B sources)
and which may contribute to nonattainment
of an ambient air quality standard for that
pollutant; or
c. Emits lead; or
d. Is subject to a NSPS or NESHAPS.
2. The source should also be one which:
a. Was reported within the preceding
year by a State or local agency
as being in compliance with
applicable emission limits; or
b. Was either not inspected by a State
or local agency or by EPA during the
preceding year, or was subject to an
inconclusive inspection during the
preceding year.
114
2-3
-------
-2-
B. Secondary Criteria
The following criteria (at least one)
should be used in selecting facilities
for inspection from among those which meet
the Primary Criteria (and may be used by
each Regional Office in any order it chooses
and in a manner best suited to its resources,
workload, manpower, and area of geographic
responsibility):
1. Source emits a criteria pollutant and is located in
a nonattainment area for that pollutant, or in an
area unclassified for such pollutant;
2. Source has a significant impact upon local ambient
air quality or emits a hazardous air pollutant;
3. Source is located in an urban area where there is
greatest exposure of population;
4. Source has a history of violations and now is
reported as in compliance;
5. Source has had frequent changes in
compliance status;
6. Source has undergone process changes subsequent to
its most recent inspection or has commenced
initial operation;
7. Source requires particularly good operation and
maintenance of pollution control or process
equipment in order to maintain compliance;
8. Source is located near other sources which have
been scheduled for inspection at approximately
the same time in accordance with this Criteria
for Selection of Stationary Sources for Routine
Compliance Inspections or under probable cause
to believe the source is in violation of the
Clean Air Act;
9. Source was subject to a prior compliance test,
inspection or information request which produced
inconclusive data concerning its compliance
status.
-------
PN 114-77-12-02-001A
\
| UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
ore 2 is;?
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance for Section 114(d) of the CAA
FROM: Director, Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Enforcement Division Directors, Regions I-X
Surveillance and Analysis Division Directors,
Regions I-X
Air and Hazardous Materials Division Directors,
Regions I, III-X
Facilities Technology Division Director, Region II
Attached is the final guidance package on Section 114(d)
of the CAA. This guidance incorporates comments solicited
by DSSE in my September 9 memorandum. It should be remembered
that this guideline only covers the provision for notifying
the States pursuant to the requirement. Even though most
regions are currently practicing some form of this guideline,
it should be implemented immediately.
Guidance on suspension of such notification should EPA
believe that the State agency is informing the subject
facilities is forthcoming. Any occurrences of this nature
should be brought to the attention of the DSSE technical
advisor for your region.
Attached under separate cover are the regional comments
on the interim guidance and DSSE's response. I would like
to thank all those participating for their comments.
Edward E. Reich
cc: Richard Wilson
Walt Barber
Richard Rhoads
Donald Goodwin
114
1A-1
-------
Guidance on the Use of Section 114{d):
Notice to the State in Case of Certain Inspections.
Introduction
The purpose of this guideline is to provide general
policy on implementing the requirements of Sec. 114(d) for
enforcement purposes. This guideline"only covers the pro-
visions of notification to the State agency of an EPA entry,
inspection or monitoring. Future guidance will be provided
for suspension of this notice should EPA believe that the
State agency is informing subject facilities.
This guideline should be used in conjunction with S.12
"General Policy on the Use of Section 114 Authority for
Enforcement Purposes".
Requirements of §114(d)
New subsection 114(d) adds an additional requirement to
the process of carrying out Section 114{a)(2) of the CAA.
Section 114(a)(2) establishes right of entry for certain
purposes and the right of the Administrator to sample emissions
Section 114(d) provides that the Administrator (or his
representatives*) shall provide the State air pollution
control agency with "reasonable prior notice" before carrying
out Section 114(a)(2). It also requires EPA to indicate
the purpose of the activity.
Implementation
The Regional office should first establish contact with
the directors of State agencies to formulate a mutually
agreed upon procedure for implementation of this new
requirement. This procedure should include:
Name of person(s) to be notified
Means of notification (telephone or written)
Lead time prior to any EPA field investigation
(reasonable prior notice)
Policy of notifying the state of unscheduled inspections
Extent of the stated purpose of the visit
*The term "representatives" includes specific regional office
and headquarters personnel and contractors with credentials
under EPA contract.
114
1 A-2
-------
In establishing these procedures with the State agencies
it is suggested that the following guidance be implemented.
Reasonable prior notice is interpreted as an official
notification to the State agency that EPA is planning to
conduct a surveillance action at a source and the purpose of
that activity. It is recommended that all notifications be
made within the 30 day period prior to the field activity;
with 48 hours being the minimum notification period under
normal circumstances. This is to provide sufficient travel
time for EPA personnel and State personnel should the state
choose to attend. An exception to the 48 hour notice would
be a Section 303 situation where an emergency requires
immediate attention. In such cases, the State agency should
immediately be informed by phone that an action is needed.
In cases where the region practices the policy of notifying
states of inspections 2-3 months in advance with a request that
they be contacted if state personnel wish to accompany them, a
confirmation of only those state accompanied inspections should
be made. A phone call a few days before the inspection is
sufficient. An effort should also be made to minimize
changes in this advanced notification schedule.
The means of notifying the States can be in the form of
written or oral communication. A record of all written or
oral notifications should be kept. This should include a
record of unscheduled inspections and Section 303 actions.
The record of the written or oral notification should consist
of:
(1) name and location of subject facility
(2) date and approximate time of the activity
(3) Regional office contact (phone number, etc.)
(4) reason for the visit
(5) name of State person contacted
(6) date and time of notification
Each office should have a central file containing records
of all notifications should a request for a list of all
notifications be made. It is not necessary for the State
to approve the inspection before EPA proceeds.
As stated in the amendments, all sources covered by an
approved SIP or those under a State 113(d) order are subject
to these requirements. Surveillance of those sources that
are subject to EPA promulgated regulations do not require
advance notice by EPA. In reality, few sources will fall
into this latter category. If the region adheres to EPA
policy, all emission points at a source should be inspected.
In doing so it is likely that certain points will be subject
to SIP regulations; therefore, subject to the notification
requirements. It is recommended that States be notified of
all EPA field actions, including those concerning non-state
VJU
-------
regulations unless good cause exists not to do so. Written
inquiries to sources under Section 114(a)(1) do not require
advance notice to the State".
Enforcement Procedures
It is the intent of this additional section to increase
State/EPA cooperation and, as such, it must be fully complied
with. However, as stated in Sec. 114(d) (2), failure by EPA
to notify the State of any entry, inspection or monitoring
will not prejudice any case involving information obtained
during such an activity and will not constitute grounds for
objection by the source.
114
1A-4
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 115
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 115
* PN115-78-01-31-001
ACCOUNTING FOR POLLUTION ACROSS INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES
* PN115-78-03-20-002
INTERNATIONAL POLLUTION (EL PASO/JUAREZ)
-------
Page No. 1
03/03/88
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 115
UPDATE NUMBER 8
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 115
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN115-78-01-31-001
ACCOUNTING FOR POLLUTION ACROSS INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN115-78-03-20-002
INTERNATIONAL POLLUTION (EL PASO/JUAREZ)
-------
MAR 20 1976
SUBJECT: International Pollution (EL Paso/Juarez)
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation
PN-115-78-03-20-002
MEMO TO: Adlene Harrison
Regional Administrator, Region VI
The purpose of this memorandum is to communicate the policy applicable
to the El Pasc/Juarez situation referenced in your recent memos on this
subject. The policy does not shelter the El Paso area from imposition
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) sanctions, but at the same time increases the
probability of the El Paso area being able in 1979 to demonstrate the
potential for attainment of the ambient standards.
A portion of El Paso County has been designed, pursuant to Section
107 of the CAA, nonattainment for particulate matter. Such a designation
automatically invokes the requirement of Section 172 to submit a State
implementation plan (SIP) revision which, among other things, demonstrates
attainment of the ambient standards by 1982. Consequently, the area
cannot avoid the imposition of sanctions unless an acceptable SIP revision
is submitted.
Neither the CAA amendments nor current Agency policy provides
relief from the impact of emissions from existing stationary sources
located in foreign nations. Such a problem is best solved, however, by
an interim policy which allows control agencies developing strategies
for attaining ambient standards in nonattainment areas to assume that
foreign sources will be controlled sufficiently to attain standards at
the border by 1982. Since such a policy must have a foundation, it will
be necessary to initiate bilateral diplomatic actions to realize the
assumption that ambient standards will be attained at the border (i.e.,
that actual emission reductions will take place).
It must be noted, however, if the reductions agreed upon through
negotiations do not materialize, those sources located in the United
States will have to be controlled to a greater degree in order to realize
attainment. Futhermore, for the above approach to be truly effective,
the State of Texas must make a good faith effort to further reduce
pollution originating in this country and impacting air quality levels
in Mexico. Specifically, progress must be made on controlling air
pollution from the El Paso smelter . In this context, I believe that the
agreed judgement and order of injunction issued by the 41st District
Court in El Paso in the case of the City of El Paso and the State of
Texas vs. ASARCO. Incorporated will provide substantial controls at the
^melting facility in the near future. It is imperative, however, that
compliance by ASARCO with this court order be closely monitored and if
the court ordered controls are insufficient to insure the attainment of
the standards, additional controls will be required.
cc: M. Durning
J. Berstein
A. Popkin
R. Wilson
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Divisions, Regions I, III-X
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JECT: Accounting for Pollution Across
International Boundaries
^J PN-115-78-01-31-001
ROM: Walter C. Barber, DirectorCUX
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
T0: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Waste Management
In response to your memo of December 23, 1977, concerning the
impact of pollution originating in foreign nations, I offer the following
coinuents.
The issue of exempting fugitive dust and stationary source omissions
originating across international boundaries is partially addressed by
the Agency's current policy on fugitive dust. Such policy dictates that
control programs in rural areas affected by fugitive dust should at this
time center on the control of large existing man-made fugiti.ve dust
sources which in themselves are presently causing violations of the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) or are sources of a known
toxic or hazardous material. This policy has universal application in
that it aoes not distinguish between fugitive dust originating in the
United States and that originating in areas outside of this country.
Consequently, if the El Paso/Juarez area meets the criteria set forth in
the fugitive dust policy, the nonattainment analysis for that area can
discount that portion of emissions from Mexico, as well as from the
United States, which are attributable to natural fugitive dust sources.
Neither the Clean Air Act Amendments nor current Agency policy,
however, provides relief from the impact of emissions from existing
stationary sources located in foreign nations. Congress did recognize
that relief may be required in areas along international boundaries with
respect to new sources and the prevention of significant deterioration.
Specifically, the Amendments permit a Governor to set aside the increase
in concentrations attributable to new sources outside the United States
over the concentrations attributable to existing sources which are
included in the baseline concentration.
I believe the best interim policy to resolve this problem is one
which will allow control agencies developing strategies for attaining
ambient standards in nonattainment areas to assume that foreign sources
will be controlled sufficiently to attain standards at the border by
1982.
i:70 6
-------
In addition, the United States should initiate bilateral diplomatic
actions to obtain reductions necessary to attain standards at the border.
In the long term, if reductions are not actually obtained, a policy
change or Clean Air Act amendment would be required.
cc: Marvin Burning
Mike James
Jack Thompson
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 120
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 120
* PN120-80-09-12-001
PRIORITIES FOR ISSUING NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE
* PN120-81-02-12-003
IMPLEMENTATION OF NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTY PROGRAM UNDER SECTION 120 OF
THE CLEAN AIR ACT
* PN120-81-04-02-004
SETTLEMENT OF NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 120 OF
THE CLEAN AIR ACT, AS AMENDED
* PN120-81-04-30-005
ISSUANCES OF NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE CLEAN
AIR ACT TO SEASONAL SOURCES
* PN120-85-03-19-006
PERMISSIBLE GROUNDS FOR SETTLEMENT OF NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTIES UNDER
SECTION 120 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
* PN120-85-03-19-007
GUIDANCE CONCERNING IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 120 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
IN FISCAL YEAR 1985
t
-------
PN 120-85-03-19-007
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAR 191985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance Concerning Implementation of Section 120
of the Clean Air Act in Fiscal Yeajs, 1985
FROM: Courtney M. Pricel
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring
Charles Elkins, Acting Ass>&ta,jrt Administrate,
for Air and ' '
TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
Regional Counsels, Regions I-X
We encourage you to continue your efforts to invigorate
the §120 program. This memorandum provides guidance with
respect to issues which have arisen during implementation of
the §120 program in the 1984 fiscal year, and encourages
continued use of this valuable administrative remedy.
I. Progress Made in FY 84; Further Activity Needed in FY 85
Our efforts met with encouraging results last fiscal
year. EPA Regions brought a slightly greater number of §120
actions in those twelve months than they had in the nearly
three years from the institution of the program in January
1981, through September 1983. Moreover, approximately 65%
of the FY 84 actions were brought in the last two quarters
of the fiscal year.
We appreciate your help in giving increased attention to
the §120 program. Although it is not practical from a
resources standpoint to issue §120 Notices of Noncompliance
("NONs") to every noncomplying air source, it is essential
that we continue to broaden §120's coverage. Congress passed
this provision in 1977 specifically to create a tough admini-
strative mechanism to deprive as many noncompliers as possible
of the economic benefit of their violations. In addition, EPA's
-------
-2-
June, 1984 guidance on "Timely and Appropriate" enforcement
actions for significant air violators requires the imposition
of sufficient cash penalties for significant violators. A
§120 action could be particularly appropriate in those cases
where a state has achieved sufficient injunctive relief but
failed to impose adequate penalties. We urge each Region to
continue to work to fulfill Congress1 intent and to make
effective use of the 5120 program in FY 85.
II. Section 120 Actions Equivalent in Stature to §113 Civil
Referrals
There still seems to be some confusion over what level
of recognition §120 actions receive in Headquarters. For FY
85, the Strategic Planning and Management System ("SPMS")
will formally track those enforcement actions that were
tracked in the special enforcement reports system instituted
by then-Deputy Administrator Aim during FY 84. Each quarter,
OAR will report to OECM the number of §120, §113(a), §113(d),
and §167 orders issued by the Regions. (EPA civil referral
data will be taken from OECM's Docket system.) OAR & OECM .
will track §120 NONs separately from all other administrative
actions in order to maintain in FY 85 the high level of
attention given to §120 during the past fiscal year.
III. Authority for Settlement of §120 Actions
A respondent in a §120 action must make an election,
within 45 days of receipt of an NON: he may 1) calculate and
agree to pay a noncompliance penalty, or 2) submit a Petition
for Reconsideration, which typically will trigger an admini-
strative hearing.
Limited authority does exist for EPA to settle §120
actions prior to and in lieu of a formal adjudicatory hearing.
The sole factor which may be considered in reducing the
calculated penalty figure for purposes of settlement is the
Agency's projected probability of success in prevailing in a
hearing. The smaller the probability of EPA success, the
greater reduction available to EPA to settle the action.
We have attached for your reference a revised version of
EPA's §120 settlement guidelines governing permissible grounds
for settlement, which were first issued in October 1980.
IV. Credits Not Available Under §120
In memoranda of October, 1980, and April, 1981, the then-
Office of Enforcement issued guidance which stated that
Regions had the authority to accept, as part of a §120
settlement, the use of "credits." Such credits represented
-------
-3-
set-offs from the calculated §120 penalty for costs borne by
the respondent for environmentally beneficial projects beyond
those required to comply with the law. Criteria for acceptable
credit projects were borrowed from the former general Civil
Penalty Policy of July, 1980.
We have decided to eliminate this rarely-used authority
for credits under the S120 program. Reevaluation of the
language and objectives of S120 convinces us that credit
projects do not comport with Congress1 intent in enacting the
noncompliance penalty program.
We have also included a discussion of the bases for this
change in the attachment.
V. Parallel $113 and S120 Actions
We reemphasize here the importance of thoughtful case
selection in your §120 program. (See guidelines for same in
memorandum of July 12, 1984 on §120.) We recognize that there
may exist rare situations where reasonable litigation strategy
would call for prosecuting both a §120 action and a §113
action against the same source for the same violation. A
court action seeking injunctive relief may, for example, be
necessary if a §120 Notice of Noncompliance fails to spur
efforts to install controls. As a rule, however, parallel
filings pose a substantial risk of wasting enforcement
resources at EPA, the Department of Justice, or both, parti-
cularly 'where the case ultimately is fully resolved pursuant
to only one of the provisions. In the vast majority of
cases, diligent, aggressive prosecution under only one
section should result in a timely and appropriate resolution
of the action. We therefore discourage parallel filings
except in the exceptional case.
Note that, while this policy is intended to discourage
parallel filings, it is not our intention to discourage
parallel issuances of §113 NOVs and §120 NONs in those cases
where considered litigation strategy calls for it. Parallel
issuances may be appropriate, for example, where the Region
fully intends to conclude a SIP case by a §120 action alone
but considers it prudent to preserve the option of utilizing
a §113 action; the latter, of course, requires EPA to prove
that the violation has continued for more than 30 days
following the issuance of a §113 NOV.
-------
-4-
VI. Consultations Required
Regions are reminded that they must consult with
Headquarters (OECM and SSCD) prior to issuing an NONV (Del.
745), and prior to extending a settlement offer (Del. 7-41-A).
So as to maintain Headquarters' close monitoring of §120
actions, please also notify the Headquarters liaison attorney
as to the final date of disposition of the case, and the
penalty amount assessed.
VII. Enforcement Docket System Reports
In a continuing effort to track §120 cases more closely,
we propose soon to initiate a computer system to follow all
§120 actions. The computer reports will be updated monthly
by appropriate Regional and Headquarters attorneys, and will
be similar in look and scope to those reports already utilized
for S113 civil air actions. We expect to send out final
guidance on this system within the next 2-3 months.
Attachment
Vfleadquarters has waived this requirement for Region II,
because of its effective use of the §120 program.
cct Air and Waste Management Division Directors
Regions II and VI
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, V, and IX
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division Director, Region IV
Air and Toxics Management Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII and X
Regional Counsel Air Enforcement
Contacts
-------
PN 120-85-03-19-006
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAR I y fc*»
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT!
FROM:
TO:
Permissible Grounds for Settlement of Noncompliance
Penalties Under Section 120 of the-^Clean Air Act
ce ( Vx-X-^5 ^ •T/-*-v_>
Courtney M. Price _
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring
Charles Elkins, Acting Assista
for Air and Radiation
Administrate!
Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
Regional Counsels, Regions I-X
Attached for your information and use is the revised
§120 policy governing permissible grounds for settlement.
This document supersedes the October 30, 1980 memorandum
which previously regulated this subject. You will note that
the sole determining factor in calculating the proper minimum
settlement amount is the probability of success of the Agency
in prevailing in an administrative hearing under Section 120
were one to be held. This includes a consideration of the
likelihood of proving a violation and, in a limited number of
cases, the probability of refuting a claim for an exemption
where the Agency does not believe one is warranted.
We have attempted to make the policy as easy to administer
as possible. While there is a requirement for Headquarters
concurrence to ensure national consistency, it should not
prove onerous. Regions need only obtain the concurrence of
the Director of the Stationary Source Compliance Division and
the Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air, or their designees.
Moreover, concurrence is required only with respect to the
general range of penalty reduction sought; the Regional
Administrator is free to select any precise reduction percent-
age within the reduction range which he or she determines is
appropriate without the need for further concurrence. As
with the civil penalty policy, this process establishes a
minimum settlement figure only; it does not compel the Agency
to settle at that figure.
-------
-2-
The attached policy would be applicable to any State to
which EPA delegates Section 120 authority. The precise nature
of any State-EPA coordination would be addressed in the
particular State delegation notice.
Credit Authority Withdrawn
This revised settlement policy also deletes authority
for EPA to accept "credits" as part of a 5120 settlement.
Credits represented set-offs from the calculated S120 penalty
for costs borne by the respondent for environmentally bene-
ficial projects beyond those required to comply with the
law. Authority for credits had been provided both in the
October 30, 1980 memorandum and in one of April 2, 1981.
(The April 2, 1981 memorandum also provides guidance on
several aspects of §120 settlements other than credit projects;
the settlement policy issued today has no effect on the
April 2i 1981 memorandum other than to delete its authority
to use credits.)
Based on a reevaluation of the language and objectives
of S120f we are convinced that credit projects do not comport
with Congress1 intent in enacting the noncompliance penalty
program. Congress* purpose was to craft a simple administrative
tool with which EPA could speedily recapture in toto the
economic benefits derived from respondent's noncompliance.
In stark contrast to §113 civil actions, Congress prescribed
in §120 an'unadorned arithmetic calculation as the sole
determinant of the penalty amount and directed that "all
penalties [so] assessed ... be paid to the United States
Treasury."
As a matter of policy, credit projects are inconsistent
with the objectives of §120. Section 120 contemplates speedy
penalty assessments and payments. The noncomplier is expected
to pay in full, and quickly. Credit programs, on the other
hand, often consist of drawn-out projects and expenditures;
the result may be that respondent can draw out his credit
expenditures many months or even years beyond the date he
would have had to pay that same amount if instead it had been
styled a penalty.
Section 120 is in its essence a mechanism to recoup the
economic benefits of noncompliance. We encourage negotiation
of acceptable compliance schedules to accompany the penalty
payment, but it is the penalty payment itself which serves as
the primary thrust of the program.
-------
-3-
Elimination of this credit authority should have little
impact on Regions in an operational sense. Our discussions
with Regions have revealed that the Regions have exercised it
only infrequently, and have found that negotiating credits
can absorb substantial resources which are better expended
elsewhere in the Regional enforcement program.
Thank you for your continuing support in this most
important $120 program. If you have any questions about the
settlement policy or this memorandum, you may wish to contact
Laurence Groner, an attorney in the Air Enforcement Division
of OECM, at FTS 382-2820.
Attachment
cc: Air and Waste Management Division Directors
Regions II and VI
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, V, and IX
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management
Division Director, Region IV
Air and Toxics Management Division Director
Regions VII, VIII, and X
Regional Counsel Air Enforcement
Contacts
-------
SECTION 120 SETTLEMENT POLICY
I. Determining Probability of Success in the Administrative
Hearing
EPA's probability of success in prevailing in an
administrative hearing will determine the minimum amount
acceptable for settling a §120 case. Where that probability
is low, the penalty can be greatly reduced. Where that
probability is high, there is less reason to reduce the
penalty. Legal issues which will be determinative in a
noncompliance penalty case are generally the same ones which
affect the outcome of any enforcement case where EPA has to
demonstrate that the source is not in compliance with its
emission limits and the source defends against the allegation.
In most cases the range of probability that EPA will win
a case can be estimated as between 30 to 90 percent. If the
probability is below 30 percent, it is unlikely that EPA would
pursue the case. Conversely, even when all the legal issues
are favorable to EPA, it is unlikely that EPA's probability
of success would be much greater than 90 percent. This
produces a 60% range within which noncompliance penalties can
be decreased during the settlement process.
To foster national consistency, the reduction range will
be divided into four categories. The Regional Administrator
will determine a baseline penalty figure for settlement nego-
tiations'. Concurrence from the Director of the Stationary
Source Compliance Division and the Associate Enforcement
Counsel for Air Enforcement, or their designees, will be
required on the category from which the settlement figure is
to be drawn and the concomitant reduction range. Once a
range is agreed to, the Regional Administrator is free to
select the precise reduction percentage within that range
which he or she feels is appropriate without further
concurrence.
Category Probability of Success Reduction Range
A 90% to 75% 10% to 25%
B 74% to 60% 26% to 40%
C 59% to 45% 41% to 55%
D 44% to 30% 56% to 70%
-------
-2-
While the determination of the category into which a case
would fall is by its nature somewhat subjective, the followina
analysis will serve as guidance. A Section 120 case will
usually have more than one major legal issue. Whether the
probability of success is judged to be high or low will depend
on the number of issues and on their cumulative impact on EPA's
case. Often, however/ the major issue least favorable to EPA
would govern the category into which the case falls. If all of
the legal issues are favorable to EPA it could be determined
that EPA had a high probability of success, falling within the
90 to 75 percent range, or category A. A case placed within
the 60 to 74 percent range, in general, would have at least one
major issue with strong arguments on both sides, but the outcome
of that issue (and the case) would be weighted to EPA's advantage,
Generally, for a case to be placed in category C, at least one
major issue would have strong arguments on both sides but the
possible outcome would be weighted slightly in favor of the
source. Finally, it there were a clear likelihood that at
least one major legal issue would be decided against EPA, the
case would fall into category D and the probability of success
would be within the 30 to 44 percent range. The requirement's
for concurrence by OAR and OECM will assure that these admittedly
subjective determinations are made with a reasonable level of
consistency.
Although a source's claim to an exemption under Section
120(a)(2)(B) should be analyzed in the same way as any other
legal issue, the range within which an exemption could affect
probability of success is much narrower. If the source is
clearly entitled to an exemption, it is unlikely that the notice
of noncompliance would have been issued. If the source clearly
did not have such entitlement, exemption should not become a
factor which reduces the penalty. Therefore, the exemption
issue should influence the category selected in only a limited
number of cases.
II. Credits
The use of credits, i.e., set-offs from the calculated
§120 penalty for costs borne by respondent for environmentally
beneficial projects beyond those required to comply with law,
is not permitted in §120 settlements.
-------
PN 120-81-04-30-005
SUBJECTS Issuance of Notices of Noncompliance Under
Section 120 of the Clean Air Act to Seasonal Sources
FROM: Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO; Sandra S. Gardebrinq
Director, Enforcement Division
Pegion V
This responds to your memorandum of April 7, 1981, to the
Acting Assistant Administrator for Enforcement, in which ycu
asked for clarification of the Agency's position on issuance of
Notices of Noncompliance under Section 120 to seasonal sources
during off-season ceasation of operations.
As you know, we discouraged issuance of Notices to those
seasonal sources not in operation on January 1, 19P1. This
was not because we felt we were legally precluded from issuance
of Notices to those sources. Rather, we felt the fact of
compliance by sources by off-season ceasation of operations
continually on and after January 1, 1981, constituted an
unnecessary complication in dealing with the initial
implementation of the program. We were particularly concerned
that the January 1, 1981, date could be misrepresented
successfully as being the date on (or after) which a violation
must occur. We continue to believe that we should avoid,
absent compelling circumstances, issuing Notices to sources
which have not operated on or after January 1, 1981. However,
once such a source commences operation, a Notice could be
appropriate and could be based on data gathered during
operations prior to January 1, 19B1, if that data could be
shown to be an accurate representation of current operations as
well. I assume that most seasonal sources have, or will
shortly, recommenced operation.
120
5-1
-------
As to seasonal sources which have operated after January
1, 1981, but for which we wouiO. he considering issuance of a
Notice during the next (or any subsequent) off-season, this is
a sor?ewhat easier situation to de*l with. As your memorandum
recoqnizes, however, the fact that the source is in temporary
(although not final) compliance would still add additional
complexity. Obviously* it would be preferable to issue the
Notice while the source is still in operation. However, we
agree that no absolute bar should exist and believe that these
cases should be evaluated on a case-bv-case basis in
consultation with this Division. Where a sufficient tactical
advantage would accrue from the issuance of a Notice prior to
recommencement of operations, issuance of a Notice could be
appropriate.
If you have any questions concerning this policy, please
do not hesitate to call roe at 755-2550 or Stu Silverran of my
staff at 755-2530.
Edward E. Reich
cc: Enforcement Division Directors
Regions I-IV, VI-X
120
5-2
-------
1 PN 120-81-04-02-004
STATES ENfflHSRMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MEMORANDUM
APR 2
Subject: Settlement of Moncompliance Penalty Assessments
Under Section 120 of the Clean Air Act, as Amended
(the Act)
From: Richard D. Wilson
Aoting Assistant Administrator
RICHARD D. WILSON
Tor Regional Administrators
Enforcement Division Directors
Regions I-X
As you know, the Agency has established a settlement policy
for noncompliance penalty assessments under -Section 120 of the
Act, the particulars of which were communicated to you in a
memorandum dated.October 30, 1980.
Proper administrative procedures for memorializing the terms
of noncompliance penalty settlements are essential to ensure
judicial enforceability of settlement agreements between the
Agency and -noncomply-ing sources. With this objective in mind, we
have decided upon the following procedures for both conducting
settlement discussions with noncomplying sources and -concluding
settlement agreements within the context of Section 22.18 of the
Consolidated Rules of Practice set forth in 40 CFR Part 22.1
The terms and conditions of noncompliance penalty settlements
which have been concurred upon by the Division of Stationary
Source Enforcement shall be incorporated in a written consent
agreement and proposed settlement order "both of which should be
forwarded to the Regional Administrator. Following review of the
settlement terms, the Regional Administrator shall issue a consent
order representing final Agency action of the noncompliance
M5 Fed. Reg. 24360 (April 9, 1980). Section ^6.91 of the
noncompliance penalty regulations, 45 Fed. Heg. 50117 (July 28,
1980), provides, in pertinent part, that the Consolidated Rules of
Practice in conjunction with Part 66 Subpart J of the noncompli-
ance, penalty regulations shall govern all adjudications of penalty
assessments. Section 22.18 of the Consolidated Rules of Practice
provides for a procedure for settlement of penalty assessment
120
4-1
-------
penalty proceeding. Incorporation of the terms and conditions of
the penalty settlement in the form of a consent order signed by
the Regional Administrator will enable the Agency to ultimately
enforce the compromise in Federal District Court,2
Discussions with a noncomplying source regarding settlement
of noncompliance penalty assessments would normally occur, at the
earliest, following issuance of a Notice of Noncompliance to the
source.3 -Notwithstanding settlement discussions, a noncomplying
source must submit a petition for reconsideration to the Aoency
within 45 days of receipt of the notice-if it wishes to preserve
its right1 to adjudication should a negotiated settlement prove
elusive.4 Likewise, the Agency must respond to a petition for
reconsideratior within 30 days from receipt-.
Subsequent to the granting of a hearing, should there b«
mutual interest in either commencing: or continuino settlement
negotiations, the parties must agree* in writing, to toll the
ninety day time period provided by the Act for.an initial decision
by the Presiding Officer*5 The written agreement between the
^Consent orders'" requiring a monetary payment In settlement of
sources' noncomplianctj penalty liabilities are enforceable under
Section 113(b) of the Act. 'Consent orders embodying a credit
program in- lieu of a monetary payment are enforceable under 28 USC
Sections 1337 and 1345.
- ^Ift some instances, settlement discussions with a noncotrtplying
source prior to receipt of a petition for reconsideration nay be
premature. A source nay choose to forego the opportunity for
adjudication and submit its penalty calculation to the Agency
within 45 days of receipt of the notice of' noncompliance,
further, following receipt and consideration of a petition for
reconsideration, it is likely that a wore informed judgment can be
reached by the Agency regarding the merits of settling a particu-
lar noncoapliance penalty action.
avoid potential estoppel arguments, Regional Offices should
make clear to noncoraplying sources during settlement discussions
that the 45 day submittal requirement for petitions for
reconsideration remains binding.
5 Sect ion 120 of the Act and Section 66.42 of the implementing
regulations require. the Presiding Officer to issue an initial
decision within ninety days after the Administrator grants an
adjudicatory hearing, unless otherwise agreed upon by the
parties-,
120
4-2
-------
parties should expressly provide a limited interim period to
conclude a settlement of the noncompliance penalty action, after
which tirae the case will proceed to adjudication absent an
agreement between the parties.*
Should settlement be reached between the Agency and the source
during this interim period, the .terms and. conditions of the
settlement shall be incorporated in a written consent agreement and
proposed settlement order, both of which should be forwarded to the
Regional Administrator. Following review of the settlement terns,
the Regional Administrator shall issue a consent order representing
final Agency action of the noncompliance penalty proceeding.^
In the event settlement of the noncompliance penalty action
is reached after a Presiding Officer is assigned to the case for
adjudication, the parties shall so inform the Presiding Officer and
request leave to file with the Regional Administrator a written
consent agreement and proposed settlement order, Dpon execution of
the consent order by the Regional Administrator, the parties to the
acljudicatory proceeding shall move for withdrawal of the action
without prejudice.
Where a noncomplying source is not subject to an outstanding
Federal or Federally approved consent decree or order, the Agency
will not enter into settlement of noncoropliance penalty assessments
except in unusual.circumstances without concluding a consent decree
or order with the source which requires compliance with all appli-
cable legal requirements. Thus, prior to the Agency concluding a
settlement of noncompliance penalties, a noncoraplying source must
execute a consent decree or order, the terms of which are
acceptable to the Agency. The Federal decree must provide for
satisfaction of any civil penalty liability under Section 113(b) of
the Act. Normally, execution by the Regional Administrator of the
noncompliance penalty settlement should not occur prior to lodging
of a Section 113(b) consent decree. The Regional Offices should
consult vith the Division of Stationary Source Enforcement in those
unusual circumstances where prior execution of the penalty
compromise by the Regional Administrator appears necessary to avoid
unreasonable delay in consummating the noncompliance penalty
settlement or impeding effective enforcement of settlement terms.
^A copy of the written agreement tolling the ninety day time
period should be forwarded to the Chief Administrative Lew Judge
and Director* Division of Stationary Source Enforcement.
^A- copy of the conse'nt order issued by the Regional
Administrator should be forwarded to the Chief Administrative Law
Judge and Director, Division of Stationary Source Enforcement.
-------
The terms of. a noncompliance penalty settlement may provide
monetary payment t-O the .United" States Treasury in an amount which
represents the penalty assessment as calculated by the Technical
Support Document and,the Instruction Manual set forth in .
Appendices A&B to the noncompliance penalty regulations with-any
adjustment .as appropriate in accordance with the memorandum, dated
October 30, 1980, entitled Settlement of Wcncompliance Penalties
Under Section 120 of"the Clean Air Act .^Subject to Agency
discretion,in lieu of a monetary payment, in whole or in part, a
noncomplying source may commit to an .enforceable credit program
which will yield an environmental benefit beyond what is required
under federal and state law.^ The after tax value of the credit
program must be equivalent in dollar amount to that portion of the
penalty settlement figure not remitted to-the United States
Treasury. Where .a penalty settlement provides for a credit
program in lieu of a monetary payment, the agreement shall provide
that failure by the source to comply with the program shall
subject-the source to either monetary liability10 or an
enforcement action for injunctive relief requiring compliance with
the;credit program, or both, at the election of the Agency«~
Where there is particular reason to believe that the penalty
assessment figure as calculated by the ^Technical Support Document
and Instruction Manual which initially forms the basis of settle-
ment negotiations way not accurately reflect economic benefits
derived by a noncomplying source once final compliance with
applicable .legal requirements is ultimately achieved, the penalty
settlement agreement requiring monetary payment to the United
States Treasury .should specifically provide for a final
accounting. Thus, the agreement should require written notifica-
tion of compliance from the source (including supporting factual
^Usually, payment of a monetary penalty shall be due in one
lump sum six months subsequent to execution of the consent order
by the Regional Administrator.
settlement "agreement must clearly delineate enforceable
increments of. progress and final compliance milestones. Regional
Offices should consult Chapter VIII of the Civil Penalty Policy,
dated .July 8, JL980, regarding the criteria for acceptable credit
programs.
magnitude of monetary liability would be dependent upon
the extenjt of compliance by -the source with the credit program,
The order should provide that -where a source abandons the credit
program, the monetary liability would be equivalent to the full
penalty settlement figure initially agreed upon by the Agency and
the source. The order should further provide that where a source
misses milestone dates of the credit project which causes
substantial delay in ultimate completion of the project, the
source would be subject to monetary liability equivalent to the
economic savings enjoyed by the source as a result of its failure
to timely comply with credit project milestones . 1 ^
-------
and analytical data) once final compliance with applicable legal
requirements has been achieved on a continuous basis. Addition-
ally, a post compliance settlement calculation as provided in the
Technical Support Document and Instruction Manual (set forth in
Appendices A, Section V and E, Section IV) together with data
necessary for independent verification must accompany a source's
written notification of final compliance. Within 30 days from
receipt of a notification of compliance, the Aoency shall inform
the source, in writing, whether or not the source has achieved
final compliance with applicable legal requirements. In the event
the Agency finds the source in compliance, the written
notification shall also specify any deficiency payment or
reimbursement1* plus interest ow«sd. The settlement agreement
shall require payment by a source of a deficiency or reimbursement
by the government within 30 days of written notification from the
Agency specifying the amount of deficiency or reimbursement.
Lastly, all noncompliance penalty settlements* shall expressly
state that failure by the source to seek judicial review under
Section 307(b) of the Act of the Regional Administrator's order as
final Agency action-^ shall preclude review in judicial
enforcement of the settlement of the terms, the underlying legal
basis of settlement, and the Regional Administrators' authority to
issue the consent order.
Forms will b« prepared and forwarded to you shortly for use
by the Regional Offices in all settlements of noncompliance
penalties. Should you have any questions regarding the foregoing,
please call Ed Reich at 755-2550 or Stu Silverman at 755-2570v
^The dollar amount of a deficiency payment or penalty
reimbursement shall be the difference between i) the percentage
representing the chance of success on the merits used for initial
settlement of th« penalty multiplied by the post compliance
revised penalty calculation'and ii) the initial noncompliance
penalty compromise figure. "Regardless -oi the nature of payment by
the source in satisfaction of -'the initial .jioncoropliance penalty
settlement figure (whether a monetary payment to "the United States
Treasury or an approved credit project), a penalty deficiency owed
by a source is to be satisfied by a monetary payment to the fn
States Treasury.
12A11 consent orders shall be published in the Federal
Register as final Agency actions, reviewable in the appropriate
United States Court of Appeals. 120
4-5
-------
PN 120-81-02-12-003
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
^r/ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
•
FEB 1 2 1981
THE ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
SUBJECT: Implementation of Noncompliance Penalty Program
Under Section 120 of the Clean Air Act
As you know, implementation of the noncompliance penalty
program under Section 120 of the Clean Air Act began on
January 1, 1981. In preparation for implementation, the
Administrator signed eight delegations of authority to the
Regional Administrators, one of which addressed the authority
to issue Notices of Noncompliance. Although that delegation
allows Regional Administrators to redelegate the authority to
issue Notices to the Division Director level, it seems
advisable, for the time being, for the Regional Administrators
to sign all Notices of Noncompliance. Therefore, until
further notice please ensure that you sign all Notices issued
within your region.
As a reminder, prior to issuance of a Notice of
Noncompliance, Regional Offices are required to consult with
the Office of Enforcement at Headquarters, ^he Director of
the Division of Stationary Source Enforcement is the focal
point in the Office of Enforcement for coordination with
Regional Offices on proposed Notices.
Finally, as a courtesy to the State in which the
noncomplying source is located, Regional Offices should consult
with the appropriate state official prior to issuance of any
Notice of Noncompliance.
If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please
feel free to call Richard Wilson at 755-2977, or Ed Reich at
755-2550.
Walter C. Barber, Jr.
Acting Administrator
120
3-1
-------
PN 120-80-09-12-001
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANUDM
Subject: Priorities for Issuing Notices of Noncompliance
From: Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
To: Enforcement Division Directors
Regions I - X
As you know, the preamble to the, regulations implementing
Section 120 of the Clean Air Act states that on January 1, 1980,
EPA will be issuing the first notices of noncompliance to major
sources that have never achieved compliance with the Act and are
not subject to federal or EPA-approved State consent decrees and
administrative orders. Now that you have updated the MSEE docket
pursuant to Jeff Miller's January 9 and May 12 memoranda, we are
able to predict the approximate number of those highest priority
sources. Because some regions will have relatively few such.
sources we must determine how to identify and when to reach the
second level of priority.
After informa.l discussions with many of your staffs, it
seems to us that the most efficient way to proceed is to create a
second category which would include all other sources in viola-
tion of any requirement under a State Implementation Plan (SIP),
New Source Performance Standard (NSPS), or National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). Within this
second category the region would determine the order in which to
issue notices of noncompliance using such evaluative factors as
size of the economic benefit enjoyed, nature and amount of the
source's emissions, whether the emissions are causing or contri-
buting to a nonattainment situation, and the cause of the
violation. We would normally expect particular attention to be
given to NESHAP sources because of the serious nature of those
violations.
It would be appropriate to reach into the second category of
sources whenever the first category is exhausted. I assume that
you would want cases from the first category to be well into the
first administrative hearings before choosing to issue notices to
sources in the second group, because every petitioned case must
be decided by an administrative law judge within the statutory
framework of ninety days.
120
1-1
-------
-2-
Sources in compliance with schedules contained in approved
orders and consent decrees are the Agency's lowest priority. It
seems doubtful that such sources will be reached in the forsee-
able future, but if there is a time when you feel circumstances
justify reaching into that category, please call and discuss it.
It seems to me that this system of priorities imposes the
fewest restrictions on regional operations. Please consider
these ideas and let me have your views, or call Judith Larsen of
my staff at 755-2580. if we can reach a consensus on this
approach we will add it to the implementing guidance which will
go out to you in October.
Edward E. Reich
120
1-2
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 123
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 123
* PN123-80-12-19-001
LETTER TO HONORABLE JENNINGS RANDOLPH FROM DOUGLAS M. COSTLE REGARDING
DEFINITION OF AMBIENT AIR
* PN123-85-09-19-006
GUIDANCE ON FLUID MODEL DEMONSTRATIONS FOR DETERMINING GEP STACK HEIGHT
IN COMPLEX TERRAIN
* PN123-85-10-10-007
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON IMPLEMENTING THE REVISED STACK HEIGHT
REGULATION
* PN123-85-10-28-008
IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - EXCEPTIONS FROM
RESTRICTIONS ON CREDIT FOR MERGED STACKS
* PN123-85-10-28-009
IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - PRESUMPTIVE NSPS EMISSION
LIMIT FOR FLUID MODELING STACKS ABOVE FORMULA GEP HEIGHT
* PN123-85-10-28-010
DETERMINING STACK HEIGHTS "IN EXISTENCE" BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 1970
-------
PN 123-85-10-28-010
- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\ Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
RQ^
OCT 2 8 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Determining Stack Heights "LriExisterjcje" Before December 31, 1970
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler,
Control Programs Development Dj^sion (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I-X
The following guidance is provided to describe how the definition of
"in existence" should be implemented and to assist States and emission
source owners and operators in providing appropriate evidence of commitments
to undertake stack construction on or before December 31, 1970. Please
note that this is guidance; States may submit alternative demonstrations
in support of grandfathering claims, if they feel the circumstances
warrant.
We intend to rely on the general provisions of this guidance to
determine eligibility for grandfathering exemptions from certain other
provisions of the revised stack height regulations: restrictions on the
use of 6EP formulae for cooling towers, use of the refined 6EP formula,
fluid modeling to justify GEP formula stack height, credit for merged
stacks, credit for new sources tied into grandfathered stacks, and credit
for stacks raised to GEP formula height.
Background
Section 123 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, contains a grandfather
clause intended to exempt stack heights and techniques for pollutant
dispersion that were in existence on or before December 31, 1970, from
general provisions of Section 123 restricting the degree to which emission
limitations may be affected by dispersion. When EPA promulgated stack
height regulations pursuant to Section 123 in 1982, it adopted a definition
of "stack heights in existence before December 31, 1970." This definition
allowed the grandfathering of stacks on which construction had not yet
commenced, but for which binding contracts had been signed that could not
be modified or cancelled without substantial loss to the owner or operator.
The EPA's definition was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit in Sierra Club v. EPA, 719 F.2d 436, and has not been modified in
any way by the rule revisions promulgated on July 3, 1935, except to
restrict its applicability to facilities that have not undertaken major
modifications or reconstruction, and have not ducted the effluent gas
strea.ns from post-1970 units into pre-1971 stacks.
-------
Subsequent to the recent revisions, questions have been raised about
how the definition should be implemented, i.e., what EPA should consider
to be a binding contract, and what should constitute a "substantial loss"
for determining whether a stack should be grandfathered.
General Provisions
The burden of proof for showing that a stack is eligible for
grandfathering exemption lies with either the State or the source owner or
operator, as appropriate, and documentation in support of exemptions must
be made available for public review during the rulemaking process. In the
event that no case for exemption under this provision is made, or that
satisfactory support for such a request is not provided, the stack is
presumed not to be grandfathered, and therefore subject to the requirements
of Section 123 and the stack height regulations promulgated by EPA.
Grandfathering exemptions may be supported in one of three ways: by
showing that the stack was completed or was physically in existence prior
to December 31, 1970; by showing that actual on-site continuous stack
construction activities began on or before December 31, 1970; or by showing
that a binding contract for stack construction was executed on or before
that date.
Documenting Stack Construction
In cases where a stack was completed prior to December 31, 1970, the
State may make a summary determination that the stack is grandfathered,
but must provide an explanation of the reasons for its determination. '
One way in which it can be documented that the stack was physically in
place before December 31, 1970, is to provide a copy of the 1970 Federal
Power Commission report Form 67, which includes stack height, among other
information. Evidence that may be submitted to support the date of
commencement of stack construction can include virtually any contemporaneous
documentation that clearly indicates that construction activities were under
way as of December 31, 1970. This could consist of building inspection
records, construction materials delivery receipts, correspondence,
inter-office memoranda, photographic records, or news clippings. In the
event that documentation is lacking or weak, EPA will consider affidavits
which include detailed descriptions of efforts that were undertaken to
obtain contemporaneous supporting documentation.
Documenting Contractual Obligations
The date of signature on a contract for stack construction will be
acceptable for applying grandfathering exemptions if the contract itself
meets certain minimum qualifications. A "binding contract," under the
previously-discussed provisions is considered to be one that commits the
source owner or operator financially to undertake stack construction and
that did not have in effect on December 31, 1970, an "escape" provision
that allows cancellation by the owner or operator without penalty.
-------
3
In the event that a contract contains provisions for assessing
penalties for modification or cancellation by the owner or operator, and
those provisions were in effect on December 31, 1970, then the provisions
must be reviewed to determine whether the penalties and other costs of
cancellation would have imposed a "substantial loss" on the owner or
operator. For new facilities, EPA will presume that a substantial loss
would have resulted where the penalties exceed ten percent of the project
cost. Where the project involves only stack construction or replacement,
EPA will review claims on a case-by-case basis.
If a contract does not contain provisions which impose financial
obligations on the owner or operator for contract modification or
cancellation, then any determinations of whether liability to the owner
or operator resulting from such modification would constitute substantial
.losses must be made on a case-by-case basis. In general, EPA's rule of
thumb relying on ten percent of the project.cost will be used.
If you have any questions regarding application of this guidance in
specific instances, please contact Eric Ginsburg at (FTS) 629-5540 or
Sharon Reinders and (FTS) 629-5526.
-------
PN 123-85-10-28-009
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\ Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
OCT 2 B 1905
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Implementation of Stack Height.Regulations - Presumptive NSPS
Emission Limit for Fluid MocteTtng Stac><'Above Formula GEP Height
//
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director CX<^ ^
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I-X
The following guidance is provided to explain the general emission
control requirements for sources conducting fluid modeling to justify stack
height in excess of that provided by the GEP formulae. While some of the
discussion and examples contained herein focus on utility sources, the
procedures outlined in tnis memorandum are generally applicable to all
stationary source categories. Please note that this is guidance. States
may present any other demonstrations that they may feel are warranted in
individual circumstances.
Background
The revised stack height regulations published on July 8, 1985, define
three methods for determining good engineering practice (GEP) stack
height. These methods include:
1- a 65 meter de minimis GEP height;
2- the height determined by using an applicable formula based on the
dimensions of nearby buildings; and
3- the height necessary to avoid excessive concentrations due to
downwas'n as shown using a field study or fluid modeling
demonstration.
As the preamble to the regulations points out, the revised definition
of "excessive concentrations," a 40-percent increase in concentrations
due to downwash resulting in a NAAQS or PSD increnent exceedance,
necessitates that an emission rate be specified for purposes of evaluating
fluid modeling. The regulations require that a presumptive emission rate
equivalent to the new source performance standards (NSPS) be established
for the source in question before modeling may be conducted to determine
-------
stack height needed to avoid excessive concentrations due to downwash.*
This emission nate is described as "presumptive" because it is EPA's
presumption that all sources seeking to justify stack heights exceeding
those provided by the GEP formulae are capable of controlling their
emissions to NSPS levels. However, the regulations also allow source
owners or operators to rebut this presumption, establishing an alternative
emission rate that represents the most stringent level of control that
can feasibly be met by that source in excess of the NSPS level. In the
preamble to the regulations, EPA indicated that it will rely on the
"Guidelines for Determination of Best Available Retrofit Technology for
Coal-Fired Power Plants and other Existing Stationary Facilities,
EPA-450/3-80-009b" (BART Guidelines) when reviewing these rebuttals.
If it is infeasible for a source to control its emissions to NSPS
levels, then an alternative limit representing the lowest feasible emission
limit must be met before obtaining credit for stack height in excess of
GEP formula height. Sources may consider such factors as remaining plant
life and the cost of modifying existing equipment when determining NSPS
feasibility.
Procedures
•
The general procedure that is described in the BART Guidelines for
analyzing control alternatives should be followed to identify and evaluate
alternatives for sources seeking credit for stack heights in excess of
those produced by the applicable GEP formulae. Because the guidelines
were originally written to address visibility impairment, however, not all
of the analytical steps or applicability criteria—such as analysis of
visibility impairment or exemptions for power plants below 750 megawatts—
will be appropriate, and need not be addressed.
General steps in the analysis described in Section 2.0 of the
guidelines can be summarized as follows.
1. Identify a range of control alternatives, including both pre- and
post-combustion controls. In this regard, several fuel substitution and
alternative fuel blends should be considered, as well as technological
alternatives, such as coal cleaning and flue gas desulfurization.
2. Calculate tie cost, emissions, ancf other environmental and energy
impacts of the alternatives [including those meeting NSPS objectives).
3. Select the alternative that represents the most stringent level
of emissions control feasible.
*Where the NS?S has been subject to revision, and the source in
question is not subject to the revised NSPS, the earliest standard will be
applied; e.g., for power plants a rate of 1.2 Ib/mm3tu would be used.
-------
In perform-jng these analyses, it is important to keep in mind that
EPA's presumption is that the NSPS emission limit is feasible unless
demonstrated otherwise. When carrying out evaluations, source owners or
operators may consider such factors as remaining useful plant life, the
remaining life of any equipment affected by revised emission rates
(including any control equipment), the cost of modifying boilers, control
equipment, and fuel handling facilities, and the cost of modifying or
cancelling existing fuel supply contracts (remaining useful plant life,
if a significant factor in determining NSPS feasibility, may necessitate
restrictions on the period of applicability of less stringent emission
limits). Finally, it is important to analyze, not only a range of alter-
native controls, but several combinations of alternatives, since such
combinations may yield a greater and more cost-effective degree of
emissions control.
Since determinations of the adequacy of any rebuttals of the NSPS
emission limit and the reasonableness of control alternatives considered
must be made on a case-by-case basis, and will be subject to public review
and comment during the rulemaking process, all technical and economic
analyses, as well as any claims of infeasibility, must be fully documented
and supported by any information that may be available.
If you have any questions regarding the application of this guidance
in a particular set of circumstances, please contact Eric Ginsburg at
(FTS) 629-5540 or Sharon Reinders at (FTS) 629-5526.
-------
PN 123-85-10-28-008
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
OCT 28 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Implementation of Stack He1gJvf)Regulat1jjjis - Exceptions From
Restrictions on Credit for
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development" D1
TO: Director, A1r Management Division
Regions I-X
This guidance has been prepared to address two Issues pertaining to
credit for merged stacks prior to July 8, 1985. It establishes a procedure
that should be used to prepare and to review justifications for merging gas
streams for economic or engineering reasons, and to address the presumption
that merging was significantly motivated by an Intent to gain credit for
Increased dispersion. Please note that this 1s guidance; States may submit
alternative demonstrations 1n support of merged stack exemptions 1f they
feel the Individual circumstances warrant.
Background
Recent revisions to EPA's stack height regulations place certain
restrictions on the degree to which stationary sources may rely on the
effects of dispersion techniques when calculating allowable emissions.
One such restriction 1s provided for the merging of gas streams, or
combining of stacks. Several exemptions have been provided 1n the regula-
tion, however. More specifically, 40 CFR Part 51.1(hh)(2)(11) allows
credit under circumstances where:
A. The source owner or operator demonstrates that the facility was
originally designed and constructed with such merged gas streams;
B. After July 8, 1985, such merging 1s part of a change 1n operation
at the fac1l'1ty that Includes the Installation of pollution controls and 1s
accompanied by a net reduction 1n the allowable emissions of a pollutant.
This exclusion from the definition of "dispersion techniques" shall apply
only to the emission limitation for the pollutant affected by such change
1n operation; or
C. Before July 8, 1985, such merging was part of a change 1n operation
at the facility that Included the Installation of emissions control equip-
ment or was carried out for sound economic or engineering reasons. Where
there was an Increase 1n the federally-approved emission limitation for any
-------
pollutant or, 1n the event that no emission limitation was in existence
prior to the merging, an increase in the quantity of any pollutants actually
emitted from existing units prior to the merging, the reviewing agency
shall presume that merging was significantly motivated by an intent to gain
emissions credit for greater dispersion. Absent a demonstration by the
source owner or operator that merging was not significantly motivated by
such an intent, the reviewing agency shall deny credit for the effects of
such merging in calculating the allowable emissions for the source.
General Requirements
Figure 1 illustrates a framework for evaluating claims for merged
stack credit. Because merged gas streams are generally regarded as prohibited
dispersion techniques under the regulations, it is incumbent on the State
or the source owner or operator to demonstrate that such merging was conducted
for sound economic or engineering reasons, and was not significantly motivated
by an intent to avoid emission controls. Consequently, the first step
should entail a review of State and EPA files to determine the existence of
any evidence of intent on the part of the source owner or operator.
Information showing that merging was conducted specifically to increase
final exhaust gas plume rise serves as a demonstration of dispersion intent
that justifies a denial of credit for merged gas streams. Demonstrations that
merging was carried out for sound economic or engineering reasons are
expected to show that either the benefits of merging due to reduced
construction and maintenance costs outweigh the benefits relating to lower
emission control costs or that relevant engineering considerations showed
the merging to be clearly superior to other configurations.
Demonstration Requirements
Several exemptions from prohibitions on gas stream merging are provided
for existing sources in the stack height regulations:
1- where sources constructed their stacks before December 31, 1970,
2- where the total facility-wide emissions from the source do not
exceed 5,000 tons per year,
3- where the facility was originally designed and constructed
with merged gas streams, and
4- where the merging was part of a change 1n facility operation that
Included the Installation of pollution control equipment and resulted in
no Increase in the allowable emissions of any pollutant.* Where there
was an Increase 1n emissions in conjunction with the merging and Installation
of control equipment, the regulations require that source owners also make
an affirmative demonstration that the merging was not motivated by dispersive
1ntent.
•
*Where there was no federally-approved emission limit prior to merging
gas streams, there must be no Increase in the actual emissions of any
pollutant. Moreover, it is Incumbent on the State to demonstrate that there
was a logical relationship between the merging of existing gas streams and
the Installation of controls.
-------
Sources that are not covered under these criteria may still qualify for
exemption If they can show that merging was conducted for sound economic
or engineering reasons. Such demonstrations should Include justifications
for having replaced existing stacks. This may be done, for Instance, by
documenting through maintenance records, correspondence, or other
contemporaneous evidence, that the existing stacks had reached the end of
their useful life, were prematurely corroded, had sustained other damage
making them unservlcable, were of a height less than that regarded as
good engineering practice, thereby causing downwash problems, or that the
addition of new units at the facility necessitated additional stacks and
Insufficient land was available. The absence of any evidence supporting
the need for stack replacement creates a strong presumption that merging
was carried out specifically to avoid the Installation of pollution
controls, I.e., was "significantly motivated by an Intent to gain emissions
credit for increased dispersion.11
No Increase in Allowable Emissions
Once this initial criterion is satisfied, demonstrations may show
that merging was based either on sound economic or sound engineering
reasons. Claims based on strict engineering justifications nay be more
difficult to show, since the existence of more than one reasonable
engineering solution generally leads to a decision based on economics.
However, if it can be documented that the merged stack configuration was
clearly superior to other stack configurations for purely engineering
reasons, without consideration of cost, then credit for merging may be
granted.
In order to most reliably implement the provisions of the regulations
regarding the merging of gas streams for sound economic reasons, it would
be necessary to ascertain the actual intent of the source owner or operator
at the time the decision was made to merge gas streams. Recognizing that
the difficulty of doing so was the basis for EPA's rejection of an "intent
test" in the rule, the following approach provides a surrogate demonstration
of intent. This approach is summarized in Figure 2.
Because the potential savings attributable to the avoidance of
pollution controls can significantly influence decisions to merge stacks,
one way to show the absence of dispersion intent is to conduct an analysis
of the annualized capital and maintenance costs for merged stacks and for
Individual stacks, and compare the results to the compliance costs (fuel
and operation and maintenance of any control equipment) calculated based on
the emission limitations derived with and without merged stack credit. If,
when the difference in capital and maintenance costs Is compared with the
difference 1n compliance costs over the period of capital amortization, the
capita] and maintenance cost saving 1s greater than the compliance cost
saving, then merging can be accepted as having a sound economic basis.
In establishing this rule of thumb, we are aware that a benefit of as
little as 10-20 percent could be considered "significant" 1n the context of
the court's holding on this matter—I.e., such a benefit could have been
considered to be a relevant factor 1n decisions to construct merged stacks.
-------
However, recognizing that documentation of cost analyses after an extended
period of time--up to 15 years—is likely to be limited, we believe that
the 50 percent test articulated above would constitute a more reasonable
basis for initial determinations (that is, a level at which we believe that
there was likely a significant incentive to merge stacks to avoid control
requirements).
Affirmative Demonstrations of Nondispersion Intent
In some instances, a State or emission source owner may not be able to
make a demonstration as described above, or believe that sound economic
reasons existed for merging stacks, regardless of the relationship between
financial savings attributable to reduced emission control requirements
versus lower stack construction cost. In such cases, an opportunity should
be provided to affirmatively demonstrate that merged stacks were not
"significantly motivated by an intent to obtain emissions credit for
increased dispersion." The burden of proof rests solely with source owners
or operators attempting to make this showing.
Demonstrations may rely on any relevant evidence, including but not
limited to the following:
- construction permits, or permits to operate from pollution control
agencies
- correspondence between the source owner or operator and government
agencies
- engineering reports relating to the facility
- facility records
- affidavits
- any other relevant materials
For Instance, such a demonstration could be made by submitting
documentary or other evidence (e.g., Internal company memoranda presenting
the alternative construction opportunities available to the company) that
Indicates the Intent of the source owner or operator and shows that
consideration of dispersion advantages was conspicuously absent.
Alternatively, 1t might be shown that either action by the State 1n
approving a revised emission limit followed actual merging sufficiently
later 1n time to suggest that dispersion credit was not considered by the
source at the time of merging or the State approved limit was unrelated to
the merging.
In attempting to make demonstrations, source owners or operators
should present as much evidence as can be located, with the understanding
that demonstrations based on any single category of evidence (such as
affidavits) presented 1n Isolation are less likely to constitute acceptable
showings than demonstrations based on cumulative bodies of evidence.
As discussed below, affirmative showings will be required of sources
whose merged stacks were associated with an Increase in allowable emissions
as well as some sources whose mergers were not associated with such
-------
increases. However, EPA expects sources whose emission limits increased
subsequent to the merging to present stronger showings than those with no
increase, since the regulatory definition of "dispersion technique" views
such increases as an explicit indication that the merged stacks were
significantly motivated by an intent to gain credit for increased disper-
sion. Sources who do not increase their emissions, but who have difficulty
making other demonstrations, such as the installation of pollution controls,
or merging for sound economic or engineering reasons convey a more implicit
indication of dispersion Intent that must be rebutted; for such sources,
however, the presumption of Intent 1s not as compelling.
Increases in Allowable Emissions
As stated above, in cases where the allowable emissions of any
pollutant increased in conjunction with the merging of gas streams, such
an Increase provides even stronger circumstantial evidence that merging
was not carried out for sound economic or engineering reasons, but was
"significantly motivated by an intent to gain emissions credit for greater
dispersion." This presumption may be rebutted by making one of the
following demonstrations.
1- by showing that the cost savings associated with reduced compliance
costs for merged stacks are less than 50 percent of the total savings due to
merged stacks (I.e., annual compliance savings plus annual 1 zed capital
and maintenance savings), and by making an affirmative showing, as described
above, that there was no significant motivation to gain credit for the
increased dispersion provided by merged stacks; or
2- by showing that alternatives to stack merging were reasonably
precluded strictly for engineering reasons, and by affirmatively demon-
strating the absence of significant dispersion Intent, as noted above.
In the absence of such a showing, it should be presumed that avoidance
of emissions control was a significant factor 1n the decision to merge gas
streams, and credit should be denied.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding the application of
this guidance 1n specific Instances, please contact Eric Glnsburg at
(FTS) 629-5540 or Sharon Relnders at (FTS) 629-5526.
Attachments
-------
FIGURE 1
Pre- //8/85
Retrofit.Merged Stacks
Record of Intent
for Dispersion
Purposes
No
Credit
No
Installed
Pollution Controls
Increased
Emissions
Credit
Granted
I Yes I
Affirmative
Showi ng
Credit
Granted
No
Reason to
Replace Stacks
No
No
Credit
Engineering
Reasons for
Mergi ng
nio"|
No
Credit
Ron
rwi
No
Credit
Economic
Reasons for
Merging
Increased
Emissions
Engineering
Reasons make
Merging Clearly
Superior
Credit
Granted
See
Figure 2
Engineering Reasons
to Preclude Alternatives
Credit
Granted
I Yes
wfirmative
Showi ng
-------
Figure 2
Economic Justification
for Merged Stacks
Savings due to Avoidance
of More Stringent
Emission Limit
Less than 50% of Total
Savings due to Merged
Stack Construction
Exceed 50% of Total
Savings due to Merged
Stack Construction
No Increase
In Emissions
Credit
Granted
Affirmative
Showi ng
Increase
In Emissions
Affirmative
Showi ng
No
Credit
-------
PN 123-85-±)-10-007
•BO''
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
OCT 1 0 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Questions and Answers on Implementing the
Revised Stack Height Regulation
FROM: 6. T. Helms, Chieff-
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD-15)
TO: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
A number of questions have arisen in several areas of the revised
stack height regulation since its promulgation on July 8. The following
answers have been developed in response. The questions and answers are
arranged under the general topic headings of interpretation of the regula-
tion, State implementation plan (SIP) requirements, and modeling analyses.
Please continue to call Sharon Reinders at 629-5526 if you have further
comments or additional questions.
Interpretation of the Regulation
1. Q: What criteria should be used to determine when a stack was "in
existence" with respect to the various grandfathering dates in the
regulation?
A: The recent promulgation of revisions to the stack height regulation
did not change the definition of "in existence." The definition is provided
in 40 CFR 51.l(gg) and includes either the commencement of continuous
construction on the stack or entering into a binding contract for stack
construction, the cancellation of which would result in "substantial
loss" to the source owner or operator. The definition of what constitutes
a "substantial loss" will be the subject of future guidance.
2. Q: What "source" definition should be used in determining whether tie-
ins to grandfathered stacks should be permitted or prohibited?
A: The term "source" in this Instance means a single emitting unit.
Thus, credit for tying a single post-1970 unit(s) into a grandfathered
stack serving a number of old units is prohibited under the regulation.
-------
3. Q: What is meant in the regulation by "facility"?
A: For purposes of this regulation, the definition contained in
40 CFR 51.301(d) should be used. That definition essentially defines the
term as the entire complex of emitting activities on one property or
contiguous properties controlled by a single owner or designee.
4. Q: Must good engineering practice (6EP) stack: height be established
separately for each pollutant? If.not, how should 1t be determined?
A: It is not necessary to calculate a separate GEP stack height for
each pollutant. Since "GEP" is defined by Section 123 of the Clean Air
Act as the height necessary to ensure against excessive concentrations of
any air pollutant, it follows that GEP should be established for each
source based on the pollutant requiring the greatest height to avoid
excessive concentrations.
5. Q: How should "reliance" on the 2.5H formula be determined?
A: First, "reliance" on the 2.5H formula applies only to stacks in
existence before January 12, 1979. Credit for "reliance" on the 2.5H
formula, can be granted under the following cases: (a) Where the stack
was actually built to a height less than or equal to 2.5H; (b) Where the
stack was built taller than 2.5H and the emission limitation reflects the
use of 2.5H in the SIP modeling analysis; or (c) Where evidence 1s provided
to show "reliance" as discussed in the following paragraph. If no modeling
was used to set the emission limitation for the source, then it cannot be
argued that there was "reliance" on the formula, since EPA's guidance was
specifically aimed at using stack height credit in establishing emission
limitations. Once it is determined that the emission limitation was in
fact based on estimates of dispersion from the stack, then the source can
be said to have properly "relied" on .the 2.5H formula. In the event that
it cannot be determined that the emission limit is based on "reliance" on
the 2.5H formula, then the refined H + 1.51 formula must be used.
Where a clear relationship between a 2.5H stack height and the
emission limitation cannot be shown, where the emission limitation was
not calculated based precisely on the 2.5H height, or where the stack
height used in modeling cannot be verified, then additional evidence will
be needed. Preferred would be written documentation, such as copies of
the original engineering calculations or correspondence between the State
or the emission source owner and EPA indicating that the 2.5H formula
should be used to derive the emission limitation. However, recognizing
that such evidence is often not retained for more than a few years,
"reconstructed" documentation may be considered, but should only be used
as a last resort. This evidence should include explanations by those
individuals who were involved in designing the facility, calculating
emission rates, and who represented the facility in dealings with the
-------
-3-
State and EPA on how the emission limit was derived, including a discussion
of how the formula was originally used in deriving the source emission
limitation, a discussion of the analytical method applied, and a listing
of any contacts or discussions with EPA during that period. This listing
will aid EPA in searching its own files to find any records of communication
or correspondence that may bear on the issue.
In no case should a source be allowed after January 12, 1979, to
obtain a relaxation in the emission limitation by arguing that it "relied"
on past EPA guidance endorsing the 2.5H formula. In cases where a relaxation
based on GEP formula height is sought in the future, the refined H + 1.5L
formula must be used.
6. Q: The preamble specifically discusses cooling towers as structures to
which the formula should not be applied. Will the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards be specifying other structures that are not well
represented by the formul a?
A: The discussion in the preamble and GEP guideline is not intended to
be all-inclusive; judgment should be used in determining when fluid
modeling should be used to estimate the effects of structures with rounded,
domed, or tapered shapes. Water towers and storage tanks are additional
examples of such structures. As additional information becomes available
on the aerodynamic effects of specific building shapes and configurations,
we will evaluate the need to revise the GEP guidance. However, at present,
there are no plans to issue a "laundry list" of structures to which the
formulas do not apply.
SIP Requirements
7. Q: Should a compliance averaging-time be explicitly stated in a
SIP revision for sulfur dioxide (SOg) emission limits that are revised to
meet the stack height regulation?
A: A compliance averaging time need not be specified as an enforceable
SIP provision as long as a stack test compliance method is in place in the
underlying federally approved SIP. EPA's current national policy requires
that SIP's and permits contain enforceable "short-term" emission limits
set to limit maximum emissions to a level which ensures protection of the
short-term national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and prevention
of significant deterioration (PSD) increments. EPA relies upon a short-term
stack test provision in the SIP as the method of determining compliance
with the emission limits. In lieu of a stack test, EPA has accepted fuel
sampling and analysis and continuous emission 1n-stack monitors (OEM's).
When compliance is to be determined from Information obtained by fuel
sampling and analysis and CEM's, short-term averaging times should be
specified.
-------
-4-
8. Q: Are all States required to have "stack height regulations"?
A: Limitations on creditable stack height and dispersion techniques
impact the SIP program in two areas—SIP emission limits for existing
sources and SIP provisions covering new source review (NSR)/PSD permitting
procedures. For existing sources, State regulations limiting credit for
stack height and other dispersion techniques (stack height regulations)
are not necessary as long as the SIP emission limits are not affected in
any manner by so much of the stack height as exceeds GEP, or any other
dispersion technique. Where a State has stack height regulations, those
regulations must be consistent with EPA's regulation. Where a SIP contains
regulations that are inconsistent with EPA's regulation, the State must
either adopt a stack height regulation that is consistent with EPA's or
Incorporate the EPA regulation by reference.
For the NSR/PSD programs, it is essential that the plan contain
limitations on the amount of creditable stack height and other dispersion
techniques. The following cases have been developed to illustrate what
action(s) may be required of the State since promulgation of the stack
height regulation.
CASE A{1): A fully or partially delegated PSD program that references but
does not define GEP where the delegation agreement does not contain
a date to define which version of the PSD rule 1s being delegated.
ACTION: Notify the State that all permits Issued henceforth must be
consistent with EPA's stack height regulation. All permits
previously issued must be reviewed and revised as necessary
within 9 months.
CASE A(2): A fully or partially delegated PSD program that references
but does not define GEP where the delegation agreement
does contain a date to define which version of the PSD rule
is being delegated.
ACTION: Update the delegation agreement to reflect agreement with EPA's
stack height regulation as of July 8, 1985. Notify the State
that all permits issued henceforth must be consistent with
EPA's stack height regulation. All permits previously Issued
must be reviewed and revised as necessary within 9 months.
CASE B: The current federally approved SIP for NSR/PSD does not
contain a reference to GEP or dispersion techniques, i.e.,
provisions assuring that emission limitations will not be
affected by stack height In excess of GEP or any prohibited
dispersion techniques do not exist in the current SIP.
-------
-5-
ACTION: Notify the State that such provisions must be adopted and
submitted as a SIP revision within 9 months. This can be
accomplished by adopting stack height regulations at the
State level or by adopting the appropriate reference and
commitment to comply with EPA's stack height regulation as
promulgated on July 8, 1985. Interim permitting should be
consistent with EPA's stack height regulation.**
CASE C: The current federally approved SIP for NSR/PSD contains
references to, but does not define, 6EP or dispersion techniques.
ACTION: Notify the State that a commitment to comply with EPA's stack
height regulation as promulgated on July 8, 1985, is required.
If a State is unable to make such a commitment, State regulations
must be revised to be consistent and submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision within 9 months and interim permitting should be
consistent with EPA's stack height regulation. No "grace
period" will be allowed for sources receiving permits between
July 1985 and April 1986.**
CASE D; The current federally approved SIP for NSR/PSD contains stack
height regulations that are Inconsistent with EPA's regulation.
ACTION: Notify the State that such regulations must be revised to be
consistent and submitted as a SIP revision within 9 months
and that interim permitting should be consistent with EPA's
stack height regulation.**
CASE E(l): A SIP for NSR/PSD has been submitted to EPA, or will be
submitted to EPA before the due date for stack height revisions.
The submittal contains provisions that conflict with EPA's
stack height regulation.
ACTION: Notify the State that EPA cannot approve the submittal until
it is revised pursuant to EPA's July 8, 1985, regulation.
**In the event that a State does not have legal authority to comply with
EPA's regulation in the interim (e.g., because it must enforce State
rules that are inconsistent with EPA's regulation) and 1s compelled to
issue a permit that does not meet the requirements of the EPA revised
stack height regulation, then EPA should notify the State that such
permits do not constitute authority under the Clean A1r Act to commence
construction.
-------
-6-
CASE E(2): As in Case E(l), a SIP for NSR/PSD has been submitted to EPA
or will be submitted to EPA before the due date for stack
height revisions. The submittal is not inconsistent with
EPA's stack height regulation, but portions of the existing
approved SIP that relate to the submittal are inconsistent.
ACTION: Approve the SIP submittal based on a commitment by the State
to correct the inconsistencies in its existing SIP to comport
with EPA's July 8 regulation and submit the corrections as a
SIP revision within 9 months. Interim permitting should be
consistent with EPA's stack height regulation.** If the exist-
ing SIP is ambiguous, i.e., the SIP references but does not
define terms relating to 6EP or dispersion techniques, the
action steps outlined in Case C above should be followed.
CASE F: In nonattainment areas, emission limits or permits do not always
include modeling, but rather are based on lowest achievable
emission rate (LAER) and offsets.
ACTION: If no modeling is used in the issuance of a permit, the emission
requirements for the source are not "affected" by stack heights
or dispersion techniques, and no action is needed. However, If
modeling was used in the process of preparing and issuing a
permit, such as cases where offsets were obtained offsite, that
modeling must be reviewed for consistency with the stack height
regulation.
9. Q: What must all States do now that EPA's stack height regulation is
promulgated?
A: States must review and revise.their SIP's as necessary to include or
revise provisions to limit stack height credits and dispersion techniques
to comport with the revised regulations, and, in addition, review and
revise all emission limitations that are affected by stack height credit
above 6EP or any other dispersion techniques. In accordance with Section
406(d)(2) of the Clean A1r Act, States have 9 months from promulgation to
submit the revised SIP's and revised SIP emission limitations to EPA.
In an August 7, 1985, memo titled "Implementation of the Revised
Stack Height Regulations-Request for Inventory and Action Plan to Revise
SIP's," Regional Offices were requested to begin working with each of
their States to develop States' Action Plans. Each Action Plan should
include the following: (1) An inventory of (a) all stacks greater than
65 meters (m), (b) stacks at sources which exceed 5,000 tons per year
total allowable S02 emissions; and (2) A reasonable schedule of dates for
significant State actions to conform both State stack height rules and
emission limitations to EPA's stack height regulation. Schedules should
include increments of progress. Regional Offices should be satisfied
that each of their States provide schedules for completion of the tasks
-------
-7-
as outlined in the August memo and report the status of schedule commitments
to them on a monthly basis. Regional Offices have been asked to forward
monthly status reports to the Control Programs Development Division on
the States' progress to meet scheduled commitments and also report the
results of followup with the States on schedules that are not met. In
order to facilitate tracking the States monthly progress, guidance on a
standardized format will be issued shortly.
Modeling Analyses
10. Q: Is there any restriction or prohibition against, or demonstration
required for, raising an existing (or replacing) stack up to 65 m?
A: No, as long as prohibited dispersion techniques are not employed.
11. Q: Are flares considered to be stacks?
A: No, flares are excluded from the regulation.
12. Q: What load should be used for a fluid modeling demonstration?
A:~ One hundred percent load should generally be used unless there
is a compelling argument otherwise..
13. Q: Can new or modified sources who have agreed to a case-by-case
best available control technology (BACT) emission rate be required to use
this rate for fluid modeling rather than a less stringent new source
performance standard (NSPS) emission rate?
»
A: As set forth in 40 CFR 51.1 (kk), the allowable emission rate to
be used in making demonstrations under this part shall be prescribed by
the NSPS that is applicable to the source category unless the owner or
operator demonstrates that this emission rate is infeasible.
14. Q: Must the exceedance of NAAQS or PSD increment due to downwash, wakes,
or eddies occur at a location meeting the definition of ambient air?
A: No, the exceedance may occur at any location, including that to
which the general public does not have access.
15. Q: Is a source that meets NSPS or BACT emission limits subject to
restrictions on plume merging?
A: Yes. However, in a majority of such cases, there will be no practical
effect since BACT or NSPS limits will be sufficient to assure attainment
without credit for plume rise enhancement.
-------
-8-
Q: What stack parameters are to be used In modeling when the actual
stack height is greater than GEP height?
A: Where it is necessary to reduce stack height credit below what is
existence, for modeling purposes, use existing stack gas exit parameters--
tanperature and flow rate--and existing stack top diameter and model at
GEP height.
17. Q: How should a stack that is less than GEP height be modeled when
dispersion techniques are employed?
A: In order to establish an appropriate emission limitation where a
source desires to construct less than a GEP stack but use dispersion
techniques to make up the difference in plume rise, two cases should be
tested. First, conduct a modeling analysis inputting the GEP stack
height without enhanced dispersion parameters, then conduct a second
analysis inputting the less than GEP stack height with the increased
plume rise. The more stringent emission limitation resulting from each
of the two runs should be the one specified as the enforceable limitation.
18. Q: How are the effects of prohibited dispersion techniques to be excluded
for modeling purposes?
A: Where prohibited dispersion techniques have been used, modeling to
exclude their effects on the emission limitation will be accomplished by
using the temperature and flow rates as the gas stream enters the stack, and
recalculating stack parameters to exclude the prohibited techniques
(e.g., calculate stack diameter without restrictions 1n place, determine
exit gas temperatures before the use of prohibited reheaters, etc.).
19. Q: How are single flued merged stacks and multiflued stacks to be
treated in a modeling analysis?
A: This is a multistep process. First, sources with allowable
emissions below b,000 tons/year may be modeled accounting for any plume
merging that has been employed. For larger sources, multiflued stacks
are considered as prohibited dispersion techniques in the same way as
single flued merged gas streams unless one of the three allowable conditions
has been met; i.e., (1) the source owner or operator demonstrates that
the facility was originally designed and constructed with such merged gas
streams; (2) after date of promulgation, demonstrate that such merging is
associated with a change in operation at the facility that includes the
installation of pollution controls and results in a net reduction in the
allowable emissions of the pollutant for which credit is sought; or (3)
before date of promulgation, demonstrate that such merging did not result
in any increase in the allowable emissions (or, in the event that no
emission limit existed, actual emission level) and was associated with a
change in operation at the facility that included the installation of
-------
-9-
emissions control equipment OP was carried out for sound economic or
engineering reasons, as demonstrated to EPA. Guidelines on what constitutes
sound economic or engineering justification will be issued shortly.
If plume merging from multiflued stacks is not allowable, then each
flue/liner must be modeled as a separate source and the combined impact
determined. For single flued merged stacks where credit is not allowed,
each unit should be modeled as a separate stack located at the same
point. The exit parameters, I.e. velocity and temperature, would be the
same as for the existing merged stack conditions and the volume flow rate
based on an apportionment of the flow from the individual units.
20. Q: What stack height for point sources should be input to air quality
dispersion modeling for the purpose of demonstrating protection of the
NAAQS and PSD increments?
A: A discussion of the maximum stack height credit to be used in modeling
analyses is provided in the "Guideline for Determination of Good Engineering
Practice Stack Height" and provides that the GEP stack height should be
used as Input to the model assessment. If a source 1s operating with a
less than GEP stack height, then the actual stack height should be input
to the "model.
21. Q: What stack height should be used for background sources in
modeling analyses?
A: The GEP stack height for each background source should
be Input to the model assessment. If a background source is operating
with a less than GEP stack height, then the actual stack height should be
input to the model.
22. Q: Can credit for plume merging due to installation of control
equipment for total suspended particulate (TSP) matter be allowed when
setting the S02 limit?
A: To state the question another way, the concern is what impact
the merging and installation of control equipment have on the emission
limit for another pollutant, and whether the merging occurred before or
after July 8, 1985. After July 8, 1985, any exclusion from the definition
of "dispersion techniques" applies only to the emission limitation for
the pollutant affected by such change in operation and is accompanied by
a net reduction in allowable emissions of the pollutant. For example, a
source tears down two old stacks and builds one new GEP stack with an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). This results in a net reduction in TSP
emissions. This source could model using stack gas characteristics
resulting from merging the two gas streams in setting the TSP emission
limit, but may not so model and receive the credit for stack merging when
evaluating the S02 emission limit.
-------
-10-
Before July 8, 1985, Installation of TSP pollution control equipment
generally justifies the merging of the stacks for TSP. However, if a
source's emission limitation for SOg increased after the merging, then
credit would generally not be allowed since it is presumed that the
merging was to increase dispersion.
A source with no previous S02 emission limit that merges stacks and
installs an ESP for TSP control may consider the effects of merging on
compliance with the TSP NAAQS but may not use merging to justify setting
an SOg emission limit less stringent than its actual emission rate before
the merging.
23. Q: If, after determining GEP stack height by fluid modeling,
dispersion modeling under other than "downwash" meteorological conditions
shows that a lower emission limit than that from the fluid model GEP
analysis is necessary to meet ambient air quality constraints, should a
new stack height be defined for the source?
A: No. GEP stack height is set. Ambient air quality problems
predicted by dispersion modeling at the fluid modeled height means that a
more stringent emission limit is necessary.
24. Q: Does EPA intend to issue additional guidance on fluid modeling
demonstrations?
A: See the attached memo from Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief, Source
Receptor Analysis Branch, to David Stonefield, Chief, Policy Development
Section, on guidance for a discussion of existing and additional guidance
on fluid model demonstrations.
Attachment
cc: Stack Height Contacts
Gerald Emison
Ron Campbell
B. J. Steigerwald
NOTE: See PN 123-85-09-19-006
-------
PN 123-85-09-19-006
'ff
/W\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711 *
September 19, 1985
% «o«^
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance on Fluid Model Demonstrations for Determining GEP
Stack Height in Complex Terrain
FROM: „ Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief
Source Receptor Analysis Branch, MDAD
TO: David Stonefield, Chief
Policy Development Section, CPDD
The recently promulgated stack height regulation requires that a source
that wishes to receive credit for the effects of wakes, eddies and downwash
produced by nearby terrain for the purpose of calculating GEP stack height
must conduct a fluid model demonstration or a field study. Recent guidance
for fluid modeling these terrain effects is contained in Section 3.6 of the
"Guideline for Determination of GEP Stack Height (Revised)," EPA 450/4-80-023R,
June 1985, available from NTIS as PB 85-225-241. In addition, the report
"Fluid Modeling Determination of Good Engineering Practice Stack Height in
Complex Terrain," EPA 600/3-85-022, available from NTIS PB 85-203-107,
provides an actual case of how EPA conducted a GEP determination, short of
performing the "excessive concentration" criteria test. Requests to conduct
field studies in lieu of fluid modeling demonstrations will be evaluated on
a case-by-case basis; refer to pp. 46-47 of the GEP Guideline.
Previously, EPA published three documents which form the basis for
conducting fluid model demonstrations, particularly in flat terrain
situations: (1) "Guideline for Fluid Modeling of Atmospheric Diffusion,"
EPA 600/8-81-009, April 1981, available from NTIS as PB 81-201-410; (2)
"Guideline for Use of Fluid Modeling to Determine Good Engineering Practice
Stack Height," EPA 450/4-81-003, July 1981, available from NTIS as PB 82-145-
327; and (3) "Determination of Good-Engineering-Practice Stack Height: A
Fluid Model Demonstration Study for a Power Plant," EPA 600/3-83-024, April
1983, available from NTIS as PB 83-207407.
Lastly, EPA conducted a 4-day workshop on fluid modeling and GEP
determination at the Fluid Modeling Facility at RTP in February 1981,
attended by staff from each Regional Office. Although some attendees are
no longer with the Agency, we believe at least one person in each Region
who attended is still "on board," except for Regions II and VIII, and could
serve as a resource person. At the Regional Workshop on the Stack Height
Regulation next month, we will poll the attendees concerning the need for
-------
another fluid modeling workshop for Regional Office and State technical
staff. If a need is expressed and specific attendee* can be identified, we
will request the Meteorology and Assessment Division, ASRL, to present such
a workshop at RTF within the next few months.
The above documents together with staff that have some knowledge of
fluid modeling should enable most Regions to provide initial technical
assistance to the States and enable the States to increase their own level
of expertise. Note that document (2) contains a report checklist in Section
5, outlining what a fluid model report should contain* Additional items
explicitly related to complex terrain studies may be required on a case-by-
case basis, especially after reviewing EPA's example study carefully. More
detailed procedures for implementing the excessive concentration criteria
calculations, using data from a fluid model demonstration, are being developed
and will be provided at the upcoming Regional Workshop.
Should technical questions arise regarding GEP determinations or fluid
model demonstrations, please contact Jim Dicke or Dean Wilson of my staff,
FTS 629-5681. We assume the Regional Office staffs will attempt a first-cut
resolution of technical issues before requesting our assistance.
cc: S. Reinders
R. Rhoads
F. Schlermeier
D. Wilson
-------
PN-123-80-12-19-001
DEC 1 9 1980
Honorable Jennings Randolph
Chairman, Committee on Environment
and Public Works
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for your letter of October 23, 1930 exr>ressinn your continued
interest in the Aqency's definition of "ambient air." Durinn the tine
since David Hawkins, my Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise, and
Radiation, net with you last February, the definition has been extensively
reviewed and debated.
After reviewino the issues and alternatives, I have determined that
no change from the existinn policy is necessary. He are retaininn the
policy that the exemption from ambient air is available only for the
atmosphere over land owned or controlled by the source and to which
public access is precluded by a fence or other physical barriers. EPA
will continue to review individual situations on a case-bv-case basis
to ensure that the public is adequately protected and that there is no
attempt by sources to circumvent the requirement of Section 123 of the
Clean Air Act.
I hope that this has been responsive to your needs.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Douglas M. Costle
Douqlas fl. Costle
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 124
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 124
* PN124-78-07-31-001
IMPLEMENTING SECTION 124 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
-------
m
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TE; JUL 3 1 1978
Implementing Section 124 of the CleanAir Act PN-124-78-07-31-001
FROM: Walter C. Barber, Director! I ^
Office of Air Quality PlanrHrig^aVd Standards
TO: Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, III-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II
On January 23, 1978, Richard Rhoads sent to the Regional Offices
for comment a draft copy of an OAQPS guideline memorandum on imple-
menting Section 124, Assurance of Adequacy of State Plans, of the
Clean Air Act. This section requires the States to determine the
effect of potential fuel shortages on the adequacy of their SIPs and
to revise their SIPs if necessary to counteract any adverse effect
of shortages. The draft guidance material was also discussed at the
February and March workshops on requirements for nonattainment area
plans.
The analysis required by Section 124 is, although important, of
lesser priority than many other aspects of the air program. Further,
the depth of analysis required is highly dependent upon the conditions
within the individual States. Although some States may need to follow
the full analytical procedures outlined in our January draft guidance,
most States could comply with Section 124 by using much more simplified
techniques, and in many States a simple qualitative assessment would be
adequate.
I therefore do not intend to formalize uniform national guidance
on implementation of Section 124 at this late date. I believe you and
your States should continue to implement Section 124 in a manner
consistent with the specific conditions within the individual States,
keeping in mind the many conflicting resource demands on both the
States and EPA.
cc: R. Rhoads
J. Padgett
Director, Enforcement Division, Regions I-X
Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
EPA FORM 1320-5 (REV. 3-76)
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 165
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 165
* PN165-78-12-22-001
BACT INFORMATION FOR COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS
* PN165-81-04-03-006
LETTER TO NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FROM EDWARD F. TUERK REGARDING PSD
PERMITS
* PN165-80-12-16-007
INTERPRETATION OF "SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION"
* PN165-84-01-09-012
INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICY ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PART
D
* PN165-84-01-20-013
PSD INCREMENT CONSUMPTION CALCULATIONS
* PN165-84-06-11-014
APPLICABILITY OF PSD INCREMENTS TO BUILDING ROOFTOPS
* PN165-85-05-09-015
IMPROVED NEW SOURCE REVIEW/PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSR/PSD) PROGRAM TRANSFER
-------
PN 165-85-05-09-015
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
MAY 9 ?985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Improved New Source Review/Prevantion ofSignifleant Deterioration
(NSR/PSD) Program Transfer
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development DivTion (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air Division, Regions I-X
One of EPA's highest air program priorities is the timely transfer
of high quality NSR/PSD programs to the States. While EPA has had consider-
able success in transferring and updating NSR/PSD programs, there are
still some State and local review authorities which have not received one
or both of these programs. Furthermore, several of the transfers have
been incomplete (conditional approvals or partial delegations), have
taken too long, or are outdated due to subsequent court cases (e.g.,
Alabama Power).
I recognize that a large part of the problem may be unavoidable for
several reasons. First, transfer is difficult due to the unique level of
detail with which the Clean Air Act (Act) outlines mandatory NSR/PSD
program requirements. Next, many States are reluctant to take, update,
or even retain NSR/PSD programs since these programs are believed to be
resource intensive to implement and continually evolving as a result of
litigation and potential Act changes. Finally, the transferred or updated
program must be one of highest quality so the permits issued under these
programs will be consistent with the explicit requirements of the Act and
will be able to withstand legal challenge. Nevertheless, I believe that
our performance in this area can and should be improved.
This memo is intended to help facilitate additional program transfers
or upgrades by summarizing most of the considerable but fragmented policy
now governing such changes. Outlined below is a compilation of advice
which has proven useful in expediting the development and processing of
high quality NSR/PSD State implementation plans (SIP) revisions. Each
guidance element is described in terms of the specific problems it addresses
and incorporates comments made on an earlier version of this package.
Check Lists/Critical Elements
Review of SIP's has often led to lengthy negotiations among Headquarters,
Regional Offices, and State officials. These discussions usually come
after the Regions have already assured the State in some manner that
-------
their SIP is approvable. Part of this problem is caused by a lack of
firm guidance up front as to which particular NSR/PSD requirements States
must strictly adhere to and which requirements States have more flexibility
in meeting. Accordingly, CPDD has developed two types of check lists to
help standardize and focus the review process for NSR/PSD SIP's.
First, comprehensive check lists detailing all elements required in a
PSD or NSR SIP submittal have been prepared (see Attachment A). Several
Regions are already using these or similar check lists for evaluating
State submittals to determine their adequacy relative to the 40 CFR Part 51
requirements and have found them useful.
In order to optimize use of EPA resources and to expedite SIP review,
a second form of check list is being formulated (see Attachment B). This
check list, which is an evolving product, attempts to outline those elements
of NSR/PSD SIP's which are the explicit requirements of the Act, the subject
of current litigation, or are otherwise critical to the program (i.e., produce
a large impact in terms of emissions capture). The checklist thus serves
to indicate where Headquarters will focus its review effort. Attachment C
contains several types of State proposals which commonly fail to meet these
critical requirements. In an effort to facilitate a timely Headquarters
review, I recommend that the technical support documents (TSD) developed by
the Regions are arranged such that they, as a minimum, indicate how and
where each of the critical elements are met. Similarly, the Federal Register
notices themselves need only mention any difficulties with critical elements
and defer detailed discussions of these and any other problems to the TSD.
To ensure that overall quality of NSR/PSD.SIP's does not suffer, Regions
will be responsible for working with the State/local agencies to develop
rules which you determine to meet all the applicable requirements of 40 CFR
Part 51 (i.e., the comprehensive check lists). I will recommend that
approvals of Regional packages which meet the critical program elements
not be questioned by OAR.
While we will devote the vast majority of our efforts during 14-day
review to how the critical NSR elements are addressed in completed rules,
we will also be available for some support regarding the development of
regulatory language. That is, upon request, Mike Trutna and his staff
will assist you in working out appropriate language with, a State/local
authority in order that their rule will meet the applicable requirements.
In doing so, please attach your review of the proposed rule along with
the regulation itself. I also stress that when you request this assistance
from Mike, you do so early enough in order that adjustments can be made
before the time of formal SIP submittal.
The success of this concept of shared review responsibility depends
greatly on the content of Attachment B. I invite your continued comments
particularly on ways to improve this and the other check lists.
-------
Program Delegation Guidance
About 25 States have taken over responsibility for the PSD program
through delegations. State and local agencies have shown an interest in
this procedure because it usually results in an expedited program transfer.
Full or partial delegation of PSD programs is generally possible in all
cases where the reviewing authority requests the program and has the
necessary resources. To ensure that we are working from a consistent
base with regard to issuing new delegations and updating existing delegation
agreements, I would like to restate two major points within the delegation
policy for PSD programs:
1. States proposing to implement the program generally will be assumed
to have dedicated appropriate resources for the purpose and should be given
the opportunity to proceed without detailed predelegation approvals of
staffing plans.
2. The EPA's role should be to provide technical assistance as
requested and to review State performance for overall adequacy and consistency.
Comments on individual permits should be limited to identification of explicit
legal or technical deficiencies. The EPA is to avoid routine second guessing
on State-issued permits.
SIP Classification and Processing
There appears to be some confusion on how to apply previous memos on
SIP classification and processing to PSD and NSR rules. To ensure national
consistency, the proposal stage for almost all PSD and NSR SIP's (or parts
thereof) must be classified as major actions. Some special cases, as well
as some final actions, may be classified as minor. This does not include,
however, finals of proposals which have been changed due to significant
comment unless all commenters have had a chance prior to the final package
to review the changed version.
A matrix that shows how this guidance applies to PSD and NSR SIP's is
included in this package as Attachment C. We are also encouraging parallel
processing of these SIP's as we realize it is much easier to make changes
in rules at early stages of the State's regulatory development process.
Incorporation by Reference
A complaint often voiced by Regions on behalf of States is that the
NSR/PSD SIP development and approval process takes too long or the rules take
too long to write because of the comprehensive Federal requirements which
must be met. One solution to such problems is to use model incorporation-
by-reference language. As you can see in Attachment D (guidance and sample
regulation), the State rules using incorporation by reference can be quite
abbreviated. Attachment C indicates that if a State uses the model
language, the package can be classified as direct final which will shorten
the review processing time.
-------
Planned Changes in Rules
As we all know, changes are continually occurring in the Part C and D
SIP requirements. These changes generally happen in response to court
decisions or out-of-court settlements. I wish to repeat how we should
process SIP actions which are affected by certain litigation and pending
rulemaking actions for which there is already established EPA policy.
Policies are still under development due to litigation on topics such as
tall stacks and vessel emissions. Such guidance, of course, will be
released as appropriate.
An important event affecting Part C and D SIP requirements is the
Chemical Manufacturers Assn. vs. EPA (CMA) settlement. This settlement
states that EPA has agreed to propose certain changes to the SIP requirements.
These changes include the deletion of the requirements that all emission
reductions used for netting or offsets be Federally enforceable and that
emissions reductions caused by shutdowns or curtailments which are to be
used for offsets may only be allowed if the reduction occurs after August 7,
1977, and the new facility is a replacement for the old facility. Although
the proposed rulemaking on most of these issues was published in the Federal
Register on August 25, 1983, when approving SIP's, we may not presume that
the CMA settlement provisions have already occurred. In fact, on October 22,
1984, EPA promulgated a final rulemaking on certain CMA proposals which
affirmed the original regulations. Therefore, if a State SIP has a provision
that would be approvable if the CMA negotiated changes are promulgated, but
the SIP is not approvable under the current 40 CFR Part 51 provisions, the
SIP may not be fully approved. Typically, these SIP's are conditionally
approved. This condition should contain the requirement that the relevant
provision(s) will be changed within a year to meet whatever Federal requirements
are in effect at that time. The State must also make an enforceable commitment
(e.g., a letter from the State Attorney General) to implement their regulations
to meet the current 40 CFR Part 51 requirements in the interim period
(i.e., without the CMA settlement changes).
This system will limit the legal vulnerability of these SIP approvals.
If such a conditional approval is not acceptable to the State, the Office of
General Counsel (OGC) continues to support a Regional strategy to defer
action on the relevant provisions if the State currently has an approved
Part D SIP. If the Region chooses to defer action, then the Federal Register
notice should inform (1) the public of the timetable for reviewing the
provision again, and (2) prospective permitees of their responsibility to
meet the Federally approved SIP requirements in the interim. The Region
may also selectively disapprove the variant provisions if the provisions
relax a previously Federally approved SIP.
In the November 2, 1983, Federal Register package containing EPA's
policy on compliance with the statutory provisions of Part D of the Act,
footnote 4 provides guidance on State responsibility for updating SIP's to
comply with the current requirements (stated in the August 7, 1980, Federal
Register). States which currently have conditions on PSD or NSR SIP's must
meet all the conditions that are unrelated to the CMA settlement. For the
conditions that could be affected by the CMA settlement, EPA will extend
-------
the conditions until the CMA proposal is completed. For these CMA affected
conditions, the State must agree to an enforceable interim implementation
agreement to ensure that the current requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 51
will be met until the CMA final notice.
Common Errors in NSR/PSD SIP's
During the review of SIP revisions, my staff has observed several
problems which occur frequently, impact critical elements, and must be
avoided in order to fully approve a NSR/PSD rule. These are listed in the
right-hand column of Attachment E. To avoid further difficulty with some
of the more common errors, I wish to clarify EPA's policy in these areas.
1. EPA-Approved Models. To comply with the Act, all SIP's must state
that if a party wishes to use a nonguideline air quality model during a PSD
air quality analysis, then they must receive permission from EPA.
2. Class I Area Protection. All SIP's for State and local agencies
whose jurisdiction comes within 100 kilometers (km) of a Class I area
must contain all the Class I protection provisions. These include identi-
fication of Class I areas, notification to the Federal land manager (FLM)
or EPA of any PSD source located within 100 km of a Class I area on or
before its application is considered complete, protection of Class I
increment (including protection from various exemptions such as portable
sources and sources with proposed innovative control technology waivers)
and sending copies of all materials to FLM's as they become available. If
no Class I area is located within 100 km, then an enforceable commitment
should be made that if a new Class I area is created within 100 km, the
State will add these provisions to its SIP.
3. Offsets and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP). All SIP's must
state explicitly that each offset transaction must be consistent with
the RFP demonstration. Also, if a SIP allows exemptions from offsets,
the SIP must require that any emissions resulting from these exemptions
will also be consistent with RFP.
4. General Exemptions. Many SIP's contain general exemptions from
all PSD and NSR requirements. We can only allow these exemptions if the
SIP explicitly states that' these general exemptions cannot be used to
exempt any major source or major modification, as defined in 40 CFR Part 51,
from any requirements in Part 51.
5. Baseline Date. A SIP may not contain a baseline date from the
past unless the date was set by a complete PSD application or if the
relevant reviewing authority demonstrates that the approach taken is at
least as stringent as the one identified under the Federal definitions.
6. Jurisdiction on Indian Lands. Several issues have recently
emerged regarding the extent that States have SIP jurisdiction over Indian
lands contained within their State. The Office of Federal Activities has
-------
advised the Office of Air and Radiation that States presumptively do not
have this authority. Thus, unless a State can show that it has authority on
Indian lands, EPA must state in the CFR that EPA retains authority for issuing
PSD permits in Indian lands. If the State wishes to accept jurisdiction
over Indian lands, the demonstration proving this authority must be approved
by EPA prior to proposing approval of the PSD SIP.
7. Jurisdiction of Existing PSD Permits. When EPA approves a PSD SIP,
it is necessary to determine jurisdiction over any existing PSD permits
previously issued by EPA. If the State wishes to have responsibility for
these permits and will commit to reissue these permits under the State
program, EPA should announce the transfer of authority in the Federal
Register. If the State wishes to have responsibility for these permits and
either will not or cannot commit to reissue these permits, EPA can still
transfer control by retaining 40 CFR 52.21 in the SIP and delegating authority
to the State (i.e., using a memorandum of understanding as in a program
delegation). In this case, the supplementary information in the final
rulemaking Federal Register notice should announce the delegation of
authority for the existing permits. If a State declines the opportunity
to take responsibility for EPA-issued permits, EPA will again retain
40 CFR 52.21 authority for these permits. In either of these last two
cases, the CFR language contained in the final Federal Register promulgation
package should contain provisions which retain EPA's authority and exclude
the State's authority for these existing permits.
Equivalent State/Local Rules
Our current system for measuring the approvability of candidate State/
local rules is based on line-by-line equivalence with the 40 CFR Part 51
regulations for NSR (§51.18(j)) and PSD (§51.24). Both sets of require-
ments contain the program requirements mandated by the Act as well as
additional requirements not specifically contained in the Act but needed
to make the permitting process operative. Yet, to date we have allowed
language deviations only where they could be shown that the proposed
variant provisions would cause no difference in terms of real world impact.
Specifically, approval of a State/local rule which contained a combination
of weaker and stronger provisions (as compared to 40 CFR Part 51 requirements)
was not allowed, even if this rule were more stringent overall. Considerable
analysis considering alternative approaches pertaining to this subject has
been done. However, the Regional Offices, 06C, and CPDD question the need
for completing this project. To date, the most promising use of an overall
rule equivalence policy is to rationalize conditional approvals of qualifying
rules during which time EPA and the State pursue the need to make regulatory
amendments. Accordingly, until a more definite need is determined, we are
not recommending further action on the equivalency issue.
I hope that this guidance will be helpful. Any comments on these
actions, including other ideas or concerns you may have on improving NSR/PSD
-------
programs transfer, should be forwarded to Mike Trutna at 629-5591. I look
forward to seeing continued improvements in NSR/PSD program development and
transfer.
Attachments
cc: G. Emison
B. Pedersen
E. Reich
P. Wyckoff
-------
PN 165-84-06-11-014
I \l I'l h M \T'> l'A\ ll!i>\MK\T\|. I'Ui
V\ \-lh\Clil\. 1)1.. Jill
JUN I I 1984
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Applicability of PSD Increments to Building
Rooftops
A
FROM: Jo^epflTA. Camion"
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation
TO: Charles R. Jeter
Regional Administrator, Region IV
The following is in response to your letter of November 10,
1983, concerning issues which you felt required review for national
consistency relating to a new source review for an Alabama Power
facility in downtown Birmingham, Alabama.
On September 29, 1983, your office informed the State of
Alabama that a new source's compliance with the PSD increments
must be measured on the tops of buildings, as well as at ground
level. Since then we have discussed the question extensively
among ourselves and with representatives of the State of Alabama
and the company. For the reasons that follow, I do not believe
we are in a position to definitively assert that PSD increments
apply to rooftops without further information as to the conse-
quences for the PSD system as a whole. Accordingly, I recommend
that we inform Alabama that we do not now require that compliance
with PSD increments be measured at the tops of buildings. A
State may, of course, adopt such an approach if it so desires.
Between 1970 and 1983, it appears to have been general EPA
practice to determine compliance with both NAAQS and PSD increments
at ground level, not at roof level. On March 18, 1983, however,
Kathleen Bennett, in a letter to the State of New York, determined
that the "national ambient air quality standards are designed to
protect the public health and welfare and apply to all ambient
air which does include the rooftops and balconies of buildings
accessible by the public."
I believe this conclusion was correct. Apartment balconies,
rooftop restaurants, and the like present a potential for human
exposure that the primary ambient air quality standards should be
interpreted to address.
-------
-2-
Given this conclusion, one could argue, based on the text
of the relevant regulations and the Clean Air Act, that the PSD
increments apply wherever the NAAQS apply, and that both roust
apply throughout the "ambient air." However, the PSD system,
unlike the NAAQS system, does not aim at achieving one single
goal. Rather it represents a balance struck first by Congress
between a given level of protection against degradation and a
given potential for economic growth. It appears that the
calculations on which that balancing judgment was based all
assumed that PSD increments would be measured at ground level.
A number of state officials who are now administering PSD
have argued to me that by measuring PSD increments on rooftops
as well as at ground level, EPA would make the PSD system
appreciably more stringent than Congress contemplated. Although
major urban areas are all Class II areas, this approach, it is
argued, could result in constraints on growth comparable to
those that apply in Class I areas - national parks and wilderness
areas. Such an outcome would not, it is argued, be consistent
with Congressional intent.
In these circumstances, I think that preserving the status
quo is particularly advisable because:
0 It is likely that Alabama did not contemplate adopting a
"rooftops" approach to PSD when it took over the PSD program.
That expectation, though not decisive, does provide some reason
not to change the situation without formal rulemaking.
0 The consequences of an erroneous decision to consider
increment consumption on rooftops will be more severe than those
of an erroneous decision not to consider them. The adoption of
such an approach will present at least a procedural, and, probably
a substantive obstacle to development in urban areas, while in
its absence air quality will still be protected by the NAAQS, by
the PSD increments applied at ground level, and by the other
aspects of PSD review such as Best Available Control Technology.
Therefore, I have concluded that since the State of Alabama
has authority under an approved implementation plan for adminis-
tering the PSD program within Alabama, it is their responsibility
to apply this principle of maintaining the status quo to this
case, taking all the relevant facts into account.
Please advise the State of Alabama of the Agency's position
on these points as our response to the issues which they raised
in meetings with both of us.
-------
cc: A. Aim
P. Angell
T. Devine
G. Emison
W. Pedersen
P. Wyckoff
S. Meiburg
-------
PN 165-84-01-20-013
jflV ST«,
£l \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
JAN 2 0 1334
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: PSD Increment Consumption Calculations
FROM: John R. O'Connor, Acting Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)
TO: Thomas W. Devine, Director
Air and Waste Management Division, Region IV
Your November 13, 1983, memorandum proposes that spatial and temporal
calculation of PSD increment consumption is the appropriate methodology
to be used in the ambient analysis for the Alumax PSD permit. This
methodology is used by Region IV as well as all States within Region IV
We also understand (memorandum from A. Smith to S. Meyers, dated May 3,
1983) that Region X is now implementing this method for all of their
PSD permit processing.
We agree that the spatial and temporal calculation of PSD increments
is appropriate not only for Alumax but for all cases where PSD increment
consumption calculations need to be made. This methodology is consistent
with the manner in which the total concentration is calculated for
comparison with ambient standards and is consistent with the method used
to calculate incremental concentrations for Level II emission trades
(memorandum from Sheldon Meyers to the Director, AWMD/AMD, Regions I-X,
dated February 17, 1983). This methodology is also consistent with our
interpretation of the Clean Air Act and definition of increment and
baseline concentrations in the PSD regulation.
If you have any questions concerning the use of this method for
tracking the use of PSD .increments or you are aware of any situations
where it results in a significant impact on a past decision, please
contact me or Dean Wilson of my staff.
Attachment
cc: Director, Air & Waste Management Division, Regions II, III, VI-VIII, X
Director, Air Management Division, Regions I, V, IX
Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
Richard Rhoads
Sara Schneeberg
Mike Trutna
Darryl Tyler
bcc: Regional Modeling Contact, Regions I-X
B. Hogarth
165
13-1
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV - ATLANTA, GEORGIA
DATE:
SUBJECT: Spatial and Temporal Calculation of Air Quality
Concentrations
FROM: Director, Air and Waste Management Division
TO: Dr. Bernie Steigerwald, Director (MD-10)
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
SUMMARY
The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control has asked Region IV to provide additional guidance on
the calculation of PSD increment consumption. Alumax Corporation,
a large industrial source located near Charleston, South Carolina,
is concerned that the state is using a procedure for calculating
PSD increment that is not consistent with the procedure used by
other states.
The procedure used by Region IV, as well as all states within
Region IV, has been to calculate the increment on a spatially
and temporally consistent basis. This approval is supported by
guidance from Sheldon Meyers in a February 17, 1983, memorandum
to all regions regarding calculation of increment consumption in
the "Emissions Trading Policy." It is also supported by EPA's
conditional approval of Florida's PSD rules now undergoing
final review by Headquarters.
Alumax believes that the increment need only be calculated on a
spatial basis and has pointed to a 1981 PSD permit for Alcoa
(now ARGO metals) granted by Region X. However, since the
issuance of that permit, Region X has followed the spatial and
temporal concept of increment consumption. Region X also has
written to OAQPS confirming that Region X will implement the
spatial and temporal procedure for PSD sources (May 3, 1983,
letter from Alexandra Smith to Sheldon Meyers).
165
13-2
-------
-2-
ACTION
Region IV will continue to insist that all increment consumption
be done on the basis of a spatially and temporally consistent
basis. Since South Carolina has asked that EPA provide written
guidance in this area, we believe it is now necessary for OAQPS
to provide the regional offices with a confirmation that the
spatial and temporal calculation of air quality impact applies
not only to the "Emissions Trading Policy," but also to PSD
as well as any other air quality related modeling permitting.
BACKGROUND
Telephone call from the South Carolina Bureau of Air Quality
Control, October 11, 1983.
^Thomas JW. Devine
Enclosures (3)
cc: Dean Wilson (MD-14)
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Rob Wilson
Region X, Air Programs
165
13-3
-------
PN 165-84-01-09 - 012
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
'WASHINGTON, D.C. 204SO
;?
JAN 9 !9*/
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Interpretation of the Policy on Compliance
with the Statutory Provisions of Part D
FROM: J6/depTTlA. * Cal
Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation
TO: David Howekamp
Air Division Director
EPA Region IX
I have received and reviewed your memorandum of January
6th. Your memorandum accurately reflects my understanding of
the November 2, 1983 policy on compliance with Part D require-
ments. In particular/ I agree with your interpretation of
those requirements pertaining to new source review rules and
discussed in greater length in Section IV.B. and Footnote 4 of
the policy. I also understand that the Office of General Counsel
concurs in this opinion.
Attachment
cc: Air Division Directors, Regions I, III, V
Air and Hazardous Materials Division Directors, Regions II,
IV, VI, VII, VIII, X
ohn O'Connor
Darryl Tyler
William PedersaJn
A
e
165
12-1
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. DC. 20460
January 6, 1984
SUBJECT: Clarification of Sanctions Policy
FROM: David P. Howekamp, Director
Air Management Division, Region 9
TO: Joseph A. Cannon, Assistant Administrator
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation (ANR-443)
Considerable controversy has recently arisen in
California regarding the interpretation of Footnote 4 of
the recent Sanctions Policy ("Compliance with the Statutory
Provisions of Part D of the Clean Air Act," November 2,
1983), which discusses rulemaking conditions for new source
review rules. Specifically, the first sentence of Footnote 4
has suggested to many readers that EPA will not impose
sanctions for any NSR deficiencies arising out of the
August 7, 1980 regulations. However, the third paragraph
read in concert with Section IV.B seems to imply that SIPs
with NSR conditions requiring conformity with the August 7,
1980 regulations must be revised according to the schedule
in the existing condition or the area would be subject to
the construction ban.
Most 1979 SIPs in California have NSR conditions due
on various dates in 1981, requiring submittal of NSR rules
consistent with the August 7, 1980 federal regulations.
Our interpretation of Footnote 4 with respect to the situation
in California is as follows:
o Imposition of the construction ban for failure to
fulfill a condition must be preceded by an EPA
finding that the unmet condition is germane
reflects a serious plan deficiency, and is long
overdue. When EPA makes this positive finding,
the 'Sanctions Policy requires that the SIP for
these areas be disapproved and that the Section
110(a)(2)(I) construction ban be imposed if the
NSR rule is not immediately revised to meet
fully the August 7, 1980 regulations. In the
case of CMA Exhibit A requirements, however, the
area may submit in lieu of rule revisions, an
enforceable commitment for full implementation
of the August 7, 1980 regulations.
o We believe that Footnote 4 further states that, for
example, a California NSR-conditioned area submitting
165
12-2
-------
-2-
an NSR rule meeting all August 7, 1980 requirements
except for the mandatory shutdown restrictions
(40 CFR 51.18(j){3)(ii)(c), would be subject to
the construction ban unless a commitment for the
interim implementation of the restriction was
submitted.
L. With respect to source definition, we understand
that EPA has suspended processing of new NSR
rules that would be inconsistent with the decision
in NRDC v. Gorsuch. Nevertheless, an NSR-conditioned
area may avoid the construction moratorium either
by adopting a dual definition, which EPA is
willing to approve during this period before the
Supreme Court decides the source definition
case, or by retaining the conditionally approved
source definition that meets either the January
16, 1979 or the October 14, 1981 federal source
definitions. In the second case, EPA would formally
extend that portion of the existing NSR condition
requiring the area to correct its source definition
until such time as the Supreme Court decides the
case.
In order to insure national consistency, I would appreciate
your confirmation that our interpretation is correct. A response
is urgently needed to provide unequivocal guidance to the State
and to local boards of supervisors currently updating their NSR
rules and facing potentially imminent sanctions arising
out of unsatisfied NSR conditions.
cc: W. Pedersen, A-133
D. Tyler, MD-15
R. Bauman, MD-15
M. Trutna, MD-15
E. Ginsburg, MD-15
165
12-3
-------
DATE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Dec 16 1980 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
SUBJECT Interpretation of "Significant Contribution"
PN-165-80-12-16-007
FROM
TO
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
Alexandra Smith, Director
Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Region X
We have received your memo of October 27, 1980 regarding the applicability
of PSD and the Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling when the proposed sources
(such as Northern Tier) would be locating in a PSD area and would cause or
contribute to a new or existing violation of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). You asked for clarification of existing policy in two areas.
This memo is intended to finalize the draft transmittals we have exchanged since
receiving your request.
Your first question asked whether EPA is using the concept of significant
contribution within the PSD regulations when assessing whether a proposed source,
locating in a PSD area, would "contribute to air pollution in violation of the
NAAQS." As discussed in the PSD workshops and the PSD workshop manual,
EPA continues to apply the significant impact concept using the values defined
in the 1978 preamble, 43 FR 26398, and in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix S.
If the proposed source or modification has no significant contribution to
the nonattainment problem, then the proposed project does not contribute
to this violation. Provided that it would not cause any new NAAQS
violations, such a source is not subject to the requirements of 40 CFR
51.18(k) or 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix S; the proposed project must, however,
sVH demonstrate that it will not cause or contribute to air pollution
in violation of the PSD increments. See 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2).
Your second question asked about the need for a significant impact by
the proposed source to occur simultaneously with the actual violation at a
particular nonattainment site. In general, a PSD source with significant
nev* emissions of the applicable pollutant which constructs in an area
adjacent to a nonattainment area should be presumed to contribute to the
violation if it would have a significant impact at any point in the non-
attainment area. However, if the proposed PSD source can demonstrate
that its new emissions would not have a significant impact at the point
of the violation when that violation is actually occurring, then the
proposed source would meet the requirements of 40 CFR 52.21(k)(l) provided
that it would not cause any new violations of the NAAWS. This answer
would apply whether the nonattainment area was newly discovered or was
formally designated nonattainment under §107. I should like to add
that, while such a demonstration is allowed, it will be extremely
difficult to prove an insignificant contribution, especially in the
short term.
Several examples will clarify this response. For instance, a proposed
new major stationary source may locate near a designated nonattainment area
for SO^. Suppose that the source owner has shown in his PSD application
EPA Form 1320-4 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
that his SOp impacts are significant only on the edge of the §107 area which
is demonstrated to actually be in attainment of standards. The source owner
also demonstrated that his impacts are not significant in the area of actual
violation of the SCL standards. A second scenario is the case where the
owner demonstrates that on the days when the 24-hour SCU standard violation
is actually occurring, the proposed source's 24-hour averaged impacts are
not significant. The owner has also shown that on other days when the air
quality meets the 24-hour SCL standard, his impacts are significant but do
not cause the air quality to exceed the 24-hour standard. The third example
is where the area was only nonattainment for the S02 annual standard. The
source owner shows his impacts on the nonattainment area are significant for
the 24-hour averaging time and insignificant on an annual basis. For all
three scenarios, the source owner has demonstrated that he will not contribute
to air pollution in violation of the NAAQS and has met the PSD review require-
ments of 40 CFR 52.21(k)(l) for S02, providing that he will not cause any new
violations. This source would also not be subject to nonattainment NSR
requirements under 40 CFR 51.18(k).
If you have further questions, please contact Mike Trutna (FTS 629-5291)
for more information.
cc: D. Hawkins
W. Barber
Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I - X
Director, Enforcement Division, Region I - X
NSR, PSD Regional Contact, Region I - X
-------
COPY
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APR 31991 PN 16S-8,-04-03-006
Mr. Russell E. Dickenson, Director
National Park Service
U.S. Department of Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
Dear Mr. Dickenson:
Thank you for your letter of February 26, 1981 outlining your concerns
over the limited time that the National Park Service (NPS) has to review
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit applications for
facilities which may impact Class I areas. Therein you suggested that
EPA reconfirm our policy to notify the NPS as early in the permitting
process as possible as outlined in the memo from Dave Hawkins to the
Regional Administrators dated March 19, 1979. You also suggested that
EPA amend 40 CFR Part 51 regulations for an approvable State PSD program
and 40 CFR Part 52 PSD regulations to require EPA and States to provide the
appropriate Federal Land Manager (FLM) with copies of relevant permit
applications on or shortly after the date of receipt of the permit
application.
I would first like to reaffirm the existing policy for timely EPA
transmittal of PSD permits affecting Class I areas as identified in the
Hawkins1 memo of March 19, 1979. By this letter, I am advising the Regions
that these permit applications should be sent to the appropriate FLM
NPS Regional Office, NPS Air Quality Division Permit Review Unit, and
all other appropriate personnel as described in your letter (see enclosure)
as soon as possible. Normally the EPA Region should transmit the permit
application within 10 days of receipt of such applications.
In response to your second suggestion, I do not believe that additional
rulemaking is necessary to ensure that your staff has notice of each PSD
source with potential Class I area impacts well before the preliminary
determinations. As noted above, EPA's policy is to provide copies of
the permit application to the applicable FLM contacts soon after its
receipt. This policy clearly covers those situations where EPA now
implements the PSD review.
Similarly, further rulemaking is not necessary to guarantee that
State PSD programs provide this same type of notification. 40 CFR
51.24(p)(l) now requires that each PSD State Implementation Plan (SIP)
is to provide that "the reviewing authority shall transmit to the
Administrator a copy of each permit application relating to a major
stationary source or major modification and provide notice to the Admin-
istrator of every action related to the consideration of such [application]."
-------
*
EPA would read the quoted language to mean that the reviewing authority
is to transmit a copy of each PSD permit application before it takes any
significant action on the application. Also, EPA would regard any
determination of the completeness of an application as a significant
action. As a result, EPA would interpret 40 CFR 51.24(p)(l) as requiring
each PSD SIP to require in turn that the reviewing authority must submit
each PSD application to EPA before it makes a completeness determination.
Of course, once EPA receives an application for a project that might
significantly affect a Class I area, it would provide you with notice of
it in accordance with this letter and the March 19, 1979 policy.
I hope that this response has been helpful. If I can be of any
further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Edward F. Tuerk
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise and Radiation
Enclosure
cc: Regional Administrator, Regions I - X
bcc: R. Smith (ANR-443)
I. Artico (A-107)
B. Steigerwald (MD-10)
R. Campbell (MD-10)
B. Hogarth (MD-15)
N. Mayer (MD-15)
P. Wyckoff (A-133)
CPDD:MTrutna:js:x5591:500NCMDurham:(MD-15):3-30-81
Control No. AX 116 Due Date: 3-19-81
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PN-16S-78-12-22-001
DATEOEC 22 1378.
SUBJECT: BACT Information for Coal-fired Power Plants
FROM: Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality PlannWZpSfoc? Standard's (MD-10)
TO: Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
Currently, there seems to be some confusion regarding how much
information is required in order to make BACT determinations for power
plants. Such confusion has created situations where one Region may have
conditionally approved a power plant's construction plans while another
would not. This memo is intended to provide an example of the type and
amount of information required from power plant applicants in order to
determine whether the source is applying BACT.
Under the new PSD regulations, BACT is necessarily decided on a
case-by-case basis after weighing relevant socio-economic costs and
environmental impacts. Consequently, information must now be submitted
by a PSD source describing its plans for control equipment in sufficient
detail so as to define the plant-specific BACT limit. As indicated in
separate guidance for making case-by-case BACT determinations, the
utility is also required to demonstrate that the proposed controls are
not less stringent than the applicable NSPS and that more stringent
control alternatives are not appropriate.
While the new PSD regulations require a reasonable degree of
assurance that the source can and will install BACT, they also permit
the Agency to establish a system for initial BACT review followed by a
more detailed control equipment analysis. While such a system does not
relieve the source from its responsibility to demonstrate to the Agency
that it is applying BACT, it does act to streamline the review process
and minimize the delays incurred by power plants which cannot supply
ultimate equipment designs and blueprints at the time that a permit to
construct is secured. This system will also provide the utility with
sufficient flexibility to take advantage of expected improvements in
control technology.
The key question then becomes how much information is necessary to
establish the BACT limit during the initial preconstruction review. In
general the information should include the preliminary engineering and
plant design criteria which will constitute the basis for soliciting and
reviewing vendor proposals for control equipment. In addition, an
example should be included which specifies how the preliminary design
criteria would be applied to the particular plant in question or to a
similar facility where the design has been completed and the exact
detailed specifications are available. Where a utility has not settled
on a single control system, it may submit alternatives for review.
-------
Attachment A is provided as an example of the type of information
which can be used both to define a specific BACT emission limit and to
assess whether the plant can be reasonably expected to meet this limit.
Power plants can be permitted when this initial information confirms
that BACT will be employed and that the applicable ambient constraints
will be met. This approach must be conditioned on the company's later
submission or final detailed engineering design specifications prior to
commencement of construction of the control equipment. While the final
engineering design and vendor specifications will vary from the preliminary
information, the utility must show it to be equivalent in performance
and reliability established as BACT in the initial determination. These
variations may include basic changes in equipment design such as a shift
from an ESP to a baghouse, a change from a lime/limestone scrubber to a
regenerable scrubbing system or a change in the design approach to
insuring reliability.
All of the information outlined in Attachment A may not be available
and is not required in all instances. The reviewing authority should
seek only those data elements which are necessary to support air engineering
judgment that the proposed system will perform reliably at the specified
emission rates.
Since the submission of the final engineering design specifications
is a condition of the permit, this would not constitute a reopening of
the permit process, and I do not see the need for an opportunity for
public comment on this material. However, I do recommend that the
approval notice contain the location and approximate time period in
which this final design information would be available.
The above guidance represents some change for several Regions.
Therefore, I am requesting that during 1979 you submit to OAQPS your
BACT determinations for S02 from coal-fired power plants (together with
the applicable BACT information identified in Attachment A) for review
prior to your preliminary determination. If some of your States are
making these BACT determinations, I ask that you send us the appropriate
BACT information before they make their final determination. The above
information should be sent to Mike Trutna (629-5497) who will coordinate
OAQPS's activities regarding these determinations in the near future.
Suggestions on additions or modifications to this guidance also should
be addressed to Mr. Trutna.
Attachments
cc: Director, Enforcement Divisions, Region I-X
D. Hawkins
R. Rhoads
M. James
E. Reich
E. Tuerk
-------
PRELIMINARY BACT INFORMATION*
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
l.a. Name of Power Plant and Parent Company
b. Name, address, phone no. of company contact
2. Location of Source
a. City b. State
B. STEAM GENERATOR DATA
1. Type of boiler (manufacturer,fiif known)
2. Size of boiler (heat input 10 Btu/hr)
C. FUEL DATA
Provide long term averages and ranges for specified short term and
long term averaging periods for the following (1-6):
1. Primary fuel (coal or oil)
2. Start up fuel
3. Alternate fuels
4. Brief description of what fuels will be fired including
estimated percentage heat input
5. Solid fuel data (all solid fuels to be fired)
a. Ultimate analysis (as burned) % by weight sulfur
also include chlorine, ash, moisture and gross heating
value (Btu/lb)
b. Estimated resistivity of particulate as a function of gas
temperature (if known)
c. Estimated ash analysis (% by weight - dry)
6. Particle size analysis for ash
7. Liquid fuel'data (all liquid fuels)
a. Type and grade
b. Density (Ib/gaTlon)
c. Gross heating value (Btu/gallon)
d. Ash content (percent by weight)
e. Sulfur content (percent by weight)
f. Nitrogen content (percent by weight)
g. Moisture (percent by weight)
h. Will additives by used? If so, furnish data on chemical
composition and approximate quantitites (percentage of
total fuel to be used).
8. Is a contract signed for the coal? If no contract is signed,
we would need the information for questions 1-6 for all coals
that are being contemplated for usage and percentage usage where
coals are to be blended.
*Note that not all information may be available in all cases. Information
requirements should be adjusted as appropriate to fit the circumstances
of the applicant at time of permit application.
-------
D. PRECIPITATOR DATA
Part I - Preliminary design or design criteria
1. Design emission rate (Ibs/mBTU) for participate matter (before
and after proposed controls)
2. Total gas flow from steam generator at full load and at ESP
operating temperature (ACFM)
3. ESP operating temperature (±F) range
4. Number of separate ESP modules under consideration
5. Approximate specific collection area (SPA)
6. Number of separate electrical sections for each module under
consideration.
7. Type of power control and instrumentation
8. Estimated linear velocity of gas through each module at full
load (actual feet/sec) or range of acceptable velocities
9. Briefly describe techniques used to ensure uniform linear
velocity within ESP.
10. Nature and terms of performance guarantee
11. Briefly describe system used to remove and convey collected
ash to final disposal.
Part II - Reference plant example
1. General flow diagram for the precipitator
2. Provide design criteria or preliminary engineering data for the
major elements of'the ESP for the particular plant under
consideration or a similar plant where the major elements have
been designed and detailed specification are available.
-------
E. BAGHOUSE DATA
Part I - Preliminary design or design criteria
1. Design emission rate (Ib/mmBtu) for participate matter (before
and after proposed controls)
2. Estimated total gas flow from steam generator at full load and
at baghouse operation temperature (ACFM)
3. Baghouse operation temperature (±F) range
4. Number of separate baghouses
5. Number of isolated compartments per baghouse
6. Design criteria for air to cloth ratio or range of acceptable
ratios (Cloth area divided by total ACFM)
7. Cloth description
8. Type of bag cleaning under consideration and subsequent cleaning
controls
9. Strategy for detecting and replacing faulty bags
10. Description of ash handling and disposal system
11. Nature and terms of performance guarantee
-------
Part II - Reference plant example
1. General flow diagram for the baghouse
2. Provide design criteria or preliminary engineering data for the
major elements of the baghouse for the particular plant under
consideration or a similar plant where the above elements have
been designed and detailed specifications are available.
F. SULFUR DIOXIDE SCRUBBER DATA
Part I - Preliminary design or design criteria
1. Design emission rate (Ib/mm Btu) of S02 (before and after
proposed controls)
2. Design data or criteria for the scrubber modules to include:
- scrubber type (TCS, spray tower, etc.)
- absorbent type
- possible scrubber liquor additives (e.g., mg)
- prescrubber design criteria, or acceptable ranges for 1/g,
inlet and outlet chloride, etc.
- design criteria for acceptable ranges for inlet and oulet
gas flow and temperature and volume percent H^O, 02» and SOo
- specific design criteria or acceptable ranges for Tiquid/gas
ratio
- estimated scrubber gas velocity
- design criteria or acceptable range for scrubber inlet and
outlet pH
- design criteria or acceptable range of pressure drop across
the scrubber (inches of HpO)
3. For turbulent contact absorber (TCA) also supply:
- design criteria or acceptable ranges for diameter of spheres
- design criteria or acceptable ranges for the height of
sphere in TCA
- design criteria or acceptable ranges for number of grids or
screens in TCA
4. Indicate total number of scrubber modules and number of spare
modules during maximum boiler loading.
5. What special precautions will be taken with module internals
and other components (pumps, mist eliminators, fans, etc.) to
ensure that corrosion, scaling, and plugging does not cause failure
of the systemp
6. What special precautions will be taken with the control
systems, e.g., spare probes, probe site location, probe sheaths,
backup instrumentation to ensure that failure will not lead to
excess emissions or fouling of components via scaling?
-------
7. How will other key variables, such as process stochiometry,
liquid to gas ratios (1/g), etc., be monitored to ensure
good operations?
8. Indicate which key components of the scrubber will be spared,
e.g., pumps, fans, nozzles, etc.
9. Location and mechanism of reheat, auxiliary fuel requirements,
and percentage of exhaust gas reheated. If reheat will not be
performed, indicate what measures are being taken to eliminate
stack corrosion or provide data to verify that stack corrosion
will not be a problem area.
10. Outline routine maintenance and inspection procedures for the
scrubber system hardware to ensure continuous and reliable
scrubber performance.
11. Describe the general design standard for the material to be used
and type of mist eliminator system and describe the techniques
under consideration to guarantee uniform gas distribution across
the mist eliminator and to the scrubber modules.
12. Nature and terms of performance guarantees
Part II - Reference plant example
1. General flow diagram of the scrubber system including mix tanks
prequench section, scrubber modules, mist eliminator and reheat.
General design standards for materials to be used to construct
above elements.
2. Provide design criteria for the major scrubber and system
components (e.g., pumps, tanks, alkali handling systems, etc.)
for the particular plant under consideration or a similar
plant where the above items have been already designed and
detailed specifications are available.
G. Other Sulfur control methods*
I. Description of control method
II. Amount of sulfur removal credit
*These "other sulfur control methods" are those designed to augment S02
scrubbers in order to achieve a given rate of SOo removal. An example
of such a method would be coal cleaning.
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 167
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 167
* PN167-83-12-14-001
GUIDANCE ON ENFORCEMENT OF PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT
-------
PN 167-83-12-14-001
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
DEC 141033
MEMORANDUM
Guidance On Enforcement of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Requirements Undexv the Clean Air Act
Michael S. Alushin fl. /ff- $UVVt+-L-
Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air
SUBJECT
FROM
Edward E. Reich, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division'
TO: Regional Counsels
Regions I-X
Directors, Air Management Divisions
Regions I, V and IX
Directors, Air and Waste Management Divisions
Regions II-IV, VI-VIII, and X
This guidance discusses enforcement of Part C of Title I of
the Clean Air Act, dealing with the prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) of the ambient air quality. The guidance
explains the use of Section 167 of the Clean Air Act as an
enforcement tool and provides assistance in choosing between
§167 and the alternatives available for enforcing against PSD
violations. Violations of Part C include construction or
operation of a PSD source (as defined under the Act and the PSD
regulations) without a permit, construction or operation with an
invalid permit, and construction or operation in a manner not
consistent with a validly issued permit.
We believe that §167 of the Act provides EPA with a
significant enforcement mechanism in addition to §113, the
Agency's main enforcement tool, but it does not preclude resort
to any remedies available under §§113 or 120. Section 167 should
be used in situations where a source is constructing or operating
without a valid permit or in violation of a valid permit and
EPA1s main interest is a quick imposition of injunctive relief to
stop the violation. Where time is not of the essence and/or the
Agency wishes to collect penalties in addition to exacting injunc-
tive relief, §§113 or 120 provide more appropriate remedies.
-------
-2-
Thus, depending upon the circumstances of a particular case, EPA
may commence one or more of the following actions against a
source that is in violation of PSD requirements:
(a) Issue an order or seek injunctive relief under
§167 to prevent the source from constructing or
operating in violation of the PSD requirements;
(b) Issue an order to comply under §113(a);
(c) Seek civil remedies under §113(b);
(d) Seek criminal penalties under §113(c);
(e) Assess and collect noncompliance penalties under
§120.
I. Analysis of Section 167
Section 167 of the Clean Air Act provides:
The Administrator shall, and a State may, take such
measures, including issuance of an order, or seeking
injunctive relief, as necessary to prevent the
construction of a major emitting facility which does
not conform to the requirements of this part, or which
is 'proposed to be constructed in any area included in
the list promulgated pursuant to paragraph (1)(D) or
(E) of subsection (d) of Section 107 of this Act and
which is not subject to an implementation plan which
meets the requirements of this part.
42 U.S.C. §7477(1978)
Depending upon whether or not EPA has approved a State's
Part C (PSD) State Implementation Plan (SIP) provisions under
Section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act or delegated the PSD
program to the State, Section 167 creates two separate and
distinct enforcement obligations for EPA. This is consistent
with EPA1s policy of allowing the States primacy where they have
the main responsibility for a program. In those States that
have not been delegated the PSD program or do not have approved
SIP PSD provisions as required by §161 (PSD requirements for
SIPs), EPA has the authority to regulate the construction of
all major emitting sources that are subject to PSD review under
the Act. Any person wishing to construct such a source in one
of those States will be required by §165 (preconstruction require-
ments) to obtain a PSD permit from EPA. If the proposed source
would violate the provisions of the PSD regulations, EPA must
deny the permit. If EPA issues a permit, the Agency will be
-------
-3-
responsible for initiating appropriate proceedings should the
source subsequently violate any permit provisions. Likewise, the
Agency is responsible for taking enforcement action against a
source which commences construction without first obtaining a PSD
permit.
Once its PSD SIP provisions have been approved or delegated,
pursuant to §110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.24, the State, rather than
EPA, assumes primary responsibility for administering the PSD
program. The Agency does not completely relinquish its obli-
gations, however. Rather, it assumes an oversight function.
PSD permits issued by the State remain federally enforceable.
40 CFR §§52.02(d), 52.21(r), and 52.23. If the State takes
appropriate enforcement action, it is unnecessary for EPA to
initiate enforcement proceedings. If the State fails to take
appropriate action, however, Section 167 provides that EPA must
take Measures adequate to prevent the construction of the noncom-
plying source. EPA can take such action at any time the Agency
deems it necessary. The Agency is not forestalled by any action
initiated by the State from simultaneously or subsequently taking
action against a source that already had commenced construction
or operation. Thus, EPA retains PSD enforcement authority and,
where appropriate, is expected to initiate PSD enforcement pro-
ceedings both before and after the PSD SIP revisions have been
approved.^/
Additionally, §167 requires EPA to take action directly
against 'a source found being constructed or operating pursuant
to a PSD permit that conflicts with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act, implementing regulations, or approved SIP require-
ments. This provision gives the'Administrator authority similar
to that possessed under §113(a)(5) and (b)(5) to prevent illegal
construction or operation of new sources in nonattainment areas.
Senator Muskie noted this continuing Federal enforcement
obligation. He stated: "[o]nce the State adopts a permit
process in compliance with this provision, the Environmental
Protection Agency role is to seek injunctive or other judicial
relief to assure compliance with the law." 123 Cong. Rec. S
9169 (daily ed. June 8, 1977) (remarks of Senator Muskie).
Senator Muskie*s reference to "injunctive or other judicial
relief" should not be construed as precluding resort to an
administrative order mechanism. Such an interpretation would
conflict with the clear wording of §167. Rather, we believe
that Senator Muskie's reference to "other judicial relief"
provides clear support for the proposition that EPA may resort
to the civil and criminal penalties provisions of §113(b) and
(c).
-------
-4-
Under Delegation Number 7-38, the Administrator has
delegated authority to issue §167 administrative orders to the
Regional Administrators and to the Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Regional Administrators will, in most
instances, be the parties to issue §167 orders and, pursuant to
Delegation No 7-38, must consult with the Associate Enforcement
Counsel for Air and the Director of the Stationary Source
Compliance Division before issuing such orders. The Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation may issue §167 orders in
multi-Regional cases or cases of national significance. In
addition, the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation must
consult with the Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air and must
notify any affected Regional Administrators or their designees
before issuing such orders.
II. Enforcement Actions Under §167 and §113(b)
A. Construction Without a PSD Permit
Construction Not Consistent with a Validly Issued Permit
1. Pre-Operation Remedies
Section 167 will provide a particularly effective enforcement
tool against an owner or operator that has commenced construction
without having obtained a PSD permit or is constructing in a
manner not consistent with a validly issued permit. In this
situation, EPA should take action to halt construction of the
source immediately. This may be accomplished most quickly under
§167 by means of an adminstrative order or by obtaining judicially
imposed injuctive relie'f.
When using §167, EPA should normally first issue an
administrative order. The Agency should then file a civil
action if a violating source does not immediately comply with
the order. In cases where EPA has good reason to believe that
the order would not be obeyed, however, we should file a civil
action for injunctive relief immediately, without first issuing
an order.
In appropriate instances, EPA may issue an order or file a
complaint under §167 while proceeding concurrently, through §§113
or 120 actions, to collect civil and/or noncompliance penalties.
Section 167 gives the Administrator the authority to take
immediate action without being constricted by the procedural
limitations set forth in §113. In all cases where possible,
however, EPA should issue the source a notice of violation (NOV),
with a copy being sent to the appropriate State agency. The NOV
does not have to be issued concurrently with a §167 order, but
-------
-5-
the §167 order should be followed up as soon as practical with
the NOV. This notice should explain the full range of possible
EPA enforcement actions. Even if circumstances require a §167
court filing before meeting NOV procedural requirements, prompt
issuance of the NOV will allow EPA to take action under §113 at
a later date if the Agency decides to do so.
In many instances, EPA learns that a source is constructing
without a PSD permit or in violation of a validly issued permit
early enough in the source's construction schedule to allow the
agency time to act solely under $113. In these cases, the Agency
may choose to commence a civil action under §113 for injunctive
relief and/or monetary penalties instead of acting under §167
where remedies are limited to injunctive relief.
Civil penalties are available against a source for violations
even prior to the time it has commenced operation. One type of
case occurs when a source is being constructed in violation of
the terms of its PSD permit. For example, if the owner delays
in meeting a schedule to install control equipment or seeks to
install equipment that will not meet the emission limits in the
PSD permit, the Agency should take action to require the necessary
injunctive relief and to recover monetary penalties. Penalties
are appropriate even if no pollutants actually have been emitted
because the PSD permit is issued pursuant to the SIP, and thus a
requirement of the SIP has been violated. EPA should seek
penalties for each day that the source is in violation of PSD
permit requirements, commencing on the date on which the source
began to install the non-conforming equipment, or August 7,
1977, whichever is later, and continuing until the source satisfies
the compliance schedule specified in a judgment or in a consent
decree. *J
Another type of case arises when a source is being constructed
without a permit. Here, also, injunctive relief and penalties
are appropriate. The penalty period begins with the date that
construction began. "Construction" for the purpose of this
£/ Even if the source has derived no economic benefit by
installing the nonconforming equipment, EPA still should
seek penalties under §113(b). The Penalty Policy provides
for other factors which guide the choice of penalty figures.
In addition, EPA has promulgated a specific guideline for
permit violation penalty settlements. That guideline is
contained in Appendix I to this guidance. The guideline was
issued on February 1, 1981, by Jeffrey Miller, then Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement. Appendix I updates the 1981
guideline to reflect organizational changes, and tt> elaborate
upon some of the examples.
-------
-6-
determination is defined as activity beyond that permitted under
the policy enunciated in the December 18, 1978 memorandum from
Ed Reich to the Regional Offices entitled, "Interpretation of
'Constructed1 as it Applies to Activities Undertaken Prior to
Issuance of a PSD Permit." (Copy attached as Appendix II.) The
penalty period ends when the permit is granted or is scheduled
by EPA to be granted. Even if the source is put on a compliance
schedule in a consent decree before then it should not be allowed
to enjoy the economic advantage of its violation of PSD requirements
It is important to note that even if construction is halted,
the violation continues. Naturally, though, priority should be
given to cases where injunctive action is required. Equally
important, the Agency should not delay issuance of PSD permits
for sources of which illegal construction has begun. In such a
case, the penalty period is dependent on the speed of EPA's own
action. For this reason, the Permit Penalty Policy states that
the Agency may consider mitigation of the calculated civil penalty
if a source ceases construction within a reasonable time after
being notified of the violation and does not resume construction
until a valid permit is issued.
2. Post-Operation Remedies
Civil actions under §113(b) will constitute the primary
enforcement mechanism against sources that have already commenced
operation without obtaining a PSD permit or in violation of a PSD
permit.' However, in cases where expeditious action is necessary,
orders issued pursuant to §167 are available to achieve immediate
cessation of operation. They should only be used for operating
sources which have failed to get a permit or are committing a
violation so egregious that they must be shut down immediately
(e.g., failure to install the control equipment or start-up
prior to installation of control equipment or where operation
causes an increment to be exceeded). Even in these instances,
the action under §167 should be accompanied by a §113 action to
collect penalties.
When using §167, EPA should normally first issue an
administrative order. The Agency should then file a civil action
if a violating source does not immediately comply with the order.
In cases where EPA has good reason to believe that the order would
not be obeyed, however, we should file a civil action for injunctive
relief immediately, without first issuing an order.
We believe that a PSD source which is not known to be in
violation can be granted up to 180 days after start-up in which
to demonstrate compliance with all applicable emission limitations.
This provides an opportunity for the owner or operator to make
necessary modifications or correct minor equipment defects that
are not apparent prior to start-up. The expectation is that the
-------
-7-
source will be in compliance as soon as possible, and the decision
as to how much time is necessary for fine tuning is to be made on
a case by case basis. (The period of 180 days is analogous to
the time allowed a source to demonstrate compliance after start-
up under the New Source Performance Standard regulations, 40
C.F.R. §60.8.) During the 180-day period, a source should be
required, to the extent practicable, to maintain and operate the
source including the associated air pollution control equipment
in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practice.
B. Construction With an Invalid Permit
EPA will also be able to utilize the provisions of §167 to
prevent a source from constructing with a State-issued permit
that EPA feels is invalid. There are basically two types of
situations involving construction with an invalid permit. In the
most common situation, the source can be expected to obtain a
valid permit quickly. In other circumstances, however, it cannot
be expected that a valid permit can issue soon. Before deciding
on a course of action to be taken with a source constructing
pursuant to an invalid permit, an EPA Regional Office needs to
make a probability assessment as to the likelihood that a source
will be able to obtain a valid permit quickly. For the purposes
of allowing construction pursuant to an invalid permit, the
period of thirty (30) days (the period analogous to that allowed
under a Section 113(a) order) should be considered to be "quickly."
In*the situation where EPA believes a valid permit will
issue quickly, the procedures to be followed should be similar
to those used under §113(a)(5) to prevent the construction of
new sources in nonattainment areas. Sources should be issued
an order, specifying precisely the nature of the defect in the
permit, and given 30 days in which to obtain a valid permit
while they proceed with construction. Issuance of an immediate
cease construction order, while available, usually would be an
unnecessary sanction. A source that has obtained a PSD permit,
even though invalid, has presumably undergone some preconstruction
review. Moreover, since it is the State, rather than the source
itself, that is primarily at fault, immediate sanctions might be
inappropriate.
In some situations, however, such as those where EPA
believes that a source cannot be operated without violating an
increment or where construction will foreclose EPA's options in
terms of what BACT requirements will apply to a source, an
immediate cease construction order under $167 should be issued
and construction should not be allowed to commence or continue
until a valid permit is issued.
-------
-8-
In cases against sources constructing pursuant to an invalid
permit, the error is presumed to have been the State's. Therefore,
even though construction may be halted, no penalty is appropriate
unless the source is somehow at fault or the source does not
cooperate after the discovery of the violation. For no-penalty
actions, §167 is an effective enforcement tool.
C. Consent Decrees
In civil actions filed under both §167 and §113, against pre-
operational as well as post-operational sources, a likely outcome
of the actions will be consent decrees. Allowing a violating
source to continue construction or commence operation under the
provisions of a consent decree lies within the discretion of the
court, though the court's decision can be affected, of course,
by the recommendation of EPA and the Department of Justice. The
terms EPA should seek in actions under both §167 and §113 will
vary according to the nature of the violation and the time that
will be required to correct it.
There are two types of situations in which consent decrees
would be appropriate. The first occurs when the source's viola-
tion causes or contributes to levels of pollution that exceed
those allowed under §163 of the Act (which establishes the PSD
increments). The other situation arises when the source's vio-
lation does not cause or contribute to increased -levels of
pollution beyond those allowed by §163.
When the pollution increments established by §163 would be
or are being exceeded, EPA should immediately seek injunctive
relief to prevent the source from starting up or continuing in
violation of its emission limitations. EPA should determine
the nature of the violation and the amount of time that will be
needed to correct it. A source should not be permitted to
commence or continue operation until it is in compliance through
enforceable emission limitations. To allow commencement or
continuation of operation out of compliance would defeat the
intent of the Act by sanctioning levels of pollution in the PSD
area greater than those established by Congress as the maximum
allowable limits.
If the source is exceeding or will exceed its own emission
limitation but the increment set forth in §163 is not being or
will not be exceeded, EPA has more flexibility in devising a
consent decree. While it need not adhere to a strict rule of no
start-up until a source is in compliance, the Agency still must
take all necessary action to ensure that corrections are made as
quickly as possible and must not allow a source to commence
operation unless start-up is pursuant to a consent decree.
-------
-9-
The actual terms of a consent decree will vary from case to
case. The only provisions that must be contained in every decree
are a schedule that requires compliance as expeditiously as
practicable, monitoring and reporting procedures, and a stipulated
contempt fine provision. These fines should be established at a
level sufficiently high to ensure compliance with the terms of
the decree. (More detailed guidance on provisions to be included
in consent decrees is contained in the October 19, 1983 memorandum
from Courtney Price, GM-16.)
III. Additional Enforcement Remedies
A. Criminal Penalties Under $113(c)
Section 113(c) is available, where appropriate, against all
types of PSD violations, both pre- and post-operation.
Section 113(c) authorizes the Administrator to commence a
criminal action to seek monetary penalties and/or imprisonment
for knowing violations of applicable regulations and EPA orders.
The key requirement is that the Administrator must be able to
demonstrate that the violation was "knowing."
A distinction should be drawn between a source that refuses
to comply with applicable requirements and one that merely has
failed to comply. Refusal to meet any increments of progress of
the final compliance date of an administrative order or to meet
consent decree or permit requirements should be considered for
criminal-referral to DOJ. If the source merely is late in com-
plying, however, criminal penalties would not generally be
appropriate. Additionally, it is our belief that resort to
criminal penalties does not preclude the initiation of concurrent
or subsequent civil proceedings for monetary penalties and/or
injunctive relief. Questions concerning the possibility of
criminal action should be referred to Peter Beeson, Associate
Enforcement Counsel for Criminal Enforcement (FTS 382-4543).
B. Noncompliance Penalties Under §120
By the terms of §120, noncompliance penalties can be
assessed whenever a source is in violation of an emission limi-
tation, emission standard, or compliance schedule under an
applicable SIP. These penalties are based upon the economic
benefit the source has derived from noncompliance. Section 120
penalties can be assessed regardless of whether civil and/or
criminal sanctions available under §113 are also sought. More
discussion of the use of noncompliance penalties appears in
regulations published July 28, 1980 (45 FR 50086).
If you have a question about this guidance, please call Judy
Katz of the Air Enforcement Division (382-2843) if it is a legal
question or Rich Biondi of the Stationary Source Compliance
Division (382-2831) if it is a technical question.
-------
APPENDIX I
Penalty Policy for Violations of Certain Clean Air Act
Permit Requirements for the Construction and/or
Modification of Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution
I. Introduction
EPA's existing Civil Penalty Policy, dated July 8, 1980,
applies Inter alia, to stationary sources of air pollution which
violate requirements enforceable under Section 113 of the Clean
Air Act when such violations are the result of a failure to make
capital expenditures and/or failure to employ operation and
maintenance procedures which are necssary to achieve initial
compliance. The Civil Penalty Policy does not, however, -speci-
fically address violations of permit requirements related to the
construction or modification of major stationary sources under
the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program and
the nonattainment area new source review program (including the
Offset Interpretative Ruling and Section 173;.
This document outlines a penalty policy which applies to
certain permit-related violations of the Clean Air Act and is
intended to establish a method of calculating a minimum settle-
ment amount for such violations. The "Permit Penalty Policy"
does not replace or limit the present Civil Penalty Policy in
any way, but has been developed to deal with a subject area not
covered by the existing policy. As illustrated by the following
examples, the failure of a source to satisfy a new source requir-
ement may result in one violation subject to this Permit Penalty
Policy, and a second violation subject to the Civil Penalty
Policy.
It is important to note that this Permit Penalty Policy is
intended to provide guidance on determining a minumum civil
penalty settlement figure, as opposed to penalty requests in
complaints. As a general rule, civil complaints alleging Clean
Air Act violations, including permit-related violations, should
always request the statutory maximum penalty of $25,000 per day
of violation. In addition, the policy is not intended to suggest
that civil penalties are the only, or even the primary, remedy
where a source is in violation of Clean Air Act requirements. In
such cases, a claim for civil penalties is an adjunct to seeking
appropriate injunctive relief. A claim for costs should also be
considered.
It is also important to note that the policy outlined in
this document, like the Civil Penalty Policy, is used to set a
minimum settlement figure. Therefore, the penalty actually
negotiated for can always be higher than the figure derived
through uq£ of this Permit Penalty Policy.
-------
-2-
II. The Permit Penalty Policy
The Permit Penalty Policy covers cases involving sources
which begin construction or operation without first obtaining
the required PSD permit, as well as those which construct or
operate in violation of such valid permits. Construction pro-
ceeding in compliance with an invalid permit is considered to
be, in the context of this penalty policy, construction without
a permit. A primary motivation behind the Permit Penalty Policy
has been the recognition that economic savings can be difficult
to quantify when the violation involves permit requirements.
The Permit Penalty Policy has been designed to provide a method
for determining a penalty amount which will be sufficient to
deter illegal construction or other permit violations, and yet
not be so high as to be unreasonable or unrealistic.
The policy is built around use of a matrix for calculation
of the minimum settlement amount. Construction in the absence of
a permit or in violation of a permit has been assigned a scale of
dollar values. The matrix also provides for the assessment of an
additional penalty for certain specified violations of substantive
permit pre-conditions or requirements. The appropriate dollar
value for a violation is dependent on an estimate of the total
cost of air pollution control at those facilities of the source
for which the permit is required.1/ P)is value is then multiplied
by the number of months of violation.*/ When there are multiple
permit-related violations, a penalty Tigure is calculated for
each violation and the individual penalty figures are added
together to produce one minimum settlement figure. In those cases
where a source subject to a valid permit violates only the require-
ments of Section 173(1) and/or Section 173(3) (requirements for
I/ "Total cost of air pollution control" should include, where
relevant, pollution control equipment costs, design costs,
operation and maintenance costs, differential cost of complying
fuel v. noncomplying fuel, and other costs pertaining to adequate
control of the new source. Total cost is to be determined by
examination of what would have been required as BACT (for a PSD
violation) or LAER (in the case of an Offset Policy or Part D
violation). When construction is done in phases, the operative
amount is the total cost of air pollution controls for the entire
project.
£/ Month-by-month accrual of penalties was selected for purposes
of convenience and for consistency with the Civil Penalty Policy.
Any fraction of a month in violation is counted as a full month
of violation unless circumstances present a case for mitigation
of this rule.
-------
-3-
construction permits in nonactainment areas) or the corresponding
requirements under the Offset Policy, the appropriate penalty
amount is determined by reference only to the matrix column(s)
citing the violation(s).
The sum produced through use of the matrix represents the
minimum amount for which a case normally can be settled. However,
it is recognized that equitable considerations, including but not
limited to recalcitrance, degree of environmental harm^/ and
likelihood of success should the case be filed, may malce an
increase or decrease in the matrix figure appropriate. Similarly,
a source owner who agrees to make approved expenditures for
pollution control above and beyond expenditures made to comply
with all existing legal requirements may reduce the amount of
the penalty owed. Any such additional expenditures designed as
credits to satisfy or offset civil penalties will be evaluated
in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Penalty Policy.
Regional Offices wishing to modify the figure indicated by the
matrix in consideration of the total equities presented by a
case or to reduce the penalty because of a credit should do so
in accordance with the procedures discussed in Section III of
this Policy.
It is recognized that there may also be cases where the
economic value of a violation covered by this policy is reasonably
quantifiable. . Where the quantifiable economic savings figure
exceeds the penalty amount established by the attached matrix,
the Regional Office should negotiate for the higher calculated
econcomic savings figure rather than the matrix figure.
The period of civil penalty liability will, of course, depend
upon the nature and circumstances of the violation. For example,
if a source has begun actual construction without a required
permit or under an invalid permit, the penalty period begins on
the date the source began construction and continues either until
the source obtains a valid permit or notifies the State or EPA
that it has permanently ceased construction and the project has
been abandoned, fy A temporary cessation in construction does not
£ E.g., significant consumption of a PSD increment by a source
Fhat has not received a permit, violation of a Class I increment
or serious aggravation of a nonattainment problem.
^/ The period of liability is not to be confused with the period
of continuing violation for Section 113 notice of violation (NOV)
purposes. A source which constructs without a valid permit is in
continuing violation of the Clean Air Act for NOV purposes until
it receives a valid permit or it dismantles the new construction.
-------
-4-
• •
toll the running of the penalty period. The Agency may, however,
consider mitigation of the calculated civil penalty if a source
ceases construction within a reasonable time after being notified
of the violation and does not resume construction until a valid
permit is issued. If a source violates a permit condition, the
period of penalty liability for purposes of calculating a settle-
ment figure begins on the first date the violation can be docu-
mented and will cease when the violation is corrected.
III. Procedure
Authority to approve minimum settlement figures calculated
for cases covered by this Permit Penalty Policy rests with the
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring.
(Delegation 7-22-C) The Assistant Administrator has, in practice,
called upon the Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air to review
settlement figures. Therefore, an indication of the minimum
settlement figure, including an explanation of the derivation
of the figure obtained from the matrix and any modification of
that figure based upon subjective factors, should either be
included in the litigation report covering the facility or should
be forwarded by memorandum to the Associate Enforcement Counsel
for Air.
If a case involves violations that are within the existing
Civil Penalty Policy's coverage, as well as a permit-related
violation, the Permit Penalty Policy should be used to find the
minimum settlement figure for the permit violation(s) and the
Civil Penalty Policy should be used to establish a penalty amount
for the other violation(s). These two figures should be added
together to produce an appropriate overall settlement amount.
-------
PERMIT PENALTY POLICY MATRIX
MINIMUM SETTLEMENT PENALTIES
(per month of violation)
TOTAL COST OF AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL
FOR NEW OR MODIFIED
SOURCE ($ THOUSANDS)
less than 50
50-150
150-500
500-1,500
1,500-5,000
5,000-15,000
15,000-50,000
over 50,000
PSD SOURCES
CONSTRUCTION OR
OPERATION WITHOUT
A PERMIT OR IN
VIOLATION OF A
VALID PERMIT
$ 2,000
4,000
7,000
11,000
16,000
22,000
29,000
37,000
INCREMENT
EXCEEDED
$ 7,000
11,000
16,000
22,000
29,000
37,000
46,000
56,000
PART D OR OFFSET INTERPRETATIVE RULING SOURCES
TOTAL COST OF AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL
FOR NEW OR MODIFIED
SOURCE ($ THOUSANDS)
less than 50
50-150
150-500
500-1,500
1,500-5000
5000-15,000
15,000-50,000
over 50,000
CONSTRUCTION
OR OPERATION
WITHOUT A
PERMIT OR
IN VIOLATION
OF A VALID
PERMIT
$ 2,000
5,000
9,000
14,000
20,000
27,000
" 35,000
44,000
FAILURE TO
SATISFY
§173(1) OR
OBTAIN
OFFSETS
$ 9,000
14,000
20,000
27,000
35,000
44,000
54,000
65,000
VIOLATION OF
SECTION 173(3)
OR CONDITION 2
$ 5,000
9,000
14,000
20,000
27,000
35,000
44,000
54,000
(Add numbers when multiple categories apply)
-------
EXAMPLE CASES
The following hypothetical cases illustrate how the matrix is
used to continue to calculate a minimum settlement figue.
PSD Source
On July 1, 1980, an existing major source began actual
construction of a modification to its plywood manufacturing plant.
The modification will, result in a significant net emission
increase of particulate mater. The source had not obtained or
filed for a PSD permit as of the date actual construction began.
On July 2, 1980, EPA investigators discovered the construction
during a routine inspection of the plywood plant. The EPA Regional
Office determined that the modification was subject to PSD review
and issued a Notice of Violation on August I/ 1980. The NOV •
cited the PSD regulations and outlined possible enforcement
alternatives.
The source received the NOV on August 5, 1980, and contacted
the Regional Office on August 10, 1980. On August 30, 1980, the
Region and the source held a, conference at which the source stated
that it had not been aware of the need for PSD review and permitting
prior to construction. The source also stated that it would file
an application for review but that it would not cease construction
during the review process.
On October 1, 1980, the source filed a PSD application.
During the review process the Regio.n discovered that the source*
had no plans to install pollution control devices. The Region
also determined that without BACT, the modification's particulate
emissions would result in an exceedance of the particulate matter
increment in the source's area of impact. The source, when
informed of the BACT problem, indicated it ;would install the
necessary controls.
However, throughout the review process the source continued
construction of the modification. On December 1, 1980, the source
began operation of the modified source without the required permit
and without controls.
On January 15, 1981, the source was issued a PSD permit. On
February 28, 1981, the source ceased operation of the plywood
plant to install the pollution control equipment called for in
the PSD permit. The source resumed operation on March 15, 1981,
in a manner consistent with the PSD permit conditions.
-------
-2-
The penalty calculation for this example begins with an
assessment of the total cost of air pollution control equipment at
the modification. For purposes of this example, assume BACT
costs $140,000.
Next, the type and number of matrix categories must be
determined. In this example the source (1) began actual con-
struction without a permit, (2) operated the plant without a PSD
permit and (3) exceeded the growth increment for particulate
matter. Therefore, this source is subject to both of the columns
of dollar values under the heading "PSD Sources."
In addition to the permit violations described above,
commencement of operation prior to the installation of BACT
constitutes a separate violation subject to the Civil Penalty
Policy. (The Civil Penalty Policy should be used to determine an
additional appropriate minimum settlement amount for the period
of time the source operated without BACT.)
Once the type, number and dollar values of the penalty are
determined, these figures are multiplied by the number of months
in violation. The sums are then added together to produce the
matrix penalty amount.
In this example, the source's period of construction without
a permit runs from July 1, 1980, until the valid permit was issued
in January of 1981 (7 months). The period of operation at variance
with the' BACT permit condition runs from the time the permit was
issued in January 1981, to the date the source ceased operation
on February 28, 1981 (2 months). The source also exceeded the
area growth increment for particulate matter during the period of
operation from December 1, 1980, to February 28, 1981 (3 months).£/
I/ It is important to note that some of the considerations
(detailed in the matrix do not necessarily track the statutory
provisions regarding violations. For example, there is no Clean
Air Act provision which makes increment exceedance, in and of
itself, a violation by an individual source. (The SIP must
protect the increment. The method used is PSD review with permit
conditions such as BACT, fuel use limitations, etc.) However, as
a consideration of environmental harm, and in considering the
seriousness of the violation if a source operates and thereby
violates a State's increment due to failure to go through PSD
review as or when required, an added penalty is appropriate.
-------
The matrix penalty figure for this source's PSD related
violations, based on a $140,000 total cost of control estimate, is
- for the 7 month period of construction without a permit,
7 x $4,000 - $28,000
- for the 2 month period of operation without a permit,
2 x $4,000 - $8,000
- for the 3 month period of operation during which the
increment was exceeded,
3 x $11,000 - $33,000
- matrix penalty figure •
$28,000 -I- $8,000 + $33,000 - $69,000
As noted in this policy, this figure represents a minimum
settlement figure. EPA may, at any time, negotiate for a higher
settlement figure. A lower minimum settlement figure may also be
available depending on the circumstances of the particular case.
See the policy for procedures regarding possible reductions.
In addition to the permit violations described above,
commencement of operation prior to the installation of BACT
constitutes a separate violation subject to the Civil Penalty
Policy., (The Civil Penalty Policy should be used to determine an
additional appropriate minimum settlement amount for the period
of time the source operated without BACT).
Section 173 or Offset Policy Sources
On December 1, 1980, a plywood manufacturing company began
operation of a modification at its plant which is located in a
nonattainment area for particulate matter. The modification is
subject to Section 173 review permitting and, in fact, the source
has obtained a valid Section 173 permit from the State. The
permit specifies 1) that the applicant has demonstrated that all
other major stationary sources owned or operated by the applicant
in the State are in compliance with the Act, 2) what constitutes
required LAER, and 3) what offsets (internal) would be required
to be obtained prior to start-up or commencement of operation.
-------
-4-
In March of 1981, the Regional Office learned that the source
did not install controls on a certain piece of process equipment
and therefore did not actually "obtain" the offsets as specified
in the State permit. On April 1, 1981, the Region issued an NOV
for failure to comply with the terms of the permit by not
obtaining offsets prior to start-up. At an April 15, 1981,
conference between EPA and the source, the source agreed to meet
the terms of its permit and to certify compliance. On May 15,
1981, the offsets were finally obtained.
In this example, the violation covered by the matrix is the
source's failure to obtain the required offsets (because the
source had obtained the requisite permit and its only violation
of the permit consisted of a failure to obtain the offsets by
start-up). The failure to obtain offsets, however, is covered by
both the Permit Penalty Policy (for the failure of the new source
to obtain offsets prior to start-up) and the Civil Penalty Policy
(for the failure of the existing source to comply with the offset
requirement).
The calculation of the minimum settlement figure in this
case under the Permit Penalty Policy begins with an assessment of
the total cost of air pollution control equipment at the modificat
For purposes of this example, assume LAER costs $110,000. Since
the source operated from start-up on December 1, 1980, until
May 15, 1981, without the necessary offsets, the period of
violation was six months. Under these circumstances, the matrix
yields a penalty figure of $84,000. (6 x $14,000 - $84,000).
As in the PSD example above, this matrix figure is a minimum
settlement number. EPA is free to negotiate for a higher amount.
There is also the opportunity for a reduction of this figure
based upon the surrounding circumstances in accordance with the
procedures outlined in the policy.
The calculation of a minimum settlement figure under the
Civil Penalty Policy is dependent upon the economic benefit to
the source of delaying the capital costs necessary to satisfy the
offset requirement for a period of six months, and upon the other
factors set out in the policy. Because the offsets were obtained
from a facility owned by the new source, a total minimum civil
penalty settlement figure is calculated by adding the amounts
obtained under the Permit Penalty Policy and the Civil Penalty
Policy. (If the offsets were obtained from a facility not owned
by the new source, once the offset is established and made part
of the SIP, the existing source is subject to the amount calcu-
lated under the Civil Penalty Policy added to the amount calcu-
lated under the Permit Penalty Policy).
-------
j UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
^Cr*1'*"!^ WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
^* fiio**
DEC 1 8 1978
•
OFFICE or ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Interpretation of 'Constructed* as it Applies to
Activities Undertaken Prior to Issuance of a PSO
Permit
FROM: Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Enforcement Division Directors
Regions I-X
Air and Hazardous Materials Division Directors
Regions I-X
The issue addressed in this memorandum is where on the
continuum from planning to operation of a major emitting
facility does a company or other entity violate the PSD
regulations if it has not yet received a PSD permit. (It is
assumed here that such a permit is required by the PSD
regulations.) This question has arisen several times in
particular cases and general guidance now appears necessary.
The statute and regulations do not answer this
question. The Clean Air Act states simply that, *[n]o major
emitting facility... may be constructed... unless-
-------
-2-
Comnencement of construction is quite soecifically
defined in both Section 169(2)(A) of the Clean Ait Act and
40 CFR 52.21(b)(8), 43 FR 25404. However, that definition
is for the purpose of deciding the threshold question of the
applicability of the PSD regulations. Therefore, we are not
bound by it in deciding what activities nay be conducted
prior to receiving a necessary PSD permit. •
DSSE's response to date has been that the permitting
authority should make the determination on a case-by-case
basis, after considering all the facts of the individual
situation. For example, we said that site clearing night be
inappropriate for a source proposed to be constructed in a
heavily forested Class I area, but permissible for a source
proposed to be constructed on a junk-strewn lot in a heavily
industrialized Class III area.
After consulting with the Office of General Counsel, we
are now amending this policy in order to minimize the
administrative burden on the permitting authority and to
adopt what we believe now to be the better legal interpreta-
tion. The new policy is that certain limited activities will
be allowed in all cases. These allowable activities are
planning, ordering of equipment and materials, site-clearing,
grading, and on-site storage of equipment and materials.
Any activities undertaken prior to issuance of a PSD permit
would, of course, be solely at the owner's or operator's
risk. That is, even if considerable expense were incurred
in site-clearing and purchasing equipment, for example,
there \tould be no guarantee that a PSD permit would/be
forthcoming.
«
All on-site activities of a permanent nature aimed at
completing a PSD source for which a permit has yet to be
obtained are prohibited under all circumstances. These
prohibited activities include installation of building
supports and foundations, paving, laying of underground pipe
work, construction of permanent storage structures, and
activities of a similar nature.
The new policy has several advantages. First, it will
be easy to administer, since case-by-case determinations
will not be required. Moreover, it: assures national consis-
tency and permits no abuse of'discretion. Finally, it
appears to be the most legally correct position. The policy
.has the undeniable disadvantage of allowing a good deal of
-------
-3-
•
activity at sites which nay be highly susceptible to envi-
ronmental impact. We feel that on balance, however, the
advantages of the policy outweigh the disadvantage.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
David Rochlin of my staff, at 755-2542.
Edward E. Reich
cc: Peter Wyckoff, OGC
Richard Rhoades, OAQPS
Linda Murphy, Region Z
Ken Eng, Region II
Jin Sydnor, Region III
Winston Smith, Region IV
Steve Rothblatt, Region V
Don Harvey, Region VI
Bob Chanslor, Region VII
Dave Joseph, Region VIII
Bill Wick, Region IX
Mike Johnston, Region X
-------
Page No. 1
03/03/88
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 169A
UPDATE NUMBER 8
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 169A
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN169A-85-03-25-001
VISIBILITY MONITORING STRATEGY REQUIREMENTS
-------
PN 169A-85-03-25-001
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
MAR C 5 :3G5
MEMORANDUM:
SUBJECT: Visibility Monitoring Strategy'Requirements
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director-s/fc/1' ,/^
Control Programs Development Div^rfon (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air Division
Regions I-X
' It has come to my attention that some States have requested additional-
guidance in developing a visibility monitoring strategy for the May 6,
1985, submittal deadline. This memorandum explains the monitoring
requirements and is meant to assist the States and Regions in determining
the adequacy of a visibility monitoring strategy.
The 1980 visibility rules (Section 51.300-307) require 36 States to
amend their State implementation plans (SlP's) to include visibility
protection plans. The plan must contain "a strategy for evaluating visi-
bility ... by visual observation or other appropriate techniques . . . ."
The plan must also provide for consideration of available data and must
provide a mechanism for its use in decisions in other portions of the
protection program. The monitoring strategy was not meant to-be implemented
independent from the rest of the rules. Therefore, the requirements for
monitoring come directly from the sections of the rules to be implemented
in the"'second part of the settlement agreement.
Consultation with the Federal land managers (FLM's) is required by
Section 51.302. All affected FLM's must be given the opportunity to consult
with the State, in person, at least 60 days prior to any public hearing on
the rule. At this meeting, the FLM may make recommendations to the State
on items in the protection plan including but not limited to identifying
impairment, and recommending items to be included in the monitoring strategy.
The State should contact the on-site FLM personnel as well as the divisional-
offices handling SIP coordination. The addresses for the divisional office
personnel are attached. ^
The States' visibility monitoring strategy must address the following
requirements:
1) Provide data for new source impact analyses (required by Sections 51.307
and 51.24),
-------
2) Determine sources, if possible, of visibility impairment (required by
Section 51.302),
3) As.sess visibility conditions for the SIP and periodic report (required
by Sections 51.302 and 51.306).
The State is required by Section 51.305 to consider all available data
in making assessments in the visibility protection program. This could be
data from any FLM, industrial, or EPA sponsored visibility monitoring
programs. In some circumstances, airport visibility data may be appropriate.
However, if no data exist from other sources, it is the States' responsi-
bility to provide the appropriate information. The types of assessments
will be dependent on the types of visibility impairment that are thought to
exist in the visibility protection areas. The State should request the FLM
to provide his assessment of impairment so that the State can determine the
extent of monitoring and protection, needed. States that wish to design a
monitoring strategy that-requires visual observation as a minimum,-should
ensure that the frequency of observation is sufficient to provide meaningful
data.
Many States have indicated that they cannot accept the additional
responsibility of visibility monitoring without an increase in their grant
support. The EPA has requested additional funding for the Federal
visibility monitoring program and to encourage States to develop visibility
SIP's. Therefore, some limited grant moneys may be available for States
that wish to take a more active role in the monitoring program. States may
also participate in the Federal monitoring program which will be a more
cost-effective use of resources. It should be noted that EPA will have no
authority to monitor in States with approved monitor-ing strategies, even if
EPA proposed to do so in the Federal plan. Also some States may wish to
delay action on the monitoring strategy in order to incorporate it with the
remaining provisions.
The format for the monitoring strategy need only be a narrative section
of the SIP. Any details that are subject to change should be referenced in
an appendix or separate document. A checklist has been attached to help
the States and Regions determine the adequacy of the monitoring strategy.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please
contact Janet Metsa (FTS 629-5540) or Mark Hodges (FTS 629-5665) of-my staff.
Attachments
*
cc: R. Bauman (MD-15)
R. Campbell (MD-10)
T. Helms (MD-15)
R. Rhodes (MD-14)
D. Stonefield (MD-15)
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
FEDERAL LAND MANAGER DIVISIONAL OFFICES
National Park Service
Mr. Brian Mitchel1
Air Quality Division
National Park Service
Post Office Box 25287
Denver, CO 80225
Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Ty Berry
Division of Refuge Management
F&WS, Room 2342
Department of Interior
18th & C Streets, N.W.
Washington, DC 20#24O
Forest Service Headquarters
Mr. Jim Byrne
USDA-Forest Service
WSAAM
Post Office Box 2417
Washington, D.C. 20013 *
Forest Service Regional Directors (See Map)
Eastern Region Southern Region
310 W. Wisconsin Avenue 1720 Peachtree Road, N.W.
Milwaukee, WI 53203 Atlanta, GA 30367
Northern Region Rocky Mountain Region
Federal Building 11177 W. 8th Avenue
Post Office Box 7669 Post Office Box 25127
Missoula, MT 59807 Lakewood, CO 80225
Intermountain Region Pacific Southwest Region
Federal Building 630 Sansome Street
324 25th Street San Francisco', CA 94111
Ogden, UT 84401
Southwestern Region Pacific Northwest Region
Federal Building 319 S.W. Pine Street
517 Gold Avenue, S.W. Post Office Box 3623
Albuquerque, NM 87102 Portland, OR 97208
-------
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
VISIBILITY MONITORING STRATEGY CHECKLIST
1. Does impairment exist? What documentation does the State provide?
Example: a) FLM statement
b) no sources near the protection areas
2. Does the SIP mention coordination/consultation with the FLM's?
3. Does the SIP list the objectives of the monitoring program?
Example: a) Provide data for new source impact analysis.
b) Provide data to determine sources subject to BART.
c) Provide data for assessment of control strategies.
d) Provide data for trend analysis.
If impairment does not exist, only a and d are needed.
4. Does the SIP list the data collection methods or equipment to be used?
Example: a) Require preapplication monitoring.
b) Installation of automatic cameras or other monitoring
device.
c) Periodic reporting from FLM's (with FLM agreement).
5. Are the equipment or procedures appropriate to meet the stated
objectives?
Example: a) Preapplication monitoring will not provide data for BART
determinations.
b) A report from the FLM will not provide appropriate data
for new source impact analysis.
6. If the SIP calls for a separate document or appendix to describe the
details of the monitoring program, is it available to the public? EPA?
7. A separate document or appendix is recommended to describe the details
of:
a) Monitoring sites,
b) Equipment or data collection techniques,
c) Quality assurance procedures,
d) Monitoring frequency, and
e) Implementation schedule.
-------
Page No. 1
03/03/88
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 172
UPDATE NUMBER 8
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 172
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172-78-03-10-002
EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT FOR PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172-78-06-14-026
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGARDING THE INTEGRATION OF
TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY PLANNING
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172-78-06-30-003
VAPOR RECOVERY REGULATIONS REQUIRED TO MEET RACT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
1979 SIP
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172-78-08-04-004
REQUIREMENT FOR VOC RACT REGULATIONS IN ALL OXIDANT NONATTAINMENT AREAS
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172-78-08-24-006
CLARIFICATION OF EPA POLICY ON EMISSIONS FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172-78-10-06-008
COMMENTS ON AUTO INDUSTRY PROPOSALS
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172-78-10-26-009
OZONE TRANSPORT VALUES FOR SIP REVISIONS
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172-79-01-16-012
CONTINUITY OF SIP REGULATIONS - REVISED ENCLOSURE
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172-79-03-06-014
CUTBACK ASPHALT VOC REGULATIONS
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172-79-05-25-016
SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172-79-05-25-017
CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AND
SOLVENT REACTIVITIES
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172-79-06-20-018
MODIFICATIONS TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLVENT METAL CLEANING
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172-79-08-21-019
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS: GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON
APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON
REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMISSION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICAL RACT
REGULATIONS)
-------
Page No. 2
03/03/88
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 172
UPDATE NUMBER 8
(VOLUME 1)
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172-79-08-22-020
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS/REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMITTING RACT
REGULATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS(VOC)
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172-79-10-04-021
CLARIFICATION FOR FINAL SIP ACTIONS ON ASPHALT REGULATIONS
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172-79-12-12-023
EXEMPTIONS FOR DEGREASERS
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172-80-06-16-027
GASOLINE TANK TRUCK REGULATIONS
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172-80-07-02-029
EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172-80-08-11-043
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS: CONSTRUCTION GRANTS LIMITATION
PROVIDED BY SECTION 316 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT: POLICY AND PROCEDURES (
CITATION)
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172-80-09-03-030
MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS CTG - EMISSION LIMITS FOR
COATING OF SHIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172-80-11-20-032
COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAN COATING OPERATIONS
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172-80-12-01-033
REVISED SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172-80-12-02-034
COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM
REFINERY EQUIPMENT
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172-80-12-02-035
RACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172-81-01-22-039
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE
PLAN REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (FR
CITATION)
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN172-81-02-06-036
STORAGE TANK VAPOR BALANCE REQUIREMENTS AT SYNTHESIZED PHARMACEUTICAL
PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE FACILITIES
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 172
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 172
* PN172-78-03-10-002
EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT FOR PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS
* PN172-78-06-30-003
VAPOR RECOVERY REGULATIONS REQUIRED TO MEET RACT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
1979 SIP
* PN172-78-08-04-004
REQUIREMENT FOR VOC RACT REGULATIONS IN ALL OXIDANT NONATTAINMENT AREAS
* PN172-78-08-24-006
CLARIFICATION OF EPA POLICY ON EMISSIONS FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM
* PN172-78-10-06-008
COMMENTS ON AUTO INDUSTRY PROPOSALS
* PN172-78-10-26-009
OZONE TRANSPORT VALUES FOR SIP REVISIONS
* PN172-79-01-16-012
CONTINUITY OF SIP REGULATIONS - REVISED ENCLOSURE
* PN172-79-03-06-014
CUTBACK ASPHALT VOC REGULATIONS
* PN172-79-05-25-016
SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
* PN172-79-05-25-017
CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AND
SOLVENT REACTIVITIES
* PN172-79-06-20-018
MODIFICATIONS TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLVENT METAL CLEANING
* PN172-79-08-21-019
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS: GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON
APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON
REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMISSION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICAL RACT
REGULATIONS)
* PN172-79-08-22-020
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS/REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMITTING RACT
REGULATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS(VOC)
-------
Page No. 2
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 172
(VOLUME 1)
* PN172-79-10-04-021
CLARIFICATION FOR FINAL SIP ACTIONS ON ASPHALT REGULATIONS
* PN172-79-12-12-023
EXEMPTIONS FOR DEGREASERS
* PN172-78-06-14-026
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGARDING THE INTEGRATION OF
TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY PLANNING
* PN172-80-06-16-027
GASOLINE TANK TRUCK REGULATIONS
* PN172-80-07-02-029
EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
* PN172-80-09-03-030
MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS CTG - EMISSION LIMITS FOR
COATING OF SHIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
* PN172-80-11-20-032
COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAN COATING OPERATIONS
* PN172-80-12-01-033
REVISED SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
* PN172-80-12-02-034
COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM
REFINERY EQUIPMENT
* PN172-80-12-02-035
RACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
* PN172-81-02-06-036
STORAGE TANK VAPOR BALANCE REQUIREMENTS AT SYNTHESIZED PHARMACEUTICAL
PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE FACILITIES
* PN172-81-05-21-038
1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
* PN172-81-01-22-039
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXI
PLAN REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (FR
CITATION)
-------
Page No. 3
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 172
(VOLUME 1)
* PN172-82-10-29-041
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
* PN172-80-08-11-043
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS: CONSTRUCTION GRANTS LIMITATION
PROVIDED BY SECTION 316 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT: POLICY AND PROCEDURES (FR
CITATION)
* PN172-83-11-02-044
COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
(FR CITATION)
* PN172-84-01-20-045
AVERAGING TIMES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITS - SIP REVISION
POLICY
* PN172-84-06-25-046
APPLICABILITY OF GROUP III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTG'S)
* PN172-84-06-25-047
CONFIRMATION OF DEFINITION OF "100 TON-PER-YEAR (100 TPY) SOURCE"
* PN172-84-09-14-048
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) TEST METHODS OR PROCEDURES FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES IN GROUPS I, II, AND III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES
(CTGS)
* PN172-84-12-21-049
CONNECTICUT VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) ISSUES
* PN172-85-04-25-050
CONSIDERATION OF ORGANISOLS IN VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC)
COMPLIANCE CALCULATIONS
* PN172-85-07-02-051
RESIDUAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTAINED IN COATING LINE
PRODUCTS
-------
PN 172-85-07-02-051
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\ Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
>• Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
'^
2 JUL 1935
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Residual Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
Contained in Coating Line Products
FROM: Gerald A, Emison, Di rector v^-
/OLoffice of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)
TO: David Kee, Director
Air Management Division, Region V
This memorandum is in response to your memorandum of June 5. 1985,
requesting guidance concerning retained VOC in products produced on
regulated coating lines.
Your namorandum essentially states thst Region V is presently reviewing
t>e compliance status of 2 vinyl coating "acuity. They are specifically
•='!0?ged "•'; printing and :opcoating of vinyl upholstery materiel. The
applicaole State i-npl orientation plan (SIP) regulation requires either a
ngxintn of 4,3 pounds of VOC per gallon of coating applied or an add-on
pollution control system which demonstrates 75 percent capture and 90
percent control aevica efficiencies.
The source has done some preliminary testing on its vinyl coating
operations and through serendipity has discovered that their coated vinyl
product retains a significant portion of the VOC content from the applied
coating mixture (perhaps 20 percent by weight). The source contends that
the residual VOC is released from the substrate during inspection, storage,
and packaging for shipping. It is not collectible by the existing capture
equipment associated with the coating line's add-on control system and
should be excluded from the 75 percent capture efficiency requirement.
The source proposes to establish the amount of residual VOC carried away
from the line in the coated product and- deduct it from the VOC content of •
the coating as applied. Compliance with the SIP requirements of 75
percent capture and 90 percent destruction would then be based upon this
modified (reduced) VOC content of the coating.
You are correct in your opinion that the control technique guidelines
(CTG's) did not intend for such a credit to be allowed. When the CTG's
v.'ere being written, and as recently,as 1982 when the new source performance
-------
-2-
standard for printing and topcoating of flexible vinyl and urethane was
proposed, industry reported that residual solvent content rarely exceeded
3 percent. All other web-coating industries that have been investigated
have reported similar residual values.
We agree with your assessment that to allow such an adjustment is in
effect a relaxation of the basic RACT requirement. Compliance based on a
reduced VOC content of the coating (excluding the solvent retained in the
substrate) should not be allowed. However, a case-by-case RACT alternative
determination (re: capture efficiency) may be appropriate where the
company can demonstrate that it is technologically or economically infeasible
to better dry the substrate through (1) additional pa.sses in the oven,
(2) increased oven temperatures, (3) extension of the present oven, or
(-) construction of a new oven. Should you have any further questions, please
contact Bill Polglase (529-5516) or Brock Nicholson (629-5516).
cc: 0. Grumpier, ESEO
R. Del ton, Region y
J. Di!:~tc^o. ^101 v
S. HUte, SSCD
-------
PN 172-85-04-25-050
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
* Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
2 3 APR 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Consideration of Organisols in Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
Compliance Calculations
FRO?-:: / Gerald A. S-nison, Di rectoiv>_J^^^r^vxv^N>^_^^^_
/0l0ffice of Air Quality Planning anc StjE^cards (KD-IO)
TO: W. Ray Cunningham, Director
Air Management Division (3AMOO)
This is in response to your memorandum of March 29, 1985, requesting
guidance with regard to the inclusion of organisols in VOC compliance
calcul ations.
As defined in the "Glossary for Air Pollution Control of Industrial
Coating Operations," EPA-450/3-83-013R, an organise! is "a thick coating
consisting of resin arrd plesticizers and some organic solvent which is
often used to coat flexible substances such as paper or fabrics. It is
similar to a plastisol except that an organise! contains more organic
solvent."
It is our opinion that organisols should not be included in VOC
compliance calculations if the organise! was used in production prior to
the ozone State implementation plan control strategy baseline date. The
reason for this is that averaging such costings in compliance calcula-
tions does not truly result in a reduction of VOC emissions that were
contemplated in the approved ozone control plan. The basic concept of an
ozone control strategy is that actual, not apparent, VOC reductions result
from its application and thereby lead to attainment of the national
ambient air quality standard.
For compliance purposes, if an organise! is employed to replace an
existing solvent coating that is used to produce the same product, then
organisols can be included in compliance calculations. However compliance
credit can only be allowed to the extent that emission reductions exceed
the emission reductions achievable by the application of reasonably
available control technology to the solvent coating.
-------
It is hoped that this will meet your present need. Should you have
any questions, please contact Tom Helms or Bill Polglase of my staff at
FTS 62S-5516.
cc: Director, Air Division, Regions I, II, IV-X
Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
VOC Contacts, Regions I-X
S. Wyatt, ESED
J. Rasnic, SSCD
-------
PN 172-84-12-21-049
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
i Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
December 21, 1984
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Connecticut Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Issues
FROM: G. T. Helms, Chief /s/
Control Programs Operations Branch,. CPDD (MD-15)
TO: Linda Murphy, Chief
State Air Programs Branch, Region I
This is in response to your memorandum of November 7, 1984, concerning
Connecticut VOC issues. It is our opinion that the determination of 100
tons per year (TPY) sources must be based on the principal source categories
at the plant. For example, if the control techniques guideline (CTG) VOC
source categories emissions at a plant were in compliance, the smaller
ancillary VOC source categories (less than 100 TPY) not covered by CTG's,
would not be additive nor considered in determining a 100 TPY source.
In your example of the toy manufacturer, the principal source category
covered by a CTG appears to be the metal parts coating (80 TPY) which is
assumed to be in compliance (e.g., approximately 400 tons prior to control).
The plastic parts painting (50 TPY) and offset printing of children's
books (50 TPY) are not covered by CTG's and are less than 100 TPY each.
Hence, the facility would be considered to be a 100 TPY source only for
miscellaneous metal coating. However, care should be taken to assure
that the principle operation is not artifically disaggregated for the
purpose of avoiding control. For example, if the metal and plastic
coating operations were not distinguishable (e.g., same type of booths,
coatings, and ovens) and the miscellaneous metal source emits 80 tons per
year uncontrolled, it is conceivable, on a case-by-case basis, that this
operation could be considered in aggregate as a 130-ton source.
In response to the side issue listed in your memorandum, it is our
opinion that sources which were specifically exempted by EPA from the
miscellaneous metal parts CTG (e.g., marine vessels, aircraft) are intended
to be considered as non-CTG sources.
2. With regard to the solvent metal cleaner issue, it is our opinion
that: (a) the use of forced air blowers inside the degreaser hoods is
unacceptable and would represent circumvention of the regulation unless
emissions were suitably controlled, (b) similarly, the use of atomized
sprays would be unacceptable, (unless emissions are suitably controlled),
and (c) the air drying of parts in lieu of draining parts for 15 seconds
would not be considered RACT.
-------
It is hoped that this will meet your present need. If you have any
questions, please contact John Calcagni (629-5665) or Bill Polglase (629-5516).
cc: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
VOC Regulatory Contact, Regions I-X
VOC Enforcement Contact, Regions I-X
John Hanisch, Region I
John Rasnic, SSCD
. Steve Hitte.SSCD
Jim Berry, OAQPS
-------
PN 172-84-09-14-048
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
SEP
14
1384
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Test Methods or Procedures for
Source Categories in Groups I*oII> and III Control Techniques
Guidelines (CTG's)
Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development DJ^ision
See Addressees
The purpose -of this memorandum is to update the list of recommended
source test methods or procedures applicable to the CTG's issued by the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division, Emission Measurement Branch (EMB) and to provide
Direction on how to apply tnese methods. This memorandum updates the
T.eir.orandum from Edward F. Tuerk, Acting Assistant Administrator, Air,
Noise and Radiation to Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division,
Regions I-X, dated April 6, 1981.
Suosequent to tne April 6, 1981 memorandum, numerous new source
performance standards (NSPS) and associated recommended test methods have
oeen promulgated for source categories covered by the CTG's. These
promulgated standards and reference test methods will be codified in the
July 1, 1984, issue of the Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR Part 60.
The reference test methods are included in Appendix A of Part 60. In
addition, a number of the Group III CTG's have been issued.' In those
cases where reference methods have not been promulgated, methods that
have been formally proposed are recommended and the Federal Register (FR)
publication is cited. In the absence of proposed methods, a draft method
is available from EMB.
The test methods or procedures for the Groups I and II CTG's are
summarized in Tables 1 and 2. The major change from the April 6, 1981,
version of the tables is the substitution of promulgated NSPS methods
where applicable. The reference methods are essentially identical in
principle to the CTG methods cited previously, but .generally include
simplifications, clarifications, or improvements to increase the practi-
cality, accuracy or precision of the methods originally recommended in
the CTG's.
-------
-2-
It is important to note that the recommendation of a reference test
method in Appendix A of Part 60 does not necessarily provide a complete
procedure for the determination of compliance. The format of the applicable
regulation must be considered to specify how long a test run by the
method should last (averaging time), how many runs are required (replicates),
and whether or not any additional methods are necessary to convert the
VOC concentration to another basis (volumetric flowrate for mass rates,
or oxygen/carbon dioxide for an excess air correction). Specifically,
Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 3, and 4 are used, as appropriate, for
flowrate and excess air determinations. These methods are listed in
Table 4. The procedural specifications for NSPS are included in the
subpart for the affected source category in the "Test Methods and Procedures"
section. If the CTG format is the same as the NSPS, then the NSPS procedures
may be used as a guide. If the formats are different, then the NSPS
method should be used in conjunction with the procedures specified in the
CTG, or. the applicable regulation.
Another consideration must be that for some of the NSPS reference
methods, it is necessary to refer to the source category regulation to
provide a complete procedure.
Two examples are the leak definition [compound(s) and concentration]
for Method 21, and the pressure change limits for Method 27. These are
not included in the NSPS reference methods and must be provided by the
State or local regulation.
The procedure recommended in -"Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment" (EPA-450/2-28-036, June 1978) and
for the other source categories where fugitive emissions are covered has
been replaced by Method 21. Method 21 is the same as the previous
recommendation except that the instrument specifications have been
simplified. The rigorous analyzer specifications were found to be
unnecessary to provide reliable leak/no leak decisions. The revised
specifications require significantly less effort and recordkeeping. The
specification of the calibration compound(s) has been changed to hexane
or methane in air at a concentration of about 10,000 ppmv. This provides
an alternative, and tests have shown that the leak/no leak decision is
essentially not affected by the analyzer calibration compound when hexane
and methane are compared. If commercial standards are not available, a
standard preparation procedure is provided In Method 18, "Measurement of
Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography," promulgated
48 FR 48344, October 18, 1983.
The recommended test methods for low solvent coatings and printing
inks are changed to Methods 24 or 24A as appropriate. The CTG references
cite outdated American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedures
and calculation procedures. However, if the NSPS methods are used, it
may be necessary to change from the NSPS units of weight of VOC per volume
solids to the CTG units of weight of VOC per volume coating adjusted for
water.
-------
The recommended test methods for Group III CTG's are presented in
Table 3.
A list of the VOC and related measurement methods is summarized in
Table 4 and a FR publication date is given if the method has been promulgated
or proposed since July 1, 1983. A list of knowledgeable EMB personnel
for each method is given in Table 5.
One final note on which test method is Federally recognized, should
ambiguity on this exist. Where a SIP has an approved test method, EPA
will abide by such method. Changes to these methods can only be made by
a SIP revision. Where the SIP does not explicitly define a test method,
then under 40 CFR 52.12(c) the NSPS methods as discussed above are appli-
cable. Where the approved test method is no longer the same as that
identified above, States are urged to modify their regulations to be
consistent with the NSPS test methods.
Should you have any questions, please contact John Calcagni at
919/541-5665 or Bill Polglase at 919/541-5516.
Attachments
Addressees:
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Regions II, !V. Vl-VIII, X
Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, V, IX
Director, Environmental Services
Regions I-X
cc: Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
VOC Regulatory Contacts, Regions I-X
VOC Compliance Contacts, Regions I-X
Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
Chief, Compliance Branch, Regions II, III, V, VII, TX
George Walsh
Winton Kelly
Nancy McLaughlin
John Rasnic
Ed McCarley
-------
OJ
oo
U
(—
O
O_
— ^
.^
0
ac
a
Q£
O
LL.
OO
UJ
C£.
^
o
LU
O
o
s^r
£2?
Q.
O£
O
t/5
o
o
z
r-
UJ
2:
1—
oo
UJ
(—
E =3
~ ~O
<-; >, C
C T2 5-
'"^i "5T r» '
i H. CO
L.
O
•o
c
(0
^•^
to
'S' Cn
O C
f- 'p—
4-> J_l
Ol T-
2: o -o
o
•D ^JZ
o; to 4.)
T3 — OJ
C 4-> 2!
QJ C
E OJ 4->
§E oo
3 O
0
> 00
i— en
0 C
to ••—
a_-
S (C
O O
—1 O
00
O
o
1
(•».
r^
i
CVJ
**^
o
LD
«3-
1
ai
2:
t— 4
C
c
1
•D
T3
ec
rv
oo
>— t
(—
^
-
>4- 00
O t;
c
4-> 3
C 0
GJ a.
c =
33 o
«- C_)
3 F-I
fO -r- O
OJ C 1
2: fl3 00
= or^
S_ 1
C 0 CM
••- ^N.
QJ O
to — ^)
•a •<- <3-
0 4->
J= "3 «C
4-> r— O.
a> o LU
E >
CM
oor>~
-i O
1— CL.
•Z. CJ
O
WD
4->
L.
-^^v (Q
\fl CL.
\
LO Q:
LXi.
0 0
4->
0
•-1 *3-
1
ur> ••
• «=l-
Q-CM
Q.
T3
cr 2
H- 4J
O O!
— 2:
4->
c
OJ
> 00
i— C7>
0 C
l/> -r-
j_>
S "3
O O
—1
ai
2:
i— i
c
o
T3
"O
<
CM
oo
i—
•z.
-
*
It- 00
C TD
C
4-> 3
C 0
OJ C.
S 0
s- o
3 --I
|/k ( ) ^-4-
VI ^J ^^
to -i- O
a> c i
2:
J= * <
4J — Q-
ai o uj
E >
p^
O
a.
CJ
L.
O
u—
0 0
^0
4->
4-> C
I- 0)
/"i QJ
(_
a; 3
l^™ ^0
o 4J
Ol
0
1
r>*
r^
i
CVJ
*s^
0
^f>
«3-
1
* e^
2o
C 1
ro 00
cir*.
(_ 1
O CM
*^^
QJ O
— to
•r- 0-
4->
fO <
— a.
O LU
CM
oor--
—• O
1- C.
^ P
O
VC
4-)
t_
^^ "•» ro
«• Q.
1
Lf> rv
LL.
0 0
4_>
O
•— i «3-
1
in •
«a-
• CM
Q.
Q.-O
0
C3 4J
1— 0!
o 2:
4->
C
OJ
> 00
' — CD
0 C
I/I •!-
4_>
s «
o o
—1 U
^~
£_
^2
c.
ce
LL>
O
O
*3-
f
LO
CM
-c
O
JZ
4-1
o
2:
r— 1
C
o
1
•o
"D
JZ "S <
4-1 — a.
QJ C LU
E >
XJ
C
-a
c
(O
Q
J3 I
U- JC
CT
*S *f"
I -- 1
c
(O
O)
O ^2
C_5 O to
= <-
< I—
a;
c_
3
C
L.
3
OJ
o
o
0)
t_
•r—
2
U
•r-
4J
OJ
c
O)
o
c
a>
-------
E -c
3 >, O
u re (_
o s cu
C! -O
OO
a.
CJ5
0 C
IT)
CO CNJ
O to
.= T3
4-> O
C -C
2: 4->
cu
•u s:
CU •
CO
CD
s
•o
cu
-o
c
cu
£
2
o
c
cu
E
o
o
Q
-o
O
oo
o
J= LO
+-> •
cu o
4^
to
01
(—
VO
as
u_
CJ1
o
•*
u
^
-o
O)
o
o
l_
CL.
-o
c
re
ca
CM
*<
<
CM
*
SB
CM
o
LU
CO
LU
CM
CO
O
CL,
iD
0)0
C H-
C C3
., —
r
3
Q
cn
cr
•r"1
I_
O
4->
C
o
1
1
CO
4-J
CO
0'
H-
^.
re
cu
_j
o
J>£
U
3
C.
1 1 •<
^£
C
re
4->
O)
O)
CO
•^.r
L.
CU
u«
CO
c
re
L.
1—
C
0
•f"
4->
O
0)
CL
to
C CO
>— ' 1
vo
4->
C •
o> o.
S CL
•^ C3
3 h-
cro
LU
S- 0
3
Q j>£
O
cn 3
c t.
*^~ 1 %
L.
O -*
+J C
•t- re
C 4->
0
z: cu
1 CU
i to
to —
4-J
00 t-
O) CU
I— >*-
to
^<: c
re re
cu t-
_i i—
C
O
•f—
4->
O
cu
Q.
CO
C V
cn'-D
c i-
•i- O
L.
3 .*
Q O
3
cn U
C -u
•r—
t_ .*!
o c
4_> re
•i— 4->
C
o cu
2: cu
i to
i •—'
to
4-> t.
cu
CL CU
•i- Q ^t re
3 o re «-
0*0 cu t—
CM
V£>
•
Q.
O.
03
h-
CJ
re
Q.
O
O
•3-
*l
LO
CM
•o
O
J=
4->
c
o
o
O
QC
Q£
O
CO
UJ
a:
CJ
o
CO
C
^5!
S CL|
re o
o
CL
c
o
o
c
o
i
O) CL
O •!-
C 3
re cr
r— LU
re
CO«3-
^
I- CU
0 4J
Q. to
re >,
=> t/V
i
re
o
•i~-
<4—
*r~
O
cu
CL
t/5
4J
C
CU
6
re
i_
OJ
Q.
O
T3
C
re
to
c
O
•^*
4_>
to
cu
(_
3
•o
O)
o
o
[_
Q_
cn
c
•f—
4-J
•r-
u
CU T3
O. C
to re
4-> CO
C C
O) O
E -r-
Q.4J
•r- re
3 U
Q-.r-
LU *-
1
o s~
L. 0
0. Q.
re
cn=»
c
•>- to
j_> CL
re i-
S_ 3
CU "O
CL CU
O 0
S3-
s
cu
4->
to
>,
t/V
cu
U
c
re
re
CO
•r*
CL
CO
4->
C
cu
s
E.
• r—
3
CT
LU
•o
C
re
CO
c
o
4-:
re
o
•r«
<+-
CU
0
c
re
c
a>
4-3
C
CO
j—i
c
cu
c
OJ
t.
.^
3
LO
V|_
O
0
2C
r«— c^
re c
C -i-
t- 4J
cu re
•r- 0-4J o
re
S.
GJ
Of.
tr i —
•— < u_
o
I
•o
X5
re
ee:
o
O
o
UJ
to
cs
t—
o
o
o
o
CM
o
r-.
CM
o
Lf>
Q.
LU
ro
o
CM
cB-
LO
CL.
UJ
re **""*
••- Q
t- O
cu o
t- 4->
o c
cu
C E
cn 3
••- o
to O
tv o
Q
ro
o
I
I
CM
o
LO
CM
I
c
cu
3
CO
c
re
3
03
0>
a>
re
+J
CO
i
to
c
o
re
j->
to
a>
o
£_
OJ
to
c
re
o
o
a:
t
•o
CU
X
-------
C CD Ll_ :
3 >, £!
O ro i_|
_
O
CXI
OJ
LO
O C
o
-c ^jz
Ol CO +j
•o -^ cu
C 4-> S
cj c
E OJ +J
E e i/i
O 3 CU
O O
O
o;
sa
o
o r>
O O
o
HX
o
CO
O
_,_
r—
UJ
CO
UJ
i
tot
c
o
oj -.-
"£ o"
o
-"ol
^.2!
«£ c
a
|
o
3
C
00
a.
o-
CO
OJ
•r—
OJ
c
ii-
CU
E
u
p^.
0
t_
1 «
cu
Q.
t—
z:
OJ
i
^o
•
OL
a.
o
I—
o
co
•a <-
•M C 3
C ro T3
QJ 0)
<= CO
'O ^ f^
> CO O
uo
CM
O
t
1
CM
O
£
1
ex
LU
1
a;
CO
3 t/>
QJ
" O
CO C
S Q.
>> C
CO ro
c £ -a
••- O C
0 +J 3
3 "0 O
•o t_ t-
0(0*0
t ^s r*
a. aT t-
CO 3
§1—
L.
3 0 -U
0 +J -t-
> 3 •=>
£>
c
o
•r-
4.^
ro
>
OJ
CO £_
JD 0
O 4-»
O
*j a>
o a.
i> t/1
t. c
•I— 1— «
f^>
c
o
•t—
to
^~
3
E
LU
a.1
40
ra
ro
O
pi
1
CM
O
Lf5
T
a.
LU
^
r—
(C
^
a.
to
SX
o
rO
JD
4-)
3
c ^
-K
CO
<
c
0
•1—
4.J
ro
r— -a-
•»^ ^f
4-J CM
in i
•r- O
Q
4_)
^" t/J
f- 0)
OO f—
^^
4_)
c
GJ
>
—
o
co
c
0 4J
•*~ c
co CO
i— 4J
3 C
uu3
1—
•z.
*s
LO
OO
1
ro
ro
CO
i
ro r~-
I
•>!-••
ro o
i ^_j
ro
t— t
• i
CL r*^
a.
•o
C3 C
1— ro
O
t
•r—
U 1
O! -0 O
CL C t-
CO rO CL.
4-> to CD
C C C
d) O """" CO
= -r- 4-> QJ
Q. 4-> ro C.
•r- <0 «- 3
3 o CL) "O
cr--- O_ O)
LU i*- O O
CM
CM
O
1
1
CM
O
LO
1
0.
LU
o>
^
to
ro
0)
t_
O)
QJ
Q
*
<
0
"O
0
f**
4-)
dj
•^
2.
4->
CO
QJ
^
4»9
^4«
rO
U
r^i
C
O
.Q
U
ro
OJ
C j^
0 t_
1 O
"O co
•a -a
-------
CD
O
a:
CM
(U
c;
O
o
ct:
CL.
a:
o
oo
Q
O
oo
LU
Recommended Method(s) and Uocumen
le Document (s) Citing May Be
tions Test Method Ordered F
.a c_
rO O
O
r— "O
0- L.
Qu40
«r c
c
r— .
O
3
0
ro
a.
u_
o
O
1— 1
CM
•o
o
.e
0)
o
c
o
2:
c
o
•r—
1 *
o
a>
a.
c
t_
0)
_n
~~(
CD Z
I—
O 4->
C
O)
E
o
o
o
*
>~
e
4->
to
3
•o
C
t— *
co
i
CO
1
CM
•S^
o
U">
^f-
1
•a:
Q.
LU
OI
>
•r—
+0
•p—
ry
3
U.
^.^
i_
Qj
c
•^
t+_
OJ
Q£
Q^
*•—
o
L.
40
(U
0.
enance
± \
C
^
21
O)
c
•r"
^— *,
C/l
.^
'O
QJ
j
•+^>
&
C
O
CO
l/>
• r—
g
LU
CM
OOI —
— O
^ Q.
-Z. CD
VO
£_
Cu
cs:
o
0
-* CM
O
0-40
Q. a1
I— £_
o o
c
CL)
>
r^
c
oo
S
O
Lf)
O
1
00
p^
t
OJ
••s^
o
Lf)
•a-
i
0.
LU
to
3
O
O)
c
ro
pM
P—
OJ
o
^
•r-
21
O>
c
T"
4->
'C
0
eu
o
rO
4-
L.
^;
oO
to
O)
c
J_>
fO
O
f *
to
1 ^
«J
3
O
a.
^^
c
ro
to
i \
i_
ro
CL.
^_
ro
J-J
2:
CM
'o — ' o o
a. f— Q. a_
o z: CD CD
o
i^C Lf) "D *
Lf) O Lf)
CM • XT CM
Q-4J
•O Q- OJ ^D
o 2: o
4_> r— C. 4->
0) O O OJ
C
O) tO
> O)
i-H f— ' C r-H
C 0 — C
O 00 4J O
1 ro 1
T3 3: 0 -0
^3 O £-2 "CJ
«t -j *f.
CM
co
o
1
00
1 —
1
CM
v^
o
Lf)
^^
1
t^
a.
LU
.
i+_
o
m
' c
•*-
«(j
re
o en
o c,
.,_
O) ^«
U O)
rO C
>*- ro
!_ Q.
3
oo T:
O
L. 5
0 4J
4J ro
O r—
ro
a.
LL,
O
^^
CM
^~
1
^^
a.
LU
a>
L»
3
4_^
0
(O
14-
3
C
fO
2:
r—
ro
U
*r™
4->
3
0)
O
JO
" C
ro
s:
a.
'o
G.
LO
40
ro
a.
U_
O
O
««
Lf)
CM
O
JZ
cu
*— (
c
o
1
•o
^ZJ
<
o
ro
O
1
CO
r^
i
CM
^^
0
Lf)
<^*
1
^f
a.
LU
OJ
L,
3
4^
O
rO
(4_
3
C
rO
21
ai
L.
•r—
f—
C.
O)
^
j^
3
o;
r~» r~-
O O
c. c_
CD CD
j_j
t- 4->
ro t-
^^_ n3
a.
ce.
u~ on
o u.
0
o
•5J- O
«t
CM CM
•a -o
o o
-G -C
cu a>
2: 2:
to _^
c •—
4-> "O
C T—
CJ r-
> 0
i— OO r-l
O C
oo jr o
a» i
2 — -C
OS "O
-J «ac
ro
co
0
1
oo
1 —
1
CM
^^
0
Lf)
^^
1
^^
a.
LU
•a
c
(0
a;
c
3
fO
^
J^)
0
^_ )
o
o:
f >>
4_9 r^
g_ rv
<3I ro
L.
O Oi
'•" O
-C X
Q. CD
(O r—
t- LL.
CD
~OO
)— 4
K—
Z.
1
Lf)
O
40
^H
1
•
Q.
Q.
CD
O
1
OJ
c c
•r— .,—
S C
c •«-
0 C
— O
u
G.' CU
f^. {j
LO C
c ^
f
J_J
ai
o
o
.c
0
u
cu
a.
ai
c
•f-.
c
-------
oo
CO
o
a:
C3
CD
3
C
4_>
5
<_>
CM
i)
_Q
o
a;
a;
o
oo
Q
O
C
a
d
o
c
w
c
re
,-— ».
00
^-^
•o
C
-C
4-3
OJ
•o
o
T3
C
QJ
s=
§
O
CO
£E
OJ
•y;
>)
re
S
en
c
•r—
4-J
0
00
«MX
J-J
C
1—
0) O
2:
00
c
o
•M
Q.
O
r^
C
!_
O.4-S
<
I—
O
C
0
o
(_
0)
o
E
^
4^
•>->
c
cu
3
O
re
>
i
ai
L.
^3
00 4J
oo oo
Ol QJ
t- t—
a-
.— i
un
o
i
00
r^
CM
^^
0
UT>
•T+-
51 "i
u <
O Q-
o uj
00
4-1
oo
CU
^—
Jnf
fO
O
_J
1
CQ
X
•f—
•^
c
O)
CL
Q.
<
1
O
I—
o
1
•r-
C
o
s
c
o
•r—
4-J
U
O)
CL
oo
C
CM
00
1— t
1—
•z.
Ol
c:
t_
3
Q
cn
c
•r-
!_
O
J->
• 1—
c
o
2:
1_
o
14-
cu
0
c
c
•<-
(Q
f*
cn
(^
•f—
c_
o
4-1
0)
c
•r-
•o
(T3
o
_J
C\J
en
Q.
u
3
c
(B
O)
c
o
00
-------
~ 2i ® i
5 ~ c; E'
o >,-c o,
O 03 S_ S-
a 2: o LI.)
CM
O
Q.
C5
r—.
O
Q.
O
Q.
O
C-
CD
•o 01
o c
CJ -r-
m 21 O -o
t~: o 1/T
C 4->
— CJ C
i—i = CJ -M
O 3 CJ
a. o o i—
3 CJ O
o a: o
3>
UJ
X
C
cj
Q.
C.
o
t_ ITS
fO CM
OJ
C- -H
L.
Q.
U.
O
t_
o
CM
Ol
j_>
(O
CM
«-co a.
ro — O
Cw t-
T3 Q.
0:0 a.
O 4-> <
CJ tf> l/>
O S CM
C
•^
Z
c
o
4->
o
CJ
Q.
in
C
»— <
c
o
[ ^
•r~
C
£
enance
40
c
•f*"
T3
GJ CJ
Q. r-
O
CJ
p*^
0
0
|
CO
00
1
ro
o
^r>
^f
i
L.
fO CL.
•z.
^O
O
0
1
CO
00
1
CO
o
.T)
^f
1
^^
CL.
UJ
CJ
•>
•r—
4-)
•f*
C)
13
LL.
I
^— ^
s:
o
o
to
CO
o
! O
\
CO
00
1
PO
o
^f
1
^£
a.
UJ
o
1 C
1 >, CJ
>> Q. t-
— 0 >,
O (_ 4->
Q. Q.
O ^i IHB r^
4-> o O
CJ '•- Q. Cu
!_ l/i
3 C CJ T3
+J CJ C =
<_> O CJ «
re t—
<4- J= >, CJ
3 CT.C C
C ••- 4J CJ
fO 3C CJ <—
•z.
cn
4-
o
in
ro
-Q
CJ
3
in
•p—
^j
O
c
CD
i^
0
CJ
ov
ro
(_
O
4J
_J
O
>
CTi
u_
O
03
T^j
CJ
U"S
(/)
•—
^_,
O
C
C_fJ
f— .
o
c
o
•~
4-}
f^
•a
•r*
X
o
L.
•r»
<
^_^
s
o
0
00
-------
01
CJ
O
C
o
o
lO-
ft
u
4-3
OJ
*
c
o
•F—
J_>
a.
L.
O
01
JO
ro
^.
c
O
•f*
01
01
CO
U
Q.
c
O
O
^x^.
c
o
*r—
_J
ro
i_
co
en
•r—
t_
4—
ro
t_
CO
O>
•f™
!_
4-
CO
t_
*>
01
£_
Of
JO
!_
o
01
•o
CO
C
o
f^
^
ro
U
*
c
o
•r—
jjj
1
O
cc.
4->
!_
O
a.
LD
CO
CM
Lf>
9i
co
o
•f—
>
t_
ai
OO
c
0
•r-
4->
ro
E
(-
O
4-
c
t-^
1^—
ra
CJ
C
J=
O
CO
1—
,_
ra •
o -o
•t- ai
4-> t-
ro •<-
Z 3
CT
ai a;
j= f-
+->
4)
l= CO
O 4-
(_
4- i
ro
l_ C
CO T™
_
C ~ - J
4-> — 1
C <£>
CO i*"1
E CM
3 CM
O
0 <
•o >
^"» **
JD -0
^™
t_ OJ
^ -r*
•o M-
L. 3^
o c
•r—
t_
t CX
CM OO
L.
C
14-
« ro
O L.
"- O!
(Si 4_>
•r- -0
Q
C
^ en
C -i-
£— CU
OJ o
OJ =
C
•r™ • •
en ai
C F—
UJ 4.)
«f»
•o i—
c:
ro 4-j
c
to (D
"0 E
U 3
ro o
•o o
C Q
^
4J
C-O •
i-H
C i-H
o r-»
•r* r***
00 CM
CO
•r— •
E O
UJ »
» LD
* ^r* r***
oo cn
-0 --H
L v
fQ ^. L.
•HV __ /I 1
*w fO w
c c. jo
ro E
j-> aj cu
oo — >
en o
^3 C ^^
c ro
."C •*— *»
t- =
Oil— 01
C C
-- je: o
c o ••-
C ^ 4->
fO ^3 ^3
f— ai 4->
a. to oo
CJ
>,o: cu
4-> O
•r— « *r~
r— CO >
« r-l t-
3 a>
cr Q.OO
o
t- t_
l_ 01
^ ^^ * >s
< oo
Q- E
UJ 3 —
OJ O
* r~~ ^—
00 0 4-»
• t_ c
O 4J O
CU CJ
E Q-
O t-
i- T3 O
4- c a.
f(3 fl3
t_ ^>
O.J r—
"O fo •— «
U u
O -r- O)
E ^^
cj ro
• JC 4->
ro o oo
>i
aCS
-H O
CL xj
o ro
t- 4J
Q OO
— c
-r~ 5
ro i_
S 4-
« 01
-C 0
U -r-
c c
ro ro
«- en
C3 l-
O
4_)
c -o
a> a>
S"~ 4->
ro
t- c
3 CJ
01 C1
ro o
CO —
S «
i.
c
O 4-
•- O
to
01 C
•r- O
s •--
UJ 4->
ro
* c
01 -r-
"O E
t_ £
ro cu
•D 4->
C CJ
ro o
4-) 1
00 1
ro
"D CM
C
ro T>
0
C 4->
•i- CO
C Z
c =
ra
p-» • •
Q- CO
• ,_
>14J
4J T-
•r- (— .
— 0
ro -o oo
3 O CTi
Q-J= r-l
4->
t- CU "
. •«- s -H i
01 «C <— i
vx
ro 4- . co
CO O -^ C
— —(3
co r- ^
&_ o r***>
O pp- OJ *
t+_ '4» \O
*+— * VjD
4J O O 1^
a. * o^
^j >s * * ro
0 •— *™^ ^^
O U 0) CO
CO CO r— O1
CL CL •• cn O
01 01 £ C CL
c c o ra o
•1- 'I" (_•!-(_
4- c_ CL
r— — 1—
ro ro c_ =
3 3 CO J= -
01 01 "D o Ol
•r- •.- t_ l_ CO
3» > O ro u
CO f-
01 3
. . QJ O
^ to vo c^ oo
OJ
J_J
4-1
4-J
c
u
E
L3
o
C2
A
CM
0
o-
0
CM
•
0
•
o
^
c
o
4->
CT
c
• r-
JZ
01
ro =
2 '
0
»co
CO.
u o
. ••" 4->
4-
4- O
O (J2
en 01
C 4_>
•r- £_
4-> ro
E Q-
•r»
L. ••
O. 4->
C
4J (D
c £
01 C
e o
C 1_
C_ •!-
CO >
> c
O UJ
o
4—
• o
00
• c
Z3 O
" 4->
Ol O
4_) CU
C 4->
OJ o
§1_
a.
0
0 OC
o u_
CJ
0 0
-(__*
^r •*
CO U1
•o c
C 0
CO -r-
4-> 4-1
c ro
•f" r—
«- 3
co en
CL co
3 a:
oo
p..
• • ro
6 co
• i. T3
•4- CD
U-
CO 4—
•o o
c_
O CO
^^
o
" p
*
o
*>o
[ ^
(_
ra
a.
es:
u.
CJ
0
^>
c
•r"
"^
CO
T2
3
O
c
• r™
4J
O
C
^_^
f^
J ^
c
CO
£_
t
3
(J
-a
o
f
4^
a»
E
4J
01
CO
1—
*
-------
Method 1
Metnod 1A
Method 2
Method 2A
Method 28
Method 2C
Method 2D
Matncd 3
I
etnod 4
Method 18
Method 21
Method 23
Method 24
Method 24A
Method 25
Method 25A
hod 258
Method 27
Table 4: NSPS Reference Test Methods for Volatile Organic Compounds
Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources, 40 CFR 60,
Appendix A.
Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources with Small Stacks
or Ducts, (proposed 48 FR 48955, October 21, 1983).
Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate (Type S
Pitot Tube) 40 CFR 60, Appendix A.
Direct Measurement of Gas Volume Through Pipes and Small Ducts,
48 FR 37592, August 18, 1983.
Determination of Exhaust Gas Volume Flow Rate from Gasoline Vapor
Incinerators, 48 FR 37594, August 18, 1983.
Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate from Small
Stacks or Ducts (Standard Pitot Tube), (proposed 48 FR 48956, October 21,
1983).
Measurement of Gas Volume Flow Rates in Small Pipes and Ducts, (proposed
48 FR 43957, October 21, 1983).
Gas Analysis for Carbon Dioxide. Oxygen, Excess Air, and Dry Molecular
Weight, 40 CFR 60, Appendix A.
Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases, 40 CFR 60,
Appendix A.
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography,
48 FR 48344, October 18, 1983.
Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks, 48 FR 37600, August 18,
1983.
Determination of Halogenated Organics from Stationary Sources, (proposed
45 FR 39766, June 11, 1980).
Determination of Volatile Matter Content, Water Content, Density, Volume
Solids, and Weight Solids ot Surface Coatings, 40 CFR 60, Appendix A.
«
Determination of Volatile Matter Content and Density of Printing Inks
and Related Coatings. 40 CFR 60, Appendix A.
Determination of Total Gaseous Nonmethane Organic Emissions as Carbon,
40 CFR 60, Appendix A.
Determination of Total Gaseous Organic Concentrations Using a Flame
lonization Analyzer, 48 FR 37595, August 18, 1983.
Determination of Total Gaseous Organic Concentration Using a Nondisper-
sive Infrared Analyzer., 48 FR 37597, August 18, 1983.
Determination of Vapor Tightness of Gasoline Delivery Tank Using
Pressure-Vacuum Test, 48 FR 37597, August 18, 1983.
-------
Table 5: VOC Contacts
Emission Measurement Branch
ESED/OAQPS
Mail Drop 13
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Telephone: (919) 541-(extension)
FTS: 629-(extension)
Specialty
Method 18 23 and Hazardous
Pellutant Test Methods
gas chromatograph method
Method 21 and Fugitive
VOC Test Methods
Methods 24, 24A, and 25
Method 25
Methods 25A, 25B, 27,
Surface Coating, and
Gasoline Marketing Test
Methods
Flow Measurement Methods
(1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2B. 2C, 2D,
3, 4)
Contact
Mail
Drop
Kenneth W. (Bill) Grimley 19
Nancy D. McLaughlin
Any of above
13
Telephone
Extension
2237
Winton Kelly 13 5543
Gary McAlister 19 2237
Clyde E. (Gene) Riley 13 5543
5543
-------
PN 172-84-06-25-047
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quelnv Planning and Standards
Research Tnanql- Park. North Carolina 2771'
25 JUN 1984
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Confirmation of Definition of "100-Ton-Per-Year (100 TPY) Source"
FROM: G. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD-15)
TO: James Wilburn, Chief
Air Monitoring Branch, Region IV
As" a follow-up to our .recent telephone conference call with the State
of Alabama, attached are copies of guidance memos and a letter related to
the definition of a lOu TPY source. These guidance documents all contain
the principle of combining all similar or connected operations at a plant
to determine 100 TPY.
I. Memorandum dated September 7, 1978, from Richard G. Rhoads, Director,
Control Programs Development Division, to Director, Air and Hazardous
Materials Division, Regions I, III-X, and Director, Environmental Programs
Division, Regions II, entitled "Clarification of Degreasing Regulations."
However, States should not exempt all open top vapor
degreasers or conveyorized degreasers which individually
emit less than 100* tons/year in rural nonattainment
areas because large scale users may have over 100
separate degreasing operations at one plant location.
If a State chooses to exempt open top or conveyorized
degreasing operations in rural nonattainment areas,
: the limitation should be 100 tons or less on a facility-
wide basis based on annual solvent purchase records.
2. Memorandum dated August 8, 198U, from G. T. Helms, Chief, Control
Programs Operations Branch, to John L. Hanisch, Mobile Source Emissions
Section, Region I, entitled "Request for Confirmation of the Definition
of a 100-Ton Source as Applied to Control in the Gasoline Storage and
Marketing Chain."
As stated in previous determinations of 100 tons/year
sources, . . . potential emissions from all similar
or connected CTG category sources on a facility-wide
basis should be added together to determine if CTG
control J's required. In the case of bulk gasoline
terminals, this would be based on potential emissions
from tank trucks (using the appropriate emission
factor for splash or submerged fill and the loading
rack throughput) as well as potential emissions from
storage tanks if they are located on contiguous or
-------
adjacent properties which are owned or operated by
the same person (or by persons under common control).
3. Memorandum dated August 22, 1980, from Richard G. Rhoads, Director,
Control Programs Development Division, to Thomas W. Devine, Director, Air
and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV, entitled "The Use of Permit
Conditions to Define Potential to Emit."
However, it is pointed out that in determining if a
bulk gasoline terminal is a 100 TPY source, the
gasoline throughput of the terminal as well as the
emissions from gasoline storage tanks at the facility
must be added together.
4. Letter dated May 10, 1983, from William L. Polglase, Technical Guidance
Section, to Victoria Martinez, Florida Department of Environmental Regula-
tion, confirming-that the 100 TPY potential emission exemption for graphic
art systems applies to plantwide emissions, not to each printing line.
. . . this will confirm that the 100-ton per year
exemption tor existing graphic arts facilities affected
by the graphic arts control technique guidelines,
relates to plantwide emissions, not to each printing
1 ine.
5. Memorandum dated October 11, 1978, from G. T. Helms, Chief, Control
Programs Operations Branch, to Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X, entitled
"Questions and Answers on 1979 SIP Revisions (Cutback Asphalt Category)."
«
Q. What is considered a "100 tons/year source" for
the cutback asphalt category? (10/11)
A. Emissions from this CTG category result from
several points and operations including the mixing
plant, paving operations, and from the curing.of the
road surface itself. Because of the possible combinations
of emissions points, the cutback asphalt category
should be viewed as an area source and any "100 ton"
calculations should consider all State, local, and
private uses of asphalt in the nonat'tainment area.
Accordingly, States should be encouraged to adopt
limitations of the manufacture, sale, and use of
cutback asphalt on a Statewide basis. However, such
a limitation could be avoided in rural areas if it
can be demonstrated that the total emissions from the
use of cutback asphalt in the entire area for which a
strategy is being developed does not exceed 100
' tons/year.
-------
3
It is hoped that these citations will be helpful i'n the resolution of
the definition of a 100 TRY source with the State of Alabama.
cc: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
VOC Contacts, Regions I-X
Attachments
-------
PN 172-84.-06-25-046
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ott'ce of Air Guaiitv Planning ana Standards
Research Tnanaie Park. Norm Carolina 277T1
2 5 1964
MEMORANDUM
•j'.'SJSCT: Applicability of Group III Control
Techniques Guidelines (CTG's) ,/ * , 1^
\A '/. Director, Air Management Division
" Regions 1, III, V, IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II, IV, VI-VIII, X
In my May 21, 1984, memorandum to the Regional Air Directors, I
^elicited your thoughts on taking action in areas not meeting the volatile
organic compound (VOC) Group III CTG regulation submittal dates. A
number of Regions have voiced concern over the applicability of the memo
xu rural nonattainment areas and to urban areas that appear to have
attained the czone standard but do not have sufficient information available
?t this time to document attainment. ^
Although my memorandum stated the current EPA policy as cited in
P^rt 52 of the Code of Federal Regulations (e.g., 52.53 "ADproval
Status* - as cited on page 287 of "Worxsnop on Requirements- for Nonattain-
ment'Area Plans," and as cited in the ADM! 4, 1979, general preamble),
a,< fiy Regions were surprised by this requirement and indicated that it
would either be resisted by many States or lead to a number of premature
redesignation requests.
*
In view-af the Regional concern related to the applicability of
Group III CTG's to rural nonattainment areas and urban areas with 1932
attainment dates not subject to a call for revision under Section
llf'a)(2)(K), I intend to review this policy for these areas. The Regions
«"£.- advised to refrain from pressing States for action regarding the
susmittal of Group III regulations in these nonattainment areas pending a
review of the regulation submittal requirements. No requests were received
to reconsider the requirements in extension areas and uroan areas which
have received Section 110(a)(2)(H) calls. Hence, I would not expect a
change in policy in these areas. You should acvise your States accordingly.
-------
-------
• PN 172-84-01-20-045
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY /?//
' o^y^a^K,
Of*'68 of Air Qua'itY Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1
JAN 2 0 1984
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Averaging Times for Compliance With
VOC Emission Limits - SIP Revision
FROM: John R. O'Connor, Acting Director-
Office of Air Quality Planning antf Standards
TO: Director, Air and Waste ManagemettfDivision
Regions II-IV, YI-YIII, X
Director, Air Management Division, Regions I, Y, IX
The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify the Agency's policy
regarding emission time averaging for existing sources of volatile organic
compounds (YOC's). Numerous State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions, both
broad regulations and source-specific changes, have been submitted which
provide for compliance determinations by "time averaging" emissions of YOC
for periods exceeding 24 hours. These requests and the following policy
on this subject were discussed extensively at a recent meeting attended
by those Regional Offices which have the most pending actions (Regions I,
III, IV, Y); the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; and the
Office of General Counsel. This policy represents the consensus of the
meeting attendees.
The objective of EPA's national YOC emissions control program is the
timely attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) for ozone. SIP revisions and other regulatory actions
relating to YOC control must maintain the integrity of this basic objective.
There should be assurances that VOC emission control 1s reasonably con-
sistent with protecting this short-term ozone standard. Further, since
SIP's and associated VOC control programs contemplate the actual applica-
tion of reasonably available control technology (RACT), regulatory actions
that incorporate longer term averages to circumvent the installation of
overall RACT level controls cannot be allowed.
NOTE: The Federal Register notice mentioned in this
memorandum is not included in the Policy
and Guidance Notebook.
-------
-2-
Current Agency guidance specifies the use of a daily weighted average
for YOC regulations as the preferred alternative where continuous compliance
is not feasible. An example might be where a facility operates in a
batch manner with multiple lines and various products. Reference is made
to the December 8, 1980, Federal Register (copy attached) where can
coating operators are allowed to "bubble" several production lines and
average emissions over a 24-hour time period.
**•.
The preferred daily weighted average alternative may not be feasible
in all cases. Where the source operations are such that daily YOC emissions
cannot be determined or where the application of RACT for each emission
point (line, machine, etc.) is not economically or technically feasible
on a daily basis, longer averaging times can be permitted under certain
conditions. In determining feasibility, consideration might be given,
for example, to the extent to which modifications can be made to testing,
inventory, or recordkeeping practices in order to quantify daily emissions.
Also, variability or lack of predictability in a source's daily operation
might be considered as well as availability of control technology or the
physical impediment or restriction to control equipment installation. In
order to allow longer than daily averaging in SIP regulations, the following
conditions or principles must be honored:
1. Real reductions in actual emissions must be achieved, consistent
with the RACT control levels specified in SIP's or the control
technique guidelines (CTG's). These limits are typically expressed
in terms of YOC per unit of production (a qualitative term such
as Ibs VOC/gal coating). Where it is not feasible to specify
emission limits in such terms, emission limits per unit of time
can be approved provided that:
a. The emission limits reflect typical (rather than potential
or allowable) production rate and operating hours. These
emission limits must truly reflect emissions reductions
consistent with RACT and are not simply an artificial constraint
on potential emissions. This must be supported in the SIP
revision by historical production and operation data.
b. Nonproduction or equipment downtime credits are not allowed in
the emission limit calculation unless a Federally enforceable
document specifically restricts operation during these times.
Such credit must be based on real, historical emissions.
*
2. Averaging periods must be as short as practicable and in no
case longer than 30 days.
3. A demonstration must be made that the use of long-term averaging
4 (greater than 24-hour averaging) will not jeopardize either
ambient standards attainment or the reasonable further progress
(RFP) plan for the area. This must be accomplished by showing
-------
-3-
that the maximum daily increase in emissions associated with *
long-term averaging is consistent with the approved ozone SIP
for the area.
4. Sources in areas lacking approved SIP's, or in areas with approved
SIP's but showing measured violations, cannot be considered for
longer term averages until the SIP has been revised demonstrating
ambient standards attainment and maintenance of RFP (reflecting
the maximum daily emissions from the source with long-term
averaging).
Meaningful short-term (i.e., daily) emission caps are desirable
especially for sources subject to large fluctuations in emissions. The
use of a daily cap (equal to or less than current average emissions on a
daily basis) that limits short-term emissions to RACT equivalent levels
would meet the above objective of ensuring VOC control that is consistent
with attaining the NAAQS for ozone.
States have the primary responsibility to show adherence to the above
principles and, to do so, must include the following information (in detail)
in all SIP revision requests that seek VOC averaging times greater than
24 hours:
1. The VOC limits specified in an enforceable form with appropriate
compliance dates.
2. A description o/ the affected processes and associated historical
production and operating rates.
3. A description of the control techniques to be applied to the
affected processes such as low solvent and waterborne coating
technology and/or add-on controls.
4. The nature of the emission control program whether a bubble, a
regulation change, a compliance schedule, or some other form of
alternative control program.
5. The method of recordkeeping and reporting to be employed to
demonstrate compliance with the new emission limit requirement
and to support the showing that the emission limit is consistent
with RFP and the demonstration of attainment.
Each EPA Regional Office shall.have the primary responsibility for
determining the approvability of application requests. However, in order
to assure Regional consistency, coordination with the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards staff is encouraged during the initial
development of any single "time average" SIP revision or regulation.
Also, all SIP revisions involving long-term averaging must be proposed in
the Federal Register with an explanation of how the principles listed
above have been satisfied. _
-------
-4-
Should there be any questions on this policy, please call Tom Helms
(FTS 629-5526) or Brock Nicholson (FTS 629-5516).
Attachment
cc: Barbara Bankoff
Ron Campbell
Jack Farmer ;.. •
Mike Levin
Ed Reich
B. J. Steigerwald
Darryl Tyler
Peter Wyckoff
Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
-------
PN 172-83-11-02-044
In order to conserve space, the Federal Register notice entitled:
Compliance-with the Statutory Provisions of Part D of the
Clean Air Act (48 FR 50686, November 7, 1983)
is not included in the Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook. Please
refer to this notice for EPA policy/guidance related to this subject.
-------
-------
PN 172-80-08-11-043
In order to conserve space, the Federal Register notice entitled:
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works; Construction Grants
Limitations Provided by Section 316 of the Clean Air Act;
Policy and Procedures (45 FR 53382, August 11, 1980)
is not included in the Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook. Please
refer to this notice for EPA policy/guidance related to this subject.
-------
DATE
SUBJECT
FROM
TO
PN 172-82-10-29-041
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OCT 2 S 1982 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Questions and Answers on 198
Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Divi
SIP's
(MD-15)
Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Region I-IV, VI-VIII, X
Director, Air Management Division, Regions I, V, IX
The following questions and answers are in response to issues
raised by Regions regarding the processing of 1982 ozone and CO SIP's.
Two previous memorandums dated August 6, 1982, and August 11, 1982,
have been distributed. This is the third of that series. The
following questions and answers have been reviewed and agreed upon by
all affected Headquarters staff offices.
1. Can nonattainment areas which previously were approved as
demonstrating attainment for carbon monoxide or ozone by December 31,
1982, now apply for an extension?
No. Section 129(c) of Public Law 95-95 (which was not codified as
part of the Clean Air Act) required submittal of these extension
requests by January 1, 1979. Accordingly, any State that did not
request and receive an extension of the attainment date for ozone and
carbon monoxide at that time cannot get one now.
2. Can areas which have received extensions beyond December 31,
1982, for a date prior to December 31, 1987, now modify their attainment
dates?
Yes. If the revised estimates in the July 1982 submittal demonstrate
that the attainment date needs to be modified, it is possible to revise
the date. However, the control strategy measures must be implemented
expeditiously and result in attainment no later than December 31, 1987.
It is not appropriate to extend the attainment date simply to allow a
State to delay the implementation of a measure which otherwise could be
reasonably implemented sooner.
3. Can areas which have received extensions beyond December 31,
1982, now rescind the requests if they can now demonstrate attainment
by December 31, 1982?
Yes. However, given the proximity of the 1982 attainment date,
care should be taken to consider all available air quality data.
172
41-1
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev- 3-76)
-------
4. How should attainment demonstrations based on ranges of
reduction rather than a specific reduction target be reviewed?
The EPA review should be based on a specific emission target. If
the State identifies a "most probable" value within the range, this
should be the value chosen. Where the State does not distinguish this
value within the range, efforts should be made to ask the State to clarify
the "most probable" emission target. Where the State will not provide
any additional clarification and the entire range represents values which
the State indicates are possible, then the review should be based on the
high end of the range. (See Attachment 1—memorandum from OGC.) In such
cases, the Federal Register proposal notice should clearly describe the
emission target that the review is based upon.
5. How long a period should we allow for public comments?
The minimum required comment period is 30 days. Since the Act
requires expeditious processing, we would recommend extending the ccrament
period beyond 30 days only for unusual circumstances. To assure adequate
public notice, I also strongly reccmmend a notice of availability for the
SIP submittal. Attachment 2 is an example notice.
6. Could Headquarters provide recanmended Federal Register
boilerplate language for proposing disapproval of SIP's?
Attachment 3 to this memorandum is language prepared by OGC. For
additional information or clarification please contact Tina Kaneen at
755-9301.
3 Attachments*
cc: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
Charles Carter
Charles Elkins
Jack Hidinger
Sheldon Meyers
Ed Reich
Richard Wilson
* The three attachments are not included in the Policy and Guidance Notebook.
172 * U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1984-739-747/540
41-2
-------
t
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE MAY 21 1981 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 PN 172-81-05-21-038
SUBJECT . ]982 Ozone and Carbon Monoxide SIP Guidance Index
FROM G. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD-15)
TO
Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
To assist you in your 1982 ozone and carbon monoxide SIP efforts, we
have compiled an index of 1982 SIP guidance. It is divided into eight
sections: General 1982 Ozone and Carbon Monoxide SIP Information, Emission
Inventories, Inspection/Maintenance, Transportation, Modeling, Monitoring,
Stationary Source Control, and Carbon Monoxide. The intent of the index
is to identify all relevant documents pertaining to the preparation and
review of 1982 ozone and carbon monoxide SIP revisions.
We intend to update the index periodically and will keep you informed
of any additions or revisions we make to it. If there is guidance of national
significance that you feel should be included in the index, please let me know.
I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any questions or
comments regarding it, please call me or Jane Kelly of my staff at FTS 629-5665,
Attachment
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
May 1981
1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE
General 1982 Ozone and Carbon Monoxide SIP Information
1. Memo entitled "Use of 1980 Census Information in Developing the
1982 State Implementation Plan Revisions," from Edward Tuerk,
Acting Assistant Administrator to Directors, Air and Hazardous
Materials Division, dated April 20, 1981.
2. Final Policy for Approval of 1982 Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Plan Revisions for Areas Needing an Attainment Date Extension
(46 FR 7182, January 22, 1981).
3. Memo entitled "Data Collection for 1982 Ozone SIPs,"
from Robert Neligan to Directors, Air and Hazardous Materials
Division, Regions I-X, dated November 13, 1980.
4. Proposed Policy for Approval of 1982 Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Plan Revisions for Areas Needing an Attainment Date Extension
(45 FR 64856, September 30, 1980).
5. Memo entitled "Policy and Procedures to Implement Section
316 of the Clean Air Act, as Amended," from Douglas M. Costle
to Regional Administrators, Regions I-X, dated July 28, 1980
(45 FR 53382).
6. Data Collection for 1982 Ozone Implementation Plan Submittals,
(44 FR 65667, November 14, 1979).
7. Intergovernmental Consultation, 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart M,
June 18, 1979 (44 FR 35176).
8. General Preamble for Proposed Rulemaking on Approval of State
Implementation Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas (44 FR
20372, April 4, 1979). Supplements to General Preamble for
Proposed Rulemaking: (44 FR 25243, April 30, 1979), (44 FR
38583, July 2, 1979), (44 FR 50371, August 28, 1979), (44 FR
53161, September 17, 1979), (44 FR 67182, November 23, 1979).
9. Memo entitled "Criteria for Approval of 1979 SIP Revisions,"
from Douglas M. Costle to Regional Administrators, Regions I-X,
dated February 24, 1978 (43 FR 21673).
10. Memo entitled "Determination of Emission Reduction
Responsibilities," from David Hawkins to Regional Administrators,
dated April 1 , 1978.
Emission Inventories
1. AP - 42, Part A (Third Edition) Compilation of Air Pollution
Emission Factors.
2. AP - 42, Part B (Third Edition) Compilation of Air Pollution
Emission Factors.
-------
t
-2-
3. AP - 42, Supplement 11 (Third Edition), October 1980, Compilation
of Air Pollution Emission Factors.
4. AP - 42. Supplement 10, February 1980 (Third Edition) Compilation
of Air Pollution Emission Factors.
5. AP - 42, Supplement 9, July 1979, (Third Edition) Compilation
of Air Pollution Emission Factors.
6. AP - 42, Supplement 8, May 1978, (Third Edition) Compilation
of Air Pollution Emission Factors.
7. Example Emission Inventory Documentation for 1982 Ozone State
Implementation Plans (SIPs), EPA-450/4-80-033, March 1981.
8. Guidelines for Review of Highway Emission Inventories for
1982 Ozone SIPs, EPA-440/12-80-002, February 1981.
9. Directory of Volatile Organic Compound Sources Covered by
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Requirements,
Volumes I-III, Groups I-III RACT Categories, EPA-450/4-80-007a, b, c,
February 1981.
10. Memo entitled "Mobile 2 Errata" from Charles Gray to Directors,
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X, dated April 22,
1981.
11. Memo entitled "Use of Mobile 2 for 1982 SIP Submittals,"
from Charles Gray to Directors, Air and Hazardous Materials
Division, Regions I-X, dated December 12, 1980.
12. Final Emission Inventory Requirements for 1982 Ozone State
Implementation Plans, EPA-450/4-80-016, December 1980.
13. Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories for
VOCs, Volume I, Second Edition, EPA-450/2-77-028, September 1980.
14. Development of Questionnaires for Various Emission Inventory
Uses, EPA-450/3-78-122, June 1979.
15. Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Species Data Manual,
(Second Edition), EPA-450/4-80-015, July 1980.
16. Point and Area Source Checklist for Evaluating 1982 Ozone SIP
Emission Inventories, Air Monitoring Technology Branch, Monitoring
and Data Analysis Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, dated March 1981.
17. VOC RACT Sources Missing from NEDS, EPA-450/4-81-018, dated February
1981.
18. Workbook for VOC/NO Emission Inventory Requirements for 1982 Ozone
SIPs, Monitoring an$ Data Analysis Division, Control Programs
Development Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
dated October 1980.
-------
-3-
Inspection/Maintenance
1. Training for Inspection and Maintenance Programs, Mobile Source
Division, Ann Arbor, Michigan (EPA-AA-IMS-81-14), dated April 1981.
2. Memo entitled "I/M Program 1982 SIP Processing," from Charles Gray
to Directors, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X,
dated March 12, 1981.
3. Memo entitled "Questions on Inspection/Maintenance," from
Michael Walsh to Directors, Air and Hazardous Materials Division,
Regions I-X, dated January 19, 1981.
4. Memo entitled "EPA Public Awareness Guidelines for I/M," from
David G. Hawkins to Regional Administrators, January 19, 1981.
5. Recommendations Regarding the Selection of Idle Emission Inspection
Outpoints for Inspection/Maintenance Programs, Mobile Source
Division, Ann Arbor, Michigan (EPA-AA-IMS/81-1), dated January 1981.
6. Letter regarding Waiver Systems, from Tom Cackette to Kenneth A.
Hagg (Massachusetts), November 10, 1980.
7. Memo regarding Implementation Issues Regarding EPA Recommended
I/M Emission Analyzer Specifications, from David Hawkins to
Regional Administrators, dated September 24, 1980.
8. Recommended Specifications for Emission Inspection Analyzers,
Mobile Source Division, Ann Arbor, Michigan, dated September 1980.
9. Memo regarding Pennsylvania's Proposed I/M Surveillance System,
from Donald White to Robert Blanco (Region III), dated September 23,
1980.
10. Memo clarifying Section F of the I/M Policy, from Tom Cackette to
Stan Coerr (Region IV), dated September 19, 1980.
11. Emission Control System Performance Warranty Regulations (45 FR 34802,
May 22, 1980).
12. Letter regarding Mechanics Training Credits, from Donald White
to Tom Snyder (Maryland), dated February 19, 1980.
13. Memo regarding Inspection/Maintenance Policy, from David G. Hawkins
to Regional Administrators, dated February 21, 1979.
14. Memo entitled "Inspection/Maintenance Policy," from David G. Hawkins
to Regional Administrators, Regions I-X, dated July 17, 1978.
15. Memo regarding Parameter Inspection as a Suitable I/M Alternative
for the State of Texas, from David G. Hawkins to Adlene Harrison
(Region VI), dated August 1, 1978.
-------
-4-
D. Transportation
1. Proposed Policy - EPA-DOT Basic Transportation Needs,
September 18, 1980 (45 FR 62170).
2. EPA-DOT Procedures for Conformance of Transportation Plans,
Programs and Projects with Clean Air Act State Implementation
Plans, June 12, 1980.
3. EPA-DOT Expanded Public Participation Guidelines, May 1, 1980
(45 FR 42032).
4. Checklist for Review of Transportation Portions of 1979 SIP
Submissions, October 1978.
5. Memorandum of Understanding Between DOT and EPA Regarding the
Integration of Transportation and Air Quality Planning,
June 1978.
6. EPA-DOT Tra-.sportation-Air Quality Planning Guidelines,
June 1978.
E. Modeling
1. Addendum to User's Manual to Kinetics Model and Ozone Isopleth Plotting
Package, G. L. Gipson, Air Monitoring Technology Branch, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, May 1981.
2. User's Manual for Mixing Height Computer Programs by R. F. Kelly, Air
Monitoring Technology Branch, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, May 1981.
3. Letter to Mr. L. Bruckman, Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection, from Edwin Meyer, Chief, Technical
Development Section, Air Management Technology Branch, EPA,
regarding questions about modeling procedures in Connecticut,
dated April 9, 1981.
4. Guidelines for Use of City-Specific EKMA in Preparing Ozone
SIPs, EPA-450/4-80-027, March 1981.
5. Proposed Rulemaking Deleting Rollback as an Acceptable Ozone
Modeling Methodology (46 FR 7193, January 22, 1981).
6. Memo entitled "OAQPS Position on Organic Species and Continuous
NMOC Data Collection for the 1982 Ozone SIPs," from
Richard G. Rhoads to Director, Air and Hazardous Materials
Division, Regions I-X, January 8, 1981.
7. User's Manual for Kinetics Model and Ozone Isopleth Plotting
Package, July 1978.
-------
-5-
6. Procedures for Quantifying Relationships Between Photochemical
Oxidants and Precursors: Supporting Documentation, EPA-450/2-
77-02 Ib, February 1978.
7.
Uses, Limitations, and Technical Basis of Procedures for
Quantifying Relationships Between Photochemical Oxidants
and Precursors, EPA-450/2-77-021a, November 1977.
8. AP - 101, Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds and Potential for Urban
Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United States, 1972.
9. Memo entitled "Ozone Modeling for the 1982 SIP Submittal
for Denver," from Richard G. Rhoads to Robert L. Duprey,
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region VIII,
dated June 4, 1980.
10. Guideline on Air Quality Models, EPA-450/2-78-027, April 1978.
F. Monitoring
1. Technical Assurance Document for the Calibration and Operation
of Automated Ambient Nonmethane Organic Compound Analysis,
EPA-600/4-81-015, dated March 1981.
2. Determination of Nonmethane Organic Carbon (NMOC) by Cryogenic
Preconcentration and Flame lonization Detection, by R. K. M. Jayanty
and A. Blackard, EPA Contract Officer, Frank McElroy, Methods
Standardization Branch, Quality Assurance Division, Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory, dated March 1981.
3. Memo entitled "Policy on Inclusion of Summary 1981 Monitoring
as Part of the 1982 SIP," from R. G. Rhoads to Harley Laing,
Chief, Air Branch, Air and Hazardous Materials Division,
Region I, dated March 9, 1981.
4. Guidance on Monitoring Upwind of Urban Areas for Determining
Transport of Ozone and Its Precursors (DRAFT), June 1980.
5. Guidance for Collection of Ambient Nonmethane Organic Compound
(NMOC) Data for Use in 1982 Ozone SIP Development, and Network
Design and Siting Criteria for the NMOC and NO Monitors,
EPA-450/4-80-011, June 1980.
6. Guidance for the Collection and Use of Ambient Hydrocarbon
Species Data in Development of Ozone Control Strategies,
EPA-450/4-80-008, April 1980.
7. Ozone and Precursor Transport Into an Urban Area: Evaluation
of Measurement Approaches, EPA-450/4-79-039, December 1979.
-------
-6-
8. Assessment of Vertical Distributions of Photochemical Pollutants
and Meteorological Variables in the Vicinity of Urban Areas,
EPA-450/4-79-017, August 1979.
9. Site Selection for the Monitoring of Photochemical Air Pollutants,
EPA-450/3-78-013, April 1978.
G. Stationary Source Control
H. Carbon Monoxide
-------
DATE:
SUBJECT-
FROM
TO
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FEB6 1981 PN 172-81-02-06-036
Storage Tank Vapor Balance Requirements at Synthesized
Pharmaceutical Products Manufacture/facilities,
Darryl D. Tyler, Acting Director
Control Programs Development Divis^n (-M15-15)
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
It has been brought to my attention that, in some instances,
States are excluding the requirement for storage tank vapor balance
from the Group II Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products Manufacture
regulation. The primary reasons cited are that vapor recovery regu-
lations are not required for the tank trucks nor for facilities
loading pharmaceutical VOC into tank trucks; hence, enforcement of
the vapor balance requirement would perhaps be difficult.
The Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products Manufacture CTG includes a
recommended guideline (P. 1-6) that storage tanks greater than 2000
gallons and storing VOC with a vapor pressure greater than 28 kPa (4.1
PSI) at 20° C be equipped with a vapor balance system or equivalent
system that is at least 90 percent effective in reducing emissions
except where tanks are equipped with floating roofs, vapor recovery, or
equivalent. This guideline does not apply to transfer of VOC from one
in-plant location to another.
The Emission Standards and Engineering Division included the
pharmaceutical storage tank vapor balance requirement in the CTG because,
theoretically (assuming saturated vapors), a 50 percent reduction of VOC
emissions to the atmosphere would result if the storage tanks were vapor
balanced since venting would only occur at the facility where the liquid
VOC is loaded into the tank truck. Without vapor balance, VOC vapor
would be vented from (1) the storage tank at the pharmaceutical plant
during the tank truck unloading operation and (2) the tank truck during
loading of liquid VOC at the loading facility (assuming that ambient air
drawn into the tank truck during unloading operations becomes saturated
with VOC).
It is our opinion that inclusion
tank vapor balance requirement in the
However, if a State determines that it
plants to incorporate a vapor balance
reasons listed above and subsequently
regulations, EPA should not disapprove
must be taken to ensure that no emissi
this provision is not included in the
of the pharmaceutical storage
State regulations is desirable.
is unreasonable for certain
system because of the technical
exempts such systems in the
the SIP for the exemption. Care
on reduction credit is allowed if
pharmaceutical regulations.
Should you have further questions on this, please call me at
629-5251 or Brock Nicholson or Bill Polglase of my staff at 629-5516.
cc: Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
PN-172-80-12-2-035
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE:
DEC 2 1980
SUBJECT: RACT for Specialty Printing Operations
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
T0: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Regions I - X
A memorandum from Tom Helms dated August 4, 1980, "Applicability of
Paper Coating, Fabric Coating, and Graphic Arts CTGs," indicated that
specialty printing should be covered under the Paper Coating and Fabric
Coating CTGs. That memo was issued to try to remove the confusion
regarding which processes are subject to the Paper Coating and Fabric
Coating CTGs (Volume II), and which are subject to the Graphic Arts
CTG (Volume VIII). Owners of specialty printing operations reportedly
have historically considered themselves part of the graphic arts industry.
Some States have also considered them to be graphic arts processes.
The August 4 memo recognized that the control technology embodied
in the Paper and Fabric Coating CTGs can be applied to specialty
printing operations. However, case-by-case determinations would be
necessary to provide relief for those specific operations that are so
similar to conventional printing, that the emission limitations in the
Paper and Fabric Coating CTGs might not be appropriate. Unfortunately,
the numbers and variety of specialty printers have made such determinations
exceedingly complex for both industry and many States. Recent discussions
with industry and State agencies confirm the continuing existence of
these misunderstandings.
We are revising our August 4 memo to allow States, if they deem it
appropriate, to control specialty printing under the Graphic Arts CTG
using the emission limits specified in that document. However, a State
may also decide that a particular type of specialty printing is so
similar to a paper or fabric coating operation that such installations
should be controlled under the provisions of the Paper or Fabric Coating
CTG. Those States still in the process of negotiating compliance
schedules with specialty printers based on the Paper and Fabric Coating
CTGs should continue such negotiations.
Specialty printing operations may be considered to be all gravure
and flexographic operations which print a design or image, excluding
publication gravure and packaging printing. Specialty printing opera-
tions include, among other things, printing on paper cups and plates,
patterned gift wrap, wallpaper, and floor coverings.
EPA Form 1320-6 (R«v. 3-76)
-------
All coating operations, including gravure operations, where the
coating line applies only a uniform layer of material across the entire
width of the web, will continue to be subject to the definitions and
controls in the Paper and Fabric Coating CTGs (Volume II).
For additional information, contact Tom Williams (629-5226).
cc: Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
VOC Contacts, Regions I-X
-------
PN-172-80-12-2-034
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE: DEC 2 1980
SUBJECT: Cost Eff6ctiveness for RACT Application to Leaks from
Petroleum Refinery Equipment
FROM:
G. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch
TO-. Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
(MD-15)
At the time the CTG for "Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks
from Petroleum Refinery Equipment" (EPA 450/2-78-036) was issued,
emission factors were in the process of being revised. Therefore, the
emission reductions, recovered product savings, and cost effectiveness
of controlled VOC could not be determined for this CTG category. The
emission factors have now been quantified and the cost effectiveness of
applying RACT to leaks from a model refinery has been calculated. The
CIG indicates that a medium-size model refinery has a capacity of 15,900
m /day (100,000 bbl/day). Please note that the emission reduction
and cost are a function of the number of components and not simply a
function of the throughput.
The uncontrolled and controlled emissions are listed in Attachment 1
The calculation of the quantity of recovered product is presented in
Attachment 2. The calculation of cost effectiveness is presented in
Attachment 3.
Attachments 2 and 3 show that RACT, as applied to a medium-sized
model refinery in this VOC source category, is estimated to prevent the
release of approximately 2200 Mg of VOC per year, with an estimated
value of $330,000. Deducting the annualized costs of capital, moni-
toring and maintenance labor, and overhead result in a first year
savings of $205,000 and subsequent year savings of $275,000 per year.
This equates to a cost effectiveness credit of about $93 and $125 per Mg
of recovered product.
This information may be helpful to the States in developing
regulations for controlling leaks from petroleum refineries. If there
are additional questions, please call Tom Williams at 629-5226.
Attachments
cc: VOC Contact, Regions I-X
A Form 1320-« (R«v. 3-76)
-------
Attachment 1
Emission Factors
Source
Pumps
Light liquid
*Heavy liquid
Compressors
Valves
Gase
Light liquid
*Heavy liquid0
Drains
Pressure relief
devices (gas)
*Flanges
Uncontrolled
Emission Factor
kg/day
2.7
0.50
15
0.64
0.26
0.005
0.77
3.9
0.007
Controlled1'^
Emission Factor
kg/day
0.86
0.50
3.2
0.091
0.091
0.005
0.50
1.4
0.007
Number of sources'
at model refinery
125
125
14
6,000
9,750
9,750
1,400
130
64,000
a Average emissions from each source
b Defined as lighter than kerosene
c Defined as kerosene and heavier
d Hydrocarbon service
e Gas at operating conditions
1
Assessment of Atmospheric Emissions from Petroleum Refining, Volume 3,
Appendix B. EPA 600/2-80-075c, April 1980.
Proceedings: Symposium on Atmospheric Emissions from Petroleum
Refineries (November 1979, Austin, TX). EPA 600/9-80-013, March 1980,
pp. 421-440.
Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Petroleum Refinery
Equipment. EPA 450/2-78-036, June 1978.
''Cost of monitoring is not included in the cost figures because it is
assumed these components will be exempt from the monitoring provisions.
-------
Attachment 2
Calculation of Recovered Product for a Medium-Size
Model Refinery (15,900 nT/day) (100,000 bbl/day)
Operating Factor = 365 days/year
Emissions
(Emission Factor, kg/day) (days/yr) (no. of sources) = emissions, Mg/year
103 kg/Mg
Uncontrolled Controlled Recovered
Emissions Emissions Product
Source Mg/yr Mg/yr Mg/yr
Pumps
Light Liquid 123 39 84
Heavy Liquid 23 23 0
Compressors 77 16 61
Valves
Gas 1,402 199 1,203
Light Liquid 925 324 601
Heavy Liquid 18 18 0
Drains 393 256 137
Pressure Relief 185 66 119
Devices (Gas)
Flanges 164 164 0
TOTALS 3,310 1,105 2,205
NOTE: Conversion - Mg/yr x 1.1 = tons/yr
-------
Attachment 3
Cost Effectiveness Calculations
Annual product recovery credits = annual emission reduction x recovered
product value
= 2205 Mg/yr x $150/Mg]
= $330,000/yr
Total annual i zed cost - annual product recovery credit = savings
First year cost $125,000/yr2 - $330,000 = ($205,000)
On-going annual cost $55,000/yr - $330,000 = ($275,000)
Cost effectiveness = total annual ized cost
annual emission reduction
First year = <°> = ($92.97/Mg) ($84.34/T)
On-going year = ($27|00|) = ($124.72/Mg) ($113.14/T)
( ) indicates savings
From CTG - basis 1977 fourth quarter. (The recovered product valve has
increased substantially from 1977 and the cost of the monitoring and
repair program has also increased.
2
Developed using the CTG and the preliminary Draft of Background
Information for Proposed Standards for VOC Fugitive Emissions in
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry, page 7-3, EPA, RTP,
North Carolina, March 1980.
-------
PN-172-80-12-1-033
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE: DEC 0 i 1980
SUBJECT: Revised Seasonal Afterburner
Standards (MD-10)
FROM: Baiter c. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Plar
TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Regions I-X
On July 28, 1976, the Agency issued its policy on the "Seasonal
Operation of Natural Gas-Fired Afterburners." This policy authorized
the approval of SIP revisions without a detailed, time-consuming analysis
of air quality impact if the seasonal shutdown period was consistent
with that delineated in a staff study ("Oxidant Air Quality and
Meteorology," February 6, 1976) and if existing air quality showed no
past violations in the months during which the afterburners were shut
down. Because of the nation's continuing need to conserve energy
resources and because of the revision to the national ambient air
quality standard for ozone, we have reconsidered a portion of this
policy.
An analysis of available ambient air quality data concluded that
exceedances of the revised national ambient air quality standard for
ozone do not occur in the November through March period, except for
areas of southern California and the Gulf Coast. As a result of this
analysis, it is appropriate at this time to modify the "seasonal after-
burner policy" to state that any plan revisions which provide for after-
burner shutdown in the period of November through March outside of
southern California and the Gulf Coast should be proposed for approval.
All other portions of the original policy remain unchanged, namely:
(1) The policy applies to gas-fired afterburners installed to
control emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for
the purpose of reducing ambient ozone concentrations. It
does not apply to flares (which do not use natural gas as an
auxiliary fuel), VOCs vented to boilers, afterburners operated
principally for odor control, or afterburners operated to
control toxic or hazardous substances; and
EPA Perm 1320-6 (Rev. 3-7«)
-------
(2) A policy to seasonally control afterburners can only be
implemented through the SIP process. The attached staff
report, supported by air quality data, should be adequate
technical support for approving a SIP revision allowing for
seasonal shutdown of afterburners in a given location.
It is recommended that you notify the State agencies in your
Region that EPA supports a policy which permits sources to shut off
afterburners during the months of November through March except for
areas of southern California and the Gulf Coast. Should you have any
questions in this regard, please contact Mr. Richard G. Rhoads, Director,
Control Programs Development Division, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards at FTS 629-5251.
Attachment •
cc: Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
-------
PN-172-80-11-20-032
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
; WASHINGTON D C 20460
^**^^- x
"*f4 C
OFFICE OF
AIR, NOiSE, AND RADIATION
NOV 20 880
SUBJECT: Compliance with VOC Emission Limitations
for Can Coating Operations
FROM: David 6. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation (ANR-443)
MEMO TO: Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
The Agency has been requested by the Can Manufacturers Institute to
consider the utilization of the compliance program described below for
determining compliance with appropriate emission limitations in State
Implementation Plans. The Agency has previously considered such
an approach and in a memorandum dated November 21, 1978, from
Richard G. Rhoads, Director, Control Programs Development Division to
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X entitled
"RACT Options for Can Coating Operations," the Agency stated that a SIP
submittal with such provisions would be approvable. This memorandum
expands Mr. Rhoads' memorandum to cover options which can be utilized by
States in determining compliance with can coating VOC emission limitations,
Mr. Rhoads1 memorandum stated that a State's regulation which
provides for a daily weighted average in conjunction with a plantwide
emission limitation would be approvable as part of a SIP. This is
because of the severe practical problems faced by can manufacturing
plants where a number of lines apply as many as 50 different coatings,
depending on the end uses of the cans. In this industry, line specific
emission limitations may cause can coaters to be in violation when a
high solvent coating is applied.
Regulatory language in State Implementation Plans defining the
allowable emission limits for can coating operations differs in detail
from State to State and among areas in individual States. The Agency
believes that for the-most part, the States and relevant local agencies
may utilize a daily weighted average to determine whether a can manu-
facturing operation is in compliance with the State's emission limita-
tions. EPA is issuing this interpretative statement to notify State and
-------
local agencies that in EPA's view, in general, their regulations may be
interpreted as allowing daily weighted averages for approving permits
and compliance plans without further regulatory changes or the need for
a SIP revision. EPA encourages such an interpretation.*
Compliance can be determined for any 24-hour period based on total
actual emissions calculated from daily units of production records
(e.g., number of each type of can, sheet, or end), application rates of
each coating (e.g., gallons/units of production), solvent and solids
content of each coating, and control efficiency. This would then be
compared to the total allowable emissions for that production mix
assuming each coating complied with applicable emission limitations.
The attached suggested format allows use of a standardized equation to
express the weight of VOC per gallon of coatings, less water, in terms
of weight of VOC per gallon of solids to determine compliance. The
pounds of solvent per gallon of coating should be based on a certified
analysis of the VOC content of each coating given to the user by the
supplier. This analysis should be verifiable by laboratory analysis.
For purposes of emission limitation compliance, VOC content of coatings
is the responsibility of the user. The percent capture and control
efficiency must be established by using approved test methods on the
worst case solvent or for all cases of use and held constant until
such time as a new test is conducted to demonstrate a different
efficiency.
It is essential that companies keep detailed records in a format
that will allow simple and accurate verification and that the information
be available as necessary for compliance certification and possible
enforcement action. Further, standard test methods to verify the
solvent content of each coating should be in accordance with those
prescribed in the State's regulations.
States are urged to utilize enforcement techniques which encourage
the development and use of low solvent coatings technology in the can
manufacturing industry. In the long run, use of such technology is
preferable to incineration from the point of view of reliability and
maintenance of controls, as well as for purposes of energy conservation.
Attachment
cc: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
Director, Enforcement Division, Regions I-X «
Jeff Miller, Office of Enforcement
Michele Beige! Corash, Office of General 'Counsel
*This compliance method may be applicable to multiplant situations
where the plants are under common ownership or control and are
located in the same geographic area. EPA will consider approval
of such multiplant applications of this method.
-------
k
i
F
u
o
-j
c^~
CJ V)
ii2
Hi
SIUJ
So.
LUO
UJ (9
OZ
•fc*
gfe
. U. O
k*
""£ o
-u. w
s2
trt
UJ
r-i
*""*
r—
x -— »
*+— *•"••
O X
jj C3 ft*
r— > i— i
U
CsJ C
f— Ol
i- v-
c £
OM-
O ^ x f
t— 10 O. —
re o o-s-
co u « —
Ol
o— »
vi 3 cr
4J-0 —
in i- O
C C l-
O =10.
VI
VI C
"*" ° is.—
•= 1 lie
*j 'o.*j'io p
o 0.10 01 1
•^ ->« s-~- o.
VI
T3
« ^ O ^™*
O VI Ql
£3,
s.
^J
£••-
X > U
5*""
in
•0
** •-. f*
8T~
Ol
C L.
£SS-
2 u vfS-
»— VI
J3 « 01
i— ID OCM r^cn in
ro ro f— co ir> o i-*
^ p- CM<— CMi— O
(/I
o
on
10
CO i CO 1 I I £
• 1 • 1 1 1 UJ
t
^
1—
0
t—
_J
o ocn co i^-o- t-
en o TT ro o in <
o o or« CM ic
^ CM CM r—
in «s-«r co «r«-
CM CM i— CM CM
in in
CSJ O O^-«Oi—
CM CO ro en roo
Ot-ioincoen
CM .— «•
! 5 : : tg !
ID TV BO *- P— ^«
M oo co 40 CD r**
**• >oto'-'n
^rOcM en oen
O O J f n 4D CM
CM IT) CO^-»-'«-
CM en >£>«••— o
in r- IT) IO I»> «•
.
^-•T-^- « C
n a ID E o. o
0 O O ID VI 0.
u u u ai E
vi ai 5
4J 4J 4J T3 U
ai ai ai ai v
ai 01 ai *o in T?
(/> l/> i/) (^ UJ
*-CM CO*- VfHO
r— s*- in r^ CM ID in
t— CM COCM o«- en
<<•>»»• fOCO Or- O
*— in co ro i — in
vt
1^
10
i
^J
^
o
1-
UJ
_J
o o en CO r~«r m
cncxrooin y-
CM CM r^ rOr— O
_j
"*
ro
Ol
c
10
o
c
1
^
£
VI
c
o
,1
01 u> in m^^r^.'^r
o ««rW»-o>r~
ID CM
•Z
CO «o eo ir> CM r-
CM«MCMUV«-rO
C C C >>T3
-- •»- ^- «J C
*> *> *> C 3
SIB ID E 0.0
O O ID in o.
u u u 01 E
woo
ttl Of O) Ol '^
Ol 01 OJT3 VI t3
OO €/> l/> IO »-i UJ
r- CM ro^c m«c
4J
c
ai
0
in
01
c
•r-
c
c
jr
Ol
c
3
U
C
in
T
o
01
l-
c
ID
"o.
1
IB
O
O
m
in
I
,_
u
1
"•"•*
4?"9
an
c
w
s g
> o
Q
V> D
V- O
o
J^. I >
i~ X
VI
c »—
n u
a 01
«)
0
c
^
to
Ol
i.
01
o.
u
o
tft
c
g.
II
01
•»- Ol
01 JQ
10
<-> t
o S
in «
•o
§"g
o •
D.
•• 3
VI +*
C U
O ID
I/I <•>
«!-£
••il:
1C C.
^2
s **
t— O
3 VI
*-> C
"1
u
i- .
*^« *»*
-=§
— • a. i-
S- -o
L. 0}
S °"^
c* o.
•^- «0
"oT^
*^ S
•5*0
§vi
c
o
Ol ^
VI ID
« 01
— X
JO *->
J s
VI >>
•o o
o c
f 01
aj u
+j <*-
vi 01
01
c
•a ai
ai i-
> O)
t- >i.
O-"^
o-tj
a
n
Ol
C 01
T- 4J
in ID
3 £
>> VI
J2 C
01 Ol
.c -o
in
•§-0
4-> oy
en +•>
O O
ii
o
4-> U
in
>i*>
U vi
C 01
Ol 4-*
•^ Si
e
C V)
4) 40
U
1- *>
<•- VI
51
o w
c
o c
OJ
4
«n
___
4^
-E
J
VI
.VI
o
s
£
JQ
V)
^>
"i
VI
01
1
f»>
-------
PN 172-80-09-03-030
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE: September 3, 1980
SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products CTG--
Emission Limits for Coating of Shipping Pails and Drums
FROM: Tom Helms, Chief fas" (MD-15)
Control Programs Operations Branch, CPDD
TO: Air Branch Chief, Regions I - X
The sample regulation for the Group II CTG categories indicated that
the coating of pails and drums was to be included in the Miscellaneous
Metal Parts CTG. Representatives from the shipping container industry
have since requested clar.ification as to what emission limits are
applicable to their coatings.
We recommend that a presumptive norm of 4.3 pounds of VOC per
gallon of coating less water is Reasonably available control technology
for coatings used in pail and drum interior protective linings even
though the coatings may not be a true "clear coat." This determination
,was made on the basis of the unavailability of lower VOC coatings that can
withstand the harsh, toxic, and corrosive nature of many chemicals that
are shipped in these containers.
The exterior coatings for pails and drums must meet an emission
limit of 3.5 pounds of VOC per gallon of coating less water. This is
the limit described in the CTG for outdoor exposure coatings.
The following information is provided for the States to use in
defining metal pails and drums:
Pails -- any nominal cylindrical metal shipping container of
1- to 12-ga'llon capacity and constructed of 29 gauge and heavier
material.
Drums — any cylindrical metal shipping container of
13- to no-gallon capacity.
For additional information, please call Tom Williams at
FTS 629-5226. *»
cc: VOC Contact, Regions I - X
Jim Berry, ESED
Form 1320-4 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
DATE:
PN 172-80-07-02-029
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
JUL 2 1980
SUBJECT: Exemption for Cold Cleaner Degreasers
FROM:
TO:
Richard G. Rhoads,
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
During the past several months, a number of States have submitted
VOC regulations for solvent metal cleaners that include an exemption
based on weight, i.e., 3 Ibs/hr, 15 Ibs/day, for cold cleaners (batch
operated, nonboiling solvent degreasers typically found in automotive
repair facilities). A major concern of the States was related to the
manpower requirements associated with enforcing regulations for these
sources.
Agency policy guidance in these instances has been to conditionally
approve regulations containing weight type exemptions applicable to
urban nonattainment areas that cannot demonstrate attainment by 1982
pending State deletion of the exemption or demonstration of compliance
with the five percent significance test. (See memoranda from
Richard G. Rhoads, Director, CPDD to Director, Air and Hazardous
Materials Division, Regions I-X, dated September 7, 1978 and
December 12, 1979.)
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide additional guidance by
specifying instances where certain designs of cold cleaner degreasers
could justifiably be determined to be in compliance with the CTG.
In the development of NSPS for solvent metal cleaning, it was
determined as the result of investigation that cold cleaners with remote
solvent reservoirs expose solvent only while parts are being cleaned.
The solvent is pumped through a nozzle suspended over a sink-like work
area which drains back into the reservoir. Because the reservoir is
remote from the work area, this type of cold cleaner is not subject to
the evaporation losses suffered by conventional cold cleaners.
Consequently, it was concluded that cold cleaners with remote
solvent reservoirs can be exempted from the operating requirements to
cover the degreaser during non-use periods. In addition, the units can
be exempted from equipment specifications which require each cold
cleaner to have a closable cover and,because the sink collects solvent
drainage, a separate drain rack is unnecessary.
= orm 1320-6 (R.v. 3-76)
-------
In view of the above, State regulations which specify an exemption
for cold cleaners meeting the following criteria could be approved as
being equivalent to RACT.
1. The cold cleaner must have a remote solvent reservoir.
2. The solvent used in the cold cleaner must not have a vapor
pressure that exceeds 4.3 kPa (33mm Hg or 0.6 PSI) measured at
38° C (100° F) or be heated above 50° C (120° F).
3. The sink-like work area must have an open drain area less
than 100 cm.
4. Evidence is provided that waste solvent will be stored or
properly disposed of with minimal loss due to evaporation.
Should you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please
contact Bill Polglase at (FTS 629-5251).
-------
PN 172-80-06-16-027
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE. JUN 1 6 1880
SUBJECT: Gasoline Tank Truck Regulations
FROM: Richard 6. Rhoads, Director,
Control Programs Development Division
TO.- Jack Divita, Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region VI
(MD-15)
This is to confirm previous telephone conversations with my staff
concerning the necessity to develop regulations for gasoline tank trucks
in areas demonstrating attainment by 1982. Prior EPA guidance has
provided that:
"Urban and rural nonattainment areas not needing an
extension until 1987 may have a cutoff source size
of 100 tons per year if they can demonstrate
attainment by 1982."
As indicated above, the tank truck regulations are necessary where
nonattainment area extensions until 1987 are required.
Nonattainment areas that demonstrate attainment by 1982 may have
a cutoff source size of 100 tons per year. In line with this policy,
regulations for Stage I service stations, bulk plants, and smaller
degreasers were not required for the Group I CTG categories.
Tank trucks are less than 100 tons per year sources and, as such,
under present policy would be exempt from a CTG recommended annual
certification regulation. However, tank trucks are an integral part of
bulk terminal operations (which are generally 100 tons per year sources).
Essentially leakless tank trucks compatible with bulk terminal vapor
control were required to comply with bulk terminal regulations previously
adopted during the Group I CTG regulation development.
In summary, in areas attaining by 1982, separate regulations
covering tank trucks are strongly encouraged. In any event, in
order for the terminal regulation (mass emission standard of
80 mg/1) or an efficiency standard of (90 percent by weight) to
be effective, the tank trucks loading gasoline at regulated
terminals must be essentially leakless and equipped for vapor collection
so that vapors generated in the tank trucks during loading operations
Form 1320-6 (R.v. 3-76)
-------
are vented to the bulk terminal vapor control system. The State
regulations will have to include a test method that addresses the
leak tight tank truck conditions. For additional information, please
call Bill Polglase (629-5251) or Tom Williams (629-5226).
cc: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-V, VII-X
Pete Hagerty, Region I
Paul Truchan, Region II
Neil Swanson, Region III
Doug Cook, Region IV
Dick Dalton, Region V
Donna Ascenzi, Region VI
David Doyle, Region VII
Bill Bernardo, Region VIII
Tom Rarick, Region IX
Ken Lepic, Region X
-------
PN 172-78-06-14-026
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGARDING
THE INTEGRATION OF TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY PLANNING
I. Introduction
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 were signed into law by the President
on August 7, 1977. These Amendments require state and local governments
to develop for all areas where national ambient air quality standards have
not been attained, revisions to state implementation plans (SIPs). The
revised SIPs must be submitted by the state to the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) by January 1, 1979. These revised plans must provide for
attainment of the national ambient air quality standards by 1982 or, in
the case of areas with severe photochemical oxidant or carbon monoxide
problems, not later than 1987. The revised plans must also provide for
incremental reductions in emissions ("reasonable further progress") between
the time the plans are submitted and the attainment deadline.
In many major urbanized areas of the country the revised SIPs will require
transportation controls, i.e. strategies designed to reduce emissions from
transportation-related sources by means of structural and operational changes
in the transportation system. A mechanism is required that will enable
state and local governments to: (1) develop a wide range of alternative
transportation control strategies, (2) analyze the air quality and other
impacts of the strategies, and (3) select among the alternatives in a
timely and informed manner.
Federal transportation planning requirements in urbanized areas are imple-
mented by the Department of Transportation (DOT) through a joint delegation
of authority to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Urban
Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA). The FHWA and UMTA provide funds
to states and local governments to plan, develop, and improve transportation
systems and services. In urbanized areas improvements are implemented
according to a continuing, comprehensive, and cooperative transportation
planning process carried out pursuant to FHWA/UMTA joint regulations. It
-------
is in this context that "DOT" is utilized in this document. In order to
effectively achieve the objectives of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments,
the DOT and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agree that the trans-
portation-related air quality planning requirements of EPA will be integrated
with the transportation planning process administered by the DOT. Closer
integration of the planning requirements of DOT and EPA will ensure the
timely consideration of air quality concerns and will reduce potentially
duplicative, overlapping, and inconsistent activities at the state and
local level. DOT administers other planning programs through other
administrations (e.g. FAA and FRA) which have lesser impact on air
quality but may be subject to future discussion.
11. Purpose
This Memorandum of Understanding, developed pursuant to the President's
request, is designed (1) to establish certain principles which DOT and EPA
agree to follow in the preparation of more detailed regulations and
administrative procedures required to achieve the objective of integrating
the air quality and transportation planning processes; (2) to identify
specific areas of agreement with regard to the joint administration of the
air quality aspects of the planning process.
HI- Principles that Will Guide the Integration of the Air Quality
and Transportation Planning Processes
The reduction of air pollution is an important national goal and
must be among the highest priorities of the transportation planning
process in areas not meeting primary Air Quality Standards. However,
the transportation planning process must also consider other national
and local objectives such as mobility, safety, energy conservation,
urban economic development, full employment and orderly metropolitan
growth.
It is the affirmative responsibility of federal, state and local
agencies involved in funding or conducting transportation planning
and implementation to ensure that evaluation of an adequate range
of alternative transportation control strategies is conducted in
order to furnish local, state and federal officials with an adequate
basis on which to reach informed decisions.
Any transportation planning activites conducted pursuant to this
agreement must continue to provide for an adequate process of
consultations with and involvement of the general purpose local
government, responsible state agencies and the public as called for
in the joint UMTA/FHWA Urban Transportation Planning regulations.
-------
D. It is the objective of the activities undertaken pursuant to this
agreement to contribute to the maximum extent feasible, in com-
bination, with other emission reduction measures, to a reduction of
emissions necessary to meet the prescribed air quality standards.
IV. Joint Administration of the Air Quality Aspects of the
Urban Transportation Planning Process
The Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection
Agency agree to modify existing procedures concerning the administration
of the urban transportation and air quality planning processes in
nonattainment areas as follows:
1. DOT and EPA regional/division offices will have the opportunity
for joint review of and concurrence in the Unified Work Program (UWP)
required pursuant to paragraph 450.114 of the Joint Planning Regulations
(23 CFR 450), to ensure that adequate air quality planning tasks are
included in the planning programs. Any disagreements at the regional
level shall be referred to the DOT Secretary for resolution. Before
making his final decision on the UWP, the Secretary will consult with
the EPA Administrator and will notify EPA of the disposition of its
comments, with appropriate supporting materials. In addition, where an
MPO has failed, without adequate reason to carry out the analysis or
other activities committed in its Unified Work Program, DOT will prescribe
conditions which will require specified remedial actions to be taken in
order to correct the identified failure in the Unified Work Program.
DOT and EPA will develop in the near future a document identifying
appropriate categories of remedial actions.
2. DOT and EPA regional/division offices will have the opportunity
for joint review of transportation plans (including TSM elements) in
nonattainment areas required pursuant to paragraph 450.116 of the
Joint Plannning Regulations, to ensure that air quality considerations
are adequately addressed. DOT and EPA will consult with the planning
agency on how air quality related planning deficiencies will be
corrected. DOT will also explicitly consider EPA comments in taking
subsequent actions on program approvals and will notify EPA of the
disposition of its comments, with appropriate supporting materials.
3. DOT and EPA regional/division offices will have the opportunity
for joint review in connection with the annual planning certification
required pursuant to paragraph 450.122 of the Joint Planning Regulations,
on the adequacy of the planning process to address air quality considerations,
DOT and EPA will consult with the planning agency on how air quality
related planning deficiencies will be corrected. DOT will also explicitly
consider EPA comments in making any certification decisions and will
notify EPA of the disposition of its comments, with appropriate
supporting material.
-------
4. DOT and EPA regional/division offices will have the opportunity
for joint review of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and its
annual element required pursuant to paragraph 450.118 of the Joint
Planning Regulations for consistency with the air quality elements of
the transportation plan and/or the SIP. DOT will explicitly consider
EPA's comments in program approvals, and will notify EPA of its disposition
of the comments. If EPA disagrees with the disposition of its comments,
the procedures for resolution set forth in Addendum 1 to this memorandum
will be followed.
5. DOT and EPA regional/division offices will have the opportunity
for joint review of the revised SIPs, for compliance with the objectives
of statutes administered by DOT (e.g., Title 23 USC and the Urban Mass
Transportation Act) to provide for mobility and for safe and efficient
transportation. EPA will explicitly consider DOT comments in approving
or disapproving SIP revisions, and will notify DOT of its disposition of
the comments, with appropriate supporting materials. If DOT disagrees
with the disposition of its comments, the procedures for resolution set
forth in Addendum 2 to this memorandum will be followed.
6. DOT and EPA agree to work toward greater coordination in the
administration of their respective grants for local planning activities
by including these grants in the UWP, to ensure that such grants support
effectively the related objectives of both agencies while avoiding
duplication and overlapping planning activities.
DOT and EPA will take appropriate steps to alter their existing internal
procedures and to issue a joint appendix to the existing transportation
planning regulations to implement the above understandings.
DOT and EPA agree to consult one another in the development of
criteria and procedures required by Section 176 of the Clean Air Act,
including insuring that all major capital improvement projects are
consistent with the SIP.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 14th day of June 1973.
Department of Transportation
''
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
ADDENDUM 1
If the EPA Regional Administrator disagrees with the disposition
of his comments by DOT, he will so notify the DOT Regional/Division
Administrator within seven days. In such a case, the DOT Regional/
Division Administrator will not approve the element or elements of
the TIP in disagreement until so advised by headquarters.
Within 30 days after the EPA Regional Administrator notifies DOT
of his disagreement, the EPA Administrator will notify the Secretary
of Transportation if the EPA Administrator disagrees with the DOT
field staff disposition of EPA comments, and the reason for the EPA
Administrator's disagreement.
If such notification is received within 30 days, the Secretary of
Transportation will carefully consider the EPA Administrator's views
and in the event of disagreement will notify the EPA Administrator
of the disposition of his comments,- with appropriate supporting
materials before making his-decision.
-------
ADDENDUM 2
If the DOT Regional/Division Administrator disagrees with the
disposition of his comments by EPA, he will so notify the EPA
Regional Administrator within seven days. In such a case, the
EPA Regional Administrator will not approve the SIP until so
advised by headquarters.
Within 30 days after the DOT Regional/Division Administrator
notifies EPA of his disagreement, the Secretary of Transportation
will notify the EPA Administrator if the Secretary of Transportation
disagrees with the EPA field staff disposition of DOT comments, and
the reason for the Secretary's disagreement.
If such notification is received within 30 days, the EPA Administrator
will carefully consider the Secretary of Transportation's views and
in the event of disagreement will notify the Secretary of the
disposition of his comments, with appropriate supporting materials
before making his decision.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
'DATE OLL i<} 19/9
PN-172-79-12-12-023
,£CT Exemptions for Degreasers
FROM Richard G. Rhoads, Director^
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
TO Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
It has conie to my attention that some States are including a weight
rate exemption in degreasing VOC regulations applicable to urban nonattain-
ment areas (>200,000 population) that cannot demonstrate attainment by
1982, For example, some States have included a 15 Ibs/day and/or
3 Ibs/hour weight exemption that effectively exempts from control cold
cleaners (batch operated, nonboiling solvent degreasers typically found
in automotive repair facilities).
A telephone survey of Regional Offices has indicated that, in some
instances, where weight exemptions for degreasers have been included in
draft regulations, the States have revised the regulation to delete the
exemption. States, such as Colorado, Delaware, and Wisconsin are included
in this category. In other States, the weight exemption for degreasers
has been cited as a deficiency in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) by
the Regional Offices. Conditional approval of the SIP has been given to
the States pending exclusion of the weight exemption from the degreasing
regulation. States, such as Connecticut, Virginia, and Tennessee are in
this category. In the majority of cases, States have not included a
weight exemption in degreasing regulations.
The degreaser regulation policy guidance cited in my memorandum of
September 7, 1978, to the Air and Hazardous Materials Division Directors,
states that for urban nonattainment areas across the board exemptions
for small sources (e.g., 3 Ibs/day) should not be approved. However,
conditional approval may be appropriate where the State agrees to
remove the exemption. This policy guidance is reaffirmed.
Please contact Bill Polglase at (FTS 629-5251) should you have any
questions on this memorandum.
Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
°ATE OCT 4 1979
SUBJECT Clarification for Final SIP Actions on Asphalt Regulations PN-i72-79-io-04-02i
FROM Richard G. Rhoads,
Control Programs Development Division, OAQPS (MD 15)
TODirector, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
On December 19, 1978, and March 6, 1979, guidance memoranda were
sent to the Regional Offices concerning criteria for determining acceptable
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) RACT regulations for cutback asphalt.
The examp', _ regulation in the first memorandum prohibited use of cutback
asphalt or emulsified asphalt containing solvent but provided certain
exceptions. The exceptions are: cold weather use; prime coat; stockpiling;
and demonstration of no VOC emissions from cutback. Both memoranda
pointed out that there might also be other unique problems for which
additional exemptions could be appropriate with adequate justification
such as applications of emulsified asphalt requiring the addition of
solvents or oils to improve the properties of the emulsion. I requested
that you advise our office of additional exemptions which the States
requested.
Now that most VOC SIP regulations have been submitted to EPA,
several remaining issues with cutback asphalt need clarification. The
following guidance is intended for your use as you finalize SIP approval/
disapproval actions and conditional approvals.
The approach recommended in the two previous memoranda was to
define an asphalt emulsion as a suspension of asphalt in water by means
of an emulsifying agent with no allowance for the addition of solvents
to the emulsion. The additional exemptions to the regulation were to be
the mechanism for allowing use of those emulsions containing solvent*
where necessary. While most of the SIP submittals applying RACT to
asphalt operations have not addressed the acceptability of solvent in
emulsions, several States which have allowed solvent have not used the
mechanism we provided, but instead have allowed a maximum solvent content
in emulsions, sometimes up to 12 to 15 percent. Information we have
received on the subject of solvent content in emulsified asphalt does
not support the allowance of a blanket solvent content for emulsified
asphalt. Accordingly, these blanket-type regulations should not be
unconditionally approved. If a State chooses to allow the use of solvents
in certain emulsions, the regulations should only permit the inclusion
of solvent in emulsified asphalt by stipulating maximum solvent contents
*The solvent content is determined by ASTM distillation test D-244.
°A Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
allowed for specific uses or for specific grades of emulsified asphalt.
The following maximum solvent contents for specific emulsified asphalt
applications are based on ASTM, AASHTO, and State specifications and on
information recently received from the Asphalt Institute.
Use Max. Solvent Content
Seal coats in early spring or late
fall 3%
Chip seals when dusty or dirty
aggregate is used 3%
Mixing w/open graded aggregate that
is not well washed . 8%
Mixing w/dense graded aggregate 12%
I wish to emphasize that these are maximum solvent contents and if
States are using emulsified asphalt with less solvent for these applications,
they should continue to do so. These are only the maximum solvent
contents that we feel current technology supports. Many emulsified
asphalt manufacturers are successfully using less solvent and achieving
the same acceptable results. The chemistry of emulsified asphalt and
the non-uniformity of the technology across the country prevents us from
specifying anything more than upper limits on solvent content. Lower
limits are certainly achievable in many States but must be determined on
a case-by-case basis.
Finally, in our contact with the emulsified asphalt industry we
find that many people are extremely apprehensive about defining an
emulsified asphalt as having no solvent. Should the exceptions which
allow emulsions containing solvent ever be removed from the regulation,
the industry might be unable to produce acceptable products for a number
of applications. An acceptable regulatory approach, therefore, will be
to allow defining emulsified asphalt as optionally containing solvent or
oils. The allowed solvent would be limited to the amounts specified
above (or lower if this can be negotiated) based on application. The
definition should be worded in such a way to clearly indicate that these
are the maximum solvent contents allowed and that they are allowed only
for the specific applications or grades of emulsified asphalt. All
other asphalt emulsions should not contain solvent. If States reject
this approach, as an alternative, we will accept blanket-type regulations
which allow maximum solvent contents in the range of 5 to 7 percent.
For those States who have submitted regulations with an unacceptable
blanket solvent content allowance, a conditional approval should be
• granted with time allowed to modify the regulations to follow the solvent
content guidance provided above or to lower the blanket solvent allowance
to 5 to 7 percent.
-------
\. UNITED STATES ENVlROfriv.um AL PROTECTION AGENC^
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
PN-172-79-08-22-020
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE. AMD RADIATION
SUBJECT: State Implementation Plans/Revised
Schedules for Submitting Reasonably Available
Control Technology Regulations for Stationary
Sources^-of Vola>R£ Organic Compound , (VOC)
FROM: & pav^&£ftewyflS, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation
MEMO TO: Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
The Administrator's memorandum of February 24, 1978, published in
the Federal Register at 43 FR 21673 (May 19, 1978), stated that the 1979
plan submission for ozone nonattainment areas, "... must include, as a
minimum, legally enforceable regulations to reflect the application of
reasonably available control technology (RACT) to those sources for
which EPA has published a Control Technique Guideline (CTG) by January
1978, and provide for the adoption and submittal of additional legally
enforceable RACT regulations on an annual basis beginning in January
1980 for those CTGs that have been published by January of the preceding
year."
It is now apparent that the regulatory adoption process may be more
lengthy than first anticipated. Additional time may be necessary to
accommodate public, administrative, and legislative review. In order to
realistically address this problem, yet to continue meeting our respon-
sibilities to attain the ambient standards as expeditiously as practi-
cable, EPA is revising by six months the deadlines for submittal of'the
RACT regulations for the second set of CTGs. The SIPs- should now provide
for the adoption and submittal of additional legally enforceable regulations
by July 1, 1980 for the following source categories:
Factory Surface Coating of Flatwood Paneling
Petroleum Refinery Fugitive Emissions (Leaks)
Pharmaceutical Manufacture
Rubber Tire Manufacture
Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
Graphic Arts (Printing)
Dry Cleaning, Perchloroethylene
Gasoline Tank Trucks, Leak Prevention
• Petroleum Liquid Storage, Floating Roof Tanks
-------
* , •
In the immediate future, I will publish a Federal Register notice
announcing this policy change. I ask that you notify your States in
order to allow them to schedule their associated regulatory activities
in the most efficient manner possible.
:!'• - ' > • • •
cc: Marvin Durning S:'' . '.. • • ' •'"' '
Joan Bernstein ^ " ' .
Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[40 CFR Part 52]
[FRL1305-8]
State Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for Proposed Rulemaklng on
Approval of Plan Revisions for
Nonattalnment Areas—Supplement
(on Revised Schedules for Submission
of Volatile Organic Compound Ract
Regulations) _
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: General Preamble for proposed
rulemaking—Supplement.
SUMMARY: Provisions of the Clean Air
Act enacted in 1977 requires States to
revise their State Implementation Plans
for all areae that have not attained
National Ambient A;r Quality
Standards. Stales are to have submitted
the necessary plan revisions to EPA by
January 1.1979. The Agency is now
publishing proposals inviting public
comment on whether each of the
submittals should be approved. In the
April 4,1979 issue of the Federal
Register, EPA published a General
Preamble identifying and summarizing
the major considerations that will guide
EPA"'s evaluation of the submittals [44
FR 20372). Today's Supplement provides
information on the revised schedule for
adoption of regulations for source
categories emitting volatile organic
compounds (VOC) covered by the
second set of Control Technique
Guidelines (CTGs).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The appropriate EPA Regional Office
listed on the first page of the General
Preamble (44 FR 20372) or the following
Headquarters office: G. T. Helms, Chief,
Control Programs Operations Branch,
Control Programs Development Division,
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (MD-13), Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-
5365 or 541-5226.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
background is set out at length in the
April 4 General Preamble. This
Supplement address an issue that needs
exolanaticn.
the Administrator's memorandum of
February 24,1978. published in the
Federal Register al 43 FR 21673 (May 19,
1978). stated that the 1979 plan
submission for ozone nonattainment PN-172- 79-08-21-019
areas." . . • must includes, as a
minimum, legally enforceable
regulations to reflect the application of
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) to those sources for which EPA
has published a Control Technique
Guideline (CTG) by January 1978, and
provide for the adoption and submittal
of additional legally enforceable RACT
regulations on an annual bflsis
beginning in January 1980 for those •
CTGs that have been published by
January of the preceding year."
It is now apparent that the regulatory
adoption process may be more lengthy
than first anticipated. Additional rime
may be necessary to accommodate
public, administrative, and legislative
review. In order to realistically address
this problem, yet to continue meeting
our responsibilities to attain the ambient
standards as expeditiously as
practicable, EPA is revising by six
months the deadlines for submittal of
'he RACT regulations for the second set
>f CTGs. The SIPs should now provide
.or the adoption and submittal of
additional legally enforceable
regulations by July 1,1980 for the
following source categories:'
Factory Surface Costing of Flatwood
Paneling
Petroleum Refinery Fugitive Emission (Leaks)
Pharmaceutical Manufacture
Rubber Tire Manufacture
Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts
and Products
Graphic Arts (Printing)
Dry Cleaning. Perchloroethylene
Gasoline Tank Trucks, Leak Prevention
Petroleum Liquid Storage, Floating Roof
Tanks
If this revision to the adoption
schedule of RACT regulations requires
alteration of nny comments on a plan for
which the comment period has already
ended, the commcnter should contact
the appropriate EPA Regional Office
immediately so thnt the issue can be
appropriately dealt with.
Note.—Under Executive Order 12044 EPA
IE required to judge whether a regulation is
"significant" and. therefore, subject to the •
procedural requirements of the order or
whether it may follow other specialized
development procedures. EPA labels these
other regulations "specialized." I have
reviewed this regulation and determined that
it is a specialized regulation not subject to the
procedural requirements of Executive Order
120-M. (Sees. nO[a). 172. Clean Air Act. at
amended (42 U.S.C. 74lO(a). 7502JJ.
Daled: August 21,1B79.
Edward F. Tuerk,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise,
and Radiation.
|FR Doe. TS-JfirSfl Filnd 6-CT-7B; S.4i UBJ
BILLING CODE (SM-01-M
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRQNMENTAL.PROTECJION AGENCY
1(179 Office of Air Quality Planning ancl Standards
DATE- OWN % Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
SUBJECT-. Modifications to Recommendatiorjs-)for Solvent^tyetal Clearing
PN-172-79-06-20-018
Richard G. Rhoads,
Control Programs Development^tfivist^'n' (MD-15^
TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
In the Control Technique Guideline for Solvent Metal Cleaning, the
operating requirements for open top vapor degreasers include the
following specification for changes in the vapor level:
"The vapor level should not drop more than 10 cm (4 in) when the
workload enters the vapor zone."
Recently the effectiveness and practicality of this specification
has been questioned. The Emission Standards and Engineering Division of
OAQPS «has reviewed this issue and has concluded that this specification
may not necessarily reduce emissions and will cause compliance problems
for a significant number of sources. A summary of the analysis is
attached.
Accordingly, State plans which do not include this provision for
open top vapor degreasers should be recommended for approval. States
with final adopted regulations that include this restriction should be
advised of potential implementation problems with the provision. Where
practical, States should be encouraged to amend their plans to delete
this provision. In the interim, Regional Offices should take no steps
to implement this provision.
Attachment
cc: Mr. Ed Reich, DSSE
Mr. Don Goodwin, ESED
FORM 1320-6 IREV. 3-76)
-------
PN-172-79-05-25-017
IRONMENTAL PROTECTION, J.
--- *ett;
cc
•
i • * ff«*S 'J-.~ '•- "?~Xi^^'^ff!fff--A-'
*: Air Quality; Clarification of Agency.
: 'r. Policy Concerning Ozone^SHP^f^r
"=• Revisions and Solvent Reactivities*"
_Zxi.T -*UireThi3..noticeispublishedvunder^
-' the. authority.^ 8ectioalOlQ>)_and .vjji" •
.-" section. lO&ofthe r.lgnn Air AijagrW.^- •
- - notice clarifies EPA!s."Recommended/:
: '-Policy oa Contool of VolatiIe-,OrganiCci.
". - Compounds~42JFR35314. (July 8^1977J.
STATEMENrlTheJuly 1977 Poti^^*^
"Statement noted that only reactive'... r_
volatile organic compounds participate
.in the chemical reactions that form. :
photochemical oxidants. Currently,--"...
- available information suggests that. •-
negligibly phptochemically reactive
volatile organic compounds as defined.
in that Statement, includino mptW
chloroform and methylene chloride, do
not appreciably affect ambient ozone
levels. Hence, EPA will not disapprove
any state implementation plan or plan
revision for its failure to contain
regulations restricting emissions of these
compounds.
Although these substances need not
pe controlled under state - -. -
implementation plans for the purpose of
achieving ambient ozone standards,
nothing in this memorandum is intended
to modify past EPA expressions of
concern about the uncontrolled use of
methyl chloroform and methylene
chloride. As noted in the above
referenced policy and the clarification
presented'in memoranda of August 24,
1978 and March 6.1979, there is
suggestive evidence that both-
compounds are potentially carcinogenic.
and methyl chloroform is suspected of
contributing to depletion of
stratospheric ozone. See, for example,
the following studies:
Simmon. V. FM Kauhanen, K. and
Tardiff, R. G., "Mutagenic Activity of
Chemicals Identified in Drinking Water"
in Progress in Genetic Toxicology, ed. L
D. Scott, B. A. Bridges, and F. H. Sobels,
at 249-258 (Elsevier, 1977);
Price, P. G., Hassett C. M. and
Mansfield, O. L, 'Transforming
Activities jf Trichloroethylene and
Proposed Industrial Alternatives" In
Vitro 14:3, at 29O-293 (1978);
Theiss, J. C., Stoner, G. D., Shimkin, M.
B., ei c/., 'Test for Carcinogenicity of
Organic Contaminants of United States
Drinking Waters by Pulmonary Tumor
Response In Strain A Mice," Cancer
Research, 37[8 Pt. 1): 2717-20, (August
1977);
The EPA Carcinogen Assessment
Group's Preliminary Risk Assessment on
Methyl Chloroform, Type 1—Air
Program, Qanuary 17,1979);
The EPA Carcinogen Assessment
Group's Preliminary Risk Assessment on
Methylene Chloride, Type I—Air
Program, [January 17,1979);
Conference on Methyl Chloroform and
other Halocarbon Pollutants, sponsored
by Environmental Sciences Research
Laboratory, U.S. EPA, February 27-28.
1979, Washington, TJ.C. (proceedings in
press). •.
Because both methyl chloroform and
methylene chloride are potentially
harmful, EPA recommends that these
chemicals not be substituted for other
solvents in efforts to reduce ozone
concentrations. EPA further
recommends that the states control
these compounds under the authority
reserved to-them in section 116 of the
Clean Air Act Moreover, there is a
strong possibility for future regulation of
these compounds under the Clean Air
Act
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph Padgett, Director, Strategies and
Air Standards Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, MD-12
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711 (919) 541-5204. '- -^~
Dated; May 25,1979.
David G. Hawkins, " .
Assistant Administrator for Air. Noise and
Radiation. - -. - .
[FR Doc. TS-17264 Filed 6-1-Tfc MS am)
BILLING CODE RS60-01-M -
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PN-172-79-05-25-016
2 5 MAY 1279
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Submission of State Air Permits
as SIP Revisions
'From: Richard G. Rhoads, Director 4*f"*£~S^/
Control Programs Development Jivisior
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
To: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Regions I-X
A question has been raised concerning the need for
States to submit construction and operating air permits as
revisions to State implementation plans (SIP). Of particular
concern is the Federal enforceabi1ity of State-issued air
permits tha : have not been incorporated individually within
a SIP by means of an EPA approval through rulemaking.
Federal enforcement of construction permits issued
under procedures complying with the requirements of
40 CFR 51.18 (new source review) is provided in
40 CFR 52.02(d) which reads, in part, as follows:
...all permit conditions or permit denials
issued pursuant to approved or promulgated
regulations for the review of new or modi-
fied stationary or indirect sources, are
enforceable by the Administrator... in
accordance with...assigned responsi-
bilities under the plan.
Thus, State construction permits which have been issued
in accordance with SIP procedures approved by EPA as
satisfying 40 CFR 51.18, and which satisfy the interpretative
ruling of the requirements of 40 CFR 51.18 (the emission
offset policy), 44 Fed. Req. 3274 o t s_e_y. (January 16,
1979), are enforceable by EPA. (However, if emission
reductions to meet Condition 3 of the emission offset policy
J. Sableski
Environmental Protection Agency
OAQPS, CPDD (MD 15)
Research Triangle Park, IJC 27711
-------
-2-
are obtained from existing sources other than those con-
trolled by the owner of the proposed new source, Section
V.B. of the policy provides that these "external" offsets
must be effectuated through a SIP revision.) The provisions
of 40 CFR 52.02(d) also provide for EPA enforcement of
prevention of significant deterioration construction permits
which have been issued by States under procedures complying
with 40 CFR 52.21.
t
The conditions upon construction contained in these
permits which are needed to meet federal requirements
(e.g., the source must achieve the lowest achievable emission
rate, or operate best available control technology) have
continuing application to a source built under the permit.
Any State limitations upon the effective duration of a State
construction permit is deemed to effect only the authorization
to construct under the permit. Once a source is actually
built, it must continue to meet the conditions imposed upon
its(construction unless they are modified by a federally
approved SIP revision.
Operating permits present some special problems.
Since State procedures for the issuance of operating permits
to new sources are not required under 40 CFR 51.18 or
40 CFR 52.2..., State new source operating permits are not
federally enforceable under 40 CFR 52.02(d). Of course, to
the extent zhe behavior required in new source operating
permits is consistent with the behavior required in the SIP
(including any previously issued construction permit enforce-
able by reason of 40 CFR 52.02(d)), EPA can enforce the
behavioral requirement on the basis of noncoinpl iance with
the SIP. In addition, EPA can enforce, on the basis of
noncoinpl i ance with the SIP, behavioral requirements contained
in operating permits for existing sources to the extent that
the permit requirements are the same as the SIP requirements.
However, if the provisions of an operating permit differ
from the SI1?, the permit must, at the present time, be
approved as a SIP revision before it is enforceable (or
recognized) by EPA. If an operating permit condition more
stringent than the SIP is necessary to assure attainment or
maintenance of a national ambient air quality standard,
failure to revise the SIP accordingly results in the SIP
being inadequate. Therefore, we are advising each Regional
Office to notify the States of this potential need to revise
their SIPs. States which do, in fact, need to revise their
SIPs to incorporate individual operating permits which are
necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of a national
ambient air quality standard should do so as soon as possible.
-------
-3-
Some State-issued opera' • .ig permits may not indefinitely
require individual EPA approval through rulemaking in order
to be considered part of the SIP. Section 110(a)(2)(d) of
the Clean Air Act requires SIPs to include "a program to
provide for the enforcement of emission limitations and
regulation of the modification, construction, and operation
of any stationary source, including a permit program as
required in parts C and D and a permit or equivalent program
for any major emitting facility..." In addition, Section
,l'72(b)(6) of the Act provides that SIPs must "require
permits for the construction and operation of new or modified
major stationary sources..." Although no regulations
implementing these sections yet exist, a working group is
developing a regulatory proposal requiring STPs to contain
an operating permit program (or its equivalent) and estab-
lishing the standards for EPA approval of such a program.
The issue of the federal enforceability of State-issued
operating permits will be addressed by these regulations.
In the interim, States are encouraged to submit permits as
SIP revisions as appropriate.
cc: Director, Enforcement Division
Regions I-X
Michael James, OGC
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE:
MAR 6 1979
SUBJECT: Cutback Asphalt VOC Regulations
PN-172-79-03-06-014
FROM Richard G. Rhoads, Director,
Control Programs Development Division, OAQPS (MD 15)
T0 Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
On December 19, 1978 a memorandum containing an example regulation
for controlling cutback asphalt was sent to eac of you. That memo-
randum was prompted by misunderstandings of the complicated issue of
cutback asphalt; specifically, what exemptions are allowed and what is
an appropriate transition period from cutback to emulsified asphalt.
The memorandum contained information based on contacts with emulsified
asphalt manufacturers and users and with representatives of the Asphalt
Institute.
Attached is a summary of the draft regulations which were submitted
to CPDD prior to the December 19 memorandum. Even though the summarized
regulations were only drafts and have likely been revised, I feel it
worthwhile to point out the significant problems found during the review
of the regulations. An explanation of these problems is also attached.
The December 19 memorandum indicated that liquid emulsified asphalt
can be stored only up to four weeks in heated or insulated containers.
Information received since the memorandum was sent indicates that this
is an error; liquid emulsified asphalt apparently can be stored for much
longer periods of time. This error, however, is only minor since it is
still true that an emulsified asphalt patch mix (mixture of aggregate
and liquid asphalt) cannot be stockpiled. Manufacturers, however, are
working on this problem and are trying to develop such an emulsion. If
solvent is added to the emulsion, long life stockpiling can be achieved,
but our definition of emulsified asphalt does not include emulsions
containing solvents.
The December 19 memorandum also indicated that more detailed
information for calculating emission rates from cutback asphalt will be
sent to the Regional Offices. At the present time an EPA contracted study
of emission rates from cutback asphalt is being reviewed by the Asphalt
Institute. The results of that review will be considered when the review
is completed in late March or early April. At that time a decision will be
made on the need for further study of cutback asphalt emission rates. For
the present, however, in developing control strategies for ozone and pre-
paring emission inventories for the 1979 SIP revisions, States should use
the evaporation rates contained in the control techniques guideline. These
rates are 80% for rapid cure, 70% for medium cure, and 25% for slow cure
orm 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
(except as discussed below). These rates should be used in conjunction
with solvent content values for the various cutbacks used in the State.
Solvent content values can be obtained from the cutback manufacturers.
If new emission rates are established at a later date, they will be
available for the next round of SIP revisions.
The fourth exemption in the example regulation sent December 19
allowed the use of any cutback for which the user can demonstrate that
no emissions will occur under conditions of normal use. Until further
studies are done on cutback emission factors, that demonstration should
be done as follows:
1. Obtain distillation data for the cutback from the manufacturer
or run a distillation test. (ASTM Method D-402, Distillation of Cutback
Asphalt Products.)
2. If less than 5% of the total solvent has evaporated up to and
including 500°F, the cutback will be considered one that has no VOC
emissions under field conditions.
<
We realize that distillation tests cannot be directly related to
field conditions, however, we feel that any emissions from a cutback
passing the above test will be very minor. Also, for purposes of calcu-
lating emissions for control strategies or emissions offsets, cutbacks
passing the test should be considered as having no VOC emissions.
The December 19 memorandum indicated that there might be other
unique problems for which exemptions could be appropriate under a case-
by-case RACT determination. I would like to stress that if a State
requests an exemption to use cutback or an emulsified asphalt containing
solvent for any application other than those accepted in the example
regulation, it is up to the State to demonstrate that an emulsified
asphalt (containing no solvent) cannot be used. The demonstration must
contain evidence that the State has contacted emulsified asphalt manufac-
turers and emulsifying chemical manufacturers, and that the manufacturers
cannot develop an acceptable emulsion or cannot recommend an acceptable
alternative paving or repair procedure. As stated in the December 19
memorandum, please advise me of any additional requests for exemptions.
Attachments
-------
SUMMARY OF DRAFT VOC REGS. i-'OR CUTBACK ASPHALT
STATE
I
Mass.
NH
II
N.Y.
Ill
VA
WVA
MD
DEL
PA
COMPLIANCE
DATE
7/1/80
1
1/1/79-
12/31/80
not given
EXEMPTIONS
LU
s:
i — i
0.
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
CO
cf
LU
1
1
X
LU
h-
X
X
1
X
STORAGE
X
X
X
X
X
LU
n:
H-
O
2
1
SIZE
CUTOFF
PE > 100
"" TPY
• 77 TPY
>10 Ibs/day
ior 3 lbs/hr
O
t 4
LU
H-
H-
CO
X
X
X
2
?
1
X
X
COMMENTS
1. 10/30-5/1 for patching.
Total prohibition for paving of
roads, highways, or driveways.
N.H. has no urbanized areas.
1. 10/16-5/1
2. Emulsified asphalt containin
less than 15% by weight VOC.
1. 60 days after board adoption
or 9 months after promulatio
of new 03 standard.
2. At a minimum, the non~
attainment area si may be
adopted Statewide.
All cutback asphalt users and
manufacturers must register wit
the Commission within 30 days
from the effective date of the
regulation. After the effective
date of the regulation, permits
are required for anyone commenc
operations subject to this
regulation.
1. Applies to the Baltimore
Metropolitan Area. There
are two other nonurban non-
attainment areas in MD.
1. Only for emergency repair of
potholes and/or filling crad
in highway pavement. As
technology becomes available
all uses of cutback asphalt
will be discontinued.
1. Dust palliative tack coat, p>
coating of aggregate and pro-
tective coating for concrete.
-------
STATE
IV
KY
(Louis-
ville)
N.C.
«
S.C.
TN
V
IL
IND
OH
MICH
wise
COMPLIANCE
DATE
eff. date
of reg.
10/1/80
5/1/81
2/1/81
12/31/80
1/82
not given
7/1/79
EXEMPTIONS
LU
2:
t — 1
C£.
D.
X
X
X
X
X
X
SEASONAL
2
1
-
1
1
0-
5:
.u
X
X
X
X
X
LU
0
1
1
1
SIZE
CUTOFF
? 15 Ibs/day
erg Ibs/hr
7100 TPY for
att. areas
1
7
> 15 Ibs/day
or 3 Ibs/hr
STATEWIDE
3
X
X
?
X
?
X
X
•
COMMENTS
1. Exempts asphalt with less
than or equal to 10% by
weight VOC.
2. Jan. -Apr. for repair of
potholes or other damage to
roadways.
3. Louisville, Kentucky.
1. In urban areas, stationary
sources with potential
emissions greater than 10 TP
non-urban areas greater than
100 TPY. ^^
1. Total prohibition in urbsW^
counties. Use allowed in a
rural co. with the approval
of the director.
1. 10/1-4/30.
1. Other than road paving, i.e.
roofing or water proofing.
1. 10/1-4/30
1. non-ozone season 11/1-4/30
2. must be stored for 2 years
or longer.
-------
^
•
^r
STATE
VI
ARK
OK
TX
4
-
VIII
^ CO
p
^^
X
WASH
(Puget
Sound)
WASH
STATE
^
•
W
ORE
—
COMPLIANCE
DATE
7/21/79
24 mo.
after eff.
date ~-r reg
12/31/80
not given
6/1/80
6/1/80
4/1/79
EXEMPTIONS
UJ
I-H
rv*
ex.
Q_
X
.
1
1
1
^
^1
O
co
i , i
LJLJ
oo
2
-
3
?
=
•
QL_
^:
1 1 1
LLJ
H-
X
1
1,
4
UJ
CD
00
X
1
1
X
2
2
s
COMMENTS
•
1. Consent of the Commissioner
1. 7 nonattainment areas. Use •
of cutback asphalt for
paving is restricted to no
more than 7% of the total
annual volume of asphalt use
or specified for use by any
State, municipal, or county
agency. All nonattainment
areas are not covered.
1. Also allows exemptions when
precipitation is anticipated
within 3 hrs. from time of
application.
2. Other conditions as approved
by the Division. Div. may
require invoices or other
records to verify use of cut-
back and emulsified asphalt.
1 . Use of MC only.
2. Oct. -May.
3. Use of MC only.
4. SC
Reg. applies to Puget Sound
nonattainment area.
1. Allowed provided diluent has
a total vapor pressure of les
than 26 mm Hg at 20°C.
2. Nonattainment areas.
3. Oct. -May.
4. Forecast for 24 hr. period
following application is less
than 50°F.
Report required on use of cutbac
asphalt during June-Sept.
1. MC only.
2. Nonattainment areas.
-------
DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN PROP'SED ASPHALT REGULATIONS
AND EXAMPLE REGULATION 01 DECEMBER 19, 1978
1. Twelve regulations contain an exemption allowing the use of cutback
asphalt when the temperature is below 50°F. It is preferable for
enforcement purposes to establish a season during which cutback asphalt
may be useu. The season would represent that portion of the year during
which temperatures do not linger above 50°F for periods of time adequate
for emulsified asphalt application and setting.
2. Several States specify a 100 TPY cutoff size. No criteria is
provided for defining a 100 TPY source with respect to cutback asphalt.
«
Our guidance defines cutback asphalt as an area source and any "100 Ton"
calculations should consider all State, local, and private uses of asphalt
in the area for which the control strategy demonstration is developed.
3. None of the 24 draft regulations prohibit the use of emulsified
asphalt containing solvent. Our definition of emulsified asphalt
includes only solvent-free emulsions.
4. Eight States exempt cutback asphalt from regulation for situations
other than the three prescribed in our guidance. These exemptions in the
draft regulations are unacceptable although there will be case-by-case
situations where other exemptions could be allowed.
-------
V1«0 S74,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D C. 20460
. PN-172-79-01-16-012
JAN 161379
OFFICE OF
AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: Continuity ofJ^LP-^egul at ions—Revised Enclosure
FROM: / DaviAkiMf^ttant Administrator
/-/"£/ foYAir, Noise and Radiation
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions 1-X
In a memo dated September 11, 1978, you were informed of the
Agency policy regarding the continuity of SIP regulations during
this period of extensive SIP revisions. The attachment to that memo
contained suggested wording of EPA's Federal Register notices
proposing to approve and final approval of SIP revisions. Since that
time, substantial comment has been received in regard to the suggested
wording and a revision has been made. Attached is the revised
suggested wording for EPA's Federal Register notices regarding approval
of State Implementation Plan revisions.
Attachment
cc: M. Durning
J. Bernstein
-------
REDRAFT OF LANGUAGE FOR 1979 SIP PREAMBLES
The measures proposed/promulgated today would/will be additional
to, and not in lieu of, existing SIP regulations. The present emission
control regulations for any source would/will remain applicable and
enforceable to prevent a source from operating without controls, or under
less stringent controls, while it is moving toward compliance with the
new regulations (or, if it chooses, challenging the new regulations).
Failure of a source to meet applicable pre-existing regulations would/will
result in appropriate enforcement action, including assessment of noncom-
pliance penalties. Furthermore, if there is any instance of delay or
lapse in the applicability or enforceability of the new regulations, because
of a court order or for any other reason, the pre-existing regulations
would/will be applicable and enforceable.
The only exception to this rule is in cases where there is a conflict
between the requirements of the new regulations and the requirements of the
existing regulations such that it would be impossible for a source to
comply with the new regulations. In these situations, the State may
exempt a source from compliance with the pre-existing regulations.
Any exemption granted would/will be reviewed and acted on by EPA
either as part of these proposed/promulgated regulations or as future
SIP revisions.
-------
ocr 2 t>
PN-172-78-10-26-009
Ozone Transport Values for SIP'Revisions
Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, III-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II
Techniques for selecting transport values have been discussed in
past guidance.1 This memorandum is to further reinforce Agency policy
concerning the use of background and present/future transport values
in the development of ozone control strategies employing the linear
rollback or EKMA method.
When developing an ozone control strategy, consistent assumptions
must be employed. A control strategy cannot assume that a significant
portion of the present ozone problem is due to ozone transported into
the control region and at the same time assume that future transport
will be at the commonly accepted natural background level of 0.04 ppm.
For example, a control strategy for an urbanized area with a ozone
design value of 0.19 ppm should not assume ozone presently transported
in at a level of 0.13 ppm, while at the same time assuming that future
ozone transport measurements will drop to the 0.04 ppm background
level. High present transport is indicative of the influence of
significant upwind sources which one can assume will be controlled to
attain the standard. However, if the influence of these upwind emis-
sions is as significant now as in the example, they will continue to
be an important influence in the future. Accordingly, a future
transport number at the natural background levels is not acceptable.
Regional Offices should pay careful attention to the present and
future transport values in all linear rollback and EKMA evaluations
made for ozone control strategies. Strategies which assume that
transported ozone is a significant portion of the present problem and
accordingly employ high present transport values, but then assume
future transport to be at natural background, are not approvable.
August 16, 1978, memo from Richard G. Rhoads to Regional Air and
Hazardous Materials Division Directors, "Clarification of Attainment/
Nonattainment Evaluation Guidance."
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OCT 6 1Q7Q Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
UWI 0 ly/g a PN-172-7<]-10-06-008
SUBJECT: comments on Auto Industry Proposals
TE:
FROM:
Richard G. Rhoads,
Control Programs Development Division
T0: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, III-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II
A number of States and Regional Offices have requested OAQPS comments
on auto industry proposals which differ from limits in the Control Technology
Guidelines (CTG). Rather than review each proposal individually, we have
aggregated the key issues raised in each and addressed it in the enclosed
memorandum. This memorandum should be considered a supplement to the CTG
and a clarification of EPA policy for the review of State SIP submittals.
Any questions or comments on this memorandum should be directed to
John Calcagni at FTS 629-5365.
Enclosure
EPA FORM 1320-6 (REV. 3-76)
-------
AUTOMOTIVE AND LIGHT TRUCK ASSEMBLY COATING OPERATIONS
A number of States have received suggestions and proposed standards
for the control of auto and light truck assembly operations. The principle
issues raised by these comments related to:
RACT for prime application
RACT for topcoat application
Averaging times for the emission limits
Case-by-case review
Compliance schedules
Our findings and guidance on these issues are as follows:
PRIME APPLICATION OPERATIONS
The prime coat serves the dual function of protecting the surface
from corrosion and providing for good adhesion of the topcoat. A combi-
nation of manual and automatic spray methods, with or without the use of
electrostatic techniques, is usually used to apply organic solvent-borne
primer.
Primers may also be applied by dipping techniques. The Chrysler
Corporation, for example, used water-borne dip primers for underbodies
at some of its plants. Because the dip-coated primer is not smooth, the
coating must be sanded or else be used only on areas where appearance
is not important.
Of most interest from a pollution control standpoint is a relatively
new priming process, electrophoretic (electrodeposited) water-borne dip.
The object to be coated is immersed in a water-borne coating and an
-------
electric potential is induced between the vehicle and the coating bath.
By correctly setting the electrical potential and the time of the bath,
the coating thickness can be controlled as desired. Corrosion protection
is excellent because coverage is more complete than can ever be obtained
by spray priming alone. The electrophoretic dip pr> cess is used at over
40 percent of U.S. assembly plants and is very widely used in Europe.
Because of the uniformity of the electrodeposited coating, it does
not "mask" imperfections in the substrate and additional primer must be
sprayed on those areas for subsequent sanding. This additional primer,
called "surfacer" or "guidecoat," is available as either a water-borne or
organic solvent-borne coating.
The EPA recommendation of 1.9 Ib/gal (less water) was based on a
weighted average of the two essential components in this system: .8 Ib/gal
coating used in the anodic electrodeposition (EDP) process then in use and
a 2.8 Ib/gal (less water) coating for the surfacing operation.
The industry comments on the prime application operations have
questioned the availability of cathodic EDP coatings at the same solvent
content as anodic EDP. Cathodic EDP is a new development in EDP coating
and is considered to be a superior technology because it markedly improves
the corrosion resistance. Our investigation on this matter concluded:
Anodic EDP coatings are available at .8 Ib/gal (less water).
Presently used anodic EDP coatings are 1.2 Ib/gal (less water).
Presently used cathodic EDP coatings are between 1.8 and
2.1 Ib/gal (less water).
-------
Coating manufacturers have committed to providing cathodic Et
coatings at 1.2 Ib/gal (less water).
In terms of emissions/year, a typical EDP line (coating 40 i
mediate size vehicles per hour) using a .8 Ib/gal (less water) coa
consumes 15 tons/year while a 1.2 Ib/gal (less water) coating cons
26 tons/year and a 2.1 Ib/gal (less water) coating consumes 54 ton:
Test results have shown approximately two-thirds of this solvent c<
tion from an EDP process is removed from the system by the waste we
stream reducing the emissions from the oven and dip tank to a thirc
these values. Accordingly, State regulations should require EDP bu
less stringent limits than 0.8 Ib/gal. Based on the available data
believe a regulation which calls for EDP at 1.2 Ib/gal (less water)
prime application would allow the use of either cathodic or anodic
even though cathodic EDP coatings at less than 1.8 Ib/gal (less watt
are not commercially available today.
For surfacing operations, the EPA recommended limit of 2.8 lb/<
equivalent to a 62 percent solids coating, is based on a conventions
appliad water-borne coating which was in use in two plants in this c
We anticipate that conversion to a water-borne surface will be the p
compliance technique for approximately 50 percent of the industry.
In evaluating equivalence to the CTG, it is important to consid
transfer efficiency. Electrostatically sprayed coatings offer a mar
advantage over conventional spray coatings in that the overspray (or
material) is reduced from about 50 percent to 30 percent. Unfortunal
water-borne coatings are not presently applied electrostatically in t
automotive industry because of some safety problems. Considering the
higher transfer efficiency, a 55 percent solids organic-borne surface
-------
applied electrostatically can be considered equivalent to the EPA-
recommended limit of 2.8 Ib/gal. Although a 55 percent solids prime
coat is not presently available, if it can be developed, it would be 1
preferred option for a significant fraction of the industry. It shou'
also be noted that a shortfall from the 55 percent solids coating pro!
can be made up through the addition of add-on c ntrols such as incine
of the prime oven emission, or carbon adsorption on the spray booth a
flash off areas.
TOPCOAT APPLICATION OPERATIONS
The area receiving the most comment has been the appropriate cor
levels for topcoat application. The EPA-recommended limit of 2.8 Ib,
was based on a conventionally sprayed water-borne enamel coating pre:
being applied at two automotive assembly plants in California. Cons
there can be no argument as to the technical feasibility of achievin
2.8 Ib/gal.
At many of its plants, General Motors uses lacquers for the top
Lacquers have an extremely high solvent content (- 88 volume perceni
American, and Chrysler use topcoat enamels with 65 to 78 percent so'
by volume. Volkswagen expects to use topcoats with only 30 volume i
solvent equivalent by 1981.
A number of major process modifications are necessary, however
retrofit water-borne coating technology to an existing plant. This
the lengthening or addition of new ovens and flash tunnels, humidit
temperature controls in the spray booths, increased sludge handlinc
bilities, provisions for additional power, and use of more corrosic
resistant materials in the piping and spray booth construction. Ti
-------
of this retrofitting will vary and one major variable will be the age of
the existing coating equipment. If near retirement, it may be better to
build entirely new spray booths and ovens. This was done at one of two
automobile plants which converted to water-borne coatings. If the coatim
equipment is still relatively modern, however, retrofitting will entail
lengthening of ovens and modification of spray booths and conveyors.
This was the approach taken at the other automobile plant using water-
borne topcoats. While costs will vary from plant-to-plant, capital costs
for a retrofit to water-borne topcoats for the "model plant" were estimate
by EPA to be about $20 million (1975 dollars). For a plant where the
entire coating line is replaced, capital costs can be about twice this.
Incremental operating costs include increased electrical requirements
and maintenance labor. Coating material costs are approximately the same.
Higher oven temperature causes an increase in natural gas usage.
Actual conversion to water-borne coatings may not be the only way to
achieve the emission levels represented by 2.8 Ib/gal. For example, emis-
sions from electrostatic application of ar, organic-borne topcoat of
55 percent solids (with a transfer efficiency of 70 percent) is equivalent
to conventionally sprayed water-borne coating with 2.8 Ib/gal (less water)
of solvent. Electrostatic application of a 50 percent solids coating
(with a 70 percent transfer efficiency) would require an additional
16 percent reduction of the organic solvent through add-on controls in
order for it to emit no more than the water-borne. These reductions may b
achieved through .incineration of oven emissions and/or carbon adsorption
of a portion of the spray booth emissions.
-------
It should be noted that while carbon adsorption of the spray booth
emissions is technically feasible, no full-scale installations are presently
in operation in automobile plants although the two major manufacturers
both have large scale pilot studies underway. If a coating with a
reasonably hIgh solids content (50-55 percent) becomes commercially
practicable for the automobile topcoat, the costs for add-on controls to
provide incremental reductions would be significantly less than the cost
of converting to an all water-borne operation. Naturally, if future
organic-borne enamel coatings fa"!1 sh?rr of 50 percent solids, a greater
reliance on add-on control would be necessary. For example, a 45 percent
solids coating with a 70 percent transfer efficiency would require a
31 percent reduction from add-on controls.
AVERAGING TIMES
The 2.8 Ib/gal (less water) limit chosen represents a typical color
being used. Some of the light metallic colors require greater solvent
content (as high as 3.1 Ib/gal). If the 2.8 Ib/gal (less water) value is
interpreted as a maximum not to be exceeded, this would likely constrain
the availability of certain colors. Suggestions have been made by the
automotive industry that this should be an average. If a State regula-
tion expresses this limit as a daily weighted average or arithmetic
average of the colors in use (so long as the limit is unambiguously expressed
and legally enforceable), OAQPS would not regard that as being perceptibly
different than the recommended limit.
-------
CASE-BY-CASE REVIEW
Arbitrary variation from the recommended limits is not appropriate.
However, the recommended limits are presumptive norms for the category ii
question, not absolutes for each individual plant. If facility specific
problems unique to a given plant are identified, these should be conside1
on a case-by-case basis. In any circumstance where the State requiremen
vary from the recommended limit, the SIP must provide adequate technical
information to support the modification. Individual source specific
regulations or variances are appropriate if:
1. The recommended limit is inappropriate for an individual
source because of specific circumstances unique to the particular
facility;
2. The proposed level of control is the maximum reasonably attain-
able by the operation in question. Specific consideration should be giv
to the feasibility of development of technology to comply with a value
at or near the recommended value; and
3. The reasonable further progress demonstration is not violated.
It should be noted that any change made after the initial submittal
will have to be a SIP revision and that the revision must provide a
means to account for the increased emissions in the SIP. This could be
through such measures as offsets by the sources, plans for additional
reductions to be obtained by the State beyond what the SIP called for, (
a reduction in the growth increment. In brief, the plan must continue
to demonstrate a program for attainment.
-------
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES
Where source specific schedules cannot be proposed, OAQPS recommends
that the SIP contain categorical compliance dates for each source category.
A categorical schedule for any CTG categories must have increments of
progress which are as expeditious as practicable. This schedule should
reflect the minimum reasonable time necessary for a typical individual
source to install controls. However, that is not to say that all sources
must comply by that date. Individual extensions beyond this date, but
not later than the attainment date, may be acceptable on a case-by-case
basis if:
1. The State demonstrates that it is physically impossible for the
operation in question to comply with the date.
2. That, by allowing additional time, innovative technology will
be applied and the reductions to be achieved will be significantly
greater than that from the CTG RACT value (this ultimate limitation
must be legally enforceable).
3. Additional time is necessary to allow for the development of
low solvent systems rather than apply add-on controls.
4. The operation in question is part of a Statewide or multi-state
program to prioritize the sequence of installing controls at a number of
similar operations and that the overall compliance program has been
approved as being expeditious as practicable.
-------
Note that any modification of the compliance schedule beyond
December 31, 1982, will need to be a SIP revision and will impact the
evaluation of reasonable further progress (RFP). In no case should
compliance with RFP be waived. Hence, an alternate schedule beyond
1982 can be approved only if the RFP program is modified to reflect
the delays.
-------
^^^u>
UNITED.5TATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
* 4 AUG 19/8
rE:
•jeer: Clarification of EPA Policy on Emissijons^of Methyl Chloroform
PN-172-78-08-24-006
FROM: Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)
T0: Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
The purpose of this memo is to clarify EPA's position with regard
to State and Federal regulation of emissions of methyl chloroform
(1,1,1, trichloroethane). On July 8, 1977, EPA published the present
"Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds"
(42 FR 35314). This policy exempts methyl chloroform from inventory
requirements and regulations to meet the national ambient air quality
standard for photochemical oxidants. However, the policy indicated
that methyl chloroform had been implicated as having deleterious effects
on stratospheric ozone and therefore may be subject to future controls.
Nevertheless, the policy seems to be encouraging a shift to the
uncontrolled use of methyl chloroform in place of trichloroethylene and
other regulated solvents in metal degreasing operations.
We have been advised by the Office of Toxic Substances that methyl
chloroform should be considered potentially harmful to the ozone layer
and that they are performing the necessary evaluations and assessments
prior to pursuing further regulatory initiatives. Hence, its use in an
uncontrolled fashion should not be encouraged. Accordingly, OAOPS has
begun the necessary actions to propose removal of methyl chloroform from
the list of exempt volatile organic compounds (VOC). However, we do not
expect this action to be completed before the State Implementation Plans
for photochemical oxidants are to be submitted. In addition, I have
directed that the new source performance standards to be proposed for
solvent metal cleaning operations, as well as any other solvent uses,
require positive control of all VOC emissions including methyl chloroform.
I recognize that many States are well along in the preparation of
their regulatory packages and inventories. In order not to change the
existing guidance at this late date, I am requesting that you advise
your State directors that, although we will not disapprove a State
oxidar.t SIP submittal which exempts methyl chloroform from control, we
are very concerned with the environmental risks associated with wide
scale substitution tc methyl chloroform; and that the uncontrolled use
of methyl chloroform as an approved means for compliance should be avoided
wherever possible.
cc: Director, Air §. Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, III-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Regions II
Chief, Air Branch, Regj'ons I-X
Steven D. Jellinek, Office of Toxic Substances
Warren Muir, Office of Toxic Substances
EPA For,,, 1320 I (Rev. 3 761
-------
J
i UNITED STATES ENVIRONM> NTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
r WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
PN-172-78-U8-04-004
4 AAJGV37B
OFFICE OF
AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: Requirement for VOC PACT filiations in all
Oxidant Nonattainment Areas_
°i-
FROi'l: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator V
for Air, Noise and Radiation (AW-443) '
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
This is a follow-up to P,r. Costle's February 24, 1973, memorandum
entitled "Criteria for Approval of 1979 SIP Revisions", and to my recent
discussions with ~:he Regional Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Directors in Houston. It is intended to clarify the 1979 SIP require-
ments for volatile organic compound (VOC) RACT regulations for all
oxidant nonattainnient areas.
The issues of long range oxidant transport and background make it
difficult to develop oxidant control strategies with the degree of
precision normally associated with more stable air pollutants. Further,
certain of the available analytical techniques will tend to under-
estimate the degree of control required for attainment. The uso of
less rigorous analytical techniques such as rollback support 1979 SIP
revisions is acceptable in areas where reasonably available control
measures are scheduled for implementation. However, for the reasons
stated above this technique is not acceptable as a Demonstration that
RACT regulations on VOC sources are rot needed to attain and maintain
the oxidant standard. Accordingly, for every cxidant plan which
relies on the rollback technique for its control strategy demonstration,
the plan must, as a rniininium, include legally enforceable provisions
for the control of large VOC sources (more than 100 cons/year potential
emissions) for which EPA has issued a Control Technology Guideline (CTG).
Plans which rely on the rollback tecnnique and uo not contain these
provisions will not be approvable. The only exception to this policy
is the situation in which the control agency certifies that there are no
affected sources for a particular source category in the nonattainment
area.
-------
States which v/ish to attempt co demonstrate that the oxidant standard
can be attained and maintained vnthout adopting one or wore of such RACT
regulations for large VOC sources may cio so but must employ more
rigorous analytical techniques than the rollback method; i.e., photo- '
chemical dispersion modeling.
I ask that you proceed immediately to advise your States and to
integrate this policy clarification into' the ongoing SIP development
process.
cc: I'M. Durning
J. Bernstein
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials
Division, Regions I, III-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division,
Region II
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
•' 3 0 JUN 1978
SUBJECT^ Vapor Recovery Regulations Required to
Meet RACT Requirements for the_1979 SIP
FROM.- Richard G. Rhoads, Director/^—'^/^^
Control Programs Development Division
T0: Allyn Davis, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IX
PN-17..-78-06-30-003
In response to your memo dated June 2, 1978, regarding the subject
matter, I offer the following comments for your consideration.
As you know, the 1979*oxidant plan submissions for major urban
areas must include, as a minimum, legally enforceable regulations to
reflect the application of reasonably available control technology
(RACT) to those stationary sources for which a Control Techniques Guide-
line (CTG) has been published by January, 1978. While it is recognized
that RACT will be determined on a case-by-case basis, the criteria for
SIP approval will rely heavily upon the information contained in the
CTGs. However, deviations, from the CTGs are acceptable, provided one of
two possible conditions are met.
First, a regulation which deviates from the CTG may be approved
by this Agency if economics or other circumstances justify regulatory
requirements less stringent than those contained within the CTG. In
this situation, the 1979 SIP submittal must provide adequate justifica-
tion for such deviations. Please note that the above discussion applies
in those instances where the deviation from the CTG results in a less
stringent control requirement and that in cases where regulations are
more stringent than the CTGs, no justification for the deviation is
necessary.
Alternatively, this Agency may approve State regulations that are
only marginally different from the CTGs without the detailed justification
noted above if the impact on emission differs imperceptibly (less than
five percent in cases where it is possible to quantify the difference)
from that of the CTG and there is no significant threat of undermining
Agency activities elsewhere in the nation. This concept, however, is
only applicable on a source category basis. In other words, it would be
unacceptable to approve a source category specific regulation requiring
significantly less control than the corresponding CTG on the basis that
other source categories are regulated to a degree significantly more
stringent than the comparable CTGs.
Although your analysis of the State and Federal regulations and
the CTGs appears correct and we agree with your interpretation of the
CTG regarding accounts which may be exempted, a further analysis is
required to assess the acceptability of the California regulations.
EPA FORM 1320-6 (REV. 3-76)
-------
Such an analysis would have to demonstrate that the California
regulations regulate emissions to within five percent of the CTG or
justify deviations greater than five percent on the basis of economics
or other circumstances.
Furthermore, approvability of VOC regulations is not dependent
on the ability of a State to demonstrate attainment by 1982 versus
1987. As indicated by Mr. Hawkins at the recent Air and Hazardous
Materials Division Directors' meeting in Houston, RACT mustibe applied
to all categories in all areas designated nonattainment for photo-
chemical oxidants. This office is currently preparing.a policy
memorandum on this matter -for Mr. Hawkins1 signature.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call.
cc: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I,
III-VIII, & X, w/incoming letter
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II, w/incoming
letter
E. Reich, DSSE, w/incoming letter
M. James, OGC, w/incoming letter
H. Beal, SRED, w/incoming letter
-------
DATE.
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1978
Example Demonstration of Attainment
for Photocnemical Oxidants
PN-172-78-03-10-002
Richard G. Rhoads , Director
Control Programs Development Division •.
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, III-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II
This office has received numerous inquiries concerning the content
of the 1979 State implementation plan (SIP) ? Emissions relating to the
demonstration of attainment for oxidants. Specifically, the inquiries
focused on the questions of which models are acceptable for air quality
prediction purposes and which techniques are acceptable for presenting
the emissions inventory.
One of the statutory criteria for approval of the 1979 plan is
that it must determine the level of control needed to demonstrate attain-
ment (including growth). For oxidants, such a determination shall be'
made by applying any moaeling technique referenced in the document "Use,
Limitation and Technical Basis of Procedures for Quantifying Relation-
ships Between Photochemical Oxidants and Precursors," EPA 450/2-77-021a,
November, 1977. Consideration of background and transport for oxidants
should generally be in accordance with the procedures described in this
document. Although the use of Appendix J to 40 CFR Part 51 to determine
the degree of emission reduction necessary to attain the ambient standard
for photochemical oxidants is not referred to in the above-mentioned
document, the use of such a procedure by State agencies snould be condoned.
In no instances, however, should the Regional Offices employ Appendix J
or any other method not referenced in the above-mentioned document to
develop photochemical oxidant control strategies.
Emission inventories should be developed in accordance with the docu-.
ment "Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories for Volatile
Organic Compounds," EPA 450/2-77-028, December, 1977, and the Agency's
recommended policy on the control of volatile organic compounds (VOC)
publishes in the July 8, 1977, Federal Register (42 FR 35314).- Because
there exists a need to be able to compare basel ine inventories fr;.,. one
area to another, as well as to determine the impact of employing various
control strategies, a common format for summarizing such inventories is
desirable. Therefore, the enclosed format should be strongly recoinmended
to State agencies generating summary reports of VOC emioSions. This format
'"allows the control agency to identify all major source categories of vola-
tile organic compound emissions and to determine the reductions tnat may
occur in an area if various control strategies are employed. In addition,
the enclosed form snould be utilized to summarize the anticipated percent
emission reduction from transportation control measures to allow one to
-•orm U20-4 'Re
: 76)
-------
- 2 -
determine what percentage of the total emission reduction is attributable
to various transportation control measures. Finally, both summaries
should be prepared for each area for which a separate strategy is being
developed.
Hopefully, these comments adequately respond to your questions in
the subject areas. However, if you need further assistance, please feel
free to contact me or my staff.
Enclosure
cc: R. Neligan
J. Hidinger
-------
SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED
PERCENT EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM
RTCMs
MEASURES % EMISSION REDUCTION
Inspection/maintenance
Improved public transit
Exclusive bus and carpool lanes
Areawide carpool programs
Private car restrictions
Long-range transit improvements
On-street marking controls
Park and rice and fringe parking lots
Pedestrian ma 11s
Employer programs to encourage car and van
pooling, mass transit, bicycling and walking
Bicycle lanes and storage facilities
Staggered work ncurs
Road .pricing to discourage single occupancy
auto trips
Controls en extenced vehicle idling
Traffic flew improvements
Alternative fuels or engines and other
fleet vehicle controls
•••Other than light duty vehicle retrofit
Extreme cold start emission reduction
programs
Other (specify)
-------
i
SUMMAHY I-OR AM F-OK VOC
V—.— - ., -_— -„ _ .
SOURCE
I'.ASt VI All
LMIS^IU
I-J77
*-e
EUM HEFI.MERIES
r
v r ur. • r ' v t T, II.MI--,I
\'i:,ci i i. A,\L < '(./'j jnunri 3
1 .il ('MM l>5'. O'a'"S iV'll W.lM'-
h) V ,u nu"i Prrx!vcmf| SvStc
1 L) Process U"il B'Owrtpvjn
ii'irui rno.ir c: n:i ALLO
1 MIS. '"KINS f UOM
SOUHCI.S CXISTING
IN 1977
GROWVII
1977
i r n c n
STORAGE TRANSPORTATION 1 n. L f. "• AS rnonuC HUN >-' I L L OS
?, MARKETINGOFPETROLEUM j7rA~T"7j n~A ~G A"S"A \~O N A TulTAT\
""r~"^'"""' GAiOLiNF PROCESSING |
P ' A N T S 1
PRODUCTS
L; n i P A r-j o B A n G E r R A N S F r H O F
"j A S c L i N E rt C n u O e OIL
i BULK GASOLINE TERMINALS 2
'"..'•I, Ol ' v. [ r, U L f. PLANTS--1
1 .1 r!VICr 3TATIO - LOAl'iNT, i';;m.- 'I
SC^VICE STATlC'-i UNLOADING (str.no II) j
O T , I E fi i
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
o»c AMC CMS MIC AL •>'. ANUI- ACTU HE
VfeGETAiiLS OIL PROCESSING
P '. A K M A C E U T I C A L M A N U F A C T U P E
PL AST 1C PRODUCTS MAM UP ACTU RE
RiJ "3 c. R rnoDUCTS MAN JPACTUP1E
TEXTILE POLYMERS MANUFACTURE
OTHERS
INDUSTRIAL SURFACE
COATING
LARGE APPLIANCES
MAGNET '.VI Re
AUTOMC3I LcS
: A N S
COATINGS
OTHER SOLVENT USE
OTHER-MISCELLANEOUS
SOUHCES
TOTAL voc EMISSIONS FROM
MOBILE SOURCES
A'OCOFuRMITuRE '
1 '
- v. A T w O O D f R O O U C i S '| \ j
^Tur ,-, MtTAv. PRODUCTS | ' '
•7-.'E---S 1 j
\R;Hi7-CTLIRALCOAl'i,NG3 I '
' -V o T O R E F 1 N 1 S H 1 N G ' ;
CT^rRS ; i |
c f ' " ~ A •: i N G i ' \
:: R v r L ;_. A r-j i N G I
GRAPHIC AR TS 1
1 ADHCS.VJS
C JT3AC< ASPHALT i
• GT..EF; SOLVENT USE
, ' ' ' E - COMfluS'r 'ON , I
'-OL' O ,'J AS TE DISPOSAL 1
: r- 1 n r '-, 1 A C R ' C U L T U R A L A N O O T n fi FI I
STATIONARY SOURCES
~* i G ^ W A v V £ u' I C ^ E 3 ' j ^^^^^
M L'CVM O'l'V A J ! CrT1 Otl'l °S ', ' ^^^^^B
^ i Li'inl O'J t J Tf
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 175
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 175
* PN175-79-02-12-004
REGIONAL OFFICE ASSISTANCE IN EXPEDITING HEADQUARTERS REVIEW OF SECTION
175 GRANT APPLICATIONS
* PN175-80-04-23-006
IMPLEMENTATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 12185, CONSERVATION OF PETROLEUM AND
NATURAL GAS
* PN175-80-06-12-008
PROCEDURES FOR CONFORMANCE OF TRANSPORTATION PLANS, PROGRAMS AND
PROJECTS WITH CLEAN AIR ACT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
* PN175-80-06-23-009
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - TRANSPORTATION
REVISION PROCESS: EXPANDED GUIDELINES (FR CITATION)
-------
PN 175-80-06-23-009
In order to conserve space, the Federal Register notice entitled:
Public Participation in the State Implementation Plan -
Transportation Revision Process: Expanded Guidelines
(45 FR 42023, June 23, 1980)
is not included in the Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook. Please
refer to this notice for EPA policy/guidance related to this subject.
-------
. PN 175-80-06-12-008
U.S.-O , < i ii,; .-r,t of !"(-<„:i:>p .''<., lit,n
and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
PROCEDURES FOR CONFORMANCE OF
TRANSPORTATION PLANS, PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS WITH
CLEAN AIR ACT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
These procedures are to be applied to activities in nonattainment areas or portions
thereof, as designated under Section I07(d), Clean Air Act (CAA), where State
and local officials have determined under Section 174, CAA, that transportation
control measures are needed to attain and maintain the national ambient air
quality standards for transportation-related pollutants. Section C of these procedures
provides for an exception to the application of these procedures where revision
to a state implementation plan- (SIP) is found to be necessary.
Conformance - Section I76(c)
Conformance between transportation plans, programs and projects, and the SIP
is required by this section of the CAA. DOT has an affirmative responsibility
to assure the conformity of any activity it supports, funds, or approves. Further,
Section I76(c) prohibits an MPO from giving its approval to any project, program
or plan that does not conform to the SIP. The conformity requirement applies
in all nonattainment and maintenance areas requiring transportation control
plans for transportation-related pollutants.
In such areas, transportation plans and programs wilt be judged in conformance
with the SIP if they do not adversely affect the transportation control measures
in the SIP and they contribute to reasonable progress in implementing the transportation
control measures contained in the SIP. : •
«
A. Conformance of Transportation P!ans"and Programs
Conformance of plans and programs will be determined and documented
by DOT (the UMTA and FHWA Regional and Division Administrators) as a
part of the certification and transportation improvement program reviews.
These determinations will be based upon the following actions:
I. The MPO's determination that the transportation plan and program
(TIP) adopted by the policy board are in conformance with the SIP;
2. The FHWA and UMTA finding that the urban transportation planning
process effectively incorporates air quality objectives and procedures
required by adopted DOT/EPA guidelines in the development of the
plan and program;
3. The FHWA and UMTA finding that coordination exists between air
quality and transportation agencies, including a finding that the MPO
has met locally established procedures (developed pursuant to Sections
174 and 121, CAA) to integrate transportation and air quality planning
prior to approval of the plan or program by the ;V>PO policy board;
•
4. The advancement of air quality planning tasks included in the UPWP
in accordance with work programs contained in the SIP;
5. Timely programming of transportation measures contained in. the
SIP by including these measures in the State 105 program approved
and funded by FHWA and the TIP/AE approved and funded by UMTA; end
-------
. of lYo-ii-pcrfution measures cf;ciioined
m !!io SIP, consistent with ;!,.» priority required for those measures
by Section I76(d) of the Clean Air Act and subject to the availability
of Federal funds.
The June 14, 1978, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between EPA and DOT
provides EPA an opportunity to jointly review and comment on conformity of
transportation plans and programs. When it is determined through the evaluation
of these actions that reasonable progress is not being made on transportation
planning or implementation commitments in the SIP, representatives of DOT
and EPA will meet with the affected State and local jurisdictions and agencies,
and regional planning organizations to discuss problem resolution before DOT
makes a final conformance determination. These discussions should focus upon,
as appropriate, accelerating implementation of transportation control projects
in the SIP and developing and implementing acceptable substitutes for delayed
projects.
Once the evaluation has been completed (including the joint DOT/EPA meeting
with State and local representatives, where necessary) and DOT determines that
an area's plan or program does not conform to the SIP, transportation program
approvals will be limited in the area to preliminary engineering and environmental
impact studies, advanced ROW purchases Involving hardship cases, and those
actions that are exempt from sanctions under Section I76(a), CAA as defined
In the policy and procedures on Federal assistance limitations (Federal
Reqister/Vol. 45, No. 71/Thursday, April 10,1980) until the deficiences are corrected
and a conformance finding Is made.
B. Conformonce of Transportation Projects
A project conforms to an SIP if:
I. it is a transportation control measure from the SIP (should the project
be specifically included in the SIP, no separate conformance finding
need be made)j or
2. it comes from a conforming transportation improvement program?
or
3. it is a project, exempt from transportation improvement program
requirements, which does not adversely affect the transportation
control measures in the approved SIP. Exempt projects are those
Primary and Interstate safety projects included in the Statewide safety
improvement program instead of the TIP and emergency relief, control
of junkyards and outdoor advertising, and pavement marking demonstration
projects.
However, after adoption of a final EIS or after a formal finding or determination
that a project will involve no significant environmental impact, a project
will not be subject to further conformity review unless:
I. a Supplemental EIS significantly related to air quality considerations
is undertaken; or
2. a SIP revision is requested in which ccse the procedures in C (below)
would be followed; or
*
3. major steps toward Implementation of the project (such as the start
of construction or substantial acquisition end relocation activities)
have nat commenced within three years from the date of approval
of the final EIS.
-------
C. Cvnfon;iity During Subsequent SIP Revisions
I.* EPA Activities
There may be situations that would cause EPA to require the SIP
to be revised. The revisions may add transportation control measures
to an SIP which previously had none or increase the emission reduction
responsibility of the transportation sector. The EPA will determine
the need for SIP revisions based upon its review of the reasonable
further progress (RFP) schedule in the SIP and the degree to which
the schedule is being met. Some of the situations which could affect
the meeting of the RFP schedule are:
a. incorrect assumptions on growth rates and travel demand;
b. overly optimistic expectations of stationary source controls,
vehicle inspection and maintenance programs, or transportation
control measures; and
c. inability to implement some portion(s) of the SIP.
By publication in the Federal Register. EPA will notify FHWA, UMTA,
and the public when an SIP revision has been requested.
The EPA intends to require all of the current SlPfs (where carbon
monoxide and ozone are major concerns) to contain a contingency
provision which would apply when monitoring of progress reporting
indicates that reasonable further progress toward attainment of air
quality standards is not being-maintained and EPA determines the
SIP must be revised. For areas over 200,000 population the contingency
provision in the SIP should inciu'de a locally developed list of projects
which implementing agencies have agreed can be delayed during an
interim period while an SIP is being revised.
2. DOT Activities
After notification by EPA that an SIP revision has been requested,
and for a twelve-month period thereafter or until the SIP is formally
revised, whichever is shorter, the DOT will not authorize construction
of any project contained in the SIP contingency provision list unless
it is a project exempt from sanctions under Section I76(a), CAA.
D. Relationship to Consistency Requirement
The DOT, in consultation with EPA, has determined that the conformance
finding between transportation plans, programs and projects and an approved
or promulgated SIP also meets the consistency requirement of 23 U.S.C.
IC?(j) and 23 CFR 770. This finding will henceforth apply only in nonattainrrc-nt
and maintenance areas requiring transportation control measures for transp^rtnti
related pollutants. Conformity procedures will be incorporated expeditious!/
into the joint urban planning regulations (23 CFR 450 and 49 CFR 613) and
environmental directives.
-------
Priori
^; : -;n |7
-------
COPY PN 175-80-04-23-006
APR 23, 1980
SUBJECT: Implementation of Executive Order 12185, Conservation
of Petroleum and Natural Gas
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation (ANR-443) [Original signed by]
TO: Air and Hazardous Materials Division Directors, Regions
I-X
BACKGROUND
On December 17, 1979 President Carter signed Executive Order
12185, a copy of which is attached, encouraging the additional
conservation of petroleum and natural gas by recipients of
federal financial assistance. An interagency effort coordinated
by White House staff was initiated to implement the order.
On February 7, 1980 the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and other federal agencies published in the Federal
Register (45 FR 8534) a list of federal assistance programs that
may offer opportunities for energy conservation. Since that time
the White House coordinators have requested the identification of
changes in regulations and other actions to assure that the
assistance programs do contribute to energy conservation. These
changes in regulations and other actions will be announced in the
Federal Register in May 1980.
ENERGY CONSERVATION FROM EPA ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
The EPA response to the White House indicated that
administrative actions can be used to assure that energy
conservation is adequately considered by recipients of section
175 and 105 grants and that no changes in regulations are
necessary. The actions that were identified for the two grant
programs are described below.
I urge each of you to consider these and other actions that
will result in energy conservation when you negotiate grants with
state and local governments. I know that several regional
offices have already identified energy conservation initiatives
-------
-2-
in response to the March 13, 1980 memorandum from the
Administrator and Deputy Administrator. If you have any
questions about the actions listed below, please call Jerry
Kurtzweg at 755-0570.
SECTION 105 CONTROL AGENCY CRAFTS
The annual EPA operating guidance already identifies a
number of energy related activities including:
- vehicle inspection and maintenance programs
- fuel conversions
- permitting of energy facilities
EPA headquarters staff will evaluate the portion of the agency
guidance setting priorities for section 105 grants to determine
whether any revised or supplementary guidance is necessary to
implement Executive Order 12185. Any additional guidance
result from the evaluation will be sent to regional offices by
mid-May 1980.
Energy conservation considerations will be incorporated in
the requirements for future state implementation plan revisions.
Additional emphasis will be placed on the requirement of section
172(b)(9) of the Clean Air Act for identification and analysis of
energy and other effects of plan revisions.
SECTION 175 URBAN AIR QUALITY PLANNING GRANTS
Identification of the energy implications of air quality
plan elements was explicitly identified in the March 6, 1980
Federal Register notice of funds availability as an activity
eligible for funding. Regional offices should assure that the
work programs prepared by grant applicants adequately provide for
energy assessments. Energy assessments should receive high
priority in allocating any discretionary funds that regional
offices may have.
Attachment
cc: Ed Tuerk
Walt Barber
Steve Kuhrtz
Chris Palmer
Bob Fuhrman
Air Branch Chiefs
-------
PN 175-79-02-12-004
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FEB 12, 1979
OFFICE OF
AIR, NOISE, AND RADIATION
COPY
SUBJECT: Regional Office Assistance in Expediting Headquarters
Review of Section 175 Grant Applications
FROM: Gary C. Hawthorn, Chief [original signed by]
Transportation Policy Branch
THRU: John 0. Hidinger, Director
Office of Transportation and Land
Use Policy
MEMO TO: Air & Hazardous Materials Division
Directors, Regions I-X
Air & Hazardous Materials Branch
Chiefs, Regions I-X
Transportation Contacts, Regions I-X.
1. Background: The DOT-EPA Interagency Agreement of
November 3, 1978 (see Appendix B of December 26, 1978 Federal
Register (FR) notice on Urban Air Quality Planning Grants) defines
the respective roles of EPA and UMTA in administering section 175
funds. This memorandum does not modify the roles of EPA and UMTA
Regional Offices as provided for in the Interagency Agreement.
Rather, this memorandum provides additional, clarifying information
on the specific roles of EPA and UMTA headquarters in the section 175
grants management process.
2. UMTA's planning grant procedures require that all section
175 planning grants and work programs for large cities (with over one
million population) be reviewed by UMTA headquarters and signed by
the UMTA Administrator. This required review by UMTA headquarters
can add approximately two to three weeks to the total time for grant
processing and approval. In carrying out OTLUP's program responsi-
bilities, the Transportation Policy Branch will participate in — and
work to expedite -- this headquarters review. My staff will review
the proposed scope of work and budget to insure conformity with the
current UPWP, the EPA-DOT Transportation-Air Quality Planning
Guidelines, and the EPA-DOT Federal Register on Urban Air Quality
Planning.
3. EPA and UMTA Regional Offices can help expedite
headquarters' review by insuring that secition 175 grant applications
provide the information required in the December 26, 1978 FR notice.
-------
Lead agencies should be strongly encouraged to prepare the grant
application with the FR notice in hand. The most expeditious
headquarters' review can be conducted when:
(1) The application explicitly provides information for
each item required in section H, "Application
Procedures."
(2) The eligible priority activities in section F are
explicitly discussed and described in the UPWP (upon
which the grant application is based) - Generally, the
initial grant falls into one of two categories:
(a) where the initial grant application is for a
multiple year work program of activities
leading to an approvable SIP, section F
activities to be conducted during the first
year should be described and costed in some
detail. The remaining section F activities
to be undertaken in subsequent years should
be generally described and roughly costed.
Activities listed in section F that are
omitted in the application and those
included in the application but not con-
contained in section F should be discussed
in more detail.
(b) where the initial grant is primarily for
development of a multiple year work program,
each section F activity need not be
discussed and described. However, in this
situation the second grant for a multiple
year work program of activities should
contain a discussion and description of each
section F measure as described in (a)
above.
Headquarters' review will be lengthened considerably when this
required information is either missing or difficult to find.
4. When necessary, headquarters may also review work programs
and grant applications for smaller cities (with population less than
1,000,000) to insure conformity with the UPWP, the EPA/DOT
Transportation/Air Quality Planning Guidelines, and the EPA/DOT
Federal Register on Urban Air Quality Planning.
5. Questions on this memorandum should be directed to either
Gary Hawthorn or Len Fleckenstein (755-0603).
cc: David Hawkins
Ed Tuerk
Walt Barber
Steve Kuhrtz
Jim Getzewich
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 176
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 176
* PN176-79-06-08-001
IMPACT OF CLEAN AIR ACT NONATTAINMENT SANCTIONS
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
, I WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PN-176-79-06-08-001
Illkl f\ 4O7ft OFFICE OF
JUN 8 '^'9 AIR, NOISE, AND RADIATION
SUBJECT: Impact of Clean Air Act Nonattainment Sanctions
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator \M\
for Air, Noise and Radiation (ANR443) ~
MEMO TO: Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
There is substantial concern and confusion over what will happen to
new construction on July 1, 1979, if States have not by then satisfied
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements of Part D of Title I of
the Clean Air Act. Regional Administrators should take action to inform
the States and the concerned public that, although very few State plans
will have been approved by July 1, construction of major air pollution
sources will not stop as of that date. In addition, there will be no
immediate curtailment of State program grants or other Federal funds.
In fact, I do not expect major disruptions of industrial or State
activities where States are making reasonable and expeditious efforts
toward submitting an approvable State Implementation Plan revision.
This memorandum sets forth Agency policy and procedures regarding
the July 1, 1979 sanctions. Three main topics are addressed:
Co n stru c t i o n Pro hi bit ion s (permit processing, sources affected and geo-
graphic applicability); S'lP Approvals (area specific approval, conditional
approval, and area redesignation); and Federal Funding Sanctions (dis-
cretionary aspects).
Summary
The imposition of the Clean Air Act sanctions depends on whether by
July 1, 1979, a State has an approved State Implementation Plan that
meets the requirements of Part D of the Act. The first step in this SIP
approval process involves State development and submission of a State
plan. The EPA Regional Office then evaluates the submitted plan and
publishes in the Federal Register a proposal for final action on the
State plan. This starts a 30-to-60-day period for public comment.
After reviewing the comments, the EPA Administrator will take final
action. Final action will consist of one or a combination of the following
actions: approval of the nonattainment plan as a whole, approval of the
plan for specific areas, conditional approval of the plan, disapproval
of the plan as a whole, or disapproval for specific areas. Most States
will not have final approvals on July 1. However, although the areas
subject to sanctions are defined based on their status on July 1, the
impact of the sanctions in those areas is not immediate.
-------
The Act establishes two kinds of sanctions—new major source
construction sanctions and funding sanctions for Federal programs and
facilities. The construction prohibition sanction becomes applicable on
July 1, and remains in effect until a final Federal Register notice is
issued approving or conditionally approving the SIP for the area in
question. The construction prohibition applies only to permits applied
for after June 30, 1979. Because a typical permit requires approximately
three months for processing, it is unlikely that this sanction would
have any impact until September or October 1979. Also, although the
administrative process for Federal funding sanctions must begin on
July 1 for the Section 176 transportation and air pollution control
related funds, actual withholding will not occur for at least
two to four months after July 1. Any discretionary withholding of
sewage treatment construction funds under Section 316 will not occur for
at least the same length of time.
Construction Prohibitions
The Clean Air Act's prohibition against construction applies to a
major new or modified source for which a complete permit application is
submitted to the permit review agency after June 30, 1979. Therefore,
any complete permit application postmarked or received on or before
June 30, 1979 will not be subject to any construction prohibition.* The
permit review agency may process all such permit applications received
on or before June 30, 1979. No source which receives such a permit and
which commences on a program of continuous construction will be subject
to the construction sanction.
After June 30, 1979, sources may continue to submit New Source
Review permit applications to the permit review agency. The submission
of a permit application will enable the review agency to process the
permit so that administrative time is not lost while a State nonattainment
plan is being reviewed. Because the administrative time for reviewing a
major source can take three months or longer, in many cases, we expect
to have SIPs approved by the time the major source permit would itself
be ready for approval. If any State intends to issue a permit to a
source to which the construction prohibition applies, the permit must
contain a condition which prohibits construction until SIP approval is
obtained. For a source to be able to construct as soon as a SIP is
approved, the permit conditions would have to be consistent with the
requirements that are eventually approved in the SIP.
The EPA Regional Offices will continue to process and issue PSD
permits (under 40 CFR 52.21, Regulations for the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality) even while awaiting receipt or approval of
nonattainment SIP revisions. A PSD permit is required whenever a major
When an applicant can show a reasonable and good faith effort to
submit all information necessary for permit issuance, the permitting
authority may consider a substantially complete permit application
as adequate to avoid the prohibition against construction.
-------
source, (defined for PSD purposes at 40 CFR 52.21(b)), impacts an :.rsa
with air quality better than NAAQS. This affects sources both inside
and outside designated nonattainment areas. When a PSD source will be
subject to the Part D prohibition against construction the EPA-issued
PSD permit will be conditional. A permit condition will be included
which will make the following statement:
This source will significantly impact a noncittainment problem
in an area currently designated as violating the National
Ambipr* Air Quality Standard for , and for which
the Clean Air Act currently prohibits construction of this
source until a State submits and receives approval of a
State Implementation Plan which meets the requirements of
Part D of the Act. This permit is issued conditional on
your receipt of an appropriate State permit issued pursuant
to regulations approved by the Administrator as meeting
the requirements of Part D of the Clean Air Act. Source
construction is prohibited until the State Implementation
Plan is approved by the Administrator as meeting such
requirements for the nonattainment area that this source
will impact. You will be notified by mail when the necessary
State regulations have been approved.
The construction prohibition applies only to major sources as
defined in Section 302 of the Act. Smaller sources are not affected.
Furthermore, the construction prohibition applies only to a source that
would be a major source or major modification for the specific pollutant
for which the area was designated as a nonattainment area and for which
the plan remains inadequate. For instance, a new plant which is a major
source of particulate matter only and which proposes to construct in a
designated sulfur dioxide nonattainment area is not affected by the
construction prohibition.
The construction prohibition affects any major new or modified
source that would cause or contribute to a National Ambient Air Quality
Standard violation in the designated nonattainment area within the State
in which the source proposes to locate. EPA believes that this prohibition
applies, as a matter of law, to sources whose permits are applied for
after June 30, 1979. The Administrator is expected to publish a ruling
to this effect in the Federal Register in the near future. A major
source that would cause a new NAAQS violation outside of a designated
nonattainment area or that would significantly contribute to a NAAQS
violation only in another State is subject to the Offset Interpretative
Ruling of January 16, 1979 (44 FR 3274) but is not subject to a construction
prohibition.
-------
The Agency intends to propose, in the Federal Register, that
the Part D prohibition on construction should apply equally for sources
outside designated nonattainment areas as it applies to a major source
locating inside a designated nonattainment area. EPA will also propose
that only sources with a significant impact on a violation be subject
to the construction prohibition. A source will generally be considered
to contribute significantly to a NAAQS violation if its modeled impacts
exceed the significance levels found in the Offset Interpretative Ruling
of January 16, 1979 (44 FR 3274, at 3283). However, any major source of
a designated nonattainment pollutant that proposes to locate at a site
already violating NAAQS within the designated nonattainment area is
presumed to contribute significantly to the violation without regard to
modeled impacts. The rule would be proposed to apply to a new or modified
source if the permit application for the source is submitted after
June 30, 1979. The construction prohibition would apply to any major
source outside a designated nonattainment area if the source would
significantly contribute to a NAAQS violation within a designated non-
attainment area.
State Implementation Plan Approvals
Source specific and area specific impacts of the Part D sanctions
are discussed above. This next section addresses Federal Register
actions that alleviate sanction imposition: area specific SIP
approvals, conditional SIP approvals, and nonattainment area redesig-
nations. First, however, a summary of relevant Federal Register actions
is appropriate.
A list of nonattainment areas was published March 3, 1978 in the
Federal Register (43 FR 8962). A number of modifications have been
made or proposed for changes to the initial listing. SIP approvability
guidance was published in the Federal Register on May 19, 1978 (43 FR
21673) and February 9, 1979 (44 FR 8311). The General Preamble for
proposed rulemaking on the approval of plan revisions for nonattainment
areas was published April 4, 1979 (44 FR 20372).
Once a State plan for a designated nonattainment area is approved
as meeting Part D requirements, the construction or funding sanctions
that would or may have taken effect after June 30, 1979 no longer apply.
The Agency will approve SIP revisions for any portion of the State or
nonattainment area where the revisions meet the requirements of
Part 0 of the Act. Thus, a State plan submission for several desig-
nated nonattainment areas may be approved while plan development or
-------
approval may still be underway for other areas. This would in effect be
an area specific approval of the SIP, as revisions for other areas would
remain necessary. Sanctions would only affect those areas for which the
plan remains inadequate. Thus, if there are three designated SO?
nonattainment areas and SIP revisions are approved for two, the Part D
sanctions apply only with regard to the remaining nonattainment area.
Where appropriate, the Agency intends to grant conditional approvals
of SIP revisions. A SIP containing minor deficiencies will be approved
on the condi ':'.on that the State submit corrections by a specified date.
A conditional approval would not result in sanctions unless the State
failed to submit corrections by the specified date, or unless the corrections
were ultimately determined to be inadequate. However, proposing in the
Federal Register to conditionally approve a SIP does not act to alleviate
Part D sanctions. The required imposition of Part D sanctions ends only
with final SIP approval or conditional approval. Conditional approval
will not be granted without strong assurance by the appropriate State
officials that the deficiences will be corrected. The form of this
assurance may vary from State to State, but it must nevertheless represent
a commitment on the part of the State. A conditional approval will
require specific schedules for correcting deficiences.
Another mechanism that would act to alleviate the Part D sanctions
is that of revising a previous designation of nonattainment. In developing
a SIP revision for a designated nonattainment area, the State may
determine that the existing designation is inappropriate. If this
occurs, the State may submit to EPA a revised designation with supporting
material. Until EPA finds the revised designation acceptable and
promulgates it, the July 1 deadline for approval of a SIP revision
satisfying Part D, and the attendant sanctions, will continue to apply.
However, the SIP submittal may simply demonstrate that the standard is
attained and that no additional emission reductions or preconstruction
review requirements need to be included in the SIP. Also, a source is
exempt if in fact it would not cause or contribute to a violation,
regardless of the applicable designation.
Federal Funding Sanctions
Air pollution control program grants, Federal highway funds, and
wastewater treatment facility grants do not immediately stop as of
July 1, 1979, where nonattainment SIP revisions have not been approved.
Required and authorized restrictions on grants and funds where SIPs are
inadequate are found in Sections 176(a) and 316 of the Act.
-------
Federal funding limitations required by Section 176(a) will only be
applied if the EPA finds after July 1, 1979, that the Governor has^not
submitted, or is not making reasonable efforts to submit, a SIP which
considers each of the elements required by Section 172 of the Act. The
EPA is authorized to make the same finding with respect to the 1982 SIP
revisions required in areas that cannot attain National Ambient Air
Quality Standards by 1982. In cases where a finding is made by EPA,
project approvals and grants authorized by Title 23 (Highways), United
States Code, and the Clean Air Act must be withheld from air quality
control regions where transportation control measures are needed to
attain NAAQS. An exception to this Federal assistance limitation is
that safety, mass transit, and transportation improvement projects
related to air quality attainment or maintenance may be approved and
funded.
EPA and the Department of Transportation (DOT) are preparing a
Federal Register notice proposing policy and procedures for applying
Federal assistance limitations in Section 176(a). Public comment will
be invited and considered in finalizing the policy. EPA will propose to
make case-by-case determinations of good faith efforts based on the
State's efforts to submit a SIP satisfying pertinent guidance issued by
EPA. Negotiations with affected State and local agencies will precede
any decision to apply funding limitations. EPA intends to propose
initial Section 176(a) findings between September 1 and October 31, 1979
in the Federal Register and invite public comment prior to promulgating
a final list of affected areas. However, the funding limitations would
be effective on the date of publication of the proposed list. Removal
of funding limitations will also be done through Federal Register
publication and an opportunity for public comment will be provided prior
to final action.
Section 316 of the Act provides that the Administrator may condition,
restrict or withhold EPA grants for the construction of sewage treatment
works in any area where a SIP has not been approved or where the SIP
does not account for the direct or indirect emissions from the treatment
works. Unlike the new source construction prohibition, the implementation
of any action pursuant to Section 316 is not mandatory on July 1, but is
at the discretion of the Administrator. EPA is preparing a Federal
Register notice inviting public comment on the development of an administrative
mechanism to implement the provisions of Section 316. The interim
policy for the implementation of Section 316, while revisions to existing
construction grant regulations are being completed, will be proposed in
July. Further guidance on this matter will be forthcoming in the next
several weeks.
Any decision to stop grant funding under any provision of the Act
will be made only after coordination among the Regional Office, Headquarters,
and affected State and local agencies.
-------
Federal Register Notice
In order to assure thorough dissemination of Agency policy and
procedures regarding the requirements and impacts of Part D of the Act,
I am having this memorandum published in the Federal Register.
cc: The Administrator
M. Durning
J. Bernstein
W. Barber
Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions IX
-------
Page No. 1
03/03/88
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 301
UPDATE NUMBER 8
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 301
* DOCUMENT NUMBER: PN301-81-01-20-001
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REGIONAL CONSISTENCY REGULATIONS
-------
TO
;-;TEC "^E: E- I^N^TAL PROTECTION kn^c, PN-SOI-si-1-20-001
Kesearcr i r lane ie FarK, Nortn Carolina 2//M
I~:" =-er^ation of the Regional Consistency Regulations
.,£"'- = •" 3. Berber, Director- '"' X
Of--ce c- Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD 10)
Addressees
This is to relate our interpretation of actions EPA must perform to
implement the Regional Consistency Regulations required by the Clean Air
Act. The Administrator promulgated these regulations on December 24, 1980;
they will become effective on February 23, 1981. Attached is a copy of
the regulations. They formalize EPA's commitment to Regional Consistency,
and specify procedures for Regional and Headquarters cooperation to
achieve a more consistent national implementation of the Clean Air Act.
The major provisions of the regulations that require action by EPA
elements are discussed below:
1. Mechanisms for fairness and uniformity—Responsibilities
of Hea dqu a rter s^emp1oyees (S 5 6.4)~This section requires that any rule
or regulation proposed or promulgated under Parts 51 and 58 must provide
mechanisms for fairness and uniformity. If a mechanism is not included,
it must be explained in the preamble or relevant docket. Since the
regulation is effective February 23, 1981, EPA has time to begin incorporating
appropriate mechanisms into regulations under development. Mechanisms
may include administrative procedures (including workshops), guidelines,
manuals or written statements. Thus, this portion of the regulations
requires Headquarters Offices (OANR, OGC, and 0PM) to develop appropriate
mechanisms for use by the Regional Offices.
2. Mechanisms for fairness^ anduniformity--Responsibi1 ities
of Regjona1 Office emp1oyeeT (S56.5]^In Section S56.5, EPA promises to
carry out the Clean Air Act fairly and consistently. This section
requires Regional Offices to seek concurrence from appropriate EPA
Headquarters Offices on interpretations of the Act, rules, regulations,
or program directives when such interpretations may result in inconsistent
applications. In addition, this section states, "Where regulatory
actions may involve inconsistent application of the requirements of the
Act, the Regional Offices shall classify such actions as special
action." We are currently revising the SIP processing guideline entitled
"Revisions to State Implementation Plans—Procedures for Approval/Disapproval
Actions," OAQPS No. 1.2-005A, to incorporate this requirement. The
Regional Offices will determine when to seek concurrences or use the
special action classification for these situations. At present, we do
not envision formal procedures to record how the Regional Offices implement
these requirements. Dr. Bern Steigerwald, Director of my Regional
Programs staff, will monitor this requirement.
E PA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
3. Dissemination of policy and guidance (S56.6). This section
requires the Assistant Administrators of the Offices of Air, Noise, and
Radiation; Enforcement; and the General Counsel to develop by February 23, 1982,
systems for disseminating policy and guidance. OANR has prepared an
"Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook" to meet its portion of this
requirement. OANR sends the Notebook, along with periodic updates to
EPA Headquarters, Regional Offices, and State and local agencies. For
additional information on this notebook, please contact Bruce Hogarth at
(FTS) 629-5437. Enforcement and OGC may wish to consider a similar
system to meet their responsibilities under the regulations.
4. State agency performance audits (S56.7). This section requires
Regional Administrators to make evaluation reports required by §35.538
of the Program Grants regulations available to the public. They must be
made available within 60 days after comment is due from each State.
Section 35.538-2 states that "no later than 150 days prior to the beginning
of a new budget period...", the evaluation report must be prepared, and
forwarded to the grantee, who has 15 days to reply. Thus, if the
evaluation report reaches the grantee on May 1 (150 days before October 1)
the notice of availability of the evaluation report must appear in the
Federal Register by July 15. It is apparent that provisions for such a
system should be integrated with the State-EPA agreements and grant
negotiation and cannot reasonably be initiated mid-way through the year.
Therefore, this portion of the consistency regulations will begin with
the current planning cycle, and the first evaluation reports will be
made available to the public on July 15, 1982.
Of these four provisions, the evaluation report will require the
most additional effort by the Regions and changes to existing procedures.
The consistency regulations have been designed to build on what is
currently being done in an attempt to minimize new efforts. The workload
models for FY 1982 are being modified to recognize the additional resources
needed to implement the consistency regulations.
We are aware that all the Regional Offices conduct evaluations of
State programs. However, there is little uniformity in coverage or in
how these evaluations are documented and generally no notice of availability
to the general public. In addition to the current reports, it probably
will be necessary to undertake an in-depth consistency review in one or
two program areas. It is my intention to select areas that already
require strong EPA overview and, therefore, should have information
systems in place and Regional resources already devoted to it. For FY
1982, consideration is being given to detailed evaluation reports on new
source review and major source enforcement to augment the regular program
evaluation made under the grant regulations.
I would appreciate your ideas for implementing these regulations.
We will be contacting Headquarters groups within the next few weeks to
-------
discuss v;:th you the provisions for information dissemination and mechanisms
for fairness and uniformity. Later we will contact the Regions in order
to dete*"~ine a final course of action on the performance audits of State
agencies and the guidance necessary to implement it in FY 1982. If you
have arr.' questions, please contact Joseph Sableski of my staff at (FTS) 629-5437,
Attachment
Addressees:
Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
The General Counsel
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
cc: Ed Tuerk, OANR
John Hidinger, OTLUP
Henry Beal, 0PM
Tom Helms, CPDD
Brenda Greene, ORL
Don Goodwin, ESED
Joseph Padgett, SASD
Richard Rhoads, MDAD
Darryl Tyler, CPDD
Deborah Taylor, 0PM
Joseph Sableski, CPDD
-------
Section 406: Savings Provision; Effective Dates
PN406-78-0*-?8-001
MAINTENANCE OF PAY
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Ag<
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
-------
Section 320: Standardized Air Quality Modeling
PN32 &-F.2-04-01-001
LETTER TO SHELL OIL COMPANt CONCERNING SIACK HEIGHT
HESITATIONS
320-1
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 126
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 126
* PN126-78-03-16-001
OUT OF STATE SOURCES EFFECT ON IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION
-------
MAR 3 1978
Out-of-State Sources Effect on D,. .„,, _Q __
Implementation Plan Revision PN-126-78-03-16-001
Richard G. Rhoads, Director /^
Control Programs Development Division
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, III-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II
A question has been raised concerning what constitutes an adequate
control strategy determination and how this impacts on regional consistency
in evalusting State implementation plan (SIP) revisions. It will be
assumed for the purpose of SIP development and evaluation that sources
in neighboring States are in compliance with appropriate emission limita-
tions and ambient standards will be achieved as required. Accordingly,
States should develop their plans and EPA should evaluate these plans
based on presumed compliance of sources in neighboring States. Should
it be determined that sources are not in compliance, then appropriate
enforcement action should be initiated against noncomplying sources.
We believe that a "presumed compliance policy" is a fair assumption
and will encourage regional consistency in the SIP process. If you have
an objection to this approach or wish to propose an alternative approach,
please advise me.
-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 169A
(VOLUME 1)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 169A
* PN169A-85-03-25-001
VISIBILITY MONITORING STRATEGY REQUIREMENTS
-------
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 1
INTRODUCTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBJECT INDEX
CAA SECTION
107
110
lll(d)
111(6)
112
113
114
115
120
123
124
126
129
165
167
169A
172
175
176
301
TITLE
Air Quality Control Regions
Implementation Plans
Standards of Performance for Existing Sources
New Source Performance Standards Enforcement
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants
Federal Enforcement
Inspections, Monitoring, and Entry
International Air Pollution
Noncompliance Penalty
Stack Heights
Assurance of Adequacy of State Plans
Interstate Pollution Abatement
Nonattainment Areas
Preconstruction Requirements
PSD Enforcement
Visibility Protection
Nonattainment Plan Provisions
Grants
Limitations on Certain Federal Assistance
Administration
------- |